Violation of Art. 5-3;Violation of Art. 6-1;Violation of Art. 8 with regard to monitoring of correspondence;Not necessary to examine Art. 34;No violation of Art. 8 with regard to delay of correspondence;Non-pecuniary damage - financial award;Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings

The applicant was born in DATE and is currently detained in the Radom prison .

In DATE the applicant was released from prison . On DATE the police arrested him . The police suspected that on DATE the applicant had committed an armed robbery and rape . At the same time , the police enforced a warrant for the arrest of the applicant issued on DATE by ORG ( Sąd Rejonowy ) in the criminal proceedings against the applicant pending before that court .

On DATE ORG remanded the applicant in custody on charges of armed robbery and sexual assault . The court took into account the fact that the applicant was of no fixed abode and that his accomplices had not been arrested .

On DATE ORG ( Sąd Wojewódzki ) dismissed the applicant 's appeal against ORG decision to remand him in custody . ORG considered that the applicant 's detention was justified by the existence of serious evidence of his guilt , the gravity of charges against him , the risk of collusion , the fact that he was of no fixed abode and was unemployed . In addition , the court observed that the police failed to apprehend the applicant 's accomplices and that there was a risk that he would go into hiding . Finally , the court was of the view that the applicant 's case did not disclose any of the grounds for release provided by LAW of LAW .

On DATE ORG extended the applicant 's detention until DATE .

The applicant made an application for release but it was dismissed on DATE by ORG . It referred to the gravity of the charges brought against the applicant and the existence of serious evidence of his guilt .

DATE and DATE the prosecution service decided that it would seek evidence from CARDINAL expert witnesses and requested the applicant 's medical file from a psychiatric hospital in which he had been treated .

On DATE ORG appointed legal aid counsel to defend the applicant .

On DATE the prosecution service received CARDINAL expert opinions . On DATE ORG interviewed the victim of rape .

On DATE ORG ( Sąd Apelacyjny ) allowed the request submitted by the prosecutor and extended the applicant 's detention on remand until DATE . The court referred to the gravity of the charges against the applicant and the grounds for detention provided in Article CARDINAL § § CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW . Moreover , it noted that CARDINAL of the co - accused was still in hiding and that immediately after the commission of the alleged crime “ there had been an attempt to contact the victim [ of the assault ] ” . The court also agreed with the submissions of the prosecutor that the investigation was not finished because certain forensic tests still had to be carried out , the applicant and another co - accused were still under psychiatric observation , whereas the police was trying to apprehend the third accused . The applicant appealed against that decision to ORG ( Sąd Najwyższy ) .

DATE the prosecution service received CARDINAL expert opinions and decided to request DNA tests .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant 's appeal against ORG decision of DATE . It referred to the charges against the applicant and observed that there existed serious evidence of his guilt .

On DATE the GPE - Ochota Deputy ORG ( Zastępca Prokuratora Rejonowego ) replied to the applicant 's letter of DATE in which he complained about the censorship of his correspondence with ORG . The prosecutor advised the applicant about domestic legislation , which allowed the authorities to censor his correspondence .

On DATE ORG allowed the request submitted by the prosecutor and extended the applicant 's detention on remand until DATE . The court relied on the existence of serious evidence of the applicant 's guilt and the nature of charges against the applicant . It also considered that the applicant 's case did not disclose any of the grounds for release provided by LAW of LAW . Finally , the court noted that the prosecution service was awaiting an expert opinion from a forensic expert and that CARDINAL of co - accused was still in hiding . The applicant appealed against that decision .

On DATE the prosecution service received the results of DNA tests . On DATE ORG interviewed the applicant and decided to modify charges against him .

On DATE the prosecuting authorities filed with ORG a bill of indictment against the applicant .

On DATE ORG extended the applicant 's pretrial detention until DATE .

On DATE the trial court dismissed the applicant 's challenge to the prosecutor who worked on his case . During DATE the applicant was consulting the case - file .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant 's appeal against ORG decision of DATE . ORG relied on the gravity of charges against the applicant , the existence of serious evidence of his guilt and the grounds for detention listed in LAW . It also pointed out that ORG decision of DATE extending the applicant 's detention had been taken before ORG had the opportunity to decide his appeal against ORG decision of CARDINAL DATE and therefore constituted “ an inappropriate practice ” .

On DATE the applicant 's counsel appealed to ORG against ORG decision of DATE . On DATE the appellate court rejected the appeal . It pointed out that at the time of his arrest the applicant had been of no fixed abode and had been the subject of the arrest warrant .

In the meantime , on DATE the applicant lodged with ORG an appeal against ORG decision of DATE . On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant 's appeal . The court relied on a medical opinion confirming that the applicant 's medical problems could be treated in prison .

In the meantime , on DATE the applicant made an application for release . On DATE ORG dismissed the application . It relied on a medical opinion . The applicant 's appeal against that decision was rejected because it was not provided by law .

On DATE ORG was informed that the applicant had tried to smuggle a message to his accomplices . However , it was seized by the prison service and included in the court 's case - file .

DATE and DATE the applicant on CARDINAL occasions attended hearings before ORG in the criminal proceedings against him pending before that court .

On DATE ORG decided to stop the applicant 's letter in which he made threats against one of the prisoners . The letter was included in the court 's case - file .

On DATE ORG requested ORG to extend the applicant 's pre - trial detention under LAW CARDINAL of the Code of Criminal Procedure which empowered ORG to prolong detention beyond DATE . The request was based , inter alia , on Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL § CARDINAL of LAW and referred to the gravity of charges against the applicant , the existence of serious evidence of his guilt and the inability to schedule hearings because of holidays and workload of judges involved in the applicant 's case . The request also referred to the fact that the next hearing could not be fixed before evidence is taken from an anonymous witness who could not testify before DATE .

On DATE the first hearing was held before ORG . The applicant and his co - accused asked that the hearing be adjourned as they had not been able to prepare their defence . The court allowed the request and adjourned the hearing until DATE . The court took into account heavy workload of judges , DATE and the fact that an anonymous witness could not be heard before that date .

On DATE ORG allowed ORG request of CARDINAL DATE and extended the applicant 's pre - trial detention until DATE . It pointed out that difficulties in fixing hearings caused by holidays and workload of judges could not be considered as grounds for extending pre - trial detention . Furthermore , ORG agreed with ORG that the applicant 's case disclosed the existence of grounds for detention provided in Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL § CARDINAL of the Code of Criminal Procedure . ORG concluded that the inability to take evidence from an anonymous witness before DATE justified the extension of the applicant 's detention under Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL of the Code of Criminal Procedure .

On DATE ORG held the second hearing in the applicant 's case . It took evidence from the victim of sexual assault . The court also made arrangements for taking evidence from an anonymous witness .

On DATE evidence was taken from an anonymous witness .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant 's challenge to the judges trying his case . ORG considered that the fact that the judges were female did not deprive the applicant of a fair trial on charges of sexual assault .

NORP On DATE the hearing was adjourned because the prosecution service and witnesses had not been informed about it .

The applicant made a further application for release at the hearing held on DATE but it was dismissed by ORG on DATE . The court considered that the applicant 's detention was justified by the existence of serious evidence of his guilt , the gravity of charges against him and the fact that he had been of no fixed abode at the time of his arrest . Moreover , the court observed that it had not finished taking evidence from certain witnesses . The applicant 's appeal against that decision was rejected because it was not provided by law .

On DATE ORG requested ORG to further extend the applicant 's pre - trial detention . On DATE ORG allowed that request and prolonged the detention until DATE . ORG referred to its decision of CARDINAL DATE and observed that the trial court still had to take evidence form certain witnesses . In addition , the trial court did not know the address of CARDINAL of those witnesses , whereas another witness had to be transported to the court from FAC .

On DATE a hearing took place before ORG .

The applicant made a fresh application for release but it was dismissed on DATE by ORG . It referred to the nature and the gravity of charges against the applicant and noted that his trial was in the final stage .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant 's challenge to the judges trying his case . The applicant 's appeal against that decision was rejected because it was not provided by law .

On DATE the police informed ORG that CARDINAL of the witnesses for the defence was dead .

On DATE a hearing was held before ORG . It was adjourned until DATE because CARDINAL of the judges was ill .

DATE . On DATE ORG requested ORG to further extend the applicant 's pre - trial detention . On DATE ORG allowed that request and prolonged the detention until DATE . It referred to the reasoning of its decision of CARDINAL DATE . ORG also noted the difficulties the trial court experienced in taking evidence from one of the witnesses . Moreover , the court considered that because the applicant had been of no fixed abode at the time of his arrest he could interfere with the proceedings if released from detention .

The hearing held on DATE was adjourned because the applicant requested that evidence be taken from a new witness .

The next hearing was held on DATE .

During the hearing held on DATE the applicant applied for release from detention but the court dismissed it . The applicant 's appeal against that decision was rejected because it was not provided by law .

On DATE ORG prolonged the applicant 's detention until DATE .

During the hearing held on DATE ORG dismissed the applicant 's request that the case be remitted to the prosecution service for further investigation .

The last hearing before the trial court was held on DATE .

On DATE ORG convicted the applicant of armed robbery and sexual assault and sentenced him to DATE imprisonment . The applicant appealed against that judgment to ORG .

On DATE ORG held a hearing . The court dismissed the appeal except for the conviction for armed robbery , which it qualified as robbery without the use of arms .

The ORG 's case - file contains the following documents pointing to the monitoring of the applicant 's correspondence :

( i ) the applicant 's letters of CARDINAL , DATE and DATE and DATE addressed to ORG are marked with a handwritten note : “ Censored ” ( ORG ) and an illegible signature and also bear a stamp : “ Assistant GPE - FAC PERSON ” ( Asesor Prokuratury Rejonowej PERSON ) ;

( ii ) the applicant 's letters of CARDINAL , DATE and DATE addressed to ORG are marked with a handwritten note : “ Censored ” and an illegible signature ;

( iii ) the applicant 's letters of DATE , CARDINAL May and DATE as well as an undated letter received on DATE addressed to ORG are marked with an illegible signature ;

( iv ) an envelope mailed by the applicant on DATE to ORG is marked with a handwritten note : “ Censored ” and an illegible signature ;

( v ) a flap of an envelope with the logo of ORG on the inside a stamp : “ Assistant GPE - FAC PERSON GPE ” and an illegible signature ;

( vi ) an envelope mailed by ORG DATE to the applicant bears a stamp : “ Censored on , signature ” ( Ocenzurowano dn . podpis ) , a hand - written date : CARDINAL DATE and an illegible signature .

The Code of Criminal Procedure DATE , which remained in force until DATE , listed as preventive measures , inter alia , detention on remand , bail and police supervision . Article CARDINAL of the Code , which set out general grounds justifying the imposition of preventive measures , provided as follows :

“ Preventive measures may be imposed in order to secure the proper course of proceedings if the evidence against the accused sufficiently justifies the opinion that he has committed a criminal offence . ”

Furthermore , LAW allowed authorities a margin of discretion as to whether to continue the enforcement of preventive measures . Detention on remand was regarded as the most severe preventive measure . LAW provided as follows :

“ A preventive measure shall be immediately quashed or changed if the grounds therefor have ceased to exist or if new circumstances have arisen , which justify quashing a given measure or replacing it with one that is either more or less severe . ”

Article CARDINAL of the Code provided :

“ Detention on remand shall be imposed only when it is mandatory ; this measure shall not be imposed if bail or police supervision , or both of these measures , are considered adequate . ”

Article CARDINAL of the Code , before it was amended on DATE , provided insofar as relevant :

“ Detention on remand may be imposed if :

NORP there is a reasonable risk that an accused will abscond or go into hiding , in particular when his identity can not be established or he has no permanent domicile , or

NORP there is a reasonable risk that he will attempt to induce witnesses to give false testimony or to obstruct the proper course of proceedings by any other unlawful means , or

the accused was charged with a commission of a criminal offence or acted as a habitual offender , as provided for by LAW , or

the accused was charged with the commission of an act which constituted significant danger to society . ”

Article CARDINAL provided :

“ If there are no special reasons to the contrary , detention on remand should be quashed , in particular , when :

it may seriously jeopardise the life or health of the accused ; or

it would entail excessively burdensome effects for the accused or his family . ”

Until DATE , when LAW was amended , NORP law did not set out any statutory time - limits concerning detention on remand in court proceedings but only in respect of the investigative stage .

Article CARDINAL of LAW , as applicable after DATE , provided insofar as relevant :

“ CARDINAL . The whole period of detention on remand until the date on which the court of first instance gives judgment may not exceed DATE and DATE in cases concerning ordinary offences . In cases concerning serious offences this period may not exceed DATE .

NORP In particularly justified cases ORG may , upon the request of the court competent to deal with the case ( ... ) prolong detention on remand for a further fixed period exceeding the periods referred to in DATE , when it is necessary in connection with a suspension of the proceedings , a prolonged psychiatric observation of the accused , when evidence needs to be obtained from abroad or when the accused has deliberately obstructed the termination of the proceedings in the terms referred to in paragraph CARDINAL . ”

Subsequently , paragraph CARDINAL was extended to include also “ other significant circumstances , which could not be overcome by the organs conducting the proceedings ” .

On DATE the Code of Criminal Procedure DATE replaced the DATE Code .

Article CARDINAL of the new Code , insofar as relevant , provides :

“ § CARDINAL . During investigation the court which decides about detention on remand shall impose it for a period not longer than DATE .

§ CARDINAL . If the special circumstances of a case made it impossible to conclude the investigation within the time - limit provided in LAW , detention on remand may be prolonged , at the request of the prosecutor and when it is necessary , by :

the trial court DATE for DATE ,

the appeal court DATE for a further fixed period necessary to conclude the investigation but not longer than DATE .

§ CARDINAL . The length of detention on remand until the delivery of a first judgment by the trial court shall not exceed DATE .

§ CARDINAL . Detention on remand may be prolonged for a fixed period exceeding periods provided in LAW and CARDINAL only by ORG at the request of the court dealing with a case ( ... ) – if it is necessary because of the suspension of criminal proceedings , the prolonged psychiatric observation of an accused , the prolonged preparation of an expert opinion , the collection of evidence in a particularly complicated case or abroad , a delay in the proceedings caused by an accused as well as other obstacles which could not be overcome ” .

Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL of LAW Sentences DATE provided , in so far as relevant , as follows :

“ ( ... ) [ the detainee 's ] correspondence shall be censored by [ the organ at whose disposal he remains ] , unless the organ decides otherwise . ”

Rule CARDINAL of the Rules on Detention on DATE , as amended on DATE , provided , in so far as relevant , as follows :

“ ( CARDINAL ) A detainee has a right to correspond .

( CARDINAL ) Detainee 's correspondence shall be censored by the organ at whose disposal he remains ( ... ) .

( CARDINAL ) Correspondence with the ORG and international institutions for the protection of human rights , which act on the basis of international agreements ratified by GPE , is mailed through the intermediary of [ that ] organ ( ... ) . ”

On DATE LAW DATE replaced the DATE Code . The relevant part of LAW provides as follows :

“ Convicts ( ... ) have a right to lodge complaints with institutions established by international treaties ratified by GPE concerning the protection of human rights . Correspondence in those cases ( ... ) shall be sent to the addressee without delay and shall not be censored . ”

Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL provides :

“ The prison governor shall make decisions concerning the stopping or censorship of the correspondence if it is required by the prison security considerations [ and ] shall inform about it the penitentiary judge and the convict . ”

Article CARDINAL

“ The provisions concerning the execution of sentences shall apply accordingly to the execution of detention on remand , subject to changes resulting from this chapter . ”

Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL

“ Unless exceptions are provided for in the present LAW , a detainee shall enjoy at least the same rights as are secured to a convicted person serving a sentence of imprisonment under ordinary regime in a closed prison . No restrictions shall be applied to him except such as are necessary to secure the proper conduct of criminal proceedings , to maintain order and security in a remand centre and to prevent demoralisation of detainees . ”

Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL reads , in so far as relevant , as follows :

“ ( ... ) detainee 's correspondence shall be censored by [ the organ at whose disposal he remains ] , unless the organ decides otherwise . ”

Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL of reads as follows :

“ The prohibition of censorship shall also mean the prohibition of acquainting oneself with the content of the letter . ”

On DATE the Rules of Detention on Remand CARDINAL entered into force .

§ CARDINAL of the ORG provides :

“ The detainee 's correspondence , including the correspondence with the international institutions for the protection of human rights , which act on the basis of international agreements ratified by GPE , with the ORG and public and local government institutions , is mailed through the intermediary of the organ at whose disposal he remains . ”

§ ORG provides :

“ CARDINAL . If the organ at whose disposal [ a detainee ] remains ceases to censor correspondence , it shall be subject to the supervision or censorship by the prison administration , except for cases referred to in LAW and LAW ( CARDINAL ) and CARDINAL of the Code [ of ORG Sentences ] .

NORP The correspondence of a detainee shall be supervised by the prison administration when necessary in the interest of protecting social interest , the security of a detention centre or requirements of personal re - education .

NORP The supervision referred to in paragraph CARDINAL shall be executed by controlling the content of the correspondence and acquainting oneself with its wording .

The correspondence referred to in ORG CARDINAL § CARDINAL , CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) and CARDINAL § CARDINAL of the Code [ of ORG Sentences ] may be only subjected to the control of its content , which shall take place in the presence of a detainee . ”

§ CARDINAL provides :

“ CARDINAL . Detainee 's correspondence shall be censored or seized by the prison administration in the case referred to in LAW [ of LAW ] .

Censorship shall mean deleting a part of text or making it illegible , whereas seizing correspondence shall mean not transmitting it to a detainee and placing it in his file .

NORP The decision to censor or to seize correspondence shall be taken by a Governor , who shall inform a detainee about the reasons for censorship or for seizure .

For controlling purposes a copy of the correspondence before it was censored shall be placed in the detainee 's personal file ; if the detainee consults the file , copies of the correspondence before it was censored and the seized correspondence shall not be made available [ to him ] . ”


CASE OF LANCHID HITEL ES FAKTOR ZRT. v. HUNGARY

Remainder inadmissible;Violation of P1-1;Pecuniary damage - award

András Sajó;Françoise Tulkens;Guido Raimondi;Kristina Pardalos;Nona Tsotsoria

The applicant is a company limited by shares with its seat in GPE .

By way of assignments for consideration , done in DATE and DATE , the applicant acquired – through intermediaries – the debts of GPE ORG and PERSON from ORG . The debts consisted mostly of unpaid payroll taxes and social security contributions and originated in DATE .

NORP Since the debtors had become insolvent , the applicant brought an action against the ORG - owned ORG ( ÁPV Rt ) before ORG in order to recover the assigned claims . Relying on section CARDINAL of the ( Old ) Companies Act DATE , it argued that ÁPV Rt – the majority owner of the CARDINAL debtor companies – bore vicarious liability for the outstanding debts .

On DATE ORG partly found for the applicant . The court awarded MONEY ( ORG ) to the applicant , which corresponded to the debts of PERSON other than the payroll taxes and social security contributions . It dismissed the action in respect of the latter items . The applicant was obliged to pay ORG CARDINAL to the respondent in legal fees .

The applicant appealed . It claimed MONEY ( ORG ) plus accrued interest on account of the remaining debts of PERSON and ORG accrued interest on account of those of PERSON .

ORG upheld the first - instance decision on DATE . The applicant was obliged to pay ORG CARDINAL as procedural fees .

The applicant lodged a petition for review with ORG in respect of the social security contributions owed by PERSON . It submitted that their amount altogether was MONEY – a sum including the principal of ORG DATE but susceptible to further taking of evidence in resumed proceedings .

On DATE ORG upheld ORG decision . It was satisfied that ÁPV PERSON indeed bore vicarious liability in the circumstances . Relying on ORG no . CARDINAL , it held however that – pursuant to sections PERSON ) and PERSON ) of the ( Old ) Taxation Order Act DATE for the impugned social security contributions to be enforceable by the applicant , a decision should have been issued by ORG establishing the vicarious liability . For want of such a decision , the contributions could not be enforced by the applicant , since the assignment had not conferred any public law powers on it . The applicant was obliged to pay once more ORG CARDINAL as procedural fee .

Section CARDINAL of the ( Old ) Companies Act DATE provided as follows :

“ ( CARDINAL ) If [ the majority - owner , i.e. controlling ] joint - stock company acquires such part of the shares of [ the controlled joint - stock company ] as exceeding CARDINAL of [ the latter 's ] share capital , the board of directors of the controlling ... company ... may give instructions concerning the management of the [ controlled ] ... company to [ its ] board of directors , which the latter must carry out ( “ joint - stock company under direct control ” ) .

( CARDINAL ) The controlling ... company shall bear unlimited liability for the debts of the joint - stock company under direct control . ”

Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) c ) of the ( Old ) Taxation Order Act DATE ( no . XCI of DATE ) ( as in force at the material time ) provides that the LAW is to be applied to the payment of social security contributions . Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) f ) provides that , if a taxpayer fails to pay the tax and it can not be recovered from that taxpayer , ORG is entitled to the adoption of a decision establishing vicarious liability to cover the outstanding debt . Sections CARDINAL ) and CARDINAL ) , CARDINAL ) and CARDINAL ) of the ( New ) Taxation Order Act DATE ( no . ORG of DATE ) contain identical rules .

The interpretation that assignees can not claim in civil courts outstanding taxes from those with vicarious liability was upheld by ORG no . CARDINAL . It considered that , under both Taxation Order Acts , vicarious liability for tax debts was to be established by a decision of ORG .

NORP However , the above legislation was subsequently repealed by Act no . LVI of DATE . According to the reasoning of the bill , the interpretation of ORG in Uniformity Decision no . DATE an economically unjustified misconception of the law running counter to the intentions of the lawmaker DATE rendered unenforceable and thus worthless those tax debts which could not be recovered in the liquidation of the original debtors . Therefore the legal avenue of a civil action was to be opened for the assignees of such claims vis - à - vis those with vicarious liability , so as to restore constitutionality in terms of the right to access to a court in this context .


Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Art. 6-1;No violation of Art. 6-1;Non-pecuniary damage - award

Anatoly Kovler;Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre;Karel Jungwiert;Mark Villiger;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Peer Lorenzen;Rait Maruste

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

On DATE ORG instituted criminal proceedings against the applicant and PERSON for rape and attempted rape of CARDINAL victims . On DATE the proceedings were terminated for lack of evidence .

On DATE the decision of CARDINAL DATE was quashed and the case was remitted for a further investigation .

On DATE the applicant was remanded in custody on suspicion of rape and attempted rape . On an unspecified date he was released . A preventive measure in the form of an undertaking not to abscond was applied both to the applicant and PERSON

On DATE the ORG acquitted the applicant and PERSON of rape and attempted rape .

On DATE the Rostov ORG quashed the firstinstance judgment on appeal and remitted the case for a fresh examination .

On DATE the ORG of the Rostov ORG quashed the judgment of DATE and remitted the case for a new examination in the second instance .

NORP On DATE a hearing before the Rostov ORG was postponed because the applicant 's counsel , PERSON , was occupied .

On DATE , DATE and CARDINAL DATE ORG postponed appeal hearings because the applicant was ill .

On DATE ORG postponed a hearing because they had received a telegram from an anonymous sender requesting that the applicant 's case be taken off the list of appeals to be heard .

On DATE , as well as on DATE and DATE ORG postponed appeal hearings because of the applicant 's illness .

On DATE ORG decided to examine the appeal in the applicant 's absence , quashed the judgment of DATE and remitted the case for a fresh examination in the first instance . The applicant 's counsel was not present at the hearing .

On DATE the ORG scheduled a hearing for DATE .

On DATE ORG ordered PERSON to be summoned to a hearing . It appears that PERSON failed to comply with the summons .

On DATE the criminal proceedings against the applicant and PERSON were suspended . The preventive measure in PERSON respect was changed to custodial detention and he was put on a wanted list . ORG decided not to proceed with the examination of the case . The applicant and his lawyer did not appeal against the decision .

On DATE the criminal proceedings were resumed in respect of the applicant .

On DATE the ORG postponed a trial hearing owing to the applicant 's failure to appear .

On DATE a trial hearing was postponed to DATE .

On DATE a hearing was postponed owing to witnesses ' and the applicant 's counsel 's failure to appear . PERSON was absent because of a business trip .

On DATE a hearing was postponed because of the applicant 's illness .

On DATE a hearing was postponed on a prosecutor 's request in charge of the search for PERSON

On DATE a hearing was postponed because CARDINAL of the victims failed to attend .

On DATE a hearing was postponed until DATE on the applicant 's request , to allow him to study the case file .

On DATE the ORG dismissed PERSON request to suspend the proceedings against the applicant pending the search for PERSON The applicant 's counsel appealed against the ruling on DATE .

DATE and DATE ORG held hearings on the applicant 's case DATE .

On DATE the ORG dismissed the applicant 's request that the proceedings be terminated on the basis of LAW of the CARDINALth Anniversary of the Victory in the Great Patriotic War of DATE adopted by the NORP State Duma on DATE ( “ the LAW ” ) .

On DATE a hearing was postponed because the applicant was ill .

On DATE the criminal proceedings in respect of the applicant were suspended because of his illness .

On DATE ORG upheld the rulings of CARDINAL and DATE .

On DATE the proceedings against the applicant were resumed and a hearing was scheduled on DATE .

On DATE ORG held a hearing , dismissed the applicant 's challenge in respect of the composition of the court and a request for a medical examination and postponed the hearing until DATE .

On DATE the Presidium of the Rostov ORG quashed by way of supervisory review the refusal to dismiss the applicant 's requests of DATE .

On DATE the Chief Doctor of ORG informed the trial court that the applicant had been diagnosed with malignant lymphoma and had undergone gastrectomy ( removal of the stomach ) and hemicolectomy ( removal of a part of the colon ) . He underlined that the applicant had a first - degree disability and “ dumping syndrome ” ( rapid fall in blood sugar after eating ) which did not allow him to participate in the hearing ; and that any stressful situation could aggravate his condition .

On DATE the Rostov ORG quashed the ruling of CARDINAL DATE and remitted the case for a fresh examination to ORG with a new composition .

NORP On DATE a hearing was scheduled for DATE .

On DATE the proceedings in respect of the applicant were suspended because of his illness and then resumed on DATE .

On DATE hearings were postponed because of the applicant 's absence .

On DATE a hearing was postponed because the applicant 's counsel , PERSON , was occupied .

On DATE the ORG heard the applicant , his counsel , the victim and several witnesses and examined written evidence .

On DATE the ORG convicted the applicant of rape and attempted rape and sentenced him to DATE imprisonment . The applicant was exempted from serving the sentence under LAW .

On DATE one of the victims appealed against the judgment .

On DATE and DATE the applicant lodged appeals against his conviction , challenging , inter alia , the court 's factual findings . According to the applicant , he requested ORG to examine his appeal in his presence . According to the ORG 's submissions , the applicant did not request to be present at a hearing .

DATE . On DATE the prosecutor appealed against the judgment of CARDINAL DATE .

On DATE the applicant lodged an additional appeal in which he made detailed complaints alleging deficiencies in the first - instance proceedings . According to the Government , he also requested that an appeal hearing be held in his presence .

On DATE the victim lodged an additional appeal , which was forwarded to the applicant for comments .

On DATE the ORG received the applicant 's comments on the victim 's and prosecutor 's appeals and then forwarded the case to ORG . An appeal hearing was scheduled for DATE .

On DATE the Rostov ORG postponed an appeal hearing to CARDINAL DATE because the applicant was ill .

On DATE the applicant did not appear before ORG because he was ill . The hearing was postponed until DATE .

On DATE the appeal hearing was again postponed because of the applicant 's failure to appear in the court - room due to illness .

NORP In DATE the President of ORG requested ORG and Chief Doctor of ORG to provide information on the applicant 's state of health with a view to the possibility of his participating in an appeal hearing scheduled for DATE .

On DATE ORG informed ORG that the applicant was suffering from a malignant lymphoma and that DATE and DATE he had been hospitalised . The applicant was weak ; a stressful situation would have an adverse impact on his state of health . It was not possible to predict or assume a date when he would be available for an appeal hearing .

On DATE the applicant sent a telegram to ORG , requesting that the hearing be adjourned as he was in hospital . He also asked if the court was equipped with facilities to enable wheelchair access .

On DATE the Rostov ORG decided to reject the applicant 's request to adjourn the appeal hearing . It referred to the applicant 's serious state of health , and the legislative rule that the appeal court must start examination of an appeal DATE after it has been lodged .

On DATE the Rostov ORG examined the case on appeal . The court heard submissions by the judge rapporteur and prosecutor , but the applicant 's counsel was not present at the hearing . The judgment of CARDINAL DATE was upheld .

On DATE the Rostov ORG rejected the applicant 's request for supervisory review proceedings . With respect to the applicant 's complaint about examination of the case on appeal in his absence the court found that the applicant had failed to appear “ for a farfetched reason ” .

An appeal court examines appeals with a view to verifying the lawfulness , validity and fairness of first - instance judgments ( LAW ) .

An appeal court must start the examination of an appeal DATE after its receipt ( LAW .

An appeal court can directly examine evidence , including additional material submitted by parties ( LAW and CARDINAL ) .

An appeal court may ( a ) uphold a first - instance judgment ; ( b ) quash it and terminate criminal proceedings ; ( c ) quash it and remit the case for a fresh examination in the first - instance ; and ( d ) amend the judgment ( Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL ) .


Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre;Karel Jungwiert;Mark Villiger;Peer Lorenzen;Rait Maruste;Renate Jaeger;Zdravka Kalaydjieva

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

The applicant was a citizen of the former GPE ( GPE ) who absconded to GPE in DATE . His real property was subsequently placed under ORG guardianship and sold to members of the GPE nomenclature ( hereinafter the “ occupiers ” ) in DATE . The occupiers were registered as owners of the property on DATE and lived in the house built on the property .

On DATE the applicant applied for the restitution of the property . On DATE the Hellersdorf - Hohenschönhausen - Marzahn Office for the Regulation of Outstanding Property Issues ( Amt zur Regelung offener Vermögensfragen ) decided , inter alia , that the occupiers had not acquired the property in good faith and ordered that the property be returned . The occupiers appealed against that decision . On DATE ORG ordered the return of the property to the applicant , and from that date the applicant was the owner of the property . The occupiers withdrew their application for leave to appeal on points of law on an unspecified date and subsequently vacated the property in DATE .

On DATE ORG refused to grant the applicant legal aid for a claim against the occupiers to obtain compensation for use of the property as regards the period from DATE to DATE on the ground that his application had no prospect of success . As to the period from DATE to DATE , and relying on a leading judgment of ORG of DATE ( see “ Relevant domestic law and practice ” below ) , the court noted that section CARDINAL ) of the Act on the Regulation of Outstanding Property Issues / Property Act ( Gesetz zur Regelung offener Vermögensfragen/ Vermögensgesetz – hereinafter the “ LAW ” , see “ Relevant domestic law and practice ” below ) excluded compensation for the remaining period when the occupiers were registered as owners and had used the property solely as a dwelling . Any claim for compensation for use of property for DATE and DATE could only be raised before a district court in view of the value of the claim .

On DATE ORG upheld that decision .

On DATE ORG refused to accept the applicant ’s complaint for examination .

On DATE ORG refused to accept the applicant ’s constitutional complaint for examination ( no . CARDINAL BvR CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) .

Under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW , an owner is not entitled to claim compensation for use of property from the tenants unless otherwise agreed or in respect of rent obtained after DATE .

On DATE ORG held in a leading judgment ( published in that court ’s official reports [ ORG ] volume CARDINAL , pp . CARDINAL et seq . ) that there were no lacunae in section GPE ) of LAW and hence no justification for its analogous application to claims for compensation for use of property other than those concerning rent obtained by the tenant after DATE . The court noted that the tenant was fully entitled to enjoy the property and its fruits prior to restitution . Citing the relevant legislative materials , the court further noted that the legislature had provided for the exception only to urge occupiers to use the rent to maintain the property prior to restitution .


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

In DATE the applicant 's son , an army officer , was sent to serve in the NORP military unit in GPE , GPE . On DATE he informed his parents over the phone that he would be leaving for his home leave in GPE by car . Following this announcement he disappeared . On DATE the military authorities initiated a criminal investigation into his disappearance on the suspicion of his having deserted his duty station after failing to return at the end of his leave .

Since then the applicant has addressed numerous letters to various authorities concerning the fate of his son .

On DATE the military prosecutor informed the applicant that he had contacted the NORP authorities with a request for assistance in establishing his son 's whereabouts .

On DATE the military prosecutor announced that the NORP authorities had not yet reported anything positive and that the applicant 's theory of his son possibly being in a city hospital had not been proved to be true .

On DATE the military prosecutor informed the applicant that the authorities of GPE , GPE and GPE had also been involved in the investigation of his son 's whereabouts .

In DATE the applicant visited his son 's military duty station in GPE . During his visit he had the possibility of acquainting himself with his son 's case file and of discussing the matter with the investigative authorities as well as with his son 's fellow servicemen .

On DATE the military prosecutor assured the applicant of the continuing active search for his son .

On DATE the military prosecutor informed the applicant that , based on the reply by the NORP authorities , his son had not been found in any of the NORP medical or military establishments .

On DATE the military prosecutor stated that the physical search for his son in the territory of foreign GPE could only be carried out by the authorities of those GPE and that search requests had been sent to the NORP , NORP , GPE and GPE authorities .

In DATE the military unit in which the applicant 's son had served was withdrawn from GPE and stationed in GPE .

It appears that on an unspecified date in DATE the criminal investigation had been suspended . The investigation , however , recommenced prior to DATE , apparently after an intervention by ORG office .

On DATE the Prosecutor General 's office stated that the reason for continuing the investigation was the fact that it had been inadequate . On DATE the applicant was informed that the basis of the investigation had been changed as the probable cause of his son 's disappearance was murder rather than desertion .

On DATE the criminal investigation was suspended again . Following an intervention by the military prosecutor of ORG , who considered that the investigation had been inadequate , the proceedings recommenced on DATE .

On DATE the criminal investigation was once more suspended . On CARDINAL DATE the military prosecutor of ORG stated that , despite the suspension of the preliminary investigation , the search for the applicant 's son 's whereabouts was continuing . However , the efforts of the NORP and NORP authorities , as well as of the ORG national offices in GPE and GPE , had not led to a positive result .

On DATE the Chief Military Prosecutor of GPE announced that , as the criminal investigation had been incomplete , the proceedings had recommenced DATE .

On DATE ORG of the Russian ORG announced that the applicant 's son no longer appeared on its staff list .

The applicant has also addressed numerous letters concerning the fate of his son to the NORP authorities . On DATE ORG replied that , according to the NORP authorities , his son never exited the NORP border and that it had sent search requests to ORG offices in CARDINAL NORP countries .


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

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

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

In the DATE Olympic Games in GPE the applicant won a silver medal in cycling , representing GPE .

In DATE the applicant developed kidney trouble and went to GPE to undergo dialysis and a kidney transplant . According to the applicant ’s submissions , such treatment was not available in GPE at that time .

In DATE he had his first transplant .

Also in DATE the applicant ’s mother died and the applicant was granted a single - entry visa to GPE on an exceptional basis .

In DATE the applicant waived his NORP citizenship and became a NORP national .

B. Events after DATE

In DATE the applicant underwent another kidney transplant in GPE .

On DATE the applicant requested the NORP President of ORG ( Prezes Urzędu Kultury Fizycznej i Sportu ) to grant him a special payment provided for NORP .

On DATE the President of ORG refused his request on the ground that he was not a NORP national and did not have his permanent place of residence in GPE as required by the relevant law .

On DATE the applicant lodged a request for reconsideration of that decision .

On DATE the President of ORG confirmed his decision of DATE .

The applicant appealed to ORG ( PERSON ) .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s complaint . The court found that the applicant had not satisfied CARDINAL of the CARDINAL conditions listed in section CARDINALa of the LAW DATE on ORG ( ustawa o kulturze fizycznej ) ( “ the DATE LAW ) , namely he was not a NORP national and did not have his place of residence in GPE . Accordingly , the court found that the challenged decision had been given in accordance with the law and that the applicant ’s complaint therefore had to be dismissed .

In DATE the applicant requested the relevant NORP authorities to grant him NORP citizenship .

On DATE the President of GPE granted the applicant NORP citizenship .

On DATE the Professional Sports Act ( Ustawa o sporcie kwalifikowanym ) of DATE entered into force . The new law replaced the condition of a permanent place of residence in GPE by a requirement of having a permanent place of residence on the territory of GPE or another member ORG of ORG .

On DATE the Minister of Sport ( Minister PERSON ) gave a decision and granted the applicant the special payment provided for NORP in the amount of MONEY ( ORG ) DATE , finding that the applicant had fulfilled all the requirements listed in the new law .

Special payment for NORP

At the relevant time the issue of special payment for NORP was regulated by ORG of DATE ( “ the DATE Act ” ) ( ” LOC o kulturze fizycznej ” ) . LAW a as introduced into “ the DATE LAW by LAW to LAW “ LOC o zmianie ustawy o kulturze fizycznej ” ) with effect from DATE , provided , in so far as relevant :

“ Representatives of GPE in the DATE or Winter Olympic Games , who :

CARDINAL ) have won CARDINAL Olympic medal ,

CARDINAL ) NORP are at least thirty - five years of age and do not take part in competitive sports ,

CARDINAL ) NORP have NORP citizenship ,

CARDINAL ) have their permanent place of residence on the territory of GPE ,

CARDINAL ) have not been convicted of an intentional offence

- are entitled to payments from ORG . ”

On DATE the CARDINAL Act was amended and the provisions on special payments for NORP were incorporated in the new LAW of DATE ( ustawa o sporcie kwalifikowanym ) . The relevant amendment , which entered into force on DATE , broadened the range of persons entitled to the special payment by including those who had their permanent place of residence either in GPE or in another ORG member ORG . The criterion of NORP nationality remained .

Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL of the LAW , which entered into force on DATE , provides as follows :

“ In accordance with principles specified by statute , everyone whose constitutional freedoms or rights have been infringed , shall have the right to appeal to ORG for a judgment on the conformity with LAW of a statute or another normative act on the basis of which a court or an administrative authority has issued a final decision on his freedoms or rights or on his obligations specified in LAW . ”

At the relevant time LAW of CARDINAL DATE on ORG ( Ustawa o Naczelnym Sądzie Administracyjnym ) provided that in cases terminated by a final judgment of the court the proceedings might be reopened at the request of a party to the proceedings or ex officio ...

According to LAW provisions of LAW applied respectively to the proceedings before ORG .

Article CARDINAL of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that a party to civil proceedings which have ended with a final judgment on the merits can request that these proceedings be re - opened , if ORG has found that the legal provision on the basis of which this judgment was given was incompatible with LAW .


Violation of Art. 3 (substantive aspect);No violation of Art. 3 (procedural aspect);No violation of Art. 5-3;No violation of Art. 6-1;Non-pecuniary damage - award

Anatoly Kovler;Elisabeth Steiner;George Nicolaou;Giorgio Malinverni;Khanlar Hajiyev;Sverre Erik Jebens

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

On DATE the police uncovered a substantial quantity of marijuana in CARDINAL of the offices of ORG . A witness testified that the drug had been left there by the applicant , who was arrested DATE and then released on DATE on a written undertaking not to leave town . It appears that the applicant failed to appear for questioning on several occasions . The authorities failed to establish his whereabouts and on CARDINAL DATE the criminal investigation was suspended .

The applicant was arrested on DATE . The police found cocaine on him . More drugs and some ammunition were discovered in his flat . On DATE the prosecutor authorised his detention pending investigation , referring to the risk of his absconding . It was further extended on DATE until DATE .

Upon completion of the investigation , the prosecutor forwarded the case file to ORG of PERSON - on - PERSON on DATE . ORG found , however , that the case should be remitted to the prosecutor 's office for additional investigation . The relevant decision was issued on DATE . The court also ruled that the applicant should remain in custody .

Once the additional investigation was completed and the case file was forwarded to ORG , the latter scheduled the hearing of the case for DATE . The first CARDINAL hearings were adjourned on CARDINAL DATE and CARDINAL DATE on account of the judge 's involvement in other proceedings . Subsequently , ORG found certain procedural irregularities in the bill of indictment and remitted the case to the prosecutor 's office on DATE for their rectification . The applicant 's detention pending investigation was further authorised by the prosecutor on DATE until DATE .

On DATE the maximum permissible period of the applicant 's detention pending investigation expired . DATE the applicant was released on an undertaking not to leave town .

The trial was opened on DATE . ORG scheduled the hearing of the case for DATE ; it was subsequently adjourned owing to the applicant 's lawyer 's failure to appear . The hearing was further adjourned on DATE and CARDINAL DATE owing to the applicant 's illness . It was resumed on DATE . Referring to the gravity of the charges , the court ordered the applicant 's detention pending trial .

On DATE ORG found the applicant guilty of unlawful possession of ammunition and drugs and gave him a suspended sentence of DATE imprisonment , conditional on DATE probation . The applicant was released on a written undertaking not to leave town . Both the prosecutor and the applicant appealed .

The Rostov ORG adjourned the appeal hearing owing to the applicant 's lawyer 's failure to appear on CARDINAL DATE and DATE and DATE . The matter was considered on DATE . ORG held that the trial court 's findings were inconclusive , quashed the conviction and remitted the case to the lower court for fresh consideration .

On DATE ORG ordered that the proceedings should be stayed because of the applicant 's illness . They were resumed on DATE , when the court scheduled the first hearing for DATE . The court also directed that the applicant should be detained pending trial . No time - limit was fixed . In particular , the court ruled as follows :

“ ... the court considers it necessary to revoke [ the applicant 's ] undertaking not to leave town and to order his detention pending trial since he is charged with several serious and grave offences involving illegal drug dealing which present a heightened danger to public order and impinge on such an important value protected by the criminal law as public health . When deciding on [ the applicant 's ] detention , the court notes that , according to the medical documentation , there are no circumstances rendering him unfit for detention . Furthermore , the remand prison and special hospital no . CARDINAL are equipped with adequate facilities to provide professional medical assistance to the detainees , if necessary . ”

The police failed to execute the court 's order as the applicant 's whereabouts were unknown . On DATE the applicant 's name was put on the wanted persons ' list . He was arrested by the police and remanded in custody on CARDINAL DATE .

The hearing of the case was adjourned owing to the defence counsel 's failure to appear on DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE , DATE and DATE and DATE and DATE . On DATE the hearing was adjourned because the judge was involved in other proceedings .

On DATE ORG dismissed an application by the applicant for release , in which he had alleged that his health had deteriorated , that he had a permanent residence and that he had not failed to observe his undertaking not to leave town . The court noted as follows :

“ The court does not consider it practical to release [ the applicant ] pending trial . This measure is not only used to anticipate his custodial sentence as he is charged with serious and grave offences which impinge on such an important value as public health and present a heightened danger to public order . The court considers that , if released , [ the applicant ] might interfere with the administration of justice or abscond . ”

DATE and DATE ORG adjourned CARDINAL hearings in the case on account of the applicant 's or his counsel 's illness or the latter 's failure to appear . Twice the court adjourned the hearing because of the absence of witnesses . On CARDINAL occasions the court granted a request by the applicant for additional time to study the case file .

The applicant 's detention was extended on DATE until DATE . The court stated the following :

“ The court does not consider it practical to release [ the applicant ] pending trial . This measure is not only used to anticipate his custodial sentence . Given that [ the applicant ] is charged with grave and serious offences that present a heightened danger to public order , [ his ] detention may be also justified by this fact alone ... Furthermore , if released , [ the applicant ] might abscond , as he has done in the past ... or interfere with the administration of justice . ”

The applicant appealed , referring to his health problems . He further claimed that ORG conclusions that he might abscond or interfere with the administration of justice lacked any substantiation . On DATE ORG upheld the decision of DATE on appeal .

On DATE ORG extended the applicant 's detention until DATE . The court reasoned as follows :

“ The court does not consider it practical not to extend the [ applicant 's ] detention and release him . His detention is not only used to anticipate his custodial sentence . Given that [ the applicant ] is charged with grave and serious offences that present a heightened danger to public order ... , the court ... considers it necessary to extend his detention ... Furthermore , if released , [ the applicant ] might abscond or fail to appear in court , as he has done in the past . That is the reason why his detention was ordered [ in the first place ] and his name was put on the wanted persons ' list . The length of the custodial sentence to which the applicant may be subjected if found guilty also indicates , although indirectly , that such a development is very likely . Besides , if released , [ the applicant ] might interfere with the administration of justice , given that his line of defence is contrary to the testimonies of most witnesses .

The lawyers ' argument that [ the applicant 's ] medical condition is serious can not be taken into consideration . No objective data or medical documents have been produced to the court to show that [ the applicant 's ] detention is incompatible with his condition . The court received only a medical report stating that [ the applicant ] is currently unable to participate in the hearing . Besides , according to the report , [ the applicant is being provided ] with the necessary medical assistance . ”

On DATE ORG upheld the order of DATE on appeal .

On DATE and DATE ORG extended the applicant 's detention until DATE and CARDINAL DATE respectively . Each time the court referred , as before , to the gravity of the charges against the applicant . It also noted that , if released , the applicant might abscond , as he had done in the past . The court further reasoned that it was impossible to place the applicant under house arrest or to use any other alternative “ preventive measure ” to ensure his attendance during the trial because , if released , he might put pressure on the witnesses who were to testify against him . On CARDINAL February and DATE ORG upheld the relevant court orders on appeal .

On DATE and DATE ORG considered the merits of the case and convicted the applicant of drug dealing and unlawful possession of drugs and ammunition , sentencing him to DATE and DATE imprisonment . It appears that the applicant did not appeal .

The applicant was released on or DATE since the time he had served in detention was taken to be credited towards the sentence .

From DATE to CARDINAL DATE the applicant was detained in remand prison no . IZ-CARDINAL/CARDINAL in GPE - on - PERSON ( ORG ИЗ-CARDINAL/CARDINAL г. GPE ) , in cells no . CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL . Twice he was transferred to a prison hospital ( УЧ-CARDINAL/CARDINAL МОТБ ) , where he stayed from CARDINAL August to DATE and from CARDINAL DATE . The applicant and the ORG submitted differing descriptions of the remand prison .

According to the applicant , the cells in the remand prison were overcrowded . The number of bunk beds in the cells was insufficient and the inmates had to take turns to sleep . The mattresses were dirty and damp . The bedding was rarely washed . The toilet was installed on a CARDINAL elevation platform and was not separated from the living area or the dining table . The food was of poor quality . The hot water supply was shut down on many occasions . The light was never switched off . There was little access to fresh air or daylight because of thick metal bars on the windows . In addition , there were no window panes and it was cold in DATE and stiflingly hot and humid in DATE . The cells were infested with cockroaches , bugs , bed lice and mites . The cells were never sanitised , no disinfectant was distributed and the use of powder detergent , immersion heaters and fridges was not allowed . The plaster on the walls contained poisonous and toxic substances .

Relying on certificates issued by the administration of the remand prison on CARDINAL and DATE , the Government submitted that the conditions of the applicant 's detention were satisfactory . There were a sufficient number of beds in each cell and the applicant had always had an individual sleeping place . The cells were equipped with a toilet and a sink . There was a separation wall between the toilet and the living area of the cell . The windows were not covered with metal shutters . The central heating ensured an adequate temperature in the cells . The cells were cleaned and disinfected on a regular basis . The bed sheets were washed and disinfected too . The cells were equipped with radio , lighting and a ventilation system . There was a dining table and a bench in each cell . The food was of adequate quality and diverse . The meals were served CARDINAL times a day and comprised CARDINAL different ingredients .

Relying on a certificate issued on DATE by the remand prison , the Government submitted that the plaster on the cell walls contained no poisonous or toxic substances . The paint used complied with State safety standards .

As regards the actual documents concerning the conditions of the applicant 's detention from DATE to DATE , the Government indicated that all the records had been destroyed after the statutory period for their storage had expired . In this connection they submitted a copy of the relevant certificate issued by the administration of the remand prison on CARDINAL DATE .

From DATE the applicant stayed in cell no . CARDINAL . According to the applicant , the cell measured QUANTITY . m and housed from CARDINAL inmates .

In their memorandum of DATE , the Government claimed that the cell measured QUANTITY . m and was equipped with CARDINAL beds . CARDINAL inmates , on average , were detained there . In their further observations the Government relied on the certificate signed by officer PERSON , acting head of the remand prison , on CARDINAL DATE . According to the certificate , the cell measured QUANTITY . m and housed CARDINAL persons at the relevant time .

DATE and then after DATE the applicant stayed in cell no . CARDINAL . According to the applicant , the cell measured CARDINAL sq . m and housed from CARDINAL inmates .

Originally the Government did not dispute the measurements of the cell . According to them , the cell was equipped with CARDINAL beds and housed , on average , QUANTITY inmates . The Government later submitted a certificate signed by officer PERSON on CARDINAL DATE to the effect that the cell measured QUANTITY . m and housed CARDINAL inmates .

On DATE the applicant was transferred into cell no . CARDINAL , located in the basement . According to the applicant , it measured QUANTITY . m and housed CARDINAL inmates . On DATE the entire basement , including cell no . CARDINAL , was flooded from the sewage system . On DATE the inmates were returned to cell no . CARDINAL .

The Government denied that the flooding incident had taken place . In their memorandum of CARDINAL DATE they did not accept the number of inmates or the cell measurements quoted by the applicant . According to them , the cell measured QUANTITY sq . m and housed , on average , CARDINAL inmates . Each of them had an individual bed . According to the certificate signed by officer PERSON on CARDINAL DATE , the cell measured QUANTITY . m. It was equipped with CARDINAL beds and housed CARDINAL inmates .

According to the applicant , in DATE he was repeatedly placed in the “ assembly ” cell . It measured QUANTITY m and had no windows , no ventilation system , no drinking water and no place for rest . The floor was dusted with bleaching powder . The walls were coated with “ shuba ” , a sort of abrasive concrete lining . No access to a toilet was allowed .

On an unspecified date the applicant spent TIME in that cell ; on DATE he was held there for TIME , and he was subsequently locked in the cell for TIME from TIME on DATE to TIME on DATE .

The Government admitted that the applicant had been detained in the “ assembly ” cell on DATE only . They acknowledged that the applicant 's detention there contravened the applicable rules and regulations .

According to the applicant 's medical file , at least once DATE he was examined by doctors of the remand centre , who administered injections and provided medication to treat his hypertension . In particular , the medical file contains the following information .

On DATE the applicant received injections in connection with a hypertonic crisis . Following the treatment , his blood pressure lowered from CARDINAL to CARDINAL/CARDINAL .

From DATE to DATE and from DATE to CARDINAL DATE the applicant received treatment in hospital . He was released once his condition was recognised as satisfactory .

On DATE the applicant complained of hypertension . He was examined by a doctor , who administered an injection and prescribed medication .

On DATE , DATE and DATE the doctor examined the applicant and treated his hypertension .


David Thór Björgvinsson;Françoise Tulkens;Giorgio Malinverni;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

On DATE ORG issued an arrest warrant for the applicant on suspicion of assault and attempted murder .

On DATE ORG filed a bill of indictment charging the applicant with the offences of assault and attempted murder .

On DATE the applicant was arrested .

On DATE ORG ordered the applicant ’s detention on remand .

On DATE ORG sentenced the applicant to DATE and CARDINAL months’ imprisonment .

On DATE ORG ordered the applicant ’s release pending trial , having considered the time spent under detention on remand .

On DATE ORG upheld the judgment of DATE .

DATE and DATE , ORG examined the applicant ’s continued detention at the end of every hearing , either of its own motion or upon the applicant ’s requests . On each occasion , the court ordered the applicant ’s continued detention , having regard to the state of the evidence , nature of the offence , content of the file and the incomplete collection of evidence .

A description of the relevant domestic law and practice prior to the entry into force of the new Code of Criminal Procedure ( ORG ) ( PERSON no . DATE ) on DATE may be found in PERSON and GPE v. GPE , no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , § § DATE , DATE ) . The current practice under PERSON no . CARDINAL is outlined in GPE and Others v. GPE ( nos . GPE , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , ORG and CARDINAL , § § CARDINAL , DATE ) .


No violation of Art. 5-3;Violation of Art. 6-1;Non-pecuniary damage - financial award;Costs and expenses award - Convention proceedings

On DATE the applicant was arrested on suspicion of having committed CARDINAL armed robberies together with other persons .

On DATE the ORG decided to detain the applicant on remand . The decision was based on the high probability that the applicant had committed the crimes with which he had been charged , which was confirmed by evidence , in particular the testimonies of one of the co - accused . In addition , the court stated that there was a serious risk that the applicant might attempt to influence the co - accused and the witnesses and thus obstruct the proper course of the proceedings , since as an imprisoned person he was entitled in particular to have breaks in serving the penalty and to correspond without any censorship . On DATE the ORG upheld the decision .

Subsequently , the applicant ’s detention was prolonged on several occasions ( on DATE and DATE , CARDINAL DATE and DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE , DATE and DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE , and DATE ) . The courts based their decisions on the reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed the offence concerned , the severity of the penalty he faced and the risk of his collusion and absconding . During the preparatory proceedings the extension of his detention was also justified by the need to obtain further evidence , in particular to obtain expert opinions , to make inquiries at his home , to take evidence from the suspects and to confront them .

From DATE to DATE the applicant served a prison sentence imposed on him in separate proceedings .

The applicant lodged a considerable number of applications for release from detention or for commutation of the preventive measure to a less severe one , on the ground of his poor state of health or other reasons ( on DATE , DATE and DATE , CARDINAL DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE and DATE ) ; however , they were dismissed in decisions of DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , CARDINAL DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , and DATE and DATE .

The applicant also challenged the decisions prolonging his detention , but those applications were likewise dismissed on DATE , CARDINAL DATE and DATE , CARDINAL DATE and DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE , and DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE .

During the preparatory proceedings QUANTITY persons ( including the applicant ) were arrested . The public prosecutor took evidence from CARDINAL witnesses and the suspects were interviewed CARDINAL times . CARDINAL expert opinions were obtained , CARDINAL confrontations and CARDINAL searches of individuals , LOC and other places were carried out and identity parades were conducted on CARDINAL occasions . Numerous documents were obtained , in particular bills of phone calls made by the suspects , their criminal records and copies of judgments .

From DATE to DATE the applicant served a sentence of DATE and CARDINAL months’ imprisonment imposed on him in separate proceedings .

The applicant was indicted before the Gdańsk Regional Court on DATE . The bill of indictment concerned CARDINAL charges and CARDINAL accused ( CARDINAL of whom , including the applicant , were detained ) . The applicant was charged with illegal possession of firearms , CARDINAL armed robberies , CARDINAL robbery involving the use of dangerous implements and resulting in serious injuries , and participation in an organised armed criminal gang . Charges against the other accused also concerned attempted murder , theft , burglary and handling stolen goods . The public prosecutor requested the court to examine CARDINAL experts and CARDINAL witnesses and to read out the testimonies of a further CARDINAL witnesses . The case file at that date comprised CARDINAL volumes and the bill of indictment with the statement of reasons ran to CARDINAL pages .

In the period from DATE to DATE the first - instance court held CARDINAL hearings . In addition CARDINAL separate sittings were held at which the court decided to prolong the applicant ’s detention , and on CARDINAL occasions witnesses were examined away from the court ’s LOC . CARDINAL hearings had to be cancelled , on grounds not attributable to the court .

On DATE and DATE and DATE the court held hearings . It decided to examine the case against CARDINAL of the co - accused separately as his serious illness could have led to delays in the proceedings , and heard evidence from an expert and CARDINAL defendants , including the applicant .

The hearing scheduled for DATE was adjourned as CARDINAL of the accused revoked his lawyer ’s power of attorney . As a result the hearing scheduled for DATE had to be cancelled as well .

The hearing scheduled for DATE and DATE was cancelled because the defendants had not appeared in court . The court contacted the relevant police headquarters and instructed them to supervise and secure the appearance of the detainees .

DATE and DATE QUANTITY hearings were held and the court examined the defendants and a total of CARDINAL witnesses . At a hearing of CARDINAL DATE the court requested ORG to extend the applicant ’s detention until DATE . The trial court repeated the grounds given in earlier decisions on his detention . In addition it pointed to the increased risk of collusion since one of the other defendants had significantly changed his version of events at a previous hearing . ORG granted the request on DATE , fully endorsing the reasons given by the first - instance court . It also noted that the proceedings were being conducted swiftly and that it had not been possible to terminate them for reasons not attributable to the trial court .

DATE and DATE the court held CARDINAL hearings during which the co - accused , CARDINAL experts and CARDINAL witnesses were examined and CARDINAL other witnesses refused to make any statements .

The hearing scheduled for DATE had to be adjourned owing to the absence of CARDINAL of the co - defendants and the lawyers of CARDINAL others . The court decided to address the relevant bodies of ORG and ordered the detention of the absent defendants .

DATE and DATE CARDINAL hearings were held and the parties , an expert and CARDINAL witnesses gave evidence . The court read out testimonies of CARDINAL other witnesses , taken in the preparatory proceedings .

On DATE the ORG sentenced the applicant to seven years’ imprisonment and a fine of MONEY ( ORG ) . The length of his detention on remand was not deducted from the sentence because during the whole proceedings at issue the applicant had been serving a prison sentence imposed on him in separate proceedings . The judgment , with its reasoning , ran to CARDINAL pages .

NORP The applicant and other co - defendants appealed .

The appellate hearing scheduled for DATE was adjourned because the court decided ( at the request of the lawyer of CARDINAL of the co - accused ) to obtain an expert opinion on the co - accused ’s mental state and to hear evidence from an expert .

On DATE the ORG quashed the judgment in respect of CARDINAL of the accused , including the applicant , and remitted the case to the first - instance court , having found infringements of procedural law which might have influenced the outcome of the case .

In the period from DATE to CARDINAL DATE the ORG held CARDINAL hearings ; another CARDINAL were cancelled for various reasons . In addition , CARDINAL separate sittings were held at which the court decided on the applicant ’s detention .

At this stage of the proceedings all the defendants , including the applicant , became very active . In particular , the applicant challenged all subsequent decisions concerning his detention , requested copies or records after almost all the hearings , on CARDINAL occasions requested the court to transfer the case file to the detention centre in order to acquaint himself with its contents , made numerous applications for evidence to be adduced , for example requesting several expert opinions or the examination of witnesses , and lodged a considerable number of other applications .

The hearings scheduled for CARDINAL and CARDINAL May , CARDINAL , DATE and DATE were cancelled or adjourned because of the illness of a judge or the absence of defendants . The court appointed a new lawyer to replace one who had fallen ill .

DATE and DATE ORG held CARDINAL hearings and examined CARDINAL witnesses . Several other witnesses refused to testify or were absent .

From DATE to CARDINAL DATE the applicant served a prison sentence imposed in separate proceedings against him .

A hearing scheduled for DATE had to be adjourned owing to the absence of a co - defendant ’s lawyer . The court decided to contact the relevant bodies of ORG on this matter .

DATE and DATE CARDINAL hearings were held and an expert and CARDINAL witnesses gave evidence ; a further QUANTITY were absent . The court imposed a fine on CARDINAL witness who failed to appear at a hearing . CARDINAL hearings were cancelled owing to the illness of a judge or the absence of a witness .

On DATE the ORG dismissed the applicant ’s complaint under LAW on the breach of the right to a trial within a reasonable time , considering that on the date of entry into force of LAW the proceedings had not exceeded the reasonable - time requirement . The court thoroughly analysed the proceedings before and after that date . It noted that the actual length of the proceedings , even if the applicant had not contributed to it , could not be taken as the only criterion for holding that the time taken was excessive . In the court ’s opinion , the length of the proceedings could be found to be unreasonable if undue delays caused by inactivity or improper actions on the part of the court had occurred . The court did not establish any such circumstances in the case at issue and pointed to its extreme complexity , with the large number of plots and individuals involved , as the main cause of the length of the proceedings . The court noted that the trial court had conducted the proceedings in a proper way and had taken appropriate measures to discipline witnesses and other persons in the event of their absence .

DATE and DATE ORG held CARDINAL hearings and CARDINAL others had to be adjourned owing to the illness of a judge , the absence of a lawyer or a lack of police officers to guard the defendants on their way from the detention centre to the court . The testimonies of CARDINAL witnesses were heard and those of absent witnesses were read out .

The proceedings are currently pending before ORG .

The relevant domestic law concerning the imposition of detention on remand ( aresztowanie tymczasowe ) , the grounds for its prolongation , release from detention and rules governing other so - called “ preventive measures ” ( środki zapobiegawcze ) is set out in the ORG ’s judgments in the cases of ORG v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL , § § DATE , DATE ) and PERSON v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , § § DATE , CARDINAL DATE ) .

The relevant domestic provisions and practice concerning the ORG ’s liability for a tort committed by its official , in connection with a right to a trial within a reasonable time , have already been cited in previous cases against GPE ( see , for example , PERSON v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , DATE , and ORG v. GPE , no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , DATE ) .


Violation of Art. 3;Violation of Art. 5-3;Violations of Art. 5-4;Non-pecuniary damage - financial award;Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings

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

On DATE a criminal investigation into a financial fraud allegedly committed by the applicant in conspiracy with another person , was opened .

On DATE the applicant ’s flat was searched and she was informed about the suspicion against her .

On DATE the applicant was arrested and charged with large - scale fraud , an offence under LAW of LAW Criminal Code .

On DATE the ORG of PERSON ordered the applicant ’s detention on the ground that she was suspected of a serious criminal offence and that she would abscond because her accomplice had already absconded . She could also destroy evidence because some documents had not yet been seized .

On DATE the applicant sent her notice of appeal . She asked for a more lenient preventive measure and petitioned the court to take into account that she was charged with a financial crime , that she had no criminal record , had a permanent place of residence and employment in PERSON , family ties , a stable way of life and CARDINAL minor children aged DATE . If she wished , she could have absconded after the search in her flat . The fact that she had not fled from justice proved that she had no such intention . She also complained about inhuman conditions of her detention and sought leave to appear before the appeal court .

On DATE ORG upheld the detention order of DATE , finding that it had been lawful , sufficiently reasoned and justified . In ORG view , ORG had correctly assessed the applicant ’s “ character ” and other materials presented by the prosecutor . The appeal hearing took place in the presence of the prosecutor who repeated the arguments advanced before ORG and CARDINAL counsels for the applicant . The applicant ’s request for leave to appear in person was refused because her arguments were clearly set out in her notice of appeal and did not require additional clarifications .

On DATE the Frunzenskiy District Court extended the applicant ’s detention until DATE . The court grounded its decision on the gravity of the charge against the applicant and on the possibility that she could abscond or obstruct justice .

On DATE the applicant appealed . She complained that the decision of CARDINAL DATE was not sufficiently motivated , that the court did not take into account her individual situation , that the conditions of her detention were inhuman . She asked for release on bail .

The appeal hearing was scheduled for DATE . On DATE the hearing was adjourned because the applicant had not been brought to the courthouse .

On DATE the ORG found that there were no reasons to vary the preventive measure and upheld the decision of CARDINAL DATE .

On DATE the Frunzenskiy District Court extended the applicant ’s detention until DATE , finding as follows :

“ ... it is necessary to carry out many investigative actions with [ the applicant ’s ] participation .

[ The applicant ] is charged with a serious criminal offence . Besides , the prosecution submitted documents showing that , once released , [ the applicant ] can flee from justice and interfere with the establishment of the truth .

The court sees no reasons to vary or cancel the preventive measure applied to [ the applicant ] . ”

On DATE the applicant lodged a notice of appeal . On DATE the Vladimir Regional Court upheld the decision . It found that the decision had been lawful and sufficiently reasoned .

On DATE the ORG extended the applicant ’s detention until DATE with reference to the gravity of charges and the need for a further investigation . The court also mentioned that the applicant could abscond , obstruct justice or re - offend .

On DATE the applicant appealed . She referred , in particular , to inhuman conditions of her detention and asked for release on bail .

On DATE ORG upheld the decision of DATE . In particular , the appeal court noted that “ conditions of detention could not be taken into account when deciding on an extension of detention ” .

On DATE the Frunzenskiy District Court extended the applicant ’s detention until DATE . The reasoning was similar to that in the decision of DATE .

On DATE the applicant lodged her points of appeal . She submitted that she had already spent DATE in custody and that a further extension was permitted under the domestic law only if the case was particularly complex . The prosecution failed to show that her case was particularly complex . Nor did they prove that she intended to abscond or interfere with the establishment of the truth . The prosecution searched the applicant ’s flat and office and seized all the papers ; for that reason she could not destroy any evidence . The applicant asked the court to take account of her personal situation – her being a mother of CARDINAL minor children with a permanent place of residence and employment in PERSON - and inhuman conditions of her detention on remand . She complained that she had not been afforded an opportunity to study the materials submitted by the prosecution in support of their request for extension .

On DATE ORG upheld the decision of DATE . The appeal court endorsed the reasoning of the first - instance court . It further held :

“ The opinion of [ the applicant ’s ] lawyer that when considering the extension of detention it is necessary to take into account the conditions of detention in remand centres has no basis in the domestic law ...

The rules of criminal procedure ( Arts . CARDINAL , CARDINAL of LAW ) do not provide for disclosure of the materials submitted by the prosecution in support of a request for extension . Nor do they require that the court should hear the opinion of the parties concerning [ those materials ] . ”

On DATE ORG ordered the extension of the applicant ’s detention until DATE . It held that the applicant was charged with a serious criminal offence , that it was necessary to conduct an additional investigation and that there were no reasons to vary the preventive measure .

On DATE the applicant lodged her appeal . On DATE ORG upheld the decision .

On DATE the ORG extended the applicant ’s detention until DATE . It held that the extension was “ objectively justified ” because of the complexity of the case , the gravity of the charge and the risk of the applicant ’s absconding or her interfering with the establishment of the truth .

On DATE the applicant appealed . She repeated the arguments set out in the points of appeal of DATE and added that her father was seriously ill . On DATE ORG rejected the appeal .

On DATE ORG extended the applicant ’s detention until DATE . It referred to the complexity of the case ( the case - file comprised CARDINAL binders ) , the need for a further investigation , the gravity of the charge and the risk of the applicant ’s absconding or interfering with the establishment of the truth .

On DATE ORG upheld the decision on appeal .

On DATE the investigation was completed and the applicant was committed for trial . The applicant ’s lawyers petitioned the court for her release .

On DATE ORG of PERSON fixed the first hearing for DATE and ordered that the applicant should remain in custody .

On DATE the Leninskiy ORG established that the case was not ready for consideration on the merits because the applicant had not had sufficient time to study the case file and remitted the case for additional investigation . It ordered that the applicant should meanwhile remain in custody .

On DATE the acting prosecutor of PERSON varied the preventive measure . The applicant was released but ordered not to leave the town .

The applicant was held in detention facility no . IZ-CARDINAL/CARDINAL in LOC .

According to a certificate of CARDINAL DATE from the facility administration , produced by the Government , the applicant was kept in CARDINAL cells described as follows : cells CARDINAL . CARDINAL and CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ORG , CARDINAL bunks , CARDINAL inmates on average ) , cell no . CARDINAL ( CARDINAL m² , CARDINAL bunks , CARDINAL inmates on average ) and cell no . CARDINAL ( CARDINAL m² , CARDINAL bunks , CARDINAL inmates on average ) . The Government submitted that the applicant had at all times had a separate bunk .

The applicant did not dispute the cell measurements and the number of bunks . She disagreed , however , with the number of inmates asserted by the Government . According to her , from DATE she was held in cell no . CARDINAL together with CARDINAL inmates ; from DATE she was kept in cell no . CARDINAL which accommodated CARDINAL detainees ; thereafter and until DATE she shared cell no . CARDINAL with CARDINAL inmates ; in TIME CARDINAL DATE she stayed in cell no . CARDINAL with CARDINAL other inmates ; and on DATE she was transferred back to cell no . CARDINAL that accommodated CARDINAL detainees . In cells nos . CARDINAL and CARDINAL she did not always have a separate bunk .

The Government , relying on a certificate of CARDINAL DATE from the facility administration , submitted that all cells were equipped with a lavatory pan . The pan had no cover but it was separated from the living area by a QUANTITY - high brick wall and an additional curtain of QUANTITY in height . Once a week the inmates were provided with detergent ( soda and chlorine ) . The dining table was situated QUANTITY away from the pan . The inmates were allowed to take a shower once DATE . The cells were naturally ventilated through the windows and the door vent . Fans were provided on request . There were no running hot water available but detainees were permitted to use immersion heaters . Besides , hot water for laundry and boiled drinking water was distributed . Once a week inmates were provided with clean bedding , towels and kitchenware . The cells were equipped with fluorescent lamps which functioned during day and TIME .

The applicant disagreed with the ORG ’s description and submitted that the sanitary conditions were unsatisfactory . The cells swarmed with insects , rats and mice . Inmates had to do their laundry indoors , creating excessive humidity in the cells . There was no artificial ventilation system . A fan was provided only in DATE . The windows were covered with thick metal bars that blocked access to natural light . The artificial light was never switched off disturbing the applicant ’s sleep .

NORP The applicant contested the Government ’s description of the toilet facilities . The pan was cleaned infrequently and it was very dirty and stinky . What is more , it had no cover : inmates stuck a plastic bottle in the hole in order to prevent smells from spreading . No curtains were provided and inmates had to hang a sheet which did not offer sufficient privacy . No toilet articles were distributed , save for CARDINAL g of soda and chloride and QUANTITY of laundry soap per week .

The applicant was allowed to take a shower once DATE . The entire cell was afforded TIME to shower , although there was CARDINAL shower heads . Soap was distributed after a shower . It was extremely cold in the shower room in DATE . On DATE or on DATE of family visits the applicant missed her chance to take shower .

The Government submitted that the applicant had an hour - long walk DATE .

The applicant conceded that an TIME - long walk was organised DATE . However , on shower days inmates were not allowed to go outdoors . The entire cell population was often left indoors as collective punishment for a disciplinary offence committed by CARDINAL inmate . The exercise yards were fenced by brick walls of QUANTITY in height with bars on the top . They were covered with a metal roof with a QUANTITY gap between the roof and the top of the walls . In DATE it was extremely hot and stifling inside because the sun heated the roof . Most of yards measured TIME , CARDINAL people were brought into the yard at once .

Since DATE criminal - law matters have been governed by LAW ( Law no . CARDINAL of DATE , the “ CCrP ” ) .

“ Preventive measures ” or “ measures of restraint ” ( меры пресечения ) include an undertaking not to leave a town or region , personal surety , bail and detention ( Article CARDINAL ) . If necessary , the suspect or accused may be asked to give an undertaking to appear ( обязательство о явке ) ( Article CARDINAL ) .

When deciding on a preventive measure , the competent authority is required to consider whether there are “ sufficient grounds to believe ” that the accused would abscond during the investigation or trial , re - offend or obstruct the establishment of the truth ( LAW ) . It must also take into account the gravity of the charge , information on the accused ’s character , his or her profession , age , state of health , family status and other circumstances ( LAW ) .

Detention may be ordered by a court if the charge carries a sentence of DATE imprisonment , provided that a less restrictive preventive measure can not be applied ( LAW ) .

After arrest the suspect is placed in custody “ pending the investigation ” . The maximum permitted period of detention “ pending the investigation ” is DATE but it can be extended for DATE in “ exceptional circumstances ” ( Article CARDINAL § § CARDINAL ) . The period of detention “ pending the investigation ” is calculated to DATE when the prosecutor sent the case to the trial court ( LAW ) .

From the date the prosecutor forwards the case to the trial court , the defendant ’s detention is “ before the court ” ( or “ during the trial ” ) . The period of detention “ during the trial ” is calculated to the date the judgment is given . It may not normally exceed DATE , but if the case concerns serious or particularly serious criminal offences , the trial court may approve CARDINAL or more extensions of no longer than DATE each ( LAW and CARDINAL ) .

An appeal may be lodged with a higher court within DATE against a judicial decision ordering or extending detention . The appeal court must decide the appeal within DATE after its receipt ( LAW ) .

The Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners , adopted by ORG on ORG and the Treatment of Offenders , held at GPE in DATE , and approved by ORG by its resolution CARDINAL C ( XXIV ) of DATE and CARDINAL ( LXII ) of CARDINAL DATE , provide , in particular , as follows :

“ CARDINAL . All accommodation provided for the use of prisoners and in particular all sleeping accommodation shall meet all requirements of health , due regard being paid to ... minimum floor space , lighting , heating and ventilation ...

In all places where prisoners are required to live or work ,

( a ) The windows shall be large enough to enable the prisoners to read or work by natural light , and shall be so constructed that they can allow the entrance of fresh air whether or not there is artificial ventilation ;

( b ) Artificial light shall be provided sufficient for the prisoners to read or work without injury to eyesight .

The sanitary installations shall be adequate to enable every prisoner to comply with the needs of nature when necessary and in a clean and decent manner .

Adequate bathing and shower installations shall be provided so that every prisoner may be enabled and required to have a bath or shower ... at least once DATE in a temperate climate .

All pans of an institution regularly used by prisoners shall be properly maintained and kept scrupulously clean at all time .

Prisoners shall be required to keep their persons clean , and to this end they shall be provided with water and with such toilet articles as are necessary for health and cleanliness ...

Every prisoner shall ... be provided with a separate bed , and with separate and sufficient bedding which shall be clean when issued , kept in good order and changed often enough to ensure its cleanliness .

( CARDINAL ) Every prisoner ... shall have TIME of suitable exercise in the open air DATE if the weather permits . ”

The relevant extracts from the CARDINALnd ORG by ORG for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment ( ORG ) read as follows :

“ CARDINAL . Overcrowding is an issue of direct relevance to the ORG ’s mandate . All the services and activities within a prison will be adversely affected if it is required to cater for more prisoners than it was designed to accommodate ... Moreover , the level of overcrowding in a prison , or in a particular part of it , might be such as to be in itself inhuman or degrading from a physical standpoint .

Specific mention should be made of outdoor exercise . The requirement that prisoners be allowed TIME of exercise in the open air every day is widely accepted as a basic safeguard ... It is also axiomatic that outdoor exercise facilities should be reasonably spacious ...

Ready access to proper toilet facilities and the maintenance of good standards of hygiene are essential components of a humane environment ...

The ORG would add that it is particularly concerned when it finds a combination of overcrowding , poor regime activities and inadequate access to toilet / washing facilities in the same establishment . The cumulative effect of such conditions can prove extremely detrimental to prisoners . ”

The relevant extracts from the ORG ’s CARDINALth ORG , governing conditions of detention of women [ ORG ( DATE ) CARDINAL ] , read as follows :

“ DATE . ... in all ORG member GPE , women inmates represent a comparatively small minority of persons deprived of their liberty . This can render it very costly for GPE to make separate provision for women in custody , with the result that they are often held at a small number of locations ( on occasion , far from their homes and those of any dependent children ) , in LOC which were originally designed for ( and may be shared by ) male detainees . In these circumstances , particular care is required to ensure that women deprived of their liberty are held in a safe and decent custodial environment ...

ORG also wishes to call attention to a number of hygiene and health issues in respect of which the needs of women deprived of their liberty differ significantly from those of men .

The specific hygiene needs of women should be addressed in an adequate manner . Ready access to sanitary and washing facilities , safe disposal arrangements for blood - stained articles , as well as provision of hygiene items , such as sanitary towels and tampons , are of particular importance .

The failure to provide such basic necessities can amount , in itself , to degrading treatment . ”


Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property

Antonella Mularoni;Françoise Tulkens;Ireneu Cabral Barreto;Nona Tsotsoria

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

On various dates , the applicants bought plots of land ( nos . DATE , CARDINAL and CARDINAL respectively ) near the coast in Hatay . They each built a house there .

NORP In DATE the ORG filed an action before ORG , requesting the annulment of the ORG title deeds to the land on the ground that they were located within the coastline .

On DATE ( nos . CARDINAL ) and DATE ( CARDINAL ) , ORG , relying , particularly , on expert reports , upheld the request of the ORG and annulled the title deeds of the applicants to the plots of land . In its decisions , the court held that , pursuant to domestic law , coasts could not be subject to private ownership and that , therefore , the applicants could not rely on the argument that they had acted bona fides or on the fact that they had constructed buildings on the site .

On various dates the applicants appealed . In their petitions they submitted , inter alia , that the right to property - a human rights norm - was protected under the constitution and the domestic law , and that the domestic courts had deprived them of their property rights without proper examination and without a payment of compensation . On DATE their appeals were dismissed by ORG .

On various dates the applicants requested ORG to rectify its decision . ORG dismissed the ORG requests on DATE ( nos . CARDINAL and CARDINAL ) and DATE ( no . CARDINAL ) . These decisions were served on the applicants on DATE ( ORG . CARDINAL and CARDINAL ) and DATE ( no . CARDINAL ) .

The relevant domestic law and practice in force at the material time are outlined in the PERSON and PERSON v. GPE judgment ( no . CARDINAL , § CARDINAL , DATE ) .