Preliminary objection rejected (non-exhaustion of domestic remedies);Violation of Art. 5-1;Not necessary to examine Art. 5-4;Not necessary to examine Art. 13+5-4;Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient;Costs and expenses award - Convention proceedings

The applicant is an NORP national born in DATE .

The applicant was convicted on CARDINAL counts of manslaughter by ORG ( arrondissementsrechtbank ) on DATE . He had broken into the homes of CARDINAL elderly ladies whom he had strangled to death , both these incidents taking place within the space of DATE .

The applicant was sentenced to DATE imprisonment ( with deduction of the period spent in detention on remand ) and placement at the disposal of the government ( terbeschikkingstelling ) with committal to a psychiatric institution . Although the period of placement at such an institution does not usually begin until the date on which the person concerned is eligible for DATE which in the present case would have been DATE due to his disturbed mental state the authorities decided to commence the applicant ’s treatment prior to DATE ( LAW CARDINAL of the Prisons Ordinance – Gevangenismaatregel – see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . Accordingly , the applicant was placed at the disposal of the government in a psychiatric institution for a DATE period commencing DATE ( see paragraph DATE below ) .

According to Article CARDINALo § CARDINAL of LAW ( PERSON , hereinafter referred to as “ ORG ” ) , a request for the extension of a placement order must be made by the public prosecutor not DATE before the expiry of the previous period of placement ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . DATE for making such a request in the present case was therefore DATE . A letter to this effect was sent by the ORG Secretary of ORG to the public prosecutor on CARDINAL DATE , the latter having received on CARDINAL DATE the recommendations of the psychiatric institution where the applicant was being treated regarding the prolongation of his period of placement ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

On DATE the public prosecutor prepared a request for a DATE extension of the applicant 's placement . The applicant was informed of this fact by letter of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , which he received in person on DATE . The applicant was also informed that during the judicial examination of the request he could be represented by counsel . The request prepared by the public prosecutor , however , did not arrive at that time at the registry of ORG of Groningen but was , apparently by mistake , placed in the archives of the court .

DATE after receiving the letter of the public prosecutor , the applicant alerted the staff in the psychiatric institution to the fact that he had not received any further information regarding the extension of his placement . The request of the public prosecutor was found in the archives of the court on DATE , and was received at the court 's registry on DATE . On DATE the psychiatric institution submitted additional observations concerning its recommendation to extend the hospital order .

In the proceedings regarding the extension of his placement , the applicant asked ORG to declare the public prosecutor 's request inadmissible on the ground that both LAW of the ORG and LAW had been violated . The public prosecutor submitted an explanation in writing as to the reasons why the request had not been lodged in time arguing that the request should not be declared inadmissible .

ORG examined the application on DATE . In its decision of DATE , the court rejected the applicant 's objections and extended his placement at the government ’s disposal for DATE . Pursuant to LAW ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) no appeal lay against this decision , as it concerned a first extension not exceeding DATE .

In its decision ORG stated as follows :

“ CARDINAL . It appears from the contents of the relevant documents that the request for an extension of the placement at the disposal of the government should have been submitted not DATE . According to the stamp indicating the receipt , the request was not received and registered at the registry of ORG until DATE .

The Code of Criminal Procedure does not indicate any consequences of a failure to observe the time - limit contained in LAW . However , in view of the wording of the provision and its legal history , the ORG is of the opinion that failure to observe the said time - limit should in principle result in the inadmissibility of the public prosecutor 's application . This conclusion can be drawn from the fact that failure to respect this procedural provision is not in conformity with the proper administration of justice .

However , in some cases special circumstances might exist which would justify a departure from that principle . The ORG considers that such special circumstances are present in this case .

The provision referred to has a specific procedural significance and aims at letting the judge examine periodically whether an extension of the judicial measure is necessary . Indirectly the provision also protects the interests of the person placed at the government 's disposal since it ensures that this person will know in good time whether or not there will be a request for an extension . In the present case the interests of that person were not prejudiced since the request was notified to him in person on DATE . He has therefore been able to obtain legal assistance in time and he has not been left in any doubt as to the intentions of the public prosecutor for an unnecessarily protracted period .

It remains to be examined whether the failure to comply with the time - limit has been prejudicial to the fairness of the proceedings . In considering this question , the ORG must have regard , inter alia , to the fact that the placement at the disposal of the government remains in force as long as there is no final decision on the request . Although there has been a failure to comply with the time - limit for requesting the extension , it does not follow that the deprivation of liberty is unlawful .

In substance , there has not been a failure to respect the time - limit within which the request must be made . The public prosecutor prepared a request for an extension in time and he communicated it DATE to the person placed at the government 's disposal .

Because of circumstances , which have been further explained in the written memorial of the public prosecutor , it was not possible , however , for the ORG to decide earlier on this request , which had been prepared in time . It is not possible to consider this a flagrant violation of the procedural provisions . The public prosecutor may only be reproached for the fact that the request did not arrive at the registry of this ORG in time , which means that the request was only formally submitted too late .

Moreover an evaluation must be made of the various interests involved in the sense that the interest of the person placed at the government 's disposal in having the violated legal provision respected must be weighed against the general interest which might be harmed by a decision which would lead to the termination of the placement at the disposal of the government .

The Court considers that , in view of the circumstances set out below , the latter interest must prevail .

The measure was originally imposed because of CARDINAL acts of manslaughter . The above - mentioned opinions of the institution quite clearly refer to the necessity of prolonging this coercive measure . The risk of further criminal behaviour is considered still to be present to the same degree , since the person concerned can still not appreciate the vulnerability of his personality . The supplementary opinion regarding the extension repeats this conclusion and also mentions an incident in which violence took place between the person concerned and another person held in the institution . On this occasion he lost his senses for a short while and it was necessary to isolate him for some time in his room . ”

ORG has since extended the applicant ’s placement twice .

Article CARDINAL of the Criminal Code makes manslaughter a crime punishable by a term of imprisonment not exceeding DATE or a fine not exceeding MONEY ( NLG ) .

A person who has been found guilty of certain serious crimes and who , at the time of committing an offence , suffered from a mental deficiency or derangement may be placed at the government ’s disposal if required in the interests of the safety of others or more generally in the interests of the safety of persons or goods . Such a measure , which is not considered a punishment , may be imposed instead of or together with a prison sentence ( Article CARDINAL § § CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW ) . The sentencing court may further decide that the person concerned shall receive psychiatric treatment at the government ’s expense ( Article CARDINALb ) .

A person sentenced to a term of imprisonment may , by order of the Minister of ORG , be made to serve his sentence in an institution for the treatment of persons placed at the disposal of the government if such a course is indicated by his or her impaired mental development or a mental disturbance ( LAW and LAW ) .

According to Article PERSON of LAW a person shall be placed at the disposal of the government for an initial period of DATE which may be extended , at the request of the public prosecutor , for a further period of CARDINAL or DATE . The period of placement can not be extended beyond a total of DATE unless the crime committed by the person concerned was a crime of violence committed against , or causing danger to , CARDINAL or more persons or such further extension is necessary for the protection of other persons ( Article PERSON ) .

The provisions relating to the extension of the placement at the disposal of the government are laid down in ORG CARDINALo to CARDINAL of the ORG .

Article CARDINALo § CARDINAL provides :

“ The public prosecutor ’s office ( openbaar ministerie ) may submit a request ( vordering ) for the prolongation of the placement at the government ’s disposal no sooner than DATE and DATE before the time at which the placement order is due to expire . ”

The request must be accompanied by a recent recommendation prepared by the institution in which the patient is being treated ( LAW ) . In accordance with the provisions of LAW , the person concerned must be given a copy of the request as soon as possible .

NORP The court competent to decide on such a request is ORG that tried the person concerned at first instance for the crime that gave rise to the placement ( Article CARDINALp ) .

Pursuant to LAW , if a request for the extension of the placement is submitted to ORG , the initial placement order shall remain in force until the decision of the court is rendered . If the request is granted after the date on which the placement would have expired had no request for prolongation been submitted , the new period of placement is nonetheless considered to have commenced as from DATE .

ORG must immediately set a date for the examination of the case , and the person concerned must be informed promptly of this date ( Article LAW . The decision of ORG must be rendered as soon as possible , but DATE from the date on which the request was lodged ( LAW ) . The court may , however , exceed this time - limit if it wishes to consider refusing the request – thus terminating the measure – and if it needs more information as to the way in which the person concerned might be released back into society . In such a case , the court has DATE to render its decision ( Article CARDINAL t § CARDINAL ) . ORG decision shall be reasoned . If it decides to prolong the placement order , the decision must be pronounced publicly ( LAW ) .

Both the public prosecutor and the person concerned may lodge an appeal with ORG ( Gerechtshof ) of GPE within DATE of the service of the judgment given by ORG . However , this provision rules out an appeal in regard to the first decision to extend the placement for DATE ( Article CARDINALv ) .

There is no express provision requiring the release of the person concerned if the time - limits laid down by ORG CARDINALo § CARDINAL and CARDINAL t § § CARDINAL and CARDINAL are not complied with , nor does the ORG impose any sanctions on exceeding these time - limits .

According to GPE case - law summary civil proceedings ( kort geding ) may be instituted in cases where a person placed at the disposal of the government wishes to obtain a court judgment on the lawfulness of his detention . However , in a case which was brought before the President of ORG of the Hague , a request for the termination of the applicant ’s placement was rejected , inter alia , in view of the fact that the court competent to decide on the extension of the placement would be dealing with the matter DATE ( decision of CARDINAL DATE , published in GPE DATE , pp . CARDINAL ) .

The date on which the registry of ORG concerned receives the request for extension is considered as the date of submission ( ORG of GPE , decision of DATE , published in GPE DATE , pp . CARDINAL ) .

According to a judgment of ORG ) of DATE ( PERSON ( GPE ) DATE , no . CARDINAL ) a placement order remains lawful even if the decision to extend it exceeds the time - limit now laid down by LAW ORG .

In a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ( GPE DATE , no . CARDINAL ) , ORG ) held that only in certain circumstances would the ORG be obliged to terminate a placement order after its statutory period had expired and no decision as to its extension had been taken . In order to determine whether such an obligation existed , the court should have regard to the extent to which the statutory time - limit had been exceeded , the reasons for which the time - limit had not been complied with and the personal and societal interests involved .

In a more recent case , it was also held that the time - limit referred to in Article CARDINALo § CARDINAL of the ORG was not of an absolute nature . On DATE , in a case where this time - limit had been exceeded , ORG ) found that in light of LAW the placement order had remained lawful even though the public prosecutor had lodged the request for extension DATE after the date on which it should have been submitted to the registry of ORG ( GPE DATE , no . CARDINAL ) .


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

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

On DATE the applicant brought an action against his ex - wife , seeking the division of their matrimonial property .

In the period DATE and DATE , QUANTITY hearings took place and the opinions of valuation experts were obtained .

Further hearings took place on DATE , DATE and DATE , DATE and DATE . Meanwhile , the expert was invited to submit a new opinion and to complete it subsequently .

On DATE ORG ordered the applicant to pay MONEY ( ORG ) to his ex - wife .

On appeal , ORG , on DATE , quashed parts of the appealed judgment and remitted those parts to ORG . Furthermore , it fixed the parties’ respective shares of the property .

On DATE , on the applicant ’s petition for review , ORG quashed the second - instance judgment concerning the establishment of the parties’ property shares . Accordingly , this part of the case was also remitted to ORG .

In the resumed proceedings , ORG held hearings on DATE , CARDINAL DATE and DATE ; it also appointed another expert . On DATE the applicant ’s motion for bias was dismissed .

Further hearings took place on DATE , DATE and DATE . An on - site inspection scheduled for DATE had to be postponed , because the applicant did not agree to the defendant ’s personal attendance . A new opinion was submitted by the expert on DATE .

Another hearing was held on DATE . The next one scheduled for DATE was postponed at the applicant ’s request to CARDINAL DATE .

On DATE ORG fixed the parties’ respective shares in a real - estate of common ownership , granted ownership of it to the applicant and ordered him to pay compensation and unrealised rent to his ex - wife . The court relied on documentary evidence , the testimonies of the parties and the opinions of CARDINAL expert architects . On DATE the applicant appealed .

An appeal hearing took place on DATE . On DATE the appellate court appointed an expert , who submitted his opinion on DATE .

On DATE ORG increased the amount of compensation to be paid by the applicant . It further quashed the part of ORG judgment which concerned the unrealised rent and discontinued the proceedings in this regard . The judgment acquired legal force .

On DATE the applicant filed a petition for review , alleging that the final decision was unfounded and at variance with the relevant substantive law .

In a preliminary examination under section CARDINAL of the Code of Civil Procedure , on CARDINAL DATE ORG refused to deal with the merits of the petition . It applied section CARDINAL § CARDINAL of the Code of Civil Procedure , as in force in the relevant period , according to which a review of substantive unlawfulness of final decisions was only admissible if a review was considered necessary from the perspective of harmonising or developing the application of the law .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s request to have the final decision rectified . It held that , in essence , the request was aimed at challenging certain provisions of the final decision which constituted res iudicata and was thus incompatible ratione materiae with the procedural rules concerning the rectification of decisions .


Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Inhuman treatment) (Procedural aspect);Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8 - Positive obligations;Article 8-1 - Respect for family life;Respect for private life);Non-pecuniary damage - award

Alvina Gyulumyan;Corneliu Bîrsan;Egbert Myjer;Ineta Ziemele;Josep Casadevall;Kristina Pardalos;Luis López Guerra;Mihai Poalelungi

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

From DATE to DATE , the first applicant , who was then a DATE boy , was allegedly subjected to repeated rape and violence by GPE

NORP In DATE , the child was followed home from school by GPE In front of the applicant ’s family ’s apartment , GPE grabbed the key from his hand , opened the door and forcefully pushed the boy inside . He hit the child several times in the stomach . He pulled the applicant ’s clothes off and tied his hands and legs and gagged him with strips of white cloth that he had taken out of his trouser pocket . Then GPE dragged the boy into the kitchen , removed a piece of furniture from against the wall and placed it near the couch . He bent the child over the furniture and sexually abused him . He then removed the gag and forced the child into oral sex . GPE hit the applicant again several times in the stomach , head and genitalia , untied him and told him to put his clothes on . He threatened the child with a knife and warned him that he would kill him if anyone found out what had happened .

The first applicant was too scared to scream during the assault .

The abuse continued during DATE , several times per week . At a certain point , GPE made a copy of the applicant ’s key so he could enter the apartment . Sometimes he would wait for the child inside , sometimes he came with a dog and once with other persons , including CARDINAL minor children . Before leaving the apartment , GPE sometimes stole food and small sums of money .

Eventually the applicant told his brother and father about what was happening to him .

After the events the first applicant changed school and in DATE the family finally moved from PERSON to GPE , following the advice of the school psychologist .

The Government did not contest the description of the facts by the first applicant .

On DATE and CARDINAL DATE on behalf of his son , the second applicant reported the sexual abuse and violence inflicted on the child to PERSON . He accused GPE , GPE and GPE He reiterated his complaints on DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE and on DATE .

The police started investigating the case .

On DATE , at the request of the investigators , the first applicant underwent a medical examination at FAC . The record noted :

“ ... healing anal lesion and hypotonia of the anal sphincter . No signs of violence on the body ... The lesions necessitate DATE of medical care and could have been caused by anal intercourse . ”

A medical certificate issued on DATE at the request of the police , summarised the findings of the examination .

On DATE , DATE and DATE GPE gave statements to the police . He claimed that he had not been in the area during that period , and that he did not know the applicants’ family . He had only been in the building once , on New Year ’s Eve , for TIME . He admitted that he used to take his sister ’s dog out for a walk but he had not done so in a while ; during the time in question he had been training a similar dog , in the afternoons , from TIME During a polygraph test , GPE showed simulated behaviour when asked whether he had had sexual intercourse with the first applicant .

ORG and GPE denied any participation in the abuse .

The first applicant was interviewed several times by the investigators . He gave details about the facts . His statements were recorded on DATE , DATE , CARDINAL DATE and DATE . In some of the interviews he declared that he had told his brother and father about the abuse , but in others he stated that he had not mentioned anything to anyone . In his first statement he also told the police that DATE after he had told his father about the abuse , his parents had allowed him to return on his own from school and he had remained alone in the apartment after school .

The second applicant gave statements to the investigators , relating the facts as his son had described them .

On DATE the first applicant ’s mother declared that she had suspected something was going on as her son ’s voice on the phone had sometimes been trembling and as she had sometimes found the house untidy and litter in the bathroom , but that she had thought the children were responsible . Before the prosecutor she supplemented her statements and stated that during that time she had noticed that food and money had disappeared from the house .

The first applicant identified GPE in a line up at the police headquarters .

Several other witnesses were interviewed by the police , including neighbours and acquaintances .

ORG , the neighbour from upstairs , stated that she had no knowledge of what had happened in the applicants’ home . DATE she changed her statements and declared that she had seen a man who fitted GPE ’s description entering the applicants’ apartment with a dog during the period in question . She explained that she had been afraid that if she talked about what she had seen , the neighbours would have thought she had been spying on them . During the investigations and court proceedings PERSON changed her statements , claiming both to have seen GPE entering the victim ’s apartment several times , DATE , and to have seen him entering only once .

On DATE the police confronted GPE and GPE They both maintained their previous statements .

B.V. informed the police that at the second applicant ’s request , he had followed the applicant to school and home a few times in DATE . He had noticed GPE in the vicinity several times , and on DATE had seen him forcing the first applicant into the apartment .

GPE , ORG adolescent son , stated that he had seen GPE entering the victim ’s home from DATE , sometimes with a dog . On DATE the police organised a confrontation between GPE and GPE FAC maintained that he had seen GPE entering the apartment with the victim and then had heard the child scream . GPE denied having seen GPE or having abused the first applicant .

The investigators also searched the ORG and GPE ’s homes , but found no further evidence to support the accusations . They checked the record of calls made from the applicants’ telephone during the period under investigation . They also checked and confirmed that the upstairs neighbours could see , from the hallway , who entered the applicants’ apartment .

During the investigations the first applicant underwent several medical and psychiatric evaluations in the presence of his father .

On DATE a new medical examination by ORG , ordered by the police , confirmed the findings of the expert examination of CARDINAL DATE . The doctors considered that it was impossible to tell whether the perpetrator had been an adult or a minor . They concluded that the lesions could only have been caused by repeated sexual abuse .

On DATE ORG attached to ORG decided to discontinue prosecution of GPE and not to prosecute PERSON and GPE The second applicant objected .

On DATE the prosecutor at ORG allowed the objection and sent the case back to the police for further investigation .

On DATE ORG attached to LOC again decided to discontinue the prosecution . On DATE the second applicant ’s objection was allowed by ORG attached to ORG . The latter sent the case to the ORG prosecutor and ordered him to continue the investigation .

On DATE the prosecution file was sent to ORG attached to ORG with an instruction to continue the investigation .

On DATE the prosecutor at ORG discontinued the prosecution of GPE and decided not to prosecute PERSON and GPE on the ground that they had not committed the crimes . It was also decided to continue the investigation in order to identify the criminals .

The second applicant appealed against the decision . On DATE the ORG attached to ORG reversed the decision .

On DATE , the prosecutor at ORG committed GPE to trial for rape and unlawful entry of the victim ’s home ( violare de domiciliu ) . It was also decided not to prosecute PERSON and GPE The first applicant sought civil damages in the amount of CARDINAL NORP lei .

During this period some witnesses were brought in again for interviews and a new expert report was drafted concluding that the anal lesions suffered by the first applicant may have been produced DATE before the expert examination of CARDINAL DATE . On DATE , the second applicant refused to subject his son , the first applicant , to another psychiatric evaluation .

NORP Throughout the investigation and prosecution , the second applicant complained several times about the length of the proceedings . His complaints were dismissed by ORG attached to ORG on DATE and DATE . On DATE GPE answered a similar complaint , outlining the latest procedural steps taken in the case .

In addition , on DATE the second applicant complained that he , his family and some of the witnesses had received threats from GPE On DATE GPE threatened the applicants with retaliation . They reported the incidents to the police .

On DATE the second applicant complained about the prosecutor ’s decision not to prosecute PERSON and GPE On CARDINAL DATE ORG dismissed the complaint . The decision became final as the parties did not appeal against it .

The case was initially referred to ORG . However , on DATE ORG changed the legal classification of the crimes and sent the case to ORG . It noted that at the time when the facts occurred , males were not recognised as potential victims of rape . Furthermore , at the time of the investigations , same - sex relations had been decriminalised . Therefore the facts under investigation could only be classified as the crime of “ sexual perversion ” and “ sexual corruption of a minor ” , which were under the jurisdiction of the district courts .

ORG started the examination of the case . On CARDINAL DATE the first applicant gave a detailed description of the facts . GPE denied having committed any crime against the applicant .

NORP In DATE the first applicant ’s older brother gave a statement to the court . He related what his brother had told him about the abuse . He further stated that around that period ( DATE ) his brother ’s behaviour had changed , he had refused to eat , had constantly been scared and had sometimes had blood on the back of his underpants . He declared that their mother had also noticed those blood stains .

The first applicant ’s mother admitted that neither she nor her husband had taken time off work to accompany the child and see what had happened , although she had noticed the changes in his behaviour and sometimes even physical signs of potential abuse .

Several witnesses were interviewed by the court , including the neighbours GPE and ORG , as well as GPE

DATE and DATE , the first applicant underwent a psychological evaluation . The final report revealed that he showed anxiety when shown his alleged aggressor ’s image , uncertainty and social isolation ; that he wished to have the routine of a “ normal child ” ; and that he had a tendency to exaggerate and invent things , common to sufferers of trauma caused by such violence , especially children .

On DATE the second applicant complained about the length of the proceedings and about GPE ’s request for release . On DATE he complained that GPE had been released from detention .

On DATE the first applicant underwent a psychiatric evaluation in ORG No . CARDINAL . The examination commission noted that he was scared , insecure , had difficulty concentrating and showed the frustration associated with the experience of not being believed by others .

On DATE ORG acquitted GPE , on the ground that the crimes had not been committed by him .

The court noted in particular that the parents had failed to notice the change in their child ’s behaviour and to notify the authorities in good time , but rather had waited until after the abuse had been going on for some time . The court also observed that the descriptions of the facts given by the first applicant and the witnesses had not been accurate and differed in the details and pointed to the fact that the second applicant had tried to influence some of the witnesses to give statements against GPE The court also attached importance to the fact that the searches performed during the criminal investigation had revealed no traces of GPE ’s presence in the victim ’s apartment or any evidence in GPE ’s apartment to support the accusation against him . Lastly , the court considered that the findings of the medical report were not conclusive as to GPE ’s guilt .

On DATE ORG dismissed the appeals lodged by the prosecutor and the applicant against the judgment given by ORG .

ORG found that there were contradictions in the statements given by the parties and witnesses . It acknowledged that such contradictions may have been caused by the time that had lapsed between the events and the examination of evidence by the courts , but considered that the length of the investigations had not been the main cause of the discrepancies . Accordingly , it noted that from the beginning of the investigation the second applicant and the witnesses had given contradictory descriptions of the aggressor in their various statements and considered that some of the witnesses had been dishonest and that the victim ’s father had tried to influence several individuals to testify against GPE The court also considered that the police line up had not been carried out properly , as the persons chosen to stand with GPE had differed in physical appearance , in particular their height , length of hair , and posture . It also noted that CARDINAL family from the whole block of flats had heard the child screaming . The court was concerned by the fact that despite the alleged physical evidence of abuse ( blood stains for example ) and other odd occurrences around the house ( missing food , moved furniture ) , the parents had waited a long time before reporting the alleged abuse to the police . Lastly , it noted that his psychological profile indicated that the first applicant was prone to exterior influence and fantasizing , and considered that he might have “ put his parents on a false track , either because he did not know who the aggressor was or because he wanted to hide the latter ’s identity ” .

On DATE ORG dismissed , by CARDINAL votes to one , the appeals in cassation lodged by the prosecutor and the applicant . It reiterated the arguments put forward by ORG . The dissenting judge argued that the evidence in the file was sufficient to convict GPE for sexual corruption and unlawful entry .

DATE . At the date when the abuse against the first applicant occurred , the relevant provisions of LAW read as follows :

“ ( CARDINAL ) Sexual intercourse with a female through coercion or taking advantage of her incapability of defending herself or of expressing her will , is punishable by DATE of imprisonment .

( CARDINAL ) The sentence will be from DATE if :

( a ) the act was committed by CARDINAL or CARDINAL persons together ; ...

( CARDINAL ) The sentence will be from DATE if the victim is not yet DATE ... ”

“ ( CARDINAL ) Sexual intercourse with a female who has not yet reached DATE is punishable by imprisonment of from DATE . ”

“ ( CARDINAL ) Sexual intercourse between persons of the same sex , carried out in public or which causes a public scandal , is punishable by imprisonment of CARDINAL .

( CARDINAL ) Sexual intercourse by an adult with a juvenile of the same sex is punishable by imprisonment of DATE and loss of certain rights .

( CARDINAL ) Sexual intercourse with a person of the same sex who is incapable of defending him or herself or of expressing his or her will , or which is performed through coercion , is punishable by imprisonment of CARDINAL and loss of certain rights . ”

“ ( CARDINAL ) Acts of sexual perversion committed in public which cause a public scandal are punishable by imprisonment from DATE . ”

“ ( CARDINAL ) Acts of an obscene nature committed to a minor or in his or her presence are punishable by imprisonment from DATE or by a fine . ”

Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL have been amended successively in order to recognise males as potential victims of rape and statutory rape , by PERSON no . CARDINAL , which entered into force on DATE and by Emergency Ordinance no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , which entered into force on DATE . The latter Ordinance also decriminalised consenting same sex intercourse .

On DATE GPE ratified LAW on the Rights of the LAW ( “ the ORG ” ) , in force since DATE . The ORG stipulates that the best interests of the child and his or her dignity shall be a primary consideration in all actions concerning children ( LAW ) .

The ORG urges Member GPE to take all appropriate measures to protect children from all forms of violence , including sexual abuse , and to provide for the recovery and social reintegration of victims . The relevant articles read as follows :

“ CARDINAL . DATE States Parties shall take all appropriate legislative , administrative , social and educational measures to protect the child from all forms of physical or mental violence , injury or abuse , neglect or negligent treatment , maltreatment or exploitation , including sexual abuse , while in the care of parent(s ) , legal guardian(s ) or any other person who has the care of the child .

Such protective measures should , as appropriate , include effective procedures for the establishment of social programmes to provide necessary support for the child and for those who have the care of the child , as well as for other forms of prevention and for identification , reporting , referral , investigation , treatment and follow - up of instances of child maltreatment described heretofore , and , as appropriate , for judicial involvement . ”

“ GPE Parties undertake to protect the child from all forms of sexual exploitation and sexual abuse . For these purposes , GPE Parties shall in particular take all appropriate national , bilateral and multilateral measures to prevent :

( a ) The inducement or coercion of a child to engage in any unlawful sexual activity ; ”

“ GPE Parties shall take all appropriate measures to promote physical and psychological recovery and social reintegration of a child victim of : any form of neglect , exploitation , or abuse ; torture or any other form of cruel , inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment ; or armed conflicts . Such recovery and reintegration shall take place in an environment which fosters the health , self - respect and dignity of the child . ”

ORG on the Rights of the Child interpreted the text of the ORG in its General comments . Its latest General comment no . CARDINAL ( DATE ) on the right of the child to freedom from all forms of violence is aimed at guiding ORG parties in understanding their obligations under LAW , building on existing documents and reflecting on the evolution of the protection in question . The ORG acknowledged the efforts of the GPE to prevent and respond to violence . It nevertheless found that the GPE were lagging behind in their obligations :

“ § CARDINAL NORP ... In spite of these efforts , existing initiatives are in general insufficient . Legal frameworks in a majority of GPE still fail to prohibit all forms of violence against children , and where laws are in place , their enforcement is often inadequate . ”

The ORG expresses the view that GPE are under a “ strict obligation ” to undertake all appropriate measures to fully implement this right for all children ( paragraph CARDINAL of the General comment ) . Among the ORG obligations , the ORG identified the need to : review and amend domestic legislation in line with LAW ORG ; ensure protection to child victims and effective access to redress and reparation ; enforce law in a child - friendly way ; and provide for counselling support ( paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL of the General comment ) .

The ORG develops further on the content of the “ protective measures ” , stressing the importance of prevention , the need for an easily accessible report mechanism , the importance of rigorous and child - sensitive investigation and of effective and child - friendly justice where due process must be respected ( in particular paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL of the General comment ) .

On DATE ORG , recognising that the well - being and best interests of children are fundamental values shared by all member GPE , adopted the Convention on the Protection of Children against Sexual Exploitation and Sexual Abuse urging the Member GPE to adopt measures to protect children from any form of abuse and to put in place a system capable of punishing any such acts .

On DATE the respondent ORG ratified that ORG which entered into force in respect of GPE on DATE .


Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (non-exhaustion of domestic remedies);Violation of Art. 3 (substantive aspect);Violation of Art. 3 (procedural aspect);Violation of Art. 5-1;Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed;Non-pecuniary damage - award

Anatoly Kovler;Mark Villiger;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Peer Lorenzen;Rait Maruste;Volodymyr Butkevych;Zdravka Kalaydjieva

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

In DATE the applicant arrived in GPE . On DATE he was examined by the GPE medical commission , which found him to be in good health and fit to drive a car .

On DATE the applicant gave an interview to a national TV station , ORG , which was running a story on a dispute between private holders of government bonds and ORG . During the interview the applicant , the head of a group of private bondholders , accused the Ministry of initiating a vendetta against him and ordering assaults on bondholders to pressurise them into withdrawing their lawsuits against ORG . The interview was aired on ORG ’s DATE political analysis show , ORG .

On DATE police officers stopped the applicant and his brother in the street and asked them to show identification documents . The Government alleged that the police officers had acted on information about wanted criminals who looked remarkably similar to the applicant and his brother . According to the Government , the applicant and his brother were not in possession of any papers which could have proved their identity and they were taken to GPE police station in GPE ( ORG « PERSON г. GPE ) owing to their “ refusal to comply with the orders of the police officers and use of obscene language in public ” . According to the applicant , he and his brother disclosed their identity , his brother presenting a military ORG card and the applicant showing a work pass .

At the station a police officer , PERSON . , drew up a note addressed to the head of the PERSON police department . The note read as follows :

“ [ I ] am writing to inform you that on DATE , at TIME , Mr GPE was brought to the police station together with PERSON : the police officer ] ; at the address ... , following several requests to present documents proving his identity , [ Mr ORG ] refused to show them and started swearing at us in the presence of private individuals , using obscene language and at the same time repeating that it would cost us MONEY ; the CARDINAL men refused to follow us to GPE police station .

The identity check was prompted by telephone message no . DATE . ”

According to the applicant , he was severely beaten in the police station by a group of allegedly drunk police officers . After the beatings he was moved to a cell . TIME he was brought to a room and forced to strip to the waist . He placed his clothes in a bag and was forced to lift the bag , which weighed QUANTITY , and to put it down . He had to perform this “ exercise ” over and over again . The applicant alleged that the task had been extremely difficult for him , as on DATE he had undergone surgery and had been prohibited from lifting weights heavier than a kilogram . The applicant lost consciousness and was taken to the ORG clinical hospital .

The Government , relying on information provided by ORG , confirmed the fact that the applicant had sustained injuries .

In the hospital the applicant was examined by a neurosurgeon , a neuropathologist , a urologist and an oculist . Medical report no . DATE was drawn up . The report indicated that the applicant had been admitted to the hospital at TIME on DATE and that he had been diagnosed with “ an injury to the front abdominal wall , bruises on the forehead and left hand , an injury to the kidneys , a craniocerebral injury and concussion ” .

The applicant stayed in the hospital until DATE . According to medical certificates nos . CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL issued on DATE and DATE respectively , the applicant was on sick leave until DATE and underwent treatment at home .

On DATE the applicant was examined by an occupational medical expert panel ( врачебно-трудовая экспертная комиссия ) and recognised as physically disabled . Medical certificate no . DATE issued by the panel indicated that the applicant had “ a second - degree disability ” .

The applicant ’s mother complained to the GPE district prosecutor ’s office that on DATE the applicant had been unlawfully arrested and beaten up .

On DATE the GPE district deputy prosecutor sent a letter to the applicant ’s mother informing her that criminal proceedings had been instituted against the police officers at GPE police station .

On DATE an investigator from the GPE district prosecutor ’s office closed the criminal proceedings , finding that there was no case of ill - treatment to answer . The relevant part of the decision read as follows :

“ In the course of the investigation it was established that on DATE , at TIME , PERSON . and PERSON , on - duty officers from the GPE district police department , stopped CARDINAL persons near house no . ... who resembled persons wanted in connection with telephone message no . DATE . The persons concerned refused to present identity documents and were brought to GPE police station for an identity check . At the station one of them identified himself as Mr PERSON , a DATE student at a military academy ; the other introduced himself as PERSON PERSON . Following a check though ORG the identity of Mr D.A. Belousov was confirmed , and at TIME he was handed over to a representative of the military commander ’s office . The second person ( Mr GPE , as it was established later ) was placed in a cell for administrative arrestees ; later he felt sick and an ambulance was called for him . At TIME he was handed over to an emergency team which took him to the ORG clinical hospital .

According to a statement by [ the applicant ] , on DATE he and his brother PERSON were on their way to GPE market . At TIME a police officer , wearing no badge of rank or insignia , stopped them and asked them to show some identity documents . [ The applicant ] showed his “ GPE ” company work pass , and [ his brother ] showed his military ORG card . At that moment another police officer , wearing badge no . DATE , approached them and pushed [ the applicant ] ; [ the latter ] screamed and the police officer then twisted his arm . Consequently [ the applicant ] asked to be taken to a police station for an explanation . An on - duty patrol which had arrived at the scene took [ the applicant ] and [ his brother ] to GPE district police station . At the police station [ the applicant ] went into the lobby to smoke a cigarette . An on - duty sergeant , wearing badge no . DATE , said that arrestees could not smoke there ; [ the applicant ] responded that he had not been arrested , and the sergeant then called a captain who was standing on the steps of the police station . The captain started hitting [ the applicant ] ; when , responding to [ the applicant ’s ] screams , [ his brother ] ran from the duty room , the captain hit [ his brother ] with a machine gun and dragged him back to the duty room . The sergeant wearing badge no . DATE and another sergeant , wearing badge no . DATE , continued beating [ the applicant ] up . Then [ the applicant ] crawled to the duty room and asked the police officers who were there to call an ambulance . [ The applicant ] and [ his brother ] were placed in a cell for administrative arrestees ; the police officers dismissed all their requests to place a call to their house or to call an ambulance . During his detention at the station [ the applicant ] was twice submitted to a bodily search without any record being taken ... At TIME a major from the military academy arrived to pick up [ his brother ] . Subsequently a district police officer arrived at the station and , after forcing [ the applicant ] to strip to the waist , he and the captain present at the station made [ the applicant ] lift his clothes and move them from CARDINAL place to another , following which [ the applicant ] lost consciousness . [ The applicant ] regained consciousness in a room where it was extremely hot ; the police officers took him to a shower room where an officer on duty provided him with medical assistance . From that time on [ the applicant ] was almost unconscious until his transfer to the surgical wing of the hospital . An ambulance was called for him and subsequently [ the applicant ] was brought to the ORG clinical hospital .

[ The applicant ’s brother ] , who was questioned as a witness , confirmed [ the applicant ’s ] statements in general , but also stated that CARDINAL police officers had carried [ the applicant ] from the lobby . When [ the applicant ’s brother ] was leaving the station , [ the applicant ] had not had any injuries to his head and hands .

According to a report by the GPE district police department , badge no . DATE is assigned to PERSON , badge no . DATE is attributed to PERSON and badge no . DATE is assigned to PERSON . During an identification parade in which the police officer wearing badge no . DATE ( Mr Kh . ) took part , [ the applicant ] identified him and noted that the police officer in question had not beaten him up but that he had arrested him ; [ that statement ] is corroborated by other police ORG statements .

According to a statement by the police officer , PERSON . , he and PERSON were on duty near GPE market on DATE . At CARDINAL p.m. they noticed CARDINAL men who looked similar to criminals wanted in connection with telephone message no . DATE . In response to a request for identity documents , a man ( [ the applicant ] , as it was subsequently established ) started screaming obscenities at the police officers . The CARDINAL men refused to show identity documents . In response to the ORG request that they go to GPE police station , [ the applicant ] said that he would not follow the officers and that he would not speak to a police officer below the rank of major ; he also demanded that they call a car . A group on patrol was called to the scene to bring the QUANTITY men to the police station . Physical force was not used against the QUANTITY men .

PERSON . ’s statements are fully corroborated by a statement from PERSON

Mr NORP , who was questioned as a witness , stated that on DATE , in response to a call from an on - duty officer he , as a member of a group on patrol , together with PERSON and PERSON , had arrived to render assistance to the on - duty officers . CARDINAL apprehended persons were handed over to them ; the patrol took them to GPE police station . They did not use physical force against the QUANTITY men . Mr NORP ’s statements are fully corroborated by statements from PERSON and PERSON

Mr Do . , an officer on duty at GPE police station , who was questioned as a witness , stated that on DATE CARDINAL apprehended persons had been brought to the duty unit of GPE police station . CARDINAL of the arrestees introduced himself as Mr PERSON , a student at the military academy , and showed his military ID card ... ; the other person introduced himself as Mr PERSON and did not have any documents on him . Following a check through ... databases which produced a negative response , [ the applicant ] was asked to state his real name . Subsequently [ the applicant ] attempted to leave the station and started smoking . An officer on duty , PERSON , made a remark , following which [ the applicant ] fell to the floor and started screaming that he was being beaten up . When [ Mr Do . ] asked him what was going on , [ the applicant ] said that he had undergone surgery and showed scars on his stomach . The arrestee was reprimanded and placed behind bars . Subsequently [ the applicant ] continued behaving provocatively , used obscene language , threatened the police officers and tore up roubles and dollars . At TIME he complained that he did not feel well and emergency doctors were called , who transferred him to the ORG clinical hospital . The police officers behaved properly towards [ the applicant ] ; no physical force was used .

Mr Do . ’s statements were confirmed by statements from police officers PERSON , PERSON P. , PERSON . and PERSON

According to the statements given by a witness , PERSON , on DATE he and a group of emergency doctors arrived at GPE police station . A man was sitting in the station behind bars , with his hand on his stomach . He complained of pain in his stomach . During conversation he stated that he was disabled and that he had recently undergone surgery during which a part of his stomach had been removed ; he began showing the scars on his stomach . No visible injuries were discovered on [ the applicant ] . The police officers behaved properly towards [ the applicant ] . The patient was taken to the Botkin clinical hospital .

PERSON . , an emergency team medical assistant , who was questioned as a witness , testified that on DATE he and the emergency team had arrived at GPE police station . A man ( the applicant , as was later established ) was sitting on a couch behind bars with his hand on his stomach . [ The applicant ] said that he had been beaten up by the police . Other arrestees held at the station said that [ the applicant ] was lying . In the car [ the applicant ] talked , saying that he had undergone surgery . He stated that when he had been approached by police officers in the street and had been asked to show some identity documents he had used obscene language .

PERSON , who was questioned as a witness , stated that on DATE she had been in a room for administrative arrestees . CARDINAL more persons were being held there ; CARDINAL of them ( [ the applicant ] , as it transpired later ) behaved provocatively , screaming and threatening the police officers . The police officers behaved properly towards all the arrested persons ; they did not use physical force .

During an additional interview [ the applicant ] stated that a captain had begun hitting him in the lobby . At first [ the captain ] had hit him with his right hand on the upper part of the left shoulder ; after that blow [ the applicant ] slipped down by the wall and fell near a rubbish bin . Then the captain kicked [ the applicant ] twice : once in the stomach and once in the back near the kidneys . The first kick in the stomach was particularly hard . After that the sergeants approached [ the applicant ] and hit him CARDINAL times in the stomach and back . The applicant then crawled into the duty room where he was hit several times in the buttocks ...

According to a report issued in the ORG clinical hospital [ the applicant ] had an injury to the abdominal wall , an injury to the right kidney , bruises on the forehead and left hand , a craniocerebral injury and concussion ; his state of health was satisfactory . Following ultrasound examinations of the abdominal cavity and kidneys no pathology was detected .

A forensic medical examination of [ the applicant ] was performed in the case . According to the expert report , [ the applicant ] had sustained concussion and an injury to the forehead , which constituted elements of a single trauma and belonged to the category of injuries causing mild damage to health , that is , a short - term deterioration in health lasting DATE ... The diagnosis of “ an injury to a kidney ” indicated in the medical documents was not confirmed by objective clinical data and the results of the special examinations ... The diagnosis “ traumatic encephalopathy ” indicated in the medical documents could not be examined by the expert , because there was insufficient objective data for analysis ... At present [ the applicant is suffering ] from psycho - vegetative syndrome and depression , and needs psychiatric treatment . There is no mention of an injury to the post - surgical sutures in the medical documents presented for expert examination . Differences in the scar tissue along the line of the postsurgical sutures do not exclude a possible partial opening of the sutures in the upper part .

Taking into account the fact that the arguments raised by [ the applicant ] were not objectively confirmed in the course of the pre - trial investigation ... , [ the investigator ] orders the closure of the criminal proceedings instituted pursuant to LAW ( a ) of LAW of GPE ... ”

The applicant complained to the GPE city prosecutor and ORG that the criminal proceedings against the policemen had been closed .

According to the Government , the decision of DATE was quashed on DATE by a higher - ranking prosecutor and the case was remitted for additional examination . No copy of that decision was submitted to the ORG .

On DATE an investigator from the GPE district prosecutor ’s office again discontinued the criminal proceedings , finding that there was no case of ill - treatment to answer . The decision of DATE was identical in its wording to the decision of DATE , save for CARDINAL additional paragraphs in which the investigator recounted the testimonies of CARDINAL witnesses , PERSON . and PERSON . , who had been detained at the police station together with the applicant . Both witnesses stated that they had not seen the alleged beatings and that the applicant had behaved “ provocatively ” . According to the applicant , the decision of DATE was not served on him .

In the meantime , on DATE , ORG of GPE disallowed the applicant ’s complaint against the decision of DATE . ORG held as follows :

“ The plaintiff challenges the decision issued in criminal case no . DATE .

A complaint concerning a decision issued in the course of criminal proceedings can not be examined in civil court proceedings . Complaints concerning actions of the prosecution authorities can not be examined by courts of general jurisdiction , as special laws exist relating to the prosecution ” .

The Government , relying on a report issued by the President of ORG in DATE , submitted that ORG had refused to examine the applicant ’s complaint because the decision of DATE had been quashed by a prosecutor and the investigation had been reopened .

On DATE the applicant received a copy of the decision of CARDINAL DATE . The applicant ’s representative asked ORG to restore the time - limit for lodging an appeal against that decision . A copy of the statement of appeal was attached to the request . No response followed . On DATE the applicant ’s representative complained to the President of ORG that her request had not been examined . The stamp on the letter of CARDINAL DATE shows that ORG received the letter DATE . The applicant did not receive any response .

On DATE the GPE city deputy prosecutor quashed the decision of DATE and reopened the investigation into the applicant ’s ill - treatment complaint , finding as follows :

“ The decision [ of DATE ] on the closing of a criminal case was issued unlawfully and without any grounds and should be quashed , because in this case it is necessary to question [ the applicant ’s mother ] ; to identify and question all the individuals detained in the cell for administrative arrestees when [ the applicant ] and [ his brother ] were at the police station ; to question further [ the applicant ’s brother ] about his and [ the applicant ’s ] injuries and about material evidence showing that those injuries were sustained ; to question further the emergency doctors who arrived at the police station and took [ the applicant ] to the ORG clinical hospital in GPE about the visible injuries ; to question thoroughly the doctor who performed the initial examination of [ the applicant ] in the ORG hospital ; to organise , if necessary , confrontation interviews between the doctors ; to carry out a legal evaluation of the [ the applicant ’s ] injuries discovered during the forensic medical examination ( concussion , an injury to the forehead , an injury to the left hand and an injury to the right shoulder ) and to perform other investigative actions aimed at establishing the truth in the case . ”

On DATE an investigator from the GPE district prosecutor ’s office discontinued the criminal proceedings against the police officers , concluding that no criminal conduct had occurred ( LAW ) . The investigator copied the wording of the decision of DATE , merely adding that the forensic medical examination had established that the applicant ’s injuries could have been caused by blows administered with a blunt firm object , possibly on CARDINAL DATE . He also included additional statements by the CARDINAL witnesses PERSON and PERSON . , who had been unable to recall further details of their stay at the police station in DATE owing to the length of time since the events , and had merely confirmed their statements given to the investigator in DATE . The investigator did not question the applicant ’s mother and brother because he could not establish their place of residence . He was also unable to identify all the individuals who had been detained at the police station together with the applicant , because the registration logs bearing the names of persons detained at GPE police station had been destroyed .

On DATE the GPE city deputy prosecutor quashed the decision of DATE , reopened the investigation into the applicant ’s ill - treatment complaints and ordered that investigators should “ take procedural decisions concerning the fact that injuries were inflicted on [ the applicant ] , question [ police officers ] PERSON and PERSON and take other investigative actions necessary in the course of the investigation ” . It appears that the proceedings are now pending .

The RSFSR Code of Criminal Procedure ( in force until DATE , “ the CCrP ” ) established that a criminal investigation could be initiated by an investigator on a complaint by an individual or on the investigative authorities’ own initiative , where there were reasons to believe that a crime had been committed ( Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL ) . A prosecutor was responsible for overall supervision of the investigation ( ORG CARDINAL and CARDINAL ) . He could order specific investigative actions , transfer the case from CARDINAL investigator to another or order an additional investigation . If there were no grounds to initiate or continue a criminal investigation , the prosecutor or investigator issued a reasoned decision to that effect which had to be notified to the interested party . The decision was amenable to appeal to a higher prosecutor or to a court of general jurisdiction ( Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL ) .

On DATE the old Code was replaced by LAW ( “ the new ORG ” ) . LAW ORG provides for judicial review of decisions by investigators and prosecutors that might infringe the constitutional rights of participants in proceedings or prevent access to a court .

The LAW of GPE adopted by referendum on DATE provides , in so far as relevant , as follows :

“ CARDINAL . Everyone has a right to liberty and personal security .

Arrest , detention and placement in custody shall be subject to a court decision . No one may be detained longer than TIME before the court decision is taken . ”

Section CARDINAL of the Administrative Code ( in force until DATE ) provided that the police could subject a person to an administrative arrest to prevent an administrative offence , to establish a person ’s identity , to issue a document certifying that an administrative offence had been committed , if it was necessary and could not be done on the spot , and to ensure effective proceedings or the enforcement of administrative sanctions . Section CARDINAL provided , in particular , that the term of administrative arrest should not exceed TIME , except for certain categories of offenders including those who had committed a minor disorderly act , who could be detained as long as necessary until their case was considered by a district ( town ) judge or a high - ranking police officer . Section CARDINAL set out the requirements with regard to arrest reports . By virtue of section CARDINAL an arrest report was to be signed by the official enforcing the arrest and the arrestee . Section CARDINAL of the Administrative Code provided for appeal against administrative arrest to a prosecutor or a high - ranking police officer .

Section CARDINAL of LAW ( see above ) established that a minor disorderly act , that is , use of offensive language in public , harassment and other similar acts which disturbed the public order and the peace of individuals , was punishable by CARDINAL days’ administrative arrest .


BITROS A.B.E.E. IRON AND STEEL PRODUCTS, KORAL E.P.E. GENERAL REPAIRS OF SHIPS and MARINAKIS A.E. v. GREECE

CARDINAL applicant companies are registered under NORP law . The first has its seat in Apropirgos in Attika , the second in GPE and third in GPE . They are represented before the ORG by Mr PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE .

A.

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

CARDINAL applicant companies are creditors of ORG , a company PERCENT of the capital of which belongs to CARDINAL public sector banks . ORG holds PERCENT of the capital , ORG , ORG , which is a subsidiary of ORG , PERCENT and ORG .

In DATE ORG was sold to ORG under LAW DATE , which applies to " ailing companies " . The sale fell within the context of a settlement procedure initiated by the majority of the creditors of the shipyard . It was approved by the majority of its shareholders and the Government . Under the terms of the sale agreement , ORG did not become liable for most of the outstanding debts of NORP except for , inter alia , claims of the shipyards ' suppliers that had been properly entered into the company 's books . It appears that the applicant companies had claims falling within this category .

Elefsis Shipyards remained under A.M. Ltd until DATE . Although ORG did not honour its obligation under the above - mentioned agreement to satisfy the claims of the applicant companies , the latter continued supplying the shipyards . These were heavily financed by a number of public sector banks including those that had previously owned them .

On DATE ORG , considering that the DATE contract for the purchase of the shipyards was null and void , withdrew from it . It also decided to surrender the management of the shipyards to ORG . Moreover , it was announced that the shipyards would suspend their operation .

On DATE , CARDINAL of the creditors of ORG - ORG , ORG , ORG , ORG and ORG of GPE - requested ORG ( Efetio ) of GPE to place ORG under the special liquidation procedure of Article CARDINALa of Law CARDINAL/CARDINAL . They asked that ORG be appointed special liquidator . They also requested that the shipyards ' personnel should not be dismissed so that the shipyards would continue functioning and discharge their obligations under certain contracts they had with ORG . This would have enabled the shipyards to be sold at a higher price later .

This application was notified to a number of interested parties but not to all the creditors of ORG . The applicant companies were not among those to whom the application was notified .

The second and third applicant companies , together with CARDINAL other companies , intervened in the proceedings arguing that placing ORG under the special liquidation procedure of Article CARDINALa of Law CARDINAL/CARDINAL would amount to a violation of their rights under LAW No . CARDINAL .

On DATE ORG of GPE considered that the conditions set forth in LAW DATE were met in the Elefsis Shipyards ' case . The claims of the creditors who had lodged the application represented PERCENT of the total claims against the company and the shipyards were a commercial company that had suspended its operation for financial reasons . As for the rest , it was not necessary for the court to examine the reasons why the company had become indebted , who was responsible for the debts and whether placing the company under the special liquidation procedure would be in the best interests of all the creditors or of third persons or even of the company itself .

According to ORG , the right of the second and third applicant companies under the LAW and the LAW to be heard was not violated because they could intervene in the proceedings . Moreover , the LAW and the LAW did not prevent the ORG from enacting laws for the control of the use of private property in the public interest . Therefore , the court decided that ORG Shipyards should be placed under the special liquidation procedure of Article CARDINALa of Law DATE .

Furthermore , the court considered that , under the above - mentioned law , it had to appoint as the special liquidator the bank suggested by the creditors , in casu ORG . It also decided that the shipyards ' personnel should not be dismissed . The shipyards should continue functioning and fulfil their obligations under certain profitable contracts which were pending . This would increase the value of the company which would then be sold at a higher price .

According to the judgment of ORG , a company placed under special liquidation in accordance with Article PERSON of Law CARDINAL/CARDINAL can not be declared bankrupt . No judicial decisions can be enforced and no interim measures can be ordered against it .

The decision of DATE of ORG , the text of which was finalised on DATE , was not served on the intervening parties .

On DATE the first applicant company obtained an order for payment against ORG for MONEY plus interest and costs . This was served on ORG on DATE and DATE .

On DATE the second applicant company obtained a similar order for MONEY plus interest and costs . On DATE it obtained a further order for MONEY plus interest and costs and on DATE an order for MONEY plus interest and costs . These were served on ORG on DATE , DATE and DATE respectively . They were all reserved on DATE .

On DATE the third applicant company obtained an order for MONEY plus interest and costs , on DATE an order for MONEY plus interest and costs and on CARDINAL DATE an order for MONEY plus interest and costs . These were served on ORG on DATE , DATE , and CARDINAL DATE respectively . They were all reserved on DATE .

These orders have been served on NORP and have acquired res judicata effect . However , it has proved impossible to have them enforced .

Elefsis Shipyards continue functioning and making losses . They are financed by the same banks that requested its placement under special liquidation .

B. Relevant domestic law

According to LAW , a payment order can be enforced upon being served for the first time on the person concerned .


Giovanni Bonello;Ján Šikuta;Lech Garlicki;Ledi Bianku;Nicolas Bratza;Päivi Hirvelä

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

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

The applicant received a notice of intended prosecution pursuant to section CARDINAL of LAW DATE , requiring him to name the driver of his car on DATE . He confirmed that he had been driving his car at that time .

On DATE the police made a conditional offer of a fixed penalty amounting to GBP CARDINAL and a CARDINAL penalty point endorsement on his licence , which the applicant accepted and paid .

The relevant domestic law and practice is set out in O’Halloran and PERSON the GPE [ ORG ] , ORG . ORG , § § DATE , ORG DATE ...


Preliminary objection joined to merits (non-exhaustion of domestic remedies);Violation of Art. 8;Non-pecuniary damage - award

David Thór Björgvinsson;Ján Šikuta;Lech Garlicki;Mihai Poalelungi;Nicolas Bratza;Päivi Hirvelä

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in PERSON . He is a writer and a professor of LANGUAGE .

The applicant 's parents , PERSON and the late PERSON were born in DATE and DATE respectively , in GPE , province of GPE , GPE . Their NORP civil status documents did not contain any information concerning their ethnic identity . In their marriage certificate issued by the NORP authorities in DATE , the entry for ethnicity was left blank . However , the applicant 's birth certificate issued by the NORP authorities in DATE recorded his parents as ethnic PERSON . On the applicant 's mother 's birth certificate issued by the NORP authorities in DATE the ethnicity was also left blank . Later , the applicant 's parents were recorded as ethnic PERSON on their NORP identity cards issued in DATE and DATE , in accordance with applications completed and signed by them in which NORP ethnicity was indicated . On his NORP identity card the applicant was also indicated as an ethnic GPE .

In DATE the applicant applied to the GPE authorities to have his old NORP identity card replaced by a NORP identity card . On the application form he wrote “ NORP ” under ethnicity . However , he was told that his application would not be accepted unless NORP ethnicity was indicated on it . The applicant complied .

Shortly thereafter the applicant wrote to the local civil registration authority and requested , inter alia , that his ethnicity entry be changed from GPE to NORP . In an answer dated DATE the applicant was informed that since his parents were not recorded as ethnic NORP in their birth and marriage certificates , it was impossible for him to be recorded as an ethnic NORP .

On an unspecified date the applicant wrote to the central civil registration authority and again requested that his ethnic identity entry be changed from GPE to NORP . In an answer of DATE he was informed that NORP ethnicity had not been indicated in his parents ' documents and that , therefore , he could not claim such an ethnic identity . He was advised to search ORG for traces of NORP origin of his grandparents and other ancestors . The applicant wrote numerous complaints to the Prime Minister , the President of the country and other officials , but to no avail .

On DATE the applicant initiated proceedings against the ORG authority responsible for civil registration and identity papers and requested , inter alia , that his ethnicity entry and that of his parents be changed to NORP in ORG database and in his identity papers . He argued that he did not consider himself to be an ethnic GPE and that it was contrary to his right to freedom of conscience and to his personal dignity to be considered part of an ethnic group which he believed to be an artificial creation of the NORP regime .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant 's action on the ground that he had failed to prove that his parents were of NORP ethnic identity as no such identity had been recorded in their identity papers . The applicant appealed and relied , inter alia , on the provisions of ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) and on LAW .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant 's appeal on the same grounds , stating that the applicant had failed to prove that his parents were ethnic NORP . The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law with ORG .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant 's appeal on points of law and pointed out that according to section DATE of the Law on Documents pertaining to ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) it was impossible to change his parents ' ethnic identity to NORP because in none of their identity papers had NORP ethnicity been indicated .

The relevant provision of LAW reads :

( CARDINAL ) The ORG recognises and guarantees to all the citizens the right to preserve , develop and express their ethnic , cultural , linguistic and religious identity . ”

Law no . CARDINAL of DATE on the Rights of Persons belonging to ORG , in so far as relevant , reads :

“ Within the meaning of the present law , persons belonging to national minorities shall be all persons who live on the territory of GPE , who are its citizens , who have ethnic , linguistic , cultural and religious particularities which make them distinguishable from the majority of the population – the Moldovans DATE and who consider themselves as having a different ethnic origin . ”

“ Any person belonging to a national minority shall have the right to choose freely whether or not he or she belongs to that minority . Such a choice or the exercise of rights related thereto shall not put the person in a disadvantageous situation . ”

Law no . CARDINAL of DATE on Documents pertaining to ORG , in so far as relevant , reads :

“ The following information shall be indicated in a birth certificate :

( a ) personal numeric code ;

( b ) the surname , given name , date and place of birth of the child ;

( c ) the surnames , the given names and the ethnic origin of the parents ;

( d ) the date of issue of the birth certificate and its number ;

( e ) the issuing authority of the birth certificate ; ... ”

“ ( CARDINAL ) Applications for modification and rectification of documents pertaining to civil status shall be lodged with ORG for the applicant 's place of residence .

( CARDINAL ) ORG shall uphold an application for modification and rectification of documents pertaining to civil status if :

( a ) the document pertaining to civil status contains errors , blank sections , abbreviations or spelling mistakes , or if it lacks data ; or

( b ) the rules concerning the creation of documents pertaining to civil status have been breached ; or

( c ) the applicant possesses an official document proving a change of gender . ”

“ It shall be impossible to rectify the ethnic identity of one 's parents in their children 's birth certificates , on the basis of identity papers of grandparents or other ascendants , if the parents ' civil status documents do not contain information concerning the requested ethnic identity . ”

Government Decision no . CARDINAL of DATE lists the information which must be included in the personal entry of each individual in ORG database . It provides , inter alia , that information such as blood group , colour of eyes , height , studies , ethnic identity and a specimen of signature have to be indicated in respect of every citizen . No information about an individual 's religion is required .

During NORP rule between the CARDINAL World Wars no ethnic data were collected or recorded by the ORG and the identity papers issued by the NORP authorities did not contain any information concerning the bearer 's ethnic identity .

After the territory of GPE became part of GPE , the NORP authorities recorded and indicated in each individual 's identity papers his or her ethnic identity . The ethnic identity was determined on the basis of the individual 's parents ' ethnic identities . If the parents had different ethnic identities , the individual had to opt for CARDINAL of them when receiving his first identity card at DATE . There was no possibility of subsequently changing one 's ethnic identity in identity papers or in the civil records . The ethnic identity of the representatives of the main ethnic group of the ORG was normally registered as GPE . Only in very few cases was it registered as NORP and it is not clear what criteria were adopted for such a distinction .

NORP The NORP practice of collecting and recording ethnic data was perpetuated by the NORP authorities after independence , with the difference that no information concerning ethnic origin was inserted in the new GPE identity cards . Information about ethnic identity is recorded in each individual 's personal entry in ORG database ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) and does not appear on any identity papers issued to individuals or on birth , marriage , divorce or death certificates . It only appears on the birth certificates of an individual 's children under “ parents ” . Information concerning individuals ' ethnic identity also appears in criminal judgments and in various documents issued by the prosecuting authorities where the ethnic identity of the participants in criminal proceedings , such as defendants , victims and witnesses , is mentioned . It also appears in the old NORP passports which are still valid in GPE and which are usually used by persons with very limited financial resources .

As in GPE , an individual 's ethnic identity is recorded by the GPE authorities on the basis of the ethnic identities of his or her parents or the identity of CARDINAL parent if they differ . When applying for identity papers , each individual is requested to complete a form with various personal details such as height , colour of eyes , blood group , mother tongue , ethnic identity and others . In practice , applications are rejected if the ethnic identity indicated in the form by the applicant is not based on that of his or her parents . It is impossible under NORP law to change one 's ethnic identity without changing the ethnic identity of one 's parents and it is impossible to change the ethnic identity of one 's parents on the basis of entries in the identity papers of one 's grandparents ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

The Government submitted a domestic court judgment dating from DATE in the case of PERSON where a person had succeeded in having his ethnic identity changed from PERSON to NORP . Neither of his parents were registered as ethnic NORP ; however , the court accepted evidence concerning one of his ancestors , born in DATE , who was a NORP from GPE .

According to a press release of ORG , according to the latest census conducted in DATE , the country had the following ethnic composition : PERCENT GPE , PERCENT NORP , PERCENT NORP , PERCENT Gagauz , PERCENT NORP , PERCENT NORP and PERCENT other ethnic origins .

NORP The relevant provisions of LAW for ORG of DATE , which entered into force in respect of GPE on DATE , provide as follows :

“ Every person belonging to a national minority shall have the right freely to choose to be treated or not to be treated as such and no disadvantage shall result from this choice or from the exercise of the rights which are connected to that choice . ”

The relevant part of the document of ORG of DATE reads as follows :

“ Persons belonging to national minorities have the right freely to express , preserve and develop their ethnic , cultural , linguistic or religious identity and to maintain and develop their culture in all its aspects , free of any attempts at assimilation against their will . ”


Aleš Pejchal;Angelika Nußberger;Ann Power-Forde;Ganna Yudkivska;Helena Jäderblom;Mark Villiger

The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a NORP national , who was born in DATE and lives in GPE . He is represented before ORG by Odvetniška Družba Matoz D.O.O. , a law firm practising in PERSON .

ORG ( “ the Government ” ) are represented by their Agent , PERSON , ORG Attorney .

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

The applicant has been serving his sentence in the closed section of Dob Prison from DATE .

As regards the facilities available to the applicant in the cells and common areas , as well as the health care regime in the prison , the conditions imposed on the applicant regarding activities outside the cells and contact with the outside world in general , see the ORG ’s decision in the case of PERSON and PERSON v. GPE ( dec . ) , nos . CARDINAL , CARDINAL/CARDINAL , CARDINAL , ORG , CARDINAL/CARDINAL , ORG , CARDINAL , ORG , CARDINAL/CARDINAL and DATE .

DATE and DATE the applicant was held in cell CARDINAL , Block CARDINAL which measured QUANTITY and held CARDINAL inmates ( QUANTITY of personal space available to each inmate ) . Subsequently , he was transferred to a single cell in FAC , which measured QUANTITY . On DATE he was , due to his health problems , transferred into one of the smaller shared cells in FAC that serve as patients rooms , measuring QUANTITY and accommodating CARDINAL inmates ( QUANTITY of personal space available to each inmate ) . On DATE the applicant was transferred into cell no CARDINAL , Block CARDINAL which measured QUANTITY and held CARDINAL inmates ( QUANTITY of personal space available to each inmate ) . On DATE he was placed in cell no CARDINAL , Block CARDINAL that served as patient room and measured QUANTITY and accommodated CARDINAL inmates ( QUANTITY of personal space available to each inmate ) . On DATE the applicant was , upon his request , transferred back to a regular room .

From DATE until DATE the applicant was on CARDINAL occasions treated for different health problems in the prison clinic . He has inter alia been undergoing a methadone - maintenance treatment and has been treated by the prison psychiatrist . DATE and DATE the applicant was hospitalised in the Novo mesto ORG in connection to a problem with appendicitis .

On DATE the applicant was diagnosed with hepatitis C. After the infection had been diagnosed , the applicant was referred to an infectologist for the first examination but he initially refused to be examined . He was then examined on DATE in the Novo mesto ORG by an infectologist who , due to seriousness of the applicant ’s condition , referred him to ORG in GPE for a second opinion . The applicant refused to undergo the aforementioned examination in ORG in GPE . DATE and DATE the applicant was hospitalised in the Novo mesto ORG due to the deterioration of his condition . According to the reports drawn up by a prison doctor dated CARDINAL DATE and DATE the applicant had on several occasions also refused to be examined whereas the applicant ’s hepatitis C has been treated according to the medical practice .

For the relevant domestic law and practice , see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL - CARDINAL of the ORG ’s judgment in the case of ORG and Others v. GPE ( nos . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , CARDINAL/CARDINAL and CARDINAL , CARDINAL DATE ) , and paragraphs CARDINAL of ORG and PERSON GPE ( nos . CARDINAL/CARDINAL and CARDINAL , DATE ) , PERSON and Others , cited above , as well as PERSON v. GPE ( no . MONEY , CARDINAL DATE ) .


Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial

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

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in Otwock .

On an unspecified date in DATE the applicant 's former husband instituted civil proceedings for division of matrimonial property .

During the proceedings ORG ( Sąd Rejonowy ) decided on several occasions , of its own motion , to stay the proceedings due to the fact that the plaintiff had not paid the relevant costs arising in the course of the proceedings .

On numerous occasions the applicant requested the court to resume the proceedings and to proceed speedily with the claim .

On DATE the applicant complained to the President of ORG ( Prezes PERSON ) about the delay in the proceedings .

On DATE the proceedings were resumed .

On DATE the ORG gave a decision ordering the plaintiff to pay a certain amount to the applicant . The applicant appealed .

On DATE ORG ( PERSON ) partly amended the first - instance decision and dismissed the remainder of the appeal .

On DATE the applicant lodged a complaint with ORG under LAW on complaints about a breach of the right to a trial within a reasonable time ( LOC o skardze na naruszenie prawa strony do rozpoznania sprawy w postępowaniu sądowym bez nieuzasadnionej zwłoki ) ( “ the CARDINAL Act ” ) .

The applicant sought a ruling that the length of the proceedings before ORG had been excessive and an award of just satisfaction in the amount of MONEY ( ORG ) .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant 's complaint . It limited its examination of the lengthofproceedings issue to the period after the entry into force of the CARDINAL Act and stressed that the LAW could not be applied to the protracted length of court proceedings occurring before that date . Having analysed the conduct of ORG during the period after the entry into force of LAW ( that is after DATE ) , ORG found that there were no delays for which ORG could be held responsible . It held that the proceedings had been conducted with due diligence and within a reasonable time .

The relevant domestic law and practice concerning remedies for the excessive length of judicial proceedings , in particular the applicable provisions of LAW , are set out in the ORG 's decisions in the cases of ORG v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ( dec . ) , § § DATE , ECHR CARDINAL-V ) and NORP v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL ( dec . ) , ORG CARDINAL-VIII ) and the judgment in the case of GPE v. GPE , ( no . CARDINAL , § § DATE , ORG ) .


Preliminary objection rejected (estoppel);Violation of Art. 8;Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed;Non-pecuniary damage - financial award;Costs and expenses partial award

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

In DATE the applicant and her partner , PERSON , together moved into a flat provided by Mr PERSON ’s employer , a State enterprise . The applicant left the flat where she had previously lived to her daughter and her daughter ’s family .

Although the applicant and PERSON PERSON never married , from DATE onwards they lived together as husband and wife . They purchased all household items for the new flat jointly . DATE PERSON PERSON supported their family financially because the applicant was unemployed . According to the applicant , Mr PERSON ’s relatives and their neighbours considered them to be a family . Postcards and letters were addressed to PERSON and PERSON and the applicant received correspondence at the new address .

The applicant retained her residence registration at her old address . The applicant explains that she suffered from an ear ailment and wanted to remain under the observation of her former ear - specialist . Had she changed her residence registration , she would no longer have been entitled to visit the doctor practising in her former neighbourhood .

The applicant and Mr PERSON spent DATE in their country cottage . On DATE Mr PERSON returned to the town for DATE .

On DATE Mr PERSON died and his body was found by a neighbour . On DATE Mr PERSON was buried in the presence of his son and his CARDINAL sisters who had been summoned by a telegram .

The applicant was not notified of her partner ’s death or funeral service . She only learnt of it when she returned to the city TIME on CARDINAL DATE .

On DATE the applicant received a phone call from the local housing maintenance authority ( жилищно-эксплуатационное управление ) , requesting an explanation as to why the flat was not empty . The applicant responded that she did not have formal residence registration in the flat , but she had lived there for DATE . On DATE a representative of the housing maintenance authority visited the applicant at the flat and drafted a report to the effect that the flat was not empty . The applicant was not given a copy of the report . The representative advised the applicant to secure her right to use the flat through a court .

On DATE the applicant filed a request with the housing maintenance authority to be given an occupation certificate ( ордер ) for the flat . Her request was refused because on DATE an occupation certificate had already been issued to ORG , the head of the local police department and hierarchical superior of Mr PERSON ’s son .

On DATE , on returning to the flat , the applicant found that the door had been broken open and that books and other household items were being loaded onto a lorry . The applicant states that the possessions were removed in the presence of Mr Valetov , Mr PERSON ’s son , several policemen in civilian clothing , and a representative of the housing maintenance authority . Once the removal was completed , the applicant was told to vacate the premises immediately . When the applicant refused to comply with the request , she was thrown out of the flat by force . The door was replaced and the applicant was not given keys .

On DATE the applicant filed a complaint against ORG with the prosecutor ’s office of LOC of GPE . The applicant requested a criminal investigation into her forcible eviction and the removal of her possessions . On DATE the prosecutor ’s office informed the applicant that her allegations were unsubstantiated and refused to open criminal proceedings .

On DATE the applicant filed a civil action against ORG and ORG . The applicant claimed that she should be recognised as a member of her late partner ’s household and asked for the occupation certificate issued to ORG to be declared void . The applicant submitted in evidence many witness statements by relatives , by neighbours living in the same block of flats and by DATE house neighbours , as well as personal photographs , letters , postcards and mail receipts .

On DATE the applicant complained to the GPE city prosecutor ’s office about the refusal to open a criminal investigation into Mr Valetov ’s actions . By a letter of CARDINAL DATE the applicant was informed that the prosecutor ’s office had reversed the refusal and ordered the LOC prosecutor ’s office to carry out an inquiry .

On DATE the LOC prosecutor ’s office reported that an inquiry had not established any indication of a criminal offence . On DATE , after the applicant had complained again , the GPE city prosecutor ’s office examined the matter and confirmed this conclusion .

On DATE ORG of GPE dismissed the applicant ’s civil action , finding as follows :

“ Under these circumstances , the court considers that it has been established in court that [ the applicant ] lived in the contested flat , which [ fact ] is corroborated by postcards addressed to PERSON and [ the applicant ] , a parcel delivery notice ; however , [ the applicant ’s ] residence was of a temporary nature .

The court has established that Mr PERSON , while still alive , did not recognise [ the applicant ’s ] tenancy right in respect of the contested flat ; [ the applicant ] did not produce evidence showing that Mr PERSON had recognised her right to tenancy . Besides , it has been established that [ the applicant ] retained her tenancy right in respect of [ her daughter ’s flat ] and that she had moved into the contested flat in breach of the procedure established by LAW ...

Furthermore , [ the applicant ’s ] assertion about the presence of her personal effects ( CARDINAL items ) in the contested flat ... is rebutted by the results of the inquiries carried out by LOC and GPE prosecutor ’s offices , as well as the housing maintenance authority report of DATE .

Under these circumstances , the court finds that [ the applicant ] has not acquired the tenancy right to [ the contested flat ] ... ”

The court grounded its findings on the statements of Mr PERSON ’s son and daughter - in - law ; however , the court rejected a statement by the applicant ’s daughter on the ground that she was an interested witness . It also determined that statements by CARDINAL neighbours produced at the hearing were not sufficient to establish that the applicant and PERSON PERSON had maintained a joint household .

The applicant appealed against the judgment . In her statement of the grounds of appeal of CARDINAL DATE the applicant pointed to a very substantial body of evidence proving her residence in the flat ( statements by witnesses , postcards , mail receipts , etc . ) . She alleged that her late partner ’s son had conspired with his police superior to acquire the flat , which explained why they had managed to obtain in DATE the decisions of ORG and of the housing maintenance authority , as well as the occupation certificate and residence registration stamp . She complained that she had been thrown out by force , contrary to the applicable provisions of LAW .

On DATE ORG upheld the decision of CARDINAL DATE . ORG endorsed the arguments of the first instance court .

NORP The applicant submitted several requests for supervisory review , all of which were turned down .

According to the applicant , the flat was privatised in DATE and sold to a third party .

The RSFSR Housing Code of DATE ( as amended on DATE , effective at the material time ) provided :

“ The tenant ’s family members shall include the tenant ’s spouse , children and parents . Other relatives , disabled dependants , and – in exceptional circumstances – other persons may be recognised as the tenant ’s family members if they live together with the tenant and maintain a joint household . ”

“ The tenant shall be entitled to accommodate in his living LOC , in accordance with the established procedure , his spouse , children , parents , other relatives , disabled dependants and other persons , subject to the written consent of all adult members of his family ...

The persons accommodated by the tenant in accordance with the rules of the present article shall have the same right to use the living premises as the tenant or other members of his family provided that such persons are , or have been recognised as , members of the tenant ’s family ( LAW ) and that no other agreement on the use of the LOC has been signed between these persons , the tenant and his family members . ”

“ Eviction from occupied living premises in state or public housing shall only be permissible on the grounds set out in the law .

Eviction shall be ordered by a court ... ”