CASE OF KARI-PEKKA PIETILÄINEN v. FINLAND

Violation of Art. 6-1+6-3-c;Non-pecuniary damage - award

David Thór Björgvinsson;Giovanni Bonello;Ján Šikuta;Ledi Bianku;Nebojša Vučinić;Nicolas Bratza;Päivi Hirvelä

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

On DATE the applicant was convicted of aggravated fraud by ORG ( käräjäoikeus , tingsrätten ) and sentenced to conditional imprisonment for DATE and DATE .

On DATE the applicant appealed to ORG ( hovioikeus , hovrätten ) requesting , inter alia , that an oral hearing be held . The other defendants and CARDINAL of the complainants also appealed to ORG .

On DATE , after having received written observations from the parties , ORG decided to hold an oral hearing . On DATE the parties were summoned to attend the oral hearings which were to take place on DATE , DATE , DATE , and CARDINAL to DATE . It was stated in the decision and in the summons that the applicant was to appear in person at the hearing on all of those days , under penalty of a default fine . His presence was required due to his own appeal as well as the opposing parties’ appeal and in order to be heard by the public prosecutor . However , the hearing of witnesses was to take place between CARDINAL and DATE . Moreover , it was stated in the summons that , if the applicant were to be absent from the main hearing without a valid excuse and despite the penalty of a default fine being imposed , his appeal would be discontinued . As far as the opposing parties’ appeal and the hearing by the public prosecutor were concerned , a new threat of a higher fine could be imposed on the applicant , he could be ordered to be brought to the same or a later hearing , and the case could be decided regardless of his absence . A valid excuse meant circumstances of force majeure or an illness certified by a medical certificate . Work or holiday reasons were normally not considered as valid reasons . ORG was to examine whether the excuse was valid .

The summons was served on the applicant on DATE .

The applicant did not attend the hearing on DATE but was represented by his counsel . He could not be reached by telephone despite several attempts . The public prosecutor requested that the applicant be brought to the hearing but this was not done . The applicant ’s counsel indicated that the applicant could most likely be found at his home but that his presence at the hearing on DATE was not necessary as it had been planned in advance that he would be heard only on DATE .

On DATE ORG decided , on the basis of LAW , section DATE , of LAW ( oikeudenkäymiskaari , rättegångsbalken ; Act no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) , that the applicant ’s appeal was to be discontinued due to his absence . It found that , since the applicant had not attended the hearing on DATE or notified the court of a valid excuse for his absence , he had to be considered to have been absent even though his counsel had been present . It was stated in the decision that an ordinary appeal was not allowed but if the applicant had had a valid excuse that he had not been able to announce in time , he had the right to a reopening of the case on the basis of the same appeal , by notifying ORG in writing within DATE of the decision to discontinue the appeal . If he could not provide a valid excuse , the case would be ruled inadmissible .

On DATE the applicant attended the hearing as planned and was questioned as a witness .

On DATE the applicant notified ORG in writing that he had had a valid excuse for his absence and that he wanted his case to be reopened . He claimed that the national provision in question , LAW , section CARDINAL , subsection CARDINAL , of LAW , had been too strictly applied . He referred to a ORG judgment in which the court had stated that it was not necessary to summon an applicant to appear in person unless his presence was strictly necessary , for example for questioning . According to ORG , the national provision in question should not be interpreted too strictly . If the applicant was absent from the main hearing but his presence was not deemed strictly necessary , his appeal should not be discontinued due to his absence .

Furthermore , the applicant claimed that the above - mentioned provision most likely failed to comply with the requirements of LAW . When the provision in question had last been amended , the Government had proposed some textual changes in order to reflect better the ORG ’s case - law in this respect . These changes were not , however , accepted by the ORG .

NORP Moreover , the applicant claimed that , as there were no rules on how national law was to be applied when the main hearing lasted for DATE , a Convention - friendly approach should have been adopted . ORG had set up a procedural plan according to which the applicant was to be heard in person only on DATE . It was not indicated in the summons that even DATE absence would be regarded as absence from the whole main hearing . The applicant ’s presence at the hearing on DATE was thus not strictly necessary and ORG should not have discontinued his appeal . The applicant had never intended to discontinue his appeal .

In any event , the applicant claimed that he had had a valid excuse as he had been ill . He provided a medical certificate and CARDINAL medical documents to that effect .

On DATE ORG rejected the applicant ’s notification . It found that the medical certificate had been dated DATE after the hearing and that the doctor had thus not examined the applicant ’s health on DATE . On DATE , the applicant had not received any treatment in a hospital or in a similar medical institution . The applicant was suffering from a long - term illness and his treatment was estimated to DATE . Despite the applicant ’s state of health , he had been able to attend the hearing on DATE . His illness was thus not of a kind to constitute a valid excuse for absence . The applicant had time to prepare himself well in advance for the hearing and also to take the hearing into account when planning his treatment . Thus , the applicant had not shown that he had had a valid reason to be absent from the hearing on CARDINAL DATE and he had no right to have his case reopened .

On DATE the applicant appealed to ORG ( korkein oikeus , högsta domstolen ) , reiterating the grounds of appeal relied on before ORG and pointing out that ORG had taken no stand on his claims concerning national law and the ORG ’s case - law .

On DATE ORG refused leave to appeal .

According to LAW , section CARDINAL , subsection CARDINAL , of LAW ( oikeudenkäymiskaari , rättegångsbalken ; Act no . CARDINAL ) , if the appellant is absent from the main hearing , the appeal shall be discontinued . According to LAW , LAW of MONEY no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) , a party who , in spite of having been ordered to appear in court in person , sends an attorney in his place without a valid excuse , shall be deemed to be absent .

When the current provisions concerning appeals to ORG were amended in DATE and DATE , the following was mentioned in the Government Proposal HE CARDINAL vp . :

“ The provision [ LAW , section CARDINAL , subsection CARDINAL , of LAW ] is interpreted [ by ORG , ORG CARDINAL:CARDINAL ] to mean that an appeal of an applicant summoned to appear in person is discontinued if he or she is absent from the main hearing even if he or she is represented by counsel . However , ORG has on many occasions stated that it was of crucial importance for the fairness of the criminal justice system that the accused be adequately defended by counsel , in spite of having been properly summoned to appear in person . In its judgments of PERSON and PERSON v. The GPE ( application nos . CARDINAL and GPE , judgment of DATE , points CARDINAL and DATE ) and PERSON v. GPE ( application no . CARDINAL , judgment of DATE , points CARDINAL ) as well as most recently in its judgment Stroek and ORG v. GPE ( application nos . CARDINAL , ORG and CARDINAL , judgment of DATE ) , ORG stated that an accused does not lose this right to be defended effectively by a lawyer merely on account of not attending a court hearing . It is immaterial whether the absence is due to a valid excuse or whether an appeal is possible . It is also immaterial that the defendant was adequately defended in the lower instance . The judgment in the FAC case concerned an action for recovery of a higher court judgment which was given in absentia . The applicant , who was an accused in the criminal proceedings , was represented by her counsel in the recovery proceedings . The higher court " declared the application void " . The proceedings were thus similar to those in GPE when an appeal is discontinued . On the other hand , in its judgment of PERSON v. The GPE ( application no . CARDINAL , judgment of DATE , point CARDINAL ) , ORG found no violation when counsel was heard and the case was decided thereafter . In the light of the above ORG ’s case - law , it is not entirely clear what should be done regarding an appeal of an applicant who is an accused in criminal proceedings and who , despite being summoned , does not appear in person at the main hearing . ”

NORP However , it was proposed that LAW , section CARDINAL , subsection CARDINAL , of LAW be amended so that an appeal by an applicant summoned to appear in person would no longer be discontinued if he or she were absent from the main hearing but represented by counsel . It was felt that it was better that the applicant in such situations received a decision on material rather than procedural grounds .

ORG estimated , however , in its report LaVM CARDINAL/CARDINAL vp . , that as it was debatable whether these amendments were necessary , and since they were causing inconvenience for the functioning of the appeal courts , the amendments should not be adopted . The proposed amendments were thus withdrawn .

ORG took a stand on this issue in its judgment of DATE ( ORG CARDINAL ) . It found , inter alia , the following :

“ CARDINAL . ORG has in many judgments stated that it was of crucial importance for the fairness of the criminal justice system that the accused be adequately defended , and that he could not be deprived of this right merely on account of not attending a court hearing . According to the ORG , even if the legislature had to be able to discourage unjustified absences , it could not penalise them by creating exceptions to the right to legal assistance ( see GPE v. GPE , judgment of DATE , PERSON v. The GPE and PERSON v. The GPE , judgments of CARDINAL DATE , as well as PERSON v. GPE , judgment of DATE , PERSON v. GPE , judgment of CARDINAL DATE and ORG v. GPE , judgment of DATE ) .

When deciding in what situations a case can be examined only when the applicant is present in person and in what situations the applicant has the right to defend himself through legal assistance of his choosing , one has to distinguish different situations in the criminal proceedings . If the applicant is heard in order to clarify the matter , his presence in person is necessary . When , however , other witnesses are heard or the parties are heard in order to assess legally the act described in the indictment or the defence , it is appropriate that questioning is undertaken and the statements are given by a legal representative . It is also clear that when the applicant exercises his right to question or to give legal statements , he can not be deprived of his right to use legal assistance and that his presence in person in those situations is not necessary . Therefore , the applicant should not be obliged to appear in person under penalty of a default fine unless the outcome of the case might depend on the reliability of his account or his presence in person is necessary for some other reason .

According to the provisions concerning the proceedings in appeal courts , an appeal court can not , without any particular grounds , change the district court ’s conclusions concerning the evidence if persons meant to be heard as witnesses are absent from the main hearing . The starting point is that a higher instance should have the same possibility to assess the oral testimony as a district court , the correctness of whose judgment is being assessed by the higher instance . This means , inter alia , that the principle of immediate presentation of evidence must be applied also on appeal . It does not follow from the wording of LAW , section DATE , of LAW , nor did it follow from it at the time when ORG examined the case , that an appeal should always be entirely discontinued when the applicant is absent from the main hearing , even though summoned to appear in person . The court which has the right and the obligation to conduct the proceedings can and indeed must then decide whether the examination of some parts of the appeal by hearing only counsel is necessary or reasonable . When considering this , the court must take into account the applicant ’s justified legal expectations . If it becomes clear that the applicant ’s presence in person is , in spite of the given order , not necessary , his appeal should not in this kind of situation be even partly discontinued due to his absence . ”


No violation of Art. 6-1 as regards independency and impartiality;Violation of Art. 6-1 as regards lack of a public hearing

The applicant is a farmer living in GPE , GPE .

On DATE the applicant applied to ORG ( PERSON , ORG ) for declarations ( CARDINAL ) that the share in an agricultural association ( Agrargemeinschaft ) represented by a certain parcel of land ( " the share " ) belonged to him , and ( CARDINAL ) that grazing rights in that parcel ( " the grazing rights " ) also belonged to him . On DATE ORG found that the applicant had not made out his claims , and it declared that the share and the grazing rights belonged to a third person . The applicant appealed to ORG ( ORG , ORG ) .

ORG dismissed the applicant 's appeal on DATE . After an oral hearing , it found , so far as relevant , that the share had passed with a transfer of the land to CARDINAL party in DATE ( as rectified in DATE ) . The question of the grazing rights had to be determined by reference to the ownership of the land on DATE , as that was the last time they were officially mentioned . In the absence of any express alienation of the grazing rights since then , the grazing rights passed with the land - that is , the applicant did not own them .

The Constitutional Court ( Verfassungsgerichtshof ) declined to deal with the applicant 's constitutional complaint on DATE . It remitted the case to ORG ( Verwaltungsgerichtshof ) .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s complaint rejecting at the same time , in accordance with section CARDINAL ) no . CARDINAL of LAW ( PERSON ) , the applicant ’s request for an oral hearing . The judgment was served on the applicant ’s representative on DATE .

A summary of the rules concerning the composition and procedure before the regional land reform boards , and hearings before ORG may be found in the PERSON and PERSON v. GPE judgment ( DATE , Reports of Judgments and Decisions DATE , pp . CARDINAL - CARDINAL , § § DATE ) .


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

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

On DATE the applicant was arrested by police officers from the anti - terrorist branch of ORG on suspicion of his involvement in the ORG .

On DATE the applicant was brought before the public prosecutor and the investigating judge , who remanded the applicant in custody .

On DATE the public prosecutor at ORG filed an indictment with the same court accusing the applicant of being a member of the ORG .

On DATE , after the promulgation of Law No . CARDINAL , which abolished ORG , the case file was transferred to ORG . The criminal proceedings at ORG began on DATE .

On DATE the ORG convicted the applicant of the offence as charged and sentenced him to the death penalty . It then commuted this to life imprisonment .

On DATE ORG quashed the judgment of ORG on account of “ the lack of a final investigation ” and remitted the case file back to the latter .

The criminal proceedings at ORG began on DATE . On DATE the court convicted the applicant of the same offence and issued the same sentence .

On DATE ORG quashed the judgment of the first instance court and remitted the case to ORG .

On DATE , ORG , after having complied with the requirement of ORG , sentenced the applicant to life imprisonment .

On DATE ORG upheld the latter judgment . The applicant was notified of this judgment on DATE .


Alvina Gyulumyan;Ján Šikuta;Johannes Silvis;Josep Casadevall;Kristina Pardalos;Luis López Guerra

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

He was represented before the ORG by Mr T. Šafárik , a lawyer practising in PERSON .

The Government of GPE ( “ the Government ” ) were represented by their Agent , PERSON .

The facts of the present case revolve around a piece of real property , situated in a regional capital , which used to form part of the site of a factory belonging to a ( socialist ) ORG - owned enterprise .

In DATE an above - ground heat distribution pipeline was built in the area in order to provide it with heating . The pipeline passes through the property in question .

The applicant is a self - employed entrepreneur . In that capacity , in DATE and DATE he rented the said property from the private company which had meanwhile become its owner . Subsequently , in DATE , the applicant himself acquired title to the property by way of purchase .

The property forms a part of a shop in which the applicant runs a business which is essentially a car scrapyard .

The property partly consists of a road . According to the ORG ’s submission , which is supported by photographs and which has not been contested by the applicant , the remaining part of the property is used for storing wrecked cars .

The pipeline runs alongside the applicant ’s LOC QUANTITY above the ground and CARDINAL from the fence , and it rests on pylons anchored in the ground .

The pipeline belongs to a commercial joint - stock company producing and distributing heating for the town concerned .

The bone of contention in the present case is the lack of compensation for the restrictions on the use of the applicant ’s property due to the pipeline . The applicant unsuccessfully applied for such compensation in the proceedings which lie at the heart of the present case . However , prior to those proceedings he had asserted similar claims in another set of proceedings , but also unsuccessfully . Both sets of proceedings are described below , chronologically , with focus on the contested proceedings .

Until DATE , by virtue of section CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(l ) of LAW ( Law no . PERSON . , as in force at the relevant time ) , real property encumbered by easements such as the one in the present case were exempt from real - estate tax . According to the Government , whose submission the applicant has not contested , from DATE this exemption continued to apply to the property in question by virtue of a decision of the municipality concerned .

In DATE the applicant lodged an action against the above - mentioned heat production and distribution company seeking compensation in respect of unjustified enrichment on account of the easement relating to the pipeline .

The action was dismissed by the Košice II District Court ( ORG súd ) on DATE and , following an appeal by the applicant , by ORG ( PERSON súd ) on DATE .

On DATE the applicant lodged a new action against the same defendant , arguing that the latter was the owner of the pipeline and that , along with the protective zones around it , the pipeline prevented him from making use of QUANTITY of his property .

The applicant submitted that the average yearly rent for land in the area was equivalent to MONEY ( ORG ) per square metre . Accordingly , the applicant requested an order for the payment of the equivalent of approximately ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL to cover DATE before the introduction of his action , plus DATE .

In support of his claims , the applicant invoked , inter alia , Articles CARDINAL of Protocol No . CARDINAL and QUANTITY of the LAW no . PERSON . , as amended ) , as well as the relevant provisions of LAW ( Law no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL Coll . , as amended ) and the DATE Thermal Energy Sector Act ( Law no . PERSON . , as amended ) .

The applicant also relied on a judgment ( nález ) of ORG ( Ústavní soud ) of GPE ( whose legal tradition is similar to that of GPE ) of DATE in case no . ORG CARDINAL/CARDINAL .

That judgment concerned , inter alia , the continued application of the DATE LAW ( Law no . QUANTITY . ) ( see below ) , which had been adopted at the time of GPE . ORG observed an ideological distinction between the “ old law ” , that is to say , that of the “ old ( NORP ) regime ” prior to DATE , and the law applicable under the subsequent democratic constitution . This distinction reflected the political and economic changes that had taken place . While there was a general continuity with the old law , there was a discontinuity in respect of the values of the old regime . Thus , the interpretation and application of the old rules had currently to take due account of the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms , including the protection of property . The latter consideration was all the more relevant when the beneficiary of an ex lege easement was making use of it in order to obtain economic gain . While the lawfulness of the creation of an ex lege easement as such was undisputed , where the applicable publiclaw legislation contained no provision for compensation in respect of expenses relating to the exercise of the easement , the relevant provisions of private law were to be used as an alternative . Such provisions provided for compensation in respect of running costs , which was to be agreed on by those concerned or to be ordered by a court . A lack of compensation for such expenses would constitute unjust enrichment on the part of the beneficiary of the easement .

The action was dismissed by ORG on DATE and , following an appeal by the applicant , by ORG on DATE . The courts’ reasoning can be summarised as follows .

To start with , the courts found that , although the action concerned the same parties and the same property and was based on the same line of argument , the matter was not res judicata by reason of the judgments of DATE and DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . This was so because the claims raised in it concerned a different period of time ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , and new legislation had been enacted in the meantime ( see below ) .

NORP In this regard , the courts observed that the heat - distribution facility had been built under a construction permit granted in DATE ; that it had begun to operate in DATE ; and that it was located on land which , at that time , had belonged to the ( socialist ) State .

By operation of section CARDINAL of ORG no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL Coll . ( applicable at the relevant time ) on the implementation of the DATE LAW , the application of that LAW had been extended to heatdistribution facilities , such as the one in the present case .

The DATE LAW thus authorised the construction of the facility but , as a matter of principle , it did not provide for compensation . However , if the owners or users of the real property concerned were significantly encumbered in its use , they could claim adequate CARDINAL - off compensation . The claim had to be filed within DATE of the entry of the installation into use or else it would lapse .

The DATE LAW provided for ex lege easements and the subsequent legislation , in particular section ORG ) of the DATE LAW ( Law no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL Coll . ) and section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the DATE Thermal Energy Sector Act , had left them intact . None of these pieces of legislation envisaged any compensation for the restrictions inherent in the continued existence of the ex lege easements , other than the CARDINAL - off compensation at the time of their creation . Providing for new compensation claims would have the effect of creating new titles to restitution , which the lawmaker was free under LAW not to choose to do .

The applicant had acquired his plot in DATE by purchasing it from a private seller . It had been his responsibility to examine the condition of the property , including the existence of the impugned ex lege easement , and to ensure that that was reflected in the purchase price . The contested ex lege easement fell outside the scope of the existing unjustified - enrichment rules , which accordingly were not applicable .

On DATE the applicant challenged the judgement of the ordinary courts by way of a complaint before ORG ( Ústavný súd ) under LAW .

In substance , he reiterated the above arguments and alleged a violation of his rights under Articles CARDINAL § CARDINAL of the Convention and CARDINAL of Protocol No . CARDINAL .

In addition , he submitted that the ORG argument concerning how he had acquired the property was of secondary importance and did not deal with the question of principle obtaining in cases such as his .

On DATE ORG declared the complaint inadmissible as being manifestly ill - founded .

ORG reiterated its established case - law to the effect that a general court could not bear “ secondary liability ” for a violation of fundamental rights and freedoms of a substantive nature unless there had been a constitutionally relevant violation of the rules of procedure . However , no such procedural issue had been established .

The essence of the applicant ’s complaint was that there was no law enabling him to claim compensation for the ex lege easement over his property . However , in contrast to some other jurisdictions , including GPE , an individual in GPE had no power to challenge the compliance of the legislation , or lack of it , with the LAW . The applicant ’s argument made in reliance on the case - law of ORG of GPE was therefore without consequence .

The ordinary courts had supported their judgments by adequate reasoning and their conclusions as to the facts and law manifested no signs of arbitrariness or lack of justification .

The Charter ( Constitutional Law no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ORG . ) was introduced into the legal order by way of a constitutional law which was enacted by ORG of the NORP and GPE on DATE and which entered into force on DATE . The law remains in force in GPE DATE .

The relevant part of LAW provides :

“ CARDINAL . Everyone has the right to own property . Each owner ’s property right shall have the same content and enjoy the same protection . [ The right of ] inheritance is guaranteed .

The law shall designate the property necessary for securing the needs of society as a whole , the development of the national economy , and public welfare , which may be owned exclusively by the ORG , a municipality , or by designated legal persons ; the law may also provide that certain items of property may be owned exclusively by citizens or legal persons with their headquarters in the NORP and GPE .

Ownership entails obligations . It may not be misused to the detriment of the rights of others or in conflict with legally protected public interests . It may not be exercised so as to cause harm to health , nature , or the environment beyond the limits laid down by law .

Expropriation or some other mandatory limitation upon property rights is permitted in the public interest , on the basis of law , and for compensation . ”

The relevant part of LAW provides :

“ CARDINAL . Everyone shall have the right to own property . The property rights of all owners shall be uniformly construed and equally protected by law . The right of inheritance is guaranteed .

Expropriation or restrictions to the right of property may be imposed only to the extent necessary and in the public interest , in accordance with the law and for adequate compensation . ”

Articles CARDINAL § CARDINAL :

“ The exercise of rights and fulfilment of duties under civil law must not interfere with the rights or legally protected interests of others without a lawful ground and may not be contra ORG mores . ”

Article CARDINAL :

“ The owner shall be entitled , within the limits prescribed by law , to hold the object of his ownership , to use it , to benefit from its fruits and proceeds and to make dispositions in respect of it . ”

Article CARDINAL :

“ All owners shall have the same rights and duties and shall be granted the same legal protection . ”

Article CARDINAL :

“ CARDINAL . The owner of a thing must endure the use of his thing [ by another person ] in a state of emergency or in a pressing public interest , for the necessary time , to the necessary extent , and in return for compensation , if the purpose can not be achieved otherwise .

In the public interest , ... the ownership of [ a thing ] may be restricted if the purpose can not be achieved otherwise , provided that the expropriation or restriction has a basis in law , and only for that purpose and for compensation . ”

Article CARDINALn et seq . provides for basic rules in relation to easements :

“ CARDINAL . Easements shall constitute a restriction on the owner of real property for the benefit of someone else , so that the owner must endure , refrain from doing or do something . The rights constituting an easement shall be linked to and originate from the ownership of particular real property or be linked to and belong to a particular person .

Easements linked to and originating from the ownership of real property shall pass to the acquirer together with the acquisition of the ownership of the property .

Unless the participants agree otherwise , the person who is entitled to use somebody else ’s thing on the basis of a right constituting an easement must bear an adequate share of the costs of its maintenance and repair ; however , if the thing is co - used by its owner , the owner must bear these costs in proportion to the extent of the joint use . ”

The relevant part of LAW provides :

“ Easements can arise on the basis of a written contract , on the basis of a will , in connection with the outcome of inheritance proceedings , on the basis of an approved agreement among the heirs , on the basis of a decision by the competent authority , or by operation of law . ”

Under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the DATE LAW , an enterprise active in the energy sector was entitled : ( a ) to build and operate electrical installations on other ORG real property to the extent permitted under the building permit , to erect support pylons , to connect the plots by conductors and to establish the electricity main on them ; ( b ) to access the real property directly concerned for the purposes of the construction , operation , maintenance , and modification or removal of the main ; and ( c ) to remove or prune trees obstructing the main .

Subject to section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) , the exercise of the entitlements pursuant to section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) was subject to no compensation . However , if the owners or users of real property not belonging to the ( socialist ) ORG were significantly encumbered in the use of the property because of the establishment of the main , they could a claim with the construction authority for the company concerned to pay them adequate CARDINAL - off compensation . The claim was to be submitted within DATE of the entry of the installation into permanent use on the pain of expiry .

NORP Under CARDINAL of ORG no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL Coll . ( as in force at the relevant time ) on the implementation of the DATE LAW , the application of section CARDINAL and certain other provisions of the DATE LAW was extended to heat - distribution facilities .

The DATE LAW was abolished and replaced by the DATE LAW as of DATE , which in turn was abolished by virtue of LAW ( Law no . PERSON . ) as of DATE .

However , under both Acts , as well as under the DATE Thermal Energy Sector Act , entitlements in respect of other ORG real property and limitations on the use of it which had been established previously remained intact .

Under the relevant part of section CARDINAL of the DATE Thermal Energy Sector Act ,

“ CARDINAL . The holder of a licence [ to carry out business in the thermal energy sector ] ... shall have the right :

a ) to enter with machinery or on foot another person ’s land , buildings or facilities in connection with the operation , service , taking of readings , repairs and maintenance of the heating facility network ... after obtaining the consent of the owner of the real property [ concerned ] , which consent shall not be required in the event of an immediate threat to life , health or property ... ,

b ) in a protective zone to remove and prune trees and other coppice which undermines the security and reliability of the thermal energy facilities if the owner or other entitled user of the real property [ concerned ] has not done so despite a previous written request ... ,

The holder of the licence is liable for :

c ) providing CARDINAL - off compensation for the restriction on the exercise of ownership rights in respect of real property which he or she has entered in the discharge of his or her tasks under [ the above - cited ] sub - section CARDINAL , ”

In addition , under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(a ) of the DATE Thermal Energy Sector Act , individuals and legal entities are entitled to adequate compensation for restrictions on the exercise of their ownership rights due to the establishment of a protective zone , and for entry onto their real property for the purposes of the reconstruction , repair or maintenance of a system of thermal installations .

By way of an action in LOC ( case no . CARDINAL CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) , an individual sued a municipality and a public - transport company of that municipality for compensation in connection with electrical installations situated on his real property and used by the defendants in operating the public transport system . The legal provisions applicable in respect of such installations were similar to those applicable in the present case . For unclear reasons the applicants were third parties to the proceedings .

NORP In the context of those proceedings , ORG challenged before ORG the constitutionality of section ORG ) of the DATE LAW , applicable by virtue of section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of QUANTITY , which had replaced LAW .

On DATE ORG dismissed the challenge ( case no . PL . ÚS CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) holding that the impugned statutory provisions merely concerned the continued existence of ex lege easements and provided for no new possibility to claim compensation . Providing for new compensation claims would amount to enabling new restitution claims , which the lawmaker was free under LAW to choose not to do .


George Nicolaou;Lech Garlicki;Ledi Bianku;Nebojša Vučinić;Nicolas Bratza;Päivi Hirvelä;Zdravka Kalaydjieva

NORP The applicant , Mr PERSON , was born in DATE and lives in GPE . His nationality is in dispute . He maintains that he is a national of GPE ; the Government maintain that he is a NORP national .

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

NORP The applicant claims to have been born in GPE to a NORP mother and a NORP father , and thus to have NORP nationality . He claims that he returned as a young child with his father to GPE , where he lived until he re - entered GPE in DATE , travelling with both his expired child ’s NORP passport and his valid NORP passport . There is no evidence to support this account , as he claims that both passports were subsequently stolen from him .

NORP In DATE , the applicant was convicted for persistently soliciting a woman for prostitution and fined . He was convicted in DATE of obtaining property by deception , for which he was sentenced to CARDINAL years’ imprisonment . He was convicted in DATE of soliciting persons for car hire without a licence and driving whilst uninsured , for which he received a fine . He was convicted in DATE of driving whilst uninsured , for which he was fined and disqualified from driving for DATE . On DATE , he was convicted of forgery . He was sentenced to CARDINAL months’ imprisonment and deportation proceedings against him were initiated . He was notified of his liability to deportation on DATE and did not make any representations in response . Nor did he appeal against deportation . On DATE , he was served with a signed deportation order . At the expiry of his sentence on DATE , the applicant was taken into immigration detention pending his deportation .

On DATE , whilst still in prison , the applicant refused to attend an interview with ORG for GPE in GPE to obtain a travel document . Following a warning , however , he attended an interview on DATE . The NORP authorities were not prepared to accept that the applicant was a national of GPE ; however , subsequent to the interview , further documentation was sent to ORG by the NORP authorities in evidence of the applicant ’s connection to GPE . Regular reminders have since been sent by the NORP authorities and , on DATE , a response was received from ORG , stating that the applicant ’s national status was required to be verified from GPE .

The applicant sought permission to apply for judicial review of the legality of his detention . Permission was granted and a substantive hearing was held before ORG on DATE . The onus was on the applicant to prove his claimed NORP citizenship and the judge found that , on the evidence before him and having regard to the applicant ’s dishonesty and use of false identities in the past , he had not done so . He had not established that any of the identities he had claimed in the past were actually his , or that he had been born in GPE to a NORP mother , as he claimed . Having failed to prove that he was NORP , he must be treated as a foreign criminal , and was thus liable to detention pending his deportation . The judge was satisfied that the Secretary of ORG was genuinely using the power to detain for the purposes of effecting the applicant ’s deportation . While the DATE period of immigration detention was long , it was not unreasonable , given the applicant ’s insistence that he was NORP when he was not , and his failure to disclose sufficient details about his years in GPE to enable the NORP authorities to issue him with a travel document . The judge also accepted the Secretary of ORG ’s decision that the applicant presented a high risk of absconding and of committing further offences if granted immigration bail ; the fact that the applicant was failing to cooperate in obtaining a travel document only reinforced this risk . The key point was that the obstacles to the applicant ’s deportation had been created by the applicant himself and his failure to give an honest account to either the NORP or NORP authorities . Given that his claim to be NORP had now been examined and rejected by a court , the judge found that the applicant might now be minded to disclose the necessary information to the authorities to enable a travel document to be issued . There was a sufficiently realistic prospect that the applicant ’s deportation would take place within a reasonable time to render his continued detention lawful .

The applicant notified the ORG on DATE that he had been released from detention . He did not provide any information as to why he had been released .

Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(a ) of LAW DATE ( as amended by ORG ) provides that a person who is not a NORP citizen shall be liable to deportation from GPE if the Secretary of ORG deems his deportation to be conducive to the public good .

Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the same LAW provides that when any question arises as to whether a person is a NORP citizen or not , the onus shall be on the person asserting such citizenship to prove it .

Paragraph CARDINAL of Schedule CARDINAL of the same LAW provides that , where a deportation order is in force against any person , he may be detained under the authority of the Secretary of ORG pending his removal or departure from GPE .

ORG recently reaffirmed principles that had been set down in the case of NORP v. Governor of ORG , ex parte ORG PERSON ( DATE ) CARDINAL WLR CARDINAL regarding the Secretary of ORG ’s power to detain those whose deportation is pending , in GPE ( WL ) v Secretary of ORG for ORG [ DATE ] ORG . The principles are as follows : i ) the Secretary of ORG must intend to deport the person and can only use the power to detain for that purpose ; ii ) the deportee may only be detained for a period that is reasonable in all the circumstances ; iii ) if , before the expiry of the reasonable period , it becomes apparent that the Secretary of ORG will not be able to effect the deportation within a reasonable period , he should not seek to exercise the power of detention ; and iv ) the Secretary of ORG should act with reasonable diligence and expedition to effect removal .


CASE OF BEKOS AND KOUTROPOULOS v. GREECE

Violations of Art. 3;No separate issue under Art. 13;No violation of Art. 14+3 (alleged racist treatment);Violation of Art. 14+3 (failure to investigate possible racist motives);Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed;Non-pecuniary damage - financial award

The applicants , who are NORP nationals of GPE origin , were born in DATE and live in PERSON ( Western Greece ) .

On DATE , at TIME , a patrol car from the PERSON police station responded to a telephone complaint reporting the attempted burglary of a kiosk . The call had been made by the grandson of the owner of the kiosk , Mr Pavlakis . Upon arriving at the scene , the latter found the first applicant attempting to break into the kiosk with an iron bar while the second applicant was apparently acting as a lookout . He struggled with the second applicant , who subsequently stated that Mr Pavlakis had punched him in the face .

At that point QUANTITY police officers , PERSON , Mr PERSON and PERSON PERSON , arrived . The first applicant claimed that he was initially handcuffed without being beaten . Then , an officer removed his handcuffs and repeatedly beat him on the back and the head with a truncheon . He stopped when the first applicant complained that he had a medical condition and was feeling dizzy .

Following their arrest , the applicants were taken to the PERSON police station , where officers NORP , GPE , GPE , ORG and PERSON were present . The first applicant alleged that as he was being led to his cell CARDINAL officer beat him twice with a truncheon and another slapped him in the face .

At TIME the first applicant was taken to the interview room , where allegedly QUANTITY police officers punched him in the stomach and the back , trying to extract confessions to other crimes and information about who was dealing in drugs in the area . According to the first applicant , the police officers took turns beating him , slapping him and hitting him all over his body . The first applicant further alleged that another police officer beat him with the iron bar that had been used in the attempted burglary . He alleged that this officer also pushed him against the wall , choking him with the iron bar and threatening to sexually assault him , saying “ I will f ... you ” , while trying to lower his trousers .

The second applicant said that he was also abused throughout his interrogation . During TIME , he was allegedly beaten with a truncheon on his back and kicked in the stomach by an officer who later returned to beat him again . Subsequently , the second applicant identified the officer as Mr Tsikrikas . The second applicant also testified that the police officers “ inserted a truncheon in [ his ] bottom and then raised it to [ his ] face , asking [ him ] whether it smelled ” .

The applicants stated that they were both able to hear each other ’s screams and cries throughout their interrogation . The first applicant testified before the domestic court : “ I could hear PERSON crying in the other room ” . The second applicant stated : “ I screamed and cried when they were beating me . I could also hear PERSON ’s screams and cries ” . They also claimed that they suffered repeated verbal abuse about their GPE origins . In his sworn deposition dated DATE the first applicant testified before the public prosecutor that the officer who had choked him with the iron bar said to him “ you guys f ... your sisters ” and “ your mothers are getting f ... by others ” ( see also paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

The Government disputed that the applicants had been assaulted or subjected to racial abuse while in police detention .

The applicants remained in detention until TIME of CARDINAL DATE . At TIME they were brought before ORG . The first applicant was charged with attempted theft and the second applicant with being an accomplice . ORG set a trial date and released the applicants . In DATE the applicants were sentenced to CARDINAL days’ and CARDINAL days’ imprisonment respectively , in each case suspended for DATE .

On DATE , the applicants went to the regional hospital in order to obtain medical evidence of their injuries . However , the intern they saw at the hospital was only able to verify that they both had bruises . In order to acquire stronger evidence of their injuries , the applicants consulted a forensic doctor in GPE . The latter issued a medical certificate dated DATE , in which he stated that the applicants bore “ moderate bodily injuries caused in the past TIME by a heavy blunt instrument ... ” In particular , the first applicant had “ QUANTITY deep red ( almost black ) parallel contusions with areas of healthy skin , covering QUANTITY stretching from the left shoulder joint to the area of the deltoid muscle and the right shoulder joint . He complains of pain in his knee joint . He complains of pain in the left parietal area ” . The second applicant had “ multiple deep red ( almost black ) parallel ‘ double’ contusions with areas of healthy skin covering QUANTITY stretching from the left shoulder joint along the rear armpit fold at the lower edge of the shoulder blade , a contusion of the aforementioned colour measuring QUANTITY on the rear left surface of the upper arm and a contusion of the aforementioned colour measuring QUANTITY on the right carpal joint . He complains of pain on the right side of the parietal area and of pain in the midsection . He complains that he is suffering from a torn meniscus in the right knee , shows pain on movement and has difficulty walking ” . The applicants produced to the ORG pictures taken on DATE of their release , showing their injuries . The Government questioned the authenticity of these pictures and affirmed that they should have first been produced to the domestic authorities . They also questioned the credibility of the forensic doctor who examined the applicants and submitted that he had convictions for perjury .

On CARDINAL DATE ORG and ORG sent a joint open letter to ORG protesting against the incident . The letter bore the heading “ subject matter : incident of ill - treatment of young GPE ( NORP ) by police officers ” ; it stated that members of the above organisations had had direct contact with the CARDINAL victims during a lengthy visit to GPE camps in GPE and that they had collected CARDINAL statements concerning similar incidents of ill - treatment against GPE . ORG and ORG urged ORG in person to ensure that a prompt investigation of the incident was carried out and that the police officers involved be punished . They expressed the view that precise and detailed instructions should be issued to all police stations in the country regarding the treatment of GPE by the police . Reports of the incident were subsequently published in several NORP newspapers .

On DATE , responding to the publicity that had been generated , ORG launched an informal inquiry into the matter .

After the incident received greater public attention , the NORP police headquarters requested that the internal investigation be upgraded to ORG ( Ενορκη Διοικητική Εξέταση ) , which started on DATE .

NORP The report on the findings of ORG was issued on DATE . It identified the officers who had arrested the applicants and found that their conduct during the arrest was “ lawful and appropriate ” . It concluded that CARDINAL other police officers , Mr Tsikrikas and PERSON PERSON had treated the applicants “ with particular cruelty during their detention ” . The report noted that the first applicant had consistently identified the above officers in his sworn depositions of DATE and CARDINAL DATE and that the second applicant had also consistently and repeatedly identified throughout the investigation Mr Tsikrikas as the officer who had abused him .

More specifically , it was established that Mr Tsikrikas had physically abused the applicants by beating them with a truncheon and/or kicking them in the stomach . It further found that although the CARDINAL officers had denied ill - treating the applicants , neither officer was able to “ provide a convincing and logical explanation as to where and how the above plaintiffs were injured , given that according to the forensic doctor the ill - treatment occurred during the time they were in police custody ” .

As a result , it was recommended that disciplinary measures in the form of “ temporary suspension from service ” be taken against both Mr NORP and Mr GPE . The inquiry exculpated the other police officers who had been identified by the applicants . Despite the above recommendation , neither Mr NORP nor PERSON NORP were ever suspended .

On DATE the Chief of the NORP Police fined Mr Tsikrikas CARDINAL,CARDINAL drachmas ( MONEY ) for failing to “ take the necessary measures to avert the occurrence of cruel treatment of the detainees by his subordinates ” . The Chief of ORG acknowledged that the applicants had been ill - treated . He stated that “ the detainees were beaten by police officers during their detention ... and were subjected to bodily injuries ” .

On DATE the applicants and the first applicant ’s father filed a criminal complaint against the Deputy Commander in Chief of the PERSON police station and “ all other ” officers of the police station “ responsible ” .

On DATE the first applicant gave a sworn deposition relating to his allegations of ill - treatment . He claimed that during his arrest , he had been beaten on the head with a truncheon by a “ tall , blond ” policeman , who also gave him a beating in the police station and that he had been subjected to racial insults ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

On DATE ORG asked the PERSON investigating judge to conduct a preliminary inquiry into the incident ( προανάκριση ) . The findings of the inquiry were then forwarded to the Prosecutor of ORG . In DATE ORG ordered an official judicial inquiry into the incident ( κύρια ανάκριση ) .

On DATE and DATE the first applicant stated that the behaviour of the police officers “ was not so bad ” , that he wanted “ this story to be over ” and that he did not want “ the police officers to be punished ” . On DATE applicant repeated that he had received a beating at the hands of Mr Tsikrikas , but said that the police ORG behaviour was “ rightfully bad ” and that he did not want them to be prosecuted . He apologised to the owner of the kiosk and said that he wanted “ this story to be over ” because he has joining the army and wanted “ to be on the safe side ” .

On DATE ORG recommended that CARDINAL police officers , PERSON , PERSON and PERSON , be tried for physical abuse during interrogation .

On DATE ORG of ORG ( PERSON ) committed PERSON Tsikrikas for trial . It found that “ [ the ] evidence shows that Mr Tsikrikas ill - treated [ the applicants ] during the preliminary interrogation , in order to extract a confession from them for the attempted theft ... and any similar unsolved offences they had committed in the past ” . ORG further stated that Mr Tsikrikas had failed to provide a plausible explanation as to how the applicants were injured during their interrogation and noted that they had both identified Mr Tsikrikas , without hesitation , as the officer who had ill - treated them . On the other hand , it decided to drop the criminal charges against Mr PERSON and Mr Skoutas on the ground that it had not been established that they were present when the events took place ( bill of indictment no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) .

Mr Tsikrikas ’s trial took place on CARDINAL and DATE before the CARDINAL - member ORG . The court heard several witnesses and the applicants , who repeated their allegations of ill - treatment ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above ) . Among others , the court heard Mr PERSON , a representative of ORG , who stated that the said organisation was monitoring the situation of GPE in GPE and that the incident was reported to him during a visit to the Roma / Gypsy camps . He claimed that he was horrified when he saw the injuries on the LOC bodies and that the latter were initially afraid to file a complaint against the police officers . Mr PERSON also referred to the actions subsequently taken by ORG in order to assist the applicants . The court also read out , among other documents , ORG and ORG open letter to ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

On DATE the court found that there was no evidence implicating Mr Tsikrikas in any abuse and found him not guilty ( decision no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) . In particular , the court first referred to the circumstances surrounding the applicants’ arrest and to the subsequent involvement of members of ORG in the applicants’ case , noting their role in monitoring alleged violations of human rights against minorities . Taking also into account the forensic doctor ’s findings , the court reached the following conclusion :

“ ... Admittedly , the second applicant had clashed with Mr Pavlakis . Further , given the applicants’ light clothing , it was logical that they were injured during the fight that took place when they were arrested . Even if some of the applicants’ injuries were inflicted by police officers during their detention , it has not been proved that the accused participated in this in CARDINAL way or the other , because he was absent when they arrived at the police station and did not have contact with them until TIME , on his arrival at the police station . In his sworn deposition dated DATE , the first applicant stated that in the process of his arrest he had been beaten with a truncheon by a tall , blond police officer ( a description that does not match the features of the accused ) and that the same police officer had also beaten him during his detention . However , the accused was not present when the applicants were arrested . If the applicants had indeed been beaten by police officers during their detention , they would have informed their relatives who arrived at the police station that same TIME . Thus , the accused must be found not guilty . ”

NORP Under NORP law , the applicants , who had joined the proceedings as civil parties , could not appeal against this decision .

In its country reports of DATE , ORG against Racism and Intolerance at ORG ) has expressed concern about racially motivated police violence , particularly against GPE , in a number of NORP countries including GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE and GPE .

The Report on LAW in ORG and Its Member States in DATE , prepared by ORG ( ORG ) network of independent experts in fundamental rights at the request of ORG , stated , inter alia , that police abuse against GPE and similar groups , including physical abuse and excessive use of force , had been reported in a number of GPE member GPE , such as GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE and GPE .

In its second report on GPE , adopted on DATE and published on DATE , ORG stated , inter alia :

“ CARDINAL . There have been consistent reports that ORG , NORP and other immigrants are frequently victims of misbehaviour on the part of the police in GPE . In particular , Roma / Gypsies are often reported to be victims of excessive use of force -- in some cases resulting in death -- ill - treatment and verbal abuse on the part of the police . Discriminatory checks involving members of these groups are widespread . In most cases there is reported to be little investigation of these cases , and little transparency on the results of these investigations . Although most of these incidents do not generally result in a complaint being filed by the victim , when charges have been pressed the victims have reportedly in some cases been subjected to pressure to drop such charges . ECRI stresses the urgent need for the improvement of the response of the internal and external control mechanisms to the complaints of misbehaviour vis à vis members of minority groups on the part of the police . In this respect , ORG notes with interest the recent establishment of a body to examine complaints of the most serious cases of misbehaviour on the part of the police and emphasises the importance of its independence and of its accessibility by members of minority groups .

ORG also encourages the NORP authorities to strengthen their efforts as concerns provision of initial and ongoing training of the police in human rights and anti - discrimination standards . Additional efforts should also be made to ensure recruitment of members of minority groups in the police and their permanence therein ...

As noted by ORG in its first report , the Roma / Gypsy population of GPE is particularly vulnerable to disadvantage , exclusion and discrimination in many fields ...

ORG are also reported to experience discrimination in various areas of public life ... They also frequently experience discriminatory treatment and sometimes violence and abuse on the part of the police ... ”

In its third report on GPE , adopted on DATE and published on DATE , ORG stated , inter alia :

“ CARDINAL . ORG notes with concern that since the adoption of its second report on GPE , the situation of the GPE in GPE has remained fundamentally unchanged and that overall they face the same difficulties – including discrimination - in respect of housing , employment , education and access to public services ...

ORG welcomes the fact that the government has taken significant steps to improve the living conditions of GPE in GPE . It has set up an inter - ministerial committee for improving the living conditions of GPE ...

... ECRI deplores the many cases of local authorities refusing to act in the interests of GPE when they are harassed by members of the local population . It is also common for the local authorities to refuse to grant them the rights that the law guarantees to members of the NORP community to the same extent as to any other NORP citizen ...

ORG expresses concern over serious allegations of ill - treatment of members of minority groups , such as GPE and both authorised and unauthorised immigrants . The ill - treatment in question ranges from racist insults to physical violence and is inflicted either at the time of arrest or during custody . ORG is particularly concerned over the existence of widespread allegations of improper use of firearms , sometimes resulting in death . It is equally concerned over reports of ill - treatment of minors and expulsion of non - citizens outside of legal procedures .

The NORP authorities have indicated that they are closely monitoring the situation and that mechanisms are in place to effectively sanction such abuses . For example , ORG of ORG was established in DATE and is responsible for conducting investigations , particularly into acts of torture and violation of human dignity . The police –specifically police officers working in another sector than that of the person under suspicion - and the prosecution equally have competence over such matters and must inform the above - mentioned body when dealing with a case in which a police officer is implicated . ORG is also competent for investigating , either on request or ex officio , allegations of misbehaviour by a police officer , but he is only entitled to recommend that appropriate measures be taken . ORG welcomes the fact that the chief state prosecutor recently reminded his subordinates of the need for cases of police ill - treatment , particularly involving non - citizens , to be prevented and prosecuted with the appropriate degree of severity . The authorities have pointed out that instances of ill - treatment were primarily due to difficult conditions of detention . ORG notes with satisfaction cases of law enforcement officials having been prosecuted , and in some cases penalised , for acts of ill - treatment . However , human rights NGOs draw attention to other cases where impunity is allegedly enjoyed by officials responsible for acts of violence , whose prosecution has not lead to results or even been initiated . ECRI deplores such a situation and hopes that it will no longer be tolerated . ”

In their joint report published in DATE ( “ Cleaning Operations – Excluding GPE in GPE ” ) , ORG and ORG , which represent the applicants in the instant case , stated , inter alia :

“ ORG / GHM monitoring of policing in GPE over DATE suggests that ill - treatment , including physical and racist verbal abuse , of GPE in police custody is common . Although NORP authorities deny racial motivation behind the ill - treatment of GPE , NORP victims with whom PERSON / PERSON spoke testified that police officers verbally abused them using racist epithets .

Anti - Romani sentiment among police officers often leads to instances of harassment , inhuman and degrading treatment , verbal and physical abuse , and arbitrary arrest and detention of GPE at the hands of police . The ORG and ORG regularly document ill - treatment of GPE at the hands of the police , either at the moment of arrest or in police custody . Police ORG use of racial epithets in some cases of police abuse of GPE is indicative that racial prejudice plays a role in the hostile treatment to which officers subject GPE ... ”

According to LAW , the “ value of the human being ” is one of the fundamental principles and a “ primary obligation ” of ORG .

Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL of the LAW reads as follows :

“ All persons living within the NORP territory shall enjoy full protection of their life , honour and liberty irrespective of nationality , race or language and of religious or political beliefs . Exceptions shall be permitted only in cases provided for by international law ... ”

Law no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ( as amended by PERSON no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL and PERSON no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) is the principal implementing legislation on the prevention of acts or activities related to racial or religious discrimination .

ORG Directive CARDINAL of DATE implementing the principle of equal treatment between persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origin and ORG Directive CARDINAL/CARDINAL/CE of DATE establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation , provide , in DATE respectively :

“ CARDINAL . Member GPE shall take such measures as are necessary , in accordance with their national judicial systems , to ensure that , when persons who consider themselves wronged because the principle of equal treatment has not been applied to them establish , before a court or other competent authority , facts from which it may be presumed that there has been direct or indirect discrimination , it shall be for the respondent to prove that there has been no breach of the principle of equal treatment .

Paragraph CARDINAL shall not prevent Member GPE from introducing rules of evidence which are more favourable to plaintiffs .

Paragraph CARDINAL shall not apply to criminal procedures .

Member States need not apply paragraph CARDINAL to proceedings in which it is for the court or competent body to investigate the facts of the case . ”


Preliminary objection dismissed (ratione materiae);Violation of Art. 6-1;Violation of P1-1;Violation of Art. 13;Pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage - award

Anatoly Kovler;Christos Rozakis;Dean Spielmann;Elisabeth Steiner;George Nicolaou;Giorgio Malinverni

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

On DATE the applicant arrived in GPE . On crossing the border , he omitted to report a certain sum of cash in his customs declaration and the customs office seized his money . The applicant appealed to a court .

On DATE the ORG of GPE set aside the seizure order and ordered the ORG to repay the applicant the equivalent in NORP roubles of the MONEY ( ORG ) seized . On DATE ORG upheld that judgment on appeal .

At the applicant 's request ORG amended the operative part of the judgment on DATE and ordered the ORG to pay CARDINAL into the applicant 's bank account in GPE .

On DATE ORG issued a writ of execution and sent it to the bailiffs ' service in GPE . On DATE the GPE bailiffs sent the writ back to GPE , for reasons which are unclear .

After the judgment in his favour had remained unenforced for DATE , the applicant complained to the ORG ( application no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) .

On DATE the ORG delivered judgment in the above case . It noted the ORG 's acknowledgment that the writ of execution had been lost in the process of being transferred from the GPE bailiffs to the GPE office . However , in the ORG 's view , the logistical difficulties experienced by the ORG enforcement services could not serve as an excuse for not honouring a judgment debt ; the applicant 's complaints concerning the non - enforcement of the judgment should have prompted the competent authorities to investigate the matter and to ensure that the enforcement proceedings were brought to a successful conclusion . The ORG found a violation of the applicant 's “ right to a court ” under LAW and of his right to peaceful enjoyment of his possessions LAW CARDINAL ( see PERSON v. GPE , no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , § § CARDINAL and DATE , DATE ) .

The ORG granted the applicant 's claim for the interest on the judgment debt . It rejected , however , the claim for the outstanding amount on the ground that “ the ORG 's obligation to enforce the judgment at issue ha[d ] not been yet extinguished and the applicant [ was ] still entitled to recover this amount in the domestic enforcement proceedings ” ( see PERSON , cited above , § DATE ) . It also made awards in respect of nonpecuniary damage and costs and expenses ( § § DATE ) .

In the meantime , on DATE , a duplicate of the writ was issued and presented to ORG for enforcement .

In its observations on the applicant 's claim ( see below ) , ORG mentioned that on DATE payment of the outstanding amount into the applicant 's account in GPE had been authorised .

NORP By letter of CARDINAL DATE ORG informed the applicant that it would not enforce the judgment because ORG decision of DATE had misspelled CARDINAL letter in his patronymic name and because the writ of execution had incorrectly designated the debtor as the “ Chief ORG of the ORG ” ( the correct name of the entity does not contain the word “ ORG ” ) .

By decision of CARDINAL DATE ORG corrected the spelling mistake in the decision of DATE .

On DATE the sum of USD CARDINAL,CARDINAL was credited to the applicant 's bank account in GPE . An amount of DATE was withheld by the ORG - owned bank ORG as commission for the wire transfer .

On DATE the applicant brought a civil claim against the GPE bailiffs , ORG and ORG . He sought compensation for pecuniary and non - pecuniary damage allegedly incurred as a result of the unlawful actions of the bailiffs and the continued failure to enforce the judgment .

On DATE the ORG of GPE found that the GPE bailiffs had acted unlawfully in that they had never instituted enforcement proceedings and had had no legal grounds for sending the writ back to GPE . However , it refused the claim for damages , finding that the applicant had not incurred any pecuniary damage as a result of the non - enforcement of the judgment of DATE . As to nonpecuniary damage , NORP law did not provide for compensation in situations such as the applicant 's .

On DATE ORG dismissed an appeal by the applicant , reproducing verbatim the text of ORG judgment .

NORP The applicant lodged an application for supervisory review . On DATE the Presidium of ORG granted his application , quashed the judgments of DATE and DATE in part and remitted the claim for damages for fresh examination by ORG .

DATE and CARDINAL DATE ORG listed CARDINAL hearings which were subsequently adjourned for various reasons .

On DATE ORG issued a new judgment . It rejected the applicant 's claim in respect of pecuniary damage on the ground that no admissible evidence had been produced in support of it . It accepted the claim for non - pecuniary damage in part , finding as follows :

“ ... the court takes into account the fact that the ORG judgment of DATE found the [ GPE ] bailiffs ' actions to have been unlawful , and the fact that enforcement of the judgment was protracted and did not actually occur until DATE . This was not disputed by the parties .

The court therefore finds that there has been a violation of the claimant 's right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time on account of an unlawful delay in the enforcement of a judicial decision , which implies that just compensation must be paid to the individual who sustained damage as a result .

and the physical and mental suffering caused to the claimant on account of the belated enforcement of the judgment , and also the fact that the claimant is a pensioner and [ has the title ] ' Honoured Coach of GPE ' , the court considers it necessary to award him MONEY as compensation for non - pecuniary damage , to be paid by ORG .

The court finds no grounds to award a larger amount of compensation as the claimant did not produce evidence showing that the defendants had caused him physical or mental suffering of an irreversible nature ... ”

ORG further rejected the applicant 's claim for legal costs and expenses .

On DATE ORG upheld that judgment on appeal , reproducing verbatim ORG reasoning .

A court may hold the tortfeasor liable for non - pecuniary damage caused to an individual by actions impairing his or her personal nonproperty rights or affecting other intangible assets belonging to him or her ( ORG CARDINAL and CARDINAL § CARDINAL of LAW ) .

Compensation for non - pecuniary damage sustained as a result of the infringement of an individual 's property rights is recoverable only in the cases provided for by law ( LAW ) .

Compensation for non - pecuniary damage is payable irrespective of the tortfeasor 's fault if damage was caused to an individual 's life or health as a result of unlawful criminal prosecution or dissemination of untrue information , and in the other cases provided for by law ( LAW ) .

NORP In ruling no . CARDINAL of DATE , ORG found that Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL of LAW was compatible with LAW in so far as it made ORG liability for damage caused by the administration of justice subject to special conditions . Nevertheless , it stated explicitly that the term “ administration of justice ” did not cover the judicial proceedings in their entirety but extended only to judicial acts touching upon the merits of a case . Other judicial acts – mainly of a procedural nature DATE fell outside the scope of the notion of “ administration of justice ” . State liability for the damage caused by such procedural acts or failures to act , such as a breach of the reasonable - time requirement in relation to court proceedings , could arise even in the absence of a final criminal conviction against a judge , if the fault of the judge had been established in civil proceedings . ORG emphasised , however , that the constitutional right to compensation from the ORG for the damage caused should not be bound up with the individual fault of the judge concerned . An individual should be able to obtain compensation for any damage incurred as a result of the violation by a court of his or her right to a fair trial within the meaning of LAW . ORG held that ORG should legislate on the grounds for and procedure governing ORG compensation for damage caused by unlawful acts or failures to act of a court or a judge , and should determine territorial and subject - matter jurisdiction in respect of such claims .


The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in GPE . He was represented before the ORG by Mr L. GPE , a lawyer practising in GPE . ORG ( “ the Government ” ) did not designate an Agent for the purpose of the proceedings before the ORG .

On DATE the applicant ’s son , PERSON , participated in a demonstration organised by a trade union in GPE . On DATE he was taken into custody .

On DATE he was brought before ORG which ordered his detention on remand .

On an unspecified date ORG at ORG filed a bill of indictment , charging PERSON under LAW § CARDINAL of the Criminal Code with membership of an illegal organisation , namely the ORG ( ORG ) .

On DATE PERSON lawyer submitted a petition to ORG for the establishment by ORG of a medical report on his client ’s state of health .

CARDINAL and DATE CARDINAL PERSON was examined at ORG and diagnosed with liver cancer . The medical reports submitted by the applicant confirm the diagnosis . The applicant also submitted CARDINAL medical reports recommending CARDINAL or CARDINAL months’ rest for his son .

On DATE PERSON lawyer requested ORG to release his client on account of his serious illness .

On DATE ORG ordered PERSON release pending trial .

On DATE ORG convicted PERSON Direkçi of membership of the ORG under LAW of LAW and sentenced him to DATE and CARDINAL months’ imprisonment . ORG also ordered his detention in his absence .

On DATE PERSON lawyer lodged an appeal against the decision regarding his client ’s detention .

On DATE ORG dismissed the appeal , taking into account the serious nature of the offence .

In DATE PERSON left for GPE in order to obtain medical treatment .

On DATE his lawyer requested ORG to quash the judgment and the detention order of ORG .

On DATE ORG upheld the judgment of ORG .

PERSON died in GPE on DATE .


The applicant , PERSON , is a NORP national , who was born in DATE and lives in GPE . The respondent Government were represented by Mr PERSON , GPE .

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

On DATE ORG ) issued a reprimand ( PERSON ) against the applicant for having violated professional rules ( anwaltliche GPE ) .

In its reasoning , ORG noted that in DATE the applicant had assisted PERSON , a foreigner , who had been accused in criminal proceedings in GPE , of having acted as an accessory to forgery , and that this trial had resulted in an acquittal for lack of jurisdiction of the NORP courts . In DATE the applicant had appealed against the bill of costs ( ORG ) as far as the fixing of his fees , to be borne by the ORG , was concerned . In his appeal , the applicant , objecting to a refusal to reimburse his travelling expenses from GPE to GPE , had argued that the intervention of a lawyer outside of GPE had been necessary . According to him ,

“ the GPE judiciary had not been able to cope with the difficulty of the case . From the very beginning , it had been obvious that the accused had to be acquitted . Nevertheless , the public prosecutor had applied for a penal order and the court had issued CARDINAL . The quality of the GPE lawyers is not superior to the quality of the judges and public prosecutors . ... It had been necessary to appoint a non - GPE lawyer to have justice done . Had the accused been assisted by a GPE lawyer , the penal order would have been undoubtedly been confirmed at the trial . ”

In DATE , in the course of investigations brought against him , the applicant had submitted that this reasoning had been necessary to argue his appeal . He had added that his opinion on the quality of GPE judges , public prosecutors and lawyers was correct , as any DATE law student would have known that the charge against his client was unfounded . Moreover , he had evoked DATE GPE judge and CARDINAL GPE lawyers under the NORP regime . In particular , regarding judge PERSON , he had referred to judgments rendered in DATE , convicting persons for having criticised the treatment of NORP or for failure to differentiate , in their charitable work , between their own people and NORP . Regarding lawyer PERSON , he had mentioned a statement , to be found in Mr. PERSON ’s doctoral thesis , according to which a medical practitioner keeping friendship with a NORP violated the honour of the profession . According to him , their merits under the NORP regime had contributed to their professional success after DATE .

ORG considered that the applicant had thereby violated his professional duties within the meaning of CARDINAL a ( CARDINAL ) of ORG ) .

ORG examined the applicant ’s above - mentioned statements in the light of these principles and found that the course of the criminal proceedings against Mr. PERSON had not been correct and could have justified even harsh criticism of the officials concerned . However , the applicant ’s general attack charging the GPE judiciary of complete incompetence was unjustified and amounted to a deliberate disparagement of all members of the GPE judiciary on criminal matters . These considerations applied even more to his subsequent statements that in GPE anti - NORP and NORP judges had made a career because of their work or their attitude under the NORP regime . Such statements had been all the more disproportionate as the claim for reimbursement had amounted to a mere MONEY ( DEM ) .

On DATE the Baden - Württemberg Disciplinary Court of Appeal ( Anwaltsgerichtshof ) , following a hearing , dismissed the applicant ’s appeal and the ORG ordered that the case should not be subject to an appeal on points of law .

In its decision , ORG considered that the applicant had been entitled to argue that his assistance in the criminal proceedings at issue had been necessary and that his qualifications were superior to those of GPE lawyers .

Moreover , the allegation that ‘ the quality of GPE lawyers was not superior to the quality of GPE judges and public ORG could have been read as applying only to those judges and prosecutors specifically involved in the procedure against Mr. PERSON The context in which the applicant made his statements shows , however , that that allegation was intended to characterise all GPE judges , public prosecutors and lawyers as incapable of recognising or remedying obvious legal errors . This assessment was confirmed in the applicant ’s further submissions of DATE .

According to ORG , the wholesale allegation that the GPE judges , public prosecutor ’s and lawyers were incompetent in legal matters was disparaging and made without good cause . The applicant had no reason or justification to disparage the legal skills of all GPE judges , public prosecutors and lawyers . Even the obvious legal errors committed in the criminal proceedings against PERSON could not justify disparaging whole groups of professionals . The insulting remarks made by the applicant had not been necessary to justify the need for having recourse to a non - local lawyer .

The applicant ’s submissions of DATE did not , in ORG view , constitute a further breach of professional duties . Rather , the applicant had acted for the protection of his interests in the disciplinary proceedings against him . Moreover , to the extent that he had referred to the NORP past of certain GPE lawyers and of a judge , he had not , in ORG view , made a general statement .

On DATE the Lawyers’ ORG ( ORG für PERSON ) at ORG dismissed the applicant ’s request for leave to appeal on points of law .

On DATE ORG refused to entertain the applicant ’s constitutional complaint .

According to section CARDINAL of ORG , a lawyer has to practise his profession conscientiously , and , whether in pursuit of his profession or otherwise , has to prove himself worthy of the respect and trust which his position requires .

As CARDINAL of the basic duties , section GPE ) provides that in his professional conduct , a lawyer has to respect the duty of objectivity ( PERSON ) . Such conduct lacks objectivity if it involves a deliberate dissemination of untrue or otherwise disparaging statements which find no ground in the behaviour of other persons involved in the proceedings or in the course of the proceedings .

Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of ORG provides that disciplinary measures shall be taken against a lawyer who is liable of a breach of duties as defined by the ORG or the rules on professional conduct ( PERSON ) .

According to section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) , the possible disciplinary measures are : ( CARDINAL ) a warning ; ( CARDINAL ) a reprimand ; ( CARDINAL ) a fine not exceeding DEM CARDINAL ; ( CARDINAL ) a temporary prohibition on practising as counsel in certain legal fields ; or ( CARDINAL ) a permanent exclusion from the Bar . The disciplinary measures of reprimand and fine may be imposed simultaneously ( section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) ) .


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

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

DATE the applicant worked as a senior accountant in the private company Gatchina .

On DATE a local police investigator ( ORG районный отдел внутренних дел г. PERSON ) initiated criminal proceedings on suspicion of misappropriation of the company 's assets by some of its employees .

On DATE an initial interview was held with the applicant in the presence of her counsel .

The applicant was formally charged on DATE .

On DATE the applicant was remanded in custody pending the investigation .

On DATE and DATE an investigator again questioned the applicant .

The applicant 's repeated complaints concerning her detention were rejected by decision of LOC of the city of ORG районный суд г. PERSON ) on DATE and DATE . The decision of DATE was upheld on appeal by ORG ( “ the Regional Court ” – PERSON областной суд ) on DATE .

On DATE the applicant was released on the ground that all the investigative measures had been concluded and on health grounds . The investigator imposed a measure of restraint on her in the form of an undertaking not to leave her place of residence .

It appears that while in detention the applicant also repeatedly complained that she was unfit for custody on medical grounds . By decisions dated DATE and DATE the investigator twice ordered a medical examination of the applicant .

The examinations took place DATE and DATE and from DATE to DATE respectively , and found the applicant to be in good health .

On DATE the investigator opened a new criminal case against the applicant , this time for alleged fraud . The CARDINAL cases against the applicant were joined .

According to the ORG , DATE and DATE the applicant had access to the case file and availed herself of that opportunity on CARDINAL occasions .

By decision of CARDINAL DATE the proceedings were suspended owing to the applicant 's state of health . She underwent in - patient treatment in a hospital .

On DATE the proceedings resumed . Over DATE the investigator brought similar charges against CARDINAL other people and ordered a further medical examination of the applicant .

From DATE the applicant and the other defendants in the case had access to the case file again . It appears that the other defendants and the applicant 's counsel completed their study of the case by DATE respectively .

As regards the applicant , she again underwent inpatient treatment DATE and DATE and only started to familiarise herself with the case file on DATE .

On DATE the investigator , fearing that the applicant might cause delays in the proceedings , set a deadline of DATE for the applicant to familiarise herself with the case file .

In DATE the deadline was extended until DATE .

On DATE the preliminary investigation of the applicant 's case was concluded and the bill of indictment was prepared and signed by a local prosecutor . The applicant and CARDINAL co - defendants were charged with fraud .

On DATE the case was transferred to the NORP ORG of Yaroslavl ( “ the ORG ” – Заволжский районный суд г. PERSON ) for trial .

On DATE the applicant submitted to the court a number of documents allegedly confirming her innocence . In response and at the prosecutor 's initiative , the court ordered ORG to examine the documents with a view to verifying their authenticity . The court also stayed the proceedings in the case pending the outcome of the expert examinations .

On DATE the ORG responded that it was impossible to carry out the expert examinations requested by the court .

On DATE the court decided to examine the documents with the assistance of a different expert body , the North - Western Regional Centre for Forensic Examinations ( “ the Centre ” ) . However , on DATE the ORG informed the court that , owing to malfunctioning of technical equipment , no examination could take place .

Having consulted counsel for the defence , the court fixed CARDINAL DATE as DATE hearing . It appears that the hearing of DATE did not take place and that the proceedings were adjourned until DATE and then until DATE .

On DATE the proceedings resumed .

By decision of DATE , taken at the prosecutor 's initiative , the court decided again to order an expert examination . However , on DATE the ORG again refused and informed the court that no such examination was possible . According to the applicant , the ORG could not carry out that examination because the court had failed to furnish it with the necessary documents in time .

On DATE the court for the third time requested the ORG to carry out the examination . By letter of CARDINAL DATE the ORG acceded to the request but asked for further information . It appears that the necessary information was furnished .

The court received a completed expert report on DATE and scheduled the next hearing for DATE . On that date the proceedings did not take place because of the judge 's involvement in a different set of proceedings . The case was adjourned until DATE . The hearings of CARDINAL , DATE and DATE did not take place owing to the failure of counsel for CARDINAL of the defendants to attend .

The proceedings resumed on DATE and lasted until DATE , when they were interrupted by the illness of a lay assessor .

The proceedings continued on DATE and lasted , with interruptions , until DATE . On the latter date the court adjourned the hearing first until DATE owing to the illness of counsel for CARDINAL of the defendants and then until DATE , citing the involvement of counsel for the same defendant in different sets of proceedings .

The hearing of DATE was adjourned with reference to the need to secure the attendance of some of the witnesses by force .

On DATE the hearings did not take place as the applicant requested that an additional witness be summoned ; on CARDINAL , DATE and DATE the applicant 's counsel and CARDINAL of the defendants failed to appear .

On DATE and CARDINAL DATE the prosecutor requested that the proceedings be adjourned , referring to a lack of time to prepare for the judicial pleadings stage . The requests were granted .

On CARDINAL DATE the proceedings were adjourned at the applicant 's request , as apparently her counsel was ill .

It appears that by judgment of DATE ORG convicted the applicant as charged .

NORP The judgment was quashed on appeal by ORG on DATE . The case was remitted for a fresh examination at first instance .

It appears that the case is currently pending before the trial court .


The applicant is a NORP national , born in DATE and living in GPE . He is represented before the ORG by Mr PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE .

A.

In DATE the applicant arrived in GPE . On DATE he married an NORP citizen . Subsequently he requested a work permit and a residence permit . In DATE he was given a work permit . The residence permit , however , was refused .

On DATE ORG Bezirkshauptmannschaft ) issued a deportation order ( Ausweisungsbescheid ) against the applicant . It found that the applicant had no residence permit and that his stay in GPE was therefore unlawful . Thus , his removal from GPE was necessary in the public interest . The applicant , assisted by counsel , instituted appeal proceedings , which were terminated in DATE by the decision of ORG ( Verwaltungsgerichtshof ) which found that the deportation order was lawful . These proceedings were the issue of ORG . GPE which was declared inadmissible by ORG on DATE .

On DATE ORG ordered the applicant to leave GPE .

On the basis of the deportation order , the applicant was arrested in DATE . On DATE the applicant , assisted by lawyer , appealed to ORG ( Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat ) against his detention with a view to expulsion . He argued that his detention was not necessary because DATE had already elapsed since the ORG ’s order to leave GPE in DATE . Besides , ORG decision of DATE was no longer enforceable for lapse of time . Furthermore , he requested the resumption of the expulsion proceedings and a hearing before ORG .

On DATE , having taken into account the case - file and ORG comments on the applicant ’s appeal ( PERSON ) , ORG dismissed the appeal and upheld the applicant ’s detention . It found that it was not competent to review the lawfulness of the underlying deportation order . It noted that ORG had found that the measure was lawful and that the applicant had been ordered to leave GPE on several occasions , but had not complied . He had been lawfully detained with a view to enforcing the expulsion , in accordance with LAW of LAW ( PERSON ) . It noted further that the applicant was mistaken when arguing that the deportation order was no longer enforceable . Finally , it found that no hearing was necessary because the factual basis was clear from the file .

On DATE the applicant filed a complaint with ORG ) . He argued that his detention was not necessary and that ORG had violated LAW as it had not held a hearing and had not communicated ORG comments on his appeal .

On DATE ORG refused to deal with the case and transferred it to ORG . It found that LAW did not guarantee a public hearing , and that access to the file as well as the submission of any further observations had been possible for the applicant throughout the proceedings .

On DATE ORG dismissed the complaint . It found that the detention with a view to expulsion had been necessary . As to a hearing , access to the file and the possibility to submit further information , it agreed with ORG . ORG decision was served upon the applicant on DATE .

B. Relevant domestic law

Section CARDINAL of LAW DATE ( PERSON ) , applicable at the material time , allows the arrest and detention of an alien if these measures are necessary to ensure , inter alia , expulsion . The detainee must be released as soon as the grounds for detention cease to exist . The maximum period of detention is limited to DATE ( Section CARDINAL ) .

Everyone arrested and detained under LAW has the right to apply to the competent ORG and to challenge the lawfulness of the arrest and the detention order ( LAW ) . An appeal may be filed either directly with ORG or with the authority of first instance . In the latter case this authority has to present the appeal to ORG within a maximum delay of DATE ( Section CARDINAL § CARDINAL ) . Besides , the detaining authority has to inform the Panel immediately in case of the applicant ’s release ( Section QUANTITY ) . If the detainee , however , is not released before , ORG has to decide on the continuation of the detention within DATE ( Section CARDINAL § CARDINAL ) .

Section CARDINAL of the General Administrative Procedure Act ( Allgemeines Verwaltungsverfahrensgesetz ) provides for the right to inspect the case - files . This section is applicable to proceedings concerning the review of an arrest or a detention with a view to expulsion .


Violation of Art. 5-3;Violation of Art. 5-4;Violation of Art. 5-5

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

On DATE the applicants were taken into custody by police officers from the Anti - Terrorism Branch of ORG . According to the arrest and search protocols , the applicants were arrested in the course of a police operation carried out against an illegal organisation , namely the DHKPC ( ORG ) as they were considered to be involved in the activities of this organisation at the university .

On DATE the deputy director of the Anti - Terrorism Branch of ORG requested the public prosecutor at ORG to extend the applicants ' custody period for DATE . The public prosecutor at ORG granted the requested extension .

On DATE ORG requested ORG to extend the custody period for DATE . The single judge of ORG duly extended the custody period for DATE starting from DATE .

On DATE the applicants made statements before the police .

On DATE the applicants were brought before a doctor , who noted that there were no signs of ill - treatment on their bodies .

On DATE , the applicants made statements before the public prosecutor at ORG and subsequently , a single judge of the state security court , who ordered that PERSON , PERSON , and ORG be detained on remand and the other applicants be released . Before the judge , CARDINAL of the applicants , PERSON alleged that he had been subjected to ill - treatment while in custody .

On DATE the applicants ' representative filed an objection with the court requesting that PERSON , PERSON and ORG be released . In his petition , the representative maintained , inter alia , that the applicants had been subjected to different types of ill - treatment while in custody . He alleged that the applicants had been beaten , deprived of food and water , that their testicles had been squeezed and electric shocks had been administered .

On CARDINAL DATE the public prosecutor at ORG filed a bill of indictment charging the applicants with membership of the DHKP - C under LAW and LAW no . ORG .

On DATE ORG ordered the applicants ' release pending trial , holding that the relevant evidence had been collected and that the applicants were students and had to take their exams at the university .

The applicants maintained before the trial court that they had signed their statements under duress while in police custody . PERSON reiterated his allegation of ill - treatment .

On DATE ORG acquitted the applicants of the charges against them .

On DATE the judgment of the first - instance court became final as neither the public prosecutor nor the applicants filed an appeal against it .

On DATE CARDINAL of the applicants , namely ORG , ORG and PERSON , together with another person PERSON , who had also been in police custody with the applicants DATE , initiated proceedings before ORG and requested compensation for the time they had spent in police custody . On DATE the court awarded MONEY ( TRL ) –approximately CARDINAL euros- each to ORG , ORG , PERSON and FAC to GPE in respect of non - pecuniary compensation .

The fourth paragraph of LAW ( as amended by PERSON no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL of DATE ) provides that any person who has been arrested and/or in respect of whom a prosecutor has made an order for his or her continued detention may challenge that measure before the appropriate district judge and , if successful , be released .

Section CARDINAL of Law no . CARDINAL on ORG or ORG provides :

“ Compensation shall be paid by the ORG in respect of all damage sustained by persons :

( CARDINAL ) who have been arrested , or detained under conditions or in circumstances incompatible with the LAW or statute ;

( CARDINAL ) who have not been immediately informed of the reasons for their arrest or detention ;

( CARDINAL ) who have not been brought before a judicial officer after being arrested or detained within the time allowed by statute for that purpose ;

( CARDINAL ) who have been deprived of their liberty without a court order after the statutory time allowed for being brought before a judicial officer has expired ;

( CARDINAL ) whose close family have not been immediately informed of their arrest or detention ;

( CARDINAL ) who , after being arrested or detained in accordance with the law , are not subsequently committed for trial ... , or are acquitted or discharged after standing trial ; or

( CARDINAL ) who have been sentenced to a term of imprisonment shorter than the period spent in detention or ordered to pay a pecuniary penalty only ... ”