George Nicolaou;Ineta Ziemele;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Ledi Bianku;Päivi Hirvelä;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 M. PERSON , a lawyer practising in Gdańsk . ORG ( “ the Government ” ) were represented by their Agent , first Mr J. ORG and , subsequently , Ms J. Chrzanowska , both of ORG .

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

On DATE the applicant ’s brother , PERSON was taken by his wife PERSON to the ORG emergency service . He was examined by a doctor and administered an injection . He felt better afterwards and was sent home .

On DATE the applicant ’s brother continued to feel unwell and went to see his ORG . After the examination , the ORG ordered an ambulance to transfer GPE to a hospital in GPE , suspecting that he could be suffering from acute pancreatitis ( inflammation of the pancreas ) . He was admitted to the surgical ward and diagnosed with acute pancreatitis ; however , his condition was considered to be relatively stable . He underwent blood and urine tests on DATE .

On DATE the doctors noticed that the applicant ’s brother started to behave strangely . He was agitated , walked aimlessly around the ward , kicked the doors , disturbed other patients , was aggressive and talked to himself . This behaviour was noted in his medical notes . He was administered tranquilisers . The doctor on duty suggested that the applicant ’s brother ’s behaviour could be related to alcoholism or pesticide poisoning . In TIME that day he again became agitated . He walked down the corridor , kicked the doors , was aggressive and disturbed other patients .

Despite another dose of tranquilisers his condition did not improve . The doctor on duty decided to tie the applicant ’s brother ’s arms to his bed . As the applicant ’s brother managed to free CARDINAL of his arms , it was decided to tie also his legs to the bed . Nonetheless , after TIME he managed to free himself from the belts . He hit CARDINAL of the nurses in the face and hit a window and the walls with a chair . The nurses called for the assistance of male nurses from the emergency service . At TIME a window and jumped out from the seventh floor of the hospital building . He landed on a roof located on the fifth floor and was taken to the intensive care unit . There the doctors established that he had suffered a serious injury to his head and a multiple fracture of his leg . He was operated on immediately .

During TIME to CARDINAL DATE the wife of PERSON was informed by the hospital that her husband had jumped out of the window and was undergoing a trepanation ( surgery to his head ) . The applicant was informed by the doctor on duty that before the jump his brother had shown the symptoms of an alcoholic who had stopped drinking . The same information was given to police officers who arrived at the hospital .

The applicant submitted that the director of the hospital had read out to him the police report concerning the incident . According to the applicant , the police report was based exclusively on the statements from the nurses who had been taking care of the applicant ’s brother . They stated that they had tied him to his bed with security belts . However , he managed to free himself and then jumped out of the window .

The applicant did not believe the version of events as presented by the nurses . The police officers did not hear the patient who shared the room with the applicant ’s brother and who was the only eyewitness to the incident . The applicant spoke to that patient . According to him , the applicant ’s brother had called the nurses for something to drink . He managed to free himself and then struggled for quite some time to open the window in the room . The applicant submitted that the hospital staff had not reacted to the cries of the fellow patient and the noise made by the applicant ’s brother .

On DATE the applicant met the heads of the surgical and intensive care wards and the director of the hospital to hear the explanations for the accident . He was told that his brother had jumped out of the window as a result of an intense psychosis caused by the pancreatitis and that the hospital bore no responsibility for the accident . The applicant was surprised , since this explanation contradicted the previous explanation related to his brother ’s alleged alcoholism .

On DATE the applicant ’s brother died .

On DATE at TIME police officers arrived at the hospital and heard the doctor and the nurse on duty . They also carried out an inspection of the hospital room where the applicant ’s brother had been placed as well as of the window he had jumped through and the place where he had fallen .

On DATE ORG instituted ex officio a formal investigation following PERSON ’s fall from the window . It initially concerned the crime of aiding and abetting suicide specified in LAW . The prosecutor secured all the medical notes concerning PERSON , the prosecutor extended the scope of the investigation . He examined the case from the angle of the hospital staff ’s failure to render adequate assistance to GPE by having failed to make a correct diagnosis and the failure to immobilise him properly , which led to his suicide and the subsequent death . The prosecutor classified those offences as unintentional homicide ( LAW of LAW ) and failure to render assistance to a person in a life - threatening situation ( Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL ) .

On DATE a postmortem examination was carried out . In a report submitted to ORG on DATE a specialist in forensic medicine stated that PERSON had died as a result of acute haemorrhagic pancreatitis .

On DATE the applicant filed a criminal complaint with ORG . He alleged that the hospital staff had not provided adequate care to his brother and , in particular , had allowed him to make an attempt on his life . Furthermore , the injuries which resulted from DATE had limited the treatment of the pancreatitis and led to his death .

In the course of the investigation the prosecutor heard the applicant , the wife of his deceased brother , the doctors , nurses and patients ( including a certain GPE who was placed in the room next to the applicant ’s brother and shared a bathroom with him ) who had been present on TIME to CARDINAL DATE . The prosecutor did not hear the patient who shared the room with the applicant ’s brother since he had died on CARDINAL DATE .

On DATE the prosecutor ordered that ORG of the ORG prepare an opinion for the purposes of the investigation . The experts were asked to consider ( CARDINAL ) whether the treatment of the applicant ’s brother in the hospital had been adequate , ( CARDINAL ) whether the injuries sustained as a result of the fall had hampered the effective treatment of the pancreatitis , and ( CARDINAL ) the cause of the psychotic symptoms shown by the applicant ’s brother and whether the pancreatitis had been caused by pesticides used by him in his greenhouse .

The experts first summarised the condition of the applicant ’s brother and the treatment he received at the hospital , relying on the statements given to the prosecutor by the doctors , nurses , the fellow patient and family members . It transpired from their opinion that following the application of the restraining belts , the applicant ’s brother had been checked by a nurse TIME . They further analysed all of the medical notes on the applicant ’s brother . It transpired that following the fall the applicant ’s brother had been treated both for the related injuries and for the acute pancreatitis . He had undergone CARDINAL operations to his pancreas ( on CARDINAL , DATE and DATE ) .

The experts excluded any link between the pesticides and the sudden occurrence of the pancreatitis . They found that the behaviour of the applicant ’s brother at the hospital had been related to alcoholism or to complications related to the pancreatitis . Clinical experience showed that acute pancreatitis could cause psychological disorders , although that issue had not been fully explored in medical science . The experts concluded that the applicant ’s brother had been adequately treated at all times and that the injuries sustained as a result of DATE from the window had had no impact on the treatment of the acute pancreatitis and thus had had no bearing on his death .

On DATE ORG discontinued the investigation , finding that no offence had been committed . He established the facts concerning PERSON ’s admission to the hospital and his treatment there as stated above ( paragraphs CARDINAL above ) .

NORP The prosecutor relied on the results of the postmortem examination which established that the applicant ’s brother had died as a result of acute haemorrhagic pancreatitis . He further had regard to the conclusions of the expert opinion and evidence given by the witnesses . The prosecutor considered that the expert opinion had been comprehensive and coherent .

NORP The prosecutor further considered the issue of the use of restraining measures by the hospital staff . He established that the use of the belts had been justified and complied with the conditions set out in the PERSON on ORG of DATE as it had been authorised by a doctor . Those measures could be applied in respect of persons with mental disorders who , inter alia , presented a danger to their health or the health of another person . The prosecutor noted that the fact that the applicant ’s brother had been able to free himself from the belts seemed to indicate that the belts had not been correctly applied . However , in the prosecutor ’s view , there was no causal link between the incorrect immobilisation of the applicant ’s brother and the suicide attempt and his subsequent death . The applicant ’s brother had not shown any signs which could have given the impression that he would have attempted to commit suicide .

The prosecutor found no evidence that anyone had aided and abetted the suicide . He considered that there was no causal link between the negligent immobilisation by belts and the fact that the applicant ’s brother jumped out of the window . In the prosecutor ’s view the attempted suicide was the act of GPE alone . Further , there was no evidence of any medical negligence which could have led to the death of the applicant ’s brother .

On DATE the applicant appealed . He argued that the prosecutor should have examined the case under LAW § CARDINAL of LAW ( exposing a person to an immediate danger of loss of life or to a serious impairment of health ) since his brother had been in the care of the hospital and his behaviour prior to the accident had clearly indicated that the lack of appropriate care could expose him to the danger of loss of life or a serious impairment to his health . The applicant submitted that the doctors , having regard to his brother ’s behaviour and the risk of psychotic disorders related to acute pancreatitis , should have provided him with the level of care necessary to prevent the suicide attempt . In his view , the lack of adequate care resulted in the serious impairment of his brother ’s health and then led to his death .

On DATE the applicant supplemented his appeal . He submitted that the prosecutor had wrongly rejected his request to obtain additional evidence in relation to the standard of care provided to his brother , in particular as to whether his brother had been correctly immobilised and the circumstances of his fall from a narrow window . He also argued that the prosecutor had failed to examine whether the injuries sustained by his brother had limited the possibilities of properly treating the pancreatitis , which only exceptionally could be fatal , and subsequently led to his death . In this respect , the expert opinion simply stated that “ the injuries sustained at the time of the fall had no impact on the treatment of the acute pancreatitis ” but did not specify any reasons in support of that finding . In addition , the opinion had been prepared by doctors from the same regional chamber of doctors which called into question their impartiality .

On DATE ORG upheld ORG decision . It found that the evidence obtained in the course of the investigation had been sufficient and the conclusions drawn from it had been correct .

The court rejected the applicant ’s argument as to the erroneous legal classification of the alleged offence . It pointed out that the results of the postmortem examination and the expert opinion had indicated that the applicant ’s brother had died as a result of acute pancreatitis . The court confirmed that PERSON ’s treatment had been adequate and the injuries sustained as a result of the fall had had no impact on the treatment of the pancreatitis . Thus , the prosecutor had correctly found that there had been no causal link between the death of the applicant ’s brother and the alleged negligence of the hospital staff in relation to the immobilisation by belts . In the court ’s view , there were no grounds to consider that the hospital staff could have predicted the behaviour of the applicant ’s brother and his jump from the window , and that their actions had exposed him to the danger of loss of life or a serious impairment to his health .

As regards the expert opinion , the court considered it comprehensive , thorough and clear . Further , it noted that it had been prepared not by CARDINAL expert but by a panel of CARDINAL experts and found no grounds to sustain the applicant ’s allegation as to their lack of impartiality . The court further considered that the applicant ’s request to obtain additional evidence was irrelevant to the outcome of the case . The witnesses heard during the investigation ( the hospital staff and the fellow patients ) had confirmed that the applicant ’s brother had been immobilised by belts . The evidence obtained in the case indicated that the belts may not have been properly used , but this circumstance was not causally connected with the death of the applicant ’s brother .

The relevant provisions of LAW provide as follows :

“ Anyone who unintentionally causes the death of a human being shall be subject to the penalty of deprivation of liberty for a term of DATE . ”

“ CARDINAL . Anyone who exposes a human being to an immediate danger of loss of life , serious bodily injury , or a serious impairment of health shall be subject to the penalty of deprivation of liberty for DATE .

NORP If the perpetrator has a duty to take care of the person exposed to danger , he shall be subject to the penalty of deprivation of liberty for a term of DATE . ”


The applicant was born in DATE and lives in PERSON .

On DATE the applicant was arrested by police officers from the anti - terrorism branch of ORG on suspicion of his membership of ORG ( the Revolutionary Left ) and was taken into police custody .

On DATE he was brought before the investigating judge at ORG , who ordered the applicant 's detention on remand .

On DATE the public prosecutor at ORG filed a bill of indictment against the applicant and CARDINAL other co - accused , charging them , inter alia , with membership of an illegal armed organisation and for participating in activities that undermined the constitutional order of the ORG . The public prosecutor sought the death penalty for the applicant pursuant to LAW .

In DATE ORG were abolished following a constitutional amendment and the applicant 's case was transferred to ORG .

On CARDINAL DATE ORG convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to life imprisonment .

The Court of Cassation quashed the judgment of the first - instance court . The case was remitted before ORG where it is still pending .


The applicant is a NORP national , born in DATE , currently serving a prison sentence in GPE . He is represented before the Court by Ms G.E.M. Later , a lawyer practising in GPE .

A.

On DATE , the partially undressed body of the DATE girl PERSON was found on a path along a railway near allotments in GPE . The post mortem examination carried out on DATE resulted in a finding that it was likely that she had died on DATE TIME from a loss of blood caused by stab wounds . The autopsy conducted on DATE confirmed this finding .

On DATE and DATE respectively , the deputy public prosecutor ( hulpofficier van justitie ) ordered the police to conduct a search of the crime scene and the adjacent allotments . A plaster cast was made of the bicycle tire tracks found at the crime scene . No other traces were found .

On DATE , PERSON gave a statement to the police to the effect that , at TIME , she had seen the victim , a friend of her daughter , sitting on the back of a pink lady ’s bicycle ridden by a man . She gave a description of this man ’s features and clothes .

Given certain factual similarities of the killing of F. and the killing of a young girl in DATE of which the applicant had been found guilty , the police placed him under observation as from DATE . On DATE , upon request of the public prosecutor , a preliminary judicial investigation ( gerechtelijk vooronderzoek ) against the applicant was opened . On DATE , the applicant was arrested and detained on remand . On that occasion the police also seized , amongst other items , a coat and a pink and white lady ’s bicycle found in the applicant ’s home .

The police interrogated the applicant repeatedly . During some of these interrogations in DATE , the interrogating police officers used a specific interrogation technique ; the so - called “ NORP verhoormethode ” . The applicant did not make any confession statement .

Upon the order of the deputy public prosecutor , the ditches in the area of the crime scene were searched on DATE , which resulted in the finding of a blade , apparently broken off a pocket knife . Furthermore , on DATE , a pocket knife with a missing blade was found in a ditch .

On DATE , the forensic laboratory informed the investigating authorities that the bicycle tire tracks found on the crime scene globally corresponded with the rear tire of a bicycle seized in the applicant ’s home , but that no characteristic similarities had been found . The front tire of the bicycle seized did not correspond with the tracks found .

On DATE , the forensic laboratory informed the investigating authorities that fibres discovered in the pocket knife found on DATE corresponded , given the colour and material , with a coat seized in the applicant ’s home and that the blade found on DATE could have caused the stabbing holes in the victim ’s clothes .

According to a report of DATE by the forensic laboratory on the investigation of fibres found on the coat seized in the applicant ’s home on DATE and the coat of the victim , it was very well possible that both coats had been in contact with each other .

At some unspecified point in time , the applicant was summoned to appear before ORG ( Arrondissementsrechtbank ) of GPE on charges in relation to F. ’s killing .

By judgment of DATE , following adversarial proceedings , ORG convicted the applicant of murder and sentenced him to life imprisonment . The applicant filed an appeal with ORG ( Gerechtshof ) of the GPE .

On DATE , ORG took evidence from the applicant , from the witness PERSON and from the expert - witness PERSON , an official of the forensic laboratory .

On DATE , ORG granted the request of the defence to be provided with copies of the tapes of the applicant ’s interrogations by the police . It further ordered the applicant ’s examination at ORG of FAC ( PERSON het GPE ) .

On DATE , ORG rejected a request by the defence to make funds available to the defence in order to enable the defence to commission CARDINAL or more experts .

In its report dated DATE , ORG stated , inter alia , that the applicant was suffering from a serious personality disorder with narcissistic , dependent and anti - social features . It was further found that he was incapable of adequately expressing his aggression and to regulate his aggression when such feelings would emerge . Consequently , his behaviour could be both impulsive and explosive . The report also stated that there continued to be a distinct likelihood of repetition of aggressive behaviour towards women and girls .

On DATE , ORG took evidence from PERSON , a psychologist who had examined the applicant in ORG over a period of DATE . She declared , inter alia , that the applicant ’s examination had disclosed a great discrepancy between his verbal and performal IQ , which expressed itself in the applicant ’s case by a specific disorder , i.e. a nearly total inability to read and write . In her opinion , there were no indications that this disorder caused mental problems in other areas . She stated that , for instance , his capacity for concentration was very good and that he was able to compensate his handicap by a reasonably good memory .

On DATE , ORG took evidence from QUANTITY police officers who had been involved in the applicant ’s interrogations and from Mr PERSON , the communication expert who had assisted the police in their interrogations of the applicant .

By judgment of DATE , following adversarial proceedings , ORG quashed the judgment of DATE , convicted the applicant of homicide and sentenced him to CARDINAL years’ imprisonment with deduction of the time spent in pre - trial detention . In addition , ORG imposed a post - sentence confinement order ( “ ORG - order ” ; terbeschikkingstelling ) with compulsory treatment at public expense ( met bevel tot verpleging van overheidswege ) .

ORG rejected the request by the defence for an adjournment of the court ’s examination in order to seek further evidence from experts as to the applicant ’s mental health , interrogation techniques and the forensic findings . It held on this point that this concerned in fact requests for a counter - expertise and considered that the defence had had sufficient opportunity to obtain this . It concluded that the criminal investigation authorities had carried out sufficient investigations and that it considered itself to be sufficiently informed .

As regards the admissibility of the prosecution , the judgment of DATE , insofar as relevant , reads :

< Translation >

“ The examination of the arguments submitted by the defence consist of CARDINAL parts , those submitted by PERSON ( I ) and those submitted by Ms Later ( II ) .

( I ) . According to PERSON , the public prosecution department must be declared inadmissible in its prosecution , because the actions of the police and the prosecution in the criminal investigation are , to a too large extent , contrary to the requirements of a fair trial .

In the first place , the combination of a ) premature investigatory activities and b ) the manner of interrogation ( use of the “ NORP verhoormethode ” ) constitutes a gross violation of the prohibition of pressure set out in LAW ) and of the requirements of a fair trial ( LAW ) .

Secondly , by keeping secret the use of the “ NORP verhoormethode ” and the calling in of the expert PERSON , the finding of truth has suffered to such an extent that , also on that ground , it can no longer be held that there has been a fair trial .

As from DATE , the suspect has been observed for DATE , during which several “ indications ” have been gathered . This observation was an unlawful act of investigation , as on that moment the suspicion of guilt was absolutely insufficient . The suspicion of < the applicant > was only based on the fact that there appeared to be similarities in the modus operandi between the present fact and the fact of DATE . This comparison is , however , incorrect .

CARDINAL.b . Although the defence suspects that the “ NORP verhoormethode ” has been used as from the outset , the objections of the defence are aimed in particular at the interrogations having taken place on DATE and DATE under the direction of PERSON . At the beginning of the interrogation on DATE , the birthday of the suspect ’s daughter who is about the same age as the victim ( creative extension of the collage of photographs of family and victim ) , TIME are spent talking about trivialities . Subsequently the thumbscrews are tightened and the suspicion is brought up . By sitting close to the < suspect > , by the ORG encircling of the < suspect > , unbridled pressure is exerted on the < suspect>. Despite the emotionally deplorable situation of the suspect , the interrogators have pursued the interrogations in as much as possible . The particular personality features of the suspect have in no way been taken into account .

This manner of interrogation is unlawful and in violation of the prohibition of pressure .

ORG According to the defence , the police and justice < department > consider the named PERSON as an expert . His appointment only becomes apparent in the public prosecutor ’s official report of DATE ; also the investigation judge , who was aware of the calling in of PERSON , has remained silent about this . Both the police officers involved and the investigation judge should have recorded in TIME the activities of PERSON - the judge ( and also the defence ) need to be enabled to verify the application of methods and means of investigation - and further PERSON should have made a report . …

The court rejects these arguments .

Ad CARDINAL.a . The following has appeared during the trial :

On DATE , near the allotments complex Loolaan … in GPE , the victim was found , the upper part < of the body > dressed , jeans and underpants pulled down . She was killed by a large number of stab wounds , no traces of sexual violence were found . A partially broken off bush was found at a distance of QUANTITY . The girl had been seen TIME with a man < sitting > on the back of a bicycle . On DATE , CARDINAL of the police officers involved in the investigation checked the police administration for facts that , qua modus operandi , were similar to the present case . He found the following : In DATE , in the dunes near … , a DATE girl was found dead , she was partially undressed , pants and underpants had been pulled down . She had been killed by stab wounds , no traces of sexual violence were found . The girl was covered with branches . In relation to these facts , the accused was placed at the Government ’s disposal ( ter beschikking PERSON gesteld ) .

It was subsequently determined that the applicant ’s home is located at a distance of QUANTITY from the < present > crime scene . CARDINAL police officers involved in the investigation … on DATE … saw the applicant looking outside through the window < of his home > and found that he resembled a composition drawing made on the basis of a witness statement . The court considers that the foregoing constituted a sufficient suspicion of guilt for further investigatory activities against the suspect . In that context … the suspect was observed for some time on CARDINAL and DATE . … There is no question of a premature prosecution activity , so that the < applicant ’s > observation by the police neither in itself nor in combination with the manner of interrogation constitutes a violation as argued .

Ad CARDINAL.b . As to this < point > the following has appeared during the trial :

In DATE PERSON , a communication expert , has become involved in the case because the team that interrogated the accused had internal problems and because the investigation had reached deadlock .

In DATE of CARDINAL and DATE PERSON has spoken for the first time with the team and has offered his assistance in the interrogation of the suspect . The only time he had available for this was DATE . In DATE , the suspect has been interrogated at length during which the team members sat close to him . In an adjacent room , the interrogation was watched and listened to by PERSON , who drew the police ORG attention to various communication signals . During this interrogation use was made of collages of photographs in which , inter alia , CARDINAL photographs of the suspect ’s family members were displayed around a photograph of the victim . The court considers this use of family photographs in a collage of this kind contrary to the requirements of a fair trial . The infringement of these requirements thus made is - also in the light of the exceptional seriousness of the fact - in the court ’s opinion neither in itself nor in connection with what has appeared in respect of the interrogations of such gravity that this should lead to the inadmissibility of the prosecution .

Ad CARDINAL . It has not appeared from the case - file or otherwise that the police and justice < department > ( and the investigating judge ) considered PERSON as an expert within the meaning of LAW . A report by PERSON is therefore not required .

The court further considers that - apart from the question whether this was required - that the suspect ’s rights have not been neglected as argued by the failure to mention the assistance by PERSON , as the use of the contested collage of photographs appears already sufficiently from the case - file .

Counsel has referred in various places , in support of his pleadings , to LAW and the case - law of ORG . Also considered along those lines , the court does not reach other findings than those set out above .

( II ) Apparently in the context of her primary argument that the public prosecution should be declared inadmissible , counsel Ms Later , in addition to what PERSON has already submitted in relation to ORG , has argued that in this case various other provisions of the Convention have been violated .

a ) Counsel has placed the manner of interrogation of the suspect by the police and the use of the so - called method “ Hoenderdos ” in the context of LAW ; inhuman treatment .

d ) Article CARDINAL para . CARDINAL sub b would be violated because the defence has insufficient facilities . This provision is submitted in conjunction with

e ) Article CARDINAL para . CARDINAL , access to court , which provision is violated because , for lack of financial means , the suspect has in fact not been enabled to defend himself in the proceedings .

f ) By the withholding of information , in particular information about the method “ Hoenderdos ” , the principle of fair trial and in particular < the principle of > equality of arms , Article CARDINAL para . CARDINAL , has been violated , also by the public prosecutor ’s selection of investigation data , the public prosecutor ’s approaching of the judges’ chamber about a judicial on - site inspection and the conducting of a search of the LOC of ORG for FAC without informing the defence of this .

g ) Finally a violation of LAW is argued , because there was insufficient indication of guilt , so that the < suspect ’s > situation of detention must be considered as contrary to this provision .

Ad a. The court has already expressed itself about the use of the method “ Hoenderdos ” in the present case and the consequences to be attached to this .

Noting the seriousness of the act committed , the court considers the intensity of the interrogations not of such a nature that these < interrogations > justify the qualification of inhuman treatment .

Ad d and e. After the preparation of the case before the court , it has been examined for the first time on DATE . Subsequently , on CARDINAL DATE and CARDINAL DATE , further examinations on the substance have taken place . Taking into account that the case must be dealt with within a reasonable time , the court considers that the defence has been provided with sufficient facilities during that period to investigate what it wished to investigate .

The counter - investigations at the expense of < the > justice < department > , as wished by the suspect , have been refused by the court , since the contention that the suspect has a right to a counter - expertise at the ORG ’s expense finds no support in the law . On that ground , the absence of facilities and financial means can not have as consequence the inadmissibility of the prosecution .

Ad f. It has not been established that information , essential for his defence , has been withheld from the suspect . As to the withholding of information about the method “ Hoenderdos ” the court refers to it remarks already stated above . It has also not been established … that there has been an unbalanced compilation of the case - file . That the defence was not informed of a request by the prosecutor for a judicial on - site inspection and < that the defence > has not been informed , prior or during this search , of the search of the LOC of ORG for ORG can not lead to the inadmissibility of the prosecution . The circumstances are thereto of insufficient weight .

Ad g. In the light of the following decision of the court , this < point > does not warrant examination . ”

ORG based the applicant ’s conviction on , inter alia , his evidence to the trial courts , statements made by the witness PERSON to the police and the court , and on police and forensic reports . On the basis of the cruelty of the facts , the applicant ’s diminished responsibility at the time of the offence and the high risk that the applicant would repeat aggressive behaviour towards women and girls , ORG decided to impose not only a criminal sanction but also a post - sentence confinement order with compulsory treatment at public expense .

The applicant ’s subsequent appeal in cassation was rejected by ORG ( PERSON ) on DATE .

As to the applicant ’s complaint that ORG had unjustly held that there had been a fair trial and equality of arms between the public prosecution and the defence , ORG held that ORG had correctly found that the use of the “ NORP verhoormethode ” was incompatible with the requirements of a fair trial . It further accepted as correct ORG findings as to the question whether there were sufficient suspicions against the applicant to justify further investigatory measures .

As regards the manner in which the applicant had been interrogated by the police , ORG did not exclude that , under certain circumstances , unlawful activities of the criminal investigation and prosecution authorities could result in such a serious violation of the principles of a fair trial that these should lead to the inadmissibility of the prosecution . However , such a far reaching sanction could only follow where it would concern serious violations of those principles by , deliberately or with gross negligence , disrespecting the suspect ’s interests in his right to a fair hearing of his case . In the impossibility to give a general rule on this point , this question needed to be examined on a case to case basis .

After having noted ORG findings in the present case as to the interrogations at issue and in particular the specific part which ORG had correctly found to be in violation of the requirements of a fair trial , ORG accepted ORG conclusion that these interrogations were not of such a nature that it should result in the inadmissibility of the prosecution .

ORG further considered the applicant ’s complaint that the defence had not sufficiently been enabled to avail itself of investigatory possibilities in that ORG had rejected his request to make funds available to him in order to allow him to take initiatives aimed at obtaining a counter - expertise whereas he did not have any funds himself to do so . He explained that he had wished to submit counter - expert evidence in relation to the investigation made of his personality , on some material evidence and on the interrogation method used by the police .

ORG noted that the applicant had had several possibilities during the pre - trial stage of the proceedings to obtain , at the ORG ’s expense , further investigations and further counter - expert evidence . ORG further noted that the experts , who had carried out an examination of the applicant ’s personality or the material evidence , had been heard before the trial court and that the defence had been able to put questions to them . As regards the interrogation technique used by the police , ORG noted that the applicant ’s statements used in evidence were statements given either before the investigating judge or before the trial court .

ORG held that , in these circumstances , ORG rejection of the applicant ’s requests for further expert evidence on the basis of a finding that the investigation had been sufficient could not be regarded as unreasonable . It further considered that ORG had correctly held that the applicant ’s contention that the ORG has to bear the costs of any investigation requested by the defence , in its generality , is not supported by the law and that this is not in conflict with LAW .

The ORG court also considered that ORG had rejected on correct grounds the arguments raised by the defence about withholding information to the defence and the compilation of the case - file .

B. Relevant background and domestic law

DATE of LAW , insofar as relevant , reads :

< Translation >

" CARDINAL . In all cases where a person is heard as a suspect , the questioning judge or civil servant shall refrain from everything which could have the effect of obtaining a statement of which it could be said it was not freely made . The suspect is not obliged to answer .

Before the hearing the suspect is informed that he is not obliged to answer .

On DATE , following the national broadcast of a television programme in which the “ NORP verhoormethode ” was discussed , a Member of ORG put questions about this interrogation technique to the Minister of ORG , who decided to seek the views of ORG ( PERSON ; hereinafter “ ORG ” ) as to the lawfulness and functionality of this method .

On DATE , the Minister of Justice informed ORG that , once she would have taken notice of the final outcome of CARDINAL trials in which the lawfulness of this method had been raised as well as the ORG advice , she would take a final decision as to the acceptability of this interrogation technique . In the meantime , she had instructed the public prosecution department to suspend the use of this technique . In DATE , in conformity with the advice contained in the ORG report of DATE , the Minister of ORG decided to prohibit the use of the “ NORP verhoormethode ” .

The PERSON report describes the “ NORP verhoormethode ” as an interrogation technique based on the so - called CASE CARDINAL ( ORG CARDINAL ) communication method . The method was developed by a communication expert and was further elaborated for police practices .

CASE DATE is described in the report as a communication method focussing in particular on the way in which a person internally perceives the outside world . The application of the CASE CARDINAL technique allows to obtain a very accurate picture of the behaviour of a person and the internal processes on which this behaviour is based , thus enabling to communicate effectively ( a correct statement by the suspect ) and efficiently ( within a short time ) .

The CASE CARDINAL technique is based on ORG ( ORG ) ; originally a form of psychotherapy . ORG has been defined as “ the study of the structure of subjective experience ” . ORG provides a model of human behaviour and communication which answers questions like “ How does a person behave in relation to his environment , how does he take in information and how does he process this information ? ” An interrogation according to the CASE CARDINAL communication method is aimed at the creation of a tie between the suspect and interrogators through which an optimal communication must become possible and thus to attain the truth via communication .

The actual interrogation is prepared by planning certain steps to be taken during the interrogation . This planning includes , amongst other things , the allocation of individual roles ( father figure , specialist , analyst , person of confidence ) to each member of the interrogation team . Furthermore , a preliminary meeting with the suspect takes place in order to find out which pattern of thought ( in detail or global ) he uses and what his “ focal points ” are , i.e. to what points he looks when he is not specifically asked to look at something . A determination of “ focal points ” is relevant for the making of “ visual chronological lines ” .

In having the suspect draw ( visual ) chronological lines during the interrogation , it is attempted to verify when what has taken place . This takes place , inter alia , by making a suspect relive an experience in his mind . If a suspect has a auditive preference , there is a bigger chance of communication and a reliving when he is made to listen to recordings , like telephone conversations . Has the suspect a sensory preference , the chance of communication is bigger when having him touch an object found at the crime scene , whereas in case of a visual preference , he can be shown photographs of the crime scene .

In case a suspect has a “ focal point ” on a particular spot on a wall , it is possible to place photographs there . He will unconsciously look at them after which , as the intention is , he will remember facts insofar as he has been responsible for them . The showing of photographs includes both photographs connected to the offence and photographs linked to the suspect ’s person , like photographs of his spouse or children . These CARDINAL kinds of photographs are either shown separately or combined with each other .

The interrogation team leader and the external communication expert watch and listen to the interrogation in another room . There are CARDINAL hidden cameras covering the entire interrogation room and CARDINAL hidden camera aimed at the suspect ’s face . The suspect is informed that the interrogations are recorded but does not know where the cameras are . The interrogators receive instructions via earphones from the team leader or the external communication expert during the interrogation . The interrogation is constantly adapted to the suspect ’s behaviour . The suspect ’s non - verbal communication is followed and whether his behaviour is congruent , i.e. whether his body language is in conformity with his verbal expressions . Other features of this interrogation technique are the copying of a suspect ’s physical behaviour which is intended to reassure the suspect and the so - called “ pushing in ” , i.e. to push CARDINAL by CARDINAL and at a deliberate moment the chairs of each interrogator close to the suspect until in the end all interrogators sit intimately around the suspect .

The interrogations are conducted within DATE , lasting on average TIME per day depending on how the interrogation proceeds .

Under Article CARDINAL - e of LAW , a trial court may - in addition to a criminal sanction and if the protection of public order so requires - issue a confinement order ( ORG order ) in respect of a perpetrator of an offence , who has been found guilty and who has been found to have a mental disorder and to be dangerous . A ORG order can include a separate order for compulsory treatment at public expense .


CASE OF ATANASOVSKI v. "THE FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA"

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

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

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE . He worked for “ GPE za domakinstvo ” , a socially - owned company which was DATE restructured under the ORG ’s decision of DATE allowing its transformation .

On DATE the applicant was reassigned to the post of technologist with the stated aim of increasing productivity and efficiency and improving operations .

On DATE the applicant brought a civil action seeking to have the reassignment annulled since , in DATE with the same employer , he had never worked as a technologist .

On DATE ORG ( “ the first - instance court ” ) dismissed the applicant ’s claim . On DATE ORG quashed this decision ordering the lower court to examine what had been the applicant ’s status with the employer ; whether and how had the bankruptcy proceedings , initiated meanwhile against the employer , affected the applicant ’s employment and whether the employer had been restructured .

On DATE the first - instance court annulled the employer ’s decision of CARDINAL DATE dismissing the applicant ( in respect of which the applicant had brought a separate action ) . According to the Government , in these proceedings the applicant had sought to have the proceedings concerning his reassignment suspended .

On DATE the applicant ’s claim was upheld at first instance . The court held that although the reassignment decision had referred to the relevant provisions of LAW and LAW ( see “ Relevant domestic laws ” below ) it had not provided the applicant with concrete reasons for his reassignment . In this connection , it stated that section CARDINAL of LAW had been of a declaratory nature without providing any concrete reason for reassignment . On DATE ORG quashed this decision finding that the reassignment decision had provided reasons for the applicant ’s reassignment . However , it ordered the first - instance court to determine whether the reassignment had been justified .

On DATE the first - instance court , deciding the case for the third time , upheld the applicant ’s claim and annulled the reassignment decision . The court established that the applicant had worked for the same employer since DATE in different posts and that no concrete reasons had been given for his reassignment . In this latter respect , it referred to a court annulment , for lack of concrete reasons , of the reassignment of Mr R.V. , the applicant ’s colleague , which had been based on the same grounds , as the applicant ’s ( see paragraph CARDINAL above , П.бр. CARDINAL/CARDINAL of DATE ) . Noting that the reassignment decision had been rendered under LAW and LAW of ORG , it stated , inter alia ,

“ ... in case of reassignment , an employee should be provided with a reasoned decision in writing so that he or she can protect his or her rights and the court may review its lawfulness . In the present case , the disputed decision does not set out any reasonable ground , which implies that the employer had not established the need for the [ applicant ’s ] reassignment . If no reasonable grounds are provided , the reassignment of any employee , including the [ applicant ] , is unlawful . [ The employer ] has only quoted the terms for reassignment , as specified in LAW , without providing any reasonable ground ... ”

The court also concluded that the reassignment had been unjustified given the applicant ’s age and lack of experience required for the new post .

On DATE ORG dismissed the employer ’s appeal and upheld the lower court ’s decision . It stated , inter alia :

“ ... the reassignment decision does not set out any reasons . The employer has merely referred to ORG objectives of increasing the productivity and efficiency of the applicant and for work organisation purposes . It does not mean that by mere reference to these grounds , the employer has established the need for the [ applicant ’s ] reassignment ... It means that [ the applicant ] was reassigned to a post which does not correspond to his work experience ... ”

On DATE ORG allowed an appeal on points of law submitted by the employer on DATE and overturned the lower courts’ decisions . It held that they had wrongly applied national law . Referring to section CARDINAL of LAW and LAW of ORG , it found that the employer had been entitled to assess the need for reassignment - which would be well - founded only if an employee was reassigned to a post commensurate with his or her vocational capacity . It further held that the issue as to whether the employee would be more efficient in the new post went beyond the scope of judicial review . It concluded that :

“ Concerning the grounds for reassignment provided in the [ disputed ] decision , the court considers that it is sufficient to state one of the terms specified in LAW . The disputed decision meets this requirement ... ”

Under LAW , ORG is the highest court providing uniformity in the implementation of laws by the courts .

Section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of LAW ( ORG за работните односи ) , as in force at the material time , provided that in cases where collective agreements applied , an employee could be reassigned to any post commensurate with his or her vocational capacity .

Under LAW of LAW , an employee may be reassigned to a post commensurate with his or her qualifications with a view to , inter alia , improving efficiency .

Section CARDINAL provided , inter alia , that the court should take into consideration the need for the urgent settlement of employment disputes .

In CARDINAL decisions of DATE and CARDINAL , ORG ruled that employers were required to give concrete reasons for reassignment and that mere reference to section CARDINAL of LAW and LAW of the collective agreement was insufficient unless concrete facts , circumstances and grounds were provided for the reassignment ( ORG decisions of DATE ( Рев.бр.CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) and DATE ( NORP ) ) .

In DATE and DATE , ORG ruled that under section CARDINAL of LAW , it was sufficient that the new post corresponded to the qualifications of the person concerned . Only employers , and not the courts , were entitled to assess the need for reassignment and employers were not required to provide concrete reasons ( ORG decisions of DATE ( Рев.бр.CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) and DATE ( Рев.бр.CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) ) .


Anatoly Kovler;Christos Rozakis;Elisabeth Steiner;George Nicolaou;Giorgio Malinverni;Khanlar Hajiyev

The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in PERSON , in LOC . ORG ( “ the Government ” ) were represented by Mr PERSON , ORG at ORG .

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

On DATE the applicant brought a court action against a ORG enterprise “ NORP Railway ” ( ORG железная дорога FAC ) , his former employer . He sought reinstatement in his job , lost wages and non - pecuniary damages .

By a decision of DATE , ORG of Novokuznetsk ( “ ORG ” ) refused to open the proceedings on the ground that it lacked jurisdiction . On DATE , on the applicant ’s appeal , ORG ( “ ORG ” ) quashed that decision and remitted the case to the first - instance court .

On DATE ORG held a preparatory meeting . The first hearing on the merits was scheduled for DATE . Owing to the respondent ’s failure to appear , it was adjourned until DATE .

On DATE ORG , on the motion by the respondent , decided to transfer the applicant ’s case to another district court of Novokuznetsk . On DATE ORG quashed that decision and remitted the case to the first - instance court .

Of the CARDINAL hearings held DATE and DATE , CARDINAL were adjourned owing to the respondent ’s failure to appear , CARDINAL at the request of the respondent and CARDINAL at the request of the applicant .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s action . On DATE , on the applicant ’s appeal , ORG quashed the judgment and remitted the case to ORG for fresh examination .

Having received the case file , on DATE ORG held a preparatory meeting . In the period DATE and DATE the court scheduled CARDINAL hearings on the merits . CARDINAL of them were adjourned on the ground of the respondent ’s failure to appear , CARDINAL owing to the default by the applicant ’s representative and CARDINAL because of the applicant ’s illness . CARDINAL hearings were adjourned at the request of the respondent who asked the court to summon and examine additional witnesses and to obtain certain documentary evidence . CARDINAL hearings were adjourned pending receipt of the documents .

On DATE another presiding judge took charge of the case .

By a decision of DATE , ORG discontinued the proceedings on the grounds that the respondent company had been liquidated . The applicant appealed . On DATE ORG quashed the decision of DATE and remitted the case to ORG for fresh examination .

The preparatory hearing scheduled for DATE was adjourned because neither party appeared in court . The CARDINAL followed hearings did not take place owing to the default by the respondent ’s representative .

By a decision of DATE , ORG ordered that a joint - stock company “ NORP railways ” ( ORG « Российские железные дороги ORG ) entered in the proceedings as a co - respondent .

By a decision of DATE , the court transferred the dispute to a court in another town where the head office of the new party was situated . The applicant appealed . On DATE ORG quashed the decision of DATE and remitted the case to ORG . The appeal court also indicated that the proceedings before the first - instance court had exceeded a reasonable time .

The first hearing after ORG received the case file was scheduled for DATE . It was , however , postponed until DATE because of the presiding judge ’s mission to another town . Of the CARDINAL subsequent hearings , CARDINAL was adjourned owing to the parties’ failure to appear in court , CARDINAL at the request of the respondent to summon additional witnesses , one because of the illness of the respondent ’s lawyer and CARDINAL at the request of the applicant ’s lawyer .

On DATE the ORG delivered a judgment by which it ordered that the applicant be reinstated in his job and the “ NORP railways ” pay him lost wages , non - pecuniary damages and legal costs and expenses .

On DATE the respondent brought its appeal . DATE , on DATE , the appeal was withdrawn . The proceedings were discontinued and the judgment of DATE became final .


Violation of Art. 6-1;Violation of Art. 13

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE . He is retired .

On DATE the applicant bought a motorbike , produced in GPE . The motorbike was sold by a NORP dealer company under a service warranty . DATE the motorbike got out of order . The service centre , indicated by the dealer company , refused to repair the motorbike .

On DATE the applicant brought an action against CARDINAL defendants : the dealer company , the factory having produced the motorbike , based in GPE , the service centre , and ORG . On DATE ORG ordered the dealer company to pay damages to the applicant . The defendant appealed . On DATE the ORG quashed the judgment and remitted the case to the first instance court .

NORP In DATE hearings were adjourned on CARDINAL occasions due to both parties’ failure to appear , on QUANTITY occasions – due to the defendant ’s failure to appear , and on QUANTITY occasions – because of the judge having been busy with other cases . Finally , on DATE ORG severed the applicant ’s claims against the service centre . At the same time the court dismissed the applicant ’s claims against the dealer company . On DATE ORG upheld this judgment . The proceedings against the service centre continued .

In the proceedings against the service centre no hearings were held DATE and DATE . In DATE the examination of the case was adjourned on CARDINAL occasions due to the defendant ’s failure to appear .

By a default judgment of DATE ORG held against the service centre awarding the applicant damages in the amount of MONEY ( RUR ) . Since no appeal followed within the time - limits established by law , on DATE the judgment became final . The court issued an execution warrant and opened the enforcement proceedings .

On DATE the defendant lodged an appeal seeking , inter alia , to restore the time - limits allowed for the appeal . On DATE the court decided to restore the time - limits and accepted the statement of appeal for examination on the merits . In the meantime RUR CARDINAL were recovered from the service centre on the account of the amount due to the applicant under the judgment of DATE .

By the decision of CARDINAL DATE ORG quashed the judgment of DATE , stating that the first instance court had failed to properly notify the defendant about the hearings . The case was remitted to the first instance court for new examination .

By a judgment of DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s action against the service centre . The court also ordered the applicant to reimburse the amount recovered from the service centre pursuant to the judgment of DATE .

On DATE ORG lodged with ORG an appeal on behalf of the applicant . On DATE ORG quashed the decision of DATE and remitted the case to the first instance .

After the remittal of the case , the proceedings were stayed for a certain period of time . Within this period higher judicial authorities were examining the materials of the case - file for the purpose of bringing a supervisory review appeal against the decision of CARDINAL September CARDINAL . However , no supervisory review proceedings followed .

The first hearing on the merits was scheduled for DATE . However , on this date the court decided to adjourn the case for DATE due to the plaintiff ’s failure to appear . In the subsequent DATE the examination of the case was adjourned on CARDINAL occasions due to the defendants’ failure to appear or the absence either of the presiding judge ( adjourned from DATE until DATE ) or the lay judges ( adjourned from DATE until DATE ) .

In a letter of DATE , the Vice - President of ORG informed the President of ORG that the applicant ’s claim against the producer factory remained unresolved since DATE .

On DATE the first instance court , by a default judgment , satisfied the applicant ’s claim against the producer factory and rejected his claim against the dealer company .

The producer factory appealed against this judgment . On DATE ORG quashed the judgment of DATE and remitted the case to the first instance .

In DATE the case was adjourned several times . Thus , on DATE the case was adjourned due to the defendant ’s failure to appear . On DATE the court adjourned the case , ordering the plaintiff ( the applicant ) to clarify his claims , in particular , to indicate the amounts of damages claimed from each defendant . On DATE the case was adjourned because of the judge having been busy with another case .

NORP In DATE the applicant complained about the length of proceedings to ORG . In a reply letter of DATE the Vice - President of ORG acknowledged that since DATE the dispute remained unresolved . The Vice - President reassured the applicant that ORG would take charge of this case .

On DATE the applicant requested the court to adjourn the next hearing because of his absence from GPE at the relevant dates . On DATE the case was adjourned until DATE .

On DATE the first instance court dismissed the applicant ’s complaints against the service centre and the producer factory . The court found that , although the name and address of the service centre had been indicated by the dealer company in the guarantee slip , there existed no contract imposing an obligation on the service centre to repair defective goods sold by the dealer company . As to the producer factory , based in GPE , the court found that under the applicable GPE law the producer could not have been held liable directly before the consumer of the goods . On DATE ORG upheld this decision .

Article CARDINAL of the Code of Civil Procedure of DATE ( in force at the material time ) provides that the first instance court decision on the merits of the case can be appealed against ( обжалованы в кассационном порядке ) by the parties or other participants of the proceedings .


The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in GPE . He is a former military prosecutor and head of the legal firm “ GPE and Partners ” . The respondent Government are represented by PERSON , former Representative of ORG at ORG .

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

On DATE ORG of ORG instituted criminal proceedings against the applicant and CARDINAL other persons on suspicion of several counts of aggravated bribery . The applicant appears to have been immediately notified of the charges against him . In DATE the investigation was completed and the applicant was served with the bill of indictment and committed to stand trial before ORG of FAC .

On DATE ORG of FAC found the applicant guilty of bribery and sentenced him to DATE imprisonment . The judgment was not appealed against and became final .

The applicant was released on probation by a decision of ORG of GPE on DATE .

On DATE the Military Section of ORG of GPE quashed the judgment of DATE by way of supervisory - review proceedings and remitted the case for fresh examination to ORG of FAC .

On DATE ORG of ORG received the case file . The first hearing was scheduled for DATE .

Of the CARDINAL hearings fixed DATE and DATE , CARDINAL were adjourned because witnesses failed to appear and CARDINAL hearings were postponed because a new prosecutor had been assigned to the case and he needed time to study the case file .

On DATE ORG of FAC held that since LAW had entered into force on DATE it no longer had competence to examine the applicant ’s case and it sent the case to ORG of ORG . On DATE that decision was quashed on supervisory review by the ORG of ORG of ORG . The case was then sent back to ORG of FAC for trial .

On DATE the Military Section of ORG of GPE , by way of supervisory review , decided that the case was within the competence of ORG of ORG , quashed the decision of DATE and restored the decision of DATE .

On DATE ORG of ORG scheduled a preliminary hearing for DATE . In the meantime , the applicant had asked the trial court to stay the proceedings , citing his poor state of health and lack of resources to travel to GPE where trial hearings were to take place . ORG re - scheduled the hearing for DATE .

On DATE the applicant again informed ORG that he was unable to attend and made another request for a stay . DATE ORG examined his request and decided to proceed with the examination of the case . The hearing was fixed for DATE .

DATE and DATE ORG held CARDINAL hearings . The applicant failed to appear once .

On DATE ORG of ORG acquitted the applicant .

On DATE ORG of GPE quashed that judgment and remitted the case for re - examination .

On DATE ORG scheduled a hearing for DATE and sent a telegram to the applicant , who resided in GPE , informing him of the date and time of the hearing . In addition , summonses to the hearing were sent by registered mail . The telegram reached the applicant ’s home on DATE . The summonses were served on him on DATE . DATE ORG received a telegram from the applicant ’s father notifying the trial court that the applicant had been admitted to hospital for treatment and that he was therefore unable to get to PERSON to take part in the trial . Medical documents confirming the applicant ’s father ’s statement were sent to ORG by mail .

On DATE ORG stayed the proceedings until DATE because the applicant had not appeared for the hearing and his presence was mandatory . DATE a telegram was sent to the applicant informing him that a hearing was scheduled for DATE . He was also notified that his presence was required and that he would be forcibly escorted to the court if he failed to attend .

On DATE ORG received a telegram from the applicant ’s father informing it that the applicant was undergoing treatment in a hospital in GPE and that he could not get to GPE to participate in the trial . DATE ORG received medical documents confirming that information .

The next hearing was scheduled for CARDINAL DATE and the applicant was duly summoned to it . ORG also sent telegrams to ORG of ORG and the head of ORG enquiring about the applicant ’s state of health and his ability to participate in the trial .

The applicant did not attend the hearing on DATE , citing his admission to hospital , and a hearing was scheduled for DATE .

On DATE ORG received a telegram from the applicant notifying it that he had been discharged from hospital on DATE . At the same time the applicant stressed that he required out - patient treatment for DATE and would therefore be unable to get to PERSON until DATE . DATE the court received copies of medical documents corroborating the applicant ’s assertion . The applicant also submitted copies of letters from ORG showing that his application form and subsequent letters had been received by the ORG .

On DATE ORG held a hearing . When the applicant did not appear for the hearing the trial court rescheduled the hearing for DATE . On DATE ORG received a copy of the applicant ’s medical history . The applicant did not attend the hearing on DATE and the proceedings were stayed until DATE .

On DATE the applicant informed ORG that a military medical commission had examined him and had found that he needed to continue medical treatment for DATE . The applicant sent a copy of the commission ’s report to the trial court by mail .

In response to the information received from the applicant , ORG stayed the proceedings until DATE and sent a letter to ORG of ORG and ORG asking them to confirm the applicant ’s assertion that he was unfit to take part in the proceedings . On DATE ORG replied that the applicant required hospital treatment for DATE .

ORG rescheduled the hearing for DATE and once again requested information on the applicant ’s health . In addition , it asked the head of ORG and the head of ORG of GPE to provide assistance in securing the applicant ’s presence at the trial hearings .

On DATE ORG received a letter from the head of ORG of GPE . The letter read as follows :

“ In response to your [ letter ] about [ the applicant ’s ] failure to attend the hearing in GPE , [ I ] inform you that :

[ The applicant ] was treated in [ hospital ] from DATE , from CARDINAL DATE and from DATE to DATE . The admissions to hospital were well - founded ; the copies of the medical documents issued by [ the hospital ] and presented to you are authentic .

Subsequently [ the applicant ] continued to be monitored by [ the hospital ] . This monitoring was done without his being granted sick leave , as the hospital did not record any acute attacks of his chronic diseases during the monitoring period . The copies of documents issued by [ the hospital ] and submitted by you are authentic ; however , they do not indicate that [ the applicant ] was incapacitated only temporarily . [ The applicant ’s ] state of health and his out - patient treatment did not prevent his presence at the hearings in GPE . [ The applicant ] is not currently being monitored by [ the hospital ] . ”

On DATE ORG held a hearing which the applicant attended . DATE and DATE ORG scheduled CARDINAL hearings , of which CARDINAL were adjourned because the applicant failed to appear and CARDINAL was postponed at the request of a co - defendant who had to attend the funeral of a close relative .

Of the CARDINAL hearings fixed between DATE and DATE , CARDINAL hearings were postponed because the applicant did not attend , CARDINAL were adjourned because a co - defendant did not attend , and CARDINAL was rescheduled so that one of the witnesses could attend .

On DATE ORG of ORG discontinued the criminal proceedings against the applicant and relieved him of criminal liability as the statutory limitation period had expired . The judgment was not appealed against and became final .


Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 34 - Individual applications (Article 34 - Hinder the exercise of the right of petition);Non-pecuniary damage - award;Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed

Anatoly Kovler;Elisabeth Steiner;Erik Møse;Khanlar Hajiyev;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Peer Lorenzen

NORP The applicants’ names and dates of birth are listed in the annex to the present judgment . They live in PERSON , GPE .

The applicants are former and current teachers at the boarding school for orphans and children deprived of parental care in PERSON , GPE ( « GPE средняя школа-интернат для детей-сирот и детей , оставшихся без попечения родителей PERSON ) . By virtue of a provision in the national law they were entitled to a DATE allowance for purchase of books and magazines ( компенсация за книгоиздательскую продукцию и периодические издания ) which had not been paid to them for DATE .

The applicants applied to a court seeking recovery of the unpaid allowance .

On DATE the Justice of Peace of Court Circuit no . CARDINAL of PERSON in LOC granted the applicants’ claim for the unpaid allowance and held that ORG of ORG should reimburse them various amounts .

On DATE the ORG of GPE upheld that judgment on appeal .

Following an unspecified period during which the judgment remained unenforced , the applicants allegedly applied to a court for indexlinking of the awards due to the inflation but had their claims rejected . They did not however submit any documents to support this claim , nor did they indicate the date of the judicial decision or the court adopting it .

The Government submitted copies of payroll records according to which the awards had been paid to the applicants in DATE and DATE .

On DATE the ORG received letters from thirtysix applicants stating that they no longer had interest in pursuing the application due to the timely enforcement of the judgment in their favour . The applicants who sent the letters were ORG . CARDINAL , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , CARDINAL , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE of the Annex .

NORP In their observations received by the Court on DATE the remaining CARDINAL applicants submitted that the town prosecutor ’s office had summoned them for interviews , during which the authorities had apprised them of their right not to incriminate themselves and discussed their application .

The letter by the deputy prosecutor of PERSON of DATE confirmed that in DATE the town prosecutor ’s office had held interviews with the applicants concerning alleged breaches of their ‘ Convention right to timely payment of the allowance for purchase of books and ORG . The letter mentioned that the interviews had been conducted following an inquiry by the ORG ’s representative at ORG to ORG .