Alejandro Saiz Arnaiz;Corneliu Bîrsan;Egbert Myjer;Elisabet Fura;Ineta Ziemele;Josep Casadevall

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

On DATE the ship ORG , flying the flag of the GPE , was sailing in the NORP exclusive economic zone off the coast of GPE , carrying QUANTITY of fuel oil . The ship 's hull sprang a leak and the contents of the tanks spilled into LOC .

In view of the risk of shipwreck the maritime authorities launched a large - scale operation to rescue the crew . The applicant , who was the ship 's captain , was taken by helicopter to the offices of the ORG ( A GPE ) harbourmaster , where he was arrested .

The spillage of the ship 's cargo caused an ecological disaster whose effects on marine flora and fauna lasted for DATE and spread as far as the NORP coast .

By a decision of CARDINAL DATE the ORG no . CARDINAL investigating judge considered that the facts disclosed sufficient evidence to justify initiating a criminal investigation . The judge remanded the applicant in custody with the possibility of being released on payment of bail set at MONEY ( ORG ) . The judge said that , although the oil - spill had been an accident , some of the elements in the file , which were provisional at that stage in the proceedings , pointed to irregularities in the applicant 's conduct , such as a lack of cooperation with the port authorities when they tried to take the vessel in tow . The applicant 's conduct could constitute an offence against natural resources and the environment and CARDINAL of failing to comply with the instructions of the administrative authorities . In the judge 's opinion , the seriousness of the presumed offences and the fact that the applicant was a foreign national who had no particular ties with GPE justified the high level of bail demanded .

NORP The applicant requested his release or , in the alternative , the reduction of bail to LAW . In a decision of DATE the PERSON ( Corunna ) no . CARDINAL investigating judge refused the request on the ground that the seriousness of the presumed offences justified keeping the applicant in pre - trial detention . Moreover , his continued detention conformed to the relevant principles established by the case - law of ORG , according to which the measure had to be exceptional , subsidiary , temporary and proportionate in nature . As to the amount of bail , the judge stated that it was essential to secure the applicant 's appearance for trial in order to elucidate the facts subsequent to the leak in the vessel 's hull . He also reiterated the arguments of the first investigating judge to the effect that the seriousness of the offences , the public outcry caused by the marine pollution , the applicant 's NORP nationality , the fact that his permanent address was abroad and the fact that he had no ties with GPE justified the high level of bail , which was designed to rule out any risk that the applicant might fail to appear .

On DATE the same investigating judge confirmed the decision , rejecting an application from the applicant to have it varied .

The applicant appealed . In a decision of DATE the Corunna Audiencia Provincial

On DATE the PERSON ( ORG ) no . CARDINAL investigating judge deposited a bank guarantee corresponding to the amount of bail demanded . Accordingly , he ordered the applicant 's provisional release subject to the following conditions :

“ ( a ) that [ the applicant ] supply an address in GPE ;

( b ) that he report DATE before TIME to the police headquarters corresponding to the address supplied ;

( c ) that he be prohibited from leaving the country and surrender his passport to the court 's registry . ”

Relying on LAW ( right to liberty and security ) , the applicant lodged an amparo appeal with ORG . While he did not appeal against his pre - trial detention , for which he also considered sufficient reasons to have been given , the applicant complained of the amount of bail , arguing that it was excessive and disproportionate in view of his financial circumstances , which made the prospects for his provisional release unrealistic . He stressed that the amount fixed did not take account of his personal circumstances as required by the case - law of ORG .

In a reasoned decision of CARDINAL DATE ORG declared the appeal inadmissible . It began by observing that , in accordance with its case - law , the fact that the applicant had been released did not render the amparo appeal devoid of purpose , given that :

“ ... in the event of a breach of the fundamental right relied on , the court should allow the appeal and grant the applicant amparo relief . ”

However , on the merits , ORG ruled as follows :

“ ... in accordance with LAW , the amount of bail set should take into account , among other factors , the nature of the offence , the accused 's previous convictions and any other circumstances that might prompt him to evade justice . ORG , for its part , has ruled that the object of bail is to secure the presence of the accused at the trial ... and that the amount should act as a deterrent , dispelling any wish on his part to abscond .

In the instant case the various decisions gave ample reasons for the amount demanded and the refusal of the request for a reduction , namely : the overriding objective of securing the accused 's presence at the trial , the seriousness of the offences , the disastrous situation caused by the spillage of the ship 's cargo both domestically and abroad , the fact that the applicant is a non - national and the fact that he has no ties whatsoever in GPE .

All the above circumstances led the courts to consider that the risk of the applicant 's absconding could only be reduced by setting such a high sum for bail ... They also took into consideration the accused 's personal and financial circumstances and the commercial environment in which he works ... The applicant 's NORP nationality , the fact that his permanent address is abroad and the fact that he has no ties with GPE constitute personal circumstances which were taken into consideration in fixing bail , in order to deter the applicant from absconding .

Accordingly , bail was fixed on the basis of proportionality criteria ... The exceptional amount reflects the exceptional nature of the situation . ”

The NORP authorities later authorised the applicant 's return to his country of origin , where he is now living , on condition that the NORP authorities ensured compliance with the periodic supervision to which the applicant was subject in GPE . Hence , the applicant has to report DATE to the police station on the island of GPE , where he was born , or in GPE , where his children live .

The criminal proceedings on the merits are still pending before the PERSON ( ORG ) no . CARDINAL investigating judge .

Article CARDINAL

“ Everyone has the right to liberty and security . No one may be deprived of his liberty other than in accordance with the provisions of this LAW and in the circumstances and form provided by law . ”

Article CARDINAL

“ Persons who ... cause or carry out , directly or indirectly , emissions , discharges ... into ... inland or maritime waters or groundwater ... capable of occasioning severe damage to the balance of natural systems , shall be liable to a term of imprisonment of DATE , a DATE fine payable for DATE and a prohibition on carrying out their occupation of DATE . Where there is a risk to persons ' health the prison term shall be in the upper CARDINAL of the range . ”

Article CARDINAL

“ The penalty imposed for an offence referred to in this LAW shall be in the lower half of the range where it was the result of gross negligence . ”

Article CARDINAL

Persons who knowingly release , discharge or introduce ionising radiation or other substances into the air , soil or maritime waters ... in quantities such as to cause death or illness ... with irreversible effects , shall be liable to a further prison term of DATE in addition to that imposed [ automatically ] for damage to persons . ”

Article CARDINAL

“ In determining the nature and amount of the security , consideration must be given to the nature of the offence , the social situation and previous convictions of the accused and any other circumstance which may prompt the accused to seek to evade justice . ”

This Convention has been amended on several occasions , most recently in DATE ( entry into force DATE ) . In particular , Annex I to the Convention relates to the prevention of pollution by oil and covers the prevention of pollution following collision or stranding . The Convention , which is a combination of CARDINAL treaties adopted in DATE and DATE , constitutes the main international instrument covering prevention of pollution of the marine environment by ships from operational or accidental causes .

Article CARDINAL

Enforcement by coastal GPE

Where there are clear grounds for believing that a vessel navigating in the exclusive economic zone or the territorial sea of a ORG has , in the exclusive economic zone , committed a violation of applicable international rules and standards for the prevention , reduction and control of pollution from vessels or laws and regulations of that ORG conforming and giving effect to such rules and standards , that ORG may require the vessel to give information regarding its identity and port of registry , its last and its next port of call and other relevant information required to establish whether a violation has occurred .

Where there is clear objective evidence that a vessel navigating in the exclusive economic zone or the territorial sea of a ORG has , in the exclusive economic zone , committed a violation referred to in paragraph CARDINAL resulting in a discharge causing major damage or threat of major damage to the coastline or related interests of the coastal ORG , or to any resources of its territorial sea or exclusive economic zone , that ORG may , subject to section CARDINAL , provided that the evidence so warrants , institute proceedings , including detention of the vessel , in accordance with its laws .

Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph CARDINAL , whenever appropriate procedures have been established , either through the competent international organization or as otherwise agreed , whereby compliance with requirements for bonding or other appropriate financial security has been assured , the coastal ORG if bound by such procedures shall allow the vessel to proceed .

Article CARDINAL

Measures to avoid pollution arising from maritime casualties

“ CARDINAL . Nothing in this Part shall prejudice the right of GPE , pursuant to international law , both customary and conventional , to take and enforce measures beyond the territorial sea proportionate to the actual or threatened damage to protect their coastline or related interests , including fishing , from pollution or threat of pollution following upon a maritime casualty or acts relating to such a casualty , which may reasonably be expected to result in major harmful consequences .

For the purposes of this article , ' maritime casualty ' means a collision of vessels , stranding or other incident of navigation , or other occurrence on board a vessel or external to it resulting in material damage or imminent threat of material damage to a vessel or cargo . ”

This PERSON regulates the responsibility of operators to prevent , avoid and remedy environmental damage in accordance with LAW and the prevention and “ polluter pays ” principles .

The aim of this Directive is to establish a framework of environmental liability based on the “ polluter pays ” principle , with a view to preventing and remedying environmental damage .

Article CARDINAL

Scope

“ CARDINAL . This Directive shall apply , in accordance with international law , to discharges of polluting substances in :

( a ) the internal waters , including ports , of a Member ORG , in so far as the PERSON regime is applicable ;

( b ) the territorial sea of a Member ORG ;

( c ) straits used for international navigation subject to the regime of transit passage , as laid down in Part III , section CARDINAL , of the DATE United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea , to the extent that a Member ORG exercises jurisdiction over such straits ;

( d ) the exclusive economic zone or equivalent zone of a Member ORG , established in accordance with international law ; and

( e ) the high seas .

This Directive shall apply to discharges of polluting substances from any ship , irrespective of its flag , with the exception of any warship , naval auxiliary or other ship owned or operated by a ORG and used , for the time being , only on government noncommercial service .

Article CARDINAL

Penalties

“ CARDINAL . Member GPE shall take the necessary measures to ensure that infringements ... are subject to effective , proportionate and dissuasive penalties , which may include criminal or administrative penalties .

Each Member ORG shall take the measures necessary to ensure that the penalties referred to in paragraph CARDINAL apply to any person who is found responsible for an infringement ... ”

In the sphere of penalties

CARDINAL lines of thought must be pursued :

a ) The excessively absolute principle of freedom of navigation must be revised , as it is no longer appropriate in the context of DATE transport flows . Legally speaking , this would open the way for passive control and ultimately active control , at least in zones subject to risk . The issue of the responsibilities of control bodies could be considered at the same time .

b ) A state which has suffered pollution damage caused by a ship must be able to demand reparation from the state whose flag that ship flies where it is established that the damage results completely or partly from the flag state 's failure to exercise any effective monitoring of the vessel causing the damage .

c ) LAW must be amended to make clearer the possibility of penalties of imprisonment for the most serious pollution offences .

d ) An international maritime criminal court must be set up . In the same way that the notion of crimes against humanity finally yielded the creation of the international criminal court , it can not be excluded in the future that states may eventually enshrine the notion of ' crime against the environment ' , drawing the consequences , in legal terms , of the idea put forward by some of establishing the sea as the common heritage of humanity . ”


The applicant is a NORP national , born in DATE and living in GPE . He is represented before the ORG by Mr R.A.U. Baron PERSON a lawyer practising in GPE .

a. Particular circumstances of the present case

The family of the applicant ’s mother belongs to the NORP nobility . Her family is entitled to carry the NORP noble title of Count ( PERSON ) . The family of the applicant ’s father does not belong to the NORP nobility . Following his GPE divorce , the applicant officially changed his family name to his mother ’s maiden name . It appears that the applicant has added “ PERSON as the last of his first names .

On DATE , he requested the Minister for the ORG ( Minister PERSON ) to include him in the GPE ancestry register ( filiatieregister ) , which would entitle him to carry a noble title . However , as in the GPE nobility is only transferred through the paternal line , the Minister rejected his request on DATE . The applicant ’s objection ( bezwaar ) against this decision was rejected by the Minister on DATE .

The applicant ’s appeal against this decision was dismissed by ORG ( ORG ) of GPE on DATE . The applicant filed a further appeal with ORG ( Afdeling Bestuursrechtspraak ) of ORG .

In an article published on DATE in the DATE “ ORG ” , it was reported that FAC , who is the formal President of ORG , and the Minister for the ORG pursue a policy of not intervening in the natural decrease of the number of persons belonging to the NORP nobility .

On DATE , the applicant ’s case was heard before ORG . CARDINAL of its members , PERSON , repeatedly interrupted the applicant ’s lawyer and only displayed a negative interest in the applicant ’s submissions .

On DATE , the applicant challenged ( wraking ) PERSON on grounds of bias . On DATE , the applicant further challenged all members of ORG ( PERSON ) of ORG , arguing that the entire ORG can not be regarded as impartial .

On DATE , ORG rejected the applicant ’s request of DATE and , as the applicant apparently sought to obtain a decision from ORG , did not deal with his request of DATE .

On DATE , ORG rejected the applicant ’s appeal against ORG decision of CARDINAL DATE .

Insofar as the applicant complained that the NORP rules on transferral of noble titles is contrary to the prohibition of discrimination under the relevant provisions in a number of international instruments , ORG held that there is an objective and reasonable ground for the difference in treatment as regards transferral of noble titles which lies in the circumstance that it concerns a historical institution which derives its right of existence solely from that historical character and therefore does not lend itself for adaptation to more recent views on equal treatment . ORG further noted that this difference in treatment applies equally to both men and women .

b. Relevant domestic law

Pursuant to the LAW on Nobility ( Wet op de Adeldom ) , and apart from the situation in which a NORP noble title is transmitted via the paternal line at birth , ennoblement can only take place by elevation ( verheffing ) or incorporation ( inlijving ) . Elevation is only possible for members of the GPE royal family . Incorporation is only possible for persons belonging to a foreign family with a recognised noble status in their country of origin and only where a request for incorporation has been made on the moment the person concerned obtains NORP nationality .

Ennoblement takes place by LAW ) . Under the relevant provisions of NORP law governing names , noble titles and predicates form a part of a noble person ’s family name . The unlawful carrying of a noble title may attract consequences under NORP criminal law .

In a decision of CARDINAL DATE ( Case no . RCARDINAL.CARDINAL.CARDINAL ) , ORG held that noble status is to be regarded as a historically grown institute to which , since DATE , no longer any rights and freedoms pertain .


The applicant is a NORP citizen , born in DATE and resident in GPE .

He is represented before the ORG by Mr PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE .

A.

On DATE , ORG ( käräjäoikeus , tingsrätt ) convicted the applicant , inter alia , of an aggravated drug offence and sentenced him to DATE imprisonment . The time for appeal expired on DATE . The applicant 's appeal was entry stamped on DATE at the registry of ORG . On DATE ORG ( hovioikeus , hovrätt ) decided to dismiss the appeal as being out of time .

The applicant sought leave to appeal from ORG ( korkein oikeus , högsta domstolen ) . He claimed that he had posted the appeal to the post - office box address of ORG on DATE by first class mail . ORG had informed the public that the post sent by first class would get to the recipient DATE . The applicant also claimed that ORG post - office box should have been emptied at the end of office hours . He , therefore , alleged that either there had been a delay in the post or ORG officials had not emptied the box duly . He claimed that since his appeal had arrived out of time because of negligence of some public officials , it should have been examined . On DATE ORG refused the applicant leave to appeal .

B. Relevant domestic law

According to LAW , LAW , LAW , of LAW ( oikeudenkäymiskaari , rättegångsbalken ) , the time - limit for filing an appeal against a ORG judgment is DATE from the judgment . According to LAW , the appeal must be delivered to the registry of ORG no later than on DATE of the time for appeal .

SectionCARDINAL , Subsection CARDINAL , of LAW to the Courts ( laki eräiden asiakirjain lähettämisestä tuomioistuimille , lag om insändande av vissa handlingar till domstolar , CARDINAL.CARDINAL.CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) provides that appeals may be sent by post at the appellant 's own risk . According to LAW , a document sent by post is considered to have arrived when it has been delivered to the recipient .


CASE OF FYODOROV AND FYODOROVA v. UKRAINE

Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (non-exhaustion of domestic remedies);Violation of Art. 3 (substantive aspect);Violation of Art. 3 (procedural aspect);Violation of Art. 8;Violation of Art. 6-1;Remainder inadmissible;Non-pecuniary damage - award

Angelika Nußberger;Dean Spielmann;Elisabet Fura;Ganna Yudkivska;Karel Jungwiert;Mark Villiger

The applicants , husband and wife , were born in DATE and DATE respectively and live in GPE .

In DATE the first applicant had a fight with the ORG , his neighbours . As a result , PERSON sustained bodily injuries , for which the first applicant was eventually convicted on DATE and sentenced to suspended restriction of liberty . The applicants were also involved with the ORG in several civil proceedings concerning land use and other issues .

On DATE PERSON addressed a letter to PERSON , the Chief Psychiatrist of ORG ( “ the Poltava Hospital ” ) , alleging that the first applicant suffered from a serious mental condition and needed psychiatric treatment . She noted that he had been harassing her family for DATE . In particular , he had been calling them names , cursing , eavesdropping , photographing their activities , recording their conversations with him , threatening to throw them out of their house and put PERSON in prison . In DATE the first applicant had also hit PERSON in the course of an argument , inflicting serious injuries on her , which were the subject of pending criminal proceedings . She further noted that he had been in conflict with a number of other villagers . In particular , he was suspicious of everybody ’s conduct ; he photographed various allegedly “ unlawful ” acts ; he threatened , cursed and argued with the villagers ; he wrote various complaints to the authorities ; he punctured the tyres of the village mayor ’s car , stole crops and hay and engaged in fights . Finally , she alleged that he was prone to sudden fits of anger , beat his wife and had killed a dog . Lastly , he owned CARDINAL rifles and was generally dangerous .

On DATE PERSON , a hospital psychiatrist , arrived in the applicants’ yard in an ambulance car and started questioning the first applicant about his relations with the ORG , in particular about their complaints that he had taken photographs of them without their consent . According to the first applicant , this conversation lasted TIME , after which he attempted to photograph the psychiatrist , the driver , and the ambulance car . In response , PERSON ran from the yard , shouting “ this is abnormal ” .

On DATE PERSON informed ORG that the first applicant was suffering from chronic delusional disorder ( хронічний маячний розлад ) and needed to undergo a forensic expert assessment with a view to receiving in - patient treatment .

On DATE PERSON , the Chief of ORG , dismissed a complaint lodged by the first applicant , in which he alleged that the examination had been unlawful and the diagnosis incorrect .

In DATE the first applicant instituted court proceedings against PERSON , ORG T and PERSON , complaining that he had been subjected to an unlawful examination and diagnosis in violation of the applicable law and medical guidelines .

On DATE ORG of PERSON allowed the first applicant ’s claim and ordered the medical authorities to remove the diagnosis from his record . It observed , in particular , that complaints by the ORG could not be deemed a sufficient basis for the examination of the first applicant without his consent . It also found that the examination had been carried out in violation of the applicable procedural standards . In particular , PERSON had not duly informed the applicant of the reason for his visit and made his conclusions after an extremely brief informal conversation .

PERSON appealed against this judgment .

At TIME on DATE the ORG opened the hearing on PERSON appeal . The court noted in the hearing TIME that the first applicant had requested that the case be heard in his absence and that there was no reason not to grant this request . It had then heard submissions from PERSON , who had presented his version of events and noted , in particular , that his conversation with the first applicant had lasted CARDINAL . The court also allowed PERSON request to add an unspecified certificate to the case - file materials . The floor was then given to a representative of ORG , who maintained that PERSON had acted in accordance with the provisions of section CARDINAL of the Law “ On Psychiatric Assistance ” , which lays down the circumstances under which a patient may be psychiatrically examined without his or her consent . In particular , there had been a serious cause for concern about the first applicant ’s state of health , as at the material time criminal proceedings were pending against him on charges of assault against PERSON The court then heard the manager of the local polyclinics , who alleged that it had not been possible at the material time to subject the first applicant to a more extensive in - patient assessment . The hearing ended at TIME

On DATE the ORG quashed the judgment of DATE and dismissed the first applicant ’s claim . By way of reasoning , the court noted the following :

“ The conclusion of the first - instance court that ... PERSON infringed the requirements of LAW of the PERSON of GPE “ On FAC ” in examining ORG is not supported by the evidence contained in the case file .

The first - instance court did not give sufficient consideration to explanations by the witness Fyodorova T.S. – the plaintiff ’s wife , who maintained at the court hearing that PERSON , upon exiting the ambulance car , had introduced himself and begun asking questions . The witness also indicated that PERSON had visited them for TIME .

The court did not give sufficient weight to the testimonies by PERSON himself ... that PERSON had spoken to him concerning the photographing of the neighbour , PERSON , and repeated the latter ’s words concerning this matter .

Therefore , the conclusion of the court that PERSON had not introduced himself before the examination of PERSON and had not informed him of the grounds and purpose of his examination does not follow from the facts of the case .

The court erred in concluding that PERSON without his consent and any request by the latter for such an examination .

The Panel of Judges considers that the written application by PERSON gave sufficient grounds for a psychiatric doctor to conduct a psychiatric examination in accordance with the requirements of paragraph CARDINAL of LAW of LAW GPE “ On FAC ” .

Without substantiation , the first - instance court declared as wrongful the diagnosis ... concerning the state of ORG ’s PERSON health , since at the time of consideration of the case the case file contained no evidence disproving that diagnosis .

The Panel of Judges considers that the actions of psychiatric doctor PERSON , Chief Psychiatrist ... PERSON ... were compliant with the requirements of LAW of the PERSON of GPE “ On FAC ” .

The judgment of the first - instance court shall be quashed as the ORG ... ”

The first applicant sought leave to appeal in cassation . He maintained , in particular , that ORG had unlawfully held a hearing in his and his lawyer ’s absence , having failed to notify either of them of the date of the hearing . He noted that the case file contained an unsigned request to hold a hearing in his absence . However , the first applicant contended that this unsigned application was forged and that even if it were not , no application to hear the case in the absence of his lawyer had been submitted . The first applicant further contended that the judgment lacked reasoning . He noted , in particular , that , according to the applicable law , an individual could be subjected to a psychiatric assessment either ( a ) upon his ( or his representative ’s ) consent or ( b ) following a court decision or ( c ) in the event of urgent necessity . As the first applicant ’s examination had not been based either on his consent or on a court decision , the court of appeal should have substantiated the finding that there had been an urgent need for it . Lastly , the first applicant complained that the court of appeal had not addressed his arguments concerning a violation of the applicable medical guidelines for diagnosing chronic delusional disorder , which presupposed extensive observation of a patient . In the first applicant ’s opinion , having based the conclusion concerning the correctness of the diagnosis on the lack of any evidence to the contrary , the court of appeal had infringed the legal provisions concerning the presumption of mental health .

On DATE ORG dismissed the first applicant ’s request for leave to appeal in cassation , generally endorsing the findings of the court of appeal .

In DATE PERSON notified the first applicant ’s lawyer that the first applicant ’s name was not on the register of individuals suffering from mental disorders . On DATE the Psychiatrists’ Association informed the first applicant that , having studied his medical documents , they found no basis to consider that he suffered from any disorders . On DATE the applicant was also examined at ORG and found not to be manifesting any signs of disorder and not to require treatment . Subsequently , referring to these documents , the first applicant unsuccessfully attempted to obtain an extraordinary review of the judgment of DATE .

In DATE ORG received several complaints from the NORP fellow villagers requesting that he be admitted to a psychiatric facility on account of various incidents of hostile behaviour towards them .

Referring to these complaints , PERSON requested ORG to authorise the first applicant ’s confinement to the psychiatric clinic for assessment and , if necessary , for treatment . On DATE the court discontinued the proceedings , having advised PERSON that this matter was within the discretion of the supervising psychiatrist .

On DATE PERSON addressed a letter to the district police requesting assistance in the first applicant ’s hospitalisation in view of the danger he posed to others . In his letter he noted , in particular that “ at the present moment PERSON is a danger to society . In connection with his mental disorders , during hospitalisation PERSON may use a hunting weapon in self - defence . ”

According to the first applicant , on DATE PERSON signed a certificate testifying his psychiatric fitness for the purposes of extending his hunting rifle permit .

On DATE PERSON and CARDINAL police officers arrived at the applicants’ home in the ambulance car and discussed the procedures concerning the extension of the permit . According to the first applicant , they invited him to follow them to the police station to complete the necessary formalities ; however , he refused , assuring them that he would do so later .

At TIME the applicants went to the police station and requested instructions concerning the formalities to be completed for the rifle permit extension .

At TIME arrived in the ambulance car and announced to the applicants that the first applicant was to be hospitalised . Notwithstanding the applicants’ protests , QUANTITY police officers escorted the first applicant to the ambulance car and took him to ORG , where he underwent CARDINAL psychiatric assessments on DATE .

On DATE the first applicant was released from ORG as he was not considered to be in need of in - patient treatment . Subsequently ( on DATE ) the first applicant ’s lawyer was informed by PERSON , the Chief Psychiatrist of ORG , that the first applicant ’s diagnosis of chronic delusional disorder , which had served as the basis for his hospitalisation , had not been confirmed . However , he had been found to be suffering from a “ pathological behavioural personality disorder of the unstable epileptic type , in the sub - compensation stage ” ( патохарактерологічний розлад особистості по епілептоїднонестійкому типу в стадії субкомпенсації ) . In DATE the first applicant was informed by ORG that the stated diagnosis did not feature in the international classification table . On DATE the first applicant underwent a psychiatric assessment in ORG . The panel of experts concluded that neither on DATE , nor on DATE or at the time of the assessment had the first applicant suffered from any psychiatric disorders .

On DATE the applicants complained to the Poltava ORG that they had been ill - treated by PERSON and the police officers on DATE . They noted , in particular , that the decision to hospitalise the first applicant had been arbitrary and taken in excess of ORG power . They further complained that the police had applied excessive force in enforcing this decision , which had caused their injuries . The use of force had been excessive because the first applicant ’s protests were limited to a request to contact his lawyer and a demand to see the chief of the police department , which measures were legitimate in the context of the situation . In response he was restrained by CARDINAL police officers , who also punched and kicked him , and dragged him down the stairs and into the ambulance car . The second applicant attempted to intervene , but in vain . According to her , the police officers punched her hands , pushed her in the chest and pressed her against the door , keeping her away from the first applicant .

On DATE the applicants were examined by medical experts , who found that the first applicant had contusions of the soft head tissue , face , left leg and neck , cumulatively qualified as “ light bodily injuries ” , which could have been sustained on DATE and under the circumstances described by him . The second applicant had contusions of the right hand , left arm , left knee and right leg , caused by blunt objects , possibly on DATE and under the circumstances described by her . The second applicant ’s injuries were also cumulatively qualified as “ light ” .

On DATE ORG refused to institute criminal proceedings , having found that in restraining the first applicant , who had objected to the lawful actions of PERSON and the police ORG order to get into the ambulance car , the police officers had not acted in excess of the authority conferred on them by applicable law .

On DATE the first applicant was X - rayed and found to have a fractured jaw .

In DATE the first applicant underwent an additional assessment by medical experts , who found that the fractured jaw could have been sustained during his placement in the ambulance car in DATE , as he had described , and re - qualified the injuries sustained during this period as of “ medium severity ” . Based on these findings , the applicants again requested the initiation of criminal proceedings against PERSON and the police officers .

On numerous occasions ( DATE , DATE and DATE , CARDINAL DATE and DATE ) ORG refused to institute criminal proceedings for want of evidence of criminal conduct on the part of the officers and PERSON All those decisions were subsequently annulled either by the supervising prosecuting authorities or by ORG with reference to the insufficiency of the investigations and various procedural omissions .

On DATE the Deputy ORG wrote to ORG , reprimanding him for having failed to organise a thorough examination of the applicants’ complaints . He noted , in particular , that ORG had failed to study the case - file materials and provide written instructions as to the inquiry ; that eyewitnesses of the incident had not been identified and questioned ; and that the measures taken had been perfunctory . The Deputy Regional Prosecutor also gave various instructions as to the further investigation of the case .

On DATE the NORP Regional Prosecutors’ Office initiated criminal proceedings to investigate the circumstances in which the first applicant had sustained injuries .

On DATE the ORG of Poltava also instituted criminal proceedings concerning the second applicant ’s injuries .

On numerous occasions ( in particular , DATE , DATE and DATE ) the above criminal proceedings were discontinued for want of evidence of criminal actions on behalf of PERSON and the police officers . Those decisions were set aside by the superior prosecutorial or judicial authorities with reference to the inadequacy of the measures taken to investigate the applicants’ complaints .

On CARDINAL DATE the ORG office discontinued the criminal proceedings . It noted , in particular , that ORG had received numerous complaints from the applicants’ neighbours concerning the first applicant ’s aggressive behaviour . In particular , CARDINAL such complaint , signed by CARDINAL villagers , had been received in DATE . Having obtained a ruling from the local court that the decision to hospitalise the first applicant could be taken by the supervising psychiatrist , PERSON had asked the police for assistance in ensuring the hospitalisation . Neither PERSON nor the policemen had exceeded the authority vested in them by applicable law in demanding the first applicant ’s hospitalisation . The force applied to the applicants had been proportionate and had not exceeded that which was necessary in order to overcome their resistance . In particular , according to expert assessments and reconstructions of the crime scene , the first applicant had apparently fractured his jaw when he accidentally banged his head against the ambulance vehicle while resisting the efforts of the police officers to place him inside .

By a decision of DATE , upheld on appeal on CARDINAL DATE , ORG quashed that decision . The courts noted , in particular , that while the prosecution had conducted a reconstruction of the crime scene based on the police ORG version of the events , they had failed to verify the applicants’ version of events . Likewise the medical assessment had verified the police ’s version of events only . The police had also failed to identify any eye - witnesses of the incident in order to question them about their impressions and had not fulfilled various instructions , given , in particular , by the court in reviewing previous decisions to discontinue the proceedings .

According to the case - file materials the investigation of the ORG complaints about ill - treatment is still pending .

NORP The relevant provision of the LAW reads as follows :

“ Every person has the right to freedom and personal inviolability .

No one shall be arrested or held in custody other than pursuant to a reasoned court decision and only on grounds and in accordance with a procedure established by law .

In the event of an urgent necessity to prevent or stop a crime , bodies authorised by law may hold a person in custody as a temporary preventive measure , the reasonable grounds for which shall be verified by a court within TIME . The detained person shall be released immediately if he or she has not been provided , within TIME of the moment of detention , with a reasoned court decision in respect of the holding in custody .

Everyone who has been arrested or detained shall be informed without delay of the reasons for his or her arrest or detention , apprised of his or her rights , and from the moment of detention shall be given the opportunity to personally defend himself or herself , or to have the legal assistance of defence counsel .

Everyone who has been detained has the right to challenge his or her detention in court at any time ... ”

The relevant provisions of the LAW can be found in the judgment in the case of PERSON v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , § § DATE , DATE ) .

The relevant provisions of the Code concerning notification arrangements are summarised in the judgment in the case of ORG v. GPE ( no . GPE , § § DATE , CARDINAL DATE ) and the admissibility decision in the case of PERSON v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL of DATE ) .

The relevant provisions of the Law of GPE “ On FAC ” read as follows :

“ Each individual shall be considered as having no mental disorders unless the presence of such a disorder is established on the grounds of and according to the procedure established by this PERSON and other laws of GPE . ”

“ A psychiatric examination shall be carried out for the purposes of establishing whether or not an individual suffers from a mental disorder , whether she or he requires psychiatric assistance , and determining of the type of such assistance and the procedure for providing it .

A psychiatric examination shall be carried out by a psychiatric doctor at the request or with the conscious consent of the individual ...

A psychiatric examination may be carried out without the individual ’s conscious consent ... where the information available provides sufficient grounds for a reasonable assumption that the individual suffers from a severe mental disorder , as a result of which she or he :

- commits or manifests an actual intention to commit an act which constitutes an imminent danger to her or himself or others ; or

- is unable on her or his own to meet her or his basic vital needs at the level necessary to sustain her or his life ; or

- will cause significant harm to her or his own health ... in the event that psychiatric assistance is not provided .

The decision to carry out a psychiatric examination of an individual without her or his conscious consent ... shall be taken by a psychiatric doctor upon an application [ by any person ] , which contains information giving sufficient grounds for such an examination . ...

In urgent situations ... the decision to carry out a psychiatric examination of an individual without her or his conscious consent ... shall be taken by the psychiatric doctor alone , and the psychiatric examination shall be carried out immediately .

In [ other ] cases , ... a psychiatric doctor shall submit an application to the court ... A forcible psychiatric assessment shall be carried out by the psychiatric doctor following a court order .

Data concerning the psychiatric examination and the conclusion concerning the individual ’s state of mental health , and the reasons for the application to the psychiatric doctor , shall be recorded in medical documents . ”

“ An individual suffering from a mental disorder may be hospitalised without her or his conscious consent ... , if examination and treatment are possible only on an in - patient basis , and in the event of a finding that the individual is suffering from a severe mental disorder , as a result of which she or he :

- is unable on her or his own to meet her or his basic vital needs at the level necessary to sustain her or his life . ”


David Thór Björgvinsson;George Nicolaou;Lech Garlicki;Nebojša Vučinić;Päivi Hirvelä;Zdravka Kalaydjieva

NORP The applicant , Mr ORG , is a citizen of GPE who was born in DATE . He is currently serving his sentence in ORG . He was represented before the ORG by Mr PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE .

CARDINAL .

DATE , as a part of a widespread and systematic attack against the PERSON civilian population of GPE , being aware of that attack , the applicant persecuted Bosniacs on political , national , ethnic , cultural and religious grounds by committing murders , incarceration , torture , enforced disappearances and aiding and abetting rapes .

After having surrendered , the applicant was remanded in custody on DATE . On CARDINAL DATE a ORG of ORG ( “ the ORG ” ) decided to take over the case from GPE in view of its sensitivity and a sympathetic attitude of the local police towards the applicant , a police officer , which had been manifested in their failure to arrest him despite an international arrest warrant against the applicant . The decision entered into force in DATE .

On DATE a Trial Chamber of ORG found the applicant guilty of aiding and abetting rapes and enforced disappearances as crimes against humanity under LAW ( g ) and ( i ) of the DATE LAW and sentenced him to CARDINAL years’ imprisonment .

On DATE an ORG of that court quashed the first - instance judgment and scheduled a fresh hearing . On DATE it found the applicant guilty of persecution as a crime against humanity under LAW ( h ) in conjunction with sub - paragraphs ( a ) , ( e ) , ( f ) , ( g ) and ( i ) of the DATE LAW and sentenced him to CARDINAL years’ imprisonment .

On DATE the applicant filed a constitutional appeal . On DATE ORG examined the case under LAW , DATE and CARDINAL of the Convention and Article CARDINAL of Protocol No . CARDINAL to the Convention . It found no violation .

The relevant part of LAW reads as follows :

“ The ORG established by the Agreement referred to in DATE hereof for the trial and punishment of the major war criminals of the LOC countries shall have the power to try and punish persons who , acting in the interests of the LOC countries , whether as individuals or as members of organizations , committed any of the following crimes .

The following acts , or any of them , are crimes coming within the jurisdiction of the ORG for which there shall be individual responsibility :

( c ) ‘ ORG against humanity’ : namely , murder , extermination , enslavement , deportation , and other inhumane acts committed against any civilian population , before or during the war , or persecutions on political , racial or religious grounds in execution of or in connection with any crime within the jurisdiction of the ORG , whether or not in violation of the domestic law of the country where perpetrated .

Leaders , organizers , instigators and accomplices participating in the formulation or execution of a common plan or conspiracy to commit any of the foregoing crimes are responsible for all acts performed by any persons in execution of such plan . ”

The ORG reads as follows :

“ ORG ,

Recognizes the obligation laid upon it by LAW , paragraph CARDINAL , sub - paragraph ( a ) , of the LAW , to initiate studies and make recommendations for the purpose of encouraging the progressive development of international law and its codification ;

Takes note of the Agreement for the establishment of an ORG for the prosecution and punishment of the major war criminals of ORG signed in GPE on DATE , and of the Charter annexed thereto , and of the fact that similar principles have been adopted in the Charter of ORG for the trial of the major war criminals in LOC , proclaimed at GPE on DATE ;

Therefore ,

Affirms the principles of international law recognized by LAW and the judgment of the ORG ;

Directs ORG on the codification of international law established by the resolution of ORG of DATE , to treat as a matter of primary importance plans for the formation , in the context of a general codification of offences against the peace and security of mankind , or of LAW , of the principles recognized in GPE and in the judgment of the ORG . ”

In DATE ORG adopted the following CARDINAL GPE Principles :

“ Principle I : Any person who commits an act which constitutes a crime under international law is responsible therefore and liable to punishment .

Principle II : The fact that internal law does not impose a penalty for an act which constitutes a crime under international law does not relieve the person who committed the act from responsibility under international law .

Principle III : The fact that a person who committed an act which constitutes a crime under international law acted as Head of ORG or responsible Government official does not relieve him from responsibility under international law .

Principle IV : The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law , provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him .

Principle V : Any person charged with a crime under international law has the right to a fair trial on the facts and law .

Principle VI : The crimes hereinafter set out are punishable as crimes under international law :

( c ) Crimes against humanity : Murder , extermination , enslavement , deportation and other inhuman acts done against any civilian population , or persecutions on political , racial or religious grounds , when such acts are done or such persecutions are carried on in execution of or in connection with any crime against peace or any war crime .

Principle VII : Complicity in the commission of a crime against peace , a war crime , or a crime against humanity as set forth in ORG is a crime under international law . ”

NORP In DATE ORG adopted this Convention in response to fears expressed that alleged war criminals ( Second World War ) not yet apprehended might escape prosecution with the passage of time . The Convention entered into force on DATE . It was ratified by ORG on DATE . The relevant part thereof reads as follows :

“ The States Parties to the present Convention ,

Considering that war crimes and crimes against humanity are among the gravest crimes in international law ,

Convinced that the effective punishment of war crimes and crimes against humanity is an important element in the prevention of such crimes , the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms , the encouragement of confidence , the furtherance of co - operation among peoples and the promotion of international peace and security ,

Noting that the application to war crimes and crimes against humanity of the rules of municipal law relating to the period of limitation for ordinary crimes is a matter of serious concern to world public opinion , since it prevents the prosecution and punishment of persons responsible for those crimes ,

Recognizing that it is necessary and timely to affirm in international law , through this LAW , the principle that there is no period of limitation for war crimes and crimes against humanity , and to secure its universal application ,

Have agreed as follows :

Article CARDINAL

No statutory limitation shall apply to the following crimes , irrespective of the date of their commission :

( b ) Crimes against humanity whether committed in time of war or in time of peace as they are defined in the LAW of ORG , GPE , of CARDINAL DATE and confirmed by resolutions CARDINAL ( I ) of CARDINAL DATE and CARDINAL ( I ) of DATE of ORG of ORG , ... even if such acts do not constitute a violation of the domestic law of the country in which they were committed .

Article CARDINAL

If any of the crimes mentioned in article I is committed , the provisions of this Convention shall apply to representatives of the ORG authority and private individuals who , as principals or accomplices , participate in or who directly incite others to the commission of any of those crimes , or who conspire to commit them , irrespective of the degree of completion , and to representatives of the ORG authority who tolerate their commission .

Article CARDINAL

The GPE Parties to the present Convention undertake to adopt all necessary domestic measures , legislative or otherwise , with a view to making possible the extradition , in accordance with international law , of the persons referred to in article II of this LAW .

NORP In response to atrocities then taking place in GPE , on DATE ORG passed resolution CARDINAL establishing ORG for the former GPE ( “ the ORG ” ) headquartered in GPE . LAW provides the following definition of crimes against humanity :

“ The International Tribunal shall have the power to prosecute persons responsible for the following crimes when committed in armed conflict , whether international or internal in character , and directed against any civilian population :

( a ) murder ;

( b ) extermination ;

( c ) enslavement ;

( d ) deportation ;

( e ) imprisonment ;

( f ) torture ;

( g ) rape ;

( h ) persecutions on political , racial and religious grounds ;

( i ) other inhumane acts . ”

Article CARDINAL § QUANTITY of LAW of ORG of DATE defines crimes against humanity as follows :

“ For the purpose of this Statute , crime against humanity means any of the following acts when committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population , with knowledge of the attack :

( a ) Murder ;

( b ) Extermination ;

( c ) Enslavement ;

( d ) PERSON or forcible transfer of population ;

( e ) Imprisonment or other severe deprivation of physical liberty in violation of fundamental rules of international law ;

( f ) Torture ;

( g ) Rape , sexual slavery , enforced prostitution , forced pregnancy , enforced sterilization , or any other form of sexual violence of comparable gravity ;

( h ) Persecution against any identifiable group or collectivity on political , racial , national , ethnic , cultural , religious , gender as defined in paragraph CARDINAL , or other grounds that are universally recognized as impermissible under international law , in connection with any act referred to in this paragraph or any crime within the jurisdiction of the ORG ;

( i ) Enforced disappearance of persons ;

( j ) The crime of apartheid ;

( k ) Other inhumane acts of a similar character intentionally causing great suffering , or serious injury to body or to mental or physical health . ”

On DATE the High Representative imposed LAW establishing ORG . ORG of GPE subsequently endorsed that LAW .

Following joint conclusions of ORG and ORG DATE , ORG DATE of CARDINAL DATE and amendments to LAW enacted by ORG of GPE , special chambers for war crimes were established within ORG on DATE .

Domestic war crimes cases can be divided into CARDINAL categories .

Old cases ( reported DATE ) remain with Entity courts if an indictment entered into force before DATE . If an indictment did not enter into force before DATE , they remain with Entity courts unless ORG decides to take over any such case because of its sensitivity or complexity ( see LAW ) .

New cases ( reported after DATE ) fall under the jurisdiction of ORG , but it may transfer less sensitive and complex cases to Entity courts ( LAW ) .

As a rule , in war crimes cases , Entity courts apply LAW ( see , however , DATE judgment in the ORG case in which ORG applied the DATE LAW ) , whereas the ORG applies the DATE LAW ( see , however , the DATE judgment in the ORG case in which ORG applied the DATE LAW ) . Moreover , Entity courts on average impose lighter sentences than ORG ( see “ Moving towards a Harmonised Application of LAW in War Crimes Cases before Courts in GPE ” , published by the FAC in DATE ) , but this may be due to the fact that ORG deals with more sensitive and complex cases ( see the DATE National War Crimes Strategy ) .

The DATE LAW introduced crimes against humanity in domestic law . It has been in force since DATE . Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL thereof reads as follows :

“ Whoever , as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population , being aware of that attack , perpetrates any of the following acts :

a ) Murder ;

b ) Extermination ;

c ) Enslavement ;

f ) Torture ;

g ) Coercing another by force or by threat of immediate attack upon his or her life or limb , or the life or limb of a person close to the victim , to sexual intercourse or an equivalent sexual act ( rape ) , sexual slavery , enforced prostitution , forced pregnancy , enforced sterilisation or any other form of sexual violence of comparable gravity ;

h ) Persecution against any identifiable group or collectivity on political , racial , national , ethnic , cultural , religious , gender or other grounds that are universally recognised as impermissible under international law , in connection with any offence listed in this paragraph , any offence listed in this LAW or any offence falling under the competence of the [ ORG ] ;

i ) Enforced disappearance of persons ;

j ) The crime of apartheid ;

k ) Other inhumane acts of a similar character intentionally causing great suffering , or serious injury to body or to mental or physical health ,

shall be punished by imprisonment for a term not DATE or long - term imprisonment . ”

The general range of imprisonment is from DATE to DATE and of long - term imprisonment from DATE ( Article CARDINAL of the Code ) .


David Thór Björgvinsson;Elisabeth Palm;Wilhelmina Thomassen

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

DATE and DATE , he worked as a police officer and , in this capacity , acted as a “ runner ” for ORG ( ORG ; “ RCID ” ) .

On DATE the Minister of Justice ( Minister PERSON ) and the Minister of the Interior ( Minister PERSON ) informed ORG of ORG ( ORG ) of the disbandment in DATE of the GPE / ORG ( NORP Recherche Team ; “ IRT ” ) on account of deployment of controversial criminal investigation methods in the fight against organised crime ( for further details , see PERSON v. the GPE ( dec . ) , no . ORG , ECHR DATE ) . This triggered off a parliamentary inquiry ( parlementaire enquête ) into criminal investigation methods used in the GPE and the control exercised over such methods .

On DATE the parliamentary commission of inquiry on criminal investigation methods ( parlementaire enquêtecommissie opsporingsmethoden ; “ PEC ” ) was instituted . It was composed of CARDINAL ORG parliamentarians .

The ORG conducted an extensive inquiry , which lasted for DATE . DATE documents were collected and examined and preliminary interviews with CARDINAL persons were held . The ORG had subsequent informal , confidential “ private conversations ” ( besloten gesprekken ) with a total of CARDINAL persons DATE of which verbatim records were drawn up – in order to broaden its understanding of the issues involved , to select the persons and experts to be heard in public , and to prepare these public hearings . On the basis of these documents , interviews and conversations , the ORG made a selection of persons whom it wished to hear . Those interviews and “ private conversations ” , which were all held on a voluntary basis , were of a confidential nature and the ORG gave an undertaking that , unless consent was given by the person concerned , it would not use any direct citations .

DATE and DATE , the ORG held CARDINAL public hearings during which CARDINAL persons gave evidence , including the applicant who was heard twice . These public hearings were directly broadcast on national television . It did not hold any witness or expert hearings in camera .

The ORG presented its final report containing its findings and recommendations on DATE . It concluded that there was a crisis in the field of criminal investigation which comprised CARDINAL main elements , namely the absence of adequate legal norms for investigating methods used in respect of organised crime , a criminal investigation system that was not functioning properly in that it involved too many separate organisations with little or no co - ordination of their activities , resulting in unclear decision - making as regards competences and responsibilities , and problems with power structures in that the prosecution department did not always have or exercise sufficient authority over the police .

The ORG report has had a great impact on the organisation of criminal investigation in the GPE and has formed the basis of a number of changes to LAW , including ORG herziening gerechtelijk vooronderzoek ) and the Special Investigative Powers Act ( Wet bijzondere opsporingsbevoegdheden ) which entered into force on DATE , amending the legal rules on investigative powers and coercive measures in criminal investigations .

NORP In DATE , with the permission of the Minister of ORG and under the responsibility and direction of the public prosecution service ( PERSON ) , a special team of ORG ( rijksrecherche ) , the so - called “ GPE - team ” , started a broad factfinding inquiry into the manner in which ORG ( PERSON ; ” RCID ” ) operated DATE , in particular its use of special investigation methods which were not dissimilar to those having been used by the disbanded GPE / GPE IRT .

NORP The mission of the GPE - team was : “ To carry out , as thoroughly as possible , a fact - finding inquiry into the activities , functioning and working methods of ORG from DATE to date . In so doing , particular attention must be paid to the use of special investigation methods . In addition , the responsibilities of both the police and the public prosecution service for the RCID and RCID operations must be mapped out . The inquiry is to result in a report containing findings and recommendations . ”

It was agreed with the Minister of ORG and the Minister of the ORG that the ORG and Vice - Chair of the ORG would be kept informed from the outset of this inquiry of the findings of the GPE - team . It was to be a fact - finding exercise , primarily aimed at drawing lessons from facts found .

The functioning of the Kennemerland RCID during the period under investigation by the GPE - team had already been the subject of a number of previous inquiries by the ORG regional police force as well as by ORG . The results of the previous inquiries were incorporated into those of the GPE - team inquiry , which covered a multitude of aspects related to the practical functioning of the PERSON RCID , including its involvement in a number of specific activities , such as a “ fruit - juice channel ” – a controlled - delivery channel involving the transport of narcotics concealed in fruit - juice concentrates .

In the course of its inquiry , CARDINAL persons gave evidence , CARDINAL of whom more than once . The persons heard included higher officials of the police and public prosecution department , police officers involved in criminal investigations , police informers and other civilians . The applicant and his former superior Mr L. also gave evidence to the GPE - team . All persons heard by the GPE - team were given an undertaking that their statements would not be used , without their consent , in any criminal investigation .

According to the final report issued by the GPE - team on DATE , it had had contacts DATE from the start of its inquiry – with Mr NORP , a NORP fruit - juice producer who during the relevant period had acted as an informer for the Kennemerland RCID and who had been “ run ” by the applicant . PERSON had contacted ORG ( ORG ; “ CRI ” ) in DATE and had declared that , since DATE , he had been in contact with the applicant and subsequently with the latter 's colleague PERSON From the end of DATE Mr NORP had provided the applicant with information about the production of fruit - juice concentrates in GPE and their transport to the GPE . After PERSON had set up a fruit - juice factory in GPE in DATE , he had met PERSON , whom he initially knew under a pseudonym . At the request of the applicant and PERSON , PERSON NORP had set up the fruit - juice factory GPE in GPE . Although the applicant and PERSON had invested MONEY in both the NORP and GPE factories , they decided in DATE that the GPE factory was to be closed down and sold . PERSON , who did not understand this decision , started to distrust the applicant and Mr L. and decided to inform the ORG about the matter . The ORG subsequently brought PERSON into contact with ORG .

The final report of the GPE - team further states that , during its inquiry , the statements given by PERSON had as far as possible been verified by the use of observations , audio devices and documents and that inquiries had been made as to whether and , if so , why the applicant and PERSON L. had financially supported the factory in GPE and had the Delta Rio factory in GPE set up .

Although reports by ORG are generally not public , the report of the GPE - team was rendered public given the attention this inquiry , against the background of the ORG inquiry , had attracted . Its main conclusions comprised , inter alia , the following elements :

- the Kennemerland RCID was to be characterised as a disorganised service , in which no direction was given and where no substantive control whatsoever was exercised ;

- in the Kennemerland RCID , basic rules on the “ running ” of informers and infiltrators had been breached frequently and on a large scale ;

- the police force command had seriously fallen short in the exercise of its responsibility over the RCID in that the commander , his deputy and the head of the criminal investigation division were not or hardly aware of the particulars of ORG activities ; - the scope of the ORG work had for a long time been seriously underestimated by the GPE public prosecution department ;

- DATE the ORG chief PERSON and his ( ex)collaborator [ the applicant ] had , with a high degree of probability , spent MONEY from an undocumented source , thus giving rise to the impression that the money had criminal origins ;

- the spending of this money had not been subjected to any form of control ;

- the ORG chief PERSON had consequently disregarded his duty to inform and give explanations to his superiors and the public prosecution department on essential points , and he had intentionally misinformed his superiors as well as ORG ;

- since at least CARDINAL the PERSON RCID had used the method of controlled drug deliveries ;

- the relevant police commanders and public prosecutors had only controlled the application of this method by the Kennemerland RCID to a limited extent ;

- Mr L. and the applicant had set up a ORG operation in GPE wholly independently ( without informing their superiors or the public prosecution department ) and in this so - called “ fruit - juice channel ” all rules applicable to ORG activities had been breached ;

- the most plausible explanation for the “ fruit - juice channel ” was the wish to set up an infrastructure for controlled narcotics shipments and it had remained unclear what purpose this channel still served after the ORG had been disbanded and for what purposes major investments were still being made ;

- the statements given by PERSON and the applicant before the ORG about the funds invested in the “ fruit - juice channel ” were , on important points , in contradiction with the findings made in the inquiry of ORG ;

- the conducting of ORG operations abroad ( GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE ) , without informing the foreign authorities , had violated the sovereignty of these countries , making it subservient to domestic investigation interests ;

- it had not appeared that killings in the criminal world could be attributed to the Kennemerland RCID 's practice of “ running ” informers or to the targeting of such informers ;

- after the ORG 's disbandment , on several occasions serious threats against PERSON had formed the topic of conversation , but it had appeared after investigation that there was nothing concrete behind these threats ; yet it was noteworthy that these threats coincided with moments when PERSON was called to account explicitly for far - reaching ORG activities ;

- moreover , after having left the police force , the applicant had maintained contacts with CARDINAL informers and had – in cooperation with former colleagues – transported drugs through police - controlled channels and accepted money of criminal origin ; and

- no explanation had been found for a number of actions by PERSON and the applicant and they themselves had never given a reasonable explanation ; the question whether they had been active , within the limits of the rule of law , in fighting crime or , whether , intentionally or unintentionally , they had participated in that same criminal activity could not be answered .

On DATE , immediately after PERSON appearance , the applicant gave evidence under oath at a public hearing before the ORG .

On DATE , the ORG had a “ private conversation ” with Mr NORP , who was referred to in the verbatim record of this conversation as “ GPE - man ” ( “ PERSON ” ) . On DATE , directly after Mr L. 's second appearance , the ORG also took evidence from the applicant in public for a second time .

Although , in the course of its inquiry , the GPE - team had requested the applicant to give a statement on a number of occasions , he did so only once , namely shortly before his second ORG hearing , and briefly in the context of the inquiry into the “ fruit - juice channel ” , and refused further cooperation .

On DATE the ORG transmitted to the chief public prosecutor of GPE a formal record of perjury ( proces - verbaal van meineed ) in relation to the applicant and his former superior Mr L. concerning various parts of their statements before the ORG , in particular those parts concerning the question of payments to PERSON

On an unspecified date , the applicant was ordered to appear before ORG ( arrondissementsrechtbank ) of GPE to stand trial on charges of repeated perjury before the ORG and of repeatedly , that is to say , on different occasions DATE and DATE , having sought to intimidate PERSON when the applicant knew or had serious reason to assume that a statement from him would be sought in the context of the ORG inquiry .

In its judgment of DATE , following hearings on CARDINAL and DATE , ORG convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to DATE imprisonment . Both the applicant and the prosecution lodged an appeal with ORG ( gerechtshof ) of GPE .

In a judgment of DATE , following CARDINAL hearings held DATE and DATE and in the course of which PERSON had given evidence to ORG on DATE , ORG quashed the judgment of DATE , convicted the applicant of repeated perjury before the ORG ( in respect of CARDINAL parts of the statements he had made at hearings before the ORG ) and of repeatedly having sought to intimidate the ( potential ) witness PERSON It acquitted the applicant of the remaining charges and sentenced him to DATE imprisonment , suspended pending a DATE probationary period .

ORG rejected the applicant 's argument that the evidence in his case had been unlawfully obtained . As regards the inquiry by the GPE - team , ORG noted that the tasks of ORG included carrying out inquiries into the manner in which police officers used their statutory powers , and that , in accordance with section QUANTITY of LAW ( ORG ) in conjunction with section CARDINAL of the Order on the functions of special - duty police officers ( GPE bijzondere ambtenaren van politie ) of DATE ( ORG Staatscourant ) DATE , no . CARDINAL ) , the prosecutorgeneral ( ORG ) can instruct ORG to carry out an inquiry , which may concern acts of an individual police officer or the functioning of a particular police force unit . After an extensive analysis of the mission of the GPE - team and the manner in which its inquiry had evolved , ORG found no reasons for holding that this inquiry should be regarded as a covert criminal investigation or that , in the course of this inquiry , the applicant should have been regarded as a criminal suspect in connection with the “ fruit - juice channel ” .

ORG also rejected the applicant 's argument that the recording by PERSON of his ( telephone ) conversations with the applicant with technical equipment made available by ORG had infringed his right to privacy under LAW . It found it established that , in the course of CARDINAL hearing sessions DATE and DATE , Mr NORP had made statements to the GPE - team about the “ fruit - juice channel ” , that CARDINAL facetoface conversations ( DATE ) and CARDINAL telephone conversations ( DATE ) between the applicant and PERSON had been recorded by PERSON , that he had done so on a voluntary basis and with the aid of devices provided by the FAC - team at Mr NORP 's own request as he was initially disbelieved and as he also wished this for personal safety considerations , that CARDINAL of the CARDINAL recorded telephone conversations only consisted of a recording of what Mr NORP had said , and that only in respect of CARDINAL particular conversation had PERSON received specific instructions as to what information should be obtained from the applicant , namely an admission of payments by him to PERSON

ORG held that , according to domestic case - law , the mere tape - recording of a ( telephone ) conversation without the permission ( or knowledge ) of the conversation partner did not , in itself , entail a violation of that conversation partner 's right to respect for privacy ; for that to be the case , additional circumstances were required . In the instant case , the additional circumstances were that a number of conversations had been recorded , including the applicant 's contributions to those conversations . Furthermore , the ( telephone ) conversations had been conducted by the applicant as the former “ runner ” of a ( former ) police informer about matters having occurred during the period in which the applicant “ ran ” PERSON as informer and the winding - up of that relationship . As these conversations DATE in any event on the part of the applicant – were of an exclusively professional nature and content , ORG held that , in view of domestic case - law on this point , this allowed no other conclusion than that the applicant 's private life did not come into play in respect of the recorded ( telephone ) conversations at issue . It further held that PERSON recourse to a recording device DATE and PERSON had been entirely free to decide whether or not to activate it as well as to make the recordings available to the GPE - team – had mainly been prompted by PERSON need to substantiate his account of the “ fruit - juice channel ” in order to be believed . ORG therefore considered that it could not be said that there had been interference on the part of the authorities in respect of the recording . It only accepted the existence of such interference in breach of LAW in respect of the CARDINAL recorded conversation for which PERSON had received explicit instructions , to the extent that this conversation related to matters falling within the applicant 's sphere of privacy . It did not use that particular statement in evidence .

In the opinion of ORG , these findings were not altered by the fact that the GPE - team , for its part , had an interest in recording the conversations for the purposes of verifying information relevant to its factfinding inquiry , provided by PERSON , about the involvement in the “ fruitjuice channel ” of staff attached to the Kennemerland RCID , the unit forming the object of the GPE - team inquiry . ORG found it relatively obvious that this verification , in view of the accounts of the inquiry in subsequent reports , had taken place in the form of tape - recordings and the preparation of transcripts and , in this connection , recalled its finding that the inquiry was not to be regarded as a ( covert ) criminal investigation .

The applicant lodged an appeal in cassation with ORG ( PERSON ) in which he raised a total of CARDINAL grievances , including a complaint – in which he relied inter alia on LAW that ORG had unjustly rejected his argument that his right to privacy had been violated on account of the recording of his ( telephone ) conversations with PERSON

The applicant 's appeal in cassation was rejected by ORG on DATE . It dismissed the alleged violation of the applicant 's right to privacy , holding :

“ The complaint does not provide grounds for overturning the ruling of ORG ( kan niet tot cassatie leiden ) . Having regard to section CARDINAL of ORG ( Wet op de rechterlijke organisatie ) , no further reasoning is called for , since the complaint does not give rise to a need for a determination of legal issues in the interest of legal unity or legal development . ”

Article CARDINAL of the LAW ( PERSON ) of GPE provides as follows :

“ CARDINAL . Everyone shall have the right to respect for his privacy , without prejudice to restrictions laid down by or pursuant to ORG .

Rules to protect privacy shall be laid down by ORG in connection with the recording and dissemination of personal data .

Rules concerning the rights of persons to be informed of data recorded concerning them and of the use that is made thereof , and to have such data corrected shall be laid down by ORG . ”

LAW reads :

“ CARDINAL . The privacy of correspondence shall not be violated except in the cases laid down by ORG , by order of the courts .

The privacy of the telephone and telegraph shall not be violated except , in the cases laid down by ORG , by or with the authorisation of those designated for the purpose by ORG . ”

According to the relevant provisions of LAW ( PERSON ) as in force at the material time ( section ORG ) , it is not a criminal offence when a conversation partner taps or records a ( telephone ) conversation with a technical device or when a conversation partner passes a recording of such a conversation on to another person . It is further not a criminal offence when a person makes available to another person a recording device , unless the former is aware or in all reasonableness should be aware that the device concerned contains unlawfully made recordings or unlawfully obtained and stored data .

Pursuant to section CARDINAL § CARDINAL of the CARDINAL Parliamentary Inquiries Act ( Wet op de Parlementaire Enquête – “ the LAW ” ) , all persons residing in the GPE are obliged to comply with a summons to appear before a parliamentary commission of inquiry in order to be heard as a witness or expert . In case a person fails to comply with a summons to appear , the commission may issue an order for the person concerned to be brought before it ( bevel tot medebrenging ) within the meaning of LAW . The commission may require such witnesses to take the oath or make a solemn affirmation that they will state the whole truth and nothing but the truth ( LAW QUANTITY ) .

Unlike the situation in criminal proceedings , persons heard by a parliamentary commission of inquiry do not have the right to remain silent . The only persons who enjoy the privilege of non - disclosure before a parliamentary commission of inquiry are those who DATE by virtue of their office , their profession or their position – are bound to secrecy , but only in relation to matters the knowledge of which has been entrusted to them in that capacity ( section CARDINAL of the Act ) or in case disclosure of secret information would entail disproportionate damage to the exercise of the profession of the person concerned or to the interest of his or her company or the company for which he or she works or has worked ( section CARDINAL of the Act ) .

Section CARDINAL of the LAW provides that , with the exception of the situation referred to in LAW , statements given to a parliamentary commission of inquiry can never be used in evidence in judicial proceedings against the person having given such statements or against any third party . This reflects the principle that the purpose of a parliamentary inquiry is to find out the truth about facts and events having taken place in the past and not to determine personal liabilities under civil or criminal law .

Section CARDINAL of the LAW provides , inter alia , that perjury ( meineed ) on the part of a witness heard by a parliamentary commission of inquiry attracts the penalties provided for in LAW for giving false testimony in civil proceedings . It further provides that the written record of the hearing concerned constitutes legal evidence .

Section CARDINAL of the DATE LAW ( ORG ) provides :

“ CARDINAL . For tasks determined by the Minister of ORG , after consultation with the Minister of ORG , the Procurator General shall have at his disposal specialduty police officers ( bijzondere ambtenaren van politie ) .

The special - duty police officers shall ... be appointed , promoted , suspended and dismissed by the Minister of ORG . ”

The main task of ORG is to investigate ( purported ) punishable behaviour of civil servants which affects the integrity of the administration of justice and/or that of the public administration . It exercises this task by conducting either a fact - finding inquiry or a criminal investigation , depending on the mission given . As a fact - finding inquiry is solely aimed at obtaining factual clarification , ORG can not avail itself of any investigative powers ( opsporingsbevoegdheden ) or coercive measures ( dwangmiddelen ) in conducting such an inquiry . On the other hand , when conducting a criminal investigation , it can use such powers and measures and a criminal investigation may follow a fact - finding inquiry .

The rules , as in force at the material time , concerning the interception and recording of telecommunications by the investigation authorities in criminal proceedings are set out in the ORG 's judgment in the case of PERSON the GPE , ( no . FAC , § § DATE , DATE ) and in its decision on admissibility in the case of ORG v. the GPE ( no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , DATE ) .


No violation of Art. 6-1;No violation of Art. 13

The applicant , PERSON was a NORP citizen . She was born in DATE and died in DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . She lived in GPE , where she worked as a taxi driver .

At the time of the events in question , PERSON was divorced and living with her youngest son , who was born in DATE . From DATE , PERSON was unable to work as a result both of dental problems which caused her severe pain and anxiety about a dispute with her landlord .

NORP In DATE she contacted a psychiatric clinic in GPE in order to receive a medical certificate which would enable her to claim sickness benefit from ORG . From DATE the applicant was treated by the chief psychiatrist who drew her attention to the possible detrimental effect her situation might have on her son and advised her to seek support for him from the children 's psychiatric clinic or the social authorities . PERSON , however , considered that her son was a normal child who was not in need of any particular help .

NORP In DATE the psychiatrist informed PERSON that since the child 's health might be at risk , she ( the psychiatrist ) had an obligation under NORP law to contact the social authorities ( see paragraphs CARDINAL–CARDINAL below ) . Accordingly , she telephoned a social - welfare officer at ORG ( socialnämnden ) and informed her of the applicant 's health problems . At the request of that officer the psychiatrist submitted the following written statement on DATE :

“ PERSON has had a polyclinical contact with a psychiatrist at [ the clinic ] since CARDINAL DATE , from CARDINAL DATE with the undersigned . The reason has been a pain condition in connection with dental problems and this has caused her being on sick - leave as from DATE . The patient does not consider herself to be mentally ill but she has accepted the contact with us solely due to her need to be put on the sick - list .

In my opinion she has an extreme personality and her thoughts are , in conversations here , occupied by her severe pain condition and her dissatisfaction with the treatment she has received . She has once in a while had her son with her . He seemed quiet and sensitive .

The undersigned , as well as others in the medical service with whom the patient has been in contact , have worried about the possible effect of her severe pain condition on the son whom she cares for alone . I have on several occasions drawn her attention to this , inter alia in letters ( please see copy ) , and asked her to contact [ the children 's psychiatric clinic ] or the social authorities . As , apparently , this has not been done , I called you DATE and I now send a written account of the case as agreed .

As I do not find that , from a psychiatric point of view , we can do more for the patient , who does not consider herself to be mentally ill , I have referred her to the district medical officer and she will , thus , have no further contact with me . ”

NORP By letter the same day , the psychiatrist notified the applicant of the information imparted to the ORG . The relevant part of the letter read as follows :

“ As you know , I have several times asked you to seek support for your son who , naturally , can not remain unaffected by your severe pains . As I have not been able to convince you that this is necessary , I have called [ a ] social - welfare officer and expressed my concern . Unfortunately , I find myself obliged under the law to take this action in an attempt to reduce future problems for the boy ( and thereby also for you ) . ”

The psychiatrist 's concern for the applicant 's son was shared by the headmaster and a teacher at the school he attended . In DATE they had contacted ORG and expressed concern about his learning difficulties and his general state of health . Following this , the ORG commenced an investigation which , with PERSON agreement , led to the placement of her son in a non - residential therapeutic school on DATE .

NORP Under sections CARDINAL and CARDINAL of chapter CARDINAL of the Freedom of the Press Act ( ORG ) , which is part of LAW , everyone is entitled to access to public documents , subject to exceptions set out in LAW ( Sekretesslagen , CARDINAL ) .

One of the exceptions to this general rule relates to confidentiality of information in the field of health and medical care and is set out in chapter CARDINAL , section CARDINAL , of LAW , which provides as follows :

“ Secrecy applies ... in the field of health and medical care to information on the individual 's state of health or otherwise concerning his or her private life , unless it is clear that the information can be disclosed without any harm to the individual or persons closely related to him or her ... ”

Notwithstanding this rule of confidentiality , in certain circumstances health and medical - care authorities are required to submit information to another authority . Thus , chapter CARDINAL , section CARDINAL , of LAW provides the following :

“ Secrecy does not prevent ... the disclosure of information to another authority , if an obligation to disclose the information is laid down in an act of law or a government ordinance . ”

Such an obligation follows from section CARDINAL of LAW DATE ( ORG , CARDINAL ) , subsections CARDINAL and CARDINAL of which read as follows :

“ Authorities whose activities relate to children and young persons as well as other authorities within health and medical - care and social services are obliged immediately to report to ORG if , in the course of their activities , they receive information which may imply that an intervention by ORG is necessary for the protection of a minor . This also applies to the employees of such authorities and to physicians , teachers , nurses and midwives who are not so employed .

Authorities , employees and practitioners referred to in subsection CARDINAL are obliged to give ORG all information which may be of importance to an investigation of a minor 's need of protection . ”

At the time of the enactment of LAW , the ORG 's ORG ( PERSON socialutskott ) stated that the reporting obligation was not limited to cases where it was clear that ORG would have to intervene . In addition , unconfirmed information or information which was difficult to assess should also be reported , if it implied that a child might be in need of support or assistance from the ORG . In such cases it would be for the ORG to investigate whether there was any factual basis for the information in question and whether there was a need for any particular measure ( see the report of ORG , ORG CARDINAL/CARDINAL:CARDINAL , p. CARDINAL ) .

The obligation to report only concerns information which is of relevance to ORG investigation . It does not extend to other information concerning the persons in question ( see Government PERSON , p. CARDINAL ) . It is for the reporting authority or practitioner to decide which information is covered by the reporting obligation .

Information which is submitted to ORG is protected by the rule of confidentiality provided by chapter CARDINAL , section CARDINAL , of LAW :

“ Secrecy applies within the social services to information concerning the individual 's private life , unless it is clear that the information can be disclosed without any harm to the individual or persons closely related to him or her ... ”

Under LAW and LAW , there is a right to appeal against a decision not to grant access to public documents . There is , however , no such right in respect of decisions to grant access to information contained in public documents . Furthermore , there is no right for the individual concerned to be consulted before such information is disclosed or to be notified of the disclosure afterwards .

Under chapter CARDINAL , section CARDINAL , of LAW ( ORG ) , a physician who , intentionally or through negligence , discloses information which should be kept confidential according to law is guilty of breach of professional secrecy . Proceedings may be brought in the ordinary courts by the public prosecutor or , if the public prosecutor decides not to prosecute , the aggrieved individual . Such a breach of professional secrecy may also constitute a basis for claiming damages under chapter CARDINAL , section CARDINAL , or chapter CARDINAL , section CARDINAL , of LAW ( ORG , CARDINAL:CARDINAL ) . Action may be taken by the individual against the physician or his or her employer .

Public authorities and their employees are , furthermore , subject to the supervision of the Chancellor of ORG ( NORP ) and ORG ( PERSON ) . The Chancellor and the ORG investigate whether those exercising public powers abide by laws and follow applicable instructions and may prosecute a certain individual or refer the matter to disciplinary action by the relevant authority .


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

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

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

On DATE the applicant was dismissed from work at construction department No . CARDINAL of a joint stock company GPE ( ООО “ NORP ” ) . Contrary to the requirements of the domestic law the applicant 's “ work record card ” – a history of one 's working life used for calculating pensions – was kept by the employer and was not returned to the applicant until DATE .

On DATE the applicant brought proceedings against his former employer seeking to be reinstated . However , since none of the parties appeared for the hearing , on DATE the ORG of the Yamalo - Nenets Autonomous Region left the applicant 's claims unexamined . It appears that the applicant did not attempt to appeal against the above decision .

DATE , on DATE , the applicant brought proceedings against his former employer seeking to have the entry on his work record card as regards the date of his dismissal changed to DATE and to recover salary arrears . On DATE the ORG returned the applicant 's writ , because he had failed to sign it .

On DATE the applicant also brought similar proceedings against his former employer before the ORG .

Eventually , on DATE the ORG refused to examine the applicant 's claims as it had no territorial jurisdiction over the matter . The applicant did not appeal against this decision .

On DATE the applicant returned his writ , duly signed , to ORG . On DATE the ORG asked the applicant to clarify the name and the location of the defendant . Since the applicant did not do so within the prescribed time - limit , on DATE the ORG returned the writ to the applicant .

Eventually , following a new attempt by the applicant , on DATE the ORG refused to accept the applicant 's writ for lack of territorial jurisdiction over the matter .

On DATE the applicant submitted his claims concerning the date of his dismissal and the payment of salary arrears to the ORG .

On DATE the ORG dismissed the applicant 's claims . On DATE the Yamalo - Nenets Autonomous Regional Court quashed the judgment on appeal and remitted the case for fresh examination .

Following the fresh examination of the case , on DATE the ORG granted the applicant 's claims in part , obliged the defendant to change the date of the applicant 's dismissal and to pay certain salary arrears .

On DATE the Yamalo - Nenets Autonomous Regional Court upheld the judgment with regard to changing the date of the applicant 's dismissal , quashed the rest of the judgment and remitted it for fresh examination .

On DATE the hearing of the applicant 's case in the part quashed on appeal by the decision of CARDINAL DATE was fixed for DATE .

During the hearing on DATE the applicant added to his claims , and the defendant brought a counterclaim .

The next hearing was fixed for DATE .

Following the applicant 's request , on DATE the case was assigned to another judge .

On DATE the date of dismissal on the applicant 's work record card was changed in compliance with the judgment of DATE , as upheld on DATE , and the enforcement proceedings in this respect were terminated .

On DATE the ORG of ORG quashed the judgment of DATE and the appeal decision of CARDINAL DATE by way of supervisory review and remitted the matter for fresh examination .

On DATE the ORG set the hearing for DATE .

As regards the CARDINAL hearings scheduled DATE and DATE , they were adjourned either on the applicant 's requests or in view of the necessity to examine his petitions ( i.e. to clarify the decision of CARDINAL DATE , to obtain additional evidence , to examine some of the applicant 's claims in separate proceedings , to suspend the proceedings , to appoint expert examinations , to involve third parties to the proceedings , etc . ) . However , the ORG dismissed those requests and petitions , having concluded that they were aimed at delaying the proceedings .

On DATE the ORG dismissed the applicant 's claims in full .

On DATE the Yamalo - Nenets Autonomous Regional Court upheld the judgment on appeal .

Although the judgment of DATE and the appeal decision of DATE were quashed by way of supervisory review , the date of the applicant 's dismissal as recorded on his work record card in compliance with the above judgments on DATE remained unchanged .

Under LAW of DATE in force until DATE , a case must be prepared for trial DATE after the writ is lodged . If litigants are from the same town or territory , disputes between them relating to labour issues must be examined by a court of first instance within DATE . Otherwise such disputes must be examined within DATE .

Under LAW of DATE , an appeal court must examine an appeal DATE after it is filed .

Under LAW , effective as from DATE , disputes relating to labour issues must be examined within DATE after the writ is lodged .

Under LAW an appeal court must examine an appeal DATE after it is filed .