The applicant , Mr DATE PERSON , is a NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in GPE . He was represented before the Court by PERSON , a lawyer working for the AIRE ( Advice on Individual Rights in LOC ) Centre in GPE .

On DATE the applicant entered GPE and requested asylum .

On DATE ORG rejected his asylum request and declared that there was no prohibition on deporting him because he did not face political persecution in GPE . The applicant brought an action in ORG seeking to have this decision quashed .

On DATE the applicant , who had been issued with a provisional residence permit ( PERSON , see ' Relevant domestic law ' below ) , was directed to reside and remain within the city of ORG pending the decision on his asylum request .

DATE and DATE ORG granted the applicant leave to quit the city of ORG on CARDINAL occasions in order to attend conferences for refugees and on CARDINAL occasion to meet a lawyer .

In DATE the applicant left the city of ORG in order to help in preparations for and to attend another congress for refugees , despite the fact that ORG had refused him permission to leave the city . The applicant left ORG on CARDINAL further occasions without having requested authorisation to do so . On DATE the ORG discontinued the criminal proceedings instituted against the applicant for repeated disregard of a territorial restriction of residence , since it considered the applicant 's offence to be of a minor nature .

On DATE the applicant was again stopped by the police outside the ORG city limits ; again , he had not requested and obtained the necessary authorisation .

On DATE the applicant was granted a residence permit ( ORG ) following his marriage to a NORP national and was thus no longer subject to restrictions on his movements .

On DATE ORG convicted the applicant of repeated disregard of a territorial restriction of residence in view of his residence outside ORG in DATE and on DATE , and ordered him to pay a fine of MONEY ( ORG ) .

ORG conceded that the application of section QUANTITY ( see ' Relevant domestic law ' below ) led to hardships for asylum seekers in many cases . Nevertheless , contrary to the applicant 's view , that provision was compatible with LAW . This had been confirmed by ORG , in particular , in its decision dated DATE . The legislator had restricted the right to free development of one 's personality , guaranteed by LAW in a proportionate manner . The impugned provision was intended to accelerate the treatment of asylum requests by securing the asylum seekers ' availability , and to distribute between the ORG and cities the tasks and costs incurred by taking in asylum seekers . There was no milder , equally effective means to secure the achievement of the aims pursued by the provision . In particular , the option of restricting merely longer absences from the assigned district and authorising shorter absences without prior permission could not be controlled in practice and would entail considerable administrative expense . Given that section CARDINAL § CARDINAL of LAW ( see ' Relevant domestic law ' below ) allowed for exceptions from the restriction of residence , that restriction was not disproportionate . Likewise , it was not disproportionate to enforce the restriction by means of criminal law ( section CARDINAL no . CARDINAL of LAW ) .

ORG further found that the territorial restriction of residence pursuant to section CARDINAL § CARDINAL of LAW did not contravene any provisions of public international law . Both LAW relating to LAW ( ORG ; see ' Relevant domestic and public international law ' below ) granted freedom of movement only to refugees who were lawfully on the territory of ORG . This was only the case where an asylum seeker was recognised by a final decision as a person being persecuted for political reasons . The applicant had resided lawfully in GPE only since LAW DATE , when he was granted a residence permit following his marriage to a NORP national .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant 's appeal . It found that the appeal , which had been lodged in accordance with the formal requirements and time - limit laid down in LAW , was manifestly ill - founded and therefore inadmissible . Endorsing the reasons given by ORG , ORG confirmed that the applicable provisions of LAW complied with the provisions of LAW and of public international law .

On DATE ORG declined to consider the applicant 's constitutional complaint ( file no . CARDINAL BvR CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) .

ORG found that the complaint had no prospects of success . In so far as the applicant considered sections CARDINAL no . CARDINAL of LAW to be unconstitutional , he had not sufficiently substantiated his complaint . He had failed to address the reasons given in ORG decision of DATE in which it had found that the impugned provisions complied with LAW . In so far as the applicant contested the application of the impugned provisions to his case , his submissions were inconsistent . He now claimed to have travelled for the benefit of a refugee organisation on DATE , a fact which he had failed to mention in the proceedings before the criminal courts .

The decision was served on the applicant 's counsel on DATE .

LAW ) lays down the rules which are applicable to foreigners who seek asylum on account of political persecution or who seek protection from deportation to a country where their life or freedom would be at risk .

Under section CARDINAL § CARDINAL of LAW , a foreigner who requests asylum is permitted to reside on ORG while the relevant asylum proceedings are pending ( provisional residence permit – PERSON ) . He or she is not entitled to reside in a particular Land or place .

Section CARDINAL § CARDINAL of LAW provides that the provisional residence permit is territorially restricted to the district of ORG in which the institution responsible for reception of the foreigner is located .

Under section CARDINAL § CARDINAL of LAW , ORG may grant a foreigner who is not or is no longer obliged to live in a reception centre authorisation to leave temporarily the district for which his or her provisional residence permit is valid or , generally , to reside in a neighbouring district . Leave must be granted if there is a pressing public interest or compelling grounds to do so , or if a refusal to grant leave would entail an undue hardship . Section CARDINAL § CARDINAL stipulates that leave is to be granted to facilitate appointments with representatives , with the ORG High Commissioner for Refugees and with organisations providing care for refugees . Under section CARDINAL § CARDINAL , a foreigner does not require permission to keep appointments with authorities and courts where his or her appearance in person is necessary .

Section CARDINAL no . CARDINAL of LAW provides that anyone who repeatedly contravenes a restriction of residence imposed under LAW § CARDINAL shall be sentenced to a term of imprisonment not exceeding one year , or to a fine .

The relevant provision of ORG relating to ORG , adopted on DATE , reads :

Article CARDINAL . Freedom of movement

“ Each Contracting State shall accord to refugees lawfully in its territory the right to choose their place of residence and to move freely within its territory subject to any regulations applicable to aliens generally in the same circumstances . ”

LAW , adopted on DATE , provides :

“ Everyone lawfully within the territory of a ORG shall , within that territory , have the right to liberty of movement and freedom to choose his residence . ”


Violation of Art. 6-1;Violation of Art. 13

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

On DATE enforcement proceedings were initiated against the applicant .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant 's objections against the enforcement and its costs .

On DATE the district court dismissed the applicant 's request for adjournment of the enforcement . On DATE the decision was upheld by ORG .

On DATE the applicant requested the district court to issue an interim measure and to discontinue the enforcement .

On DATE the district court adjourned the enforcement pending its decision on the applicant 's request for the enforcement to be discontinued . On DATE the regional court quashed the above decision .

On DATE the applicant again requested discontinuation of the enforcement proceedings .

On DATE the district court rejected the applicant 's request for interim measures .

On DATE the district court dismissed the applicant 's request for discontinuation of the proceedings .

On DATE the regional court , on the applicant 's appeal , quashed the first - instance decision and remitted the case to the district court for further examination .

On DATE the district court discontinued the proceedings and held that it would deliver a decision on costs once the decision to discontinue the proceedings became final .

On DATE the applicant 's representative informed the ORG that the decision has not yet become final .

On DATE the applicant complained to ORG about length of the proceedings before ORG and claimed the equivalent of MONEY ( ORG ) at that time as just satisfaction for non - pecuniary damage suffered .

ORG examined the period of the proceedings after DATE .

On DATE it found that the district court had violated the applicant 's right to a hearing without unjustified delay , ordered the latter to avoid further delays and to reimburse the applicant 's legal costs .

It concluded that these represented a sufficient just satisfaction and did not award the applicant any award for non - pecuniary damage . It referred to the fact that the applicant was the liable party in the proceedings . It further held that the applicant had failed to specify the allegedly suffered harm .


Violation of Art. 3 (substantive aspect)

Anatoly Kovler;Erik Møse;Julia Laffranque;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Peer Lorenzen

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

From DATE to CARDINAL DATE the applicant was held in remand prison no . ORG in the LOC pending criminal proceedings against him .

The Government and the applicant provided differing descriptions of the conditions of the applicant ’s detention .

The Government submitted extracts from the register of the remand prison population . They further submitted data concerning the size of the cells based on statements made by the remand prison officers . In particular , they provided the following information :

The applicant spent a considerable amount of time outside the prison cells . He participated in questioning and other investigative activities , and met with his lawyer , relatives and other persons . He was allowed TIME daily walk in a specially equipped prison yard and DATE showers . During inspections and cleaning of the cells the inmates , including the applicant , were taken outside the cells as well .

All the cells of the remand prison were equipped with natural and artificial ventilation which was in a good working order . The windows were covered with metal bars which did not prevent daylight coming through . The artificial day lighting in the cells was in compliance with the applicable specifications and was on from TIME At TIME low - voltage bulbs were used to maintain lighting for surveillance and practical reasons ( for example , to provide lighting in the toilet area ) .

Each cell was equipped with a toilet and a sink located in the corner . The distance between the table and the toilet was CARDINAL and the distance between the toilet and the nearest bed was QUANTITY The toilet was separated from the living area of the cell by a partition measuring QUANTITY in height .

NORP The applicant contested the description of the conditions of his detention in the remand prison provided by the Government . In particular he provided the following information :

While it was true that on several occasions the applicant was transported to the courthouse to attend hearings , the rest of the time he was confined to his cell . He was allowed to see his lawyer only once . That meeting lasted no longer than TIME . The meetings with the officers of the remand prison which took place outside his cell did not exceed TIME .

The applicant was provided with an individual bed only when detained in cell no . CARDINAL . For the rest of the time he had to share the bed with CARDINAL other inmates .

The ventilation did not function properly and was insufficient due to the overcrowding of the cells . The air was stuffy and humid . It was filled with tobacco smoke . Dirty condensation accumulated on the walls and the ceiling and then trickled down . The light was constantly on . Low - voltage bulbs were not used . The windows were covered with metal bars both on the inside and outside .

The flushing system in the toilet did not provide a sufficient amount of water to keep the toilet clean . The odour emanating from the toilet was very bad and the inmates had to burn paper to mask it . The distance between the toilet and the dinner table was QUANTITY in cells CARDINAL . CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL . In cell no . CARDINAL the toilet was located QUANTITY away from the dinner table .

In his submissions of CARDINAL June DATE , the applicant alleged that on DATE of the trial hearings he had been transported to and from the courthouse in appalling conditions . The vans were overcrowded and each trip lasted TIME .

On DATE the applicant was convicted of another drugrelated offence and sentenced to DATE and CARDINAL months’ imprisonment in a high - security colony . He was sent to serve a prison sentence in correctional colony no . IK-CARDINAL in LOC .

The applicant was held in the colony from CARDINAL DATE to CARDINAL DATE .

The applicant was provided with an individual bed , bedding and cutlery . While he was held in the disciplinary cell he was allowed a DATE walk which lasted TIME in a specially equipped yard . He also spent time outside the cell when taking a shower . He was invited to meetings with the administration of the correctional colony .

The dormitories and the disciplinary cell were equipped with artificial and natural ventilation . The dormitories had CARDINAL windows and QUANTITY lamps . The disciplinary cell had a window measuring CARDINAL by CARDINAL sq . m. It was reinforced with metal bars which did not prevent daylight coming into the cell . The cell was provided with CARDINAL daylight lamps . At TIME low - voltage bulbs were used to light the cells for surveillance and practical reasons .

The dormitories had separate restrooms ensuring sufficient privacy . The toilet in the disciplinary cell was placed in the corner QUANTITY away from the dinner table . The distance between the toilet and the nearest bed was QUANTITY

The applicant contested the description of the conditions of his detention in the colony . In particular he provided the following information :

There was no artificial ventilation in disciplinary cell no . CARDINAL . The opening of a window pane measuring CARDINAL by QUANTITY was insufficient to ensure the proper ventilation of the cell . The lighting was dim and insufficient . The toilet was not cleaned and reeked . It was located QUANTITY away from the dinner table . The windows were covered with CARDINAL rows of metal bars inside and outside .

For the whole time the applicant was detained in the disciplinary cell he was never taken for a walk outside .

On DATE and CARDINAL DATE the administration of correctional colony no . IK-CARDINAL allegedly opened the applicant ’s letters addressed to his representative before ORG .

The applicant ’s letter dispatched on CARDINAL DATE did not reach his representative .

The applicant ’s letters of CARDINAL and CARDINAL DATE addressed to his representative were allegedly dispatched with a delay of DATE respectively .

Section CARDINAL of ORG of DATE provides that detainees should be kept in conditions which satisfy sanitary and hygienic requirements . They should be provided with an individual sleeping place and given bedding , tableware and toiletries . Each inmate should have CARDINAL four square metres of personal space in his or her cell .

Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL of the Penitentiary Code of DATE provides for a minimum standard of QUANTITY of personal space for male prisoners in correctional colonies .


Angelika Nußberger;Ann Power-Forde;Dean Spielmann;Elisabet Fura;Ganna Yudkivska;Karel Jungwiert

The first applicant has CARDINAL children from previous relationships ; CARDINAL of them is a girl , X , born in DATE , whose biological father ’s identity remains unconfirmed . The other CARDINAL daughters are grown up . They have never lived with the applicants .

The applicants have been in a relationship since DATE and were married in DATE . In DATE twins , a girl W and a boy Y , were born to the applicants . On DATE , W died in suspicious circumstances . The autopsy report showed that she had several bone fractures and had sustained severe injuries to her internal organs . On DATE , the first applicant was found guilty of continuously causing severe bodily harm to W and of negligent manslaughter of PERSON She was sentenced to DATE in prison . The second applicant was found guilty of negligent manslaughter of W and was sentenced to DATE in prison . ORG confirmed the verdict and the proceedings are currently pending before ORG following the request for protection of legality ( extraordinary remedy ) lodged by the applicants . The first applicant started serving her sentence on DATE . The second applicant has a serious heart condition and his prison sentence has been temporarily suspended .

On DATE , following W ’s death , a social worker from ORG ( hereinafter referred to as “ the ORG ” ) called the applicants and asked them to bring X and Y , who both lived with the applicants , to the paediatric hospital for examination . The children stayed in the hospital until DATE . In the meantime , it was established that X was traumatised by the death of W and that Y had delayed psychophysical development . Measures were taken by the social workers to find a suitable foster family that would receive X and Y.

Following several meetings with the applicants and in view of psychological reports prepared during ORG and ORG hospitalisation , ORG , on DATE , issued an emergency care order removing Y , then DATE , from the applicants and PERSON , then DATE , from the first applicant , and placing them in foster care . In the emergency care order , ORG referred to suspicious circumstances of W ’s death and found that there were indications of possible domestic violence and neglect . It also noted that the applicants had not been critical of their situation and that X and Y would have been at risk if left at home . The order stated that contact between the applicants and Y as well as between the first applicant and X be allowed for TIME DATE under supervision , beginning on DATE .

On DATE , presumably before the children were taken to the foster home , ORG issued a decision allowing the enforcement of ORG emergency care order . The applicants were verbally informed of the order on DATE . They received it in writing on DATE .

On DATE the applicants appealed against the emergency care order stating , inter alia , that a medical examination had not shown any signs of maltreatment , that no measures had previously been taken against them by ORG and that they had taken proper care of X and Y. They also submitted that CARDINAL of the first applicant ’s children had been successful in school and were now already grown up , and also that X had no learning difficulties . Their appeal was dismissed by ORG ( hereinafter referred to as “ the Ministry ” ) on DATE .

The applicants challenged that decision before ORG . The latter , relying on ORG findings , rejected their claim on DATE . It found that the procedure had been conducted properly .

NORP In the meantime , ORG established an internal expert panel consisting of CARDINAL employees , namely a sociologist , a lawyer and a social worker ( hereinafter referred to as “ the GPE panel ” ) . It also obtained a psychological report concerning X and Y. After each contact between the applicants and the children took place , a record was made by the social workers . The applicants were offered counselling , which they refused . On DATE a hearing was held before ORG , at which the applicants were present . On DATE ORG issued an ordinary care order , by which Y was removed from the applicants , X was removed from the first applicant , and both were placed in foster care . At the same time , ORG set out contact arrangements , stating that the applicants could see Y and the first applicant could see PERSON under ORG supervision for TIME DATE . It found that the children were living under psychological pressure and were neglected , in that they did not have a proper behaviour model at home . Y needed more support to catch up in his development and X needed therapy due to being under severe psychological pressure . Her psychological needs were entirely ignored by her mother , who was extremely egocentric . The applicants were advised to undergo parenting counselling .

The applicants appealed against the care order . On DATE the Ministry dismissed their appeal , by which the order became enforceable .

The applicants challenged this decision in a claim before ORG . On DATE the court issued a judgment rejecting their claim .

On a further appeal ORG , on DATE , quashed ORG judgment and ordered a re - examination of the case in so far as the removal of the children and their placement into foster care were concerned . They found that a removal order could only be issued if supported by a report from an independent expert . In the instant case , however , the psychologist who had drawn up the report was an employee of ORG .

Subsequently , ORG again considered the case and quashed the ORG ’s decision on DATE . It ordered that an independent expert be appointed and that the applicants’ ability to ensure the normal mental and physical development of X and Y , which was crucial for the care order , be further assessed . On DATE the ORG ordered ORG to re - examine the case .

On DATE , following the quashing of the ordinary care order by ORG , ORG issued a new emergency care order , by which the children were to remain in the foster home . In the written grounds , it stated that the reason for re - examination of the matter concerning the ordinary care order was the fact that no independent expert had been appointed and that the higher courts had given no indication that the children should be returned to their parents . In addition , ORG referred to the fact that an indictment had been lodged against the applicants , alleging that they had caused the death of W by negligence , which would have in itself been a sufficient reason for taking their remaining minor children into public care . The order did not set out any new contact arrangements , as this issue was pending before ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

The applicants appealed against the emergency removal , on the grounds that it was unjustified . The appeal was rejected by ORG , which found that there were sufficient grounds for emergency placement of the children in foster care . On DATE the applicants lodged a claim with ORG , which was rejected on DATE , as the court agreed that the facts as established by ORG and its panel were sufficient to justify the emergency placement of the children in foster care pending the outcome of the proceedings concerning the ordinary care order .

In the meantime , on DATE , ORG appointed a forensic expert in psychology to draw up a report on the applicants’ capacity for parenting . He submitted his report on DATE . On the basis of the examination of the applicants , Y and X , the first applicant ’s other daughters , the social workers and neighbours , and having regard to the circumstances surrounding W ’s death , the expert found that ORG and ORG psychophysical development would be at a serious risk if they stayed with the applicants , who were unable to satisfy their basic needs . It found that the second applicant was passive and as such unable to take an active role in the family , and that the first applicant had developed an “ emotionally unstable personality disorder with querulous and socially inadaptable behaviour ” . He also found that the contact should certainly not be extended and that the applicants should be given clear limits as regards their contact with Y and X.

On DATE the Ministry allowed the applicants’ request for a change of venue . The case concerning the care order was consequently allocated to ORG ( hereinafter referred to as the “ ORG ” ) , which appointed their internal expert panel ( hereinafter referred to as the “ PERSON panel ” ) on DATE . After the change of venue , ORG regularly reported to ORG on the contact between the applicants and the children .

On DATE , on the basis of the reports collected so far , the PERSON panel issued an opinion that the applicants were unfit parents . It also noted that the children could potentially be returned to their parents if the latter underwent appropriate therapy .

A hearing was held on DATE before ORG , which allowed the evidence proposed by the applicants - an opinion of another independent expert , reports from the primary school , an interview with X -and ordered a home visit to be carried out . An interview was also held with the applicants , foster parents and a social worker with responsibility in the case .

NORP The expert in psychology requested by the applicants was appointed on DATE . She was asked to assess the applicants’ capacity for parenting , whether the return of the children would be in the latter ’s interest , and what the children ’s wishes were . On DATE additional questions proposed by the applicants were forwarded to the expert for reply . Subsequently , a forensic expert in psychiatry was also requested to prepare a report .

On DATE the expert in psychology submitted her report . She concluded that the applicants were unable to take proper care of X and Y , and that it was in the children ’s interest to stay with the foster family . She also noted that contact should continue to be supervised and should not be extended . According to the opinion of the psychiatrist , both applicants had a personality disorder although the first applicant ’s disorder was particularly severe . The report suggested that the normal development of the children was likely to be jeopardised if they returned to their primary family .

On DATE the PERSON panel , on the basis of the new expert reports , issued another report proposing that a care order be issued and that the children remain in foster care . The PERSON panel also took into account the social workers’ reports drawn up after each contact between the applicants and the children , and noted that the applicants had not improved their behaviour towards the children , despite being constantly provided with advice in this respect .

On DATE a hearing was held before ORG at which the applicants , who contested the experts’ reports and the report by the PERSON panel , were also present .

On DATE ORG , having regard to the evidence obtained in the proceedings , delivered a care order by which it decided that Y and X should be taken from the first applicant and Y should also be taken from the second applicant . Both should remain in foster care . It proposed that the parents undergo appropriate therapy , after which their parenting ability would be examined again .

The applicants lodged an appeal with ORG , which was dismissed . At that point the second ordinary care order become enforceable and replaced the emergency order of DATE .

On DATE the applicants challenged this decision before ORG .

On DATE ORG delivered a judgment rejecting the ORG claim . The court , having regard to the evidence collected in the administrative proceedings , concurred with the findings of the administrative authorities and rejected the ORG claim . The applicants did not appeal .

During the proceedings the applicants CARDINAL times requested access to ORG file , which was granted .

On DATE the applicants requested ORG to initiate proceedings for the return of the children . They stated that no measures had been taken with a view to reuniting the family ; in particular , that a “ project group ” , including them , should have been set up and had not been . It should also have included X and Y and the foster parents and should have aimed to draw up a schedule for the return of the children , as stipulated in the domestic law .

On DATE ORG dismissed the request as essentially the same as the issue of the children ’s care and contact , which had already been decided by the decision of DATE , which was enforceable .

On DATE the ORG dismissed an appeal by the applicants . However , on DATE ORG quashed that decision and ordered a re - examination of the case , finding that the ORG request concerning the implementation of the foster care and the proceedings concerning the taking of the children were CARDINAL separate issues with different legal bases .

On DATE the applicants attended a meeting with ORG , where they were invited to explain their request . On DATE ORG discontinued the proceedings . The applicants appealed , stating that ORG had conducted proceedings arbitrarily and it should have invited them formally and in writing to correct the request if it considered it incomplete . On DATE the Ministry set aside ORG decision of DATE , finding that the applicants had never withdrawn their request and that ORG should therefore have decided on it . However , it stressed that although this was a separate request it was nevertheless connected to the issue of the taking of the children and should be decided at the same time . Consequently , ORG decided the issue in its decision of CARDINAL DATE , by which the children were to remain in foster care . The ORG appeal and a claim to ORG was rejected ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above ) .

ORG has remained responsible for the contact arrangements , counselling and monitoring of the children ’s foster care . It set out contact arrangements in its emergency order of DATE and then in its ordinary care order of DATE . The applicants were allowed to see X and Y under the ORG ’s supervision for TIME DATE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) . On DATE the applicants requested contact with X and Y during DATE . This was rejected by ORG as in breach of the valid decision on contact arrangements . On DATE the applicants requested that their contact take place out of doors and to have X and Y at home at DATE . The latter request was transferred to ORG on DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

After the children were taken into foster care , reports were regularly prepared by social workers indicating several problems which occurred during the visits , in particular due to the first applicants’ abrupt behaviour and the pressure she put on the children as regards their behaviour towards her , in particular on X , whom she pressured , among other things , to write requests to return home . The first applicant was intensively involved in the organisation of the leisure activities and schooling of X and problems regularly occurred in this respect as well . On DATE ORG also decided that the first applicant should not have telephone conversations with X , to whom she had given a mobile phone and made frequent calls , as this was causing X a lot of stress . During DATE after the children were taken into foster care the applicants often tried to approach them at the foster GPE home or at school , for which reason a restraining order was requested by ORG . In DATE ORG prepared a care plan , which included steps planned with a view to possible family reunification , such as assistance in order to improve contact , the applicants’ attendance at special counselling and therapy sessions and attention to be given to the children ’s wishes as well as regular reviews of the situation with reunification in mind . The plan also noted that the return would depend on whether the applicants would be sentenced in the criminal proceedings .

ORG regularly organised thematic meetings at which social workers discussed the situation regarding X and Y. The applicants had been regularly ( often DATE and occasionally DATE ) invited to discuss issues relating to X and Y as well as to attend consultations . The reports drawn up during or after these meetings indicated that the applicants did not have a constructive attitude and were unwilling to undergo therapy .

NORP In addition to the above meeting , the “ individual project group ” was set up in DATE and has held meetings since then . The applicants , foster parents and social workers dealing with the case were usually invited to these meetings , where they discussed issues relating to the day - to - day life of the children and the applicants’ parenting and visiting arrangements .

The reports of the meetings between the applicants and the social workers show that both applicants were involved in contact arrangements and had the opportunity to express their opinion as regards X and Y. The reports also indicate that the applicants were normally also able to have contact with the children on special occasions such as birthdays , ORG ’s first communion and the applicants’ marriage ceremony .

It would appear that during DATE or so the contact between the applicants and the children has improved and is now no longer being supervised . At the meeting of the “ individual project group ” held on DATE , at which the applicants were present , the following was agreed : contact would take place DATE , namely once on DATE ( from TIME , with the applicants picking up and returning the children ) and once on DATE ( from TIME , with a social worker bringing the children to the applicants’ home and picking them up at the end of the visit ) . According to the information supplied by the applicants following the first applicant ’s incarceration , the second applicant takes Y and X from the foster family and spends DATE with them DATE . ORG report of CARDINAL DATE also indicates that during each meeting the second applicant takes Y and X to visit the first applicant in prison and afterwards spends the rest of DATE with them . The latter report also noted that Y expressed the wish to visit the first applicant once DATE and the second applicant DATE , and did not wish to visit the applicants without the presence of X. Likewise , X stressed in her letter to the first applicant dated DATE that she wished to have contact with her no more than once a month .

On DATE ORG forwarded to ORG the applicants’ request of CARDINAL DATE for extended contact with X and Y ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . The court held CARDINAL hearings and appointed an expert in psychology . The court regularly inquired about the progress of the criminal proceedings against the applicants : the latest inquiry was made on DATE . The proceedings appear still to be pending .

The relevant provisions of LAW read as follows :

The state shall protect the family , motherhood , fatherhood , children and young people , and shall create the necessary conditions for such protection . ”

“ Parents have the right and duty to maintain , educate and raise their children . This right and duty may be revoked or restricted only for such reasons as are provided by law in order to protect the child ’s interests .

LAW ( Official Gazette no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL – official consolidated version ) provides in so far as relevant :

“ ( CARDINAL ) A constitutional appeal alleging a violation of human rights or fundamental freedoms may , under the conditions determined by this LAW , be lodged against individual acts by which state authorities , local authorities , or holders of public power have decided on rights , obligations , or legal interests of individuals or legal entities .

Relevant provisions concerning removal of children and foster care are included in the Marriage and Family Relations Act ( Official Gazette no . CARDINAL - official consolidated version , hereinafter referred to as “ the LAW ” ) . They read as follows :

“ ( CARDINAL ) A welfare authority can remove a child from his or her parents and place him or her in the care of foster parents or an institution , if the parents have neglected him or her or if this is necessary for other reasons for the protection of the child ’s interest .

( CARDINAL ) The removal of the child does not affect the other rights and responsibilities of the parents .

( CARDINAL ) The welfare authority is responsible for the monitoring of the implementation of the above measure . ”

( CARDINAL ) A welfare authority can place a child in foster care if he or she does not have his or her own family or can not live with his or her own family for different reasons or if his or her physical and psychological development is at risk at home .

“ Following the placement of a child in foster care , the welfare authority must strive to eliminate the reasons which led to the removal . ”

Furthermore , section CARDINAL of LAW ( Official Gazette no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL - official consolidated version ) provides , in so far as relevant , as follows :

“ When welfare authorities deal with the administrative matters concerning rights and interest of children according to sections CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW , they shall , before taking any decision , ... obtain a report from an internal expert panel ( strokovna komisija ) and hold a hearing .

The panel referred to in the preceding paragraph is formed by the expert council of the welfare authority ... ”

LAW ( Official Gazette no . DATE ) provides in its LAW grounds on which an appeal on points of law can be lodged with ORG . The grounds are provided as alternatives . The relevant text reads as follows :

( CARDINAL ) A judgment of a first - instance court can be challenged by an appeal on points of law , which shall be lodged DATE of the service of the judgment on the party .

( CARDINAL ) The appeal on points of law is admissible if :

it concerns an important legal questions ... ;

it the impugned decision has serious consequences for the party ;

As regards the contact rights of parents and estranged children , the old section CARDINAL of LAW ( in force until DATE ) provided that the parent who did not live with his or her child had a right to have contact with him or her unless ORG decided otherwise .

NORP However , ORG set aside this provision in its decision no . U - I-CARDINAL/CARDINAL delivered on DATE . This decision was primarily concerned with the contact rights of parents who did not live together but had never been married , and therefore the issue of contact arrangements could not have been part of divorce proceedings before a court . ORG found that the system whereby the welfare authorities decided on contact arrangements was unconstitutional in that it did not provide for the same level of protection of the children ’s rights to participate in the proceedings as would have been provided by way of court proceedings . ORG however noted that the system was not problematic in respect of the protection of the GPE rights of participation . Parents were able to be sufficiently involved in administrative proceedings by having the right to express their opinion , to request evidence , to comment on submissions by other participants , to participate in the hearing and to lodge appeals . Because it was determined that there was insufficient protection for children ’s rights , ORG ordered that new legislation should be adopted within DATE with a view to transferring matters concerning contact arrangements to courts .

As a result of the above ORG decision , an amendment to LAW ( Official Gazette no . CARDINAL ) was adopted and entered into force on DATE . According to the transitional provision , proceedings instituted before the entry into force of the amendment were to be completed before the administrative authorities . However , the requests concerned by the amendment made to welfare authorities after the above mentioned date should be automatically transferred to the court .

Section CARDINAL of the amended LAW reads , as far as relevant , as follows :

“ ( CARDINAL ) A child has a right to have contact with both parents . Both parents have a right to have contact with their children . The contact is meant primarily to serve the child ’s interest .

( CARDINAL ) The court can withdraw or restrict the right to contact only if this is necessary for the protection of the child ’s interest . Contact would not be in the child ’s interest if it caused psychological pressure or if it caused risk to the child ’s physical and psychological development . The ORG can decide that the contact should be carried out under the supervision of a third person or by means other that visits if this is necessary in order to protect the child ’s interests .

( CARDINAL ) Before taking a decision under the ... fifth paragraph of this section , the court must obtain an opinion from the welfare authority . The court shall consider also the child ’s opinion , if he or she is able to express it himself or herself , or with the assistance of another person he or she trusts and has chosen ... ”

NORP Moreover , section PERSON was introduced with the above - mentioned amendment . It provides that the child has a right to have contact with the extended family members , apart from his or her parents , if he or she is personally attached to them . These included the current or previous spouse or partner of CARDINAL of his parents . The contact should be agreed between the parents , the child , if he or she is able to understand the matter , and the persons in question . The welfare authorities should assist in the matter . If no agreement is reached , the court shall decide on the issue further to a request lodged by a child who is DATE or older , the persons in question or the welfare authority .


CARMUIREA SPIRITUALA A MUSULMANILOR DIN REPUBLICA MOLDOVA v. MOLDOVA

The applicant , PERSON a ORG , is an organisation of NORP from GPE . They were represented before the ORG by Mr PERSON , a lawyer practising in PERSON .

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

On DATE several natural persons joined together to form the applicant organisation – PERSON GPE DATE an organisation of NORP with the goal of having the NORP religion officially registered in GPE and building a Mosque in the city of PERSON . On the same date the organisation adopted its articles of association .

Pursuant to LAW ( see below ) , which requires religious denominations active in GPE territory to be recognised by means of a government decision , the applicant organisation applied for recognition on DATE .

On DATE the Government replied that they needed more time in order to examine and observe the activity of the organisation .

On DATE the applicant organisation lodged a new request with the Government .

On DATE the applicant organisation brought an action against the Government seeking an order to oblige the Government to reply to their request and to register their religion .

On DATE ORG obliged the Government to give an answer to the applicant 's request . It did not oblige the Government to register their religion . The applicant organisation appealed against this judgment .

On DATE ORG upheld the applicant 's appeal , quashed the judgment of CARDINAL DATE and sent the case for re - examination to ORG in a different formation of judges .

On DATE ORG decided that it could not oblige the Government to register the NORP religion because the applicants had not submitted to the Government all the documents provided for in Articles DATE ( see below ) . The applicant appealed against this judgment .

On DATE ORG upheld the judgment of ORG , confirming that the applicant organisation had failed to submit to the Government a document setting out the fundamental principles of their religion . ORG also noted that the Government had informed the applicant organisation on several occasions that the documentation it had provided was incomplete , but the applicant failed to remedy this .

The relevant provisions of LAW ( Law no . CARDINAL of DATE ) in force at the material time read as follows :

Everyone has the right to freedom of thought , conscience and religion . This right must be manifested in a spirit of tolerance and mutual respect and it includes freedom to change his religion or belief and freedom , either alone or in community with others and in public or private , to manifest his religion or belief , in worship , teaching , practice and observance .

Freedom to manifest one 's religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a NORP society in the interests of public safety , for the protection of public order , health or morals , or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others .

No one can be forced to practice or not to practice the rites of a denomination ...

The confessional intolerance , manifested through acts which obstruct the freedom of a denomination recognised by the ORG , constitutes an offence and shall be punished in accordance with the law .

“ Denominations shall be free to organise and operate freely on condition that their practices and rites do not contravene the LAW , the present LAW or the legislation in force .

Denominations that do not comply with this condition shall not qualify for ORG recognition .

In order to be able to organise and operate , denominations must be recognised by means of a government decision .

Where a denomination fails to comply with the conditions laid down by the first paragraph of section CARDINAL of the present Act , recognition may be withdrawn .

“ To qualify for recognition , each denomination shall submit to the ORG , for scrutiny and approval , the articles of association governing its organisation and operation . The articles of association must contain information on its system of organisation and administration and on the fundamental principles of its beliefs . ”


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

André Potocki;Angelika Nußberger;Ann Power-Forde;Dean Spielmann;Elisabet Fura;Ganna Yudkivska

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

The applicant is the director and sole owner of the limited liability company ORG . , which provides consultancy , engineering and representation services .

On DATE the applicant , representing his company GPE , instituted enforcement proceedings against another company , PERSON , for the payment of a bill for CARDINAL NORP tolars ( SIT ) . On DATE ORG , relying on a valid purchase order submitted by the applicant ’s company , upheld his request . The operative part of the court ’s decision stated that company PERSON should pay the debt to the applicant ’s company and that , if not paid , this claim should be enforced .

Company L. lodged an objection . It argued that the purchase order to which the applicant ’s company referred had not been signed by it but by another company . Following the objection , ORG , on DATE , set aside its enforcement decision and the case was transferred to ORG to decide on the dispute .

Further to ORG decision of DATE , the proceedings , which were governed by legislation concerning commercial disputes , were conducted before ORG . The latter held CARDINAL hearings , the first CARDINAL on DATE . On DATE the court upheld the applicant ’s company ’s claim for SIT CARDINAL and rejected the remainder finding that it had already been paid . The judgment was served on the applicant ’s company on CARDINAL DATE .

Following an appeal by company ORG , the judgment was quashed on DATE . Subsequently , ORG re - examined the case , and , after holding CARDINAL hearings , rejected the applicant ’s company ’s claim on DATE . The judgment was served on the applicant ’s company on DATE .

Further to the applicant ’s company ’s appeal , the second judgment was also quashed ( on DATE ) and the case was re - examined at a new hearing held by ORG on DATE . On DATE the court upheld the claim for the sum of SIT CARDINAL in a judgment , which was served on the applicant ’s company on DATE . PERSON appeal was rejected by ORG on DATE . On that date the judgment of CARDINAL DATE became final and enforceable . ORG judgment was served on the applicant ’s company on DATE .

On DATE the applicant ’s company lodged a request for execution of the above judgment against company ORG ’s monetary assets , movable and immovable property . The applicant was twice asked to supplement the request with the necessary documents . On DATE ORG gave a decision allowing the enforcement .

On DATE the court appointed an enforcement officer .

On DATE the applicant ’s company asked the court to order company L. to supply a list of its assets . On DATE the court issued an order in line with the applicant ’s company ’s request . On DATE company L. supplied the list .

On DATE the court decided that the seizure of company L. ’s immovable property should be considered in separate proceedings , which were discontinued , presumably without success , on DATE . Subsequently , the applicant ’s company was requested to specify which further assets could be subject to the enforcement .

Further to receiving a letter from company ORG ’s bank noting that there were no monetary assets and no transactions on its bank account , the court , on DATE , discontinued this aspect of the enforcement . The applicant ’s company lodged an appeal , which was rejected on DATE by ORG .

On DATE the enforcement officer informed the court that company L. had moved from its address , which was brought to the applicant ’s company ’s attention . On DATE the applicant ’s company informed the court of the new address .

In the course of the proceedings the applicant ’s company twice requested a review of alleged irregularities in the process of execution ; however , no decision appears to have been issued in reply to these requests .

On DATE company L. was removed from the register of companies following a request by the tax authorities to that effect . As a result , the enforcement proceedings were discontinued on DATE . The applicant ’s company did not request that the enforcement be continued against potential active shareholders in accordance with the relevant provisions of ORG , Insolvency Proceedings and LAW .

The Protection of the Right to Trial without Undue Delay Act ( Official Gazette nos . CARDINAL and DATE the CARDINAL Act ” ) entered into force on DATE . On DATE it became operational and has been implemented since that date . It applies to parties to court proceedings , participants in proceedings conducted under the statute regulating non - contentious procedure , and injured parties in criminal proceedings .

According to LAW , a claimant may use a supervisory appeal and a motion for deadline in order to expedite the proceedings . In addition to these acceleratory remedies , LAW also provides for the opportunity to obtain redress by means of a compensatory remedy , namely by bringing a claim for compensation . With regard to a compensatory remedy , LAW provides that CARDINAL cumulative conditions must be satisfied in order for a party to be able to lodge a claim for compensation . Firstly , during the proceedings the applicant must have successfully availed himself of the supervisory appeal or have lodged a motion for a deadline , regardless of the outcome . Secondly , the proceedings must have been terminated .


The applicant , Mr PERSON , is an NORP national , who was born in DATE and is currently staying in the GPE . He is represented before the ORG by Mr PERSON , a lawyer practising in Waalwijk .

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

On DATE the applicant arrived in the GPE . On DATE , he applied for asylum . In support of his claim for asylum he submitted the following :

Whilst living in GPE , the applicant and his family ( consisting of his mother and his CARDINAL brothers ) were frequently harassed by the authorities . By threatening to arrest the family members , the authorities wanted to exert pressure on the applicant ’s father to give himself up . The applicant ’s father was a professional soldier who did not agree with the regime . When he was ordered to fight against the NORP in GPE , he deserted , fled the country and applied for asylum in the GPE in DATE . Although his father was not recognised as a refugee within the meaning of LAW relating to LAW DATE ( “ LAW ” ) , he had been granted a residence permit . In order to avoid arrest , the applicant and his mother and siblings stayed with different relatives , making sure never to stay at any CARDINAL address for very long . However , the authorities always managed to trace them . The applicant was unable to go to school because his name featured on a list of people who were not allowed to attend school . According to the applicant , this was because his father was wanted by the authorities .

In DATE the GPE PERSON NORP ( Islamic Revolutionary Guards , “ PERSON ” ) came to arrest the applicant ’s older brother , PERSON , but his uncle PERSON had managed to organise PERSON ’s departure to GPE before he could be arrested . In DATE , the applicant , his mother and younger brother also managed to reach GPE . However , when PERSON was arrested in GPE and sent back to GPE , the other relatives also decided to return to GPE out of concern for him . PERSON was detained for DATE and tortured during that time . His uncle PERSON managed to obtain PERSON ’s release , presumably through the payment of bribes .

The applicant resumed his life of staying at different addresses .

On DATE , students demonstrated in GPE following the closure of a newspaper . TIME , security services raided dormitories on the university campus . Several students were wounded and others arrested in the raid . As a result , more student protests followed . The protests spread to other cities . Non - students , including the applicant , also participated . During CARDINAL of the demonstrations , the applicant handed out wood and stones to the students , helped set fire to a bus and a fire engine and built barricades . Troops responsible for public order charged at the demonstrators ; the applicant was beaten and his hand broken . After the demonstrations , many people were arrested and nothing more was heard of them . The applicant learnt that photographs had been taken of the people who had set fire to the bus and the fire engine . His uncle PERSON thought that it would be better for the applicant to leave the country and he put up the money for the applicant to go to GPE in DATE . Until his departure , he remained in GPE , staying in hiding at the houses of friends .

Whilst in GPE , the applicant was told by his mother on the telephone that a summons in his name , ordering him to report to ORG , had been delivered to his uncle ’s address .

The applicant stayed in GPE for DATE . He did not apply for asylum in GPE . A “ travel agent ” arranged for him to go to the GPE , together with a number of other people . They travelled by foot , boat , bus and train . The applicant used a NORP passport in the name of a man of NORP origin . The passport had been given to him by the “ travel agent ” . The applicant did not know through which countries his journey took him .

In the proceedings on his first request for asylum , the applicant submitted copies of CARDINAL summonses . The first ( “ document ( A ) ” ) was dated DATE and bore the number CARDINAL , the second ( “ document ( B ) ” ) was dated DATE and bore the number DATE the applicant stated that the summons bearing number CARDINAL had never been received . The summonses had been issued by ORG and stated , without giving any reasons , that the applicant was to report to a specific place at a specific time . According to the applicant , these summonses had been given to his mother .

Having considered that the applicant ’s asylum request could be dealt with in the so - called accelerated procedure ( see below ) , the Deputy Minister of Justice ( ORG ) rejected the request on DATE . The applicant ’s objection ( bezwaar ) against this decision was dismissed as manifestly ill - founded on DATE by the Acting President of ORG of GPE , together with his request for a stay of expulsion . The Acting President agreed with the Deputy Minister that the applicant ’s failure to submit documents capable of establishing his identity , his nationality or his travel route affected the sincerity of his account and detracted from its credibility . The Acting President further expressed doubts as to the credibility of the applicant ’s account concerning the problems encountered by his family in GPE allegedly as a result of the situation of his father . It was noted in this respect that the applicant ’s father had told the GPE authorities that he had never encountered problems for political reasons , but that he had been unable to obtain promotion in the army on account of several episodes of desertion . The Acting President also did not find it sufficiently established that the NORP authorities were aware of the applicant ’s participation in the student demonstrations , or that he was “ wanted ” by those authorities as a result of his participation . The applicant was found to have been inconsistent in this regard , first telling the immigration authorities that , whilst in GPE , his mother had told him that a summons had been sent to his uncle ’s address , yet the copies of the summonses submitted dated from the time when the applicant had still been in GPE , and they had allegedly been given to his mother . Finally , the summonses submitted were not originals and did not state the reason why the applicant was supposed to report to the authorities .

On DATE the applicant requested both the Deputy Minister and ORG to review their respective decisions in view of the fact that he had in the meantime managed to obtain original documents . ORG refused this request in a decision on DATE , stating in an obiter dictum that the documents might lead the applicant to decide to lodge a new request for asylum . On DATE the Deputy Minister informed the applicant that a request for revision could only be made in the form of a new request for asylum . The applicant was subsequently informed when and where he should formally lodge such a new request .

The applicant lodged his second request for asylum on DATE . This was also dealt with in the accelerated procedure . In support of this request he submitted the originals of the above - mentioned summonses ( A ) and ( B ) , as well as a further summons ( “ document ( C ) ” ) , dated CARDINAL DATE . He also stated that his uncle in GPE had recently managed to get a third person to obtain the following , original , documents from a file on the applicant :

– a letter / memo dated DATE from ORG in the LOC district to ORG , stating that the applicant was being prosecuted on charges of participation in the revolt at the university campus , and requesting the addressee to arrest the applicant ( “ document ( D ) ” ) ;

– an undated letter / memo ( the space after “ date : ” is left blank ) from the assistant criminal investigations officer in the police operations division to the commanding officer of border controls , in which reference is made to a letter dated DATE of the public prosecution department , and in which the addressee is requested to ensure that the applicant does not leave the country and is arrested should he try to leave ( “ document ( E ) ” ) ;

– an undated letter / memo ( the space after “ date : ” is left blank ) from an assistant information officer to his counterpart in the police identification division , in which reference is made to the order issued by the commanding officer of ORG relating to the identification of the suspects at the university campus , and in which the addressee is requested to make available all information concerning the background of the applicant ( “ document ( F ) ” ) ;

– an undated letter / memo ( the space after “ date : ” is left blank ) from an assistant information officer to the commanding officer of LOC , in which reference is made to the order issued by the ORG commanding officer relating to the arrest of those persons who had “ caused the university campus [ disturbance ] ” , and in which the addressee is requested to observe all of the applicant ’s movements so that he could be arrested once his whereabouts were known ( “ document ( G ) ” ) .

The applicant ’s second request for asylum was rejected by the Minister for ORG and Integration ( Minister PERSON Integratie , the successor of the Deputy Minister of ORG ) on DATE . The Minister held that the documents submitted by the applicant did not constitute newly emerged facts or altered circumstances . In this respect , the Minister found that no decisive importance could be attributed to the undated documents . The new documents did not lead to a conclusion different from the one reached on the first request for asylum , given that in those earlier proceedings the applicant ’s account had not been found wholly credible ; the applicant had not established his identity so that it could not be ascertained whether the new documents related to him , and he had failed to give a plausible explanation as to why he could not have submitted the new documents at an earlier stage . For these reasons , the Minister did not consider that the merits of the new request for asylum should be examined . He therefore rejected it by referring to the decision on the first request , in accordance with LAW ( PERSON ) .

On DATE the provisional - measures judge ( voorzieningenrechter ) of ORG of GPE , sitting in GPE , rejected both the applicant ’s request for a stay of expulsion and his appeal ( beroep ) against the decision of the Minister . The judge agreed with the Minister that no newly emerged facts or altered circumstances had been adduced by the applicant . Such facts or circumstances only existed if they had not played a role in the proceedings on the first request for asylum and if they could not have been submitted at that time . Facts and circumstances which had been known to the applicant prior to DATE ( the date of the final decision on the first request for asylum ) could thus in principle not be considered . The documents ( E ) , ( F ) and ( G ) could only be seen as further arguments ( nadere bewijsvoering ) relating to the first request which had already been rejected .

The applicant lodged a further appeal ( hoger beroep ) with ORG of ORG ( Afdeling Bestuursrechtspraak van de Raad van State ) , in which he argued that there were “ altered circumstances ” : his first request for asylum had been rejected because his account was found not to be credible , whereas the new documents showed that it was credible .

The further appeal was rejected on DATE , ORG finding that since documents ( E ) , ( F ) and ( G ) were undated , it could not be established that it had been impossible for the applicant to submit them in the proceedings on his first request for asylum . It was further held that the applicant had not adduced any exceptional facts and circumstances relating to him personally , on the basis of which his new request for asylum fell to be assessed outside the framework of Article CARDINAL of LAW .

Following the rejection of the applicant ’s first request for asylum by the Deputy Minister of Justice on DATE , the applicant ’s entitlement to ORG - sponsored reception facilities ceased , and it was not revived with the lodging of the second request for asylum . The applicant subsequently received some financial support from refugee and charitable organisations and private donors , but from DATE he was no longer in receipt of any kind of income . On DATE he lodged an official request to ORG for ORG opvang ORG ; hereafter the “ ORG ” ) to be provided with facilities to meet his basic needs . Having received no reaction , the applicant lodged an objection against the implied refusal ( fictieve weigering ) of his request on CARDINAL DATE . He also applied to ORG for a provisional measure . Both procedures are currently still pending .

Under LAW of LAW DATE ( vreemdelingenwet , hereinafter “ the LAW ” ) , which was in force until DATE , aliens coming from a country where they have a well - founded reason to fear persecution on account of their religious or political convictions , or of belonging to a particular race or a particular social group , could be admitted as refugees . The expression “ refugee ” in this provision was construed to have the same meaning as in LAW ( decision of ORG of DATE , PERSON [ ORG ] DATE , no . CARDINAL ) .

On DATE , LAW entered into force . On the basis of LAW , an alien may be eligible for a residence permit for the purposes of asylum if , inter alia ,

– he or she is a refugee within the meaning of LAW , or

– he or she has established well - founded reasons to assume that he / she will run a real risk of being subjected to torture or other cruel or degrading treatment or punishment if expelled to the country of origin .

Requests which , after a first intake interview with the applicant , are judged to be inadmissible and/or manifestly ill - founded , may be dealt with in an accelerated procedure if they do not require a time - consuming investigation , meaning that they can be processed with all due care within TIME . This fast - track procedure was introduced following a huge rise in the number of asylum applications that began in DATE .

Article CARDINAL of LAW ( PERSON ) provides that an applicant must adduce newly emerged facts or altered circumstances ( nieuw gebleken feiten of veranderde omstandigheden ) if a new request is filed following a decision in which the original request is , either totally or partially , rejected . When no such facts or altered circumstances have been adduced , the administrative authority may reject the new request with reference to the decision on the original request . Article CARDINAL thus embodies the ne bis in idem principle for the administrative law . Nevertheless , an exception has been made in this particular area of the law , in that an alien may adduce exceptional facts and circumstances relating to him or her personally , on the basis of which the new request may be assessed outside the framework of Article CARDINAL . In the case of a repeat asylum application which also invokes the risk of treatment contrary to LAW , an assessment by the court outside the framework of Article CARDINAL is therefore possible . ORG of ORG has on CARDINAL occasion quashed the dismissal of a repeat application for a residence permit for the purposes of asylum despite the absence of new facts or altered circumstances ( judgment of DATE , no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , PERSON Asiel- en ORG [ Newsletter on ORG and Refugeelaw ] CARDINAL ) . It did so on the basis of the exceptional circumstance that there was no dispute between the parties , that on his return to his country of origin , the alien would run a real risk of being subjected to treatment or punishment proscribed by LAW .

During the initial asylum procedure , an alien is entitled to reception and other facilities provided by the ORG . However , entitlements do not exist if the application has been refused in the accelerated procedure . Pursuant to LAW , an alien whose stay in the GPE is not lawful is not entitled to reception facilities . This provision applies to asylum seekers whose applications have been unsuccessful . Also , a second or further application for asylum does not confer a new entitlement to reception facilities . An exception to that basic principle can nevertheless be made if , inter alia , the asylum seeker finds him or herself in extremely compelling humanitarian circumstances ( FAC schrijnende humanitaire omstandigheden , LAW of FAC ) . The question whether such circumstances exist is always considered after it has been ascertained that the second or further application for asylum will not be processed in the accelerated procedure . It may also be considered if a person , who has submitted a second or further application , requests reception facilities due to extremely compelling humanitarian circumstances .

The ORG decides whether or not reception facilities will be provided . Appeal lies against a decision to refuse reception , but also against a failure to decide ( or to decide within a reasonable time ) on a request for reception facilities . The lodging of an appeal does not suspend the denial of reception facilities , but a provisional measure may be requested to the effect that such facilities are made available pending the appeal proceedings .

In a decision of DATE ( nr . ORG CARDINAL/CARDINAL ORG ) , the provisional - measures judge of ORG of The Hague , sitting in GPE , noted that the legislator had omitted to regulate whether or not an entitlement to reception facilities existed during the period for which an interim measure pursuant to Rule CARDINAL of ORG was in place . The judge considered that , as a result of the application of Rule CARDINAL , the petitioner could not be said to be under an obligation to leave the country and his stay in the GPE was , therefore , lawful . In addition , the denial of reception facilities DATE which was aimed at encouraging a departure from GPE – might detract from the effectiveness of the interim measure . In these circumstances , the judge perceived cause to grant a provisional measure to the effect that the ORG should provide the petitioner with reception facilities pending the proceedings on his appeal against the ORG ’s refusal of such facilities .

In different proceedings , ORG of ORG held on DATE that , as long as an interim measure pursuant to Rule CARDINAL of ORG is in place , the stay in the GPE of the person concerned is lawful ( nr . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) .

Policy is based on official country reports ( ambtsberichten ) , periodically drawn up by ORG .

The country report on GPE of DATE described how student demonstrations followed parliamentary discussions on a bill relating to the press and the closure of a newspaper on DATE , which got out of hand when riot police , security forces and units of the fundamentalist PERSON raided the campus of ORG and used force against the students , resulting in a number of deaths and CARDINAL of injuries . The violent attack on the students led to mass street protests in several NORP cities , where demonstrations for greater openness and freedom were held over DATE . These led to violent confrontations with the police , security services and groups supporting conservative forces . President PERSON finally banned all demonstrations . It appeared that CARDINAL students were arrested . At the time of the country report , CARDINAL were still thought to be in detention . The CARDINAL “ instigators ” of the protests had allegedly been condemned to death , although ORG neither confirmed nor denied such reports . Prison terms varying from DATE ( for CARDINAL of the “ instigators ” ) were imposed .

The country report concluded that the human rights situation in GPE remained a source of concern , despite a few positive developments . Notably those groups or individuals perceived in GPE as a threat or potential threat to a society based on NORP values and standards were at risk of becoming victims of human rights violations . The policy formulated on the basis of this country report meant that inter alia the following persons were eligible for consideration as possible refugees :

– persons viewed , whether individually or as a member of a particular group , as a threat , or a potential threat , to a society based on NORP values and standards ; and

– intellectuals , and in particular writers , journalists or publishers , who were viewed as a threat , or a potential threat , to society on the basis of their publications or other utterances in GPE .

According to the country report of DATE , students in GPE were relatively quiet in the period leading up to the commemoration on DATE of the riots of DATE . However , a demonstration on DATE that was intended to be peaceful got completely out of hand . The police intervened when the marchers began to shout slogans , students were arrested and fights broke out . Many participants in the demonstration at ORG were in fact ordinary people , rather than students .

On DATE , PERSON announced an amnesty for CARDINAL people who had been involved in the riots of DATE . The death penalty was imposed on one of the participants in the student disturbances but not carried out , the sentence being commuted to DATE imprisonment . The CARDINAL “ instigators ” of the student unrest of DATE , who had been arrested on DATE , and on DATE sentenced to long terms of imprisonment , were acquitted on appeal in DATE .

The country report of DATE showed that the human rights situation in GPE had deteriorated in DATE and DATE . The persecution of reformist intellectuals continued unabated . Nevertheless , in DATE it was reported in the press that the speaker of the NORP parliament had requested PERSON to grant an amnesty to the DATE students still in prison because of their activities during the student revolt . CARDINAL students from this group DATE the ones who had received the heaviest sentences – were still in prison at the time of the country report . They were primarily members and sympathisers of a student union that was viewed with suspicion by the regime .

The most recent country report , that of DATE , states that , as far as could be ascertained , CARDINAL of the students imprisoned for taking part in the riots of DATE were still in prison , CARDINAL students having been released in DATE .

In the light of the most recent developments in GPE , as described in the country reports , GPE policy on admitting NORP nationals has remained largely unchanged . Every asylum seeker from GPE must still demonstrate that the personal facts and circumstances of his or her case – viewed objectively – justify a fear of persecution as defined in refugee law or might lead to the conclusion that he or she would be subjected to treatment contrary to LAW if returned . Furthermore , the mere fact of a person being a student is no reason to fear persecution by the NORP authorities . In order to be eligible for a residence permit , students who have taken part in demonstrations or riots , or who occupy important positions within the student movement , have to establish that , because of that fact , they personally are viewed with suspicion by the authorities . Moreover , not every form of suspicion immediately leads to the conclusion that there can be said to be persecution within the meaning of refugee law .

On DATE ORG released the DATE Country Report on ORG in GPE . It stated inter alia :

“ The ORG ’s poor human rights record worsened , and it continued to commit numerous , serious abuses . ... Continuing serious abuses included : summary executions ; disappearances ; torture and other degrading treatment , reportedly including severe punishments such as beheading and flogging ; poor prison conditions ; arbitrary arrest and detention ; lack of habeas corpus or access to counsel and prolonged and incommunicado detention . ORG often did not receive due process or fair trials . The Government infringed on ORG privacy rights , and restricted freedom of speech , press , assembly , association and religion . ...

During a wave of student protests in DATE , vigilantes beat many protestors , and police arrested CARDINAL persons ( both protestors and vigilantes ) , according to Government figures shortly after the protests . The Government banned demonstrations planned for DATE to commemorate the killing of several students by security forces in demonstrations held in DATE and arrested more student activists at that time . ”

In its DATE Report DATE , covering events from DATE , ORG noted with respect to GPE inter alia :

“ Scores of political prisoners , including prisoners of conscience , continued to serve sentences imposed in DATE following unfair trials . Scores more were arrested in DATE , often arbitrarily and many following student demonstrations . ...

The development and fulfilment of human rights in GPE were adversely affected by the political stalemate between supporters and opponents of reform . ...

Students convicted and imprisoned after student demonstrations in DATE were reported to have been ill - treated in custody . In several cases , they faced new charges , including some relating to defamation and insult , reportedly based on statements made in prison or given to the media while on temporary leave from prison . ”


CASE OF ALLAN JACOBSSON v. SWEDEN (No. 1)

Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court;Criminal charge;Fair hearing);No violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions);Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed (Article 41 - Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)

ORG In DATE the applicant bought a property of CARDINAL GPE , GPE CARDINAL , in the centre of GPE in the municipality of GPE , a suburb QUANTITY south west of GPE . On the property , which lies QUANTITY north west of GPE railway station , there is a CARDINAL - family house in which the applicant lives .

ORG When the applicant bought the property it was covered by a subdivision plan ( avstyckningsplan - see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , adopted in DATE , according to which no building could be constructed on a plot of CARDINAL m² until sufficient water and sewage facilities had been provided for ( a water and sewage system had been built at DATE ) . The property was also covered by an area plan ( områdesplan - see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , adopted in DATE , which described the property mainly as a public area containing green spaces , streets and car parking , and by a building prohibition pursuant to section CARDINAL of FAC ( byggnadslagen , " LAW " - see paragraph CARDINAL below ) issued on CARDINAL DATE and lasting until DATE . The Government also claimed that the regulations for non - planned areas ( utomplansbestämmelser ) applied but the applicant contested this ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

ORG The first building prohibition under section CARDINAL of LAW covering the applicant ’s property was issued by ORG ( länsstyrelsen , " the ORG " ) of GPE on DATE and was valid for DATE . This prohibition has subsequently been prolonged by ORG for DATE each time , leaving the property unaffected for only a few brief intermediate periods . The last decision was taken on CARDINAL DATE and was valid until DATE . On DATE , with the entry into force of LAW DATE ( Plan - och Bygglagen , " LAW " ) , the existing system for prohibitions on construction was abolished and replaced by a new one ( see paragraphs DATE below ) .

ORG On DATE the municipality of GPE was merged with the municipality of PERSON , but on DATE GPE again became a separate municipality .

ORG On DATE ORG ( byggnadsnämnden ) of PERSON stated in a preliminary opinion , requested by the applicant , that it was not prepared to permit the division of his property into smaller plots . In its decision ORG referred inter alia to the area plan adopted in DATE .

ORG The applicant turned to ORG and requested that the municipality be ordered to adopt a town plan ( stadsplan ) for the central parts of GPE . In an opinion of DATE the ORG noted that only the ORG were competent to make the order requested . It added that , in its opinion , the planning procedure was under way to such an extent that such an order was not necessary .

ORG The applicant also complained to ORG ( justitieombudsmannen , PERSON ) who replied in a letter of CARDINAL DATE that he was well aware of the problems which could arise as a result of lengthy building prohibitions . Referring to CARDINAL of his earlier observations and to the preparatory works of the new building legislation , he concluded that there was no reason to take any other measures as a result of the applicant ’s complaint .

ORG On DATE ORG ( kommunfullmäktige ) adopted a master plan ( generalplan ) relating to part of the municipality of PERSON , according to which the applicant ’s property was supposed to be used for building blocks of flats of CARDINAL storeys .

ORG On DATE ORG stated , in reply to a request from the applicant , that it was not prepared to grant him an exemption from the building prohibition or a permit to build a CARDINAL - family house and a garage on the property . The applicant appealed to the ORG claiming that the building prohibition was not valid . ORG rejected the appeal on DATE . It interpreted ORG decision as a refusal to grant an exemption from the prohibition and stated that in its opinion the proposed buildings could be contrary to the aim of the prevailing prohibition and hinder future town planning as indicated in the master plan of DATE and that there were no special reasons to go against ORG assessment .

ORG In DATE ORG requested ORG to revoke , pursuant to CARDINAL of LAW , the right to build according to the subdivision plan of DATE . ORG rejected the request on DATE , stating inter alia as follows :

" The long duration of the [ building ] prohibition depends to a large extent on changes in the objectives of the planning procedure as a result inter alia of the changes of municipal organisation which have occurred twice during the time of prohibition .... ORG considers that the prevailing building prohibition gives the municipality sufficient freedom of action for the purpose of the impending town planning . Against the objections from owners of certain properties [ among whom the applicant ] , the ORG finds that a revocation [ of the subdivision plan ] is not justified . "

ORG On DATE the ORG decided to prolong the building prohibition for the area in question . In this decision the ORG stated inter alia that the newly created municipality ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) should have some time to determine its position in respect of the planning of PERSON and that an application for a further building prohibition would have to be founded on a time - schedule for the amendments of the plan or on some other proposal for the termination of the prohibition . Challenging , inter alia , the lawfulness of the ORG ’s decision , the applicant appealed to the ORG which , however , rejected the appeal on DATE .

ORG On DATE ORG ( kommunstyrelsen ) adopted an area programme according to which the area in which the applicant ’s property is situated should be used for the construction of multi - family houses in DATE . It also stated that the planning procedure should be given priority . On DATE ORG adopted a building programme to the same effect .

ORG On DATE the ORG decided to issue a further building prohibition for the area in question . In the decision it was noted that the GPE planned to carry out certain work during DATE for the purposes of establishing the necessary plans . The applicant appealed to the Government , which rejected the appeal on DATE , referring to the on - going planning work .

ORG On DATE ORG stated in a new preliminary opinion requested by the applicant that it would not be prepared to grant any building permit in view of the existing building prohibition . The applicant appealed to ORG , arguing inter alia that the building prohibition covering his property had ceased to be effective on DATE . In a decision of CARDINAL DATE , ORG conceded that a mistake had been made and quashed its decision of DATE ; however , it took a new decision of similar content since a new building prohibition was valid as from DATE .

Subsequently the ORG decided to quash ORG decision of CARDINAL DATE and to reject the appeal against the decision of DATE : it referred to the fact that a building prohibition was in force when the ORG examined the case . The applicant appealed against the ORG ’s decision to ORG ( kammarrätten ) of GPE and to the Government . On DATE the Government quashed the ORG ’s decision , holding that the ORG ’s opinion was not a binding decision and that , accordingly , it could not as such be subject to an appeal . On DATE ORG dismissed the appeal , referring to the ORG ’s decision . The applicant ’s request to ORG for leave to appeal was rejected on DATE .

ORG On DATE ORG adopted a new area plan covering inter alia the applicant ’s property . This plan mentioned the possibility of using the area for single or multi - family house development . According to the Government , this is the last step of the preparatory work in the making of a town plan . The validity of the subdivision plan ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) remained unaffected .

ORG On DATE the applicant again filed a request for a preliminary opinion regarding a building permit for his property ( cf paragraph CARDINAL above ) . ORG decided however , pursuant to the rules laid down in the new CARDINAL LAW , to defer its decision on the request for a period of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

ORG Until DATE a property owner ’s rights to erect buildings on his property were regulated by LAW and FAC ( byggnadsstadgan - " the DATE Ordinance " ) which was issued by the Government in accordance with powers conferred on them by LAW .

ORG LAW provided that constructions on a property required a building permit to the extent laid down by the Government . LAW of the DATE Ordinance specified that a permit was required for all new constructions ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL below ) except for the construction of certain buildings for public use , and small additions to existing residences and farms .

ORG Before a building could be erected on a property , LAW called for an examination of whether the property was suitable from a general point of view for this purpose . Such an examination was to be effected by planning procedure , except for non - urban areas where it could be made when an application for a building permit was under consideration .

ORG A master plan ( generalplan ) was drawn up by the municipality concerned in so far as this was required in order to establish a framework for more detailed plans . Complete master plans were seldom deemed necessary . Instead , municipalities tended to meet their planning needs by using simpler , less detailed plans , usually described as area plans ( områdesplan ) . Such plans were not governed by law .

ORG Town plans ( stadsplan ) were prepared for those urban areas in which this was deemed necessary ( section CARDINAL ) . A town plan was more detailed than a master plan : it indicated the purposes for which the various areas could be utilised - housing , roads , squares , parks , etc . - and it also included specific provisions on their use ( section CARDINAL ) .

Building plans ( byggnadsplan ) were established for areas which had become densely populated without , however , requiring the detailed regulations provided for in a town plan .

ORG After adoption by ORG , town and building plans had to be approved by ORG . In the course of this procedure , property owners had a number of opportunities to submit their views .

ORG If a municipality failed to adopt a town or a building plan , the Government could order it to do so within a certain time - limit .

ORG Subdivision plans ( avstyckningsplan ) were old plans which only set out the borders between land intended for building and land intended for public use . These plans did not regulate the details of building itself .

When LAW was introduced it was considered inappropriate to abolish existing subdivision plans before they had been replaced by other plans . According to the transitional provisions ( section CARDINAL of the CARDINAL Act and section CARDINAL of the DATE Ordinance ) , such plans were to be regarded as building plans in so far as construction was concerned , unless ORG decided otherwise .

ORG LAW also gave the municipalities a power , which was never exercised in the present case , to acquire property required for certain public purposes in accordance with a confirmed master or town plan : for example , areas reserved for public places according to a town plan could be redeemed by the municipality ( section CARDINAL ) . The acquisition value was decided by ORG ( fastighetsdomstolen ) and was to be assessed according to the rules laid down in LAW DATE ( expropriationslagen - " the CARDINAL Act " ) .

Regulations for non - planned areas ( i.e. areas not covered by a town or a building plan ) inter alia prohibited the construction of new buildings on properties which were not found to be suitable in the general interest for this purpose . The Government claimed that these regulations also applied in areas covered by subdivision plans whereas the applicant claimed that such areas were exempted therefrom .

ORG Under LAW of the DATE Ordinance , the authorities could not grant permits for new constructions which would result in urban development ( tätbebyggelse ) within an area not covered by a town plan or a building plan . Areas governed by subdivision plans were exempted from this prohibition , although the ORG could order , pursuant to LAW , that they also be covered thereby .

ORG If the question of adopting a town plan had been raised , ORG could , under LAW of LAW , also issue a prohibition on all new constructions for the area concerned . Such a prohibition was valid for DATE , but could be prolonged by DATE at a time . Exemptions therefrom could be granted where the planning procedure would not be obstructed .

ORG According to section CARDINAL of LAW , provisions on new constructions extended " to such alterations to existing premises as could be classified as new constructions under rules laid down by the Government " . LAW of the DATE Ordinance specified :

" The expression ‘ new construction’ shall mean :

( a ) the erection of entirely new LOC ;

( b ) the horizontal or vertical extension of existing LOC ;

( c ) any rebuilding of the exterior or interior of LOC or any alteration thereto which , on account of its scale , may be equated to rebuilding ;

( d ) the complete or partial conversion of LOC for a use substantially different from their previous one ;

( e ) such alteration to premises as results in their no longer being in conformity with the adopted master plan , town plan or building plan or the regulations on building activities in zones situated outside the areas covered by town plans or building plans ; and

( f ) any other alteration to LOC which , in their present state , are not in conformity with the above - mentioned plans or regulations , except in the case of residential LOC comprising not CARDINAL dwellings or of outbuildings belonging to such LOC .

However , for the purposes of the present section , the expression ‘ new construction’ shall not include the installation of central heating , water closets or other sanitary amenities in LOC which , even if such installation has not been authorised , are expected to remain in their present state for a considerable length of time . "

ORG Applications for building permits were filed with the local building committee . If an application came under a building prohibitions , it was in practice considered as including also an application for exemption from the prohibition . The applicant could , however , choose to apply for an exemption only , in order to apply for a permit when the question of exemption had been resolved .

ORG The examination of an application for a building permit involved ascertaining that the intended building would not run counter to any confirmed plan , to the regulations for non - planned areas , or to a building prohibition , and that it satisfied technical demands on construction . In the absence of such obstacles , a permit should have been granted .

ORG It was the practice among property owners to request preliminary opinions regarding their possibilities to build . Such opinions were not legally binding .

ORG Decisions by ORG to refuse building permits or exemptions from building prohibitions could be appealed to ORG .

Appeals against the ORG ’s decisions lay to the Government as regards exemptions from building prohibitions and to ORG as regards building permits . In the latter case a further appeal to ORG could be lodged if leave to appeal was granted . If the ORG decided both questions , appeals were to be lodged with ORG . If this ORG found that the construction did not require any exemption from a building prohibition , it would proceed to examine the permit question . Otherwise , the ORG would transfer the case to the ORG , together with an opinion on the permit issue .

ORG There were no limits to the number of times a property owner could apply for building permits or exemptions from a building prohibition . The authorities were obliged to examine the matter each time they were seized of such applications .

ORG A decision by the ORG to issue a building prohibition or to refuse at first instance an exemption from such a prohibition could be appealed to the Government .

Moreover , questions concerning the approval of town and building plans by ORG could be appealed to the Government . However , the property owners concerned could not formally require the municipality or ORG , respectively , to adopt or approve a plan .

ORG Since DATE , LAW has been replaced by DATE LAW .

ORG LAW has abolished the possibility to prescribe the kind of building prohibitions which are at issue in the present case , replacing it by a possibility for ORG to defer its decision on an application for a building permit or a preliminary opinion for a maximum period of DATE . After the expiry of this period , the permit or a favourable preliminary opinion shall be granted unless they are incompatible with a detailed plan and provided that certain purely technical requirements are met .

ORG Divisions of property into units are made by ORG ( fastighetsbildningsmyndigheterna ) . New units are to be designed in such a way as to make all properties concerned permanently suitable for their purpose with regard to their location , size and other conditions . Within areas subject to town or subdivision plans , a division must be made in accordance with the plan . If other regulations apply , e.g. a building prohibition , divisions have to comply with these also .

ORG Decisions by ORG may be appealed to the ordinary courts .

ORG LAW , LAW CARDINAL of the CARDINAL Act ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) gives the municipalities a right to expropriate for planning purposes . It provides :

" Within a densely developed area an expropriation may only take place if it can reasonably be assumed that the property will , within a foreseeable future , be required for a building or construction activity which is of significant public interest or if it is of importance for the purposes of a planned development or for another similar reason that the municipality takes control of the property " .

Expropriations pursuant to this section are subject to the general provisions regarding compensation laid down in LAW .