Violation of Art. 2 (lack of independence of the investigating body during the initial stages of the investigation);Not necessary to examine Art. 13;Non-pecuniary damage - financial award;Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE . He was the brother of PERSON .

On TIME CARDINAL , PERSON , the applicant 's brother and PERSON were driving home from the All - Ireland Gaelic football semi - finals in GPE , GPE . Both men were found shot dead on LOC , NORP , in GPE . PERSON had been shot CARDINAL times , PERSON CARDINAL times . According to the later inquest , the time of death was TIME . The car was found burnt out QUANTITY from the murder scene .

Prior to their deaths , at TIME a police patrol in an unmarked car had been stopped at what was believed to be a bogus checkpoint ( “ ORG ” ) manned by armed men in military style uniforms on the ORG QUANTITY from where the bodies were found . A short conversation took place between the CARDINAL ORG officers and a person holding a torch dressed in full military combat uniform . The officers noticed a second person also dressed in military uniform lying in a ditch apparently giving cover with a rifle . The scene at the checkpoint roused suspicions , inter alia , due to the lack of other vehicles , the accent of the person who stopped them and the length of hair of the man in the ditch . After being allowed through the checkpoint , the officers requested clarification by radio as to the presence of any army checkpoints in the vicinity . They were informed that none were operating . The police patrol drove to a police station , where , requesting army support , they decided to investigate further .

At TIME a local resident who had been walking his dog noticed a vehicle stopped on FAC . He saw the interior light of the car come on and a door on the passenger side open . CARDINAL or CARDINAL gunshots were heard . The witness saw a light from a lamp lying on the road . He then heard the sound of someone running along the road and a man 's voice shouting " Stop , stop , " several times . This was followed by a flash and a bang . He heard a wild scream and everything went quiet . Fearing for his safety , the witness hid behind a tree . He heard further shooting , CARDINAL to QUANTITY shots . After TIME , he heard a car engine being started and the car , brownish with a black vinyl roof , drove past him without its lights on . He went to a neighbour who returned with him to the scene where they found CARDINAL bodies . They contacted the police .

At first light , a Detective Constable visited the scene and inspected the bodies which were QUANTITY apart . He arranged for the scene to be examined , photographed and mapped . The bodies were identified .

The police visited the PERSON and PERSON families DATE . On DATE , PERSON car was found gutted by fire QUANTITY from the scene . It was subsequently established by ballistics examinations that CARDINAL firearms had been used and that the weapons had been used in other incidents .

NORP The police believed that the murders had been carried out by an extreme loyalist paramilitary organisation , reacting to a murder of a local NORP . They had little doubt that the men who stopped the police patrol had been directly connected with the murders if not in fact the actual murderers .

A report was submitted by the police to ORG on DATE .

An inquest occurred on DATE . It appears that the local resident who witnessed the shooting did not appear at the inquest , nor was his statement made available due to the decision of a police officer to protect his identity .

The applicant claimed that there were concerns about the thoroughness of the original investigation . He stated that the occupants of the CARDINAL cars who had come upon the CARDINAL bodies were not asked to give a statement to the police or at the inquest . Because of the method used ( a ORG manned by persons in uniform ) , there were allegations of security force collusion made at the time of the shooting .

The investigation did not close and became active again in DATE , when a NORP priest Father PERSON was abducted by loyalist paramilitaries intending to use him as a hostage vis - à - vis the IRA . The police arrested a reserve police constable , PERSON , who , in the course of questioning , revealed his part in the abduction of the priest and in a variety of other loyalist paramilitary incidents . PERSON also named a police officer as being involved in a range of incidents . He specifically referred to a well - known paramilitary as being involved in the NORP murders . While this paramilitary had been arrested and interviewed by the police on a number of occasions , the ORG stated that there was no record that he had been specifically interviewed about the NORP murders . The police officer was arrested and questioned , inter alia , about his role in the murders of PERSON and PERSON . He made no admissions . He was charged with other serious offences , resigned from the police and was subsequently convicted and sentenced .

PERSON 's revelations gave rise to investigations in CARDINAL specific cases , some of which were linked in terms of the identities of those involved , the modus operandi or by virtue of the ballistics examinations of weapons used . CARDINAL suspects were arrested in total , including QUANTITY police officers and all were eventually charged with offences .

One of those implicated was a police officer PERSON who was named as having been involved in the murder of a shopkeeper called PERSON in PERSON in DATE : he was convicted for that murder in DATE and sentenced to life imprisonment . The ORG stated that both PERSON and PERSON refused to name the CARDINAL loyalist paramilitaries also involved with them in the murder unless they received immunity from prosecution . The police and prosecuting authority took the decision prior to the trial not to enter into any process of bargaining with PERSON and PERSON . While both were approached by the police after their convictions to see if at that stage they would give evidence against the loyalist paramilitaries , each again refused to do so unless there was something in it for themselves . The ORG stated that during the period in which PERSON was detained he was interviewed on a large number of occasions . At no time did he implicate himself or others in any offence other than the PERSON murder .

On DATE , PERSON was released from prison on licence . In DATE , he made a statement to a journalist alleging ORG and ORG ( “ GPE ” ) collusion with loyalist paramilitaries from the GPE area in DATE . This statement was published in the DATE ORG newspaper in DATE . It was obtained by ORG , a human rights non - governmental organisation in GPE ( “ the Centre ” ) .

PERSON statement made detailed allegations about security force collusion with loyalist paramilitaries in a series of incidents . He alleged inter alia that ORG Constable PERSON had told him that PERSON and PERSON , a member of the ORG , along with members of ORG ( “ ORG ” ) , a proscribed loyalist paramilitary organisation , had been involved in the murder of PERSON and PERSON .

NORP The statement also made links between the attack on ORG and other attacks allegedly carried out by members of the security forces , both ORG and GPE , and loyalist paramilitaries . This group used the farmhouse in GPE owned by PERSON , a ORG reservist , as a base from which to carry out attacks on NORP and nationalists . Other attacks allegedly included the murder of PERSON and PERSON and wounding of PERSON in their home on DATE ( see application no . CARDINAL ) ; the attack on ORG in which PERSON , PERSON and PERSON were killed ( see application no . ORG ) ; the murder of PERSON , PERSON and PERSON and wounding of PERSON ( see application no . CARDINAL ) ; and the attack on FAC in which PERSON was seriously injured ( see application no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) . PERSON also linked these attacks to the GPE and GPE bombings in which CARDINAL people were killed in GPE .

On or DATE , ORG , an NORP television channel , broadcast a television programme that contained allegations of security force involvement in a number of deaths , including that of PERSON . PERSON made allegations on that programme that members of the ORG and GPE were directly involved in the attack on ORG . A ORG programme produced a similar documentary .

These allegations attracted considerable attention on both sides of the NORP border and became the subject of police investigation in both jurisdictions . The Government stated that the police investigation in GPE was focussed on determining whether PERSON 's allegations should be assessed as sufficiently credible to require a full investigation . They obtained from the journalist an edited transcript of the interview with PERSON . While his whereabouts were unknown to the ORG , PERSON met with senior NORP police officers at FAC on DATE . A copy of his statement was provided by the PERSON to the ORG , along with a further statement made by ORG to another journalist dated DATE . The police analysed the available materials and sought to identify the personalities to be interviewed . It became apparent that some had died and that others , living abroad , could not be traced . A series of CARDINAL interviews were conducted , under cautions , DATE , of those individuals central to ORG 's account who could be traced . No charges were preferred . The interviews followed the format of ORG 's allegations being put to the interviewee for his or her response . The predominant response was denial of any involvement and claims that ORG had been untruthful . No admissions were made by any interviewee . Interviews were also conducted with less central personalities and with police officers involved in interviewing PERSON in DATE . The latter stated that PERSON had not mentioned the matters now being alleged . Amongst those interviewed by the police in the course of the preliminary investigation of ORG 's allegations , was CARDINAL person questioned about the NORP murders . He denied any involvement and made no admissions .

Meetings were held regularly with ORG counterparts in GPE . The ORG co - operated also with the judicial inquiry established in GPE into the GPE and GPE bombings ( see the description of the inquiry in the PERSON case referred to above ) . Amongst matters about which the ORG team provided information to the inquiry was ballistics information which linked some of the weapons used to CARDINAL incident . In DATE a substantial report was compiled by the ORG for the GPE dealing with PERSON 's allegations . It profiled PERSON and dealt inter alia with a description of the DATE investigation into ORG and others . It concluded that the investigation would continue but that his credibility was in doubt . According to ORG , despite inquiries being conducted , PERSON 's whereabouts could not be traced . This report was not disclosed as the investigation was continuing . An internal ORG report dated DATE concluded that it would be necessary to interview ORG before any view could be finalised in respect of the credibility of his allegations : such interview was not possible as his whereabouts were not known . The report noted the absence of any previous mention of the allegations before DATE and that much of what he said was hearsay and speculation . Inquiries made of ORG ( where he had a known address ) and the criminal intelligence service and others failed to locate PERSON . Contact was made with the PERSON and the secretariat of the Inquiry into the GPE and GPE bombings without positive result .

ORG ( “ ORG ” ) was established in DATE , with responsibilities including the review of all historical murders by way of case assessment for evidential and investigative opportunities . A preliminary case assessment was carried out by a detective chief inspector , who audited all known information and documentation . It was noted that the dossier provided by the ORG included statements from civilian witnesses who had allegedly come across the bodies following the murders . The ORG attempted without success to obtain access to these materials . In light of the preliminary assessment , the case was referred to ORG ( “ HET ” ) . On DATE , a senior investigating officer reported on the further review ; a number of potential lines of inquiry were identified and recommendations made , including that the ORG should extensively interview PERSON . This recommendation has been approved . The ORG director of ORG , Detective Chief Superintendent PERSON ORG , took over personal supervision of the investigation which has progressed through the first CARDINAL of CARDINAL stages of the HET process ( collection of all relevant material ; assessment of the investigations to date ; review of evidence , with intelligence and open and non - police sources , together with a meeting with the families of the victims of the attack ) . As a number of investigative opportunities were identified and to be followed up , the case was to continue to be processed by HET , which had been put in touch with PERSON by ORG The Government submitted that if any evidence of police involvement in the murders was found , ORG for GPE would then become involved . The Government have provided recent information that PERSON finally agreed to meet with the ORG in GPE ; he refused , however , to make a written statement or to give evidence in court .

There has been contact between the police and family members , their solicitors or the LOC . In particular , there were meetings on DATE with Chief PERSON ; on DATE with Detective Inspector PERSON and in DATE with Detective Inspector PERSON and in DATE and DATE with the Chief Constable ; members of ORG met with families or their representatives on DATE and CARDINAL DATE , and there has also been extensive correspondence with the families or their representatives .

See PERSON , cited above ( § § CARDINAL - CARDINAL ) .

See PERSON , cited above ( § § DATE ) .


Violation of Art. 6-1;Violation of Art. 6-3-d;Pecuniary damage - financial award;Non-pecuniary damage - financial award;Costs and expenses award - domestic proceedings;Costs and expenses award - Convention proceedings

The applicant , an NORP national , was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

On an unspecified date , PERSON , a minor , complained to ORG in GPE ) that while on holiday in GPE he had been indecently assaulted by the applicant , a caretaker in the halls of residence where he had been staying . Consequently , the GPE public prosecutor ’s office brought criminal proceedings against the applicant for sexual assault on a minor and gross indecency in a public place .

On DATE the ORG public prosecutor sent international rogatory letters to ORG GPE in GPE pursuant to LAW between the Government of GPE and the Government of GPE ( “ the LAW ” ) , which had been ratified by LAW no . CARDINAL of DATE . The aim of the rogatory letters was for questions to be put to PERSON , his father ( Mr NORP ) and PERSON , the doctor in whom PERSON had first confided . The public prosecutor set out in detail the questions which he considered should be put to the witnesses and the manner in which the record of interview should be drafted . He added that no lawyer should be present during the interview .

On DATE Mr NORP was questioned by a GPE police officer . No lawyer was present at the interview . In essence , he confirmed that his son had said that he had been fondled by the applicant . On DATE the NORP ORG in GPE ( GPE ) received the record of the interview from the NORP authorities with CARDINAL documents containing written statements by PERSON ’s mother ( PERSON ) and PERSON , a child psychotherapist who was treating PERSON for the behavioural disorders he presented . In their statements , PERSON recited the events that PERSON had related to her and the traumatic effects they had had , while PERSON confirmed her husband ’s version of events . The documents were then translated into NORP and sent to the ORG public prosecutor .

The applicant was committed for trial before ORG .

On DATE the ORG public prosecutor applied to the President of ORG for permission to summons PERSON , PERSON and PERSON NORP and PERSON to appear at a public hearing on DATE for questioning . The case file does not reveal whether that application was granted or whether the witnesses concerned were served with summonses to attend . Whatever the position , none of them appeared at the trial before ORG and the examination requested by the public prosecutor did not take place .

On DATE CARDINAL police officers from GPE were questioned . They indicated that they had received PERSON ’s complaint from the NORP authorities and gave a description of the hall of residence where the applicant had been working at the material time .

At the request of the public prosecutor and despite opposition by the applicant , ORG ordered that the documents received from GPE , in particular the record of the interview with Mr NORP and the statements of PERSON and PERSON , should be read out . That decision was taken pursuant to LAW ORG ) , which provides : “ On application by a party and having regard to the other evidence , the judge may order that the records of the statements made by a foreign national living outside the NORP territory be read out if either that person has not been summonsed to appear or , having been so summonsed , has failed to appear . ” The applicant and the defence witnesses gave evidence that DATE .

In a judgment of DATE , which was deposited with the registry on DATE , the court imposed a DATE suspended sentence on the applicant . That decision was taken on the basis of the complaint lodged by PERSON with ORG in GPE and the statements made by PERSON and PERSON and PERSON , which the court found to be credible and consistent .

On DATE the applicant appealed to ORG . He argued , inter alia , that the acts performed pursuant to the rogatory letters were invalid . In that connection , he noted that PERSON had never been interviewed and that evidence had been taken from PERSON and PERSON whom the PERSON public prosecutor had not sought to interview – without authority . Furthermore , they had not been questioned but had merely made written statements . As regards PERSON interview , the NORP police officer who had conducted it had been acting without authority , given that the international rogatory letters had been sent to ORG in GPE . Moreover , no lawyer had been present when the interviews and statements were obtained and the persons concerned had not been asked to take the oath , which showed that the documents did not constitute “ testimony ” , but merely “ preliminary investigative acts ” . As such , they should not have been used by ORG as evidence of the accused ’s guilt . Lastly , the applicant contended that LAW ORG was not applicable in the instant case as that provision referred only to statements made in GPE .

In a judgment of CARDINAL DATE , which was deposited with the registry on DATE , ORG upheld the judgment of ORG . It observed that by virtue of the locus regit actum principle , acts performed under rogatory letters had to be regulated by the law of the foreign ORG to which the NORP authorities had referred , provided that the foreign law was not incompatible with NORP public order and in particular “ defence rights ” . In the instant case , the procedure followed by the GPE authorities could not be regarded as having infringed those rights as LAW allowed statements made in GPE or elsewhere by foreign nationals resident outside the national territory to be read out . As regards the fact that PERSON had not been questioned , ORG considered that it was quite understandable that the NORP police should have wished to prevent the minor , who had been affected psychologically by the violence he had endured , from suffering any further trauma .

On DATE the applicant appealed to ORG . Referring to the arguments he had raised before ORG , he repeated his case that the documents obtained through rogatory letters should not have been used to decide his guilt . He also maintained that Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL ( d ) ORG , which requires that a record of acts performed outside the NORP territory by rogatory letters be lodged on the judge ’s file ( fascicolo per il dibattimento ) , was unconstitutional . He considered in particular that that provision was incompatible with Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW , which respectively guarantee the equality of all citizens before the law and the right to defend oneself at every stage of the proceedings . In that connection , he stressed that he had been given no opportunity to question Mr NORP , PERSON , whose statements had formed the basis of his conviction .

In a judgment of DATE , which was deposited with the registry on DATE , ORG cited the provisions of LAW ORG , which it held to be applicable in the instant case , and declared the issue of constitutionality raised by the applicant irrelevant . Finding that the reasons given by ORG on all the issues in dispute had been cogent and correct , it dismissed the applicant ’s appeal .

Under the terms of LAW , the signatory GPE undertake to afford each other mutual assistance in criminal investigations and proceedings . Such assistance includes in particular the hearing of witnesses in the territory of the ORG to which the request is addressed . In that connection , LAW provides notably :

“ A person from whom evidence is sought shall , if necessary , be compelled to appear and testify to the same extent as would be required in criminal investigations or proceedings in ORG .

Upon request , the Requested State shall specify the date and place of the taking of testimony .

The Requested State shall permit the presence [ at the hearing ] of an accused , counsel for the accused , and persons charged with the enforcement of the criminal laws to which the request relates .

The executing authority shall provide persons permitted to be present [ at the hearing ] the opportunity to question the person whose testimony is sought in accordance with the laws of ORG .

The executing authority shall provide persons permitted to be present [ at the hearing ] the opportunity to propose additional questions and other investigative measures .

Testimonial privileges under the laws of the Requesting State shall not apply in the execution of a request , but such questions of privilege shall be preserved for the Requesting State . ”


Violation of Art. 6-1;Violation of Art. 13+6-1;Remainder inadmissible;Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed;Non-pecuniary damage - award

Giovanni Bonello;Ján Šikuta;Josep Casadevall;Kristaq Traja;Nicolas Bratza;Päivi Hirvelä;Stanislav Pavlovschi

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE . The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .

The applicant worked for a ORG - owned theatre in GPE ( GPE NORP ORG PERSON , “ the employer ” ) .

On DATE she was dismissed and initiated court proceedings to have that dismissal annulled . On DATE ORG ordered her re - instatement . Following the employer 's refusal to abide by the court order , she complained to ORG ( “ the NORP ” ) on DATE . On CARDINAL MarchCARDINAL the Ministry assured her that the employer would abide by the judgment , failing which it would take action .

The applicant was re - instated on DATE . Notwithstanding that fact , another person continued to be mentioned in the staff lists as chief accountant . On DATE ORG quashed the lower court 's judgment . It delivered its reasoned decision DATE .

On DATE the applicant was again dismissed from her job . She continued to complain to various authorities , including the Ministry . On CARDINAL DATE ORG quashed ORG judgment of DATE and upheld the judgment of CARDINAL DATE . On DATE the order of DATE dismissing the applicant was annulled ; at the same time she was again dismissed .

The Prosecutor 's Office initiated court proceedings in the applicant 's interest , seeking the annulment of the dismissal order of CARDINAL DATE . On DATE the Deputy President of ORG informed the regional prosecutor about the employer 's persistent resistance and the resulting failure to properly enforce the judgment of DATE . Moreover , the prosecutor was informed of the applicant 's further dismissal on DATE . In the light of these events , the court requested the prosecutor to open a criminal investigation against the employer 's director .

The applicant continued to complain about the incomplete enforcement of the judgment of DATE . On DATE she was informed by ORG of an administrative fine imposed on the theatre director on DATE , and of the request to open a criminal investigation against him . The employer submitted to the court another order , dated DATE , annulling the applicant 's dismissal of DATE . On DATE a bailiff confirmed that the applicant had not been de facto re - instated in the specific prior position . On CARDINAL DATE the President of ORG requested the prosecutor to open a criminal investigation against the theatre director for failure to enforce the judgment of DATE .

On DATE the applicant was dismissed from the post of superior accountant . On the same date the court informed ORG employer 's persistent refusal to enforce the judgment of DATE . On an unknown date the employer presented a new order , dated DATE , in accordance with which the position of “ chief accountant ” no longer existed . On DATE the court again asked the prosecutor to initiate criminal proceedings against the theatre director . It also informed ORG employer 's failure to enforce the court judgment in the applicant 's favour in a proper manner . The Ministry drew the employer 's attention to the need to abide by the judgment .

On DATE ORG annulled the dismissal order of CARDINAL DATE and ordered the applicant 's immediate re - instatement .

On DATE the employer adopted a new order ( “ the first order of DATE ” ) whereby the applicant was re - instated in the position of “ superior accountant ” . On DATE the bailiff confirmed that the judgment had not been properly enforced and on DATE he asked the court to impose an administrative fine on the theatre director .

On DATE the prosecution informed the applicant that its verification revealed a failure to properly enforce the judgment of CARDINAL DATE and that the employer 's order of DATE had been challenged in court .

On DATE the employer adopted a new order to the effect that the position of “ chief accountant ” would no longer exist after DATE . On DATE the applicant was informed that a new order dated DATE ( “ the second order of CARDINAL DATE ” ) had been adopted , under the same number as the previous order of that date ( see paragraph DATE above ) , re - instating her in her original position as chief accountant . She was also warned that that position would end on DATE .

On DATE ORG upheld the judgment of DATE . By another decision of the same date the court rejected the bailiff 's request to impose a fine on the theatre director .

On DATE the applicant requested the employer to issue an order whereby the position of chief accountant would be “ created in reality ” and reflected in the official documents ( state de personal ) since no such position allegedly existed officially , apart from her re - instatement order . She also asked to be given the necessary authorities and access to documents in order to perform her functions .

On DATE ORG quashed the decision of DATE not to impose a fine on the theatre director . It ordered a re - hearing of the case .

The applicant initiated new court proceedings , seeking to have the order of DATE annulled as unlawful .

On DATE ORG decided to declare invalid the first order of DATE ( order no . CARDINAL , re - instating her in the position of superior accountant , see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , and to declare valid the other order with the same number and date ( order no . CARDINAL , re - instating her in the position of chief accountant , see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . On DATE ORG quashed that judgment and simultaneously adopted a new one , which also annulled the first order and upheld the second . On DATE the ORG quashed both judgments and ordered a full re - hearing .

On DATE ORG ordered the re - instatement of the applicant in the position of chief accountant . On DATE the ORG quashed that judgment and discontinued the proceedings in respect of the annulment of the order of DATE , stating that the decision to abolish a position - taken in accordance with the relevant procedure - was an internal matter for the theatre and was not subject to judicial control . The court also ordered a re - hearing of the case in respect of the annulment of the order of CARDINAL DATE , the applicant 's de facto re - instatement and payment of her salary for the duration of her involuntary absence from work . On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant 's appeal against the discontinuation of proceedings with regard to the annulment of the order of DATE .

On DATE ORG discontinued the proceedings in respect of the annulment of the order of DATE and the de facto re - instatement of the applicant because the proceedings had been incorrectly initiated as civil proceedings , whereas they were within the competence of the administrative courts . On DATE ORG dismissed the bailiff 's proposal to fine the theatre director for failure to enforce the judgment of DATE . This latter decision was subsequently upheld by ORG on DATE .

On DATE the applicant inquired about the reasons for the non - enforcement of the judgment of DATE . It appears that she did not receive any reply . She repeated her request on DATE , when she was informed about the decisions of DATE . She then appealed .

On DATE the ORG quashed the first of the CARDINAL decisions of DATE ( regarding discontinuation of the proceedings for lack of competence ) and ordered a re - hearing of the case . The court found that the parties had not been informed about the hearing and had not been sent a copy of the decision and , further , that the case file had not been received at the registry of the lower court until DATE .

On DATE the ORG found that the applicant 's re - instatement had been ordered CARDINAL times by final court judgments ( on DATE , DATE and DATE ) and that she had been properly re - instated on DATE ; it therefore dismissed her claim for re - instatement . However , the court accepted her claim for payment of salary for involuntary absence from work for the period from DATE until DATE , when she was dismissed by an order which she did not challenge . The court left unexamined her request for compensation for the effects of inflation on the late payment and her claim for non - pecuniary damage , which could be examined in separate proceedings .

The applicant submitted that she was not informed of her employer 's order of CARDINAL DATE , had not acknowledged receipt of the order as required by law , and was thus unable to challenge it in court . The order had not been presented to the courts or to any other authority in any of the proceedings after DATE , which meant that it was fake .

On DATE ORG partly accepted the applicant 's claims and found that her employer had not paid her salary for certain periods in DATE or made mandatory social welfare payments in respect of the applicant . The court declared void the first order of DATE to re - instate the applicant , and found that the second order of DATE and with the same number remained valid . It awarded the applicant compensation for non - pecuniary damage in the amount of CARDINAL NORP lei ( MDL ) ( equivalent to MONEY ( ORG ) at the time ) for the failure to pay a part of her salary in DATE , finding that the employer had in the meantime paid another MDL CARDINAL in salary arrears .

The applicant submitted medical evidence concerning several periods of in - patient hospital treatment during the proceedings and claimed that she had spent a considerable amount of money on treatment for herself and her daughter .

According to a letter from ORG to ORG , dated DATE , the applicant 's appeal was sent to ORG on DATE . That court sent the case to ORG , asking it to examine the issue of the impossibility of examining the appeal , due to the fact that that all the judges in ORG had already taken part in previous examinations of the case . On an unknown date the case was transferred to ORG . According to a certificate issued by ORG department in GPE on DATE , the applicant received MDL CARDINAL in salary arrears for DATE .

On DATE ORG upheld the judgment of DATE . That judgment was also upheld by ORG on DATE and thus became final .

The relevant provisions of LAW , in force before DATE , read :

“ LAW

Court judgments are immediately enforceable if they order the defendant to :

... ( CARDINAL ) pay [ an employee ] his / her salary ...

... ( CARDINAL ) re - instate in his / her job an unlawfully dismissed worker . ”

The relevant provisions of the new Code of Civil Procedure read :

“ Article CARDINAL .

... ( CARDINAL ) Court actions regarding ... work related claims ... shall be examined urgently and on a priority basis .

Article CARDINAL

( CARDINAL ) Court decisions and judgments are immediately enforceable if they order the defendant to :

... d ) pay compensation for involuntary absence from work , when the person is re - instated in his or her job .

( CARDINAL ) Court judgments regarding re - instatement in post of those unlawfully dismissed or transferred shall be enforced immediately . ”

The relevant provisions of LAW ( in force at the time ) read :

“ Article CARDINAL .

An employee may apply to the labour disputes commission or a court directly within DATE from the date on which he or she discovered or ought to have discovered the violation of his or her rights . Where an employee is dismissed , DATE is counted from DATE on which the dismissal order was announced to him or her and was acknowledged by the employee 's signature . ”


Javier Borrego Borrego;Karel Jungwiert;Mark Villiger;Peer Lorenzen;Rait Maruste;Renate Jaeger;Snejana Botoucharova

The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in PERSON . He was represented before the ORG by his mother , PERSON . ORG ( “ the Government ” ) were represented by their Agent , Mr PERSON , from ORG .

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

On DATE , LOC ( okresní soud ) ordered the applicant ’s father to pay DATE alimony of CZK CARDINAL ( EUR CARDINAL ) to his mother .

On DATE the applicant ’s mother , acting on behalf of her son , requested the court to increase the DATE alimony to be paid for her son ’s needs . In DATE the applicant ’s father stopped paying the alimony . On DATE the applicant ’s mother renewed her request to increase the DATE alimony .

On DATE the applicant reached the age of majority and could , therefore , act before the court in person .

On DATE ORG obliged the applicant ’s father to pay , within DATE of the coming into force of the judgment , the outstanding alimony in the amount of CZK CARDINAL,CARDINAL ( EUR CARDINAL,CARDINAL ) which covered the period from DATE to DATE , finding that this was necessary to ensure the upbringing of the applicant . On DATE it rectified the amount of the outstanding alimony to CZK MONEY ( ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL ) .

On DATE the PERSON Regional Court ( krajský soud ) , upon the applicant ’s appeal of DATE , amended the ORG judgment ordering the applicant ’s father to pay , within DATE of the coming into force of the judgment , CZK CARDINAL,CARDINAL ( EUR CARDINAL,CARDINAL ) , being the outstanding alimony for the period from DATE to CARDINAL DATE .

The relevant domestic law and practice concerning remedies for the allegedly excessive length of judicial proceedings are set out in the ORG ’s decision in the case of PERSON v. GPE , no . MONEY ( dec . ) , § § CARDINAL - CARDINAL , DATE ) .


The applicant , PERSON , is a NORP national , who was born in DATE and lives in GPE . He was represented before the ORG by Mr PERSON and Mr PERSON , lawyers practising in GPE .

On DATE ORG ( Landgericht ) convicted the applicant of drug trafficking and sentenced him to DATE imprisonment .

Following his conviction he was erving his sentence . As from DATE , he was continuously contacted by CARDINAL Y. , an undercover agent acting with the authorisation of the GPE police , who passed himself off as a potential purchaser of a larger amount of cocaine .

At the applicant 's request , the undercover agent contacted the applicant 's counsel with a view to applying for the reopening of the criminal proceedings . The undercover agent met the counsel several times accompanied by other persons , however at CARDINAL occasion DATE contrary to the instructions given by the GPE police – on his own initiative in the absence of other persons . The last visit took place on DATE .

Thereafter the applicant informed the undercover agent that his former cell - mate T. could arrange for the delivery of a large quantity of cocaine for a price of MONEY ( DEM ) per kilogram . After consulting the applicant , T. met the undercover agent in his flat on DATE in order to hand over QUANTITY of cocaine . While carrying out the transaction , he was arrested by the police .

By a judgment of DATE , ORG convicted the applicant of drug trafficking and sentenced him to DATE and DATE imprisonment . The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law against this judgment . He complained in particular that ORG had not discontinued the proceedings having regard to the circumstances in which the undercover agent had contacted his lawyer .

On DATE , ORG ( ORG ) rejected the applicant 's appeal on points of law . It expressed serious concern about the involvement of the undercover agent in the relationship between the defence counsel and the applicant , but found that in the present case there was nothing to show that during these meetings evidence had been obtained to the applicant 's detriment . Moreover , ORG had sufficiently taken into account the intervention of the undercover agent when fixing the sentence .

By a decision of DATE , notified to the applicant 's counsel on DATE , ORG ( Bundesverfassungsgericht ) , sitting in a panel of CARDINAL judges , declined to entertain the applicant 's constitutional complaint . It found that it did not raise any fundamental constitutional issues . Furthermore it was not relevant for the protection of the applicant 's basic rights since it had no prospects of success . The constitutional complaint was inadmissible as the applicant failed to substantiate the alleged violation of his constitutional rights and , consequently , did not meet the formal requirements under Articles CARDINAL § CARDINAL and CARDINAL of ORG ( Bundesverfassungsgerichtsgesetz ) . Moreover , ORG found that there was nothing to suggest that the applicant 's basic or similar rights had been breached . The undercover agent had met the applicant 's lawyer for the last time on DATE in connection with the request for a retrial . On CARDINAL DATE the drug deal had been carried out . There was no indication and it had not been alleged that after that date the undercover agent had performed further activities , in particular contacted the applicant 's lawyer . Therefore at no time the applicant 's right to an effective exercise of his defence rights had been infringed .


HABERLANDOVA AND PUR v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC

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

The applicants , Ms Drahomíra Haberlandová and Mr PERSON , are NORP nationals who were born in DATE and DATE respectively , and live in FAC . ORG ( “ the Government ” ) were represented by their Agent , Mr PERSON , from ORG .

On DATE a certain P. ( hereinafter “ the plaintiff ” ) brought in ORG ( okresní soud ) a civil action against the first applicant and other persons seeking to termination and settlement of their joint ownership of immovable property and to creation of an easement .

On DATE ORG delivered a meritorious judgment against which the plaintiff appealed . On DATE ORG ( krajský soud ) did not allow the latter ’s partial withdrawal of his action . ORG judgment thereby became partially final .

In a judgment of DATE ORG quashed the remaining part of the first instance judgment and remitted the relevant part of the case to ORG which , on DATE , split for a separate hearing the plaintiff ’s request to create an easement to the property and decided on the merits of his action .

On DATE ORG upheld the meritorious part of the first instance judgment and modified it in respect of fees and expenses .

On DATE ORG ( PERSON ) dismissed the plaintiff ’s appeal on points of law ( dovolání ) .

On DATE the applicants applied for compensation pursuant to Act no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL as amended . They claimed CZK CARDINAL ( ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL ) in respect of pecuniary damage . The second applicant further claimed CZK CARDINAL ( EUR CARDINAL ) in respect of non - pecuniary damage . The applicants finally claimed CZK CARDINAL ( EUR CARDINAL ) in respect of fees incurred in the proceedings before the national courts .

In a letter of DATE ORG informed them that their application had been accepted , that it had been found that their right to a determination of their civil claim within a reasonable time had been violated and that the second applicant had been awarded a sum of CZK CARDINAL ( EUR CARDINAL ) in respect of non - pecuniary damage he might have sustained . ORG refused , however , the applicants’ claim regarding compensation for pecuniary damage and court fees .

On DATE the applicants informed the Registry that they did not intend to turn to a court under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of Act no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL as amended .

The relevant domestic law and practice concerning remedies for the allegedly excessive length of judicial proceedings are set out in the ORG ’s decision in the case of PERSON v. GPE , no . MONEY ( dec . ) , § § CARDINAL - CARDINAL , DATE ) .


Violation of Art. 6-1;Not necessary to examine Art. 8;Non-pecuniary damage - financial award;Costs and expenses award - Convention proceedings

On DATE the applicant petitioned ORG for judicial separation from his wife , PERSON also requested the court to determine the arrangements for custody of the children and use of the family home .

On DATE the presiding judge of the court set down for CARDINAL DATE the hearing on the attempt that had been made to reach a settlement . After finding that the attempt had failed , the presiding judge provisionally awarded custody of the children ( born in DATE and DATE ) and use of the house to PERSON , granted the father access twice a week ( from CARDINAL p.m. to CARDINAL p.m. on DATE and from TIME on DATE ) and ordered him to pay PERSON of MONEY ( ORG ) DATE . Lastly , he asked the parties to appear before the examining judge on DATE .

Three hearings ( on DATE and DATE and DATE ) were adjourned at the applicant ’s request on the ground that the parties were trying to settle their dispute out of court .

The preparation of the case for trial was not resumed until DATE . After a hearing , evidence was heard from CARDINAL witnesses on DATE . A hearing on DATE was adjourned by the court of its own motion to DATE .

On DATE , as the respondent had requested , the judge responsible for preparing the case for trial ordered the case file to be sent to ORG at ORG ( province of GPE ) , which now had territorial jurisdiction to try the case .

The date set for the hearing before that court was not until DATE . On DATE , however , the proceedings were adjourned by the court of its own motion to DATE because the judge preparing the case for trial was absent . The parties filed their pleadings on CARDINAL DATE and the hearing before the relevant division was held on DATE .

In a judgment of CARDINAL DATE , the text of which was deposited with the registry on DATE , the court pronounced the couple judicially separated , confirmed the provisional measures regarding custody of the children and use of the family home and increased the maintenance to ITL DATE .

Neither of the parties appealed .


Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1-c - Bringing before competent legal authority);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Review of lawfulness of detention);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-5 - Compensation)

The relevant domestic law and practice in force at the material time can be found in ORG v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , § § DATE , ECHR DATE ... ( extracts ) ) .


CASE OF FRĂSILĂ AND CIOCÎRLAN v. ROMANIA [Extracts]

Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (Article 35-1 - Exhaustion of domestic remedies);Violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression -{General} (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression);Pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage - award

Alvina Gyulumyan;Corneliu Bîrsan;Egbert Myjer;Ineta Ziemele;Josep Casadevall;Kristina Pardalos;Luis López Guerra;Mihai Poalelungi

The first applicant was born in DATE and lives in LOC ( GPE ) ; the second was born in DATE and lives in GPE ) . They are both journalists .

NORP In DATE the first applicant set up the limited corporation ORG , whose registered purpose was the production and broadcasting of radio and television programmes . The first applicant was the majority shareholder and manager . The company obtained broadcasting licence no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL and was granted television operation rights for the PERSON region .

In DATE the first applicant set up the private limited liability company ORG M Plus , whose main registered purpose was the production of audiovisual programmes . The first applicant was its sole shareholder and manager . A change in share capital in DATE reduced his interest to PERCENT .

The first applicant ’s intention was to separate the television activities from those of radio broadcasting , with ORG dealing solely with the latter . Pending the change in audiovisual legislation which would enable the assignment of the radio - broadcasting licence ( amendment finally adopted on DATE ) , the relevant activities were divided between Radio M Plus , which produced the radio programmes , and ORG , which was responsible for broadcasting . The equipment necessary for the radio activity ( including broadcasting ) belonged to the company ORG .

In DATE the television station ORG broadcast CARDINAL documentaries ; CARDINAL concerned a protégé of GPE who was wanted by the police , and the other was CARDINAL of GPE ’s business ventures , namely a hotel where traces of mercury had been found in food . In the first applicant ’s submission , after those CARDINAL documentaries NORP threatened to make his companies insolvent as a result of inspections by the financial authorities . According to the information provided by the first applicant , NORP was at the time a member of parliament affiliated to the party in power , and was referred to in the press as a “ local baron ” .

On DATE the local financial authorities of ORG attempted to carry out an unannounced inspection at the head offices of ORG In view of the first applicant ’s opposition , he was fined by the financial authorities . The fine was , however , subsequently annulled , because it had been imposed , according to the applicant , in breach of the statutory provisions which required giving CARDINAL days’ notice to the company concerned before an inspection could be carried out . An inspection was subsequently carried out , however , and the authorities found that the company owed significant amounts to the ORG budget . An agreement for the staggered repayment of the sums due was entered into with the first applicant . In his submission , the inspection had followed a request made by GPE to V.M. , who was head of the local public finance directorate and who , at the time , was an associate of ORG in a number of commercial companies .

The first applicant explained that , having regard to the high amount of the aggregate debt and the fact that it was repayable immediately , and in order to avoid insolvency , he had been persuaded to sell his majority interest in the company GPE to GPE and to the company ORG , which belonged to the wife and son of V.M. He thus ceased to be a shareholder on DATE . On DATE the applicant was dismissed from his duties as manager of the company .

On DATE , the company ORG , of which the first applicant was still the manager , and the company ORG , set up a partnership for the production and broadcasting of radio programmes . Under the partnership agreement , ORG was to provide movable and immovable property , programmes , licences and contracts , whilst ORG was to provide specialised equipment , financial resources and programmes , and was to take charge of the management . In accordance with the technical broadcasting permit of CARDINAL DATE , issued by ORG , the radio station Radio M Plus was to broadcast from its head office at CARDINAL , PERSON , ORG .

In a decision of DATE , the company ORG appointed the first applicant as manager of the partnership . The radio activities were located on the second floor of the building at CARDINAL , PERSON , ORG , which housed studios for production and for radio broadcasting , and CARDINAL for guests .

The second applicant was the radio station ’s editor and , from DATE , its programme director .

From DATE , following certain disagreements between the representatives of the CARDINAL above - mentioned companies , the applicants were denied access to the radio station ’s newsroom by representatives of PERSON

On DATE the applicants brought urgent proceedings seeking a right of access to the radio station ’s newsroom .

In a decision of DATE ORG upheld the applicants’ claim and ordered ORG to give them access to the newsroom of ORG , at CARDINAL , PERSON , ORG . This decision was upheld at last instance by ORG , on DATE . The courts noted , in particular , that the head offices of ORG and ORG were located in the same building and that the companies were therefore entitled to make use of it for their activities . They concluded that the barring of the applicants from the radio ’s newsroom by ORG constituted an unlawful action that was likely to cause prejudice to the activities of the radio station , in which the applicants held the posts of manager and editor , respectively .

On DATE , on the ORG request , ORG of First Instance ordered the enforcement of ORG decision of DATE .

On DATE a bailiff accompanied the applicants to the radio station ’s head office . The representative of the company ORG denied the applicants access to the second floor of the building , explaining that the newsroom had been transferred to the ground - floor of the building , to a room where they were received . Only the bailiff was able to visit the rooms on the second floor where the special equipment was located .

On DATE the applicants reiterated their request for the enforcement of the final decision of DATE , as in the meantime an appeal by the defendant against that decision had been dismissed .

A fresh attempt at enforcement took place on CARDINAL DATE , but was unsuccessful . On that occasion , the bailiff noted that the decision to be enforced was clear and that it was not necessary to initiate court proceedings in order to clarify the meaning and scope of its operative provisions .

On DATE , on account of their inability to exercise their profession as journalists , following the refusal by ORG to allow them access to the radio ’s newsroom , the applicants filed a criminal complaint with the public prosecutor for opposition to the enforcement of a final decision . On DATE the public prosecutor at ORG of First Instance gave a decision discontinuing the proceedings , finding that the dispute actually concerned the implementation of the partnership agreement signed on DATE . On DATE ORG confirmed the discontinuance .

On DATE the applicants lodged an urgent application requesting the courts to order ORG to comply with the partnership agreement of CARDINAL DATE and , for that purpose , to hand over to them any radio production and broadcasting equipment that was necessary for the implementation of that agreement . They further sought an order that the company be fined MONEY ( ROL ) per day of non - compliance .

In a final decision of CARDINAL DATE ORG dismissed the application , finding that it concerned the merits of the question of the performance of the agreement rather than a temporary or urgent situation justifying an immediate injunction .

On DATE the company ORG returned to the company ORG the equipment of which the latter was the owner .

On DATE the first applicant filed a criminal complaint with ORG of First Instance against the shareholders and managers of ORG for refusing to allow him access to the newsroom and to the equipment necessary for radio programmes , thus preventing him from exercising his profession as journalist . On DATE the first applicant was informed that his criminal complaint had been referred to the public prosecutor at ORG of First Instance , which had opened criminal proceedings against CARDINAL managers of the company ORG for embezzlement . He was not kept informed of subsequent developments in the proceedings .

The ORG has not been informed whether the applicants have brought civil - law proceedings for the performance of the partnership agreement of DATE between the companies Radio M Plus and ORG

In their written observations of DATE the Government informed the ORG as follows :

“ According to the information notified by the bailiff PERSON , he was unable to pursue the enforcement procedure , in view of the subject - matter of the claim – enforcement of an obligation ‘ to ORG and the legal nature of the LOC , and , moreover , having regard to the fact that the writ of execution did not precisely stipulate the location of the newsroom of ORG or describe its composition . In those conditions , the bailiff stated that he was not competent to go beyond the above - mentioned legal framework . ”

On DATE ORG ( the “ NAC ” ) ordered the company ORG to terminate the assignment of audiovisual licence no . CARDINAL as provided for under the partnership agreement of CARDINAL DATE and to ensure that its situation became lawful within DATE , in view of the fact that the said agreement was in breach of the new Audiovisual Act ( law no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) , which prohibited the exploitation of an audiovisual licence by anyone other than its legal beneficiary . There is no evidence in the file to show whether the order was followed by a decision by the ORG to withdraw the licence in accordance with the above - mentioned law .

NORP However , on DATE , the company ORG once again assigned the rights to audiovisual licence no . CARDINAL company . In a decision of DATE that company obtained a broadcasting permit , for the purpose of which it was to use a transmitter belonging to the company ORG . Nevertheless , it can be seen from the case file that , in a decision of DATE , the ORG temporarily suspended the licence assignment until the finalising of the dispute that had in the meantime arisen between the CARDINAL companies . It was only on DATE that the third company secured the right to use a new transmitter .

According to an ORG certificate of DATE , issued at the request of ORG , the company ORG held audiovisual licence no . CARDINAL , dated CARDINAL DATE , for the city of PERSON in respect of the radio station of the same name , and a broadcasting licence of CARDINAL DATE issued by ORG . The company also held CARDINAL audiovisual licences obtained in DATE for CARDINAL television stations , which were authorised to broadcast in the cities of ORG and PERSON , respectively . Audiovisual licence no . CARDINAL issued for the radio station Radio M Plus belonged to the company ORG . The ORG concluded that the radio station ORG had not carried on any radio broadcasting activity in DATE .

In DATE the second applicant published an article in the national newspaper România liberă about the various businesses run by GPE

From DATE the first applicant became the director of the regional DATE newspaper PERSON . The second applicant was appointed as its editor - in - chief . According to the information provided by the applicants , the DATE had to close after CARDINAL issues because of pressure exerted on the companies that distributed the newspaper and those with which it had signed advertising agreements .

LAW ( Law no . CARDINAL ) was enacted on DATE and entered into force on DATE . This law set up ORG , an autonomous public authority in the public interest , under parliamentary supervision , with the responsibility , under section DATE ) of that law , for granting audiovisual licences . Under section CARDINAL ) , the ORG withdraws an audiovisual licence if its holder stops broadcasting programmes for DATE , for technical reasons , and for TIME , for any other reason . Under section CARDINAL ) of the law , in cases where the broadcasting of programmes requires the use of a terrestrial radio frequency , the audiovisual licence must be accompanied by a broadcasting permit issued by ORG .

The relevant articles of LAW read as follows :

“ In respect of enforcement proceedings or any act of enforcement , any person who has an interest therein or is aggrieved as a result thereof is entitled to lodge an objection . Similarly , ... an objection may be lodged when it is necessary to clarify the meaning , scope or terms of implementation of the writ of execution , or where the authority responsible for enforcement refuses to perform an act of enforcement as provided for by law . ”

“ Should the obligor refuse the enforcement of the obligation to act provided for in the writ of execution within DATE after receiving the order , the court , by a final interlocutory decision , after summoning the parties , may authorise the obligee to enforce the obligation himself or to have it enforced by third parties at the obligor ’s expense . ”

“ Should the obligation ‘ to act’ require the obligor ’s personal intervention , he may be coerced into performing the obligation by means of a civil - law coercive . The court , on an application by the obligee , may order the obligor , in a final interlocutory decision , after summoning the parties , to pay the ORG a fine of CARDINAL and CARDINAL NORP lei for DATE until the obligation provided for in the writ of execution has been performed .

The obligee may request the court to award him damages against the obligor in order to make good the loss incurred by the failure to perform the obligation ... Article CARDINAL shall be applicable in such matters . ”

A number of national and international non - governmental organisations , together with ORG , have drawn up reports on the freedom of the press in GPE in DATE .

In its “ DATE Regular Report on GPE ’s progress towards accession ” ORG added as follows :

“ Despite this progress , certain structural problems may affect the practical realisation of the freedom of expression . Many media organisations are not economically viable and their continued existence can depend on the support of political or business interests . External studies have concluded that PERSON reporting can often be influenced by financial inducements leading to self - censorship . Against this background , the state has tolerated the accumulation of significant arrears by a number of the largest media companies , including most major private TV stations . Such a situation may compromise editorial independence and media monitoring studies have observed that the TV news is notably less critical of the government than the written press . There are also credible reports of locally elected officials using public office to influence the editorial policy of local newspapers , radio and TV stations , e.g. through the selective award of public advertising contracts . ”


The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a NORP national who was born in DATE and lived in GPE . He died on DATE . He is represented before the ORG by ORG and PERSON , respectively his daughter and her husband . They both live in GPE . The respondent Government are represented by their Agent , PERSON PERSON .

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

In DATE , the applicant , a war veteran , lodged with ORG an action against ORG of Bucharest ( hereinafter “ the ORG ” ) and ORG CARDINALrd district of GPE seeking the allocation of FAC ha of land . The action was brought pursuant to Law no . CARDINAL on war veterans .

By a judgment of DATE ORG ordered ORG to assess the availability of plots of land located within the city area and to allocate one to the applicant pursuant to LAW no.CARDINAL/CARDINAL . The appeal lodged by ORG was rejected on DATE by a final decision of ORG .

In DATE the representatives of the applicant lodged in his name with ORG an action against ORG and the mayor of GPE , seeking damages on account of the delay in enforcing the judgment . On DATE ORG imposed on the mayor a fine of ROL CARDINAL per day of delay from DATE until the enforcement of the judgment . This judgment was upheld by ORG in a final decision of DATE .

On DATE , the representatives of the applicant informed the ORG , in his name , that the judgment of DATE had still not been enforced .

On DATE , the applicant appointed as his representatives PERSON and PERSON , his daughter and her husband . The applicant granted them the power to file applications with the NORP courts and to pursue the enforcement of any court decisions adopted as a consequence of any such actions .

Thereafter , the applicant was represented before the national courts by his daughter and her husband .

According to the death certificate submitted by the ORG and uncontested by ORG and PERSON , the applicant died on DATE .

The application lodged with the ORG on DATE , on behalf of the applicant , was signed on his behalf by his daughter , PERSON PERSON . The representatives did not inform the Registry at any time in the course of the proceedings before ORG death of the applicant .

By letter of DATE , following a request by ORG , PERSON submitted the power of attorney designating her and her husband as the applicant ’s representatives in the LAW proceedings . This document was signed by ORG and PERSON Constantin on behalf of the applicant .

They reminded the ORG , among other things , that the letter of authority of CARDINAL DATE , which was valid according to NORP legislation , remained valid until the death of the representatives . As a consequence , they considered the ORG ’s request redundant .

The relevant provisions of LAW read as follows in their part concerning the power of a person to represent the interests of another person .

“ The power of representation is extinguished when : ( ... )

the representative or the principal dies ... ”

The relevant provisions of LAW read as follows in their parts concerning the power to represent another person in legal proceedings :

“ The authority to act in legal proceedings does not cease to exist upon the death of the principal ... It continues to be valid until the heirs withdraw it ... ”


CASE OF KARAKAŞ AND YEŞİLIRMAK v. TURKEY

Violation of Art. 3;Violation of Art. 6-1;No violation of Art. 6-2;Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed;Non-pecuniary damage - financial award;Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings

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

On an unspecified date police officers from the anti - terror branch of ORG reported that an illegal organisation , namely PERSON ( NORP Left ) , would organise a demonstration in front of the head office of a DATE journal , namely PERSON , on CARDINAL DATE .

On DATE the applicants , together with CARDINAL other people , were arrested in front of the newspaper ’s head office and taken to police custody at ORG . According to the arrest report drafted by the police , PERSON members were arrested following a chase and CARDINAL warning shots . It was also noted that the police officers made the detainees lie on the floor and collected the pamphlets and banners that they carried .

On DATE ORG provided an expert report where it concluded that PERSON handwriting matched the writing on several of the banners seized by the police .

On DATE the applicants were examined by a doctor from ORG . The doctor reported bruises on one hand of the first applicant and on both hands of the second applicant . The report stated that the applicants’ injuries did not constitute a danger to life , but would prevent them from working for DATE .

On DATE ORG held a press conference on the subject of the apprehension of members of the ORG organisation . There is no information in the case - file as to whether any declaration was made by the police during the conference . However , DATE the applicants’ names and pictures appeared in CARDINAL national newspapers , namely ORG , where they were described as members of the ORG organisation .

The news in the PERSON newspaper , with the headline “ CARDINAL members of PERSON arrested ” , read as follows :

“ The members of ORG organisation , namely ... , PERSON , PERSON , ... , who were getting ready to hold a demonstration in PERSON , in order to protest against the PERSON newspaper , have been arrested . The police seized the following items from the accused : pamphlets and banners with slogans against journalists , publications with leftist points of view , and slings to smash the windows of the PERSON building . ”

The information in the PERSON newspaper , with the headline “ Protesters with slings ” , was accompanied by a photo , in which a group of accused was standing behind a table on which pamphlets , banners and rubber bands were displayed . The text was as follows :

“ The police arrested CARDINAL people , ( including QUANTITY women ) , who were allegedly members of an illegal leftist organisation and were getting ready to hold a demonstration to protest about an article that was published in PERSON newspaper . The police seized banners , pamphlets , and rubber bands for slings which were found on the accused , namely ... GPE , PERSON ... ”

On DATE the applicants were brought before ORG and then before a non - presiding judge at ORG , where they denied all charges . Both applicants rejected their statements given in police custody , contending that they had been forced to sign them . The court ordered their detention on remand .

On DATE the applicants were examined by the prison doctor . The medical report indicated the presence of bruises on the right hand of the first applicant . Moreover a site of scarred tissue , MONEY QUANTITY in dimension , was identified on the back of his right hand .

At the end of the examination of the second applicant the doctor reported the presence of bruises on both hands and CARDINAL sites of scarred tissue , each approximately QUANTITY in dimension on the back of his left hand .

On DATE ORG filed a bill of indictment , charging the applicants under LAW of LAW with aiding and abetting an illegal organisation . The summary of the relevant parts of the indictment provided as follows :

“ ... In view of the accused ’s statements given at different stages of the criminal proceedings , the arrest report , the house search and seizure reports , the seized pamphlets , banners and slings which were found on the accused at the time of arrest , the expert report and the content of the case file , it has been established that :

The accused PERSON was a supporter of the ideology of the illegal ORG organisation ... , DATE he started to visit the head office of the PERSON ( NORP Youth ) periodical in ORG , together with his friend PERSON ... , he was informed of the demonstration that was going to be held in front of the NORP building , on DATE , by a person who approached him while he was reading the GPE ( Struggle ) periodical in a public park .

He assisted in the preparation of banners . ... According to ORG report dated DATE the characteristics of the applicant ’s handwriting were visible on CARDINAL banners .

NORP ... the accused PERSON was a supporter of the ideology of the illegal ORG organisation . He was a reader of the PERSON periodical . He met with his friend PERSON in PERSON and they arrived together at the scene of the incident . When he was arrested the police seized CARDINAL banners which he was carrying . ”

On DATE and DATE a doctor at ORG examined the second and the first applicant respectively . The medical report reiterated the findings of the reports dated DATE and indicated that the first applicant complained of pain in his waist and the second applicant complained of pain in his thighs .

At the first hearing held on DATE before ORG , the applicants submitted the medical reports and written statements in which they alleged to have been subjected to torture in police custody . They did not give any details concerning their allegations of torture . They also maintained that , in police custody , they had been forced to sign statements before reading them . The court ordered the applicants’ release pending trial .

At the hearing dated DATE ORG decided that the police officers whose signatures appeared under the applicants’ written statements given in police custody should be summoned to appear before the court .

On DATE and DATE the police officers confirmed before the court the content of the applicants’ police statements and the authenticity of their signatures appearing on the bottom of these statements .

On DATE , in view of the incident report , the witness statements , the seized banners , pamphlets and the content of the case - file , the court decided to acquit CARDINAL of the accused and convicted CARDINAL of them , including the applicants , under LAW and LAW . It sentenced the applicants to DATE and QUANTITY months’ and DATE and CARDINAL months’ imprisonment respectively .

On DATE the applicants’ lawyer lodged an appeal with ORG . In the petition the lawyer repeated the allegation that the applicants had been subjected to torture in police custody .

On DATE , at the hearing which took place before ORG , the applicants repeated their allegations of torture in police custody and pleaded not guilty .

On DATE ORG upheld the decision of ORG in respect of CARDINAL of the accused , including the applicants , and quashed it in respect of CARDINAL of them . It quashed the decision regarding CARDINAL of the accused on procedural grounds and the other CARDINAL on account of lack of evidence .

On DATE ORG rejected the ORG request to rectify the decision .

Article CARDINAL of the Criminal Code provides :

“ Any person , who knowing that an armed gang or organisation is illegal , assists it , harbours its members , provides it with food , weapons ammunition or clothes or facilitates its operations in any manner whatsoever shall be sentenced to not CARDINAL and not more than five years’ imprisonment ... ”

DATE ( Law no . ORG of CARDINAL DATE ) provides that the offence defined in LAW of LAW is classified in the category of “ acts committed to further the purposes of terrorism ” . According to LAW , penalties laid down in LAW as punishment for the offences defined under LAW are increased by CARDINAL .


Violation of Art. 6-1;Not necessary to examine Art. 8;Violation of Art. 13;Non-pecuniary damage - financial award;Costs and expenses partial award

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

On DATE a newspaper in the town of PERSON , “ PERSON dnes ” , published an article on the problems of the liquidation of ORG cooperative farms and the restitution of the agricultural land in the region . The article contained offensive allegations against the applicant who was a former chairman of the local commission in charge of the liquidation of the cooperative farms . The title of the article , quoting the applicant , read “ Do not hassle me , I have a yellow card ” ( „ Не ме закачайте , аз съм с жълта карта “ ) . The latter expression means that the person in question is registered as mentally ill . The article ’s author commented on the poor results of the commission ’s audit , stating that they could be expected since its chairman was a “ person of unsound mind ” ( „ невменяем човек “ ) . The applicant was also referred to as a “ wretch ” ( „ нещастник “ ) .

In DATE the applicant lodged with ORG a request for the opening of proceedings for criminal libel against the newspaper ’s editor . On DATE the competent prosecutor opened a preliminary inquiry with a view to the opening of criminal proceedings against the editor .

On DATE the applicant filed a civil action against the newspaper ’s editor and publisher , alleging that the article had defamed him . He claimed nonpecuniary damages for injury to his reputation .

ORG held its first hearing in the case on CARDINAL DATE . Counsel for the defendants requested the court to stay the proceedings , presenting a certificate from ORG to the effect that a preliminary inquiry had been opened . The court stayed the proceedings in accordance with LAW ( d ) of LAW ( “ ORG ” ) , pending the outcome of the preliminary inquiry .

The applicant lodged an interlocutory appeal , arguing , inter alia , that the pending preliminary inquiry could not serve as grounds for the staying of the civil proceedings , the only such grounds being pending criminal proceedings .

On DATE ORG upheld the lower court ’s ruling , holding that the facts alleged in the civil action constituted “ criminal elements ” within the meaning of LAW ( d ) of the ORG . The only bodies competent to decide whether a criminal offence had or had not been committed were the prosecutor and the criminal courts . The eventual ruling of the criminal court would be res judicata for the civil court , as provided by LAW ORG . Therefore , the proceedings had been properly stayed .

On DATE ORG opened criminal proceedings against the journalist who had written the article against the applicant .

While the civil proceedings were stayed ORG sent numerous letters to ORG and to ORG , inquiring about the status of the criminal proceedings . Such letters were sent on DATE , CARDINAL DATE and DATE , CARDINAL DATE and DATE and DATE , CARDINAL May , DATE and DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE , and DATE .

Meanwhile , on DATE the applicant ’s lawyer requested ORG to do the necessary for the speedy conclusion of the criminal proceedings . On DATE he filed a complaint with ORG , alleging that the criminal proceedings had lasted unreasonably long , thus precluding the resumption of the civil proceedings . In a letter of CARDINAL DATE ORG informed the applicant that the investigation would be completed within DATE . On DATE ORG instructed ORG to finalise the investigation within DATE .

On DATE ORG replaced the investigator in charge of the case , noting that he had failed to perform the necessary investigative steps in time .

On DATE ORG discontinued the criminal proceedings because the relevant limitation period had expired . ORG affirmed the discontinuation in a decision of CARDINAL DATE .

On DATE ORG sent the case file to ORG , which thereupon resumed the stayed civil proceedings .

A hearing listed for DATE was adjourned because the defendants had not been properly summoned .

The next hearing was scheduled for DATE . The court noted that the defendants had again not been properly summoned and adjourned the case . As the summons sent to CARDINAL of the defendants , the cooperative which had published the newspaper containing the allegedly defamatory article , was returned with a note that that cooperative had apparently been liquidated DATE before that , the court instructed the applicant to produce a certificate of the cooperative ’s current status . [ Note : Certificates of current status are issued by the register of companies kept at the regional courts . ]

On DATE ORG discontinued the proceedings , holding that the applicant had failed to comply with its instructions . The applicant appealed and on DATE ORG quashed the discontinuation and remitted the case to ORG .

On DATE ORG again requested the applicant to provide a certificate of current status of the defendant cooperative .

In a judgment of DATE ORG allowed the applicant ’s claim against the newspaper editor , but dismissed his claim against the cooperative .

The applicant appealed against the judgment to ORG .

At the time of the latest information from the parties ( DATE ) the proceedings were still pending before ORG , which had not yet set the appeal down for hearing .

The ORG provides , in Articles CARDINAL § CARDINAL ( d ) and CARDINAL , that a court examining a civil action :

“ CARDINAL . ... shall stay 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 stayed shall be resumed ex officio or upon a party ’s request after the respective obstacles have been removed ... ”

Article CARDINAL of the ORG 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 . ”

In a judgment of DATE ( реш. № CARDINAL от CARDINAL януари DATE г. по гр.д. ORG DATE г. , ORG ) ORG of ORG held :

“ In principle the fact of a crime may only be established under the procedures of LAW . That is why , when an alleged civil right derives from a fact which constitutes a crime under LAW , the civil court , according to LAW ORG ] , is obliged to stay 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 the criminal courts is set out in LAW ORG ] . ”

The new Article CARDINALa of the ORG , adopted in DATE , provides :

“ CARDINAL . Each party may lodge a complaint about delays at every stage of the case , including after oral argument , when the examination of the case , the delivery of judgment or the transmitting of an appeal against a judgment is unduly delayed .

NORP The complaint about delays shall be lodged directly with the higher court , no copies shall be served on the other party , and no ORG fee shall be due . The lodging of a complaint about delays shall not be limited by time .

NORP The chairperson of the court with which the complaint has been lodged shall request the case file and shall immediately examine the complaint in private . His instructions as to the acts to be performed by the court shall be mandatory . His order shall not be subject to appeal and shall be sent immediately together with the case file to the court against which the complaint has been filed .

NORP In case he determines that there has been [ undue delay ] , the chairperson of the higher court may make a proposal to the disciplinary panel of ORG for the taking of disciplinary action . ”


The applicants are NORP nationals , born in DATE and DATE respectively and living in GPE . They are represented before the ORG by Mr PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE . They are detained in ORG in GPE in view of their deportation to GPE .

s , may be summarised as follows .

The applicants were arrested in GPE on DATE for detention of drugs and sale of forged CD records . PERSON declared that he had arrived in GPE DATE to study Philosophy in ORG . Mr PERSON stated that he was a NORP national . However , the police discovered that they had used forged documents and illegally entered into the country . In his testimony to the police , PERSON alleged , inter alia , that there was a risk for his life if deported to GPE , because he was a NORP and because of the conflict between NORP and NORP there , which resulted in the death of CARDINAL of his brothers and his sister DATE . The applicants were brought before ORG of GPE and tried by virtue of immediate summary proceedings ( ie where no further investigations are required ) : Mr PERSON on DATE and Mr Eziobou on DATE . The ORG sentenced Mr PERSON to CARDINAL days’ imprisonment , convertible into a pecuniary penalty and Mr Eziobou to CARDINAL months’ imprisonment . ORG also ordered their immediate expulsion . Since DATE and until DATE , the applicants have both been detained at the police station in GPE in a small cell ( QUANTITY CARDINAL m ) and fed once DATE . DATE , they were transferred in the police headquarters in GPE , in view of their deportation to GPE .