Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Art. 6-1;Not necessary to examine P1-1;Non-pecuniary damage - financial award;Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed

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

NORP In DATE her husband and son , Mr B.P. and Mr B.I. , became members of ORG “ Kooperator ” ( the “ NORP ” ) . On DATE the ORG ( the “ Committee ” ) transferred CARDINAL plots of land in GPE to the Society for the construction of QUANTITY houses . By decision of DATE , ORG transferred a part of that land to the applicant 's husband and son for the erection of a CARDINAL - flat house . On DATE the general assembly of the ORG adopted a decision similar to the ORG 's decision of CARDINAL DATE . On an unspecified date the ORG transferred the land , with which Mr B.P. and Mr B.I. had been provided , back to the ORG .

On DATE the general assembly of the ORG , headed by Mr B.I. , decided to terminate the ORG 's activity . It further decided to transfer the ORG 's property to its members . In particular , PERSON was granted the left side of a house and Mr PERSON was granted its right side . As it was later established by the domestic courts , in DATE there was only the foundation of the future house . In DATE the ORG closed its bank account . The ORG 's state registration was annulled in DATE .

The house was erected by DATE .

DATE Mr B.P. unsuccessfully lodged with ORG ( the “ Council ” ) a number of applications , requesting the ORG to grant him a right to use the plot of land on which the left part of the house had been constructed .

On DATE Mr B.P. died . The applicant inherited all his possessions .

On DATE the ORG granted Mr B.I. a right to use the plot of land on which the right side of the house had been built .

NORP In DATE the applicant lodged with ORG an administrative law complaint against ORG for failure to consider the request to grant her a right to use the plot of land on which the left part of the house had been constructed . On DATE the court found in favour of the applicant and ordered the ORG to consider the merits of the applicant 's request at its next session .

NORP On DATE the ORG granted PERSON a right to use the plot of land , on which the left side of the house had been built , for construction purposes .

In DATE PERSON lodged with ORG a criminal law complaint against Mr PERSON , accusing the latter of fraud . Mr PERSON alleged that Mr B.I. had unlawfully attempted to take possession of the left part of the house , which Mr PERSON had bought from him according to a sales contract of DATE . On DATE the prosecutors initiated criminal proceedings against Mr B.I.

In DATE Mr B.I. lodged with ORG a criminal law complaint , accusing PERSON of fraud . Mr PERSON alleged that Mr PERSON had falsified the official documents in respect of the left part of the house in order to become its owner . On DATE the department initiated criminal proceedings against Mr M.

On DATE both criminal cases were joined . On DATE ORG terminated the criminal proceedings on the ground of absence of corpus delicti in the actions of Mr B.I. and Mr M. The police established that Mr M. had not been a member of the ORG in DATE . It also found that there were CARDINAL different copies of the decision of the general assembly of ORG , CARDINAL of which confirmed the membership of PERSON and contained his name instead of the name of PERSON , the latter being mentioned in the other copy of that decision . The police held that the existence of CARDINAL different versions was of no importance , as none of the copies had been duly certified by a notary . It further stated that , according to the expert examination of the sales contract of DATE , the contract had been forged by way of combination of CARDINAL printed texts . The police also found that the contract had no binding force , as it had not been certified by a notary or by the ORG .

NORP In DATE the applicant instituted proceedings in the ORG against the ORG , seeking the annulment of the latter 's decision of DATE to grant PERSON a right to use the plot of land , on which the left side of the house had been built . She further requested the court to oblige the ORG to grant her a right to use the plot of land under the left side of the house for an indefinite period of time . The applicant was represented in the proceedings by her son , Mr B. I. Mr M. joined the proceedings as a third party .

In the course of the proceedings , the applicant submitted that her late husband had been the owner of the left part of the house , which had been constructed on the plot of land at issue , as he had been granted that part of the house pursuant to the decision of ORG . After her husband 's death she inherited his property , including the left part of the house . The construction works were carried out at her and her late husband 's expense . She further argued that , although her son had initially agreed to sell the part of the house to Mr M. , the latter had refused to pay the price , upon which they had agreed . Thus , the left part of the house was not sold to Mr M.

Mr M. , in his turn , argued that in DATE he had bought from Mr B.I. the foundation of the left part of the house and some construction materials , which formally belonged to Mr B. P. Mr PERSON further argued that they had agreed that Mr B. I. would complete the construction works . The latter having failed to do so , Mr PERSON built the left part of the house at his own cost . DATE , Mr M. paid Mr B. I. around NORP CARDINAL by instalments . Following this , Mr PERSON refused to pay Mr B. I. higher amounts , as he had completed the construction works himself . Mr PERSON submitted copies of CARDINAL documents dated DATE , according to which Mr B. I. had received from Mr M. CARDINAL karbovanets ( the former transitional currency of GPE before DATE ) for the left part of the house and that the latter had built that part of the house and reimbursed the money , which Mr B. I. had paid for the construction materials . Mr M. alleged that Mr B. I. had signed these documents as the head of the ORG .

The applicant , in reply , contended that the documents , submitted by PERSON M. in support of his claim that he had constructed the house and that he had purchased it , including the contract of DATE , had been forged . Referring to the general interpretation of the relevant domestic law given by ORG of GPE , she further argued that , even assuming that PERSON M. had participated in the construction of the left part of the house , he could not claim ownership rights in its respect .

The ORG submitted that its decision of DATE was lawful , as Mr M. had provided it with the documents which had proved that he had constructed the left part of the house .

On DATE the ORG found for the applicant and quashed the ORG 's decision of DATE . It further ordered the ORG to grant the applicant the right to use the land at issue for an indefinite period of time . The court held that Mr M. had not qualified to be granted that right , as he had not been a member of the ORG and there was no information in the notary 's register that the ORG had transferred the plot of land in question to him .

The ORG appealed in cassation .

On DATE ORG informed ORG of GPE about the ORG 's request for the case to be transferred to another court . The ORG alleged that the applicant 's son was a member of the family of CARDINAL of the judges of ORG . On DATE ORG ordered that the appeal in cassation against the first instance court 's decision was to be heard by ORG , instead of ORG . The applicant was not informed either about the ORG 's request or about the decision of ORG to reassign the case .

On DATE ORG upheld the decision of DATE .

On DATE the Deputy Prosecutor of ORG lodged a protest with the Presidium of ORG , seeking initiation of supervisory review proceedings in the applicant 's case . On DATE the ORG allowed the protest , quashed the decisions of DATE and DATE , and remitted the case for a fresh consideration to ORG . It also noted that there had been no building at the time when the ORG had decided to transfer its part to Mr B. P. Moreover , the parties failed to submit documentary evidence in support of their claims for ownership rights .

On DATE ORG ordered ORG to transfer the case to ORG , the latter being responsible for selecting a first instance court to reconsider the case . According to the Government , ORG did not comply with the instructions of ORG and did not transfer the case .

On DATE the ORG found for the applicant . On DATE ORG upheld the decision of the first instance court . The courts of both instances held that there was enough evidence that Mr ORG had been a member of the ORG . This fact had been established by ORG in its judgment of DATE , which had not been appealed against and had become final , and the applicant could not be held responsible for the absence of other documents proving the membership of her deceased husband . The courts also held that the decision of the general assembly of ORG had , in fact , provided for the transfer of certain objects situated on the plot of land at issue , i.e. the foundation and some construction materials , erroneously referring to them as a building . With regard to the sales contract of DATE , the courts stated that Mr PERSON had not been entitled to sell the left part of the house , irrespective of whether he had acted in his capacity as the head of the ORG or as a private person . They also referred to the findings of the police of DATE that the contract had been falsified . Similarly , they found that the documents submitted by PERSON , in particular a copy of the decision of the general assembly of ORG , stating that he had been one of its members and had been granted the left part of the building , and the receipts in respect of the construction expenses were not valid . In any event , a contribution to the construction expenses could not be a valid ground for an ownership claim .

By letter of CARDINAL DATE , the Deputy President of ORG requested ORG to send the case file to ORG for supervisory review . By the same letter , he informed the ORG and PERSON that the execution of the judgment of DATE was suspended .

On DATE the Deputy President of ORG lodged a protest with ORG of that court , seeking the initiation of supervisory review proceedings in the applicant 's case . On DATE the panel of CARDINAL judges of ORG allowed the protest , quashed the decisions of DATE and CARDINAL DATE , and remitted the case for a fresh consideration . It held that there was no evidence that the left part of the house was owned by either the ORG or Mr B.P. Moreover , there was no information as to the latter 's membership of that ORG , and the lower courts had not verified whether the house had been erected by him in compliance with relevant regulations . The panel further stated that the first instance court had failed to take into consideration the written testimonies of the persons , who had participated in the construction of the house . It stressed that its findings should be taken into account in the new consideration of the case .

On DATE the ORG found for the applicant . The court for the most part reiterated the findings contained in the decision of DATE . It also held that the ORG had been the owner of every construction object on the land at issue before it transferred the title to these objects to its members , including Mr B.P. On DATE ORG upheld the decision of CARDINAL DATE .

On DATE the Deputy President of ORG lodged a protest with ORG of that court , seeking again the initiation of supervisory review proceedings in the applicant 's case . On DATE the panel of CARDINAL judges of ORG allowed the protest , quashed the decisions of DATE and DATE , and remitted the case for a fresh consideration . It held that the lower courts had failed to take into account the instructions contained in its decision of DATE . The panel reiterated that the first instance court had failed either to verify whether the ORG had been the owner of the objects in question ; whether the ORG had been in fact liquidated and , if so , when it had been liquidated ; whether the ORG had been granted a construction permit ; or to establish who had actually constructed the part of the house at issue . The panel found that the ORG had not had authority to transfer the land to third parties and its members had not had rights to build houses on that land . It finally held that Mr M. had in fact obtained the plot of land at issue as well as all the documentation in respect of the left part of the house , which remained in his actual possession .

On DATE ORG , following the request of Mr M. , invited ORG to assign the case to CARDINAL of the first instance courts in the GPE region . On DATE the regional court transferred the case to ORG .

In DATE Mr M. lodged a counter claim , seeking recognition of his ownership rights in respect of the left part of the house .

On DATE ORG ruled in favour of Mr M. and rejected the applicant 's claims . It held that Mr M. had lawfully bought the foundation of the left part of the building and had completed the construction himself , which was supported by the evidence examined in the proceedings . In particular , the court stated that the contract of DATE was valid , as it had been seized by the police from the flat of PERSON in DATE , and the CARDINAL documents of DATE were , according to the expert 's conclusions , also valid . The court further noted that the written testimonies , certified by a notary , of CARDINAL witnesses , who had carried out construction works , and Mr NORP , who had been heard by the court as a witness , confirmed that PERSON PERSON had built the left part of the house at his own cost . The court also relied on the letter of CARDINAL DATE , submitted by PERSON M. , in which ORG stated that , according to the conclusions of its inquiry into the matter , the left part of the house was built by Mr M. The court also found that the latter was in actual possession of that part of the house , as he had been paying all the communal charges in its respect . The court refused to admit as evidence copies of the bills of costs in respect of construction materials , submitted by the applicant , on the ground that it was not possible to establish whether these construction materials had been used to build the left part of the house .

On DATE the applicant requested ORG to transfer the case to another court on the grounds that it would be difficult for her to participate in the hearings before ORG with regard to her age and state of health , on one hand , and the distance between her place of residence and the place of the hearing , on the other . On DATE ORG rejected her request as unsubstantiated .

On DATE ORG upheld the decision of DATE . It also considered that Mr B.P. had not been a member of the ORG , as there were no documents proving his membership and he had resided in another location .

In the course of the proceedings before ORG and ORG , the applicant requested the courts to summon the witnesses , on whose written statements PERSON PERSON had relied to show that he had constructed the left part of the building . She argued that these testimonies were false and that some of these witnesses could confirm her submissions that certain construction works had been carried out at her and her late husband 's expense . The courts did not reply to her request .

In DATE the applicant lodged an appeal in cassation against the decisions of DATE and DATE under the new transitional cassation procedure . She complained of the lower courts ' incorrect assessment of the evidence . The applicant also argued that the courts had refused to summon the witnesses on whose written testimonies they had relied in their decisions . She maintained that neither she nor her representative had had an opportunity to question these witnesses .

On DATE ORG considered the merits of the applicant 's appeal in cassation and rejected it . ORG held that Mr M. had lawfully purchased a part of the foundation of the building and had valid grounds to use the plot of land on which the left part of the building had been constructed . The court also held that the written statements of the witnesses , confirming that Mr M. had completed the construction , had been lawfully admitted as evidence in the case .

NORP In DATE the applicant and Mr B. I. instituted another set of proceedings in the ORG against Mr M. , CARDINAL other members of the family of PERSON M. , and ORG , seeking the annulment of the ownership certificate of Mr M. in respect of the house . The applicant and Mr B. ORG also sought the annulment of certain other official documents , in which it was mentioned that PERSON M. had built a part of the house .

On DATE the court found against the applicant and Mr B. I. On DATE and CARDINAL DATE , respectively , ORG and ORG upheld the decision of the first instance court .

According to the applicant , the courts , which considered her second claim , based their decisions on the findings of ORG , ORG and ORG of GPE made in the course of the first set of civil proceedings ( see paragraphs CARDINAL , DATE and DATE above ) .

Under LAW § CARDINAL of the Code , the President of ORG of GPE and his or her deputies , as well as the presidents of the regional courts were entitled to transfer a case from CARDINAL court to another , upon request of the parties , other participants in the proceedings , the prosecutor , or on their own motion . Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL envisaged that the court , which was dealing with the case , could transfer it to another court , ( a ) if the former court found that it would be more expedient to examine the case in the court which enjoyed jurisdiction over the place of the principal events of the case , or in the court other than the CARDINAL chosen by the plaintiff ; ( b ) if the former court allowed the well - founded request of the defendant , whose place of residence had been previously unknown , to hear the case in the court which enjoyed jurisdiction over the place of the defendant 's actual residence . No formal decision was adopted concerning the transfer of the case .

According to LAW , the case , which was transferred from CARDINAL court to another pursuant to LAW , should be accepted by the recipient court . No disputes between the courts over their jurisdiction were allowed .

Pursuant to Articles CARDINAL , court decisions , rulings and resolutions might have been reviewed in supervisory review proceedings .

Under LAW the court that considers a case in supervisory review proceedings had power :

to leave a judgment , ruling , resolution without changes , and refuse a protest ;

to quash , in full or in part , a judgment , ruling , resolution and to remit a case for a fresh consideration to court of first or cassation instance ;

to quash , in full or in part , a judgment , ruling , resolution and to discontinue proceedings or leave a case without consideration ;

to uphold CARDINAL of the judgments , rulings , resolutions in a case ;

Article CARDINAL provided that instructions of the court which had reviewed a case were binding on the court which later re - examined it . These instructions were binding within the limits envisaged by LAW of the Code . According to paragraph CARDINAL of the latter provision , court of cassation had no competence to establish facts which had not been established or disproved by a contested judgment , to decide in advance on question of reliability of a particular piece of evidence , prevalence of certain evidence , and on questions as to which norm of substantive law was to be applied or which decision was to be made in the course of new consideration of the case .

According to Article CARDINAL of the new Code , the parties to the proceedings are entitled to lodge with ORG of GPE an appeal against the court decisions , which were subject to review in cassation , in view of the exceptional circumstances .

Under LAW , the court decisions in civil matters may be reviewed in view of exceptional circumstances if they are appealed against on the ground that an international judicial authority , whose jurisdiction was recognised by GPE , found that a decision in a civil case violated the international commitments of GPE .

Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL provide that the appeal on the above ground shall be examined by the panel of CARDINAL of judges of ORG under the rules applicable to cassation proceedings .

Pursuant to Article CARDINAL , the panel has power

to reject an appeal ;

to quash , in full or in part , the decision at issue and to remit the case for a fresh consideration to the court of first instance , the court of appeal or cassation ;

to quash the decision of the court of appeal or cassation and to uphold the decision which was wrongly quashed ;

to quash the decisions in the case and to discontinue the proceedings ;

to change the decision or to adopt a new decision on the merits of the case .

The decision of the panel is final .

The relevant parts of the PERSON read as follows :

“ This PERSON regulates relations emanating from : the ORG 's obligation to enforce judgments of ORG in cases against GPE ; the necessity to eliminate reasons of violation by GPE of ORG and protocols thereto ; the need to implement NORP human rights standards into legal and administrative practice of GPE ; and the necessity to create conditions to reduce the number of applications before ORG against GPE . ”

“ CARDINAL . For the purposes of this PERSON the following terms shall be used in the following meaning :

the Convention – the CARDINAL Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and Protocols thereto agreed to be binding by the Verkhovna Rada of GPE ;

the Court – ORG ;

Creditor – a ) an applicant before ORG in a case against GPE in whose favour the ORG rendered its judgment or in whose case the parties have reached a friendly settlement , or his representative , or his successor ...

Enforcement of a judgment – a ) payment of compensation to the ORG ; b ) adoption of individual measures ; c ) adoption of general measures ;

“ CARDINAL . Individual measures shall be adopted in addition to the payment of compensation and are aimed at restoring the infringed rights of the ORG .

Individual measures include :

a ) restoring as far as possible the legal status which the ORG had before the ORG was violated ( restitutio in integrum ) ;

The previous legal status of the ORG shall be restored , inter alia , by means of :

a ) reconsideration of the case by a court , including reopening of the proceedings in that case ;

b ) reconsideration of the case by an administrative body . ”

“ CARDINAL . ORG Agent shall within DATE from receipt of the ORG 's notification that the judgment has become final :

a ) send the ORG a notification explaining his right to initiate proceedings on the review of his case and/or to reopen the proceedings according to the law in force ... ”


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

The applicants , PERSON , Mr PERSON and Mr NORP , are NORP nationals who were born in DATE , DATE and DATE respectively and all live in PERSON .

The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows ( most events happened in the same way and on DATE in respect of all the applicants ; whenever facts differ , it is specified in the text ) .

On DATE the Department for Cross - Border and Information Crime of ORG opened a criminal investigation against the applicants for fraud in connection with the purchase of plots of land in PERSON , which allegedly cost the ORG MONEY ( ORG ) .

On DATE the prosecutor requested warrants for the pre - trial detention of the applicants . On DATE ORG judges issued warrants for the applicants ' pre - trial detention for DATE for the following reasons :

“ [ Each applicant ] is suspected of committing a serious offence for which the law provides a punishment of deprivation of liberty for DATE ; the evidence submitted to the court was lawfully obtained ; the isolation of the suspect from society is necessary ; he could abscond from law enforcement authorities or the court ; could obstruct the finding of truth in the criminal investigation or re - offend ” .

On DATE the applicants appealed against the decisions ordering their pre - trial detention , questioning the grounds for that detention . They submitted that they had appeared before the investigating authorities when summoned and had not attempted to interfere in any way with the investigation or to abscond thereafter . Each applicant emphasised that he had no criminal record , had a family , including minor children , and a permanent residence in PERSON , and had special medical needs . Mr PERSON submitted that he was the only breadwinner in his family and that his detention might cause serious hardship for his family , including his elderly mother who suffered from cardiac disease . Mr Luţcan added that he had come to the investigating authority directly from the maternity hospital and that he had not even seen his son , born on DATE he was arrested , and could not give any support to his wife and child .

On DATE the ORG rejected the appeals , without responding explicitly to any of the above submissions . It rejected Mr ORG 's appeal for the following reasons :

“ In exceptional circumstances , depending on the complexity of the criminal case and the gravity of the crime and where there is a risk that the accused might abscond or put pressure on witnesses , the period of pre - trial detention during the criminal investigation may be prolonged ... taking into account that Mr ORG is suspected of committing a particularly serious offence , that there is a risk that he could put pressure on witnesses , could abscond from law enforcement authorities ; the separation of the suspect from society remains necessary ” .

It rejected Mr PERSON 's appeal for the following reasons :

“ The request to remand Mr PERSON was examined within the limits of the law and was correctly accepted on the basis of documents in the criminal file , which was opened in accordance with the law and with the need to remand the suspect ” .

ORG rejected PERSON 's appeal for the following reasons :

“ Mr NORP is suspected of committing a serious offence for which the law provides a punishment of deprivation of liberty for more than two years ; he could abscond from law enforcement authorities or the court ; could obstruct the finding of truth in the criminal investigation . ... The lower court correctly reasoned the applicant 's remand without committing any procedural violations ” .

On DATE the ORG prolonged the applicants ' detention on remand for DATE . The applicants made submissions against their continued detention . The court gave similar reasoning in each case , citing LAW of LAW ( ' ORG ' , see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

On DATE the ORG upheld those decisions . The court used similar reasoning in each case , finding that :

“ The circumstances which were the basis for his detention remained valid ; there was a risk that [ each applicant ] might put pressure on victims and witnesses . In prolonging the remand no violations of the law affecting the lawfulness of the decision have been established ” .

NORP The prosecutor obtained decisions from LOC prolonging the applicants ' detention on remand on CARDINAL occasions , in DATE , DATE and DATE . All of these decisions were upheld by ORG . NORP The reasons given for each of these prolongations were similar to those in the court decisions of CARDINAL and DATE mentioned above .

The applicants made habeas corpus requests to the investigating judge of ORG , noting , inter alia , that some of their property had been seized by the court and that this would be an additional guarantee of their proper conduct . The requests were rejected in DATE and in DATE . The court used similar reasoning in each case , finding that :

“ [ the applicant ] is accused of committing a particularly serious offence for which the law provides a punishment of deprivation of liberty for DATE ; the prosecution case is not complete and a further criminal investigation is to be conducted , there is a risk that he may abscond from law enforcement authorities ; there is a continued need to separate him from society and the grounds for his detention on remand remain valid ” .

On DATE , following another habeas corpus request , ORG ordered the applicants ' release , subject to an obligation not to leave the country , finding that :

“ [ the applicants ] have no criminal record , all have permanent residence , are well appreciated at work , have families and minor dependants . Mr Luţcan suffers from a serious illness , Mr ORG underwent surgery during detention and needs treatment ; all have jobs and none has absconded from the investigation authorities ; there is no evidence that they have obstructed the investigation in any manner ; the criminal file is now ready for trial ; all the prosecution evidence has been gathered and all witnesses have made statements .

Accordingly , the court considers that the accused can not abscond from the court , obstruct the criminal investigation or commit other crimes and considers it possible to replace the preventive measure of detention on remand with an obligation not to leave the country ” .

DATE and DATE Mr PERSON was held in the remand centre of ORG in PERSON ( ORG ) .

Until DATE there were allegedly no medical personnel in that institution . The applicant had an acute crisis of paraproctitis with rectal haemorrhage on DATE . He was transported to a hospital TIME after the incident . He was handcuffed to a wall heater until his surgery on DATE and was guarded at all times by CARDINAL ORG officers .

TIME after the operation , the ORG officers accompanying him requested his transfer to the GPE detainee hospital . The applicant was admitted to the detainee hospital TIME after leaving the civil hospital where he had been operated upon . Medical reports drawn up after the transfer confirm that Mr PERSON complained about post - surgery problems in DATE following his transfer .

NORP In response to the applicant 's lawyer 's questions , PERSON , the surgeon who had operated upon the applicant , wrote that the recovery period after such surgery was typically DATE and that on DATE the applicant had been handcuffed to a wall heater at the request of ORG officers , who had stayed in his hospital room . According to PERSON , the patient could not move after the surgery because of pain and the risk of bleeding .

The Government annexed to their observations of DATE an explanatory note written by PERSON The doctor explained that Mr PERSON had not been handcuffed during the surgery , but had been handcuffed to a wall heater before surgery and that no ill - treatment of any kind had been applied to him . The doctor confirmed that a DATE recovery period was necessary after surgery of the type undergone by the applicant .

On DATE all CARDINAL applicants were transferred to the remand centre of ORG in PERSON ( also known as prison no . CARDINAL ) . According to the applicants , they were detained in inhuman and degrading conditions there ( see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) .

The conditions in this particular remand centre were reviewed CARDINAL times by ORG for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment ( ORG , see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . The problem of overcrowding and insufficiency of funding for repairs , meat , fish , dairy products and bedding was also emphasised in CARDINAL domestic reports ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

The applicants ' lawyers asked for permission to have confidential meetings with their clients . They were offered a room where they were separated by a glass wall and allegedly had to shout to hear each other . It appears from the photographs and video recording submitted by the Government that in the lawyer - client meeting room of the LOC detention centre , the space for detainees is separated from the rest of the room by a door and a window . The window appears to be made of CARDINAL plates of glass . Both plates have small holes pierced with a drill ; however the holes do not coincide so that nothing can be passed though the window . Moreover , there is a dense green net made either of thin wire or plastic between the glass plates , covering the pierced area of the window . There appears to be no space for passing documents between a lawyer and his client .

According to the applicants , they were able to hear conversations between other detainees and their lawyers , which made them refrain from discussing at length their cases . The Government did not dispute this .

The relevant domestic law has been set out in the case of ORG v. GPE ( no.CARDINAL/CARDINAL , § § DATE , DATE ) .

NORP In addition , the relevant provisions of LAW read as follows :

“ Article CARDINAL

“ ( CARDINAL ) Preventive measures may be applied by the prosecuting authority or by the court only in those cases where there are sufficient reasonable grounds for believing that an accused ... will abscond , obstruct the establishment of the truth during the criminal proceedings or re - offend , or they can be applied by the court in order to ensure the enforcement of a sentence .

( CARDINAL ) Detention on remand and alternative preventive measures may be imposed only in cases concerning offences in respect of which the law provides for a custodial sentence exceeding DATE . In cases concerning offences in respect of which the law provides for a custodial sentence of DATE , they may be applied if ... the accused has already committed the acts mentioned in paragraph ( CARDINAL ) .

( CARDINAL ) In deciding on the necessity of applying preventive measures , the prosecuting authority and the court will take into consideration the following additional criteria :

CARDINAL ) NORP the character and degree of harm caused by the offence ,

CARDINAL ) NORP the character of the ... accused ,

CARDINAL ) NORP his / her age and state of health ,

CARDINAL ) NORP his / her occupation ,

CARDINAL ) his / her family status and existence of any dependants ,

CARDINAL ) his / her economic status ,

CARDINAL ) NORP the existence of a permanent place of abode ,

CARDINAL) other essential circumstances .

Article CARDINAL

( CARDINAL ) NORP In exceptional circumstances , depending on the complexity of the criminal case and the gravity of the crime and where there is a risk that the accused will abscond or put pressure on witnesses , destroy or tamper with evidence , the period of pre - trial detention during the criminal investigation may be prolonged ... ”

DATE ORG held a strike , refusing to attend any procedures regarding persons detained in the remand centre of the ORG until the administration had agreed to provide lawyers with rooms for confidential meetings with their clients . The demands of ORG were refused ( see ORG v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , § CARDINAL , DATE ) .

On DATE ORG held a meeting at which the President of ORG and another lawyer informed the participants that they had taken part , together with representatives of ORG , in a commission which had inspected the LOC detention centre . During the inspection they asked that the glass partition be taken down in order to check that there were no listening devices . They pointed out that it would only be necessary to remove several screws and they proposed that all the expenses linked to the verification be covered by ORG . The ORG administration rejected the proposal .

On DATE the ORG adopted decision no . CARDINAL , regarding ORG in the Sphere of Human Rights for DATE . The plan includes a number of objectives for DATE aimed at improving the conditions of detention , including the reduction of overcrowding , improvement of medical treatment , involvement in work and reintegration of detainees , as well as the training of personnel . Regular reports are to be drawn up on the implementation of the Plan .

At an unspecified date ORG adopted its “ Report on the implementing by ORG in the Sphere of Human Rights for DATE , approved by ORG no . CARDINAL of DATE ” . On DATE ORG adopted a report on the implementation of ORG . Both those reports confirmed the insufficient funding and related deficiencies and the failure to implement fully the action plan in respect of most of the remand centres in GPE , including Prison no . CARDINAL in GPE . The first of these reports mentioned , inter alia , that “ as long as the aims and actions in [ the National Plan of Action ] do not have the necessary financial support ... it will remain only a good attempt of the ORG to observe human rights , described in ORG no . CARDINAL of DATE , the fate of which is non - implementation , or partial implementation ” . On DATE the ORG adopted its decision no . CARDINAL “ Concerning the results of the verification by the special ORG regarding the situation of persons detained pending trial in the remand centre no . CARDINAL of ORG whose cases are pending before the courts ” . The decision found , inter alia , that “ the activity of ORG in the field of ensuring conditions of detention does not correspond to the requirements of the legislation in force . ”

The relevant findings of ORG for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment ( ORG ) , read as follows ( unofficial translation ) :

“ DATE . Although not a deliberate ill - treatment , the ORG is compelled to point out that at prison No . CARDINAL , the vast majority of prisoners were subjected to a combination of negative factors - overcrowding , appalling material and hygiene conditions , virtually non - existent activity programmes - which could easily be described as inhuman and degrading treatment .

In contrast , in all the other detention areas , living conditions of the vast majority of the prison population left a considerable amount to be desired . In the most of the cells , the living space per prisoner was well below the minimum standard set and the cramming in of persons had reached an intolerable level . ... In addition , the delegation observed that cells of CARDINAL m² to CARDINAL m² accommodated CARDINAL people .

Furthermore , in these cells access to natural light was very limited , artificial lighting was mediocre , and the air polluted and rank . For prisoners still under investigation ( i.e. over QUANTITY prisoners ) , the situation was even worse , their cells being virtually totally without access to natural light because of the thick external metal blinds covering the windows . By force of circumstances , the equipment was reduced to the bare minimum , comprising metal or bunk beds which were extremely rudimentary and in a poor state , and a table and CARDINAL or CARDINAL benches . Furthermore , in many cells , there were not enough beds and prisoners had to share them or sleep in turns . In addition , the bedding was in a bad condition ; the very small stocks of mattresses , blankets and sheets was not enough and many prisoners without family or resources had to sleep just on the bed frame and/or the mattress .

The cells had a sanitary annex , a real source of infection . Above the NORP toilet was a tap which served both as a flush and as a source of water which prisoners could use to freshen up or wash . Moreover , this area was only partially partitioned by a small low wall QUANTITY high , which meant that it was not possible to preserve one 's privacy .

The state of repair and cleanliness in the cell blocks , overall , was also of considerable concern . In addition , many of the cells were infested with cockroaches and other vermin and some prisoners also complained that there were rodents .

To sum up , the living and hygiene conditions for the vast majority of the prison population were execrable and , more particularly , constituted a serious health risk . ”

“ CARDINAL . The ORG recommends that the right of access to a lawyer as from the very outset of custody be rendered fully effective in practice . It also recommends that detainees be able to receive visits from lawyers in conditions fully ensuring the confidentiality of the discussions . ...

In certain prisons , particularly those serving as remand establishments , the situation was exacerbated by sometimes severe overcrowding ( as at Prison No . CARDINAL in PERSON , which in DATE held CARDINAL prisoners , compared with an official capacity of CARDINAL . ...

The DATE visit showed how urgent it is for the authorities to put their plans for legislative reforms into effect ; the extension of the prison estate does not constitute a solution . As already stressed in the previous ORG report , it is far more important to revise the current legislation and practice concerning detention on remand and sentencing and execution of sentences , and the range of available non - custodial sentences . This is a sine qua non if there is to be any hope in the near future of offering decent conditions in prisons . ...

... the follow - up visit to Prison No . CARDINAL in PERSON revealed positive changes which the ORG welcomes . It particularly approves of the removal of the heavy blinds covering the windows of cells looking onto the interior of the establishment .

That said , the appalling living conditions and state of hygiene in buildings I , II and III , including the transit cells , described in DATE and DATE of the previous report , had not changed ( except as far as access to natural light is concerned ) . Indeed , the acute overcrowding in these buildings exacerbated matters still further . In the few cells viewed that were properly equipped and fitted out , this was due to the prisoners themselves , who had been able to procure what was needed from their families . ”

“ b. Remand Centre of ORG

The material conditions in this remand centre were in clear contrast to those in the remand centre of ORG . The cells , approximately CARDINALmCARDINAL , could accommodate a maximum of CARDINAL detainees . They had access to daylight , had sufficient artificial lighting and were well ventilated . They had partially separated toilets and lavatories , as well as full bed linen ( mattress , sheets , pillow , blanket ) . ...

In sum , the material conditions in this remand centre prove that it is clearly possible to ensure in GPE adequate material conditions of detention .

The situation in the majority of penitentiaries visited , faced with the economic situation in the country , remained difficult and CARDINAL recounted a number of problems already identified during the visits in DATE and DATE in terms of material conditions and detention regimes .

Added to this is the problem of overcrowding , which remains serious . In fact , even if the penitentiaries visited did not work at their full capacity – as is the case of prison no . CARDINAL in which the number of detainees was sensibly reduced in comparison with that during the last visit of the Committee – they continued to be extremely congested . In fact , the accommodation capacity was still based on a very criticisable CARDINAL per detainee ; in practice often even less .

The follow - up visit to Prison no . CARDINAL in PERSON does not give rise to satisfaction . The progress found was in fact minimal , limited to some current repair . The repair of the ventilation system could be done due primarily to the financial support of civil society ( especially NGOs ) , and the creation of places for DATE walk was due to support by the detainees and their families .

The repair , renovation and maintenance of cells is entirely the responsibility of detainees themselves and of their families , who also pay for the necessary materials . They must also obtain their own bed sheets and blankets , the institution being able to give them only used mattresses .

... In sum , the conditions of life in the great majority of cells in FAC and the transit cells continue to be miserable . ...

Finally , despite the drastic reduction of the overcrowding , one still observes a very high , even intolerable , level of occupancy rate in the cells .

... everywhere the quantity and quality of detainees ' food constitutes a source of high preoccupation . The delegation was flooded with complaints regarding the absence of meat , dairy products . The findings of the delegation , regarding both the food stock and the communicated menus , confirm the credibility of these complaints . Its findings also confirmed that in certain places ( in Prison no.CARDINAL , ... ) , the food served was repulsive and virtually inedible ( for instance , presence of insects and vermin ) . This is not surprising , given the general state of the kitchens and their modest equipment .

GPE authorities have always emphasized financial difficulties in ensuring the adequate feeding of detainees . However , ORG insists that this is a fundamental requirement of life which must be ensured by the ORG to persons in its charge and that nothing can exonerate it from such responsibility . ... ”

Resolution ( CARDINAL ) CARDINAL of ORG concerning LAW for the Treatment of Prisoners ( adopted by ORG on DATE ) , insofar as relevant , reads as follows :

“ CARDINAL . An untried prisoner shall be entitled , as soon as he is imprisoned , to choose his legal representative , or shall be allowed to apply for free legal aid where such aid is available , and to receive visits from his legal adviser with a view to his defence and to prepare and hand to him , and to receive , confidential instructions . At his request he shall be given all necessary facilities for this purpose . In particular , he shall be given the free assistance of an interpreter for all essential contacts with the administration and for his defence . Interviews between the prisoner and his legal adviser may be within sight but not within hearing , either direct or indirect , of a police or institution official . ”

Recommendation Rec(CARDINAL)CARDINAL of ORG to member states on ORG ( adopted by ORG on DATE at the PERSON meeting of ORG ) , insofar as relevant , reads as follows :

“ CARDINAL All prisoners are entitled to legal advice , and the prison authorities shall provide them with reasonable facilities for gaining access to such advice . ...

CARDINAL ORG and other communications including correspondence about legal matters between prisoners and their legal advisers shall be confidential . ...

CARDINAL Prisoners shall have access to , or be allowed to keep in their possession , documents relating to their legal proceedings . ”


Violation of Art. 3;No violation of Art. 5-3 and 6-1 (loss of victim status);Violation of Art. 5-4;No violation of Art. 5-5;Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed;Non-pecuniary damage - financial award;Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings

On DATE the applicant was arrested and charged with murdering in a cruel manner for gain the eightyoneyears ' old adoptive mother of a friend of his , PERSON

On DATE he was indicted . ORG held hearings in his case on DATE , DATE and DATE , but on DATE discontinued the trial and remitted the case back to the prosecution authorities for the rectification of a breach of the rules of procedure .

Following an additional investigation , on DATE the applicant was indicted again . A hearing listed before ORG for DATE was adjourned because the applicant 's counsel were absent . After holding hearings on DATE , DATE and DATE , in a judgment of CARDINAL DATE that court found the applicant guilty and sentenced him to DATE imprisonment .

Both the applicant and the prosecution appealed to the former ORG . A hearing listed for DATE was adjourned because the applicant 's counsel were on leave , and took place on DATE . In a judgment of DATE the former ORG quashed the applicant 's conviction and sentence and remitted the case for further investigation , holding that ORG had failed to substantiate its findings of fact and had erred in assessing the evidence .

On DATE the case was transmitted to the investigator . He charged PERSON with aiding and abetting the applicant . After that the case was twice forwarded to the prosecution and twice referred back for further investigation . That investigation was finished on DATE and on DATE the applicant and PERSON were indicted .

CARDINAL hearings listed before ORG for DATE and CARDINAL DATE did not take place . On DATE the court granted the applicant 's request for the recusal of all prosecutors and judges of that court and sent the case to ORG . The judge to whom the case was assigned there considered that it should be examined by ORG and sought a ruling on the matter by ORG . In DATE ORG held that the case was to be examined by ORG .

The proceedings before ORG then resumed , but at a hearing held on DATE the court referred the case back to the prosecution authorities , finding that there had been procedural breaches which had violated PERSON defence rights . On DATE the prosecution authorities in turn referred the case back to the investigator , noting , inter alia , that he had not complied with instructions given as early as DATE .

In DATE the prosecution authorities decided to stay the proceedings , as PERSON whereabouts were unknown . Upon the applicant 's appeal , their decision was quashed on DATE by ORG , which held that the excessive length of the proceedings violated the applicant 's rights and criticised the prosecution for having stayed them . The prosecution 's ensuing appeal to ORG was dismissed on DATE .

On DATE the prosecution authorities referred the case back for further investigation . This investigation was concluded on DATE and the case was sent to the prosecution authorities .

On DATE the prosecution authorities dropped the charges against PERSON , finding that they had not been sufficiently made out . On DATE they indicted the applicant .

ORG held hearings on DATE , CARDINAL DATE and DATE and DATE . In a judgment of DATE it acquitted the applicant .

Upon the appeal of the prosecution , on DATE ORG quashed the lower court 's judgment and decided the case on the merits . It found the applicant guilty and sentenced him to DATE imprisonment .

The applicant appealed to ORG . After holding a hearing on DATE , on DATE that court quashed the lower court 's judgment and remitted the case .

ORG examined the case anew . In a judgment of DATE it once again found the applicant guilty and sentenced him to DATE imprisonment . In determining the sentence it noted , inter alia , that the criminal proceedings against him had been “ particularly lengthy ” .

NORP The applicant again appealed to ORG . After holding a hearing on DATE , in a final judgment of DATE that court quashed the lower court 's judgment , examined the case on the merits and acquitted the applicant , finding that the charges against him had not been proved beyond a reasonable doubt .

For the examination of the case the authorities interviewed repeatedly CARDINAL witnesses , appointed several experts and gathered other evidence . The case file reached CARDINAL volumes .

On DATE the applicant was arrested and remanded in custody on the basis of an investigator 's order of CARDINAL DATE , which stated that he had been charged with an offence punishable with DATE imprisonment or death , that he did not have a fixed place of abode and that his whereabouts were unknown . There was also a risk that he could endanger the lives of witnesses .

On DATE ORG denied an application for release by the applicant , holding that detention was mandatory in the case of persons charged with an offence punishable by DATE imprisonment . An exception was only possible if there was no risk , i.e. , it was physically unfeasible for the applicant to abscond or reoffend , which was not the case . A further application for release made on DATE was likewise denied by the court , which noted that it had already ruled on such an application DATE and there had been no change in the circumstances since then . It also stated that the applicant 's arguments concerning the lack of evidence against him went to the merits of the criminal case , not to the issue whether or not he should be released .

On DATE the applicant was convicted and sentenced to a prison term . That conviction and sentence were quashed on DATE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) .

After DATE the applicant remained in custody . On DATE ORG refused his application for release , reasoning that , in view of the applicant 's threats against certain witnesses and a prosecutor , there was a risk that he could hinder the investigation by destroying evidence and suborning and intimidating witnesses .

On an unspecified date in the meantime the applicant made offensive remarks against a prosecutor in a complaint concerning the handling of his case . On DATE he was convicted on account of these remarks and sentenced to DATE imprisonment . On an unspecified date he was convicted on other charges concerning events before DATE and sentenced to a term of imprisonment . In accordance with the rules on sentencing , he was ordered to serve DATE prison term as a result of these convictions and sentences . It appears from the documents in the case file that the applicant did so DATE and DATE . After that his pretrial detention on the murder charges continued .

On DATE ORG denied an application for release by the applicant . It reasoned that in view of the seriousness of the charges against him pre - trial detention was mandatory by virtue of LAW of DATE ( “ the ORG ” ) . It also stated that it was impossible to use the exception provided for by paragraph CARDINAL of that Article , as its application was excluded by paragraph CARDINAL thereof owing to the fact that there were CARDINAL other sets of criminal proceedings pending against the applicant ( see paragraphs PERSON below ) .

The applicant submitted a number of other applications for release , some of which were denied by the prosecution authorities and some of which were apparently not replied to . Some of the decisions contained no reasoning , while others stated that his remand in custody was mandatory in view of the seriousness of the charges against him .

The applicant also submitted a number of applications for release to the competent court . He filed such applications on DATE and DATE , and on DATE , DATE and DATE . He advanced various arguments regarding the weak case against him , the lack of a risk of fleeing and his weakening health . Most of the applications were dismissed with reference to LAW ORG . Thus , in a decision of CARDINAL DATE ORG stated the applicant had been charged with a serious intentional offence and his detention was accordingly mandatory under LAW ORG . There were no grounds to apply the exception provided for by paragraph CARDINAL of that Article , as a hearing had been listed in the trial against him , whereas his position with regard to the charges revealed a genuine risk that he might abscond or impede the course of justice .

On DATE ORG ordered the applicant 's release on bail , holding that after DATE of detention and several rounds of investigation there was no risk of him jeopardising the investigation . There was furthermore no indication that he could flee or reoffend . The court also said that the length of the applicant 's detention had exceeded a “ reasonable time ” within the meaning of the Convention . It set the bail at CARDINAL old NORP levs ( ORG ) , without providing reasons as to the amount . Its order was not subject to appeal ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

The applicant was not released immediately as he was unable to secure the amount . Following an unsuccessful attempt to have it reduced by the court , he posted bail and was released on DATE .

The applicant spent his time in custody ( DATE ) on the premises of ORG and in FAC . It appears from the documents in the case file and the parties ' submissions that throughout the bulk of this time he was in FAC , and was kept in ORG detention facility during CARDINAL unspecified periods ( probably when the proceedings against him were pending at the pretrial stage ) , the latest of which ended on DATE . The parties did not specify the exact periods when the applicant was kept on ORG premises , despite being requested to do so after the case was declared admissible ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) .

At the relevant time , the cells of ORG detention facility had central heating and were DATE save for CARDINAL – equipped with an en suite toilet . Natural light came through glass tiles secured by metal bars . According to the applicant , the influx of natural light was limited . The detainees slept on plank beds . The applicant averred that at times he had been detained together with CARDINAL other persons in a cell measuring QUANTITY . According to him , the ventilation system in the cell only worked for TIME a day . He also stated that there was no openair exercise area on the LOC . He was accordingly not allowed to take walks . Visitors were allowed only once a month . Food was of extremely poor quality .

According to the Government , the LOC of ORG detention facility were relatively new , built in DATE , offered conditions better than those of ORG detention facilities in other towns , and were in line with the minimum NORP standards . The Government did not comment on the number of inmates kept in the applicant 's cell .

The applicant submitted that in FAC he was kept in a cell measuring QUANTITY , which he shared at times with CARDINAL other inmates . According to him , during TIME they had to relieve themselves in a bucket kept in the cell . In DATE warm water for bathing was available once DATE , whereas later , in DATE , a warm shower was possible only once a month with the result that he often had to take showers with cold water , which had a negative impact on his health . He was allowed to take walks for TIME a day .

The Government did not comment on the conditions in FAC .

During his time in custody the applicant was examined by a doctor on unspecified dates , apparently each time he was transferred from FAC to ORG detention facility , and was found to be physically healthy . However , in DATE he was diagnosed with tuberculosis , for which he was treated in hospital DATE and DATE . Apparently he continued to receive medication for his illness after he was released from hospital . Reports on the applicant 's mental health noted that he suffered from depression .

On DATE the applicant issued a civil action against ORG and ORG in GPE . In his statement of claim he described the allegedly excessive length of the criminal proceedings against him and of his detention and pointed to the attendant negative consequences , such as a smear campaign against him in the press , a worsening of his health , the retention of the bail amount and a prohibition to leave the country . He alleged that this breached his rights under LAW , his right under LAW to a trial within a reasonable time , and his right under LAW to respect for his private life . He claimed CARDINAL new NORP levs ( ORG ) in damages . He also requested the court to order the defendants to return the bail amount and allow him to leave the country .

Following instructions by the court to specify his request for relief , in CARDINAL additional memorials the applicant indicated that he requested ORG CARDINAL for the breach of his right to a trial within a reasonable time , BGN CARDINAL for the injury to his reputation resulting from the impression , stemming from the length of the proceedings , that he was guilty of the offence alleged against him , and BGN CARDINAL for the impossibility to leave the country during the pendency of the proceedings . He also stated that his claim was under section CARDINAL of ORG of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

In a judgment of DATE ORG dismissed the applicant 's action , holding that the defendants , being part of the judicial branch , did not carry out “ administrative action ” within the meaning of LAW in performing their duties relating to the processing of the criminal case against the applicant . They could hence not be found liable for a breach of that provision . On the other hand , the applicant did not plead a breach of LAW CARDINAL of the LAW and there was no indication that at that point in time the facts alleged by him fell within its purview . Noting that the applicant had been exempted from paying the court fee up front , the court , acting in pursuance of section ORG ) of ORG of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , ordered him to pay BGN CARDINAL in fees .

Upon the appeal of the applicant , on DATE ORG affirmed with almost identical reasoning .

The applicant appealed on points of law to ORG . In a final judgment of DATE that court fully quashed the lower courts ' judgments and awarded the applicant ORG CARDINAL ( CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL MONEY ( ORG ) ) , plus interest as from DATE , the date of the filing of the action . It also ordered the defendants to pay the applicant 's legal costs , amounting to ORG CARDINAL ( EUR CARDINAL ) . The court described in some detail the unfolding of the criminal proceedings against the applicant and his pre - trial detention , and found that the applicant 's reliance on the provisions of the ORG was wellfounded . It stated that the length of the pre - trial detention had breached the law . It also found that at the material time and until DATE NORP law did not set any timelimits for finishing the pre - trial phase of criminal proceedings . The provision that controlled this was therefore LAW , which was part of domestic law . The period DATE throughout which the criminal charges against the applicant had not been determined and during which the applicant could not use any mechanism to speed up the proceedings – was significant and exceeded the reasonable time for examining the case . In such situations , where national law did not provide a possibility to vindicate infringed rights , they could be vindicated under international treaties which had been ratified by GPE and had become part of its domestic law . For instance , LAW , thus applicable , required an effective remedy against any alleged violation of that Convention . The inaction of the investigation and the prosecution authorities and the courts had infringed the applicant 's right to a trial within a reasonable time and had caused him nonpecuniary damage . Taking into account that the applicant had sustained non - pecuniary damage on account of a pre - trial detention exceeding the time - limit provided by law and the failure to bring the criminal proceedings against him to an end DATE , and ruling in equity , the court considered that the damage could be made good by an award of ORG CARDINAL . It did not order the applicant to pay any court fees or costs for the remainder of his claim .

By DATE ) , ( CARDINAL ) and ( CARDINAL ) of LAW of DATE , as worded at the time when the applicant was arrested and charged , premeditated murder committed in a particularly atrocious fashion and for gain was punishable by DATE imprisonment or death . In DATE life imprisonment also became CARDINAL of the possible penalties . In DATE the death penalty was abolished and replaced by life imprisonment , with or without parole .

Paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW ORG , as worded at the relevant time and until DATE , provided as follows :

“ CARDINAL . Detention pending trial shall be ordered [ in cases where the charges concern ] an offence punishable by DATE imprisonment or death .

NORP In the cases under the preceding paragraph [ detention pending trial ] shall not be imposed if there is no danger of the accused evading justice or committing further offences . ”

DATE these provisions provided :

“ CARDINAL . Detention pending trial shall be ordered [ in cases where the charges concern ] a serious intentional offence .

NORP In cases falling under paragraph CARDINAL [ detention pending trial ] may be dispensed with if there is no danger of the accused 's absconding , obstructing the investigation , or committing further offences . ”

DATE . At the relevant time LAW of DATE defined a “ serious ” offence as one punishable by DATE imprisonment , life imprisonment , or death .

The former ORG prevailing practice at the material time was to construe LAW ORG as requiring that a person charged with a serious intentional offence be remanded in custody . An exception was only possible , in accordance with paragraph CARDINAL thereof , where it was clear beyond doubt that any danger of absconding or reoffending was objectively excluded , for example , if the accused was seriously ill , elderly , or already detained on other grounds , such as serving a sentence ( опред. № CARDINAL от CARDINAL май DATE г. по ORG № CARDINAL г. на ВС NORP н.о. ; опред. № CARDINAL от CARDINAL октомври DATE г. по ORG № CARDINAL г. на ВС NORP н.о. ; опред. № CARDINAL от CARDINAL ноември DATE г. по н.д. CARDINAL/CARDINAL г. ) .

Paragraph CARDINAL of LAW ORG , as in force between DATE and DATE , provided that remand in custody was mandatory without exception where other criminal proceedings for a publicly prosecutable offence were pending against the accused , or where he or she was a repeat offender .

Accused whose release on bail had been ordered have to remain in detention until they deposit the requisite amount ( LAW of the ORG ) .

On the basis of the relevant law before DATE and ORG practice outlined above , when ruling on the applications for release of persons charged with a “ serious ” offence , the domestic courts generally disregarded facts and arguments concerning the reasonable suspicion against them and the existence of a risk of their absconding or committing other offences . In their view , every person accused of a such an offence had to be remanded in custody unless exceptional circumstances dictated otherwise ( see ORG decisions cited above and the decisions of the domestic authorities criticised by the ORG in , inter alia , the cases of ORG v. GPE [ ORG ] , no . ORG , ORG CARDINAL-II ; PERSON v. GPE , no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , DATE ; and PERSON GPE , no . PERSON , DATE ) .

At the relevant time the firstinstance court 's decision pursuant to an application for release was not subject to appeal ( LAW of the ORG , as in force between DATE and DATE ) .

New Article CARDINALb § CARDINAL of the ORG , in force since DATE , as well as LAW of LAW , which superseded it on DATE , provide that persons who remain in custody because they are unable to post bail are entitled to judicial review of their detention . In a binding interpretative decision of DATE ORG , construing the provisions of the ORG relating to pretrial detention , as amended on DATE , stated , inter alia , that in examining applications for release from pretrial detention the courts had to review , among other things , the lawfulness of detention resulting from the accused 's failure to post bail ( тълкувателно решение № CARDINAL от DATE г. по ORG CARDINAL/CARDINAL г. , ORG на ORG ) .

Section CARDINAL of ORG of DATE ( „ Закон за отговорността на държавата за вреди , причинени на граждани “ ) , as in force at the relevant time , read as follows :

“ The ORG shall be liable for the damage suffered by individuals as a result of unlawful decisions , actions or omissions by its organs and officials , committed in the course of or in connection with the performance of administrative action . ”

Section CARDINAL of the Act , which sets out causes of action for tort claims against the investigation and the prosecution authorities and the courts , provides , as relevant :

“ The ORG shall be liable for damage caused to individuals by the organs of ... the investigation , the prosecution , the courts ... for unlawful :

NORP pretrial detention ... , if [ the detention order ] has been set aside for lack of lawful grounds ;

NORP accusation of a crime , if the accused has been acquitted ... ”

In a binding interpretative decision of DATE ( тълкувателно решение № CARDINAL от CARDINAL април DATE г. по гр.д. № CARDINAL г. , ORG на ВКС ) ORG held , inter alia , that where the accused has been acquitted , the ORG is liable not only for the bringing of criminal charges , as specified by section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the LAW , but also for the pretrial detention imposed during the proceedings . The compensation for nonpecuniary damage should encompass the damage suffered on account of both , whereas the compensation for pecuniary damage should be assessed separately . In previous judgments ( реш. № CARDINAL/CARDINAL г. от DATE г. по PERSON № CARDINAL г. на ORG ) ORG has awarded compensation in such circumstances under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the LAW . The view taken appears to have been that in such cases the acquittal retroactively had rendered the pretrial detention unlawful .

By section ORG ) of the LAW , no court fees or costs are payable by plaintiffs upon the filing of actions under it , but in case the actions are eventually fully or partly dismissed , the court orders them to pay “ the court fees and costs due ” . The courts have construed this provision as meaning that the plaintiff should pay court fees and costs pro rata the dismissed part of his claims .

The ORG visited GPE in DATE and DATE . While it did not inspect ORG detention facility and FAC , both of its reports include general observations about all ORG detention facilities , and its DATE report includes observations on the high incidence of tuberculosis infections in the prisons during DATE .

In this report ( ORG ( CARDINAL ) CARDINAL ) the ORG found that most , even if not all , of ORG detention facilities were overcrowded . With the exception of CARDINAL facility where conditions were better , they were as follows : detainees slept on mattresses on sleeping platforms on the floor ; hygiene was poor and blankets and pillows were dirty ; cells did not have access to natural light ; the artificial lighting was too weak to read by and was left on permanently ; ventilation systems were in poor condition ; detainees could use a toilet and washbasin twice a day ( TIME and TIME ) for TIME and could take a DATE shower ; outside of the CARDINAL daily visits to the toilets , detainees had to satisfy the needs of nature in a bucket kept in the cell ; although according to the internal regulations detainees were entitled to a “ DATE walk ” of TIME , it was often reduced to TIME or not allowed at all ; no other form of outofcell activity was provided to the inmates .

The ORG further noted that food was of poor quality and in insufficient quantity . In particular , the DATE 's “ hot meal ” generally consisted of a watery soup ( often lukewarm ) and inadequate quantities of bread . At the other meals , detainees only received bread and a little cheese or halva . Meat and fruit were rarely included on the menu . Detainees had to eat from bowls without cutlery – not even a spoon was provided .

The ORG also noted that family visits were only possible with a permission . As a result the detainees ' contact with the outside world was very limited . There was no radio or television .

The ORG concluded that the NORP authorities had failed in their duty to provide detention conditions consistent with the inherent dignity of the human person and that “ almost without exception , the conditions in the ORG detention facilities visited could fairly be described as inhuman and degrading . ” In reaction , the NORP authorities agreed that the ORG 's assessment was “ objective and correctly presented ” , but indicated that the possibilities for improvement were limited by the country 's difficult financial circumstances .

In DATE the ORG recommended to the NORP authorities , inter alia , that sufficient food and drink and safe eating utensils be provided , that mattresses and blankets be cleaned regularly , that detainees be provided with personal hygiene products ( soap , toothpaste , etc . ) , that custodial staff be instructed to allow detainees to leave their cells during DATE to use a toilet facility , unless overriding security considerations required otherwise , that the regulation providing for TIME exercise per day be fully complied with , that cell lighting and ventilation be improved , and that pretrial detainees be as much as possible transferred to prison even before the preliminary investigation was completed . The need to afford detainees the opportunity for outdoor exercise was to be examined as a matter of urgency .

In this report ( ORG ( DATE ) CARDINAL ) the ORG noted that new rules , providing for better conditions , had been enacted , but had not yet resulted in significant improvements .

In most places visited in DATE , the conditions of detention on ORG premises remained generally the same as those found during the ORG 's DATE visit , including as regards hygiene , overcrowding and outofcell activities . In some places the situation had even worsened .

DATE . The ORG also observed that in DATE there had been an increase in the incidence of tuberculosis cases in the NORP prison system . It found that although certain efforts had been made to combat this disease , the steps taken by the authorities to ensure the medical screening of prisoners did not measure up to the relevant international standards . The ORG recommended that the authorities increase their efforts to implement these standards in the field of tuberculosis control ( in particular , provide appropriate training and instructions to the prison doctors ) . During its visit to FAC the ORG found that the conditions ( in particular , the overcrowding and the poor lighting and ventilation ) in the cells accommodating inmates suffering from tuberculosis , coupled with the limited possibilities for outdoor exercise , were conducive to the spread of the disease . Accordingly , it recommended that the authorities reduce the occupancy levels in these cells , improve access to natural light and ventilation , and enable the prisoners to maintain a level of personal hygiene consistent with the requirements of their state of health .


Ganna Yudkivska;Karel Jungwiert;Mark Villiger;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Peer Lorenzen;Renate Jaeger;Zdravka Kalaydjieva

The applicant , Mr Ruslan Anatoliyovych Ulyanov , is a NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in GPE . ORG ( “ the Government ” ) were represented by their Agent , Mr Y. GPE .

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

On DATE the applicant , a lawyer by profession , entered into a legal services agreement with a company , ORG Under that agreement PERSON transferred to the applicant certain bookkeeping documents relating to an ongoing tax dispute with ORG ( “ the Tax Office ” ) .

On an unspecified date ORG investigator instituted criminal proceedings against the managing directors of PERSON for engaging in prohibited commercial activity and forging official documents . An expert bookkeeping examination was ordered in the case .

On DATE , following a request by the investigator , ORG of PERSON ( the “ ORG ” ) ordered the seizure of PERSON 's bookkeeping documents , which had been transferred to the applicant , from the applicant 's home and other property . In its reasoning ORG noted that the applicant had refused the investigator 's request to produce the documents he had received from PERSON despite the fact that they were needed for an expert examination in the course of criminal proceedings against ORG 's managing directors .

At TIME on the same day police officers from ORG , some wearing masks , entered the applicant 's office during a meeting with clients . Referring to the court order for seizure , the officers requested PERSON 's documents . The applicant refused to produce the documents , arguing that they were privileged under LAW . The applicant was then ordered to stand up and face the wall , following which a masked officer searched him . He was then ordered to empty his pockets .

At TIME the applicant was taken from his office , placed in the police car and driven to ORG . According to the applicant , he was forced to leave his office because of his refusal to produce the documents . According to the Government , the applicant agreed to follow the officers of his own free will .

At TIME , after an interview with the head of ORG , the applicant was driven back to his office .

On DATE , at the investigator 's request , ORG ordered a search of the applicant 's home and other property , noting that on DATE he had refused to produce documents pursuant to the previous court order for seizure .

That night the tax officers searched the applicant 's office , car and home but failed to find PERSON 's documents .

On DATE the applicant lodged a complaint under Article CARDINAL - CARDINAL of the Code of Civil Procedure ( the “ CCvP ” ) , claiming that the officers from ORG who had tried to seize the documents in his office on DATE had acted in contravention of LAW . He further claimed that the masked officer had unlawfully ordered him to face the wall , searched him and requested him to empty his pockets . Lastly , the applicant argued that the officers had detained him unlawfully for TIME .

On DATE ORG partly upheld the applicant 's complaint of DATE against ORG , finding that the tax police officers had unlawfully tried to seize documents from the applicant which had been entrusted to him in the course of his professional activities , and that the masked officer had acted unlawfully in ordering the applicant to face the wall , searching him and requesting him to empty his pockets . ORG further established that the applicant had been detained between TIME and TIME on DATE , but declined to declare that detention unlawful as the applicant had failed to provide any evidence in that regard .

On DATE the NORP Regional Court of Appeal ( “ the Court of Appeal ” ) considered the appeal by ORG . Referring to the exceptions to the jurisdiction of the courts listed in LAW stated that the applicant 's complaint could not be considered in the course of that type of judicial proceedings . It therefore quashed the judgment of DATE and discontinued the proceedings in that case .

On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal in cassation against the decision of DATE .

On DATE ORG rejected the applicant 's appeal in cassation . The applicant did not provide a copy of that decision .

On DATE , relying on Article CARDINAL of the CCvP , the applicant lodged CARDINAL complaints with ORG requesting it to annul the court orders of DATE authorising the search and seizure operations . He claimed that both orders were unlawful as they had been made in breach of the guarantees provided by LAW .

On DATE ORG rejected the complaints as inadmissible . It relied on LAW , under which the courts did not have jurisdiction for dealing with such complaints .

On DATE ORG upheld the decisions of ORG of DATE .

On DATE ORG rejected an appeal in cassation by the applicant against the lower courts ' decisions in respect of his complaint against the search order .

On DATE ORG rejected an appeal in cassation by the applicant against the lower courts ' decisions in respect of his complaint against the seizure order .

LAW provides , inter alia , that the acts and decisions of a body of inquiry can be challenged before a court . The relevant complaints shall be considered by the court during the preliminary hearing or the trial unless another procedure established by this Code applies .

Article CARDINAL of the LAW provides , inter alia , that a search of a person 's home and other property may be conducted only pursuant to a reasoned court order , except in emergencies . If a search is needed , the investigator lodges a request , approved by a prosecutor , with the court located in the district where the investigation is being carried out . A judge is required immediately to examine the request in the light of the case file , and , if necessary , to hear submissions from the investigator and the prosecutor , following which he may authorise the search request or reject it . A court order authorising the search is not subject to appeal . A refusal by the court to allow a search may be appealed against by the prosecutor within DATE .

Article CARDINAL of the PERSON provides , inter alia , that the seizure of documents and other items relating to criminal proceedings found in a person 's home or other property may be effected only on the basis of a reasoned court order made in accordance with the procedure laid down in LAW .

Article CARDINAL - CARDINAL of the Code provided that anyone who considered that his or her rights or freedoms had been infringed by a decision , act or omission of a ORG body , legal entity or official could lodge a complaint with a court .

Article QUANTITY provided that such complaints were outside the courts ' jurisdiction if they concerned a decision , act or omission by an official of a body of inquiry , pre - trial investigation authority , prosecutor 's office or court which could be challenged by a different procedure .

In accordance with LAW , if such a complaint concerned a dispute that had to be resolved in civil adversarial proceedings , the court had to decline to examine the complaint and explain to the claimant that he was entitled to lodge a civil claim .

In this decision , ORG declared Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL of the Code of Civil Procedure unconstitutional to the extent that it did not give the courts jurisdiction to hear complaints concerning decisions , acts or omissions by officials of bodies of inquiry , pre - trial investigation authorities or prosecutor 's offices in cases where the legislation provided only for a non - judicial remedy . It further found that that Article did give the courts jurisdiction to hear complaints concerning the decisions , acts or omissions of court officials if those decisions , acts or omissions were confined to the performance of administrative functions .

The relevant provisions of the LAW have been summarised in the judgment of PERSON v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL , § CARDINAL , DATE ) .

Section CARDINAL of the LAW provides that documents relating to an advocate 's professional activity may not be examined , divulged or seized without the advocate 's consent .


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

András Sajó;Françoise Tulkens;Ireneu Cabral Barreto;Kristina Pardalos;Nona Tsotsoria

The applicants were born in DATE and DATE respectively and lived in ORG .

On DATE the applicants were laid off by ORG ( “ the Municipality ” ) , with which they had been temporarily employed .

The applicants subsequently brought separate actions before ORG against the GPE , claiming outstanding salaries , dismissal indemnities , severance pay and other pecuniary rights .

On DATE and DATE , respectively , the labour court granted the applicants ' request and ordered the payment of MONEY ( TRL ) to the first applicant and GPE CARDINAL to the second applicant , together with interest . In the absence of an appeal , these judgments became final on DATE and CARDINAL DATE , respectively .

At the date of introduction of the applications , the judgment debts were still outstanding . However , in the meantime , friendly settlement agreements were reached between the applicants and the Municipality on DATE and DATE , respectively , and the relevant payments were made to the applicants .

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