Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Life) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed (Article 41 - Pecuniary damage);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage)

David Thór Björgvinsson;George Nicolaou;Lech Garlicki;Ledi Bianku;Nebojša Vučinić;Päivi Hirvelä;Pavlina Panova;Zdravka Kalaydjieva

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

The first CARDINAL applicants are the sons , and the third applicant is the widow , of Mr Todor PERSON ( alias Chakara ) , who died on CARDINAL or DATE in the course of a police operation for his arrest .

DATE PERSON , born in DATE , was convicted CARDINAL times of various offences . In DATE he was convicted of inflicting bodily harm of medium severity . In DATE he was convicted of forming a group intending to engage in sabotage , of trying to cross the border illegally , of stealing public and private property and a motor vehicle , and of unlawfully possessing firearms and ammunition . In DATE he was convicted of inflicting minor bodily injury on an official in connection with the performance of the latter ’s duties . In DATE he was convicted of stealing fiftythree lambs . In DATE he was convicted of trying unlawfully to export valuables . In DATE he was convicted of stealing CARDINAL lambs and unlawfully possessing firearms .

On DATE Mr PERSON was convicted of systematically letting out his house for lewd acts , and sentenced to CARDINAL months’ imprisonment . The conviction and sentence became final on DATE .

On an unspecified date in DATE the GPE police were notified of that latest conviction and sentence , and dispatched CARDINAL officers to arrest Mr PERSON with a view to sending him to prison to serve the sentence . The officers went to his house in GPE , informed him that he was due to be imprisoned , and asked him to come with them . Mr PERSON , visibly calm , asked the officers to wait for TIME , so that he could prepare his luggage . The officers waited for TIME outside the house . When they went in to arrest PERSON , they saw that he had fled . After that they went back to the police station and reported the incident to the head of the ORG police and to ORG .

The account of the circumstances surrounding Mr PERSON ’s death is based on the findings of the investigation carried out by the military prosecuting and investigating authorities ( see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) .

NORP In DATE ORG ordered the police to carry out a series of operations for the arrest of individuals with final convictions and sentences . As a result , in TIME of DATE the head of ORG assembled CARDINAL groups of officers to arrest PERSON . The first group had to check his house in GPE , the second had to check the sheep pen of an associate of his , and the third had to check Mr PERSON ’s country house , situated near GPE . All CARDINAL groups were armed with their service pistols . They were told that PERSON might try to escape or put up armed resistance , and instructed to use their weapons only as provided for by law .

At TIME the CARDINAL groups set out to carry out their respective tasks . The first and the second group were unable to find Mr PERSON . The third group , which consisted of CARDINAL officers , CARDINAL of whom were in uniform ( one wearing a bulletproof vest ) and CARDINAL in plain clothes , arrived near Mr PERSON ’s country house at QUANTITY The house was surrounded by service buildings . All of those were erected on uneven terrain sloping steeply from the north - west to the south - east . The officers stopped their car in front of the gate , close to which they saw a big pile of used car tyres . They noticed that the gate was closed and started to whistle and shout . Several dogs in the yard started barking and PERSON PERSON ’s mother came out of CARDINAL of the service buildings . CARDINAL of the officers presented himself and told her that they were looking for her son . Then she opened the gate and held the dogs back . The officers moved towards the house , the one with the bulletproof vest walking in front , and went through another gate between several service buildings . At that point they spotted Mr PERSON on the steps outside the house , carrying an unidentified weapon . He also saw them , waved to them to go away and fired a shot , apparently in their direction . CARDINAL of the officers hid behind the service buildings and CARDINAL behind some building materials scattered around the yard . He then ran back to the car and radioed the headquarters in GPE about the incident . At CARDINAL or DATE the head of the CARDINAL officers ordered them to remain where they were and not to take further action .

Shortly after that the head of ORG directed all police teams in the town towards Mr PERSON ’s country house and requested assistance from the police in CARDINAL neighbouring towns , GPE and FAC . The GPE police dispatched an emergency response team consisting of CARDINAL officers , and the FAC police sent CARDINAL officers divided into CARDINAL teams . The head of the FAC police also went to the scene of the incident .

At TIME the GPE police , some of whom had armed themselves with long barrel weapons , surrounded the house and cut off all access points , waiting for the emergency response team from GPE to arrive . It seems that Mr PERSON fired several shots at them , with CARDINAL of the bullets hitting the mudguard of a police car . The police did not fire back .

Shortly after that the GPE team arrived and positioned themselves around the house . The head of the team informed the Minister of ORG of the situation . The Minister decided to dispatch the special antiterrorism squad and psychologists of ORG . The FAC police also arrived TIME . Most of them took up position around the house . A fire engine also came to the scene .

The head of the PERSON team decided to try to establish contact with Mr PERSON through relatives of his . At TIME Mr PERSON ’s sister was called in and asked to help the police . At the same time Mr PERSON ’s elder son ( the first applicant ) also arrived . He offered to take his father a mobile phone so that he could communicate more easily with the police . The head of the GPE police team refused , apparently for fear that the first applicant might be taken hostage by PERSON . Some time after that the CARDINAL officers hiding behind the service buildings managed to get out of the yard with the help of Mr PERSON ’s mother .

At TIME Mr PERSON ’s sister approached the house and brought her mother out . She spotted PERSON , who waved at her . She understood the gesture to mean that he wished to talk to somebody on the phone , and asked the police to allow her to take a mobile phone or a megaphone to PERSON . Her request was turned down with the explanation that the police were waiting for psychologists , who would try to establish contact with PERSON , to arrive .

Shortly after that CARDINAL psychologists of ORG arrived . They started gathering information about Mr PERSON ’s personal history , character and relations with his family , in order to decide whether his relatives might be able to exert a positive influence on him . The first applicant again asked for permission to take his father a mobile phone , but his request was turned down due to security concerns .

Shortly after that the special antiterrorism squad arrived . They gathered information about the internal structure of the house from Mr PERSON ’s relatives , with a view to determining safe ways of approaching the house .

Around TIME the psychologists tried to make contact with Mr PERSON from a height situated at QUANTITY from the house , using a megaphone . As communication from such a distance was difficult , at the suggestion of the first applicant they advanced to CARDINAL or QUANTITY from the house . They tried to persuade PERSON to surrender . He requested to speak with his mother and his sister , but his request was denied . He then apparently said that if anyone was to get hurt , it would be him . As the psychologists believed that the first applicant would be able to exert a positive influence on Mr PERSON , they tried to continue the negotiations with his participation until TIME As Mr PERSON did not reply for TIME , they gave up . According to the first applicant , the reason for the discontinuation of the negotiations was the fact that the megaphone ’s battery had run out .

Around TIME the police decided to attack the house , because they believed that Mr PERSON had prepared a secret escape route and might try to flee . The head of the anti - terrorism squad split his men into CARDINAL groups . The first , consisting of CARDINAL officers , was to attack from the northwest , from high ground , and the second from the service buildings . The first group was moving in a column , with the first officer carrying a protective shield . They fired CARDINAL smoke bombs at the house , with a view to forcing PERSON out of it . However , as the windows and the doors were covered with linoleum , cardboard and blankets , most of the smoke bombs failed to penetrate . Mr PERSON started firing at the first group , and this forced them to take cover in a ditch . The head of the squad ordered the second group to fire at the house to divert Mr PERSON ’s attention and PERSON PERSON fired back at them . The skirmish lasted for TIME , after which both groups of officers retreated . At TIME the GPE police , who were hiding behind the pile of tyres , were also ordered to retreat to a safe distance .

After that the police tried to resume the negotiations . A group of officers and the first applicant advanced to CARDINAL from the house and invited Mr PERSON to continue negotiating . He did not reply and the police gave the megaphone to the first applicant , who called upon his father to surrender . Again , there was no reply . At that point the police saw that as a result of the earlier attack a room on the first floor of the house had caught fire . The psychologists and the first applicant then retreated . The first applicant shouted towards the house “ Father , please come out unarmed and surrender , so that this whole episode can be over ” , but his supplication went unanswered .

At TIME the head of the antiterrorism squad ordered his men to blow up holes in the walls of the house . They used stunt grenades . According to his later statements , this led to explosions and a short skirmish . According to the first applicant , after TIME Mr PERSON did not talk or shoot back at the police , or react to their attacks in any other way .

After that the head of the antiterrorist squad informed the Minister of ORG about the latest developments . The Minister called a halt to all actions pending the arrival of the Secretary General of ORG , general PERSON , on the spot . In the meantime , police vehicles were placed on a height facing the house , so as to shed light on the scene with their headlights .

NORP The Secretary General arrived at CARDINAL or TIME and took command of the operation . He ordered the police to blow a hole in the walls of the house . The police carried out the order . According to a later statement by the Secretary General , after the first explosion there was a second one , coming from the upper levels . As a result , the roof caught fire and quickly burned down . Apparently several unsuccessful attempts were then made to enter the house , but it is unclear in what exactly they consisted . Meanwhile , an individual who had worked on the house and who had heard about the incident on the radio came to the police and told them that Mr PERSON had warned him that the house was booby - trapped .

Around TIME , on the orders of the Secretary General , a border police unit was called in to monitor the house and its surroundings with nightvision devices . The monitoring continued until TIME .

Later , following a discussion with other senior officers , the Secretary General ordered the police to use a rocket propelled grenade launcher , in order to diffuse any possible booby traps and speed up the search of the house . The launcher was brought at TIME on DATE , and given to the antiterrorism squad . CARDINAL TIME an officer of the squad fired CARDINAL rocket propelled grenades at the lower parts of the house and a room on the first floor , which made a big breach in the wall . It was decided to await daylight to attack .

DATE TIME the police formed a thick cordon around the house . They started entering the house and checking the ground and the first floor . When they reached the attic floor , using a fireladder , they saw the legs of Mr PERSON ’s charred body . The operation was then terminated , the house was sealed off , and the incident was reported to the military prosecuting authorities .

DATE , DATE , ORG opened an investigation into the above events . An investigator carried out an inspection of the scene of the incident and took photographs .

DATE , DATE , a doctor from the forensic ward of the PERSON hospital performed an autopsy on Mr PERSON ’s body . He noted the following :

“ The body is split in CARDINAL and the vertebral column is severed at the fifth or the sixth vertebra . The body is as a whole charred . The configuration of the skull is intact . The hair is missing . There are remains of charred soft tissue on the calvaria and the face . The lower jaw is broken at the level of the right ramus mandibulae , with broken fragments and teeth . The skull bones are crumbly , charred . The configuration of the brain is intact , as if it has been parched . The brain tissue is not damaged and there are no haematomas in the cranial cavity . The skin at the neck is charred . Part of it , near the trachea and right part of the neck , is missing , which allows one to see the charred underlying neck muscles . The upper third of the thorax is preserved , but the soft tissue is fully charred . The lungs and the heart are still connected to their holders ; they have shrunk , they are parched and dry with charred surfaces and hard to cut . The surrounding tissue of the section has no visible structure . The liver , shrunk and charred , reduced in size and parched , lies beneath . The vertebral column is segmented at the level of the fifth or the sixth vertebra , and what remains of it , including the lumbar part , has charred vertebrae covered with remains of charred tissue . CARDINAL of the abdominal wall are missing . The pelvis , including the wings of the iliums , the ischium and the pubic bone , is broken into pieces . The symphysis is separated . Parts of the intestines , charred , and remains of fatty tissue were found inside the pelvic cavity . Limbs : the right arm is strongly flexed at the elbow joint ; the bones in the joint are apart . The wrist is flexed and the fist is clenched . A safetyloop from a hand grenade was found on the third finger , between the first and the second phalanges . The skin and the muscles of the hand are charred . The palm and CARDINAL of the forearm of the left hand are missing , and the remains have an uneven edge and are strongly flexed at the elbow joint . The soft tissue is charred . The skin and the muscles on the entire surface of the right thigh are charred . The skin on the front surface of the knee and on the front surface of the upper CARDINAL of the shank is preserved . The soft tissue on the back surface of the shank is charred to the bone , and the back surface of the heel is burned . The foot is encased in a [ militarytype ] shoe . One can see the remains of trousers and of woollen socks . The skin and the muscles of the left leg and of the thigh are charred . The left shank has been affected in the same way as the right one , with a [ militarytype ] shoe and a charred sock on . There are greyish metal pellets driven into the tissue and the bones of the pelvis area . CARDINAL such pellets were taken out of the left ilium and given to the investigator . We made Xrays of the body in the autopsy room ... On the images one can see ovalshaped foreign bodies with similar diameters driven into the tissue , mostly in the pelvis and the thorax . One can see a metal safetyloop attached to the third finger of the right hand . ... ”

In DATE the authorities interviewed all officers who had taken part in the operation : thirtynine officers from ORG , CARDINAL officers from ORG , CARDINAL officers from ORG , thirtyone officers from the special antiterrorism squad , CARDINAL border police officers , CARDINAL psychologists from ORG , and the Secretary General of ORG . They also interviewed the applicants and other eyewitnesses , and commissioned a number of expert reports .

On DATE the investigator in charge of the case proposed that the prosecuting authorities discontinue the investigation . On DATE the ORG agreed to the proposal . It said that the investigation had categorically established that Mr PERSON ’s death had been due to the explosion of a hand grenade which he had himself detonated close to his body . No officers were responsible for that . The actions of the police had fully complied with the applicable rules and had been the only actions possible under the circumstances , in view of the resistance put up by PERSON and the fact that he had fired at them .

On DATE the applicants sought judicial review of the discontinuance .

On DATE ORG , sitting in private , set the discontinuance aside and referred the case back for additional investigation . It noted that the investigation had failed to establish the exact time of PERSON death , which had prevented the prosecuting authorities from assessing fully the lawfulness of the actions of the police , including the use of explosives , smoke bombs and a grenade launcher . It went on to say that the prosecuting authorities had failed to analyse the evidence properly and give reasons why they believed that all actions of the police had been lawful . In particular , they had failed to give any reasons why they considered that the actions of the police after CARDINAL or TIME on DATE , including the firing of CARDINAL rocket propelled grenades , had been warranted , especially in view of the fact that the evidence showed that after that time Mr PERSON had not resisted or fired at the police . Lastly , it could not be categorically concluded that Mr PERSON ’s death had been caused by a hand grenade which he had had activated himself ; a number of other explosive devices had been used by the police .

Accordingly , on DATE ORG sent the case back to the investigator , instructing him to ( a ) ask ballistics experts to identify all explosive devices which had been used , explain their mode of operation , and express their opinion on whether the smoke bombs fired at the house had been capable of creating a concentration of gases sufficient to cause the death of PERSON ; ( b ) seek the opinion of forensic and ballistics experts on the exact time of PERSON PERSON ’s death , on the origin of the metal fragments found in his body , and on whether the death had resulted from a hand grenade ; ( c ) interview again the participants in the operation and ask them why it had been deemed necessary to use a grenade launcher and other explosive devices at a time when PERSON had no longer been showing any signs of resistance ; ( d ) establish whether boobytraps had indeed been planted in or around the house ; and ( e ) identify the officers who had caused damage to the house and ascertain whether their actions had amounted to a criminal offence . It went on to note that Mr PERSON ’s heirs had not been given an opportunity to acquaint themselves with the materials in the case file , which had been a serious breach of the rules of procedure .

The investigator asked several experts to draw up the reports requested by the prosecuting authorities .

In a report drawn up on DATE an expert said that no devices which could be described as boobytraps had been found in PERSON PERSON ’s house or yard . CARDINAL fully operational defensive hand grenades had been found inside the house .

In their report , drawn up on DATE , the ballistics experts described the characteristics of the weapons and ammunition used during the operation or found on the spot ( PERSON assault rifle and ammunition for it , antitank rocket propelled grenades , teargas grenades , small wallblasting explosives , a defensive hand grenade ) , and said that the wall of the house had been demolished by the antitank rocket propelled grenades fired during the operation . They also said that from the materials in the case file it appeared that no teargas grenades had fallen inside the house , and that the concentration of any such gas in the room where PERSON PERSON had been standing had not been high enough to kill him .

The combined forensic and ballistics expert report , drawn up by a forensic doctor , an army weapons specialist and an expert in automatic weapons , became ready on DATE . It said that the complete charring of PERSON body prevented a medical determination of the time of his death . The explosive device which had killed him had been very close to his body at the moment of detonation , with the result that the body had suffered the impact of all components of the explosion : the detonation , the gases , parts of the explosive , soot , parts of the device ’s casing and fragments of it . Mr PERSON ’s body had been destroyed and had sustained deep burns , to the point of charring , and multiple wounds from the device ’s casing and filling . The metal fragments found inside the body showed that the device was a hand grenade , of the type used in the NORP army , consisting of a metal casing and , underneath it , plastic shells containing QUANTITY to CARDINAL pellets . All of those had impacted on Mr PERSON ’s body . The mechanism of the grenade and the force needed to pull its lever were such as to prevent accidental detonation , including detonation resulting from the closeby detonation of another device , which meant that Mr PERSON had been fully conscious of his actions when activating the grenade . He had thus blown himself up , as could be seen from the safetypin loop found on the third finger of his right hand . However , it was probable that the charring of his body was due to a secondary fire in the room , and had occurred after his death .

On DATE ORG again decided to discontinue the investigation . It set out its findings of fact and the conclusions of the expert reports , and reasoned as follows :

“ ... The initial steps taken by officers of ORG with a view to [ Mr ] PERSON ’s localisation and arrest were lawful . When he used firearms against them , they duly reported that to their superiors . They , in turn , lawfully decided to use firearms as a means of last resort , in accordance with section CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(CARDINAL ) and ( CARDINAL ) of ORG [ DATE ] . As [ Mr ] PERSON refused to obey their order to surrender and continued to fire at them , it was lawful to bring in the antiterrorism squad . This was in line with section CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(CARDINAL ) of the [ Act ] and based on a decision of the Minister of ORG . The police were confronted with an individual who had committed numerous criminal acts and had numerous convictions and who , during an operation for his arrest to enforce a sentence ... , put up armed resistance . This was established on the basis of the statements made by the officers and by [ Mr ] PERSON ’s relatives . The fact that he fired upon the police is also confirmed by the bullet - hole in the left mudguard of [ a police car ] and the asbestos cement sheets placed outside the house .

The steps taken by the officers of the [ antiterrorism ] squad after their arrival were also lawful . They were faced with an urgent special operation which required fast appraisal of the situation and decisionmaking . Their decisions were taken on the basis of the situation described above . After [ Mr ] PERSON failed to heed the advice of his relatives and the psychologists to turn himself in , it was lawful and in line with section CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(CARDINAL ) of the [ Act ] and regulations CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) , ( CARDINAL ) and ( CARDINAL ) to resort to the use of pyrotechnical devices and explosives . CARDINAL of the walls of the ground floor of the house was blown up with a view to storming it and making a passage to the inside . However , in view of the explanations of [ the individual who had worked on the house ] about booby traps in various unknown locations in and around the house and the darkness , the attack was postponed . It was only at that point that a decision was taken to use antitank grenades , in line with regulation ORG ) . The purpose was to diffuse any explosive devices and clear a passage for the storming party , which was supposed to attack in the morning . As a result of the firing of those grenades , part of the ground floor of the building was destroyed . When the goal had been achieved , the firing stopped . The attack began in TIME of DATE in order to protect the health and the lives of the police officers . Then they found the body of [ Mr ] PERSON .

In this case , there was overt resistance by [ Mr ] PERSON and refusal to obey police orders . Also , before using weapons the police officers and the members of the antiterrorism squad considered the specific situation , the nature of [ Mr PERSON ’s ] act and [ his ] personality . They took all necessary safety measures and discontinued the use of weapons immediately after achieving their goal – opening a breach for the storming party .

The actions of the officers would be criminal only if they were socially dangerous , committed with mens rea , and punishable ... The lack of any of those characteristics makes their actions not criminal . By LAW , it is not criminal to cause damage to a person who has committed an offence in order to effect his arrest and prevent him from committing further offences , if there is no other way to carry out the arrest and if the necessary and lawful measures are not exceeded . This equally fully applies to the house used by [ Mr ] PERSON as a shelter . Since there was no other way of entering it , it became necessary to demolish part of it . The available evidence shows that the actions of the police were not socially dangerous , but socially necessary , and , indeed , the only ones possible under the relevant provisions of ORG [ DATE ] and the regulations . Therefore , there has been no criminal offence . All exculpating circumstances under LAW are in place . ...

Moreover , under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of ORG [ DATE ] , the identities of the members of the special antiterrorism squad are to be kept secret , which means that they can not be held criminally liable .

The investigation categorically and unequivocally found that [ Mr ] PERSON ’s death was due to his blowing himself up with an offensive hand grenade which he detonated close to his body . No officers are responsible for that . No other offences committed by the officers in connection with the performance of their duties were established . ... ”

On DATE the applicants sought judicial review of the discontinuance . They argued that not enough evidence had been gathered on the time and the causes of Mr PERSON ’s death , and that only experts in pathology would be able to give an informed opinion on those points . It was also hard to believe that Mr PERSON had blown himself up with a hand grenade . He was a righthander and the grenade safetyloop was found on a finger of his right hand , whereas it was highly unusual for someone to draw the safetyloop of a hand grenade with his strong hand and hold the grenade itself with his weak hand . The investigation had not done enough to elucidate that paradox , which was central to its conclusions . It was also incomprehensible how the experts , none of whom was a psychologist , were able to give an opinion about Mr PERSON ’s state of mind before his death . No explanation was provided about the type of explosives used at TIME on DATE to blow up the hole in the wall of the house . This seriously weakened the prosecutor ’s conclusion that the metal pellets found in PERSON body were from a hand grenade . After TIME on DATE the police were not acting in selfdefence because Mr PERSON had not fired any shots at them after that time . They clearly overstepped the limits set by LAW and did not try to contact him or arrest him without using force after that time . The conclusion that a grenade launcher was needed to diffuse possible booby traps could not withstand scrutiny . No such traps were found , and it was absurd to believe that trained police officers could suppose that such traps had been laid around a house whose yard was used by PERSON , his family and domestic animals . The police apparently only resorted to using a grenade launcher to speed up the operation . It was also telling that the names of the officers who ordered the use of a launcher were not mentioned in the prosecutor ’s decision . Lastly , the applicants pointed out that this ORG ’s caselaw under LAW required that there should be an effective official investigation when individuals have been killed as a result of the use of force by the police .

On DATE ORG , sitting in private , decided to uphold the discontinuance in the following terms :

“ ... After fully checking the materials in the case file , the court comes to the only possible conclusion , namely , that the decision to discontinue the proceedings was correct , wellfounded and lawful .

The investigation was objective , all - inclusive and comprehensive . The investigating and the prosecuting authorities have taken all necessary steps to establish the truth . All circumstances surrounding the main fact – the cause of [ Mr ] PERSON ’s death DATE have been examined . The authorities have not committed serious breaches of the rules of procedure . The remitting of the case for additional investigation was a major factor in that respect . The prosecutor ’s conclusions are correct , wellfounded , not internally inconsistent , accurate and fully correspond to the evidence and the facts . To come to them , the prosecutor , along with an assessment of the available materials , has taken into account the constant caselaw of ORG and academic studies of criminal law .

The prosecutor ’s conclusion that the proceedings should be discontinued corresponds to the totality of the evidence , which has been precisely analysed and assessed . The court finds that the prosecutor was right to conclude that the police were acting in a situation falling under LAW [ of LAW ] . They were aiming to arrest an individual who had committed an offence , and who had been convicted and sentenced by means of a final decision . He refused to obey their orders and put up fierce armed resistance . His actions consisted in an attack against the police that seriously endangered their lives . This leads to the incontestable and unequivocal conclusion that the police officers were acting in pursuance of their duties and that their actions were correct , lawful and adequate in a situation which was extreme , critical and gravely dangerous for their health and lives .

The court fully shares the remaining conclusions of the prosecutor ... which it considers correct and accurate .

On that basis , the court finds that the arguments raised in the application [ for judicial review ] are groundless and illfounded . Firstly , the arguments ... that the ‘ prosecutor ’s findings about the time of death are unconvincing and solely based on the conclusions of the medical expert ’s PERSON ... are groundless . If the [ applicants’ lawyers ] had bothered to acquaint themselves with [ the ] evidence ... , they would not have reached those conclusions . The prosecutor ’s findings about the causes and the time of [ Mr ] PERSON ’s death were based not only on the conclusions of the medical expert ’s report and the complex ballistics and medical experts’ report , but also on the statements of all eyewitnesses . The lawyers should be aware that a fact , namely the time and the causes of death , can be established through all types of evidence allowed under the rules of criminal procedure , not solely expert reports . Since the PERSON conclusion , whose accuracy the court does not doubt , is supported by an abundance of other evidence , including eyewitness statements , the court finds this fact to be unequivocally established ... For that reason , the court finds that the time and the cause of [ Mr ] PERSON ’s death have been unequivocally established , and that this has been accurately described in the prosecutor ’s decision . The court therefore finds the [ applicants’ ] arguments in that connection unfounded and not corresponding to the evidence in the case . For the same reasons , the court finds no force in the [ applicants’ ] arguments relating to the lack of clarity of the prosecutor ’s decision about the type of expert report to be ordered by the investigator . The court reiterates that if the [ applicants’ lawyers ] had read the complex medical and ballistics report , they would have understood this alleged lack of clarity ...

The [ applicants’ ] assertion relating to the ‘ ORG and the ‘ weak’ hand of [ Mr PERSON ] is also groundless and lacking legal logic . The safetyloop from the detonator of a grenade , the specific dismemberment of the body in the middle ( near the stomach and the groins ) , and the remains of a defensive grenade ( pellets and fragments ) in the body lead to the only possible conclusion that [ Mr PERSON ] blew himself up in the way described in detail by the prosecutor ... This unequivocally proves that the grenade was not thrown , as asserted by the [ applicants ] , because if that were the case there would be no pieces of a detonated grenade on the body of [ Mr ] PERSON . The court finds whether [ Mr ] PERSON was right or lefthanded irrelevant and for this reason shall not engage in further discussion on that point .

The complex medical and ballistics experts’ report gave a conclusion about [ Mr ] ORG ’s psychological state at the time of his ‘ self - detonation’ , which the court finds accurate and corresponding to the evidence analysed by the experts . It is necessary to note that the ‘ psychological’ state of [ Mr ] PERSON has been analysed and assessed by the experts in the context of the grenade ’s specificity as a type of weapon , the particularities of its construction and the manner in which it needs to be handled and detonated . On that basis , the court finds no force in the [ applicants’ ] argument concerning the mandatory participation of a psychologist in the elucidation of the above fact .

The [ applicants’ ] assertion that there is no explanation about types of explosives used again shows that [ their lawyers ] have not acquainted themselves with all the evidence . The court finds it illfounded and unsupported by any arguments . The experts have given an accurate , clear and comprehensive description of the type and character of all types of explosives and munitions used [ in the operation ] .

The court does not share the [ applicants’ ] arguments ... concerning the alleged incorrectness of the prosecutor ’s decision . The above considerations lead it to the conclusion that the police were acting in a situation which falls within the ambit of LAW ... It must also be observed that the [ applicants’ ] arguments are onesided and analyse solely the lawfulness of the actions of the police without commenting on the lawfulness of the actions of [ Mr ] PERSON . Basing itself on the rules of objectivity and impartiality , and analysing the direct and circumstantial evidence in isolation and jointly , the court finds the [ applicants’ ] arguments incorrect and illfounded .

The court fully shares the [ applicants’ ] assertion that , in view of the requirements of the [ Convention ] and the criteria developed by ORG in its caselaw , there must be a thorough and comprehensive investigation whenever there has been an interference with a person ’s right to life during a police operation . However , the court does not share the [ applicants’ ] view that there has been no such investigation in the present case . On the contrary , in view of what has been said above , the court finds that the investigation was objective , comprehensive and full , that the authorities have taken all necessary steps to uncover the truth , and have taken their decisions freely and after assessment of relevant facts . The prosecutor ’s conclusions are correct , accurate and wellfounded , and the court fully shares them .

In view of above , the court ... finds that the decision to discontinue the proceedings ... has to be upheld as lawful and wellfounded . ”

The case file contains no information on whether at the time of his death Mr PERSON had a valid title to the house or the plot of land on which it had been erected . It does not appear that he had applied for or obtained a building permit for the house . During the investigation is was established that on DATE the ORG lands commission , in proceedings brought by the first applicant ( Mr PERSON ’s son ) under the lands restitution laws , decided to restore the plot to the heirs of an ancestor of PERSON .

The applicants presented a notary deed showing that on DATE the first applicant bought from third parties a plot of land in the area where the house is situated . From certificates issued by the cadastre authorities it appears that this plot is the same on which the Mr PERSON ’s house had been built .

The applicants also presented a certificate of DATE in which the building control department of the municipality of ORG said that the house was a tolerable building within the meaning of the building control legislation . Under that legislation , tolerable buildings are those that have not been erected pursuant to a building permit but which nonetheless comply with the applicable zoning plans and building regulations , and have either been built before a certain date or been declared to the authorities within certain timelimits . Tolerable buildings are not subject to demolition .

Section CARDINAL of ORG , as in force at the material time , provided , in so far as relevant :

“ ( CARDINAL ) The police may use firearms as a means of last resort :

NORP in cases of armed attack or threat to use firearms ;

in selfdefence [ or the defence of others ] ;

NORP after giving a warning , to arrest a person who has committed or is committing a publicly prosecutable offence , if he or she resists or tries to escape ;

( CARDINAL ) When using firearms the police are under a duty to protect , as far as possible , the life of the person against whom they use force , and not put in danger the life and the health of others . ”

The wording of section CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(CARDINAL ) , ( CARDINAL)(CARDINAL ) and ( CARDINAL ) of ORG , currently in force , repeats verbatim that of section CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(CARDINAL ) , ( CARDINAL ) and ( CARDINAL ) of LAW .

DATE . On DATE ORG enacted a bill amending section CARDINAL of LAW ; the amendment came into force on DATE . The words “ as a means of last resort ” in section ORG ) were changed to “ only where absolutely necessary ” , and the words “ to protect , as far as possible ” in section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) were replaced by “ do everything possible to protect ” . A new subsection CARDINAL was added to section CARDINAL , providing that “ [ t]he police shall discontinue the use of firearms immediately after attaining its lawful aim ” , as well as a new subsection CARDINAL , providing that “ [ PERSON shall be prohibited to use firearms to arrest or prevent the escape of a person who is about to commit or has committed a nonviolent offence if that person does not pose a danger to the life or health of another ” . A new section DATE was added , providing that “ [ CARDINAL planning and control of the use of physical force , auxiliary means and firearms by the police ... shall include [ the taking of ] measures to attain the lawful aim at minimal risk to the life and health of the citizens ” . In the explanatory notes to the bill the ORG had referred to , inter alia , the need to bring domestic law fully into line with the applicable international standards and the ORG ’s caselaw .

The special antiterrorism squad was a unit of ORG whose task was to , among other things , combat terrorism and prevent and uncover serious offences ( section CARDINAL of LAW ) . It could arrest or neutralise persons who had committed especially dangerous offences and who were putting up or likely to put up armed resistance ( section CARDINAL ) ) . The squad ’s intervention had to be authorised in writing by the Minister of ORG in each case ( section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) ) . Its mode of operation was governed by regulations issued by the Minister ( section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) ) .

Those regulations , which were apparently not published , were issued by the Minister on DATE . Under regulation CARDINAL , when carrying out a special operation the squad had to set up an appropriate organisational structure . However , the overall control of a given operation was to be ensured by the head of the authority which had requested the use of the squad or a person designated by him or her ( regulation CARDINAL ) ) . The squad ’s plan of action in a given operation had to be included in the plan of the requesting authority ( regulation CARDINAL ) . In its operations the squad could use , inter alia , firearms and grenade launchers ( regulation CARDINAL ) ) , pyrotechnical devices and explosives ( regulation CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) ) and chemical substances ( regulation CARDINAL ) ) .

By section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of ORG , “ in the performance of the squad ’s tasks , the identity of its members [ was ] to be kept secret ” . This rule currently features in section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of ORG and extends to all police officers who take part in armed police operations for the arrest of dangerous offenders who put up armed resistance . Regulation CARDINALs of the regulations for the application of LAW repeats it with reference specifically to the members of the special antiterrorism squad .

Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL of LAW DATE , added in DATE , provides that causing harm to a person while arresting him or her for an offence is not criminal where no other means of effecting the arrest exist and the force used is necessary and lawful . According to LAW , the force used is not necessary when it is manifestly disproportionate to the nature of the offence committed by the person to be arrested or the resulting harm is in itself excessive and unnecessary .

Under LAW ( CARDINAL ) of LAW , public prosecutors were to discontinue a preliminary investigation if they found that , inter alia , the acts alleged did not constitute an offence . Article CARDINAL § § DATE , as in force at the material time , provided that the decision to discontinue a preliminary investigation was reviewable by a firstinstance court whose decision was final .

Section CARDINAL of ORG to LAW DATE ( ORG за отговорността на държавата за вреди , причинени на граждани ) , in DATE renamed the ORG and ORG ( ORG за отговорността на държавата и общините за вреди – “ the DATE LAW ) , provides that the ORG is liable for damage suffered by individuals ( and since DATE also legal persons ) as a result of unlawful decisions , actions or omissions by civil servants , committed in the course of or in connection with the performance of their duties .

NORP The general rules of the law of tort are set out in sections CARDINAL of ORG DATE ( ORG за задълженията и договорите – “ the DATE LAW ) . Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) provides that everyone is obliged to make good the damage which they have , through their fault , caused to another . LAW provides that a person who has entrusted another with carrying out a job is liable for the damage caused by that other person in the course of or in connection with the performance of the job . Legal persons can not incur liability under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) , as they can not act with mens rea . They may , however , be vicariously liable under section CARDINAL for the tortious conduct of individuals employed by them ( пост. № CARDINAL от CARDINAL декември DATE г. , ORG , GPE ) . CARDINAL of the prerequisites of the liability under sections CARDINAL of the DATE Act is wrongfulness of the impugned conduct ( реш. № CARDINAL от CARDINAL ноември DATE г. по гр. д. № CARDINAL/CARDINAL г. , ORG , петчленен състав ) . The NORP courts have on occasion examined claims against the authorities under section DATE ( see the domestic cases cited in First Sofia Commodities EOOD and PERSON v. GPE ( dec . ) , no . CARDINAL , § CARDINAL , DATE ) .


András Sajó;Françoise Tulkens;Ireneu Cabral Barreto;Nona Tsotsoria;Vladimiro Zagrebelsky

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

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

In a judgment of DATE the ORG - Nadzaladevi District Court in GPE ordered that a DATE allowance be paid to the applicant by her former spouse until their child , born in DATE , reached the age of majority . That judgment became binding on DATE .

As disclosed by the case file , since the debtor failed to comply with this judgment , the applicant obtained a writ of execution from ORG and requested , on an unspecified date , the initiation of enforcement proceedings . The bailiffs , resorting to a number of forcible measures , retrieved from the debtor the child allowance for DATE .

As further disclosed by the case file , on DATE the applicant requested , for unspecified reasons , the discontinuation of the enforcement proceedings . According to a receipt paper signed by the applicant on DATE , the bailiff handed to her all the case materials , including the enforcement writ .

On DATE the applicant , claiming that her former spouse had a higher income than that acknowledged in the judgment of DATE , requested that the allowance be increased ( “ the second set of child allowance proceedings ” ) . Her claim was found to be unsubstantiated by several instances , and , lastly , by ORG of GPE on DATE .

Subsequent to the termination of the second set of child allowance proceedings , the applicant requested , either in DATE or DATE , the bailiffs to proceed with the enforcement of the judgment of DATE . ORG of ORG ( “ the ORG ” ) replied in DATE , reminding the applicant of the fact that the enforcement proceedings had been discontinued at her request . If she wished to have those proceedings re - opened , she had to re - submit the relevant writ of execution , as required by LAW of DATE ( “ the Enforcement Act ” ) .

Pursuant to the applicant ’s request , the ORG - Nadzaladevi District Court issued , on DATE , another writ of execution for the judgment of DATE , and on DATE the enforcement proceedings were formally reopened . However , since the writ of DATE indicated an invalid address for the debtor , the bailiff sent the document back to the applicant on DATE unenforced .

On DATE ORG , acting in reply to ORG enquiry about the cause of non - enforcement , reminded the applicant of her obligation to provide an enforcement writ with the debtor ’s correct address , without which information no enforcement measures could be undertaken .

Section CARDINAL § CARDINAL

“ Bailiffs at Enforcement Offices [ of ORG ] shall be responsible for the execution of the decisions provided for hereunder . ”

Section CARDINAL § CARDINAL

“ Bailiffs shall take all lawful measures available in order to secure the speedy and effective enforcement of decisions , to explain to parties their rights and responsibilities , and to assist in the protection of their rights and legal interests . ”

Pursuant to section QUANTITY , an appeal against any procedural decision , action or omission of the bailiff lay to a court .

Section CARDINAL § CARDINAL stated that enforcement proceedings could not be launched without the relevant writ of execution .

Pursuant to section DATE , the reasonableness of the decision to discontinue the enforcement proceedings could be reviewed by a court at the creditor ’s request .

Pursuant to ORG CARDINAL - CARDINAL , the ORG could be sued for the harm done by action or omission of any public servant as well as by the implementation of a lawfully issued legal - administrative act . In such proceedings , the relevant provisions of LAW could be applied , if necessary .

Pursuant to LAW , damage done to an individual by either negligent or deliberate misconduct of a public servant should be compensated by the ORG .


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

Alvina Gyulumyan;Elisabet Fura;Josep Casadevall;Luis López Guerra

The applicants were born in DATE , CARDINAL , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE respectively and live in ORG .

On DATE , at TIME , clashes occurred in the district of GPE in the province of ORG , between the ORG ( ORG of Kurdistan , an illegal organisation ) and the security forces , subsequent to the killing of CARDINAL gendarmes and grave injury of CARDINAL other gendarmes in a military vehicle by ORG militants . At that time the applicant , PERSON and his father , PERSON , were in ORG , which belonged to them . During the clash some other individuals from the town and hotel customers joined them in the basement of the hotel to seek shelter from the clash . There were a total of CARDINAL people hiding in the basement of the hotel .

According to the applicants ' version of events , at TIME the security forces raided the hotel and gathered the people on the ground floor . They singled out Adulvahit PERSON from the crowd and took him into the hotel director 's office . After a while the applicant , PERSON , heard gunshots coming from the office . The security forces then allegedly poured petrol on the floor and set the hotel on fire .

On DATE CARDINAL incident reports describing the events in question were prepared and signed by a number of gendarme officers who took part in the clashes . According to this report , on DATE , at TIME , ORG militants opened fire on a military vehicle on a main street in GPE . As a result , CARDINAL gendarmes died and CARDINAL were severely injured . Hearing the gunfire , security forces arrived on the scene . ORG militants also fired at them and the security forces returned fire . The clashes , which lasted until TIME , caused the destruction of a number of vehicles and some buildings . It was understood that the real aim of the ORG members was to take control of ORG and to seize the weapons therein . Some of the ORG militants hid in ORG and opened fire on the security forces . When leaving the town they set the hotel and a number of other buildings on fire . When they were informed that there was a burned body at the hotel , a team of security forces arrived at the hotel in the TIME of DATE . They found an unidentifiable burned body , a PERSON rifle and QUANTITY empty cartridges there . The security forces noted that all the furniture in the hotel had been burned , there were a number of bullet holes in the walls and gas cannisters found in the kitchen had exploded as a result of the fire and had caused massive damage to the building . A sketch map describing the state of the hotel and location of the body was also drawn up by a gendarme officer .

On DATE , at TIME , ORG arrived at ORG with a doctor . They conducted a classical autopsy and an on - site investigation . The on - site investigation report noted that a burned body was lying in one of the ground - floor rooms of the hotel . The report also contained PERSON testimony that CARDINAL expert sergeants , whose names he did not know but whom he could identify if shown , took his father to the director 's office . He then heard gunshots coming from that direction , and saw the security forces throw grenades into the room . He further stated that GPE , GPE , GPE , and the teachers PERSON , GPE , GPE and GPE , who were in the hotel at the time , also witnessed the incident . The report noted that CARDINAL discharged bullet cartridges were found QUANTITY from the body . Neither PERSON nor the deceased 's wife PERSON could determine whether the burned body was that of ORG .

ORG took statements from CARDINAL gendarmes who were injured in the course of the clashes . They stated that they had come to GPE from ORG in order to ensure security . When they arrived in GPE they were attacked by members of the ORG and wounded as a result of the gunfire .

On DATE ORG issued a decision of non - jurisdiction and referred the case to ORG office at ORG .

On DATE ORG issued a decision to join the investigation files concerning the killing of CARDINAL gendarmes and PERSON , since both had occurred in the course of the events in GPE .

On DATE the public prosecutor at ORG took statements from the deceased 's CARDINAL sons and CARDINAL persons who had witnessed the events . The applicant PERSON repeated the statement he had made to the public prosecutor during the on - site investigation . He further stated the following :

“ During the events in question , I was with the deceased ( PERSON GPE ) . The hotel was under gun and rocket fire . I locked the doors of the hotel and went down to the basement together with the customers for safety reasons . They ( the soldiers ) broke down the door and entered the hotel . My father was alive and holding my hand . CARDINAL expert sergeants who work in GPE , namely GPE and GPE , hit my hand and took my father to the director 's room . I heard a sound of gunfire from the director 's room . They had already locked down the basement when they took my father to the director 's room . When the gunfire ended , they took us to the lounge and told us to take off our jackets . We took off our jackets . They poured petrol on us . However , they did not burn us . They then carried the jackets into the director 's room . They poured petrol on my father and burned him . They left CARDINAL hand grenades in the director 's room . These bombs exploded CARDINAL after the other . They burned everything in the hotel . The expert sergeants whom I have mentioned above caused the death of my father . There were CARDINAL customers who witnessed this event . I request that criminal charges be brought against [ the expert sergeants ] ... ”

Azattin Narin , who is another of the sons of the deceased , stated that he had been in GPE at the time of the events . He had also heard that CARDINAL expert sergeants , PERSON and GPE , had caused the death of his father . PERSON and ORG , who were customers at ORG at the time of the events , gave statements in line with PERSON . They added that the security forces took them to the station after the incident , but released them without taking statements from them .

In addition to the above statements , the applicants ' representative submitted to the ORG statements given by another witness , PERSON , on DATE . According to this witness , who sought shelter in the ORG during the clashes , ORG was separated from the rest of the group and taken to the director 's room in the hotel . The witness then heard gunshots coming from that room . The soldiers threw CARDINAL hand grenades and the hotel caught fire . The witness was taken to the gendarme station together with other people and released afterwards .

On DATE and DATE ORG took statements from GPE and GPE in relation to the allegations concerning the killing of PERSON . PERSON and PERSON denied the allegations that they had been involved in the killing of PERSON and claimed that they had taken part in the clashes against the ORG in order to ensure security in GPE . They had seen that ORG and a number of other buildings had caught fire and stated that they had gone back to their barracks when the clashes were over .

In a letter dated DATE ORG requested ORG in GPE to provide information concerning the location of and duties assigned GPE and PERSON on DATE .

In a report dated DATE , signed by a gendarme sergeant and CARDINAL gendarmes , it was stated that the location of and duties assigned to GPE and PERSON on DATE were unknown , since there was no record .

It transpires from the documents submitted by the parties that since DATE no further steps have been taken to identify the perpetrators of the killing of PERSON .

On DATE , CARDINAL of the sons of ORG applied to ORG for an assessment report of the damage caused to the hotel in order to lodge actions for compensation .

On DATE the applicants applied to ORG ( “ the Ministry ” ) for compensation for the loss they had suffered as a result of the death of their relative and the damage done to the hotel . ORG rejected the request .

On DATE the applicants brought an action for compensation in ORG against ORG , for the damage they had suffered in respect of the death of their relative ( “ first set of proceedings ” ) . In their application to the court the applicants noted that the perpetrators of the killing of PERSON were unknown . Although the officials claimed that he had been killed and that his hotel had been burned down by members of the ORG during the clashes , the witnesses stated PERSON had been killed by the security forces . Notwithstanding who killed the victim , the ORG was responsible for the death of the victim and was obliged to compensate for the damage resulting from his death and the destruction of the hotel .

On DATE the applicants brought a second action against the Ministry , claiming compensation in respect of the material damage caused to the hotel ( “ second set of proceedings ” ) .

By decisions of CARDINAL DATE and DATE ORG decided that it had no jurisdiction over the cases .

On DATE and DATE ORG set aside ORG decisions of non - jurisdiction and remitted the cases to it for examination .

On DATE ORG partly accepted the applicants ' request and awarded them MONEY ( ORG , MONEY ( ORG ) at the material time ) in compensation for the pecuniary damage caused to the hotel .

On DATE ORG , relying on the ORG 's strict liability and “ the social risk theory ” , awarded the applicants a further GPE CARDINAL,CARDINAL,CARDINAL ( approximately ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL at the material time ) in compensation for the pecuniary and non - pecuniary damage they had suffered in respect of the death of their relative . This judgment was upheld by ORG on DATE .

On DATE ORG upheld the judgment of ORG concerning the damage caused to the hotel .

On DATE , the administration paid the applicants the sum of GPE CARDINAL,CARDINAL,CARDINAL,CARDINAL ( approximately ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL at the material time ) in compensation for the death of their relative and damage done to the hotel .

In DATE , the applicants applied to ORG office at ORG requesting information about the outcome of the criminal investigation into the death of their relative .

On DATE ORG informed the applicants that the investigation was still pending . Following this response , on DATE the applicants lodged their application with ORG .

According to ORG report of CARDINAL October CARDINAL , the investigation into the killing of PERSON and the CARDINAL gendarmes is still pending .

Under LAW of PERSON no . CARDINAL on administrative procedure , anyone who sustains damage as a result of an act by the authorities may , within DATE after the alleged act was committed , claim compensation . If the claim is rejected in whole or in part , or if no reply is received within DATE , the victim may bring administrative proceedings .

Article CARDINAL § § CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the LAW provides :

“ All acts or decision of the authorities are subject to judicial review ...

The authorities shall be liable to make reparation for all damage caused by their acts or measures . ”

That provision established the ORG 's strict liability , which comes into play if it is shown that , in the circumstances of a particular case , the ORG has failed in its obligation to maintain public order , ensure public safety or protect people 's lives or property , without it being necessary to prove a tortuous act attributable to the authorities . Under these rules , the authorities may therefore be held liable to compensate anyone who has sustained loss as a result of acts committed by unidentified persons .


The applicants are NORP nationals . They are all members of ORG ( “ LAW ” ) , which has CARDINAL members . They were represented before the ORG by Mr M. de Guillenchmidt , a lawyer practising in GPE .

DATE CARDINAL NORP families purchased bonds issued by ORG for a total sum of MONEY , which represented a capital of QUANTITY of gold . In DATE ORG allowed the bonds to be listed on the GPE stock exchange . In a decree of DATE ORG decided to cancel all the bonds issued by the tsarist regime .

As soon as ORG took power DATE and over DATE ORG promised on a number of occasions to press the bondholders’ claims . After the signing of LAW secured the re - assignment to itself of QUANTITY of gold , which was part of the gold paid by GPE to GPE under LAW . In a statement made to the ORG on CARDINAL April CARDINAL the Prime Minister declared that the said gold had been definitively made over to GPE in reduction of GPE ’s debt . In DATE the French State held MONEY worth of NORP bonds in GPE . In DATE the above - mentioned QUANTITY of gold were officially assigned to reducing GPE ’s debt to GPE .

In a treaty of CARDINAL DATE the NORP and ORG undertook to solve their financial dispute quickly . That treaty was not ratified , however .

In DATE , when the NORP regime changed , the NORP authorities initiated negotiations again . An agreement of DATE , which was ratified but not applied , set out a solution to the dispute relating to the financial and material aspects of the property and interests of individuals and legal entities in both countries .

In a memorandum signed CARDINAL DATE the Government of ORG undertook to pay MONEY ( MONEY ) in DATE instalments . Under the terms of that agreement

“ The Government of GPE and the Government of the Federation of GPE agreed the following :

The Government of the Federation of GPE shall pay ORG the sum of MONEY in full and final settlement of mutual debts between GPE and GPE accumulated prior to CARDINAL DATE .

The sum shall be paid as follows : CARDINAL DATE instalments of MONEY payable on DATE and DATE .

Neither the NORP party nor the NORP party shall , on their own behalf or on behalf of NORP or NORP natural and legal persons , present to each other or support in any way any financial debts or debts in rem whatsoever accumulated prior to CARDINAL DATE .

All the debts shall be deemed to have been fully and finally settled by payment of the entire sum referred to in the present memorandum .

The parties agree that , on the basis of the present memorandum , they shall reach an agreement as soon as possible on the payment of GPE and GPE ’s mutual debts . ”

According to the applicants , that sum was PERCENT of the debts converted to current value .

By Decree no . CARDINAL - CARDINAL of DATE a “ monitoring commission ” was set up within the ORG d’Etat with the task of proposing to the Government a means of identifying the qualifying bondholders according to the NORP basis and agreements , a method of assessing the value of the qualifying bonds and arrangements for paying compensation .

On DATE a supplementary agreement was signed between ORG and ORG . LAW that agreement listed the NORP debts which GPE agreed to waive and LAW listed the NORP debts in respect of which GPE undertook to make no further claim . Article CARDINAL set out the arrangements for repayment by GPE of its debts as established in the DATE memorandum . Article CARDINAL added that all the debts would be deemed to have been fully and finally settled by the payment of the entirety of the sum referred to . Article CARDINAL provided that on the date of entry into force of the agreement neither of the parties would take action against the other on the basis of any financial debts or debts in rem whatsoever accumulated prior to CARDINAL DATE .

On DATE and DATE , GPE paid the first CARDINAL instalments provided for in the agreement in a total sum of MONEY . Further instalments were sent to GPE in DATE , on DATE and CARDINAL DATE and , lastly , in DATE , amounting to CARDINAL instalments in all .

In a government PERSON ( no . CARDINAL ) filed on DATE , the Prime Minister acknowledged , in the statement of reasons , that the NORP agreements of CARDINAL DATE and DATE did not include any provision for others and produced no effects for the rights of third parties . On DATE ORG adopted a PERSON , which was also adopted by the ORG on DATE , authorising approval of the above - mentioned agreements . In a Law of DATE ( no . CARDINAL - CARDINAL ) ORG authorised the ratification of those agreements .

Section CARDINAL of Law no . CARDINAL of DATE and LAW no . CARDINAL of DATE provided that the number of bondholders should be identified . This was done over a period of DATE from the date of entry into force of the decree . On DATE the provisional results obtained by ORG showed CARDINAL declarations in respect of a total of ORG bonds . On DATE the Minister for the ORG stated that the number of bondholders was , to be more precise , CARDINAL and the number of bonds CARDINAL . On DATE ORG declared that the number of bondholders stood at CARDINAL and that there were CARDINAL bonds .

According to the applicants , those figures were inaccurate . Their attempts to obtain clarification of this point remained fruitless . On DATE the association representing the applicants ( the ORG ) served official notice on the Minister for ORG to publish , département by département , a DATE breakdown of the results of the survey , the number of bonds per category , a breakdown of the CARDINAL types of qualifying bonds taken into account and justification for the increase in the number of holders and bonds as compared to the figures given at DATE . On CARDINAL DATE an identical notice was served on the new Minister for ORG .

On DATE the ORG served formal notice on ORG to pay the sum of MONEY in honour of its debt plus interest .

On DATE the embassy of GPE replied as follows :

“ In accordance with the memorandum of agreement of CARDINAL DATE between ORG of GPE and the Government of the Federation of Russia regarding final settlement of mutual financial debts and debts in rem accumulated before DATE , ORG undertook not to submit to its NORP counterpart , either on its own behalf or on the behalf of NORP natural or legal persons , or to support in any other manner financial debts or debts in rem of any kind accumulated prior to CARDINAL DATE .

The legal summons ... and service thereof on the embassy of ORG constitute a breach of the above - mentioned undertakings .

It is for the NORP party to explain the above - mentioned provisions to the natural and legal persons concerned and to the courts in order to prevent any further misunderstandings in future . ”

Various other legal actions instituted in GPE were equally unsuccessful .

On DATE various bondholders applied to the judge of the GPE tribunal de grande instance responsible for the execution of judgments for registration of a legal charge on real property situated in GPE belonging to GPE . In an order of DATE the judge found that the bondholders’ claims were valid in theory . He considered that the debt subsisted and “ was of undeniable public interest ” despite payment of the sum of MONEY . However , he refused to charge the property in question because it was protected by diplomatic immunity .

On DATE some members of the ORG lodged an application with the judge of the GPE tribunal de grande instance responsible for the execution of judgments for registration of a provisional interim legal charge on shares of ORG . However , that application was also dismissed on the ground that “ the principle of the applicant ’s claim can not be considered valid ... it can not be inferred from the NORP State ’s inertia that recovery of the debt is in jeopardy ” .

In a judgment of CARDINAL DATE the ORG d’Etat acknowledged that the public authorities were liable for the loss which international agreements to which the ORG was a party might occasion for individuals . In the ORG générale d’énergie radio - électrique case , the applicant , whose property had been requisitioned by the NORP army , claimed to be entitled to compensation from ORG on the basis that there had been a breach of equality vis - à - vis public burdens as a result of the signing by ORG of international agreements which prevented it until an unspecified date from pursuing its claim against ORG .

The PERSON d’Etat held that “ the responsibility of the ORG is liable to be engaged on the basis of equality of citizens vis - à - vis public burdens to ensure that loss arising from agreements signed by GPE with other GPE and lawfully incorporated into domestic law is compensated , on condition that neither the LAW itself nor the LAW authorising its ratification may be construed as having intended to exclude any compensation and that the loss in respect of which compensation is claimed is sufficiently serious and is individual in nature ” . The PERSON d’Etat concluded that the condition relating to individuality had not been fulfilled “ having regard to the generality of the above - mentioned agreements and the number of NORP citizens who were victims of damage analogous to the damage alleged by the applicant company ” ( PERSON d’Etat , p. CARDINAL ) .

On DATE ORG for ORG of NORP bonds ( “ ORG ” ) , which was a different association of holders of NORP bonds from the CARDINAL of which the applicants were members , had sued ORG in ORG for compensation for bondholders . On DATE ORG dismissed the application for the following reasons :

“ The applicant association seeks to establish responsibility on the part of the ORG on account of the conduct of the NORP authorities , who allegedly refused to engage in negotiations with the NORP ORG and the succeeding GPE with a view to compensating its members ; the ORG ’s decisions in that area are inextricably linked to the conduct of international relations between the CARDINAL Governments ; accordingly , the pleadings referred to above raise a question which , by its nature , is not a subject for contentious proceedings .

The provisions of LAW No . CARDINAL to ORG can not usefully be relied upon where the interference or compliance with the right guaranteed by that LAW are not imputable to ORG ; similarly , a breach of the provisions of LAW combined with LAW No . CARDINAL can not usefully be relied upon ...

Lastly , the loss in respect of which the applicants seek compensation arises as a result of an act of a foreign ORG and can not engage the responsibility of the NORP State even in the sphere of equality vis - à - vis public burdens ; in any event , having regard to the risks attached to the realisation of financial operations with a foreign State , the damage in respect of which compensation is sought can not be deemed to be abnormal or special ... ”


Violation of Art. 5-3;Violation of Art. 8;Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed;Non-pecuniary damage - financial award

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

On DATE the applicant was arrested by the police on suspicion of having committed armed robbery against a lorry driver . On DATE ORG ( Sąd Rejonowy ) ordered that the applicant be detained on remand for DATE . It found that in the light of the evidence obtained , in particular from his accomplices , there was a strong likelihood that the applicant had committed that offence . The court further observed that the applicant had not confessed and found that there was a risk that he might obstruct the investigation . Having regard to the severity of the penalty that could be expected , the court held that keeping the applicant in custody was necessary in order to secure the proper conduct of the proceedings . That decision was upheld on appeal on DATE .

On DATE the ORG ( PERSON ) prolonged the applicant ’s detention until DATE , finding that , given that the applicant had been caught in flagrante delicto , there was a strong likelihood that he had committed the offence in question . The court stressed that the applicant had – like his CARDINAL detained co - suspects – given contradictory evidence and had not confessed , which gave sufficient reasons to believe that , once released , he would obstruct the proper course of the proceedings . The applicant ’s continued detention was also justified by the severity of the penalty that could be expected . Moreover , evidence from ballistics and fingerprint experts – which was crucial for the determination of the role played by each co - suspect – needed to be obtained .

On DATE the ORG ( Sąd Apelacyjny ) ordered that the applicant be held in custody until DATE , reiterating the grounds previously given for his detention . It further held that the gravity of the charges and the severity of the likely penalty justified the prolongation of the most severe preventive measure .

On DATE a bill of indictment was filed with the NORP ORG against the applicant and his CARDINAL accomplices . The applicant was charged with attempted armed robbery and unlawful possession of a firearm . The bill of indictment specified that the applicant had been previously sentenced for similar offences . The prosecution asked the court to hear evidence from CARDINAL witnesses .

On DATE the ORG prolonged the applicant ’s detention until DATE , repeating the grounds that had been given in the previous decisions . It also held that the value of the goods that the accused had planned to steal and the previous criminal records of some of them made it likely that they would be given a heavy sentence .

Subsequently , apparently in DATE , ORG referred the case to ORG , finding that the latter court should deal with the matter . The ensuing jurisdictional dispute was determined on an unspecified later date by ORG . The latter court ordered that the case be referred to ORG since ORG had in the meantime been closed down . On DATE the bill of indictment was transmitted to ORG .

Meanwhile , on DATE , ORG had prolonged the applicant ’s detention until DATE , finding that the reasons previously given for holding him in custody were still valid .

On DATE ORG prolonged the applicant ’s detention until DATE . On DATE ORG ordered the applicant ’s continued detention until DATE . In both decisions the court relied primarily on the severity of the sentence that could be expected .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s appeal against the decision of DATE prolonging his detention . It found that the applicant ’s continued detention on the basis of Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL of the Code of Criminal Procedure remained valid . Having regard to the nature of the alleged offences , the circumstances in which they had been committed and the fact that the applicant had committed similar offences in the past , ORG found that there was a very strong likelihood that he would be given a heavy sentence . It further held that LAW established a kind of presumption to the effect that the likelihood of a severe penalty being imposed on an accused might induce him to obstruct the proceedings .

Since on DATE the length of the applicant ’s pre - trial detention reached the statutory CARDINAL time - limit laid down in Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL of the Code of Criminal Procedure , all further decisions prolonging his detention on remand were given by ORG .

The relevant decisions were taken on the following dates : on DATE ( extending his detention until DATE ) , DATE ( ordering his continued detention until DATE and having regard to the particular complexity of the case ) and on a later unspecified date in DATE ( extending his detention for a further period ) . In its decision of DATE , ORG found that prolongation of the applicant ’s detention beyond the statutory CARDINAL time - limit was justified under LAW on account of major insurmountable difficulties , referring in this connection to the above - mentioned jurisdictional dispute .

ORG listed the first hearing for DATE but the trial could not be started since the case file was with another court . CARDINAL hearings listed for CARDINAL and DATE were adjourned due to the change of the applicant ’s counsel and the need for the latter to prepare for the hearing . CARDINAL further hearings listed for DATE and DATE were also adjourned ( at the GPE request and because of the absence of the applicant ’s counsel respectively ) . As a result , the trial started on DATE . Further hearings were held on DATE , DATE , CARDINAL and DATE , CARDINAL May and DATE .

On DATE ORG convicted the applicant of attempted armed robbery and , having regard to his previous criminal record , sentenced him to seven years’ imprisonment . It acquitted the applicant of the charge of unlawful possession of a firearm . It also prolonged his detention until DATE .

The prosecutor and all the defendants appealed .

On DATE ORG quashed the first - instance judgment and remitted the case . It ordered that the applicant be kept in detention pending the retrial until DATE in view of the reasonable suspicion that he had committed the offence with which he had been charged and the severity of the likely sentence .

On DATE ORG extended the applicant ’s detention until DATE , holding that the grounds originally given for his detention were still valid . It further held that keeping him in detention was sufficiently justified by the severity of the likely sentence and the need to secure the proper conduct of the trial . Subsequent decisions prolonging the applicant ’s detention were given by ORG on the following dates : DATE ( ordering his continued detention until DATE ) , DATE ( extending his detention until DATE ) and DATE ( ordering his continued detention until DATE ) . The court held that the grounds previously given for his continued detention were still valid .

On DATE ORG prolonged the applicant ’s detention until DATE , relying on the severity of the likely sentence and the associated risk that the applicant might obstruct the proceedings . The applicant appealed . On DATE ORG ordered the applicant ’s release and placed him under police supervision . It held that further prolongation of the applicant ’s detention was unjustified , since ORG had not put forward any arguments warranting the continued application of the most severe preventive measure . In particular , ORG had not indicated any concrete grounds which would justify the risk that the applicant might obstruct the proceedings . The applicant was released on DATE .

Prior to DATE , the applicant made numerous , unsuccessful applications for release and appealed , likewise unsuccessfully , against refusals to release him and decisions extending his detention .

On DATE ORG convicted the applicant of attempted armed robbery and sentenced him to seven years’ imprisonment . The applicant appealed .

On DATE ORG upheld the first - instance judgment . The applicant ’s legal aid lawyer declined to file a cassation appeal against ORG judgment since he had not found any grounds on which an appeal could be based .

The applicant submits that during his detention his correspondence was censored by the authorities .

On DATE the Registry sent the applicant a letter in reply to his first letter setting out his Convention complaints . That letter , with which an application form and accompanying documents were enclosed , was delivered to the applicant after having been controlled by the authorities . The ORG ’s envelope bears a stamp that reads “ Censored . Judge ” ( “ ORG . GPE . ” ) , followed by a date “ CARDINAL [ DATE ” and an illegible signature . There are CARDINAL other stamps that read : “ FAC . Received DATE ” ( “ PERSON . PERSON - CARDINAL - CARDINAL ) and “ FAC . Received DATE ” ( PERSON . PERSON - CARDINAL - CARDINAL ) .

The Code of Criminal Procedure of DATE , which entered into force on DATE , defines detention on remand as CARDINAL of the so - called “ preventive measures ” ( środki zapobiegawcze ) . The other measures are bail ( poręczenie majątkowe ) , police supervision ( dozór policji ) , guarantee by a responsible person ( poręczenie osoby godnej zaufania ) , guarantee by a social entity ( poręczenie społeczne ) , temporary ban on engaging in a given activity ( zawieszenie oskarżonego w określonej działalności ) and prohibition on leaving the country ( zakaz opuszczania kraju ) .

Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL sets out the general grounds for imposition of preventive measures . That provision reads :

“ CARDINAL . Preventive measures may be imposed in order to ensure the proper conduct of proceedings and , exceptionally , also in order to prevent an accused ’s committing another , serious offence ; they may be imposed only if the evidence gathered shows a significant probability that an accused has committed an offence . ”

Article CARDINAL lists grounds for detention on remand . It provides , in so far as relevant :

“ CARDINAL . Detention on remand may be imposed if :

( CARDINAL ) there is a reasonable risk that an accused will abscond or go into hiding , in particular when his identity can not be established or when he has no permanent abode [ in GPE ] ;

( CARDINAL ) there is a reasonable risk that an accused will attempt to induce [ witnesses or co - defendants ] to give false testimony or to obstruct the proper course of proceedings by any other unlawful means ;

NORP If an accused has been charged with a serious offence or an offence for the commission of which he may be liable to a statutory maximum sentence of CARDINAL CARDINAL years’ imprisonment , or if a court of first instance has sentenced him to CARDINAL CARDINAL years’ imprisonment , the need to continue detention to ensure the proper conduct of proceedings may be based on the likelihood that a severe penalty will be imposed . ”

The Code sets out the conditions governing the continuation of a specific preventive measure . Article CARDINAL reads , in so far as relevant :

“ CARDINAL . Detention on remand shall not be imposed if another preventive measure is sufficient . ”

Article CARDINAL , in its relevant part , reads :

“ CARDINAL . If there are no special reasons to the contrary , detention on remand shall be lifted , in particular if depriving an accused of his liberty would :

( CARDINAL ) seriously jeopardise his life or health ; or

( CARDINAL ) entail excessively harsh consequences for the accused or his family . ”

The Code not only sets out maximum statutory time - limits for detention on remand but also , in LAW , lays down that the relevant court – within those time - limits – must in each detention decision determine the exact time for which detention shall continue .

Article CARDINAL sets out time - limits for detention . In the version applicable up to DATE it provided :

“ CARDINAL . When imposing detention in the course of an investigation , the court shall determine its term for a period not exceeding DATE .

The whole period of detention on remand until DATE first conviction at first instance may not exceed DATE .

Only ORG may , on application made by the court before which the case is pending or , at the investigation stage , on application made by ORG , prolong detention on remand for a further fixed period exceeding the periods referred to in DATE , when it is necessary in connection with a stay of the proceedings , for the purpose of a prolonged psychiatric observation of the accused or a prolonged preparation of an expert report , when evidence needs to be obtained in a particularly complex case or from abroad or when the accused has deliberately prolonged the proceedings , as well as on account of other significant obstacles that could not be overcome . ”

On DATE paragraph CARDINAL was amended and since then the competence to prolong detention beyond the time - limits set out in paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL has been vested in the court of appeal within whose jurisdiction the offence in question has been committed . In addition , new paragraph CARDINAL was added . It provides :

“ A decision of ORG taken pursuant to paragraph CARDINAL may be appealed against to ORG sitting in a panel of CARDINAL judges . ”

Rules relating to means of controlling correspondence of persons involved in criminal proceedings are set out in LAW ( NORP karny wykonawczy ) which entered into force on DATE .

The relevant part of Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL of the LAW provides as follows :

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

Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL reads as follows :

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

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

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

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

On DATE the Rules of Detention on Remand ( ORG w sprawie regulaminu wykonywania tymczasowego aresztowania ) entered into force .

§ CARDINAL of the ORG provides :

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


Preliminary objection rejected (non-exhaustion of domestic remedies);Violation of Art. 6-1;Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed;Non-pecuniary damage - financial award;Costs and expenses (national proceedings) - claim dismissed

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

On DATE the applicant sued PERSON in the GPE ORG seeking damages for the loss she had sustained as a result of works carried out by her neighbour which had resulted , among other things , in sewage being dumped on her property .

Preparation of the case for trial began on CARDINAL DATE . Of the DATE hearings scheduled DATE and DATE were adjourned at the request of the parties , CARDINAL at the request of the applicant , CARDINAL at the request of GPE , CARDINAL by the court of its own motion , and CARDINAL on account of a ORG strike ; CARDINAL were devoted to organising expert evidence , CARDINAL to the filing of documents and the hearing of witnesses , CARDINAL to attempts to seek a friendly settlement , and CARDINAL was adjourned in order to allow the parties to make their submissions .

In the meantime PERSON lawyer had filed a death certificate with the registry in respect of his client . At a hearing on DATE the judge declared the proceedings interrupted . On DATE the parties resumed the proceedings and the judge fixed CARDINAL DATE as the date for hearing submissions . On an unspecified date the case was referred to the panel of judges dealing with the oldest cases ( PERSON ) . At a hearing on DATE the parties requested that a date be fixed for hearing oral submissions and the judge adjourned the case to DATE . The hearing was not held on that date , but adjourned to CARDINAL June CARDINAL . On that date the judge allowed the parties to take the files out .

In a judgment of DATE , the text of which was deposited with the registry on DATE , ORG allowed the applicant ’s claim in part and ordered PERSON heir to move the septic tank that had not been installed at the prescribed distance and to replace part of the applicant ’s sullage pipes . It also awarded her MONEY ( MONEY ) .

On DATE the applicant lodged an application with ORG under PERSON no . CARDINAL of DATE , known as the “ Pinto ” Act , complaining of the excessive length of the above - described proceedings . The applicant requested the court to rule that there had been a breach of LAW and to order ORG to pay compensation for the non - pecuniary damage sustained . The applicant claimed MONEY ( MONEY ( ORG ) ) in non - pecuniary damages .

In a decision of DATE , the text of which was deposited with the registry on CARDINAL DATE , ORG found that a reasonable time had been exceeded . It dismissed the claim for pecuniary damages on the ground that the applicant had failed to substantiate it , awarded her ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL on an equitable basis in compensation for the non - pecuniary damage and LAW for costs and expenses . The decision was served on the applicant on DATE .

The applicant appealed to ORG against that decision on DATE on the ground that the amount awarded her by ORG was inadequate .

NORP However , in a judgment of DATE , the text of which was deposited with the registry on DATE , ORG declared the appeal inadmissible on the ground that it had been lodged out of time . The authorities paid the amounts due on DATE .

In a letter of CARDINAL DATE the applicant informed ORG outcome of the domestic proceedings and asked it to resume its examination of her application .


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

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

The applicant owned or partly owned several newspaper companies that went bankrupt in DATE amidst considerable media attention . On behalf of CARDINAL of these companies , ORG and GPE , in DATE the applicant as the managing director applied for state subsidies from ORG ( Presstödsnämnden ) , a central Government authority responsible for safeguarding the diversity of GPE ’s DATE newspapers by allocating state subsidies to the DATE press . State subsidies were granted in the amount of maximum MONEY ( SEK ) and would be payable on the presentation of invoices proving that the investments for which the subsidies were applied were actually made . The applicant submitted an invoice of CARDINAL DATE from a computer company , ORG ( partly owned by applicant ) , to ORG in the amount of SEK CARDINAL.CARDINAL.CARDINAL , and accordingly on CARDINAL DATE state subsidies in the amount of SEK CARDINAL were paid to the applicant . GPE went bankrupt on CARDINAL DATE and ORG went bankrupt on DATE .

In the meantime , on DATE ORG submitted a report to the police , indicating that the invoice of CARDINAL DATE was false and that the applicant had therefore fraudulently appropriated the subsidies paid .

A police investigation commenced on DATE . CARDINAL witnesses were heard during the period of DATE and DATE . On DATE the applicant was questioned by the police and formally notified about the suspicions against him . He was re - interrogated on DATE . On DATE the applicant ’s counsel requested a meeting with the prosecutor before a decision whether to bring charges against the applicant be taken . During the meeting , which could not take place until DATE , due to the counsel ’s tight schedule , the applicant asked that a named witness on his behalf be heard . This witness was interviewed on DATE . On DATE , having decided to bring charges against the applicant , the public prosecutor sent a summons application to ORG of PERSON ( PERSON tingsrätt ) .

On DATE the trial was scheduled to take place on DATE , during which the applicant and CARDINAL witnesses were heard . The applicant admitted that the invoice was false , he maintained however that subsequently he did invest the subsidies in the goods listed on the invoice .

Having found that it could not be established that ORG had suffered a loss , ORG acquitted the applicant by judgment pronounced on DATE .

On DATE the prosecution lodged an appeal against the judgment to ORG in PERSON ( Göta Hovrätt ) and requested at the same time an extension of the time - limit to complete the appeal . A supplementary preliminary investigation was concluded by the prosecution on DATE , and on DATE the prosecution ’s appeal was completed entailing a request that CARDINAL new witnesses be heard .

As the applicant objected to CARDINAL of these witnesses being heard , in the period between CARDINAL DATE and DATE written pleadings were submitted concerning this procedural question . By decision of CARDINAL DATE ORG allowed the new evidence to be submitted .

On DATE the trial was scheduled to take place on CARDINAL and DATE .

By judgment pronounced on DATE ORG found it established that the invoice was false and that at the time of the payment , i.e. on DATE , the applicant had put ORG at risk of suffering a loss . The applicant was accordingly convicted of aggravated fraud pursuant to LAW and sentenced to DATE imprisonment .

His request for leave to appeal of CARDINAL DATE was received in ORG ( ORG domstolen ) on DATE , and having obtained an extension of the time - limit his request was completed on DATE .

On DATE ORG requested that the Prosecutor General submit written observations within DATE . On DATE and on DATE a reminder in this respect was sent to ORG and on DATE the observations were submitted . The applicant ’s comments thereto were submitted on DATE . On CARDINAL DATE ORG refused leave to appeal .