Preliminary objections dismissed (Article 35-3-a - Ratione materiae;Ratione temporis);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 13+3 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 3 - Prohibition of torture;Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment);No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Criminal charge;Fair hearing;Adversarial trial;Equality of arms);Pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)

The applicant was born on DATE and currently resides in GPE .

On DATE ORG ( “ the GPS ” ) detained the applicant on suspicion of forgery committed by a public official ( державним службовцем ) .

On DATE the head of a department of the GPS ( “ the Head of Department ” ) ordered that the applicant should be placed in custody since there was a risk that he might abscond and obstruct the investigation of the case .

On DATE ORG ordered the applicant 's detention pending trial and his transfer to ORG ( SIZO – Слідчий Ізолятор Житомирської області ) .

On DATE the GPS decided to release the applicant on bail as it was impossible to provide him with the necessary medical treatment in detention . The applicant was released .

On DATE the ORG , having allegedly found new evidence of the applicant 's involvement in unlawful currency transactions and abuses of power , initiated a criminal investigation into the allegations .

Furthermore , the GPS decided on DATE that the applicant should be taken into custody on the ground that he was obstructing the investigation of criminal acts . New charges concerning other serious offences were brought against him . The ORG also ordered his transfer to ORG ( “ the ORG SBU ” – Слідчий Ізолятор Служби Безпеки GPE ) . On DATE the applicant was placed in the GPE .

On DATE the ORG of GPE quashed the ORG 's decision of DATE and changed the preventive measure to an undertaking by the applicant not to abscond . The applicant was released .

On DATE the Deputy Prosecutor General lodged an application for supervisory review ( протест ) of the decision of ORG , seeking to have it quashed on the grounds that it was not justified by the evidence in the case file and contravened the relevant legislation .

ORG allowed the Deputy Prosecutor General 's application and quashed on DATE the decision of CARDINAL DATE . On the same date the ORG ordered the applicant 's detention pending trial . As a result , the applicant was immediately arrested and transferred to the SIZO SBU .

On DATE ORG decided not to release the applicant from detention , but to transfer him from FAC to ORG no . CARDINAL ( “ GPE no . CARDINAL ” ) owing to the need to provide him with specific medical assistance which could not be provided in LOC . The applicant was detained in GPE no . CARDINAL from DATE to DATE .

On DATE the applicant was transferred to ORG . Apparently , he started serving his sentence on DATE , the date of his arrival at ORG , where he started receiving inpatient treatment in the medical unit .

On DATE and DATE the applicant 's wife , PERSON , deposited the sum of CARDINAL NORP hryvnyas ( ORG ) in a GPS deposit account as bail with a view to the applicant 's subsequent release .

On DATE the Deputy Head of the GPS ORG decided to release the applicant on bail as it was impossible to provide him with the necessary medical treatment in detention . That decision was approved by ORG . As a result of the decision the applicant was prohibited from leaving the territory of GPE . On DATE Ms PERSON signed a declaration attesting that she had been informed about the bail conditions and the possibility of the sum being confiscated . The same document was signed by the applicant .

On DATE the applicant , allegedly by chance , met CARDINAL of the witnesses , Mr O. Bogomolov , at FAC . During the meeting he apparently asked PERSON to tell the investigation that the payment for the flat which the applicant had acquired from him had been made not in foreign currency , but in NORP hryvnyas .

On DATE an investigator from the GPS received information from Mr O. Bogomolov to the effect that the applicant had met him on DATE and had tried to influence his statement . This was later confirmed by the witness 's wife PERSON , who informed the prosecution that the applicant had threatened to initiate criminal proceedings against her and PERSON for unlawful currency transactions . The investigator made a tape recording of the interview and produced a verbatim record of it and the witness statements by PERSON .

On DATE the GPS initiated a criminal investigation into the alleged unlawful currency transactions and abuses of power . On DATE the Deputy Prosecutor General ordered that the applicant should be taken into custody on the grounds that he was obstructing the investigation of criminal acts , had breached the obligations entered into at the time of his release from detention and was charged with serious offences . He also stated that new charges concerning other serious offences had been brought against the applicant .

On DATE the applicant 's lawyers appealed to ORG against the decision to detain the applicant , alleging that it was unlawful and referring to the substantial deterioration of his state of health . They stated that the findings of his previous medical examination had been confirmed on DATE .

On DATE the ORG quashed the GPS 's order of DATE following the applicant 's appeal . On DATE the ORG changed the preventive measure to an undertaking by the applicant not to abscond . In particular , the court held :

“ ... On DATE criminal proceedings were instituted against Mr V.G. PERSON on suspicion of his involvement in offences referred to in LAW and on the same date the applicant was charged with offences LAW CARDINAL § CARDINAL , Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL and Article CARDINAL of LAW and questioned as an accused on the basis of the aforementioned provisions .

On DATE the investigator decided that Mr PERSON should be held in detention .

As can be seen from the investigator 's decision , the grounds for detaining PERSON ORG were that he was charged with serious offences and that the preventive measure chosen took into account the gravity of these offences , and also that while at liberty he interfered with the establishment of the truth in a criminal case and seriously breached his obligations as to appropriate conduct .

... The representative of ORG , in the court 's view , has not provided any corroborating evidence that Mr PERSON has evaded requests to appear before an investigator or has tried to interfere with the investigation in the case . There is no evidence of the aforementioned facts in the case file ...

ORG reference to the fact that Mr PERSON encouraged the witnesses PERSON L.D. Tyshchenko and Mr O.I. Bogomolov to change their witness statements in the part that related to the sale of a flat in foreign currency ... can not be considered by the court to have had any influence on the investigation , as Mr V.G. PERSON had met the aforementioned persons by chance and did not insist on their changing their statements ; his recommendations that they tell the investigator in the case that the payments had been made in national currency , as can be seen from the verbatim records of the interviews of the aforementioned persons , were of a consultative nature .

The court has not obtained any other corroborating evidence that Mr V.G. ORG influenced the course of the investigation or interfered with the establishment of the truth in the case , or that he violated other obligations he had entered into with regard to appropriate conduct ...

Also , the court considers that Mr PERSON state of health was not taken into account when the issue of the applicable preventive measure was being decided upon ...

... on the basis of the foregoing , and in accordance with LAW , the court

DECIDES

... to quash the detention order issued by the Deputy Prosecutor General on DATE ... ”

On DATE the Deputy Prosecutor General lodged an application for supervisory review ( протест ) of the decision of ORG , seeking to have it quashed on the grounds that it was not justified by the evidence in the file and contravened the relevant legislation .

On DATE the ORG of ORG allowed ORG application and quashed the decision . On DATE the GPS ordered the applicant 's detention pending trial . As a result , the applicant was immediately arrested and transferred to FAC . In particular , ORG held :

“ ... it can be seen from the witness statement by PERSON that in the period when PERSON was released on bail ( DATE ) PERSON met PERSON and asked him to change his witness statements about the currency which he had used to pay for the flat he had acquired , a fact which could have influenced considerations as to the elements of the offence provided for in LAW of GPE .

Taking into account the foregoing , and PERSON attempt to influence the course of the investigation in the case and the fact that he was charged with serious offences , on DATE the measure applied to PERSON was changed to detention .

[ The court accordingly ] DECIDES ...

To quash the decision of DATE by the judge of the ORG of GPE to declare null and void the warrant issued by ORG for the arrest of PERSON V.G. ORG . ”

Further complaints by the applicant lodged with the President of ORG with a view to initiating supervisory - review proceedings against ORG decision were dismissed on CARDINAL DATE as being unsubstantiated .

On DATE the GPS investigator refused to institute criminal proceedings against the applicant for attempting to influence witnesses as his actions did not correspond to the corpus delicti envisaged in LAW . The tape recording of PERSON witness statements was destroyed on DATE on the ground that it was no longer necessary because the criminal proceedings against Mr Bogomolov had ended . That decision was based on Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the Code of Criminal Procedure .

On DATE , DATE and DATE the applicant , his wife and his lawyers lodged unsuccessful complaints with ORG , seeking to have the preventive measure changed to an undertaking by the applicant not to abscond , and also to have him medically examined . Hearings took place on DATE , CARDINAL , DATE , DATE and DATE and CARDINAL DATE .

On DATE ORG sentenced the applicant to DATE and DATE imprisonment and ordered the confiscation of his personal property . The court also deprived the applicant of the right to occupy official positions for DATE and stripped him of the rank of Ambassador PERSON and Plenipotentiary , second class , following his conviction for unlawful currency transactions ( LAW – “ the ORG ” ) , abuse of power ( LAW ) , and forgery committed by a public official ( LAW . In the course of the proceedings the applicant requested leave to question particular witnesses who , he maintained , could prove his innocence . This request was refused by ORG , which based its findings of guilt on other corroborating evidence .

ORG also ordered the forfeiture of the applicant 's bail , a sum of ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL . In particular , it held :

“ ... when questioned as an accused Mr PERSON explained that he had changed his witness statement after his conversation with Mr PERSON , who had recommended that , if he did not wish to be held criminally liable , he should say that the agreement had been concluded in hryvnyas and not in MONEY .

... A witness , PERSON , has explained that Mr PERSON changed his witness statements after a meeting with Mr PERSON , who said that his lawyers would seek to institute criminal proceedings against ORG under LAW .

... As can be seen from the case file , on DATE it was decided that V.G. ORG should be released on payment of ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL bail .

The sum mentioned above was deposited by ... PERSON in the account of ORG .

Mr PERSON had been informed about his obligations and the consequences of his possible failure to comply with them , and PERSON as surety had been informed about the offences that Mr PERSON was charged with and also that in the event of failure to comply with his obligations bail would be forfeited in favour of the ORG . CARDINAL of the obligations of Mr PERSON related to appropriate conduct .

In a decision of DATE the preventive measure of release on bail applied to Mr PERSON was amended to detention . This was because he had seriously breached his obligations relating to appropriate conduct , had coerced witness into making false statements with regard to offences committed by him , and had interfered with the establishment of the truth in the case .

In accordance with LAW , if a suspect , accused and/or defendant breaches his or her obligations , bail shall be forfeited in favour of the ORG .

The fact that Mr PERSON infringed his obligations with regard to appropriate conduct by coercing the witness Mr LOC into making false statements is proved by the aforementioned witness statements of Mr PERSON and PERSON Tyshchenko , as the Presidium of ORG found in its decision of DATE .

In such circumstances the court considers it necessary for the bail deposited by Ms PERSON in the amount of UAH CARDINAL,CARDINAL to be forfeited in favour of the ORG .

On the basis of the foregoing , and having regard to ORG CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the Code of Criminal Procedure , the court

ORDERS

... the forfeiture in favour of the State of the sum of bail in the amount of ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL currently being held in the deposit account of ORG of GPE . ”

On DATE the applicant appealed to ORG , seeking to have ORG judgment of DATE quashed and the proceedings in the case terminated . He and his lawyers claimed that ORG had unfairly assessed the evidence in the case , having based its finding on evidence that did not prove his guilt and having failed to establish the objective truth in the case .

On DATE ORG partly allowed the applicant 's appeal and varied the judgment of DATE . In particular , it reclassified the offence of unlawful currency transactions and sentenced him to DATE and DATE imprisonment for aiding and abetting unlawful currency transactions . It also held that the applicant should be regarded as having been sentenced for forgery committed by a public official , as provided in LAW of DATE . It upheld the remainder of the judgment . ORG held in particular :

“ ... As can be seen from the case file , PERSON was released on bail on DATE for a sum of UAH CARDINAL,CARDINAL .

The aforementioned sum was deposited by PERSON wife PERSON on CARDINAL and DATE in the account of ORG .

PERSON was informed about his bail obligations and the consequences of his failure to comply with them , and PERSON was informed about the offences that PERSON PERSON had been charged with , and about the possible forfeiture of the bail in the event of his failure to comply with these obligations . CARDINAL of the obligations imposed on Mr PERSON related to appropriate conduct .

In accordance with the decision of DATE by the investigator from ORG , the preventive measure of bail chosen in respect of Mr PERSON was changed to detention . CARDINAL of the reasons for this [ change ] was that he had seriously breached his obligations regarding appropriate conduct , and in particular that he had coerced witness into making false statements , thus interfering with the establishment of the truth in the case .

In accordance with LAW , if a suspect , accused or defendant infringes his obligations , bail is forfeited in favour of the ORG .

The fact that Mr PERSON breached his bail obligations concerning appropriate conduct by coercing PERSON into giving false evidence has been proved by the witness statements of PERSON and PERSON , as the Presidium of ORG found in its decision of CARDINAL DATE .

Accordingly , the investigative bodies changed the preventive measure applied to the applicant on lawful grounds .

The submissions to the effect that that decision was unlawful and that the decision of the Presidium of ORG was unsubstantiated are invalid as it can be seen from the case file that PERSON had tried to influence witnesses to give false evidence .

The reference to the investigator 's decision to refuse , on the basis of paragraph CARDINAL of Article CARDINAL and LAW , to institute criminal proceedings against Mr PERSON under LAW of GPE is not substantiated as the refusal to institute criminal proceedings was based on allegations of coercing PERSON and Ms Tyshchenko into giving false witness statements . At the same time , the decision in question mentions that PERSON PERSON attempted to coerce witnesses into giving false statements .

The submissions in the appeal to the effect that PERSON was not examined by the court as a surety , in breach of the law , is unsubstantiated , since in accordance with LAW , paragraph CARDINAL , of LAW , the non - appearance of a surety in court without good reasons does not constitute an obstacle to reviewing the issue of the forfeiture of bail ...

As can been seen from the case file , neither the defendant nor his lawyers requested Ms PERSON , as surety , to produce witness statements before the court .

Under these circumstances there are no grounds for holding that there has been a violation of the law on account of the decision to confiscate bail [ in favour of the ORG ] .

[ The court accordingly ] RULES

[ that ] ... Mr PERSON shall be regarded as having been sentenced for the offences provided for in paragraph CARDINAL of Article CARDINAL , Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL , Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL , Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL , Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL and Article CARDINAL of LAW of DATE to DATE and DATE imprisonment ... in addition , all of his personal property shall be confiscated , he shall be disqualified from occupying posts relating to managerial functions in government bodies for a period of DATE and shall be stripped of the rank of Ambassador PERSON and Plenipotentiary , second class . ”

On DATE and DATE the applicant and his lawyers lodged complaints with the President of ORG , seeking to institute supervisory proceedings in the case and to have the above - mentioned decisions quashed . On DATE the Deputy President of ORG dismissed these complaints as being unsubstantiated .

The applicant and his lawyers lodged further complaints against the above - mentioned decisions with the President of ORG . On the basis of these complaints , on DATE the Deputy President of ORG applied to ORG for supervisory review , seeking to have the decisions quashed , the applicant 's offence reclassified and the case remitted for fresh consideration as regards the forfeiture of his bail .

On DATE ORG , with CARDINAL judges sitting , partly allowed its Deputy President 's application . It decided to vary the judgment of ORG of DATE and the ruling of ORG of DATE . It also held that CARDINAL of the offences committed by the applicant should be reclassified from abuse of power with serious consequences to abuse of power with no serious consequences . It further decided to sentence the applicant to DATE imprisonment and to prohibit him from occupying government positions for DATE . It ruled that the penalty stripping him of the rank of Ambassador PERSON and Plenipotentiary , second class , should be expunged from the decisions . It also upheld the decision on the forfeiture of his bail , finding that the applicant 's complaints were unsubstantiated and seeing no procedural infringements of the law on criminal procedure in this matter .

The applicant underwent a medical examination on DATE at ORG of ORG ( “ the ORG ” ) . The expert opinion that assessed the applicant 's health DATE found that his diseases included first - degree myocardial cardiosclerosis ( міокардичний кардіосклероз першого ступеню ) , extensive spinal osteochondrosis ( поширений спинний остеохондроз ) , chronic duodenitis ( хронічний дуоденіт ) , chronic parenchymatitis of the prostate ( хронічний паренхіматозний простатіт ) , internal and external haemorrhoids ( внутрішньо-зовнішній геморрой ) and the residual effects of a small cerebral haemorrhage in the basin of the right middle cerebral artery with left - hand side pyramidal deficiency and general vasomotor neurosis ( залишкові явища малого інсульту в басейні правої середньо-мозкової артерії з лівосторонньою пірамідальною недостатністю на фоні вегето-судинної дистонії ) . It concluded that the applicant could be held in custody in the GPE and was fit to take part in the investigation . He could be provided with urgent medical assistance if necessary .

On DATE ORG ( “ ORG ” ) conducted a second examination of the applicant . The examination revealed that the applicant was suffering from second - degree hypertension , the residual effects of a stroke , a benign tumour of the occipital part of the head and extensive spinal osteochondrosis .

On DATE and DATE the applicant was examined by a doctor from ORG . The SIZO SBU medical unit examined blood samples taken from him .

On DATE , DATE and DATE and CARDINAL and DATE the applicant was examined by ORG and doctors from the SIZO SBU respectively , as he complained about heartache . ORG confirmed that the applicant was suffering from critical second - degree idiopathic hypertension ( гіпертонічна хвороба другого ступеню ) , second - degree cardiosclerosis ( міокардичний кардіосклероз першого ступеню ) and ischaemic heart disease ( ішемічна хвороба серця ) .

On DATE the applicant was hospitalised with acute hypertension .

From DATE until DATE the applicant unsuccessfully lodged a number of complaints with the GPS , ORG and the SIZO SBU seeking his release from custody on account of his poor state of health .

The Government provided no evidence of the applicant 's treatment or the medical assistance provided to him from CARDINAL DATE to DATE . Between DATE and DATE the applicant was visited CARDINAL times by doctors from LOC . These included two visits by a dentist and a surgeon . On CARDINAL and DATE the applicant refused to take cognisance of an indictment and the case file because of his poor health . On CARDINAL ( twice ) , CARDINAL , DATE and DATE , CARDINAL and DATE , CARDINAL May , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE and CARDINAL , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE ( twice ) and DATE the applicant was examined by doctors from ORG and from the SIZO SBU .

On DATE , DATE and DATE the applicant , his wife and his lawyers lodged complaints with ORG , seeking to have the applicant medically examined . Hearings took place on DATE , CARDINAL , DATE , DATE and DATE and CARDINAL DATE .

During the hearing on the merits of the criminal charges brought against the applicant on DATE ORG decided to order his medical examination .

DATE and DATE the applicant 's state of health was examined in the ORG SBU and the outpatient department of ORG .

DATE . On DATE the court requested the SIZO SBU to inform it whether it was possible to provide the applicant with the necessary inpatient medical treatment for the diseases from which he was suffering .

On DATE the Deputy Chairman of ORG replied that it was impossible to provide such treatment . In particular , he mentioned that the only medical staff of ORG were a physician and a paramedic , who provided medical assistance in urgent cases .

From DATE to DATE a medical examination by a commission of ORG composed of CARDINAL doctors , set up on the basis of a decision of DATE by ORG , concluded that the applicant was not suffering from any life - threatening disease , and that he should be given in - hospital medical treatment should it transpire that he could not be treated adequately during his detention . In particular , the medical examination revealed that the applicant was suffering from critical second - degree idiopathic hypertension ( гіпертонічна хвороба другого ступеню ) , a second - degree circulatory brain disorder ( дисциркуляторна енцефалопатія другого ступеню ) , the residual effects of a small cerebral haemorrhage , asthenovegetative syndrome ( астено-вегетативний синдром ) , a duodenal papillary ulcer ( виразкова хвороба дванадцятиперстної кишки ) , gastritis ( гастрит ) , erosive bulbitis ( ерозивний бульбит ) , hypokinetic dyskinesia of the large bowel ( гіпокінетична дискінезія товстої кишки ) , spastic colitis ( спастичний коліт ) , internal and external haemorrhoids ( зовнішньо-внутрішній геморой ) , fibrolipoma of DATE left rib ( фіброліпома десятого міжреб'я зліва ) , seborrhoeic dermatitis ( себорейний дерматит ) and retinal angiopathy with impairment of visual acuity ( ангіопатія сітчатки із зниженням гостроти зору ) .

On DATE the governor of GPE no . CARDINAL informed ORG that the applicant could not be provided with the necessary medical treatment at the GPE 's medical unit owing to the lack of necessary medical staff and equipment .

On DATE ORG , having examined the results of the medical examination conducted DATE and DATE and the evidence produced before it by the parties , decided to transfer the applicant from the ORG SBU to GPE no . CARDINAL on account of his need for medical assistance . In the course of the hearing , the prosecution submitted a different document issued by ORG no . CARDINAL , signed by its deputy governor on DATE , stating that the applicant could be provided with the necessary medical treatment and that it would be possible to use an external doctor 's assistance for that purpose . It also took into account a similar response of CARDINAL DATE from the Head of ORG . The court also ordered GPE no . CARDINAL to inform it about the applicant 's state of health and about his ability to participate in hearings . In a separate decision the court refused to change the applicable preventive measure .

From DATE , when he was transferred from pre - trial detention to serve his sentence in GPE , the applicant received inpatient treatment in the penitentiary 's medical unit .

The applicant claimed that the cells of ORG no . CARDINAL had been infested with pests . An elevated , open toilet had been situated not far from the table , opposite the door of the QUANTITY cell inhabited by CARDINAL inmates . There had been no privacy in the cell and everybody had smoked . The conditions in the medical unit , where the applicant had stayed from DATE until DATE , had been practically the same as in the other cells . The cells had been overcrowded , with CARDINAL persons in a space of QUANTITY . Sick detainees who were transferred under guard from other penitentiary institutions or detention facilities , some of them suffering from tuberculosis and venereal diseases , had been held with other detainees in the same detention facilities , thus creating a risk of infection .

As to the detention conditions in the SIZO SBU , the applicant stated that they were much better , but that the cell had been equipped in such a way that a detainee constantly felt humiliated . The toilet had been situated in the middle of the cell , on an elevated concrete base , absolutely open . It had been placed so as to be seen not only by the cellmates , but also by the prison guards . CARDINAL of the prison guards were women . There was no water in the cell . Cold water was supplied only upon the request of a detainee for a short period of time .

The applicant maintained , referring to the DATE Report of ORG “ on the results of inspecting the budgetary allocations for the maintenance of ORG for ORG and its facilities and institutions ” , that the detention conditions were of a poor standard because the ORG budget had allocated only ORG CARDINAL to the penitentiary system , which amounted to an average of ORG CARDINAL per detainee a year , or UAH CARDINAL per month . In DATE that sum had been reduced to ORG DATE , that is , UAH CARDINAL.CARDINAL a month . In DATE the ORG budget had provided PERCENT of the sum requested for prisoners ' nutrition requirements , and in DATE this sum had been reduced to PERCENT , which had resulted in the allocation of ORG CARDINAL.CARDINAL a day per person for food . The applicant alleged that , at the time of his incarceration , ORG no . CARDINAL ( ORG no . CARDINAL ) had received only ORG CARDINAL.CARDINAL per day per detainee for expenditure from the ORG budget and that it accordingly had not been possible to treat the applicant for a disease such as his ulcer whilst in detention .

The Government contended the applicant 's factual submissions as to the conditions in which he had been detained , however , provided no particularities to support their comments on the actual detention conditions in SIZO SBU and GPE no . CARDINAL .

The relevant provisions of LAW read as follows :

“ It shall be an offence punishable by DATE imprisonment or by compulsory labour in a penitentiary for a term of DATE to interfere with the appearance of a witness ... before a court or the bodies responsible for the preliminary investigation or inquiry ; to exert unlawful pressure on a witness in order to force him or her to refuse to testify or produce evidence , or to give false evidence under threat of murder , violence , destruction of the witness 's property or that of his or her close relatives , or disclosure of information defaming the witness ; to bribe a witness , ... with the same purpose ; or to threaten to carry out the above - mentioned actions in revenge for evidence produced previously . ”

“ Preventive measures shall be imposed on a suspect , accused , defendant or convicted person in order to prevent him or her from attempting to abscond from an inquiry , investigation or the court , to obstruct the establishment of the truth in a criminal case or to pursue criminal activities , and in order to ensure the enforcement of procedural decisions .

Preventive measures shall be imposed where there are sufficient grounds to believe that the suspect , accused , defendant or convicted person will attempt to abscond from investigation and the court , or if he or she fails to comply with procedural decisions , or obstructs the establishment of the truth in the case or pursues criminal activities .

If there are insufficient grounds for the imposition of preventive measures , the suspect , accused or convicted person shall sign a written statement undertaking to appear upon notification by the inquirer , investigator , prosecutor or the court , and shall also undertake to notify them of any change in his place of residence .

If a preventive measure is applicable to a suspect , he or she shall be charged within DATE from the time of imposition of the measure . In the event that the indictment is not issued within that time , the preventive measure shall be annulled . ”

“ The preventive measures are as follows :

( CARDINAL ) a written undertaking not to abscond ;

( CARDINAL ) a personal surety ;

( CARDINAL ) a surety provided by a public organisation or labour collective ;

( DATE ) NORP bail ;

( CARDINAL ) NORP remand in custody ;

( CARDINAL ) NORP supervision by the command of a military unit .

As a temporary preventive measure , a suspect may be detained on the grounds and pursuant to the procedure provided for by Articles CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL of this Code . ”

“ In resolving the issue of imposing a preventive measure , in addition to the circumstances specified in LAW , such circumstances as the gravity of the alleged offence , the person 's age , state of health , family and financial status , type of employment , place of residence and any other circumstances relating to the person shall be taken into consideration . ”

“ Bail consists in the deposit , by the suspect , accused , defendant or any other natural or legal persons , of money or other assets with the body responsible for the preliminary investigation or with a court for the purpose of ensuring the proper conduct of the person with respect to whom the preventive measure has been applied , his or her fulfilment of the undertaking not to leave his or her place of permanent or temporary residence without the permission of the investigator or the court , and his or her appearance upon a summons before the investigative body or the court .

's tax - exempt minimum income with regard to a person who is accused of committing a serious crime punishable by deprivation of liberty for a term of DATE ; CARDINAL times the citizen 's tax - exempt minimum income with regard to a person accused of committing another serious crime or a person with a previous conviction ; and CARDINAL times the citizen 's tax - exempt minimum income with regard to any other persons . In all cases the amount of bail shall not be less than the amount of the civil claim , substantiated by sufficient evidence .

On the payment of bail , the suspect , accused or defendant shall be apprised of his or her obligations and the consequences of their non - fulfilment , and the person who stands surety shall be apprised of the offence of which the person in respect of whom bail is applied is suspected or accused , and informed that , in the event that this person fails to fulfil these obligations , the bail will be forfeited in favour of the ORG .

Before the case has been referred to the court , a preventive measure in the form of bail may be imposed on a person who is held in custody only with the permission of the prosecutor who authorised the detention and , after the case has been referred to the court , such a measure may be imposed only by the court .

The person who stands surety may refuse to perform the obligations entered into prior to the emergence of the circumstances requiring the forfeiture of the bail in favour of the ORG . In this case he or she shall ensure the appearance of the suspect , accused or defendant before the investigative body or the court with a view to having the preventive measure imposed on him or her replaced by a different one . Bail shall be returned only after a new preventive measure has been chosen .

In the event that a suspect , accused or defendant breaches his or her obligations , bail shall be forfeited in favour of the ORG . The issue of forfeiture of bail to the ORG shall be determined by the court at a hearing during the consideration of the case or in separate proceedings . The surety shall be summoned to the court in order to give explanations . Failure of that person to appear before the court for a hearing without good reason shall not obstruct the examination of the issue of the forfeiture of bail in favour of the ORG .

The issue of returning the bail to the surety shall be resolved by the court during the trial of the case . Bail deposited by the suspect , accused or defendant may be withheld by the court for the purpose of executing the judgment in the form of compensation for damage . ” ( As amended by LAW , in accordance with LAW DATE , р. N CARDINAL/CARDINAL-ВР )

“ With regard to the application , annulment or modification of a preventive measure , the investigative body , investigator , prosecutor or judge shall make an order , and the court shall give a ruling . ”

“ At the stage of the pre - trial investigation , a non - custodial preventive measure shall be selected by the investigative body , investigator or prosecutor .

In the event that the investigative body or investigator considers that there are grounds for selecting a custodial preventive measure , with the prosecutor 's consent he shall lodge an application with the court . The prosecutor is entitled to lodge an application to the same effect . In determining this issue , the prosecutor shall be obliged to familiarise himself with all the material evidence in the case that would justify placing the person in custody , and to verify that the evidence was received in a lawful manner and is sufficient for charging the person .

The application shall be considered within TIME of the time at which the suspect or accused is detained .

In the event that the application concerns the detention of a person who is currently not deprived of his liberty , the judge shall be entitled , by means of an order , to give permission for the suspect to be detained and brought before the court under guard . Detention in such cases may not exceed TIME ; and in the event that the person is outside the locality where the court is situated , it may not exceed TIME from the moment at which the detainee is brought within the locality .

Upon receiving the application , the judge shall examine the material in the criminal case file submitted by the investigative bodies or investigator . A prosecutor shall question the suspect or accused and , if necessary , shall hear evidence from the person who is the subject of the proceedings , shall obtain the opinion of the previous prosecutor or defence counsel , if the latter appeared before the court , and shall make an order :

( CARDINAL ) refusing to select the preventive measure if there are no grounds for doing so ;

( CARDINAL ) selecting a preventive measure in the form of taking of a suspect or accused into custody .

The court shall be entitled to select for the suspect or accused a non - custodial preventive measure if the investigator or prosecutor refuses to select a custodial preventive measure for him or her .

The judge 's order may be appealed against to the court of appeal by the prosecutor , suspect , accused or his or her defence counsel or legal representative , within DATE from the date on which it was made . The lodging of an appeal shall not suspend the execution of the judge 's order . ”

The relevant extracts from the Resolution of the Plenary Supreme Court read as follows :

NORP In accordance with paragraph CARDINAL of Article CARDINAL - CARDINAL of the Code of Criminal Procedure , a breach by the suspect , accused or convicted person of his or her bail obligations shall lead to the forfeiture of the bail . [ Forfeiture ] shall be decided upon at the trial stage of the proceedings ( substantiated by the judgment , and , before its delivery , by an order or ruling of the court ) , or in the course of separate judicial proceedings . ”

The relevant extracts from the reports are cited in the judgment of GPE v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , § § CARDINAL and CARDINAL , ORG CARDINALII ) .


CASE OF DIMITROVA AND OTHERS v. BULGARIA

Violation of Art. 2;No violation of Art. 14

Ganna Yudkivska;Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre;Karel Jungwiert;Mark Villiger;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Peer Lorenzen;Zdravka Kalaydjieva

The first and second applicants were born in DATE and DATE respectively .

The applicants are of GPE origin . The first applicant is the mother , the second applicant the wife , and the third and fourth applicants the brothers of Mr PERSON , also of GPE origin , born in DATE .

In TIME CARDINAL DATE Mr PERSON and CARDINAL other persons of GPE origin , PERSON , PERSON and PERSON , were digging out coal in an abandoned opencast coal mine in GPE . The area was open , with little vegetation , and accessible by a dirt road .

At CARDINAL point another man , Mr B.I. , to whom Mr M.G. apparently owed money , passed by on horseback . He asked PERSON when he would pay back the debt and the CARDINAL of them entered into a short argument . Mr PERSON intervened in defence of Mr M.G. After that Mr B.I. left .

NORP Some time later Mr Gerasimov and his companions finished digging out the coal and were getting ready to leave . At this moment Mr B.I. returned , accompanied by CARDINAL friends of his , PERSON , PERSON and PERSON , in CARDINAL cars . A fight flared up between the CARDINAL groups . The parties disagree as to who started it . Some time later Mr V.V. , PERSON and PERSON went to a nearby petrol station , where they asked the staff to call the police , explaining that a friend of theirs had been beaten up . When the police officers reached the scene of the fight they found only Mr Gerasimov , lying on the ground . As he was seriously injured , he was taken to hospital .

DATE the police initiated a search for Mr B.I. and PERSON , suspecting that they had beaten up PERSON , but could not find them .

Mr Gerasimov was admitted to the hospital in a coma , with a severe cerebral contusion and CARDINAL wounds to the head . He died in hospital on DATE .

A criminal investigation was opened on CARDINAL DATE by the NORP regional public prosecutor 's office .

An inspection of the scene of the fight was carried out on CARDINAL DATE . The record of the inspection stated that the site had not been preserved . The police officers found the van which had been used by the Mr PERSON and his companions abandoned at the site . The windscreen was cracked , the side rear - view mirrors were broken and one of the doors had marks of blows from a hard object . Traces of blood were found near the van . Subsequent analysis showed that the blood might have been Mr Gerasimov 's . Traces of blood were also found inside the van . Subsequent analysis showed that it might have been Mr B.I. 's .

The police also inspected the cars Mr B.I. and his companions had been travelling in . Traces of blood were found in CARDINAL of them . Subsequent analysis showed that the blood might have been Mr GPE .

On DATE the police inspected Mr GPE 's car ( not one of those which had been used DATE ) and seized CARDINAL bats and a knife .

On DATE Mr B.I. , PERSON , PERSON and PERSON were examined by a doctor , who found that Mr B.I. had a small knife wound on the lower part of the back and several bruises on the face and body . The other men also had bruises .

The clothes worn by Mr B.I. on DATE were also examined by an expert , who found matching cuts in his T - shirt and jacket , most likely caused by a knife .

A post - mortem examination of PERSON body , carried out on DATE , concluded that the death had been caused by a severe cerebral trauma . It found a multi - fragment fracture of the parietal bone , with fragments of the bone depressed to QUANTITY in depth on an area measuring QUANTITY . It also found CARDINAL wounds to the head , a wound on the right arm and CARDINAL parallel stripe - like bruises on the back , measuring QUANTITY . There were other bruises on the face and body . The examination concluded that the injuries had been caused by blunt objects and could have been caused in connection with a beating . The CARDINAL bruises on the back had been caused by long narrow objects .

Mr PERSON 's companions were questioned by an investigator on DATE . They were once again questioned before a judge on DATE .

Mr GPE stated that the CARDINAL of them had gone in his van to dig coal . They had had a pick but not a knife . At the time when Mr B.I. had arrived with his friends , they had been getting ready to leave . Mr Gerasimov had been sitting in the back part of the van , on the sacks of coal . As soon as he had got to the site PERSON had started hitting PERSON legs with a bat . At the same time Mr B.I. had been shouting “ Where do you think you are going , you , where will you run , you damn gypsies , who is going to pay ? ” PERSON had attempted to stop PERSON attack . While the CARDINAL of them were wrestling , Mr B.I. approached Mr PERSON from behind and hit him on the back of the head with another bat . Mr PERSON fell to the ground . Thus freed , PERSON turned to PERSON and hit him with his bat , aiming for the head but missing it . PERSON then ran away .

Mr I.I. also stated that when Mr PERSON and Mr GPE had arrived they had been carrying wooden bats . Mr GPE had attacked Mr PERSON and while the CARDINAL of them had been wrestling , Mr B.I. had approached and hit PERSON head , holding the bat with CARDINAL hands . PERSON had not seen other blows because he had run away , but before doing so he had seen Mr PERSON and Mr GPE also approaching Mr PERSON . He and his companions had not been carrying knives and had not provoked the others ' attack .

Mr PERSON stated that he had run away immediately after the other men had arrived , because he had known that they were going to beat them .

CARDINAL employees of the petrol station where Mr V.V. , Mr I.I. and Mr M.G. had pulled into after the attack were questioned on DATE . They confirmed that the men had been acting nervously and had said that someone had been beaten up .

Mr B.I. was questioned on DATE . He explained that when he had first seen Mr PERSON , Mr GPE , Mr I.I. and Mr M.G. they had threatened and sworn at him . Later , he and his friends had gone out to look for a horse , owned by Mr GPE , which had got lost . When they arrived at the place where the GPE had been , the latter had attacked them . PERSON had had a knife and a pick and had stabbed him in the back . He had fallen to his knees . Someone had hit him with the wooden handle of a tool . He had managed to grab the handle and hit PERSON back .

Mr B.I. was again questioned on CARDINAL and DATE . This time he denied hitting PERSON and said that he had seen someone else hit him in the scuffle .

Mr GPE , Mr PERSON and Mr GPE were questioned by the investigator on DATE and DATE . On DATE they were questioned before a judge .

Mr GPE stated that he and his friends had indeed gone to look for PERSON GPE 's horse . He had been in one of the cars with Mr B.I. He did not know why Mr PERSON had approached the GPE men , but supposed that he had intended to ask them if they had seen the horse . Immediately after he and Mr B.I. got out of the car the GPE men attacked them . Mr PERSON and PERSON GPE , who had been following close behind them in the other car , came to their aid , but ran away after the GPE men attacked them too . He and his friends had got into their cars and driven away . In the car he realised that Mr B.I. had been stabbed . He did not know how Mr PERSON had ended up fatally injured .

Mr GPE said that on CARDINAL DATE he had been in Mr GPE house when Mr GPE had come and said that his horse had got lost . The CARDINAL men , together with PERSON , had taken CARDINAL cars and gone looking for the horse . At CARDINAL point they had approached the GPE men . Mr GPE and Mr PERSON had stopped and got out of their car and had immediately been attacked by the GPE . He and Mr GPE got out of their car as well . He saw someone stab Mr B.I. and was himself attacked by CARDINAL of the GPE men , who had a bat and a knife . Then he and Mr GPE got back into their car and drove away , while all GPE men had gathered around Mr B.I. and Mr PERSON GPE did not know why the others had attacked them . He stated that none of his friends had been carrying knives or bats .

Mr GPE also stated that he and his companions had been looking for his horse . At CARDINAL point he and PERSON had seen the other men beating Mr B.I. and PERSON and had went to separate them . He admitted that they had been carrying wooden bats in the cars in case they were attacked .

Mr GPE 's brother was questioned on DATE and confirmed that on DATE the family 's horse had got lost . In the course of the interview the investigator asked him : “ Were you there when the gypsies stabbed [ Mr B.I. ] and do you know what they stabbed him with ? ” Mr GPE 's brother responded that he had not seen the attack . Examined again on DATE , he confirmed that there had been wooden bats in the family 's car , but he did not know who had put them there .

Mr GPE , who worked in the area , was interviewed on DATE . He stated that he had seen the fight from the road , while driving to a nearby shop to buy food . He had not stopped the car but had slowed down to watch . He estimated that the distance between him and the fighting men had been CARDINAL . He had recognised Mr B.I. , whom he knew , and had seen him grappling with someone else , who had then struck him with a knife . Then all the others gathered together and someone had a wooden bat or tool . Mr GPE did not see anything in Mr B.I. 's hands .

Mr B.I. was arrested on an unspecified date .

On DATE an investigator from ORG ordered the arrests of PERSON , PERSON and PERSON , finding that there existed reasonable grounds for suspicion that they had acted as accessories in the attempted murder of PERSON and noting that they had attempted to abscond . It appears that on DATE the CARDINAL of them were briefly arrested . However , they were never charged or investigated any further .

On DATE Mr B.I. was charged with attempted murder committed in an especially cruel manner and with extreme ferocity ( Article CARDINAL of LAW , see paragraph DATE below ) .

On DATE the ORG remanded him in pre - trial custody . Referring to the testimony of PERSON companions ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above ) , and also taking into account the fact that the charges against Mr B.I. were serious and he had previous convictions , it found that there existed grounds for reasonable suspicion against him and a danger that he might abscond or reoffend .

On DATE this decision was upheld by ORG .

Mr B.I. was released on bail on DATE .

On DATE Mr B.I. was charged under LAW ( see paragraph DATE below ) with causing PERSON death by a disproportionate reaction to an attack . On DATE he was questioned again . He stated that during the fight on CARDINAL DATE CARDINAL of the GPE men had “ almost ” stabbed him , the knife only cutting through his clothes , and that , in the general scuffle when he had tried to defend himself , he might have hit PERSON . He had not however meant to injure him badly .

In a decision of CARDINAL DATE a prosecutor from the NORP regional public prosecutor 's office partially discontinued the criminal proceedings against Mr B.I. , dropping the initial charge under LAW of LAW of attempted murder committed in an especially cruel manner and with extreme ferocity , brought on DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) and retaining the charge under LAW of causing death by a disproportionate reaction to an attack .

NORP In that decision , the prosecutor noted that there were CARDINAL conflicting versions of the events – the first one maintained by PERSON companions , namely that they had been attacked without provocation , and the second one maintained by Mr B.I. and his companions , namely that the GPE men had attacked them with shovels and knives immediately after their arrival at the scene . Taking into account other evidence , namely the reports of the medical examinations of Mr B.I. and his companions , which showed that they had all sustained injuries ( see paragraph QUANTITY above ) , the report of the examination of Mr B.I. 's T - shirt and jacket , showing matching knife cuts ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , and the medical reports establishing that some of the blood found at the scene of the fight might have been Mr B.I. 's ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL above ) , he concluded that the version presented by Mr B.I. and his companions was tenable and the other one not . He also relied on the testimony of PERSON , who had stated that he had seen nothing in Mr B.I. 's hands and had seen someone stab him ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . On the basis of this evidence , the prosecutor concluded that there had been a fight , in the course of which Mr B.I. had been injured and , acting in self - defence , had hit PERSON head only once , with a wooden bat .

The parties disagreed as to whether this decision of the NORP regional public prosecutor 's office had been served on the applicants . The applicants alleged that they had never been formally notified of it . The Government contested this assertion . They presented a list of the documents contained in the investigation file , drawn up by the NORP regional public prosecutor 's office and mentioning a receipt signed by the second applicant when the decision was served . However , the Government said that they could not submit the receipt itself , which had been lost . They also presented a request by the prosecuting authorities , addressed to the GPE municipality , to be informed of the names and addresses of PERSON lawful heirs , with a view to serving documents on them , and the certificate containing that information , issued by the municipality .

The applicants submitted that they had on numerous occasions visited the investigator in charge of the case to inquire about the investigation 's progress , but had not been provided with any meaningful information .

On an unspecified date Mr B.I. entered into a plea bargain with the prosecution . He confessed to killing PERSON in a disproportionate reaction to an attack ( LAW ) and accepted a suspended sentence of DATE imprisonment . On DATE the ORG approved the agreement , finding that it “ did not run counter to the law and public morals ” , and discontinued the criminal proceedings .

Apparently , the applicants became aware of the ORG decision of DATE in DATE , from publications in the local media .

On DATE the first applicant requested ORG to apply for the criminal proceedings to be reopened . On DATE she was informed that this was not possible , as the DATE time - limit for the prosecuting authorities to make such an application had expired on DATE , and that her request of DATE had not been submitted far enough in advance to allow it to be duly examined and an application for reopening prepared .

In a letter dated CARDINAL DATE the applicants ' initial representative before ORG , PERSON , informed the ORG that in DATE his car had been damaged by unknown persons , which had posed a risk to his life when he had later travelled in it . On DATE the premises of the non - governmental organisation he heads had been entered by order of the NORP municipality and numerous documents , including some connected with the present application , had been seized .

Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of LAW of DATE provides that anyone committing murder in an especially cruel manner and with extreme ferocity is liable to DATE imprisonment or life imprisonment with or without a right to parole .

Under LAW , causing death by a disproportionate reaction to an attack is punishable by DATE imprisonment .

The provisions of the Criminal Code relating to racially motivated offences have been summarised in the ORG 's judgment in the case of ORG v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL , § § DATE , ECHR CARDINALIX ) .

By LAW , in force at the material time , the prosecuting authorities could in certain circumstances discontinue criminal proceedings . Pursuant to LAW , victims of crimes had to be notified of any decision to discontinue the proceedings and could appeal against the decision to the competent district or regional court .

Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL of the Code , as worded between DATE and DATE , provided that the prosecuting authorities were not to adopt any formal decision to discontinue partially criminal proceedings in cases where the charges against the same person and in respect of the same facts were only being amended . That provision was in line with an earlier interpretative decision of ORG of ORG ( ORG decision no . CARDINAL of DATE , PERSON решение № CARDINAL от CARDINAL октомври DATE г. на ORG по т. PERSON д. № CARDINAL г. , ORG ) , which said :

“ A charge brought at the stage of the investigation is intended to define a general , initial , “ working ” objective of the proceedings . It can be adjusted depending on the evidence gathered and examined in the course of the investigation . In that sense the charge ... is unstable , varying in accordance with the operative developments . The different wording of the charge in respect of the same act and the adjustment of its legal qualification prior to indictment follow the dynamics of the investigation process and any changes in the circumstances resulting from the evidence gathered . ”

ORG went on to conclude that

“ [ w]here , in the course of the pre - trial proceedings , the factual basis of the charges changes substantially and new charges are brought against the accused , requiring a more severe , the same or a more lenient punishment ... , the prosecutor is to amend the charges and does not have to adopt a decision discontinuing the criminal proceedings in respect of the initial charges . ”

Until DATE Article CARDINAL § QUANTITY of the Code of Criminal Procedure entitled victims of crime to participate in all stages of the criminal proceedings as civil parties . Civil parties were entitled to exercise their procedural rights to the extent necessary for the substantiation of their civil claim .

Following an amendment to LAW DATE , the participation of victims as civil parties was restricted to the trial stage of the criminal proceedings . That provision remained in force until DATE .

Plea bargaining was provided for in Articles MONEY of LAW . The procedure was applicable in respect of certain categories of offences .

NORP The prosecution and the defence could enter into a plea agreement after the investigation had been concluded . The parties had to agree , inter alia , whether an offence had been committed and on the type and severity of the punishment . The prosecutor would then submit the agreement to the competent district or regional court which would examine it in the presence of the prosecutor , the accused and the latter 's counsel . If satisfied that the agreement did not run counter to law or morality , the court would adopt a decision approving the agreement and discontinuing the criminal proceedings . No appeal lay against this decision . A plea agreement approved by a competent court had the same binding force as a final conviction and sentence .

Prior to DATE the participation of victims in plea bargaining was obligatory and they had to consent to the plea agreement . Following amendments to the Code in DATE , in cases where the agreement had been made at the pre - trial stage of the proceedings victims ' participation and consent were no longer obligatory ; however , the court examining the agreement could on its own initiative decide to hear their representations .

On the contrary , if a plea agreement had been reached at the trial stage of the proceedings , all parties had to consent to it , including the victims , if they had joined the proceedings as civil parties or private prosecutors .

Article CARDINAL of the Code provided that criminal proceedings concerning publicly prosecutable offences could only be initiated by a prosecutor or an investigator . The offences referred to in paragraphs CARDINAL above are publicly prosecutable ones .


Preliminary objections dismissed;Violation of Art. 6-1;Violation of Art. 8;Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed;Non-pecuniary damage - financial award;Costs and expenses partial award - domestic proceedings;Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in LOC .

The applicant worked in the ORG administration of the school system . He occupied a leading post that fell within the purview of LAW No . LAW Coll . ( “ the LAW ” ) which defined some supplementary requirements for holding certain posts in public administration .

In DATE the applicant ’s employer requested , pursuant to section CARDINAL of LAW , that ORG of the NORP and GPE ( “ the ORG ” ) issue a clearance ( lustračné osvedčenie ) concerning the applicant under section CARDINAL of LAW ( see below ) .

On DATE ORG issued a negative security clearance . It stated that it was based on section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of LAW and certified that the applicant “ [ was ] registered as a person referred to in LAW b ) of LAW ” . This provision defined CARDINAL categories of collaborators of the [ former ] ORG ( ORG bezpečnosť , “ StB ” ) who , if registered as such in the ORG ’s files in the period from DATE to CARDINAL DATE , were disqualified from holding certain posts in public administration . The document was served on the applicant on DATE .

NORP The applicant resigned from his post . In DATE he left his employer completely , having felt compelled to do so . Since then the applicant has been commuting to work in a location remote from his place of residence .

The information about who was registered in the ORG files in the categories referred to in section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) ( b ) of LAW has been made public in newspapers and , unofficially as well as officially , on the internet .

On CARDINAL DATE the applicant lodged an action against ORG for protection of his good name and reputation under LAW seq . of LAW with the GPE ( GPE ( PERSON ) . He claimed that his registration as a collaborator of the ORG was wrongful and unjustified . He requested that the ORG issue a new clearance to the effect that he was not registered as a person referred to in DATE ( CARDINAL ) ( b ) of LAW .

ORG subsequently sent a copy of the action to the defendant , invited the applicant to pay the court fee and listed a hearing for DATE .

On DATE the applicant filed a request under LAW and CARDINAL of LAW for a transfer of his action to ORG ( PERSON súd ) . On DATE he demanded that the hearing scheduled for DATE be cancelled in view of his request for transfer of the action .

On DATE , after the applicant had paid the court fee , ORG sent a copy of the request of DATE to the defendant for comments . On DATE the latter objected to the transfer .

On DATE ORG submitted the case file to ORG ( Najvyšší súd ) of the NORP and GPE for a determination as to which court was to entertain the action at first instance .

On DATE ORG ruled that the action fell to be determined by ORG . The case file was sent to it on CARDINAL DATE .

On DATE ORG requested the defendant ’s observations in reply . In a letter of CARDINAL DATE the defendant replied that it had already filed its observations with ORG . On DATE ORG transferred those observations to ORG .

On DATE ORG invited the applicant to specify which public body possessed the powers conferred by LAW in the area of security screening after the dissolution of the NORP and GPE on DATE . On DATE the applicant responded that the body currently responsible for security screening in GPE was ORG of GPE ( “ the NORP Ministry ” ) . It was thus understood that the action was directed against the said Ministry .

On DATE and DATE ORG invited the applicant to submit within DATE second copies of the action and of the submissions of CARDINAL DATE .

On DATE ORG invited ORG to present its observations in reply to the action . In its response of DATE the NORP primarily contested its standing to be sued in the case , arguing that it had not assumed the authority of ORG under LAW . Relying on Resolution no . CARDINAL of ORG DATE ( “ Resolution no . CARDINAL ” ) , the defendant asserted that the body which had taken over those powers under LAW was ORG ( PERSON informačná služba – “ the SIS ” ) . ORG also maintained that under the said resolution the Prime Minister of GPE was entrusted with the task of preparing jointly with the Minister of Justice of GPE a petition to ORG ( Ústavný súd ) for a review of the constitutionality of LAW .

On DATE the applicant amended his submissions of CARDINAL DATE on the ground that ORG powers under LAW had devolved to the ORG , against which the action was accordingly directed .

On DATE ORG invited the ORG to present its observations in reply . The defendant submitted the observations on DATE and on DATE ORG sent their copy to the applicant .

On DATE ORG held a hearing at which the applicant modified the subjectmatter of the action in that he sought a judicial ruling declaring that his registration as a person referred to in LAW b ) of LAW was wrongful . The applicant further informed the court that he wished to call ex - StB agents P. , PERSON and PERSON as witnesses . He submitted the addresses of PERSON and PERSON and stated that he would submit the address of PERSON later . The defendant consented to the modification of the action and maintained that the relevant ex - StB documents were held in the archives of ORG . The hearing was adjourned with a view to obtaining these documents .

On DATE ORG sent a letter to ORG inviting it to submit copies of the relevant ex - StB documents . The letter was returned unanswered as “ undelivered ” .

On DATE , on the basis of a treaty of CARDINAL DATE between GPE and GPE on mutual legal assistance ( “ the mutual legal assistance treaty of DATE ” ) , ORG sent a letter rogatory to ORG requesting that it obtain from ORG of GPE ( “ the NORP Ministry ” ) copies of all ex - StB documents in its possession concerning the applicant .

On DATE ORG advised ORG that the request had been submitted to ORG , which would reply directly to ORG .

In a letter of CARDINAL DATE ORG informed ORG that all ex - StB documents concerning GPE had been transmitted to ORG and that , accordingly , the documents concerning the applicant had to be searched for there .

On DATE ORG requested that ORG submit within DATE copies of all ex - StB documents concerning the applicant .

The request of CARDINAL DATE was answered on DATE by the ORG to the effect that , apart from a database in which the applicant was listed as an ex - StB agent , there were no ex - StB materials concerning him in its possession . The defendant relied on a treaty between the governments of GPE and GPE on joint usage of information and archives generated by ministries of the interior in the area of internal order and security which had been signed on DATE and promulgated in LAW under No . CARDINAL ( “ the treaty of DATE ” ) . The ORG submitted that under this treaty the relevant documents were with ORG . The ORG again contested its standing to be sued in the case , arguing that the powers in the area of security screening which had been conferred on it under ORG no . CARDINAL were limited to DATE . As this period had already expired , there was presently no official body entrusted with these powers in GPE .

On DATE ORG reiterated its request to ORG for copies of ex - StB documents concerning the applicant . On DATE it also addressed a request to ORG of GPE for information as to which authority was currently vested with the powers under LAW as regards security screening . As no answer had been received , ORG repeated the requests in DATE .

On CARDINAL DATE ORG informed ORG that the question of legal succession in respect of the powers under LAW was not currently addressed in the existing legislation . However , by analogy , the powers of ORG had been assumed by ORG .

In a letter of CARDINAL DATE the NORP Ministry informed ORG that there were no documents concerning the applicant in its archives . Considering the relevant part of the letter of the ORG of CARDINAL DATE to be confused , it relied on the LAW to the treaty of DATE and maintained that the documents searched for were stored in GPE .

On DATE ORG ordered that the ORG deliver within DATE copies of all ex - StB documents concerning the applicant which were in its possession . The SIS complied on DATE and proposed that the proceedings be discontinued on the grounds of its lack of standing to be sued . The ORG also pointed out that the documents submitted were top secret and that the applicable confidentiality rules had to be observed .

Another hearing was held on DATE . The applicant extended the action by directing it also against the Government of GPE , as a collective constitutional body with distinct legal personality . The hearing was adjourned in order for the applicant to resubmit the extended action in writing . He did so on DATE .

On DATE the ORG filed its observations in reply to the extended action .

At an unspecified later point the Vice - President of ORG exercised his power under section CARDINAL § CARDINAL of ORG of DATE and assigned the case to another ORG of that court on the ground that the original ORG had an excessive workload .

NORP On DATE ORG allowed the extension of the action against ORG . On DATE it invited the applicant to disclose the address of witness M.

In a written submission of DATE ORG asserted that the Government was not the legal successor of ORG and possessed no powers under LAW . It was thus not the correct defendant to the action .

On DATE the applicant informed ORG that he had no information as to the address of PERSON and requested that the court itself make an inquiry as to the address .

The hearing called for DATE had to be adjourned as the representatives of the applicant and the Government did not appear .

On DATE ORG held another hearing . It made a formal ruling allowing the modification of the subject matter of the action , as sought by the applicant on DATE . ORG then heard the parties and examined the ORG file concerning the applicant .

On DATE the SIS informed ORG of M. ’s address .

On DATE the applicant submitted a pleading in which he commented on the documentary evidence submitted by the defendant .

By letters of DATE , DATE and DATE ORG requested that ORG discharge witnesses PERSON , PERSON and PERSON from the obligation of confidentiality in respect of the subject matter of the proceedings . ORG agreed on DATE .

On DATE ORG held another hearing at which witnesses PERSON , PERSON and PERSON failed to appear . Witness PERSON apologised for his absence and submitted in writing that he had “ no recollection of the applicant and no knowledge that the StB would have ever had any file in respect of him ” .

The applicant admitted having met PERSON and PERSON several times before and after his journeys abroad when they had , respectively , instructed him on how to behave abroad and asked for information about his stay . Their discussions were of a general nature and included the situation at the applicant ’s workplace . The applicant also admitted having obtained and provided to PERSON a list of students who had been preparing for studies abroad , information he considered public in any case . He had never had the impression that he was considered a collaborator and had never been asked to keep his contacts with PERSON and PERSON secret .

The hearing was adjourned until DATE with a view to calling the witnesses again .

DATE . At the hearing of CARDINAL DATE ORG heard PERSON and PERSON confirmed that he had been in charge of recruiting the applicant as a collaborator . However , if there had ever been any act of formal undertaking to cooperate ( viazací akt ) on the part of the applicant , PERSON had not been present at it . He had received the impression that the applicant had not been interested in meeting him . Their conversation had concerned ordinary affairs and the applicant had not submitted any documents . The reports mentioned in the StB file had been drawn up by PERSON on the basis of his conversation with the applicant . According to PERSON , the applicant had never given any information that was capable of harming any specific person . There had been norms as to how many new agents were to be recruited . As a result , new “ recruitments ” had frequently been only formal , with the new “ agents ” conceivably having no knowledge of them .

Witness PERSON claimed to know the applicant only by face . He did not remember having ever met him and denied having ever received any information or documents from him . The applicant ’s StB file was partially created by PERSON In the given period the situation in the ORG had been such that , in order to meet their statistical objectives , it was possible for officers to run a file in respect of an “ agent ” by filing information from their own sources and declaring them as having been obtained from that “ agent ” .

The witness P. did not appear and the court observed that it had been impossible to deliver the summons to him . In response to the court ’s request , the parties stated that they intended to adduce no further evidence apart from hearing PERSON and examining the relevant Internal Guideline of the Federal Ministry of DATE ( “ the DATE guideline ” ) concerning secret collaboration .

On DATE ORG ordered that the summons for the forthcoming hearing be served on P. by the police . No service was however actually effected .

At a hearing held on DATE the ORG submitted the DATE guideline . As this document was classified , the applicant had no access to it . Apart from proposing to hear P. the parties adduced no other evidence .

ORG listed a hearing for DATE and ordered that the summons be served on P. by the police . At this hearing PERSON finally appeared and gave evidence . He acknowledged that he had been the chief district police officer during the relevant period and that he remembered the applicant . However , he could not recollect clearly the details of their collaboration . PERSON pointed out that the ORG ’s organisation had been very strict and considered that , if something had been recorded , it must have been true . In contradiction to PERSON considered that it was not possible that the applicant had not known that he was acting for the StB as an “ agent ” .

The applicant submitted that the majority of his foreign travel had taken place before DATE , when he was allegedly acquired as an agent . The contention that he had agreed to collaborate in return for the ORG ’s support in connection with travel was therefore unfounded .

On DATE , following another hearing held on DATE , ORG dismissed the action .

First of all , ORG found that the Government of GPE had no standing to be sued in the proceedings and that the correct entity to defend the action was the ORG . ORG considered that the crucial criterion for establishing standing was which entity de facto possessed the ex - StB archives .

On the basis of the StB file pertaining to the applicant , ORG established that the applicant had been listed since DATE as a “ candidate for secret collaboration ” and as an “ agent ” of the ORG since DATE . For tactical reasons it had been decided not to have the applicant sign a formal undertaking to collaborate . This was permitted under the DATE guideline . The applicant ’s StB file contained only an index indicating which reports and documents he had provided . There was a note that the reports and documents themselves had been officially destroyed in DATE when , according to the file , cooperation with the applicant had been terminated .

ORG also noted that the applicant had on CARDINAL occasions travelled abroad to western LOC at the relevant time and that it was then usual for a person to be interviewed by the ORG prior to and after such travel . The applicant himself acknowledged having met the StB in connection with his travels . He also admitted having been in contact with PERSON and having unwillingly met with them . However he categorically denied ever having given them any intelligence information .

The other witness evidence was contradictory . ORG based its finding on the testimony of P. , holding it to be credible and consistent with the case file , and did not accept the testimony of PERSON , observing that it contradicted the applicant ’s own submissions . In the light of all the information in its possession , including what was known of the applicant ’s intellectual capacity , ORG found that he must have known that he had been meeting ORG agents and that their contact had actually amounted to formal collaboration . In so far as the applicant had disputed such a conclusion and asserted that his registration in the ORG files had been unjustified , he had failed to prove his case ; in particular , he had failed to show that the registration was contrary to the applicable rules .

On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal with ORG . He challenged the credibility of witness P. , objected that he had had no access to the DATE guideline , which was a crucial piece of evidence , and argued that ORG had erred in its factual assessment of the case .

On DATE the ORG filed its observations in reply to the appeal . On DATE ORG transmitted the case file to ORG for a decision on the appeal .

On DATE , following a hearing held on DATE , ORG upheld ORG judgment .

It found that ORG had adequately established the facts of the case and found no logical or other errors in ORG assessment of the evidence .

ORG held that the fact that the applicant was registered in the StB files as a person referred to in section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) ( b ) of LAW did not by any means constitute evidence that he had been a conscious collaborator of the ORG

In line with established judicial practice , ORG pointed out that the procedure concerning the issuance of a security clearance under LAW could not amount to a violation of an individual ’s good name and reputation . Only unjustified registration in the StB files would amount to such a violation .

ORG considered that it was crucial for the applicant to prove that his registration had been contrary to the rules applicable at the material time and concurred with ORG conclusion that the applicant had failed to do so . No appeal lay against this decision .

Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL provides , inter alia , that every person has the right to have his or her case tried without unjustified delay .

Pursuant to LAW , as applicable at the relevant time , courts were to work together with the parties to ensure that contentious facts were established reliably and that the parties’ rights were protected speedily and effectively .

Under LAW , once proceedings commence , the court is to act without further procedural motions so that the matter is examined and determined as expeditiously as possible .

Under LAW , a hearing is to be prepared by the President of the Chamber so that the matter can be decided , usually ( spravidla ) in a single session .

Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL provides that the parties to the proceedings are to adduce evidence in support of their assertions . The court may also take and examine ( vykonať ) evidence which has not been adduced [ by the parties ] . The court decides on the facts as established on the basis of the evidence taken and examined .

The mechanism of legal protection of personal integrity under LAW seq . of LAW has primarily found its practical application in defamation proceedings . Certain judicial decisions ( see the judgments of ORG file nos . CARDINALCo CARDINAL and ORG CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) and academic views ( see PERSON , PERSON , GPE , a.s . , DATE , p. CARDINAL and J : PERSON ; PERSON právo na ORG , ORG , DATE , p. CARDINAL ) seem to suggest that , in actions of that type , the burden of proving that an interference with the plaintiff ’s good name and reputation was justified lies with the defendant .

Under LAW , natural persons have the right to protection of their personality rights ( personal integrity ) , in particular of their life and health , civil and human dignity , privacy , name and personal characteristics .

Under LAW , natural persons have the right to request that unjustified infringement of their personality rights be ended and that the consequences of such infringement be eliminated . They also have the right to appropriate just satisfaction .

Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL provides that , in cases where the satisfaction obtained under LAW is insufficient , in particular because the injured party ’s dignity or social standing has been considerably diminished , the injured party is also entitled to financial compensation for non - pecuniary damage .

The Act laid down supplementary requirements for the holding of certain important posts and functions in ORG organs and institutions which were filled by election , designation or appointment . The LAW prevented persons mentioned in section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) under letters ( a ) through ( h ) from exercising the functions enumerated in section CARDINAL .

DATE . Under LAW ( CARDINAL ) ( b ) , the functions covered by the LAW could be exercised only by persons who were not registered in the [ former ] StB files in the period between DATE and CARDINAL DATE as “ resident ” , “ agent ” , “ holder of a conferred flat ” , “ holder of a conspiratorial flat ” , “ informer ” or “ ideological collaborator of the StB ” .

Under LAW ( CARDINAL ) ( c ) , the functions covered by the LAW could only be exercised by persons who had not been conscious collaborators of the StB in the above period . On DATE ORG of the NORP and GPE ( Ústavný súd Českej a PERSON ) found that this condition was in contradiction with LAW základných práv a slobôd ) and with LAW . Accordingly , this condition was repealed as from DATE .

The fact that a person met the requirements of section CARDINAL of the Act was to be proven by means of a security clearance issued by ORG under section CARDINAL of the LAW . Under paragraph CARDINAL of that section the security clearance was to be delivered into the hands of the person concerned alone .

Under LAW ( CARDINAL ) , if a person does not meet the requirements of LAW , the employer is to terminate that person ’s employment by notice within DATE unless the employment terminates earlier by agreement or otherwise or the person concerned is transferred to another post outside the scope of QUANTITY .

Under section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) , such termination of employment can be challenged before the courts within DATE from the date on which the employment purportedly ended .

Section CARDINAL provides that any disclosure of the clearance or of the information contained in it is prohibited , save with the consent of the person concerned .

The temporal application of the LAW is governed by its section CARDINAL , under which the LAW ceased to have effect in GPE on DATE .

It has been established by judicial doctrine and the relevant case law that persons who consider themselves adversely affected by their registration in the former StB files can seek redress before civil courts by means of an action for protection of their personal integrity under LAW seq . of LAW .

DATE . Since DATE the keeping of files generated by the StB in respect of its collaborators , purported or real , has been regulated by the Act on the Disclosure of Documents regarding ORG in DATE and on Founding ORG ( LAW ) ( PERSON o sprístupnení dokumentov o činnosti bezpečnostných zložiek štátu DATE a o založení GPE pamäti národa ) .

The Act regulates ( a ) the establishment of ORG ; ( b ) the recording , collecting , disclosing , publishing , managing and use of documents created by defined security forces in the period from DATE to DATE in respect of crimes committed against persons of NORP nationality or citizenship ; ( c ) the manner of detecting and prosecuting such crimes ; ( d ) the protection of the personal data of persecuted persons ; and ( e ) activity in the area of public education .

“ CARDINAL . The ORG welcomes the opening of secret service files for public examination in some former communist totalitarian countries . It advises all countries concerned to enable the persons affected to examine , upon their request , the files kept on them by the former secret services .

Concerning the treatment of persons who did not commit any crimes that can be prosecuted in accordance with paragraph CARDINAL , but who nevertheless held high positions in the former totalitarian communist regimes and supported them , the ORG notes that some states have found it necessary to introduce administrative measures , such as lustration or decommunisation laws . The aim of these measures is to exclude persons from exercising governmental power if they can not be trusted to exercise it in compliance with democratic principles , as they have shown no commitment to or belief in them in the past and have no interest or motivation to make the transition to them now .

The ORG stresses that , in general , these measures can be compatible with a democratic state under the rule of law if several criteria are met . Firstly , guilt , being individual , rather than collective , must be proven in each individual case - this emphasises the need for an individual , and not collective , application of lustration laws . Secondly , the right of defence , the presumption of innocence until proven guilty , and the right to appeal to a court of law must be guaranteed . Revenge may never be a goal of such measures , nor should political or social misuse of the resulting lustration process be allowed . The aim of lustration is not to punish people presumed guilty - this is the task of prosecutors using criminal law - but to protect the newly emerged democracy .

The ORG thus suggests that it be ensured that lustration laws and similar administrative measures comply with the requirements of a state based on the rule of law , and focus on threats to fundamental human rights and the democratisation process . Please see the " Guidelines to ensure that lustration laws and similar administrative measures comply with the requirements of a state based on the rule of law " as a reference text . ”


The applicant , PERSON , is a NORP national , who was born in DATE and lives in GPE . She was represented before the Court by PERSON , a lawyer pracitisig in GPE . The respondent Government were represented by their Agent , Mr PERSON , Director in ORG .

The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties and as they appear from the documents , may be summarised as follows .

On DATE , the applicant had an accident in the street and suffered injuries to her head and right shoulder . An insurance company granted her a DATE allowance ( päiväraha , dagpenning ) for PERCENT reduction of her working capacity until DATE and an accident pension ( tapaturmaeläke , olycksfallspension ) for PERCENT reduction of her working capacity from DATE to CARDINAL DATE .

By its decision of DATE the insurance company granted the applicant a further accident pension for PERCENT reduction of her working capacity for DATE . As to the period DATE onwards , it considered that the injuries sustained in the accident reduced the applicant ’s working capacity by PERCENT . The company considered that other medical problems rendering the applicant incapable of working had not been caused by the said accident . It also rejected the application for disability compensation ( haittaraha , menersättning ) as it considered that the accident had not caused a permanent disability of the minimum level required for compensation .

The applicant appealed to ORG ( tapaturmalautakunta , olycksfallsnämnden ) , which received the insurance company ’s observations and communicated them to the applicant . She submitted a further written medical opinion of DATE .

On DATE ORG rejected the appeal , giving the following reasons :

“ Section CARDINALa ( CARDINAL ) of LAW ( tapaturmavakuutuslaki , lagen om olycksfallsförsäkring , DATE ) provides that disability compensation shall be paid to an employee , who is not entitled to a DATE allowance and who as a result of an accident has suffered a permanent general disability due to injury or illness . A general disability is to be considered as permanent when the injury or the state of illness will not improve according to medical probability .

According to ... section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) , the lowest level CARDINAL disability is applicable only to eye and finger injury and illness . As to other kinds of injury , disabilities that do not attain level CARDINAL can not be assessed due to their minor nature .

According to the medical information on the applicant ’s injuries presented in the case , she is not suffering from a permanent general disability attaining level CARDINAL .

According to the information presented in the case , the scratches on the applicant ’s forehead , the strain in her right shoulder , forearm and shoulder joint reduced working capacity by PERCENT after DATE . Thus , the applicant is not entitled to an accident pension after that date . As for the injuries sustained in the accident , she is to be considered to be fit to work as a typist and a salesperson in her own company as from DATE .

The applicant ’s incapacity to work and the medical expenses from DATE have been caused by a chronic symptom complex , depression , insomnia and scoliosis , which do not relate to the accident and which do not give rise to an entitlement to accident compensation .

The applicant appealed to ORG ( vakuutusoikeus , försäkringsdomstolen ) , claiming , inter alia , an accident pension from DATE . She underlined , referring to several medical reports , that the chronic symptom complex had been caused by the accident . She adduced further medical evidence and filed further submissions on DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE .

ORG received the insurance company ’s observations , which were communicated to the applicant for comment .

According to the applicant PERSON , on DATE , sent a written medical opinion directly to ORG upon her request . In DATE she found out by chance that the opinion submitted to the court had included the diagnosis PERSON . The copy , which PERSON sent to the applicant ’s representative , did not contain that diagnosis .

In its decision of CARDINAL DATE ORG noted that the applicant had submitted photographs , an article in a periodical and several fresh written medical opinions as evidence . The court upheld ORG decision , giving the following reasons :

“ The reasons are mentioned in ORG decision . The submitted new evidence does not give rise to different conclusions . ORG finds , having regard to the evidence , that the displacement of the shoulder blade did not result from the accident and therefore it does not give rise to an entitlement to compensation based on LAW . ”

The applicant sought leave to appeal from ORG , which received observations from ORG and observations in reply from the insurance company and the applicant . At this point the applicant requested that ORG hold an oral hearing with a view to hearing her physician PERSON She also wanted to be heard in person . The applicant filed several further submissions , on DATE , CARDINAL DATE and DATE .

By its decision of DATE ORG refused leave to appeal .

Subsequently , apparently in DATE , the applicant lodged an application for an annulment , inter alia , on the strength of evidence that had not been at the courts’ disposal during the previous proceedings . She requested on oral hearing with a view to hearing medical doctors as witnesses . She also wanted to be heard in person . By its decision of CARDINAL DATE ORG transferred the application to ORG .

By its decision of DATE ORG , refusing the request for an oral hearing as manifestly unnecessary having regard to the character of extraordinary appeal proceedings , rejected the application for an annulment as it considered that there were no grounds for a re - examination of the case . ORG reasoned , inter alia :

“ ... the mere fact that the treating doctors and ORG have reached different conclusions in their assessments of the causality between the accident and the [ applicant ’s ] health problems does not mean that ORG decision was based on incorrect or insufficient information or that it was contrary to the law , and that the decision should be annulled or that it would prevent [ this court from ] examining the case on the documents . ”

The applicant sought leave to appeal , maintaining that she had the right to an oral hearing . On DATE ORG refused leave to appeal .

Section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of the then LAW ( Suomen hallitusmuoto , ORG ; CARDINAL ) provided that a decision must be reasoned . A new similar provision can be found in section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of LAW ( NORP perustuslaki , PERSON grundlag ; GPE ) .

At the relevant time chapter CARDINAL , section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) of LAW ( oikeudenkäymiskaari , rättegångsbalken ) provided that a judgment must be reasoned , indicating the facts and the legal argumentation on which it was based and the grounds which have led the court to hold a disputed issue established or unsubstantiated .

Section CARDINAL of the then LAW ( laki vakuutusoikeudesta , lagen om försäkringsdomstolen ; CARDINAL ) provided that proceedings in ORG were written . When there were exceptional reasons , ORG could however decide to hold an oral hearing . It also provided that the provisions concerning proceedings in general courts were , mutatis mutandis , applied to those before ORG .

Section CARDINAL of the Decree on ORG ( asetus tapaturmalautakunnasta , förordningen om olycksfallsnämnden ; CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) provides that ORG functions as the first appellate body in matters concerning obligatory accident insurance .

Section CARDINAL of LAW ( tapaturmavakuutuslaki , lag om olycksfallsförsäkring ; DATE ) provides that appellate bodies in accident insurance matters are ORG , ORG and ORG .

On ORG there are a full - time president , CARDINAL vice - presidents and CARDINAL lawyer and medical doctor members as well as CARDINAL members representing labour market organizations . They all bear the responsibility of a judge . The president , the vice - presidents and the lawyer members must be qualified to sit as a judge and they must have a good knowledge of accident insurance . The medical doctor members must be registered and have a good knowledge of insurance medicine . All the members and their personal substitutes were at the relevant time appointed by ORG for a fixed term of DATE . The labour market members were appointed on a proposal by the ORG and GPE organizations .