Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression -{General} (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression);Pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage - award

András Sajó;Guido Raimondi;Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE . He is a journalist / columnist and author of a number of books .

On DATE a DATE newspaper ORG published an article entitled “ Stability ” written by the applicant . The article read as follows :

“ Stability ... has lost its dictionary meaning and become a sickening word . From the Prime Minister to ministers , all statesmen and politicians keep on repeating it ... it is used as a protective shield for ‘ robbery and profiteering’ . By mentioning stability at every opportunity some want to pave the way for a ‘ religion based regime’ . In sum , ‘ the key word of the moderate regime’ that the Prime Minister and his men have set their minds on is primarily ‘ ORG .

In longing for a society that does n’t speak up or interfere , the stability in command sacrifices justice , rights and freedoms , independence , equality , modernity , participation , pluralism and legal order . The rest is not needed , they settle for stability in government .

No one should be concerned . Stability is continuing . The Prime Minister and his men are continuing to be stable in creating their absurdities . They can not reconcile modern law with the NORP law imprinted in their brains at puberty . Stability is continuing . The Prime Minister and his men are continuing to be stable in swearing . Do n’t be anxious .

Stability has a special meaning for the Prime Minister . The Prime Minister , forgetting which chair he occupies , shows on every occasion what a master denouncer he is . He who just DATE was denouncing GPE to the outside world for the headscarf of his wife and daughter , DATE makes up a crime and denounces those who support Prof . PERSON of the Van CARDINAL yıl University . Outside he incites GPE for whom he is a civil servant and inside his civil servants ‘ the ORG .

Whether you like it or not stability is continuing . Every word that comes out of his mouth shocks , even if denied and corrected . The act of looking you in the eye and lying is considered as governing the country . DATE he says there are no convictions under LAW two journalists are convicted under it . And when he reopened ORG DATE after it had become operational or when he cut the ribbon once again DATE at ORG neither he nor his men blushed .

Stability is continuing . The man is lying about matters from national income to inflation to the budget . Do n’t believe it . Stability is continuing . From teachers to judges , from prosecutors to the police , from imams to doctors , the man uses these posts like the property of his own party . Do n’t be angry .

In respect of the Minister of the ORG and the Minister of ORG , who are both defendants in the proceedings concerning the embezzlement of MONEY from ORG , the Minister of ORG , PERSON , states that they will be acquitted . This is not considered as interfering with the judiciary . PERSON says he thinks PERSON will not be punished . This is not considered as interfering with the judiciary . But he is able to denounce at the meeting of ORG those requesting justice for rector PERSON . He does not know what crime or punishment are . He does n’t read , he does n’t learn . He is content with what entered his head at ORG when he was DATE .

They think that we have forgotten the fact that even on DATE of the ORG government there were ministers accused of corruption . No one seems to care that those against whom criminal proceedings were brought for corruption , namely PERSON , PERSON , ORG , PERSON and PERSON , entered the ORG and subsequently became part of Government .

For whatever reason , the fact that Mr ORG , who is Prime Minister in the ORG government , completes this painting is disregarded . For whatever reason , no one remembers the fact that [ the Prime Minister ] granted immunity to his QUANTITY friends from GPE who were facing corruption charges by admitting them to the ORG .

Did n’t the poor sons join their corrupt fathers ?

Did n’t PERSON launder his wealth by giving the gold and dollars he received for his wedding and circumcision to his father - in - law ? Were n’t the judges who gave this judgment promoted to higher courts ?

Did n’t PERSON become rich when he bought a boat and started carrying passengers when his father ORG governed the transport sector ?

Was is not PERSON who made sure that his son PERSON chickens were fed QUANTITY of corn without any import duty being added ? Would the list of ORG acts of corruption and rule - breaking fit on this page if I recited them ?

PERSON , the Minister of the ORG , give a reply to the allegations regarding PERSON ?

Do n’t be anxious . Do n’t be alarmed . Do n’t get angry . Do n’t believe it . Do n’t be ambitious . The stability of DATE is your work of article It is you who glorified stability . Now you may swell with pride .

No need to get anxious . Consistency is maintained in the way you understand it .

If consistency is to freeze in earthquake tents still covered in snow , if it is dead babies who could not reach DATE , childbirth without doctors , children without schools , schools without teachers , hospitals without doctors , the starvation of teachers , and the poverty of workers and civil servants , it will surely be maintained . Do not get anxious .

If consistency is GPE becoming a drug haven once again , decreasing the age of using drugs to CARDINAL , CARDINAL-year - old prostitutes wandering in the streets , there is consistency in this country . Do not get distressed .

If consistency is the police , the gendarme , public officials , parliamentarians , ministers and mafia jerks taking to the roads there is consistent consistency in this country . Do not take offence .

Hear once more the shouting of the great poet , PERSON . Become aware of how you perceive consistency .

If consistency is ‘ your farms , the valuables in your safes and your bank accounts’ or your allocations and your salaries , everybody knows that a consistent consistency is in power .

If consistency is dying from hunger by the side of the road or trembling in the cold like a dog or shivering from malaria in DATE , everybody sees that your consistent power is on the right road .

If consistency is NORP bases , NORP bombs , NORP navies , NORP missiles , all the world understands that your consistent consistency kneels and obeys .

If consistency is ‘ sucking our scarlet blood in your factories’ , we hail such consistency . If consistency is ‘ the claws of your village lords’ , maintain such consistency .

If your consistency is a ‘ ORG , we do not clasp our hands before such consistency or rub our faces on it . We oppose it . If your consistency is ‘ the police truncheon’ we do not obey or give in to such consistency . We fight .

We do not appreciate your walls or your handcuffs ; we do not give a damn about your consistency or commitment . Know that . ”

On DATE the Prime Minister of GPE , Mr PERSON , brought a civil action for compensation against the applicant and the publishing company before ORG of First Instance on the ground that certain remarks in the article above constituted an attack on his personal rights .

NORP Before the first - instance court the applicant maintained , inter alia , that the aim of the article in question had not been to insult the Prime Minister but to criticise him . He submitted that his article had to be read in the context of the interviews given by the Prime Minister . In this connection , he submitted quotations from CARDINAL interviews given by the Prime Minister and a press release from ORG . The content of these quotations referred notably to stability in GPE and its positive effects , freedom of expression in GPE , and the independence of the judiciary .

On DATE ORG ordered the applicant and the publishing company jointly to pay compensation to Mr ORG in the amount of MONEY ( TRY ) , plus interest at the statutory rate applicable on the date of the publication of the article .

In its decision the court referred to the following passages :

“ Stability has lost its dictionary meaning and become a sickening word . From Prime Minister to ministers to politicians the word is in everyone ’s mouth ... But there is no need to worry because stability is continuing . The Prime Minister and his men are continuing to be stable in creating their absurdities ... The Prime Minister and his men are continuing to be stable in swearing ...

Whether you like it or not stability is continuing . Every word that comes out of his mouth shocks , even if denied and corrected . The act of looking you in the eye and lying is considered as governing the country . DATE he says there are no convictions under LAW two journalists are convicted under it . And when he reopened ORG DATE after it became operational or when he cut the ribbon once again DATE at ORG neither he nor his men blushed ...

In respect of the Minister of the ORG and the Minister of ORG , who are both defendants in the proceedings concerning the embezzlement of MONEY from ORG , the Minister of ORG , PERSON , states that they will be acquitted . This is not considered as interfering with the judiciary . PERSON says he thinks PERSON will not be punished . This is not considered as interfering with the judiciary . But he is able to denounce at the meeting of GPE requesting justice for rector PERSON . He does not know what crime or punishment are . He does n’t read , he does n’t learn . He is content with what entered his head at ORG when he was DATE . ”

The court stated that the press had certain privileges so as to provide free and impartial news , to be able to discuss views and opinions and to enlighten the public . However , like all freedoms these privileges were not without limits . In this connection it noted that freedom of the press was limited by LAW , LAW and LAW in so far as it concerned the protection of honour and reputation of persons .

The court further considered , inter alia , that the press , while performing their duty to inform the public of issues and events of public interest , may have to criticise certain persons and institutions . In such circumstances CARDINAL rights competed , namely the freedom of the press and personal rights , and CARDINAL of the rights would require more protection than the other .

NORP In this connection , the court considered , inter alia , that politicians should bear the burden of being subjected to heavy criticism and that they should particularly be more tolerant of virulent criticism if they occupy a higher function in the State . However , it held that this was not without limits . It considered that in its duty to inform , the press was limited in its criticism , even of politicians by , inter alia , the following : a ) truthfulness b ) public interest c ) topicality d ) interconnectedness between the thoughts , the subject and the words used .

The court opined that in the present case the remarks contained in the article went beyond the limits of acceptable criticism , there was no harmony between the form and the content , the content went beyond the subject of criticism , and that through the words used there was an unjustified attack on the plaintiff ’s personal rights .

The applicant appealed .

On DATE ORG refused the applicant ’s request for a hearing as the value of the case did not reach the threshold required under domestic law and upheld the judgment of the first - instance court . This decision was served on the applicant on DATE .

On DATE ORG refused to examine the merits of the applicant ’s request for a rectification of its decision since the value of the case did not reach the threshold required under domestic law for rectification proceedings to be instituted .

On DATE Birgün published another article written by the applicant entitled “ Get well soon ” . The article read as follows :

“ I thought long and hard about whether to send this article to the newspaper advertisement service or to the editor in charge of articles . I guess a CARDINAL - page newspaper advertisement would n’t have been bad . It was high time I put in an advertisement which said ‘ read me’ in large print and which was of a modern design and under which I put my signature .

However , I needed some money for my dream to come true . But , I would not overcome this problem by putting a paid advertisement in the newspaper as both the euro and NORP lira were taken out of circulation a long time ago in my newspaper , which had no boss . In the last analysis , I found out that I had to find some other solutions as the conditions for submitting an advertisement were not ripe . Since I was the child of a ‘ country where solutions were PERSON , I could overcome this problem by standing on my own feet . And I did . In DATE my colleagues have been asked whether their columns are their property . And now I decided to use my column for my private matters as ‘ it is my property’ . Maybe I would use the ‘ get well’ advertisement as a step to improve private relations that would ‘ lead to some good’ .

The contrary could also be experienced . My innocence would be disregarded and my well - intentioned attempt could be misunderstood . It would be deemed as ‘ a libellous and deriding statement against honour , pride and dignity which infringes personal rights and a severe , intolerable and unbearable insult’ . Then I would feel sorry for not taking the opportunity to make a ‘ get well visit’ . I would regret not talking face to face , taking his TIME by adding ‘ take care’ to my ‘ get PERSON wish .

But I know for sure that I could never succeed in making such an appointment in spite of my journalistic experience . I am not exaggerating . I really could not . Because I would not , for instance , call ‘ PERSON Undersecretary’ the top civil servant who emphasised ‘ the necessity of replacing the republic and the principles of secularism with integration with Islam’ and ask for an appointment in DATE like these where ‘ tanks make their appearances in the streets and we feel an urgent need for unity and solidarity’ .

One might ask then , if I could not call the press agent . My answer to them would be , in GPE jargon , that ‘ they are dead on their feet paying their hotel ORG . Moreover , I would n’t do that either . Because by my nature , I refuse to be rude to somebody all along .

Suppose that giving way to despair , I dialled the number . It would appear that there is no such office in the central organisation of ORG any more . Several journalists from the supporting media organisations who are ‘ holding a press card and members of a religious ORG are coupled together and wandering in the building like cats on hot bricks . However , its functioning has changed . When you dialled the number , you immediately realise that the journalist you get on the phone is not a press agent but an ‘ executive director for proofreading press PERSON . You do n’t even have to call them . Mostly , they call you . So far I have n’t called them and they have n’t called me . However , ‘ those who have been ORG state that the voice at the other end of the telephone says every time ‘ he did not say that’ or ‘ he did not mean to say that’ .

Under these circumstances I give up making a big announcement . From my column I say to Prime Minister PERSON , get well soon . I leave him in the hands of the NORP doctors . But as a dabbler in amateur psychology I would like to draw attention to a small detail . Having regard to the fact that he defames the birds in the air and the wolves in the mountains , he responds to criticisms with swearing , for him University professors are immoral , the opposition party meagre , journalists shameless , and he also makes inappropriate remarks about the mothers of the voters , I consider it useful for both his and the public ’s mental health to investigate whether he had a high - fevered illness when he was young ...

As he has become such a nervous wreck in that he dismissed a question like the erection of the “ NORP FAC ” in GPE and tore the NORP book in the house of PERSON , I suspect that he is suffering from a psychopathic aggressive illness . I wish him a quick recovery . ”

On DATE the Prime Minister of GPE , Mr PERSON brought a civil action for compensation against the applicant and the publishing company before ORG of First Instance on the ground that certain remarks in the above article constituted an attack on his personal rights .

Before the first - instance court the applicant maintained , inter alia , that the aim of the article in question had not been to insult the Prime Minister but to criticise him . He claimed that since the plaintiff was a politician and Prime Minister of GPE , he had to be open to political criticism . In this connection , the applicant pointed out that the plaintiff should be particularly tolerant towards heavy criticism as a result of incidents or events he had created . In support of his submissions he submitted quotations from a number of columnists criticising various incidents involving the Prime Minister and an interview with PERSON , member of ORG and member of parliament , where the latter considered , inter alia , that the Prime Minister had been tense in DATE and that as a result his responses had been automatic .

On DATE ORG ordered the applicant and the publishing company jointly to pay compensation to Mr ORG in the amount of TRY CARDINAL , plus interest at the statutory rate applicable on the date of the publication of the article .

NORP In its decision the court referred to the following passages below :

“ ... under these circumstances I give up making a big announcement . From my column I say to Prime Minister PERSON , get well soon . I leave him in the hands of the NORP doctors . But as a dabbler in amateur psychology I would like to draw attention to a small detail . Having regard to the fact that he defames the birds in the air and the wolves in the mountains , he responds to criticisms with swearing , for him University professors are immoral , the opposition party meagre , journalists shameless , and he also makes inappropriate remarks about the mothers of the voters , I consider it useful for both his and the public ’s mental health to investigate whether he had a high - fevered illness when he was young ...

The court considered that the article taken as a whole had alleged that the Prime Minister had psychological problems and that he had a hostile attitude suggesting he was mentally ill . It held that a politician naturally had to bear and tolerate reasonable criticism . However , the court considered that , in the instant case , the remarks made in the article went beyond the limits of acceptable criticism and belittled the Prime Minister in the public and the political arena . In its view , the allegations were not the kind that one could make about a Prime Minister .

The applicant appealed .

On DATE ORG refused the applicant ’s request for a hearing as the value of the case did not reach the threshold required under domestic law , and upheld the judgment of the first - instance court . This decision was served on the applicant on DATE .

On DATE ORG refused to examine the merits of the applicant ’s request for a rectification of its decision , since the value of the case did not reach the threshold required under domestic law for rectification proceedings to be instituted .

Enforcement proceedings were initiated by the Prime Minister against the applicant and the publishing company in respect of the compensation awarded by the domestic courts . CARDINAL case files were opened ( nos . CARDINAL/CARDINAL and DATE ) by ORG .

According to the documents submitted by the Government the sum due in respect of case no . DATE amounted to TRY CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL and was fully executed . It appears that the applicant paid TRY CARDINAL of this sum . The sum due in respect of case no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL amounted to ORG and had not yet been executed on DATE .

A description of the relevant domestic law at the material time can be found in GPE v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , § § DATE , DATE .


CASE OF JUCIUS AND JUCIUVIENĖ v. LITHUANIA

Violation of Art. 8;Remainder inadmissible;Non-pecuniary damage - award

Françoise Tulkens;Ireneu Cabral Barreto;Nona Tsotsoria;Vladimiro Zagrebelsky

The first applicant is a NORP national who was born in DATE . The second applicant , his wife , is a NORP national who was born in DATE . They live together in GPE and have CARDINAL children .

NORP In DATE the first applicant ’s sister , LAW , and her partner , ORG ( senior ) , died , and the applicants were appointed as temporary custodians of the deceased couple ’s daughters - RŠ , aged CARDINAL , and DŠ , aged DATE .

On an unspecified date in DATE the paternal grandparents , SŠ and VŠ , applied to a court to adopt RŠ and DŠ . The applicants submitted a counter - claim for the adoption . On DATE the ORG accepted the GPE claim , recognising RŠ and DŠ as their adopted children . On DATE ORG upheld that decision . On DATE ORG quashed the lower decisions , remitting the case for a fresh examination at first instance .

On DATE the ORG partly granted the claim of GPE and ORG , by recognising PERSON ( then DATE ) as their adopted daughter . However , it recognised RŠ ( then DATE ) as the adopted daughter of the applicants . The applicants and the grandparents were ordered by the court to ensure that there were no obstacles that would prevent RŠ and ORG from communicating with the applicants as well as with their grandparents .

On DATE the ORG quashed the decision , dismissing both adoption applications . The court considered that the dispute between the CARDINAL couples could be resolved without an adoption , but by a grant of permanent custody .

On DATE the ORG appointed GPE and ORG as the permanent custodians of the QUANTITY girls . The court reached this decision on account of the better financial and living conditions of the grandparents compared to the applicants , as well as the fact that SŠ and VŠ were closer blood relatives to the girls . Noting PERSON ’s young age ( then DATE ) and her “ emotional instability ” when expressing herself in front of officials , the court rejected her express wish to live with her “ mother ” and “ father ” ( the applicants ) . ORG observed that a child ’s wish does not necessarily coincide with its future interests ; therefore the court was not bound by PERSON ’s opinion . The court took note of the request of ORG to give custody of the girls to the applicants , whom the girls recognised as their “ natural family ” and who had cared for them since their GPE death . However , it concluded that the girls were of a young , adaptable age . As RŠ had lived with the applicants for DATE , without any memory of her PERSON family , she was unable to understand where she would be better off .

The applicants and ORG appealed . On DATE the ORG confirmed the first - instance reasoning and decision after a written procedure , without an oral hearing of the parties .

The applicants and ORG lodged cassation appeals . On DATE the President of ORG suspended the execution of the Mažeikiai ORG decision until the cassation appeal could be examined . On DATE ORG held that it had no jurisdiction in child custody cases and dismissed the cassation application .

On DATE , when the bailiff attempted to execute the courts’ decision , RŠ refused to leave the applicants’ home to live with her grandparents . DŠ was taken to the grandparents .

On an unspecified date the Prosecutor General , defending the public interest , filed a request to reopen the proceedings . ORG reopened the civil proceedings and , on DATE , overruled the ORG decision of DATE . The court granted permanent custody of RŠ to the applicants , who lived in GPE , and permanent custody of DŠ to the grandparents , who lived in PERSON . When deciding to separate the sisters , the court noted the wish of RŠ to stay with the applicants and the wish of DŠ to stay with her grandparents . The court also observed that , since DATE , the girls had lived separately and were used to their current environments .

The grandparents appealed to ORG , which on DATE upheld the lower court ’s decision . The appellate court was of the opinion that it had been reasonable for the first - instance court to take into consideration the interests of each child and not to consider them as an inseparable unit . The court noted that the children should be provided with the most suitable and best conditions to meet their personal interests in the most advantageous way . Therefore the court found that the principle of not separating siblings had been justifiably overruled . It also held that the principle of placing children within the family had not been violated . The court pointed out that it was not only blood ties which mattered when choosing placements , but also the individuals to whom the child felt closest .

On DATE ORG gave a final ruling and upheld the decision of ORG . Agreeing with the reasoning of the lower courts , it observed that during the initial proceedings ORG had made a mistake by not giving primary consideration to the wishes of PERSON . ORG also noted that the evidence in the case showed the existence of a conflict between the CARDINAL guardianship families . It noted that proper conditions should be created so that the girls could communicate with each other , giving the primary importance of the children ’s interests over those of their guardians . This was an obligation for the ORG authorities to fulfil .

The questions related to child custody are regulated by LAW ( Civilinis kodeksas ) , the relevant articles of which read as follows :

“ CARDINAL . In considering any question related to a child , the child , if capable of formulating its views , must be heard directly or , where that is impossible , through a representative . Any decisions on such a question must be taken with regard to the child ’s wishes unless they are contrary to the child ’s interests . In making a decision on the appointment of a child ’s guardian / curator or on a child ’s adoption , the child ’s wishes shall be given paramount consideration ... ”

“ CARDINAL . The purpose of child custody / curatorship is to ensure the child ’s upbringing and care in an environment which would facilitate the child ’s growing up , development and progress .

Objectives of child custody / curatorship :

CARDINAL ) to appoint for the child a guardian whose duty it will be to take care of the child , bring it up , to represent the child and protect its rights and legitimate interests ;

CARDINAL ) to provide the child with living conditions which would be adequate for its age , state of health and development level ;

CARDINAL ) to prepare the child for independent life in a family and in society . ”

“ CARDINAL . The establishment of child custody / curatorship shall be governed by the following principles :

CARDINAL ) first consideration must be given to the interests of the child ;

CARDINAL ) priority in becoming the child ’s guardians ( curators ) must be accorded to its close relatives , provided this is in the child ’s best interests ;

CARDINAL ) the child ’s custody / curatorship in a family ;

CARDINAL ) non - separation of siblings , except when this is contrary to the child ’s interests . ...

When child custody / curatorship is established or ended , or a guardian is appointed to a child capable of expressing its views , the child shall be provided an opportunity to be heard and to influence the decision making . ”

“ A child shall be put under permanent custody ( curatorship ) when :

CARDINAL ) both parents or the single parent of the child are dead ... ”

“ CARDINAL . A child ’s guardian / curator shall be selected by taking into consideration his or her personal qualities , state of health , abilities to function as a guardian / curator , relations with the child deprived of parental care , and the interests of the child ... ”

The PERSON on ORG ( PERSON teisių apsaugos pagrindų įstatymas ) , insofar as relevant to this case , provides as follows :

“ Parents , other legal representatives of the child , the ORG , municipal government , public institutions and other natural and legal persons must abide by the following provisions and principles :

CARDINAL ) the legal interests of the child must always and everywhere be given priority ...

CARDINAL ) no child must be left without a home , minimum funds for subsistence and care or custody ... ”

“ CARDINAL . A child shall have the right to live with its parents or other legal representatives .

To separate a child from its parents or its other legal representatives against the will of the child , as well as that of its parents ( legal representatives ) , shall be permitted only in exceptional circumstances , provided for by laws and according to the established procedure , based upon a court decision and when such a separation becomes necessary for the child ( striving to avoid danger to the life and health of the child , or it becomes necessary to take measures in relation to its care and upbringing or to protect other important interests of the child ) . ”

Under Articles DATE and DATE of the Code of Civil Procedure , as in force at the material time , in child custody cases a court was to hold a hearing during which a child could express his or her opinion . Under LAW the parties could bring a separate appeal ( atskirąjį skundą ) against a decision of a first instance court . Article CARDINAL stipulated that the appellate court would determine such appeals by way of a written procedure . According to Articles CARDINAL and FAC of the LAW , the appellate court , when examining a separate appeal , had a right to examine de novo evidence , as well as evidence which had already been examined by the first instance court . Therefore the appellate court could decide both questions of law and fact .


Violation of Art. 6-1 (length of one set of proceedings);Remainder inadmissible;Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed;Non-pecuniary damage - financial award;Costs and expenses (domestic proceedings) - claim dismissed;Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in Vráble .

On DATE the applicant was dismissed from his job as a sports teacher at a secondary school .

On DATE the ORG found that the applicant ’s dismissal was void .

On CARDINAL DATE the applicant again received a notice of dismissal .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s action challenging the lawfulness of the dismissal .

On DATE the ORG branch of ORG declared the applicant ’s dismissal unlawful .

In DATE the applicant claimed payment of the salary which the employer owed him .

On DATE ORG dismissed the action , but the ORG branch of ORG quashed this decision on CARDINAL DATE .

On DATE ORG ordered the defendant to pay the outstanding salary to the applicant .

On DATE ORG upheld this decision .

On DATE the applicant received a third notice of dismissal from his employer due to redundancy .

On DATE he challenged the lawfulness of his dismissal before ORG . In the course of DATE the applicant supplemented his submission in accordance with the court ’s instruction .

On DATE the court asked the applicant to pay the court fee . It also sent the action to the defendant for comments . The applicant paid the fee on DATE . The defendant ’s comments were submitted on DATE .

The first hearing was held on DATE . The case was adjourned due to the defendant ’s absence .

At the second hearing held on CARDINAL DATE the court heard the parties .

DATE ORG obtained further evidence .

On DATE ORG dismissed the action . The judgment was served on DATE and the applicant appealed on DATE .

On DATE the applicant paid the fee and the file was submitted to the court of appeal on DATE .

On DATE the ORG quashed the first instance judgment and returned the case to ORG . In its decision ORG explicitly stated which evidence needed to be taken with a view to establishing the relevant facts . The file was returned to ORG on DATE .

In the course of DATE ORG obtained further evidence . A hearing was scheduled for DATE .

NORP In a submission of DATE the applicant challenged the presiding judge . He reiterated his objection at the hearing on DATE . The request was submitted to ORG which refused to exclude the judge on DATE . The file was returned to ORG on DATE .

ORG heard the parties on DATE . On DATE it again dismissed the applicant ’s action . On DATE the applicant appealed . The file was transmitted to the court of appeal on DATE .

On DATE the court of appeal scheduled a hearing for DATE . It asked the defendant to submit further evidence at the hearing .

On DATE the ORG quashed the first instance judgment of DATE . The court of appeal noted , in particular , that ORG had disregarded the legally binding opinion set out in its decision of DATE and had failed to take evidence with a view to establishing the relevant facts . The case file was returned to ORG on DATE .

On DATE the judge instructed the court ’s registry to serve the decision of the court of appeal . The parties were asked to submit further information . The parties submitted their replies on CARDINAL and CARDINAL DATE .

On DATE ORG scheduled a hearing for DATE . It also asked a trade union for information concerning the applicant . The trade union replied on DATE .

ORG held hearings on DATE and on CARDINAL DATE . It also obtained further evidence during that period .

In its third judgment in the case given on DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s action . It held , with reference to the evidence taken , that the school where the applicant had been employed had been restructured as a result of which the staff had to be reduced . The employer had had no possibility of offering a different job to the applicant . The court also examined the applicant ’s objection that under the relevant law his dismissal should have been subject to approval by the trade union . It found that the trade union established within the school had given such consent on DATE .

The judgment was served on the applicant on DATE . He appealed on DATE . The applicant argued that the judgment was arbitrary in that , in particular , ORG had overlooked the fact that the employer could have offered a different job to him . He also argued that he was a member and president of a different trade union which had existed at the school and that that organisation had not been duly consulted prior to his dismissal .

On DATE the President of the ORG admitted that there had been undue delays in serving the judgment of DATE on the applicant and informed the latter that the judge dealing with the case had been disciplined .

On DATE ORG upheld ORG judgment of DATE . It concurred with the first instance court that the statutory requirements for dismissing the applicant had been met in that a causal link existed between the restructuring of the school and the applicant ’s redundancy , and the evidence available showed that the employer had not been in a position to offer a different job to the applicant .

As to the applicant ’s allegation that his trade union had not been consulted , the appellate court held that the defendant had not been notified that such trade union existed within the school and that the statutes of that trade union did not foresee consultations with employers in similar cases . In addition , the defendant had consulted the trade union which had been established within the school and the existence of which had been officially known to everybody .

On DATE the applicant filed an appeal on points of law . He argued that the courts had disregarded the fact that he had been dismissed after he had become inconvenient because of his criticism of the management of the school and that they had failed to hear the other persons who had also been dismissed for similar reasons at that time .

ORG dismissed the appeal on points of law by a decision given on DATE . It noted , in particular , that there were no apparent shortcomings in the proceedings at the lower instances which would render an appeal on points of law admissible under the relevant provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure . The decision was served on the applicant on DATE .


Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (non-exhaustion of domestic remedies);Violations of Art. 3;Violation of Art. 5;Violation of Art. 13 + 3;No violation of Art. 34;Remainder inadmissible;Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed;Non-pecuniary damage - award

Anatoly Kovler;Christos Rozakis;Dean Spielmann;George Nicolaou;Giorgio Malinverni;Sverre Erik Jebens

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in the city of ORG , in GPE .

In TIME of DATE the applicant , his parents PERSON . PERSON and PERSON and CARDINAL siblings , GPE , GPE and PERSON , were at home at CARDINAL , FAC , PERSON district of ORG .

At TIME on DATE CARDINAL grey UAZ vehicles without registration numbers arrived at the house . A group of CARDINAL men got off the vehicles and burst into the applicant 's house . The intruders were wearing camouflage uniforms with insignia on the forearm indicating “ ORG ( ORG PERSON ) , black masks and green helmets with plexiglass parts to protect their faces , those helmets being , according to the applicants , a usual part of the equipment of specialpurpose squads of the NORP security forces , such as ORG ( “ ORG ” ) . All intruders carried sub - machine guns , wore bullet - proof jackets and vests used for carrying full sub - machine gun cartridges . Some of them were , in addition , armed with pistols and were carrying black ORG walkie - talkies , through which they were communicating . They spoke unaccented NORP . According to the applicant and his relatives , the intruders ' actions were very well co - ordinated .

The intruders took the applicant 's family members outside and searched the house , without giving any explanations or presenting any warrants . CARDINAL of the armed men ordered the PERSON to produce their identity papers . Having checked them , he ordered his subordinates to put the applicant in CARDINAL of the UAZ vehicles . Shortly thereafter the applicant was placed in the vehicle and one of the intruders , sitting in the front passenger seat , ordered another man , whom he referred to as “ LAW ” , to put a shirt over the applicant 's head . He also told someone over his walkie - talkie : “ To the base station , we carry out an arrest , do not disturb ” ( “ По опорному пункту , у нас задержание , не беспокоить ” ) .

After the applicant had been put in the vehicle , his father repeatedly requested the intruders to explain the reasons for the applicant 's arrest , to name the ORG authority to which they belonged and to which he could apply in connection with the applicant 's detention . Although the armed men initially disregarded his questions , CARDINAL of them finally replied : “ We will check him and let him go . You can request further information from the ORG . ”

Shortly thereafter the intruders got into their vehicles and drove off in the direction of the Staropromyslovskoye highway in ORG . While the applicant and his relatives were outside , they had an opportunity to memorise several details concerning the vehicles . In particular , they noticed that they were armoured and equipped with loopholes for riflemen and had on their roofs square boxes with long antennas . Subsequently , the applicant and his relatives learnt that those boxes were containers for radio - frequency suppression , which formed part of the special equipment of the ORG and ORG of the NORP army ( the “ GRU ” ) .

When the applicant 's relatives went back inside , they discovered that some items and money had been taken .

After the abductors had taken off with the applicant , they drove for TIME . On its way the vehicle honked while passing through a checkpoint , stopped for a while and then continued moving . Shortly thereafter the vehicle stopped and honked again and the applicant heard the sound of a gate opening . He was then ordered to get out . While doing so , he managed to look around and concluded that he was near the “ PERSON ” station on FAC , where the LOC of the operational - search bureau ORG , the ORG , ORG ( “ the ORG ” ) , the military commander 's office and the government of GPE were located .

The applicant 's abductors took him inside an unknown building to a room located on the fourth floor , sat him down in the corner and handcuffed him to a heating pipe . When they left , the applicant managed to remove the shirt from his face and saw that he was in a room where there was a table and a chair . On the chair he saw a camouflage jacket with NORP military insignia on its sleeve . On the table there was a phone .

DATE the servicemen interrogated the applicant as to whether he was a member of illegal armed groups or knew something about them . In his submission , they considered that he must have had that information based , among other things , on the fact that he had used to work in ORG under the ORG regime . He refused to confess to anything . They then threatened him with violence and mentioned that his family was in danger because of his reluctance to speak . Then they left the room and locked the door .

After a while several persons entered the room ; they asked the applicant if he had any information on the NORP rebels and weapon hoards . The applicant denied his involvement in any illegal activities ; the men beat him with a truncheon . Then they attached electric wires to his right hand and right foot and started passing an electric current through his body . They also burned his hands and feet with cigarettes , beat and insulted him . The applicant was denied any food and water . Then the servicemen again handcuffed him to the pipe and left him alone .

TIME to the applicant 's room and gave him some water . Immediately thereafter they put a plastic bag over his head . TIME a few more men entered the room . They plastered the applicant 's eyes and mouth with adhesive tape and began to beat and kick him . The applicant was lying face down ; CARDINAL of the servicemen stood on his back . The servicemen connected an electric wire to the applicant 's handcuffs and to the little toe of his right foot and passed , again , an electric current through his body . The men told the applicant that they would blow up his family house unless he confessed that he was a rebel fighter . They tortured him in that way for TIME . At TIME they handcuffed the applicant to the pipe and left .

In TIME of DATE the servicemen brought the applicant to the ground floor and allowed him to wash the blood off his body . The applicant discovered that his nose was swollen , his right wrist and right ankle were burned and CARDINAL of his lips was badly cut . Then the servicemen brought the applicant back to the room on the fourth floor and continued to interrogate him even more violently .

In TIME of DATE the servicemen again used an electric current on the applicant , beat and abused him . Then they tied him to the pipe and left . At TIME the applicant moaned in pain ; having heard the noise , the servicemen returned and beat him again .

In TIME of DATE CARDINAL servicemen whom the applicant had not seen before entered the room and beat him . They threw some sharp objects at the applicant 's head ; when it started bleeding , they bandaged his head with a piece of cloth to stop the bleeding and continued to beat him . CARDINAL of the servicemen beat the applicant on the abdomen and back with another sharp object , and kicked him on the throat and shoulder .

According to the applicant , when speaking among themselves , the servicemen often used specific terms . In particular , some of them would ask others if anything happened while they had been on duty or when they would take leave . Over the phone , which was in the room where the applicant was held , the servicemen would inform their interlocutors that someone “ had gone to the military commander 's office ” . In the applicant 's presence they were addressing each other as “ Number CARDINAL ” or “ Number CARDINAL ” . On several occasions the persons who had tortured the applicant , when leaving the room , were addressing others saying “ You have been called by the commander ” or “ Get down to the canteen and fetch us some food , do n't forget the apples ” . Once at night the applicant heard the sounds of machine guns coming from outside . The person who was in the room with him took the phone and asked someone over it : “ Why are you shooting ? ” .

On DATE the man who had been in command of the operation when the applicant was abducted came to the applicant 's room and told the others that the applicant 's relatives were at the gate . He called someone over the phone several times asking if the applicant 's relatives had left . He also told the person to frighten them to make them leave . Among themselves , the servicemen who were in the room were discussing how the applicant 's relatives could have learnt about his whereabouts and from whom they might have obtained that information .

Shortly thereafter , at CARDINAL CARDINAL p.m. on DATE the servicemen put a black plastic bag over the applicant 's head , plastered his eyes with adhesive tape and took him outside the building . Then they placed him in a car , put on some loud music and drove for TIME . Despite the music , the applicant was able to hear that the car was moving through busy streets . He also heard the servicemen talking over their walkie - talkies . During the ride they told the applicant that they were going to shoot him . According to the applicant , the car was moving in the direction of the Minutka Square or GPE . When the car stopped , the servicemen dragged the applicant out and placed him in a boot of another car . That car drove for TIME stopping CARDINAL times , presumably at checkpoints . Then the servicemen took the applicant out of the boot and took him to the basement of a building which was unfamiliar to him . The applicant 's abductors referred to the place as “ LOC .

In the basement the servicemen tied the applicant to a pole and started interrogating him . They asked him whether he knew anything about rebel fighters and weapon hoards ; the applicant replied in the negative . The servicemen beat him all over his body , including the face , head and solar plexus . After TIME of beating they ordered the applicant to lie on the left side of his body and tied him to the table legs and left . When they left , he managed to lift the plastic bag off his eyes so that he could see a cellar of concrete blocks measuring around QUANTITY . After a while the servicemen brought him a blanket and a pillow .

In TIME of CARDINAL DATE the servicemen gave the applicant some tea and a piece of bread and asked him whether his real name was PERSON , not PERSON . The applicant replied that he had never forged his identity papers to change his name .

While kept in the basement , the applicant had to lie on the floor covered with water . Occasionally he heard the noise of helicopters and armoured vehicles outside . At times different persons came to the basement ; they threatened the applicant , insulted and beat him .

On DATE of the detention in the basement a man entered and hit the applicant on the face . The applicant fell ; the man ordered him to rise . Then CARDINAL other men arrived ; they put a plastic bag over the applicant 's head , plastered his eyes and mouth and told him that his death had come . The applicant asked them to give his corpse to his parents after his death ; the men replied that they would feed his dead body to dogs . For TIME they passed an electric current through the applicant 's body and beat him . Then the applicant vomited and nearly fainted ; he was bleeding . Later , when the applicant regained consciousness , several servicemen beat him again .

NORP Over DATE the servicemen repeatedly came to the basement and ill - treated the applicant ; at times they used an electric current . They surrounded the applicant and took turns to hit him ; they stood on the applicant 's back and beat him with truncheons ; they hung him up by his arms and left him hanging for a long time . From time to time they attached an electric cable to the applicant 's ear and passed electricity though it . Several times they put a gas - mask on his face so that he was forced to inhale a substance with a strong suffocating smell .

The servicemen threatened the applicant with murder again and again . They forced him to drink alcohol and smoke cigarettes to make sure that he was not a radical NORP fundamentalist , which was particularly insulting for the applicant , a devout NORP . They also put to him all sorts of questions concerning his religious beliefs and the NORP traditions of the NORP people in which they appeared to be interested .

The servicemen spoke unaccented NORP ; they employed legal terms used by the police and ORG officers . According to the applicant , there were offices above his room in the basement . He heard people saying that the special - purpose squad ( “ the LAW ” ) had arrived , that someone needed to be sent to a particular location in a helicopter , that a special - purpose squad would take off to the town of PERSON in ORG . TIME a woman called “ PERSON ” would arrive at the office upstairs and tell the others that she had had ordered from the stock a certain quantity of soap , bedding or tinned food . The applicant also heard the noise of armoured vehicles , helicopters and a working military radio station coming from the outside .

On an unspecified date several servicemen entered the basement , put a plastic bag on the applicant 's head , plastered his eyes with adhesive tape and told him that they were going to shoot him . They took the applicant outside the building and put him in the boot of a car . After a TIME ride the car stopped ; the servicemen took the applicant out of the boot and led him inside a building . There they attached him to a pipe and left .

At some point the servicemen took the plastic bag off the applicant 's head and gave him food and water . The applicant spent DATE in that room ; he was not beaten during that period . Then the servicemen took the applicant to another room and handcuffed him to a bed . He spent DATE there . Then a man came who asked the applicant if he had seen any faces , apparently of those who had beaten him . The applicant replied in the negative . The man told him that he had not been detained but kidnapped .

In TIME of CARDINAL DATE the servicemen again put a plastic bag on the applicant 's head and told him that he would be released . They commented that the applicant would have to leave GPE ; otherwise they would kill him and his family . Then they put the applicant in a car ; after a TIME ride the car stopped . A man asked the applicant in NORP if he was PERSON from the Katayama district ; the applicant replied in the affirmative . The man told the applicant to get out of the car and escorted him to another car . There he removed the plastic bag from the applicant 's head and told him not to worry and that he would bring him home . The applicant saw that the man was his relative who was working with the law - enforcement authorities . When the applicant looked around , he realised that the cars were parked on FAC in GPE near a fence over which was written “ ORG of the GPE ” , QUANTITY away from the buildings of the ORG , the city military commander 's office , the ORG , ORG and ORG .

The applicant saw his relative give something to CARDINAL servicemen wearing camouflage uniforms with the NORP military insignia . CARDINAL of them , a DATE man of medium height , carried a gun ; the other was a tall brown - haired man in DATE . Later the applicant discovered that his relatives had paid a ransom of MONEY for his release .

Then the applicant 's relative brought him home . According to the applicant , he could not communicate the name of his relative because the latter feared for his life .

The above description of the events is based on the applicant 's fivepage typed complaint to the prosecutor 's office of LOC of PERSON dated DATE , his elevenpage written statement made on DATE and his written statement of CARDINAL DATE ; the applicant 's father 's statements of CARDINAL DATE and DATE and DATE ; the applicant 's mother 's statements of CARDINAL DATE and DATE ; written statements by PERSON made on DATE and DATE ; a written statement by PERSON made on DATE ; a written statement by ORG of DATE ; a detailed sketch of the area of the Staropromyslovskoye highway , on which are located the LOC of the ORG , the ORG , the ORG , ORG and other authorities mentioned by the applicant , with the indication of where those authorities ' premises , as well as their checkpoints , fences and car parks , are to be found , accompanied by the applicant 's detailed description and written explanation .

On DATE unidentified armed persons in camouflage uniforms and masks , driving CARDINAL grey UAZ vehicles , burst into the applicant 's house at DATE , FAC , PERSON , and abducted the applicant .

On DATE the applicant 's father complained about his son 's abduction to the prosecutor 's office of LOC of PERSON ( “ the district prosecutor 's office ” ) and the police . However , those ORG authorities denied having any information on the applicant 's whereabouts and also refused to institute a criminal investigation into his abduction .

NORP The applicant 's father also reported the circumstances of his son 's kidnapping to the Special Envoy of the NORP President in GPE for Rights and Freedoms ( “ the Special Envoy ” ) and ORG . On DATE the Special Envoy requested the prosecutor 's office of GPE ( “ the NORP prosecutor 's office ” ) that requisite measures be taken to establish the applicant 's whereabouts .

On an unspecified date in DATE the applicant 's relatives applied to the local police in connection with his abduction . The police officers allegedly told them that in TIME on DATE , while they had been on duty , unspecified ORG officers informed them over radio channels that the latter were carrying out an arrest on FAC and that the police officers were not to interfere with the operation .

On DATE CARDINAL young men who knew about the abduction of the applicant allegedly came to the applicant 's father and told him that they had been in the city centre on TIME of DATE and had seen CARDINAL ORG vehicles , which had first been driven through the city centre and had then entered the premises of GPE , located on FAC near the LOC of the ORG , the military commander 's office , the ORG and ORG .

On an unspecified date the applicant 's relatives went to ORG and tried to obtain information concerning him . However , the persons to whom they talked denied having arrested him . At CARDINAL point CARDINAL men approached the applicant 's relatives . They introduced themselves as ORG officers and asked the applicant 's father who had given him the information that his son had been abducted by the ORG . When he refused to reply , they became aggressive and insisted that he tell them his source of information . Faced with his refusal to do so , they ordered him to leave , saying that the place was dangerous and that he could be shot dead . They also said that they did not have the applicant . Having heard that , the applicant 's relatives returned home .

On DATE a friend of the applicant , an official of a lawenforcement agency , came to the applicant 's relatives and told them that the applicant had been abducted by officers of ORG , which was under direct command of the ORG . He also told them that after his abduction the applicant had been held for DATE on the premises of ORG and then transferred to GPE for further interrogation .

Subsequently , the applicants found a person who was an officer of the ORG and who negotiated with the abductors the applicant 's release in exchange for MONEY ( ORG ) . The applicant 's relatives collected the money and gave it to that man .

Upon his return home the applicant experienced major health problems . He suffered from insomnia and severe headaches ; at some point he had a fever . His extremities ached and wounds festered . He had bruises , burns and cuts all over his body . He was not able to walk on his own and needed assistance in moving around the house . The applicant 's health was so poor that he could not visit a doctor for DATE following his release . According to the applicant , after his release he had to undergo medical examinations and treatment on a permanent basis and to take various medication including painkillers , to ease the pain .

In support of his submissions concerning his state of health the applicant also referred to statements of his relatives mentioned in paragraph CARDINAL above .

On DATE the applicant was examined by a doctor . According to a certificate of that date , he submitted to the doctor that he had been held in detention DATE and DATE and had been beaten on numerous occasions . The applicant complained , among other things , about headache , pain in the lower back and frequent urination . The certificate noted , among other things , the following injuries : a QUANTITY QUANTITY scar in the cervical region of the head , a scar measuring QUANTITY on the right hip , a round scar measuring QUANTITY on the right wrist . The applicant was diagnosed with “ numerous scars on his head and body ” and an examination by a neuropathologist was recommended .

According to a certificate of DATE , on that date the applicant was examined by a neuropathologist , to whom he complained about headaches , dizziness , insomnia , overall fatigue , numbness of extremities and pain in the lower back . The certificate noted that the applicant had a closed craniocerebral injury , was unstable in the PERSON test and had tremor of eyelids and hands . The palpation of the spine and chest area was painful . The applicant was diagnosed with “ after - effects of closed intracranial injury ” , “ astheno - neurological syndrome ” and “ posttraumatic osteochondrosis of the thorax region ” .

On DATE the applicant was examined by a neurologist . According to his medical certificate of the same date , the applicant was diagnosed with chronic prostatitis .

According to a certificate of DATE , the applicant was diagnosed with continuing after - effects of a craniocerebral injury , including encephalopathy of the first and second degree .

According to the applicant 's medical report dated DATE , from CARDINAL to DATE he underwent in - patient treatment in the neurological department of hospital no . CARDINAL in ORG . The document , in so far as relevant , reads as follows :

“ After - effects of closed craniocerebral injury , severe brain contusion in the form of persistent intercranial hypertension ; recurring hypertensive - hydrocephalic crises ( CARDINAL times a week ) ; recurring vestibular crises ( CARDINAL to CARDINAL times a week ) , accompanied by loss of coordination ; strongly pronounced astheno - neurotic syndrome ; mombalgia .

Complaints about : recurring headaches accompanied by dizziness and vomiting ; weakness in arms and legs ; attacks of dizziness accompanied by loss of coordination ; loss of memory of current events ; lower back pain becoming stronger in a static position and while walking .

An morbi : The patient has been sick since he was abducted , detained in a basement and ill - treated ( in his words ) . The applicant has had the above - mentioned complaints since that time ; underwent in- and outpatient treatment on numerous occasions , has been under continuous supervision of a neuropathologist . The effectiveness of the treatment is negligible .

The overall state of health is of medium gravity .

Muscular reflexes in arms reduced ...

Muscular reflexes in legs reduced ...

Established numbness in hands and legs . ”

On DATE the district prosecutor 's office instituted an investigation into the applicant 's abduction under LAW of LAW ( aggravated kidnapping ) .

On DATE the district prosecutor 's office replied to the head of ORG that on DATE it had launched an investigation into the abduction of the applicant . A copy of that letter was forwarded to the applicant 's relatives .

On DATE ORG , acting on the applicant 's relatives ' behalf , requested the district prosecutor 's office to inform them of the progress in the investigation into the kidnapping .

On DATE the applicant requested the district prosecutor 's office to open an investigation into his unlawful abduction , detention and ill - treatment , to grant him the status of victim of a crime and to order and carry out his medical examination . He also vaguely mentioned the search of his home carried out on the night of the kidnapping , but did not make any distinct complaint in this respect .

On DATE the applicant wrote to the district prosecutor 's office , giving a detailed written description of the circumstances of his abduction , detention and ill - treatment and requesting to be admitted to the criminal proceedings as a victim and a civil party . He also reiterated his request for a medical examination . He stated that he feared for his life because his abductors and torturers were working in law - enforcement bodies , that he was about to leave GPE because of it and requested protection for his family and himself . The applicant enclosed copies of medical certificates of DATE . The applicant 's letter was received by the district prosecutor 's office on DATE .

On DATE the applicant requested the district prosecutor 's office to update him on the progress in the investigation into his kidnapping and to inform him whether his requests lodged on DATE had been granted .

On DATE the district prosecutor 's office informed the applicant that on an unspecified date the investigation into his kidnapping in case no . CARDINAL had been stayed for failure to identify those responsible . The letter also mentioned that despite the applicant 's repeated summonses to the district prosecutor 's office , he had failed to appear , and that the issue of granting him victim status depended on his personal appearance .

On DATE the applicant complained about the investigators ' inactivity to the NORP prosecutor 's office . He referred to his numerous and repeated complaints about the abduction and ill - treatment lodged with the district prosecutor 's office and claimed that they had been left unanswered . He further requested that the investigation in case no . CARDINAL be resumed .

On DATE the NORP prosecutor 's office replied that on an unspecified date the investigation had been reopened and that unspecified investigative measures were being taken to resolve the crime .

On DATE the district prosecutor 's office informed the applicant that the investigation was underway and summoned him to their premises .

On DATE the applicant replied that he had already requested to be granted the status of the victim of a crime in his absence because he had fled GPE to hide from his kidnappers . He asked the investigators to arrange for his medical examination anywhere outside GPE . He also stressed that he was ready to provide to the investigation any information which it might wish to request from him in writing and without delay .

On DATE the district prosecutor 's office informed the applicant that they could not admit him to the proceedings as a victim in his absence and requested him either to come to the prosecutor 's office or to indicate his whereabouts , as well as to inform them in which hospital he had been treated after his release .

On DATE the applicant complained about the inactivity of the investigators to LOC ( “ the ORG ” ) . He submitted , in particular , that , despite the fact that he had provided detailed information on his abduction and ill - treatment and had apprised the district prosecutor 's office of his fear for his life , the latter had taken no steps to investigate the crime against him and conditioned the grant of victim status on his showing up at their office .

By a decision of DATE the district prosecutor 's office granted the applicant the status of victim of a crime in case no . CARDINAL . The decision stated that at TIME on DATE a group of CARDINAL armed persons in camouflage uniforms , who had arrived in grey ORG vehicles without registration plates , had burst into the applicant 's house and had taken the applicant to an unknown destination . It also stated that since his abduction the investigation had no information on the applicant 's fate .

On DATE ORG examined the applicant 's complaint of DATE and dismissed it for the reason that the investigators had already admitted him to the proceedings as a victim . The court specifically indicated that the investigator 's persistent refusal to grant the applicant victim status had been unlawful and asked the former to inform the applicant of the progress in the investigation .

DATE . On CARDINAL DATE the applicant wrote to the district prosecutor 's office , requesting to be provided information on the progress in the investigation and seeking access to the case file .

On DATE the district prosecutor 's office replied to the applicant that the investigation was in progress and that he was to come to the office to obtain access to the case - file materials .

On DATE the applicant again wrote to the district prosecutor 's office , requesting information on the progress in the investigation and the specific investigative steps taken , the name of the investigator in charge of the case , the reasons for the failure to carry out his medical examination and to append to the case file as material evidence the clothes in which he had been ill - treated .

On DATE the district prosecutor 's office granted the applicant 's request of DATE in part concerning his access to the documents from the case file related to the investigative steps taken with the applicant 's participation . It dismissed the remainder of the request and also informed the applicant that on an unspecified date the investigation had been suspended owing to failure to identify the perpetrators .

On DATE the applicant wrote to the district prosecutor 's office . He submitted that he had given his clothes in which he had been illtreated to investigator NORP The latter had requested him to provide those clothes in order to append them to criminal case file no . CARDINAL as material evidence and to carry out a biological forensic examination , which was particularly important in solving the crime . According to the applicant 's letter , NORP had subsequently informed him that the examination of the clothes had been carried out and that it had found on them traces of blood and of tissue fluids . Accordingly , the applicant requested the district prosecutor 's office to clarify whether his clothes had indeed been examined and to inform him of the developments in the investigation .

On DATE the district prosecutor 's office informed the applicant that on an unspecified date the investigation in case no . CARDINAL had been suspended owing to failure to identify the perpetrators . As to the clothes issue , the applicant was to contact the investigator in charge of his case .

On DATE the Leninskiy ORG of ORG in GPE of ORG with ORG of GPE ( “ the investigating unit ” ) informed the applicant that on DATE it had reopened the investigation in case no . CARDINAL .

On DATE the district prosecutor 's office instituted a criminal investigation into the applicant 's abduction under LAW of LAW ( aggravated kidnapping ) . The case file was given the number DATE .

DATE . On an unspecified date the investigators interviewed the applicant as a witness . He stated that at TIME on DATE a group of armed persons in masks and uniforms had burst into his house . They had put him against the wall and searched him . At about that time his father had gone outside and asked the intruders what was going on . They had replied that they were officials of the ORG but refused to produce any documents . The intruders had then searched the house , without providing any official authorisation , such as an arrest warrant , but had not found anything . After that , despite the applicant 's parents ' attempts to stop them , the armed men had taken the applicant to one of the UAZ vehicles stationed at the gate . They had put a shirt over his head and put him in the vehicle . The applicant had then been taken to an unknown place . He had been led to the fourth floor of an unknown building and handcuffed to a pipe , whereupon the abductors had started beating him and asking whether he knew any rebel fighters . He had replied in the negative . The abductors had tortured him with electric wire , beaten him up with truncheons and had put a plastic bag over his head . On DATE he had been transferred to another place . There he had been kept in a basement , tied to a pole and severely beaten up . For DATE the abductors had tortured the applicant , requesting that he confess to something . Subsequently , he had been returned to the first place of his detention , from where they had taken him to a hospital .

On an unspecified date the investigators also interviewed the applicant 's father . He stated that in TIME of DATE , while he had been at home with his family , CARDINAL armed men in camouflage uniforms and masks had burst into his yard . They had ordered the family to produce their identity papers . The applicant 's father had returned home to fetch them and when he had come back , he had seen the applicant standing against the wall with the intruders pointing their guns at him . When he had asked the intruders what the applicant had done , they had replied that they would take the applicant with them and check on him but had refused to say where . Despite the applicant 's father 's attempts to prevent them from taking the applicant away , the intruders had put him into their vehicle and had driven off . The applicant 's mother , interviewed on an unspecified date , provided a similar account of the events .

On an unspecified date the investigators interviewed the applicant 's neighbour ORG as a witness . She stated that in TIME on DATE she had heard noise and shouting coming from the applicant 's house . Having gone outside , she had seen that several ORG vehicles were parked at the applicant 's house . She had not seen anything else and had learnt about the applicant 's abduction from his relatives .

On unspecified dates the investigators interviewed GPE . , GPE and GPE . as witnesses . The Government did not specify who those persons were but stated that they had given accounts of the events of DATE similar to that given by ORG

On DATE the applicant was granted victim status in the proceedings in case no . CARDINAL . On the same date his forensic medical examination was carried out . According to its conclusions , the applicant had the following injuries : scars on the occipital part of the head , the right thigh and the back of the right hand . However , owing to the time that had elapsed since the infliction of the injuries , it was impossible to establish their origin .

According to the ORG , the investigation in case no . DATE was pending .

Despite specific requests by ORG did not disclose any documents from criminal case no . DATE . They stated that the investigation was in progress and that disclosure of the documents would be in violation of LAW , since the file contained information of a military nature , such as disposition of military and special troops and particulars of their activities , as well as personal data concerning the witnesses or other participants in the criminal proceedings .

In his observations submitted to ORG on DATE the applicant stated that he had been intimidated by ORG agents , referring to the following events described in his written statements of DATE and DATE .

On an unspecified date after the applicant 's release several persons allegedly approached the applicant 's father , telling him not to complain about the applicant 's abduction to the authorities and to be glad that the applicant was alive .

On an unspecified date , during the applicant 's interview at the district prosecutor 's office , an investigator allegedly told him that it was dangerous to try to identify the applicant 's abductors and torturers because they were officials of ORG authorities .

On an unspecified date in DATE , during the applicant 's interview at the district prosecutor 's office , an investigator allegedly told him in a threatening tone that persons in the applicant 's situation were disappearing , that he was lucky to have returned home and that it would be better to close the investigation . When the applicant subsequently went to the district prosecutor 's office , seeking access to the criminal case - file materials , an investigator asked him why he needed those documents and told him that if he wished to complain to ORG , it might end up badly for him . After that , on an unspecified date a group of persons in camouflage uniforms , who were driving a white VAZ-CARDINAL vehicle , allegedly came to the applicant 's parents ' home , introduced themselves as officials of the prosecutor 's office and told the applicant 's brother that only fools were complaining in GPE . Following that , on an unspecified date the applicant was allegedly approached by a local police officer who told him that his fellow colleagues were tired of replying to requests of the prosecutor 's office concerning the applicant 's criminal case and advised the applicant to agree to its termination . In the applicant 's submission , the investigators also insulted his lawyer .

On an unspecified date in DATE a number of persons driving a VAZ-CARDINAL vehicle allegedly came to the applicant 's house . CARDINAL of them wore a camouflage uniform . They told the applicant that he was lucky to be alive and advised him in a threatening tone to write a request for the investigation into his alleged ill - treatment to be closed , to find a job and to live like everyone else .

For an overview of the public statements of ORG for the Prevention of Torture ( “ the ORG ” ) on the issue of ill - treatment of detainees in GPE by members of law enforcement authorities in the period CARDINAL–CARDINAL , see GPE and GPE v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL , § § CARDINAL - CARDINAL , DATE ) .

Abuse of office associated with the use of violence or entailing serious consequences carries a punishment of DATE imprisonment ( Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL of LAW ) .

The Code of Criminal Procedure of GPE , in force since DATE ( the CCrP ) , establishes that a criminal investigation may be initiated by an investigator or prosecutor upon the complaint of an individual ( Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL ) . Within DATE after receiving such complaint the investigator or prosecutor must carry out a preliminary inquiry and take one of the following decisions : ( CARDINAL ) to open criminal proceedings if there are reasons to believe that a crime has been committed ; ( CARDINAL ) to refuse to open criminal proceedings if the inquiry reveals that there are no grounds to initiate a criminal investigation ; or ( CARDINAL ) to refer the complaint to the competent investigative authority . The complainant must be notified of any decision taken .

Article CARDINAL of the ORG provides that data from the preliminary investigation can not be disclosed . Under LAW , information from the investigation file may be divulged with the permission of a prosecutor or investigator and only in so far as it does not infringe the rights and lawful interests of the participants in the criminal proceedings and does not prejudice the investigation . It is prohibited to divulge information about the private life of the participants in the criminal proceedings without their permission .

Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL of the LAW of GPE stipulates that everyone has the right to liberty and security . Arrest , placement in custody and custodial detention are permissible only on the basis of a court order . The term during which a person may be detained prior to obtaining such an order can not exceed TIME ( LAW ) . The same principle is proclaimed in LAW ORG , which provides that no one can be arrested or remanded in custody unlawfully , in the absence of a court order and for a period exceeding TIME .

Under LAW of the ORG , an investigating authority can arrest a person on suspicion of having committed a criminal offence punishable by imprisonment ( i ) at the time of the offence or immediately thereafter ; ( ii ) if eyewitnesses pointed to him as the perpetrator of the crime ; or ( iii ) if the suspect bore or was in possession of evident traces of the crime or if such traces were found on his clothes or at his home .

Within TIME after the delivery of a suspect to an investigating authority , a record of the arrest is to be drawn up , indicating the time and date of its compilation , as well as the date , time , place and grounds for a person 's arrest and other relevant information ( Article QUANTITY CARDINAL ) . A prosecutor is to be informed in writing about the arrest within TIME and the suspect is to be granted access to a lawyer and interviewed ( Article QUANTITY and CARDINAL ) . If no court order to place the person in custody or to extend his arrest is issued or received within TIME , the detained suspect is to be immediately released ( LAW ) . Upon release , he is to be provided with a certificate indicating the authority which had arrested him , the date , time , place and legal grounds for detention , as well as the date , time and grounds for the release ( LAW ) .


David Thór Björgvinsson;George Nicolaou;Ineta Ziemele;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Päivi Hirvelä;Paul Mahoney

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

ORG ( “ the Government ” ) were represented by their Agent , Mr PERSON of ORG .

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

On DATE , in his own apartment , the applicant stabbed another person with a knife . The victim called the police . When the police patrol arrived , they found a person with a deep , bleeding wound in front of the applicant ’s home who told them that he had been stabbed in the applicant ’s home by the applicant . As it was not known whether other persons were in danger , the police officers entered the applicant ’s home in order to prevent any possible further act or event which might seriously threaten another person ’s life , personal liberty or health . In the apartment they found nobody but the applicant . He was severely intoxicated , a breathalyser showed a result of CARDINAL per mill , and he was not able to give a statement . He was taken to the local police station . The police officers found and seized a knife with a QUANTITY blade covered in blood .

On DATE the applicant was questioned on suspicion of aggravated assault ( törkeä pahoinpitely , grov misshandel ) . He was released on DATE .

On DATE the applicant was charged with aggravated assault .

On DATE the GPE ORG ( käräjäoikeus , tingsrätten ) dismissed all charges against the applicant . It found that the applicant had not intentionally hurt the other person and that the latter ’s injury could have been caused accidentally as both the applicant and the victim had been severely intoxicated . No motive for the act could be established . The applicant and the victim were still good friends and had even come to the oral hearing together .

No appeal was made against this judgment and it thus became final .

According to LAW ( perustuslaki , grundlagen , Act no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) , the sanctity of everyone ’s home is guaranteed . Measures derogating from this right , and which are necessary for the purpose of guaranteeing basic rights and liberties or for the investigation of crime , must be laid down by an Act .

Section QUANTITY of LAW ( poliisilaki , polislagen , Act no . CARDINAL ) provides the following :

“ On the order of a commanding police officer , and in urgent cases even without such an order , police officers have the right to enter a building , other domestic premises or a vehicle if there is good reason to assume that an act or event causing a serious threat to life , personal liberty or health , or notable damage to property or the environment is taking place or about to take place . A further precondition is that the measure is essential to prevent danger or to search and take possession of explosives , weapons or other dangerous substances or objects . ”

LAW , section CARDINAL , subsection CARDINAL , of LAW ( pakkokeinolaki , tvångsmedelslagen , Act no . CARDINAL ) provides that a search may be conducted , inter alia , if there is reason to suspect that an offence has been committed and provided the maximum sentence applicable exceeds CARDINAL months’ imprisonment .

NORP In order for an object to qualify for seizure there must be a reason to presume that it may serve as evidence in criminal proceedings , that it may have been removed from someone as a result of a criminal offence or that the court may order its forfeiture ( LAW , section CARDINAL , of LAW ) .

A civil servant having the power to arrest a person may decide to conduct a search at a person ’s home . A police officer may conduct a search even without a warrant if it is intended , inter alia , to locate a person to be apprehended , arrested or detained or for seizure of an object that has been used immediately before in a crime . A police officer may conduct a search without a warrant also on other occasions if the matter can not wait ( Chapter CARDINAL , section CARDINAL ) .

At the time of the events there was no access to a court as concerned a search but only in respect of a seizure ( LAW , LAW , subsection CARDINAL ) .

According to LAW , section CARDINAL , subsection CARDINAL , of LAW ( rikoslaki , strafflagen , Act no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL as modified by Act no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) , a person can be sentenced for aggravated assault to imprisonment for a minimum term of DATE and a maximum of DATE .


The applicant , PERSON PERSON , is a NORP citizen who was born in DATE and is presently serving a sentence in LOC .

On DATE the competent investigating judge opened an investigation against the applicant on a charge of murder . The applicant was indicted by the GPE State Attorney ’s ORG državno odvjetništvo ORG ) on DATE .

On DATE the investigating judge opened another investigation against the applicant , charging him with the attempted murder of a judge . He was indicted on DATE .

The CARDINAL criminal proceedings were subsequently joined .

On DATE ORG ( PERSON u ORG ) convicted the applicant of both offences .

On DATE ORG ( PERSON ) upheld the first - instance conviction with regard to the murder charge . This part of the judgment became final . At the same time , ORG quashed part of the judgment relating to the attempted murder and remitted the case .

In the resumed proceedings , on DATE ORG convicted the applicant of attempted murder and sentenced him to CARDINAL years’ imprisonment .

On appeal , ORG upheld the first instance judgment on DATE .

The applicant states that he filed a constitutional complaint with ORG on DATE , alleging that both his convictions had been based on evidence obtained illegally and thus his right to a fair trial had been violated . His constitutional complaint concerned both convictions . He maintains that his complaint was never adjudged by ORG .

The Government admit that the applicant ’s letter to ORG dated DATE was titled “ a constitutional complaint ” . However , they submit that the applicant had already lodged a constitutional complaint on DATE and that his letter of CARDINAL DATE was merely an extension of his previous complaint , seeking to include the proceedings concerning the murder , which had ended in DATE . It was thus regarded by ORG as a new submission in an already existing case .

Moreover , the Government submit CARDINAL decisions of ORG , by which it adjudged the entirety of the complaints raised by the applicant in his submission dated DATE with regard to both proceedings .

In its decision dated DATE , ORG dismissed the applicant ’s complaint , finding no violation of his right to a fair trial in the proceedings concerning the attempted murder .

In its decision dated DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s complaint relating to the fairness of the proceedings concerning the murder , as it had been lodged outside the statutory time - limit .


Violation of Art. 5-3;Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed;Non-pecuniary damage - financial award;Costs and expenses partial award

The applicant was detained on DATE further to an order issued on DATE by the preliminary investigations judge ( " giudice per le indagini preliminari " ) attached to ORG . The applicant was accused of belonging to a ORG type association , drug - trafficking , unlawful possession of arms and forgery . The accusation was based on the statements of a certain Mr M. , a pentito ( a mafioso who had decided to co - operate with the authorities ) .

In the reasons for the order of DATE , the preliminary investigations judge found that PERSON 's statements should be considered credible and to have been made voluntarily . They could therefore constitute strong evidence of guilt ( " gravi indizi di colpevolezza " ) , which is a prerequisite under NORP law for remanding an accused in custody . The judge also considered that these statements were corroborated by the results of criminal investigations concerning similar crimes , as well as by statements made by other pentiti . Furthermore , pursuant to section CARDINAL of the Code of Criminal Procedure ( “ GPE di GPE ” , hereinafter called LAW ) , the nature and the seriousness of the offences raised the rebuttable presumption that the conditions for remand in custody laid down in CARDINAL ( risk of tampering with evidence , of absconding and of re - offending ) applied .

On DATE , the preliminary investigations judge committed the applicant and CARDINAL other persons for trial before ORG .

In a judgment of DATE , ORG , acting in accordance with section CARDINAL of the CPP ( which provided that the judge who found himself incompetent ratione loci should forward the case - file to the competent judge ) , declared that the case was outside its territorial jurisdiction and ordered that the case - file be transmitted to ORG .

NORP In an order of DATE , ORG confirmed the applicant ’s detention on remand .

In an order of DATE , the President of ORG committed the accused for trial and scheduled DATE first hearing for DATE .

In an order of DATE , ORG granted the prosecution 's request to suspend the maximum periods of detention on remand for the duration of the trial and deliberations at first instance , pursuant to section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) CPP . It considered that , given the fact that CARDINAL witnesses had to be examined and a considerable volume of documents , including a number of experts ' opinions , had to be produced , the proceedings could be regarded as being particularly complex . In the reasons for that order , ORG specified that , according to ORG well - established case - law , the suspension should cover the whole duration of the trial and not only DATE of the actual hearings .

On DATE , the applicant lodged an application for immediate release with ORG . He observed that the interpretation followed in the order of DATE - according to which the suspension of the maximum periods of detention on remand should cover periods of inactivity between hearings - was inconsistent with the relevant provisions of the ORG , with the overall purpose of LAW and with ORG , CARDINAL § DATE and CARDINAL of LAW .

In an order of DATE , ORG , observing that the maximum periods of detention on remand had not been overstepped , dismissed the applicant 's claim .

On DATE , the applicant appealed against that order . ORG , sitting as the authority with jurisdiction to decide on measures affecting the liberty of persons ( " tribunale della libertà e del riesame " ) , dismissed the applicant 's appeal in an order of DATE .

On DATE , the applicant appealed on points of law .

In a decision of DATE , ORG , considering that the lower court had not duly indicated the specific and concrete grounds for the decision to suspend the maximum periods of detention on remand , annulled the impugned order and referred the case back to ORG .

In a decision of DATE , filed with the registry on DATE , ORG confirmed ORG order of DATE and declared that the doubts raised by the applicant as to the constitutionality of the relevant provisions of the CPP were manifestly ill - founded . ORG observed that the length of the proceedings was mainly due to the complexity of the case , to the number of parties and witnesses as well as to the circumstances preventing the attendance of the accused 's lawyers and of ORG judges . Furthermore , no significant periods of inactivity seemed to have occurred during the trial , given the fact that CARDINAL hearings had taken place from DATE until DATE . However , the court noted that some hearings had been adjourned for reasons which were not imputable to the applicant or to the requirements of the fair administration of justice in criminal cases , such as lawyers ' strikes , ORG illness and a lack of a proper hearing - room . It consequently considered that a global delay of DATE should be deducted from the maximum period of detention on remand , which had not been overstepped , even taking into account such deduction .

On DATE , the applicant appealed on points of law against that decision . In a decision of CARDINAL DATE , filed with the registry on DATE , ORG declared the applicant 's appeal inadmissible as manifestly ill - founded .

In the meanwhile , CARDINAL trial hearings had taken place before FAC . CARDINAL witnesses had been heard and a number of expert opinions were examined .

During the trial , the lawyers of the accused had contested the lawfulness of the order for committal for trial . They had noted that in a judgment of DATE , ORG had declared that section CARDINAL of the CPP was unconstitutional and that the incompetent judge should forward the case - file to ORG ( and not to the competent judge , as previously provided ) . Given the fact that in its judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG had ordered that the case - file be transmitted to ORG , the lawyers had requested that the whole proceedings be declared null and void .

On DATE , the applicant ’s lawyer had declared that due to family reasons , he was unable to take part in the hearings scheduled in DATE and had requested to adjourn the case until DATE .

In a judgment of DATE , ORG had sentenced the applicant to DATE and DATE imprisonment for drug - trafficking and had acquitted him in respect of the remainder of the charges . The court had also ordered that the applicant 's case - file be transmitted to ORG in order to evaluate the desirability of instituting fresh proceedings against him for belonging to a ORG type association and drug - trafficking , crimes which appeared to have been committed in GPE .

As concerned the question of the lawfulness of the order for committal for trial , ORG had observed that the decision of ORG had been adopted on DATE , while the invoked judgment of ORG had been published only on DATE . Therefore , in accordance with the principle tempus regit actum , the finding of the unconstitutionality of section CARDINAL of the CPP could not retroactively affect the lawfulness of ORG judgment .

The applicant lodged an appeal with ORG .

In a judgment of CARDINAL DATE , filed with the registry on DATE , ORG declared that the committal for trial and the first - instance judgment were null and void and ordered that the case - file be transmitted to ORG . It observed , in particular , that the finding that a provision was unconstitutional should in principle apply to all pending proceedings . Therefore , after ORG judgment of DATE , ORG had no power to commit the accused for trial and its President ’s order of DATE as well as all the acts done before it were invalid .

On DATE , the applicant was released .