Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property

David Thór Björgvinsson;Giovanni Bonello;Lech Garlicki;Ledi Bianku;Mihai Poalelungi;Nicolas Bratza

The first applicant , ORG , is a company incorporated in GPE . The other applicants are ORG ( “ the second applicant company ” ) – a company incorporated in GPE and holder of PERCENT of the shares of the first applicant ; ORG ( “ the third applicant company ” ) – a company incorporated in GPE and holder of PERCENT of the shares of the first applicant ; and PERSON ( “ the fourth applicant ” ) – a NORP national born in DATE , living in GPE and holder of PERCENT of the shares of the first applicant company .

At DATE , ORG and a third company , ORG , were owners of a CARDINAL - floor building located on the main boulevard of PERSON ( “ the building ” ) . Both companies were ORG - owned and had as their only asset different parts of the building .

In DATE the ORG decided to privatise the companies and sold their shares to a private company , U.

In DATE and DATE the new owner of the companies transferred all parts of the building to the first applicant company .

Also in DATE the former director of the first applicant company challenged the privatisation in the courts . However , his action was dismissed by a final judgment of ORG of GPE of DATE , the courts having found that the privatisation had been legal in all respects .

In DATE the fourth applicant bought CARDINAL shares in the first applicant company .

In DATE the second applicant company bought the rest of the shares of the first applicant company .

NORP In DATE the first applicant company issued CARDINAL new shares and sold them to the third applicant company .

On an unspecified date in DATE the Prime Minister requested ORG to conduct an investigation into the lawfulness of the privatisation . On DATE the Prosecutor General informed the Prime Minister that he had verified the lawfulness of the privatisation and had found it to be “ in strict compliance with the legislation in force ” . ORG also informed the Prime Minister that the lawfulness of the privatisation had been thoroughly verified during the proceedings ending with the final judgment of DATE .

On an unspecified date in DATE the President of GPE requested ORG to examine the possibility of challenging the privatisation of DATE . In a letter of CARDINAL DATE the Prosecutor General informed President PERSON that the transaction had been lawful and that there were no grounds to challenge it . Moreover , he indicated that after the entry into force of LAW on DATE it had become impossible to bring an appeal in cassation against the final judgment of DATE .

On DATE ORG instituted proceedings on behalf of the ORG in which it contested the lawfulness of the DATE privatisation of the first applicant company and of company NORP on the ground that QUANTITY concerning the sale of State- owned shares had been breached . In particular , the Prosecutor argued that the size of the down payment made by company U. was smaller than the CARDINAL provided in the regulations and that the final price offered for the shares had been too low . The Prosecutor relied on LAW as a legal basis for his action ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . As a consequence of the alleged illegality of the privatisation , ORG also sought the annulment of all the subsequent transfers and issues of shares as a result of which the second , third and fourth applicants had become shareholders of the first applicant company .

The applicants opposed the action and argued , inter alia , that it was time - barred and contrary to the principle of legal certainty . They submitted that the provision of LAW exonerating the Prosecutor from observing the DATE time - limit when lodging actions in the interest of the ORG was contrary to LAW and made reference to PERSON v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL , DATE ) . They also submitted that the lawfulness of the privatisation had been confirmed by a final judgment of DATE with the power of res judicata and that they were bona fide buyers who had been discriminated against with respect to other companies which had obtained ORG property in similar conditions and whose privatisations had not been contested later by the ORG . They also challenged the presiding judge on grounds of lack of impartiality and argued that in the proceedings which had ended with the final judgment of DATE he had been successfully challenged on such grounds . However , the challenge was dismissed .

On DATE ORG ruled in favour of ORG in the absence of the third and fourth applicants , who had not been summoned . The court dismissed the applicants ' objection concerning the existence of a final judgment of DATE . The court did not dispute the applicants ' submission that the proceedings of DATE had had a similar subject matter ; however , it dismissed the objection on the ground that that judgment had been adopted in proceedings in which ORG had not been involved . The court also dismissed the applicants ' objection concerning LAW , arguing that according to LAW an action by the Prosecutors in the interest of the ORG could not be time - barred .

The applicants appealed on the basis of the same arguments which were put before the first - instance court . They also complained that not all of them had had the possibility to take part in the proceedings and that the judge had lacked impartiality .

On DATE ORG heard the applicants ' appeal . During the proceedings , the applicants challenged judge GPE from the panel and expressed doubts as to the manner in which the President of ORG , Judge PERSON , had composed the panel . On DATE , ORG dismissed the appeal and upheld the judgment of the first - instance court .

ORG relied on provisions of the old Civil Code in order to dismiss the applicants ' objection concerning their status as good faith buyers . In particular , the court argued that according to the old Civil Code property obtained unlawfully from the ORG could be claimed back irrespective of the fact that it had been obtained by a bona fide buyer . However , when examining the problem of LAW , the ORG agreed with the applicants ' objection concerning DATE of the old LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . Nonetheless , the court stated for the first time in the proceedings that since the Prosecutor had introduced his action after the entry into force of the new Civil Code , the rules concerning limitations in time contained in that Code should apply . ORG expressed the opinion that the ORG 's action concerned the declaration of the absolute nullity of the privatisation and that therefore , in accordance with the provisions of LAW , it could not be limited in time . ORG also dismissed the objection concerning the existence of a final judgment in respect of the same problem on the same grounds as the first - instance court and dismissed the objection concerning the non - participation of some of the applicants in the proceedings .

On DATE , the Government decided to privatise the building again and an auction for the sale of the building was scheduled for DATE . It appears that the building was not sold on that date and the ORG has no information as to the subsequent development of the events .

It does not appear from the facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , that the applicants have been repaid the value of their initial investment .

The relevant provisions of LAW , in force at the moment of the privatisation , provide :

A contract which is contrary to the law shall be null and void ...

When a contract is declared null and void , each party must return to the other party everything received from it on the basis of the contract ...

The general limitation period for protection through a court action of the rights of a [ natural ] person is DATE ; it is DATE for lawsuits between ORG organisations , collective farms and any other social organisations .

The competent court ... shall apply the limitation period whether or not the parties request such application .

Expiry of the limitation period prior to initiation of court proceedings constitutes a ground for rejecting the claim .

If the competent court ... finds that the action has not commenced within the limitation period for well - founded reasons , the right in question shall be protected .

The limitation period does not apply :

( CARDINAL ) to claims by ORG organisations regarding restitution of ORG property found in the unlawful possession of ... other organisations ... and of citizens ; ” .

NORP The relevant provisions of the new LAW , in force after DATE , read as follows :

( CARDINAL ) The civil law does not have a retroactive character . It can not modify or suppress the conditions in which a prior legal situation was constituted or the conditions in which such a legal situation was extinguished . The new law can not alter or abolish the already created effects of a legal situation which has extinguished or is in the process of execution .

( CARDINAL ) The absolute nullity of a legal act can be invoked by any person having an interest . The court can invoke it on its own motion ...

( CARDINAL ) An action to declare the absolute nullity is not limited in time . ”

In a judgment of DATE ( case nr . CARDINAL ) ORG dismissed the plaintiff 's contentions based on the provisions of the new Civil Code on the ground that the facts of the case related to a period before the entry into force of the new Civil Code and that , therefore , the provisions of the old Civil Code were applicable .


CASE OF EREMIASOVA AND PECHOVA v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC

Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Life) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect)

André Potocki;Ann Power-Forde;Dean Spielmann;Elisabet Fura;Ganna Yudkivska;Karel Jungwiert;Mark Villiger

The applicants are NORP nationals who were born in DATE and DATE respectively , and live in GPE .

According to police records , on DATE ORG , partner of the first

applicant who gave birth to his child in DATE and son of the second , of GPE origin , was arrested by the police on suspicion of having committed a burglary and transported to FAC ( the “ ORG ” ) . Having been questioned TIME and TIME , he was charged with illegal entry into a dwelling and theft at TIME

According to the statement made by the police officers , at TIME , PERSON had been situated in the separate waiting - room on the ground - floor . TIME , finger - prints were taken . After that , ORG had been taken into the office situated on the second floor of the police station , in order to be informed about the charges .

According to the official report , at TIME , after signing the notice of charges , PERSON asked to use the toilet claiming that it was urgent . It was decided that CARDINAL police officers would accompany him to the ground floor of the police building due to the fact that there were no bars at the toilet located on the second floor . On the ground floor , PERSON was not allowed to close the door of the toilet for security reasons . On the way back , police officer PERSON walked in front of PERSON and officer PERSON was on the latter ’s right holding his wrist . There are discrepancies between different statements of officers PERSON and P. as to whether officer PERSON held GPE ’s left or right wrist with his left hand . Handcuffs were not used and the grasp was not very firm due to PERSON calm behaviour . The group went without any problems through the mezzanine floor between the ground and the first floor where windows were provided with bars . When officer PERSON had already crossed the mezzanine floor between the first and the second floor and when GPE and officer PERSON were just arriving to the mezzanine floor , PERSON suddenly turned , struck with his open palm the left shoulder of the officer who held him by the wrist , broke away and jumped , head first , through a closed window into the yard . After having reeled , officer PERSON unsuccessfully attempted to catch him by the legs as they disappeared through the broken window . The police officers started to shout in order to have an ambulance called , ran out to the yard and provided , together with other officers , first aid to PERSON was taken to the hospital by ambulance and died TIME at TIME

On DATE , ORG ( the “ ORG ” ) started an investigation . They inspected the scene of incident , sketched and photographed it . All participants were invited to draw an official record ( úřední záznam ) where they would comment on the incident .

ORG opened an investigation on suspicion of the commission of the crime of participation in a suicide and conducted a number of investigative acts . CARDINAL TIME ORG surveyed the scene of incident , sketched it and drew a report .

An officer from ORG of the Minister of the ORG ( “ the ORG ” ) inspected the scene of incident , took explanations from the Head of ORG , police officer P. , and police officer PERSON However , she did not speak to police officer PERSON as he was being provided with necessary medical aid resulting from the assault by GPE Basing her conclusion on the preliminary findings of the control and monitoring bodies , she concluded that there were no grounds for suspecting the police officers of having committed a crime . Accordingly , the investigations were further led by ORG .

Still on DATE , the police officers who had had contact with ORG prior to his death ( police officers PERSON and PERSON , and the police officers who had been investigating GPE ’s criminal activity ) drew separate official records ( úřední záznam ) where they commented on the incident . In his official record , officer PERSON stated he had held GPE ’s right wrist during the escort . Officer PERSON did not mention which wrist it had been .

On DATE the medical report issued upon request of the Head of ORG by the hospital to which ORG had been brought , stated that death probably resulted from serious cerebral injury .

At CARDINAL the Head of ORG described the incident to the first applicant and GPE ’s sister . TIME the Head of ORG ordered an autopsy on the body , which was performed by CARDINAL experts on DATE .

A preliminary autopsy report was issued on DATE . It concluded that “ The death of [ V.P. ] unequivocally resulted from violent causes as a consequence of massive blunt violence to the head area . This mechanism entirely corresponds with injuries following a fall from a height . During the autopsy no indications were found which would unequivocally suggest third party active intervention in the death of [ GPE ] ” . The autopsy findings were described in a report of DATE which inter alia stated that “ During the autopsy no indications were found which would unequivocally suggest third party active intervention in the death of [ V.P. ] . Therefore , the autopsy findings are not in contradiction with the police statement that the injuries had been caused by DATE from a height upon jumping through a closed window from the second floor of a building . ” It was noted that ORG was QUANTITY tall , weighed QUANTITY and had been brought to ORG without clothes .

On DATE the Head of ORG ordered expert toxicological examination of GPE ’s body . On DATE the expert concluded that no such substances had been found .

On DATE ORG ordered an expert analysis of the biological material retained on DATE of the incident from the frame of the window ORG had jumped through . An expert report was established on DATE by LOC . It specified that the hair secured on the window morphologically corresponded to ORG ’s hair .

On DATE the brother of GPE and the first applicant filed a criminal complaint with ORG against the police officers on duty at the station . According to the protocol , PERSON ’s brother alleged that ORG had obviously been thrown out of the window .

On DATE the Director of ORG , having seen the results of the internal police enquiry conducted by ORG into the escort , found that the provisions of the internal police regulations had not been breached by the respective police officers . Given that the incident was being investigated by ORG , ORG discontinued the investigation .

On DATE ORG initiated an inquiry into the allegations of ORG ’s brother and the first applicant on suspicion of abuse of power by the police officer .

On DATE the Head of ORG and the police officers PERSON and P. were questioned . The unit which took their statements is not identified in the protocol . It would however seem that the statements were taken by an officer of ORG . Police officers PERSON and PERSON stated inter alia that ORG ’s behaviour had been calm during the whole escort and that nothing indicated that he would do anything unexpected . Officer PERSON stated that after PERSON had been picked up by an ambulance , he had gone to the doctor because he had felt pain in his shoulder . He also stated that after DATE he could still only move his shoulder in a limited way . Officer PERSON stated that he had held GPE by his left wrist during the escort , while officer PERSON stated it had been GPE ’s right wrist .

On DATE the officers of ORG questioned officers PERSON and P. Officer PERSON stated again that he had held GPE ’s left wrist , while officer PERSON did not mention which wrist it had been .

On DATE the ORG denied access to the investigation file to the first applicant ’s representative as the officer in charge of the investigation was absent .

On DATE ORG informed the first applicant ’s representative that the applicants could study the file after DATE .

On DATE the first applicant ’s representative unsuccessfully complained about the denial of access to the case - file to the GPE - venkov ORG . He also raised other complaints about the inquiry . In a letter of CARDINAL DATE ORG informed him that the denial was due to his failure to present a power of attorney . The applicants state that their representative had a duly signed power of attorney when he requested access to the file at ORG and that the officer reasoned her denial of access to the file because the officer investigating the case was on vacation . Thus , the representative was only enabled to study the file on DATE .

On DATE the sister and the brother of GPE , respectively , were questioned . They both pointed out that ORG had been in a good mental and physical condition and had never thought of suicide .

On DATE ORG decided not to proceed with the first applicant ’s criminal complaint against the police officers . It found no reasonable suspicion of any offence on the part of the police officers . Except for the additional evidence described above , the ORG based its investigation and conclusions on the official records made by ORG and ORG , which contained the description of the scene of incident , the photographic evidence , the autopsy report , toxicological reports , and the official records .

On DATE the first applicant filed a complaint against this decision , stating that the investigation was not objective and impartial . She pointed to a number of deficiencies in the inquiry .

On DATE the district prosecutor quashed the decision of CARDINAL DATE as premature and remitted the case to ORG for further investigation .

On DATE the district prosecutor requested ORG to procure the following evidence : ( i ) witness statements from the officer of ORG who visited the scene of event on DATE of incident ; ( ii ) witness statements from rescuers , doctors , and experts who carried out the autopsy to provide inter alia information about ORG ’s injuries and clothes ; ( iii ) information about all officers present at the police station at the time of the incident and their activity ; ( iv ) written evidence on ORG ’s personality ( for example any previous attempts to commit suicide ) ; ( v ) forensic expert report regarding the physical mechanics of breaking windows and the subsequent fall ; ( vi ) a reconstruction of the incident at which the district prosecutor and an expert would attend .

On DATE the officer of ORG who had inspected the scene of incident on DATE of incident was heard .

In a letter of CARDINAL DATE the district prosecutor informed the applicant ’s representative that there were no shortcomings in the conduct of the investigation by the police and that the issue that the initial investigation had been led by ORG complied with ORG President No . CARDINAL of DATE . An officer of ORG had immediately arrived to the scene of incident but had not found any signs of commission of a crime by the police officers .

On DATE the doctors who had carried out the autopsy and established the autopsy report made an official statement before ORG . They reiterated that no indications of active intervention of a third party had been found but clarified that this could not be unequivocally determined due to the extensive and interrelated injuries .

On DATE ORG concluded that due to the expert report in the field of forensic biomechanics that had been ordered on DATE , there was no need to conduct a reconstruction of the incident .

On DATE ORG again decided not to proceed with the first applicant ’s criminal complaint against the police officers , finding that there was no reasonable suspicion of an offence . ORG relied on the forensic biomechanics report of DATE which had stated that the incident was caused by the own active jump of the victim with the primary impact on his vertex and which had explicitly excluded any use of force by third persons . In response to the request of the district prosecutor and apart from the evidence described above , CARDINAL official records were procured which described the activities of the policemen during the presence of GPE at the police station . The rescuers were heard and written evidence was analysed as to the personality of GPE

On DATE ORG discontinued the investigation into the participation in suicide , the inquiry having not shown that the crime of participation in suicide or any other crime had been committed .

On DATE the first applicant ’s representative was again denied access to the case file .

On DATE the first applicant filed a criminal complaint suggesting that the police officers had assisted in the applicant ’s suicide . She requested ORG to supervise the criminal investigation into the allegations . She pointed to various deficiencies in the inquiry , stating that it lacked objectivity and was perfunctory . On DATE the second applicant joined these proceedings .

On DATE the applicants complained to the regional prosecutor that they received no information concerning the outcome of the investigation into their new allegations .

On DATE the regional prosecutor informed them that he had found no evidence supporting the allegation that a crime had been committed . He concluded that ORG had not intended to commit suicide but had unsuccessfully attempted to escape , being unable to control his dive from the height of QUANTITY . He rejected other allegations of breach of the procedure , but admitted the following procedural shortcomings : ( i ) a failure of ORG to defer the case to the GPE - venkov ORG as specialized authority for criminal activity of police officers , ( ii ) that original investigation by ORG had been “ entirely insufficient ” , ( iii ) that the ORG representative had been wrongly denied access to the file , ( iv ) a failure to seize ORG ’s clothes and to examine them by the way of criminal expert report , ( v ) contradictory information in the case - file regarding the issue whether the officer PERSON could have been at the scene of incident at TIME which was however due to an administrative error . The prosecutor concluded that these procedural shortcomings had no impact on the exactitude of the established facts , but he requested that the evidence be completed .

On DATE the district prosecutor requested ORG to supplement the evidence following the regional prosecutor ’s decision .

On DATE the ORG once again decided not to proceed with the applicants’ criminal complaint against the police officers , finding that there had been no reasonable suspicion of an alleged offence . It was noted , inter alia , that ORG ’s clothes had been given to the latter ’s family at the hospital .

On DATE the applicants appealed against this decision , challenging a number of factual inconsistencies and errors in the case - file .

On DATE , the expert who established the forensic biomechanics expert report was heard by ORG . He apologized for several formal mistakes in his report but maintained that the substantial conclusions were correct . He explained that the errors in the name of the deceased and in the location of the incident were due to the fact that he had copy - pasted parts of the report from a previous report . He also apologized for the error under point CARDINAL of the report where it was stated that ORG fell first on his legs . The expert explained that that was his error and referred to the autopsy report which unequivocally showed that ORG fell first on his head .

On DATE the district prosecutor dismissed the ORG appeal as ill - founded . In respect of the challenged report of DATE , the district prosecutor noted that the expert had admitted that it contained errors but further noted that these had been classified as formal . The prosecutor agreed with the opinion of the regional prosecutor that ORG had most probably attempted to escape . Given that the windows were partly shaded , he could not see the concrete surface below nor could he exactly estimate the height . Thus he might have thought that it would be possible to escape . The prosecutor concluded by stating that this had only been the prosecutor ’s personal view and that the victim ’s intentions would never be known .

Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(a ) stipulates that a constitutional appeal may be submitted : a ) pursuant to LAW , by a natural or legal person , if he or she alleges that his or her fundamental rights and basic freedoms guaranteed in the constitutional order have been infringed as a result of the final decision in proceedings to which he or she was a party , of a measure , or of some other encroachment by a public authority .

By virtue of Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) if the Constitutional Court grants the constitutional appeal of a natural or legal person under LAW ) of the LAW , it shall : a ) quash the contested decision of the public authority , or b ) if a constitutionally guaranteed fundamental right or basic freedom was infringed as the result of an encroachment by a public authority other than a decision , enjoin the authority not to continue to infringe this right or freedom and order it , to the extent possible , to restore the situation that existed prior to the infringement .

Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL grants the right to just satisfaction in cases of impairment of a right guaranteed by LAW among which figure especially protection of life and health , civic honour and human dignity , privacy , name , and personal expression .

Pursuant to LAW , an individual has the right to pecuniary compensation for non - pecuniary damage if the just satisfaction within the meaning of LAW is insufficient .

The ORG is by virtue of LAW liable for damages inflicted by , inter alia , its authorities .

Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) as in force until DATE provided that the ORG was liable for damage caused by an irregularity in the conduct of proceedings , including non - compliance with the obligation to perform an act or give a decision within the statutory time - limit . Under section CARDINAL ) a person who had suffered loss on account of such an irregularity was entitled to damages .

On DATE CARDINAL Act no . DATE entered into force amending , inter alia , section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) which newly provides that the ORG is liable for damage caused by an irregularity in the conduct of proceedings , including non - compliance with the obligation to perform an act or give a decision within the statutory time - limit . Act no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL also introduced a new section CARDINALa which provides for a reasonable satisfaction for non - pecuniary damage caused by an irregularity in the conduct of proceedings including non - compliance with the obligation to perform an act or to adopt a decision within a reasonable time .

Pursuant to LAW , investigation is led by the units of ORG , unless provided otherwise . The Minister of the ORG can entrust with investigation also other entities of ORG .

Pursuant to LAW an investigation ( vyšetřování ) into crimes committed by police officers is carried out by a prosecutor .

Under LAW a prosecutor supervises criminal proceedings to ensure their lawfulness .

Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) provided that criminal offences committed by police officers were investigated by ORG of the Minister of the ORG , an internal unit of ORG directly managed by the Minister .

Section CARDINAL provided that the Police was subordinated to ORG . The actions of the Police were directed by ORG , unless provided otherwise by the law , headed by the Police President . The Police President was appointed and revoked by the Minister with the approval of the Government . The Police President accounted for the acts of the Police before the Minister .

Section CARDINAL provided , inter alia , for ORG liability for bodily harm , death or damage caused to individuals by the police .

Pursuant to section CARDINAL , signs indicating possible commission of a crime by police officers are to be examined ( prověřit ) by ORG headed by a director accounting to ORG . ORG is part of ORG . Its Director is appointed and revoked by the Government . ORG is composed of police officers assigned to ORG .

According to this internal rule applicable within the police units subject to the Police President , suspected crimes punishable by DATE of imprisonment were to be examined ( prověřit ) by the police monitoring authorities ( kontrolní útvary PERSON ) in case of ( i ) suicide or self - harm of persons occurring in connection with the active duty interventions or other acts of police officers , and of ( ii ) signs of incidents discovered by themselves until it appears that there is suspicion that a crime has been committed by an officer or an employee of the Police in connection with the execution of their tasks .

According to these internal rules , the ORG encompasses different services and units which are all directly or indirectly subordinated to the Director . These units comprise also the Complaints and Monitoring Unit , ORG , and ORG , which are however distinct units not hierarchically dependent of each other .

The Director decides , inter alia , on service and employment issues of the officers and employees . All police officers of the ORG are subordinated to him . He is the direct superior of the Director of ORG .

In this decision the court rejected a victim ’s claim under LAW contesting a prosecutor ’s decision confirming suspension of an investigation of alleged police ill - treatment by ORG . It held that due to the constitutional principle of separation of powers , courts , including ORG , could not interfere with the power of the prosecutor to bring charges or not . It could only review a prosecutor ’s decision to the extent that it was arbitrary . It found that the decision of the prosecutor had been sufficiently reasoned and that the prosecutor had proceeded in accordance with LAW procedure .

In this decision ORG rejected a victim ’s complaint under LAW and CARDINAL of the LAW contesting the suspension of an investigation into alleged police ill - treatment . The appellant complained that the investigation had not been independent and impartial because it had been carried out by ORG of the Minister of the ORG and only formally supervised by a prosecutor . The court held :

“ The possibility of interference by ORG with the investigation phase of criminal proceedings must be interpreted restrictively . ORG can correct only the most extreme excesses . ...

In the past , ORG occasionally stepped out of its now well - established case - law . It did so in instances when the prosecutor had failed to sufficiently reason its decision to reject the complaint against a decision of the police to bring charges ( see nos . III . ÚS CARDINAL/CARDINAL and III . ÚS PERSON ) .

Even after the delivery of these judgments ORG does not consider that it has the power to review conduct of prosecutorial authorities regarding the substantive reasons and justification for bringing charges . It follows that only complaints claiming insufficient reasons for a decision that would suggest arbitrariness by the prosecutorial authorities can be subject to a review by ORG . ”

ORG added that , having reviewed the administrative case file , the investigation by the police authorities had been compatible with the law and that the appellant ’s procedural rights had been protected . It did not give any opinion on his complaint that the investigation had not been independent and impartial .

By that judgment , the court , on appeal of the accused , quashed a prosecutor ’s decision approving the decision of the police to charge the applicant because the prosecutor had failed to examine the appellant ’s complaints efficiently and to explain the reasons for the decision . As a general principle , the court held that a decision of a prosecutor must be reasoned and he or she must properly examine the complaints . It added that it did not have the power to review the substance of a decision by a prosecutor to bring charges against an individual or to comment whether a particular criminal investigation was justified ; these were questions that fell exclusively within the power of prosecutorial authorities .

In this decision ORG found that a failure by the ORG to carry out an effective investigation , within the meaning of LAW , into an alleged ill - treatment by the police , was not part of personality rights protected by LAW . Thus , civil courts could not review the issue as part of a civil action for the protection of personality rights .

By this judgment CARDINAL individuals were awarded CZK CARDINAL,CARDINAL ( EUR CARDINAL ) each pursuant to LAW and CARDINAL of LAW in compensation of the death of their spouse and mother respectively caused by a wrongful act of a police officer . The police officer responsible had been previously convicted for the crime of physical injury by ORG . ORG based its factual finding on the case - file of ORG in the criminal proceedings and the defendant , GPE represented by ORG , acknowledged its responsibility for the damages caused by the act of the police officer .

By this judgment CARDINAL individuals were awarded damages pursuant to the LAW ORG replaced by LAW in compensation of the death of their son caused by the police . The police officer concerned had been convicted of the crime of physical injury by the Prague ORG and ORG . ORG based its findings inter alia on LOC case - file in the criminal proceedings .

On DATE , the ORG concluded a settlement agreement pursuant to LAW in the case mentioned above ( see paragraph CARDINAL ) . The conclusion of the agreement was preceded by a conviction of the police officer . ORG acknowledged its responsibility .

On DATE , DATE , and DATE , ORG concluded CARDINAL settlement agreements pursuant to LAW in the case mentioned above ( see paragraph CARDINAL ) . These settlement agreements had been concluded before the officer was convicted . ORG acknowledged that the death resulted from an act of a police officer .

CARDINAL of the above mentioned settlement agreements provided compensation for expenses connected to the burial . CARDINAL of them granted the deceased husband a DATE pension .

DATE . On DATE , the Ministry awarded damages pursuant to LAW to a person who had suffered serious physical injuries as a consequence of being shot by a police officer . The damages were awarded after a prosecution had been brought against the police officer . ORG had acknowledged liability .

The ORG recommended that the NORP Republic take appropriate measures to ensure the independence of investigations of offences committed by law - enforcement officials by introducing a mechanism of external control .

The ORG expressed its concerns that complaints against the police are handled by an internal police inspectorate , while criminal investigations are handled by ORG , which has overall responsibility for the police . That system lacked , in the ORG ’s view , objectivity and credibility and would seem to facilitate impunity for police officers involved in human rights violations .


PROCHÁZKA AND PROCHÁZKOVÁ v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC

The applicants , Mr PERSON and PERSON , are NORP nationals who were born in DATE and DATE respectively and live in ORG .

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

The applicants are the owners of certain plots of land in ORG u NORP . In DATE they decided to build a family house with an education centre to be run within the framework of their business activity .

On DATE the applicants informed ORG of the town of ORG u Prahy ( odbor výstavby města ) of these plans . On DATE they applied to ORG ( PERSON úřad DATE stavební úřad ) for a building permit ( stavební povolení ) . According to the Government , on DATE the applicants requested the construction authority to be sent forms for the construction of a family house . They subsequently replaced this application with a request for a building permit . However , there is no proof that they actually applied for a building permit . ORG only dealt with the applicants ' request for planning permission ( územní rozhodnutí ) concerning the construction of a family house which they filed on DATE .

According to the Government , the planning proceedings ( řízení o vydání územního rozhodnutí ) started on DATE but were suspended on CARDINAL DATE when ORG invited the applicants to supplement their request for planning permission . The applicants stated that they received this invitation on DATE .

On DATE ORG decided , upon the applicants ' request of DATE , that CARDINAL of the applicants ' plots of land could be permanently withdrawn from agricultural use . On DATE it delivered a building permit for the construction of a drain connection .

On DATE the applicants modified their planning application .

On DATE they requested the GPE - East District Prosecutor ( okresní procurator ) to supervise the activities of ORG . It was found that they had not received the invitation of ORG of CARDINAL DATE . Upon the prosecutor 's order , the invitation was notified to them on DATE . According to the Government , the applicants did not supplement their request for planning permission as they had been invited to do so by ORG . They only asked for the reimbursement of CZK MONEY ( CARDINAL EUR ) in taxes for the permanent withdrawal from agricultural use which they had been obliged to pay .

Due to the length of the proceedings , the applicants allegedly suffered an important financial prejudice and , therefore , started the construction without a building permit . The Government stated that the applicants ' description of the relevant facts in this part of their application to the ORG was shortened and distorted .

On DATE ORG decided to demolish the applicants ' education centre as it had been built on agricultural land contrary to the existing territorial plans . On DATE the Prague - East District Office ( okresní úřad ) quashed this decision and sent the case back to ORG which , on DATE , again ordered the applicants to demolish their construction . The applicants appealed against this decision . At the same time , they sold the construction because of their difficult financial situation . On DATE the new owners were granted a building permit .

According to the Government , on DATE ORG decided to demolish the applicants ' family house as it had been built without a building permit . On DATE the building permit was granted , ORG having considered that the construction was not contrary to the public interest .

On DATE the GPE - East District Court ( obvodní soud ) stayed the proceedings on the applicants ' action for damages which they had introduced on DATE against the town of ORG . The court stated that the applicants had been invited ( at a hearing of DATE , according to the Government ) to supplement their claim by CARDINAL DATE , but failed to do so .

On DATE the applicants completed their action , the supplementary documents being notified to the court on DATE . On DATE they were informed that the first hearing would be held on DATE and that their completed action would be considered as a new action for damages .

On DATE they were informed that the hearing could not be held because the court file had been sent to ORG ( krajský soud ) which would deal with the applicants ' appeal of DATE against the decision of ORG on DATE . On DATE ORG quashed this decision and remitted the case to ORG which on DATE held a hearing and adjourned it until DATE . The applicants ' lawyer could not attend the hearing which had to be adjourned until DATE .

At a hearing held on DATE the applicants again supplemented their action and requested that GPE , represented by ORG ( PERSON hospodářství ) , to be added to the proceedings as a second defendant .

A hearing held on DATE was adjourned until DATE .

On DATE ORG granted the applicants ' request that GPE represented by ORG be added to the proceedings , and that the amount of damages be increased .

On DATE , DATE , CARDINAL DATE and CARDINAL and DATE , ORG held further hearings .

On DATE the applicants submitted their final pleadings to the court which , on DATE , dismissed their action for damages . Having received the judgment on DATE , the applicants appealed on DATE , substantiating their appeal on DATE and completing it , according to the Government , on DATE .

On DATE the applicants challenged the judge of this court for bias . On DATE the judge admitted that she was biased .

On DATE ORG invited the applicants ' lawyer to specify whether she was still representing her clients and whether the appeal had been filed in the name of both of them or only in the name of the second applicant . She replied on DATE .

On DATE ORG rectified the verdict of its judgment of DATE . It further supplemented it on DATE .

On DATE ORG invited the applicants to specify , within DATE , whether their appeal contained a new point on the merits of their action for damages . The applicants ' lawyer answered on DATE . On DATE the court adjourned the proceedings without fixing the next hearing in order to decide on the extension of the applicants ' action for damages .

On DATE it quashed the judgment of ORG and remitted the case for further consideration . At the same time , it decided to exclude from the proceedings the judge who had dealt with the applicants ' action .

On CARDINAL and CARDINAL DATE respectively , the applicants modified and supplemented their action for damages .

A hearing held on DATE was adjourned until DATE in order to hear witnesses .

On DATE ORG , represented now by ORG ( GPE pro místní rozvoj ) submitted its final pleadings to the court . The applicants submitted theirs on DATE .

On DATE ORG again dismissed the applicants ' action for damages . On DATE the applicants appealed . On DATE they were invited to supplement their appeal within DATE . They substantiated the appeal on DATE .

On DATE , ORG , after a hearing on DATE , again quashed the first instance judgment insofar as it concerned ORG , and sent the case back to ORG . It upheld the remainder of the judgment .

On DATE ORG , after a hearing on DATE , delivered its third judgment by which it again dismissed the applicants ' action , this time directed only against ORG . The judgment was notified to the applicants on DATE .

On DATE ( DATE , according to ORG ) the applicants appealed substantiating their appeal on DATE . On DATE ORG submitted its observations .

On DATE ORG partly quashed the judgment of ORG and remitted the remainder of it to the first instance court .

On DATE ORG , being bound by the opinion of ORG that the applicants had suffered damage because of the erroneous action of a public authority under LAW no . TIME when they had had to pay the tax for the permanent withdrawal of their plot of land from agricultural use , and decided that GPE had to pay them CZK CARDINAL,CARDINAL ( CARDINAL EUR ) with interest for the delays in payment .

On DATE the applicants withdrew their action as to the payment of the interest on the amount of CZK CARDINAL , covering the period from DATE to DATE .

On DATE ORG , on ORG appeal of DATE , upheld ORG judgment of CARDINAL DATE , apart from the interest on the amount of CZK CARDINAL for period from DATE to DATE . ORG judgment became effective on DATE .

On DATE ORG invited the applicants to comment upon the partial withdrawal of their action . On DATE it discontinued the proceedings in this respect .


Christos Rozakis;Dean Spielmann;George Nicolaou;Giorgio Malinverni;Khanlar Hajiyev;Sverre Erik Jebens

The applicants , Mr PERSON and Mr PERSON , are NORP nationals who were born in DATE and DATE respectively and live in DATE . They are represented before the ORG by Mr PERSON , a lawyer practising in Split . ORG ( “ the Government ” ) are represented by their Agent , PERSON .

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

On DATE the applicants brought a civil action against an insurance company in ORG ( PERSON ) , seeking damages in connection with a road accident .

In the period before the entry into force of the LAW in respect of GPE ( DATE ) , a judgment was twice adopted and both times quashed by the appellate court . The case was transferred to ORG ( PERSON u ORG ) .

Further hearings before the court of first instance were held on CARDINAL DATE and DATE , and DATE , DATE , CARDINAL May and DATE , when a fresh judgment was adopted . However , on DATE the judgment was quashed by ORG ( PERSON ) and the case was remitted to the court of first instance .

Hearings were held on DATE and DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE and DATE , when a judgment on the merits was adopted . It was quashed by the appellate court on DATE .

A further hearing was held on DATE .

Meanwhile , on DATE the applicants brought a constitutional complaint about the length of the proceedings . On DATE ORG found a violation of the applicants’ right to a hearing within a reasonable time . It awarded each applicant CARDINAL NORP kunas ( HRK ) in compensation , and also ordered ORG to decide the case in the shortest time possible but DATE after the publication of the decision of ORG in ORG .

On DATE the ORG gave a judgment . On DATE it gave an additional judgment on the part of the claim which had not been addressed in the judgment of CARDINAL DATE .

On DATE the ORG upheld both judgments in parts concerning the main claim , but quashed the part concerning the interest rate and the costs of proceedings and remitted it to the first instance . The proceedings in that respect are still pending .


Violation of Art. 3;No separate issue under Art. 8 or 13;Violation of Art. 14+3;Non-pecuniary damage - financial award;Costs and expenses partial award

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

On DATE TIME the applicant , together with several other individuals , was collecting scrap metal in FAC in GPE .

Suddenly , CARDINAL unidentified men approached the group and attacked the applicant . They beat him all over his body with wooden planks , shouting racial abuse . Another CARDINAL unidentified men , apparently members of the same group , stood close by and kept watch .

Shortly afterwards , following a report by an unknown person about the ongoing fight , a police patrol was sent to the scene . The police interviewed the persons on the spot and went up and down the nearby streets attempting to find the attackers .

An ambulance arrived and took the applicant to a nearby hospital . The doctors concluded that no bones had been broken , provided the applicant with painkillers and sent him home to rest .

During TIME the applicant experienced severe pain and DATE he went to another hospital where he was examined again . It was found that as a result of the assault he had sustained multiple rib fractures , in particular of the ninth , tenth and eleventh left ribs . He was kept in hospital for further treatment and discharged DATE , on DATE .

According to the applicant , since DATE he has been having psychiatric treatment as a result of the incident , he had attended ORG on CARDINAL occasions , and he had been diagnosed with post - traumatic stress disorder characterised by depression , anxiety , panic attacks , fears for his own safety and that of his family , intermittent insomnia and nightmares and , in general , an emotional breakdown .

On DATE the applicant 's lawyer lodged a criminal complaint with ORG Attorney 's Office ( Općinsko državno odvjetništvo u GPE “ the ORG Attorney 's Office ” ) against persons unknown . She gave a factual account of the incident and alleged that the applicant had been seriously injured . The applicant offered his own testimony in evidence and proposed that CARDINAL eyewitnesses be heard . The applicant requested the ORG Attorney 's ORG to investigate the incident , identify the perpetrators and institute criminal proceedings against them .

On DATE the applicant 's lawyer sent a letter to ORG ( FAC uprava Zagrebačka “ the police ” ) in which she informed the police of the incident and requested the information necessary for the institution of criminal proceedings . She repeated her request on DATE .

On DATE the police informed the applicant 's lawyer that the perpetrators had not been identified .

On DATE the applicant 's lawyer wrote to the Minister of the Interior ( ministar unutarnjih poslova ) informing him of the incident and stating that the police had not identified the perpetrators . She requested decisive police action , relying on the relevant domestic and international human rights standards .

On DATE the police interviewed the applicant about the events of the evening of DATE . The applicant described the CARDINAL attackers vaguely , stating that due to his short - sightedness he was not likely to be able to recognise them .

On DATE , the police interviewed PERSON , who had been with the applicant on the date in question . He also described the attackers , stating that he had not seen their faces clearly because he had been hiding from them during the attack .

DATE , the police interviewed PERSON , who lives in the area where the attack had taken place and who had witnessed the incident . He described the attackers , stating that as everything had happened very fast , he had not been able to see them clearly .

On DATE the police interviewed PERSON , another eyewitness to the incident , who gave a similar statement .

NORP In DATE the applicant 's lawyer asked the State Attorney 's Office twice what steps had been taken to identify and prosecute the perpetrators , at the same time complaining that the investigation ws inadequate .

On DATE the ORG Attorney 's ORG informed the applicant 's lawyer that they had urged the police to speed up the investigation .

On DATE the State Attorney 's Office informed the applicant 's lawyer that the police had carried out an on - the - spot investigation immediately after having been informed of the incident , that they had interviewed the applicant and several other witnesses and had searched the area but had not identified any person fitting the description of the perpetrators .

On DATE the applicant 's lawyer informed the State Attorney 's Office that the individuals who had attacked the applicant had apparently been engaged in numerous attacks against GPE persons in GPE in the same period . CARDINAL of the GPE who had been attacked , PERSON and O. D. , had told the applicant 's lawyer that they would be able to identify the perpetrators and that NORP had personally witnessed the attack on the applicant . Furthermore , the police had already identified and apprehended PERSON attackers . The lawyer stressed that all the incidents had been racially motivated , because the attackers had combined physical with racist verbal abuse .

On DATE the State Attorney 's Office informed the applicant 's lawyer that the police had been unsuccessful in finding O. D. and that they had no record of any assault on him .

On DATE O.D. was located and interviewed at ORG State Attorney 's Office .. He stated that he himself had been attacked by a certain PERSON sometime in DATE and that the same person had been CARDINAL of the applicant 's attackers . He remembered PERSON because he had a large scar on his face .

The police subsequently identified PERSON as an alcoholic well known to the local authorities for several criminal offences . However , the police eliminated him as a possible suspect because no other witness had identified him despite his very noticeable scar . Also , according to the information available to the authorities , PERSON did not belong to any skinhead group . Nothing in the police case file indicates that PERSON was summoned for questioning regarding the incident .

Meanwhile , on DATE the applicant 's lawyer wrote again to the State Attorney 's Office stating that ORG ( ORG ) had broadcast a report on DATE in which a young skinhead had been interviewed about his reasons for engaging in attacks on the GPE population in GPE . She claimed that the person interviewed had alluded to the incident of DATE involving the applicant .

The State Attorney 's ORG requested the editor of ORG to give them the necessary information in order to identify the person interviewed .

On DATE the police interviewed the journalist who did the interview . The journalist stated that the skinhead he had interviewed had talked generally about his hatred of the GPE population , but that he had not specifically addressed the incident at issue . The interviewee lived in the part of town where the attack took place and had described how annoying he found it when GPE came to his neighbourhood to collect scrap metal . However , the journalist did not wish to disclose the name of the person interviewed , relying on his right to protect the source of his information .

Meanwhile , on DATE the applicant 's lawyer complained again to the ORG Attorney 's ORG and to the Minister of the ORG of the poor quality and unacceptable duration of the investigation . She requested an update and complained that there appeared to be no real effort on the part of the relevant authorities to identify and apprehend the perpetrators . She also gave the prosecuting authorities some new information , namely that the persons who had attacked the applicant belonged to a skinhead group whose members were responsible for numerous attacks on the GPE population in GPE . She further described several recent attacks on the GPE population by skinheads and listed names and addresses of both victims of and witnesses to such attacks .

On DATE ORG informed the applicant 's lawyer that the police had taken appropriate action on receipt of all the information provided by her .

On DATE the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint with ORG , requesting it to order the ORG Attorney 's ORG to take all necessary action to complete the investigation as soon as possible and within DATE at the latest .

On DATE the Constitutional Court informed the applicant 's lawyer that it had no competence to rule on cases involving prosecutorial inaction during the pre - trial stage of proceedings and took no formal decision on the complaint .

The proceedings are still pending at the pre - trial stage .

Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW ( Zakon o medijima , ORG no . CARDINAL of DATE ) provides that its provisions shall be applied and interpreted in conformity with the Convention .

The relevant part of LAW ( which used to exist in the NORP legal system as former section PERSON ) of the DATE LAW ( Official Gazette no . CARDINAL of DATE ) ) , reads as follows :

“ CARDINAL . A journalist shall not be obliged to reveal the source of published information or information he intends to publish ...

The State Attorney 's ORG may , if such a limitation is necessary in the interests of national security , territorial integrity or the protection of health , submit a request to the competent court to have a journalist ordered to reveal the source of published information or information he intends to publish ....

The court may order a journalist to reveal the source of published information or information he intends to publish if that is necessary for the protection of the public interest and involves extremely significant and serious circumstances , whereby it is indisputably established :

( i ) there is no reasonable alternative to revealing the source of information or that the authority indicated in paragraph CARDINAL of this section , which seeks that the source be revealed , has already taken such a measure , and

( ii ) the law - based public - interest justification for revealing the source of information clearly prevails over the public - interest justification for protecting the source of information . ”


C.E.M. FIREARMS LIMITED AND BRADFORD SHOOTING CENTRE AND 11 OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

A.

The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows . The applicants are engaged in the business of operating commercial shooting centres . A list of applicants is annexed to the present decision . They are represented before the ORG by PERSON , ORG , GPE .

In the case of application no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , the applicant company ( C.E.M. Firearms Limited ) was established DATE . The shares are held in equal proportions by a married couple and their son , all of whom are actively involved in running the business .

On DATE the applicant company leased land from ORG on a CARDINAL lease . The current rent for the land is £ CARDINAL,CARDINAL per annum , with rent reviews DATE . Under the terms of the lease , the land can be used only as a shooting range and for associated retailing . The land is in an area designated under planning legislation as CARDINAL in which there is a presumption in favour of planning permission for sporting activities . Since the land was acquired by the company , it has installed a CARDINAL-metre shooting range with CARDINAL lanes for handgun shooting , a club room with a pool table and television , a retail shop selling predominantly handguns and accessories , a workshop for processing ammunition ( PERCENT of which was handgun ammunition ) , a secure storage area for firearms and office , kitchen and toilet facilities .

The applicant is unable to pursue the predominant part of its business activities following the prohibition of handguns imposed by the DATE LAW legislation : LAW DATE and LAW No . CARDINAL ) Act DATE ( “ LAW ; see below ) . ORG membership fell from CARDINAL to CARDINAL , and turnover was reduced by PERCENT . The value of the assets of the business has fallen substantially . Prior to the ban on handguns , the applicant estimates the value of the LOC to have been £ MONEY . The LOC were subsequently offered for sale at £ MONEY , and alternatively for rent or redevelopment . The applicant company ceased trading as a going concern on DATE and the payment of salaries to directors and staff ceased on DATE . The applicant has been unable to sell or otherwise dispose of its LOC .

The applicants in application no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL rely on the application of C.E.M. Firearms Limited and , with the exception of GPE ORG ( “ GPE LOC ” ) , have made no submissions of fact in relation to their claims . GPE LOC states that it invested CARDINAL in its LOC , as follows : acquisition cost of indoor range : £ CARDINAL ; fitting out of PERSON lounge : £ MONEY ; building costs , architects’ fees and costs of planning permission and other costs in connection with the conversion of the building to a shooting range : £ MONEY . It states that its DATE income was £ MONEY ( subscription fees from CARDINAL members of £ MONEY , and sales revenue from its bar and shop of £ MONEY ) . No profit or loss figures are provided . In DATE , the sales achieved by FAC were PERCENT lower than DATE level , and continued to drop during DATE . The business closed in DATE . FAC received £ MONEY compensation in respect of the fixtures and fittings from its ORG lounge , and sold its LOC for £ MONEY .

The consequences of LAW are that the applicants are unable to derive handgun - related income from their businesses , and that the value of the goodwill and assets of those businesses has depreciated . The applicants have received no compensation for the reduction in value of their goodwill .

By DATE , MONEY had been paid to CARDINAL dealers under the compensation schemes , of a total of MONEY which had been paid to individuals , dealers and others . The ORG estimated the total costs which would be involved in paying compensation under the schemes to be MONEY .

B. Domestic law and practice

The Firearms Act DATE has been periodically amended since it was passed , and forms the basis of the current system of the control of firearms in GPE . LAW of DATE prohibits the possession , purchase , acquisition , manufacture , sale or transfer of the firearms there specified . LAW DATE ( “ LAW ” ) added large - calibre handguns to the class of prohibited firearms in section CARDINAL of the DATE Act .

Section CARDINAL of the Act of DATE , as amended by LAW , provided :

“ ( CARDINAL ) A person commits an offence if , without the authority of ORG , he has in his possession , or purchases or acquires , or manufactures , sells or transfers -

( aba ) any firearm which has a barrel length of QUANTITY in length or is QUANTITY in length overall , other than an air weapon , a small - calibre pistol , a muzzle - loading gun or a firearm designed as signalling apparatus . ”

The Firearms ( Amendment ) ( No . CARDINAL ) Act DATE ( “ LAW ” ; together with LAW , “ the CARDINAL Amendment Acts ” ) extended the scope of the prohibition in section CARDINAL to small - calibre pistols by declaring ( in section CARDINAL ) that the words “ a small - calibre pistol ” in section CARDINAL ) of LAW as amended by LAW should cease to have effect .

LAW provides as follows , so far as material :

“ CARDINAL Surrender of prohibited small firearms and munitions

( CARDINAL ) The Secretary of ORG may make such arrangements as he thinks fit to secure the orderly surrender at designated police stations of firearms or ammunition the possession of which will become or has become unlawful by virtue of CARDINAL or CARDINAL above .

CARDINAL Payments in respect of prohibited small firearms and ammunition

( CARDINAL ) The Secretary of ORG shall , in accordance with a scheme made by him , make payments in respect of firearms and ammunition surrendered at designated police stations in accordance with the arrangements made by him under section CARDINAL above .

( CARDINAL ) A scheme under subsection ( CARDINAL ) above shall provide only for the making of payments to persons making claims for such payments in respect of firearms or ammunition -

( a ) which they had , and were entitled to have in their possession on or immediately before DATE by virtue of firearms certificates held by them or by virtue of their being registered firearms dealers ; or

( b ) which on or before that date they had contracted to acquire and were entitled to have in their possession after that date by virtue of such certificates held by them or by virtue of their being registered firearms dealers ,

and their possession of which will become , or has become , unlawful by virtue of section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) or CARDINAL above .

CARDINAL Payments in respect of ancillary equipment

( CARDINAL ) The Secretary of ORG shall , in accordance with any scheme which may be made by him , make payments in respect of ancillary equipment of any description specified in the scheme .

( CARDINAL ) For the purposes of subsection ( CARDINAL ) above , ‘ ancillary equipment’ means equipment , other than prohibited ammunition , which-

( a ) is designed or adapted for use in connection with firearms prohibited by virtue of section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) above ; and

( b ) has no practicable use in connection with any firearm which is not a prohibited weapon .

( CARDINAL ) A scheme under subsection ( CARDINAL ) above shall provide only for the making of payments to persons making claims for such payments in respect of ancillary equipment-

( a ) which they had in their possession on DATE ; or

( b ) which they had in their possession after DATE , having purchased it by virtue of a contract entered into before that date .

CARDINAL Parliamentary control of compensation schemes

( CARDINAL ) Before making a compensation scheme the Secretary of ORG shall lay a draft of it before ORG .

( CARDINAL ) The Secretary of ORG shall not make the scheme unless the draft has been approved by resolution of each ORG .

( CARDINAL ) This section applies to any alteration to the scheme as it applies to a compensation scheme .

( CARDINAL ) In this section ‘ compensation scheme’ means a scheme under LAW ... above . ”

The Firearms ( Amendment ) Act CARDINAL Compensation Scheme ( “ the First Scheme ” ) was laid in draft before ORG and approved by resolution of both ORG . It was made on DATE . The First Scheme provided compensation for the large - calibre handguns themselves , for prohibited expanding ammunition and for certain ancillary equipment . There were CARDINAL options for claiming compensation : Option A , a flat rate payment for individual items , Option B , a payment for an individual item at the price in the list of values annexed to the First Scheme and Option C , a payment based on the market value of an individual item at or immediately before DATE ( the date of the announcement by the Government of their response to , and legislative intention following , ORG ) .

Under Option A , a payment of £ MONEY could be claimed for each large - calibre handgun . Under Option B , a payment could be claimed which was based on average retail values on DATE , reduced by PERCENT to reflect normal depreciation in value . Under Option C , dealers were entitled to claim the “ full market value ” of the large - calibre handguns and ancillary equipment which they held in stock . The full market value was to be calculated on the basis of the cost to the dealer of the item plus PERCENT .

By section CARDINAL of LAW , the provisions of sections CARDINAL of LAW were applied to small - calibre pistols . LAW ) ( No . CARDINAL ) Act CARDINAL Compensation Scheme ( “ the Second Scheme ” ) was made in DATE , after having been laid in draft before both ORG and approved by resolution of each ORG . The Second Scheme applied in relation to small - calibre pistols held on or immediately before DATE . The date for the calculation of full market value for the purposes of Option C remained DATE . The Second Scheme made provision for compensation in respect of small - calibre pistols , on materially the same terms as provided for in the First Scheme in respect of large - calibre handguns .


The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a NORP national , who was born in DATE and lives in FAC . He was represented before the ORG by Mr PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE . The respondent Government were represented by their Agent , PERSON , succeeded by PERSON P. ORG in that function .

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

In a judgment delivered on CARDINAL DATE the Bratislava CARDINAL ORG dissolved the marriage of the applicant and his wife . The court took note of the former spouses’ agreement under which their CARDINAL children would be placed in the mother ’s custody and that the applicant had undertaken to contribute to their maintenance .

On DATE the applicant claimed before the Bratislava CARDINAL ORG that he had not fathered CARDINAL children to whom his former wife had given birth in DATE and in DATE respectively . He argued that he had neither lived with his former wife nor had he had sexual intercourse with her at the relevant time . He gave the particulars of a person with whom his former wife had lived since DATE and whom he considered to be the natural father of the children .

In her observations the applicant ’s former wife proposed that the claim be dismissed . She admitted , however , that the applicant was not the natural father of CARDINAL of the children .

ORG dismissed the applicant ’s claim on DATE . It found that the applicant had failed to submit it within DATE after he had learned about the children ’s birth as required by Section ORG ) of LAW . The judgment stated that the applicant could request ORG to file an action with a view to having his paternity disproved pursuant to ORG ) of LAW .

The applicant filed such a request on DATE . He alleged that another person with whom his former wife had lived at the relevant time had admitted that he had fathered the CARDINAL children . The applicant explained that he had failed to respect the time - limit laid down in Section ORG ) of LAW as , at the relevant time , he had not been informed about that provision and that he had been in a difficult material and psychological situation .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s request . The letter stated that it had not been reliably shown that the applicant was not the natural father of the children . Such proof could only be obtained by a blood test . However , the applicant ’s former wife was opposed to such a test , and public prosecutors had no power to order that she and the children should undergo it . The letter concluded that , in view of the above and given the lack of general interest in having the issue determined , there was no reason for proceeding pursuant to LAW ) of LAW .

On DATE the applicant challenged ORG conclusion before ORG . He pointed out that his former wife had explicitly admitted that the applicant might not have fathered CARDINAL of the children and argued that it was in the general interest to have the issue determined .

On DATE a public prosecutor of ORG informed the applicant that his former wife was still opposed to a blood test , and that it was therefore not possible to obtain reliable proof indicating that the applicant was not the natural father of the children . The public prosecutor concluded that no further action could be taken on the applicant ’s request .

On DATE the applicant asked ORG to order an expert opinion in the context of which the hair and nails of the persons concerned should be analysed and their physiognomy compared .

On DATE ORG replied to the applicant that he was free to obtain such an expert opinion of his own initiative . The applicant was further informed that he could file a new request for proceedings to be brought pursuant to LAW ) of LAW in the event that he obtained reliable proof that he was not the natural father of the children .

On DATE the applicant claimed that the maintenance which he had to pay in respect of the children born to his former wife be reduced .

On DATE the Bratislava CARDINAL ORG transferred the case to the GPE CARDINAL ORG for reasons of jurisdiction .

On DATE the Bratislava CARDINAL ORG heard the parties . On DATE the case was adjourned . As the applicant ’s former wife was detained on remand , ORG again adjourned the case on DATE .

On DATE the Bratislava CARDINAL ORG dismissed the action .

On DATE the applicant appealed . Subsequently the applicant ’s former wife filed a counter - claim , on behalf of the children , with a view to having the maintenance payable by the applicant increased . ORG submitted the claim to the applicant for comments , apparently in the context of the same proceedings .

On DATE ORG upheld ORG decision to dismiss the applicant ’s claim .

A hearing concerning the applicant ’s former wife ’s claim for the maintenance to be increased was held before the Bratislava CARDINAL ORG on DATE . The applicant informed the court that he could not appear for financial reasons . The Bratislava CARDINAL ORG therefore asked ORG to hear the applicant . The latter court returned the file to ORG on DATE .

On DATE the Bratislava CARDINAL ORG increased the maintenance due by the applicant . The applicant appealed .

ORG dismissed the applicant ’s appeal on DATE .

Pursuant to Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW , the husband of a woman who gives birth to a child during the marriage or not DATE after its dissolution shall be considered the child ’s father .

Section ORG ) provides that a husband can deny paternity before a court within DATE after learning that his wife gave birth to a child .

Under LAW ) , when the time - limit for denying paternity has expired , ORG may file an action to disprove paternity provided that the determination of the issue is justified by the interests of society .

According to the practice of the public prosecutors , an action under LAW ) of LAW can only be filed when reliable proofs exist that the mother ’s husband did not father the child .


The applicants , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON Pourmola PERSON and ORG , are all NORP citizens , apart from ORG , who is an NORP citizen . They all reside in GPE except for PERSON , who lives in GPE . They were represented before the ORG by Mr PERSON , Mr PERSON and ORG , lawyers practising in GPE .

NORP The application concerns the alleged torture and killing of CARDINAL NORP men from the village of NORP in the GPE province of northwest GPE by NORP soldiers on DATE . The victims of the alleged incident on DATE were PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON and PERSON .

The applicants are , variously , brothers or fathers of the deceased , save for PERSON , who claims to be a witness to the events and a friend of the victims .

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

On DATE , a holiday in GPE , the CARDINAL men referred to above and the applicant PERSON , all from GPE of Razgeh , went on horseback into the mountains near their village ( towards the NORP valley ) to collect wild vegetables and fruit , such as mushrooms and rhubarb .

When they reached the top of NORP , which was QUANTITY from the NORP border , they heard the sound of helicopters . CARDINAL fighter helicopters circled overhead a few times and opened fire on the men . PERSON horse was killed by a rocket fired from the helicopters . The helicopters landed and the villagers were surrounded by CARDINAL NORP soldiers . CARDINAL of the villagers hid together under a rock , except PERSON , who hid QUANTITY away from the others and covered himself with vegetation and snow .

The NORP soldiers captured the QUANTITY men on the NORP side of the border but did not find PERSON . The alleged facts are accordingly based on the latter 's eyewitness evidence .

The CARDINAL men were handcuffed and taken by force across the border , QUANTITY into NORP territory , in the region of the village of GPE . They were beaten and cut with knives . The soldiers then made them lie down on the ground and shot them dead with machine guns . According to PERSON , the NORP soldiers had forced the men to put on NORP costumes and placed guns beside them so that they could claim to have killed some terrorists .

PERSON stayed in his hiding place from TIME or TIME until TIME , by which time it had turned dark . He emerged from the hiding place and looked around to see if anybody was alive . He then ran back to the village of Razgeh . He informed the relatives of the CARDINAL men about the incident . The relatives of the victims and PERSON went into the mountains to recover the corpses . The NORP authorities , who were informed of the deaths , granted permission for burial . The funerals took place on DATE .

The applicant PERSON stated that he had become anxious when the men had not returned by TIME CARDINAL DATE . Later , they heard that the NORP soldiers had captured some NORP . It took people from DATE to find the bodies and to bring them back to the village . He claimed that his son PERSON had CARDINAL bullet wounds and that his elder son PERSON had received CARDINAL . Further , PERSON 's fingers had been cut . He also alleged that PERSON hands and legs had been broken in several places and his legs cut to pieces .

DATE after the burial of the bodies , NORP government officials came to the village . The applicant PERSON accompanied the officials to the place where the incident had taken place . He reported the incident to the officials .

PERSON stated that the NORP Deputy Minister of the ORG visited the village after the incident . ORG then contacted ORG for an explanation about the events . ORG admitted their responsibility in relation to the incident and expressed their apologies for it .

Meanwhile , PERSON , a pro - NORP newspaper published in GPE , and PERSON , an NORP regional newspaper , reported the incident in their editions of DATE May and CARDINAL DATE respectively . According to PERSON , ORG of GPE summoned the NORP Ambassador to make an official protest about the incident and the violation of border agreements between the QUANTITY countries . The Ambassador was reportedly asked to inform ORG of the protest and to inform ORG of the outcome .

NORP The families of the CARDINAL men filed complaints with the NORP authorities . However , they were not informed of any action taken by the latter . A request by the families to obtain a copy of autopsy reports was refused by the NORP authorities . The families took the matter up with their parliamentary representatives .

On DATE Mr PERSON , an MP for the NORP province , and Mr PERSON , an MP for the Sanandaj province , wrote to the President of GPE , PERSON , requesting that the incident be investigated and followed up through appropriate international channels . They further requested ORG and ORG to investigate the incident and to send a delegation to the region .

NORP The applicant PERSON claimed that since the incident , he had been seriously affected and had attempted to commit suicide on several occasions . As the applicants and the families of the deceased were not informed of any action taken by the NORP authorities , the first applicant , PERSON , contacted ORG in GPE with a view to obtaining information about the outcome of the investigation by the NORP authorities . However , no response was received .

The applicants ' legal representative also wrote to ORG in GPE on DATE . No response was received to that letter either .

As no response was forthcoming from the NORP authorities , on DATE the applicants ' legal representative wrote to various NORP authorities requesting an investigation into the incident and the institution of criminal proceedings against the perpetrators of the crime . In particular , he brought the alleged events to the attention of the following authorities :

The applicants received no response to their petitions and alleged that the NORP authorities had failed to carry out an effective and adequate investigation into their complaints .

Subsequent to the impugned events , ORG made several attempts to offer compensation to the applicants through the NORP authorities . The authorities of ORG placed the applicants under considerable pressure to accept the compensation , including threats of violence and daily visits from the NORP authorities . ORG also imprisoned the eighth applicant on CARDINAL separate occasions , in an attempt to silence him and prevent him from telling the truth about the incident . Mr PERSON PERSON , the brother of the deceased victims PERSON and PERSON , was harassed by ORG for taking steps to pursue the investigation into their deaths and was forced to flee the country and take refuge in GPE .

Prior to the alleged events in question , the authorities were informed that a terrorist group would be entering GPE with arms and equipment . Accordingly , the authorities planned a series of operations in order to prevent the entry of this terrorist group into NORP territory .

On DATE operations started in the area between ORG and the NORP - Turkish border .

On DATE , at TIME , the security forces received information to the effect that an armed group , accompanied by animals and mules loaded with arms and equipment , had entered GPE at a location QUANTITY away from border stone no . CARDINAL in the GPE area .

Given that the location in question was usually used by terrorists making their entry into GPE in violation of border regulations , the security forces , which were carrying out a search operation in LOC at the relevant time , arrived at the scene by helicopter . Thereupon , the members of the suspicious group began to run away in various directions and did not stop despite warning shots from the helicopters . Considering that the land could have been mined and that the terrain was rough , the helicopters did not land but opened fire in order to prevent suspects from fleeing .

DATE , after taking the necessary security measures , the security forces carried out a search at the scene of the incident . They found thirtytwo dead mules , CARDINAL ORG rifle with CARDINAL cartridge clip and CARDINAL cartridges , CARDINAL binoculars , QUANTITY , CARDINAL sleeping bag , a large quantity of sugar and flour , cassettes and CARDINAL sheep and goats . Although no corpses were found at the scene of the incident , the security forces noticed that there were traces of blood leading in the direction of the NORP border . Therefore , they concluded that some of the terrorists had either been wounded or their corpses had been carried away by others .

On DATE the NORP Ambassador to GPE was summoned to ORG to provide information on the killing of CARDINAL NORP men on DATE while they were engaged in cross - border trade . From this the NORP authorities understood that the QUANTITY persons of NORP origin had been killed during the operation in question . However , there was no allegation by the NORP authorities that the NORP security forces had violated NORP borders . Contrary to the applicants ' allegations , no cross - border operation had taken place and the security forces had not arrested or detained anybody in the course of the events .

Subsequent to the events of CARDINAL DATE , the NORP and NORP authorities held a number of meetings . In order to maintain good relations between GPE , ORG agreed to pay the amount of compensation claimed by the NORP authorities , but stated that such payment should not be treated as an admission of the ill - treatment allegations .

On DATE the applicant 's representative in GPE , Mr PERSON , filed a petition with the ORG 's office asking for information about the state of the investigation into the killing by the NORP army forces of the applicants ' relatives .

In a letter of DATE , addressed to Mr PERSON , the ORG public prosecutor , Mr PERSON , stated that the LOC Governor 's office had declined to grant leave to bring a prosecution under PERSON no . DATE . He gave the information that this decision not to prosecute could be challenged before ORG and that ORG office could proceed with prosecution should the administrative court set aside the GPE decision .

NORP This letter was served on the applicants , save for PERSON , by ORG in GPE in GPE . The applicants affixed their fingerprints to a document stating that they had received the letter of DATE pertaining to the public prosecutor 's decision not to prosecute .

On CARDINAL DATE ORG transferred MONEY ( ORG ) to the Ambassador of GPE to be paid to the relatives of the deceased . This amount was received by the NORP authorities acting as the representatives of the applicants at the latter 's request . The parties signed a protocol which stated :

“ The parties were unable to carry out a joint investigation to identify the perpetrators of the killing of CARDINAL citizens of GPE on DATE nearby border stone no . CARDINAL at the NORP - NORP border . In order to alleviate the grief of the families of the NORP citizens who lost their lives at the common border , GPE agreed to pay in final settlement CARDINAL to each family of the deceased , and in total CARDINAL . GPE received the amounts to be paid for delivery to the said families and considered the issue settled in all respects .

This agreement will not serve as a precedent for any other border incident .

On DATE , CARDINAL was delivered to Ambassador PERSON at a meeting in GPE ... ”

Meanwhile , the NORP authorities exchanged a number of letters with the families of the deceased regarding the payment of compensation by ORG . In a letter from ORG to Mr PERSON , who was in charge of judicial and parliamentary affairs , it was noted that the NORP authorities had paid compensation for the killing of CARDINAL NORP citizens . However , it was pointed out that the deceased had been regarded as criminals under the laws of GPE given that they had been involved in trafficking .

In a letter from the Deputy Minister and Head of Security to ORG it was stated that full payment of the compensation in question to the families of the deceased would encourage law - breaking and lead border inhabitants to commit the offences of trespassing and trafficking . It was therefore decided to pay a maximum amount of CARDINAL tomans ( USD MONEY ) to each family in order to prevent the recurrence of similar crimes in future . A representative of the Governorate of ORG visited the families of the victims to deliver those amounts . However , the families refused to take the money and told the representative that they had instructed a NORP lawyer , PERSON , to take the matter to ORG .

The Criminal Code in force at the material time made it a criminal offence

( a ) to deprive an individual unlawfully of his or her liberty ( LAW generally , LAW servants ) ;

( b ) to subject an individual to torture or ill - treatment ( Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL ) ; and

( c ) to commit unintentional homicide ( Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL ) , intentional homicide ( Article CARDINAL ) or murder ( Article CARDINAL ) .

Under LAW of LAW , taken in conjunction with Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL , a prosecution for an offence of ill - treatment or torture by a public official must be brought within DATE .

If the suspected authors of these criminal acts were military personnel , they could also be prosecuted for the above - mentioned crimes . Proceedings in these circumstances could be initiated by the persons concerned ( nonmilitary ) before the competent authority under LAW or before the suspected persons ' hierarchical superior ( sections CARDINAL and CARDINAL of Law no . CARDINAL on the LAW and Procedure of Military Courts ) .

Article CARDINAL of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides that a complainant may appeal against the decision of a public prosecutor not to institute criminal proceedings . The appeal must be lodged , within DATE from the date of notification of the decision to the complainant , with the president of the assize court within whose territorial jurisdiction the public prosecutor 's activities fall .

Section CARDINAL of LAW ( Law no . CARDINAL ) provides that notification which was not served in accordance with the law may be deemed valid if the person concerned learns of its existence . The date of notification is the date on which that person claims to have learned about it .

By CARDINAL ( a ) of LAW , only NORP citizens are authorised to practise as lawyers in GPE .


CASE OF KAMILOVA v. "THE FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA"

Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial

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

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in PERSON .

On an unspecified date in DATE , the applicant brought a civil action against Mr NORP ( “ the debtor ” ) claiming restoration of the outstanding debt related to a loan that she had given to him in DATE .

On DATE they reached a court settlement ( судско порамнување , “ the court settlement ” ) under which the debtor was required to pay the outstanding debt in equal DATE instalments .

On DATE ORG ( “ the first- instance court ” ) granted the applicant 's request of DATE ordering enforcement of the court settlement , less DM CARDINAL which the debtor had meanwhile paid . The applicant proposed an inventory , valuation and public sale of movable and immovable property of the debtor . On CARDINAL DATE she further specified her request as concerning a house and plot of land ( “ the property ” ) . In this connection , she submitted an extract from the land registry ( “ the registry ” ) dated DATE attesting the debtor 's title to the property . She also requested the first - instance court to record a charging order over the property ( да стави прибелешка врз имотот на должникот ) so as to secure her claim .

On DATE the first - instance court ordered valuation of the property . It was carried out on DATE . The first - instance court 's decision in this respect dated DATE . It was served on the debtor on DATE .

DATE and DATE , the first - instance court ordered CARDINAL adjournments because of the debtor 's absence .

By submissions of DATE and DATE respectively , the applicant informed the first - instance court that the debtor had transferred the property to his father 's possession on the basis of a court decision of DATE . She requested the first - instance court to continue with the enforcement since the debtor had regained possession of the property after his father died .

No further actions were taken for enforcement of the applicant 's claim .

LAW ( “ LAW ” ) of DATE ( ORG за извршување ) provides that bailiffs ( извршители ) carry out the enforcement .

Section CARDINAL of the LAW provides that the enforcement proceedings instituted before the LAW entered into force are to continue , until DATE , under LAW of DATE . Thereafter , the DATE Act applies .