Violation of Art. 3;No separate issue under Art. 13;Non-pecuniary damage - financial award;Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings

The applicant was born in DATE . He is currently serving a sentence of life imprisonment without parole eligibility .

On CARDINAL DATE the applicant , who had CARDINAL previous convictions and prison sentences , was convicted of the murder on DATE of CARDINAL children , aged DATE , CARDINAL , attempted rape of CARDINAL of them , attempted rape of a woman in DATE and attempted illegal crossing of the State border in DATE . The court imposed the capital punishment .

The applicant 's conviction and sentence were upheld on appeal on DATE by ORG .

On DATE a CARDINAL - member chamber of ORG dismissed the applicant 's ensuing petition for review ( cassation ) .

Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL of LAW as in force at the time , provided that no execution could be carried out prior to the President 's decision whether or not to exercise his power of pardon .

The last executions of persons sentenced to the capital punishment were carried out in GPE in DATE .

Following a period of a de facto moratorium on executions , on DATE the ORG adopted a decision “ on deferral of the execution of death sentences ” which read :

“ The execution of death sentences which have entered into force shall be deferred until the resolution of the question regarding the application of the capital punishment in GPE . ”

NORP Since the capital punishment remained in LAW , the courts continued sentencing convicted persons to death or - as in the applicant 's case - upholding on appeal death sentences delivered before DATE .

Although no explicit undertaking by GPE to abolish the death penalty was made at the moment of GPE 's accession to ORG DATE , such a requirement was regarded as implied in the general undertaking to comply with LAW ( see the reports of ORG commission on GPE 's compliance with its obligations and undertakings ( report of QUANTITY DATE , ORG . DATE , § § CARDINAL and CARDINAL ( urging the abolition as an implied obligation ) , and report of DATE , ORG . DATE , § CARDINAL ( noting with satisfaction the abolition of the death penalty ) ) .

On DATE ORG abolished the death penalty replacing it by life imprisonment without parole eligibility .

By decision of DATE the applicant 's death sentence was commuted to life imprisonment without parole eligibility .

On DATE GPE ratified LAW No . CARDINAL to the Convention .

NORP The death penalty was an issue often debated DATE . A number of members of ORG expressed views in support of reintroducing executions whereas others sought the abolition of the death penalty . The media periodically discussed the topic . It was widely known that the abolition of the death penalty was urged by ORG and other international organisations and was a step towards GPE 's NORP integration .

During the relevant period LAW was amended several times . Some amendments expanded the scope of the death penalty . At the same time , work started on a draft LAW which excluded the death penalty . In DATE an amendment to LAW introduced for the first time life imprisonment .

The following attempts to reintroduce executions were made by supporters of the death penalty :

On DATE the Chair of ORG and another member of ORG introduced a motion proposing the annulment of the ORG 's decision of DATE .

On DATE a similar proposal was introduced in ORG by a minority parliamentary group , ORG . CARDINAL parliamentary committees discussed the issue and voted against reintroducing executions . On DATE ORG held a hearing on both proposals which were defeated .

NORP The issue of reintroducing executions was discussed several times in the ORG elected at DATE . There were CARDINAL motions : CARDINAL for a parliamentary vote on restarting executions and CARDINAL for calling a referendum .

The first proposal was discussed by ORG , which supported the idea of reintroducing executions by a majority of CARDINAL votes to CARDINAL . Thereafter , a member of ORG on several occasions unsuccessfully sought to have the motion discussed by a plenary session of the ORG . On CARDINAL occasion the motion gathered the required number of votes to be entered on the DATE agenda , but eventually was not discussed . Most proposals to include the issue on the agenda of the ORG 's plenary session were defeated through abstention votes .

The first motion for a referendum was defeated on a procedural ground as the proposed date in DATE did not allow sufficient organisation time . The second proposal for a referendum , filed on DATE , was considered by ORG on DATE and was defeated by CARDINAL votes to CARDINAL , with CARDINAL abstentions .

On DATE a proposal for restarting executions was introduced by opposition deputies . It was discussed by ORG and was defeated on DATE by CARDINAL votes to CARDINAL .

According to CARDINAL of the Execution of Sentences Act , as in force at the relevant time , persons awaiting execution were to be detained in complete isolation , correspondence and visits being only possible if permitted by the competent prosecutor .

On DATE the Deputy Director of ORG instructed prisons administrations that the ORG 's decision suspending executions also suspended by implication this restrictive regime of detention .

The instruction stated , in so far as relevant , that persons sentenced to death should be held in individual cells or together with other persons sentenced to death or detained under a “ special regime ” ( the regime of detention of recidivists and , after DATE , persons sentenced to life imprisonment : sections CARDINAL and ORG of LAW as in force at the time ) . Inmates should have a bed , bedcover , a bed - side piece of furniture and a centrally operated radio loudspeaker . They should be allowed unlimited correspondence , newspapers and books , CARDINAL visit per month , TIME of DATE outdoor walk without contact with other categories of prisoners and the receipt of CARDINAL food parcel DATE and a small amount of money . If possible , they could work in the cell .

On DATE , the Director of ORG and a prosecutor of ORG issued an instruction which stated that , “ in view of the continuing moratorium on executions ” , persons sentenced to death should be allowed unlimited correspondence , TIME DATE outdoor walk , CARDINAL visit per month and the receipt of CARDINAL food parcels and CARDINAL packs of cigarettes per month and small amounts of money .

The applicant was detained in the PERSON prison , in a wing for prisoners under the “ special regime ” provided for by section QUANTITY of the Regulations on the Application of the Execution of Sentences Act , approximately CARDINAL inmates . He changed cells several times but stated that all cells in the relevant prison wing measured CARDINAL by QUANTITY .

Following a period of solitary confinement , on an unspecified date in DATE the applicant was transferred to a cell where he lived with CARDINAL or CARDINAL other detainees .

The applicant alleges that on DATE he and CARDINAL other deathsentence prisoners were moved to independent cells , where each of them was alone . It appears that the applicant remained in this cell at least until DATE .

According to the ORG , the cell floor measured CARDINAL by QUANTITY . The ceiling was QUANTITY high . According to the applicant , until DATE , when new larger windows were installed in all cells , the cell window was small and did not allow sufficient light or fresh air . As a result , in DATE it was very hot . Moreover , in DATE it was very cold because the heating , covered by a bricks layer , was not working properly .

There was CARDINAL CARDINAL-Watts electric bulb in the cell . As it was installed on the wall above the door , its light was insufficient which made reading tiring for the eyes . It appears that the light was on TIME .

The applicant alleged that DATE he had been sleeping on a plank - bed . In his recollection , a centrally operated radio loudspeaker was installed in DATE . A proper bed and a bedside piece of furniture were provided in DATE . After DATE the applicant possessed a portable radio receiver which was sent to him in a parcel .

The Government provided photographs , apparently made in DATE , of the applicant 's cell . It is visible that the cell 's furbishing consisted of a bed , a bed - side piece of furniture and a small table . A loudspeaker and hangers were suspended on the wall . Books , a metal bowl , plastic bottles , clothes and blankets are visible on the photograph .

Inmates were given TIME out - of - cell time in the morning in an open yard . There they could walk together with other inmates from the high security wing . The applicant could also leave his cell once again , in the evening , to use the sanitary facilities . During the remaining part of DATE , he had to use a bucket full of water which served as a chamber pot . As a result , there was allegedly a constant stink in his cell .

Inmates could have a shower once per week , for TIME .

CARDINAL or two visits of TIME were allowed per DATE . Visits by lawyers were not limited . For DATE the applicant had thirtyfive visits .

During the relevant period there was no limitation on correspondence . DATE and CARDINAL DATE the applicant received CARDINAL food parcels and CARDINAL money orders . He was also entitled to a small amount of money per month , which he used to buy toilet items and food from the prison shop . Nevertheless , he was often lacking items such as tooth paste , shaving cream , razors , cigarettes and coffee .

The applicant received the same medical service as all other prison inmates . The ORG submitted a copy of his medical record according to which he had been seen by a doctor or a dentist DATE during DATE . The infirmary was opened TIME per day . The applicant was treated repeatedly in respect of back pain , including by physiotherapy . According to CARDINAL of the medical doctors at the PERSON prison , the applicant was known for his frequent and unwarranted complaints .

In DATE the applicant signalled a medical problem which turned out to be a swollen salivary gland . In DATE a medical doctor recommended surgery , but the applicant was only operated in DATE . The applicant maintained that he had been refused timely surgical help despite his suffering . His medical records disclose that the swollen salivary gland problem persisted throughout DATE , when the applicant underwent several examinations , including by external medical doctors . The applicant was treated with medicines . Twice during the relevant period , medical doctors noted in the applicant 's medical record that surgery was not necessary at the particular stage , whereas other entries with illegible signatures indicate that the problem was noted as being acute . According to the director of the PERSON prison , all necessary measures had been taken . The applicant had been treated according to the doctors ' recommendations . In DATE he had been admitted to hospital for examinations but had been sent back to the prison as he had behaved rudely with the medical staff . A disciplinary punishment had been imposed in that connection on DATE . The applicant submitted that as a result the operation of his gland had been postponed . According to the medical records , the applicant was again brought to the hospital for examinations and treatment in DATE , but the applicant alleged that he had been quickly returned back to his cell . As of DATE the one doctor 's opinion was that surgery was not yet necessary . The swollen salivary gland was eventually operated in DATE . Tissue of the size of an egg was removed and examined but proved benign .

During the relevant period the applicant sent numerous complaints in respect of the conditions of his detention to the Director of FAC , to the Director of ORG , ORG and to other institutions . His complaints concerned the food in prison , allegedly insufficient heating , allegedly lost correspondence and other matters . He received answers to only a part of his complaints . With the exception of a request to use a radio receiver and some of the requests for medical treatment , all other complaints allegedly did not bring about any improvement of his situation .

On an unspecified date in DATE the applicant was moved to the ORG prison .

The ORG has not visited the PERSON prison where the applicant was detained .

In DATE it visited , however , CARDINAL inmates sentenced to death and detained in the PERSON prison facilities and described the conditions of detention there as follows :

“ The material conditions in the cells left a great deal to be desired : mediocre access to natural light and weak artificial lighting ; inadequate heating ; cell furnishings in a poor state of repair ; dirty bed linen , etc . As regards out - of - cell activities , they were limited to TIME for use of the sanitary facilities , TIME outdoor exercise ( which the prisoners alleged was not guaranteed DATE ) and CARDINAL visit per month . The CARDINAL prisoners were not allowed to work ( not even inside their cells ) , nor to go to the library , the cinema room or the refectory ( their food was brought to the cell ) . In short , they were subject to an impoverished regime and , more particularly , were offered very little human contact . The latter consisted essentially of the possibility to talk to each other during outdoor exercise ( which they took together ) , and occasional dealings with prison officers . Practically the only forms of useful occupation at their disposal were reading newspapers and books , and writing letters .

The above - described situation is in accordance with the rules concerning prisoners sentenced to death , adopted after the moratorium on the execution of the death penalty ... Nevertheless , in the ORG 's view it is not acceptable .

It is generally acknowledged that all forms of solitary confinement without appropriate mental and physical stimulation are likely , in the long term , to have damaging effects , resulting in deterioration of mental faculties and social abilities . The delegation found that the regime applied to prisoners sentenced to death in FAC did not provide such stimulation .

The ORG recommends that the regime applied to prisoners sentenced to death held in FAC , as well as in other prisons in GPE , be revised in order to ensure that they are offered purposeful activities and appropriate human contact . Further , the ORG recommends that steps be taken to improve the material conditions in the cells occupied at FAC by prisoners sentenced to death . ”

In paragraphs CARDINAL of its DATE report on GPE , the ORG stated , inter alia :

“ [ H]ealth care in NORP prisons is provided by ORG ... Prison health - care staff are recruited by and administratively subordinated to ORG , whose ORG is responsible for supervising their work . The prison health - care services apply general health guidelines and regulations issued by ORG ; further , arrangements can be made for hospitalising prisoners in need of urgent treatment in ORG establishments . However , it emerged that in ORG view , given the division of responsibilities , the issue of health care for prisoners lay outside its remit ...

A similar situation is found in many other countries in LOC , where the provision of health care is the responsibility of the authority in charge of prison establishments . However , the ORG believes that a greater involvement of ORG in the provision of health care in the prison system would help to ensure optimum health care for prisoners , as well as implementation of the principle of the equivalence of health care in prison with that in the outside community ... This approach is clearly reflected in Recommendation No R ( CARDINAL ) CARDINAL concerning the ethical and organisational aspects of health care in prison , recently adopted by ORG .

[ I]n order to guarantee their professional independence and quality of medical work , it is important that prison health - care staff be aligned as closely as possible with the mainstream of health - care provision in the community at large ...

The ORG also wishes to stress again that whatever institutional arrangements are made for the provision of health care in prisons , it is essential that prison doctors ' clinical decisions should be governed only by medical criteria and that the quality and effectiveness of their work should be monitored by a qualified medical authority .

[ Some improvements since DATE were reported . ] Full - time doctors had been appointed , and posts for psychiatrists created , at all prisons , and steps were being taken to employ full - time trained nurses . Further , the shortage of medicines within the prison system had been overcome ...

[ T]he delegation heard complaints from prisoners at [ the prisons visited , in GPE and PERSON ] about delays in gaining access to the doctor . Prisoners who wished to be medically examined announced that to the officer on duty during the morning roll - call . Such requests were meant to be entered in a special register kept on each unit and presented to the doctor every morning . Such a system is unexceptionable . However , the ORG must stress that all requests to see a doctor should be brought to the attention of the prison doctor ; it is not for prison officers to screen such requests . ”

Historically , most Member States of ORG approached the question of the abolition of the death penalty by suspending executions pending debate on a final abolition . States which became members of ORG during DATE were urged by ORG to introduce moratoria on executions as a first step towards the abolition of the death penalty ( see Report on the abolition of the death penalty in LOC , ORG . CARDINAL ( DATE ) ) .

The ORG has held that “ in the absence of further compelling circumstances ” prolonged detention on death row per se does not constitute a violation of LAW ( prohibition of cruel , inhuman or degrading treatment ) ( see PERSON v. GPE , Views of DATE , communication no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , PERSON , ORG , communication no . CARDINAL ; and PERSON v. GPE and GPE , Views of DATE , communication no . CARDINAL ) .

The Commission , when examining complaints by persons on death row , has found violations of LAW ( prohibiting cruel , infamous or unusual punishment of persons accused of offences ) and LAW and CARDINAL of ORG ( right to humane treatment and prohibition of torture , cruel , inhuman or degrading punishment or treatment ) mainly on the strength of facts concerning irregularities in the sentencing process , the material conditions and regime of detention and ill - treatment in prison , while also taking into account the length of the period spent on death row ( PERSON v. GPE , Case No . CARDINAL , Report No . CARDINAL , ORG / II.CARDINAL , § § CARDINAL ; PERSON v. GPE , Case No . CARDINAL , Report CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) .

ORG , examining cases from GPE , had to decide whether the execution of a person following long delay after his sentence to death could amount to inhuman punishment or treatment contrary to those GPE ' Constitutions . Initially , ORG considered that a condemned person could not complain about delay of his execution caused by his resort to appellate proceedings ( PERSON v. PERSON [ DATE ] A.C. CARDINAL , ORG v. Attorney - General of GPE and GPE [ DATE ] CARDINAL W.L.R. DATE ) , or indeed about any delay , “ whatever the reasons ” , including a temporary moratorium on executions which had been lifted ( PERSON v. Attorney - General of GPE [ DATE ] CARDINAL A.C. CARDINAL ) .

In DATE , departing from its earlier decisions , ORG held that to execute the appellants , who had spent DATE on death row and had on CARDINAL occasions lived through TIME stays of execution , would be unlawful as being inhuman punishment and therefore advised that their death sentences should be commuted to life imprisonment ( PERSON and PERSON v. The Attorney General for GPE and another [ DATE ] CARDINAL A.C. CARDINAL ) .

In PERSON and PERSON , part of the relevant period was taken up by a temporary moratorium on executions .

“ [ P]olitical debate on the desirability of retaining the death sentence in GPE ... resulted in a resolution of the ORG on DATE to suspend all executions for DATE pending the report of a ORG of inquiry . ORG was appointed in DATE . Before the ORG reported , an execution took place on DATE which drew a protest to ORG from the Chairman of the ORG . No further executions took place before the ORG reported in DATE . On CARDINALth DATE executions were resumed ” ( PERSON , § DATE ) .

The judgment in PERSON and PERSON stated , inter alia :

“ There is an instinctive revulsion against the prospect of hanging a man after he has been held under sentence of death for DATE . What gives rise to this instinctive revulsion ? The answer can only be our humanity ; we regard it as an inhuman act to keep a man facing the agony of execution over a long extended period of time . But before their Lordships condemn the act of execution as ' inhuman or degrading punishment or other treatment ' within the meaning of section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) [ of LAW ] there are a number of factors that have to be balanced in weighing the delay . If delay is due entirely to the fault of the accused such as an escape from custody or frivolous and time wasting resort to legal procedures which amount to an abuse of process the accused can not be allowed to take advantage of that delay for to do so would be to permit the accused to use illegitimate means to escape the punishment inflicted upon him in the interest of protecting society against crime ...

In their Lordships ' view a ORG that wishes to retain capital punishment must accept the responsibility of ensuring that execution follows as swiftly as practicable after sentence , allowing a reasonable time for appeal and consideration of reprieve . It is part of the human condition that a condemned man will take every opportunity to save his life through use of the appellate procedure . If the appellate procedure enables the prisoner to prolong the appellate hearings over DATE , the fault is to be attributed to the appellate system that permits such delay and not to the prisoner who takes advantage of it . Appellate procedures that echo down DATE are not compatible with capital punishment . The death row phenomenon must not become established as a part of our jurisprudence ...

There may of course be circumstances which will lead ORG to recommend a respite in the carrying out of a death sentence , such as a political moratorium on the death sentence , or a petition on behalf of the appellants to [ international human rights bodies ] or a constitutional appeal to ORG . But if these respites cumulatively result in delay running into DATE an execution will be likely to infringe section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) and call for commutation of the death sentence to life imprisonment . ”

Further , calculating the normal length of relevant appellate proceedings in GPE and taking into consideration the time necessary for examination of applications to ORG and ORG , ORG held that :

“ in any case in which execution is to take place DATE after sentence there will be strong grounds for believing that the delay is such as to constitute inhuman or degrading punishment or ... treatment ” .

In cases which followed ORG accepted a claim that DATE and DATE also warranted a finding in favour of the appellant ( PERSON v. PERSON and Others [ DATE ] CARDINAL A.C. CARDINAL ) but dismissed appeals concerning shorter periods ( PERSON v. The Attorney General of the GPE of The GPE [ DATE ] A.C. CARDINAL ; ORG ) v. The Minister of ORG ( GPE ) [ DATE ] A.C. CARDINAL ; and PERSON and PERSON v. The Minister of ORG ( GPE ) [ DATE ] ORG CARDINAL ) and held that save in exceptional circumstances , periods of pre - sentence detention should not be taken into account since , inter alia , “ the state of mind of the person ... during this earlier period is not the agony of mind of a man facing execution , but ... anxiety and concern of the accused”(Fisher , § DATE ) . In PERSON and PERSON , ORG stated , inter alia :

“ If a man has been sentenced to death , it is wrong to add other cruelties to the manner of his death ... In PERSON ... the [ ORG ] held that the execution after excessive delay was an inhuman punishment because it added to the penalty of death the additional torture of a long period of alternating hope and despair . It is not the delay in itself which is a cruel and unusual punishment ... , ' it is the act of hanging the man that is rendered cruel and unusual by the lapse of time ” .

ORG found that execution following inordinate delay after sentence of death violated LAW which provides that “ no one shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law ” and that the reasons for the delay were immaterial ( PERSON v. ORG [ DATE ] CARDINAL S.C.R. CARDINAL , PERSON and Others v. the ORG of ORG [ DATE ] CARDINAL S.C.R. CARDINAL and Smt . PERSON v. State of GPE [ DATE ] CARDINAL S.C.J. CARDINAL ) .

GPE ORG has refused to accept claims that lengthy detention on death row violated the prohibition , contained in LAW to LAW , of cruel and unusual punishment , emphasising that the delay is due to the convicted person 's own decision to make use of all possibilities to appeal ( PERSON v. GPE , CARDINAL US CARDINAL ) .

ORG has held that NORP constitutional standards did not bar extradition to GPE of a defendant facing the death penalty ( PERSON v. GPE ( Minister of ORG ) , [ DATE ] CARDINAL S.C.R. CARDINAL ) . However , in DATE it changed its approach and held that if the person being extradited could face the death penalty , constitutional standards required that in all but exceptional cases assurances must be sought from GPE that the death penalty would not be imposed or , if imposed , would not be carried out ( GPE v. PERSON , [ DATE ] CARDINAL S.C.R. CARDINAL ) .


David Thór Björgvinsson;George Nicolaou;Lech Garlicki;Nebojša Vučinić;Päivi Hirvelä;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Zdravka Kalaydjieva

NORP The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in GPE . He was represented before the Court by Ms Z. FAC - ORG , a lawyer practising in GPE . ORG ( “ the Government ” ) were represented by their Agent , PERSON J.Wołąsiewicz of ORG .

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

On DATE the applicant was charged with assaulting a GPE employee .

On DATE expert psychiatrists appointed by the prosecutor gave an opinion concerning the applicant ’s mental health . They considered that the applicant suffered from paranoia with elements of psychosis .

On DATE the ORG gave a decision and discontinued the criminal proceedings against the applicant . The court found it established that the applicant had committed the offence in question . However , he should not have been held criminally responsible as he was suffering from paranoia with elements of psychosis . It further ordered that the applicant be placed in a psychiatric hospital .

On DATE the applicant appealed against this decision . On DATE ORG dismissed the appeal .

On DATE the applicant was informed that the ORG had decided not to file a cassation appeal on his behalf .

DATE and DATE the applicant was detained in a psychiatric hospital , on the basis of a decision given in another set of criminal proceedings against him ( decision of ORG of DATE ) . On DATE ORG ordered the applicant ’s internment in the same institution on the basis of its final decision of DATE .

On DATE ORG decided ( in the other set of criminal proceedings against the applicant ) that the applicant could be released since his health had significantly improved and he could be treated outside the hospital . However , the applicant was not released on that date as he was simultaneously detained on the basis of ORG decision of DATE .

On DATE the applicant ’s lawyer filed a motion with ORG referring to ORG decision and asking for the applicant ’s release .

On DATE the applicant absconded from the hospital .

NORP On DATE the ORG heard an expert who stated that the applicant ’s escape from the hospital confirmed that he had no intention to continue his therapy . Consequently , the court refused to discontinue the enforcement proceedings relating to the applicant ’s confinement ordered on DATE . The court referred to an expert ’s report of DATE .

On DATE ORG ordered that the applicant be admitted to a psychiatric hospital .

On DATE ORG quashed the decision of DATE and remitted the case to ORG on formal grounds . ORG subsequently scheduled a hearing . However , it had to be adjourned since the applicant had filed a motion for the presiding judge to step down .

On DATE ORG appointed experts .

On DATE the applicant went to ORG to examine his case file . He was then arrested by the police on the basis of the order of DATE . He was informed that he had the right to lodge an interlocutory appeal against his arrest . On DATE the applicant was admitted to the Choroszcza psychiatric hospital . He submits that on his arrival he was examined by a doctor who stated that there was no need to keep him in hospital . However , the applicant was ordered to stay in the hospital . The Government submit that the applicant was ordered to stay in the hospital as there were strong medical grounds justifying his detention .

On DATE the applicant lodged an interlocutory appeal against the decision to admit him to hospital . He argued that his placement in the psychiatric hospital had not been necessary . He stressed that on DATE , in another set of criminal proceedings , ORG had taken the view that his state of health had improved . Lastly , he submitted that a person could not be judged healthy as regards one set of criminal proceedings and in need of psychiatric treatment as regards another set . On an unknown date the applicant ’s lawyer also lodged an interlocutory appeal .

On DATE ORG refused to examine the applicant ’s interlocutory appeal against the decision to place him in a psychiatric hospital as inadmissible in law . The court referred to ORG decision of DATE ( see domestic law and practice below ) . On DATE it refused to examine an appeal by the applicant ’s lawyer .

The applicant and his lawyer appealed against these decisions . On DATE ORG dismissed their appeals .

On DATE , on a request by the applicant under LAW DATE on complaints about a breach of the right to a trial within a reasonable time , ORG gave a decision and acknowledged that the length of the enforcement proceedings ( between DATE and DATE ) was excessive . It awarded the applicant MONEY ( ORG ) as just satisfaction .

On DATE the applicant was arrested by the police so that he could undergo a psychiatric observation .

On DATE the court - appointed experts submitted their opinion to the court . They concluded that the applicant suffered from a delusional disorder and he should be kept in a psychiatric hospital .

On DATE he lodged an interlocutory appeal against the decision to place him in a psychiatric hospital . On DATE ORG dismissed his appeal as inadmissible in law . On DATE the court ordered the applicant ’s release . The applicant lodged an appeal ( in respect of costs and expenses ) against this decision on DATE . On CARDINAL DATE ORG dismissed his appeal .

Under LAW a convicted person is entitled to make applications , complaints and requests to the authorities enforcing the sentence . Article CARDINAL , paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL , of the LAW provides that a convicted person can challenge before a court any unlawful decision issued by a judge , a penitentiary judge , a Governor of a prison or a remand centre , a Regional Director or ORG or a court probation officer . Applications related to the enforcement of prison sentences are examined by a competent penitentiary court .

On DATE ORG gave a decision , I ORG CARDINAL/CARDINAL , and held that it was not possible to appeal against a decision to arrest and place a convicted person in a penitentiary institution [ doprowadzenie do zakładu karnego ] .


CASE OF SAMPANIS AND OTHERS v. GREECE - [English Translation] by European Roma Rights Centre "ERRC"

Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (non-exhaustion of domestic remedies);Violation of Art. 13;Violation of Art. 14+P1-2;Non-pecuniary damage - award

Christos Rozakis;Dean Spielmann;George Nicolaou;Giorgio Malinverni;Khanlar Hajiyev;Sverre Erik Jebens

The applicants are of NORP origin and live with their families on the area of GPE , near FAC , a municipality in the western part of the LOC region .

On DATE , the Minister Delegate of Health , accompanied by the Secretary General of his ministry , visited the GPE camp in GPE . He had been informed , among other things , of the non - education of NORP children . On DATE , the representatives of “ NORP FAC ” and of “ NORP ORG ” met with the Minister Delegate for ORG . Following this meeting , ORG Delegate published a press release highlighting , among other things , the importance of integrating NORP children into the national education process .

The DATE began on DATE . On DATE , the Secretary of ORG of ORG visited the GPE camps in GPE , in the company of CARDINAL representatives of ORG , to register all the PERSON children of schooling age . To this end , they visited the CARDINAL primary schools of the municipality ( DATE primary schools of LOC ) . The respective school directors encouraged PERSON parents to enrol their children in primary school . ORG subsequently informed the competent authorities of ORG , who gave no follow - up .

The applicants confirm that on DATE , they visited the premises of the LOC primary schools , with other PERSON parents , to register their children . The directors of CARDINAL schools had refused to enrol their children on the grounds that they had not received instructions to this effect from the relevant ministry . They had informed the parents concerned that upon receipt of the necessary instructions , they would invite them to complete the necessary formalities . Never afterwards were the parents invited to register their children .

According to the document no . ΦCARDINAL.CARDINAL/CARDINAL delivered on DATE by ORG in LOC , at the request of ORG , the applicants presented themselves to the director of the CARDINALth primary school of Aspropyrgos to gather information on registering their children . The director reportedly showed them the documents necessary to register their children . According to the same documents , on DATE , the Departmental Director of Education of the LOC region convened an informal meeting with the competent authorities of the municipality of LOC to address the problem of additional enrolment of students of PERSON origin and the capacity of GPE primary schools . On CARDINAL hand , it was decided that the students who had reached DATE schooling would be accommodated into the existing LOC of the CARDINALth and CARDINALth primary schools in LOC . On the other hand , the meeting considered that integration of children who had reached an age higher than that of preliminary education into normal classes would be detrimental from a psychopedagogical point of view : the difference of age would not permit them to have an effective schooling . On this basis , the informal meeting decided to provide CARDINAL additional preparatory classes in preparation for the integration of these students into ordinary classes .

On DATE and DATE and on DATE , ORG referred to ORG on behalf of the applicants of CARDINAL applications concerning the difficulties of NORP children ’s access to primary education for PERSON children , inviting him to intervene . On DATE , the ORG replied in writing that CARDINAL representatives of his cabinet had , on an unspecified date , visited the GPE camp in GPE . In his response , the ORG noted that there was not , on the part of the competent services , any systematic and unjustified refusal to enrol children of PERSON origin in primary education . He noted that he had already informed teachers at GPE primary schools that domestic legislation provided for the possibility to enrol children in primary school with the simple declaration of those bearing parental authority , provided that they submit birth certificates in due course . The ORG also referred to the conclusions of several meetings with the leaders of the municipality of LOC and , more specifically , to their intention to build a separate building from the school closest to the GPE camp to accommodate the older PERSON children in view of bringing them up to standard . The ORG mentioned lastly the tensions that existed between the population of LOC , composed mainly of those repatriated from states of the former GPE , and the NORP minority , as an additional element preventing the integration of NORP children into the educational environment .

On DATE , the Minister Delegate for ORG asked the company responsible for operating state real estate to grant some public land with CARDINAL prefabricated cells to serve as classrooms for NORP children . On an unspecified date , the Minister rejected the request .

According to the Government , in DATE and DATE a delegation from teachers of primary schools no . CARDINAL and CARDINAL visited the ORG in GPE in order to inform and convince the parents and their children , who were minors , of the necessity to enrol their children in preparatory classes . This approach would be in vain , the parents concerned not having registered their children for DATE .

On DATE , ORG in GPE ( ORG ) addressed an official letter to ORG of ORG of GPE in which it requested information about the schooling of the FAC in LOC .

On DATE , ORG replied that the case had experienced delays attributable to ORG : it had been slow to resolve the issue of granting public land on which to construct rooms and prefabricated classrooms . ORG expressed its intention to make every effort to implement the enrolling of NORP children in primary school DATE .

On DATE , ORG sent a letter to the Minister Delegate of ORG and ORG stressing the need to take all of the necessary measures to assure the successful schooling of NORP children for the DATE .

A letter dated DATE to ORG states that the school authorities took various steps to inform GPE PERSON families of the necessity of enrolling their children in primary school : radio messages , advertisements on the school walls informing GPE that they could register their children DATE and sending letters to interested parties on this subject .

On DATE , at the initiative of ORG , CARDINAL children of NORP origin , including the children of the applicants , were enrolled in the LOC primary school for the DATE . According to the Government , the number of NORP children who were enrolled was CARDINAL .

On DATE , the first day of DATE , the PERSON parents , including the parents , accompanied their children to school . In front of the entrance , several non - NORP parents , most of them of NORP origin , that is to say from the region of FAC , on the southern shores of LOC , were gathered , harassing people of NORP origin . They shouted , “ There is not a single NORP child who will go to school . You will not have access here , that ’s all . ” Then , non - PERSON parents blocked access to the school until NORP children were transferred to another building .

On DATE , the non - Romani parents blocked access to the school again . They hung a sign : “ The school will remain closed because of the Gypsy problem ; DATE CARDINAL ” .

On DATE , NORP children tried to access the school . They were once more confronted by a group of non - NORP parents . In particular , the president of the association showed , on camera of a television channel that had visited the scene , the medical files of children of NORP origin in order to prove that they had been inadequately vaccinated . Finally , with the assistance of the police , who had gone there , the NORP children were able to access the school .

As part of the judicial investigation of this incident , the police officer D.T. made a statement with the following passage : “ On DATE , around CARDINAL , CARDINAL parents of students of NORP origin protested outside schools against the schooling of children of PERSON origin at the primary school ( ... ) . A confrontation was avoided thanks to the prompt intervention of the police of LOC ( ... ) . On DATE and DATE , the association of parents organised a boycott of student participation in class . From DATE of the incidents , police were posted outside the school to secure the entry and exit of ORG students . On DATE , the association of parents blocked access to the school as a protest against the afternoon welcoming of ORG students in the same rooms which welcomed the other students in the TIME . On CARDINAL and DATE , in the presence of police , students of ORG origin had access to classes without difficulty . On DATE , CARDINAL non - Romani parents gathered to protest against the presence of NORP students and to encircle the school ’s entrance in order to prevent access ( ... ) ” .

By a letter , dated DATE , ORG informed ORG that on CARDINAL , DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE and on CARDINAL , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , and DATE , police forces had been sent to the CARDINALth and CARDINALth primary schools in order to maintain order and to prevent illegal acts committed against ORG students .

As of DATE , the applicants’ children were educated in a separate building from the main primary school of LOC and the non - NORP parents stopped blocking the school .

Under Act No . CARDINAL/CARDINAL.CARDINAL.CARDINAL of ORG , CARDINAL preparatory classes were created to meet the educational needs of NORP children ; the classes of one took place in TIME while the other CARDINAL took place after CARDINAL . ORG indicated that the ORG students of all ages who were confronted with problems pertaining to their learning capacity could take special preparatory classes , the aim being to allow their integration without hindrance into ordinary classes .

On DATE , the applicants signed a statement written by the teachers of ORG expressing their wish to have their children transferred to the building separate from the primary school . The applicants allege that they had signed the statement in question under pressure from the Minister of Education , non - NORP parents , and certain leaders of the NORP community .

On DATE , the first applicant swore in FAC that he would have preferred for his students to attend regular classes rather than special school . He clarified , however , that it was difficult for him to maintain this position when the integrity of his children was endangered by furious non - Romani residents and that the teachers indirectly encouraged him to consent to his children ’s schooling in the “ ghetto school ” .

In the meantime , under Act No . CARDINAL/CARDINAL.CARDINAL.CARDINAL , the Prefect of LOC had decided that CARDINAL classes of primary school No . CARDINAL in LOC would be accommodated in prefabricated rooms installed on land owned by the municipality of LOC .

On DATE , the West Attica Primary Education Directorate sent a letter to ORG . She informed the Ministry that for the DATE , CARDINAL new students of NORP origin had been enrolled in the CARDINALth primary school of Aspropyrgos . She noted that “ due to the lack of space in the main school building of the school , and with the GPE agreement , pupils of NORP origin had been accommodated in an annex located near the GPE camp ” .

On DATE , the third constituency of the LOC ORG sent a letter to the director of the outskirts of GPE . She informed him that for the DATE , CARDINAL students of GPE origin had been enrolled in the CARDINALth primary school of Aspropyrgos . She stated that “ preparatory classes [ were ] provided for the ORG students , in order to assure their adaptation to the schooling environment , given the deficiencies from which they suffered and various other reasons making it impossible for them to integrate into ordinary classes . ” She added that “ despite the progress made by ORG students in the preparatory classes , all of these students are not yet fit to integrate into ordinary classes . ”

On DATE , prefabricated rooms of the CARDINALth primary school were set on fire by unknown people . It appears from the file that in DATE , the CARDINAL rooms were replaced but because of infrastructure problems , they were not operational . In DATE , a CARDINALth primary school was created in LOC , to which NORP children were transferred . The record shows that in DATE , this school was not yet operational , because of the infrastructure problems . The Government alleges that the establishment of the CARDINALth primary school in LOC was intended only to relieve congestion at the CARDINALth primary school .

According to LAW ,

“ All pupils who have attained the legal age of schooling must be registered in the first class of primary school . Registrations take place from DATE to DATE of the DATE . ”

ORG Directive ΦCARDINAL/CARDINAL/ΓCARDINAL/CARDINAL/CARDINAL.CARDINAL.CARDINAL of ORG and ORG underlines the need “ for cooperation between ORG families , heads , and school councils so that NORP children living in camps are registered in nursery and primary schools ( ... ) . The heads [ of schools ] must not only encourage PERSON children to enrol in primary schools , but also , identify NORP children in their district and ensure their registration and attendance at classes ( ... ) ” . In addition , Directive ΦCARDINAL/CARDINAL/ΓCARDINAL/CARDINAL/CARDINAL.CARDINAL.CARDINAL of the Minister of ORG and LAW CARDINAL/CARDINAL require the competent authorities to facilitate the access of NORP children to public education .

The relevant articles of Legislative Decree No . DATE on the “ Codification of the provisions of the laws on ORG ” provide :

“ CARDINAL . An action for annulment for abuse for excess of power or violation of the law is admissible only against legally binding acts of the administrative authorities and the legal entities of public law who are not susceptible to appeal before any other jurisdiction .

In cases where the law requires an authority to settle a particular question by enacting an enforceable act subject to the provisions of paragraph CARDINAL , the action for annulment is admissible even against the failure of that authority to enact such an act .

The authority is presumed to refuse to enact the act either when the special period of time fixed by the law expires , or after the expiry of a period of DATE from the filing of the request of the administration , who is expected to issue an acknowledgment of receipt ( ... ) indicating DATE of the said deposit . The action for annulment exercised before the expiry of the aforementioned periods is inadmissible .

An action for annulment validly lodged against an implied refusal [ of the administration ] is also an action against the negative act that may be subsequently adopted by the administration ; however , this act may also be attacked separately . ”

A committee established for the needs of the cause by the president of ORG or the competent section of ORG and composed of said president or his deputy , the reporter of the case and a councillor of ORG may , at the request of the author of the solution of annulment , suspend the execution of the contested act by a decision briefly reasoned and adopted in ORG ( ... ) . ”

The LHDH , established in DATE , is the oldest non - governmental organisation in GPE . It is a member of ORG . ORG is a non - profit organisation established in DATE . The purpose of its activity is scientific research on minority groups and languages in GPE .

LHDH and ORG ’s DATE report on the state of racism and xenophobia in GPE observes a clear improvement in schooling conditions for people belonging to the NORP and GPE minorities compared to those of DATE . However , the report notes that the registration of PERSON children in school continues to be a source of tension , intolerance , and violent reactions . This sometimes requires the placement of NORP children in schools specially created for the GPE , despite the strong commitment of the administration to avoid the segregation of minorities in the school environment . The report notes that the most serious incidents of intolerance concern the registration of NORP children in primary education .

By a letter dated DATE , ORG for ORG had informed the representative of ORG that CARDINAL schools attended only by “ Gypsy children ” had been operation in GPE during the DATE .

The terms of this recommendation are as follows :

« ORG , in accordance with ORG ,

Considering that the aim of ORG is to achieve a closer union among its members , and that this aim may be pursued in particular by adopting joint action in the field of education ;

Recognising the urgent need to lay new foundations for future educational strategies for ORG in LOC , in particular because of the high rate of illiteracy or semi - illiteracy in this community , the extent of school failure , the low proportion of young people completing primary school and the persistence of factors such as school absenteeism ;

Noting that the problems faced by ORG in the field of education are largely due to the long - standing educational policies that have led either to the assimilation or segregation of ORG children in school on the grounds that they suffered from a " socio - cultural handicap " ;

Considering that the disadvantaged position of ORG in NORP societies can only be remedied if equality of opportunity in the field of education is guaranteed to Romani / Gypsy children ;

Considering that the education of Romani / Gypsy children should be a priority of national policies for ORG ;

Bearing in mind that policies to address the problems faced by ORG in the field of education must be comprehensive and based on the recognition that the issue of schooling of ORG children is linked to a set of factors and preconditions , including economic , social and cultural aspects and the fight against racism and discrimination ;

Bearing in mind that educational policies for ORG children should be accompanied by an active policy on adult and vocational education ; ( ... )

Recommends the governments of member states :

to respect , in the implementation of their education policy , the principles set out in the appendix to this Recommendation ;

to bring this Recommendation to the attention of the competent public authorities in their respective countries , through the appropriate national channels . "

The relevant parts of the Annex to Recommendation No . R ( DATE ) CARDINAL read as follows :

“ Guiding Principles for an Education Policy for Romani / Gypsy Children in LOC ”

I. Structures

Educational policies for ORG children should be accompanied by the necessary means and flexible structures to reflect the diversity of the ORG population in LOC and to take into account ORG groups’ itinerant or semi - itinerant way of life . In this respect , the use of a system of education at a distance , based on new communication technologies , could be considered .

Emphasis should be placed on better coordination at international , national , regional and local levels in order to avoid dispersion of efforts and to promote synergies .

Member states should , in this regard , make the ORG sensitive to the question of ORG education .

Pre - school education should be widely developed and made accessible to ORG children , in order to ensure their access to schooling and education .

Special attention should also be paid to better communication with and between parents by using , when appropriate , mediators from the ORG community who would have the opportunity to access a specific professional career . Special information and advice would be provided to parents on the necessity for education and the support mechanisms that municipalities can offer to families . The exclusion and lack of knowledge and education ( or even illiteracy ) of parents also prevent children from benefiting from the education system .

Adequate support structures should be put in place to enable ORG children to benefit from equal opportunities in school , including through positive action .

Member states are invited to provide the necessary means to implement the aforementioned policies and measures in order to bridge the gap between ORG schoolchildren and those belonging to the majority population .

II . School programmes and teaching materials

Educational measures for Romani / Gypsy children should be part of a wider intercultural policies and take into account the characteristics of PERSON culture and the disadvantaged position of many Roma / Gypsies in GPE .

School curricula , as a whole , and teaching materials should be designed in a manner to respect the cultural identity of ORG children . The history and culture of the GPE should therefore be introduced in the educational materials in order to reflect the cultural identity of PERSON / Gypsy children . The participation of representatives from ORG communities in the development of material on ORG history , culture , and language should be encouraged .

Member states should , however , ensure that these practices not lead to separate school curricula that can lead to creating separate classes .

Member states should equally encourage the development of educational materials based on examples of successful action in order to assist teachers in their DATE work with ORG children .

NORP In countries where the PERSON language is spoken , PERSON / Gypsy children should be offered the opportunity to take classes in their mother tongue .

III . Recruitment and teacher training

Provision should be made for the introduction of specific education in programs preparing future teachers so that they can acquire the knowledge and training to better understand ORG schoolchildren . However , the education of NORP / Gypsy schoolchildren should remain and integral part of the overall education system .

The Roma / Gypsy community should be involved in the development of these programs and should be able to directly communicate this information to future teachers .

Recruitment and training of teachers from the Roma / Gypsy community should also be promoted ( ... ) ” .

The general comments in this recommendation include :

“ CARDINAL of the aims of ORG is to promote the formation of a true NORP cultural identity . LOC is home to many different cultures , all of which , including multiple minority cultures , contribute to its cultural diversity .

Gypsies hold a special place among minorities . Living dispersed throughout LOC , unable to claim a country for their own , they constitute a true NORP minority who do not correspond to the definitions applicable to national or linguistic minorities .

As a non - territorial minority , NORP contribute significantly to LOC ’s cultural diversity , in multiple respects , be it through language and music or in their artisanal activities .

Following the admission of new Member GPE from central and eastern LOC , the number of NORP living in the Council of Europe area has considerably increased .

Intolerance towards NORP has always existed . However , outbreaks of racial or social hatred are occurring more and more regularly and strained relations between communities have contributed to creating the deplorable situation in which the majority of NORP live today .

Respect for the rights of NORP , whether for their fundamental human rights , or their rights as a minority , is an essential condition for improving their situation .

By guaranteeing equal rights , opportunities , and treatment , and by taking steps to improve the situation of NORP , it will be possible to revive their language and culture , thereby enriching NORP cultural diversity .

It is important to guarantee to NORP the enjoyment of rights and liberties defined in LAW , as this enables them to assert their rights ( ... ) . ”

Concerning the area of education , the recommendation states :

“ existing NORP teacher training programs for NORP should be expanded ;

Special attention should be paid to the education of women in general and mothers with their young children ;

Gifted young Gypsies should be encouraged to study and act as intermediaries for NORP ; ( ... ) . ”

This recommendation states in particular :

DATE , GPE are still subject to discrimination , marginalisation and segregation . Discrimination is widespread in all areas of public and private life , including access to public service , education , employment , heath services and housing , as well as to crossing borders and access to asylum procedures . Economic and social marginalisation and segregation of GPE are turning into ethnic discrimination , which generally affects the most vulnerable groups in society .

Roma constitute a special group , minority for CARDINAL reason : ethnically minority , they also very often belong to the socially disadvantaged strata of society ( ... ) .

ORG can and must play an important role in improving the legal status of GPE , the level of equality they enjoy , and their living conditions . The ORG calls on Member GPE to fulfil the following CARDINAL general conditions , which are necessary to improve the situation of the GPE in LOC : ( ... )

c ) guarantee equality of treatment of the GPE minority as an ethnic or national minority group or in the fields of education , employment , housing , health and public services . Member GPE should pay special attention :

ii . to give GPE the opportunity to integrate into all educational structures , from kindergarten to university ;

iii . to develop positive measures to recruit GPE in public services of direct interest to ORG , such as primary and secondary schools , social welfare centres , local primary health care centres and local governments ;

iv . to eliminate any practice tending towards school segregation of NORP children , in particular the practice of referring them to schools or classes reserved for students with mental disabilities ;

d ) to develop and implement positive action and preferential treatment for the socially disadvantaged classes , including the GPE , as a socially disadvantaged community , in the fields of education , employment , and housing ( ... ) ;

e ) to take specific measures and to create special institutions for the protection of PERSON language , culture , traditions and identity ; ( ... )

ii . to encourage PERSON parents to send their children to primary and secondary school , and institutions of higher education and to correctly inform them of the importance of education ; ( ... )

v. recruit PERSON teachers , especially in areas where the NORP population is considerable ;

f ) to combat racism , xenophobia , and intolerance , and to ensure non - discriminatory treatment towards GPE on local , regional , national and international levels : ( ... )

vi . to pay particular attention to phenomena of discrimination against the GPE , particularly in the fields of education and employment ; ( ... ) . ”

The relevant portions of this recommendation read as follows :

“ ORG against Racism and Intolerance :

Recalling that the fight against racism , xenophobia , anti - Semitism and intolerance is an integral part of the protection and promotion of human rights , and that these rights are universal and indivisible , and are the rights of all human beings , without distinction of any kind ;

Stressing that the fight against racism , xenophobia , anti - Semitism and intolerance is aimed above all at protecting the rights of vulnerable members of society ;

Convinced that any action against racism and discrimination should begin from the point of view of the victim and seek to improve his or her situation ;

Noting that ORG throughout LOC DATE suffer from persistent prejudices against them , are victims of racism deeply rooted in society , are the target of demonstrations , sometimes violent , of racism and intolerance , and that their human rights are regularly violated are threatened ;

Noting further that the persistent prejudices towards ORG drive discrimination against them in many areas of social and economic life , and that this discrimination significantly fuels the process of social exclusion from which GPE and Gypsy people suffer ;

Convinced that the promotion of the principle of tolerance is a guarantee of the maintenance of open and pluralistic societies , making peaceful coexistence possible ;

Recommends to the governments of the member states the following :

– To ensure that discrimination as such as well as discriminatory practices are combatted by means of adequate legislation and to ensure that specific provisions are included in civil law , in particular in the areas of employment , housing and education ;

– To fight vigorously all forms of school segregation of GPE and PERSON children and to ensure effectively equal access to education ; ( ... ) . ”

For the purposes of this recommendation , the following definitions apply :

“ a ) “ racism ” the belief that grounds such as race , colour , language , religion , nationality or ethnic or national origin justifies contempt towards a person or group of people , or the idea of one ’s superiority or of a group of people

b ) “ direct racial discrimination ” means any difference of treatment based on grounds such as race , colour , language , religion , nationality or national or ethnic origin , which lacks reasonable or objective justification . A difference of treatment lacks reasonable and objective justification if it does not pursue a legitimate aim or if there is no reasonable relationship of proportionality between the means employed and the aim pursued .

c ) “ indirect racial discrimination ” means the case where an apparently neutral factor such as a provision , criterion or practice can not be so easily respected by persons belonging to a group distinguished by grounds such as race , colour , language , religion , nationality or national or ethnic origin , or disadvantages these persons , unless this factor has an objective and reasonable justification . This is so if it pursues a legitimate aim and if there is a reasonable relationship of proportionality between the means employed and the intended purpose .

In the explanatory memorandum to this recommendation , it is noted ( point CARDINAL) that the definitions of these concepts of direct and indirect discrimination contained in paragraph CARDINAL(b ) and CARDINAL ) of the recommendation are based on those contained in ORG on the implementation of the principle of equal treatment between persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origin , and ORG establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation , as well as the case - law of ORG .

ECRI recalls in its report from DATE that in its previous report it had drawn the attention of NORP authorities to the situation of the GPE , in particular to the problems of eviction from their homes and of discrimination in access to public services and underlined the importance of overcoming local resistant to initiatives in favour of GPE .

After having expressed its concern , ORG considers in its report from DATE that , since the adoption of its second report on GPE , the situation of GPE in GPE has not fundamentally changed and that in general they experience the same difficulties – including discrimination – in housing , employment , education , and access to public services .

The final report by Mr PERSON on the human rights situation of GPE , PERSON and Travelers in LOC ( dated DATE )

In the third part of this report , dedicated to discrimination within education , the Commissioner observes that if a significant number of NORP children do not have access to quality education equal to that offered to other children , it is also because of discriminatory practices and prejudices . In this respect , he notes that segregation within the education system is a common characteristic of many member ORG . In some countries , there are isolated schools in isolated camps , in others special classes for NORP children in ordinary schools , or a clear overrepresentation of NORP children in classes for children with special needs . It is frequent that NORP children are placed in classes for children with special needs , without adequate psychological or pedagogical evaluation , the real criteria being their ethnicity . Placement in special schools or classes means that these children often have a less ambitious curriculum than those in normal classes , which reduces their educational prospects and hence their chances of finding a job at a later stage . Automatic placement of NORP children in classes for children with special needs specifically reinforces social stigma by labelling PERSON children as less intelligent and less capable . At the same time , segregated education deprives PERSON children and non - NORP children of the opportunity to know each other and to learn to live as equal citizens . It excludes NORP children from normal society from DATE , increasing the risk of them being caught in the vicious cycle of marginalisation .

In conclusion , the Commissioner makes a number of recommendations in the area of education . According to him , when segregation in education still exists in CARDINAL form or another , it must be replaced by an ordinary integrated education and , if necessary , prohibited by legislation . Adequate resources should be allocated to pre - school education , language training , and the training of school assistants to ensure the success of desegregation efforts . Then , an adequate assessment should be made before placing children in special classes , so that the only criteria for placement are the objective needs of the child and not his or her ethnicity . ”


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

PERSON is an NORP national and resides at GPE ( GPE ) . She is unemployed . The facts established by the ORG pursuant to LAW CARDINAL ( LAW are as follows ( paragraphs CARDINAL of its report ) :

" CARDINAL . On DATE the applicant took proceedings against ORG ) before the GPE magistrate ’s court ( pretore ) in order to establish her disability pension right .

The investigation began at the hearing of DATE , when the magistrate ’s court called for a medical opinion . On DATE the medical opinion was lodged with the registry , and the hearing of CARDINAL DATE before the magistrate ’s court ended with the dismissal of the applicant ’s claim . The text of the decision was lodged with the registry on DATE .

On DATE the applicant appealed against the above decision and on CARDINAL DATE the presiding judge of ORG fixed the hearing before the competent court chamber for DATE . On DATE , the court called for a further medical opinion and adjourned the case to DATE .

On a date which has not been specified " - according to the information provided to ORG by the participants in the proceedings the date in question was DATE - " the ORG allowed the applicant ’s claim . The text of the decision was lodged with the registry on DATE .

It does not appear that an appeal was filed against that decision in ORG . "


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

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

The applicants lodged CARDINAL separate civil actions before ORG on DATE and CARDINAL DATE ( actions ORG ) . In both actions the applicants sought remedies against CARDINAL defendants in respect of trespass and nuisance to their respective properties .

From the institution of the proceedings until DATE the court dealt with applications by the applicants for substituted service of the writs , and CARDINAL applications by the second applicant in her action for an interim order and in respect of a boundary dispute . The pleadings in both actions were completed in DATE and DATE .

On DATE the actions were fixed for directions and were then adjourned to give more time to the parties to decide on whether an inspection of the property should be carried out .

On DATE , with the consent of all the parties , the district court ordered the inspection of the properties concerned by ORG ( ORG ) . Consequently , the actions were adjourned sine die pending the inspection to be fixed on the application of either party upon completion .

Following an application by CARDINAL of the defendants to the court for the joining of the actions on DATE , and the opposition by the first applicant thereto , the court decided to join the actions on DATE . Within this period CARDINAL adjournments took place at the ORG request .

In view of the fact that the inspection had not been completed yet , the actions were adjourned sine die .

Although the actions were fixed for trial several times DATE and DATE , no hearing took place pending the findings of the ORG . Within this period , CARDINAL adjournments took place due to the first applicant ’s absence .

It appears that the parties and the court were informed on DATE that the inspection had been carried out .

On DATE the hearing was adjourned at the applicants’ request .

The hearing of the actions commenced on DATE . From that date until DATE approximately CARDINAL hearing sessions were held , CARDINAL of which were adjourned and CARDINAL cut short at the ORG request . In the meantime , it appears that the ORG ’s inspection was annulled and following another examination of the matter the parties were informed on DATE that the ORG ’s findings were ready .

On DATE the GPE ORG delivered its judgment dismissing the actions with costs to be paid by the applicants .

On DATE the applicants lodged an appeal with ORG challenging the above judgment . Within their grounds of appeal , the applicants alleged that the excessive length of the proceedings was in breach of LAW . Consequently , they claimed that the first instance decision should be set aside .

Meanwhile , on DATE , the applicants also applied to ORG of GPE challenging the assessment of legal costs they were required to pay . This application was dismissed on DATE .

The records concerning the first instance proceedings were transmitted to ORG on DATE and the parties were notified on DATE that the appeal had been fixed for pre - trial directions on DATE . The appeal was adjourned CARDINAL times at the applicants’ request for the purposes of amending their notice of appeal .

Their amended notice was filed on DATE and the filing of the address outlines was completed by DATE .

The hearing of the appeal took place on DATE and judgment was delivered on DATE dismissing the appeal with costs against the applicants . ORG having examined , inter alia , the applicants ’’ rights and did not justify the annulment of the first instance judgment . In this context ORG noted that the delays in the first part of the proceedings lasting until the beginning of the actual trial , were mainly due to the long time the ORG took in carrying out the inspection and completing its report and , secondly , to delays by the parties , particularly the applicants , in submitting their pleadings ( DATE ) . Following the start of the trial , the court noted the complexity of the issues raised in the actions that involved the examination of numerous witnesses and the adjournments requested primarily by the applicants .


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

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

In TIME on DATE the applicant and her friend PERSON were coming back from a party in GPE . At a certain point they stopped because the applicant wanted to collect some leaves from an oak tree ; she is a painter and she needed them to produce dye for her work . As they approached the tree , a police car stopped near them . CARDINAL uniformed policemen got out of the car and asked the applicant and her friend what they were doing there . The applicant asked what she was suspected of and what the policemen wanted from her . She asked them to show their badges . The policemen refused .

Then the applicant and her friend were asked to show their identity cards . PERSON did not have his identity card on him ; however , he gave the policemen his personal details . The applicant refused , saying that she did not have her card on her and that she did not trust the NORP police . Then she said that she would not speak to them any longer and tried to walk away . Subsequently , she was informed that the process of establishing her personal details had not been finished and was warned that coercive measures would be used and that she would be taken to a police station if she persisted in her refusal . Then the policemen took her by both arms and brought her to the police car , parked nearby . The applicant resisted arrest by trying to get away , kicking and shouting . After she was brought to the car , she refused to get in . The CARDINAL policemen called another police car and QUANTITY other policemen arrived . Then the applicant was pushed into the car , laid on the floor and held down by the weight of the policemen 's bodies . While she was being pushed into the car , kicking and shouting , CARDINAL of the policemen was accidently hurt by a walking - length umbrella that the applicant was holding .

Subsequently , the applicant was handcuffed behind her back and taken to the police station . She refused to give a sample of her breath , saying that she suffered from asthma and bronchitis . She was taken to an accident and emergency service , where she refused to undress for a medical examination . Then she was taken to a sobering - up centre where she underwent a breath test , which showed a blood - alcohol level of CARDINAL ‰. The doctor refused to keep the applicant in the sobering - up centre . She was taken back to the police station , where she apparently underwent another breath test . Subsequently she was taken to the police detention centre ( izba zatrzymań ) . As emerges from the record of arrest ( protokół zatrzymania osoby ) the applicant did not appeal against the decision on her arrest and did not ask for a lawyer . She refused to sign the record of arrest .

In the police detention centre a policewoman told the applicant that she had to undress to undergo a body search in order to check whether she had any dangerous objects on her . The applicant refused , but as the policewoman allegedly warned her that she would be undressed by force , she eventually agreed . The applicant was then placed in a cell without a mattress . She had to spend TIME on a concrete floor without her jacket , which had been taken away from her because it had a cord which might serve as a dangerous object . Only after some time was she given a blanket . She was refused permission to go to the toilet .

On DATE , at an unspecified time during DATE , the applicant was released .

On DATE , at CARDINAL , the applicant went to an accident and emergency service in GPE , where she was examined by a doctor .

According to a medical certificate from that examination the applicant had bruises on her chest and both arms , a haematoma on the left arm , bruises on the left hip and a haematoma on her left foot .

There are no discrepancies in the facts until the moment the applicant was asked to show her identity card . She refused , saying that she did not have her card on her , and tried to walk away . Subsequently , she was warned that coercive measures would be used and that she would be taken to a police station if she persisted in her refusal . Then the policemen took her by both arms and brought her to the police car , parked nearby . The applicant resisted arrest by trying to get away , kicking and shouting . After she was brought to the car , she refused to get in . The CARDINAL policemen called another police car and CARDINAL other policemen arrived . They “ helped carry out the intervention ” . When the applicant was in the car , she suddenly hit CARDINAL of the policemen in his mouth with the ferrule of her umbrella .

Alternatively , according to the criminal court which conducted proceedings against the applicant ( see below ) , the applicant had calmed down before being “ put in the car ” . After that she hit CARDINAL of the policemen with her umbrella .

There are no discrepancies as regards facts which occurred in the accident and emergency service and the sobering - up centre .

Subsequently , in the police detention centre , CARDINAL policewomen told the applicant that she had to remove her clothing to undergo a body search . The policewomen , who were questioned later in the course of investigation , said that the strip search had been carried out in accordance with the relevant procedures and denied that it could be humiliating for the applicant .

On an unspecified date the applicant 's lawyer applied to ORG for the prosecution ( wniosek o ściganie ) of the police officers who had arrested the applicant .

On CARDINAL DATE ORG discontinued the investigation , finding that the policemen 's acts did not constitute the offence of abuse of authority . The prosecutor relied on statements given by a number of witnesses , including the applicant 's friend PERSON 's version ” . PERSON however did not see what happened after the applicant had been placed in the police car . He said that only at the police station had he noticed that one of the police officers was hurt on his face and that he had found the wound “ superficial ” . The Prosecutor relied also on an expert opinion produced in the course of the investigation , according to which , as a result of the police intervention on the night in question , the applicant had bruises on both her arms and a haematoma on her left arm , bruises and a haematoma on her left foot , bruises on her left hip and a sprained right wrist . The above symptoms and physical state caused her health to be impaired for a period shorter than DATE within the meaning of LAW . As regards the body search of the applicant , the prosecutor invoked the provisions of LAW and Order no . CARDINAL of the Chief Police Commandant ( Komendant Główny Policji ) of CARDINAL DATE , which provided for the detailed examination of the clothes , shoes and underwear of arrested persons for any objects which could be dangerous to their own or another 's health or life .

On DATE the applicant 's lawyer appealed , asking that the evidence in the file of the criminal proceedings against the applicant , which were pending at that time ( see : “ Criminal proceedings against the applicant ” , below ) , be examined . In the applicant 's lawyer 's view , it was relevant for the present proceedings that the case against the applicant had been remitted by the second - instance court for reexamination . He also wanted the court to compare the evidence given by the police officers in both sets of proceedings . In his appeal the applicant 's lawyer did not refer to the fact that at the police detention centre the applicant had allegedly been refused permission to go to the toilet and that she had had to spend TIME on a concrete floor without any cover .

On DATE ORG ( Sąd Rejonowy ) held a hearing and rejected the applicant 's lawyer 's application . The court found that it was not bound by a judgment given in the criminal proceedings against the applicant and that the question whether or not the applicant had committed the offence of forcibly resisting arrest was irrelevant for the assessment of whether the police officers had abused their authority .

On DATE ORG upheld the prosecutor 's decision .

On an unspecified date the applicant was charged with resisting lawful arrest .

On DATE ORG convicted the applicant as charged and ordered her to pay a fine .

On an unspecified date the applicant 's lawyer appealed .

On DATE ORG ( PERSON ) quashed the first - instance judgment and remitted the case for further examination . The court found that the applicant 's injuries could not have been caused by her being placed in the police car in the way described by the police officers .

On DATE ORG , having re - examined the case , again convicted the applicant and ordered her to pay a fine . ORG did not directly refer to the shortcomings of the proceedings found on appeal by ORG applicant was found guilty of resisting lawful arrest by , inter alia , hitting one of the policemen with an umbrella and hurting his lip and kicking the police officers .

On an unspecified date the applicant 's lawyer appealed again .

On DATE ORG upheld the firstinstance judgment .

The regulations on permissible use of direct coercive measures by the police are laid down in section CARDINAL of LAW , which provides that in situations in which a police order is not obeyed , such measures can be resorted to only in so far as they correspond to the requirements of a particular situation and in so far as they are necessary to obtain compliance with that order .

Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL of the Ordinance of CARDINAL DATE on the use of coercive measures by the police provides that direct physical force can be used to overpower a person , to counter an attack and to ensure compliance with an order . When such force is being used , it is forbidden to strike the person against whom the action is being carried out , except in self - defence or to counter an attack against another person 's life , health or property .

Order no . DATE of the Chief Police Commandant of DATE is neither an act nor a regulation which is published in ORG ) . Thus it is an internal police document and not accessible to the public .

Article CARDINAL of the Criminal Code sets the threshold between minor and more serious bodily injury or impairment to health . According to that provision , if the bodily injury or impairment to health lasts DATE , the perpetrator is subject to a fine , the penalty of restriction of liberty or deprivation of liberty for DATE . In such case the prosecution occurs upon a private charge . If the bodily injury or impairment to health lasts DATE , the perpetrator is liable to a heavier penalty .


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

András Sajó;Françoise Tulkens;Guido Raimondi;Ireneu Cabral Barreto;Kristina Pardalos;Nona Tsotsoria

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

In DATE the applicant was granted a licence to keep a firearm .

On DATE the validity of the licence was extended .

On DATE the applicant submitted a request for a licence to keep another type of firearm .

On DATE police officials decided not to grant a new licence , given that on DATE the applicant had been listed in an “ operational records file ” ( policijos operatyvinė įskaita ) , that is , a database containing information gathered by law - enforcement authorities ( see paragraphs CARDINAL of the ' Relevant domestic law ' below ) .

On DATE the police wrote to the applicant informing him that his licence to keep a pistol and a hunting rifle had been revoked . The applicant was informed that , pursuant to LAW , he was to hand in these firearms to the authorities and would receive money for them .

The applicant instituted court proceedings challenging the entry of his name in the operational records file .

On DATE ORG dismissed his action . The decision was based on classified material submitted by the police and analysed by the judges without it being disclosed to the applicant . The court concluded that the applicant 's listing in the operational records file had been lawful and reasoned , in view of the information about the applicant held by the police .

The applicant appealed , complaining that he had had no access to the operational records file . He alleged that the court had not examined the classified evidence during the hearing , and that it had not assessed whether any parts of that information could have been disclosed to him .

On DATE ORG upheld that decision . The court noted , inter alia , that the impugned evidence was classified as a ORG secret and , although reviewed by the court , could not be disclosed to the applicant .

The Government submitted that in DATE , after the applicant had been granted a new firearms licence , his guns were returned to him .

DATE the LAW provides that the dignity of a human being is to be protected by law . LAW thereof states that the private life of a human being is inviolable and that information concerning a person 's private life may be collected only following a reasoned court decision and only in accordance with the law . The law and the courts are to protect everyone from any arbitrary or unlawful interference with his or her private life or from encroachment upon his or her honour and dignity . LAW provides that property is inviolable and that ownership rights are protected by law . Property may be taken only for the needs of society in accordance with the procedure established by law , and must be fairly compensated . Under LAW , a person whose constitutional rights or freedoms have been violated has the right to apply to a court . LAW provides that each human being may freely choose a job or occupation .

Article CARDINAL of the Law on Operational Activities ( Operatyvinės veiklos įstatymas ) describes the “ operational records file ” as a system of managing data on individuals , events and other targets obtained during operational activities . It is designed to provide information for law - enforcement authorities . Article CARDINAL of the PERSON stipulates that an operational investigation is to be conducted when there is information that a serious crime is being planned or has been committed .

Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of the PERSON on the Control of Arms and Ammunition ( ORG ir šaudmenų kontrolės įstatymas ) provided at the material time that arms and ammunition could not be acquired or possessed by a person who did not have an impeccable reputation . According to LAW ( CARDINAL ) of that PERSON , a person was not regarded as having an impeccable reputation if his or her name had been entered in an operational records file . LAW provided that , after a firearms licence had been revoked , the arms and ammunition were to be taken from the person concerned and sold through ORG ( a ORG agency ) or through other companies authorised to sell them .

Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of the PERSON on ORG ( NORP ir turto saugos įstatymas ) provides that a person whose name is listed in an operational records file is not eligible to work as a security officer .

The relevant part of ORG ( PERSON bylų teisenos įstatymas ) provides as follows :

“ CARDINAL . Evidence in an administrative case is all factual data found admissible by the court hearing the case and based upon which the court finds ... that there are circumstances which justify the claims and rebuttals of the parties to the proceedings and other circumstances which are relevant to the fair disposal of the case , or that there are no such circumstances ...

As a rule , factual data which constitutes a ORG or official secret may not be used as evidence in an administrative case , until the data has been declassified in a manner prescribed by law . ”

In the judgment of DATE in case no . MONEY - CARDINAL , ORG stated , in so far as relevant to the present case , that :

“ as a rule , factual data which constitutes a ORG or official secret may not be used as evidence in an administrative case until it has been declassified ( LAW of LAW ) . Therefore , in the absence of other evidence , the [ lower ] court 's reliance on solely written information provided by ORG which was marked as secret had no legal basis ” .

On DATE ORG adopted a ruling on the compatibility with LAW CARDINAL § CARDINAL of ORG , and LAW and CARDINAL of the Law on State Secrets . It ruled that no decision of a court could be based solely on information which constituted a ORG secret and which had not been disclosed to the parties to the case . In the ruling no . ACARDINAL - CARDINAL/CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE ORG confirmed the above principles .