The applicant , PERSON , is a NORP national , born in DATE and living in GPE . At present he serves a prison sentence in FAC . Before the ORG he is represented by Mr I. PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE . The respondent Government are represented by Mr L. GPE , Deputy ORG - Secretary , of ORG .

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

On DATE ORG preferred a bill of indictment against the applicant . He was charged with having inflicted lethal injuries on his common - law wife . In these and the ensuing proceedings the applicant was assisted by a defence counsel .

On DATE ORG convicted the applicant of lethal bodily assault and sentenced him to CARDINAL half years’ imprisonment . ORG relied on evidence given by numerous witnesses as well as the opinions of forensic pathologists and psychiatrists .

The applicant appealed for a mitigation , whereas the public prosecutor appealed for an aggravation of the sentence .

In its submissions to the appeal court , on DATE the Attorney ORG maintained the public prosecution ’s appeal and proposed that the sentence imposed on the applicant on account of the offence of lethal bodily assault be aggravated .

On DATE ORG , acting as second instance , held a hearing and , on the same occasion , dismissed the applicant ’s appeal . Simultaneously , it recharacterised the applicant ’s offence and convicted him of bodily assault and , separately , of murder , both offences committed with special cruelty . A cumulative sentence of DATE imprisonment was imposed on the applicant . In the reasoning , ORG completed the first - instance court ’s findings of fact with data from the victim ’s autopsy record and the forensic pathologist ’s opinion . Relying on these elements , ORG found that the atrocities committed by the applicant had in fact constituted CARDINAL separate offences which warranted the recharacterisation as well as the aggravation of the sentence .

The applicant lodged a petition for review by ORG . He claimed that the second - instance court ’s completion of the findings of fact in the case had been erroneous and that his first - instance conviction and sentence be restored . He argued that the recharacterisation of the offence had been unlawful , given that the public prosecution had not proposed such a departure from the first - instance judgment and he had had no opportunity to prepare his defence against the recharacterised charges .

On DATE ORG review bench held an oral hearing . Having studied the lower instances’ case - files and submissions by the applicant and the prosecution it upheld the second - instance judgment . As regards the applicant ’s procedural arguments , the review bench pointed out that , while courts were bound by the facts as contained in the bill of indictment , this did not hold true for the legal characterisation thereof from which the courts were free to depart . As to the merits of the case , ORG noted that , in respect of one of the incriminated events , the applicant had inflicted numerous such injuries on the victim as to imply that he had had the eventual intention to murder her . It held therefore that his additional conviction of the offence of murder was lawful .

Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL provides that proceedings before the criminal court may be initiated only upon lawful indictment . The court decides on the criminal responsibility of the indicted person exclusively by reference to facts contained in the bill of indictment .

Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL provides that where there is a strong suspicion , based on the available information , that a person has committed an offence , the authority must inform him of the substance of the suspicion against him and of the relevant laws .

Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL provides that the bill of indictment must contain a brief description of the facts on account of which the defendant is being prosecuted .

Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL requires that documents , the contents of which are regarded by the court as evidence , be read out at the hearing .

According to LAW , the second - instance court must , when passing its decision , rely on the findings of fact reached by the first - instance court , unless the first - instance judgment lacks factual support .

Article CARDINAL provides that a defendant acquitted at first instance may be convicted , or a convicted defendant ’s sentence increased , only if an appeal has been lodged to his detriment . An appeal is to be regarded as being to the defendant ’s detriment if aimed at having him convicted , or convicted of a more serious offence , or at increasing his sentence .

According to LAW ( a ) , where the proper establishment of the facts of the case can be achieved on the basis of the case - file , the second - instance court completes or rectifies the establishment of the facts and thereafter examines the first - instance judgment on this new factual basis .

According to LAW , where the first - instance court has applied the law erroneously but its judgment need not be quashed , the second - instance court amends the judgment and passes a decision in accordance with the law .

LAW provides that a final decision is subject to review if :

( a ) the defendant ’s acquittal or conviction , or the discontinuation of the proceedings , has taken place in breach of the provisions of substantive criminal law ; or

( b ) an unlawful punishment or measure has been imposed on the defendant as a consequence of an incorrect classification of the offence or of another breach of the rules of substantive criminal law .

According to paragraph CARDINAL , in the latter case no review may take place , if the actual punishment has been imposed within the limits provided for by the provisions corresponding to the classification which is correct in law .

According to LAW ( I ) , a petition for review in favour of the defendant may be filed , inter alios , by the defendant , the public prosecutor or the defence counsel .

Paragraph CARDINAL provides a further ground for review where certain serious breaches of procedural criminal law have affected the passing of the decision in question .

Under LAW , if a petition for review is not rejected on formal grounds , it must be sent to the Attorney ORG for comments .

Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL grants the petitioner the right to submit comments in reply .

According to Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL , the ORG examines , as a general rule , the petition for review at a session . The attendance of the defence counsel and the public prosecutor is required ; the defendant must be notified of the session and , if detained , must be committed thereto .

Article CARDINAL provides that , at the session , CARDINAL of the judges sitting in the case must orally present the petition , the decision challenged and relevant details of the case - file . After this introduction , the public prosecutor , the defence counsel and the defendant , inter alios , address the court .

As a result of the review , ORG may , under LAW , quash the decision reviewed and instruct the lower - instance court to resume its proceedings .

Under LAW , where the second - instance decision has been taken in breach of the provisions of substantive criminal law within the meaning of LAW , ORG may itself deliver a rectified decision , if , as a result , the defendant may be acquitted , the proceedings discontinued or a less severe punishment imposed .

Paragraph CARDINAL provides that if ORG dismisses the petition , it must uphold the decision challenged .


Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial

Karel Jungwiert;Mark Villiger;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Mykhaylo Buromenskiy;Peer Lorenzen;Rait Maruste;Renate Jaeger

NORP On various dates each of the applicants received one or more final decisions awarding payments from companies ( see appendix for details ) in which the ORG holds PERCENT of the share capital , and instituted enforcement proceedings to collect the payments .

Some of the applicants disagreed with the amounts awarded to them in the above decisions . Mr NORP , for instance , appealed against the decision of DATE in his favour but it appears that he failed to comply with the procedural requirements and his appeals were rejected . He did not appeal against the decision of CARDINAL DATE .

After the decisions in the applicants ' favour had become final , insolvency or liquidation proceedings against the debtors were initiated . On that account , ORG terminated the enforcement proceedings against them and transferred the applicants ' writs of enforcement to the relevant bankruptcy trustees or liquidation commissions for further processing . At the end , some of the debtors were liquidated .

The decisions in the applicants ' favour remain unenforced .

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


Corneliu Bîrsan;Egbert Myjer;Ineta Ziemele;Ján Šikuta;Josep Casadevall;Kristina Pardalos;Nona Tsotsoria

NORP The applicant , Mr Gatis Kovaļkovs , is a NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in Rīga . ORG ( “ the Government ” ) were represented by their Agent , PERSON .

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

On DATE ORG convicted the applicant of attempted robbery . He was sentenced to CARDINAL years’ imprisonment , suspended for DATE . On DATE the ORG established that during that DATE period the applicant had committed various infractions . For that reason it ordered the applicant to start serving his sentence pursuant to ORG judgment of DATE , effective immediately .

On DATE the applicant was transferred from the Central prison in PERSON to serve his sentence in Pārlielupe prison in GPE . According to the applicant , soon after his arrival at Pārlielupe prison he began to have disagreements with the administration of the prison and with his cellmates . It appears that the primary cause of conflict was the fact that almost all of the prisoners and staff at Pārlielupe prison spoke NORP . According to the applicant , their knowledge of LANGUAGE – the official language of GPE and the applicant ’s native language DATE was limited or non - existent . The applicant made numerous requests to be transferred to a place of imprisonment where he could freely communicate in NORP . However , all his requests to that effect were rejected .

It furthermore appears that at the relevant time the applicant frequently made dismissive and disparaging oral remarks concerning the NORP minority of GPE . Similar statements were also included in the applicant ’s correspondence with ORG authorities and in articles which he regularly published in an extreme right - wing magazine . As a result , other inmates became hostile towards the applicant .

On DATE the applicant was transferred from Pārlielupe prison to GPE prison after the governor of Pārlielupe prison had written a report in which it was noted that the applicant “ constantly provoke[d ] conflicts with the administration of the prison by sending unsubstantiated complaints to various NORP newspapers ” .

On DATE the applicant was transferred to GPE prison .

On DATE the applicant was transferred to PERSON prison in PERSON ( in DATE PERSON prison merged with the adjacent Central prison ) . The report concerning the desirability of the applicant ’s transfer noted that “ all of the [ applicant ’s ] conflicts and disagreements in prison [ were ] caused by himself , [ he ] provoke[d ] the [ prison ] administration and incite[d ] other prisoners to write complaints ” . At the applicant ’s request , DATE after his arrival in PERSON prison he was placed in an individual cell . The applicant remained in PERSON prison until his release upon having served his sentence on CARDINAL DATE .

The applicant alleges that his cellmates and also the chaplain at Pārlielupe prison ridiculed him because of his religious beliefs . He furthermore alleges that he was prevented from adequately performing the fundamental rituals of Vaishnavism ( the PERSON movement ) .

On DATE the applicant complained about the purported infringements of his religious freedoms to ORG ( Reliģijas lietu pārvalde ) of ORG . In particular he complained that the chaplain of Pārlielupe prison had described the PERSON movement as a “ satanic ” religion . He also pointed out that he was not receiving the same level of spiritual support as the prisoners belonging to the NORP faith .

On DATE the applicant submitted a request to the governor of Pārlielupe prison . He explained that in prison he worked as a cobbler . Part of his earnings he had to spend to buy food in the prison store , since his religion did not allow him to eat some of the food served by the prison canteen . He furthermore complained that in his cell he was unable to read religious writings because of his cellmates’ tendency to discuss their immoral lifestyles by using countless swear words . He invoked Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the LAW and requested to be placed in a separate ( individual ) cell . It appears that he did not receive any written response .

NORP In a letter from ORG of DATE the applicant was informed that his religious rights were being respected “ in so far as it was possible ” . He was furthermore informed that a NORP education programme was operating in Pārlielupe prison .

On DATE the applicant complained to ORG ( PERSON vietu pārvalde ) of being mocked and humiliated by the prison staff and his fellow prisoners because of his religious beliefs . He invoked Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the LAW and complained that the circumstances in his cell and the negative attitude of his cellmates prevented him from devoting himself to meditation and studies of Vaishnavism .

On DATE the deputy governor of ORG replied to the applicant by explaining that it was not appropriate to perform religious rituals in a common cell , since it might disturb other prisoners . However , the applicant was informed that the administration of the prison would set aside a specific time for him to visit the prison chapel or another appropriate space so that he would be alone for praying , reading religious literature , and meditating . According to the applicant , that never happened .

On DATE the deputy governor of ORG responded to an enquiry from ORG for information about the applicant . The letter referred to an unspecified prison where the applicant had been held and indicated , inter alia :

“ [ the applicant ’s ] religious activities create tense situations . [ The applicant ] in the presence of other convicted persons in the residential areas regularly and openly performs religious rituals – singing , meditation , massages with oils and so on DATE thus disturbing the other convicted persons . Despite the fact that the administration of the prison indicated [ to the applicant ] that residential areas are not meant for carrying out religious activities and offered the use of another room for this purpose , [ the applicant ] refused and stubbornly continued to perform religious rituals in the residential areas . ... With his actions [ the applicant ] offends the honour and dignity of other convicted persons and creates a negative attitude towards himself . ”

During a search of the applicant ’s belongings at Matīsa prison on DATE a guard found and confiscated some incense sticks . According to the applicant , the incense was necessary for him to perform the religious rituals of Vaishnavism . The record of the search contains a space for any objections that the prisoner might have . The applicant signed the record but the space for objections was left blank .

On DATE ORG wrote to the president of LAW asking for an explanation of certain religious rituals that several prisoners had sought to perform in prisons . Namely , ORG wished to ascertain whether Vaishnavism required a twice - daily loud chanting of mantras for TIME . The president of the Rīga Chapter responded on DATE . He explained that there existed CARDINAL methods for praying to PERSON . The first – japa DATE involves the repetition of a mantra in a soft voice by using prayer beads . The second – kirtan DATE is chanting of the PERSON mantra at a regular volume . Typically kirtan is performed by a group of devotees as a form of a religious service . It appears that both forms of prayer are equally acceptable .

At the request of the Agent of the Government , on DATE ORG provided certain information concerning the organisation of religious life in prisons , about the applicant ’s complaints received by the ORG , and concerning certain specific aspects of Vaishnavism . Concerning the latter , members of the ORG congregation had explained to representatives of the ORG that some of the basic rituals of Vaishnavism were the burning of incense sticks , a DATE washing , a special diet , studies of religious writings , and meetings with other followers of Vaishnavism . The obligation to observe those rituals was , however , conditional . For instance , if circumstances did not permit it , the burning of incense sticks was not mandatory . According to the members of the congregation , in a prison environment it would recommendable for a follower of Vaishnavism to be placed in a single cell , since the observance of the religious rituals in a shared cell could incite a negative attitude among other prisoners . Concerning religious literature , the members of the congregation affirmed that upon request religious writings could and would be sent to inmates . Lastly , concerning the dietary requirements it was emphasised that the ban on eating meat products was particularly significant for followers of Vaishnavism .

On DATE the applicant refused to stay in his wing of GPE prison . He submitted a written statement to ORG , in which he requested to be moved to PERSON prison and explained that he was in danger in GPE prison . According to the applicant , he orally informed the representatives of the administration of GPE prison that on DATE he had been beaten by other prisoners . He also complained that the smallest detention wing that had been offered to him held CARDINAL other prisoners .

On DATE the administration of GPE prison took a written statement from several prisoners saying that the applicant had not been subjected to physical or mental harassment and that he had not had any conflicts with any of the inmates . TIME after the applicant had refused to return to his wing he was seen by a medical assistant ( feldšere ) who examined him and did not find any bruises on his body . The relevant excerpt from the applicant ’s medical record reads as follows :

“ At CARDINAL brought for examination due to bodily injuries .

Does not have any complaints . According to the prisoner , there is no need for a medical examination .

Body examined in its entirety .

Concl[usion ] : No bruises or subcutaneous haematomas have been observed . ”

The applicant received a disciplinary penalty in the form of CARDINAL days’ detention in a punishment cell for the refusal to return to his wing .

On DATE the applicant was moved to a different wing of GPE prison where the prisoners are placed in cells ( as opposed to dormitories in the rest of the prison ) .

On DATE the applicant submitted complaints to ORG ( NORP vairāku nozaru prokuratūra ) . He stated that in GPE prison he had been beaten by “ NORP speakers ” who had been incited to do so by CARDINAL of the wardens . The applicant asked to be moved to PERSON prison because he felt threatened in all the other prisons in GPE .

The applicant ’s complaint was forwarded to ORG , which on DATE refused to initiate criminal proceedings concerning the applicant ’s alleged beating in GPE prison . An inspector of ORG took into account written reports that had been drawn up by the administration of GPE prison and written statements from the applicant ’s cellmates . It was found that all the information in the file consistently pointed to the conclusion that the applicant had not been attacked by anyone .

On DATE the applicant appealed to ORG ( Organizētās noziedzības un citu nozaru specializētā prokuratūra ) against ORG refusal to initiate criminal proceedings . He named CARDINAL prisoners who had allegedly beaten him and complained that the investigator of ORG had not questioned them . He furthermore pointed out that immediately after his arrival at GPE prison as well as on DATE he had complained to representatives of the administration that he was threatened by other inmates , yet no action had been taken . The applicant noted that the prisoners who had been questioned by the investigator of ORG had been the ones friendly to him and that there had been no reason to question them in relation to his alleged beating . Concerning his medical examination on DATE the applicant submitted that the medical assistant had observed him “ while holding a cup of coffee in her hands ” . She had declared that the applicant had a “ red head ” and had only noticed a scratch on his skin when the applicant himself had pointed it out . The medical assistant had refused to give any treatment for the scratch or for the applicant ’s headache and had not even recorded his complaints .

On DATE his appeal was rejected by a senior prosecutor of ORG . In reply to the applicant ’s complaint that the investigator of ORG had not questioned the CARDINAL inmates whom he had singled out as being responsible for his beating , the prosecutor explained that persons could be questioned only after criminal proceedings had been initiated . Considering that , in the absence of any recorded injuries , there was no reason to initiate criminal proceedings concerning the applicant ’s alleged beating , the CARDINAL prisoners named by the applicant could not be questioned .

On DATE the applicant appealed against the reply of CARDINAL DATE . He essentially repeated the arguments that had been set out in his previous complaints , namely , that he had identified by name a prisoner who had threatened and then beaten him , yet that person had never been questioned and that his medical examination on DATE had been very superficial .

In a final decision of DATE another senior prosecutor of ORG rejected the applicant ’s complaint . The response was essentially identical to the previous ones given to the applicant but also added that the “ lodging of complaints is to be seen as a counteraction against the administration of the prison and against prisoners negatively disposed towards [ the applicant ] ” .

On DATE the Criminal Law was amended . Among other things , the minimum prison term for robbery was reduced . The applicant wrote numerous letters to ORG and to prosecutors requesting that his sentence be reduced . He received an explanation that the transitional provisions concerning the entry into force of the amendments to LAW provided that the reduction in the minimum term of imprisonment was not applicable to persons sentenced prior to DATE , the date when the amendments to the law came into effect . The applicant ’s subsequent attempts to appeal to ORG remained unsuccessful .

Also in DATE the applicant enquired with the ORG authorities about the possibility of changing his NORP - sounding surname ( PERSON ) to the surname which he had had until DATE ( Bite ) . He received a response stating that under the law he could not change his name before his criminal record was expunged .

In a letter of DATE which was addressed to ORG ( PERSON birojs ) the director of ORG described the applicant ’s personal situation and characterised the applicant in negative terms . The applicant subsequently sought in vain to initiate criminal proceedings for defamation against the director of ORG . In DATE the applicant requested ORG - granted legal aid in order to lodge a civil claim for damages against the director of ORG . On DATE ORG ( ORG palīdzības administrācija ) rejected the applicant ’s request for the reason that the law did not provide for legal aid for such claims . The claim which had been drafted by the applicant himself was not accepted by ORG for procedural reasons . The final decision in that regard was adopted on DATE .

On DATE ( after the case had been communicated to the Government ) a psychiatrist issued a CARDINAL - paragraph report on the applicant ’s mental health , finding him to be a querulent personality with a tendency to misinterpret other people ’s actions towards him as hostile or dismissive and to “ aggressively exaggerate his rights by incessantly writing unsubstantiated complaints ” .

Article CARDINAL of LAW ( ORG izpildes kodekss ) , as in force at the relevant time , provided for the existence of a chaplaincy service in prisons and indicated that the ORG meetings with clerics and their participation in “ moral development activities ” were to be regulated by ORG , which were contained in regulations of ORG .

As in force until DATE , Regulation of the Cabinet of Ministers no . CARDINAL ( DATE ) provided in paragraph CARDINAL that the chaplains and other staff members of prisons were to organise “ moral development activities ” , such as lectures , educational talks and musical performances . The “ moral development ” also included religious events organised by chaplains , such as studies of religious literature , services , sacraments and other ceremonies . It was also noted that “ convicted persons shall have the opportunity to educate themselves individually ” . Paragraph CARDINAL provided that with the permission of the prison governor or of the director of ORG “ representatives of registered religious and public organisations ” could be involved in the organisation of the educational activities for prisoners .

Paragraph CARDINAL of the Regulation provided that convicts could only keep a limited selection of objects in their cells , which was exhaustively listed in amendment no . CARDINAL to that Regulation . The list in the amendment did not include incense sticks .

On DATE the previous Regulation was replaced by Regulation of the Cabinet of Ministers no . CARDINAL ( DATE ) . LAW of the new ORG provides that the spiritual care of convicted persons is to be organised or performed by chaplains . Paragraph CARDINAL provides that “ [ o]nly the religious organisations listed in the normative acts concerning the chaplaincy service shall be authorised to distribute religious literature in prisons ” .

At the relevant time the ORG work in prisons was regulated by Regulation of the Cabinet of Ministers no . CARDINAL ( DATE ) , entitled “ Regulations on the Chaplaincy Service ” ( GPE par kapelānu dienestu ) . The second paragraph of the Regulation provided that chaplains were responsible for ensuring respect for freedom of religion in , among other institutions , prisons . Paragraph CARDINAL provided that chaplains were nominated by the leaders of the GPE , NORP , NORP , ORG , GPE , GPE , DATE GPE , NORP , and NORP denominations .

Paragraph CARDINAL of Regulation no . CARDINAL specified that chaplains were to ensure the spiritual care of prisoners , to lend them moral support and to give them consultations concerning questions of religion and ethics when necessary . According to the information furnished by ORG the chaplaincy service was ecumenical . Prison chaplains were obliged to provide spiritual support to all prisoners , irrespective of their faith , or , should that prove to be impossible , they could invite representatives of the respective religious movement to assist them in their work . Since DATE those principles have been specifically laid down in an internal instruction of ORG entitled the Regulation on ORG ( PERSON vietu kapelānu dienesta reglaments ) .

In addition , Regulation no . CARDINAL provided that convicted persons could only keep a limited selection of objects in their cells , which was exhaustively listed in amendment no . CARDINAL to that Regulation . The list in the amendment did not include any objects of a religious character , although some of the objects , such as books , photographs and headwear could have religious significance .

In DATE the constitutionality of amendment no . CARDINAL to Regulation no . CARDINAL was challenged in ORG . In a judgment of DATE in case no . DATE ORG declared amendment no . CARDINAL , in so far as it did not allow the storage of religious objects , unconstitutional and void as of CARDINAL DATE .

On DATE ORG Recommendation Rec(CARDINAL)CARDINAL to member states on ORG , which lay down the following guidelines :

“ Freedom of thought , conscience and religion

CARDINAL ORG freedom of thought , conscience and religion shall be respected .

CARDINAL The prison regime shall be organised so far as is practicable to allow prisoners to practise their religion and follow their beliefs , to attend services or meetings led by approved representatives of such religion or beliefs , to receive visits in private from such representatives of their religion or beliefs and to have in their possession books or literature relating to their religion or beliefs . ”


André Potocki;Angelika Nußberger;Ann Power-Forde;Helena Jäderblom;Johan Hirschfeldt;Mark Villiger;Paul Lemmens

NORP The applicant , PERSON , is a NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in PERSON . He was represented before the ORG by PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE . ORG ( “ the Government ” ) were represented by their Agent , PERSON , of ORG

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

NORP The applicant suffered for DATE from , inter alia , pain in his back and legs and numbness in his right arm . He was granted a full disability pension in DATE , after the diagnosis of lumbago , sciatica and myositis .

In DATE he applied for life annuity and alleged that his physical problems had been caused by his former employment as a driver ( DATE ) , as a dairy worker ( DATE ) and as a food science technician ( DATE to CARDINAL ) . ORG ( Försäkringskassan , hereinafter “ the Office ” ) appointed an in - house specialist in orthopaedic surgery who , in a written statement , concluded that there was not a high degree of probability ( hög grad av sannolikhet ) that any harmful element in the applicant ’s former employment had caused his problems .

On DATE , after having held an oral hearing , the ORG rejected the application . Referring to , inter alia , the specialist statement by the insurance doctor , the ORG held that the applicant had not been subject to any harmful influences which , with a high degree of probability , could have caused or worsened his problems .

The applicant appealed to ORG ( länsrätten ) of GPE . On DATE the court , after having held an oral hearing , upheld the ORG ’s decision in full .

Upon further appeal to ORG ( kammarrätten ) of GPE , the applicant submitted , inter alia , a medical statement ( epikris ) issued in DATE by ORG , division of labour and environmental medicine ( ORG for folkhälsa , Arbets- och miljömedicin ) . According to the medical statement , there were reasons to believe that the applicant ’s work had caused his problems . The applicant requested that an oral hearing be held by ORG before it decided whether to grant leave to appeal as well as before it decided on the merits of the case . He also requested expert witnesses to be heard before the court .

In a written statement to the appellate court , the ORG questioned the conclusions in the medical statement and , furthermore , referred to medical records from DATE , in which the applicant was held to be fully able - bodied and in which it was noted that no somatic evidence had been found in support of the applicant ’s symptoms .

On DATE ORG decided not to hold an oral hearing prior to deciding on the question of leave to appeal . It referred to the circumstances of the case and the fact that ORG had held an oral hearing . The applicant was given the opportunity to submit further observations . It is unclear whether he did so .

On DATE , ORG granted leave to appeal . Subsequently , on DATE it decided not to hold an oral hearing before deciding on the merits of the case . It referred to the nature of the case and to the fact that an oral hearing had been held before ORG . The applicant was given the opportunity to submit further observations . It is again unclear whether he took advantage of this opportunity .

In a judgment on DATE , ORG upheld the lower court ’s judgment in full , giving the following reasons :

“ The medical and other evidence in the case does not support that the applicant has been exposed to any such harmful influences in his work which could , with a high degree of probability , have caused his problems . His problems can thus – as has been found also by ORG – not be defined as a work - related injury . ”

NORP The applicant appealed to ORG ( Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen ) . He complained about the lack of reasoning in ORG judgment and argued that that court ’s refusal to hold an oral hearing had infringed his right to a fair trial within the meaning of LAW . If ORG were to grant leave to appeal , he requested an oral hearing .

On DATE , ORG refused leave to appeal .

Chapter CARDINAL of LAW ( Skadeståndslagen , CARDINAL:CARDINAL ) deals with the civil liability of the State . According to section CARDINAL of that chapter , acts or omissions by a public authority may give rise to an entitlement to compensation in the event of fault or negligence .

An individual who wants to claim compensation from the ORG may proceed in either of CARDINAL ways : he or she may petition the Chancellor of Justice ( NORP ) in accordance with LAW on ORG against the State ( Förordningen om handläggning av skadeståndsanspråk mot staten , CARDINAL:CARDINAL ) , or bring a civil action against the ORG before a district court , with the possibility to appeal to a court of appeal and later to ORG . No appeal lies against a decision of the Chancellor of ORG . However , if the claim is rejected , the claimant still has the possibility to institute civil proceedings before the courts . In such proceedings , the ORG is represented by the Chancellor of ORG ( LAW [ GPE med instruktion för NORP , DATE ] ) .

According to section CARDINAL of LAW ( ORG , CARDINAL ) , the period of limitation in respect of claims against the ORG is DATE from the point in time when the claim arose , unless the period has been interrupted beforehand .

In a judgment of DATE ( ORG DATE p. CARDINAL ) ORG dealt with a claim for damages brought by an individual against the NORP State , inter alia , on the basis of an alleged violation of LAW . The case concerned the excessive length of criminal proceedings and ORG held that the plaintiff ’s right under LAW to have the criminal charges against him determined within a reasonable time had been violated . Based on this finding and with reference , inter alia , to ORG and CARDINAL of the Convention and the ORG ’s case - law under these provisions , in particular the case of GPE v. GPE ( [ ORG ] , no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , ORG CARDINAL-XI ) , ORG concluded that the plaintiff was entitled to compensation under NORP law for both pecuniary and non - pecuniary damage . With respect to the level of compensation for non - pecuniary damage , ORG took note of the criteria established in the ORG ’s case - law stating that the ORG ’s practice constituted a natural point of departure in this regard .

In a decision of CARDINAL DATE ( ORG DATE p. CARDINAL ) , ORG held that the principle concerning a right to damages established in the abovementioned case of DATE also applied with regard to the rights contained in LAW . ORG stated that the plaintiff ’s right to damages on account of a violation of Article CARDINAL should be assessed in the first place under LAW and LAW and Other Coercive Measures ( NORP om ersättning vid frihetsberövanden och andra tvångsåtgärder , CARDINAL:CARDINAL ) . To the extent necessary , the relevant provisions of domestic law should be interpreted in accordance with the LAW . If GPE ’s obligations under LAW could not be met by such an interpretation , the domestic courts should award compensation without the support of specific legal provisions . As concerned the determination of the level of compensation , ORG repeated that the ORG ’s case - law was a natural point of departure but also noted that account must be taken of the fact that different national conditions may lead to variations from CARDINAL country to another in what should be regarded as a reasonable level of compensation .

In a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ( ORG DATE p. CARDINAL ) , ORG held that the plaintiffs’ right to respect for their private life under LAW had been violated on the basis that a police decision on a medical examination of some of them had not been “ in accordance with the law ” . Having found that compensation for the violation could not be awarded directly on the basis of LAW , ORG held that there was no reason to limit the scope of application of the principle established in the above - mentioned cases of DATE and CARDINAL DATE to violations of LAW and CARDINAL of the LAW . In view of this and with reference to , inter alia , LAW and the ORG ’s case - law under these ORG , ORG concluded that the plaintiffs should be awarded non - pecuniary damages for the violation of LAW . With regard to the levels of compensation , ORG concluded that they should not be too far removed from the levels which applied when awarding damages under LAW . Generally speaking these levels should , however , be compatible with the case - law of the Court . In the same case , ORG had also concluded , in a judgment dated DATE , that there had been a violation of Article CARDINAL and that an award for non - pecuniary damage should be made on the basis of the principle established in the case of DATE .

Another Supreme Court judgment of CARDINAL DATE ( ORG DATE p. CARDINAL ) concerned a claim for damages against the NORP State on the basis of an alleged violation of LAW relating to the suicide of the LAW father while in detention . ORG concluded that the case revealed no violation of LAW . However , in its reasoning leading to this conclusion , ORG noted , inter alia , that according to the ORG ’s case - law there was a right to an effective remedy under LAW connected to the ORG ’s duty under the ORG to take measures to protect the lives of individuals in custody or who were otherwise deprived of their liberty which should , in principle , include a possibility of obtaining compensation for damage . ORG referred in particular to the judgment in PERSON v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL , § CARDINAL , ECHR CARDINAL-III ) .

In a judgment of DATE ( NJA DATE N CARDINAL ) , ORG confirmed its previous case - law in a case concerning claims for damages against the NORP State on account of excessive length of tax proceedings . The court affirmed that it is now a general principle of law that , to the extent that GPE has a duty to provide redress to victims of Convention violations through a right to compensation for damages , and that this duty can not be fulfilled even by interpreting national tort law in accordance with the LAW fördagskonform tolkning ) , compensation for damages may be ordered without direct support in law .

Furthermore , on DATE ( NJA DATE p. CARDINAL ) , ORG ordered compensation for non - pecuniary damage to be paid to an applicant for proceedings which had complied neither with the “ reasonable time ” requirement in LAW nor with the right to an effective remedy in LAW . The proceedings in question had concerned a claim for damages against the ORG .

In CARDINAL judgments of DATE ( T CARDINAL and T CARDINAL ) , ORG ordered compensation to be paid to an applicant for civil proceedings ( first case ) and administrative proceedings ( second case ) which had not complied with the “ reasonable time ” requirement in LAW .

NORP In a judgment of DATE ( B CARDINAL - CARDINAL ) , ORG reduced the sentence to be served by the defendant in a case where criminal proceedings had not complied with the “ reasonable time ” requirement in LAW .

Lastly , in a judgment on DATE ( T DATE ) , ORG ordered compensation for non - pecuniary damage to be paid to an applicant for criminal proceedings which had not complied with the “ reasonable time ” requirement in LAW .

In DATE the Government decided to set up a working group on tort liability and the Convention to study the current legal situation . In DATE the working group submitted its report ( PERSON , ORG CARDINAL:CARDINAL ) to the Government . In the report it is proposed that LAW be amended in order to allow natural and legal persons to obtain damages from the ORG or a municipality for violations of the LAW . Such an action against public authorities would be examined by a general court which would need first to establish that a right provided by the ORG has been violated . The aim of the proposal is to provide a legal basis for granting non - pecuniary damages arising from disregard of the LAW and to fulfil , together with the other already existing legal remedies , GPE ’s obligations under LAW .

In its comments of DATE on the above report , ORG stated that , since the autumn of DATE following ORG case - law developments ( as set out above ) , it had dealt with a large number of requests from individuals for compensation on the basis of violations of the Convention . It estimated that it had dealt with CARDINAL cases over DATE . During this time the Chancellor of ORG had also represented the NORP State in a number of cases before the civil courts concerning alleged violations of the Convention . A majority of the cases that the ORG had dealt with had concerned non - pecuniary damages for excessive length of proceedings under LAW . Since DATE , it had received CARDINAL such complaints and in CARDINAL of them , the Chancellor of ORG had found a violation and granted compensation . The level of compensation for non - pecuniary damage had been determined with reference to the ORG ’s case - law and varied CARDINAL and SEK CARDINAL,CARDINAL ( approximately ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL and LAW ) . Furthermore , the Chancellor of Justice had dealt with a substantial number of cases ( CARDINAL ) concerning the registration of individuals in the Security Police register . These cases had concerned one or more of Articles CARDINAL , CARDINAL , DATE and DATE of the Convention .

There continue to be other individual cases relating to alleged violations of ORG CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the LAW , among others . For example , in a decision of CARDINAL DATE ( dnr CARDINAL ) , the Chancellor of Justice held that the reasoning in a ORG judgment failed to fulfil the requirements set by LAW . Referring to the case - law of ORG , the Chancellor of ORG stated that the applicant therefore could be awarded compensation for the damage caused by the violation of the LAW . However , due to the particular circumstances of that case , the applicant was not granted compensation . Furthermore , in a decision of CARDINAL DATE ( dnr PERCENT ) , the Chancellor of ORG found that ORG , in dismissing the applicant ’s appeal against a decision by ORG ) , had violated his right to access to court ( the Chancellor referred to the case of ORG v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , DATE ) . Consequently , the applicant was awarded damages .


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

The applicants were represented before the ORG by Mr D. Foussard , of the ORG d’Etat and ORG , and PERSON , of ORG .

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

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

The first applicant is the production manager of ORG , a company incorporated under NORP law . The second applicant is the production manager of ORG , a company incorporated under GPE law . The third applicant is the managing director of ORG

These CARDINAL companies manufacture several brands of cigarettes and distribute them in GPE . In accordance with the legislation and regulations passed pursuant to ORG CARDINAL/CARDINAL/EEC of ORG of CARDINAL DATE , they printed the words “ Tobacco seriously damages health ” on CARDINAL side of the cigarette packets sold on the NORP market . However , the message was preceded by the phrase “ According to Law no . CARDINAL - CARDINAL ” .

On DATE the National Anti - Smoking Committee ( ORG national contre le tabagisme – “ the LAW ” ) brought proceedings against ORG and ORG , and against the CARDINAL applicants in their capacity as managers of the companies , in ORG . It accused them , inter alia , of breaching LAW of LAW and LAW DATE ( see below ) by printing that phrase on the cigarette packets .

On DATE ORG found the applicants guilty of the offence punishable under LAW of LAW . It sentenced them to a fine of MONEY ( ORG ) each and declared ORG and ORG jointly and severally liable for payment . It also ordered the applicants and the CARDINAL companies jointly and severally to pay ORG CARDINAL in damages to the LOC .

The judgment states , inter alia , the following :

The addition of the phrase ‘ According to Law no . CARDINAL - CARDINAL’

Under LAW of the Directive of ORG of DATE , ‘ member ORG may stipulate that the warnings referred to in DATE , CARDINAL and CARDINAL be combined with the indication of the authority that is their ORG .

ORG has not opted to do so .

It is clear [ from Article L. CARDINAL - CARDINAL II and III of LAW , LAW DATE and Article CARDINAL of the aforementioned directive ] that there is an obligation to print health warnings aimed at informing consumers and , accordingly , complying with the formal requirements binding on cigarette manufacturers ; that the possibility of adding an indication of the authority that is their author is in all cases reserved to member GPE of the ORG alone ; and that on pain of breaching those provisions cigarette manufacturers must print at least the minimum statutory message , the wording of which is strictly defined by the legal provisions , and can only supplement it on condition that the addition reinforces the message .

That is not the case regarding the phrase ‘ According to Law no . CARDINAL - CARDINAL’ which ORG and ORG have printed before the health warning on cigarette packets since that addition distorts the meaning of the message in question by weakening its import because it may suggest that the basis for alerting consumers to the harm done by tobacco is not medical but legal , whereas the harmfulness of tobacco has been proved by recognised scientific studies .

Under the aforementioned provisions , the phrase in question is therefore unlawful .

Despite having been warned by letters of DATE , CARDINAL DATE and DATE [ from the LAW ] that the packets they were manufacturing and importing into GPE did not comply with the applicable regulations , the ORG company managers refused to change the packaging even when injunction proceedings to that end were brought against them in the CARDINAL tribunal de grande instance in DATE .

The wilful and persistent violation of the applicable legal and regulatory provisions attest to the guilty intention of the defendants , who can not validly rely on the fact that the additional phrase in question had been tolerated for DATE in GPE since that tolerance did not create rights . Nor can they properly argue that it was compulsory in their country of origin since that fact does not alter their liability under NORP law .

The CARDINAL elements – statutory , material and intentional – of the offence constituted by the unlawful addition of the words ‘ According to Law no . CARDINAL - CARDINAL’ therefore appear to have been made out .

Responsibility for the offence

It is not disputed that at the material time PERSON was the managing director of ORG , ORG the manufacturing director of that company and PERSON the production manager of ORG ...

... it would appear that , having regard to their level of responsibility and their sphere of action , the CARDINAL [ applicants ] ( managing director and manufacturing directors ) could not have been unaware of the particular sphere of application of the relevant NORP regulations and were under a duty to ensure that their manufacturing processes complied with those regulations .

In a judgment of DATE , ORG modified the sentence imposed by the lower court – increasing it to a fine of ORG CARDINAL against each applicant – and upheld the remainder of the judgment . ORG indicated , in particular :

Article L. CARDINAL - CARDINAL of LAW requires that both a general and a specific health warning be printed on cigarette packets in accordance with the terms of the implementing decree of DATE , which uses the terms ‘ ORG and ‘ specific ORG . These terms presuppose the transmission of information in writing .

It is clear from those provisions that if the warning is worded in such a way that , for reasons of form or presentation , it no longer constitutes the ‘ ORG or ‘ notice’ required by the LAW the law will have been breached .

The phrase ‘ According to Law no . CARDINAL - CARDINAL’ indicates the authority that is the author of the warning elliptically , with a misleading definition and only a vague reference to the identity ( references to legislation customarily being made by the date or sometimes by the date and number , but never the latter alone ) ; the conclusion must therefore be drawn that the phrase ‘ According to Law no . CARDINAL - CARDINAL’ is not informative .

An examination of the wording used shows that a distancing effect is created between the emitter of the message and the opinion of its author . That distancing effect can only be perceived by readers as a formally neutral position to which they do not have to adhere and which is open to criticism . It amounts to a form of implicit comment on a compulsory and unjustified measure , which absorbs and transforms the sense of the health message .

These considerations show that the obligation to provide the statutory information is circumvented in such a way as to load the wording of the compulsory notice with an implicit but clear meaning that twists and distorts the sense and import of the statutory message .

The conclusion that has to be drawn in these circumstances is that where the statutory message is combined with the words ‘ According to Law no . CARDINAL - CARDINAL’ it is emitted in conditions which breach Article L. CARDINAL - CARDINAL of LAW .

[ The applicants ] can not justify infringing the law on the basis of foreign practices or obedience to a NORP directive in a situation in which the directive was not binding on them and , moreover , they have respected neither the letter nor the spirit of it .

The intentional element is sufficiently made out by the subtle nature of the enigmatic wording of the text added to the statutory message , which allows it both to avoid conveying any information and potentially to take refuge behind the legislative authority .

The applicants appealed on points of law against that judgment . Relying on , inter alia , LAW , they argued in particular that in finding them guilty of a criminal offence , whereas Article PERSON of LAW and LAW DATE did not penalise an addition such as ‘ According to PERSON no . CARDINAL - CARDINAL’ before ‘ Tobacco seriously damages FAC , the lower courts had violated the principle that only the law can define a crime and prescribe a penalty and the principle that the criminal law must be strictly interpreted . They added that Article PERSON of LAW was in any case imprecise and that the lower courts should therefore have refused to apply it .

On DATE ORG dismissed the appeal on the following grounds :

As stated in ORG judgment , PERSON , PERSON and PERSON , the respective managers of the companies of the ORG group , were prosecuted for adding the words ‘ According to Law no . CARDINAL - CARDINAL’ before the health warning ‘ Tobacco seriously damages health’ on cigarette packets marketed by the companies .

In holding that the offence had been made out , ORG found that by modifying the text of the general health warning required by the legal and regulatory provisions the defendants had distorted its meaning .

Accordingly , ORG justified its decision .

As the optional provisions of LAW CARDINAL/CARDINAL/EEC of CARDINAL DATE were not transposed into domestic law , any alteration of the text of the health warning required by the provisions of Article PERSON of LAW amounts to an offence punishable under LAW of LAW .

On DATE ORG adopted Directive CARDINAL/CARDINAL/EEC on the approximation of the laws , regulations and administrative provisions of the member GPE concerning the labelling of tobacco products . DATE ( as amended by Directive ORG of CARDINAL DATE ) was worded as follows :

“ CARDINAL . All unit packets of tobacco products shall carry , on the most visible surface , the following general warning in the official language or languages of the country of final marketing : Tobacco seriously damages health .

With regard to cigarette packets , the other large surface of the packet shall carry , in the official language or languages of the country of final marketing , specific warnings alternating in accordance with the following rule :

– each member State shall draw up a list of warnings taken exclusively from those listed in LAW ,

– the specific warnings selected shall be printed on the unit packets so as to guarantee the appearance of each warning on an equal quantity of unit packets , with a tolerance of PERCENT .

Member GPE may stipulate that the warnings referred to in DATE , CARDINAL and CARDINAL be combined with the indication of the authority that is their author .

On cigarette packets the warnings provided for in DATE and CARDINAL shall cover PERCENT of each large surface of the unit packet , excluding the indication of the authority provided for in paragraph CARDINAL . This percentage shall be increased to PERCENT for countries with CARDINAL official languages and to PERCENT for countries with CARDINAL official languages .

The required warnings on the CARDINAL largest surfaces of each cigarette packet :

( a ) shall be clear and legible ;

( b ) shall be printed in bold letters ;

( c ) shall be printed on a contrasting background ;

( d ) shall not be printed in a place where they may be damaged when the package is opened ;

( e ) shall not be printed on the transparent wrapper or any other external wrapping .

That directive was transposed into NORP law by PERSON no . CARDINAL - CARDINAL of DATE . The following Article was thus inserted into LAW :

II . Every unit packet of tobacco or tobacco products shall carry , in accordance with the terms and conditions specified by order of the Minister of Health , the notice ‘ Tobacco seriously damages health’ .

III bis . All unit packets of tobacco and tobacco products shall carry , in the manner determined by an order of the Minister of Health , a specific health message .

On the basis of those provisions , the Minister of ORG issued an order on DATE “ determining the methods for analysing the nicotine and tar contents and the methods for verifying the accuracy of the notice on packaging and the manner in which the health messages and compulsory notices should feature on packets of tobacco and tobacco products ” , LAW of which was worded as follows :

“ CARDINAL . All unit packets of tobacco and tobacco products shall carry , on the most visible surface , the following general warning : ‘ Tobacco seriously damages health’ .

With regard to cigarette packets , the other large surface of the packet shall carry CARDINAL of the following specific warnings :

Smoking causes cancer ;

Smoking causes heart disease ;

Smoking when pregnant harms your baby ;

Smoking damages the health of those around you ;

Do n’t smoke if you want to stay healthy .

On cigarette packets the warnings provided for in DATE and CARDINAL shall cover PERCENT of each large surface of the unit packet .

( a ) shall be clear and legible ;

( b ) shall be printed in bold letters on a contrasting background ;

( c ) shall not be printed in a place where they may be damaged when the package is opened ;

( d ) shall not be printed on the transparent wrapper or any other external wrapping .

Under Article L. CARDINAL - CARDINAL of LAW , “ anyone who commits a breach of the provisions [ of LAW L. CARDINAL - CARDINAL shall be liable to a fine of between ORG and ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL ” . Article PERSON authorised “ associations that [ had ] been formally registered for DATE at the material time and whose articles of association includ[ed ] the fight against smoking [ to ] exercise the rights conferred on civil parties in respect of [ the above - mentioned offence ] ” .


Violation of Art. 6-1;Violation of Art. 6-3-c;Violation of Art. 34

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

The applicant was born in DATE and is serving a prison sentence in GPE .

On DATE the applicant was arrested on suspicion of murder . On DATE he was released on an undertaking not to leave town .

The applicant was subsequently apprehended on suspicion of another murder . According to him , the arrest took place on DATE . The Government submitted that he was arrested on DATE . It appears that the applicant was not provided with any legal assistance when questioned by the investigator . A lawyer was appointed to represent him on DATE . It appears that the applicant was dissatisfied with the quality of the lawyer ’s services and dismissed him .

On DATE the ORG found the applicant guilty of murder and sentenced him to DATE imprisonment . On DATE the ORG quashed the applicant ’s conviction on appeal and remitted the matter for fresh consideration .

On DATE the ORG found the applicant guilty of murder and sentenced him to DATE imprisonment . On DATE ORG upheld the conviction on appeal .

On DATE ORG opened another trial . PERSON was appointed to represent the applicant .

On DATE the applicant asked the court to dismiss the lawyer , alleging that he was not performing his duties properly . His request was denied .

On DATE the ORG found the applicant guilty of murder and sentenced him to life imprisonment . On DATE ORG of GPE upheld his conviction on appeal . The applicant , who was not represented , made oral submissions to the court by means of a video teleconference . The prosecutor was present and argued in favour of dismissing the applicant ’s appeal .

On DATE the Sol - Iletskiy ORG of the Orenburg Region commuted the applicant ’s sentence to CARDINAL and a half years’ imprisonment .

DATE the applicant was detained at transit prison GPE in GPE . According to the Government , the relevant internal regulations required that , for the time of the applicant ’s stay there , his personal property was withheld from him for security reasons . His personal belongings were duly logged and then returned to him at the end of his stay . According to the applicant , neither the documents nor many of his personal belongings were returned to him .

The applicant lodged a complaint with ORG on DATE alleging that his documents had been unlawfully seized and his personal property had been stolen . The complaint was transferred to the regional department of corrections . They questioned CARDINAL of the guards and the applicant . The guard claimed that all the applicant ’s belongings had been returned to him against a signed receipt . According to the Government , the applicant withdrew his allegations . They submitted a copy of a statement by the applicant dated DATE where he confirmed in writing that he did not have any claims against the administration of the transit prison .

On an unspecified date the applicant lodged a complaint with ORG of Orenburg in respect of the loss of his personal effects . On DATE the court dismissed it without consideration on the merits due to the applicant ’s failure to comply with certain procedural requirements . It appears that the applicant did not appeal .

DATE and DATE the applicant was detained at correctional institution IK-CARDINAL in GPE .

According to the applicant , he sent out CARDINAL letters to ORG on DATE and CARDINAL DATE . The letters never reached ORG . Nor were they registered in the outgoing correspondence log of the correctional institution submitted by the Government . The applicant ’s next letter of CARDINAL DATE reached ORG . That letter was not registered in the log either .

NORP The letter which the applicant dated as of CARDINAL DATE was dispatched by the administration of the correctional colony on DATE .

The applicant allegedly tried to send another letter to ORG on DATE . He claimed that his letter was not accepted for dispatch and the guards beat him up for persisting in his correspondence with the ORG .

The applicant further alleged that on DATE the administration of the correctional institution refused to dispatch his letter of CARDINAL October CARDINAL addressed to the ORG . The letter was returned to the applicant with a handwritten note on the envelope which read “ what kind of news is that ? ” ( « Что за новости ? ORG ) .

According to the copies of the logs of outgoing correspondence submitted by the ORG , the applicant asked the administration of the correctional institution to send out CARDINAL letters in DATE and CARDINAL letters in DATE respectively . CARDINAL of the letters sent out in DATE were addressed to the ORG . Both of them reached their destination .

It appears that the applicant was repeatedly transferred from CARDINAL correctional institution to another . DATE and DATE he served his sentence at correctional institution ORG in GPE in GPE . Then he was taken to transit prison GPE in GPE where he arrived on DATE . According to the applicant , he sent a letter to the ORG notifying it of the change of his address . The letter never reached the ORG .

On DATE the applicant was transferred back to correctional institution IK-CARDINAL in GPE . On DATE he arrived and stayed there for DATE . On DATE he arrived at correctional institution IK-CARDINAL in GPE where he has been detained to date . According to the applicant , on CARDINAL and DATE he sent CARDINAL letters to the ORG notifying it of the change of his address . The letters did not reach the ORG .

On DATE the ORG decided to give notice of the application to the Government . The relevant letter addressed to the applicant did not reach him . The ORG further sent CARDINAL more letters to the applicant on DATE and CARDINAL DATE . The applicant did not receive the letters . Once the time - limit established by ORG for the submission by the applicant of his observations had expired , on DATE the ORG requested the ORG to submit further information confirming the receipt by the applicant of the ORG ’s correspondence . A copy of the letter addressed to the applicant did not reach him . All the correspondence was forwarded to correctional institution ORG in GPE .

According to the copies of the incoming correspondence registration logs submitted by the Government , the above - mentioned letters from the ORG did not reach the correctional institution to which they were addressed .

The Government also submitted copies of the outgoing correspondence registration log of IK-CARDINAL , which indicated that the applicant sent out CARDINAL letters to ORG on DATE and DATE . The said letters did not reach the ORG .

On DATE the ORG sent another letter to the applicant by registered mail . It appears that correctional institution ORG , to which the letter was addressed , forwarded it to correctional institution GPE , where the applicant was actually detained . On CARDINAL DATE the administration of IK-CARDINAL registered the letter in the incoming correspondence log as received for the applicant from ORG ) . The letter was opened by an officer on duty and the applicant refused to accept it . The administration of the penitentiary establishment interpreted his refusal as a decision not to pursue further his application lodged before the ORG and informed the ORG accordingly .

On DATE and CARDINAL DATE and CARDINAL DATE the administration of the correctional institution summoned the applicant in order to deliver the ORG ’s letter to him . The applicant did not show up .

On DATE the applicant had a meeting with CARDINAL of the officers of the correctional institution concerning the updating of his personal file . The officer tried again to deliver the ORG ’s letter to the applicant , who refused to take it . He agreed to accept the letter only on DATE .

It appears that the officer who was responsible for the opening of the applicant ’s letter was subjected to disciplinary dismissal .

The ORG ’s letter of DATE sent to correctional institution ORG by registered mail was returned to the ORG by the post office with a note that the applicant had not been found at the address indicated .

According to the ORG , the letters sent by the ORG to the applicant on DATE and DATE did not reach correctional institution IK-CARDINAL .

On DATE the applicant received the ORG ’s letter of DATE , as per the registration log submitted by the Government .

On DATE the applicant submitted another letter to be dispatched to the ORG . The letter was returned to him . The post office had allegedly refused to mail it because the envelope was covered with adhesive tape . The applicant resubmitted the letter in a new envelope without adhesive tape on DATE . It was duly sent to the ORG .

The Code of Criminal Procedure of GPE ( in force from DATE ) provides :

Article CARDINAL

“ CARDINAL . Participation of legal counsel in criminal proceedings is mandatory if :

CARDINAL ) NORP the suspect or the accused has not waived legal representation in accordance with LAW ;

CARDINAL ) the suspect or the accused faces serious charges carrying a term of imprisonment DATE , life imprisonment or the death penalty ;

NORP ...

In the circumstances as set forth in paragraph CARDINAL above , unless counsel is retained by the suspect or the accused , or his lawful representative , or other persons on the request of , or with the consent of , the suspect or the accused , it is incumbent on the investigator , prosecutor or the court to ensure participation of legal counsel in the proceedings . ”

Article CARDINAL

“ CARDINAL . The suspect or the accused may refuse legal assistance at any stage of criminal proceedings . Such a waiver may only be accepted if made on the suspect or accused ’s own initiative . The waiver must be filed in writing and must be recorded in TIME of the relevant procedural act .

Pursuant to LAW , the appeal court examines appeals with a view to verifying the lawfulness , validity and fairness of judgments . Under LAW and CARDINAL of the Code , the appeal court may directly examine evidence , including additional material submitted by the parties .

NORP In accordance with LAW , upon receipt of the criminal case and the statements of appeal , the judge fixes the date , time and place for a hearing . The parties shall be notified of the date , time and place of the hearing DATE before the scheduled hearing . The court determines whether the detained convict should be summoned to the hearing . If the convict has expressed the wish to be present at the examination of his appeal , he has the right to participate in person or to state his case via video link . The manner of his participation in the hearing is to be determined by the court .

Examining the compatibility of LAW , LAW ruled as follows ( decision no . CARDINAL of DATE ) :

“ LAW , which describes the circumstances in which the participation of defence counsel is mandatory , does not contain any indication that its requirements are not applicable in appeal proceedings or that the convict ’s right to legal assistance in such proceedings may be restricted . ”

NORP That position was subsequently confirmed and developed in CARDINAL decisions delivered by ORG on DATE . It found that free legal assistance for the purpose of appellate proceedings should be provided on the same conditions as during the earlier stages in the proceedings and is mandatory in situations listed in LAW . It further underlined the obligation of courts to secure the participation of defence counsel in appeal proceedings .

In a number of cases ( decisions of CARDINAL DATE and DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE ) the Presidium of ORG of the Russian Federation quashed judgments of appeal courts and remitted cases for fresh consideration on the ground that the courts had failed to secure the participation of defence counsel in the appeal proceedings , although it was obligatory for the accused to be legally represented .

The Code of Corrections of GPE ( in force from DATE ) provides :

Article CARDINAL

“ CARDINAL . The incoming and outgoing correspondence of persons serving a prison sentence is subject to censorship by the administration of the correctional institution . The correspondence maintained with a court , a prosecutor ’s office , a supervising body of corrections , as well as with the Ombudsman of GPE , a public monitoring commission established in accordance with applicable legislation of GPE , and ORG shall be free of censorship . ”

The Internal Regulations of Correctional Institutions ( in force from DATE ) provides :

“ CARDINAL . The letters addressed to a person serving a prison sentence and received after his departure from a correctional institution shall be forwarded to his new address within DATE of their receipt . ”


The applicant , Mr PERSON , is an NORP national , born in DATE and living in GPE , GPE . He is represented before the ORG by PERSON PERSON , a lawyer working with ORG , a non - governmental organisation based in GPE , GPE . The Government are represented by their Agent , PERSON , ORG , GPE .

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

On DATE around TIME the applicant was arrested under LAW DATE ( “ the DATE LAW ) by a military patrol accompanied by an officer of ORG ( “ ORG ” ) . The applicant was brought to ORG in GPE where he was questioned about his involvement in serious paramilitary activity including the abduction and murder of an individual .

On TIME CARDINAL DATE an application was made to the Secretary of ORG for an extension order under section PERSON ) of the CARDINAL Act , extending the applicant ’s detention for a further DATE . Notice of the application was given to the applicant , who consulted his lawyer on the terms of the application . No representations were made by the applicant to the Secretary of ORG . The application was granted by the Secretary of ORG .

At TIME on CARDINAL DATE the applicant was given notice that a further application had been made to the Secretary of ORG for an extension order for a further period of TIME in order to check an alibi statement which the applicant had advanced during interview and to await the results of forensic tests . No representations were made by the applicant to the Secretary of ORG , who granted the extension requested .

On DATE at TIME the applicant was released without charge . His period of detention from arrest was DATE , TIME and TIME .

While in detention the applicant was never brought before any judicial authority . Throughout the period of detention the applicant was able to have access to a solicitor including before the start of each interview . The applicant saw his solicitor on CARDINAL occasions during his detention . His detention during the first TIME was regularly reviewed by senior police officers not directly involved in the case as required by LAW and LAW issued under LAW of GPE ( Emergency LAW Act DATE .

The applicant has drawn attention in his observations in reply to those of the Government to his claim that police officers made intimidating and abusive remarks about his solicitor during his detention and to the fact that she was subsequently murdered on DATE . The applicant also criticises the austerity of the holding conditions in FAC where he was detained .

In its PERSON and Others v. the GPE judgment ( DATE , Series A no . CARDINAL ) , the ORG held that there had been a violation of LAW in the case of all CARDINAL applicants , who had been detained under LAW of the Prevention of Terrorism Act DATE , which was the predecessor provision of section CARDINAL of the CARDINAL Act . The applicants had been held for periods ranging DATE and QUANTITY - and - a - half hours and DATE and TIME without being brought before a judicial authority . The ORG found that even the shortest of the periods of detention , namely DATE and TIME , fell outside the strict constraints as to time permitted by the first part of LAW . In the ORG ’s view , the undoubted fact that the arrest and detention of the applicants were inspired by the legitimate aim of protecting the community as a whole from terrorism was not on its own sufficient to ensure compliance with the specific requirements of LAW .

Following that judgment , GPE informed the Secretary General of ORG on DATE that the ORG had availed themselves of the right of derogation conferred by LAW to the extent that the exercise of powers under section CARDINAL of LAW might be inconsistent with the obligations imposed by LAW . Part of that declaration reads as follows :

“ ... Following [ the PERSON and Others judgment ] , the Secretary of ORG for ORG informed ORG on DATE that , against the background of the terrorist campaign , and the over - riding need to bring terrorists to justice , the ORG did not believe that the maximum period of detention should be reduced . He informed ORG that the Government were examining the matter with a view to responding to the judgment . On DATE , the Secretary of ORG further informed ORG that it remained the Government ’s wish , if it could be achieved , to find a judicial process under which extended detention might be reviewed and where appropriate authorised by a judge or other judicial officer . But a further period of reflection and consultation was necessary before the ORG could bring forward a firm and final view . Since the judgment of CARDINAL DATE as well as previously , the Government have found it necessary to continue to exercise , in relation to terrorism connected with the affairs of GPE , the powers described above enabling further detention without charge , for periods of DATE , on the authority of the Secretary of ORG , to the extent strictly required by the exigencies of the situation to enable necessary enquiries and investigations properly to be completed in order to decide whether criminal proceedings should be instituted . To the extent that the exercise of these powers may be inconsistent with the obligations imposed by ORG have availed themselves of the right of derogation conferred by LAW and will continue to do so until further notice ... ”

In a further notice dated DATE the GPE informed the Secretary General that a satisfactory procedure for the review of detention of terrorist suspects involving the judiciary had not been identified and that the derogation would therefore remain in place for as long as circumstances require .

The DATE Act has been renewed DATE ever since .

Section CARDINAL of the DATE LAW as follows :

“ CARDINAL . ( CARDINAL ) Subject to subsection ( CARDINAL ) below , a constable may arrest without warrant a person whom he has reasonable grounds for suspecting to be–

( a ) a person guilty of an offence under LAW , DATE , DATE , CARDINAL above ;

( b ) a person who is or has been concerned in the commission , preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism to which this section applies ; or

( c ) a person subject to an exclusion order .

( CARDINAL ) The acts of terrorism to which this section applies are–

( a ) acts of terrorism connected with the affairs of GPE ; and

( b ) acts of terrorism of any other description except acts connected solely with the affairs of GPE or any part of GPE other than GPE .

( CARDINAL ) The power of arrest conferred by subsection ( CARDINAL ) above is exercisable only–

( a ) in GPE if the exclusion order was made under section CARDINAL above ; and

( b ) in GPE if it was made under section CARDINAL above .

( CARDINAL ) Subject to subsection ( CARDINAL ) below , a person arrested under this section shall not be detained in right of the arrest for CARDINAL after his arrest .

( CARDINAL ) NORP The Secretary of ORG may , in any particular case , extend the period of fortyeight hours mentioned in subsection ( CARDINAL ) above by a period or periods specified by him , but any such further period or periods shall not exceed DATE in all and if an application for such an extension is made the person detained shall as soon as practicable be given written notice of that fact and of the time when the application was made .

( CARDINAL ) The exercise of the detention powers conferred by this section shall be subject to supervision in accordance with Schedule QUANTITY .

( CARDINAL ) The provisions of this section are without prejudice to any power of arrest exercisable apart from this section . ”

The notification made by ORG under LAW was withdrawn on DATE , with effect from DATE .

The political and security situation covering DATE is described in the ORG ’s PERSON and McBride v. the GPE judgment of CARDINAL DATE ( Series A no . CARDINAL , pp . CARDINAL - CARDINAL , § § CARDINAL ) .

Official statistics indicate that DATE ( DATE ) a total number of QUANTITY persons ( military and civilian ) have died due to the security situation . The number of deaths ( military and civilian ) due to the security situation DATE ( DATE ) is as follows :

DATE : CARDINAL ; DATE : CARDINAL ; DATE : CARDINAL ; DATE : CARDINAL ; DATE : CARDINAL ; DATE : CARDINAL ; DATE : CARDINAL ; DATE : CARDINAL ; DATE : CARDINAL ; DATE : CARDINAL ; DATE : CARDINAL .

Official statistics indicate that DATE ( DATE ) a total of CARDINAL persons ( military and civilian ) have been injured as a result of the security situation . The number of persons injured ( military and civilian ) over DATE ( DATE ) is as follows :

The reviews undertaken by the authorities of ORG ( Temporary Provisions ) Act DATE and of LAW passed in DATE are summarised at CARDINAL of the Brannigan and McBride judgment .

Reviews of the operation of CARDINAL Act were undertaken by ORG for DATE .

In his DATE Report , which was completed on DATE , the reviewer noted that there had been a marked increase in the level of terrorist activity in the wake of the ORG ’s decision to end the cease - fire which it called in DATE .

In his DATE Report , which was completed on DATE , the reviewer noted that the threat of terrorism continued to be real and observed that , while in principle , there should be judicial participation in the extension of detention , “ this was not yet possible ... because the judges in [ GPE ] can not yet be asked to do this work . ”

In his DATE Report , which was completed on DATE , the reviewer observed that , despite the cease fire declared by the major paramilitary groups in DATE “ there are dissident elements who are intent upon causing injury and damage , and they have the capacity to do so . All in all there is a real threat that some terrorist activity will continue in GPE ... My conclusion is this , criminals with a terrorist or paramilitary disposition have the means to carry out attacks with explosives and firearms at any time ; furthermore , some of them have maintained an organisation which has structure and influence . ”

As to the continuing use of the power of extended detention , the reviewer reiterated his view expressed in earlier reports , that he favoured judicial involvement in the decision - making process . He noted that the appropriate place to examine this issue thoroughly was in the Consultation Paper which ORG had presented to ORG in DATE .

The Consultation Paper proposed judicial participation in applications for extension . In their submissions in the instant case , the Government indicated that they envisage the introduction of legislation to include provisions for a form of judicial involvement in extensions of detention .

An analysis of court remedies relevant to arrest and detention under the prevention of terrorism legislation including section CARDINAL of the CARDINAL Act is contained in the above - mentioned ORG judgment ( pp . CARDINAL , § § DATE ) .


Anatoly Kovler;Elisabeth Steiner;Julia Laffranque;Khanlar Hajiyev;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Peer Lorenzen

The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in GPE , in LOC . ORG ( “ the Government ” ) were represented by PERSON PERSON , the then Representative of GPE at ORG .

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

In DATE the applicant ’s son , PERSON , was suspected of several offences , including murder . On DATE the applicant ’s son was driving the applicant ’s car ORG when he was stopped by the police . A car inspection record was drawn up on DATE . The car was taken to the district police station car park . The applicant was told that the car was subject to a restraint order ( решение о наложении ареста на имущество ) .

On DATE an investigator from the FAC prosecutor ’s office issued an impounding order in respect of the car , worded as follows :

“ [ H]aving examined the criminal case file in respect of PERSON , and given that his criminal activity has caused pecuniary damage to [ the victims ] ; considering that the damage has not been remedied in full , as well as the fact that PERSON used the car for committing criminal offences ; noting that the investigation has established that certain parts of the car were taken as a result of assaults and murders against their owners ; for the purpose of returning the property , securing civil claims and confiscating property , and pursuant to LAW , I order that the car , owned by ORG and currently in the possession of GPE , be impounded and placed in the [ police station ] car park ” .

According to the inventory list drawn up on DATE after a visual inspection of the car ’s exterior ( because no key was available ) , the car was in good condition .

In reply to the applicant ’s complaint , by a letter of CARDINAL DATE the prosecutor informed him as follows :

“ ... the impounding order imposed by the investigator on the car ... was lawful and justified because the car was a piece of physical evidence in the case . The seizure did not seek to secure civil claims or a confiscation order in respect of A. GPE ’s property since he was not the owner of the car in question .

A request for lifting the impounding order should be addressed to the court trying the case against A. GPE . ”

On DATE the ORG convicted the applicant ’s son of murder and robbery . He was sentenced to a term of imprisonment and ordered to pay compensation to the victims . According to the Government , it could be seen from the judgment that the robbery had been committed with the use of the applicant ’s car , as various items taken away from the victims and firearms had been transported in that car .

In the same judgment , the trial court lifted the restraint order and ordered the authorities to return the car to the applicant . However , it also held that unspecified “ parts of the car body should be destroyed ” . The judgment became final on DATE .

In reply to the applicant ’s request for the car to be returned , on DATE the town prosecutor ’s office advised him that he should contact the person in charge of the police station car park for further information . The police station , in their turn , told the applicant that he was obliged to pay a parking fee . The applicant refused . On DATE the town prosecutor ’s office confirmed that this requirement was unlawful .

In reply to the applicant ’s further complaint , on DATE the regional prosecutor ’s office informed him that the car would be returned to him on DATE . The car was returned to him on that date in a dilapidated condition . According to the applicant and an expert report drawn up on the same date , tyres were damaged and CARDINAL fog lights were missing . The applicant and PERSON also alleged that several objects ( a stereo and its speakers , a radio scanner , a first - aid kit , a fire extinguisher , floor mats , etc . ) were missing .

In DATE the applicant brought civil proceedings against the town prosecutor ’s office and the police department . His claims read as follows :

“ On DATE my car was taken to the LOC police station car park . However , a restraint order was issued only on DATE . On DATE , an inventory list was drawn up ... As followed from the judgment of DATE concerning my son , the car had to be returned to me ... The judgment became final on DATE ... The car was not returned to me because the [ authorities ] told me that I had to be a fee ... I sustained pecuniary damage because of the loss or deterioration of several parts of the car ... Unreasonable and unlawful actions of the authorities caused moral suffering because I had to spend time and effort to initiate proceedings and complaints ... ”

The case was assigned to a justice of the peace in ORG of Magnitogorsk . He held several hearings and ordered several adjournments , in particular at the applicant ’s request , to collect evidence and to hear witnesses . The judge decided that the Pravoberezhniy police station , as well as the federal ORG and ORG , were the appropriate defendants in the case .

On DATE the court established that the car had been considered as physical evidence in the criminal case against the applicant ’s son ; it had been lawfully placed in the police station car park . The justice of the peace , however , considered that the authorities’ refusal to return the car after DATE and the requirement to pay for its safekeeping had been unlawful . With reference to the inventory list drawn up on DATE , the court considered that the available materials confirmed the loss of the fog lights , the stereo and its speakers , the radio scanner and the floor mats , as well as the damage to the tyres . The court granted the pecuniary claim in part , as well as the court , expert and lawyer ’s fees . It awarded the applicant MONEY . The court also held as follows :

“ As to the claim in respect of non - pecuniary damage , the court reiterates that compensation in respect of moral or physical suffering caused by actions affecting non - property rights or interest may be awarded under LAW . [ The applicant ] adduced no evidence to confirm that the respondents’ actions had violated his personal non - property rights or interests . Under LAW compensation in respect of moral suffering caused by an action or inaction affecting material rights should be awarded , if prescribed by law . The applicable legislation does not provide for compensation in respect of moral suffering caused by the damaging of a car or by the delay in its return to the owner ... ”

The applicant appealed arguing as follows :

“ The first - instance court wrongly rejected CARDINAL part of my pecuniary claims ... Also , I was refused compensation in respect of non - pecuniary damage ... As to moral suffering , from DATE to CARDINAL DATE and from DATE to DATE I could not use my car ; I was unlawfully required to pay a parking fee and had to spend my time and effort seeking redress before national authorities ... ”

On DATE ORG of GPE upheld the judgment in the following terms :

“ The court rightly dismissed the claim concerning non - pecuniary damage because [ the applicant ] had omitted to justify it with reference to any ill health or psychological distress . Instead , he justified it with reference to real losses owing to the impossibility of using the car and the loss of time in reclaiming it . ”

In DATE the applicant received the amount awarded .