Violation of Art. 9;Violation of Art. 6;Non-pecuniary damage - award

The applicants are GPE 's Witnesses . The applicant Mr NORP GPE is a representative of ORG of GPE 's Witnesses in GPE . The other applicants are members of the GPE community of GPE 's Witnesses .

DATE the GPE community of GPE 's Witnesses filed CARDINAL applications for State registration with the regional ORG . Their applications were refused on CARDINAL DATE , DATE and DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE , DATE and CARDINAL DATE , CARDINAL May and DATE . Each refusal was justified by reference to alleged formal defects in the registration documents .

The applicants complained to a court . On DATE the ORG of GPE ruled that the refusal of DATE had been unlawful . On DATE ORG upheld this decision and ordered the registration of the GPE community of GPE 's Witnesses . On DATE the community was officially registered by ORG for LOC .

In the applicants ' submission , PERSON , appointed by LOC as Chairwoman of the regional ORG ( “ the Commissioner ” ) , had attempted on several occasions to initiate criminal proceedings against the GPE community of GPE 's Witnesses on the ground that the community had “ lured ” young children into their “ sect ” .

On DATE a senior investigator with the GPE town prosecutor 's office found no indications of a criminal offence and decided not to open a criminal investigation into the activities of the members of the GPE 's Witnesses ' community .

Following the Commissioner 's intervention , the decision of CARDINAL DATE was reversed and an additional inquiry was ordered .

On DATE the deputy GPE town prosecutor again dismissed the allegations against the members of the GPE 's Witnesses ' community on the ground that no evidence pointing towards a criminal offence could be found .

On DATE Mr Z. , a member of the local community of GPE 's Witnesses , acting on behalf of ORG of GPE 's Witnesses , negotiated a lease agreement with PERSON , principal of vocational training college no . DATE in GPE , in respect of the college auditorium and associated facilities . According to LAW , the premises were rented for the purpose of holding religious meetings on DATE TIME on DATE TIME , outside the normal college teaching TIME .

The lease agreement was intended to run from DATE . It also contained a provision that it would be automatically renewed on the same terms and conditions and for the same period unless either side gave DATE advance notice of its intent to terminate the agreement . No such notice appears to have been given by either party . Thereafter the agreement continued to run for the extended DATE period , but with the lessees only authorised to terminate it subject to DATE notice in writing . There was no reciprocal power for the college to terminate the agreement during the extended period .

By DATE the applicants had been using the college facilities for DATE and had paid their rent on time and in accordance with the terms and conditions . As a means of raising additional revenue for the college , its principal entered into similar lease agreements with CARDINAL other organisations .

On DATE the Chief Directorate for Vocational Training and Science of ORG issued an order prohibiting all educational establishments in LOC from renting out their LOC for religious services , meetings , and so forth .

On DATE the Commissioner , together with an unidentified senior police officer , visited Mr U. , principal of college no . CARDINAL , and attempted to persuade him to terminate the lease agreement with the applicants . The principal refused the request . The Commissioner demanded to see the agreement and took a photocopy of it . She then asked a number of detailed questions about the days and times of the GPE 's Witnesses ' meetings . The principal provided the information .

On DATE , in accordance with the lease agreement , the GPE 's Witnesses used the college facilities . CARDINAL consecutive meetings were on the agenda . The first meeting ended without incident .

ORG The second meeting , from TIME , was of a group with special needs ; most of the participants were profoundly deaf . Many of those in attendance were elderly and also had impaired vision . A person trained in sign language provided interpretation at the meeting , the purpose of which was to study the Bible and join in public worship . The meeting was open to the general public : attendants were positioned near the entrance to the meeting place to greet newcomers and assist with seating .

The first part of the meeting was a talk given from the platform by Mr Kuznetsov , who had a mastery of sign language . There were CARDINAL persons present , including all the applicants .

At some time between CARDINAL and TIME the Commissioner entered the foyer which gives access from the street to the meeting place , holding a child by the hand . The applicant PERSON Setdarberdi PERSON , who is profoundly deaf but has no speech impairment , was the attendant on duty . He went out into the foyer to greet the Commissioner and the child and show them to a seat . Realising that the visitor was not deaf , another applicant , Mr PERSON , who did not have impaired speech or hearing , went to assist . He invited the Commissioner into the meeting hall and offered her a chair ; she refused and said that the police were about to arrive .

After this brief exchange the Commissioner left the foyer . The speaker went on with his talk , which ended at TIME

The second part of the meeting was conducted in sign language . This part was in progress , with TIME left and TIME to go before the end of the contracted rental time of TIME , when the Commissioner again entered the foyer , this time without the child . She was now accompanied by PERSON , managing director of the Commissioner - affiliated commercial company Man . PERSON . Power , and by CARDINAL senior police officers , PERSON PERSON , deputy head of ORG of the Traktorozavodskiy Police Department of GPE , and PERSON , a senior district inspector with the same department . Mr Tomskiy was holding and using a camcorder to film .

The Commissioner led the way forward and walked to the threshold of the door into the meeting hall . Mr Tomskiy was a short distance behind , filming with the camcorder . CARDINAL of the applicants , PERSON , who was not hearing - impaired and was sitting close to the door in a position to observe the events , later testified before FAC as follows :

“ On DATE a woman accompanied by QUANTITY police officers and a man in plain clothes came to the meeting . They stood in the entrance so that I could n't see the programme . The Commissioner said to CARDINAL of the men ' Stop the meeting ' , but he hesitated and said ' But they are deaf mutes ' .

I told CARDINAL of the congregation to go and get GPE [ GPE ] . When PERSON came out to them there was a conversation with raised voices . The Commissioner asked if there were children in the hall and whether they were all with their parents . Then they asked PERSON for his passport in an unpleasant manner ...

... When I found out who the Commissioner was I was very displeased . I demand that you fire her from her position in ORG ... ”

When asked by the judge what the Commissioner had said to the police officer , PERSON responded :

“ She said : ' You – go up on to the stage and say that the congregation has to disperse ' . ”

Mr GPE approached the Commissioner and the police officers . As he was standing in the doorway with his back to the meeting hall , the police officer PERSON asked him for his identity papers . He also asked PERSON whether he had a registered residence in GPE . PERSON testified before ORG as follows :

“ So I asked him [ GPE ] to show me his passport . It showed that he was registered in LOC . I told him that he did not have the right to conduct arrangements without documents ” .

Mr GPE submitted that that statement had been incorrect ; it was true that his registered place of birth was in LOC , but he also had a properly and lawfully registered temporary residence in GPE .

In his testimony before ORG , PERSON continued as follows :

“ I told GPE that their organisation did not have the right to conduct its activities without the appropriate documents . He promised to bring the documents to the police station . I asked him to produce the documents . He said ' They exist and are elsewhere ' , but which documents and where he did not say . I asked him for a document confirming his relationship to the organisation ... ”

Responding to the judge 's question about the violations of law and order that he had observed , PERSON said :

“ Yes , to start with a meeting of an organisation whose activities could not be confirmed by any documents ... By law I had to stop the activities until the documents were produced . ”

This was confirmed by the police officer Mr PERSON who spoke as follows before ORG :

“ PERSON said that the meeting should no longer be conducted and that documents should be prepared giving permission [ for services of worship in educational establishments ] . ”

In their written submissions on the admissibility and merits of the case , the Government indicated that PERSON PERSON had invited Mr Kuznetsov to cancel all events until such time as the appropriate documents had been produced .

Mr GPE submitted that he had been faced with authoritarian demands and the intimidating behaviour of the Commissioner and the police and had thought it best to comply . He described the situation in the following manner :

“ I believe that we were conducting the meetings on a lawful basis . Pressure was being put on me . PERSON gave me an official warning . I was afraid they would start removing those present at the meeting by force . PERSON and PERSON were in uniform . I understood that they were in a position of authority and must be obeyed ... ”

Mr GPE went to the platform , interrupted the Bible discussion and made an announcement in sign language : “ Police . We have to submit ” . The attendees offered no resistance . They gathered their personal belongings and filed out of the meeting place and the foyer . The Commissioner and the police officers stood outside the building and watched ; PERSON was no longer filming .

According to the applicants , the Commissioner came up with several conflicting and mutually exclusive versions of her role in the events . Initially she maintained that the visit had been purely for the purpose of fact - finding ; that neither she nor the police had done anything to cause the meeting to be stopped ; and that Mr Kuznetsov had stopped the meeting entirely of his own free will . As the case progressed and more evidence was heard from eyewitnesses who testified to the part played by her and the police , the Commissioner eventually admitted that steps had indeed been taken to stop the meeting ; however , she blamed the police . She insisted that she had made no demands to Mr GPE as the operation had been organised and carried out by the police officials . At the trial , however , she was pressed to say that she had agreed with and supported the police decision . Finally , in explaining her agreement with the police decision and when pressed as to why , as Chairwoman of ORG , she had given her agreement , she gave the following answer :

“ I still consider these actions to be lawful – I was defending the rights of all the children who study at college no . CARDINAL .

[ Question : ] In which documents is information about the danger of GPE 's Witnesses to the neighbourhood contained ?

[ The Commissioner : ] As far as I 'm concerned , the reports in the press are sufficient . ”

On DATE , DATE after the disruption of the religious meeting , the principal of college no . CARDINAL informed PERSON that the lease agreement between the college and the community of GPE 's Witnesses would be terminated as of CARDINAL DATE “ because of certain irregularities committed by the college administration at the time of its signing ” .

On an unspecified date the applicants complained to the GPE town prosecutor about the actions of the Commissioner and the police officers . They requested a criminal investigation into the officials ' actions .

The prosecutor 's office put questions to the Commissioner , Mr PERSON and PERSON PERSON . In their written statements of CARDINAL DATE the officials claimed that they had investigated a complaint by a DATE girl who had been “ lured ” into the GPE 's Witnesses “ sect ” . The Commissioner stated that “ PERSON and PERSON [ had ] decided to halt the event , which was being held by an unknown organisation in sign language ” . PERSON did not deny that he had asked PERSON for documents and told him that the event would be halted until such time as they had been produced . Mr PERSON testified in the same vein . As to the lawfulness of their actions , all CARDINAL officials claimed that , as it was not registered with the ORG as a legal entity , the GPE community of GPE 's Witnesses had no right to hold religious services and that the lease agreement with the college principal had been null and void .

On an unspecified date the prosecutor 's office decided not to institute criminal proceedings against the Commissioner and the police officers .

On DATE the applicants filed a civil complaint with ORG of GPE alleging unlawful actions on the part of the Commissioner .

On DATE the applicants amended their complaint and joined Mr Tomskiy , PERSON , Mr PERSON and PERSON , deputy head of the PERSON police department , as co - defendants . The applicants alleged violations of their rights to freedom of religion and freedom of association , as guaranteed both by LAW and the Convention .

During the trial the presiding judge did not consent to the use of audio - recording equipment provided by the applicants ' lawyers . However , this injunction applied only to advocates and CARDINAL of the applicants was able to record the trial on a personal audio recorder .

On DATE ORG of PERSON gave judgment . It found it established that the Commissioner , PERSON , Mr PERSON and Mr PERSON had arrived at college no . CARDINAL on DATE on a fact - finding mission to check whether a religious meeting had been taking place there . However , as it had been Mr GPE who had got up on the stage and announced , in sign language , that the meeting was to end , ORG found that the applicants had failed to show that the religious meeting had been terminated on the defendants ' orders . As regards the assessment of the evidence given by the applicants , ORG held as follows :

“ Assessing the statements given by certain plaintiffs , and in particular by PERSON and PERSON , who claimed that they had heard PERSON giving the police officers the instruction to halt the meeting and that they , in turn , had relayed it to Mr GPE ... the court takes into account the fact that these individuals are interested in the outcome of the proceedings and , for that reason , the court views their submissions critically ...

During the trial , none of the ORG officials ... admitted to taking action to halt the meeting ; their position concurs with the witness statements given by many of the plaintiffs , who confirmed that they had not entered the hall but remained in the foyer ” .

ORG dismissed the applicants ' complaint for their failure to prove that the early termination of the meeting had been brought about by the Commissioner and her aides .

The applicants filed a statement of appeal . They pointed to multiple admissions by the Commissioner and the police officers , before ORG and in their statements to the prosecutor dated DATE , that they had instructed PERSON to terminate the meeting . They also submitted that the concordant statements of CARDINAL applicants could not be rejected as those of “ interested witnesses ” and that ORG had not specified what the applicants ' “ interest ” had been , given that no claim for damages had been filed .

On DATE ORG , ruling on an appeal by the applicants , upheld the judgment of DATE . ORG repeated verbatim the reasoning of ORG . It did not address the arguments set out in the statement of appeal .

The applicants also complained about the actions of the regional Commissioner to PERSON , Ombudsman of GPE .

On DATE the ORG sent a letter to Mr PERSON , ORG . The ORG strongly condemned the use of derogatory terms such as “ sect ” and “ totalitarian sect ” in the documents issued by ORG officials . In its relevant part the letter read as follows :

“ ... In particular , the letter from the deputy Prosecutor General , PERSON . PERSON , to the Chairwoman of ORG in GPE , PERSON . V.Gorina , was widely distributed ... It recommended using as reference material on the activity of the Jehovah 's Witnesses the book An Introduction to Sectarianism by A. Dworkin , and the handbook GPE and Occult - Related Religious Organisations in GPE , prepared by ORG of the Moscow Patriarchate [ of ORG ] ...

The publication referred to in the letter is highly condemnatory in respect of certain faiths . It reflects the judgment of CARDINAL religious organisation about others and its contents serve to prove the ' authenticity ' of CARDINAL religion and the ' falseness ' of the other(s ) ...

The situation is further aggravated by the fact that PERSON 's letter was used in trials where it was portrayed as reflecting the official stance taken by ORG of GPE . For example , in GPE , in the course of examination of a complaint by the local community of GPE 's Witnesses against the Chairwoman of ORG , the latter constantly referred to PERSON 's book as a handbook recommended by ORG that contained reliable information on the activity of so - called destructive sects , including the community of GPE 's Witnesses . This was used to justify the extremely heavy - handed conduct of the municipal authorities towards the GPE 's Witnesses , in particular their breaking - up , with the aid of the police , of the believers ' prayer meeting being held on the LOC which they had been renting for an extended period of time . ”

Article CARDINAL guarantees freedom of religion , including the right to profess either alone or in community with others any religion or to profess no religion at all , to freely choose , have and share religious and other beliefs and to manifest them in practice .

The ORG may not interfere with the activities of religious associations provided that they comply with the law ( section CARDINAL § CARDINAL ) . ORG and other public officials may not use their position to foster any specific attitude towards a religion ( section CARDINAL § CARDINAL ) .

Religious associations may take the form of either a religious group or a religious organisation ( section CARDINAL § CARDINAL ) . A religious group carries on its activities without ORG registration and without obtaining legal entity status ( section CARDINAL § CARDINAL ) . The right to use rented property for religious purposes is conferred only on registered religious organisations ; religious groups may only use premises provided by participants ( section CARDINAL ) .

Services of worship and other religious rites and ceremonies may be performed without interference in buildings and structures intended for worship and their adjacent areas , and in other LOC made available to religious organisations for these purposes ( section CARDINAL § CARDINAL ) .

A court of general jurisdiction may hear complaints about actions or decisions of ORG and public officials which infringe citizens ' rights or freedoms or prevent citizens from exercising their rights and freedoms . It is incumbent on the officials concerned to demonstrate the lawfulness of their actions or decisions ( section CARDINAL ) .

LAW prohibits structural units of political parties , political and religious movements and organisations from being set up and operated in GPE and municipal educational establishments and education management bodies ( section CARDINAL § CARDINAL ) .

An educational establishment may lease and rent out property . Rental income must be used for educational needs ( section CARDINAL § CARDINAL ) .

On DATE a deputy President of ORG ruled on the complaint brought by the local authorities of PERSON against an elder of the local community of GPE 's Witnesses who had allegedly failed to give notice of a religious meeting to the local authorities :

“ ... according to LAW on freedom of conscience and religious associations , the phrase ' without obstruction ' means that no permission from , or clearing of the matter with , the secular authorities is required for performing religious ceremonies on premises provided [ for that purpose ] . ”

On DATE a deputy President of ORG ruled on a similar complaint brought by the authorities of ORG against a GPE 's Witness in connection with an allegedly unauthorised religious gathering :

“ According to LAW on freedom of conscience and religious associations , religious services and other religious rites and ceremonies can take place without any interference ... in other places made available to religious organisation for that purpose ... Therefore , the local religious organisation was not required to inform the ORG authority of its gathering . ”


Violation of Art. 3 (in case of extradition to Tajikistan);Violation of Art. 5-4;Violation of Art. 5-1;Remainder inadmissible;Non-pecuniary damage - award

Anatoly Kovler;Christos Rozakis;Dean Spielmann;Elisabeth Steiner;Giorgio Malinverni;Khanlar Hajiyev

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE , GPE . He is currently residing in GPE .

The applicant is a practising NORP . He states that he has not been a member of any political organisations , including PERSON ut - GPE ( “ ORG ” ) , an NORP organisation banned in GPE , GPE and NORP republics , but has nonetheless been persecuted by the Tajikistani authorities on account of presumed membership of that organisation .

By a decision of CARDINAL DATE ORG instituted criminal proceedings against the applicant on account of his membership of “ the illegal extremist - religious party ' PERSON ” . The decision stated that the applicant had committed a number of serious and particularly serious crimes , namely , incitement to overthrow the political regime in NORP and dissemination of material containing incitement to religious hatred . On DATE ORG placed the applicant on a search list , drew up an arrest warrant in his name and suspended the investigation because the applicant 's whereabouts were unknown .

The applicant fled to GPE in DATE .

DATE and DATE the applicant was kept in detention in GPE with a view to his extradition . He was subsequently released because no formal request for his extradition was received .

The applicant registered his place of residence in GPE with the relevant authorities .

On DATE the applicant was arrested by servicemen of ORG of ORG and police of LOC .

In TIME of CARDINAL DATE the applicant was questioned in the absence of a lawyer . The servicemen who carried out the interview threatened to use violence against the applicant and his family unless he voluntarily agreed to leave GPE for NORP . According to the applicant , he was not informed of the reasons for his arrest in the course of the interview . Neither did he have access to a lawyer during DATE in detention .

On DATE the Odintsovo Town Court of the Moscow Region ( “ the ORG ” ) ordered the applicant 's placement in custody pending his extradition . The term of detention was not specified .

DATE and DATE the applicant was kept in a temporary detention facility of ORG of the ORG . In the meantime his wife was expelled to NORP .

On DATE the Prosecutor General of NORP sent a request for the applicant 's extradition to ORG and enclosed a copy of the decision of DATE to charge the applicant with membership of a proscribed organisation and copies of the search and arrest warrants .

On DATE the Deputy Prosecutor General of GPE ordered the applicant 's extradition to NORP to face criminal prosecution . The order stated that the applicant had been charged with membership of a proscribed religious - extremist organisation and dissemination of material containing incitement to religious hatred .

The applicant challenged the extradition order of DATE in court .

On DATE ORG upheld the order of DATE . It reasoned that there were no legal grounds impeding the applicant 's extradition to NORP because the applicant was a NORP national and his request for political asylum had been rejected . The applicant 's claims that he was not guilty of the crimes of which he had been charged had been examined and dismissed “ on the ground that issues of falsification of charges in his respect by law - enforcement agencies of NORP [ were ] not subject to examination in the course of [ that ] court hearing ” . It further stated that allegations of persecution on religious grounds had not been confirmed by reliable evidence , and concluded as follows :

“ [ Mr ] PERSON does not have refugee status in GPE , has not been and is not being persecuted on grounds of his race , religion , citizenship , nationality or association with a particular group [ and ] has not applied for NORP citizenship or political asylum . ”

On DATE ORG of GPE examined an appeal by the applicant against the judgment of CARDINAL DATE and dismissed it , reproducing the reasoning of ORG verbatim .

On DATE the applicant lodged a request for political asylum with ORG of ORG ( “ the GPE FMS ” ) .

On DATE the applicant requested protection from ORG of the ORG High Commissioner for Refugees ( “ the ORG ” ) . It appears that ORG staff were not allowed to visit the applicant over DATE .

On DATE the GPE ORG refused to grant the applicant political asylum . On an unspecified date the applicant was notified of that decision .

The applicant challenged the GPE ORG 's decision of DATE in court . On an unspecified date the ORG of GPE refused to admit the applicant 's statement of claim because he had failed to pay the court fee . The applicant appealed .

On DATE ORG quashed the decision of ORG of GPE and ordered it to admit the applicant 's statement of claim with no court fee . It appears that the proceedings challenging ORG decision are now pending before ORG of GPE .

On DATE ORG staff interviewed the applicant .

On DATE an investigator from ORG , having obtained a prosecutor 's approval , issued an arrest warrant in respect of the applicant .

In DATE the applicant arrived in GPE illegally looking for well - paid employment . During DATE the applicant filed no request to register himself as a temporary resident with NORP migration offices . Neither did he lodge a request for asylum . The applicant did not have a migration card .

On DATE the applicant was arrested in GPE pursuant to LAW as a person put on an international wanted list .

On DATE the applicant was released from custody because no request for his extradition had been received .

On DATE ORG requested ORG to extradite the applicant .

On DATE the NORP police were instructed to search for the applicant .

On DATE the applicant was arrested by servicemen of ORG and the police .

On DATE the applicant was questioned by an official of the PERSON prosecutor 's office . The written statement signed by the applicant certified that he was fluent in LANGUAGE and did not need an interpreter . The statement reads , in so far as relevant , as follows :

“ ... I am aware of the fact that my name has been put on a wanted list in NORP . I can not give any details concerning the criminal case against me in NORP . The investigative documents from NORP that I have been provided with contain my personal data but I did not commit the crimes mentioned in them . I can not submit more information on the substance of the criminal case against me .

... I am not being persecuted in NORP for political reasons . I am a NORP national and I have not applied for political asylum or refugee status to any agencies , consulates , embassies or representative offices . ”

On DATE ORG held the hearing and examined the PERSON prosecutor 's office 's request to authorise the applicant 's placement in custody pending extradition . The request that mentioned the fact that the applicant had been suspected of serious and particularly serious crimes in NORP was read out in the courtroom . In the document entitled “ Decision concerning the choice of custodial detention as a preventive measure ” ORG observed that the applicant was suspected of creating a criminal organisation , inciting to racial and religious hatred and calling for the overthrow of the NORP constitutional regime and ordered the applicant 's placement in custody pursuant to ORG . ORG reasoned that the applicant was a foreign national , had no permanent employment or place of residence and , unless detained , might abscond , continue his illegal activities or interfere with the course of criminal proceedings . The applicant was advised of his right to appeal against the decision before ORG within DATE .

On DATE ORG requested ORG to extradite the applicant as a person charged with terrorism - related crimes .

On DATE ORG ordered the applicant 's placement in custody pending extradition pursuant to ORG and CARDINAL of the ORG . The document was entitled “ Decision concerning the choice of custodial detention as a preventive measure ” . The applicant was advised of his right to appeal against the decision before ORG within DATE .

The applicant did not appeal against ORG decisions of DATE and DATE .

On DATE the applicant argued for the first time that in NORP he had been persecuted on political grounds in his letters to ORG and ORG .

On DATE the NORP Deputy Prosecutor General granted ORG request and ordered the applicant 's extradition . The applicant was advised of his right to appeal against the order within DATE .

On DATE the applicant appealed against the extradition order .

On DATE the GPE ORG received the applicant 's request for temporary asylum .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant 's appeal against the extradition order .

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

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant 's appeal and upheld the judgment of CARDINAL DATE . On DATE the applicant was served with the appeal court 's decision .

On DATE ORG received the applicant 's counsel 's request to allow ORG staff to visit the applicant . A request made by ORG reached ORG only on DATE . The request did not contain the personal details of the staff in question . As soon as those details had been communicated by ORG , ORG issued a permit to visit the applicant .

On an unspecified date ORG informed the prosecutor 's office of LOC that the applicant was eligible for international protection .

On DATE the applicant requested the GPE FMS to grant him refugee status .

On DATE officials of the GPE ORG visited the applicant in the remand prison and interviewed him .

The applicant was provided with ample opportunities to substantiate his fears of persecution in NORP . He was interviewed by ORG officials in this respect on several occasions .

On DATE the GPE FMS , having thoroughly studied the applicant 's request , dismissed it and refused to declare the applicant a refugee . The applicant appealed against that decision .

On DATE the ORG of GPE refused to admit the applicant 's appeal against the GPE ORG 's decision of DATE and invited the applicant to eliminate the discrepancies in his appeal by DATE .

On DATE the ORG of GPE ruled that the applicant 's appeal against ORG decision should not be examined because the applicant had failed to eliminate the discrepancies referred to in the ruling of DATE .

On DATE the applicant 's request for temporary asylum was dismissed .

On DATE ORG quashed the ruling of DATE and remitted the matter for fresh examination at first instance .

On DATE the ORG of GPE dismissed the applicant 's appeal against the GPE ORG 's decision of DATE .

LAW ORG governs the application of preventive measures . Placement in custody is a preventive measure applied on the basis of a court decision to a person suspected of or charged with a crime punishable with DATE imprisonment where it is impossible to apply a more lenient preventive measure ( LAW ) . A request for placement in custody should be lodged by a prosecutor ( or an investigator or inquirer with a prosecutor 's prior approval ) LAW CARDINAL § CARDINAL ) . The request should be examined by a judge of a district court or a military court of a corresponding level ( LAW ) . A judge 's decision on placement in custody may be challenged before an appeal court within DATE ( Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL ) . The period of detention pending investigation of a crime can not exceed DATE ( LAW ) but may be extended DATE by a judge of a district court or a military court of a corresponding level ( LAW ) . Further extensions up to DATE may be granted on an investigator 's request approved by a prosecutor of GPE only if the person is charged with serious or particularly serious criminal offences ( LAW ) .

LAW ORG lays down the procedure by which acts or decisions of a court or public official involved in criminal proceedings may be challenged . Acts or omissions of a police officer in charge of the inquiry , an investigator , a prosecutor or a court may be challenged by “ parties to criminal proceedings ” or by “ other persons in so far as the acts and decisions [ in question ] touch upon those persons ' interests ” ( LAW ) . Those acts or omissions may be challenged before a prosecutor ( LAW ) . Decisions taken by police or prosecution investigators or prosecutors not to initiate criminal proceedings , or to discontinue them , or any other decision or inaction capable of impinging upon the rights of “ parties to criminal proceedings ” or of “ hindering an individual 's access to court ” may be subject to judicial review ( LAW ) .

Upon receipt of a request for extradition not accompanied by an arrest warrant issued by a foreign court , ORG or his deputy is to decide on the measure of restraint in respect of the person whose extradition is sought . The measure of restraint is to be applied in accordance with the established procedure ( LAW ) .

ORG examined the compatibility of LAW ORG with LAW and reiterated its constant case - law that excessive or arbitrary detention , unlimited in time and without appropriate review , was incompatible with LAW in all cases , including extradition proceedings .

In ORG view , the guarantees of the right to liberty and personal integrity set out in DATE and LAW , as well as the legal norms of LAW of the ORG on preventive measures , were fully applicable to detention with a view to extradition . Accordingly , LAW ORG did not allow the authorities to apply a custodial measure without complying with the procedure established in the ORG , or in excess of the time - limits fixed therein .

The Prosecutor General asked ORG for an official clarification of its decision no . CARDINAL-O of DATE ( see above ) , for the purpose , in particular , of elucidating the procedure for extending a person 's detention with a view to extradition .

ORG dismissed the request on the ground that it was not competent to indicate specific criminal - law provisions governing the procedure and time - limits for holding a person in custody with a view to extradition . That was a matter for the courts of general jurisdiction .

In this decision ORG reiterated that LAW ORG did not imply that detention of a person on the basis of an extradition request did not have to comply with the terms and time - limits provided for in the legislation on criminal procedure .

By a decision ( решение ) of DATE ORG of GPE granted ORG request and classified a number of international and regional organisations as terrorist organisations , including ORG ( also known as ORG ) , and prohibited their activity in the territory of GPE . It held in relation to ORG that it aimed to overthrow non - NORP governments and to establish “ NORP governance on an international scale by reviving a Worldwide NORP Caliphate ” , in the first place in the regions with predominantly NORP populations , including GPE and other members of ORG .

Recommendation No . R ( CARDINAL ) CARDINAL of ORG on the rights of rejected asylum seekers to an effective remedy against decisions on expulsion in the context of LAW reads as follows :

“ Without prejudice to the exercise of any right of rejected asylum seekers to appeal against a negative decision on their asylum request , as recommended , among others , in ORG No . R ( CARDINAL ) CARDINAL of ORG ... ,

An effective remedy before a national authority should be provided for any asylum seeker , whose request for refugee status is rejected and who is subject to expulsion to a country about which that person presents an arguable claim that he or she would be subjected to torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment .

NORP In applying paragraph CARDINAL of this recommendation , a remedy before a national authority is considered effective when : ...

that authority has competence both to decide on the existence of the conditions provided for by LAW and to grant appropriate relief ; ...

the execution of the expulsion order is suspended until a decision under CARDINAL is taken . ”

ORG for Human Rights issued a Recommendation ( CommDH(CARDINAL)CARDINAL ) on DATE concerning the rights of aliens wishing to enter a ORG Member ORG and the enforcement of expulsion orders , part of which reads as follows :

“ CARDINAL . It is essential that the right of judicial remedy within the meaning of LAW ORG be not only guaranteed in law but also granted in practice when a person alleges that the competent authorities have contravened or are likely to contravene a right guaranteed by the ORG . The right of effective remedy must be guaranteed to anyone wishing to challenge a refoulement or expulsion order . It must be capable of suspending enforcement of an expulsion order , at least where contravention of ORG CARDINAL or CARDINAL of the ORG is alleged . ”

For other relevant documents , see the ORG 's judgment in the case of NORP [ PERSON ] v. GPE , no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , § § DATE , ORG DATE ...

DATE . When performing actions requested under LAW , to which GPE and GPE are parties , a requested official body applies its country 's domestic laws ( LAW ) .

Upon receipt of a request for extradition the requested country should immediately take measures to search for and arrest the person whose extradition is sought , except in cases where no extradition is possible ( Article CARDINAL ) .

NORP The person whose extradition is sought may be arrested before receipt of a request for extradition if there is a related petition . The petition must contain a reference to a detention order and indicate that a request for extradition will follow ( LAW ) . If the person is arrested or placed in detention before receipt of the extradition request , the requesting country must be informed immediately ( LAW ) .

NORP The person detained pending extradition pursuant to LAW CARDINAL of LAW must be released if the requesting country fails to submit an official request for extradition with all requisite supporting documents within DATE from the date of placement in custody ( Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL ) .

Conclusions and Recommendations : NORP , issued by ORG on DATE ( CAT / C / TJK / CO/CARDINAL ) , refer to the following areas of concern regarding the human - rights situation in the country :

“ The definition of torture provided in domestic law ... is not fully in conformity with the definition in LAW , particularly regarding purposes of torture and its applicability to all public officials and others acting in an official capacity .

There are numerous allegations concerning the widespread routine use of torture and ill - treatment by law enforcement and investigative personnel , particularly to extract confessions to be used in criminal proceedings . Further , there is an absence of preventive measures to ensure effective protection of all members of society from torture and ill treatment .

The ORG is also concerned at :

( a ) The lack of a legal obligation to register detainees immediately upon loss of liberty , including before their formal arrest and arraignment on charges , the absence of adequate records regarding the arrest and detention of persons , and the lack of regular independent medical examinations ;

( b ) Numerous and continuing reports of hampered access to legal counsel , independent medical expertise and contacts with relatives in the period immediately following arrest , due to current legislation and actual practice allowing a delay before registration of an arrest and conditioning access on the permission or request of officials ;

( c ) Reports that unlawful restrictions of access to lawyers , doctors and family by ORG agents are not investigated or perpetrators duly punished ;

( d ) The lack of fundamental guarantees to ensure judicial supervision of detentions , as the ORG is also empowered to exercise such oversight ;

( e ) The extensive resort to pretrial detention that may last DATE ; and

( f ) The high number of deaths in custody .

There are continuing and reliable allegations concerning the frequent use of interrogation methods that are prohibited by the LAW by both law enforcement officials and investigative bodies .

There are reports that there is no systematic review of all places of detention , by national or international monitors , and that regular and unannounced access to such places is not permitted . ”

Amnesty International in its document “ LOC : Summary of Human Rights Concerns : DATE ” describes the situation regarding freedom of religion in NORP as follows :

“ Members of religious minorities and human rights defenders were concerned that decisions taken by the authorities restricted freedom of religion and belief . During DATE unregistered FAC were closed down or demolished in the capital , GPE . ... A proposed new law on religion raised fears that unregistered religious activity would be banned . The draft law proposed stringent registration requirements which would make it very difficult for religious minorities to apply or re - apply for legal status . It also proposed to limit the number of registered places of worship and to ban missionary activity . Pending the adoption of the new law the government was not accepting new applications for legal status from religious groups .

In DATE ] ORG on freedom of religion or belief , PERSON , published a report on her visit to NORP earlier in DATE . The report 's conclusions emphasized the “ need to devise educational policies aimed at strengthening the promotion and protection of human rights and eradicating prejudices , which are incompatible with the freedom of religion or belief ” . The conclusions also stressed that registration procedures for religious groups should be straightforward and that “ [ ORG should not be a precondition for practising one 's religion ” . The Special Rapporteur recommended that the Tajikistani authorities ensure that “ any measure taken to combat acts of terrorism complies with their obligations under international law , in particular international human rights law , refugee law and humanitarian law . ” She stressed that “ an independent , neutral and impartial judiciary and prompt access to a lawyer [ were ] vital to safeguarding also the freedom of religion or belief of all individuals and religious communities ” .

The World Report Chapter : NORP by ORG , released in DATE , describes the human - rights situation in the country as follows :

“ Religious Freedom

At this writing , the government had not yet sent to parliament a controversial draft law on religion that had been sharply criticized in DATE . Under the draft law , all religious groups must reregister and meet such onerous conditions as providing the address of any person who , at any point during DATE , has been a member . The draft also prohibits foreigners from chairing religious organizations .

Actions in the Name of Countering Terrorism and Extremism

Following a recommendation by the prosecutor general , ORG designated PERSON , a group that supports the reestablishment of the ORG , or NORP state , by peaceful means , an " extremist " organization . The government continued to arrest alleged PERSON ut - GPE members and convict them either of sedition or incitement to racial , ethnic , or religious hatred , often simply for possessing the organization 's leaflets .

Torture and Deaths in Custody

NORP 's definition of torture does not comply fully with ORG recommendations to the country in DATE . In a positive move , in DATE the Criminal Procedure Code was amended to make evidence obtained under torture inadmissible in court proceedings .

Experts agree that in most cases there is impunity for rampant torture in NORP . In CARDINAL of the few cases that reached the courts , CARDINAL policemen in GPE province were convicted in DATE for ill - treating minors ; CARDINAL of the CARDINAL received a DATE prison sentence , and the other a suspended sentence .

NGOs and local media reported CARDINAL deaths in custody in DATE , including the death from cancer of the ex - deputy chair of ORG Revival PERSON . The party alleged his arrest in DATE was politically motivated and claimed that his life could have been saved had he been allowed to undergo surgery .

In DATE decision ( PERSON v. NORP ) ORG found that NORP violated the rights , including freedom from torture , of CARDINAL applicants , CARDINAL of them minors when they were arrested . NORP failed to cooperate with the committee 's consideration of the complaint . Similar violations were established in DATE decision ( NORP and GPE v. NORP ) ” .

The DATE GPE ORG on ORG , released on DATE , provides the following information in relation to NORP :

“ NORP ... is an authoritarian state , and political life is dominated by President PERSON and his supporters ...

The government 's human rights record remained poor , and corruption continued to hamper democratic and social reform . The following human rights problems were reported : ... torture and abuse of detainees and other persons by security forces ; threats and abuse by security forces ; impunity of security forces ; lengthy pretrial detention ; denial of right to fair trial ; harsh and life - threatening prison conditions ; prohibited international monitor access to prisons ; ... restrictions on freedom of religion , including freedom to worship ; ...

The law prohibits ... practices [ of torture and other cruel , inhuman , or degrading treatment or punishment ] ; however , security officials reportedly employed them . Officials did not grant sufficient access to information to allow human rights organizations to investigate claims of torture .

Security officials , particularly from ORG ( ORG ) , continued to use beatings or other forms of coercion to extract confessions during interrogations . Beatings and other mistreatment were common also in detention facilities . A DATE study by ORG , a local NGO , credibly found a bias in the criminal justice system toward law enforcement officials exacting confessions from those who are arrested . Articles in the criminal code do not specifically define torture , and the country 's law enforcement agencies have not developed effective methods to investigate possible violators .

ORG ( ORG ) continued to refuse access to prisons or detention facilities to representatives of the international community and civil society seeking to investigate claims of harsh treatment or conditions . Some foreign diplomatic missions and NGOs were given access to implement assistance programs or carry out consular functions , but their representatives were limited to administrative or medical sections , and they were accompanied by ministry of justice personnel . The government has not signed an agreement with ORG ( ICRC ) to allow free and unhindered access to prisons and detention centers , and ORG 's international monitoring staff has not returned to the country since departing in DATE .

During DATE detainees and inmates complained of harsh and life - threatening conditions , including overcrowding and lack of sanitary conditions . Disease and hunger were serious problems , but outside observers were unable to assess accurately the extent of the problems because of lack of access . Organizations that work on prison issues reported that infection rates of tuberculosis and HIV was significant , and that the quality of medical treatment was low .

The government has not substantially altered LAW ( ORG ) since the NORP period , and the criminal justice system failed to protect individuals from arbitrary arrest or detention . There were few checks on the power of prosecutors and police to make arrests .

Victims of police abuse may submit a formal complaint in writing to the officer 's superior . However , most victims chose to remain silent rather than risk retaliation by the authorities .

Prosecutors are empowered to issue arrest warrants , and there is no requirement for judicial approval of an order for pretrial detention . The law allows police to detain a suspect without a warrant in certain circumstances , but a prosecutor must be notified within TIME of arrest . Pretrial detention may last DATE in exceptional circumstances . Local prosecutors may order pretrial detention for DATE ; subsequent detentions must be ordered by progressively higher level prosecutors . A defendant may petition for judicial review of a detention order . However , judges rarely questioned detention decisions , and observers regarded this review as a formality .

Individuals have the right to an attorney upon arrest , and the government must appoint lawyers for those who can not otherwise afford CARDINAL . In practice the government did not always provide attorneys , and those it did provide generally served the government 's interest , not the client 's . There is no bail system , although criminal case detainees may be released conditionally and restricted to their place of residence pending trial . According to the law , family members are allowed access to prisoners only after indictment ; officials occasionally denied attorneys and family members access to detainees . The authorities held many detainees incommunicado for long periods without formally charging them .

Although the law provides for an independent judiciary , in practice the executive branch and criminal networks exerted pressure on prosecutors and judges . Corruption and inefficiency were significant problems .

PERSON gives the prosecutor a disproportionate degree of power in relation to judges and defense advocates . This power includes control of the formal investigation and oversight of the entire case proceedings . " Supervisory powers " provided by law allow prosecutors to protest a court decision outside of normal appeal procedures . Prosecutors effectively can cause court decisions to be annulled and reexamined by higher courts indefinitely after appeal periods have expired . These powers are an impediment to establishing an independent judiciary .

The president is empowered to appoint and dismiss judges and prosecutors with the consent of parliament . Judges at all levels often were poorly trained and had extremely limited access to legal reference materials . Low wages for judges and prosecutors left them vulnerable to bribery , which remained a common practice . Judges were subject to political influence .

Trials are public , except in cases involving national security . The authorities have denied access to monitoring organizations to trials without cause . A panel consisting of a presiding judge and CARDINAL " people 's assessors " determines guilt or innocence . Qualifications of the assessors and how they are determined is unclear , but their role is passive , and the presiding judge dominates the proceedings .

According to the law , cases should be brought before a judge within DATE after indictment ; however , most cases were delayed for DATE . Under the law , courts appoint attorneys at public expense ; however , in practice authorities often denied arrested persons access to an attorney .

Those who were indicted were invariably found guilty . Judges often gave deference to uncorroborated testimony of law enforcement officers , especially members of the [ ORG ] , and often discounted the absence of physical evidence .

According to the law both defendants and attorneys have the right to review all government evidence , confront and question witnesses , and present evidence and testimony . No groups are barred from testifying , and , in principle , all testimony receives equal consideration . The law provides for the right to appeal . The law extends the rights of defendants in trial procedures to all citizens .

The constitution provides for freedom of religion ; however , in practice the government continued to impose restrictions and respect for religious freedom continued to deteriorate .

ORG , a committee of NORP clergy , provides interpretations of religious practice that imams throughout the country are required to follow . While the council is officially an independent religious body , in practice it is heavily influenced by the government . ORG ( ORG ) at ORG is responsible for general regulation of all religious organizations . The ORG , in consultation with local authorities , registers and approves all religious places of worship . For NORP , the ORG controls all aspects of participation in the hajj , including choosing participants . President PERSON established a ORG during DATE to guide religious policy .

The government continued to impose limitations on personal conduct and to restrict activities of religious groups that it considered " threats to national security . " ... Government officials visited mosques on a regular basis to monitor activities , observe those who attended the mosques , and examined audio and video materials for evidence of extremist and antigovernment material . The ORG continued to test imams on their religious knowledge and to ensure they followed official positions on religious issues .

Government concerns about foreign influence resulted in restrictive measures against minority religious groups . The government continued its ban on ORG [ Hizb utTahrir ] , which it classified as an extremist NORP political movement , and authorities introduced restrictive measures against another NORP group , the NORP . ... ”


Preliminary objection rejected (non-exhaustion);Preliminary objection rejected (victim);Violation of Art. 8;No violation of Art. 3;Pecuniary damage - financial award;Non-pecuniary damage - financial award;Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings

PERSON , a NORP national , lives in PERSON ( GPE ) .

At the material time she and her husband and their CARDINAL daughters had their home in the district of " Diputación del Rio , PERSON " , QUANTITY from the town centre .

ORG The town of PERSON has a heavy concentration of leather industries . Several tanneries there , all belonging to a limited company called ORG , had a plant for the treatment of liquid and solid waste built with a ORG subsidy on municipal land QUANTITY away from the applicant ’s home .

ORG The plant began to operate in DATE without the licence ( licencia ) from the municipal authorities required by LAW on activities classified as causing nuisance and being unhealthy , noxious and dangerous ( " LAW " ) , and without having followed the procedure for obtaining such a licence ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

Owing to a malfunction , its start - up released gas fumes , pestilential smells and contamination , which immediately caused health problems and nuisance to many PERSON people , particularly those living in the applicant ’s district . The town council evacuated the local residents and rehoused them free of charge in the town centre for DATE , DATE and DATE . In DATE the applicant and her family returned to their flat and lived there until DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

ORG On DATE , following numerous complaints and in the light of reports from the health authorities and ORG ( GPE para el ORG y la Naturaleza ) for the GPE region , the town council ordered cessation of CARDINAL of the plant ’s activities - the settling of chemical and organic residues in water tanks ( lagunaje ) - while permitting the treatment of waste water contaminated with chromium to continue .

There is disagreement as to what the effects were of this partial shutdown , but it can be seen from the expert opinions and written evidence of DATE , produced before the ORG by the ORG and the applicant ( see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) , that certain nuisances continue and may endanger the health of those living nearby .

ORG Having attempted in vain to get the municipal authority to find a solution , PERSON lodged an application on DATE with ORG , seeking protection of her fundamental rights ( section CARDINAL of PERSON CARDINAL/CARDINAL of DATE on the protection of fundamental rights ( " PERSON CARDINAL/CARDINAL " ) - see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) . She complained , inter alia , of an unlawful interference with her home and her peaceful enjoyment of it , a violation of her right to choose freely her place of residence , attacks on her physical and psychological integrity , and infringements of her liberty and her safety ( Articles CARDINAL , CARDINAL para . CARDINAL , CARDINAL para . CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the LAW - see paragraph CARDINAL below ) on account of the municipal authorities’ passive attitude to the nuisance and risks caused by the waste - treatment plant . She requested the court to order temporary or permanent cessation of its activities .

ORG The court took evidence from several witnesses offered by the applicant and instructed the regional Environment and ORG to give an opinion on the plant ’s operating conditions and location . In a report of DATE the agency noted that at the time of its expert ’s visit on DATE the plant ’s sole activity was the treatment of waste water contaminated with chromium , but that the remaining waste also flowed through its tanks before being discharged into the river , generating foul smells . It therefore concluded that the plant had not been built in the most suitable location .

ORG endorsed PERSON application . However , the Audiencia Territorial found against her on DATE . It held that although the plant ’s operation could unquestionably cause nuisance because of the smells , fumes and noise , it did not constitute a serious risk to the health of the families living in its vicinity but , rather , impaired their quality of life , though not enough to infringe the fundamental rights claimed . In any case , the municipal authorities , who had taken measures in respect of the plant , could not be held liable . The non - possession of a licence was not an issue to be examined in the special proceedings instituted in this instance , because it concerned a breach of the ordinary law .

ORG On DATE PERSON lodged an appeal with ORG Tribunal Supremo - see paragraph CARDINAL below in fine ) . She maintained that a number of witnesses and experts had indicated that the plant was a source of polluting fumes , pestilential and irritant smells and repetitive noise that had caused both her daughter and herself health problems . As regards the municipal authorities’ liability , the decision of LOC appeared to be incompatible with the general supervisory powers conferred on mayors by LAW , especially where the activity in question was carried on without a licence ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . Regard being had to Article CARDINAL para . CARDINAL ( article LAW , inter alia , the town council ’s attitude amounted to unlawful interference with her right to respect for her home and was also an attack on her physical integrity . Lastly , the applicant sought an order suspending the plant ’s operations .

ORG On DATE ORG at ORG filed pleadings to the effect that the situation complained of amounted to arbitrary and unlawful interference by the public authorities with the applicant ’s private and family life ( DATE the LAW taken together with LAW and CARDINAL - see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . The court should accordingly grant her application in view of the nuisance to which she was subjected and the deterioration in the quality of her life , both of which had moreover been acknowledged in the judgment of DATE . On CARDINAL March Crown Counsel supported the suspension application ( see paragraph CARDINAL above and paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

ORG In a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG dismissed the appeal . The impugned decision had been consistent with the constitutional provisions relied on , as no public official had entered the applicant ’s home or attacked her physical integrity . She was in any case free to move elsewhere . The failure to obtain a licence could only be considered in ordinary - law proceedings .

ORG On DATE PERSON lodged an appeal ( recurso de amparo ) with ORG , alleging violations of LAW ( right to physical integrity ) , LAW ( right to private life and to inviolability of the family home ) and LAW ( right to choose freely a place of residence ) of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

On DATE the court ruled that the appeal was inadmissible on the ground that it was manifestly ill - founded . It observed that the complaint based on a violation of the right to respect for private life had not been raised in the ordinary courts as it should have been . For the rest , it held that the presence of fumes , smells and noise did not itself amount to a breach of the right to inviolability of the home ; that the refusal to order closure of the plant could not be regarded as degrading treatment , since the applicant ’s life and physical integrity had not been endangered ; and that her right to choose her place of residence had not been infringed as she had not been expelled from her home by any authority .

ORG In DATE CARDINAL sisters - in - law of PERSON , who lived in the same building as her , brought proceedings against the municipality of PERSON and ORG in ORG of ORG ( Tribunal Superior de Justicia ) , alleging that the plant was operating unlawfully . On DATE the court , noting that the nuisance had continued after DATE and that the plant did not have the licences required by law , ordered that it should be closed until they were obtained ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . However , enforcement of this order was stayed following an appeal by the town council and ORG . The case is still pending in ORG .

ORG On DATE the applicant ’s CARDINAL sisters - in - law lodged a complaint , as a result of which Lorca investigating judge no . CARDINAL instituted criminal proceedings against ORG for an environmental health offence ( LAW - see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . The CARDINAL complainants joined the proceedings as civil parties .

DATE , the judge decided to close the plant , but on DATE the measure was suspended because of an appeal lodged by ORG on DATE .

ORG The judge ordered a number of expert opinions as to the seriousness of the nuisance caused by the waste - treatment plant and its effects on the health of those living nearby .

An initial report of CARDINAL DATE by a scientist from ORG who had a doctorate in chemistry stated that hydrogen sulphide ( a colourless gas , soluble in water , with a characteristic rotten - egg smell ) had been detected on the site in concentrations exceeding the permitted levels . The discharge of effluent containing sulphur into a river was said to be unacceptable . These findings were confirmed in a supplementary report of DATE .

In a report of CARDINAL DATE ORG stated that the levels of the gas probably exceeded the permitted limits but did not pose any danger to the health of people living close to the plant . In a second report of DATE the institute stated that it could not be ruled out that being in neighbouring houses TIME a day constituted a health risk as calculations had been based only on a period of TIME a day for DATE .

Lastly , the regional Environment and ORG , which had been asked to submit an expert opinion by the PERSON municipal authorities , concluded in a report of CARDINAL DATE that the level of noise produced by the plant when in operation did not exceed that measured in other parts of the town .

ORG The investigation file contains several medical certificates and expert opinions concerning the effects on the health of those living near the plant . In a certificate dated CARDINAL DATE PERSON , a paediatrician , stated that PERSON daughter , PERSON , presented a clinical picture of nausea , vomiting , allergic reactions , anorexia , etc . , which could only be explained by the fact that she was living in a highly polluted area . He recommended that the child should be moved from the area .

In an expert report of DATE ORG in GPE indicated that gas concentrations in houses near the plant exceeded the permitted limit . It noted that the applicant ’s daughter and her nephew , PERSON , presented typical symptoms of chronic absorption of the gas in question , periodically manifested in the form of acute bronchopulmonary infections . It considered that there was a relationship of cause and effect between this clinical picture and the levels of gas .

ORG In addition , it is apparent from the statements of CARDINAL police officers called to the neighbourhood of the plant by CARDINAL of the applicant ’s sisters - in - law on DATE that the smells given off were , at the time of their arrival , very strong and induced nausea .

ORG On DATE PERSON and her family were rehoused in a flat in the centre of PERSON , for which the municipality paid the rent .

The inconvenience resulting from this move and from the precariousness of their housing situation prompted the applicant and her husband to purchase a house in a different part of town on DATE .

ORG On DATE the judge confirmed the order of CARDINAL DATE and the plant was temporarily closed .

ORG The relevant Articles of the LAW provide :

" Everyone shall have the right to life and to physical and psychological integrity , without being subjected to torture or inhuman or degrading punishment or treatment under any circumstances . The death penalty shall be abolished except where it is provided for by military criminal law in time of war . "

" Everyone has the right to liberty and security . ... "

" CARDINAL . The right to honour and to private and family life and the right to control use of one ’s likeness shall be protected .

The home shall be inviolable . It may not be entered or searched without the consent of the person who lives there or a judicial decision , except in cases of flagrant offences . ... "

" NORP citizens shall have the right to choose freely their place of residence and to move around the national territory ... "

" CARDINAL . Everyone shall have the right to enjoy an environment suitable for personal development and the duty to preserve it .

The public authorities , relying on the necessary public solidarity , shall ensure that all natural resources are used rationally , with a view to safeguarding and improving the quality of life and protecting and restoring the environment .

Anyone who infringes the above provisions shall be liable to criminal or , where applicable , administrative penalties as prescribed by law and shall be required to make good any damage caused . "

Law CARDINAL/CARDINAL provides that certain fundamental rights shall be safeguarded by the ordinary courts . The rights protected in this way include inviolability of the home and freedom to choose one ’s place of residence ( section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) ) . However , under transitional provision CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the PERSON on ORG of DATE , its application is extended to the other rights secured in ORG DATE ) .

Complaints against decisions of administrative authorities affecting the rights of the individual may be lodged with the administrative division of the appropriate ordinary court ( section CARDINAL ) , without its first being necessary to exhaust the administrative remedies ( section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) ) . The procedure followed is an expedited one with shorter time - limits and exemption from certain procedural steps ( sections CARDINAL and CARDINAL ) .

In the writ the individual may apply to have the impugned decision stayed , and the court rules on such applications by means of a separate , summary procedure ( section CARDINAL ) .

An appeal lies to ORG ( section CARDINAL ) , which hears such appeals in expedited proceedings .

ORG In the field of environmental protection the ORG and the autonomous communities have enacted many provisions of different ranks in law : LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) ; PERSON CARDINAL/CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE on toxic and dangerous waste ; LAW Decree DATE on environmental impact assessment and LAW of DATE on atmospheric pollution control .

ORG The provisions most frequently relied on in the instant case are LAW on activities classified as causing nuisance and being unhealthy , noxious and dangerous approved in Decree CARDINAL/CARDINAL of DATE .

The purpose of this decree is to prevent plant , factories , activities , industries or warehouses , whether public or private , from causing nuisance , impairing normal environmental health and hygiene or damaging public or private property or entailing serious risks to persons or property ( Regulation CARDINAL ) . Regulation CARDINAL extends the scope of the regulations to cover noise , vibrations , fumes , gases , smells , etc .

Siting of the activities in question is governed by municipal by - laws and local development plans . At all events , factories deemed to be dangerous or unhealthy can not in principle be built QUANTITY from the nearest housing ( Regulation CARDINAL ) .

ORG The local mayor is empowered to issue licences for carrying on these activities , to supervise the application of the aforementioned provisions and to impose penalties where necessary ( LAW ) .

The procedure for obtaining such licences has several stages , including mandatory consultation of a provincial committee as to the suitability of the safety systems proposed by the applicant in his description of the project . Before the LOC are brought into use they must undergo a compulsory inspection by a local - authority technician ( Regulations CARDINAL - CARDINAL ) .

An appeal lies to the ordinary courts against decisions to grant or refuse licences ( Regulation CARDINAL ) .

When a nuisance occurs , the mayor may order the party responsible for it to take steps to eliminate it . If these are not taken within the time specified in the regulations , the mayor may , in the light of the expert opinions obtained and after hearing the person concerned , either impose a fine or temporarily or permanently withdraw the licence ( LAW ) .

ORG Article CARDINAL bis was added on DATE by the PERSON making urgent reforms to part of LAW ( CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) . It provides :

" Anyone who , in breach of environmental protection legislation or regulations , causes to be released or directly or indirectly releases into the atmosphere , the soil or ... waters emissions or discharges of any kind that are likely seriously to endanger human health or seriously to interfere with the conditions of animal life , forests , natural sites or cultivated areas , shall be liable to a sentence of CARDINAL months’ imprisonment ( arresto mayor ) and a fine of MONEY .

A more severe penalty ( TIME CARDINAL years’ imprisonment ) shall be imposed where an industrial plant is operating illegally , without having obtained the necessary administrative authorisations , or where express orders of the administrative authorities requiring modification or cessation of the polluting activities have not been complied with or where untrue information has been given about the GPE environmental impact , or where an inspection by the administrative authorities has been obstructed .

In all the cases referred to in this LAW , temporary or permanent closure of the establishment may be ordered ... "


Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Art. 6-1;Violation of P1-1;Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed;Non-pecuniary damage - award

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

The applicants took part in the cleaning - up operation at the GPE nuclear disaster site . They were registered disabled and became entitled to various social benefits , including food allowance .

On unspecified dates they sued the competent authorities for adjustment of the DATE food allowance in line with the inflation rate .

By CARDINAL separate judgments of CARDINAL DATE , one in favour of PERSON and another in favour of the remaining applicants , the ORG of LOC upheld their actions in part . The court ordered the local department of ORG to pay CARDINAL MONEY ( RUB ) to PERSON and RUB CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL to each of the remaining applicants in DATE disability pension payments , to be adjusted in accordance with legal requirements . The court further ordered the local welfare authority to provide DATE the ORG with the documents necessary to make the payments . It also awarded RUB PERSON Mr Pavlenko and RUB CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL to each of the CARDINAL other applicants in respect of the outstanding benefits , to be paid by ORG of GPE .

The judgments were not appealed against and became final on DATE .

The enforcement proceedings were opened and the lump sums and the DATE payments were made in accordance with these judgments . Thus , as from DATE all the applicants were receiving the DATE payments in good time . On DATE the applicants ( except for Mr Pavlenko ) received RUB CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL each . On DATE Mr Pavlenko received RUB CARDINAL due to him under the judgment of CARDINAL DATE .

On DATE ORG applied to ORG requesting to institute supervisory - review proceedings in respect of the judgments in the applicants ' favour .

On DATE the Presidium of ORG , by CARDINAL separate judgments , quashed the awards of CARDINAL DATE and remitted the cases for a fresh examination . The ORG found that the lower court had erred in applying the provisions of LAW . CARDINAL - CARDINAL “ On ORG as a Result of the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Station Explosion ” ( “ the Chernobyl Law ” ) and , as a result , incorrectly determined the defendant authority in the case . The ORG had not specified a due defendant .

NORP In DATE ORG discontinued the DATE payments in respect of food allowance due to the applicants under the quashed judgments . Instead , the authorities started to pay the applicants DATE disability benefits in accordance with the relevant legislation .

On DATE ORG discontinued the proceedings in all cases except for that of PERSON , due to the applicants ' failure to appear before the first instance court . On DATE the proceedings in Mr PERSON 's case were discontinued by ORG on the same ground .

In DATE ORG of GPE brought proceedings against all applicants claiming repayment of the lump sums they had received pursuant to the quashed judgments . On DATE ORG rejected the claim . It appears that the judgment was not appealed against and became final .

The relevant domestic law governing the supervisory review procedure at the material time is summed up in the ORG 's judgment in the case of GPE v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL , § CARDINAL , DATE ) .


The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

CARDINAL .

On DATE the applicant filed an action with ORG . He claimed the ownership and restitution of a motor car .

On DATE the applicant modified his claim and asked for leave to join another person as a defendant . ORG granted the request .

On DATE ORG remitted the case file to ORG which decided on the defendant 's appeal on DATE .

On DATE an expert was asked to prepare an opinion . The expert opinion was submitted on DATE .

On DATE ORG found that ORG had violated the applicant 's right under LAW to a hearing within a reasonable time .

ORG held that the case was not particularly complex and that the applicant by his conduct had not contributed to the length of the proceedings . Substantial delays imputable to ORG had occurred . The proceedings had lasted DATE and no decision had been delivered on the merits .

The Constitutional Court awarded CARDINAL NORP korunas ( SKK ) to the applicant as just satisfaction in respect of non - pecuniary damage . It also ordered ORG to avoid any further delay in the proceedings and to reimburse the applicant 's legal costs .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant 's claim . The applicant appealed .

On DATE ORG upheld the judgment . The decision became final on DATE .


The applicant , PERSON , is a GPE national , born in DATE and currently serving a sentence of life imprisonment in FAC Full GPE . He is represented before the ORG by PERSON , a solicitor practising in GPE .

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

The applicant had a history of psychiatric illness . On DATE , he went to the police station where he confessed that he had attacked a man , PERSON , in the building where he lived as he thought the man had accused him of stealing his television . PERSON was found dead with multiple depressed skull fractures consistent with use of a hammer .

On DATE , the applicant pleaded guilty to manslaughter on grounds of diminished responsibility and was sentenced by the judge to a term of life imprisonment . The judge declined to set a relevant period for deterrence and retribution ( the “ tariff ” ) . His sentencing remarks were

“ ... you have pleaded guilty to the crime of manslaughter on the basis of diminished responsibility . It was a horrendous crime committed with great violence . I bear in mind everything which I have read about you in the reports . I accept that your distress when you realised what you had done was genuine and that your remorse for it is genuine . Nevertheless , it is a very serious crime indeed and your mental state is such that though you are not a mentally sick person you present a continuing danger to the public because of your liability to fits of explosive temper unless you take regularly your proper medication . I am satisfied therefore that a sentence longer that would be necessarily appropriate to punish you having regard to the seriousness of the offence , is necessary to protect the public from serious harm . The sentence of the court upon you therefore is CARDINAL of life imprisonment .

[ Addressing leading counsel for the applicant ] I have considered the question of making it a discretionary life sentence under LAW . I do not consider that appropriate for the reasons which I have explained . ”

By letter of CARDINAL DATE , the applicant was informed by ORG that as a tariff had not been set under LAW of LAW DATE by the trial judge he was to be treated as a mandatory life prisoner and the Secretary of ORG would proceed to fix his tariff . He was informed of the trial judge ’s view , given in a recent report , that DATE was an appropriate period and was given an opportunity to make written representations to the Secretary of ORG .

In or DATE , the Secretary of ORG set the applicant ’s tariff at DATE . He had been advised that the applicant should originally have been treated as a discretionary life prisoner by the trial judge who should himself have fixed as tariff at trial . For that reason , he regarded himself as bound to follow the trial judge ’s view .

On DATE , the applicant was informed of this decision and told that as his tariff had already expired ( in DATE ) it was no longer a factor in his continued detention .

On DATE , the applicant lodged an appeal against sentence , alleging that the trial judge should have specified the DATE tariff at the time the sentence was passed and that had the period been so specified he would have been treated as a discretionary life prisoner and not a mandatory life prisoner . Permission to appeal was granted on DATE .

In its judgment of DATE , ORG upheld the appeal . Lord Justice PERSON said :

“ It seems to this ORG , from the sentencing observations of the learned judge , that , although he referred to the gravity of the offence and the danger then presented by the appellant , he was not seeking to say that , in this case , life should mean life . Indeed , his recent recommendation to the ORG Secretary that a period of DATE would be appropriate for retribution and deterrence is quite inconsistent with such having been his intention at that time .

It is not clear whether the judge ’s attention was drawn to ORG and , in any event , he certainly did not have the advantage of the observations of this Court in GPE , which was decided in DATE , after the learned judge passed sentence . Had he had that advantage , it seems to us very unlikely that he would have expressed himself quite as he did in his sentencing remarks . The consequence , in our judgment , is that a period of DATE ought to have been expressed by the learned judge at the time sentence was passed , in accordance with ORG and in accordance with what now appears in the judgment of this Court , in GPE . Accordingly , this appeal will be allowed , to the extent that a DATE tariff period will be specified ... The consequence of this is , for the avoidance of doubt , that he will become a discretionary life prisoner and can and should be treated by ORG accordingly . ”

The applicant was immediately re - categorised as a discretionary life prisoner by ORG .

On DATE , the applicant ’s case was reviewed by ORG , at an oral hearing . He appeared in person and was represented by his solicitor . He was entitled to adduce evidence and to cross - examine witnesses . It did not direct release , finding that the applicant remained a risk . It did recommend to the Secretary of ORG that his case be reviewed in DATE as he had nearly completed the recommended offence related programmes and as he had been disadvantaged in not obtaining a review DATE before the expiry of the tariff as his tariff had only been fixed recently .

The applicant ’s case was reviewed by ORG at an oral hearing held on DATE . By decision dated DATE , ORG declined to direct the applicant ’s release as it concluded that the applicant remained a danger to the public . It recommended that the next review take place in DATE as considerable further offence - related , treatment / work programmes still needed to be undertaken e.g. further work on anger management and relationship issues as well as attendance on an Extended Sex Offender Treatment Programme . It noted that the applicant had acknowledged during the proceedings that neither release nor transfer to open conditions was appropriate at this stage . It did recommend that he be transferred to a Category C prison ( lower security ) to facilitate further treatment work and this was implemented . The applicant ’s next review was scheduled for DATE .

On DATE , the applicant signed the DATE review board summary setting out proposals for further treatment , indicating that he fully agreed with the recommendations .

The applicant has now been transferred to a Category C prison .

LANGUAGE law imposes a mandatory sentence for the offence of murder in respect of offenders under the age of CARDINAL known as detention during Her Majesty ’s pleasure ( section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of ORG ) ; in respect of offenders between the age of DATE , custody for life ( section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW DATE ) , and in respect of offenders aged CARDINAL and over , life imprisonment ( section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the Murder ( Abolition of Death Penalty ) Act DATE ) .

Mandatory life sentences are fixed by law , in contrast to discretionary life sentences which can be imposed at the discretion of the trial judge on persons convicted of certain violent or sexual offences ( e.g. manslaughter , rape or robbery ) . The principles underlying the imposition of a discretionary life sentence are :

Discretionary life sentences are indeterminate in order that “ the prisoner ’s progress may be monitored ... so that he will be kept in custody so long as public safety may be jeopardised by his being let loose at large ” ( R v. PERSON [ DATE ] CARDINAL Cr . App . Rep. CARDINAL , p. CARDINAL ) .

Persons sentenced to mandatory and discretionary life imprisonment , custody for life and those detained during Her Majesty ’s pleasure have a ‘ LOC set in relation to the period of imprisonment they should serve in order to satisfy the requirements of retribution and deterrence . After the expiry of the tariff , the prisoner becomes eligible for release on licence . Applicable provisions and practice in respect of the fixing of the tariff and release on licence have been subject to change , most notably following the coming into force on DATE of LAW DATE ( “ the DATE LAW ) , which was in force at the relevant time . The provisions of the DATE Act were replaced by ORG LAW ) from DATE .

Pursuant to section CARDINAL of the CARDINAL Act , the trial judge in sentencing a person to a term of discretionary life imprisonment in open court after a trial was given the power to fix the tariff .

The role of the trial judge in this respect was clarified by ORG in a Practice Direction ( Crime – Life sentences ) [ DATE WLR CARDINAL ] . Paragraph CARDINAL stated :

“ The judge is not obliged by statute to make use of the provisions of section DATE when passing a discretionary life sentence . However the judge should do so , save in the very exceptional case where the judge considers that the offence is so serious that detention for life is justified by the seriousness of the offence alone , irrespective of the risk to the public . In such a case , the judge should state this in open court when passing sentence . ”

In DATE , the case of NORP v. PERSON ( CARDINAL ORG R(S ) ORG said concerning ORG and the DATE Act :

“ The scheme of the LAW is that the judiciary should specify the period which the prisoner should serve , and that period should be appropriate to the punishment or retribution required and the need to deter the prisoner and others from committing similar grave offences . This period is usually referred to as the tariff period . Once that period has expired the prisoner can expect to be released on licence if ORG is satisfied that it is no longer necessary for the protection of the public that the prisoner should be confined ( see section CARDINAL(CARDINAL)b ) . There is thus a clear division of function . The judges are to decide the period which the prisoner is to serve by way of punishment and deterrence . ORG must decide whether he still presents a danger to the public and , if he does not , he must be released . That means , save in cases of most exceptional gravity , where the judge thinks that a prisoner should remain a prisoner for the rest of his normal life , he should specify a period under the LAW . ”

In cases of mandatory life sentences , it is for the Secretary of ORG to fix the tariff after consulting the trial judge and the Lord Chief Justice . He is entitled to depart from the judicial view .

Pursuant to section DATE ( CARDINAL ) of the DATE Act , ORG had a duty to advise the Secretary of ORG with respect to any matter referred to it by him which was connected with the early release or recall of prisoners .

ORG Chairman appointed CARDINAL members of ORG to consider discretionary life cases . They comprised the Discretionary Lifer Panel ( “ DLP ” ) . Pursuant to ORG DATE which came into force on DATE , a discretionary life prisoner was entitled to , amongst other things , an oral hearing , disclosure of evidence before ORG and legal representation . He was also entitled to call witnesses on his behalf and to cross - examine those who had written reports about him . A reasoned decision by the ORG was delivered within DATE of the hearing . Prior to DATE , the duty to release discretionary life prisoners was dealt with by LAW , which provided that where a discretionary life prisoner had served his tariff and ORG had directed his release , it was the duty of the Secretary of ORG to release him on licence .

Section CARDINAL ) provided :

“ The ORG shall not give a direction ... unless –

( a ) NORP the Secretary of ORG has referred the prisoner ’s case to the ORG ;

( b ) ORG is satisfied that it is no longer necessary for the protection of the public that the prisoner should be confined . ”

A discretionary life prisoner may require the Secretary of ORG to refer his case to ORG , after the end of the period of DATE beginning with the disposal of a previous reference to ORG ( section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) ( b ) of the DATE Act , now LAW ( CARDINAL ) ( b ) of LAW ) .

The regime applicable to mandatory life prisoners was , however , preserved within LAW . LAW of the DATE Act provided insofar as relevant :

“ ( CARDINAL ) NORP If recommended to do so by ORG , the Secretary of ORG may , after consultation with the Lord Chief Justice together with the trial judge if available , release on licence a life prisoner who is not a discretionary life prisoner . ”

The provisions concerning oral hearings and the requirement for regular reviews were not extended to mandatory life prisoners and ORG was not given any power to direct their release .


GRIŠANKOVA AND GRIŠANKOVS v. LATVIA [Extracts]

The applicants , born in DATE and DATE respectively , are a mother and her son . They are NORP citizens of NORP origin , and live in GPE ( GPE ) .

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

The second applicant has been studying at secondary school no . CARDINAL in GPE since DATE . It is a state school , maintained by the GPE municipal council and providing both compulsory primary education DATE ) and secondary education DATE ) . The language of instruction in this school is NORP .

On DATE , ORG ( Saeima ) adopted LAW ( see below ) . Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of this LAW provides that the language of instruction in state schools is the official language , namely NORP . Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the transitional provisions of the LAW establishes DATE as the date on which pupils in DATE ( i.e. DATE of secondary school ) of state schools must begin using NORP as the sole language of instruction . LAW of the afore - mentioned LAW prohibits the employment as state school teachers of persons whose knowledge of NORP is beneath the advanced level required by the regulations in force .

The relevant Articles of LAW ( PERSON ) provide :

Article CARDINAL

“ The NORP language is the official language in GPE ... ” .

Article CARDINAL

“ In GPE , there shall be a ORG [ Satversmes tiesa ] , which , within the limits of its jurisdiction as provided for by law , shall review cases concerning the compliance of laws with the LAW , as well as other matters regarding which jurisdiction is conferred upon it by law . The Constitutional Court shall have the right to declare laws or other enactments or parts thereof invalid ... ”

Article CARDINAL

“ Everyone has the right to education . The ORG shall ensure that everyone may receive primary and secondary education without charge . Primary education shall be compulsory . ”

Article CARDINAL

“ Persons belonging to ethnic minorities shall have the right to preserve and develop their language and their ethnic and cultural identity . ”

The relevant provisions of LAW of DATE ( NORP likums ) are worded as follows :

Section CARDINAL

“ CARDINAL . In educational establishments maintained by the ORG and local authorities , instruction shall be provided in the official language .

CARDINAL Instruction may be dispensed in another language :

( CARDINAL ) in private educational establishments ;

( CARDINAL ) in establishments maintained by the ORG and local authorities which have introduced curricula for national minorities . In the context of these curricula , ORG and ORG shall decide which subjects must be taught in the official language ; and

( CARDINAL ) in the other educational establishments provided for by law .

In order to attain the primary or secondary standard of education , all pupils shall learn the official language and sit examinations to verify their knowledge of this language , in accordance with the procedures defined by ORG and ORG ... ”

Section CARDINAL

“ The following may not work as teachers : ...

( CARDINAL ) in educational establishments maintained by the ORG or local authorities – persons not in possession of a document issued in accordance with the procedures determined by ORG certifying that they have attained an advanced level in the official language , with the exception of teachers in higher educational establishments who are foreign nationals or stateless persons participating in educational programmes set up on the basis of an international agreement , and teachers employed by educational establishments set up by foreign States , or by departments attached to such establishments ... ”

Transitional provisions

“ CARDINAL . Section CARDINAL ) and CARDINAL ) of the present Act shall enter into force in a phased manner :

( CARDINAL ) DATE – in higher educational establishments ;

( CARDINAL ) DATE – schools maintained by the ORG or local authorities which provide instruction in another language shall begin to implement curricula for national minorities or to introduce instruction in the official language ;

CARDINAL ) DATE [ pupils in ] DATE of general secondary schools maintained by the ORG or local authorities , and [ pupils in ] DATE of vocational education establishments maintained by the ORG or local authorities , shall commence their studies in the official language alone ” .

The relevant provisions of LAW of DATE ( ORG tiesas likums ) are worded as follows :

Section DATE

( added by LAW DATE , in force since DATE )

“ CARDINAL . Any person who considers that a legislative provision which is not in compliance with a provision having superior legal force has infringed his or her fundamental rights under the LAW may lodge a constitutional appeal with ORG [ konstitucionālā sūdzība ] .

A constitutional appeal may be lodged only after exhaustion of all the possibilities for securing protection of such rights through ordinary legal remedies ( appeal to a higher authority , appeal or application to a court of general jurisdiction etc . ) or where such remedies do not exist .

Where examination of a constitutional appeal is in the public interest or where legal protection of the rights in question via ordinary remedies does not enable the appellant to avoid substantial damage , ORG may decide to examine the application even before all other domestic remedies have been exhausted . The institution of proceedings before the ORG shall preclude examination of the civil , criminal or administrative case by the court of general jurisdiction until such time as ORG judgment has been delivered .

A constitutional appeal may be lodged within DATE on which the decision of the highest instance becomes final .

The submission of a constitutional appeal shall not suspend the execution of a judicial decision , except in cases where ORG decides otherwise .

In addition to its substance , as required by LAW , a constitutional appeal must contain submissions concerning :

( CARDINAL ) the violation of the appellant ’s fundamental constitutional rights ; and

( CARDINAL ) exhaustion of all other ordinary remedies or the fact that no such remedies exist .

The following information must be appended to a constitutional appeal :

( CARDINAL ) the explanations and documentation required to establish the facts of the case ;

( CARDINAL ) documents certifying that , where they exist , all ordinary remedies have been exhausted . ”

Section CARDINAL

“ CARDINAL . The judgment of the Constitutional Court shall be final . It shall come into legal effect at the time of delivery .

The judgment of the Constitutional Court shall be binding on all ORG and municipal institutions and authorities , including the courts , and also on natural persons and legal entities .

Any legal provision or act which ORG has found incompatible with the legal provision having superior legal force shall be considered invalid from the date of publication of ORG judgment , unless the Constitutional Court rules otherwise ... ”

According to official statistics , ORG delivered CARDINAL judgments during the period from DATE to DATE on the basis of constitutional appeals lodged by individuals . In CARDINAL of these CARDINAL cases , it ruled that the statutory provisions or legislation in issue were incompatible with those having superior legal force and declared them fully or partially void .