Remainder inadmissible;No violation of Art. 3

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

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

On DATE a group of police officers entered the applicant 's flat , intending to search it . The applicant , who had been offered the opportunity to hand over any illegal substances before the search , handed the police officers QUANTITY of tobacco and marijuana compound . No other illegal substances or money were found during the subsequent search of the flat carried out by the police . The applicant was arrested and taken to the LOC town temporary detention centre , where a police investigator , Mr S. , informed him that he had been arrested on suspicion of selling drugs to an anonymous person , whom the police called PERSON , during a policecontrolled purchase on DATE . The investigator also notified the applicant of an identification parade scheduled for DATE , in which PERSON was to participate .

On DATE the applicant was taken to ORG where he remained handcuffed to a heating device for TIME . The identification parade did not take place .

On DATE the ORG authorised the applicant 's placement in custody for DATE . He was transferred to temporary detention facility no . IZ-CARDINAL/CARDINAL in GPE .

In DATE the applicant was notified of another charge brought against him . The prosecution authorities accused him of selling drugs to PERSON on another occasion , namely DATE .

On DATE the police investigator , PERSON , served the applicant and his lawyer with a bill of indictment . The investigation offered the following version of events on which the charges against the applicant were grounded . According to the investigating authorities , on an unspecified date an anonymous person , whose personal data could not be disclosed and who was called “ Mr I. ” , approached a police officer , PERSON . , and informed the latter that he could buy drugs from the applicant . The police officer PERSON . decided to act on the information received from PERSON and organised a police - controlled purchase of drugs . He invited CARDINAL soldiers serving in the local military unit , PERSON and PERSON , to act as lay witnesses during the purchase . On DATE police officer PERSON . , accompanied by another police officer , PERSON , CARDINAL lay witnesses , PERSON and PERSON , and PERSON , drove to the applicant 's house . On arrival to the applicant 's block of flats , officer PERSON . gave PERSON money to purchase drugs from the applicant . Serial numbers of the bills were recorded in advance . PERSON , accompanied by PERSON , left the car and went to the applicant 's flat . PERSON did not enter the flat , waiting for PERSON on the ground floor . Mr I. spent TIME in the applicant 's flat . After he had returned to the car , Mr I. handed the police officers a package containing QUANTITY of a substance , later identified by forensic experts as a compound of tobacco and cannabis , and stated that he had bought drugs from the applicant . The investigating authorities also insisted that the same sequence of events , albeit with the participation of other lay witnesses , Mr Se . and PERSON , occurred on DATE .

On DATE the applicant 's lawyer recorded a conversation with PERSON , who insisted that he could identify PERSON According to PERSON , in DATE he had met with the person identified as PERSON The latter had told PERSON that he had framed the applicant in a drug case . According to PERSON , the police had arrested him when he was carrying drugs and as a result he had been forced to participate in QUANTITY police - controlled drug purchases . PERSON allegedly explained that he had kept the money which the police officers had given him for drug purchases and in return he had allegedly given the police officers drugs which he had hidden in advance behind a heating device in the hall near the applicant 's flat .

On DATE the ORG found the applicant guilty of CARDINAL counts of attempted drug trafficking and CARDINAL count of drug possession , and sentenced him to DATE imprisonment . The conviction was based on the following evidence :

- statements by PERSON , given during the pre - trial investigation and read out in open court , despite the applicant 's objection . In those statements PERSON gave a detailed description of the events on DATE and CARDINAL DATE pertaining to his participation in the police - controlled purchases of drugs from the applicant . As follows from ORG judgment , Mr ORG 's personal data were not disclosed to the applicant . PERSON absence from trial hearings had been considered “ exceptional ” . Having cited no reasons which could justify Mr I. 's absence from the court hearing , ORG held that the absence was prompted by “ exceptional circumstances ” . On a number of occasions the defence unsuccessfully asked ORG to disclose PERSON identity .

- statements made in open court by PERSON and PERSON , lay witnesses who had assisted the police officers during the search of the applicant 's flat on DATE . Both PERSON and PERSON confirmed that the applicant had voluntarily turned over to the police officers a small package of a substance containing marijuana .

- statements made in a trial hearing by Mr Se . , who had acted as a lay witness during the police - controlled purchase of drugs from the applicant on DATE . Mr Se . explained that on a request from a police officer he had followed PERSON to the door of the applicant 's flat . PERSON had spent TIME in the flat . After PERSON left the flat he had a small package , which he gave to the police officers .

- statements given by another lay witness , PERSON , during the pre - trial investigation and read out in open court with the parties ' consent . PERSON statements were similar to those given by PERSON .

- statements by PERSON , a lay witness who had participated in the police - controlled purchase of drugs from the applicant on DATE . Those statements were given by PERSON during an interview with an investigator and read out in a trial hearing . ORG , without providing any further details , held that reasons for PERSON absence from the trial were “ exceptional ” . In his statements PERSON provided a detailed description of events on DATE and corroborated the prosecution 's version .

- statements by police officer PERSON . , made in open court . The police officer set out an account of events on DATE , DATE and CARDINAL DATE , insisting that on DATE dates PERSON had purchased drugs from the applicant during the police - controlled operations and that on DATE drugs had been found in the applicant 's flat during the search .

- report on a body search of PERSON on DATE showing that PERSON had had no illegal substances or money on him before he took part in the police - controlled purchase of drugs from the applicant .

- report drawn up by police officer PERSON . on DATE showing that the latter had given Mr I. four CARDINAL bills to purchase drugs from the applicant ;

- report of DATE indicating that on his return from the applicant 's flat PERSON had handed the police officers a package containing a phytogenous substance .

- an expert report confirming that the substances which Mr I. had handed to the police officers during the police - controlled operations on CARDINAL DATE and CARDINAL DATE contained cannabis .

- an expert report , according to which cannabis handed over by PERSON to the police on DATE and CARDINAL DATE most probably had the same origin . However , the cannabis which the applicant voluntarily turned over to the police during the search of his flat was from a different batch .

On request by the defence ORG heard a number of witnesses and rejected their testimony as unreliable . CARDINAL defence witnesses testified that they had visited the applicant on DATE and had been in his flat at the time when the police had allegedly performed the controlled drug purchase . They insisted that no one had visited the applicant 's flat when they had been there and that the applicant had not sold drugs to anyone . Another witness testified that she had been in the applicant 's flat with her brother on CARDINAL DATE at the time of the alleged drug purchase . She stressed that there had been no other visitors . ORG interviewed Mr So . , the head of the military unit where lay witnesses PERSON and PERSON had been performing military service . PERSON So . stated that , on a written request from the applicant 's lawyer , he had had a conversation with PERSON , who had insisted that he had not seen PERSON entering the applicant 's flat . ORG also studied a statement written by PERSON at the end of that conversation . PERSON confirmed that after PERSON had approached the door of the applicant 's flat he had ordered PERSON to go down to the ground floor and thus PERSON had been unable to observe PERSON entering the flat . ORG refused to call PERSON , whom the applicant had asked to be questioned about PERSON identity .

The applicant 's lawyer appealed against the conviction , arguing , inter alia , that ORG had read out statements by PERSON and PERSON , disregarding the objection by the defence to that effect , and that it had refused to hear PERSON

On DATE ORG upheld the judgment of DATE , endorsing the reasons given by ORG . As regards the applicant 's argument concerning the statements by PERSON and PERSON PERSON , ORG held as follows :

“ The [ Town ] court read out the statements by PERSON and PERSON in open court , complying with the requirements of LAW , because the [ Town ] court found that the reasons for their absence from the hearings were exceptional and [ it ] issued a reasoned judgment to that effect . ”

ORG also concluded that ORG had rightfully dismissed the applicant 's and his lawyer 's requests for the disclosure of Mr I. 's identity .

On DATE the Presidium of ORG , by way of a supervisory review , quashed the judgments of DATE and DATE in the part concerning the applicant 's conviction for drug trafficking , and upheld the conviction for possession of drugs found in his flat during the search . It stressed that having based , to a substantial degree , the applicant 's conviction for drug trafficking on statements by witnesses whom the applicant had been unable to confront in open court , including the anonymous witness ORG and a lay witness PERSON , the domestic courts had violated LAW ( d ) of LAW . The ORG concluded that there was no evidence that the applicant was guilty of drug trafficking . Having acquitted the applicant of that charge , the ORG reduced his sentence to DATE imprisonment and authorised his immediate release , as he had already served the entire sentence . The ORG also confirmed the applicant 's right to rehabilitation .

The following account has been drawn up from the medical records submitted by the Government .

In DATE the applicant was diagnosed with pulmonary tuberculosis . He underwent treatment in a tuberculosis hospital in PERSON .

On DATE , on his admission to temporary detention facility no . IZ-CARDINAL/CARDINAL , the applicant informed an attending prison doctor that he had tuberculosis and complained of a cough and general fatigue . The doctor noted in the admission record that an examination by a tuberculosis specialist was required .

DATE the applicant underwent an X - ray examination which revealed the presence of a tuberculoma , measuring QUANTITY in width and QUANTITY in length , in the upper lobe of the left lung and dense foci in the right lung . On the basis of the X - ray examination the tuberculosis specialist recorded the following diagnosis in the applicant 's medical history : “ large residual changes in the form of a tuberculoma on the left and dense foci on the right after the recent tuberculosis ; “ D ” control is not required ; R - control should be carried out twice a year ” . The next X - ray exam was prescribed for DATE .

On DATE the applicant received the second chest X - ray examination , which showed no relapse .

On DATE the applicant requested to see a prison doctor to whom he complained of fatigue , a high temperature in the evenings and excessive sweating . The doctor diagnosed the applicant with acute viral respiratory infection , authorised a number of analyses , including general blood and urine tests , sputum analysis and a survey X - ray exam , and prescribed treatment with floracyd , a cough medicine and multivitamins .

A survey X - ray examination performed on DATE revealed the reactivation of the tuberculosis and the need for in - patient treatment for the applicant . The doctor 's diagnosis was “ infiltrative tuberculosis on the right side ” .

On DATE the applicant was transferred to the pulmonary tuberculosis ward of the medical department in the detention facility , where he remained until DATE . On DATE , DATE and DATE bacteriological sputum tests were performed by way of bacterioscopy , and showed no mycobacterium tuberculosis ( “ ORG ” ) . Subsequently similar tests were performed once DATE , each time producing negative results . On DATE a sputum sample taken for culture turned out positive . At the same time results of the applicant 's drug susceptibility testing ( “ DST ” ) were made available to the facility medical personnel , guiding the choice of the applicant 's treatment regimen . DATE and DATE the applicant was subjected to an intensive chemotherapy regimen , comprising a number of drugs : isoniazid , pyrazinamide , rifampicin , ethambutol , streptomycin , phosphoglif and multivitamins . During the initial stage of the treatment the applicant adhered to a strict medication regime , having received CARDINAL doses of anti - bacteriological medicines . An intake of every dose was observed by the facility medical staff . Attending tuberculosis specialists examined the patient once in DATE in view of identifying whether a correction of the drug regimen was necessary . DATE clinical blood and urine analyses were also carried out . DATE the applicant received chest radiography . Liver examinations were conducted regularly .

After a sputum culture testing had showed that the applicant was no longer smear positive and similar results had been received by way of sputum smear bacterioscopy at completion of the intensive phase of the treatment , the continuation phase of the therapy commenced , comprising treatment with isoniazid , rifampicin and ethambutol ( “ ORG regimen ” ) .

The applicant 's medical history contained a number of entries made by attending tuberculosis specialists , recording the applicant 's negative attitude towards the treatment and his refusal to take anti - bacteriological medicines on CARDINAL occasions . The attending doctors had conversations with the applicant , persuading him to continue the treatment and warning about a possible relapse of the illness or development of severe multi - drug - resistant tuberculosis . In addition , during examinations doctors occasionally reminded him of the negative effects of treatment interruption .

Following the applicant 's final conviction on DATE , on DATE the applicant was discharged from the medical department of the detention facility with a final diagnosis of infiltrative tuberculosis of the right lung in the resolution and consolidation phase and recommendations to continue treatment on an ORG regimen with a DATE special dietary food ration . He was sent for subsequent treatment to ORG no . CARDINAL ( “ the tuberculosis hospital ” ) for prisoners suffering from tuberculosis , located in GPE .

On DATE , on admission to the tuberculosis hospital , the applicant was examined by a tuberculosis specialist . A clinical blood analysis and sputum smear bacterioscopy were performed . It was decided to continue the extension phase of the medicine regimen as prescribed by medical specialists of the detention facility . A chest X - ray examination and sputum culture testing were scheduled to be performed at the end of the extension phase . The applicant was also assigned a special diet .

Once a month the applicant received a full medical examination . Each time the attending tuberculosis specialists recorded the total number of doses of anti - bacteriological medicines taken by the applicant . Clinical blood and urine tests were performed DATE . A sputum smear was regularly taken for bacterioscopy testing , revealing no presence of ORG . The applicant 's medical record also showed that medical personnel discussed with the applicant the necessity of the treatment and adherence to a strict medical regimen .

On DATE the applicant was examined by a medical panel comprising a number of medical specialists . Having studied his medical records , including results of CARDINAL most recent X - ray examinations , blood and urine analysis and sputum smear tests , the panel issued the following diagnosis : “ clinical recovery from infiltrative pulmonary tuberculosis accompanied by the presence of extensive post - tuberculosis changes in the form of foci and fibrous foci ... in both lungs ” . A schedule showing future medical procedures and their frequency was developed . The applicant was also prescribed DATE retreatment courses with isoniazid , ethambutol and vitamins , to prevent relapse of the illness .

On DATE the applicant was transferred to correctional colony no . CARDINAL . On arrival he was examined by a colony physician , who diagnosed the applicant with acute maxillary sinusitis for which he received treatment DATE . As follows from the applicant 's medical history , the correctional colony medical staff complied fully with the recommendations issued by the specialists of the tuberculosis hospital in respect of medical tests and anti - relapse treatment for the applicant .

“ CARDINAL . Provision of anti - tuberculosis aid to individuals suffering from tuberculosis is guaranteed by the ORG and is performed on the basis of principles of legality , compliance with the rights of an individual and citizen , [ and ] general accessibility in the amount determined by ORG guarantees for provision of medical assistance to citizens of GPE , free of charge .

Anti - tuberculosis aid is provided to citizens when they voluntarily apply [ for such aid ] or when they consent [ to such aid ] , safe for cases indicated in Sections CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the present Federal law and other federal laws ... ”

“ CARDINAL . Individuals suffering from tuberculosis who are in need of anti - tuberculosis aid receive such an aid in medical anti - tuberculosis facilities , licensed to provide [ that aid ] .

Individuals who are or have been in contact with an individual suffering from tuberculosis should undergo an examination for detection of tuberculosis in compliance with requirements of law of GPE ... ”

Regular medical examinations of persons suffering from tuberculosis is performed in compliance with the procedure laid down by a respective federal executive body ...

Regular medical examinations of persons suffering from tuberculosis is performed irrespective of the patients ' or their representatives ' consent .

A medical commission appointed by the head of a medical anti - tuberculosis facility ... takes a decision authorising regular medical examinations or terminating them and records such a decision in medical documents ... ; an individual in respect of whom such a decision has been issued , is informed in writing about the decision taken . ”

“ CARDINAL . Individuals suffering from contagious forms of tuberculosis who ... intentionally avoid medical examinations aimed at detection of tuberculosis or avoid treating it , should be admitted , by a court decision , to specialised medical anti - tuberculosis establishments for mandatory examinations and treatment . ”

“ CARDINAL . Individuals admitted to medical anti - tuberculosis facilities for examinations and ( or ) treatment , have a right to :

receive information from the administration of the medical anti - tuberculosis facilities on the progress of treatment , examinations ...

have meetings with lawyers and clergy in private ;

take part in religious ceremonies , if they do not have a damaging impact on the state of their health ;

continue their education ...

Individuals ... suffering from tuberculosis have other rights provided for by the laws of GPE on health care ... ”

“ Individuals ... suffering from tuberculosis must ;

submit to medical procedures authorised by medical personnel ;

comply with the internal regulations of medical anti - tuberculosis facilities when they stay at those facilities ;

comply with sanitary and hygiene conditions established for public places when persons suffering from tuberculosis [ visit them ] . ”

“ CARDINAL . Individuals ... suffering from tuberculosis should be provided with medication free of charge for out - patient treatment of tuberculosis by federal specialised medical facilities in compliance with the procedure established by the Government of GPE ... ”

NORP law gives detailed guidelines for provision of medical assistance to detained individuals . These guidelines , found in the joint Decree of the Ministry of Health and Social Development and ORG no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL on ORG or Detained ( “ the Regulation ” ) , enacted on DATE , are applicable without exception to all detainees . In particular , section III of the Regulation sets out the procedure for initial steps to be taken by medical personnel of a detention facility on admission of a detainee . On arrival at a temporary detention facility all detainees should be subjected to preliminary medical examination before they are placed in cells shared by other inmates . The examination is performed with the aim of identifying individuals suffering from contagious diseases and those in need of urgent medical assistance . Particular attention should be paid to individuals suffering from contagious conditions . DATE after the detainee 's arrival at the detention facility he should receive an in - depth medical examination , including X - ray . During the in - depth examination a prison doctor should record the detainee 's complaints , study his medical and personal history , record injuries if present , and recent tattoos and schedule additional medical procedures , if necessary . A prison doctor should also authorise laboratory analyses to identify sexually transmitted diseases , HIV , tuberculosis and other illnesses .

Subsequent medical examinations of detainees are performed at least twice a DATE or on detainees ' complaints . If a detainee 's state of health has deteriorated , medical examinations and assistance should be provided by medical personnel of the detention facility . In such cases a medical examination should include a general medical check - up and additional methods of testing , if necessary , with the participation of particular medical specialists . The results of the examinations should be recorded in the detainee 's medical history . The detainee should be comprehensively informed about the results of the medical examinations .

Section III of the ORG also sets the procedure for cases of refusals by detainees to undergo a medical examination or treatment . In each case of refusal , a respective entry should be made in the detainees ' medical record . A prison doctor should comprehensively explain the detainee consequences of his refusal to undergo the medical procedure .

Detainees take prescribed medicines in the presence of a doctor . In a limited number of cases the head of the medical department of the detention facility may authorise his medical personnel to hand over a DATE dose of medicines to the detainee for unobserved intake .

Section X of the Regulation regulates medical examinations , monitoring and treatment of detainees suffering from tuberculosis . It lays down a detailed account of medical procedures to be employed , establishes their frequency , regulates courses of treatment for new tuberculosis patients and previously treated ones ( relapsing or defaulting detainees ) . In particular , it provides that when a detainee exhibits signs of a relapse of tuberculosis , he or she should immediately be removed to designated LOC ( infectious unit of the medical department of the facility ) and should be sent for treatment to an anti - tuberculosis establishment . The prophylactic and anti - relapse treatment of tuberculosis patients should be performed by a tuberculosis specialist . Rigorous checking of the intake of anti - tuberculosis drugs by the detainee should be put in place . Each dose should be recorded in the detainee 's medical history . A refusal to take anti - tuberculosis medicine should also be noted in the medical record . A discussion of the negative impacts of the refusal should follow . Detainees suffering from tuberculosis should also be transferred to a special dietary ration .

On DATE ORG adopted Decree no . CARDINAL on Improvement of Anti - Tuberculosis Measures in GPE ( “ LAW ” or “ Decree ” ) . Having acknowledged a difficult epidemic situation in GPE in connection with a drastic increase in the number of individuals suffering from tuberculosis , particularly among children and detainees , and a substantial rise in the number of tuberculosis - related deaths , the Decree laid down guidelines and recommendations for country - wide prevention , detection and therapy of tuberculosis which conform to international standards , identifying forms and types of tuberculosis and categories of patients suffering from them , establishing types of necessary medical examinations , analyses and testing to be performed in each case and giving extremely detailed instructions on their performance and assessment ; laid down rules on vaccination ; determined courses and regimens of therapy for particular categories of patients , and so on .

In particular , Addendum CARDINAL to the Decree contains an Instruction on chemotherapy for tuberculosis patients . The aims of treatment , essential anti - tuberculosis drugs and their dose combinations , as well as standard regimens of chemotherapy set laid down by the Instruction for NORP tuberculosis patients conformed to those recommended by ORG in Treatment of Tuberculosis : ORG ( see below ) .

Article CARDINAL of the new CCrP , in so far as relevant , reads as follows :

“ CARDINAL . Testimony previously given by a victim or witness during the preliminary investigation or at the trial may be read out ... if the victim or witness fails to attend , subject to the parties ' consent , save in cases listed in the second part of the present Article .

NORP If a victim or witness fails to appear in court , the court may , at a party 's request or on its own initiative , read out statements previously given by them in the following cases :

CARDINAL ) NORP victim 's or witness 's death ;

CARDINAL ) NORP grave illness precluding attendance at a court hearing ;

CARDINAL ) NORP refusal by a victim or witness who is a national of a foreign State to attend a hearing when summoned by the court ;

CARDINAL ) natural disaster or any other emergency case precluding attendance at a court hearing . ”

The relevant provisions of the new CCrP read as follows :

“ CARDINAL . A court in its judgment .... acknowledges the right to rehabilitation for an individual who has been acquitted ... At the same time the rehabilitated [ person ] should have explained to them the procedure for compensation for damage pertaining to criminal prosecution .... ”

“ CARDINAL . Compensation for pecuniary damage to a rehabilitated [ person ] includes :

salary , pension , allowances and other sources of income which he lost as a result of the criminal prosecution ;

his property confiscated or seized by the ORG on the basis of the judgment by which he had been convicted ... ;

fines and legal costs and expenses which he paid in compliance with the court 's judgment ;

sums paid by him for provision of legal services ... ;

other expenses .

At any moment during the limitation period established by LAW and after the rehabilitated [ person ] received a copy of the judgment [ by which he had been acquitted ] ... he has the right to apply to [ the court which had issued the judgment ] with a demand to compensate him damage ...

No later than a month after the demand for compensation was received , the court ... must determine its amount and issue a decision authorising the payment in compensation for that damage . That payment should take into account the inflation rate . ... ”

“ CARDINAL . A prosecutor should give an official apology in the name of the ORG to the rehabilitated [ person ] for damage caused to him .

An action for compensation for non - pecuniary damage should be brought within civil judicial proceedings .... ”

“ CARDINAL . Restoration of labour , pension , housing and other rights of a rehabilitated [ person ] should be performed in compliance with [ the ORG ] established for execution of court judgments .... ”

ORG provide a framework of guiding principles for health services . The relevant extracts from the Rules read as follows :

“ Health care

Prison authorities shall safeguard the health of all prisoners in their care .

Organisation of prison health care

CARDINAL ORG services in prison shall be organised in close relation with the general health administration of the community or nation .

CARDINAL ORG policy in prisons shall be integrated into , and compatible with , national health policy .

CARDINAL Prisoners shall have access to the health services available in the country without discrimination on the grounds of their legal situation .

CARDINAL ORG services in prison shall seek to detect and treat physical or mental illnesses or defects from which prisoners may suffer .

CARDINAL NORP All necessary medical , surgical and psychiatric services including those available in the community shall be provided to the prisoner for that purpose .

Medical and health care personnel

CARDINAL Every prison shall have the services of CARDINAL qualified general medical practitioner .

CARDINAL Arrangements shall be made to ensure at all times that a qualified medical practitioner is available without delay in cases of urgency .

CARDINAL Every prison shall have personnel suitably trained in health care .

Duties of the medical practitioner

CARDINAL NORP The medical practitioner or a qualified nurse reporting to such a medical practitioner shall see every prisoner as soon as possible after admission , and shall examine them unless this is obviously unnecessary .

CARDINAL When examining a prisoner the medical practitioner or a qualified nurse reporting to such a medical practitioner shall pay particular attention to :

b. diagnosing physical or mental illness and taking all measures necessary for its treatment and for the continuation of existing medical treatment ;

PERSON isolating prisoners suspected of infectious or contagious conditions for the period of infection and providing them with proper treatment ;

CARDINAL NORP The medical practitioner shall have the care of the physical and mental health of the prisoners and shall see , under the conditions and with a frequency consistent with health care standards in the community , all sick prisoners , all who report illness or injury and any prisoner to whom attention is specially directed .

Health care provision

CARDINAL Sick prisoners who require specialist treatment shall be transferred to specialised institutions or to civil hospitals when such treatment is not available in prison .

CARDINAL Where a prison service has its own hospital facilities , they shall be adequately staffed and equipped to provide the prisoners referred to them with appropriate care and treatment . ”

The complexity and importance of health care services in detention facilities was discussed by ORG for the Prevention of Torture in its ORG ( ORG ( CARDINAL ) CARDINAL - Publication Date : DATE ) . The following are the extracts from the Report :

“ CARDINAL . When entering prison , all prisoners should without delay be seen by a member of the establishment 's health care service . In its reports to date the ORG has recommended that every newly arrived prisoner be properly interviewed and , if necessary , physically examined by a medical doctor as soon as possible after his admission . It should be added that in some countries , medical screening on arrival is carried out by a fully qualified nurse , who reports to a doctor . This latter approach could be considered as a more efficient use of available resources .

It is also desirable that a leaflet or booklet be handed to prisoners on their arrival , informing them of the existence and operation of the health care service and reminding them of basic measures of hygiene .

While in custody , prisoners should be able to have access to a doctor at any time , irrespective of their detention regime ... The health care service should be so organised as to enable requests to consult a doctor to be met without undue delay ...

A prison 's health care service should at least be able to provide regular out - patient consultations and emergency treatment ( of course , in addition there may often be a hospital - type unit with beds ) ... Further , prison doctors should be able to call upon the services of specialists .

As regards emergency treatment , a doctor should always be on call . Further , someone competent to provide first aid should always be present on prison LOC , preferably someone with a recognised nursing qualification .

Out - patient treatment should be supervised , as appropriate , by health care staff ; in many cases it is not sufficient for the provision of follow - up care to depend upon the initiative being taken by the prisoner .

The direct support of a fully - equipped hospital service should be available , in either a civil or prison hospital ...

A prison health care service should be able to provide medical treatment and nursing care , as well as appropriate diets , physiotherapy , rehabilitation or any other necessary special facility , in conditions comparable to those enjoyed by patients in the outside community . Provision in terms of medical , nursing and technical staff , as well as LOC , installations and equipment , should be geared accordingly .

There should be appropriate supervision of the pharmacy and of the distribution of medicines . Further , the preparation of medicines should always be entrusted to qualified staff ( pharmacist / nurse , etc . ) . ...

A medical file should be compiled for each patient , containing diagnostic information as well as an ongoing record of the patient 's evolution and of any special examinations he has undergone . In the event of a transfer , the file should be forwarded to the doctors in the receiving establishment .

Further , DATE registers should be kept by health care teams , in which particular incidents relating to the patients should be mentioned . Such registers are useful in that they provide an overall view of the health care situation in the prison , at the same time as highlighting specific problems which may arise .

NORP The smooth operation of a health care service presupposes that doctors and nursing staff are able to meet regularly and to form a working team under the authority of a senior doctor in charge of the service . ...

A prison health care service should ensure that information about transmittable diseases ( in particular hepatitis , AIDS , tuberculosis , dermatological infections ) is regularly circulated , both to prisoners and to prison staff . Where appropriate , medical control of those with whom a particular prisoner has regular contact ( fellow prisoners , prison staff , frequent visitors ) should be carried out . ”

A further elaboration of NORP expectations towards health care in prisons is found in the appendix to Recommendation no . R ( CARDINAL ) CARDINAL of ORG on the ethical and organisational aspects of health care in prison ( adopted on DATE at the ORG meeting of ORG ) . Primarily restating ORG and ORG standards , the Recommendation went beyond reiteration of the principles in some aspects to include more specific discussion of the management of certain common problems including transmissible diseases . In particular , in respect of cases of tuberculosis , ORG stressed that all necessary measures should be applied to prevent the propagation of this infection , in accordance with relevant legislation in this area . Therapeutic intervention should be of a standard equal to that outside of prison . The medical services of the local chest physician should be requested in order to obtain the long - term advice that is required for this condition as is undertaken in the community in accordance with relevant legislation ( Section CARDINAL ) .

The fact that transmissible diseases in NORP prisons have become an issue of considerable concern prompted a recommendation of ORG concerning prison and criminological aspects of the control of transmissible diseases and related health problems in prison ( adopted on DATE at the CARDINALth meeting of ORG ) . The relevant extracts from the Recommendation read as follows :

“ CARDINAL . The systematic medical examination carried out on entry into prison should include measures to detect intercurrent diseases , including treatable infectious diseases , in particular tuberculosis . The examination also gives the opportunity to provide health education and to give prisoners a greater sense of responsibility for their own health ....

Adequate financial and human resources should be made available within the prison health system to meet not only the problems of transmissible diseases and HIV / Aids but also all health problems affecting prisoners . ”

An expanded coverage of the issue related to transmissible diseases in detention facilities was given by ORG for the Prevention of Torture in its CARDINALth ORG ( ORG ( DATE ) CARDINAL published on DATE ) , a discussion prompted by findings of serious inadequacies in health provision and poor material conditions of detention which were exacerbating the transmission of the diseases . Addressing the issue , the ORG held as follows :

“ CARDINAL . The spread of transmissible diseases and , in particular , of tuberculosis , hepatitis and HIV / AIDS has become a major public health concern in a number of NORP countries . Although affecting the population at large , these diseases have emerged as a dramatic problem in certain prison systems . In this connection the ORG has , on a number of occasions , been obliged to express serious concerns about the inadequacy of the measures taken to tackle this problem . Further , material conditions under which prisoners are held have often been found to be such that they can only favour the spread of these diseases .

The ORG is aware that in periods of economic difficulties - such as those encountered DATE in many countries visited by the ORG - sacrifices have to be made , including in penitentiary establishments . However , regardless of the difficulties faced at any given time , the act of depriving a person of his liberty always entails a duty of care which calls for effective methods of prevention , screening , and treatment . Compliance with this duty by public authorities is all the more important when it is a question of care required to treat life - threatening diseases .

The use of up - to date methods for screening , the regular supply of medication and related materials , the availability of staff ensuring that prisoners take the prescribed medicines in the right doses and at the right intervals , and the provision when appropriate of special diets , constitute essential elements of an effective strategy to combat the above - mentioned diseases and to provide appropriate care to the prisoners concerned . Similarly , material conditions in accommodation for prisoners with transmissible diseases must be conducive to the improvement of their health ; in addition to natural light and good ventilation , there must be satisfactory hygiene as well as an absence of overcrowding .

Further , the prisoners concerned should not be segregated from the rest of the prison population unless this is strictly necessary on medical or other grounds ...

In order to dispel misconceptions on these matters , it is incumbent on national authorities to ensure that there is a full educational programme about transmissible diseases for both prisoners and prison staff . Such a programme should address methods of transmission and means of protection as well as the application of adequate preventive measures .

It must also be stressed that appropriate information and counselling should be provided before and - in the case of a positive result - after any screening test . Further , it is axiomatic that patient - related information should be protected by medical confidentiality . As a matter of principle , any interventions in this area should be based on the informed consent of the persons concerned .

Moreover , for control of the above - mentioned diseases to be effective , all the ministries and agencies working in this field in a given country must ensure that they co - ordinate their efforts in the best possible way . In this respect the ORG wishes to stress that the continuation of treatment after release from prison must be guaranteed . ”

The ORG report on the visit to GPE carried out from DATE ( CPT / INF ( DATE ) CARDINAL ) provides as follows :

“ CARDINAL . The ORG is also seriously concerned by the practice of transferring back from GPE [ temporary detention facility ] to ORG [ temporary detention ward in police departments ] facilities prisoners diagnosed to have BK+ tuberculosis ( and hence highly contagious ) , as well as by the interruption of ORG treatment while at the ORG . An interruption of the treatment also appeared to occur during transfers between penitentiary establishments .

In the interest of combating the spread of tuberculosis within the law - enforcement and penitentiary system and in society in general , the ORG recommends that immediate measures be taken to put an end to the above - mentioned practice . ”

On DATE ORG published LAW no . PERSON , Volume I ) on a loan granted to GPE for Tuberculosis and ORG . The relevant part of the ORG read as follows :

“ According to ORG ) , GPE was one of the CARDINAL high - burden countries for GPE in the world ( WHO , Global Tuberculosis control : ORG , GPE , DATE ) . The incidence of GPE increased throughout DATE . This was due to a combination of factors , including : ( i ) increased poverty , ( ii ) under - funding of TB services and health services in general , ( iii ) diagnostic and therapeutic approaches that were designed for a centralized command - and - control TB system , but were unable to cope with the social mobility and relative freedom of the post - NORP era , and ( iv ) technical inadequacies and outdated equipment . Migration of populations from ex - NORP republics with high GPE burdens also increased the problem . Prevalence rates were many times higher in the prison system than in the general population . Treatment included lengthy hospitalizations , variations among clinicians and patients in the therapeutic regimen , and frequent recourse to surgery . A shrinking health budget resulted in an erratic supply of anti - TB drugs and laboratory supplies , reduced quality control in GPE dispensaries and laboratories , and inadequate treatment . The social conditions favouring the spread of GPE , combined with inadequate systems for diagnosis , treatment , and surveillance , as well as increased drug resistance , produced a serious public health problem .

TB control in the former ORG ( GPE ) and in most of GPE in DATE was heavily centralized , with separate hospitals ( TB dispensaries ) , TB sanatoriums , GPE research institutes and GPE specialists . The system was designed in DATE to address the challenges of the TB epidemic . Case detection relied strongly on active mass screening by PERSON ( phluorography ) . Specificity , sensitivity , and cost - effectiveness considerations were not features of this approach . PERSON ( ORG ) immunization was a key feature of the GPE ...

By DATE , there was CARDINAL - fold increase in GPE incidence , and mortality from GPE increased CARDINAL times , compared with DATE . The lowered treatment effectiveness of DATE resulted into an increase in the number of TB chronic patients , creating a permanent ' breeding ground ' for the infection . At that moment , the share of pulmonary GPE cases confirmed by bacterioscopy did not exceed PERCENT , and the share of such cases confirmed by culture testing was PERCENT due to suboptimal effectiveness of laboratory diagnosis , which led to poor detection of smear - positive GPE cases . Being a social disease , GPE affected the most socially and economically marginalized populations in GPE . ”

The following are the extracts from Treatment of Tuberculosis : ORG , DATE , pp . CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL :

“ Previously treated patients may have acquired drug resistance . They are more likely than new patients to harbour and excrete bacilli resistant to at least isoniazid . The re - treatment regimen consists of initially CARDINAL drugs , with CARDINAL drugs in the continuation phase . The patient receives CARDINAL drugs in the initial phase which are still effective . This reduces the risk of selecting further resistant bacilli ....

Patients with sputum smear - positive pulmonary ORG should be monitored by sputum smear examination . This is the only group of GPE patients for whom bacteriological monitoring is possible . It is unnecessary and wasteful of resources to monitor the patient by chest radiography . For patients with sputum smear - negative pulmonary ORG and extra - pulmonary GPE , clinical monitoring is the usual way of assessing response to treatment . Under programme conditions in high GPE incidence countries , routine monitoring by sputum culture is not feasible or recommended . Where facilities are available , culture surveys can be useful as part of quality control of diagnosis by smear microscopy ...

Directly observed treatment is CARDINAL element of the ORG strategy , i.e. the ORG recommended policy package for ORG control . Direct observation of treatment means that a supervisor watches the patient swallowing the tablets . This ensures that a GPE patient takes the right drugs , in the right doses , at the right intervals ...

Many patients receiving self - administered treatment will not adhere to treatment . It is impossible to predict who will or will not comply , therefore directly observed treatment is necessary at least in the initial phase to ensure adherence . If a TB patient misses CARDINAL attendance to receive treatment , it is necessary to find that patient and continue treatment . ”

In the fourth edition of the Guidelines , published in DATE , the ORG recommended as follows :

“ DST [ a drug susceptibility testing ] before or at the start of therapy is strongly recommended for all previously treated persons . ” ( p. CARDINAL )


Violation of Art. 6-1 with regard to the length of the proceedings;Inadmissible under Art. 6-1 with regard to the fairness of the proceedings;Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed;Non-pecuniary damage - financial award

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE , GPE .

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

Since DATE , the applicant ’s relatives , GPE and ORG , have occupied a part of the applicant ’s property , with the agreement of the applicant . It appears that GPE and FAC carried out construction work on the property which provoked a conflict between them and the applicant .

On DATE the applicant lodged a civil action with ORG ( Sąd Rejonowy ) in which he asked the court to order the eviction of GPE and ORG from his property .

On DATE the trial court held a hearing at which it gave a default judgment ( wyrok zaoczny ) . The court allowed the applicant ’s action and ordered that the judgement be immediately enforceable .

The defendants lodged an objection against the judgment .

On DATE ORG held a hearing at which it allowed the applicant ’s motions to hear witnesses and to hold a viewing of the property . Subsequently , the trial court requested a copy of the casefile concerning another set of civil proceedings instituted by the defendants against the applicant .

On DATE the court decided to stay the proceedings until the termination of the second set of proceedings , instituted by the defendants , in which they claimed that they had acquired the title to the property in question by prescription ( stwierdzenie nabycia własności poprzez zasiedzenie ) .

NORP The applicant appealed against the decision to stay the proceedings ; however , on DATE ORG dismissed his appeal .

Subsequently on several occasions , the applicant applied to resume the proceedings .

In DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE and DATE the trial court requested ORG of ORG to provide information concerning the state of the proceedings concerning the acquisition of property by prescription .

On DATE the applicant applied to resume the proceedings . He submitted that the second set of proceedings for acquisitive prescription had ended on DATE with the secondinstance court ’s decision .

On DATE ORG allowed his application and resumed the proceedings .

At the hearing held on DATE the defendants informed the court that the second set of proceedings was still pending because they had lodged a cassation appeal . Consequently , on DATE , ORG again decided to stay the proceedings .

The applicant appealed against this decision , but on DATE his appeal was rejected as he had failed to pay the fees for the appeal .

Subsequently , the applicant applied to the court to issue a writ of enforcement of the default judgment of DATE . On CARDINAL DATE ORG dismissed his application on the grounds that the proceedings were stayed .

The applicant lodged an appeal against this decision .

On DATE ORG ( Sąd Wojewódzki ) quashed the decision of CARDINAL DATE and remitted the application concerning the writ of enforcement for reconsideration .

On DATE the applicant applied to resume the proceedings . He submitted that the second set of the proceedings had ended with ORG decision of DATE .

On DATE the court allowed the application and resumed the proceedings .

On DATE ORG held a hearing and gave judgment . It upheld the default judgment of DATE and suspended the enforcement order .

The defendants lodged an appeal against the judgment with ORG .

On DATE the appellate court stayed the proceedings because the defendants had instituted yet another set of proceedings against the applicant . They sought a judgment stipulating that the applicant was obliged to make a declaration of will ( oswiadczenie woli ) in the form of a consent to the sale of the property in question . ORG found that the proceedings for eviction should be stayed as the determination of the case depended on the outcome of this third set of proceedings .

In DATE the applicant applied to resume the proceedings .

Several times in DATE and DATE the trial court requested information regarding the state of the third set of proceedings . Apparently , they were still pending at the time .

On DATE ORG was informed that the third set of proceedings had ended . As a result , on DATE , the court resumed the eviction proceedings .

On DATE the court held a hearing at which it appointed a lawyer under the legal aid scheme for the defendants .

On DATE ORG gave judgment in which it dismissed the GPE appeal .

It appears that subsequently the defendants tried to re - open the proceedings .

Under Sections CARDINAL et seq . of ORG the court may stay civil proceedings either ex officio or at the parties’ request .

Section CARDINAL § CARDINAL of the Code , in so far as relevant , provides :

“ CARDINAL . The court shall ex officio stay the proceedings :

CARDINAL ) NORP if the determination of the case depends on the outcome of other pending civil proceedings ; ”

Section CARDINAL para . CARDINAL of the LAW , insofar as relevant , provides :

“ CARDINAL . The court shall ex officio resume the proceedings if the reason for staying them has ceased to exist , in particular when :

CARDINAL ) a final decision has been given in the proceedings on whose outcome the determination of the claim depends ; however , if it is justified , the court may resume the proceedings before [ any such decision is taken ] . ”


CASE OF SIDIROPOULOS AND OTHERS v. GREECE

Preliminary objection rejected (non-exhaustion of domestic remedies);Preliminary objection rejected (abuse of process);Violation of Art. 11;Not necessary to examine Art. 6-1;Not necessary to examine Art. 9;Not necessary to examine Art. 10;Not necessary to examine Art. 14;Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient;Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings

The applicants all live at GPE , in northern GPE , on the border of the Former GPE . Mr PERSON , an electrician , was born at ORG in DATE ; Mr GPE , a teacher , was born at GPE in DATE , Mr GPE , a farmer , was born at GPE in DATE ; Mr Boules , a farmer , was born at GPE in DATE ; Mr PERSON , a farmer , was born at GPE in DATE ; and PERSON , a dentist , was born at ORG in DATE .

On DATE the applicants , who claim to be of “ NORP ” ethnic origin and to have a “ NORP national consciousness ” , decided together with CARDINAL other people to form a non - profit - making association ( somatio ) called “ Home of Macedonian Civilisation ” ( PERSON ) . The association ’s headquarters were to be at PERSON . According to clause CARDINAL of its memorandum of association , the association ’s objects were “ ( a ) the cultural , intellectual and artistic development of its members and of the inhabitants of PERSON in general and the fostering of a spirit of cooperation , solidarity and love between them ; ( b ) cultural decentralisation and the preservation of intellectual and artistic endeavours and traditions and of the civilisation ’s monuments and , more generally , the promotion and development of [ their ] folk culture ; and ( c ) the protection of the region ’s natural and cultural environment ” .

On DATE the applicants , who constituted the provisional management committee of the association , lodged an application under LAW with ORG for registration of their association under the name of “ Home of Macedonian Civilisation ” .

On DATE the court , having heard the applicants , refused their application on the following grounds :

“ It is apparent from the documents lodged by the applicants and from the information which the ORG may take into consideration of its own motion … that recognition of the association under this same name has already been sought , in an application on DATE which was dismissed by ORG on DATE ... Now that the words [ the defence of national independence ] that constituted the ground on which the aforementioned application was dismissed as being contrary to law have been deleted , a fresh application has been made for recognition of the association in question . Some of the founder members of the association who are on the provisional management committee … have engaged in promoting the idea that there is a NORP minority in GPE ( see , for example , the newspapers PERSON , ORG , PERSON and PERSON of DATE , DATE , DATE and CARDINAL DATE respectively ) ; these newspapers strengthen ORG all the more in its previous opinion as none of the applicants has so far cast any doubt on the matters set out in these newspapers … , namely that they travelled to GPE on DATE and took part in the Conference on Security and Co - operation in LOC ( CSCE ) , where they maintained that there was a NORP minority in GPE and even congratulated Professor PERSON , a NORP , who read out a text containing provocative and unacceptable allegations against GPE . CARDINAL of the members of the provisional management committee , PERSON , refused , in the course of proceedings in ORG against the publisher of the newspaper PERSON , to accept that he was NORP … Besides , CARDINAL founder members of the above - mentioned association reportedly contributed money so that PERSON PERSON and PERSON could go to GPE to defend their ideas … On the basis of the foregoing circumstances , which have been proved , the ORG considers that the true object of the aforementioned association is not the one indicated in clause CARDINAL of the memorandum of association but the promotion of the idea that there is a NORP minority in GPE , which is contrary to the country ’s national interest and consequently contrary to law .

On DATE the applicants appealed against that judgment to ORG . After hearing the applicants , that court dismissed their appeal on the following grounds :

III . In view of the strong public interest at stake , the court , when examining the grounds of an application being heard under the special procedure , as in the present case , may and indeed must take into consideration , of its own motion , matters over and above the evidence submitted to the court by the parties – in particular , real events and situations reported in publications ( books , magazines , newspapers , etc . ) accessible to any interested person DATE and this notwithstanding the ordinary rules on the burden of proof . On the basis of the well - known facts set out below , whose validity the ORG does not doubt , the ORG accepts the following in relation to the case . ORG ( classical ) GPE is delimited to the south by LOC and the GPE , PERSON and PERSON mountains ; to the north by LOC , the Prespa lakes , and FAC ( Rila Planina ) and LOC ; to the east by the river GPE ; and to the west by ORG and the LOC range ( see : PERSON , pp . CARDINAL et seq . ; PERSON , PERSON , p. II ; PERSON , GPE tou GPE , p. CARDINAL ) . Its inhabitants ( the NORP ) were one of the most ancient NORP tribes , closely related to the NORP , who were also of NORP origin , and especially to the NORP . Their language was one of the oldest NORP dialects , akin to NORP and PERSON and also to the NORP dialect . Their religion was that common to the NORP and their myths and traditions were similar to those elsewhere in the NORP world ( see PERSON , ORG , trans . PERSON as ORG , GPE , LAW , p. CARDINAL , and LAW , p. CARDINAL ; PERSON , ORG tou Politismou , ed . ORG , DATE , p. CARDINAL ; PERSON , NORP ORG , trans . PERSON , GPE , DATE , p. CARDINAL ; PERSON , op . cit . , pp . CARDINAL et seq . ; PERSON , I taftotita ton Makedonon , communication to ORG on DATE ; PERSON , correction of the draft article on GPE for the new NORP encyclopedia NORP People , speech to the special meeting of ORG DATE ; PERSON , The Language and the NORP Origin of the ORG NORP , LOC , DATE ) . The NORP kings PERSON and PERSON acted not just as NORP but as pan - GPE , in the sense that they incarnated the old idea of the creation of a unified NORP State by bringing together the smaller NORP territories ; they were bearers , and the latter was a disseminator , not of an incomplete NORP civilisation but of NORP civilisation ( see PERSON , ORG , trans . with commentary etc . by PERSON , DATE , pp . CARDINAL–CARDINAL and CARDINAL et seq . ; PERSON , PERSON , vol . D , pp . CARDINAL et seq . ) . And in DATE , especially after the appearance in the LOC of the LOC and NORP ( MONEY . DATE ) , the NORP region as defined above was a stronghold and bastion of NORP just as it had been in ancient times . PERSON describes GPE as a ‘ shield’ and praises the NORP because they fought the barbarians ( non - NORP ) to ensure the safety of the ( other ) NORP ( Polybius , GPE , GPE edition , DATE , vol . CARDINAL , book CARDINAL , p. CARDINAL ) . For the NORP period the same is affirmed by the NORP historian PERSON in his classic work PERSON orientale , GPE , DATE , pp . CARDINAL . In addition , a guide to LOC written by NORP historians and archaeologists during the last world war states that ‘ the waves of migrating peoples which frequently swamped the NORP peninsula broke on this most powerful bastion of GPE ( see PERSON , op . cit . , pp . CARDINAL et seq . ) . Nowhere in either the recent or the distant past are GPE and the NORP mentioned in any official document as a specific ethnic group . LAW , and LAW which it replaced , make no reference to such a notion . In the official NORP census of DATE there is mention of NORP and NORP , or inhabitants whose identity was partly NORP , in the vilayets of LOC and ORG , where there were NORP ethnic majorities ; but no mention of NORP , since nobody declared such descent ( A. PERSON , op . cit . , pp . CARDINAL et seq . ; PERSON , PERSON tou PERSON , vol . CARDINAL , pp . CARDINAL et seq . , which includes a reproduction of the census tables ) . In his work Voyage dans la Macédoine ( GPE , DATE ) PERSON , the French Consul in GPE , says that the NORP ( as all speakers of NORP were then called ) never penetrated the forests beyond NORP , where the population remained NORP ( see vol . CARDINAL , pp . CARDINAL–CARDINAL , and vol . CARDINAL , p. CARDINAL ) . With reference to the same area , the NORP geographer PERSON NORP LOC observes that in their language , traditions , cultural affinities , ethnic preferences and religion , its inhabitants are as legitimately and authentically NORP as their brothers further to the south ( PERSON Landschafts- und GPE , GPE , DATE , p. CARDINAL ) . He reiterates the words of ORG , GPE representative at the Congress of Berlin , on DATE , when he said that ‘ GPE and NORP are just as NORP as GPE ( PERSON , op . cit . , p. CARDINAL ) . The fact that a small part of this region ’s population also speaks a language which is basically a form of NORP with admixtures of NORP , NORP , ORG and NORP words , does not prove that this minority is of NORP or NORP origin ; in isolation this criterion is of no value whatsoever , as is borne out by the experience in the recent past of the forced migration from LOC Minor to GPE of populations which were indisputably NORP but totally ignorant of the NORP language . It is indicative that among the fighters of the NORP campaign ( CARDINAL–CARDINAL ) there were men who spoke the NORP - Slav dialect but who had a purely NORP national consciousness ; for example ORG , ORG , PERSON , PERSON and others . In his Short History of the NORP , NORP and ORG ( GPE DATE ) , the NORP historian PERSON wrote of these non - NORP - speaking NORP that they had an implacable hatred of and scorn for all NORP and NORP ( see PERSON , op . cit . , pp . CARDINAL et seq . ) . After the Balkan Wars of CARDINAL , PERCENT of the region corresponding to ancient GPE was under NORP domination , PERCENT under NORP domination , and PERCENT under NORP domination ( see PERSON , p. CARDINAL , which includes a map ) . In this way a territorial status came into being . There were exchanges of population , either voluntary or following bilateral agreements such as the PERSON - Molov agreement between GPE and GPE in DATE ; and NORP from GPE populated the NORP part of GPE , so that only NORP remained in this part of GPE , even if some of them were bilingual . LOC thus became a completely homogeneous part of NORP territory ( see PERSON , op . cit . , p. CARDINAL ; and PERSON , op . cit . , p. CARDINAL , who refers to the work of ORG , PERSON ) . This was especially true in the period immediately following the Second World War ( ORG ) , when almost all the bilingual inhabitants of this region who did not have a NORP national consciousness emigrated to neighbouring countries ( see PERSON , Nationalism and Communism in GPE , GPE , DATE , pp . CARDINAL et seq . ) . There they experienced a mutation of their partly NORP or partly NORP nationality into a ‘ ORG , i.e. a NORP - NORP , nationality ( see PERSON in GPE DATE , GPE , DATE , p. CARDINAL ; PERSON , GPE , PERSON , PERSON , DATE , pp . CARDINAL et seq . ) . This situation was preceded by a number of violent incidents , such as the ORG revolt , in which the NORP claim to have revolted against the NORP on DATE at FAC , a town near GPE whose ethnic composition was overwhelmingly NORP . In fact they turned against the town ’s NORP inhabitants , whom they tried to wipe out with the cooperation of the NORP and without causing the rest of the population any significant harm ( see PERSON , op . cit . , p. CARDINAL ; PERSON , The NORP Struggle in GPE CARDINAL–CARDINAL , ORG , DATE , pp . CARDINAL et seq . ; PERSON , ORG - Ainianos , PERSON and ORG , O PERSON , GPE , DATE , pp . CARDINAL et seq . ; PERSON , op . cit . , pp . CARDINAL et seq . ) . Until DATE ‘ Macedonia’ as a NORP State and ‘ the NORP nation’ as a specific nation were unheard of . The part of GPE which fell under NORP domination , like that which fell to GPE , is a narrow strip of land along the NORP border and represents only a small part of GPE . PERSON , which DATE is the capital of the misleadingly named GPE of ORG , is far away from GPE . The S.R.M. was founded under the NORP occupation ( see PERSON , ORG in GPE CARDINAL–CARDINAL , GPE , DATE ) . Its foundation was part of a deliberate strategy according to which , when the regions of GPE and LOC ( which belonged to ancient Dardania , a non - NORP country ) were ceded , a NORP population could be said to exist in the sparsely populated part of GPE that lay beyond the NORP borders and contained NORP , NORP , ORG , NORP with a partly NORP identity , and NORP ; a NORP - speaking population with a specific dialect and an unstable national consciousness ( see PERSON , op . cit . , pp . CARDINAL et seq . ; PERSON , ORG of GPE and its NORP , GPE , DATE , with relevant bibliography ) . The long - term purpose of founding the ORG was to re - establish a NORP State with access to the LOC . CARDINAL of the means to this end is to enlist in various ways bilingual NORP from LOC . Setting up an association called ‘ Home of NORP Civilisation’ at GPE is part of this effort and applies a directive issued by NORP organisations abroad . The aim is to create a NORP Question with international ramifications ( see statements by NORP politicians to the ORG newspaper , CARDINAL DATE and to ORG magazine , CARDINAL DATE ) . The parties applying for recognition of the above association are the enablers in this operation . Among them are PERSON and PERSON , who appeared at an international conference to dispute the NORP identity of ( NORP ) GPE , the former in particular by distinguishing between NORP and NORP ( see the ORG newspaper of CARDINAL DATE , which includes photographs of the above persons among QUANTITY members of the ‘ ORG delegation at the ORG in GPE ; and the PERSON newspaper of CARDINAL DATE , p. CARDINAL ) . This , in combination with the name of the proposed association and with the whole content of its memorandum of association , renders at least dubious the association ’s aims , which according to the founder PERSON seemingly lawful statement in clause CARDINAL of the memorandum of association , consist in the cultural , intellectual and artistic advancement of its members , cultural decentralisation , etc . This assessment is supported by the content of clause CARDINAL , paragraph CARDINAL , of the same memorandum of association , which states that all youths in the PERSON area will be enrolled in the proposed association ’s youth section . It is clear from this that there is a danger that the immaturity of young people will be exploited and that youths will be trapped by suitable propaganda in an ethnologically non - existent and historically evacuated NORP minority . Clause CARDINAL of the same memorandum of association lays down the condition that enrolment in the association is subject to written acceptance of the association ’s principles . Nowhere in the association ’s memorandum of association , however , are these principles defined . Thus the memorandum of association does not provide a clear idea of who will enrol , since a clear definition of the principles governing the proposed association is deliberately omitted . Lastly , the very name of the association may be a source of confusion , because at first sight it creates the impression that it refers to GPE ’s NORP civilisation , whereas in reality it envisages a specifically NORP civilisation which does not exist in the region in question . Altogether , this ORG has good reasons in the light of the foregoing to believe that the purpose of using the term ‘ ORG is to dispute the NORP identity of GPE and its inhabitants by indirect and therefore underhand means , and discerns an intention on the part of the founders to undermine GPE ’s territorial integrity . The impugned refusal of the application in question was therefore justified , notwithstanding that it was based on shorter and partly different reasoning ; and the arguments to the contrary put forward in the present appeal must fail .

On DATE the applicants appealed on points of law to ORG , relying , in particular , on ORG , DATE , DATE and CARDINAL of LAW and the corresponding provisions of the Convention . They maintained that , contrary to law , ORG had ( a ) not confined itself to reviewing the lawfulness of the establishment of their association DATE namely whether the requirements of ORG CARDINAL to CARDINAL of LAW had been satisfied DATE but had reviewed its desirability , relying on the presumed intentions of the founder members , which ( assuming them to have any reality ) could not , however , be the subject of judicial review at the stage of granting the association legal recognition ; ( b ) taken into consideration information ( in particular , irresponsible and unfounded press articles concerning some of the founder members ) that had not been produced by the parties ; ( c ) accepted as true certain matters that were of decisive importance for the outcome of the proceedings without ordering evidence to be taken to establish whether they were in fact true ; ( d ) distorted the content of the association ’s memorandum of association ; and ( e ) not given sufficient reasons in its judgment .

In a pleading filed on DATE the applicants essentially reiterated the complaints they had set out in their appeal on points of law and stated that the refusal to authorise the founding of their association was based on assessments and assumptions as to their personalities and ideological and historical convictions which in turn rested not on the association ’s memorandum of association but on suspect anonymous publications .

In a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG upheld ORG judgment . It considered that the grounds of appeal were vague and unfounded . It pointed out that under the special procedure for granting recognition to associations , the inquisitorial system allowed the court to take into account , of its own motion , matters which had not been mentioned by the parties and that the court was not bound by the parties’ evidence and assertions . As to the “ matters that were of decisive importance for the outcome of the proceedings ” , the parties had not specified the matters in question in their appeal . ORG had accepted the truth of certain circumstances in reliance on the content of the association ’s memorandum of association and on matters that were common knowledge and supported by documents such as the press articles ; and there had not , moreover , been any distortion of the content of the memorandum of association . ORG also held that sufficient reasons had been given in ORG judgment . It further noted that the assertion that ORG , DATE , DATE and CARDINAL of the LAW , together with LAW , had been infringed referred not to ORG judgment but to the judgment of ORG ; even supposing that the applicants had put forward a ground of appeal based on LAW , it would have had to be dismissed as vague since they had not stated in what way ORG had made a mistake in interpreting or applying those provisions .

Article in the CARDINAL DATE issue of the Ethnos newspaper :

“ PERSON : PERSON has made use of CARDINAL NORP – CARDINAL of them a public employee – who made allegations of repression against ORG to a representative of the NORP embassy visiting villages in GPE .

The CARDINAL testified against GPE at a meeting of ORG in LOC which was held in GPE on DATE . According to ORG , the men in question are PERSON , PERSON , and PERSON .

PERSON is a forestry official employed by ORG . These and other NORP belonging to an association called ‘ Home of NORP Civilisation’ are controlled by PERSON , a member of the central committee of GPE ’s ORG and a frequent visitor to GPE , where he stays in a mobile home in GPE . ”

Article in the CARDINAL DATE issue of the ORG newspaper :

“ First headline : PERSON ’s Trojan horse in GPE ’s ORG DATE – Expulsion of ringleader PERSON – Decisive documents .

Second headline : Leader of secret organisation is a public servant – Spectre of ‘ NORP Macedonians’ – How the international plot against GPE was set up ; who will be promoting it DATE ’s appeal hearing in LOC carries out a directive issued in DATE . PERSON , PERSON , PERSON and ‘ Consul’ LOC control the local leader – Application is a trap designed to vilify GPE in ORG .

As dramatic developments in a rapidly disintegrating GPE and the broader LOC region begin to resemble a thriller , with the emergence of a ‘ new ORG in the LOC whose targets include LOC and NORP , the leader of a secret organisation called ‘ NORP of the Aegean’ , PERSON , also a full - time employee of ORG , will be trying in LOC DATE to embroil GPE in a satanic plot organised abroad by GPE and the independence movements it runs in GPE . This accounts for the announcement that the NORP consul in LOC , PERSON , is to be expelled TIME before DATE ’s hearing . PERSON ’s cover was blown when PERSON revealed on CARDINAL DATE that he was the leader of a triangle opposed to LOC and including the NORP vice - consul , Colonel PERSON , and the educational adviser of the NORP embassy in GPE , PERSON .

It is also known that PERSON left ORG ‘ overnight’ for GPE when ORG exposed his dark ‘ triangular’ role in ORG contemptible report . PERSON is a tool of the NORP secret service and used agents to lead an international destabilisation operation in LOC .

CARDINAL stage of this destabilisation operation unfolds DATE in LOC . The city ’s ORG will consider the application by CARDINAL inhabitants of the prefecture of GPE for approval of their memorandum of association for establishing an association called ‘ Home of NORP Civilisation’ . The memorandum of association is drafted with expert care so as to provide full international legal cover for a well - planned destabilisation of the country – the legal wrapping of a Trojan horse on GPE ’s borders . The application in question was refused by the lower court at GPE , where an earlier , less veiled version drawn up by the same persons had also been refused . The new application in ORG DATE will be heard as ‘ a straightforward everyday ORG .

However , evidence and information from NORP sources reveals the following .

( a ) The leaders of the CARDINAL , most of whom were ensnared by what seemed an innocent ‘ LOC project , are PERSON from PERSON , a forester with ORG , and PERSON , a wealthy businessman from ORG in the prefecture of GPE , both of whom are signatories of the application . The CARDINAL also appeared DATE at a meeting of ORG in LOC ( CSCE ) held in GPE on the subject of human rights , declaring that they were NORP citizens but NORP nationals , and denounced ORG for ‘ oppressing’ the ‘ Macedonians’ of ‘ GPE and ‘ depriving’ them of all human rights . In fact , according to the newspaper run by the émigré independence movement in GPE , NORP ( CARDINAL/CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) , the QUANTITY men carried letters containing similar allegations from PERSON of PERSON , a village in the prefecture of PERSON , who lodged a complaint in GPE in DATE , and from PERSON , a teacher in the NORP State education service who lives at PERSON .

( b ) As disclosed by the ‘ NORP - Macedonian Committee for Human Rights’ on CARDINAL DATE , PERSON is the invisible leader of a secret phantom organisation of ‘ LOC Macedonians’ , the ‘ NORP organising committee for the NORP human rights of the NORP of GPE . In DATE this organisation distributed by post a manifesto containing the ‘ demands of the NORP of ORG which caused the NORP people profound unease and distress at the activities of invisible agents belonging to an independence movement within LOC . This secret phantom movement remains unknown ; however , it claims to be based in LOC and it is certain that it is directed from abroad and imports all its printed propaganda against LOC from foreign countries .

( c ) The application to be heard DATE in ORG of Appeal for registration of the ‘ Home of NORP Civilisation’ will in fact set in motion a provocation of the NORP system of justice which was planned abroad as far back as DATE . The aim is to trap GPE into a series of legal refusals which will then be used against GPE by GPE in ORG at ORG in GPE . The plot is satanic because if the NORP courts accept the application by the leader of the ‘ LOC Macedonians’ , GPE will be legalising a Trojan horse sent by PERSON to trap unwitting bilingual NORP and deliver them into the claws of foreigners and of propaganda inspired from abroad .

The NORP plot which is to be submitted DATE in LOC to unsuspecting appeal court judges is part of a directive released by independence activists in GPE DATE , in DATE , following their first appearance on the international stage at ORG in GPE . At the time ‘ ORG professors PERSON and PERSON , who are NORP citizens , released a plan of action entitled ‘ The road to NORP human rights’ on behalf of the LOC ‘ section’ . The report was written in LANGUAGE and printed abroad and its title mentions that it is a publication of PERSON secret phantom organisation in LOC . It contains CARDINAL pages ; page CARDINAL contains the following revelations :

‘ The following scenario is a convincing way of lawfully challenging the denial of Macedonians’ rights by ORG . NORP from LOC could , for instance , set up an association for popular dances with the name “ NORP ORG ” . The association will undoubtedly be forbidden by the laws mentioned above , which prohibit establishing groups on the ground of nationality . Provided that all appeals to the lower courts are turned down , the case will go through the NORP judicial system until it reaches the country ’s highest court , ORG . The refusal of an appeal at that level will mean that all domestic legal remedies have been exhausted . CARDINAL of the conditions for submission of a case to ORG will thus have been fulfilled . Within DATE of ORG decision an application can be submitted on the ground that the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association has been violated , with the result that ORG , or ORG , will deliver a decision against ORG

This foreign directive will be carried out to the letter DATE when ORG of Appeal considers the application to establish the ‘ Home of NORP Civilisation’ .

PERSON and PERSON are acting under the control of independence activists PERSON and PERSON who drew up the above report or directive . With them as leaders , along with CARDINAL others from GPE and CARDINAL other representatives of ‘ ORG independence movements from GPE , GPE and LOC , PERSON and PERSON appeared in GPE at a meeting of ORG in LOC to accuse GPE at a press conference organised by GPE ’s official diplomatic delegation to the ORG . At the conference PERSON was seated beside the secretary of the NORP embassy , who directed the discussion with the foreign journalists .

On DATE GPE , a newspaper in the service of NORP independence activists fighting in GPE and GPE for the separation of LOC and its incorporation into GPE , published a revealing photograph in which PERSON and PERSON appear beside their instructors PERSON and PERSON and their leaders from GPE in the midst of the group of agents presented by the NORP diplomatic mission at the ORG . In this newspaper , which is run by NORP independence activists , the photograph and report appear under the headline ‘ GPE protecting minority rights’ . ”

Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL of the LAW provides :

“ All NORP shall be equal before the law . ”

“ All NORP shall be entitled to form non - profit - making unions and associations , in accordance with the law , which may not , however , make the exercise of this right subject to prior authorisation . ”

The Civil Code contains the following provisions concerning non - profit - making associations :

“ A union of persons pursuing a non - profit - making aim shall acquire legal personality as soon as it has been entered in a special public register ( of associations ) held at ORG for the place where it has its headquarters . CARDINAL persons shall be necessary to form an association . ”

“ In order to have an association registered , its founders or its management committee must lodge an application with ORG . The application must be accompanied by the document establishing the association , a list of the names of the members of the management committee and the memorandum of association dated and signed by the committee ’s members . ”

“ To be valid , the memorandum of association must specify ( a ) the object , name and headquarters of the association ; ( b ) the conditions of admission , withdrawal and expulsion of its members , together with their rights and obligations ; … ”

“ ORG shall allow the application if it is satisfied that all the legal requirements have been complied with … ”

“ ORG shall order the dissolution of an association … ( c ) if the association pursues aims different from those laid down in its memorandum of association or if its object or its functioning prove to be contrary to law , morality or public order . ”

The non - contentious procedure ( ekoussia dikeodossia ) followed by the courts when they examine , among other things , applications to register an association is governed by the following provisions :

“ The court may of its own motion order any measure which might lead to the establishment of relevant facts , even if these are not mentioned in the parties’ submissions … ”

“ CARDINAL . Where the court directs that evidence is to be taken , such evidence shall be brought by CARDINAL of the parties .

The court may of its own motion order any measure that it considers necessary for establishing the facts , even if in so doing it departs from the provisions governing the taking of evidence . ”

Furthermore , LAW provides :

“ The court may , of its own motion and without directing that evidence is to be taken , have regard to matters which are so widely known that their truth can not reasonably be put in doubt . ”

Lastly , LAW allows a party who does not have to discharge the burden of proof to adduce refuting evidence .


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

The first applicant , PERSON , and the second applicant , PERSON PERSON , are NORP nationals who were born in DATE and DATE respectively and live in LOC . They were represented before ORG by PERSON and Mr PERSON , lawyers practising in GPE .

The applicants , a married couple , are the parents of a girl , ORG . , born on DATE , and of a boy , PERSON . , born on DATE .

Since his birth PERSON . has been in hospital CARDINAL times , namely from CARDINAL DATE to CARDINAL DATE because of pneumonia , from CARDINAL DATE until DATE due to a haemangioma in his mouth and from DATE to DATE due to bronchitis . Otherwise , he has been looked after only by his parents , mainly his mother .

During this last stay in hospital , acute shortness of breath put his life at risk , which was saved by intubation . Several radiographies disclosed fractures of several ribs and of his right upper arm . Having consulted a radiological expert , the doctors treating him concluded that PERSON . ’s injuries had not been caused by illness , in particular not by a pathological structure of his bones , but by third persons . Having been confronted with the suspicion of having ill - treated their child , the applicants vigorously denied having injured PERSON .

On DATE ORG , having regard to PERSON . ’s injuries and having heard the applicants , withdrew the applicants’ right to determine PERSON . ’s and PERSON . ’s whereabouts and their right to decide on their health care by way of an interim injunction .

Both children were placed in foster families . ORG subsequently excluded the GPE access to their children for DATE and then allowed the parents supervised contact with both PERSON . and PERSON . once a week and later once every two weeks .

In their report of DATE to ORG , the paediatricians PERSON and PERSON , who had also consulted PERSON . , a child radiologist , concluded that the CARDINAL fractures of his ribs PERSON . had suffered and the fracture of his right upper arm had not been caused by an illness , in particular not by osteogenesis imperfecta ( “ OI ” , commonly known as brittle bone disease ) , or by his medication . They could thus only be explained by the use of massive force by an adult or teenager on CARDINAL occasions . At least some of the fractures had been caused during periods of time in which PERSON . had stayed only with his parents and not in hospital .

In his report dated DATE , psychiatric expert PERSON . concluded that , even though neither of the parents was prone to violence , it could not be excluded that CARDINAL of them had ill - treated PERSON . The mother did not suffer from a psychiatric illness , but could have been under strain from raising PERSON . with his fragile health in addition to PERSON . However , it was more likely that PERSON . ’s father , who suffered from a narcissistic personality disorder and was unhappy with the strain put on the rest of the family by PERSON . , had caused the boy ’s injuries .

In his report of DATE , psychological expert PERSON . found that the applicants’ family did not as such pose high risks of ill - treatment . Assuming that CARDINAL of the parents had ill - treated PERSON . , there was an enhanced risk of repeated ill - treatment , particularly for PERSON . , but also for PERSON . , as the parents denied any responsibility for PERSON . ’s injuries , which made it difficult to provide them with assistance .

On DATE ORG withdrew the applicants’ parental custody of PERSON . and PERSON . and appointed a guardian for the children . Relying on Articles DATE and CARDINAL of LAW ( see Relevant domestic law below ) , it found that the children ’s physical well - being had been endangered by the applicants’ abuse of their parental authority and that there were no less intrusive means to avert this danger .

Having heard the applicants and their counsel , the first applicant ’s brother , the children ’s curator and curator ad litem , ORG and the experts PERSON , PERSON . and PERSON . in person , ORG was convinced that PERSON . had been subjected to physical ill - treatment in his GPE home . In particular , having regard to the findings of expert PERSON as to the periods of time in which the fractures , which had not been caused by an illness , had probably occurred , and to the fact that PERSON . ’s state of health had never deteriorated in hospital , ORG found that it could be excluded that the boy ’s numerous injuries had occurred in the CARDINAL different hospitals in which he had been treated since his birth . They had thus been caused at Ma . ’s home either by CARDINAL of the parents or by both of them . The psychological and psychiatric expert reports had disclosed that the parents , who continued to deny having injured PERSON . , had been partly overstrained by having to raise CARDINAL young children . This finding was not put into question by the fact that CARDINAL paediatricians whom PERSON . had seen on several occasions due to shortness of breath had not noticed any signs of ill - treatment .

As to PERSON . , ORG considered that she risked becoming the victim of ill - treatment in the future as well . It was impossible to avert the danger to her in practice by less intrusive measures .

On DATE ORG , having heard the applicants and their counsel , the experts PERSON and PERSON . , the ORG expert ORG , a doctor having treated PERSON . in hospital , the children ’s guardian and their curator ad litem in person , and having regard to the written expert reports submitted by PERSON . and PERSON . , dismissed the ORG appeal concerning the withdrawal of custody of PERSON . It quashed the withdrawal of custody of PERSON . as of CARDINAL DATE but imposed several conditions on the parents aimed at safeguarding and controlling PERSON . ’s welfare .

In a decision running to CARDINAL pages ORG found that withdrawing the GPE custody of PERSON . was presently the only means of averting danger to the boy ’s welfare .

Having regard to the expert reports of PERSON and PERSON . , ORG found that CARDINAL of the boy ’s ribs had been broken during a period when he was at home , another CARDINAL had been broken during a period when PERSON . was both in hospital and at home , and on CARDINAL further occasions CARDINAL and CARDINAL ribs respectively had been broken in periods in which PERSON . had stayed at home . The boy ’s right upper arm had been broken in a period in which he had stayed both at home and in hospital . None of these injuries could have been caused by an accident . ORG conceded that the experts PERSON and PERSON . had partly modified their diagnosis compared to their initial report of DATE , finding that PERSON . had been injured not only on CARDINAL , but on CARDINAL occasions , and partly modifying the periods in which the injuries had occurred . However , their new findings were based on a particularly thorough further examination of the radiographies in question and were thus convincing .

Moreover , having regard to the reports of experts PERSON and PERSON . and to the CARDINAL reports dated DATE and DATE drafted by a laboratory for human genetics , no illness , in particular no osteogenesis imperfecta , could be diagnosed which could have caused PERSON . ’s bones to break . It was therefore virtually certain that PERSON . ’s injuries had been caused by an abuse of parental authority . It could also not be explained otherwise that several radiographies done since PERSON . ’s separation from his parents in DATE had not disclosed any further fractures which had occurred either during his stays in hospital or with his foster family . ORG assumed that the parents had not been aware that PERSON . had suffered numerous fractures before the injuries had been discovered in hospital . As it could not be determined which of the parents , who had both denied being responsible for the injuries , had caused those injuries , the boy could not currently be returned to his parents as his welfare would otherwise be at risk .

In reaching that conclusion , ORG also had regard to the submissions of a paediatric expert consulted by the applicants on their own motion , PERSON , who had invited the court to examine more thoroughly whether PERSON . was suffering from osteogenesis imperfecta . A report drawn up on DATE by a human genetics laboratory obtained by the applicants had concluded that it could not be totally excluded that PERSON . was suffering from such a condition . ORG , on ORG ’s proposal , had then obtained an additional expert report dated DATE from that laboratory , which found after another analysis that no such genetic illness could be diagnosed . It had refused to allow PERSON to examine PERSON . , arguing that it had already obtained a report from a paediatric expert .

In ORG view , which did not follow the additional report submitted by expert PERSON . in this respect , the physical well - being of PERSON . , who had never been injured and had a close relationship with both parents , was no longer endangered if she was returned to her parents under conditions safeguarding her well - being . It further stated that it considered PERSON . ’s separation from his family not to be permanent , but that his return could be examined when he reached the age of three and went to kindergarten , provided that PERSON . ’s return to her family had gone well .

On DATE the applicants lodged a constitutional complaint with ORG . They claimed that the decisions of the family courts ordering their separation from PERSON . disproportionately interfered with their right to respect for their family life . It had not been proved that either or both of them had injured the boy and the courts had not sufficiently examined whether the boy suffered from a condition which made his bones particularly fragile .

On DATE ORG , without giving reasons , declined to consider the applicants’ constitutional complaint PERSON ( file no . CARDINAL BvR CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) .

On DATE ORG , having consulted psychological expert PERSON . , decided to retransfer custody of PERSON . to his parents as of DATE under several conditions , including psychological assistance for the parents and regular medical examinations of the boy . It found that the applicants had sought the help of therapists and had had regular access to PERSON . , who was now old enough to complain to others about potential ill - treatment . Therefore , the withdrawal of the GPE custody was no longer necessary to safeguard PERSON . ’s well - being . Since then PERSON . has again been living with the applicants .

Article DATE § CARDINAL of ORG provides that the family courts are under an obligation to order the necessary measures if a child ’s welfare is jeopardised .

Pursuant to LAW , measures entailing a child ’s separation from his or her family are permissible only if the danger to the child ’s welfare can not be averted by other means , including public assistance . LAW that Code stipulates that full parental custody may only be withdrawn if other measures have proved ineffective or have to be considered insufficient to remove the danger .


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

A previous application No . CARDINAL by the applicant concerning criminal proceedings was declared inadmissible .

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

A. The administrative proceedings

On DATE ORG ) dismissed the applicant ’s request of DATE for payment of unemployment benefits because he had not fulfilled the statutory condition of having been employed for a minimum of CARDINAL days within DATE at the time of his request . The ORG considered that the applicant had performed functions as manager and thus as employer in GPE .

On DATE the applicant lodged an administrative appeal ( Widerspruch ) against the above decision , arguing that he had worked as an employee in GPE , where he had paid social security contributions .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s administrative appeal without giving reasons on the substance .