CASE OF SILVER AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

Violation of Art. 6-1;Violation of Art. 8;Violation of Art. 13;Just satisfaction reserved

ORG The principal complaint of all CARDINAL applicants was that the control of their mail by the prison authorities constituted a breach of their right to respect for correspondence and of their freedom of expression , guaranteed by ORG CARDINAL and CARDINAL ( article CARDINAL , article CARDINAL ) of the LAW , respectively . They also alleged that , contrary to LAW ) , no effective domestic remedy existed for the aforesaid breaches . In addition , Mr. PERSON claimed that he had been denied access to the courts , in violation of LAW ( article DATE ) , on account of the refusal of CARDINAL petitions for permission to seek legal advice .

ORG The first applicant , Mr. PERSON , was born in DATE and was a GPE citizen . When he lodged his application with ORG ( DATE ) , he was detained in prison in GPE . He was released from prison in DATE and died in DATE .

ORG In the period from DATE , CARDINAL of Mr. PERSON ’s letters were stopped by the prison authorities for the reasons indicated in DATE , CARDINAL , DATE and CARDINAL below .

This applicant did not complain through the internal prison channels ( see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) of the stopping of his correspondence ; he claimed that the prison governor prevented him from raising each incident by way of petition to the Home Secretary because he , Mr. Silver , already had petitions outstanding at the material times .

ORG On DATE , Mr. PERSON petitioned the ORG Secretary for permission to seek legal advice concerning allegedly negligent treatment in prison and also complained , inter alia , about his medical and dental treatment . Permission was refused on DATE . On DATE , he submitted another petition in which he referred to his earlier petition and requested leave to seek legal advice about his dental treatment . The second petition was apparently granted on DATE , but Mr. PERSON claimed that he was never so informed . At the time of both petitions , prisoners could not seek legal advice about prospective civil proceedings without the Home Secretary ’s leave ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

ORG The second applicant , Mr. PERSON , is a citizen of GPE , born in DATE . When he lodged his application with ORG ( DATE ) , he was serving a sentence of imprisonment in GPE after being convicted of fraud . He was released from prison on DATE and subsequently deported from GPE .

ORG In the period from DATE and for the reasons indicated in paragraphs CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL below , CARDINAL of Mr. PERSON ’s letters were stopped by the prison authorities and the posting of a further letter was delayed for DATE .

This applicant apparently complained through the internal prison channels of this action , other than the stopping of his letter no . CARDINAL , but without success .

ORG The third applicant , Mrs. PERSON , is an NORP citizen , born in DATE . She is a schoolteacher and resides in GPE .

ORG Around DATE , Mrs. PERSON began correspondence with a Mr. PERSON , the brother of an imprisoned friend of hers . Mr. PERSON was then detained in GPE and was a " category A " prisoner , this being the security category reserved for persons who , if they escaped , would be highly dangerous to the public or the police or to the security of the ORG . Following his transfer in DATE to PERSON , their correspondence was noticed and stopped for the reason indicated in paragraph CARDINAL below . It resumed , unnoticed , following his further transfer to PERSON GPE in DATE but was discovered during DATE ; thereafter , and for the same reason , all correspondence between them was prevented .

This applicant raised the matter , both directly and through a Member of ORG , with the ORG Secretary , but without success .

ORG The fourth applicant , Mr. PERSON , is a GPE citizen , born in DATE . When he lodged his application with ORG DATE ) , he was detained in prison in GPE . He was released on licence on DATE .

ORG In DATE , CARDINAL of Mr. PERSON ’s letters were stopped by the prison authorities for the reasons indicated in DATE , DATE and DATE below .

This applicant apparently complained , in a petition to the Home Secretary , of the stopping of his correspondence , but without success .

ORG The fifth applicant , Mr. PERSON , is a GPE citizen , born in DATE . When he lodged his application with the Commission ( DATE ) , he was serving a sentence of imprisonment in GPE . He was released on DATE , but was later imprisoned again .

ORG In the period from DATE , CARDINAL of Mr. PERSON ’s letters were stopped by the prison authorities for the reasons or in the circumstances indicated in DATE , CARDINAL and CARDINAL below .

This applicant apparently complained unsuccessfully through the internal prison channels of the stopping of CARDINAL of the CARDINAL letters , namely nos . CARDINAL , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE .

ORG The sixth applicant , Mr. PERSON , is a GPE citizen , born in DATE . When he lodged his application with ORG ( DATE ) , he was serving a sentence of imprisonment in GPE , as a " category A " prisoner , after being convicted of murder . He was released on DATE .

ORG In the period from DATE , CARDINAL of Mr. PERSON ’s outgoing letters were stopped by the prison authorities and CARDINAL letter to him was withheld .

This applicant submitted CARDINAL petitions to the Home Secretary , of which one was successful : it was admitted that a letter to ORG ( no . DATE ) should not have been stopped as the addressee was a Member of ORG ; the letter was accordingly sent and Mr. PERSON withdrew his complaint in this respect . The reasons for the stopping or withholding of CARDINAL letters are indicated in DATE , CARDINAL and DATE below .

ORG The seventh applicant , Mr. PERSON , is a GPE citizen , born in DATE . When he lodged his application with the Commission ( DATE ) , he was serving a sentence of imprisonment in GPE after being convicted of theft . He was released on DATE .

ORG In the period from DATE to DATE , CARDINAL of Mr. PERSON ’s letters were stopped by the prison authorities for the reasons indicated in DATE , CARDINAL , CARDINAL and DATE below .

This applicant apparently complained , either through the internal prison channels or by having the matter raised with the Parliamentary Commissioner for ORG , of the stopping of each of these letters , but to no avail .

ORG The control over and responsibility for prisons and prisoners in GPE and GPE is vested by LAW in the Home Secretary . He is empowered by CARDINAL ) of that Act to make rules " for the regulation and management of prisons ... and for the classification , treatment , employment , discipline and control of persons required to be detained therein " . Such rules are contained in statutory instruments laid before ORG and made in accordance with the negative resolution procedure , that is , they come into operation unless ORG otherwise resolves .

The rules made by the Home Secretary currently in force , a number of which relate to ORG correspondence , are the Prison Rules DATE , as amended ( " the Rules " ) .

ORG With a view to securing uniformity of practice throughout prison establishments , the ORG Secretary also issues to prison governors management guides or directives in the form of ORG ( " Orders " ) and ORG ( " Instructions " ) . Unless otherwise authorised , governors are required to comply with these directives , but they do not have , or purport to have , the force of law .

At the time of the events giving rise to this case and until DATE , both Orders and Instructions contained , in addition to directives on the control of ORG correspondence , internal rules and guidance of a general nature concerning DATE to day administration of the prison . The Orders and Instructions were made available to Members of both ORG for reference but not to the public or prisoners , although the latter received , by means of cell cards , information about certain aspects of the control of correspondence .

With effect from DATE , the directives on ORG correspondence were substantially revised . In addition , revised Orders relating to correspondence have been published in their entirety , matters of a management or administrative nature which do not concern a prisoner ’s entitlement to correspond and were considered inappropriate for publication having been eliminated from the Orders and embodied in ORG . The Rules themselves have not been amended , although the Government indicated at the hearing before the ORG that as soon as practicable Rule CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) would be repealed in so far as it affected correspondence .

ORG As far as ORG correspondence is concerned , ORG directives to governors were and are intended to serve a dual function : on the one hand , to circumscribe the discretion conferred on governors by the LAW , and , on the other , to state the manner in which the ORG Secretary has decided in certain respects to exercise his own discretionary powers thereunder . The principal provisions which the Rules contain on the subject are set out below , accompanied by a summary of :

( a ) the relevant Orders and Instructions in force until DATE ; and

( b ) the changes that took effect after DATE .

ORG The following Rules , containing general provisions on the control of correspondence , came into operation on DATE and are still in force :

" CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) The Secretary of ORG may , with a view to securing discipline and good order or the prevention of crime or in the interests of any persons , impose restrictions , either generally or in a particular case , upon the communications to be permitted between a prisoner and other persons .

( CARDINAL ) Except as provided by these Rules , every letter or communication to or from a prisoner shall " ( or , with effect from DATE , " may " ) " be read or examined by the governor or an officer deputed by him , and the governor may , at his discretion , stop any letter or communication on the ground that its contents are objectionable or that it is of inordinate length . "

ORG The following basic Rules , both concerning the identity of persons with whom a prisoner may correspond , came into effect on CARDINAL DATE and are still in force :

" ORG ) Except as provided by statute or these Rules , a prisoner shall not be permitted to communicate with any outside person , or that person with him , without the leave of the Secretary of ORG .

CARDINAL ) A prisoner shall not be entitled under LAW " - which regulates the quantity of correspondence - " to communicate with any person in connection with any legal or other business , or with any person other than a relative or friend , except with the leave of the Secretary of ORG . "

ORG Under LAW ) , as supplemented by Orders PERSON , CARDINALA CARDINAL and CARDINALA CARDINAL , prisoners had to seek the Home Secretary ’s leave to correspond with any person other than a close relation ; they were , however , also normally allowed , without the necessity to seek such leave , to correspond with other relatives or existing friends , but the governor had discretion to forbid such correspondence on grounds of security or good order and discipline or in the interests of the prevention or discouragement of crime . Governors had a discretion - which they would have been unlikely to exercise in favour of a " category A " prisoner , such as Mr. PERSON or Mr. PERSON - to allow communications with other persons not personally known to the prisoner before he came into custody , but generally he could not write to other prisoners , ex - prisoners , marriage bureaux , " ORG addresses " or specified categories of pen friends .

In addition , standing leave had been granted for correspondence falling into certain special categories , as explained in DATE below .

ORG With effect from DATE , uncensored correspondence relating to civil or criminal proceedings to which the prisoner was already a party was permitted under LAW ) , which is still in force and reads :

" A prisoner who is a party to any legal proceedings may correspond with his legal adviser in connection with the proceedings and unless the Governor has reason to suppose that any such correspondence contains matter not relating to the proceedings it shall not be read or stopped under Rule CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of these Rules . "

ORG Until DATE , inmates had to petition the Home Secretary for permission to seek advice about , or give instructions for , the institution of civil proceedings ( with the exception of certain divorce cases ) . On DATE , Instruction CARDINAL/CARDINAL introduced changes which were subsequently reflected in Rule CARDINAL ) and directions made by the Secretary of ORG thereunder , in the shape of LAW ) , which came into operation on DATE and is still in force , reads :

" Subject to any directions of the Secretary of ORG , a prisoner may correspond with a solicitor for the purpose of obtaining legal advice concerning any cause of action in relation to which the prisoner may become a party to civil proceedings or for the purpose of instructing the solicitor to issue such proceedings . "

Order CARDINALA provided , inter alia , that :

( i ) ORG the inmate had to have sought a solicitor ’s advice before he would be permitted to institute proceedings ;

( ii ) at each stage a written application , with reasons , had first to be made to the prison governor for the necessary facilities ; they had to grant immediately , except that , in the case of prospective civil proceedings against ORG " arising out of or in connexion with " the imprisonment , the " prior ventilation rule " ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) generally applied .

Correspondence in this category was otherwise subject to the restrictions on contents mentioned at paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL below .

Prisoners were free to communicate with their Members of ORG , subject to the restrictions on contents mentioned at paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL below .

Prisoners who were foreign nationals or citizens of GPE or a GPE country were free to communicate with the accredited representatives of their countries in GPE , subject to the restrictions on contents mentioned at paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL below .

ORG Under LAW ) b. , a prisoner could , without first seeking leave from the Home Secretary or the prison governor , write to ORG , " ORG " , " Release " or ORG to seek legal advice about his conviction and sentence , or about general matters . He could , in addition , write to these organisations to ask for legal proceedings to be instituted and , although originally he could not seek legal advice from them about any matter relating to his prison treatment , this was subsequently allowed by Instruction CARDINAL/CARDINAL , subject however to the " prior ventilation rule " ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . In the CARDINAL latter cases , however , the prisoner had first to follow the procedures introduced by Instruction PERSON and then enshrined in LAW ( application to the governor for facilities ; see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

ORG Special provisions applied to applications to the Commission ; in particular , the Home Secretary ’s leave was required neither for their submission nor for correspondence with legal advisers relative thereto , and the " prior ventilation rule " did not apply .

ORG Most of the restrictions which the earlier Orders and Instructions contained on the identity of correspondents have now been abolished . Although the relevant Rules have not themselves been amended , the revised Orders ( nos . CARDINALBCARDINAL - CARDINALBCARDINAL ) state that , provided the provisions concerning the contents of correspondence ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) are observed , a prisoner may communicate with any person or organisation , subject to certain exceptions of which the principal are :

( a ) recipients of correspondence ( other than spouses ) who have requested that no further letters be sent ;

( b ) other prisoners , who are not relatives , where there is reason to believe that correspondence would seriously impede rehabilitation or where the prevention of communication is desirable in the interests of security or good order or discipline ;

( c ) ex - prisoners , where there is reason to believe that correspondence would seriously impede rehabilitation ;

( d ) a person ( other than a close relative ) or organisation believed to be planning or engaged in activities that seriously threaten the security or good order of a prison establishment .

ORG The following basic Rules concerning the amount of correspondence which a prisoner may conduct came into operation on DATE and are still in force :

" PERSON ) An unconvicted prisoner may send and receive as many letters ... as he wishes within such limits and subject to such conditions as the Secretary of ORG may direct , either generally or in a particular case .

( CARDINAL ) A convicted prisoner shall be entitled

( a ) to send and to receive a letter on his reception into a prison and thereafter once DATE ;

( CARDINAL ) The governor may allow a prisoner an additional letter ... where necessary for his welfare or that of his family .

( CARDINAL ) The governor may allow a prisoner entitled to a visit to send and to receive a letter instead .

( CARDINAL ) The visiting committee or board of visitors " ( or , with effect from DATE , " The board of visitors " ) " may allow a prisoner an additional letter ... in special circumstances ...

( CARDINAL ) The Secretary of ORG may allow additional letters ... in relation to any prisoner or class of prisoners . "

ORG In addition to his entitlement under LAW ) to send - at public expense - and to receive CARDINAL letter per week , a convicted prisoner was allowed to send at his own expense CARDINAL extra letter per week , and to receive a reply ( Order CARDINALA CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) and Instruction CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) .

The prison authorities’ discretion under Rules CARDINAL ) , ( CARDINAL ) and ( CARDINAL ) to allow further letters was exercised where possible .

These quantitative restrictions did not apply to remand prisoners ( Rule NORP ) ) , but they were in most other respects subject to the same regulations on correspondence as convicted prisoners .

ORG The revised Orders ( nos . CARDINALBCARDINAL and CARDINAL ) do not alter the basic entitlement but specify that additional extra letters should be allowed as far as practicable .

ORG In addition to Rule CARDINAL ) , the text whereof appears at paragraph CARDINAL above , the following basic Rule concerning the contents of ORG correspondence came into operation on CARDINAL DATE and is still in force :

" PERSON ) A prisoner shall not be entitled under LAW " - which regulates the quantity of correspondence - " to communicate with any person in connection with any legal or other business ... except with the leave of the Secretary of ORG . "

ORG Rules CARDINAL ) and CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) were supplemented as follows by various Orders and Instructions .

ORG Under LAW , a convicted prisoner was specifically prohibited from making representations on matters connected with his trial , conviction or sentence to any judge , public authority , representative of any ORG or foreign government ( subject to certain exceptions for prisoners who were foreign nationals or citizens of another ORG country ) or unofficial organisation ( subject again to certain specific exceptions ) . Such representations could , however , be made to the ORG Secretary .

ORG Under LAW , prisoners were not allowed to send letters requesting anyone to make on their behalf a communication which they would not be permitted to make directly , or certain other letters which would circumvent the regulations .

( a ) Orders CARDINALA CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) a. and b. and LAW prohibited the inclusion in outgoing letters ( other than those to Members of ORG or Consular or ORG officials , to which special rules applied ) of any of the following matters :

( i ) ORG objectionable references to persons in public life ;

( ii ) discussion of crime and criminal methods or of the offences of others ;

( iii ) any complaint about the courts , the police and the prison authorities that was a deliberate and calculated attempt to hold them up to contempt ;

( iv ) threats of or incitement to violence ;

( v ) ORG material intended for publication or for use on wireless or television ( this rule was relaxed as regards certain specialised publications ) ;

( vi ) grossly improper language ;

( vii ) statements about private individuals which were patently scandalous or libellous or otherwise deliberately calculated to do them harm ;

( viii ) begging requests for money or valuable property ;

( ix ) complaints about prison treatment ;

( x ) ORG allegations against prison officers ;

( xi ) attempts to stimulate public agitation or petition .

Similar regulations applied to incoming letters ( Order CARDINALA CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) d. ) .

As recorded in DATE above , the prohibition on the inclusion of complaints about prison treatment or allegations against prison officers did not apply to certain correspondence with legal advisers ( after DATE ) and with specified organisations ( after DATE ) , provided always that the " prior ventilation rule " ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) had been satisfied .

( b ) Until DATE , a broadly similar list of prohibited contents applied to letters to Members of ORG , except that they could contain complaints about prison treatment or against prison staff in respect of which the " prior ventilation rule " had been observed . Thereafter , a letter to a Member of ORG would have been stopped only if it included an unventilated complaint of that kind ( Order CARDINALC , as amended by Instruction CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) . At the time of the change of practice , a notice summarising the regulations concerning letters to Members of ORG was issued for the information of prisoners . It contained the following passage :

" A complaint or request about prison treatment should be made to ORG or visiting officer , or by petition to the Home Secretary .... A complaint against a member of staff should be made to the Governor . A complaint on these matters may not be made to a Member of ORG before official action is complete . "

( c ) Letters from convicted prisoners who were foreign nationals or citizens of GPE or a GPE country to ORG officials were subject to the same rules as to contents as letters to Members of ORG until DATE . On that date this restriction was abolished ( LAW , as amended by LAW ) .

ORG With the exception of certain correspondence in connection with legal business for which standing leave had been granted as explained in DATE , DATE and DATE above , Rule CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) prohibited any communications on any legal or other business without the prior leave of the Home Secretary . The conduct of business by prisoners was further dealt with by Orders CARDINAL CARDINAL - CARDINAL , the basic provision being that " an inmate " - whether convicted or not - " may not conduct any business activity in prison , but should be allowed reasonable facilities for arranging its conduct on his behalf " . However , subject to this general rule , governors had discretion to allow an inmate to deal with certain limited personal business matters , in particular to dispose of private property , to sign a cheque or to make or sign a will or other document . The broad effect of the regulations was that , although a prisoner could not participate personally on a continuing basis in a business concern , he was allowed to make arrangements to protect the value , for his own and his family ’s benefit , of his personal property and any business interests .

ORG A complaint about prison treatment or an allegation against a prison officer could be contained or referred to only in correspondence with legal advisers , specified organisations , Members of ORG or Consular or ORG officials , as indicated in paragraph CARDINAL above . Moreover , under the " prior ventilation rule " - set out , in particular , in Order CARDINALA - a letter in any of these categories which alluded to such a matter would , with certain exceptions , be stopped unless and until the prisoner had ventilated his complaint through the normal internal channels ( petition to the Home Secretary , or application to ORG , a visiting officer of the Home Secretary or the prison governor ) and been given a definitive reply . Thereafter , and in general irrespective of the outcome , the correspondence could proceed .

ORG Rules CARDINAL ) and CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) are now supplemented by the new Orders CARDINALBCARDINAL and CARDINALBCARDINAL . The current position is as follows .

( a ) ORG The prohibition on representations about trial , conviction or sentence ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) is abolished .

( b ) ORG similar to the earlier LAW ( designed to prevent the evasion or circumvention of the regulations - see paragraph CARDINAL above ) remain in force .

( c ) ORG The list of prohibited contents ( see paragraph CARDINAL ( a ) above ) has been revised ; the main items which may now not be included in incoming or outgoing letters may be summarised as follows :

( i ) ORG material which would jeopardise prison security ;

( ii ) material which would assist or encourage the commission of a disciplinary or criminal offence ;

( iii ) material which could jeopardise national security ;

( iv ) descriptions of the making of certain destructive devices ;

( v ) ORG certain obscure or coded messages ;

( vi ) threats of violence or damage to property likely to induce fear in the recipient ;

( vii ) blackmail or extortion ;

( viii ) certain indecent or obscene material ;

( ix ) information which would create a clear threat or present danger of violence or physical harm to any person ;

( x ) ORG complaints about prison treatment , in respect of which the " simultaneous ventilation rule " ( see paragraph DATE below ) has not been observed ;

( xi ) material initiating a private prosecution ;

( xii ) certain specified material intended for publication or for use by radio or television ;

( xiii ) in the case of a convicted prisoner , material constituting the conduct of a business activity , which expression is defined so as to exclude certain specified personal transactions .

The foregoing list does not apply to correspondence with ORG officials or , with the exception of item ( x ) , to correspondence with Members of ORG ( new Orders CARDINALDCARDINAL and CARDINALECARDINAL ) .

As regards item ( xiii ) above , it remains the basic rule that inmates may not conduct any business activity from prison , but this no longer applies to unconvicted prisoners who may correspond without restriction about such matters ( revised Orders CARDINALC CARDINAL and CARDINALC CARDINAL ) .

ORG The " prior ventilation rule " ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) has now been replaced by the " simultaneous ventilation rule " , set out in LAW j. A complaint about prison treatment may be referred to in correspondence as soon as it has been raised through the prescribed procedures and without the prisoner ’s having to await the outcome of the internal enquiry . The rule does not apply to complaints not requiring investigation or to general complaints in respect of which no corrective or remedial action is possible ( for example , regarding overcrowding ) : these may be mentioned in correspondence without any internal ventilation . Moreover , the effect of the new Orders is that , in contrast to the earlier position , a duly ventilated complaint may now be referred to in any letter , irrespective of the identity of the correspondent .

ORG Except as otherwise provided by the Rules ( for example , Rule CARDINAL ) ; see paragraph CARDINAL above ) and until DATE , all communications to or from a prisoner had , according to Rule CARDINAL ) , to be read and examined , although Order CARDINALA CARDINAL gave prison governors a discretion to subject specified domestic correspondence to no more than a cursory examination . With effect from DATE , Rule CARDINAL ) was amended to make reading and examination optional , but governors remained and remain subject to the Home Secretary ’s directives in this respect . Thus , at the present time , outgoing domestic correspondence is normally not to be read or examined at open establishments ; elsewhere , all correspondence is to be examined but not necessarily read ( new Order CARDINALBCARDINAL ) .

A prisoner whose letter is stopped on account of its contents will be given the opportunity of rewriting it . Where the cause of the stoppage is the addressee ’s identity , the prisoner may use his entitlement to that letter to write to another person .

ORG An inmate who is aggrieved by a decision to stop or censor his correspondence may complain to the prison governor , ORG or a visiting officer of the Home Secretary or he may petition the Home Secretary himself . A prisoner may ventilate his complaint through any or all of these channels and , if CARDINAL is utilised , in such sequence as he wishes .

ORG As far as ORG is concerned , it may examine the compatibility of the decision complained of with the Rules and the Home Secretary ’s directives . It will draw the governor ’s attention to any irregularity , or report to the Home Secretary ; although its powers are advisory in character , its advice will be implemented save in exceptional circumstances .

Inmates have the right to submit petitions to the ORG Secretary about any matter , for example to seek a permission which the local prison management is not empowered to grant or has refused , or to complain of prison treatment .

On a petition being made by a prisoner , complaining of a decision of the prison authorities to stop or censor his correspondence , the ORG Secretary would , if he concluded that the relevant Orders had not been properly interpreted or applied by the prison authorities , issue directions to them to secure compliance . Although it is possible for him to depart from the Orders in particular cases , this is likely to occur only rarely , if at all , since their very purpose is to ensure uniformity of practice and to avoid arbitrary interference with correspondence .

Prior to DATE , directives concerning the submission of petitions were contained in Orders CARDINAL CARDINAL - CARDINAL . It was , in particular , provided that , with certain exceptions , a prisoner could not petition if and so long as he was awaiting a reply to an earlier petition ( Order CARDINALB CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) ) .

With effect from DATE , the provisions of Order CARDINALB CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) have been relaxed by new Orders CARDINALCCARDINAL and CARDINAL . A further petition may now be submitted if DATE has elapsed since the submission of the previous petition . Moreover , even though an earlier petition be outstanding , a prisoner may petition forthwith on certain specified matters , including interference with his correspondence .

Complaints concerning the control of correspondence may also be raised with the Parliamentary Commissioner for ORG ( the ORG ) . Under LAW , this officer , who is appointed by the ORG , may , if so requested by a member of ORG , investigate any action taken in the exercise of administrative functions by specified authorities ( including ORG ) where a complaint has been made by a member of the public who claims to have sustained injustice in consequence of " maladministration " . Such an investigation may generally not be conducted where court proceedings are available . LAW expressly provides that the ORG may not question the merits of a discretionary decision taken without maladministration ; accordingly , his jurisdiction does not extend to interferences with a prisoner ’s correspondence effected pursuant to a correct exercise of a discretion conferred by the Rules or the ORG Secretary ’s directives . Moreover , he can not grant direct relief for maladministration since he is limited to reporting the results of his investigation to the Member of ORG who requested it , the authority concerned and , in certain circumstances , each ORG of ORG ( section CARDINAL ) .

Until DATE , prisoners could communicate with the ORG only through a Member of ORG who was willing to assist . Although this remains the normal method of approach , they may now write directly ; however , their letters to the ORG are subject to the same restriction with regard to the simultaneous ventilation of complaints about prison treatment as correspondence with Members of ORG ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and DATE above ) and he still can not proceed with an investigation unless the prisoner ’s constituency Member so requests .

ORG The exercise by the prison authorities of their powers under the Rules to control correspondence is subject to the supervisory control of the LANGUAGE courts by way of proceedings for judicial review . In the exercise of this jurisdiction the courts will intervene to secure compliance by the prison authorities with the Rules in so far as they confer on prisoners an entitlement to send or receive correspondence ( for example , Rule CARDINAL(A)CARDINAL ; see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , and to ensure that the discretion to restrict correspondence , conferred on the authorities by the Rules , is not exercised arbitrarily , in bad faith , for an improper motive or in an ultra vires manner .

The ORG notes in this context that in PERSON v. Honey DATE CARDINAL All England Law Reports CARDINAL , Lord PERSON pointed out that it was a principle of LANGUAGE law that " a convicted prisoner , in spite of his imprisonment , retains all civil rights which are not taken away expressly or by necessary implication " .

Sanctions may be imposed on prisoners who commit disciplinary offences . Under Rule CARDINAL , the latter include making " any false and malicious allegation against an officer " and repeatedly making " groundless complaints " , be it in a petition , correspondence or otherwise . An inmate who makes an allegation against a member of the prison staff is to be warned accordingly ( Instruction CARDINAL/CARDINAL , now replaced by unpublished Instruction MONEY ) .

ORG The present case arises from the stopping of CARDINAL letters written by the applicants , that is to say CARDINAL by Mr. PERSON , CARDINAL by Mr. PERSON , CARDINAL by Mrs. GPE , CARDINAL by Mr. PERSON , DATE by Mr. PERSON , CARDINAL by Mr. PERSON and CARDINAL by Mr. PERSON ; in the case of Mrs. PERSON , the CARDINAL letters are examples of the correspondence which she was prevented from continuing with Mr. PERSON . In addition , Mr. PERSON complained of delay in posting CARDINAL of his outgoing letters and Mr. PERSON of the withholding of CARDINAL of his incoming letters .

The Government informed the ORG that the total number of letters sent and received by prisoners in GPE and GPE in DATE was of the order of CARDINAL . An indication of the total volume of the correspondence of the applicants in this case who were in prison is given by the fact that , in the under - mentioned periods ( being periods for which records are most readily available ) , the number of letters written by them and posted by the prison authorities in the form in which they were written was : Mr. Silver - CARDINAL ( DATE to CARDINAL DATE ) ; Mr. PERSON ( DATE to DATE , during which time he was at liberty for DATE ) ; Mr. LAW ( DATE to CARDINAL DATE ) ; Mr. PERSON ( CARDINAL DATE to DATE ) ; Mr. PERSON - CARDINAL ( DATE to CARDINAL DATE ) ; Mr. PERSON ( DATE to DATE ) .

ORG The provisions under which , pursuant to the law and practice applicable before DATE , the CARDINAL letters in question were stopped or delayed are indicated below . In those cases where a letter was stopped for CARDINAL reason , the subsidiary ground or grounds are also stated .

The texts of CARDINAL of these letters are set out in LAW to the ORG ’s report , copies of the remaining CARDINAL not being available . The available letters are those hereinafter referred to by number , the others those referred to solely by date .

Restriction on correspondence other than with a relative or friend ( see paragraphs DATE above )

ORG The following letters were stopped on the ground that they were not sent by or addressed to a relative or existing friend :

( a ) ORG Mrs. PERSON ’s letters nos . CARDINAL , DATE and DATE to Mr. PERSON ( see also paragraph CARDINAL above ) ;

( b ) ORG Mr. PERSON ’s letters nos . CARDINAL , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE and CARDINAL ( addressed respectively to a broadcasting association , a barrister , the presenter of a television programme , a journalist , the police officer who had been in charge of the investigation of Mr. PERSON ’s case , a professor of law and the Mayor of GPE ) and a letter of DATE from the same journalist to Mr. PERSON . The applicant had previously exchanged CARDINAL letters with the barrister in question , who was not known to him , but their correspondence was prohibited when it appeared that it would go further than a general enquiry . Although letter no . CARDINAL was stopped , Mr. PERSON was apparently allowed to write to a local borough councillor .

This restriction was also a subsidiary ground for stopping Mr. PERSON ’s letter no . CARDINAL and Mr. PERSON ’s letter no . DATE ( see paragraph DATE below ) .

ORG ( a ) Mr. PERSON ’s letter no . DATE to a solicitor and his letter of DATE to ORG were stopped as he had not previously applied to the prison governor for facilities to seek legal advice . Both of these letters were written after the entry into force of Instruction PERSON ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

( b ) Mr. PERSON ’s letter no . CARDINAL to a solicitor concerning a pending prosecution , which letter also post - dated Instruction CARDINAL/CARDINAL , was stopped as it was considered that he had already had sufficient facilities to seek legal advice .

( c ) The following letters were stopped on the ground of failure to seek ORG prior leave :

( i ) ORG Mr. PERSON ’s letter no . CARDINAL to a solicitor , which included the following passage : " ... the property is going to be lost if you do n’t come quickly - It is worth MONEY CARDINAL,CARDINAL - the equity - after refinancing and allowing good solicitor ’s fees - will be MONEY CARDINAL - of which you will have a piece also " ;

( ii ) Mr. PERSON ’s letter no . DATE to ORG , which contained a request that medical reports produced at his trial be sent to his Member of ORG .

ORG This prohibition led to the stopping of Mr. PERSON ’s letter no . CARDINAL , which was addressed to the Lord Chancellor but actually concerned legal representation at the applicant ’s appeal . Permission to send the letter was later granted by ORG , apparently after the appeal had been heard .

It was also a subsidiary ground for the stopping of Mr. PERSON ’s letters nos . CARDINAL and DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

ORG Mr. PERSON ’s letter no . CARDINAL and Mr. PERSON ’s letter no . CARDINAL ( see paragraph DATE below ) , which pre - dated Instruction CARDINAL/CARDINAL and Instruction CARDINAL respectively ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and DATE above ) , were also stopped on the subsidiary ground that they therein asked their wives to do what they were not allowed to do themselves : in the first case , to contact a solicitor concerning an injunction against ORG in respect of prison treatment and , in the second , to seek legal advice from ORG concerning control of correspondence .

ORG Mr. PERSON ’s letter no . CARDINAL , to his wife , was stopped as it contained the following passage : " ... CARDINAL of my close neighbours in the prison is CARDINAL of the train robbers ... Another one who arrived here DATE is CARDINAL of the CARDINAL NORP brothers who reputedly killed .... PERSON ... "

ORG Mr. PERSON ’s letter no . CARDINAL , addressed to his wife , was stopped on the ground that it contained material deliberately calculated to hold the prison authorities up to contempt .

This was also a subsidiary ground for stopping Mr. PERSON ’s letter no . DATE ( see paragraph DATE below ) .

ORG Mr. PERSON ’s letters nos . CARDINAL , DATE , DATE and DATE , all addressed to his parents were stopped on CARDINAL grounds : that they contained threats of violence and that they employed grossly improper language .

ORG The following letters were stopped on the ground that they contained material intended for publication :

( a ) ORG Mr. PERSON ’s letter no . CARDINAL , addressed to ORG , ORG , and seeking dietary advice . The letter was stopped although it was marked " Not for publication " and contained an express request that , because of the rules of the prison , no part of it be published ;

( b ) ORG Mr. PERSON ’s letters nos . CARDINAL , DATE and DATE , the first CARDINAL being addressed to the producer of a television programme and the third to a newspaper .

This was also a subsidiary ground for stopping Mr. PERSON ’s letter no . DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) and Mr. PERSON ’s letters nos . DATE and DATE ( see paragraph DATE below ) .

ORG The following letters , all addressed to Members of ORG , were stopped on the ground that they contained complaints about prison treatment , in respect of which the " prior ventilation rule " had not been observed :

( a ) ORG Mr. PERSON ’s letters nos . CARDINAL and CARDINAL ;

( b ) ORG Mr. PERSON ’s letters nos . CARDINAL , DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE , and a further letter of DATE ;

( c ) ORG Mr. PERSON ’s letters nos . CARDINAL , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE , and further letters of DATE and CARDINAL DATE .

The stopping of letter no . CARDINAL , written whilst Mr. PERSON was detained on remand , was the subject of an unsuccessful petition to the Home Secretary ; the Government subsequently conceded before the Commission that the censorship was erroneous , as the letter could not be said to contain a complaint .

The same prohibition also led to the stopping of Mr. PERSON ’s letter no . DATE , to a solicitor .

Mr. PERSON ’s letters nos . CARDINAL and CARDINAL were stopped under this rule for the additional reason that the addressee was a barrister as well as a Member of ORG .

ORG The following letters were stopped because they included complaints about prison treatment :

( a ) ORG Mr. PERSON ’s letters nos . CARDINAL , CARDINAL , DATE , DATE and DATE , no . CARDINAL being addressed to the Chief Rabbi and the remainder to the applicant ’s wife . It appears that , one week after the stopping of letter no . CARDINAL , which concerned dietary grievances , Mr. Silver was allowed to send a similar letter to the Rabbi ;

( b ) ORG Mr. PERSON ’s letter no . CARDINAL , to his wife ;

( c ) ORG Mr. PERSON ’s letters nos . CARDINAL , CARDINAL , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE , addressed respectively to a Mr. PERSON ( nos . CARDINAL and CARDINAL ) , ORG ( nos . CARDINAL and DATE ) , ORG ( no . CARDINAL ) , a medical practitioner ( no . CARDINAL ) , the Health Service Commissioner ( no . CARDINAL ) , the Secretary of ORG ( no . CARDINAL ) and journalists ( nos . CARDINAL and DATE ) . Letters nos . DATE , DATE and CARDINAL all pre - dated Instruction CARDINAL/CARDINAL ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

ORG This prohibition was a subsidiary ground for stopping Mr. PERSON ’s letter no . CARDINAL ( see paragraph DATE above ) .

ORG A subsidiary ground for stopping Mr. PERSON ’s letters nos . CARDINAL and DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) was that they attempted to stimulate public petition .

ORG The posting of Mr. PERSON ’s letter no . CARDINAL , addressed to GPE and containing complaints about the control of correspondence , was delayed for DATE as it was referred to ORG for instructions . The letter was written before the abolition of restrictions on the contents of letters to Consular officials ( see paragraph CARDINAL ( c ) above ) .

Mr. PERSON ’s letters nos . CARDINAL , DATE and DATE , all addressed to relatives , were stopped on grounds of the general control of " objectionable " letters under Rule CARDINAL ) but without an official explanation being given . The ORG observed that the authority for this action was not clear , beyond the general discretion under the said Rule .


There are CARDINAL applicants .

The first CARDINAL , who live in the village of GPE in GPE , are PERSON , PERSON and PERSON , PERSON and PERSON , PERSON PERSON , Mr PERSON , PERSON , PERSON and PERSON , PERSON , PERSON and Mr Willnow .

The fourteenth applicant is the PERSON , an association for the protection of NORP interests , and DATE , the ORG community .

The applicants are represented before the ORG by PERSON , of ORG , and PERSON , of the GPE ( i m GPE ) Bar .

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

The case concerns the transfer – scheduled to take place at DATE of the inhabitants of GPE , a village in GPE QUANTITY north of the town of GPE , near the NORP border . GPE has a population of CARDINAL , CARDINAL of whom are from the NORP minority , of NORP origin . The first CARDINAL applicants say that they are members of the NORP minority . CARDINAL PERSON ( Sorben ) live in GPE . They have their own language and culture . They have their own customs ( sorbisches Brauchtum ) , which are kept alive by groups performing NORP songs or wearing traditional costumes and by drama societies , literary circles and drawing classes . The majority of ORG are NORP .

The inhabitants of GPE are to be transferred to a town QUANTITY away because of an expansion of lignite - mining operations ( GPE ) in the area , as the PERSON open - cast lignite mine ( Braunkohletagebau ) is just a few kilometres from GPE . The mining rights ( PERSON ) belong to the ORG company ( PERSON ) .

In DATE the Government of GPE ( GDR ) decided that the population of GPE would have to be transferred to make a larger area available for lignite mining , a decision opposed by the inhabitants even then .

In DATE the inhabitants of GPE took part in demonstrations and signed petitions calling for an end to lignite mining in the municipality .

On DATE ORG ( Oberbergamt ) of ORG approved an ORG at Jänschwalde DATE until Exhaustion of the Deposits ( ORG zur Weiterführung des Tagebaus Jänschwalde DATE bis ORG ) . Under the project , lignite mining in the area was to continue and as a result the inhabitants of GPE were to be transferred in DATE .

By a decision of DATE , ORG dismissed an application ( Widerspruch ) by CARDINAL landowners to have the project shelved . A large majority of these landowners , including the third , seventh , tenth , eleventh and thirteenth applicants , were from GPE .

At DATE various municipal councils and the third , seventh , tenth , eleventh and thirteenth applicants lodged an application for judicial review of that decision with ORG ( Verwaltungsgericht ) .

Those proceedings were still pending when the application to the ORG was made .

On DATE ORG held a public hearing and delivered a judgment dismissing the application . In finding against the applicants , it relied in particular on settled authority that had established that a mere decision to approve a project for mining operations did not as a matter of principle ( grundsätzlich ) infringe the rights of the owners of the land affected by the works , since the decision in question did not at that stage concern the absorption of the individual plots of land . ORG added that there was nothing to prevent the landowners challenging the legality of the mining operations in the separate procedure , known as the mining - law land - transfer procedure ( bergrechtliches PERSON ) , that would follow .

On DATE , at a public hearing , ORG for the Environment , Nature Conservation and Regional Development of the Land of GPE heard submissions from the representatives of associations , interest groups , research institutes and legal experts on the Lignite Bill .

ORG Basic Law on Lignite ( ORG ) came into force on DATE . LAW of the statute concerns lignite extraction ( PERSON ) and LAW , the dissolution of ORG and the incorporation of its territory into GPE ( Auflösung der Gemeinde Horno LOC in die Gemeinde Jänschwalde – see Relevant Domestic Law below ) .

On DATE several members of ORG lodged an appeal with ORG ( Verfassungsgericht des GPE ) seeking a review of the constitutionality of LAW ( PERSON ) .

The first and fourteenth applicants also lodged a constitutional appeal ( ORG ) with that court .

After hearings on DATE and DATE , ORG held that the provisions of LAW allowing lignite mining in the municipality of GPE were consistent with LAW .

It held that the rights granted to the ORG by the first sentence of LAW regarding the protection of the area where they had originally settled did not afford them absolute protection against the absorption ( ORG ’s LAW and struck a reasonable balance between the right it enshrined and other fundamental rights and that the result was not disproportionate . For the purposes of assessing the future evolution of the economic position , the legislature had been entitled to rely on reports by experts , provided their forecasts were plausible and reasonable .

ORG found that the legislature ’s decision to dissolve ORG and to use the land for open - cast lignite mining remained compatible with the first sentence of LAW , regard being had to the measures that had accompanied that decision ( ORG ) and to the fact that the legislature had weighed the ORG ’s objectives of protecting , conserving and maintaining the area where the ORG had originally settled against its objectives of structural development ( GPE ) , job preservation ( GPE ) and securing energy supplies ( Energieversorgung ) .

In decisions of DATE ORG also dismissed the ORG appeals . It noted that CARDINAL of LAW supplemented ORG ( Enteignungsgesetz des Landes GPE ) by adding special provisions for the lignite - mining areas and authorised expropriations for the purposes of resettlement ( GPE ) of the population . It further noted that , in the case of GPE , arrangements had been made for resettlement in the neighbouring villages . It added that Mr PERSON , in his capacity as a citizen of GPE , did not appear to be entitled at that juncture to complain of an infringement of his right to peaceful enjoyment of his property . It referred also to its judgment of DATE regarding the conformity of LAW with LAW .

The second , fourth , fifth , sixth , eighth , ninth , twelfth , and fifteenth applicants did not exercise any remedies before the NORP courts .

ORG Basic Law on Lignite laid down that the inhabitants of GPE had to be consulted regarding their preferred destination . They were given a choice between CARDINAL villages , all of which were situated in the area where the ORG had originally settled .

On DATE PERCENT of the population of GPE voted on that issue . The majority ( PERCENT – CARDINAL inhabitants ) chose the town of ORG ) , which is QUANTITY from GPE .

By a decree ( Verordnung ) of the Government of the Land of GPE dated DATE , the Jänschwalde Open - Cast Lignite Mining Project ( Braunkohleplan Tagebau Jänschwalde ) acquired binding force and was published in the Land ’s Official Gazette ( Gesetz- PERSON ) .

In the course of DATE ORG began to submit offers to landowners living in GPE for the purchase ( GPE ) or the transfer for mining purposes ( ORG für bergbauliche GPE ) of their land .

At a meeting of ORG ( Braunkohleausschuss ) on DATE , ORG offered to allocate the landowners equivalent land in the resettlement village and to bear all the transfer and resettlement costs .

On DATE ORG requested ORG to declare that ORG was required to license certain land to it for a CARDINAL - year term . The proceedings against some of the applicants are still pending .

By a decree of DATE , published on DATE in the ORG , the Government of ORG approved the part of the project dealing with the transfer of the inhabitants of GPE . The practical arrangements for the transfer were set out in that part of the project and included the following provisions : the cost of transferring the population would be borne by ORG ; village community life was to continue during the transfer ; every effort was to be made to assist the GPE villagers’ integration into the town of ORG ; measures to protect and develop the NORP culture and language were to be encouraged ; and the transfer was to be completed by DATE .

On DATE ORG approved ORG ) for DATE .

On DATE the applicants challenged that decision .

By decisions of DATE and DATE , ORG of ORG transferred property rights in certain plots of land belonging to inhabitants of GPE to ORG .

The landowners concerned lodged applications for judicial review of those decisions with ORG .

LAW , which protects the rights of the NORP minority , provides :

“ CARDINAL . The NORP people are entitled to the protection , preservation and perpetuation of their national identity and of the area in which they originally settled . The Land , municipalities and associations of municipalities shall help to give effect to those rights and in particular to secure the cultural autonomy of the NORP people and their effective participation in politics .

The Land shall ensure that the ORG are able to achieve cultural autonomy transcending the borders of the Land .

The ORG have a right to the preservation and development of the NORP language and culture in public life and to their use in schools and day nurseries .

NORP In areas where the Sorbs have settled , administrative documents shall also be drafted in the NORP language . The colours of the NORP flag shall be blue , red and white .

The means by which the ORG will be able to exercise their rights shall be laid down by a statute that will guarantee the participation of ORG representatives in matters , and in particular legislative debate , concerning the Sorbs . ”

ORG Basic Law on Lignite ( ORG ) entered into force on DATE . The relevant sections of the PERSON provide :

( CARDINAL ) ORG extraction

Lignite in the Lausitz - Spreewald area may be extracted , in accordance with the law , to secure supplies of raw materials and energy and to strengthen the economy of the Land , provided that usable deposits are conserved , that the natural foundations of life are protected and that considerate use is made of the land .

( CARDINAL ) Displacement of local populations as a result of mining works

Where the requisition of inhabited areas is unavoidable , it must be preceded by an offer of equivalent compensation . Every effort must be made to preserve village communities and social ties by moving the populations concerned together . The transfer shall be effected at the cost of the mining company .

( CARDINAL ) ORG areas for ORG

In populated areas for which it is attested that there has been to date an unbroken tradition of NORP language and culture , populations displaced as a result of mining works shall be offered appropriate resettlement sites within the original NORP settlement area , as defined by section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the PERSON on the ORG . ”

( CARDINAL ) ORG division

ORG ( district of ORG ) shall be dissolved on DATE municipal - council elections in the Land . Thereafter , its territory shall be incorporated within the territory of the municipality of GPE ( district of ORG ) .

( CARDINAL ) Legal succession

ORG shall succeed to the rights and obligations of ORG from the date the territory of the municipality of GPE is incorporated into its territory .

( CARDINAL ) Institution of a Municipal District ( Ortsteilbildung ) and a Municipal Law ( Ortsrecht ) in the Absorbed Territory

From the date of its absorption into the municipality of GPE , the territory of the municipality of GPE ( the absorbed territory ) shall enjoy special status as a district of the municipality of GPE ...

( CARDINAL ) Resettlement

NORP In order to preserve the village community and social ties , the inhabitants of GPE should be offered suitable sites for rehousing in GPE ... Before the project for working the deposits is drawn up , the Lignite Commission shall hear representations from the citizens of GPE regarding their resettlement in the municipality of GPE , the municipality of Turnow or the towns of ORG or PERSON ( Lausitz ) .

( CARDINAL ) ORG of a municipal district in the resettlement area

NORP The area allocated in accordance with LAW for the resettlement of the inhabitants of GPE shall be vested with special status as an administrative district within the host municipality if CARDINAL of the inhabitants of GPE are registered as having their main residence there .

Section CARDINAL of LAW supplements the Law on Expropriation of the Land of Brandenburg ( PERSON ) with special provisions for areas of lignite extraction .

“ LAW contains no definition of the notion of national minorities . It is therefore up to the individual Contracting Parties to determine the groups to which it shall apply after ratification . ORG in GPE are the NORP of NORP citizenship and the members of the NORP people with NORP citizenship ... ”


Preliminary objection dismissed (abuse of process);Preliminary objection dismissed (non-exhaustion of domestic remedies);No violation of Art. 3 (ill-treatment);Violation of Art. 3 (effective investigation);No violation of Art. 6-1;Violation of Art. 13;No violation of Art. 3 (detention);No violation of Art. 5-1;Violation of Art. 5-3 (judge or other officer);Violation of Art. 5-3 (trial within a reasonable time);Violation of Art. 5-4;Violation of Art. 25-1;Non-pecuniary damage - financial award;Costs and expenses award - Convention proceedings

The applicants are a family of NORP nationals , of GPE origin , who live in Shoumen , GPE .

Mr PERSON was born in DATE , and his parents , PERSON and PERSON PERSON , were born in DATE and DATE respectively .

On DATE , while gambling in the market square in Shoumen , Mr PERSON ( then aged DATE ) was arrested by an off - duty policeman and taken to the nearby bus station , where the officer called for back - up .

Subsequently Mr PERSON ’s parents , who were both working at the bus station , came and asked for their son ’s release . PERSON PERSON , as a way of showing that he would administer any necessary punishment , took a strip of plywood and hit his son . At some point CARDINAL other policemen arrived . The applicants allege that these officers hit the boy with truncheons . A dispute ensued between the boy ’s parents and the police , although it appears that PERSON PERSON himself was unaggressive and compliant . He and his father were handcuffed and forced into a police car . They were taken to the police station , where they were detained for TIME before being released without charge . Mr PERSON alleged to have been beaten with a toy pistol and with truncheons and pummelled in the stomach by officers at the police station .

On DATE , the first DATE following the incident , the applicants visited a forensic medical expert . They explained to him that PERSON PERSON had been beaten by QUANTITY policemen with a truncheon and with the handle of a pistol and that his mother had been beaten with a truncheon . The doctor examined the CARDINAL applicants and issued medical certificates .

The certificate concerning the first applicant stated that the boy had a band - like haematoma QUANTITY long and QUANTITY wide on the upper outer side of his right arm ; CARDINAL band - like haematomas , each about QUANTITY long and QUANTITY wide , on the right side of his chest ; another bruise QUANTITY long on the left scapula ; a haematoma QUANTITY in diameter on the back of the head ; and CARDINAL grazes each about QUANTITY long on the right chest .

The certificate concerning PERSON stated that she had a bruise QUANTITY long on her left thigh .

The doctor concluded that the bruises could have been inflicted as described by the applicants .

On DATE , PERSON filed a complaint with ORG ( “ the PERSON ” ) , alleging that her son had been beaten at the bus and police stations , and requesting the prosecution of the officers responsible ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

The complaint was dealt with by Colonel PERSON , an inspector with the personnel service of the PERSON . On DATE , Colonel P. heard each of the applicants and prepared written accounts of their oral testimony . Mr PERSON was heard in the presence of a teacher , PERSON In their statements , the applicants gave the account of events set out in paragraphs CARDINAL–CARDINAL above .

Colonel PERSON also ordered the QUANTITY police officers present at the bus station and the officer who had been on duty at the police station to submit written explanations . This they did on CARDINAL , DATE and DATE .

According to these statements , PERSON , who was off - duty and out of uniform , had been passing the central bus station when he saw people gambling . He had arrested PERSON PERSON and taken him to the bus station from where he had called the police officer on duty . Thereupon PERSON PERSON had appeared , shouted at the boy , and had hit him CARDINAL or CARDINAL times on the back with a plywood strip . He and his wife , who had arrived shortly thereafter , started protesting against their son ’s arrest and pulling the boy . When PERSON and PERSON arrived , the father had shouted , swore , and threatened the police officers , who told him to be quiet and asked him to come voluntarily to the police station . A crowd of CARDINAL Roma had gathered ; also present were CARDINAL drivers from the bus station . Since PERSON PERSON had continued his violent behaviour , the police officers had subdued him forcibly , handcuffed him and taken him and his son to the police station .

There officer PERSON had filled out a form recording the seizure of MONEY from Mr PERSON and then released the CARDINAL applicants . It was not true that they had been beaten at the police station .

On DATE Colonel P. also obtained a written statement from the traffic manager at the bus station . She stated that a policeman had brought a boy and had asked her to telephone the police for a car . She did not remember any disturbance having occurred .

Based on this evidence , on DATE Colonel P. drew up an internal note in which he made a summary of the facts and concluded that the boy had been beaten by his father .

On DATE the Director of the PERSON wrote to the applicants stating that the conduct of the police officers had been lawful and that he would not , therefore , open criminal proceedings against them .

On DATE the applicants submitted a request for the criminal prosecution of the alleged offenders to the regional military prosecution office in GPE ( “ the ORG ” ) .

On DATE the ORG ordered an inquiry to be carried out by investigator PERSON at the military investigation office in Shoumen .

On DATE investigator PERSON wrote to ORG , instructing him to take evidence from the applicants and the police officers and to report back . Since there had already been an inquiry on the matter , on DATE the ORG sent to the investigator all the material already collected .

It is disputed whether investigator PERSON heard the applicants personally . The Government allege that he did , but there is no record of this on file .

On DATE investigator PERSON drew up a CARDINAL - page internal note summarising the facts and advising that criminal proceedings should not be brought against the officers , on the grounds that the allegations had not been proved and the evidence in the case was “ contradictory ” .

On DATE , the ORG decided , on the basis of the investigator ’s advice , not to instigate criminal proceedings . The decision stated , inter alia , that PERSON PERSON had been hitting his son , shouting and pulling him , in disobedience of police orders , which had led to the applicants’ arrest ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , and that the evidence taken from witnesses did not confirm the use of physical violence by the police against the boy .

On DATE the applicants appealed to the general military prosecution office ( “ GMPO ” ) . They stated that it was clear from the decision of non - prosecution that the only witnesses examined had been the police officers who were the suspects ; that the medical certificates had not been taken into consideration ; and that it was untrue that Mr PERSON and his father had disobeyed police orders .

The appeal was submitted through the ORG , which forwarded it to the PERSON on DATE , enclosing a letter advising that the complaint should be dismissed . A copy of this letter was sent to the applicants .

On DATE the GMPO , apparently after an examination of the file , refused to open criminal proceedings against the police officers on the same grounds as the lower prosecuting authority . The decision stated , inter alia :

“ A medical certificate is enclosed in the file , from which it appears that there were haematomas on the juvenile ’s body , indicating superficial bodily harm , and corresponding , in terms of mechanism of infliction , to blows with a band - like solid object .

The deputy regional prosecutor correctly considered that even if blows were administered on the body of the juvenile , they occurred as a result of disobedience to police orders . The physical force and auxiliary means employed were in accordance with section CARDINAL ) , points CARDINAL and CARDINAL , of the Law on National Police now in force [ see paragraph CARDINAL below ] . ”

Apparently as a result of continued complaints from the applicants and pressure from ORG to re - examine the matter , on DATE the PERSON wrote to the RMPO , stating that preliminary inquiries regarding alleged police misconduct should include the examination of independent witnesses , and that further investigations should therefore be carried out .

The PERSON took statements from a bus driver and a bus station employee on CARDINAL and DATE respectively . The driver stated that he had seen a GPE man hit his son with a lath . When the police car arrived , the father had thrown himself at the police officers and started fighting . The driver had taken the father ’s arm to prevent him hitting the officers . He had not seen any of the officers hitting the boy . The other witness had a vague recollection of events and could not say whether or not the father had hit his son or the policemen had beaten them .

These additional investigations apparently did not conclude with the delivery of a formal decision . Their results were not communicated to the applicants .

On DATE the applicants appealed to the Chief General Prosecutor of GPE . They again set out their version of events , adding that PERSON PERSON ’s beating had been accompanied by insults referring to the applicants’ GPE origin and pointing out that there had been a number of witnesses to the incident but that no effort had been made to take evidence from any of them . They argued that there was a contradiction between the finding of the ORG that no physical force had been used and the conclusion of the GMPO , which established that there had been use of physical force , but that it had been legal , and they alleged violations of Articles CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the Convention .

This appeal was apparently transferred to the GMPO , which wrote to the applicants’ lawyer on DATE stating that there were no grounds to overturn the previous decision .

In DATE , Mr PERSON was questioned by the PERSON prosecuting authorities in connection with an investigation into a series of thefts and robberies .

He was arrested on DATE and DATE , in the presence of his lawyer and a prosecutor ( “ K. ” ) , he was questioned by an investigator and formally charged with CARDINAL burglaries , allegedly committed DATE and CARDINAL DATE , and CARDINAL robberies committed between CARDINAL DATE and DATE , all involving attacks on passers - by on the street . Mr PERSON admitted most of the burglaries but denied having committed the robberies .

The decision was taken to detain him on remand . This decision was approved DATE by another prosecutor , “ A. ” ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

On DATE , DATE , DATE and QUANTITY DATE , the applicant took part in identification parades , at which he was identified by CARDINAL robbery victims . A lawyer was present on all occasions . On DATE an expert appointed by the investigator submitted a report concerning the value of the objects allegedly stolen by the first applicant and his accomplices . On an unspecified date additional charges , concerning other thefts in which Mr PERSON was suspected to have been an accomplice , were joined .

It would appear that , in the course of the investigation , CARDINAL witnesses and alleged victims were examined , but that no evidence was collected after DATE .

DATE and DATE , Mr PERSON was detained at the Shoumen police station .

There is a dispute between the parties as regards the conditions of his detention there . The applicant submits that he was held in a cell measuring CARDINAL x QUANTITY , which he shared at times with CARDINAL other detainees ; that the cell was almost entirely below ground level , with very limited light and fresh air ; that he could not exercise or engage in any activity in his cell ; and that he was let out of his cell only twice a day , to go to the toilet . The Government submit that the cell measured QUANTITY and that the applicant shared it with CARDINAL other detainee .

The applicant submitted numerous requests for release to the prosecuting authorities , referring , inter alia , to the facts that no further evidence had to be collected and that he was suffering from health problems exacerbated by the conditions of his detention and had CARDINAL young children . It appears that some of these applications were assessed individually , and that others were grouped and examined DATE after their submission .

On DATE , Mr PERSON was examined by a doctor , who found that he was healthy . He was examined again on DATE , by a cardiologist from ORG , who concluded that he did “ not suffer from any cardiac disease , either congenital or acquired ” , and that there were “ no counter - indications against him remaining in detention , as far as his cardio - vascular status is concerned ” .

On DATE , Mr PERSON submitted a petition to ORG requesting his release ( see paragraphs CARDINAL–CARDINAL below ) .

On DATE a judge sitting in camera dismissed the petition , stating , inter alia , that the charges against Mr PERSON concerned serious crimes , and that his criminal activity had been persistent , giving rise to a danger that he would commit further crimes if released .

On DATE , a district prosecutor dismissed CARDINAL requests for Mr PERSON ’s release . This refusal was confirmed on DATE by a regional prosecutor .

NORP The applicants appealed to ORG stating , inter alia , that there had been a “ campaign ” against them because of their application to the Commission .

In its decision of CARDINAL DATE ORG dismissed the ORG arguments and stated that , although the investigation had been completed by DATE , it was still necessary to detain PERSON PERSON because there was a clear danger that he would resume his criminal activities . However , the view was expressed that prolonged detention in the LOC of the Shoumen police would be harmful to the applicant ’s “ physical and mental development ” and that he should therefore be moved to the FAC juvenile penitentiary .

The transfer took place DATE , on DATE .

On an unspecified date in DATE , PERSON PERSON again challenged his detention on remand before ORG .

On DATE the court requested the case file from the district prosecutor ’s office . Noting that an application had already been examined on DATE , it rejected the new petition as inadmissible ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

On DATE the investigator opened a separate case file to deal with the robbery charges , in connection with which he questioned Mr PERSON and ordered his continued detention on remand . The following day the investigator drew up a report summarising the facts in the robbery case and sent it to the prosecutor proposing that an indictment be prepared .

On DATE , a district prosecutor sent the robbery case back to the investigator with instructions to see CARDINAL further witness . On DATE the investigator returned the case file because the proposed witness had died . On DATE , the district prosecutor drew up an indictment in the case and , DATE , submitted it to ORG . The court held a hearing on DATE , where it heard CARDINAL witnesses and adjourned the hearing to CARDINAL DATE because of the non - attendance of CARDINAL other witnesses .

In the meantime , on DATE , the investigator completed the preliminary inquiry into the burglary case . On DATE , this case was sent to the regional prosecutor ’s office with a proposal to indict Mr PERSON . It appears that on DATE the burglary case was referred back for further investigation .

DATE and DATE , Mr PERSON was again held at Shoumen police station , before being transferred to ORG .

Throughout DATE the applicants continued to submit requests for PERSON PERSON ’s release to the prosecuting authorities . By decisions of CARDINAL DATE and DATE these requests were dismissed by the district prosecutor , on the grounds that the applications raised no new arguments , that there was still a danger of the applicant reoffending if released and that the cases would soon be sent for trial . On DATE the regional prosecution office dismissed another request for release .

On DATE , a ORG judge sitting in the robbery case examined in camera Mr PERSON ’s petition for release . The judge refused to release PERSON PERSON , taking into account the seriousness and the number of the crimes with which he had been charged and the fact that the trial would soon commence .

In DATE Mr PERSON was convicted of CARDINAL street robberies and sentenced to CARDINAL months’ imprisonment .

According to the information available to the ORG , he has not yet been indicted in relation to the burglary charges pending against him .

NORP The applicants’ complaint was lodged with the Commission on DATE . In DATE they signed before a notary a statement of means , prepared in NORP , referring expressly to their application to the Commission , and stating that it was done for purposes of their legal aid request to the Commission .

On DATE , CARDINAL May and CARDINAL DATE CARDINAL DATE newspapers published articles about the case . CARDINAL of the articles , under headlines stating that a GPE gambler had “ put GPE on trial in GPE ” , explained inter alia that , in response to questions from journalists , the applicants had allegedly denied having made an application to the Commission . The articles concluded that perhaps some GPE activists had pushed the case and misled ORG .

On an unspecified date the prosecuting authorities or the police approached the applicants and asked them to declare whether they had made an application to the Commission . On DATE , the second and third applicants visited a notary and signed a declaration in which they denied having made an application to the Commission . They further stated that they remembered having signed , in DATE and DATE , some documents prepared by human rights associations . However , they had not been given copies of the documents and did not know their contents . CARDINAL of the documents had been in a foreign language .

It would appear that this declaration was then submitted to the prosecuting authorities . On DATE the PERSON wrote about it to ORG .

The transcript of PERSON PERSON ’s questioning after his arrest on DATE establishes that he spoke to the investigator about the events of DATE , saying :

“ In DATE ... I was beaten by policemen ... [ at the bus station ] . Thereafter I obtained a medical certificate and my father complained to the police . They did not look at it seriously and he submitted it to the military prosecution office . They did not take it seriously either . Then my father heard that there were some people from an international human rights organisation [ in town ] . My father brought me there and showed them how I was beaten . In fact , after my release from the police my father brought me first to these people and then wrote to the police and to the prosecution authorities . ”

Since TIME record only that said by PERSON PERSON , it can not be established whether or not his statement was made in response to questioning .

Gambling is an administrative offence under NORP law , for which individuals DATE are not liable ( section CARDINAL ) of the PERSON against Speculation ) .

Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the Law on National Police ( DATE ) , which applied at the relevant time , provided that a police officer could take to a police station or local government office only those persons :

“ CARDINAL . whose identity may not be established ;

NORP who behave violently and do not obey after warning ;

NORP who refuse to come voluntarily to a police station without serious reasons for refusal , after having been notified under section CARDINAL of the present Act ;

who wilfully create obstacles for the authorities of ORG in carrying out their duties ;

who carry or use without lawful permission firearms , other weapons or other dangerous objects ;

NORP in other cases prescribed by law . ”

According to section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of this PERSON , in each of the above cases the police were required to carry out an immediate investigation and release the person held within TIME , unless it was necessary to take further lawful measures in respect of him or her .

Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) contained provisions on the use of force by police officers . The use of force “ adequate to the character and seriousness of the offence and resistance ” ( section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) ) , was permitted :

“ CARDINAL . to bring an end to violent conduct or other serious violation of the public order ;

NORP in cases of obvious disobedience to police orders or prohibition ;

NORP during arrest or convoy where there is danger of absconding or for the life of the person arrested or conveyed or for other persons . ”

Article CARDINAL of the Code of Criminal Procedure ( DATE ) ( “ ORG ” ) states :

“ There shall be considered to exist sufficient evidence for the institution of criminal proceedings where a reasonable supposition can be made that a crime might have been committed . ”

In respect of most serious crimes , and all crimes allegedly committed by civil servants in the exercise of their duties , criminal proceedings can not be brought by a private individual , but only by the decision of a public prosecutor ( ORG , ORG CARDINAL and CARDINAL–CARDINAL ) .

According to Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL § CARDINAL of the ORG , when a prosecutor has refused to institute criminal proceedings , such proceedings can be instituted by a higher prosecutor upon the petition of the interested person or ex officio .

The victim of an alleged crime can join criminal proceedings as a civil party in order to seek compensation ( ORG , LAW , ORG CARDINAL–CARDINAL ) .

The Law on Obligations and ORG provides in DATE that a person who has suffered damage can seek redress by bringing a civil action against the person who has , through his fault , caused the damage . The Law on State Responsibility for Damage provides that a person who has suffered damage due to the unlawful act of a civil servant can bring an action against the ORG authority concerned .

The Code of Civil Procedure provides , in Articles ORG ) and CARDINAL , that a court examining a civil action :

“ CARDINAL . NORP … shall suspend the proceedings :

( d ) whenever criminal elements , the determination of which is decisive for the outcome of the civil dispute , are discovered in the course of the civil proceedings .

Proceedings which have been suspended shall be resumed ex officio or upon a party ’s petition after the respective obstacles have been removed ... ”

Article CARDINAL of the Code of Civil Procedure provides :

“ The findings contained in a final judgment of a criminal court and concerning the issue whether the act in question has been committed , its unlawfulness and the perpetrator ’s guilt , are binding on the civil court when it examines the civil consequences of the criminal act . ”

The parties have submitted to the ORG a number of decisions of ORG as to the effect of the above provisions .

In decision no . CARDINAL of DATE in case no . ORG , ORG of ORG held :

“ In principle the fact of a crime may only be established under the procedures of LAW . This is why , when an alleged civil right derives from a fact which constitutes a crime under LAW , the civil court , according to LAW ) of LAW , is obliged to suspend the civil proceedings .

This is necessary in order to respect the decision of the criminal court . It is mandatory for the civil courts regardless of the crime in issue . The mandatory binding force of the decisions of criminal courts is set out in LAW . ”

In decision no . CARDINAL , ORG of ORG held as follows :

“ The decision of the prosecution to terminate the criminal prosecution based on a finding that the accused is not guilty of committing the criminal act does not bind the civil court which examines the civil consequences of this act ... [ T]he civil court , on the basis of evidence [ collected ] in the course of the civil proceedings , can reach different factual findings , for example that the tort was in fact caused by the same person , the criminal prosecution against whom had been terminated .

If in the course of the civil proceedings , after collection of evidence , fresh criminal circumstances are discovered , the determination of which is decisive for the outcome of the civil dispute , the court is obliged to suspend the proceedings in accordance with LAW ) of LAW . ”

In interpretative decision no . CARDINAL of DATE ( Yearbook CARDINAL ) , ORG of ORG of GPE held :

“ … In principle a civil court may not establish whether any particular act constitutes a crime . But when the criminal proceedings were closed under LAW of LAW [ where the criminal procedure was closed following the death of the alleged perpetrator , expiry of the time - limit for prosecution or where an amnesty has been granted ] , the criminal court does not make a decision whether the act constitues a crime . In such cases , DATE CARDINAL § CARDINAL of LAW provides a possibility for the civil court to establish in a separate procedure whether the act constitutes a crime and who was the perpetrator . ”

In decision no . CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE in case no . CARDINAL , a claim for damages arising out of a car accident , ORG of ORG held :

“ In dismissing the claim , the first - instance court had found that the CARDINAL responsible for the car accident was the claimant , who , at a distance of QUANTITY , suddenly jumped in front of the car in order to cross the street and therefore , despite the measures taken by the driver , the collision was not avoided .

This conclusion was based on the fact that the criminal investigation against the driver had been closed on the grounds of lack of evidence , ill - foundedness , lack of some of the elements comprising a crime in the accusation and lack of guilt .

The court was not required to rely on the prosecutor ’s decision to terminate the criminal investigation by LAW [ see paragraph CARDINAL above ] , which states that only the final judgment of a criminal court is binding on the court which deals with the civil consequences of the act in question . The order of a prosecutor closing an investigation has no evidential weight and his / her findings are not binding on the court dealing with the civil consequences of the act . Where there is no verdict of a criminal court finding the accused not guilty of causing the injuries of the claimant , the civil court must establish whether the defendant was guilty or not guilty on the basis of all admissible evidence under LAW . Thus , in the present case , the order of the prosecutor closing the investigation had no evidential weight that the defendant was not guilty for the car accident . ”

In connection with the alleged burglaries , Mr PERSON was charged with an offence the elements of which are continuous criminal activity by a minor consisting of burglaries committed with accomplices and involving breaking in to locked LOC , where the amount stolen is significant . The maximum punishment for this offence is CARDINAL years’ imprisonment ( Criminal Code DATE ( “ CC ” ) , LAW CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) , CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) and CARDINAL in conjunction with Articles CARDINAL § CARDINAL and CARDINAL § CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) ) .

In connection with the alleged robberies , he was charged with an offence of continuous criminal activity by a minor , committed with accomplices , consisting of robberies , defined as stealing with the use of force or threats . The punishment is up to DATE imprisonment ( ORG , Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL in conjunction with Articles CARDINAL § CARDINAL and CARDINAL § CARDINAL ) ) .

Pursuant to ORG CARDINAL of the ORG , the maximum sentence which PERSON PERSON could have received if convicted of all the charges against him was DATE years’ imprisonment .

According to the relevant provisions of the ORG and legal theory and practice , the prosecutor performs a dual function in criminal proceedings .

During the preliminary stage he supervises the investigation . He is competent , inter alia , to give mandatory instructions to the investigator ; to participate in examinations , searches or any other acts of investigation ; to withdraw a case from CARDINAL investigator and assign it to another , or to carry out the entire investigation , or parts of it , himself . He may also decide whether or not to terminate the proceedings , order additional investigations , or prepare an indictment and submit the case to court .

At the judicial stage he is entrusted with the task of prosecuting the accused .

The investigator has a certain independence from the prosecutor in respect of his working methods and particular acts of investigation , but performs his functions under the latter ’s instructions and supervision ( ORG , ORG CARDINAL § CARDINAL and CARDINAL ) . If an investigator objects to the prosecutor ’s instructions , he may apply to the higher prosecutor , whose decision is final and binding .

Under Article CARDINAL of the ORG , the prosecutor and the investigator are under an obligation to collect both incriminating and exonerating evidence . Throughout criminal proceedings , the prosecutor must “ effect a supervisory control of lawfulness ” ( ORG , LAW ) .

An accused , including a minor , can be detained on remand by decision of an investigator or prosecutor , although minors may be detained on remand only in exceptional circumstances . In cases where the decision to detain has been taken by an investigator without the prior consent of a prosecutor , it must be approved by a prosecutor within TIME . The prosecutor usually makes this decision on the basis of the file , without hearing the accused ( ORG , ORG CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL–CARDINAL ) .

A criminal investigation must be concluded within DATE . A prolongation of DATE may be authorised by a regional prosecutor and , in exceptional cases , ORG may prolong the investigations DATE . If the period is prolonged , the prosecutor will decide whether to hold the accused in custody ( ORG , Article CARDINAL ) .

There is no legal obstacle preventing the prosecutor who has taken the decision to detain an accused on remand , or has approved an investigator ’s decision , from acting for the prosecution against the accused in any subsequent criminal proceedings . In practice this frequently occurs .

A person detained on remand has the opportunity immediately to file an appeal with the competent court against the imposition of detention . The court must rule within DATE of the filing of the appeal ( ORG , LAW ) .

According to the practice which was current at the time of PERSON PERSON ’s arrest , the court examines appeals against detention on remand in camera , without the participation of the parties . If the appeal is dismissed , the court does not notify the detained person of the decision taken .

ORG of ORG has held that , in deciding on such appeals , it is not open to the court to inquire whether there exists sufficient evidence supporting the charges against the detainee , but only to examine the lawfulness of the detention order . A detention order will only be lawful , in cases of persons charged with crimes punishable by less than ten years’ imprisonment , where there is a “ real danger ” of the accused absconding or reoffending ( decision no . CARDINAL in case no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) .

In a decision of CARDINAL DATE , ORG of ORG found that the imposition of detention on remand could be contested before a court only once . A new appeal was only possible where a detained person had been released and then redetained . In all other cases a detained person could request his release from the prosecuting authorities if there had been a change of circumstances ( decision no . CARDINAL in case no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) .

DATE . Periodic judicial review of the lawfulness of detention on remand becomes possible only when the criminal case is pending before a court , which can then decide whether or not to release the accused .


Violation of Art. 6-1;Violation of Art. 13;Non-pecuniary damage - award

David Thór Björgvinsson;Ján Šikuta;Ledi Bianku;Nebojša Vučinić;Nicolas Bratza;Päivi Hirvelä;Vincent A. De Gaetano

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in PERSON .

On DATE the applicant initiated divorce proceedings and asked PERSON to determine her and her husband 's rights and duties in respect of their minor daughters .

On DATE ORG adopted a judgment in the case .

On DATE the applicant lodged a length of proceedings complaint with ORG .

ORG judgment was served on the applicant on DATE and , in the absence of an appeal , it became final on DATE .

On DATE ORG declared the complaint inadmissible as being manifestly ill - founded . It held that ORG , by adopting the judgment and delivering it to the parties , had taken all required steps in order to eliminate the state of the applicant 's legal uncertainty . This role of ORG had ended by adopting the decision on the merits , that is before the complaint was lodged with ORG . This decision became final on DATE and ORG could not deal with the merits of the case after the initiation of the constitutional proceedings . It was ORG practice to protect one 's right to a hearing without unjustified delay only if the length of proceedings complaint was lodged at a time when the alleged violation still persisted . The decision was served on the applicant 's lawyer on DATE .