Alvina Gyulumyan;Anatoly Kovler;András Baka;Christos Rozakis;Corneliu Bîrsan;Dean Spielmann;Egbert Myjer;Elisabeth Steiner;Giovanni Bonello;Ineta Ziemele;Javier Borrego Borrego;Jean-Paul Costa;John Hedigan;Josep Casadevall;Khanlar Hajiyev;Lech Garlicki;Luzius Wildhaber;Nicolas Bratza;Peer Lorenzen;Rait Maruste;Stanislav Pavlovschi;Vladimiro Zagrebelsky

The applicant was born in DATE and is currently serving a sentence in FAC .

On DATE the applicant was discovered in possession of a package containing QUANTITY of heroin and was arrested by the GPE carabinieri . Proceedings were instituted against him for drug trafficking . On DATE the applicant appointed CARDINAL lawyers of his own choosing , Mr PERSON and PERSON .

A hearing was held in private before the GPE preliminary hearings judge ( giudice dell’udienza preliminare ) on DATE , attended by the applicant and his CARDINAL lawyers . The record of the hearing shows that there was no interpreter present . The applicant stated that he understood the content of the charge and the evidence against him and could speak NORP . He subsequently requested adoption of the summary procedure ( giudizio abbreviato ) provided for in ORG CARDINAL to CARDINAL of LAW ( “ the ORG ” ) . His lawyers requested that their client ’s detention pending trial be replaced by house arrest ( arresti domiciliari ) . The preliminary hearings judge , taking the view that the charges against the applicant could be determined on the basis of the steps in the proceedings taken at the preliminary investigation stage ( allo stato degli atti ) , ordered that the summary procedure be adopted and adjourned the proceedings .

A further hearing was held in private on DATE , at which the applicant and his CARDINAL lawyers were present . The record of the hearing states that the applicant “ speaks NORP ” ( si da atto che parla la lingua italiana ) . CARDINAL of the applicant ’s lawyers requested that his client be released on the ground that the drugs in his possession had been intended for his personal use . In the alternative , he requested that his client ’s detention pending trial be replaced by a less stringent security measure . The requests were rejected by the preliminary hearings judge .

In a judgment of DATE , the GPE preliminary hearings judge sentenced the applicant to CARDINAL years’ imprisonment and a fine of MONEY ( MONEY ) . He observed that the quantity of drugs permitted for personal use must not exceed what was required to meet immediate needs . At the time of his arrest , the applicant had just purchased a quantity corresponding to CARDINAL average DATE doses .

The applicant appealed against the judgment , reiterating the arguments adduced at first instance . He contended that interpreting the law on drugs in a way that penalised drug users was in breach of the LAW .

On DATE Mr PERSON was informed that the hearing had been set down for DATE . The applicant , who was in FAC , was notified on DATE . He received a letter entitled “ Notice to appear in appeal proceedings before the court sitting in private ” ( decreto di citazione per il giudizio di appello davanti la Corte in camera di consiglio ) , the relevant parts of which read :

“ The President ... of ORG ... in view of the notice of appeal lodged by ( CARDINAL ) PERSON , born [ in ] GPE on DATE , who is [ in ] FAC and ( CARDINAL ) Hermi Fauzi [ sic ] , born [ in ] GPE on DATE , who is [ in ] PERSON ... against the judgment of the GPE preliminary hearings judge of DATE convicting them as [ set out ] in the official record [ ; ] whereas in the appeal proceedings the court must sit in private as the circumstances are those provided for in NORP CARDINAL § CARDINAL [ and ] CARDINAL § CARDINAL of the ORG ... ; having regard to LAW ; gives notice to the abovementioned [ persons ] to appear at the hearing which ORG ... is to hold in private on DATE , at TIME , to rule on the above appeal . The appellants may , DATE before the hearing and through the intermediary of [ their ] lawyers , examine at the registry the records and documents and ... make a copy of and consult them ... ”

DATE and the day of the hearing , the applicant had no contact with his lawyers .

On DATE the applicant ’s lawyers filed pleadings with the registry of ORG . They submitted that there was no proof that the drugs in the applicant ’s possession had been intended for sale ; the judges should therefore have accepted the applicant ’s assertion that they had been for his own personal use . Moreover , the expert chemical analysis of the drugs had been performed by the police without the defendant ’s lawyer being present , and was therefore null and void . The firstinstance judge had also omitted to rule on the objection of unconstitutionality raised by the defence . In the alternative , the lawyers requested a reduction of the applicant ’s sentence .

At the hearing on DATE , PERSON requested an adjournment of the hearing on the ground that PERSON , the applicant ’s other lawyer , was ill . ORG dismissed the request . PERSON then objected to the continuation of the proceedings in the absence of his client and requested that the latter be brought from the prison to the hearing room . ORG dismissed his request , observing that the applicant had not informed the authorities in advance that he wished to participate in the appeal proceedings .

In a judgment of DATE , ORG upheld the judgment at first instance .

The applicant appealed on points of law . He alleged , inter alia , that the appeal judges had not allowed him to attend his trial and that the notice to appear at the appeal hearing had not been translated into LANGUAGE .

In his final submissions , the public prosecutor requested that the impugned decision be set aside .

NORP In a judgment of DATE , ORG dismissed the applicant ’s appeal . It observed that neither the Convention nor the ORG required procedural documents to be translated into the language of a non - national defendant in GPE . However , the latter had the right to be assisted free of charge by an interpreter in order to be able to understand the charges against him and follow the progress of the proceedings . As to the other complaints , ORG observed that the presence of the defendant was not required under the summary procedure , the adoption of which had been requested by the applicant himself of his own volition . Furthermore , the applicant had not made clear his wish to participate in the appeal hearing .

On DATE the GPE court responsible for the execution of sentences granted the applicant leave to serve the remainder of his sentence under house arrest . On DATE the applicant left FAC . On that occasion he signed a report setting out the terms of his house arrest and elected to reside in a property ( NORP ) belonging to CARDINAL of his lawyers . He subsequently returned to FAC .

The documents produced by the Government before the Grand Chamber show that the applicant was first identified by the GPE police authorities ( PERSON ) on DATE in connection with an investigation into drug trafficking . His fingerprints were taken by the authorities on CARDINAL subsequent occasions : on DATE and CARDINAL DATE , CARDINAL May and DATE , DATE , and CARDINAL DATE and DATE . On the last occasion , the applicant was arrested driving a stolen vehicle , which he told the carabinieri he had taken DATE previously . During the subsequent criminal proceedings against him for theft and driving without a licence , the applicant declared his address and reserved the right to appoint a lawyer . The applicant later sent CARDINAL handwritten letters to the LOC court responsible for the execution of sentences . The letters , dated DATE and DATE , were written in NORP and signed by the applicant . In the first , which was CARDINAL pages long , the applicant complained of the refusal to grant his application for leave of absence . In the second , consisting of a single page , he requested an alternative measure to detention ( semilibertà ) . The applicant had also sent a handwritten letter to ORG in DATE , and on DATE had written a short note in NORP to his lawyer .

The summary procedure is governed by ORG CARDINAL and CARDINAL to CARDINAL of the ORG . It is based on the assumption that the case can be decided at the preliminary hearing on the basis of the case file as it stands ( allo stato degli atti ) . When the summary procedure is adopted , the hearing takes place in private and is devoted to hearing the arguments of the parties . As a rule , with the exception of cases in which the defendant requests the admission of fresh evidence ( integrazione probatoria ) , the parties must base their arguments on the documents contained in the file held by ORG . If the judge decides to convict the defendant , the sentence is reduced by CARDINAL . The judgment is delivered in private .

The relevant parts of the provisions of the ORG governing the summary procedure , as amended by PERSON no . CARDINAL of DATE , read as follows .

Article CARDINAL

“ CARDINAL . The defendant may request that the case be decided at the preliminary hearing on the basis of the case file as it stands ...

NORP The request may be made , orally or in writing , until such time as the final submissions have been made under LAW and CARDINAL .

The wishes of the defendant shall be expressed in person or through the intermediary of a specially instructed representative [ per mezzo di procuratore speciale ] . The signature on the instruction shall be authenticated by means of the formalities detailed in LAW [ by a notary , another authorised person or counsel for the defence ] .

The judge shall give a decision on the request in the order adopting the summary procedure .

The defendant ... may make his request subject to the admission of new evidence necessary for the court to reach a decision . The judge shall adopt the summary procedure if the admission of such evidence is necessary for a decision to be reached and is compatible with the aim of economy inherent in the procedure , taking into account the documents already before the court which can be used . In such cases the prosecution may request the admission of rebutting evidence . ...

Article CARDINAL

“ CARDINAL . The summary procedure shall follow the provisions laid down concerning preliminary hearings , in so far as they can be applied , with the exception of Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL [ provisions governing the power of the judge to order of his own motion the production of crucial evidence and the possibility for the prosecution to amend the charge ] .

The summary proceedings shall be conducted in private . The judge shall order the proceedings to be conducted at a public hearing if all the defendants so request .

Where the judge considers that the case can not be determined as it stands he shall acquire ( assume ) of his own motion the evidence necessary for a decision to be reached . In such cases , Article CARDINAL shall apply .

For the purposes of the production of the evidence [ referred to ] in paragraph CARDINAL of the present Article and in LAW , the arrangements adopted shall be those set forth in LAW , DATE and DATE [ these paragraphs permit the parties to put questions to the witnesses and expert witnesses through the intermediary of the judge and give the defendant the right to request that he be questioned ] . ”

Article CARDINAL

“ CARDINAL . Once the arguments have been heard , the judge shall take a decision under the terms of Articles CARDINAL et seq . [ these provisions concern discharge , acquittal and conviction ] .

CARDINAL bis . The judge ’s deliberations shall be based on the documents contained in the file [ referred to ] in Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL [ the file held by ORG on the steps taken in the preliminary investigation ] , the documents [ indicated ] in LAW [ relating to the steps in the investigation taken after the defendant was committed for trial ] and the evidence adduced at the hearing .

NORP If the defendant is convicted , the sentence imposed by the judge in the light of all the circumstances shall be reduced by CARDINAL . Life imprisonment shall be replaced by DATE imprisonment . Life imprisonment with solitary confinement ... shall be replaced by life imprisonment .

The judgment shall be served on the defendant if he or she was not present .

Article CARDINAL

“ CARDINAL . The defendant and the prosecution may not appeal against an acquittal if the object of the appeal is to secure a different form [ of acquittal ] .

NORP The prosecution may not lodge an appeal against a conviction unless the judgment alters the legal characterisation of the offence [ il titolo del reato ] .

The appeal proceedings shall be conducted in accordance with the provisions of LAW . ”

Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL of the ORG states :

“ The appeal judge shall be empowered to rule [ la cognizione del procedimento ] solely [ limitatamente ] on those aspects of the decision referred to in the grounds of appeal . ”

The relevant parts of LAW and CARDINAL of the ORG read as follows :

“ CARDINAL . Where CARDINAL of the parties , in the grounds of appeal , ... has requested the admission of evidence already produced at first instance or of new evidence , the judge , if he considers that he is unable to determine the case as it stands [ se ritiene di non essere in grado di decidere allo stato degli atti ] , shall order the investigation to be reopened .

NORP If fresh evidence has come to light or [ has been ] discovered since the proceedings at first instance , the judge shall order the investigation to be reopened within the limits laid down by LAW [ exclusion of evidence which is prohibited by law , manifestly superfluous or of no relevance to the proceedings ] . ”

As indicated in the reference contained in LAW ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL in fine above ) , when an appeal is lodged under the summary procedure , the second - instance proceedings are conducted in accordance with the provisions of LAW ORG . The relevant parts of LAW read as follows :

“ CARDINAL . When an appeal relates solely to the type or severity of the sentence , ... the court shall sit in private in accordance with the arrangements set forth in DATE .

NORP The hearing shall be adjourned if a defendant who has expressed a wish to appear has a legitimate reason for not attending .

NORP In cases where the investigation is reopened after the appeal proceedings have begun , the judge shall take the evidence in private , in accordance with LAW . The prosecution and defence counsel must be present . If the latter is not present when the reopening of the investigation is ordered , the judge shall set down a further hearing and shall order a copy of his decision to be forwarded to the prosecuting authorities and served on counsel for the defence .

The overall arrangements for conducting hearings in private are set out in LAW ORG , which reads as follows .

“ When proceedings must be held in private , the judge or the president of the chamber shall set down the hearing and serve notice of it on the parties , other interested persons and counsel for the defence . The notice shall be forwarded or served DATE before the date chosen . If the defendant has no counsel , the notice shall be sent to the officially appointed defence lawyer .

Memorials may be filed with the registry DATE before the hearing .

Evidence shall be heard from the prosecution , the other recipients of the notice and the defence counsel if they appear at the hearing . If the person concerned is detained or imprisoned in a place outside the jurisdiction of the court and so requests , evidence must be taken from him before the date of the hearing by the judge responsible for the execution of sentences in that place .

The hearing shall be adjourned if a defendant or convicted person who has requested leave to give evidence in person and who is not detained or imprisoned in a place outside the court ’s jurisdiction has a legitimate reason for not attending .

Failure to comply with the provisions of paragraphs CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL shall render the proceedings null and void .

The hearing shall be conducted in camera .

The judge shall rule by means of an order to be served on or forwarded to the persons indicated in paragraph CARDINAL as soon as possible . The persons concerned may lodge an appeal on points of law .

Enforcement of the order shall not be stayed pending the appeal , unless the judge who issued the order decides otherwise by means of a reasoned decision [ con decreto motivato ] .

A decision to declare the notice of appeal inadmissible shall be issued by the judge in the form of an order and without the need for procedural formalities , unless otherwise provided . The provisions of paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL shall apply .

The record of the hearing shall be drafted , as a general rule , in the form of a summary in accordance with LAW . ”

ORG has ruled that this provision applies to appeal hearings under the summary procedure . In particular , in its judgment no . CARDINAL of DATE in the PERSON case , it articulated the following legal principle : “ A defendant who is in prison or under house arrest must also be given a hearing ... in appeal proceedings against a judgment given [ following ] summary proceedings in accordance with LAW ORG , but only if he or she so requests within the time - limit laid down by LAW ORG ( that is , DATE before the hearing ) , in accordance with the reference in the last paragraph of LAW ORG to LAW , the first paragraph of which refers , in turn , to the ‘ formalities provided for in DATE for proceedings conducted in private . ”


Preliminary objection rejected (estoppel);Violation of Art. 6-1;Violation of P1-1;Not necessary to examine Art. 8;Not necessary to examine Art. 13;Pecuniary damage - financial award;Non-pecuniary damage - financial award;Costs and expenses award - Convention proceedings

PERSON , a NORP national born in DATE , lives at GPE ( county of GPE ) .

On DATE , police officers from the FAC miliţia searched the applicant ’s house without a warrant , in connection with a police investigation that had been started in respect of her husband for unlawful possession of valuables , an offence under the legislation then in force ( Decree no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) .

They seized CARDINAL gold coins , most of which were pierced for use in jewellery , CARDINAL of them having been made into ear - rings .

On DATE these items were deposited at the ORG branch of ORG and that fact was officially recorded .

On DATE ORG miliţia headquarters decided not to press charges against the applicant ’s husband and discontinued the investigation of the case in accordance with Article CARDINAL of the former Code of Criminal Procedure ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . The police concluded that the offence committed in the case was not likely to constitute a threat to society , but they nevertheless decided to keep the items in question .

On DATE State Counsel for the county of GPE , of whom the applicant had enquired what had happened to her property , informed her that there was nothing in the archives of ORG office at ORG which made it possible to establish that an investigative measure of that kind had been ordered in the case .

NORP The applicant subsequently lodged an application for restitution with the Procurator - General of GPE ( “ the Procurator - General ” ) . On DATE the Procurator - General replied that no seizure order or search warrant had been issued in respect of her or her husband , either in DATE or thereafter .

At an unspecified date in DATE ORG confirmed to the applicant that an investigative measure had indeed been ordered in DATE in respect of the property she was claiming and that subsequently charges against her husband had been dropped . According to ORG , the seizure had , however , been kept in force by ORG at ORG .

In DATE the applicant brought an action for recovery of possession of CARDINAL gold coins that had been made into a necklace and a pair of ear - rings against ORG , with which they had been deposited .

In ORG she argued that these items had been unlawfully confiscated by the police without any order from a competent judicial authority . In support of her claim , she relied on LOC reply of CARDINAL DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

On DATE the court , basing its decision on the witness evidence gathered and documents in the case file , found for the applicant and ordered ORG to return the items claimed . The court also found that the GPE police had seized , in all , CARDINAL gold coins belonging to the applicant .

ORG appealed to ORG ( tribunalul judeţean ) , which dismissed the appeal on DATE . The court found that at the end of the police investigation in respect of the ORG applicant ’s husband , a decision had been taken on DATE not to prosecute and that , at all events , there was no statutory provision prohibiting the applicant from recovering possession of the items in issue .

In DATE , since the applicant considered that she was entitled to have returned to her all the items kept by the miliţia , she requested PERSON to lodge with ORG ( curtea supremă de justiţie ) a special appeal against the judgment of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above and paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

On DATE the Procurator - General informed the applicant that he did not intend to grant that request . In his view , the judgment of CARDINAL DATE was lawful and well - founded .

On DATE the Procurator - General informed the applicant that if she was not satisfied with the decisions in her case , she could avail herself of the new appeal created by Law no . CARDINAL of DATE amending LAW .

As a consequence both the applicant and ORG appealed to ORG ( curtea PERSON ) against the judgment of CARDINAL DATE .

The applicant sought the return of all the coins in issue , while the bank sought to have the earlier decisions quashed . The bank argued that the courts had no jurisdiction to rule in the case as all complaints about investigative measures came within the exclusive competence of ORG , as provided in Articles CARDINAL to CARDINAL of LAW ( “ the ORG ” – see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

In a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG dismissed both appeals . As regards the applicant , it pointed out that she had initially claimed only the CARDINAL coins and the pair of gold ear - rings and that she was consequently not entitled to amend the claim on appeal .

With respect to the defendant bank , the court laid emphasis on the decision not to prosecute that had been taken during the criminal investigation in respect of the applicant ’s husband . It noted , further , that the Procurator - General had taken no action on PERSON application for restitution and that he had done no more than persuade her to take legal proceedings . As to the charge of unlawful possession of gold objects , the court said that there had been no basis in law for their retention by the police and that consequently the courts below had been right to order that they should be returned . That judgment became final .

In DATE the Procurator - General made an application to ORG under LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) to have the judgments of DATE and DATE and CARDINAL DATE quashed .

In his pleading he reiterated the argument that in trying the case in question , the civil courts had exceeded their jurisdiction ratione materiae and encroached on ORG exclusive competence in the matter ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . He consequently applied for the case to be transferred to the appropriate authority .

The applicant complained of a breach of LAW , which guaranteed free access to the courts ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) and submitted that the appeal should be dismissed .

On DATE ORG allowed ORG application and quashed all the judgments concerned , holding that under LAW ORG , ORG for the county of ORG had sole jurisdiction to entertain PERSON application for return of the items in issue .

DATE the LAW provides :

“ Everyone shall be entitled to apply to the courts for the protection of his rights , liberties and legitimate interests .

The exercise of this right shall not be restricted by any statute .

The relevant provisions of LAW before the revision of DATE provided :

Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL

“ Metal objects and precious stones … shall be deposited with the nearest branch of ORG within TIME … ”

Article CARDINAL

“ The bodies responsible for criminal investigation shall seek permission from ORG to carry out the following :

( a ) house searches , other than in cases of offences discovered while they are being committed or immediately thereafter ;

Permission shall be given in writing on the basis of a reasoned order issued by the body in charge of the investigation .

Article CARDINAL

“ If , during the course of inquiries , a factor supervenes which prevents the institution or continuation of criminal proceedings , the body responsible for the investigation may drop the proceedings .

Termination of criminal proceedings shall be effected by means of a reasoned order … ”

As amended by the PERSON of DATE , which came into force on DATE , the relevant provisions of LAW are worded as follows :

Article CARDINAL

“ An indicted or charged person … may complain about a preventive measure to the criminal investigation body which ordered it or to ORG in charge of the investigation , until the case is brought to court ; thereafter , the complaint shall be addressed to the court .

If the person concerned has not disputed the enforcement of the preventive measure before the criminal proceedings have ended and become final , they may be challenged in accordance with the civil law . ”

Article CARDINAL

“ … Any other person who maintains that he has a right over the seized property may apply , in accordance with LAW , for a ruling on the existence of that right and for an order for the return of the property … ”

Article CARDINAL

“ Where State Counsel finds that a procedural step or measure taken by the body responsible for the criminal investigation is not in conformity with the provisions of law , he shall revoke it in a reasoned order . ”

Article CARDINAL

“ Any person whose legitimate interests have been infringed may lodge a complaint against any measures and decisions taken during a criminal investigation .

The complaint must be made to ORG supervising the work of the body responsible for the criminal investigation and may be lodged either directly with ORG or with the said criminal investigation body .

The relevant Articles of the Code of Civil Procedure , as amended by PERSON no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , provide :

Article CARDINAL

“ The Procurator - General may , either of his own motion or on an application by the Minister of ORG , apply to ORG to quash any final judicial decision on any of the following grounds :

( CARDINAL ) where the judicial authority has exceeded its jurisdiction ;

Article CARDINAL

“ Any enforcement may be challenged by any aggrieved person or other person concerned … ”

Article CARDINAL

“ ORG applications and any disputes arising between the parties … over the meaning , scope or application of the operative provisions of a judicial decision which is being executed shall be made to the judicial authority which issued the authority to execute … ”


No violation of Art. 3 with regard to alleged assaults;Violation of Art. 3 with regard to lack of effective investigation;Violation of Art. 3 with regard to conditions of detention;Violation of Art. 8;Violation of Art. 9;Non-pecuniary damage - financial award;Costs and expenses partial award

On DATE the GPE - Frankivsk ORG ( oблacний суд ) convicted the applicant of the murder of CARDINAL persons and sentenced him to death and ordered the confiscation of his personal property .

On DATE ORG ( PERSON суд ) upheld the judgment of the first - instance court . The applicant was transferred by the authorities in charge of ORG of the GPE - Frankivsk Regional Directorate of ORG ( PERSON слідчого ізолятору Управління міністерства внутрішніх справ ) to CARDINAL of the cells for persons awaiting execution of their death sentence .

A moratorium on executions was declared by the President of GPE on DATE . In judgment no . CARDINAL of DATE , ORG held that the provisions of LAW concerning the death penalty were contrary to LAW . Death sentences were therefore commuted to life imprisonment pursuant to Act no . CARDINAL of DATE .

On DATE the GPE - Frankivsk ORG commuted the applicant 's death sentence to life imprisonment .

The facts of the case concerning the conditions of the applicant 's detention in GPE FAC and the events during his time there were disputed .

The facts as presented by the applicant are set out in DATE below . The facts as presented by the Government are set out in CARDINAL below .

A description of the material submitted to the ORG and to the ORG will be found in DATE to CARDINAL below .

The Commission , in order to establish the facts in the light of the dispute over the conditions of the applicant 's detention and the events which occurred in GPE FAC , conducted its own investigation pursuant to former LAW ( a ) of the LAW . To this end , the ORG examined a series of documents submitted by the applicant and the Government in support of their respective assertions and appointed CARDINAL delegates to take evidence from witnesses at a hearing conducted at ORG in GPE on DATE and CARDINAL DATE , and in GPE - GPE on CARDINAL and DATE . The ORG 's evaluation of the evidence and its findings of facts are summarised in DATE below .

On DATE the GPE - Frankivsk ORG convicted the applicant of the murder of CARDINAL persons , sentenced him to death and ordered the confiscation of his personal property .

On DATE ORG upheld the judgment of the first - instance court . Upon a decision of ORG , the applicant was transferred to a cell intended for prisoners awaiting the death penalty . According to the applicant , he was deprived of all his rights .

The applicant claimed that ORG ( “ the LAW ” ) did not apply to him , since the relevant legislation was an ORG which operated in secret . Pursuant to the ORG , the applicant was not taken for an outside walk for CARDINAL and a half years . He could be visited by his mother only once a month , he had been refused visits and , since DATE , the number of visits had been reduced to CARDINAL DATE .

Following his application for confession sent to the NORP Catholic Bishop of the GPE - GPE diocese , the clergy approached the investigative isolation unit on this matter . Since DATE both he and his mother had been forbidden to send any letters to each other .

The Government stated that the legal status and the conditions governing the detention of persons sentenced to capital punishment were set out in the LAW and LAW . According to section CARDINAL of the Act , a person sentenced to death was kept in custody away from other prisoners . The cell to which the applicant had been transferred after his sentence had become final complied with the sanitary and hygiene rules laid down in CARDINAL of the LAW : the cell measured QUANTITY , it had a bed , a table , a radio , sufficient natural and electrical lighting , heating , running water and a toilet .

NORP The applicant was provided with CARDINAL meals a day , clothing and footwear of standard type as well as other articles of everyday use . Medical assistance , treatment , prophylactic and anti - epidemic measures were arranged and implemented in accordance with legislation on health protection .

According to section CARDINAL of the Act , prior to the sentence being carried out , prisoners sentenced to death were , as a rule , allowed visits from relatives and other individuals not more than once a month , by written permission of the court within whose jurisdiction the case fell . The length of a visit was TIME maximum . After a case had been dealt with by an appellate court , visits by lawyers and legal assistants could be granted by the Head of ORG , the Head of ORG or his deputy responsible for the isolation block . Visits by defence counsel were granted without any limits as to their number and length .

After the first - instance judgment had been given , on DATE and DATE the applicant 's mother and , on DATE and DATE , his solicitor requested permission to visit the applicant . The mother visited the applicant on DATE and on DATE . The applicant 's lawyer visited him on DATE and on DATE . During the period from DATE to DATE , the applicant 's mother applied for a visit to the GPE - Frankivsk Regional Directorate of ORG on DATE , DATE , DATE , CARDINAL and DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE , CARDINAL and DATE , DATE and DATE . They were granted permission for visits on DATE , DATE , CARDINAL DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE , CARDINAL DATE , CARDINAL June , DATE and DATE and CARDINAL DATE . The applicant 's solicitors applied for a visit on DATE , DATE , DATE , CARDINAL and DATE . Permission was granted for visits on DATE , DATE , DATE , CARDINAL and DATE .

Persons sentenced to death were allowed to send an unlimited number of letters . During DATE , the applicant sent CARDINAL letters : CARDINAL letters relating to the criminal case and CARDINAL letters to his relatives . On DATE , for the first time , the applicant applied to ORG for permission to send letters to his relatives . Thereafter he sent letters to his mother on CARDINAL and DATE , DATE and DATE , DATE and DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , CARDINAL DATE , DATE , CARDINAL DATE , DATE and DATE . He received letters from his relatives on DATE , DATE and DATE , CARDINAL DATE and DATE , and DATE and DATE , DATE and DATE , CARDINAL , DATE and DATE , CARDINAL , DATE and DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE and CARDINAL DATE , CARDINAL , DATE , DATE , CARDINAL , DATE , CARDINAL and DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE , DATE and DATE , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , DATE and DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE and CARDINAL and DATE .

The Government added that ORG had conducted a thorough investigation into issues raised in the applicant 's and his parents ' complaints concerning the application of illegal methods of investigation in the applicant 's case , namely torture and brutal and inhuman treatment . The allegations had not been proved and had been found unsubstantiated . In fact , complaints by the applicant and his mother were received on DATE , CARDINAL and DATE and CARDINAL DATE , DATE , DATE , CARDINAL , DATE and DATE , DATE and DATE , DATE , DATE , and were answered on DATE , CARDINAL DATE , DATE , DATE , and on DATE and DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE , DATE and DATE . On DATE the exchange of letters and the proceedings concerning the complaints filed by the applicant and his mother were terminated pursuant to section CARDINAL of the Act .

On DATE the applicant 's mother submitted a request to the GPE - Frankivsk Regional Prosecutor , the GPE - Frankivsk Regional Directorate of ORG and the prison governor . They requested that a medical commission of independent doctors be set up in order to examine the applicant 's state of health . She alleged that the inmates had been tortured , which had resulted in a suicide attempt or an attempt on the applicant 's life . On DATE the applicant 's mother was informed by the governor of the prison that her request had been rejected on the grounds that there had been no sign of torture or the use of any other physical violence against the applicant and that his state of health was satisfactory .

On DATE and DATE the applicant 's mother sent a letter to PERSON , then President of ORG of ORG . She complained of torture inflicted on the applicant and one of his fellow - inmates , PERSON , which had resulted in the applicant 's suicide attempt and alleged that they had been taken to hospital and that the applicant had been paralysed . The mother further complained that she had been prevented from seeing the applicant .

In a letter of CARDINAL DATE the applicant 's mother informed the ORG that “ in establishment GPE CARDINAL/CARDINAL in GPE there was an attempt to execute the unjustly condemned PERSON and ORG illegally , and that the Government tried to conceal this event ” .

On DATE the applicant 's mother sent a request to ORG to set up a medical commission in order to examine the applicant 's state of health . She stated that she had been informed that her son 's health had been in danger .

The prison doctor issued a medical report on DATE . The report concluded that the applicant did not show any signs of having been beaten or tortured and that his state of health was satisfactory . It was confirmed and signed by the applicant .

In his handwritten statement of CARDINAL DATE the applicant stated inter alia that no physical violence had been used against him , that he had been treated in a proper way by the prison administration , that his rights had not been violated , that he had no complaint to the prison administration , that he did not think about committing suicide again and that the prison administration had not been involved in his suicide attempt .

The GPE - Frankivsk Regional Directorate for the Execution of Sentences of ORG issued a report on DATE in response to the applicant 's mother 's complaint about alleged torture and her request for a medical commission of independent doctors to examine the applicant 's state of health . The report stated that on DATE the applicant had been examined by the prison doctors who had found no signs of physical injuries . It also stated that the applicant denied that he had been tortured .

In a letter of CARDINAL DATE the Deputy Head of the GPE - Frankivsk Regional Directorate of ORG informed the applicant 's mother that her complaint concerning torture to which the applicant had allegedly been subjected had been examined and found to be unsubstantiated . A medical examination of the applicant had not confirmed any signs of torture . Accordingly , there was no reason to set up a medical commission to investigate the allegations .

In a letter of CARDINAL DATE the GPE - GPE Deputy Regional Prosecutor informed the applicant 's mother that her complaint concerning visits to the applicant had been examined and that no violation of the applicant 's rights in this regard had been found .

In his next letter of DATE , the Deputy ORG informed the Prosecutor General that there had been several medical examinations of the applicant during DATE in order to establish whether there had been any damage to his state of health caused by the prison administration . The last examination had been carried out on DATE with the participation of the staff of ORG of the Ivano - Frankivsk Regional Directorate of the Ministry of the Interior . The examination had established that the applicant had not been treated in a manner which was degrading to his human dignity .

On DATE the applicant requested permission from the Deputy Head of ORG , Mr PERSON , to meet a priest . His request was granted and the applicant met a priest on DATE .

In his letter of DATE the prison governor informed the applicant 's mother that her son had attempted to commit suicide on DATE and that he had been saved . He also said that a copy of the decision on refusal to institute criminal proceedings in connection with her son 's suicide attempt had been sent to ORG .

In a decision of CARDINAL DATE ORG rejected a criminal complaint by the applicant 's mother 's against the GPE - GPE Deputy Regional Prosecutor . He refused to institute criminal proceedings against the Deputy Regional Prosecutor on the ground that no offence committed by him had been found . He stated inter alia that the LAW did not apply to the detention conditions of death row prisoners . These were governed by the ORG , which was covered by the rules on ORG secrecy .

According to the prison records , the applicant 's mother applied to visit the applicant on DATE , and on CARDINAL and DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE . Permission was given on DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE and CARDINAL DATE for visits which took place on DATE and CARDINAL March , DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE and on DATE . The request of CARDINAL DATE was not granted .

NORP In an undated document Deputy Head of FAC , GPE ORG , declared that during the period from DATE and DATE , neither the applicant nor his parents had asked for permission for the applicant to see a priest . He further declared that during this period no member of the clergy had asked for such permission .

According to the applicant 's medical card , the applicant was found to be suffering from gastritis on CARDINAL May and DATE . On DATE , CARDINAL DATE , DATE , CARDINAL and DATE , CARDINAL and DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE and CARDINAL DATE the applicant was found to be suffering from chronic gastritis .

On DATE the applicant was hospitalised after his suicide attempt . On DATE he returned to prison . CARDINAL DATE he was administered medicines . On DATE , CARDINAL , CARDINAL and DATE , CARDINAL , DATE and CARDINAL DATE the applicant was seen by the prison psychiatrist and on DATE and DATE he was examined by the prison doctor .

Since the facts of the case were disputed , the Commission conducted an investigation , with the assistance of the parties , and accepted oral evidence taken from CARDINAL witnesses : the applicant ; the applicant 's parents ; Mr PERSON , Deputy Minister of ORG ; PERSON PERSON , Deputy Prosecutor General ; PERSON , Head of ORG of ORG ; PERSON , Deputy Minister of the ORG ; Mr PERSON , governor of ORG ; Mr PERSON , prison doctor ; Mr PERSON , prison psychiatrist ; Mr PERSON , medical assistant ; Mr PERSON , assistant to the prison governor who was on duty on DATE ; Mr PERSON Savchuk , assistant to the prison governor who was on duty on TIME ; Mr. PERSON , duty guard on duty on TIME ; Mr. PERSON , duty guard on duty on TIME ; PERSON , deputy prison governor ; Mr PERSON , Deputy Head of the ORG ; Mr PERSON , Head of ORG and Prisons with ORG ; PERSON PERSON , Deputy Head of the GPE - Frankivsk Regional Directorate of ORG ; PERSON , Head of the GPE - Frankivsk ORG for the Execution of Sentences of ORG .

The ORG 's findings may be summarised as follows :

The applicant gave evidence before the Delegates that he had been beaten on DATE , because of a note which he had passed to another inmate , PERSON , while he had been mopping the floor in the corridor on DATE . He had informed PERSON about a letter he had received from his parents and about its contents . According to him , he had just wanted to communicate because he had been bored sitting alone in his cell . TIME , he had been called out and beaten by CARDINAL or CARDINAL masked persons with clubs in the “ cinema room ” on his back , legs and shoulders but not on his head .

The Commission noted that the applicant had written and had signed a statement on DATE , to the effect , inter alia , that he had been treated in an appropriate manner by the prison administration , that no physical force had been used against him and that he had nothing to complain about . It took into account the fact that before the Delegates , the applicant had denied the contents of his statement and pointed out that the practice of a prison authority to order an inmate to confirm in writing that he had been treated correctly by prison officers raised suspicions .

The Commission considered that the applicant 's account of his beating contained a number of details and elements which it would not have expected to find in a fabricated story . It noted , however , that there was no record of any occurrence relating to the ill - treatment described by the applicant . The ORG accepted the applicant 's statement that he had not complained in order not to make things worse . However , his account of the events was not supported by any oral or written evidence produced before the ORG or its Delegates . It also noted that the applicant 's examination on DATE and his subsequent medical treatment DATE had revealed no sign of physical injury from the ill - treatment he had described . There was no record of such in his medical file by the prison doctor , the prison psychiatrist or the medical assistant .

On DATE the applicant was found hanging in his cell , but was resuscitated . According to his mother , his suicide attempt was either the result of his ill - treatment by the prison administration or an attempt to execute him . The ORG accepted the evidence given by PERSON PERSON , Head of ORG of ORG , that on DATE , at CARDINAL , during a routine inspection the applicant had been found with a noose around his neck made out of a piece of blanket . The prison staff had taken all necessary medical measures to save his life . After that he had been taken to hospital , from which he had returned on DATE . His mother had last seen him in DATE . The witness said that by his attempted suicide the applicant had violated prison rules , and had therefore been placed in solitary confinement for DATE .

The Commission observed that the applicant 's mother 's account of the suicide attempt was not completely borne out by the applicant himself who had testified before the Delegates that he had hanged himself because of the beating by prison officers on DATE . However , he had not recalled any detail relating to the events of DATE . He had submitted that he had been in a nervous state and could not endure any longer the treatment to which he had been subjected . The Commission noted in this regard that the applicant 's account that he had attempted to commit suicide was supported by the testimony given by the prison governor , his CARDINAL assistants and by the CARDINAL warders on duty CARDINAL . The statements of these witnesses might not have been totally consistent in every detail . However , the ORG found such differences to be of a minor nature when considered against the detailed , precise and globally consistent accounts presented by them .

In this respect the Commission also attached relevance to the fact that the applicant had immediately been given external heart massage and mouth - to - DATE resuscitation which had saved his life . At the same time , the ambulance had been called and after the applicant had been examined by the ear , nose and throat specialist , he was transferred to the psycho - neurological hospital where he stayed DATE . The Commission noted that DATE after his return from hospital , the applicant had stated that he had not hanged himself at all . It considered , however , that the applicant had been then in a state of shock and of partial amnesia . Moreover , the testimony of the prison psychiatrist who had examined the applicant in detail stated that the applicant used to say that he could not see what had caused him to commit suicide and that he could not even imagine why he had done it . The Commission therefore found that it could not be considered as established beyond reasonable doubt that the applicant had been subjected to ill - treatment in prison on DATE .

DATE . On DATE the applicant 's mother requested the GPE - Frankivsk Regional Prosecutor , the GPE - Frankivsk Regional Directorate of ORG and the prison governor to set up an independent medical commission in order to examine the applicant 's health . She alleged that inmates had been tortured which resulted in a suicide attempt by the applicant or in an attempt on his life . She repeated this request to the GPE - Frankivsk Regional Prosecutor on DATE , stating that she had been informed that the applicant 's state of health was in danger . On DATE the applicant 's mother was informed by Mr Kmyta , Deputy Head of ORG , that her complaint concerning the applicant 's alleged torture had been examined and found to be unsubstantiated and that the latter 's medical examination had not revealed any signs of torture . There was , accordingly , no reason to set up a medical commission to investigate the allegations . On DATE the mother was informed by the prison governor that her request had been rejected on the grounds that there was no sign of torture or the use of any other form of physical violence against the applicant and that his health was satisfactory . In a letter of CARDINAL DATE to the applicant 's mother , the Deputy Regional Prosecutor confirmed that , on DATE , the applicant had undergone a medical examination which had established that no violation of the applicant 's rights in this regard had been found .

In the meantime , on DATE , the GPE - Frankivsk ORG for the Execution of Sentences of ORG had stated in its report , inter alia , that on DATE the applicant had been examined by the prison doctors who had found no sign of physical injury .

On DATE the GPE - GPE Deputy Regional Prosecutor sent a letter to ORG in which he had stated , inter alia , that there had been several medical examinations of the applicant during DATE which could have established whether the applicant 's health had been damaged as a result of his treatment by the prison authorities . The last examination had been carried out on DATE , with the participation of the staff of ORG of the Ivano - Frankivsk Regional Directorate of the Ministry of the Interior , and it was found that the applicant had been treated in an appropriate manner . On DATE the governor of the prison informed the applicant 's mother that the applicant had attempted to commit suicide on DATE and that he had been saved . He also informed her that a copy of the decision on refusal to institute criminal proceedings in connection with her son 's suicide attempt had been sent to ORG . The domestic investigations had then ended on DATE with a decision by ORG on the applicant 's mother 's criminal complaint against the GPE - Frankivsk Regional Prosecutor . ORG had refused to institute criminal proceedings on the ground that no offence had been established .

The Commission found that there were no contemporaneous records giving details of any investigation , which the domestic authorities had carried out into the applicant 's mother 's allegations of the events on CARDINAL and DATE . It had not seen a single document proving that an investigation had been carried out by the domestic authorities other than those directly involved in the facts of which the applicant 's mother complained . Moreover , although it appeared from the extract of the applicant 's medical file and from the evidence given by Mr PERSON , prison doctor , that the applicant had been under medical care DATE and had been seen by the prison psychiatrist on DATE and CARDINAL , DATE and DATE , the applicant 's medical examination with the participation of the staff of ORG had been carried out on DATE , i.e. DATE after the applicant 's alleged ill - treatment .

The ORG found that the CARDINAL “ death row ” inmates in GPE FAC , including the applicant , were kept in single cells without the opportunity to communicate with other inmates . The applicant 's cell measured CARDINAL by CARDINAL by QUANTITY . There was an open toilet , a washbasin with one tap with cold water , QUANTITY beds , a table and a little bench , both fixed on the floor , central heating and a window with bars . The applicant had in his cell some books , onion , garlic , oil , a stock of soap and toilet paper . During the Delegates ' visit on CARDINAL and DATE , the cell had been overheated , particularly in comparison with other rooms in the prison . The light was on TIME a day and the central radio was switched off at TIME . The inmates were frequently observed by prison warders through a spy hole in the door of the cell which deprived them of any kind of private space . The cell was freshly painted , from which the inference may be drawn that conditions had been worse prior to the Delegates ' visit . The ORG accepted the applicant 's evidence that until DATE , he had not been allowed to take DATE outdoor walks and that the shutters had been removed from the window in his cell in DATE . The ORG found the applicant 's evidence - which was not contested by the Government - persuasive .

The Commission further accepted the applicant 's mother 's evidence that the applicant had been suffering from nervous disorder already before he had been sentenced and detained . On the ground of his mental illness he had been relieved from military service . Moreover , he had been suffering from chronic gastritis .

Concerning the applicant 's mother 's visits , the ORG found that apart from her request of CARDINAL DATE , all her requests for visits had been granted . The prison records showed that she had applied to visit her son on DATE and CARDINAL and DATE , DATE , DATE , CARDINAL DATE and DATE . Permission had been given on DATE and DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE for visits which had taken place on DATE and DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE . ORG pointed out that the mother 's requests to visit to the applicant of DATE and CARDINAL DATE had been granted for DATE and DATE , i.e. about three months after the requests had been submitted . Moreover , CARDINAL warders had been present during the mother 's visits , being authorised to interrupt the conversation if they considered that the mother or the applicant had said anything “ untrue ” .

Regarding the applicant 's correspondence , the ORG found that on DATE the applicant had applied for the first time to the GPE - Frankivsk Regional Directorate of ORG for permission to send a letter to his relatives . Thereafter he had sent letters to his mother on CARDINAL and DATE , DATE and DATE , and CARDINAL and DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , CARDINAL DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE . He had received letters from his mother on DATE , DATE and DATE , CARDINAL DATE and DATE , and CARDINAL and DATE , CARDINAL , and DATE , CARDINAL , DATE and DATE , CARDINAL , DATE and DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE and CARDINAL DATE , CARDINAL , DATE and DATE , CARDINAL , DATE , DATE and DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE , DATE and DATE , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , DATE and DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE and DATE and DATE .

The applicant gave evidence that his mother had requested permission for a priest to come to see the applicant . However , from the undated document signed by Mr PERSON , Deputy Head of ORG , it appeared that during the period from DATE to DATE , neither the applicant nor his mother nor a member of the clergy had asked for such permission .

Under LAW and DATE , the LAW is directly applicable . There is a guaranteed right to lodge an action in defence of the constitutional rights and freedoms of the individual and of the citizen directly on the basis of LAW .

Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL provides that international treaties , which are in force and agreed on as binding by the Verkhovna Rada of GPE , are part of the national legislation of GPE .

Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL prohibits censorship .

Under LAW the legal order in GPE is based on the principles according to which no one may be forced to do what is not envisaged by the legislation . State authorities and local self - government bodies and their officials are obliged to act only on these grounds , within the limits of their authority , and in the manner envisaged by the LAW and the laws of GPE .

Article CARDINAL provides that human and citizens ' rights and freedoms are guaranteed and may not be diminished by the adoption of new laws or the amendment of laws that are in force .

Under LAW and CARDINAL no one may be arrested or held in custody other than pursuant to a reasoned court decision and only on grounds and in accordance with procedures established by law . Everyone arrested or detained must be informed without delay of the reasons for his arrest or detention , apprised of his rights , and from the moment of detention must be given the opportunity to defend himself in person , or to have the assistance of a defence lawyer .

Under LAW and CARDINAL , everyone is guaranteed the right to challenge the decisions , actions or omissions of ORG authorities , local self - government bodies , officials and officers of a court of law . After exhausting all domestic legal remedies everyone has the right to appeal for the protection of his rights and freedoms to the relevant international judicial institutions or to the relevant authorities of international organisations of which GPE is a member or participant .

Under LAW everyone has the right to legal assistance . Such assistance is provided free of charge in cases envisaged by law . Everyone is free to choose the defender of his rights . In GPE the Bar ( адвокатура ) ensures the right to a defence against charges and the provision of legal assistance in deciding cases in courts and before other ORG authorities .

Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL provides that a convicted person enjoys all human and citizens ' rights , subject only to restrictions determined by law and established by a court ruling .

Under LAW , human and citizens ' rights and freedoms guaranteed by LAW may not be restricted , except in cases envisaged by LAW .

DATE . Conditions on death row in the NORP prison system were successively governed by an ORG of DATE on conditions of detention of persons sentenced to capital punishment ( hereinafter “ the Instruction ” ) and by Temporary Provisions of DATE on the conditions of detention of persons sentenced to capital punishment in the isolation blocks ( hereinafter “ the Temporary Provisions ” ) .

The Instruction provided that after the sentence had become final , persons sentenced to death had to be kept in isolation from other prisoners in specially designed cells . Save in exceptional cases CARDINAL such prisoners were to be detained in one cell . The cell area allocated to CARDINAL prisoner in a single cell had to be not QUANTITY and in a double cell not QUANTITY . The prisoners were provided with an individual sleeping - place and with bed linen . They wore a uniform designed for the category of especially dangerous recidivists . Reference was also made to their legal status and obligations . This determined the frequency of meetings with relatives and the number of letters inmates could send and receive : they were allowed CARDINAL visit per month and could send CARDINAL letter per month . There was no limitation on the correspondence they could receive . The inmates could receive CARDINAL small packets a year . They were allowed to have a DATE TIME walk in the fresh air . Outside their cells , inmates were handcuffed . They were not allowed to work .

Prisoners were also allowed to read books , magazines and newspapers borrowed from the prison library and/or bought through the prison distribution network ; they could receive money transfers ; they could keep personal objects and food in their cells , and buy food and toiletries in the prison shop DATE ( up to the value of the statutory minimum wage ) , and play board games . They could meet lawyers . Medical treatment was provided in accordance with national legislation .

The prisoners could lodge complaints with ORG authorities . Such complaints had to be dispatched within DATE . Complaints to ORG were not censored .

The Temporary Provisions extended the rights of persons sentenced to capital punishment in comparison with the ORG . In particular , prisoners were allowed to have TIME of sleep during TIME ; they could receive CARDINAL parcels and CARDINAL small packets per year , buy food and toiletries in the prison shop ( up to the value of PERCENT of the statutory minimum wage ) , pray , read religious literature and have visits from a priest , and write complaints to ORG authorities . They were allowed to send and receive letters without any limits and to have DATE visits of TIME from their relatives . A prison official had to be present during visits .

According to LAW , pre - trial detention is a preventive measure in respect of an accused , a defendant or a person suspected of having committed a crime punishable with imprisonment , or a convicted person whose sentence has not yet been enforced .

In accordance with section CARDINAL ) of the LAW , persons sentenced to capital punishment whose sentence had not become final were held separately from all other detained persons .

Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the LAW provides inter alia that detainees have the right ( a ) to be defended in accordance with the rules of criminal law , ( b ) to be acquainted with the rules of detention , ( c ) to take a TIME DATE walk , ( d ) to receive DATE a parcel weighing QUANTITY and to receive unlimited money transfers and amounts of money by way of remittance or personal delivery , ( e ) to buy foodstuffs and toiletries to the value of DATE statutory minimum wage , paying by written order , as well as unlimited amounts of stationery , newspapers and books in prison shops , ( f ) to use their own clothing and footwear and to have with them documents and notes related to their criminal case , ( g ) to use TV sets received from relatives or other persons and board games , newspapers and books borrowed from the library in their previous place of imprisonment or bought at shops , ( h ) individually to perform religious rituals and use religious literature and objects made of semi - precious materials pertaining to their beliefs , provided that this does not lead to a breach of the rules applicable to places of pre - trial detention or restrict the rights of other persons , ( i ) to sleep TIME a night , during which time they are not required to participate in proceedings or to do anything else except in cases of extreme emergency , and ( j ) to lodge complaints and petitions and send letters to ORG authorities and officials in accordance with the procedure prescribed by LAW .

Under LAW , detainees are required to be provided with everyday conditions that meet sanitary and hygiene requirements . The cell area for CARDINAL person may not be QUANTITY . Detainees are to be supplied with meals , an individual sleeping - place , bedclothes and other types of material and everyday provisions free of charge and according to the norms laid down by the Government . In case of need , they are to be supplied with clothes and footwear of a standard form .

In accordance with section CARDINAL ) , permission for relatives or other persons to visit a detainee ( in principle , once a month for TIME ) can be given by the administrative authorities of the place of detention , but only with the written approval of an investigator , an investigative authority or a court dealing with the case . Under paragraph CARDINAL , detainees have the right to be visited by defence counsel , whom they may see alone with no restrictions on the number of visits or their length , from the moment the lawyer in question is authorised to act on their behalf , such authorisation being confirmed in writing by the person or body dealing with the case .

DATE . Under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) , detainees can exchange letters with their relatives and other persons and enterprises , establishments and organisations with the written permission of an authority dealing with the case . Once a sentence starts to run , correspondence is no longer subject to any limitations .

According to LAW ( Main requirements of the regime in detention institutions ) , the main features of the regime in detention establishments are : the compulsory isolation and permanent supervision of sentenced persons , so as to exclude any possibility of new crimes or other acts against public order being committed by them ; strict and continuous observance of obligations by these persons ; and various detention conditions dependent on the character and gravity of the offence and the personality and behaviour of the sentenced person .

Sentenced persons must wear a uniform . They must be searched ; body searches must be conducted by persons of the same sex as the person searched . Correspondence is subject to censorship , and parcels and packages are subject to opening and checking . A strict internal routine and rules must be established in corrective labour establishments .

Sentenced persons are prohibited from keeping money and valuables , or other specified objects , in corrective labour establishments . Any money and valuables found are to be confiscated and , as a rule , transferred to the ORG in accordance with a reasoned decision of the governor of the institution , sanctioned by a prosecutor .

A list of objects which sentenced persons are allowed to possess , showing the number or quantity of each item and the procedure for confiscating objects whose use is prohibited in corrective labour establishments , must be established by the internal regulations of such establishments .

Under the procedure established by the Code , sentenced persons are allowed to buy food and toiletries , paying by written order , to be visited , to receive parcels and small packets [ Nota : Parcels to be forwarded to a prisoner may be sent by post ( посилка ) or brought in person to the prison ( передача ) . Small items like books or periodicals can be sent by post as a small packet ( бандероль DATE literally a “ bundle ” ) ] and money by remittance , to correspond and to send money to relatives by remittance .

LAW ( Purchase of food and toiletries by sentenced persons ) provides that sentenced persons are allowed to buy food and toiletries , paying by written order , from the money received by remittance .

Article CARDINAL provides inter alia that a lawyer may be given permission to meet his client on presentation of his licence and identity card . Visits are not limited as to their number and length and , at the lawyer 's request , may be carried out without a prison warder being present .

Under LAW ( Receipt of parcels and small packets by persons sentenced to imprisonment ) sentenced persons held in corrective labour GPE ( виправнo-тpудова колонія ) are allowed to receive , per year : CARDINAL parcels in GPE subject to the general regime ( колонія загального режиму ) , CARDINAL parcels in GPE subject to the strengthened regime ( колонія посиленого режиму ) and CARDINAL parcels in GPE subject to the strict and special regime ( колонія суворого режиму ) . Sentenced persons held in educational labour GPE ( колонія виховно-трудова ) are allowed to receive per year : CARDINAL parcels in GPE subject to the general regime and CARDINAL parcels in GPE subject to the strengthened regime .

Convicted offenders serving their sentence in a prison are not allowed to receive parcels .

Irrespective of the type of regime under which they are held , sentenced persons are allowed to receive not CARDINAL small packets per year , and to buy literature through the sales distribution network without any restrictions .

The quantity of parcels and small packets of all types is not restricted for sentenced persons held in corrective labour colony camps ( виправнo-тpудова колонія-поселення ) .

A list of foodstuffs and toiletries which sentenced persons are allowed to receive in parcels and small packets , as well as the procedure for their receipt by and delivery to the sentenced persons , is to be established in the internal regulations of corrective labour establishments .

Under LAW ( Receipt and sending of money by sentenced persons by remittance ) sentenced persons are allowed to receive unlimited amounts of money by remittance , as well as to send money to their relatives and , if this is permitted by the authorities of the corrective labour establishments , to other persons . The money received by remittance is transferred to the personal account of the sentenced person .

Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL ( Correspondence of persons sentenced to imprisonment ) provides that sentenced persons held in prisons may receive unlimited mail and may send letters as follows : CARDINAL letter per DATE for those held under the general regime and CARDINAL letter DATE for those held under the strengthened regime .

According to section CARDINAL ) , the public prosecutor deals with petitions and complaints concerning breaches of the rights of citizens and legal entities , except complaints that are within the jurisdiction of the courts . Paragraph CARDINAL provides that an appeal lies from the prosecutor 's decision to the supervising prosecutor and , in certain cases , to the court . Paragraph CARDINAL provides that the decision of ORG is final .

Under section CARDINAL the prosecutor or his deputy has the power to make a request to a court for any materials in a case where a judgment or another decision has come into force . If there are any grounds for reopening the proceedings , the prosecutor challenges the court judgment or any other decision .

Under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) the matters subject to the public prosecutor 's supervision are : adherence to the legal rules on pre - trial detention and corrective labour or other establishments for the execution of sentences or coercive measures ordered by a court , adherence to the procedures and conditions for holding or punishing persons in such establishments ; the rights of such persons ; and the manner of carrying out by the relevant authorities of their duties under the criminal law and legislation on the enforcement of sentences . The public prosecutor may at any time visit places of pre - trial detention , establishments where convicted persons are serving sentences or establishments for compulsory treatment or reform , in order to conduct interviews or peruse documents on the basis of which persons have been detained , arrested or sentenced or subjected to compulsory measures ; he may also examine the legality of orders , resolutions and decrees issued by the administrative authorities of such establishments , terminate the implementation of such acts , appeal against them or cancel them where they do not comply with the law , and request officials to give explanations concerning breaches which have occurred .

In its ORG , the ORG deplored the executions which , reportedly , had been carried out recently in GPE , GPE and GPE . In particular , it condemned GPE for apparently violating its commitments to introduce a moratorium on executions of the death penalty upon its accession to ORG . It called upon this country to honour its commitments regarding the introduction of a moratorium on executions and the immediate abolition of capital punishment , warning it that further violation of its commitments , especially the carrying out of executions , would have consequences under Order No . CARDINAL ( DATE ) .

The ORG confirmed in this ORG that it had received official information that , in DATE , CARDINAL executions had been carried out in GPE , and regretted that the NORP authorities had failed to inform it of the number of executions carried out in DATE . The ORG was particularly shocked that executions in GPE had been shrouded in secrecy , with apparently not even the families of the prisoners having been informed , and that the executed had been reportedly buried in unmarked graves . It condemned GPE for having violated its commitment to put into place a moratorium on executions , deplored the executions that had taken place , and demanded that it immediately honour its commitments and halt any executions still pending .

In these texts , the ORG noted that GPE had clearly failed to honour its commitments ( CARDINAL persons had been executed DATE and DATE , according to official sources ) . At the same time , it noted that since DATE a de facto moratorium on executions had been in effect in GPE . The ORG insisted that the moratorium be reconfirmed de jure and that the PERSON Rada ratify LAW No . CARDINAL to the Convention . It stressed the importance of the de facto moratorium on executions and firmly declared that , if any further executions took place , the credentials of the NORP parliamentary delegation would be annulled at the following part - session of the ORG , in accordance with Rule CARDINAL of its Rules of Procedure .

Delegates of the ORG visited places of detention in GPE in DATE , and DATE . Reports on each of the visits were published on DATE , together with the Responses to the Reports of ORG .

NORP The visit of the delegation , which took place from CARDINAL to DATE , was the ORG 's first periodic visit to GPE . In the course of the visit the delegation inspected , inter alia , the pre - trial prison ( GPE ) ( “ investigation isolation ” establishment ) No . CARDINAL/CARDINAL in ORG . On the ground floor of building No . CARDINAL of GPE No . CARDINAL were housed at the time of the visit CARDINAL prisoners who had been sentenced to death , although as was recorded in a footnote to the ORG , the delegation had received assurances that since DATE a de facto moratorium on executions had been observed .

In its ORG ( paragraph CARDINAL ) , the ORG expressed at the outset its serious concern about the conditions under which these prisoners were being held and about the regime applied to them . It was noted that prisoners sentenced to death were usually accommodated CARDINAL to a cell , the cell measuring CARDINAL - CARDINAL m² . The cells had no access to natural light , the windows being obscured by metal plates . The artificial lighting , which was permanently on , was not always sufficiently strong with the result that some cells were dim . To ventilate the cells , prisoners could pull a cord that opened a flap ; despite this the cells were very humid and quite cold ( paragraph CARDINAL ) .

The equipment in the cells was described in the ORG as being rudimentary , consisting of a metal bed and/or sloping platform ( equipped with a thin mattress , sheets of dubious cleanliness and a blanket which was manifestly insufficient to keep out the cold ) , a shelf and CARDINAL narrow stools . Prisoners were supposed to be able to listen to radio programmes via a speaker built into the wall of the cell , but it had been reported to the delegation that the radio only functioned sporadically ( ibid . ) .

All the cells had un - partitioned toilets which faced the living - area ; as a result , a prisoner using the toilet had to do so in full view of his cellmate . As regards toiletries , prisoners sentenced to death were in a similarly difficult situation as many of the other inmates ; items such as soap and toothpaste were rarities ( ibid . ) .

It was further recorded that prisoners sentenced to death had no form of activity outside their cells , not even an hour of outdoor exercise . At best they could leave their cells once DATE to use the shower in the cell - block , and for TIME a month , if they were authorised to receive family visits . In - cell activities consisted of reading and listening to the radio when it worked . Apart from the DATE visits which some inmates received , human contact was limited essentially to the occasional visit by an NORP priest or a member of the health - care staff , who spoke to the prisoners through a grille in the cell - door ( paragraph CARDINAL ) .

NORP The ORG summarised its findings in this regard as follows :

“ In short , prisoners sentenced to death were locked up for TIME a day in cells which offered only a very restricted amount of living space and had no access to natural light and sometimes very meagre artificial lighting , with virtually no activities to occupy their time and very little opportunity for human contact . Most of them had been kept in such deleterious conditions for considerable periods of time ( ranging from DATE to over DATE ) . Such a situation may be fully consistent with the legal provisions in force in GPE concerning the treatment of prisoners sentenced to death . However , this does not alter the fact that , in the ORG 's opinion , it amounts to inhuman and degrading treatment . ” ( paragraph CARDINAL ) .

It was further recorded that the delegation had received numerous complaints from prisoners sentenced to death about the fact that they lacked information with regard to their legal situation the progress of their cases , follow - up to applications for cases to be reviewed , examination of their complaints etc . ( paragraph CARDINAL ) .

In its Response to the DATE Report , ORG recorded that a number of organisational and practical steps had been taken to resolve the problems identified by the ORG . In particular , LAW had been introduced to guarantee to prisoners sentenced to death the right to be visited once DATE by relatives , to be visited by a lawyer to get legal assistance , to be visited by a priest and to receive and send correspondence without limitation . It was further noted

( i ) that prisoners sentenced to death would have DATE walks in the open air and that for this purpose QUANTITY of the pre - trial prisons had been rebuilt or re - equipped ;

( ii ) that , in order to improve natural lighting and air of all cells , the blinds and metal peakes over cell windows had been removed ; and

( iii ) that , for the purposes of informing inmates sentenced to death of their rights and legal status , extracts from LAW had been placed on the walls of each cell .

A ORG delegation visited GPE from DATE in the course of which they again inspected GPE No . CARDINAL/CARDINAL in GPE where , at the time of the visit , there were detained CARDINAL prisoners who had been sentenced to death . The ORG noted that certain changes had occurred since the previous visit . In particular , the cells had natural light and were better furnished and the prisoners had an hour of exercise per day in the open air , although it was observed that there was insufficient space for real physical exercise ( paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL ) . The ORG further recorded that important progress had been made in the right of prisoners to receive visits from relatives and to correspond ( paragraph CARDINAL ) . However , the ORG noted certain unacceptable conditions of detention including the fact that prisoners continued to spend CARDINAL out of TIME a day in their cells and that opportunities for human contact remained very limited ( paragraph CARDINAL ) .

A third visit to GPE took place from DATE , in the course of which the delegation inspected , inter alia , the pre - trial prison ( GPE PERSON ) in PERSON . The ORG welcomed the decision of the NORP authorities to abolish the death penalty and noted that most of the CARDINAL prisoners subject to the death sentence had had their sentences commuted to life imprisonment .

Despite these welcome steps , the ORG recorded that the treatment of this category of prisoner was a major source of concern to ORG ( paragraph CARDINAL ) . It was noted that , further to a provisional instruction issued in DATE and pending the establishment of CARDINAL high - security units specifically intended for life prisoners , such prisoners were subjected to a strict confinement regime ( paragraph CARDINAL ) . While living space in the cells was generally satisfactory and while work had started on refurbishing cells in all the establishments visited , there were major deficiencies in terms of access to natural light and the quality of artificial light and ventilation ( paragraph CARDINAL ) . Moreover , life - sentence prisoners were confined in their cells for TIME a day with no form of organized activities and , by way of activities outside their cells , were entitled to TIME outdoor exercise , which took place in unacceptable conditions . There was virtually no human contact : since the entry into force of the DATE instruction , visits from relatives had been forbidden and prisoners were only allowed to send CARDINAL letter DATE , although there were no restrictions on receiving letters ( paragraphCARDINAL ) .

In their Response to the Report the Ukrainian Government noted further legal amendments which ensured that life prisoners had TIME of exercise per day and CARDINAL family visits of TIME . Further , to ensure adequate access to light , metal shutters had been removed from windows in all cells .


The applicant is a NORP national , born in DATE and living in GPE , GPE . He is represented before the Court by Dr PERSON and Dr PERSON , lawyers practising in GPE , GPE .

A.

The applicant applied to contest the local council elections in ORG which were to be held on DATE . The applicant stood as an independent candidate .

Following an objection by ORG disqualified him from standing in the election . On DATE ORG set aside this decision . The applicant went on to be elected Mayor of NORP .

The applicant was subsequently charged before ORG of , inter alia , failing to send to the NORP Commissioner within DATE of the election results a signed statement of his election expenses as required by LAW XV of DATE on ORG . Another independent candidate was charged with the same offence . None of the other CARDINAL candidates , all of whom represented the governing or opposition party , was charged although they had failed to submit the required statement .

The applicant appealed to ORG . He stated he was the victim of discrimination since the police had not instituted proceedings against the other CARDINAL non - independent candidates even though they all failed to file declarations on their election expenses . On DATE the First Hall of the Civil Court rejected the applicant 's application for a constitutional remedy on the grounds that he and the only other independent candidate had committed additional electoral offences . On that account the court ruled that the applicant could not be considered to have been discriminated against with reference either to LAW or to LAW taken in conjunction with LAW No . CARDINAL thereto .

The applicant appealed to ORG . On DATE ORG rejected his appeal . ORG ruled that the applicant was not in an analogous situation to the other CARDINAL candidates as , unlike the latter , he had committed further serious offences linked to the conduct of the local election . There was accordingly a justification for the difference in treatment . The ORG stated in this connection :

“ This ORG can not agree that it is irrelevant that [ the applicant and the other independent candidate ] were charged with other crimes . These crimes , and the applicant is not contesting his prosecution for them , are crimes relating to [ the applicant 's and the other independent candidates ' ] behaviour during the electoral campaign involving either violation of the electoral law provisions or serious offences consequential on such violation . The Commissioner of Police was thus faced in [ the applicant 's and the other independent candidate 's cases ] , with a situation of violation of a different and much more serious law than the law applicable to the CARDINAL other candidates . The Commissioner could not , rightly so , consider the applicant and these other candidates in pari conditione nor were they in a situation of like and like . '

... The ORG is satisfied that in the present case the determining factor for differential treatment ... was not a quality of the person accused or his political convictions , but the nature and seriousness of the crimes he - and not the other candidates - was charged with . ”

By letter dated CARDINAL DATE the applicant 's lawyer informed the ORG that the criminal proceedings instituted against him had not yet been terminated .

B. Relevant domestic law and practice

Local councils in GPE operate within a framework defined by legislation enacted by ORG and derive their regulatory powers from parent legislation . They may make bye laws within their area of competence in exercise of the powers delegated to them by ORG .


Violation of Art. 6-2;Costs and expenses partial award

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

On DATE the applicant was arrested on suspicion of attempted blackmail and unlawful possession of a firearm . Subsequently , he was taken into detention on remand . He was suspected of having tried to blackmail NORP restaurant owners in that he together with several accomplices , all being members of a NORP association , came to their restaurants and threatened them in order to obtain money for this association . Further , the applicant was suspected of unlawful possession of a firearm , which had been found in a car he used to drive . In these and the following proceedings the applicant was represented by counsel . On DATE the applicant was released .

On DATE ORG ( PERSON für PERSON ) , after its first judgment had been quashed on appeal , acquitted the applicant and his co - accused giving them the benefit of the doubt . The prosecution did not appeal against the acquittal . Therefore , in accordance with the relevant procedural provisions , it was not necessary to serve a written version of the judgment on the applicant , but it was sufficient to include its operative part without any reasons in TIME of the hearing ( so - called abridged version of TIME and judgment – PERSON und gekürzte ORG ) .

On DATE ORG , after a first decision on the applicant ’s compensation claim for detention on remand under LAW DATE ( ORG DATE , hereinafter “ the DATE LAW ) had been quashed on appeal , again dismissed the applicant ’s compensation claim .

On DATE ORG ( Oberlandes - gericht ) , upon the applicant ’s appeal , quashed ORG decision on the ground that it did not contain sufficient reasons . As to the applicant ’s complaint that the decision violated the presumption of innocence it noted that ORG in the GPE v. GPE judgment of CARDINAL DATE ( Series A no . CARDINAL-A ) had not challenged the conformity with LAW ) of LAW . Following an acquittal it was still admissible to examine the question whether the suspicion had been dispelled as long as the assessment did not go beyond the reasons given for the acquittal . It , therefore , instructed ORG to state the reasons for the acquittal of the applicant , which were not included in the abridged version of TIME and judgment of DATE .

Thereupon , ORG supplemented the TIME accordingly , stating that the evidence before it did not carry a finding of guilt . As to the charge of attempted blackmail it noted that in the second set of proceedings the witnesses , namely the restaurant owners concerned , had given a weakened version of their previous statements . They said in particular that the applicant and his accomplices had not directly menaced them and that they had only been frightened as the applicant and his co - accused clearly asked for money and announced that they would return . Although the witnesses now tried to describe the incidents at issue as favourably to the accused as possible and although their statements were insufficient for a conviction , they had disproved the defence of the applicant who had claimed that he had only come to the respective restaurants to distribute posters without ever having requested donations . As to the second charge the court found that the evidentiary basis was sufficient to prove only that the applicant had access to the car in which the firearm had been found .

On DATE , ORG again dismissed the applicant ’s compensation claim under LAW . Its main line of argument ran as follows :

“ For his part , the applicant stated that he had not collected any donations at the material time . However , in the light of the ORG testimony that point of his defence was revealed to be untrue . It follows that he lied in order to conceal something . Even if , in view of the very much weakened witness evidence , a conviction was no longer possible as the principle of the ‘ benefit of the PERSON had to be applied in the accused ’s favour , it can not be said that the suspicion attaching to the applicant and the other defendants acquitted with him was entirely dispelled in the second set of proceedings . As stated in the full reasoning of the decision [ of DATE ] , the witnesses gave the impression that they now wished to exonerate the accused DATE particularly the applicant – but on the basis of their testimony the possibility that they felt threatened when the accused demanded money from them can not be excluded . ”

On DATE the applicant appealed against this decision . He contested , in particular , that the suspicion against him had not been dissipated .

On DATE ORG , sitting in camera , as in all the previous proceedings , dismissed the applicant ’s appeal . It found in essence that ORG decision was duly based on the reasons given for the acquittal :

“ As clearly emerges from the full reasoning of its judgment , the trial court acquitted the applicant solely because in the second set of proceedings the restaurant owners departed from their previous depositions , which had strongly incriminated him , in such a manner that the requisite standard of proof of guilt could not be met . However , in its reasoning , the trial court makes clear reference to a number of circumstances duly supported by the evidence in the case file DATE which meant that the suspicion attaching to the applicant had not been entirely dispelled . In particular the judge states that during the trial he formed the personal impression that , in view of the specific manner in which the applicant and his fellows had acted , the prosecution witnesses had good , objectively - founded reason to fear reprisals in the form of violent attacks if they did not make the donations demanded . ”

This decision was served on the applicant ’s counsel on DATE .

Following communication of the present application to the respondent Government , the Procurator General filed a plea of nullity for the preservation of the law ( Nichtigkeitsbeschwerde zur Wahrung des Gesetzes ) with ORG ( Oberster Gerichtshof ) .

On DATE ORG found that the courts’ failure to hold a public hearing and to pronounce their decisions publicly violated section CARDINAL § § CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the DATE Act taken in conjunction with LAW . It , therefore , quashed ORG decision of DATE as well as the decision of CARDINAL DATE by ORG and remitted the case to ORG .

On DATE ORG , after having held a public hearing , again dismissed the applicant ’s compensation claim . At the close of the hearing the judge pronounced the decision orally . In the written version of the decision the court used exactly the same wording for a reasoning as it had already used in its previous decision of DATE ( see above ) .

On DATE ORG , sitting in private , dismissed the applicant ’s appeal . It confirmed ORG view that the suspicion against the applicant had not been dissipated , using the same reasoning as in it previous decision of CARDINAL DATE ( see above ) .

The relevant provisions of ORG DATE read as follows :

“ ( CARDINAL ) A right to compensation arises : ...

( b ) where the injured party has been placed in detention or remanded in custody by a domestic court on suspicion of having committed an offence making him liable to criminal prosecution in GPE ... and is subsequently acquitted of the alleged offence or otherwise freed from prosecution and the suspicion that he committed the offence has been dispelled or the prosecution is excluded on other grounds , in so far as these grounds existed when he was arrested ; ... ”

“ ( CARDINAL ) A court which acquits a person or otherwise frees him from prosecution ... ( section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) ( b ) or ( c ) ) must decide either of its own motion or at the request of the individual in question or the public prosecutor ’s office whether the conditions for compensation under LAW b ) or ( c ) , ( CARDINAL ) and ( CARDINAL ) have been satisfied or whether there is a ground for refusal under section CARDINAL . ...

( CARDINAL ) Once the judgment rendered in the criminal proceedings has become final , the decision , which need not be made public , must , as part of the proceedings provided for in paragraph CARDINAL , be served on the detained or convicted person personally and on the public prosecutor ... ”

NORP In its judgment of DATE ( VfSlg CARDINAL ) ORG ruled on the constitutionality of section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of LAW . It found that this provision in itself did not violate LAW which , under NORP law , had the force of constitutional law . In the light of the GPE v. GPE judgment ( of DATE , Series A no . CARDINAL-A ) , it held that it was not the refusal of a claim for compensation which was contrary to the Convention , but the re - examination of the question of guilt after a final acquittal . In ORG view only the separate re - assessment of evidence on the basis of the contents of the whole court file was likely to infringe the presumption of innocence . Nevertheless , ORG observed that it would be desirable to amend section DATE ) of the DATE Act in order to clarify the law .


Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (Article 35-1 - Exhaustion of domestic remedies);Violation of Article 11 - Freedom of assembly and association (Article 11-1 - Freedom of peaceful assembly);Non-pecuniary damage - award

András Sajó;Françoise Tulkens;Guido Raimondi;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

The applicant intended to organise demonstrations in order to call attention to the situation of those having sustained damage originating in a major bankruptcy case which had attracted considerable media attention in GPE . On DATE he applied to ORG for acquiescence in a demonstration on DATE and in another one , of ongoing nature , from DATE until DATE , both scheduled in FAC , in front of ORG .

On DATE ORG refused to deal with either of the applications . It observed that on DATE the area in question had been declared by ORG itself a “ security operational zone ” ( biztonsági műveleti terület ) in view of the tumultuous events in GPE in DATE . Consequently , the measure – which was , after a prolongation , in place for an indefinite period of time – remained as such outside ORG competence as regards the prohibition of , or acquiescence in , a demonstration .

On DATE the ORG upheld this decision .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s request for judicial review , endorsing in essence the police authorities’ reasoning . This decision was served on DATE .

In another case concerning the same area , on DATE a Mr PERSON challenged the police ’s very decision to declare FAC a “ security operational zone ” . On DATE the Budapest Police Commander rejected his complaint , but this decision was quashed by the ORG Commander on DATE . In the resumed administrative proceedings , on DATE the GPE Commander again rejected the complaint . On DATE the ORG Commander upheld this decision . PERSON challenged this ruling in court .

Mr PERSON ’s action was dismissed by ORG . However , on appeal ORG quashed this decision , together with the one of DATE .

In the resumed second - instance administrative proceedings , on DATE the ORG Commander again upheld the GPE Commander ’s decision . PERSON requested judicial review .

On DATE ORG quashed , in judgment no . CARDINAL.K.CARDINAL.CARDINAL/CARDINAL/CARDINAL . , both the first- and the second - instance administrative decisions and remitted the case to the GPE Commander . The court pointed out that the impugned decisions did not contain any concrete elements establishing the necessity and proportionality of maintaining the “ security operational zone ” after the prolongation of DATE . Nor did they address the plaintiff ’s suggestion that the mere fencing - off of ORG ’s immediate vicinity – rather than the global ban on FAC – would have been sufficient in the circumstances .

In the resumed first - instance administrative proceedings , on DATE the GPE Commander partly sustained PERSON complaint , noting that , in the absence of evidence to the contrary , the proportionality of the impugned measure had successfully been challenged .


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

In DATE the applicant got divorced . She has CARDINAL children , who were at that time DATE and DATE respectively .

On CARDINAL DATE she filed with ORG ( Sąd Rejonowy ) a petition in which she sought the division of the shared property of her and her former husband .

NORP The court held hearings on DATE and DATE , CARDINAL DATE and CARDINAL DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE , DATE , CARDINAL May and DATE , CARDINAL DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE and CARDINAL DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE , DATE and DATE , as well as DATE .

The court ordered CARDINAL expert opinions concerning the value of the disputed property , out of which CARDINAL had been prepared with a delay of DATE .

On DATE the court gave judgment . It granted the applicant , inter alia , the right to the flat in a housing co - operative and several objects located there . Her husband was granted , inter alia , a car and he was supposed to pay a certain sum to the applicant . The court pointed out that the parties to the proceedings had contested each other 's statements with respect to most of the objects and on a few occasions had changed their own statements .