Violation of Art. 8;No violation of Art. 14+8;Violation of Art. 6 (no opportunity to comment);Violation of Art. 6 (no public hearing);Violation of Art. 6 (no publicly pronounced judgments);Non-pecuniary damage - financial award (first applicant);Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation of Art. 8 sufficient (second applicant);Costs and expenses partial award - domestic proceedings;Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings

The first applicant , born in DATE , has been living in GPE since DATE and had a residence and work permit until DATE . On DATE ORG ) issued a DATE residence prohibition against her for illegal employment . The residence prohibition was lifted in DATE ( see below , C. ) .

On DATE she married an NORP citizen , Mr M.

On DATE the first applicant gave birth to the second applicant in a hospital in GPE .

On DATE ORG ( ORG für ORG und Familie ) ordered that the second applicant should not accompany the first applicant upon her departure from hospital since her unclear personal and financial situation and lack of a residence permit would endanger the child ’s welfare .

On DATE ORG , relying on Section CARDINALa of LAW ( Allgemeines Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch ) requested ORG ( GPE ) that custody as regards the care and education of the second applicant be transferred to it . ORG noted that the first applicant had , at first , incorrectly informed the hospital about her personal data , in particular on her name and residence . According to ORG she had also expressed the wish to place the child with foster parents . DATE after she had given birth , she had changed her mind and wanted to keep the child . Upon inquiries undertaken by ORG , her real name , the periods of her lawful residence in GPE and her marriage to PERSON had been discovered . Confronted with these facts , she had been very upset , had refused to give any further information and had insisted on keeping her child . Given her completely unclear situation , the means of existence of the second applicant were at risk and a transfer of custody to ORG was necessary .

On DATE , the first applicant left the hospital . The second applicant was placed with foster parents .

On DATE Mr M. instituted proceedings contesting paternity ( Ehelichkeitsbestreitungsklage ) of the second applicant .

On DATE ORG granted ORG request of DATE .

It noted in its reasoning that , on DATE , the first applicant had appeared at the court of her own motion , had given her new address in the CARDINALth ORG and further information on her situation and had insisted to have her son back . She had alleged that she obtained financial support from her husband , although she was no longer living with him .

Relying on a report by ORG of DATE , the court noted that the first applicant had not cooperated with that office . In particular , it had not been possible to arrange a visit at her husband ’s address and she had not kept her appointments with ORG . On DATE the first applicant had contacted ORG and had informed it about her address at DATE GPE , where she was allegedly supported by PERSON That Office ’s subsequent visit at PERSON apartment had shown that PERSON was not prepared to further support the first applicant . Given that she was living with her CARDINAL children in an apartment of QUANTITY , she could not accommodate the applicant and her son .

Relying further on a report by ORG ( GPE ) of DATE , the court noted that the first applicant had admitted in a meeting that a baby needed orderly conditions , which she could not offer at that moment . Otherwise , she had given evasive answers and , on questions she had been uncomfortable with , she had started crying or had complained that nobody was helping her . ORG visit at the foster GPE home had shown that the second applicant had got accustomed to them . Until DATE , the first applicant twice had a right of access at the parents - child centre ( ORG ) . The first time , she had not appeared at all , the second time she had been TIME late . The foster parents had subsequently met her by chance and had arranged a short meeting at a nearby parking .

In sum , the court stated that the first applicant was still in a very unstable and obscure situation , which was not enhanced by her unlawful residence in GPE , and which did not entitle her to financial aid . It was also not possible to cooperate with her , as she partly did not keep appointments and lacked any willingness to make active contributions . In order to assure the second applicant ’s positive development , it was necessary to transfer custody of the second applicant to ORG and to have him in care of foster parents .

The Juvenile Court ’s decision was served on the first applicant on DATE .

On DATE the first applicant , now assisted by counsel , appealed against this decision , in which she made the following submissions .

She had been desperate when giving birth , due to the fact that her husband was not the second applicant ’s father , but a certain PERSON stated , that being married to an NORP national , she had a right to reside in GPE . According to ORG case - law the residence prohibition against her would have to be lifted . However , in her contacts with ORG and the other authorities involved she had not obtained any support to regulate her residence status or any help to preserve her relationship with her child . She had gained the impression that from the very beginning they were determined to place her child with foster parents .

She had also wished to make use of her access rights . However , the first time , she had not found the address , the second time she had been late , had met the foster parents and had briefly seen her son . She had asked the foster parents to inform the authorities that she had been late on account of an unfortunate obstruction .

Finally , the applicant noted that the decision of DATE had been served on her shortly before DATE , namely on DATE . It had been impossible to obtain legal advice from the service institutions . Not being familiar with legal matters , she had not been in a position to procure the case - file and had only handed out the decision to her newly appointed counsel , who had returned DATE before the appeal was lodged . Once paternity of PERSON was established , maintenance payments for the second applicant would be secured . As to her housing situation , she was still accommodated at her friend ’s place . Finally , she requested that an expert opinion be obtained to prove that she was capable of taking care of her child and that meanwhile she be granted a right of access to the second applicant once DATE .

On DATE ORG , sitting as an ORG , dismissed the appeal against the decision of DATE without holding a hearing and confirmed the lower court ’s decision .

It noted that the first applicant had only disputed the facts established by the lower court by alleging that she had not received any support by the authorities . However , this reproach was to be rejected in the light of the reports by ORG and ORG . The lower court had correctly decided on the basis of these facts and the first applicant ’s situation at the time of its decision . Any positive developments concerning her situation , as alleged in her appeal , were not to be taken into consideration , but could be taken into account upon a new request . Under LAW of LAW the court had to undertake measures to ensure the child ’s welfare , if it was at risk due to the GPE conduct . The court had to transfer custody , entirely or in part , to ORG , even against the wish of the legal guardian , when a child ’s entire dislocation from his or her habitual environment was necessary and a placement with relatives or other qualified persons close to the child was not possible . The first applicant ’s completely unclear financial and personal situation , in particular as regards her residence , and her incapability to cooperate constructively with ORG DATE as had been established by the lower court – constituted a situation , which endangered the child ’s well - being . Referring to ORG case - law in custody matters , it did not allow an ordinary appeal on points of law ( ordentlicher Revisionsrekurs ) , pursuant to LAW ) .

On DATE the first applicant requested ORG to allow her ordinary appeal on points of law ( nachträgliche GPE des ordentlichen PERSON ) .

She complained that she had not been sufficiently involved in the proceedings , in particular , that access to the court files had not been possible . She further complained that the courts’ decisions were not in line with this ORG ’s case - law under LAW . She asserted that the authorities involved had not even attempted to take measures which would have allowed her son to stay with her , such as placing her in a mother - child centre for instance .

Furthermore , relying on LAW , she complained that there were no public and oral hearings in the custody proceedings and the decisions were not pronounced publicly . The ORG taking of evidence had been insufficient . As regards the second applicant , she complained that he had no legal standing in the proceedings , where he could claim his right to respect for family life with her , pursuant to LAW , which was also in breach of LAW . Relying on Article CARDINAL in conjunction with LAW , she complained of discrimination on the ground of her nationality . Had she been an NORP citizen or citizen of any other member ORG of ORG , she would have had the right to placement in a mother - child centre .

On CARDINAL DATE ORG allowed PERSON action contesting paternity of the second applicant . This decision became final .

On DATE ORG , sitting as an ORG , referring again to ORG case - law in custody matters , refused to allow the ordinary appeal on points of law , as in its decision of DATE , it had not departed from that case - law . There was no other reason to allow the ordinary appeal on points of law under LAW of LAW , as it did not raise any important legal issue . Further , it noted that access to the court file had been possible throughout the proceedings . The decision was served on DATE .

On DATE the applicant requested ORG to be granted the right to see the second applicant every other DATE from TIME until DATE TIME

While the case was pending before ORG the first applicant was allowed to see her son in the presence of a representative of ORG once a month on DATE from TIME until TIME in a visitors’ café ( PERSON ) run by ORG .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s request . Upon the first applicant ’s appeal , ORG ( PERSON für PERSON ) quashed this decision and ordered the court to issue a new decision .

During ORG hearing on DATE , at which the first applicant , assisted by counsel , the foster parents and a social worker were present , the parties reached an agreement that the first applicant was allowed to see the second applicant in DATE - intervals in the presence of the foster mother on DATE from TIME until TIME

On DATE the court held another hearing and by a decision of DATE amended the agreement of DATE in that the meetings were to be held again in the NORP café .

On DATE an expert in child psychology submitted an opinion , stating that the second applicant was caught in a loyalty conflict between this foster parents and the first applicant . Nevertheless , contacts with the first applicant in intervals of DATE were in his interest .

On DATE a further agreement was reached which grants the first applicant access rights once DATE from TIME and in addition on her birthday on the second applicant ’s birthday and at DATE . The contacts take place at the visitors’ café .

The first applicant has so far not filed a request to re - transfer custody of the second applicant to her , but considers that regular visits serve to prepare a re - transfer of custody .

On DATE the first applicant filed a request with ORG ) that the residence prohibition be lifted .

On DATE the first applicant supplemented her request that the residence prohibition be lifted and argued that leaving GPE would mean losing her child and would impede her efforts of obtaining custody of the second applicant .

On DATE ORG dismissed the first applicant ’s request of DATE . On DATE ORG ) dismissed the first applicant ’s appeal .

On DATE ORG , allowing the first applicant ’s complaint , quashed ORG decision and remitted the case to it . The court found that the authority had failed to take proper account of the first applicant ’s right under LAW .

On DATE ORG quashed ORG decision of DATE . Subsequently , the residence prohibition was lifted and on DATE , the applicant was granted a residence permit for a limited duration .

Section CARDINAL of the Civil Code empowers the courts to withdraw or restrict custody . So far as relevant , the version in force at the material time , read as follows :

“ CARDINAL . If the parents put the well - being of the minor child at risk , on account of their conduct , the court shall take the decisions necessary to ensure the well - being of the child , ... In particular , the court may withdraw entirely or in part custody for the child , ... ”

Section CARDINALa of LAW , in the version in force at the material time , read as follows :

“ If the child ’s well - being is at risk , therefore requiring the complete removal of the child from his / her previous environment against the will of the person entitled to raise the child , and if the child can not be accommodated with relatives or other suitable persons close to the child , the court shall transfer custody of the child entirely or in part to the youth welfare institution . The youth welfare institution may transfer the exercise of custody to third parties . ”

Section CARDINAL of the DATE LAW ( Wiener GPE - wohlfahrtsgesetz ) deals with social services for parents , babies and young children . LAW ( CARDINAL ) mentions the placement of mothers / fathers with babies or young children in crisis apartments , specialised centres or other institutions as CARDINAL of these services . According to LAW youth welfare is to be granted to all persons residing in GPE .

There is no enforceable right to social services , such as a placement under LAW ( CARDINAL ) . Consequently , no legal remedy lies against the refusal or the failure to grant social services .

General social services , designed to help persons in an emergency situation , are provided for in ORG ( PERSON ) . NORP nationals and certain groups of foreigners who are lawfully resident in GPE ( e.g. nationals of countries having concluded a reciprocity agreement with GPE , persons with refugee status or nationals of member GPE of ORG ) are entitled to benefits or services under LAW .

The Non - Contentious Proceedings Act CARDINAL ( Außerstreitgesetz ) , in the version in force at the material time , did not contain any specific provision on hearings . It was the NORP courts’ practice and the understanding of academic writers that hearings under this act were not public ( see PERSON , PERSON des österreichischen GPE , GPE , DATE , marginal number CARDINAL , and PERSON i m PERSON , ORG , CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) ) .

On DATE a new LAW entered into force replacing LAW . It provides for the conduct of oral and public hearings ( Sections DATE ) as a general rule and leaves it to the discretion of the court to decide whether or not the public should be excluded , for instance for the protection of the persons involved in a particular case .

In family - law and guardianship proceedings , LAW provides for oral hearings open only to the parties . The court may decide to hold a public hearing , unless protected details of a person ’s private and family life are discussed , a party opposes a public hearing or if such a hearing would be incompatible with the child ’s well - being .


Violation of Art. 6;Violation of P1-1;Remainder inadmissible;Pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage - financial awards (global)

The applicants were born in DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE respectively and live in PERSON , the GPE region .

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

On various dates the applicants instituted civil proceedings in ORG ( Краснолуцький міський суд PERSON області ) seeking salary arrears and various payments from ORG “ GPE ” ( “ the ORG , ” ДВАТ шахта “ ORG ” TIME “ Донбасантрацит ” ) .

On DATE ORG awarded UAH CARDINAL in favour of the first applicant .

On DATE ORG awarded UAH CARDINAL in favour of the second applicant .

On DATE and DATE ORG awarded ORG ORG and ORG CARDINAL respectively in favour of the third applicant .

On DATE ORG awarded ORG CARDINAL in favour of the fourth applicant .

The judgments in favour of the applicants became final and the enforcement writs were transferred to ORG ( “ the Bailiffs , ” PERSON виконавчої служби ORG міського управління юстиції ) for enforcement .

On DATE ORG ( “ ORG , ” Господарський суд PERSON області ) initiated bankruptcy proceedings against the Company and introduced a moratorium on payment of its debts .

On DATE ORG approved a friendly settlement between the ORG and its creditors and discontinued the bankruptcy proceedings .

The first , the second and the fourth applicant received their judgments debts in several instalments , the final payments being made in DATE . The third applicant received the debt due to her by the judgment of DATE in DATE and in DATE DATE - the debt by the judgment of DATE .

The relevant domestic law is summarised in the judgment of ORG v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , § CARDINAL , DATE ) .


CASE OF RADOSZEWSKA-ZAKOSCIELNA v. POLAND

Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial

David Thór Björgvinsson;Ján Šikuta;Lech Garlicki;Mihai Poalelungi;Nicolas Bratza;Päivi Hirvelä

The applicant 's family owned a plot of land with a surface area of CARDINAL sq . m. situated in the centre of GPE . The applicant is a legal successor of ORG , her grandmother and one of the direct heirs of the former owners of that property , who had passed away . A.M.R. was a party to the proceedings referred to below from the very beginning . It transpires from the case file that on DATE ORG declared the applicant an heir of the deceased .

By virtue of the Decree of DATE on the Ownership and Use of Land in GPE the ownership of all private land was transferred to GPE .

On DATE the applicant 's family filed an application for the grant of the right of temporary ownership ( własność czasowa ) of the plot of land pursuant to section DATE Decree ( “ the DATE application ” ) . This application was refused in DATE and DATE respectively . In DATE the ORG constructed ORG on part of the plot in question .

On an unspecified date the plot was divided into CARDINAL separate parts . On CARDINAL DATE the ownership of the first part of the original plot was transferred to GPE by operation of law . It constituted a part of a larger plot ( no . CARDINAL ) with an overall surface area of QUANTITY m. The second part of the plot with a surface area of CARDINAL sq . m. remained with the ORG .

On DATE ORG PERSON ) issued a decision declaring that as of CARDINAL DATE the “ ORG had the right of perpetual use of the plot of land no . CARDINAL . In addition , the ownership of the buildings attached to that plot , including ORG , was transferred to the “ LOC company .

On DATE PERSON , one of the heirs of the applicant 's family and acting on their behalf , filed with ORG ( Minister PERSON i GPE ) an application for annulment of the administrative decisions refusing to grant the right of temporary ownership . On DATE the Minister quashed the DATE and DATE decisions . Consequently , the competent administrative authorities were required to rule on the DATE application . The applicant ( as from DATE ) and other heirs of the previous owners were , as their legal successors , parties to the subsequent proceedings .

NORP In DATE the Minister of Planning and Construction instituted ex officio proceedings with a view to having his earlier decision of DATE annulled . On DATE the Minister declared the decision of DATE null and void . Upon several appeals , on DATE ORG quashed this decision . As a consequence of that judgment , the DATE application filed by the applicant 's family had yet to be examined .

Initially the applicant 's grandmother and later the applicant herself were a party to CARDINAL sets of proceedings concerning the right of perpetual use of land , which were conducted separately before ORG ( subsequently the Mayor of GPE ) and ORG . That situation stemmed from the fact that the plot of land formerly owned by the applicant 's family had been divided into CARDINAL separate parts which were respectively owned by GPE and the ORG .

As from DATE , following amendments to the relevant laws , GPE became the sole owner of the entire plot of land in question and the relevant proceedings were conducted exclusively before the Mayor of GPE .

On DATE ORG ) decided ex officio to stay the proceedings until the termination of the proceedings instituted by ORG in DATE ( see above ) . This decision was subsequently quashed by ORG .

On DATE ORG decided to discontinue the proceedings , finding that they had become devoid of purpose . On DATE ORG of Appeal quashed the impugned decision and remitted the case for re - examination .

On DATE , the participants complained about the inactivity of the Mayor to ORG .

On DATE , the Mayor of GPE decided to stay the proceedings until the termination of other related proceedings pending before ORG .

On DATE , the Mayor informed ORG that the case could not be examined since the proceedings had been stayed .

On DATE following ORG judgment of DATE ( see above ) , the participants requested the Mayor of GPE to grant them the right of perpetual use .

NORP In DATE the Mayor of GPE began negotiations with the parties with a view to renouncing their claims to the plot of land at issue in exchange for an alternative plot . On DATE the parties accepted the Mayor 's proposal . However , on DATE the Deputy Mayor informed them that he had to withdraw from the negotiations as there were grounds on which the DATE application could be dismissed .

On DATE ORG refused the application . Subsequently , PERSON lodged an appeal against this decision . On DATE ORG upheld the ORG 's decision of DATE . Upon a further appeal , on DATE ORG quashed ORG decision . ORG instructed the administrative authorities to examine the heirs ' intentions as to the use of the land at issue . It further emphasised that if the intended use was compatible with the local development plan , the administrative authorities were under an obligation to grant the application .

As of DATE the proceedings concerning the grant of the right of perpetual use in respect of the entire property of the applicant 's family were conducted before the Mayor of GPE .

On DATE ORG , acting on behalf of the other parties , lodged with ORG a complaint about the inactivity of ORG .

On DATE the Mayor of GPE , who in the meantime had assumed the competences of ORG , issued his decision in the case . He refused the application , considering that the use of the plot by the heirs of the former owners would not be compatible with the local development plan adopted . The parties appealed .

On DATE the parties complained to ORG about the inactivity of the ORG board of Appeal .

On DATE ORG of Appeal quashed the Mayor 's decision of DATE and remitted the case .

On DATE , the parties complained about the inactivity of the Mayor to ORG .

On DATE the Mayor of GPE stayed the proceedings pending the conclusion of the administrative proceedings concerning the grant of the right of perpetual use of land for the benefit of the “ LOC ” company ( see below ) .

On DATE ORG of Appeal quashed its decision of DATE and discontinued the proceedings concerning the stay of the main proceedings . On an unspecified date , the Mayor of GPE appealed to ORG .

It would appear that the proceedings are still pending .

On DATE CARDINAL of the heirs requested ORG to grant the right of perpetual use of the plot of land owned by ORG .

Upon CARDINAL complaints about inactivity , on CARDINAL DATE the GPE Governor ordered ORG to issue a decision within DATE .

On DATE ORG refused to grant the right of perpetual use in respect of the plot owned by ORG , considering that that plot had been designated in the local development plan for public use .

On DATE the GPE Governor upheld the decision of ORG . PERSON lodged an appeal against the decision of the Governor with ORG .

On DATE ORG quashed the GPE Governor 's decision of DATE and the earlier decision of ORG .

On DATE ORG informed the applicant that it would not be possible to conclude the proceedings within the time - limit specified in LAW due to the need to undertake further examination of the application .

It appears that in DATE the ownership of the plot held by the ORG was transferred to GPE by operation of law . Consequently , the proceedings concerning the grant of the right of perpetual use of land in respect of the entire property of the applicant 's family were conducted before the Mayor of GPE ( see above ) .

On DATE the heirs filed with ORG an objection against the auction for the sale of shares in the “ ORG company .

On DATE , CARDINAL of the heirs , made an application to ORG of Appeal for annulment of the decision of ORG of DATE ( see above ) . On DATE ORG quashed its earlier decision and refused to institute proceedings for the annulment .

Upon a further appeal , on DATE ORG stayed the proceedings pending the termination of the proceedings concerning the application for annulment of ORG decision of DATE . The proceedings were resumed on DATE . On DATE ORG quashed the decision of ORG of DATE on procedural grounds . Consequently , ORG had to examine the applicant 's application for annulment again .

On DATE and DATE the applicant requested ORG to expedite the proceedings .

On DATE ORG quashed its earlier decision of DATE and declared null and void the decision of ORG of DATE .

On DATE ORG reopened the proceedings at the request of the “ LOC company . On DATE it refused the “ Syrena ” company 's request to quash its decision of DATE . That decision was upheld on appeal on DATE .

On DATE the “ Syrena ” company appealed to ORG in GPE .

On DATE ORG quashed the decision of ORG of DATE .

On DATE ORG dismissed a further cassation appeal .

The legal provisions applicable at the material time and questions of practice are set out in paragraphs CARDINAL of the judgment delivered by ORG in the case of PERSON v. GPE ( application no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) .


No violation of Art. 5-1;Remainder inadmissible

András Sajó;David Thór Björgvinsson;Françoise Tulkens;Giorgio Malinverni;Guido Raimondi;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

In DATE criminal proceedings were brought against him in GPE . They concerned his alleged misappropriation of funds provided to GPE by the GPE during his term as NORP Minister for Energy .

On DATE he obtained a DATE NORP visa issued by ORG in GPE , valid until DATE . On the visa application form he had indicated , without being more specific , that the main purpose of his journey to GPE was to visit his daughter , who was living in GPE .

On DATE criminal proceedings were opened against the applicant ’s daughter , by the competent investigating judge for the Canton of Bern , on a charge of money laundering . The suspicions notably concerned sums of money she had allegedly received from her father .

On DATE , when consulting the case file concerning the criminal proceedings against the applicant ’s daughter , her former lawyer informed the investigating judge that the applicant visited GPE from time to time and that he agreed to be questioned in connection with the case in question . The applicant then indicated to his daughter ’s lawyer that he was prepared to come to GPE to be questioned by the investigating judge . He explained that it would suit him if the questioning took place DATE and DATE .

On DATE the investigating judge thus suggested CARDINAL possible dates to the new lawyer representing the applicant ’s daughter , namely CARDINAL and CARDINAL DATE .

After arriving in GPE on DATE the applicant expressed , through his daughter ’s lawyer , his preference for DATE at TIME He asked the investigating judge to confirm that date .

On DATE the judge duly issued a summons using the appropriate form in accordance with practice in the GPE of GPE . The hearing was scheduled for DATE and the summons indicated that any delay in appearance or unjustified absence from the hearing would entail a penalty , with the possibility of using force in the event of non - appearance . The summons , which was addressed to the applicant , was served at his daughter ’s private address in GPE . A copy was also sent to her lawyer for information purposes .

On DATE the investigating judge contacted a public prosecutor in GPE , GPE , to find out any information that might be useful in the proceedings against the applicant ’s daughter . During the conversation , the judge mentioned that he would be questioning the applicant on DATE at TIME

On DATE ORG sent ORG a request for the applicant ’s provisional arrest in accordance with the extradition treaty of DATE between GPE and the GPE .

On DATE ORG ( mutual legal assistance division ) issued an “ urgent ” order for the applicant ’s arrest that was sent to the investigating judge for the GPE of GPE .

On DATE at TIME the applicant appeared before the investigating judge for the GPE of GPE to give evidence in the proceedings against his daughter . When asked why he was in GPE he replied that he was visiting for private reasons but also for business .

After the interview , which lasted TIME , the investigating judge notified the applicant that he was under arrest . CARDINAL police officers of the GPE of GPE , who had been waiting in a neighbouring room for the interview to finish , immediately took him to the regional prison of GPE .

On DATE ORG issued an order for the applicant ’s provisional detention pending extradition and it was served on the applicant DATE .

On DATE GPE also applied for his extradition .

On DATE , the applicant lodged an appeal with ORG .

During his detention the applicant wrote an article , which was published on DATE in the GPE DATE newspaper ORG . He explained that his trip was connected to CARDINAL projects on which he was working at the time , concerning the export of energy by GPE and technological cooperation , in particular with an energy supplier based in GPE .

On DATE ORG upheld the applicant ’s appeal and set aside the extradition arrest order against him . The court took the view that the applicant had been in GPE for questioning in the context of criminal proceedings against his daughter , that the summons for the interview of CARDINAL DATE should have been served on him through mutual assistance channels and that the protection afforded by the safe - conduct clause , deriving from the requirement of good faith , was also valid for a person examined as a witness who had not been summoned through mutual assistance channels but who had appeared “ spontaneously ” in GPE to give evidence .

On DATE ORG appealed before ORG against ORG decision .

On DATE and DATE the GPE authorities filed a formal request , dated DATE , for the applicant ’s extradition to the GPE .

On DATE ORG of ORG upheld the appeal of ORG .

ORG basically took the view that the applicant had been visiting GPE for private purposes – to see his daughter DATE and for business . In its view , ORG had clearly made an erroneous and incomplete assessment of the facts in finding that the applicant had come to GPE in order to give evidence as a witness in criminal proceedings . It was not therefore appropriate to apply LAW matters of DATE or LAW ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL below ) . The case was referred back to ORG for examination of the applicant ’s other arguments ( breach of ORG immunity under international law , and the allegedly political nature of the criminal proceedings against him in the GPE ) .

The applicant was held in custody until DATE and then extradited to GPE pursuant to an administrative decision of ORG of DATE . That court , unlike the administrative authority , ORG , found that priority had to be given to the NORP extradition request , as the applicant was a NORP national and stood accused of committing criminal acts mainly in that country .

In a decision of DATE ORG dismissed , at last instance , a request by the applicant for compensation in respect of his detention pending extradition . The court found that his detention had not been unlawful .

Article CARDINAL of LAW in Criminal matters of DATE , to which both GPE and GPE are parties , contains a safe - conduct clause . That LAW reads as follows :

“ CARDINAL . A witness or expert , whatever his nationality , appearing on a summons before the judicial authorities of the requesting ORG shall not be prosecuted or detained or subjected to any other restriction of his personal liberty in the territory of that ORG in respect of acts or convictions anterior to his departure from the territory of the requested ORG .

A person , whatever his nationality , summoned before the judicial authorities of the requesting ORG to answer for acts forming the subject of proceedings against him , shall not be prosecuted or detained or subjected to any other restriction of his personal liberty for acts or convictions anterior to his departure from the territory of the requested ORG and not specified in the summons .

The immunity provided for in this article shall cease when the witness or expert or prosecuted person , having had for DATE from the date when his presence is no longer required by the judicial authorities an opportunity of leaving , has nevertheless remained in the territory , or having left it , has returned . ”

Section CARDINAL of LAW on international mutual assistance in criminal matters of DATE contains a provision on safe conduct in GPE :

“ CARDINAL . A person habitually resident abroad and who appears in GPE in a criminal case pursuant to a summons may neither be prosecuted nor restricted in his personal freedom on the basis of reasons that DATE his entry into GPE .

A person being prosecuted shall enjoy no safe conduct in respect of the offences specified in the summons .

The safe conduct provided for in paragraph CARDINAL shall cease when the person leaves GPE and at DATE after he is permitted to leave by the summoning authorities . ”

The object and purpose of the safe - conduct clause were explained as follows by a ORG judgment of DATE ( ORG CARDINAL Ia CARDINAL ) :

In an unpublished judgment of CARDINAL DATE ( CARDINALP.CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) , ORG had occasion to develop its case - law on safe - conduct clauses as follows :


Preliminary objection rejected;Violation of Art. 6-1;Non-pecuniary damage - financial award;Costs and expenses award - Convention proceedings

Mr PERSON , a NORP national born in DATE , is a clerical worker employed by an insurance firm . He is a haemophiliac and has received numerous blood transfusions .

A test carried out on DATE showed that the applicant had been infected by the human immunodeficiency virus ( HIV ) . Since DATE , he has been classified as having reached stage III of the CARDINAL stages on the scale of ORG .

On DATE the applicant submitted a preliminary application for compensation to the Minister for ORG , ORG . He sought MONEY ( FRF ) in compensation for the medical disorders of all kinds he had suffered on account of his infection with HIV . His application was rejected on DATE .

On CARDINAL DATE Mr Pailot brought an action in the ORG seeking ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL,CARDINAL in compensation for the damage sustained as a result of the ORG ’s failure to take appropriate measures to prevent his becoming infected with HIV . On DATE the ORG referred the case to the ORG d’Etat , which , on DATE , designated ORG to deal with it . The application was registered with that court on DATE .

On DATE ORG filed a pleading . The case was then set down for a hearing on DATE .

On DATE ORG gave an interlocutory judgment , holding that “ the ORG is liable in respect of haemophiliacs who were infected with HIV in the course of transfusion of non - heat - treated blood products during the period of liability defined above , that is DATE and DATE ” and “ ... that there are grounds for ORG to order the ORG to pay compensation for the whole of the damage suffered ” .

At Mr Pailot ’s request , the court ordered an expert medical opinion in order to establish whether he had been infected during that period . An expert was appointed by the President of ORG DATE .

The expert ’s report , filed on DATE , stated :

In DATE [ Mr Pailot ] was given CARDINAL prescriptions for CARDINAL P.P.S.B. and Factor IX concentrates , the first on DATE and the second on DATE ... in other words , within the period of liability defined above ( CARDINAL DATE to DATE ) , at least as regards the prescription of CARDINAL DATE . However , it has not been possible to ascertain the exact date on which the products delivered on DATE were administered .

On DATE it was confirmed that he had been infected with HIV ...

Given that the appearance of antibodies detectable by biological tests ( seroconversion ) can not be observed until DATE ( or , exceptionally , DATE in rare cases ) after infection , it can be concluded that Mr PERSON might have been infected in DATE or DATE ( CARDINALst serological test performed on CARDINAL DATE ) .

As regards the ‘ period of the ORG ’s ORG ( CARDINAL DATE to CARDINAL DATE ) , it is not impossible , but neither is it certain , that the products delivered at DATE were administered after CARDINAL DATE , resulting in an infection with seroconversion confirmed on DATE , assuming that infection had not taken place earlier , which is unlikely in view of the blood derivatives he had received previously .

... the date on which he became infected can not be determined with certainty . ”

After holding a hearing on DATE , ORG gave the following judgment on DATE :

“ Regarding the claim for the award of damages against the ORG :

The expert ’s report has shown that a causal link between the applicant ’s infection with HIV and the administration of blood derivatives during the period of the ORG ’s liability ( CARDINAL DATE to CARDINAL DATE ) can not be deemed to have been established ; consequently , the claim contained in Mr PERSON application for compensation from the ORG for the damage sustained as a result of this infection can only be rejected . ”

On DATE ORG of the ORG d’Etat gave CARDINAL landmark judgments , fixing CARDINAL DATE as the start of the period of the ORG ’s liability and awarding the victims compensation at a flat rate of ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL,CARDINAL ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

Relying on this case - law , the applicant appealed to ORG on DATE .

On DATE the Deputy Minister for Health filed his defence pleadings in which he submitted that only the judgment of DATE was being appealed and that the judgment of CARDINAL DATE , which established the period of the ORG ’s liability DATE to DATE , had therefore become final .

On DATE ORG and Haemophiliacs infected with HIV informed ORG that Mr Pailot had accepted the ORG ’s offer of compensation .

After holding a hearing on DATE , ORG gave judgment on DATE in which it upheld the Minister ’s arguments and dismissed the applicant ’s appeal , holding that it had not been established by the contents of the file that the applicant had received after CARDINAL DATE blood products which could have infected him .

On DATE the applicant appealed on points of law to the ORG d’Etat .

On DATE the applicant filed supplementary pleadings claiming that his appeal , in which he had requested that the start of the period of the ORG ’s liability be fixed at CARDINAL DATE implicitly but necessarily criticised the interlocutory judgment of DATE which had fixed the start at CARDINAL DATE . He therefore requested the ORG d’Etat to quash ORG judgment and , under LAW no . CARDINAL - CARDINAL of DATE , to determine the merits of the case without remitting it to ORG and to order the ORG to pay him ORG CARDINAL , less the amount paid out by ORG .

On DATE ORG declared his appeal admissible .

In the meantime , on DATE , Mr Pailot had lodged an application ( no . CARDINAL ) with ORG . On DATE the Commission adopted a report pursuant to LAW noting that the parties had reached agreement on a friendly settlement of the case ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

On CARDINAL and DATE respectively , ORG and ORG submitted their observations .

On DATE the ORG d’Etat asked ORG to submit his observations on the applicant ’s appeal . On DATE the Minister replied that the application did not call for any observations on his part .

On DATE the applicant submitted his observations .

On DATE a reporting judge at the ORG d’Etat was appointed .

On DATE the applicant filed a number of documents . On DATE and DATE Mr Pailot wrote to the Secretary to ORG of the ORG d’Etat , which was dealing with the case , and to the reporting judge who had been appointed , drawing their attention to the length and protractedness of the proceedings and the urgency of the case given his state of health . He received no reply .

On DATE the applicant lodged a further application ( no . CARDINAL ) with the Commission , which was registered on DATE , complaining that the proceedings were still pending before the ORG d’Etat .

On DATE the reporting judge at the ORG d’Etat filed his report .

On DATE the case was allocated to a judge - reviser .

On DATE a government commissioner was appointed . The case was then listed for a hearing on DATE .

On DATE the ORG d’Etat quashed the judgments of ORG and ORG . Applying CARDINAL of the PERSON of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , the PERSON d’Etat found the ORG liable for Mr Pailot ’s infection and gave the following judgment :

“ The ORG is liable in respect of persons who were infected with the human immunodeficiency virus following the transfusion of non - heat - treated blood products DATE and DATE ; Mr Pailot was found to be HIV - positive on CARDINAL DATE ; the ORG is therefore liable for the damage sustained by Mr Pailot as a result of the blood transfusions he received during the period defined above ; he is therefore justified in requesting this ORG to quash the judgments of ORG of DATE and DATE rejecting his claim for compensation ... ”

The ORG was ordered to pay the applicant ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL,CARDINAL , less ORG CARDINAL paid out by ORG and GPE and ORG CARDINAL paid out by ORG , that is FRF CARDINAL,CARDINAL in all , plus interest at the statutory rate from CARDINAL DATE with capitalisation of the accrued interest from DATE .

The ORG paid the applicant the principal of ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL in DATE but , to date , has not paid the interest .

In separate proceedings the applicant had submitted a claim to ORG and GPE that had been set up by LAW of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

In a decision of CARDINAL DATE , ORG awarded him compensation of ORG CARDINAL , of which ORG CARDINAL was payable in CARDINAL equal DATE instalments and FRF CARDINAL if and when Aids was diagnosed . ORG deducted from this offer the FRF CARDINAL paid out by ORG .

On DATE ORG paid Mr Pailot FRF CARDINAL .

The Act of DATE making miscellaneous social - welfare provisions set up special machinery for the compensation of haemophiliacs and transfusion patients who had been infected following injections of blood products . Section CARDINAL provides :

“ I. Victims of damage resulting from infection with the human immunodeficiency virus caused by transfusion of blood products or injection of blood derivatives carried out within the territory of the NORP Republic shall be compensated in the manner set out below .

II . ...

III . Full compensation for the damage defined in subsection I shall be provided by ORG , having legal personality , presided over by a serving or retired divisional president or judge of ORG and administered by a compensation board .

IV . In their claims for compensation , victims or their heirs shall provide proof of their infection with the human immunodeficiency virus and of the transfusion of blood products or injections of blood derivatives .

Victims or their heirs shall communicate to the ORG all the information in their possession .

Within DATE of the receipt of a claim , a period which may be extended at the request of the victim or his heirs , the ORG shall consider whether the conditions for payment of compensation have been fulfilled . It shall investigate the circumstances under which the victim was infected and make any necessary inquiries , which may not be resisted on grounds of professional secrecy .

V. The Fund shall be required to make an offer of compensation to any victim referred to in subsection I within a time - limit laid down by decree , which may not exceed DATE from DATE on which the ORG receives full proof of the damage ...

VI . The victim shall inform the Fund of any judicial proceedings pending . If legal proceedings are brought , the victim shall inform the court of his application to the ORG .

VII . ...

ORG . The victim shall not be entitled to take legal action against ORG unless his claim for compensation has been dismissed , no offer has been made to him within the time - limit referred to in the first paragraph of subsection V , or he has not accepted an offer made to him . Proceedings shall be brought in ORG .

ORG . The Fund shall be subrogated , for an amount no higher than the sums paid out , to the victim ’s rights against the person liable for the damage and against persons required , for whatever reason , to make full or partial reparation for that damage , within the limits of those ORG liabilities . However , the ORG may institute proceedings on the basis of that subrogation only where the damage is attributable to negligence .

The ORG may intervene in proceedings in the criminal courts , even if it does not do so until the appeal stage , where the victim or his heirs have claimed compensation as a civil party in proceedings pending against the person or persons responsible for the damage defined in subsection I. In such cases it shall be considered a full party to the proceedings and may have recourse to all the remedies available in law .

If the acts which caused the damage have given rise to criminal proceedings , the civil court shall not be required to defer its decision until there has been a final decision by the criminal court .

X. Unless otherwise provided , the provisions governing the implementation of this section shall be laid down in a decree issued after consultation of the ORG d’Etat .

ORG . NORP ...

ORG . The Compensation Fund ’s sources of revenue shall be specified in a subsequent Act .

XIII . ...

ORG . ... ”

In CARDINAL judgments of DATE ORG of the ORG d’Etat decided that “ the ORG was wholly liable in respect of persons who were infected with the human immunodeficiency virus following transfusion of non - heat - treated blood products DATE and DATE ” ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

At the material time ORG contained , inter alia , the following provisions :

“ Except in cases concerning public works , proceedings may not be instituted in ORG otherwise than in the form of an appeal against a decision ; such an appeal shall be lodged within DATE of the notification or the publication of the contested decision .

Where no reply is forthcoming from the relevant authority for DATE , that silence is to be construed as a decision rejecting the complaint .

“ The President of ORG or of ORG , or a judge delegated by CARDINAL of them , may , where the existence of an obligation can not seriously be contested , award an advance to a creditor who has filed an application on the merits in the court in question . He may , even of his own motion , make the payment of the advance subject to the lodging of a security . ”

“ Immediately after the application instituting the proceedings has been registered by the registry , the president of the court or , in GPE , the president of the division to which the application has been transmitted , shall appoint a rapporteur .

“ Where CARDINAL of the parties or the administrative department has been asked to submit observations and has not complied with the time - limit laid down pursuant to Articles R.CARDINAL and ORG of this code , the president of the court or division shall issue a formal notice to comply .

In the event of force majeure , a final extension of time may be granted .

If the formal notice to comply has no effect or if the final time - limit given is not complied with , the court shall give judgment . ”

“ Where a final notice to comply relates to an administrative department of the ORG , it shall be sent to the authority with competence to represent the ORG ; in other cases it shall be sent to the party or his representative if he has appointed one . ”

“ A member of ORG or ORG may be assigned by the competent court or by the latter ’s president to carry out any investigative measures other than those provided for in DATE of this chapter . ”

Decree no . CARDINAL - CARDINAL of DATE applies to all proceedings pending at the date of its publication . It lays down provisions for the implementation of section QUANTITY of the Act of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) :

“ Part II

Provisions relating to actions seeking to establish liability brought against those responsible for the damage defined in subsection I of section CARDINAL of the aforementioned LAW DATE

In order to bring the action by subrogation provided for in subsection ORG of section CARDINAL of the aforementioned Act of DATE , the ORG may intervene in proceedings in any of the administrative or ordinary courts , even if it does not do so until the appeal stage . In such cases it shall be considered a full party to the proceedings and may have recourse to all the remedies available in law .

The registries of the administrative and ordinary courts shall send the ORG by registered post with recorded delivery a copy of the procedural documents submitting to those courts any initial or additional claim for compensation of the damage defined in subsection I of section CARDINAL of the aforementioned LAW DATE .

Within DATE of receipt of the letter referred to in LAW , the ORG shall inform the president of the relevant court by ordinary mail whether or not it has received a claim for compensation with the same purpose and , if so , what stage the procedure has reached . It shall also state whether or not it intends to intervene in the proceedings .

Where the victim has accepted an offer made by ORG , the latter shall send the president of the court a copy of the documents in which the offer was made and by which it was accepted . The Fund shall , where relevant , indicate the stage reached in proceedings instituted in ORG under the provisions of Part I of this decree and forward any judgment delivered by that court .

The registry shall notify the parties of the information communicated by the ORG .

The registry shall send the ORG copies of the decisions given at first instance and , where relevant , on appeal in proceedings in which the ORG has not intervened .

The provisions of ORG CARDINAL to CARDINAL shall be applicable to cases pending on the date of entry into force of [ this ] decree ... ”

On DATE Mr Pailot lodged an application with the Commission , registered on DATE under file no . CARDINAL , in which he complained of the length of the compensation proceedings and relied on LAW . On DATE the Commission adopted a report in which it noted , pursuant to LAW :

On DATE the applicant ’s representative informed the ORG that the applicant was prepared to accept the sum of CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) NORP francs for non - pecuniary damage , to which were to be added the costs and expenses he had incurred before the Commission , the whole to be paid within DATE of the adoption of the ORG ’s report . On CARDINAL DATE he informed the ORG that the costs came to ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL and also requested the payment of interest in the event of delayed settlement . In a letter of CARDINAL DATE the Agent of the Government informed the ORG that the Government were prepared to agree to a settlement based on these proposals .

On DATE the ORG noted that the parties had reached agreement on the terms of a settlement . It also stated the opinion , having regard to LAW ( b ) of the LAW , that the parties had reached a friendly settlement of the matter on the basis of respect for human rights as defined in the LAW .

The text of the applicant ’s declaration that he accepted the friendly settlement , which bears his signature , reads as follows :

“ I acknowledge that the payment of these sums will constitute full and final compensation in respect of all the damage alleged in my application and will likewise cover all the ORG fees and other costs I have incurred in this case .

I therefore agree to withdraw from these proceedings and to waive the right to bring any further proceedings on this account against ORG in the NORP and international courts . ”


Preliminary objection dismissed (non-exhaustion);Violation of Art. 3 (conditions of detention);Violation of Art. 3 (force-feeding);Violation of Art. 6;Violation of Art. 8 (censorship of correspondence);Violation of Art. 8 (conditions of visits in prison);Not necessary to examine Art. 10;Non-pecuniary damage - financial award;Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in PERSON .

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

The applicant worked for “ ORG ” , an NGO specialising in offering legal help to persons deprived of their liberty . He claims that as a result of his activities he became the target of persecution . In CARDINAL sets of proceedings he was charged with a number of serious fraud offences . The applicant is a second degree invalid and has been diagnosed with “ mosaic schizophrenia ” .

On DATE the applicant was arrested . On DATE he was transferred to the remand centre of ORG ( also known as prison no . CARDINAL , subsequently re - named prison no . CARDINAL ) in PERSON . He spent certain periods of time in the GPE detainee hospital . He was convicted of a number of crimes but is still remanded on other charges .

According to the applicant , the conditions of detention were inhuman . In particular , he referred to the overcrowding in the cells ( which occasionally meant CARDINAL detainees for each CARDINAL of space ) , accompanied by the fact that detainees with infectious diseases such as tuberculosis were kept together with other detainees , especially during hunger - strikes ; the presence of parasitic insects ; the lack of proper ventilation and access to daylight ; the rudimentary sanitary conditions which left no room for privacy ; the loud radio that was constantly on TIME together with the very poor quantity and quality of food served . Before CARDINAL DATE electricity and cold water were only available for TIME a day . The applicant described his food ration for DATE as consisting of QUANTITY of porridge with water twice a day and a soup consisting mostly of water for lunch , with QUANTITY of bread for DATE . In support of his complaint regarding the overcrowding in the cell he gave the example of his transfer to cell no . CARDINAL on DATE , which he shared with CARDINAL other persons despite the fact that CARDINAL bunk beds were available . He claimed that he had to sleep on the floor due to the insufficiency of beds and had access only to electric light for TIME a day . Another example was his detention in cell no . DATE , which accommodated CARDINAL persons in an area of CARDINAL .

The applicant referred to the report of ORG ( ORG ) for DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) and the report of ORG regarding the conditions of detention in prison no . CARDINAL ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

According to the applicant , he complained to various authorities about his conditions of detention . This was disputed by the Government . The applicant submitted replies from ORG and ORG at ORG , which dealt , inter alia , with the applicant 's conditions of detention . In addition , he submitted copies of his complaints to the Government and the administration of prison no . CARDINAL , in which he also complained about the conditions of detention . In its letter of DATE ORG conceded that prison no . CARDINAL was “ periodically overcrowded ” , which led to an increase in the spread of pediculosis and skin disease . The presence of parasitic insects was also confirmed , although no complaints had been received in this respect from detainees . In DATE a major disinfection had been carried out in the prison .

NORP In a letter to the prison administration dated DATE the applicant complained about the absence of beds in cell no . DATE where he was detained at that time , the detainees having to sleep on wooden shelves . He referred to the limited access to daylight and fresh air due to metal blinds covering the window and the presence of strong smells and damp , as well as the presence of parasitic insects , which prevented him from sleeping . In a letter dated DATE the applicant complained about his transfer for DATE to solitary detention cell no . CARDINAL which was very damp and caused him to fear that he would contract tuberculosis . In addition , he had not been given food for DATE and there were rodents in the cell . There was no furniture , except for a bed which was retracted into the wall during DATE , the applicant having to sit on the bare concrete floor . There was no window and he had electric light for TIME a day , leaving him in total darkness for the rest of the time . He requested the visit of a doctor and his transfer to another cell . It appears that the applicant did not receive a reply to these CARDINAL complaints and the Government have not commented on them . In his “ hunger - strike diary ” the applicant noted his transfer to cell no . CARDINAL on DATE and the presence of CARDINAL more persons there .

According to a letter from ORG dated DATE , the applicant had been detained in cells CARDINAL . CARDINAL , DATE , CARDINAL , ORG , CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL all measuring CARDINAL - CARDINALmCARDINAL . The number of detainees which those cells could accommodate was not specified and no details were given as to the number of detainees who had been actually detained in those cells together with the applicant . The only exception was cell no . CARDINAL , where the applicant was detained at the time of filing the observations ( DATE ) , which measured CARDINAL and in which CARDINAL other person was detained . In a letter to another person detained in the same cell , no . CARDINAL , dated DATE , ORG stated that “ all the persons detained in that cell have a bed and bed linen ” . The video recording submitted by the Government showed CARDINAL bunk beds in the cell , CARDINAL of which was placed across the toilet . According to the Government , electricity and cold water were permanently available and there was natural light in each cell . The applicant had the right to a bath DATE . Food was given in accordance with the relevant Government regulations , including meat and fish “ depending on availability ” . Detainees could buy food from the local shop and were allowed to receive parcels from the outside . In addition , the applicant had been treated on many occasions by various doctors as a result of his hunger - strikes and self - mutilation and he benefited from the better conditions in the prison hospital .

The applicant began a hunger - strike on DATE as a result of alleged violations of his rights and those of his family . Since no prosecutor came to discuss with him the alleged violations for DATE , on TIME DATE he cut his wrists and set fire to himself . He was treated and was subsequently force - fed a number of times . The applicant submitted his “ hunger - strike diary ” , in which he noted the dates and manner of his force - feeding , his state of health during the relevant period and his transfers to various cells . The applicant wrote that he had requested to be given food intra - venously rather than by means of a stomach tube .

Following the applicant 's complaint , on DATE , the duty doctor made a preliminary diagnosis : “ right - sided inter - muscular inguinal hernia ? ” ( “ hernie intermusculară inghinală din dreapta ? ” ) . On DATE a surgeon established the diagnosis : “ abscess of the connection of the fore wall ? ” ( “ abces de legătură a peretelui anterior ? ” ) . Treatment was ordered but the applicant refused it . He submitted that , having refused treatment on DATE , he was transferred for DATE to a dark , cold and damp solitary confinement cell with no furniture .

NORP The prison psychiatrist who examined the applicant DATE after the incident of DATE declared in court that he had found that the applicant had been perfectly aware of the consequences of his actions and had explained them as a last measure of protest against abuses of his rights . The doctor added that he had been pressured into signing an act declaring the applicant mentally ill , which he refused to do . In DATE the applicant underwent in - patient treatment after he had been diagnosed , inter alia , with mosaic psychopathy .

In an answer to the applicant 's lawyer , the prison administration confirmed that on DATE the applicant had begun a hunger - strike and was given a medical examination DATE . On DATE he cut his veins and set fire to himself and was treated immediately . On CARDINAL DATE the doctor found his state of health relatively satisfactory . On CARDINAL DATE a doctor found that the applicant 's health was deteriorating and ordered force - feeding . He was force - fed a total of CARDINAL times , including on DATE , CARDINAL , DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE . On DATE the applicant was transferred to a detainee hospital and he ended his hunger - strike on DATE . The feeding took place on the basis of LAW of the PERSON on pre - trial detention ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) and a special instruction ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . That instruction had not been published but it appears that the applicant had known its contents since he mentioned it in his “ hunger - strike diary ” . The prison regulation was not published either but did not contain any provision regarding force - feeding . On DATE a copy was exceptionally sent to the applicant .

According to documents submitted by the Government , the applicant was escorted to court hearings on CARDINAL and DATE . The applicant noted in his “ hunger - strike diary ” that he had not been fed on DATE and DATE since he had been brought to court on those dates . In response to the ORG 's request to submit all relevant medical documents concerning the applicant 's force - feeding , including the results of any medical tests made , the ORG submitted the following documents . Several types of medical investigations of the applicant 's health took place after DATE , including blood and urine analyses , cardiac and other measurements . According to the register of visits by the duty doctor , the applicant 's health was satisfactory during most of the period DATE DATE . On DATE the duty doctor found that the applicant 's health was “ relatively satisfactory ” but considered that he was not sufficiently fit to participate in criminal investigation actions , having complained of general weakness and dizziness . On DATE the duty doctor noted “ ORG - feeding was administered in accordance with the instruction ( milk CARDINALml , sugar CARDINALgr ) ” . Similar remarks were made on DATE , CARDINAL , DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE . On a number of these dates , the duty doctor noted that the applicant 's health had been “ relatively satisfactory ” , while on DATE it was “ satisfactory ” . No indication of the nature of the food administered was noted for the dates DATE .

In DATE the applicant lodged a complaint about the force - feeding and about the pain and humiliation caused by that process . He described the process as follows : he was always handcuffed , even though he never physically resisted force - feeding but simply refused to take food as a form of protest . The prison staff forced him to open his mouth by pulling his hair , gripping his neck and stepping on his feet until he could no longer bear the pain and opened his mouth . His mouth was then fixed in an open position by means of a metal mouth - widener . His tongue was pulled out of his mouth with a pair of metal tongs which he claims left it numb and bleeding each time . A hard tube was inserted as far as his stomach through which liquidised food passed into his stomach provoking , on some occasions , sharp pain . When the metal holder was removed from his mouth , he bled , he could not feel his tongue and was unable to speak . The instruments used for his force - feeding were not fitted with single - use , soft protection layers to prevent pain and infection .

According to the witness statement made in court by ORG , a nurse who personally witnessed the applicant 's force - feeding , the applicant had not always resisted force - feeding and no handcuffing had been necessary on such occasions , but it was a mandatory procedure , which she considered to be painful , but necessary to save lives . ORG , a generalist who personally force - fed the applicant , declared in court that occasionally the food introduced “ did not correspond to the instruction ” .

V.B. , a detainee in the same remand centre , gave evidence in court that he had seen blood on the applicant and on other detainees after they had been force - fed . The applicant requested to be fed milk or to be given vitamins through an intra - venous drip . He also submitted copies of decisions to place him in a solitary cell for periods of DATE for hunger - strikes on DATE and DATE , DATE and DATE , QUANTITY DATE , CARDINAL DATE , DATE and DATE . The latter sanction mentioned that the applicant “ categorically continued to refuse to take food ” .

On DATE ORG refused to examine the complaint because it did not comply with procedural requirements . On DATE that court again refused to examine his complaint on the same ground . On DATE the ORG quashed that decision and ordered a re - hearing , finding that the applicant , as a detainee , could not fully observe the formalities and that the specific nature of his complaint warranted an examination of his case on the merits .

On DATE ORG rejected his claim as unfounded . It focused on the lawfulness of force - feeding and qualified his refusal to eat as a violation of detention rules . On DATE ORG upheld that judgment .

On DATE ORG quashed the previous judgments and ordered a full re - hearing . The court noted that the lower courts had not established clearly whether medical necessity had been the basis for the force - feeding of the applicant .

On DATE Article CARDINAL of ORG ( which had provided for the force - feeding of detainees on hunger - strike ) was amended to expressly prohibit the force - feeding of detainees .

On DATE ORG rejected his claims as unfounded . It found that the law ( applicable at the time ) , which provided for the force - feeding of detainees who refused to eat , was not contrary to national or international human rights standards , aiming as it did at protecting the lives of such detainees . The applicant 's force - feeding was based on medical necessity as established by the medical personnel and his handcuffing and other restrictive measures were necessary to protect him from danger to his health and life . The court found that in view of his resistance to force - feeding it was necessary to apply to him “ special means , including handcuffs ” and that it did not amount to inhuman or degrading treatment . The court did not deal with the witness statements of ORG GPE or GPE ( see paragraphs DATE above ) .

On DATE ORG upheld that judgment , essentially repeating the reasons of ORG . The court noted that the witnesses heard by the lower court had denied having tortured the applicant and that there was no evidence to support his claim .

The applicant appealed to ORG , relying , inter alia , on evidence of damage to his health as a result of force - feeding such as a broken tooth and an abdominal infection . He also relied on his inability to pay and mentioned his second - degree invalidity . The court refused to examine his appeal because the applicant had not paid court fees of CARDINAL NORP lei ( MDL ) ( the equivalent of CARDINAL ( ORG ) at the time ) . He requested the court to waive those fees because he had no sources of income and could not afford to pay them . The court responded by a letter of DATE , explaining that his appeal :

“ does not correspond to the provisions of ORG CARDINAL , CARDINAL of ORG ... According to LAW if the appeal does not correspond to the provisions of LAW or if the court fee has not been paid , the court returns it within DATE under the signature of the president or the vice - president of the court . For these reasons we return your appeal for elimination of shortcomings . ... ”

The applicant 's appeal in cassation lodged with ORG in respect of his force - feeding was not examined by that court for failure to pay the court fees ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

The applicant had won court proceedings in DATE and had received MDL CARDINAL . By a judgment of DATE he was awarded MDL CARDINAL . However , this decision was appealed and the applicant did not receive any of that award in DATE . The applicant paid MDL CARDINAL for the assistance of a lawyer during his detention . He was also compensated for lost mail by the postal authorities of GPE and GPE ( EUR CARDINAL ) .

In several letters to the domestic authorities he claimed that the court fees and his other expenses had been paid by his relatives or friends . In a letter of CARDINAL DATE he asked the prison administration to receive the compensation from the postal authorities and to transfer it to his lawyer .

The applicant initiated court proceedings requesting a court order to oblige the Government to provide him with the financial means for initiating various court proceedings . On DATE ORG dismissed this complaint for failure to follow the extra - judicial dispute settlement procedure before initiating the proceedings .

The applicant further submitted copies of several letters , including from ORG , letter of DATE ) , ORG ( DATE ) , ORG ( DATE ) , an PERSON ( DATE ) , a psychiatric hospital ( DATE ) as well as from law - enforcement agencies such as the prosecutor 's office ( DATE ) and non - governmental organisations such as “ ORG ” ( DATE ) and “ Lawyers for Human Rights ” ( DATE ) . Most of these letters bear prison stamps indicating the entry number and date . Occasionally , a handwritten instruction is given : “ to be handed [ to the applicant ] ” and/or by a note with his name and his cell number ( including cell CARDINAL . CARDINAL , DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE ) . Other letters bear the stamp only on the envelope . Some of the letters were addressed to the prison administration and the applicant , but all of the letters mentioned above were addressed to the applicant only .

The applicant submitted that except for a first visit by his family at the beginning of his detention , he communicated with them through a glass partition using an internal telephone . Such visits were limited to TIME a month and no privacy was possible since CARDINAL cabins for such visits were placed next to each other . All physical contact was excluded . Convicted persons were allowed much longer visiting times in separate meeting rooms without a glass partition . The applicant did not have such privileges because , although convicted of some offences , he was still on remand on other charges . He further stated that he had been denied visits by his family for long periods of time ( DATE ) .

The applicant requested better conditions for visits . On DATE he asked for permission to have longer visits ( see the preceding paragraph ) from his girlfriend and his sister and noted that his conviction had become final on CARDINAL DATE . This request was refused on the basis of the “ Statute of the remand centre ” .

He initiated court proceedings against the administration of the remand centre requesting the right to have better visiting conditions , notably to be able to meet his visitors in a separate room for a longer time and without the glass partition . The administration submitted that such visits were prohibited by the prison rules , which aimed at protecting the safety and order of the remand centre . On DATE ORG rejected the applicant 's claim .

On appeal he added a request for more regular visits and invoked the fact that he was both a convict and a detainee on remand . He stressed the long period of time during which he had not had any physical contact with relatives and described how he missed such contact , given also that he could not contact them by telephone . The applicant insisted that he had obtained on numerous occasions the agreement of the judge in charge of his case for meetings with relatives , but that the prison administration allowed meetings only in the glass cabin . He noted that occasionally the internal telephone in the glass cabin had not worked and that he had had to shout to be heard by his relatives , which was an embarrassment since CARDINAL other families had had to do the same . The applicant invoked LAW .

ORG , in its final judgment of DATE , refused to examine the request for more regular visits as it had not been lodged with the first - instance court . It also rejected the main request for better visiting conditions , invoking the security of the detainees as the justification for the glass partition .

The relevant provisions of LAW read as follows :

LAW of court fees

( CARDINAL ) The following are exempted from payment of court fees in civil proceedings :

( a ) Plaintiffs in actions :

regarding compensation for damage sustained as a result of bodily harm or other harm to health or as a result of death ;

regarding compensation for damage arising out of a crime ; ...

( CARDINAL ) Depending on his or her financial situation , the person may be exempted by the judge ( the court ) from payment of court fees , either entirely or in part .

Article CARDINAL Content of the application to the court

( CARDINAL ) Proof of payment of court fees is to be annexed to the application ; the provisions of Articles CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) and CARDINAL do not apply . ”

NORP The relevant provisions of the PERSON on pre - trial detention of DATE , in force until DATE , read as follows :

“ LAW of complaints , requests and sending of letters

... “ ( CARDINAL ) Complaints , requests and letters from [ persons detained awaiting trial ] shall be subject to censorship by the prison authorities . Complaints , requests and letters addressed to the public prosecutor shall not be subjected to any control and shall be despatched to the addressee within TIME of their being filed .

LAW of meetings

( CARDINAL ) The authorities of the remand centre shall authorise meetings of detainees with their relatives or other persons , with the written approval of the person or authority in charge of the case . Usually CARDINAL meeting per month shall be authorised . The meeting may last from TIME .

( CARDINAL ) Authorised meetings shall take place under the supervision of the remand centre authorities . In the event of a violation of the rules , the meeting shall end .

LAW of force - feeding

( CARDINAL ) A detainee who has refused to take food shall be subjected to force - feeding on the basis of a written report by the doctor in charge of that detainee .

( CARDINAL ) The following shall be force - fed :

( a ) persons whose life is in danger as a result of their persistent refusal to take food ;

( CARDINAL ) A person who refuses to take food shall be force - fed by medical personnel in the presence of CARDINAL guards or other representatives of the authorities of the detention facility . Should it be necessary , such a person shall be restrained with handcuffs and held in the correct position by the guards .

( CARDINAL ) The duration of the procedure of force - feeding of the detainee , the calorific value of the food and the name and function of the person who fed the detainee shall be indicated in the latter 's medical record .

( CARDINAL ) Should the health of a person refusing to take food improve , the force - feeding shall end . A detailed medical report shall be drawn up on the subject and the relevant entries made in the medical records . ... ”

According to the ORG regarding the detention in prisons of persons refusing to take food and the manner of their force - feeding , adopted in DATE by ORG and ORG on DATE and coordinated with ORG , an “ ill - founded ” refusal to take food shall be considered a breach of the detention regime . A person found to be in breach shall be transferred , within TIME from the date of the actual refusal to take food , to a solitary confinement cell . A doctor shall determine the need to force - feed a detainee refusing to take food and the regime to be followed , in accordance with the detainee 's somatic condition of the organism , and shall explain , before each feeding , the dangers associated with the refusal to eat . Should a detainee resist his force - feeding , he shall be handcuffed and held in the required position by CARDINAL guards or other prison representatives who must always be present , and a mouth - widener shall be applied . Each instance of force - feeding shall be registered in the detainee 's medical file , indicating the date , the composition of the food and its quantity . Should a detainee 's condition improve , the force - feeding shall end and the reasons shall be given in the medical file .

On DATE the ORG adopted decision no . CARDINAL , regarding the National Plan of Action in the Sphere of Human Rights for DATE . ORG includes a number of objectives for DATE aimed , inter alia , at improving the conditions of detention , including the reduction of overcrowding , improvement of medical treatment , involvement in work and reintegration of detainees , as well as the training of personnel . Regular reports are to be drawn up on the implementation of the Plan . On DATE the Government adopted a decision on the Concept of reorganisation of the penitentiaries ' system and ORG for DATE for the implementation of the Concept of reorganisation of the penitentiaries ' system , both having the aim , inter alia , of improving the conditions of detention in penitentiaries . In addition , on DATE the Government approved the creation of a FAC for technical and material assistance to the penitentiaries ' system .

On an unspecified date ORG adopted its “ Report on the implementing by ORG in the sphere of human rights for DATE , approved by ORG no . CARDINAL of DATE ” . On DATE ORG adopted a report on the implementation of ORG . Both those reports confirmed the insufficient funding of the prison system and the resulting failure to implement fully the action plan in respect of the remand centres in GPE , including prison no . CARDINAL in GPE , in particular concerning the provision of sufficient space , food and bedding . The first of these reports mentioned , inter alia , that “ as long as the aims and actions in [ the National Plan of Action ] do not have the necessary financial support ... it will remain only a good attempt by the ORG to observe human rights , described in ORG no . CARDINAL of DATE , the fate of which is non - implementation , or partial implementation . ” On DATE the ORG adopted a decision no . CARDINAL “ Concerning the results of the verification by the special parliamentary commission regarding the situation of persons detained pending trial in remand centre no . CARDINAL of ORG whose cases are pending before the courts ” . The decision found , inter alia , that “ the activity of ORG in ensuring conditions of detention does not correspond to the requirements of the legislation in force . ”

The relevant provisions of domestic law concerning the remedies available for complaints under LAW have been set out in PERSON v. GPE ( ( dec . ) , no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , DATE ) and NORP v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL , § § DATE , DATE ) .

The relevant provisions of domestic law concerning detainees ' correspondence , in addition to those mentioned in paragraph CARDINAL above , have been set out in GPE v. GPE ( ( striking out ) , no . CARDINAL , § § CARDINAL - CARDINAL , DATE ) .

In addition , LAW reads as follows :

“ ( CARDINAL ) Operational - investigative measures involving limitations to the right of inviolability of person , home or correspondence , telephone and telegraph conversations and other forms of communication , as well as other measures provided for by law shall be carried out with the authorisation of the investigating judge . ... ”

In its Report on its visit to GPE on DATE , the ORG found ( unofficial translation ) :

“ CARDINAL . The delegation drew attention to the issue of contacts with the outside world for persons deprived of their liberty . A considerable number of persons complained of the ban on corresponding with their relatives and receiving visits . It appeared that contact by detainees with the outside world was left to the total discretion of the police officers and/or persons in charge of the institutions , with a very restrictive attitude being taken in this respect .

Concerning the suspects of crimes the ORG accepts that , in the interest of the investigation , some restrictions on visits may indeed be imposed for certain persons . However , these restrictions should be strictly limited to the specific needs of the case and should be applied for as short a time as possible . In no circumstances may visits to a detainee by his family and friends be prohibited for long periods of time . If there is considered to be an ongoing risk of collusion , it is preferable to authorise visits under strict supervision ; this approach should also cover correspondence with family and close friends .

The ORG recommends that the GPE authorities review the legal regulations and existing practice in this field , in the light of the observations formulated above . ”

In its report on the visit to GPE on DATE , the ORG found ( unofficial translation ) :

“ CARDINAL . The ORG delegation again heard repeated complaints from persons charged with and convicted of administrative offences concerning the refusal of permission for them to receive visits or have contact with the outside world in EDPs .

The ORG reiterates ( see paragraph CARDINAL of the report on the DATE visit ) that , where persons awaiting trial are concerned , if it is necessary in the interests of the investigation to place restrictions on visits for some of them , the restrictions should be strictly limited in time and applied for the shortest period possible . In no circumstances should visits to a detained person by family and friends be prohibited for a prolonged period . If there is thought to be an ongoing risk of collusion , it is better to allow visits under strict supervision . ...

The situation in the majority of penitentiaries visited , in view of the economic situation in the country , remained difficult and the delegation encountered a number of problems already identified during its visits in DATE and DATE in terms of physical conditions and detention regimes .

Added to this is the problem of overcrowding , which remains serious . In fact , even though the penitentiaries visited were not operating at their full capacity – as is the case of prison no . CARDINAL in which the number of detainees was appreciably smaller than during the last visit of the Committee – they continued to be extremely congested . In fact , the receiving capacity was still based on a very unsatisfactory QUANTITY per detainee ; in practice , this was often even less .

Facilities for contact with the outside world left much to be desired . Although there was no restriction on parcels and letters , inmates were entitled only to brief visits totalling TIME every three months , which were in practice often reduced to TIME . What is more , visits took place under oppressive conditions in a room where prisoners were separated from visitors by a thick wire grille , with a guard stationed nearby at all times .

The follow - up visit to prison no.CARDINAL in PERSON revealed an unsatisfactory situation . The progress noted was in fact minimal , limited to some running repairs . The ventilation system had been repaired primarily thanks to the financial support of civil society ( especially NGOs ) , and the creation of places for DATE recreation had been made possible only as a result of contributions by the detainees and their families .

The repair , renovation and maintenance of cells are entirely the responsibility of detainees themselves and of their families , who also pay for the necessary materials . They must also obtain their own sheets and blankets , the institution being able to give them only used mattresses .

In sum , the conditions in the great majority of cells in FAC and the transit cells continue to be very poor indeed . ...

Finally , despite the drastic reduction in overcrowding , the rate of occupancy of cells is still very high , not to say intolerable .

Except in the Lipcani Re - education ORG , where the efforts made in this respect are to be highlighted , the quantity and quality of detainees ' food everywhere is a source of grave concern . The delegation was inundated with complaints regarding the absence of meat and dairy products . The findings of the delegation , regarding both the stocks of food and the menus , confirm the credibility of these complaints . Its findings also confirmed that in certain places ( in Prison no . CARDINAL , ... ) , the food served was repulsive and virtually inedible ( for instance , insects and vermin were present ) . This is not surprising given the general state of the kitchens and their modest equipment .

The NORP authorities have always claimed financial difficulties in ensuring the adequate feeding of detainees . However , the ORG insists that this is a fundamental requirement of life which must be ensured by the ORG to persons in its charge and that nothing can exonerate it from such responsibility . ... ”

Recommendation Rec(CARDINAL)CARDINAL of ORG to member states on ORG ( adopted by ORG on DATE at the PERSON meeting of ORG ) , insofar as relevant , reads as follows :

“ Contact with the outside world

CARDINAL Prisoners shall be allowed to communicate as often as possible by letter , telephone or other forms of communication with their families , other persons and representatives of outside organisations and to receive visits from these persons .

CARDINAL Communication and visits may be subject to restrictions and monitoring necessary for the requirements of continuing criminal investigations , maintenance of good order , safety and security , prevention of criminal offences and protection of victims of crime , but such restrictions , including specific restrictions ordered by a judicial authority , shall nevertheless allow an acceptable minimum level of contact .

CARDINAL National law shall specify national and international bodies and officials with whom communication by prisoners shall not be restricted .

CARDINAL The arrangements for visits shall be such as to allow prisoners to maintain and develop family relationships in as normal a manner as possible .

CARDINAL.CARDINAL Prison authorities shall assist prisoners in maintaining adequate contact with the outside world and provide them with the appropriate welfare support to do so .