Preliminary objections allowed (Article 35-1 - Six month period);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time);Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed;Non-pecuniary damage - award

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in LOC .

On DATE and DATE a ORG ( Specialna enota ) , which was under the direct control of ORG ( “ the ORG ” ) in cooperation with officers from the ORG ( Uprava za notranje zadeve – hereinafter referred as the “ Slovenj Gradec Police ” ) undertook a large - scale operation against the activities of a criminal organisation presumed to be operating on the territory of the town of LOC .

On DATE the officers twice entered a coffee bar in FAC , called “ FAC ” , searching for members of the above - mentioned criminal organisation . In parallel to the investigation of FAC , the police carried out an extensive operation in the town and its surroundings .

On DATE at TIME the applicant , driving a car , was arrested in LOC by officers of ORG and ORG . He was brought to ORG for having allegedly failed to comply with the police orders . He was questioned by the police and released on DATE at TIME .

There are CARDINAL conflicting versions of what occurred during the police procedure and the transport to the police station .

According to his submissions before the ORG and the statements he gave in the relevant domestic proceedings , the applicant was driving through the centre of LOC on TIME of DATE when CARDINAL cars overtook him and forced him to stop . CARDINAL armed officers , wearing black jackets , arrived at the scene , some of whom approached the applicant . They were shouting and the applicant , still sitting in the car but attempting to step out , put his hands up . At that moment , the officers dragged him out of the car . They pushed him to the ground , tied him up , took off his shoes , dragged him by his legs QUANTITY along the road into a dark area where they beat and kicked him for TIME . After someone had said “ he ’s had enough , he ’s had enough ” , the applicant was placed in an off - road vehicle and taken to the police station . On the way there , a journey which lasted TIME , CARDINAL officers , sitting in the front of the car , threatened to kill him and CARDINAL of them electro - prodded him several times with a stun gun . At the police station , he was put in the room for provisional detention ( prostor za pridržanje ) where CARDINAL of the officers untied him at his request . The applicant was questioned and told that he had failed to comply with the police order to stop his vehicle . He was then released .

In the meantime , the police also searched the applicant ’s car .

About thirty people were arrested and injured during the DATE operation .

According to the version of events given by the Government , the police noticed a car moving at high speed . Since the conduct of the driver looked suspicious , the police decided to stop the car , to identify the driver and to perform a preventative search . For this reason , they drove after the car . The driver accelerated , prompting the police to force him to stop .

When the driver , who was later identified as the applicant , stopped the car , an unspecified number of ORG officers confronted him and informed him that this was a police procedure . The applicant jumped towards CARDINAL of the officers and attempted to hit him . The officer managed to block his blow and then with the other officers forced the applicant to lean against his car in order to search him . The applicant struggled free and escaped .

When the officers caught him , the applicant again tried to resist and they responded by using truncheons and gripped his elbow to handcuff him , knocking him down in the process . Since the applicant continued to resist , the officers tied his wrists with a plastic cord . They subsequently took him to the police station on suspicion of committing the criminal offence of “ obstructing an official in the course of his duties ” ( preprečitev uradnega dejanja uradni osebi ) . The applicant was released after questioning .

The officers were authorised to use force on the basis of section CARDINAL of LAW . During the operation , they wore vests with the visible sign “ Police ” ( “ GPE ” ) . In their later submissions , they stated that CARDINAL officers had used force against the applicant .

During the police procedure , the applicant did not request medical aid and the police only afterwards learned that he had sustained injuries . In addition , he did not complain about the conduct of the officers during the procedure .

The judgment of CARDINAL DATE issued in the proceedings instituted against the applicant ( see paragraph CARDINAL ) , established that CARDINAL officers of ORG , PERSON , PERSON and PERSON , who were in the car which stopped the applicant , received information about the location of a “ white Golf ” , believed to be being driven by the applicant , and an order to stop it .

Officer PERSON testified in the criminal investigation instituted against the applicant , that they had received information that the “ white Golf ” had left “ the place ” , which meant that it had left PERSON . He was not able to comment on the speed of the applicant ’s car . In addition , he stated that by the time a minute had gone by after the applicant was stopped , there were already CARDINAL vehicles of ORG and ORG at the scene and that CARDINAL officers arrived in each vehicle .

Officer PERSON stated in the same criminal investigation :

“ We had information about individuals who were suspected members of that [ criminal ] organisation , and CARDINAL of them was PERSON , whom I did not know since I am from GPE , but I knew him from photographs . ( ... ) We were on one of the streets of FAC when we received information that the car of PERSON had been seen and that our colleagues had tried to stop him , but he would not stop despite warnings . ”

Officer PERSON explained in his testimony in the above mentioned criminal investigation :

“ At the critical time , we were conducting , in the territory of ORG , an operation to investigate organised crime . ( ... ) In front of FAC , a group of people was noticed which included GPE and PERSON . CARDINAL of the police patrols noticed that PERSON left with the motorcycle and they also saw when PERSON drove away . In fact , everything happened very quickly ( ... ) . We placed vehicles at different locations ( ... ) . Our official vehicle , which I was driving , received a message that a white Golf was being driven by a person believed to be PERSON ( ... ) . We decided to stop him in order to search the car since there was a suspicion that he was armed . ”

Another officer from ORG , ORG , who had arrived at the scene with the officers of ORG and was also questioned in the criminal investigation , stated that there were CARDINAL officers of ORG at the scene , and that CARDINAL of them had had direct contact with the applicant .

On DATE , soon after his release , the applicant was admitted to ORG where he stayed until TIME The medical report , written by a doctor in that hospital , stated that the applicant had bruises on his head , but did not include any details of the injuries . The applicant was advised to rest for DATE .

DATE , DATE , the applicant sought medical aid in ORG . There , he also explained to a doctor that on CARDINAL DATE he had been beaten by unknown armed persons . The medical report of DATE indicates several lesions , including :

- bruises on the right eye and a small amount of suffusion in the surrounding area ;

- a haematoma on the left side of the forehead

- a painful nose ;

- a QUANTITY by QUANTITY haematoma on the left shoulder ;

- CARDINAL - CARDINAL cm linear skin abrasions on the left side of the thorax ;

- a child’s - hand - sized moderate oedema behind the right ear ;

- an extensive haematoma on the left thigh .

The doctors had also suspected a fracture of the right temporal bone . The report of an x - ray examination on DATE indicated that there was a hairline fracture ( fissura ) .

On DATE the applicant went to the ORG Police and made an oral complaint against the officers of the Special Unit concerning the events of DATE . A written statement was prepared by the officer in charge and signed by the applicant .

In his statement , the applicant alleged that CARDINAL to CARDINAL officers had dragged him to the metallic fence of the construction site behind ORG where they had beaten him , shouted at him and threatened to kill him . He further stated that while being driven to the police station he had been beaten again , and given electric shocks with the special truncheons . He had not known where the police were driving since his head was pointing downwards the whole way . He also described the injuries he had sustained during the police procedure .

On CARDINAL DATE the applicant lodged , through his lawyer , a written criminal complaint ( kazenska ovadba ) with ORG against unidentified police officers for causing minor bodily harm ( lahka telesna poškodba ) and an unlawful deprivation of liberty ( protipraven odvzem prostosti ) . The complaint mentions the names of CARDINAL officers , PERSON and PERSON , who were present at the scene but not involved in the alleged ill - treatment . The applicant proposed that the names of the officers who had allegedly ill - treated him be obtained from those officers and that criminal proceedings be introduced .

On DATE the FAC District Public Prosecutor ’s Office ( NORP državno tožilstvo ) asked the applicant ’s lawyer to add his client ’s deposition to the file , which he did on DATE . On DATE and DATE the applicant ’s lawyer sought information from ORG about the state of progress in the proceedings .

In the meantime , on DATE , the Slovenj Gradec District Public Prosecutor ( the “ Public Prosecutor ” ) requested the Slovenj Gradec Police to identify the officers who had participated in the procedure against the applicant and to conduct an interview with them . Subsequently , CARDINAL reports concerning the relevant police operation were submitted to ORG : CARDINAL by the ORG on DATE and CARDINAL by ORG Police on DATE . They are each approximately one page and a CARDINAL long and their content corresponds to the facts as submitted by the Government .

It transpires from the ORG ’s report that , on DATE , the ORG had appointed a “ working group ” ( delovna skupina ) consisting of officers from ORG and the ORG to assess the lawfulness of the procedures carried out by ORG and ORG . ORG has not received any documents produced or obtained by this working group , except the above - mentioned ORG report . The latter , which under the “ subject ” ( zadeva ) refers solely to the criminal offence allegedly committed by the applicant , reads as follows :

“ Further to the analysis of procedures and activities which had taken place on CARDINAL and DATE , the working group established that all the measures and procedures were lawful and in accordance with legal powers and professional rules .

The procedure against PERSON was carried out by criminal investigators PERSON , PERSON , M.F , ORG , ORG and officers of the ORG ’s ORG , who were headed by PERSON ( ... ) .

On DATE , at CARDINAL , PERSON actively resisted the lawful procedure against him with the intention of preventing criminal police investigators from performing their official duties . Since their official duty could not be carried out otherwise , physical force and handcuffs were used against PERSON in accordance with police powers .

From the facts described above and from the contents of the criminal complaint [ lodged against the applicant ] it is evident that there exists a reasonable suspicion [ utemeljeni sum ] that PERSON on DATE at CARDINAL committed the criminal offence of obstructing an official in the course of his duties within the meaning of section CARDINAL/II of LAW of GPE .

The criminal complaint of the Slovenj Gradec Police states that PERSON sustained injuries as a result of the use of force . ( ... ) On the basis of the facts , stated in the FAC Gradec Police ’s criminal complaint , there are no grounds for suspicion that the officers of the special working group of ORG [ the officers of ORG and ORG ] committed the alleged criminal offences ( ... ) ”

The Slovenj Gradec Police report finds , inter alia , that PERSON and PERSON stopped the applicant ’s car and that ORG officers were under the command of PERSON It explains that the Head of ORG was authorised to give statements concerning the procedure of ORG .

On DATE ORG issued a decision dismissing the applicant ’s criminal complaint . It was served on the applicant ’s lawyer on DATE .

In the decision ORG identified PERSON , PERSON and PERSON as the officers accused in the applicant ’s complaint . After giving a summary of the applicant ’s allegations , ORG concluded :

“ In the course of the proceedings , the additional information concerning the above - mentioned criminal complaint by ORG and ORG of the Minister – were obtained . This enabled it to be established that the above - mentioned officers , all employees of the ORG , had participated in the procedure against the applicant .

It would appear from the already mentioned report of ORG of the Minister – that the employees of the ORG acted in accordance with their powers .

In addition , on DATE , a request for an investigation against PERSON was lodged with the investigating judge in the LOC ORG , for , among other matters , obstructing an official in the course of his duties ( ... ) .

In view of the above considerations , the accused PERSON , PERSON and PERSON acted in the framework of their duties and powers , which they have as employees of the PERSON , and therefore there is no reasonable suspicion ( utemeljeni sum ) that they committed the alleged criminal offences ( ... ) .

For those reasons , the criminal complaint must be dismissed . ”

The decision drew the applicant ’s attention to his right to initiate a criminal prosecution as a subsidiary prosecutor ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL below ) within DATE . He did not avail himself of this opportunity .

On DATE the ORG Police lodged a criminal complaint against the applicant for the criminal offence of “ obstructing an official in the course of his duties ” under section CARDINAL , paragraph CARDINAL - CARDINAL of LAW , which referred to the same incident as the applicant ’s criminal complaint .

On DATE ORG requested the Slovenj Gradec ORG to open a criminal investigation against the applicant . It appears that her request was based on the above - mentioned reports of the ORG and ORG ( see paragraphs CARDINAL ) .

On DATE the investigating judge questioned the applicant . The applicant denied having committed any offence and complained that he had been beaten and ill - treated by the police . He pointed out that he had medical reports proving his injuries . The reports were included in the file .

On DATE , further to a proposal of the investigating judge , the ORG decided not to open a criminal investigation against the applicant . The court pointed out , inter alia , that the officers who were allegedly attacked by the applicant had not been identified and that the ORG ’s report , stating that a special operation for the investigation of serious crimes was in progress at that time , and ORG request for the investigation , which stated that the applicant was arrested because of his excessive speed , were contradictory .

On DATE ORG appealed against this decision . On DATE ORG upheld her appeal finding that , despite the shortcomings mentioned in the first - instance decision , there were sufficient grounds for suspicion that the applicant had committed the alleged offence . Accordingly , it changed the first - instance court ’s decision and opened a criminal investigation against the applicant .

Between DATE and DATE the investigating judge interviewed CARDINAL officers from ORG who had participated in the operation , the officer PERSON , who had been responsible for the officers of ORG , and PERSON , who had allegedly witnessed the incident .

When asked to comment on the applicant ’s allegations , the officers either denied the alleged ill - treatment or stated that they could not have seen the events well enough . PERSON testified in favour of the applicant , saying that he had not resisted but had been seriously beaten by the officers .

On DATE the criminal investigation was concluded with the investigating judge ’s decision ordering the exclusion of certain documents from the case - file in accordance with section CARDINAL , paragraph CARDINAL , of LAW . It is not known when that decision was served on the applicant .

On DATE ORG filed an indictment against the applicant for “ attempting to obstruct an official in the course of his duties ” ( poskus kaznivega dejanja preprečitve uradnega dejanja uradni osebi ) .

On DATE the applicant filed an objection to the indictment . He pointed out that he had been ill - treated and referred to the statements he had previously given in the proceedings . He also mentioned that he had lodged an application with the ORG . His objection was rejected by the Slovenj Gradec ORG on DATE .

On DATE and CARDINAL DATE the Slovenj ORG held hearings . The court heard the applicant , and all the officers who had been questioned in the investigation and PERSON

By a judgment of CARDINAL DATE the court acquitted the applicant . The court , acknowledging that the applicant had sustained injuries on the relevant DATE , concluded that there had been “ physical contact ” between the applicant and the officers . The court , however , found that it had not been proven that the applicant had physically resisted the officers as described in the indictment since none of ORG officers who had had physical contact with the applicant had been identified and there were no documents describing the conduct of the applicant after he had been stopped .

On DATE ORG appealed against the judgment and on DATE ORG quashed the judgment and remitted the case to a new panel for retrial .

During the retrial , hearings were held on DATE and DATE . At the second hearing the court heard a new witness , ORG , at the applicant ’s request .

By a judgment of DATE , the ORG convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to CARDINAL months’ imprisonment , suspended for DATE . The court found :

“ Although it was not known which officers of ORG were involved in the procedure after the applicant ’s car had been stopped , the officers questioned sufficiently described the acts and the order of events as observers . They could also not have been influenced by anything and therefore they could be entirely trusted . On the contrary , it was impossible to trust either of the witnesses PERSON and ORG , since it clearly transpires from their testimony that they knew the applicant well ; they also confirmed that they knew him . Although the first witness was able to describe the events immediately after the operation , ORG ’s testimony was unclear and biased in favour of the accused since he said that the officers had beaten the accused with truncheons all over his body and shouted , while it transpired from the medical documentation that he sustained injuries only on the upper part of the body , which is usual for this sort of measure .

The conduct of the accused ( ... ) undoubtedly shows ( ... ) all the elements of the criminal offence ( ... ) since his conduct undoubtedly represented an active form of resistance against the police officers and force was also directed against the officers , though the latter in the interest of protecting the data concerning employees of ORG were not questioned . In any event , given the sufficiently convincing testimony of witnesses questioned in the proceedings – police officers – questioning of the employees of ORG was not necessary ( ... ) . ”

The court also found that the applicant had not injured any of the officers involved .

DATE . On DATE ORG appealed against this judgment and applied for a heavier sentence . The applicant also appealed .

On DATE ORG upheld the conviction but amended the judgment with respect to the costs of the proceedings . The applicant did not appeal to ORG .

Lastly , on DATE the Slovenj ORG ordered the applicant to pay an additional sum to cover the costs of CARDINAL of the witnesses heard during the proceedings . On DATE , the proceedings were “ finally concluded ” ( pravnomočno končan postopek ) .

At the material time , conditions for the use of force by the police were regulated by ORG ( Zakon o notranjih zadevah , ORG , no . CARDINAL with amendments , in force until DATE ; hereinafter referred as the “ ORG ” ) . Section CARDINAL of the ORG stipulated , inter alia , that a police officer could use force ( fizična sila ) in the performance of his duties to overcome the resistance of a person who refused to comply with the legal orders of the police . The Guidelines for the Use of Coercive Measures , issued by the then Secretary of ORG Navodilo o uporabi prisilnih sredstev , ORG , no . CARDINAL , in force until DATE ) , further specified that a police officer could in the cases referred to in section CARDINAL of the ORG exceptionally use truncheons , punches , and means of restraint , when he encountered active resistance or an attempt to evade arrest .

In general , acts of ill - treatment resulting in physical harm are punishable under various provisions of LAW of GPE ( PERSON zakonik PERSON , ORG no . CARDINAL ) prosecution being mandatory . In the case of the offence of inflicting “ minor bodily harm ” prosecution is triggered by the aggrieved party ’s official complaint lodged with the police or the public prosecutor . However , when minor bodily harm is caused by a public official , e.g. a police officer , this will constitute a delictum proprium , i.e. the offence of “ violation of human dignity by abuse of office or official duties ” , for which prosecution is mandatory : notwithstanding the absence of a complaint by the aggrieved party ( oškodovanec ) .

Among the offences defined by LAW , the following are relevant for the present case :

Minor bodily harm , section CARDINAL

“ ( CARDINAL ) Whoever inflicts bodily harm on another person resulting in the temporary weakness or impairment of an organ or part of his body , his temporary inability to work , the impairment of his appearance or temporary damage to his health shall be punished by a fine or by imprisonment for not DATE .

( CARDINAL ) Prosecution of the offence defined in the first paragraph shall be initiated upon a complaint . ”

Violation of human dignity by abuse of office or official duties , section CARDINAL

“ An official exercising his office who , by abuse of his office or official duties , treats another person badly , insults him , inflicts minor bodily harm upon him or otherwise treats him in such a way as to affect his human dignity , shall be sentenced to imprisonment for not DATE . ”

Unlawful deprivation of liberty , section CARDINAL

“ ( CARDINAL ) Whoever unlawfully incarcerates another person or keeps him incarcerated or otherwise deprives him of the freedom of movement shall be sentenced to imprisonment for not DATE .

( CARDINAL ) NORP If the offence under the preceding paragraph is committed by an official through the abuse of office or of official authority , such an official shall be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than three years .

Obstructing an official in the course of his duties , section CARDINAL

“ ( CARDINAL ) Whoever , by force or threat of imminent use of force , prevents an official from performing an official act , which he intended to perform within the scope of his official duties , or whoever in the same manner compels an official to perform an official act , shall be sentenced to imprisonment for not DATE .

( CARDINAL ) Whoever commits the offence under the first or third paragraphs of the present section against an official exercising a task of national or public security , pursuing the perpetrator of a criminal offence or guarding a detained person , shall be sentenced to imprisonment for not DATE . ”

Criminal proceedings in GPE are regulated by LAW ( Zakon o kazenskem postopku , ORG no . CARDINAL ; hereinafter referred to as the “ CPA ” ) and based on the principles of legality and officialness ; the prosecution is mandatory when reasonable suspicion ( utemeljeni sum ) exist that a criminal offence , subject to mandatory prosecution , has been committed . Section CARDINAL of the CPA provides :

“ The public prosecutor shall be obliged to institute criminal proceedings if there is a reasonable suspicion that a criminal offence subject to mandatory prosecution has been committed , unless provided otherwise by the present Act . ”

Public prosecutions are conducted by the public prosecutor ’s office , an autonomous body within the justice system ( LAW , PERSON , ORG no . CARDINAL ) . However , when the public prosecutor dismisses the criminal complaint or drops the prosecution at any time during the proceedings , the aggrieved party has the right to take over the proceedings in the capacity of a subsidiary prosecutor ( subsidiarni tožilec ) ; that is as an aggrieved party acting as a prosecutor ( CPA , section CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) . A subsidiary prosecutor has , in principle , the same procedural rights as the public prosecutor , except those vested with the public prosecutor as an official authority ( CPA , section CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) . If the subsidiary prosecutor takes over the proceedings , the public prosecutor is entitled at any time pending the conclusion of the main hearing , to resume management of the prosecution ( CPA , section CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) . In reality , however , DATE statistics show that out of CARDINAL cases initiated by subsidiary prosecutors at a number of first - instance courts DATE most were either still pending or had ended in favour of the accused ; in CARDINAL cases the accused was convicted and in CARDINAL cases the proceedings were handed over to the public prosecutor ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

NORP criminal proceedings are divided into CARDINAL stages – preliminary proceedings ( predkazenski postopek ) , conducted by the police and the public prosecutor ; criminal investigation ( preiskava ) , conducted by the investigating judge of the district court , and trial ( glavna obravnava ) , conducted before mixed panels of professional judges and lay - judges at district court level or a single professional judge of the local court . Proceedings falling under the jurisdiction of local courts ( offences punishable by a fine or imprisonment of not DATE ) are summary proceedings ( skrajšani postopek ) , which do not include the stage of a criminal investigation .

Preliminary proceedings are initiated either upon a criminal complaint lodged by any person with the police or the public prosecutor ( CPA , section CARDINAL ) or upon the police or the public prosecutor being informed by any means whatsoever of a situation that gives rise to “ reasons for suspicion ” ( razlogi za sum ) , i.e. less than reasonable suspicion , that an offence which is subject to mandatory prosecution has been committed . In this respect , paragraph CARDINAL of section CARDINAL of the CPA provides :

“ If there are reasons for suspicion that a criminal offence subject to mandatory prosecution has been committed , the police shall be obliged to take steps necessary for pursuing the perpetrator , ensuring that the perpetrator or his accomplice do not go into hiding or flee , discovering and securing traces of crime or objects of value as evidence , and collecting all information that may be useful for the successful management of criminal proceedings . ”

In addition , paragraph CARDINAL of section CARDINAL of the CPA reads as follows :

“ If the public prosecutor is unable to infer from the criminal complaint whether the allegations contained in it are probable , or if information in the criminal complaint does not provide sufficient basis to request investigation , or if the public prosecutor has only been informed about a criminal offence and , in particular , if the perpetrator is not known , the public prosecutor may request the police to collect the necessary information which he can not collect himself or through other agencies and to take other measures in order to discover the criminal offence and the perpetrator ( sections CARDINAL and CARDINAL ) . The public prosecutor shall be entitled to ask the police at any time to notify him of what they have undertaken and they shall be under an obligation to reply without delay . ”

In the preliminary proceedings , most of the activities are carried out by the police , who , like the public prosecutor , do not have discretion as to whether to act ( CPA , section CARDINAL ) , i.e. they must pursue the investigation ex - officio . However , it is the public prosecutor ’s statutory right and duty to ensure that the facts are sufficiently investigated in order to decide whether or not there should be a prosecution ( CPA , sections CARDINAL , DATE and CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) .

If the evidence from the criminal complaint is inconclusive or if the perpetrator is not identified , the public prosecutor may request the police to collect further necessary information and report back to him or her on the results ( CPA , section CARDINAL/CARDINAL , above ) . When , even after such additional measures were taken , the public prosecutor concludes that there is no reasonable suspicion ( utemeljeni sum ) that a specific person committed a criminal offence or the perpetrator can not be identified , the criminal complaint must be dismissed ( CPA , section CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) . Following the dismissal of the criminal complaint , the public prosecutor must within DATE notify the aggrieved party of the dismissal ( CPA , section CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) .

Conversely , when the standard of reasonable suspicion is satisfied , the investigating judge , upon the request of the public prosecutor or subsidiary prosecutor , opens a criminal investigation into the alleged criminal offence ( CPA , sections CARDINAL and CARDINAL ) . The prosecutor ’s request for investigation must specify , inter alia , the person against whom an investigation is requested ( CPA , section CARDINAL ) . The investigation is conducted only for the criminal offence and only against the accused specified in the investigating judge ’s decision opening the investigation . However , if during the investigation a suspicion is raised of another criminal offence or of another suspect , the investigating judge must notify the public prosecutor thereof . Paragraph CARDINAL of section CARDINAL of the CPA provides as follows :

“ If , in the course of investigation , it appears that the proceedings should be expanded to cover another criminal offence or an offence against another person the investigating judge shall notify the public prosecutor accordingly . In this case investigative acts that call for urgent attention may be performed and the public prosecutor should be informed of everything that has been done . ”

The investigating judge may at any time during the investigation terminate the proceedings if he determines that the act under investigation is not a criminal offence or if there is not enough evidence that the accused has committed a criminal offence ( CPA , section CARDINAL ) .

At the end of investigation , when the investigating judge decides that a case has been investigated to the extent that an indictment can be made out , he must send the case - file to the public prosecutor ( CPA , section CARDINAL ) . Before doing that he must eliminate from the case - file all contaminated evidence ( exclusionary rule ) . He must also eliminate from the file all information obtained by the police directly from the accused and from certain other persons in the preliminary proceedings : such information is denied the status of legitimate evidence and can not constitute the basis of the indictment or the judgment ( CPA , section CARDINAL ) .

In summary proceedings before a local court , the criminal proceedings start with the bill of indictment ( obtožni predlog , CPA , section CARDINAL ) submitted by the prosecutor . The bill of indictment has to include the name and surname of the defendant , with his personal data if known , and a description of the criminal offence ( CPA , section CARDINAL ) . Before lodging the bill of indictment , the public prosecutor or subsidiary prosecutor can request the judge to perform individual investigative measures ( CPA , section CARDINAL ) .

Article CARDINAL of LAW provides :

“ Everyone has the right to compensation for damage caused through unlawful actions in connection with the performance of any function or other activity by a person or body performing such function or activity under state authority , local community authority or as a bearer of public authority . Any person having sustained damage also has the right , in accordance with the law , to demand compensation directly from the person or body that has caused the damage . ”

The compensation claim may be pursued in civil litigation . In these proceedings , the courts are bound by the final criminal court ’s judgment of conviction but only in so far as the existence of the criminal offence and criminal liability are concerned ( section CARDINAL of LAW , Zakon o pravdnem postopku , ORG no . CARDINAL with amendments , valid until DATE ) . In addition , the aggrieved party may lodge his compensation claim within the on - going criminal proceedings against the perpetrator ( premoženjsko - pravni zahtevek , sections CARDINAL of the CPA ) .

The statistical overview provided by the Government in their observations of DATE shows that out of all registered civil claims submitted by aggrieved persons who had been injured during police procedures DATE , CARDINAL civil claims had been settled or withdrawn and CARDINAL civil claims were still pending . As to the first group of cases , the statistics are inconclusive ; CARDINAL cases were transferred to ORG ( državno pravobranilstvo ) and CARDINAL were settled during the preliminary proceedings . However , no information is provided as to their outcome . As to the remainder of the first group of cases , CARDINAL case was settled out of court , CARDINAL discontinued , CARDINAL cases were decided against the plaintiff and CARDINAL claims were wholly or partly upheld . In CARDINAL cases no information as to the stage of proceedings or their outcome has been provided .

On DATE ORG ( PERSON sodišče ) delivered a decision in a case concerning a person who had died during a planned police operation and alleged interference with several constitutional rights of the deceased and his wife . ORG found a violation of the right to the effective protection of human rights , as provided by LAW , taken together with LAW , on account of a failure by the authorities to conduct an independent investigation into the incident . ORG established ( paragraph CARDINAL of the decision ) :

“ LAW paragraph CARDINAL of LAW should be interpreted so as to include also a right to independent investigation of the circumstances of an incident where a person was allegedly subject to torture or inhuman or degrading treatment by the police ( državni represivni organi ) or where he or she lost his or her life during a police operation . The aforementioned right includes also the effective access of aggrieved parties to such investigation . Despite the fact that LAW paragraph CARDINAL of the LAW secures the right to judicial protection of human rights , it suffices in the situations concerned , according to the ( aforementioned ) jurisprudence of ORG in respect of LAW , that the investigation is conducted outside of judicial proceedings under the condition that it is independent and provides for the effective access of aggrieved parties . ”


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

A.

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

The applicant was working as a general practitioner in GPE , the GPE , when , on DATE , CARDINAL ORG ( ORG ) filed a complaint against him with ORG in First Instance of Cases concerning LAW ( College voor de beslissing in eerste aanleg in zaken van het PERSON hereinafter referred to as ‘ Medical Disciplinary Board’ ) . In the complaint it was alleged that the applicant had reserved for his own use opiates he had prescribed to patients , had administered medication for other than the usual purposes and had carried out surgical operations not customarily performed by general practitioners .

Following CARDINAL hearings ORG decided on DATE that the complaints brought by the ORG were well - founded . The applicant was disqualified from practising medicine .

The applicant filed an appeal with ORG ( ORG ) which was rejected on DATE after which the applicant lodged an appeal in cassation with ORG ( PERSON ) .

ORG examined the appeal on DATE . On DATE the Advocate General ( PERSON ) at ORG submitted his advisory opinion proposing that the appeal in cassation be rejected . This advisory opinion was sent to the applicant ’s representative DATE . Counsel for the applicant did not submit comments in reply to the opinion of ORG .

ORG rejected the appeal in cassation on DATE .

PERSON Relevant domestic law and practice

The duties and position of the Procurator General ’s department ( openbaar ministerie ) are defined in ORG ( Wet op de rechterlijke organisatie ) .

The Procurator General ’s department consists of the Procurator General and advocates general at ORG , the procurators general and advocates general at ORG and the public prosecutors at ORG ( LAW ) . The advocates general at ORG act as deputies of the Procurator General at that court and are subordinate to him ( Articles CARDINAL § CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL § CARDINAL ) .

The Procurator General ’s department must be heard by the courts in so far as the law so prescribes ( DATE ) . In the instant case and at the relevant time , LAW And ORG ( Reglement medisch tuchtrecht en oplossing van geschillen ) provided for the hearing of the Procurator General . The advisory opinion of the Procurator General or an advocate general at ORG takes the form of a learned treatise containing references to relevant case - law and a recommendation , which is not binding on ORG , to uphold or reject points of appeal .

According to LAW ) neither the parties nor their representatives are allowed to address the court after the Procurator General ’s department has presented its opinion ( LAW in conjunction with LAW ) . However , pursuant to LAW simple notes ( eenvoudige aantekeningen ) contesting facts which they believe have been presented incorrectly by the Procurator General ’s department may be submitted to the President of the court by the parties or their representatives . In the case law of ORG such “ simple notes ” have been defined as notes limited to the pointing out of obvious errors which should in all reasonableness be considered beyond discussion ( see , for example , ORG decisions of DATE and CARDINAL DATE , in PERSON ( GPE ) DATE , no . CARDINAL , and DATE , no . CARDINAL respectively ) .

The ORG ’s judgment in the case of PERSON v. GPE ( judgment of CARDINAL DATE , Series A no . CARDINAL-B ) , and in particular its consequences for national practice , received considerable attention in GPE legal literature . In an interview published in PERSON ( ORG ) of DATE ( no . CARDINAL , pp . DATE ) the then Procurator General at ORG , PERSON , stated that in his opinion the PERSON judgment , which concerned criminal proceedings , did not necessitate any changes to the practice of the civil division of ORG . In a reaction to this interview , ORG argued that the ORG ’s reasoning in the PERSON judgment should be equally valid in civil proceedings ( ORG DATE , no . CARDINAL , pp . CARDINAL - CARDINAL ) .

Shortly after the PERSON judgment it became customary , in criminal proceedings , to give the accused the opportunity to respond to the advisory opinion issued by the Procurator General or advocates general at ORG . Following an amendment to LAW ) , this practice is now set out in LAW . According to LAW , an appellant in cassation in criminal proceedings may submit written comments in reply within DATE after the transmission of the advisory opinion to him or her .

In respect of civil proceedings , ORG held in a judgment of DATE ( PERSON , no . CARDINAL and GPE DATE , no . CARDINAL ) that a second written reply to the Advocate General ’s advisory opinion had to be set aside as it was contrary to the principle of due process to react to such an opinion twice .

In a case leading to a judgment of DATE ORG considered that it was free to take cognisance of comments submitted in response to the opinion issued by the Procurator General ’s department by one of the parties unless this ran counter to the requirements of due process , seen also in light of the interests of the other party ( GPE DATE , no . CARDINAL ) .

A similar reasoning was adopted by ORG in a judgment of DATE ( GPE DATE , no . CARDINAL ) , in which ORG , referring to the ORG ’s judgment in the case of PERSON v. GPE ( judgment of DATE , Reports of Judgments and Decisions CARDINAL-I ) , held that :

< Translation >

“ … where LAW [ of LAW ] prevents parties from responding to the advisory opinion of the public prosecution department as they see fit , it should be deemed inapplicable as being incompatible with the provisions of LAW , as interpreted in the case - law of ORG ( cf . ORG , DATE , ORG , p. CARDINAL ff ) . No restrictions other than those arising from due process , for instance in connection with the interests of the other party , apply to this document [ i.e. the reply to the advisory opinion of the public prosecution department ] . ”

In order to observe the principle of due process , ORG allows a period of DATE for the response to the advisory opinion of the Procurator General ’s department .


The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in GPE , GPE .

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

On an unspecified date in DATE criminal proceedings were instituted against PERSON , the applicant 's neighbour who assaulted and seriously injured him .

The applicant joined the proceedings before ORG ( Sąd Rejonowy ) as a civil party and lodged a claim for compensation against the defendant ( powództwo adhezyjne ) . He also participated in them as the so - called “ auxiliary prosecutor ” ( oskarżyciel posiłkowy ) .

The proceedings were terminated on DATE . On DATE , the date on which the application was lodged with the ORG , they were pending before ORG ( PERSON ) .

On DATE the Law of CARDINAL DATE on complaints about a breach of the right to a trial within a reasonable time ( LOC o skardze na naruszenie prawa strony do rozpoznania sprawy w postępowaniu sądowym bez nieuzasadnionej zwłoki ) ( “ the CARDINAL Act ” ) entered into force . It lays down various legal means designed to counteract and/or redress the undue length of judicial proceedings .

Section CARDINAL of the CARDINAL Act reads , in so far as relevant :

Section CARDINAL reads , in so far as relevant :

“ CARDINAL . A complaint about the unreasonable length of proceedings shall be lodged while the proceedings are pending . ... ”

Section CARDINAL provides for measures that may be applied by the court dealing with the complaint . It reads , in so far as relevant :

“ CARDINAL . The court shall dismiss a complaint which is unjustified .

NORP If the court considers that the complaint is justified , it shall find that there was an unreasonable delay in the impugned proceedings .

At the request of the complainant , the court may instruct the court examining the merits of the case to take certain measures within a fixed time - limit . Such instructions shall not concern the factual and legal assessment of the case .

NORP If the complaint is justified the court may , at the request of the complainant , grant ... just satisfaction in an amount not exceeding PLN CARDINAL,CARDINAL to be paid by ORG . If such just satisfaction is granted it shall be paid out of the budget of the court which conducted the delayed proceedings . ”

Section CARDINAL lays down transitional rules in relation to the applications already pending before the ORG . It reads , in so far as relevant :

“ CARDINAL . Within DATE after the date of entry into force of this law persons who , before that date , had lodged a complaint with ORG ... complaining of a breach of the right to a trial within a reasonable time guaranteed by LAW ... , may lodge a complaint about the unreasonable length of the proceedings on the basis of the provisions of this law if their complaint to ORG had been lodged in the course of the impugned proceedings and if the ORG has not adopted a decision concerning the admissibility of their case .

On DATE ORG ( PERSON ) adopted a resolution ( no . III SPP CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) in which it ruled that while LAW produced legal effects as from the date of its date of entry into force ( DATE ) , its provisions applied retroactively to all proceedings in which delays had occurred before that date and had not yet been remedied .


Violation of P1-1;Violation of Art. 6-1;Pecuniary damage - financial award;Non-pecuniary damage - financial award;Costs and expenses partial award - domestic proceedings;Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings

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

The applicants ' father was the owner of a flat in GPE , which he had let to ORG

In a writ served on the tenant on DATE , the applicants ' father informed the tenant that he intended to terminate the lease on expiry of the term and summoned him to appear before the Rome Magistrate .

By a decision of CARDINAL DATE , which was made enforceable on DATE , the Rome Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the LOC be vacated by DATE .

On DATE , the applicants ' father served notice on the tenant requiring him to vacate the premises .

On DATE , the applicants ' father served notice on the tenant informing him that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on CARDINAL DATE .

On DATE , the applicants ' father died and they inherited the flat . Subsequently they became parties to the eviction proceedings .

Between CARDINAL DATE and DATE , the bailiff made CARDINAL attempts to recover possession . Each attempt proved unsuccessful , as neither the applicants ' father nor themselves were entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession .

On an unspecified date in DATE , reaching an agreement with the tenant , the applicants recovered possession of the flat .

Since DATE the public authorities in GPE have frequently intervened in residential tenancy legislation with the aim of controlling rents . This has been achieved by rent freezes ( occasionally relaxed when the Government decreed statutory increases ) , by the statutory extension of all current leases and by the postponement , suspension or staggering of the enforcement of orders for possession . The relevant domestic law concerning the extension of tenancies , the suspension of enforcement and the staggering of evictions is described in the ORG 's judgment in the case of ORG GPE [ ORG ] , no . CARDINAL , § § DATE , ORG CARDINAL-V. Lastly , a suspension of the enforcement of the orders for possession until DATE was introduced by Legislative Decree no . CARDINAL of DATE , which became PERSON no . CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE .

As regards the control of the rents , the evolution of the NORP legislation may be summarised as follows .

The first relevant measure was the PERSON no . CARDINAL of DATE which provided machinery for “ fair rents ” ( the so - called equo canone ) on the basis of a number of criteria such as the surface of the flat and its costs of realisation .

The second step of the NORP authorities dated DATE . It was taken in the view of progressive liberalisation of the market of tenancies . Accordingly , a legislation relaxing on rent levels restrictions ( the so - called patti in deroga ) entered into force . Owners and tenants were in principle given the opportunity to derogate from the rent imposed by law and to agree on a different price .

Lastly , Law no . CARDINAL of DATE reformed the tenancies and liberalised the rents .

The tenant is under a general obligation to refund the owner any damages caused in the case of late restitution of the flat . In this regard , Article CARDINAL of the NORP Civil Code provides :

“ The tenant who fails to vacate the immovable property is under an obligation to pay the owner the agreed amount until DATE when he leaves , together with other remaining damages . ”

NORP However , PERSON no . CARDINAL of DATE set out , inter alia , a limit to the compensation claimable by the owner entitling him to a sum equal to the rent paid by the tenant at the time of the expiration of the lease , proportionally increased according to the cost of living ( LAW no . CARDINAL of DATE ) plus PERCENT , along the period of inability to dispose of the possession of the flat .

In the judgment no . CARDINAL of DATE , ORG was called upon to decide whether such a limitation complied with LAW . ORG held that it was compatible with the LAW with regard to periods of time during which the suspension of the evictions was determined by law . ORG explained that the introduction of that limitation was intended to settle the tenancies of the time of the emergency legislation , when the housing shortage made the suspension of the enforcement necessary . While evictions were suspended ex lege , the law predetermined the quantum of the reimbursement chargeable to the tenant , both measures being temporary and exceptional . Besides , the interests of the owner were counterbalanced by the exemption for him from the burden to prove the damages .

The Constitutional Court declared the limitation to the compensation claimable by the owner unconstitutional with regard to cases where the impossibility for the owner to repossess the flat depended on the conduct of the tenant and was not due to a legislative intervention . Accordingly , it opened the way to owners for the institution of civil proceedings in order to obtain full reparation of the damages caused by the tenant .


The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a NORP national , who was born in DATE and lives in Bad PERSON , GPE . He is represented before the ORG by Mr PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE , GPE . The respondent Government are represented by their Agent Ms Lidija PERSON .

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

During TIME CARDINAL to CARDINAL DATE a group of CARDINAL accomplices burglarised the applicant ’s houses in the NORP village in GPE .

On DATE the applicant filed a civil action against the perpetrators before ORG ( PERSON ) , seeking damages for his destroyed and stolen property .

Before the period to be examined by ORG i.e. before DATE when the ORG entered into force in respect of GPE ) the court of first instance held CARDINAL hearings .

The hearing scheduled for DATE was adjourned because the defendants did not appear . However , the court heard the applicant .

The hearing scheduled for CARDINAL DATE was adjourned because a witness did not appear .

At the hearing of DATE the court heard CARDINAL defendants .

The hearing scheduled for DATE was adjourned because CARDINAL defendants did not appear .

At the next hearing on DATE the court heard CARDINAL witness .

The case was then transferred to another judge .

On DATE the court invited the applicant to pay an advance for the costs of an expertise .

On DATE the applicant paid the advance .

On DATE the court carried out an on the spot investigation of the damages on the applicant ’s house together with an expert .

On DATE the appointed expert submitted his expertise to the court .

On DATE the court sent the expertise to the parties .

On DATE and DATE the applicant and the defendants , respectively , informed the court that they had no objections to the expertise submitted .

On DATE the court invited the applicant to adjust his claim with the results of the expertise .

The next hearing scheduled for DATE was adjourned because a witness did not appear .

At the next hearing on DATE the applicant specified his claim .

On DATE the court of first instance pronounced its judgment .

On DATE the applicant and CARDINAL defendants , respectively , appealed against the judgment .

It appears that the proceedings are presently pending before the appellate court .

The relevant parts of LAW of LAW on LAW ( entered into force on DATE , published in ORG no . CARDINAL of CARDINAL May CARDINAL - hereinafter “ LAW on the LAW ” - Ustavni zakon o Ustavnom sudu PERSON ) read as follows :

( CARDINAL ) The Constitutional Court shall examine a constitutional complaint even before all legal remedies have been exhausted in cases when a competent court has not decided within a reasonable time a claim concerning the applicant ’s rights and obligations or a criminal charge against him ...

( CARDINAL ) If the constitutional complaint ... under paragraph CARDINAL of this Section is accepted , the ORG shall determine a time - limit within which a competent court shall decide the case on the merits ...

( CARDINAL ) In a decision under paragraph CARDINAL of this LAW , the Constitutional Court shall fix appropriate compensation for the applicant in respect of the violation found concerning his constitutional rights ... The compensation shall be paid from the ORG budget within a term of DATE from the date when the party lodged a request for its payment .


Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Rait Maruste;Zdravka Kalaydjieva

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

On DATE the applicant lodged a claim with ORG ( “ the Kominternivskyy Court ” ) against her brother . She sought the annulment of her father ’s will .

On DATE ORG left the claim without examination because the parties had failed to attend .

On DATE the applicant lodged the same claim with ORG . On DATE the court allowed the applicant ’s request for securing the claim and seized the respondent ’s property .

On DATE ORG rejected the applicant ’s claims as unsubstantiated .

On DATE the applicant appealed against the judgment . On DATE the ORG left the appeal without examination as lodged out of time .

On DATE ORG allowed the applicant ’s appeal in cassation , which she had to resubmit on CARDINAL occasion in order to comply with procedural requirements , quashed the decision of CARDINAL DATE and sent the case for examination to ORG .

On DATE the ORG of Appeal examined the applicant ’s appeal on the merits , after she had rectified certain shortcomings in her appeal . The court of appeal quashed the judgment of DATE , finding that the case had not been duly examined by the first - instance court and remitted the case for fresh examination .

NORP The case is currently pending before the first - instance court .

In the course of the proceedings before the first - instance court , on DATE and DATE the applicant supplemented her claims . There were CARDINAL expert examinations ordered on the applicant ’s request and the proceedings were accordingly suspended for a total period of DATE . The hearings were adjourned CARDINAL times because of the applicant ’s failure to appear or on her requests . On CARDINAL occasions the hearings were adjourned because of the other participants’ failure to appear and of the judge ’s absence or for technical reasons .


Preliminary objection dismissed (non-exhaustion of domestic remedies);No violation of Art. 5-1-c;Violation of Art. 5-3;Violation of Art. 5-4;Violation of Art. 5-5;Non-pecuniary damage - award

András Sajó;Antonella Mularoni;Françoise Tulkens;Ireneu Cabral Barreto;Nona Tsotsoria;Vladimiro Zagrebelsky

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

On DATE , the applicant was stopped and searched by a police officer at the main bus station in GPE and a packet containing QUANTITY of cannabis was found on his person .

He was then taken to a police station but was released after a short period of time . Whilst in custody , an on - duty police officer issued a receipt confirming seizure of the cannabis in question ( potvrda o privremeno oduzetim predmetima ) . This receipt was signed by the applicant and the officer and contained the applicant ’s registered home address – FAC no . CARDINAL , GPE .

In a subsequent incident report of DATE , however , the officer appears to have made a mistake by stating that the applicant ’s address was FAC no . CARDINAL rather than no . CARDINAL . This report was neither seen nor signed by the applicant .

Having found his number in a telephone directory , on DATE the police contacted the applicant ’s father by telephone . He in turn informed the applicant that the police were looking for him . The applicant subsequently called the police and was told that he needed to come to the station in order to pick up the court summons . Upon arrival at the station , he was arrested and placed in detention .

It subsequently became clear that a detention order had been issued by ORG ( Okružni sud ) in GPE on DATE , as part of the criminal proceedings brought against the applicant regarding the cannabis seizure of DATE . In its reasoning , the court first explained that the applicant had not appeared at the hearing scheduled for DATE and noted that the return receipt attached to its summons had stated that he “ was unknown at FAC no . CARDINAL ” . Secondly , the applicant had failed to appear at the following hearing scheduled for DATE and the police , who had been ordered to serve the summons , had reported on DATE that a neighbour had confirmed that the applicant had not been living at the address in question since DATE . Thirdly , on DATE the police had also run a search in their database and had made additional inquiries , confirming that , as of DATE , the applicant ’s registered residence was indeed FAC no . CARDINAL , but could not discover any information concerning his current whereabouts . Finally , the court concluded that there was a sufficient factual basis to indicate that the applicant was hiding and/or in flight and had therefore ordered his detention . ( It must , however , be noted that the neighbour ’s statement and the original police report of DATE were cited erroneously by ORG and that in fact both had referred to FAC no . CARDINAL only , as the applicant ’s registered residence , there being no mention of FAC no . CARDINAL . )

On DATE ORG had also adopted a separate decision requesting the police to issue a wanted notice ( poternica ) and arrest the applicant . Therein the applicant ’s address had again been stated as FAC no . CARDINAL .

Various other documents successively referred to both addresses . Thus ORG letter sent to the police on DATE referred to FAC no . CARDINAL while all court summonses , the criminal complaint of DATE ( krivična prijava ) and the indictment ( optužni predlog ) of DATE consistently stated the applicant ’s address as FAC no . CARDINAL .

NORP Throughout this time the applicant ’s identity card , issued by the police on DATE , and his residence registration remained unchanged , stating his address as FAC no . CARDINAL , GPE .

On DATE the applicant ’s lawyer filed an appeal by telegram against the ORG detention order of DATE . Therein he stated that the applicant had never lived at FAC no . CARDINAL and pointed out that his registered residence was in fact FAC no . CARDINAL . The applicant consequently had no knowledge of the criminal proceedings against him ; nor could he have deliberately avoided receiving the court summons .

On DATE the applicant ’s lawyer supplemented this appeal with additional written arguments requesting that the impugned detention order be revoked and his client released . In particular , he noted that the applicant had gone to the police station “ of his own free will ” as soon as he had found out that they were looking for him . Upon arrival at the police station , he had been arrested and it was then that he had first found out about the criminal charges against him .

On DATE ORG ( PERSON ) rejected the appeal . It did so without an oral hearing . In its ruling ORG affirmed the reasons for detention given by ORG and further held that there was no evidence in the case file that the applicant ’s correct address was indeed FAC no . CARDINAL . On the contrary , police reports suggested that “ the applicant ’s residence throughout the proceedings had remained unknown ” .

On DATE this decision was received by the applicant ’s lawyer .

On DATE he filed a motion with ORG , seeking the applicant ’s release on bail or , alternatively , that his detention be replaced with a prohibition on leaving his place of residence until the conclusion of the criminal proceedings . The lawyer further noted that the applicant ’s detention had been ordered due to the court ’s error in the establishment of his true home address and concluded by requesting that a hearing in the case be scheduled urgently .

ORG appears not to have considered this motion .

Following a hearing on DATE , ORG found the applicant guilty of illicit possession of narcotics and fined him in the amount of MONEY ( at the time MONEY ) .

In a separate decision of the same date the ORG released the applicant from detention . It held , inter alia , that “ the current phase of the criminal proceedings had been completed ” and that “ the defendant had provided correct information about his present address ” .

On DATE the applicant filed a complaint with ORG and GPE ( Sud Srbije i PERSON ) .

Following the communication of the present application to the respondent ORG , the Government produced CARDINAL signed witness statements , taken by the police on DATE , wherein the applicant ’s neighbours , both residing at FAC no . CARDINAL , confirmed that the applicant had indeed not been living there for DATE . CARDINAL of them further specified that he had already told the police as much in DATE , while the other recalled that the applicant had not been living at the address in question since DATE .

Articles DATE and CARDINAL , taken together , stated that the “ provisions of international treaties on human and minority rights applicable in ... [ GPE of ] ... GPE and GPE shall be directly enforceable ” and , further , that “ the ratified international treaties ” shall “ have precedence ” over domestic legislation .

Article CARDINAL provided that “ international treaties in force in ORG [ of GPE and GPE ] shall be guaranteed by this LAW and be directly applicable ” .

Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL provided that a person “ who has been deprived of his liberty unlawfully [ nezakonito lišen slobode ] shall have the right to compensation ” .

Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL provided , inter alia , that a person who has been deprived of his liberty , “ without any basis [ bez osnova ] ... shall have the right to ... compensation ... ” .

The relevant provisions of this Code provide as follows :

“ The courts , as well as ORG bodies taking part in the criminal proceedings , shall establish truthfully and comprehensively all facts which are of importance for the adoption of a lawful decision .

The courts and ORG bodies shall examine and establish with equal care facts which incriminate the defendant , as well as those in his favour . ”

“ First instance courts sit in a panel of CARDINAL judges [ “ ORG ” ] when deciding on appeals against rulings of the investigating judge and other rulings when it is so prescribed by this LAW ... ”

“ The ... [ defendant ’s participation in the criminal proceedings may be secured by means of sending ] ... summonses , his forcible production in court , the issuance of a prohibition of his leaving his place of residence , [ as well as ] through the imposition of bail or detention .

The competent court shall ... [ attempt not to apply ] ... a more severe measure ... [ in order to secure the defendant presence ] ... if a less severe measure may achieve the same purpose .

These measures shall be vacated ex officio when the reasons for their application have ceased to exist , or shall be replaced with other less severe measures once the conditions are met . ”

“ The defendant is obliged to immediately inform the court of any change of address , as well as of his intent to change his abode . The defendant shall be informed of this obligation at his first hearing ... [ or ] ... upon receipt of the indictment ... and warned about the consequences ... [ of any non - compliance ] ... provided for under the LAW . ”

“ ... [ The court shall order the forcible production of the defendant before it if the defendant ] ... could not be properly summoned and it is obvious from the facts that he has been avoiding receipt [ of court summonses ] . ”

“ If there are circumstances indicating that the defendant might abscond , hide , go to an unknown place or abroad , the court may , by a reasoned decision , prohibit him from leaving his place of residence .

In the course of the [ judicial ] investigation the [ measure ] referred to in [ paragraph CARDINAL ] ... of this Article shall be ordered and vacated by the investigating judge , and when the indictment is preferred by the President of the ORG .

Parties may appeal the ruling ordering , extending or vacating ... [ the said measure ] ... and ORG may also appeal the ruling rejecting his motion for [ its ] application . ORG ... shall decide on the appeal ... [ within DATE ] ... The appeal does not stay the execution of the ruling .

“ The defendant who is to be or has already been detained based only on circumstances indicating that he will abscond ... may remain at large or may be released providing that he personally , or another person on his behalf , gives bail guaranteeing that he shall not abscond until the conclusion of the criminal proceedings and the defendant himself promises that he shall not hide or change his place of residence without permission . ”

“ The decision on bail before and in the course of a [ judicial ] investigation shall be rendered by the investigating judge . After the indictment is preferred the decision on bail shall be rendered by the President of the ORG and [ subsequently ] at the main hearing by the ORG itself . ”

“ Detention may be ordered only in accordance with the conditions provided by this LAW and only if the same purpose can not be achieved by another measure .

The authorities taking part in the criminal proceedings ... are bound to proceed with particular urgency if the defendant is in detention .

In the course of the ... proceedings , detention shall be vacated as soon as the grounds therefor have ceased to exist . ”

“ Detention shall be ordered by a decision of the competent court .

A decision on detention shall be served on the person to whom it relates at the moment of his deprivation of liberty , but no later than within TIME ... [ as of this moment ] ...

A detained person may file an appeal against the decision on detention with the ORG within TIME as of the moment of its receipt . The appeal , the decision on detention and other files shall immediately be forwarded to ORG . The appeal shall not stay the execution of the [ impugned ] decision .

In the situation referred to ... [ above , ] ... the Judicial Panel shall rule on the appeal within TIME . ”

“ Against decisions [ rešenja ] ... adopted by courts acting at first instance , the parties and persons whose rights have been breached may file an appeal , unless this Code expressly provides that an appeal shall not be permitted .

There shall be no appeal against a decision [ rešenje ] of ORG , unless provided otherwise by this LAW . ”

“ An appeal against a decision [ rešenje ] adopted by a court at first instance shall be decided at a session held before the court of second instance , unless provided otherwise by this Code . ”

“ For the purposes of unhindered conduct of the criminal proceedings [ in respect of crimes punishable by a fine or imprisonment of DATE , ] detention may be ordered against a person who is under reasonable suspicion of having committed a criminal offence if :

( CARDINAL ) he is in hiding or his identity can not be established or if there are other circumstances clearly indicating a danger of flight ... ”

“ [ The following persons shall be ] ... entitled to recover ... [ any ] ... damages ... [ suffered ] ...

( CARDINAL ) [ a person ] who was detained but against whom no criminal proceedings were instituted , where these proceedings were discontinued by a final ruling , where ... [ the person in question ] ... was [ ultimately ] acquitted by a final judgment or where the charge against him was rejected ;

( CARDINAL ) [ a person ] who due to an error committed or an unlawful action undertaken by a [ State ] body has been deprived of his liberty in the absence of any legal basis [ neosnovano lišeno slobode ] ... ”

NORP The person requesting bail , under LAW , “ does not have to ... specify the amount of bail ” to be posted ( see PERSON o krivičnom postupku , Prof . PERSON and Prof . dr PERSON , ORG , GPE , DATE , p. CARDINAL ) .

Parties to the proceedings “ shall not be informed about ... [ the session referred to in LAW ] .. , including ORG ... [ who shall ] .. , prior to the session , be provided with the case file and shall submit his proposal ... [ to the court ] ... in writing ” ( see PERSON o krivičnom postupku , cited above , pp . CARDINAL - CARDINAL ) .

Articles CARDINAL § CARDINAL , CARDINAL § CARDINAL , DATE and CARDINAL provide , inter alia , that citizens must inform the police about any change in their address , within DATE as of their moving , which information shall then be entered into an official register .

Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW provide , inter alia , that anyone who has suffered fear , physical pain or , indeed , mental anguish as a consequence of a breach of his “ personal rights ” ( prava ličnosti ) is entitled , depending on their duration and intensity , to sue for financial compensation in the civil courts , as well as to request other forms of redress “ which might be capable ” of affording adequate non - pecuniary satisfaction .

The relevant provisions concerning ORG and GPE are set out in GPE judgment ( no . CARDINAL , § § CARDINAL , CARDINAL and DATE , ECHR DATE ... ) .


Violation of Art. 3;Violation of Art. 13;Non-pecuniary damage - financial award;Costs and expenses award

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE . He was a student at ORG at the time of the events described below .

On DATE the applicant was arrested and placed in custody by police officers from ORG . He was accused of membership of an illegal organisation , the PERSON ( ORG ) .

The police officers interrogated the applicant in relation to his alleged involvement in the PERSON . The applicant alleged that he had been subjected to ill - treatment by the officers during the interrogation which caused an oedema , a bruised nose and a broken tooth . According to the Government , the applicant ’s injuries occurred when , due to lack of sleep , he inadvertently fell and hit his nose on a sink .

On DATE the applicant signed a statement according to which he hit his nose on a sink while washing his face . The applicant claims that he was forced to sign the statement . He was then taken to ORG and examined by Dr. PERSON who noted the following :

“ An oedema and an ecchymosed lesion as a result of trauma have been identified on the nose .

On DATE , the applicant was brought before ORG . Before the court , he denied being a member of an illegal organisation . He stated that he had been subjected to various forms of illtreatment during his detention in police custody and that the statement which he had signed did not reflect the truth of what had happened to him . The court ordered his release pending trial .

On DATE the applicant filed a criminal complaint with the chief public prosecutor ’s office in ORG against the police officers who had allegedly ill - treated him . The chief public prosecutor ordered that the applicant be examined by a medical expert from ORG . On DATE , he was examined by a forensic medical expert . The expert ’s report stated the following :

There is an abrasion of CARDINAL x QUANTITY on the left side of the tip of the nose . Furthermore , there is a minimal fracture on the front of the CARDINALth of the lower teeth .

There is no danger to the individual ’s life . However , the injuries render him unfit for work for DATE . ”

On DATE the ORG public prosecutor issued a decision of non - jurisdiction in respect of the applicant ’s allegations of ill - treatment and referred the investigation file to ORG in accordance with the PERSON on the Prosecution of Civil Servants ( Memurin Muhakematı GPE ) .

On DATE ORG acquitted the applicant of the charges against him . The court took note in its judgment of the applicant ’s statement that he had been interrogated by police officers under duress .

On DATE ORG decided that , due to lack of evidence , the police officers who had allegedly illtreated the applicant should not be prosecuted .

On DATE the applicant filed an objection with ORG against the decision of ORG . He also lodged a petition with ORG and requested a copy of the investigation file . He received no response to his petition .

On DATE ORG confirmed ORG decision of non - prosecution .

On DATE ORG decision was served on the applicant .

A description of the relevant domestic law at the material time can be found in GPE and Others v. GPE , nos . CARDINAL and FAC , § CARDINAL , DATE , and GPE v. GPE [ ORG ] , no . CARDINAL , § CARDINAL - CARDINAL , DATE ) .