CASE OF VAGAPOVA AND ZUBIRAYEV v. RUSSIA

Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Procedural aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security;Violation of Article 13+2 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 2 - Right to life)

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

The applicants live in the village of NORP , in LOC of GPE .

The applicants are married . At the material time they lived together with their children at CARDINAL FAC , the village of NORP - Aul . CARDINAL of their sons , Mr PERSON GPE , was born in DATE .

At TIME on DATE someone knocked at the entrance door of the applicants’ house . PERSON opened the door . Three armed men wearing military uniforms burst inside and beat PERSON with machine - gun butts . The men wore no masks . They did not identify themselves but the first applicant inferred that they belonged to the NORP military . At CARDINAL other servicemen entered the house .

The first applicant called her husband ; when he entered the room , CARDINAL of the servicemen ordered him to produce identity papers . When the second applicant did so , he saw a serviceman pointing a machine gun at PERSON .

The servicemen asked PERSON ’s family name , examined his identity papers and said that it was “ him ” . CARDINAL of the servicemen twisted the young man ’s arms behind his back and dragged him to the entrance door . The applicants asked them where they intended to take their son . The servicemen replied that the applicants had no reasons to worry . CARDINAL of them told the first applicant to give him PERSON ’s jacket and shoes but did not allow PERSON to dress .

The CARDINAL servicemen left the house and took PERSON to the street . The applicants followed them and saw an all - terrain UAZ vehicle without a registration number parked next to their gates . The servicemen put PERSON on the floor of that vehicle and then got in it . The ORG vehicle drove off . The applicants noticed an armoured personnel carrier ( “ APC ” ) parked behind UAZ . The ORG ’s registration number was illegible .

The ORG and ORG drove down FAC and eventually turned to FAC .

After a while the applicants heard a noise and realised that an ORG was ramming the gates of a neighbouring house . Later the applicants found out that servicemen had taken away their neighbour , Mr PERSON

The applicants have had no news of PERSON since DATE .

The Government did not submit their account of the circumstances of PERSON kidnapping .

At TIME on DATE the second applicant and relatives of PERSON came to ORG of the ORG ( “ ROVD ” ) . PERSON , the head of the ROVD , told them that CARDINAL policemen in an all - terrain UAZ vehicle had gone to PERSON to arrest PERSON and PERSON and that they had been assisted by NORP military servicemen in APCs . PERSON further said that the police had had no intention of arresting PERSON and that he was unaware of the latter ’s whereabouts . He suggested that NORP servicemen could have taken PERSON to the village of GPE NORP and confirmed that PERSON was detained in the ROVD .

In TIME of DATE the applicants learned that some villagers had seen CARDINAL APCs and an UAZ vehicle driving in the direction of ORG .

DATE PERSON was released from the ROVD and told the applicants the following . On his apprehension he had been first placed in an ORG ; at some point the servicemen had put a bag on his head and placed him in the UAZ vehicle . He could not tell whether PERSON was in that vehicle . The servicemen had taken him to the ROVD . In TIME of DATE they had taken the bag off his head and questioned him .

According to the applicants , a NORP military unit had its headquarters in a mill in the village of GPE NORP . The applicants visited the head of GPE local administration and asked him to help them to find their son ; he went to the mill , met the military servicemen and informed the applicants that PERSON had not been kept there .

Later Mr A. told the applicants that he had talked to servicemen of ORG ( “ ORG ” ) in PERSON and that they had assured him that PERSON had not been detained at the mill .

The applicants and their relatives repeatedly complained about PERSON ’s disappearance to various ORG agencies and officials . In particular , they applied to the NORP and NORP Presidents , ORG , ORG of the NORP President in ORG , GPE , ORG of the ORG , ORG , ORG of GPE and the head of the local administration of LOC . Most of the complaints were forwarded to the ORG at different levels .

On DATE the first applicant requested the prosecutor ’s office of GPE to help her to find her son . On DATE her complaint was forwarded to the prosecutor ’s office of LOC ( “ the district prosecutor ’s office ” ) .

On DATE the district prosecutor ’s office instituted an investigation into PERSON disappearance under LAW of LAW ( “ aggravated kidnapping ” ) and informed the applicants of the decision . The case file was assigned the number DATE .

On DATE the district prosecutor ’s office granted the second applicant the status of victim of a crime in case no . DATE .

On DATE the district prosecutor ’s office informed the first applicant that investigative measures were being taken to solve her son ’s kidnapping .

On DATE the first applicant requested the district prosecutor ’s office to question eyewitnesses to her son ’s abduction and Mr A.

On DATE the first applicant requested the prosecutor ’s office of GPE to search for her son more actively .

On DATE the district prosecutor ’s office informed the first applicant that the term of preliminary investigation in case no . DATE had been extended to DATE .

On DATE the first applicant requested the military commander of GPE to help her to establish her son ’s whereabouts .

On DATE and DATE the military commander of GPE ordered the military commander of LOC together with the heads of the ROVD and the ORG department , to carry out an inquiry into the facts complained of by the first applicant .

On DATE the prosecutor ’s office of GPE informed the first applicant that the preliminary investigation in case no . DATE was pending .

On DATE and CARDINAL DATE the military commander of LOC informed the military commander of GPE that the criminal investigation into PERSON kidnapping by unidentified armed men had been instituted and was under way . He also noted that various law - enforcement agencies had not arrested PERSON and had no information on his whereabouts .

On DATE and DATE the prosecutor ’s office of GPE forwarded the first applicant ’s complaints to the district prosecutor ’s office .

On DATE the military prosecutor ’s office of military unit no . CARDINAL informed the first applicant that the investigation in case no . DATE pending before the district prosecutor ’s office had been suspended and that military involvement in the crime had not been proven .

On DATE ORG informed the first applicant that the investigation in case no . DATE had been suspended on CARDINAL DATE for failure to identify those responsible and then resumed on DATE . It was ongoing under their supervision .

On DATE the district prosecutor ’s office informed the second applicant that the investigation in case no . DATE suspended on DATE had been resumed .

On DATE the district prosecutor ’s office informed the second applicant that the investigation had been resumed for DATE .

On DATE the district prosecutor ’s office granted the first applicant victim status .

On DATE the first applicant requested the district prosecutor ’s office to resume the investigation into her son ’s kidnapping and to allow her access to the investigation file .

NORP In the autumn of DATE case no . DATE was transferred to ORG for GPE . The applicants were not officially notified of it .

On DATE ORG of ORG for GPE informed the ORG representative that no access to the file in case no . DATE could be granted , as the investigation had not been completed , and that it had been suspended on DATE .

In a written statement addressed to ORG the first applicant noted that on an unspecified date she had participated in a confrontation with PERSON organised by the district prosecutor ’s office . In the course of the confrontation PERSON had been afraid to admit that he had seen another person in the UAZ on the night of his arrest . The first applicant had reproached him for cowardice and then PERSON had told the investigator that there had been a second detained person in the ORG but he had not seen his face . PERSON had signed an interview record containing his statement which was kept in the investigation file .

On DATE the district prosecutor ’s office received the second applicant ’s complaint concerning his son ’s abduction .

On DATE the district prosecutor ’s office instituted an investigation of PERSON abduction under LAW of LAW ( aggravated kidnapping ) . The case file was assigned the number DATE .

On unspecified dates the applicants were granted victim status in case no . DATE .

On an unspecified date the house at CARDINAL FAC was inspected as a crime scene . The investigators established that there was no mess inside the house and did not seize anything .

On an unspecified date the second applicant was questioned . He stated that at TIME on DATE CARDINAL unknown armed men had entered his courtyard and started knocking at the entrance door of the house . CARDINAL of the armed men had gone to PERSON house located in the same courtyard . PERSON had opened the door and QUANTITY armed men had burst in . They had hit PERSON with a machine gun butt and demanded the family members to produce identity papers . Having checked PERSON papers they had taken the young man outside , put him in an UAZ vehicle without registration numbers and driven away . The ORG was accompanied by an ORG with its registration numbers covered with mud . At the time of his son ’s abduction CARDINAL other APCs had blocked a road leading out of the village . PERSON had also been abducted by unknown men and taken away in the ORG . DATE PERSON had returned home and said that at some point he had been out in the UAZ vehicle in which another detainee had been kept . On DATE of his son ’s abduction the second applicant contacted PERSON , the ROVD head , who had told him that he had sent a ORG vehicle to the village of ORG to arrest PERSON and Mr PERSON and that ROVD servicemen had not arrested PERSON .

The first applicant and several other witnesses made identical statements . During her second interview the first applicant added that the armed men had taken away her son ’s identity papers and warm clothing that she had given them for PERSON .

DATE . On an unspecified date the head of the local administration was questioned . He stated that on DATE he had learned of PERSON abduction from a local policeman . Prior to that date he had not been acquainted with the GPE . The local administration had not received any complaints about PERSON behaviour before his kidnapping .

On an unspecified date PERSON was questioned . He stated that at TIME on DATE police officers had entered his house and asked him to go with them to the ROVD . At first he had been put in an ORG and then in an UAZ vehicle in which he had travelled with the policemen . Upon arrival to the ROVD he had been questioned and then released . Having returned home he had learned of PERSON kidnapping . He had been transferred to the ROVD on his own and had not seen PERSON on its LOC .

The investigators questioned several other villagers of ORG who made no significant statements .

On an unspecified date PERSON , the ROVD head , was questioned . He stated that he was not acquainted with the GPE . On DATE ROVD policemen and servicemen of the military commander ’s office of LOC had carried out a special operation to arrest ORG who had escaped . The servicemen had then questioned his brother , PERSON , and released him after a check . PERSON had not been arrested in the course of the special operation . The ROVD had sent an UAZ vehicle to carry out the special operation while the military commander ’s office had provided an ORG .

A number of the ROVD servicemen made similar statements . CARDINAL of them added that the applicants had contacted him in DATE in relation to PERSON kidnapping . The Government did not disclose the servicemen ’s identities .

The investigators sent a number of queries concerning PERSON to various ORG agencies and detention facilities . In reply they were informed that the young man had not been arrested or prosecuted .

The investigation in case no . DATE was pending . The applicants had been duly informed of all decisions taken during the investigation .

NORP Despite specific requests by ORG did not disclose any documents of the investigation file in case no . DATE . Relying on the information obtained from ORG , the ORG stated that the investigation was in progress and that disclosure of the documents would be in violation of LAW , since the file contained information of a military nature and personal data concerning the witnesses or other participants in the criminal proceedings .

For a summary of relevant domestic law see PERSON and PERSON GPE , no . CARDINAL , § CARDINAL , CARDINAL DATE .


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

The applicants , Mr PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON Seyhan ( Dögüş ) and PERSON , are NORP nationals who were born in DATE , respectively , and live in GPE . They were represented before the ORG by Mr PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE .

On DATE the applicants ' plot of land of CARDINAL m² located in the LOC district of GPE was expropriated by a decision of the ORG Governor 's office for the construction of a school .

The applicants were paid MONEY ( TRL ) per square metre of their land as compensation .

On DATE the applicants brought an action before ORG for additional compensation .

On DATE the ORG partially granted the applicants ' request after having obtained CARDINAL expert reports on the value of the land .

On DATE ORG quashed the judgment of ORG and remitted the case to that court for a revaluation of the land .

On DATE the ORG partially granted the applicants ' request in the light of additional expert reports .

On DATE ORG quashed the judgment of ORG once again due to the lack of clarity of the expert reports and requested the revaluation of the land .

On DATE the ORG awarded the applicants additional compensation of GPE CARDINAL,CARDINAL,CARDINAL,CARDINAL on the basis of additional expert reports , plus interest at the statutory rate , running from DATE .

On DATE ORG upheld the judgment of the first - instance court .

On DATE the administration paid the applicants ORG in additional compensation , together with interest .


Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre;Karel Jungwiert;Mark Villiger;Peer Lorenzen;Rait Maruste;Renate Jaeger;Zdravka Kalaydjieva

The applicant , PERSON TenchevaRafailova , is a NORP national born in DATE and living in GPE .

In an order of DATE the Minister of Health announced , by reference to LAW ( see Relevant domestic and practice law below ) , a competition for the post of director of ORG in GPE . The order laid down the conditions which the candidates for the post had to fulfil , and the test and the interview which they had to pass . The competition announcement was published on DATE .

On DATE the Minister appointed a commission to make a preselection of the candidates . On DATE , having earlier laid down the manner in which the test and the interview were to be conducted , he appointed another commission to conduct those .

The applicant applied for the post . She and CARDINAL other candidates were pre - selected . The CARDINAL of them took part in the test and the interview . On DATE the applicant was informed that she had been ranked second . The candidate ranked fist was PERSON The Minister then issued a decision validating the results of the competition . The applicant objected to this decision but did not receive a reply .

On DATE the applicant lodged an application for judicial review of the Minister ’s decision with ORG . She argued that Dr PERSON did not meet all the criteria laid down in the order of DATE , because he had not had TIME of training in medical management .

In a decision of DATE ( опр. № CARDINAL от CARDINAL февруари DATE г. по адм. д. № DATE г. , PERSON , V о. ) a threemember panel of ORG declared the application inadmissible . After analysing the matter in some detail , it found that the competition had not been governed by the special rules applicable to some other medical posts , but by the general provisions of the Labour Code relating to competitions . In competitions governed by LAW the Minister acted in a capacity of an employer , not as an administrative authority . Therefore , his decisions relating to the competition were not administrative decisions amenable to judicial scrutiny . This applied a fortiori to the commission which had organised the competition . The applicant could challenge the manner in which the competition had been conducted by means of a civil claim : she could seek a declaration that the contractual relationship between the Minister and PERSON had not come into existence because the competition had been tainted by irregularities .

CARDINAL judge dissented . He disputed the conclusion that the competition had been governed by the general provisions of LAW and not by special rules . However , even assuming that this had been so , in his view , by taking part in the competition the applicant had sought to exercise her right to work , recognised by LAW . Therefore , the refusal to appoint her to the desired post had to have a lawful basis . Such basis could be found in the fact that she had not been ranked first . However , this basis was valid only if the competition had been conducted lawfully . If it was tainted by irregularities , each candidate after the first was injured in the exercise of his labour rights , whereas those rights deserved protection from the courts . Since , in view of the former ORG and ORG caselaw ( see Relevant domestic law and practice below ) , the applicant would be unlikely to obtain such protection from the civil courts , as suggested by the majority , she was entitled to obtain it from the administrative courts , in order not to be faced with a denial of justice .

The applicant ’s subsequent appeal on points of law was rejected by a fivemember panel of ORG on DATE ( опр. № DATE от CARDINAL юни DATE г. по адм. д. № DATE г. , PERSON , петчленен св ) . The court fully agreed with the threemember panel ’s reasoning , and went on to say that the dissenting judge ’s view that the competition had not been governed by LAW was erroneous , as was his view that the Minister ’s decisions in connection with employment competitions were subject to review by the administrative courts . Those decisions did not amount to an exercise of public powers affecting the rights of others , and were therefore not administrative decisions amenable to judicial scrutiny .

On DATE the applicant brought a civil claim against ORG , seeking a declaration that the competition had been tainted by irregularities and that the resulting employment agreement between ORG and Dr PERSON was unlawful . However , on DATE the ORG discontinued the proceedings . On appeal , its decision was upheld by ORG on DATE .

The applicant ’s subsequent appeal on points of law was rejected by ORG on DATE ( опр. № CARDINAL от CARDINAL декември DATE г. по ч. гр. д. № CARDINAL г. , ORG , ORG г. о. ) . The court found that her claim did not concern an employment dispute , because such disputes were only those between the person who had come first in the competition and the employer . The remaining candidates did not have an employment relationship with the employer . The actions carried out by the employer during a competition were simply preliminary steps for the creation of an employment relationship ; they could not be challenged before the courts but merely before the employer whose decision was final . The court went on to say that the applicant did not have the requisite legal interest to seek a declaration that the employment of the person who had won the competition was unlawful . Such a declaration would have no impact on her legal sphere , because she could not expect to be employed unless the person ranked first failed to take up his or her duties .

Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the DATE Regulations on the organisation and the operations of ORG за устройството и дейността на център за спешна медицинска помощ ) issued by ORG , provides that the ORG ’s director is employed on the basis of a competition conducted in line with the provisions of LOC .

The manner in which employment competitions are to be conducted is governed by LAW to CARDINAL of the DATE LAW .

LAW provides that the posts to be filled by means of a competition must be set forth in a statute or a statutory instrument , or a decision of the employer . LAW stipulates that those posts can be filled only by means of a competition .

Article CARDINAL specifies the contents of the competition notice and the manner in which it should be published , as well as the rights of the candidates to get acquainted with the job description of the advertised post .

Candidates are admitted to the competition by a commission appointed by the employer ( LAW ) . Those who are not allowed to take part in the competition must be informed in writing about the reasons for that ; they may object before the employer , who rules on the matter by means of a final decision ( LAW ) . Another commission then conducts the competition ( LAW ) , by assessing the qualities of the candidates and ranking only those who have successfully passed the tests ( LAW ) . They have to be notified of that within DATE ( LAW ) . The individuals ranked first are considered as employed from DATE when they receive the notice ( LAW ) . They then have to take up their duties within DATE but for good reasons that time - limit may be extended to DATE ( LAW ) . If they fail to do so , the employment relationship with them is considered as nonexistent , and the individual ranked second is considered as employed ( LAW ) .

The former ORG and ORG have held that those who have lost employment competitions can not challenge those competitions in the civil courts . Such disputes are not employment disputes within the meaning of the Labour Code ; nor can they be examined pursuant to claims for declaratory judgment , because the persons concerned do not have the requisite legal interest to bring such claims , as they can not expect to be offered employment even if the competitions are declared unlawful ( реш. № CARDINAL от CARDINAL юни DATE г. по гр. д. № DATE г. ORG , III г. о. ; опр. № CARDINAL от CARDINAL май DATE г. по гр. д. № CARDINAL/CARDINAL г. , ORG , III г. о. ) .

In a line of decisions beginning in DATE and DATE , ORG adopted the position , initially against the dissent of the same judge who dissented in the applicant ’s case , that decisions made by public bodies in connection with employment competitions conducted by them are not administrative decisions subject to judicial review , chiefly because those bodies do not act in their capacity of administrative authorities but are placed on an equal footing visàvis the persons willing to be employed by them ( опр. № CARDINAL от CARDINAL януари DATE г. по адм. д. № DATE г. , PERSON , V о. ; опр. № CARDINAL от CARDINAL февруари DATE г. по адм. д. № DATE г. , PERSON , V о. ; опр. № CARDINAL от CARDINAL февруари DATE г. по адм. д. № DATE г. , PERSON , V о. ; опр. № CARDINAL от CARDINAL февруари DATE г. по адм. д. № CARDINAL г. , ORG , V о. ; опр. № CARDINAL от CARDINAL февруари DATE г. по адм. д. № CARDINAL г. , PERSON , V о. ; опр. № DATE от CARDINAL ноември DATE г. по адм. д. № DATE г. , ORG , V о. ; опр. № DATE от CARDINAL ноември DATE г. по адм. д. № DATE г. , PERSON , V о. ; опр. № DATE от DATE г. по адм. д. № DATE г. , PERSON , ORG ; опр. № CARDINAL от CARDINAL ноември DATE г. по адм. д. № DATE г. , ORG , V о. ; опр. № CARDINAL от CARDINAL февруари DATE г. по адм. д. № DATE г. , PERSON , V о. ; опр. № DATE от CARDINAL февруари DATE г. по адм. д. № DATE г. , PERSON , ORG ; опр. № DATE от DATE г. по адм. д. № CARDINAL г. , ORG , ORG ; опр. № DATE от CARDINAL септември DATE г. по адм. д. № DATE г. , PERSON , ORG ) .


Violation of Art. 11;Not necessary to examine under Art. 6-1;Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed;Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient;Costs and expenses - claim dismissed

In DATE the applicant founded and became the chairman of ORG ( PERSON революционна младежка партия “ ) . He ran for parliament in DATE and in several later elections , unsuccessfully . Apparently he was also a presidential candidate in later elections on that party ’s ballot .

At a meeting held on DATE in GPE the applicant and fortynine other persons formed a party named ORG of GPE ( „ Комунистическа партия на GPE “ ) . They adopted its constitution and elected its management organs . The applicant was elected the party ’s chairman . The party ’s aims , set out in the preamble to its constitution , were as follows :

The main aim of ORG shall be the revolutionary change of the NORP society – democratisation of the society as a road to true power of the people . The primary goal of the party shall be the practical improvement of the socialist democracy – broadening of the direct participation of the people in the government of the state ; economic freedom of the enterprises within the framework of an economy changed and armed with the new philosophy of central planning ; active shift towards selfgovernment of the municipalities and the economic units as a transition towards selfgoverning communities within a society of social homogeneity .

ORG is convinced of the need for the union of the political parties , movements and eminent personalities into CARDINAL political coalition GPE National Cooperation ‘ Civic Forum ’’ , as the most proper way out of the societal antagonisms and divisions .

The ORG shall advocate a policy of rapprochement between peoples which are at different sociopolitical stages of development ; of deepening of the economic , political and cultural ties between them . ORG ultimate aim is the ‘ constant improvement of FAC .

ORG is a party of a new type . It shall struggle for political power and shall work dedicatedly for the triumph of the communist ideal – building of a civil society with the economic nature of a society ruled by the principles of scientific socialism and the political nature of a society free of class divisions , political parties and movements : a society in which the vehicle of development shall be PERSON a universally developed and harmonious personality . ”

Articles DATE of the party ’s constitution dealt with membership in the party and the ORG rights and obligations . Article CARDINAL set out , inter alia , the grounds for expelling members .

Articles DATE of the constitution set out the organisational structure of the party and the powers of its organs .

Article CARDINAL of the constitution , which described the party ’s symbols , stated , inter alia , that they stood for the “ idea of a revolutionary sociopolitical order ” .

On DATE the applicant , in his capacity of chairman of the party , applied to ORG to have it registered .

The court held a hearing on DATE . It noted that the manner of liquidation of the party had not been provided for in its constitution , that the declarations submitted by the founders were incomplete , and that there were certain other irregularities . Accordingly , it adjourned the case for DATE with a view to allowing the party to remedy the deficiencies it had spotted .

NORP In order to rectify the deficiencies noted by the court , the applicant and the other founders held another meeting on DATE and decided to amend the party ’s constitution . On DATE they submitted the amendments and updated declarations to the court , which admitted them in evidence .

A second hearing took place on DATE .

In a decision of DATE ORG refused to register the party , holding :

“ In the course of the proceedings the court found that the applicants have failed to comply with the requirements of sections CARDINAL , DATE and DATE ) of LAW [ of DATE ] , in order to make the entering of the party in the register possible . [ The case - file contains ] TIME from the general meeting of the [ party ] held on DATE , which are not duly signed . The introduction to the party ’s constitution contains aims which are identical to the aims of other , already registered parties . The party ’s structure is not fully and clearly set out [ in its constitution ] ; the powers of its different organs are not clearly described , are repeated in the different provisions of the party ’s constitution and thus the powers [ of the party ’s organs ] are not clearly spelled out . The party ’s constitution does not specify the manner of termination of membership in the party . ”

On DATE the applicant appealed to a threemember panel of ORG .

The court held a hearing on DATE .

On DATE the threemember panel of ORG upheld the lower court ’s decision . It opined :

“ The name of ORG of GPE formally does not already exist in the register [ of political parties ] , but it does not set it apart from an already registered party – [ ORG ] , as required by section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the [ LAW of DATE ] , because in fact it contains the same words ; their rearranging does not change the purport and the essence of the political party . This name does not individualise it and does not clearly set it apart from another , already registered party .

[ The party ’s ] aims , as indicated in part I of its constitution ... are contrary to section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the [ Political Parties Act of DATE ] .

The manner of termination of membership in the party is not set out [ in its constitution ] , contrary to section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the [ LAW of DATE ] . ”

On DATE the applicant lodged a petition for review with a fivemember panel of ORG .

A hearing was held on DATE .

NORP In a final decision of CARDINAL DATE the fivemember panel of ORG dismissed the petition in the following terms :

“ The impugned decisions should not be quashed first and foremost because the name of the party – ORG of GPE – does not set it apart from other parties , in violation of section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the [ LAW of DATE ] , as correctly found by the CARDINAL courts below . The name is an individualising feature of the party and for that reason it should not duplicate [ the names of ] other parties , organisations and movements , which may ... engage in political activities . The rule of section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the [ LAW of DATE ] concerning the party ’s name sets the bounds of the ORG autonomy and initiative in choosing the name . [ The founders ] must see to it that from a grammatical and a logical point of view there is no duplication of the purport and the essence [ of the name ] with the name of another party .

In the case at hand the separate words which constitute the party ’s name , on the one hand , and the particular wording used , on the other , although not identical to those used in other existing parties’ names , convey a similar meaning . The name “ ORG of GPE ” uses the ideological term “ communist ” , which term , viewed in a historical context , resembles a party from the not so distant DATE ORG DATE and also resembles ORG ... even though there is a rearrangement of the words ...

Regarding the contents of the party ’s constitution , as required by section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the [ LAW of DATE ] , the courts [ below ] have correctly found that the constitution does not indicate the manner of termination of membership in the party . [ The constitution sets forth ] rules about the admission [ of new members ] , about the ORG rights and the obligations and the [ penalties which may be imposed on them ] , but there are no rules regarding the termination of the membership . Likewise , the powers of the [ party ’s ] organs and its organisational structure are chaotically scattered throughout its constitution .

The [ courts below ] have correctly found that the aims of the party are contrary to section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the [ LAW of DATE ] . Part I of the constitution indicates that the main aim of the party [ is ] the ‘ revolutionary change of NORP society’ and the support for the idea of a revolutionary sociopolitical order – part V of the constitution . ”

It appears that in GPE CARDINAL other political parties are registered with the word “ communist ” in their names , e.g. ORG ( PERSON единна комунистическа партия “ ) , ORG of the NORP ( PERSON комунистическа партия на болшевиките “ ) , Renewed ORG ( PERSON комунистическа партия “ ) , ORG “ PERSON ( PERSON комунистическа партия ‘ GPE Димитров’ “ ) , ORG “ LOC ” ( PERSON комунистическа партия ‘ Родина’ “ ) .

In DATE the ORG registered a party named ORG . On DATE it changed its name into ORG of GPE , which fact was likewise registered by ORG in a decision of DATE , and published in ORG on DATE ( ДВ , бр. CARDINAL от CARDINAL декември DATE г. ) .

The relevant provisions of the LAW of DATE read as follows :

“ CARDINAL . Citizens may freely associate .

Organisations whose activity is directed against the sovereignty [ or ] the territorial integrity of the country and the unity of the nation , towards the incitement of racial , national , ethnical or religious enmity ... as well as organisations which seek to achieve their goals through violence are prohibited .

The law shall specify the organisations which are subject to registration , the manner of their dissolution , as well as their relations with the ORG . ”

The relevant provisions of LAW of DATE ( „ Закон за политическите партии “ ) , as in force at the relevant time , read :

“ No political party shall be founded :

[ which is ] aimed against the sovereignty and the territorial integrity of the country , [ or ] the rights and freedoms of its citizens ;

whose aims are contrary to the LAW and the laws of the country ;

NORP [ which is based ] on ethnicity or religion , or [ aims ] to spur racial , national , ethnical or religious hatred ;

NORP which advocates a fascist ideology , or tries to achieve its goals through violence or other unlawful means . ”

“ A political party shall be formed at a founding meeting upon the agreement of CARDINAL enfranchised citizens . The founding meeting shall adopt its constitution and elect the management organs . ”

“ The constitution of a political party shall set forth : its name , which shall set it apart from other parties ; its seat ; its aims and objectives ; the manner of becoming a member and of terminating the membership ; the rights and obligations of the members ; the managing organs ; the party ’s symbols ; the sources of financing , as well as the manner and conditions for the party ’s liquidation . ”

“ CARDINAL . The political party shall be entered in a separate register kept by ORG , on application by the organ which represents it according to its constitution .

NORP The application shall be accompanied by copies of : TIME of the founding meeting , the party ’s constitution , and a list of the names and addresses of the members of the party ’s managing organ , which represents it according to its constitution .

“ A political party ceases to exist :

when it is dissolved by decision of ORG [ of Cassation ] . ”

“ CARDINAL . [ A political party may be dissolved ] upon the proposal of ORG , if the party engages in activities which run counter to section CARDINAL [ of this Act ] .

NORP The decision of ORG [ of Cassation ] to dissolve a party may be appealed to a CARDINAL - member panel [ of that court ] . ”

By section CARDINAL ) and ( CARDINAL ) of LAW of DATE , in force until DATE , a party could be dissolved by decision of ORG on the application of a public prosecutor if , inter alia , the party systematically contravened the LAW ’s provisions , its activities ran counter to the provisions of the LAW , or it had been declared unconstitutional by ORG . By section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) and ( CARDINAL ) of LAW of DATE , presently in force , ORG , acting pursuant to the application of a public prosecutor , may order the dissolution of a party if its activities systematically contravenes the LAW ’s requirements or the provisions of the LAW .


ORGANISATION NATIONALE DES SYNDICATS D'INFIRMIERS LIBÉRAUX (ONSIL) v. FRANCE

The applicant is a trade union whose head office is in GPE and whose object is to defend the interests of self - employed nurses . It is represented before the ORG by Mr PERSON of ORG .

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

Since the enactment of the PERSON of DATE , relations between members of the medical profession , notably nurses , and the social - security bodies have been governed by collective bargaining agreements made between the trade unions representing the various branches of the profession and the social - security bodies . The agreements do not become effective until they have received relevant ministerial approval .

After the ORG d’État had twice quashed decrees approving the collective bargaining agreement applicable to the nursing profession ( in judgments of CARDINAL DATE and DATE ) a third agreement was entered into on DATE and approved by interministerial decree on DATE .

Immediately after that agreement was signed , the applicant and several other trade unions expressed opposition to it and indicated that they intended to lodge an appeal in the courts once the ministerial decree approving the agreement had been published in ORG .

On DATE ORG adopted PERSON no . CARDINAL - CARDINAL implementing various health , welfare and regulatory measures . LAW provided : “ The ... decree of DATE approving the national collective bargaining agreement entered into with the nursing profession on DATE is hereby ratified ” .

On DATE the applicant lodged an application for judicial review with the ORG d’État seeking an order quashing the decree of DATE as being ultra vires and an order for the ORG to pay it MONEY for the costs incurred . In its written submissions of DATE the applicant maintained in particular that LAW no . CARDINAL contravened Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL and LAW .

On DATE the ORG d’État dismissed that application on the ground that : “ by virtue of the provisions [ of PERSON no . QUANTITY ] , which entered into force before the application was lodged , the lawfulness of the decree which the applicant seeks to have quashed can not in principle be challenged by way of judicial review as being an ultra vires act ” . As to the argument that the statute concerned was incompatible with the provisions of the Convention , the Conseil d’État held that challenging the lawfulness of the impugned regulatory measure did not come within the scope of the ORG relied on .


Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Art. 2 (substantive aspect);Violation of Art. 2 (procedural aspect);Non-pecuniary damage - award

David Thór Björgvinsson;Giovanni Bonello;Lech Garlicki;Ledi Bianku;Mihai Poalelungi;Nicolas Bratza

The applicant was born in DATE and lived in GPE .

On DATE the applicant was arrested by the police . On DATE ORG ( Sąd Rejonowy ) decided to place the applicant in pre - trial detention in view of the reasonable suspicion that he had been involved in drug trafficking as part of an organised criminal gang . In particular , the applicant was suspected of having participated in the recruitment of persons used for international drug trafficking .

The applicant ’s pre - trial detention was extended on several occasions .

On DATE the applicant was indicted before ORG .

The applicant , who had suffered CARDINAL heart attacks in DATE , submitted that his health deteriorated after his arrest . On DATE he consulted a cardiologist . On DATE ORG ( PERSON ) decided that there were no reasons militating against the applicant ’s detention , provided that the detention centre in which he was detained possessed a hospital wing .

In DATE the applicant and several co - accused were indicted before ORG ( PERSON ) .

On DATE the applicant consulted a non - prison doctor who prescribed a coronary angiography ( koronografia ) . The applicant submitted that he had not been informed of this .

On DATE ORG again found that the applicant could be held in a detention centre if it had a hospital wing .

On DATE the applicant was again examined by a nonprison doctor who confirmed the need for a coronary angiography . The applicant submitted that the prison authorities refused to carry out this procedure . He complained about this to ORG in GPE .

DATE the applicant was treated in the hospital wing of the detention centre .

On DATE ORG extended the applicant ’s detention , finding that the grounds for it remained valid . On DATE the court dismissed the applicant ’s request for release finding that the applicant ’s state of health was not incompatible with detention .

The applicant ’s detention was subsequently extended by ORG on DATE , on the ground of the reasonable suspicion against him .

In DATE the trial court decided to return the case to the prosecutor and to join the investigation to another case concerning organised crime . On DATE ORG ordered the applicant ’s detention in connection with this set of criminal proceedings .

On DATE the prison authorities replied to ORG regarding the applicant ’s health care . The authorities stated that the applicant had been examined by doctors on several occasions and that the cardiologist had not ordered the coronary angiography but had only suggested it as one of several possible treatments . The applicant ’s state of health did not preclude detention and he could receive any necessary treatment in the hospital wing of the detention centre . They reiterated that the applicant was detained in a detention centre which had hospital facilities and that , if necessary , he would be hospitalised .

On DATE the applicant was transferred to the FAC detention centre , which had no hospital wing . The applicant argued that this was in reprisal for his complaint to ORG . In DATE the applicant lost consciousness and was transferred to FAC , where he remained for DATE .

On DATE and DATE ORG , upon an application from ORG ( Prokurator Okręgowy ) , further extended the applicant ’s pretrial detention , relying on the reasonable suspicion that he had committed the offences in question and on the complexity of the case , which justified the continuation of the investigation .

On DATE ORG ( Sąd Apelacyjny ) , on an application from the prosecutor , decided to further extend the applicant ’s detention until DATE . In addition to the existence of a reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed the offences , the court relied on the complexity of the case , the severity of the anticipated penalty and the need to secure the proper conduct of the investigation . Finally , the court found no evidence that the applicant , and CARDINAL other co - accused , should be released from detention due to their various health conditions . The court added , however , that it was for the prosecutor to order a medical examination of the accused and to reach a decision regarding their further detention .

On DATE ORG ( Sąd Najwyższy ) decided to amend ORG decision and extended the applicant ’s detention pending the outcome of the investigation until DATE .

On DATE ORG , on another application from the appellate prosecutor , decided to extend the applicant ’s pre - trial detention , and that of CARDINAL co - accused , until DATE . The court repeated the reasons given in previous decisions .

On DATE a coronary angiography and other tests were carried out in ORG . The applicant submitted that the results of the tests provided evidence of his very serious state of health and proof that his life was in danger .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s appeal against the decision of DATE extending his detention . The appellate court , referring to the applicant ’s state of health , established that he could be detained and treated in the prison hospital until DATE surgery .

On DATE the applicant was examined by doctors from ORG , who ordered that he should undergo heart surgery in a non - prison hospital . A medical certificate of DATE , issued by ORG , confirmed the need to carry out a coronary artery bypass graft ( ORG , a so - called heart bypass operation ) .

On DATE the applicant was transferred to ORG in GPE , as the surgery was to be carried out in ORG .

On numerous occasions the applicant applied to be released from detention . He justified these requests by referring to the state of his health and the fact that his imminent surgery could not be carried out in the hospital wing of the detention centre but necessitated his release from detention . Nevertheless , on DATE the court further extended the pretrial detention of the applicant and his co - accused . The decision did not contain any particular reference to the applicant ’s health .

On DATE the applicant was indicted before ORG .

NORP In DATE the applicant was examined by doctors in ORG , who agreed to carry out laser heart surgery on the applicant .

On DATE ORG again extended the applicant ’s detention . The court found :

“ In the instant case , [ the applicant ] was arrested on DATE and detained on remand on DATE by the decision of ORG .

On DATE the pre - trial detention of CARDINAL co - accused was extended until DATE . The procedural grounds therefore justify the extension of detention also with respect to [ the applicant ] until DATE . Moreover , there are no grounds for lifting his pre - trial detention under LAW .

As [ the applicant ’s ] pre - trial detention has lasted for DATE and DATE , it is necessary to schedule the date of the hearing and to plan the trial so that the provisions of the [ NORP Code of Criminal Proceedings ] and LAW ] are respected - that is , the right to a trial within a reasonable time . ”

The applicant lodged an appeal against the decision but on DATE ORG dismissed it .

ORG scheduled laser heart surgery on the applicant and ordered that he be admitted to ORG . The applicant ’s representative submitted that the applicant was never informed of this . The Government submitted that the surgery could not take place on that date on account of prolonged renovation work to ORG .

DATE and DATE the applicant was hospitalised in the GPE prison hospital for pneumonia .

On DATE ORG sent a letter to the applicant , informing him that the second appointment for his laser heart surgery had been scheduled for DATE . The applicant submitted that the letter was delayed and that he had been informed about it after the date in question . From the copy of the envelope submitted by the applicant ’s wife , it appears that the letter was posted on DATE ; a stamp indicates that it was delivered to the registry of ORG on DATE [ Sekretariat , NORP Śledczy PERSON ; CARDINAL PERSON . DATE ] . The envelope is marked “ registered post - v. urgent ” [ polecony DATE b. pilne ] and contains the following stamp “ Censored CARDINAL ” [ Ocenzurowano ] . The Government maintained that this letter never arrived at FAC and that the authorities had not been aware that the Institute had scheduled the date of the applicant ’s surgery .

ORG again rescheduled the date of the applicant ’s heart surgery and gave him an appointment for DATE . It appears that this notification was delivered to the detention centre by the applicant ’s lawyer in person .

On DATE the applicant was examined by ORG , which gave a decision on DATE . The decision contained a reference to his medical record and the information that he would be admitted to undergo surgery at ORG on DATE . The decision states :

“ CARDINAL . The ORG ’s decision -

It is necessary to change the preventive measure .

The grounds for the decision -

The patient requires surgical treatment at ORG . The date of admittance to the ORG is scheduled for DATE . Further ... detention is a threat to the patient ’s health . ”

This decision of ORG was not sent to the trial court until DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

On DATE ORG extended the pretrial detention of the applicant and the other co - accused for DATE . The court did not examine the applicant ’s state of health or any circumstance that would concern him individually .

On DATE Dr M.M. , from the hospital wing of ORG , issued a medical certificate , which was sent by fax to the trial court on DATE . The certificate stated :

“ The prisoner ’s complaints :

Has been treated for DATE for coronary thrombosis , hypertension . Had suffered heart attacks . Recent effort - related chest pain .

Established during examination :

Conscious , sound blood circulation and respiration ...

Diagnosis :

Ischaemic heart disease , has had heart attacks , currently has relatively sound blood circulation . Had pneumonia .

Conclusions :

At present he can participate in the court ’s hearings . The patient was examined by ORG on DATE . ”

On DATE the trial against the applicant and CARDINAL coccused started before ORG . The applicant was brought to the courtroom to attend the hearing of DATE . At the hearing the court informed the applicant ’s lawyer that a medical certificate of CARDINAL DATE had been submitted on DATE . In the light of the certificate , the court dismissed the applicant ’s request to sever the charges against him , holding that his health did not justify a separate examination of the case .

The applicant attended the second hearing on DATE .

At the next hearing , held on DATE , the applicant was heard and the statements given by him at the investigation stage were read out . The trial court adjourned the hearing until DATE .

On DATE the applicant was brought to the court room , where he lost consciousness before the hearing began . An ambulance was called . At TIME he was transferred back to the hospital wing of ORG . He was examined by a doctor , who considered that he did not require hospitalisation but was unfit to participate in the hearing on DATE . After examination in the hospital wing the applicant was transferred to his cell in the detention centre .

The hearing started later than scheduled , due to the commotion caused by the applicant ’s fainting and the arrival of the ambulance . The presiding judge enquired about the applicant ’s health by calling ORG and ORG . From the latter the judge learned that the applicant ’s admittance to the ORG was scheduled for DATE . The judge was also informed by the detention centre ’s authorities that the applicant had been examined by ORG on DATE but that the report had not yet been confirmed by the relevant medical authorities , and thus could not be submitted to the court . Nevertheless , at the second break in the hearing , ORG sent the presiding judge , by fax , ORG decision , which concluded that the applicant ’s continued detention represented a risk to his health ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

On DATE at TIME the applicant was examined by a doctor from the hospital wing of the detention centre on account of a worsening of his health . The doctor issued a certificate stating that the applicant did not require hospitalisation but was unfit to participate in the hearing on DATE .

At TIME on DATE the applicant was taken from his cell to the hospital wing of ORG ; he was unconscious . The medical team managed to resuscitate the applicant , so that he began breathing on his own again and his heart beat was restored . They also attempted to locate a hospital that would admit him . The applicant was taken in a serious condition to hospital in FAC , GPE , where he died on DATE without regaining consciousness .

On DATE the trial court decided to examine the charges against the applicant in a separate set of proceedings , as his health prevented him from participating in the hearings . The court further decided to release the applicant from detention on DATE and to transfer him on that date to ORG for surgery .

On DATE ORG decided to discontinue the criminal proceeding against the applicant on the ground that he had died on DATE . On DATE the trial court convicted CARDINAL defendants and sentenced them to prison terms varying from DATE .

DATE . On DATE the applicant ’s wife requested ORG to start an investigation into the applicant ’s death . On DATE ORG made a similar request , informing the prosecutor that the applicant had not received adequate medical care in FAC .

On DATE a post - mortem examination of the applicant ’s body was carried out by ORG ( PERSON w GPE ) . The examination concluded that the cause of the applicant ’s death was acute coronary insufficiency , given the advanced stage of his heart disease .

On DATE ORG initiated an investigation into the allegations that the applicant ’s death had been caused by the failure of the doctors in FAC to secure him adequate medical care .

On DATE the prosecutor heard the applicant ’s wife . She described how her husband ’s health had constantly deteriorated , as observed by her during her regular bi - monthly visits . His serious health problems started when he was transferred to FAC , where there was no hospital facility . After he lost consciousness he spent DATE in a hospital , and at that time he underwent a coronary angiography . On his return to ORG , his health deteriorated further and he had been coughing badly , and suffered from chest pain . His complaints , however , were dismissed on each occasion by the prison doctor , a general practitioner . Only after collapsing DATE was he transferred to ORG , where he was diagnosed with pneumonia and treated accordingly . At that time it was recommended that he undergo heart bypass surgery . During the hearings which started DATE before his death the applicant was in very poor health . The applicant ’s wife also testified that he had received notification about the first scheduled operation in ORG , set for DATE , but only after that date . She went to ORG to obtain the second appointment for DATE , which she personally transmitted to the applicant ’s lawyer so that he could notify the detention centre . However , the applicant passed away before that date .

On DATE the prosecutor heard the Head of ORG . She testified that the applicant had stayed in her ward until DATE because he had pneumonia and was being prepared for a bypass operation , to be carried out in ORG . Since the operation could not be carried out at that time , the applicant was returned to his cell in the detention centre .

On the same date the prosecutor questioned a doctor working at the prison hospital , who was consulted by the applicant in DATE , on CARDINAL occasions in DATE , on CARDINAL occasion in DATE and on DATE .

On DATE the prosecutor heard another doctor , employed in the prison hospital , who had treated the applicant during his stay in the hospital , that is , until DATE . Like the previous witness , this doctor did not believe that the applicant had been simulating , had complained excessively or had not been following the doctor ’s recommendations .

On DATE and DATE the prosecutor heard PERSON who worked in the hospital wing of ORG . He stated that , according to a note made by him in the applicant ’s medical record , on DATE he learned that ORG had decided to admit the applicant . He forwarded this request to the prison authorities , as it was necessary to obtain a decision from ORG . The prosecutor showed the witness a copy of the letter from ORG of DATE , stating that the date of the applicant ’s admittance to hospital was scheduled for DATE . The witness was unable to ascertain whether he had previously seen this letter or whether his annotation in the applicant ’s medical record of DATE had been made in connection with it .

On DATE a doctor from ORG was heard by the prosecutor . She testified that in DATE ORG requested the Institute to examine the applicant . He was diagnosed with coronary thrombosis and recommended for a laser operation . The witness stated :

“ On DATE a letter was sent to the detention centre with a request to stop administering aspirin to Mr GPE ; it also set the date of his admittance to ORG . The patient did not show up . Again the patient was invited for DATE he did not turn up . The third summons was for DATE – he did not show up . We received information that the patient had died on DATE ( we received this information from a judge ) . As far as I know the patient did not show up because he had not obtained leave from the detention centre , and we had not agreed to conduct the operation in the presence of guards as we had no conditions for that ( moreover , we had repair work going on at that time ) . ”

The witness also stated that the applicant ’s wife , who had apparently learned about the planned date of the operation , had informed the hospital administration about the difficulties experienced by the applicant in obtaining leave from the detention centre . The hospital ’s administration had contacted ORG and learned that the decision on whether or not to grant the leave would be taken before DATE . The doctor also confirmed that a judge from ORG had called the hospital on DATE , enquiring whether the applicant had an operation scheduled and saying that a fax with this information had been sent to the court .

Finally , on DATE the prosecutor questioned another doctor from the prison hospital , who had treated the applicant on CARDINAL and DATE . He testified that on DATE the applicant was brought back from the court hearing at TIME suffering from chest pain . He conducted an ORG test and administered medication so that the applicant ’s condition was stable . The witness considered that the applicant had not required hospitalisation but issued a certificate stating that he should not attend the hearing on DATE . At CARDINAL p.m. on DATE the applicant was brought from his cell on a stretcher ; he was unconscious , had no heart beat and was not breathing . After resuscitation his heart beat was restored and he began to breathe independently . The witness ordered an ambulance and contacted hospitals to find one which would admit the applicant . Finally , the fourth hospital , located on FAC , agreed to admit the applicant .

The prosecutor also requested ORG to clarify when the letter of DATE from ORG , informing the authorities of the applicant ’s scheduled admittance on DATE for surgery , had reached the detention centre . According to the Government , the Head of ORG replied that there was no evidence that such a letter had ever arrived at the detention centre ; however , the letter informing about DATE for surgery , scheduled for DATE , had reached the detention centre on DATE .

On DATE ORG confirmed to the prosecutor that the letters indicating the dates of the applicant ’s admittance to ORG DATE and DATE ) had been sent by ordinary mail to ORG .

On DATE the prosecutor ordered the ORG to prepare an expert opinion . The prosecutor asked the experts to answer following questions :

“ CARDINAL . Was the death of PERSON a consequence of :

- unsuccessful medical treatment for which nobody can be held responsible ( niezawinione niepowodzenie lekarskie ) ,

- medical malpractice ,

- failure to apply due diligence during his medical treatment at FAC and hospital in FAC ,

- other circumstances , different from the above ?

Did the state of health of PERSON allow him to remain in the detention centre and to participate in the trial , including lengthy court hearings ? ”

In DATE the experts submitted their opinion to the prosecutor . The experts relied on the applicant ’s medical file and on the post - mortem examination . They concluded as follows :

“ ... in answer to question no . CARDINAL , we consider that [ the applicant ’s ] death was the consequence of unsuccessful medical treatment for which nobody could be held responsible . Having analysed the file , we find that there was no medical malpractice during the period between the applicant ’s arrest and his death . On the basis of the submitted documents we can not perceive any lack of diligence during his treatment in the detention centre and in hospital in FAC . We have , however , reservations about the fact that the date of the applicant ’s cardio - surgical intervention was rescheduled twice ( a conclusive elucidation of the grounds for this ‘ ORG is not within the competence of the undersigned experts ) . Nevertheless , the type and extent of changes in the heart muscle , as established by the post - mortem examination , do not allow [ us ] to conclude if , and to what extent , the surgery would have led to improvement in the functioning of the applicant ’s left ventricle of the heart .

Ad CARDINAL .

In response to the second question , it should be noted that when the applicant ’s health was clearly deteriorating and in connection with the approaching surgery , ORG gave a decision on the necessity of changing the preventive measure , as a continued stay in detention constituted a threat to the patient ’s health . On the basis of the documents collected , it is not possible to establish the period when medical indications appeared indicating a need to change the preventive measure .

We believe that it is impossible to establish beyond doubt a causal link between the deterioration in the applicant ’s health and his participation in the trial . ”

On DATE ORG discontinued the investigation . The decision reads :

“ On DATE the ORG informed ORG of the possibility that an offence had been committed under LAW . It appears from the request that on DATE the applicant was called from his cell for transferral to the court hearing , and that his state of health subsequently deteriorated . Attempts were made until TIME to resuscitate him in the hospital of the detention centre . In TIME he was taken to hospital in FAC where , on DATE , he died .

Following the post - mortem examination the expert from ORG established that the cause of [ the applicant ’s ] death had been acute coronary insufficiency , given the advanced stage of [ his heart disease ] . In the expert ’s opinion there was no evidence that would allow [ him ] to establish that the applicant ’s pneumonia had had a bearing on his death . [ The Head of the Prison Hospital ] testified that [ the applicant ] had been on her ward DATE he was admitted on DATE with symptoms of pneumonia and was released on DATE in good condition . He was again admitted to the hospital on DATE and he was transferred to hospital in FAC after TIME

An expert opinion from the ORG was ordered for the purpose of establishing the circumstances of [ the applicant ’s ] death .

From the submitted expert opinion it appears that the applicant ’s death was a consequence of unsuccessful medical treatment for which nobody could be held responsible . Having analysed the file the experts were unable to find evidence of medical malpractice during the period between the applicant ’s arrest and his death , could not perceive any [ missing : lack of diligence ] during his treatment in the detention centre and subsequently in hospital in FAC . In the experts’ view it had not been possible to establish beyond doubt a causal link between the deterioration in the applicant ’s health and his participation in the trial .

In the light of the above it must be established that the evidence gathered does not allow the conclusion that [ the applicant ’s ] death was a consequence of the actions or omissions of third persons .

Accordingly it has been decided as above . ”

The applicant ’s wife , supported by ORG , lodged an appeal against this decision . She complained that the prosecutor had failed to examine thoroughly the allegations raised in her request to initiate the proceedings . In particular , there had been no examination of why , having lost consciousness in the court room on DATE , the applicant was not immediately taken to hospital but was returned to the detention centre .

On DATE ORG dismissed the appeal , reiterating the prosecutor ’s findings that the applicant ’s death was “ unsuccessful medical treatment ” . The court had not made any new findings relating to the course of the events . It noted that the information about the surgery scheduled for DATE had not reached ORG . However , on DATE the detention centre received information that the surgery could take place on DATE , provided that the applicant received authorisation . The court further established that on DATE ORG had given a decision finding that a further stay in detention would pose a risk for the applicant ’s health ; that ruling had been validated by the Head of the Panel on DATE . Previously , on DATE , the Head Doctor of ORG had ordered that the decision be supplemented by a copy of the results of the coronary angiography . On DATE the ORG ’s decision was faxed to the trial court , at whose disposal the applicant remained . The court concluded :

“ Taking into account the above circumstances , and the fact that it was not possible to establish a causal link between the applicant ’s participation in the trial [ and the deterioration in his health ] or to establish whether , and to what extent , the surgery would have led to an improvement in the functioning of the applicant ’s left ventricle of the heart , it must be concluded that the prosecutor was right in finding no evidence in the circumstances of the instant case pointing to the commission of an offence , and that the prosecutor ’s decision was based on LAW . Accordingly , the impugned decision shall be upheld . ”

On DATE the applicant ’s wife lodged a civil claim with ORG , seeking compensation in connection with her husband ’s death . She maintained that her late husband had not received proper medical treatment in the detention centre and had been obliged to participate in the hearings despite his poor state of health . The applicant ’s wife applied for legal aid , submitting that her DATE income , comprising her salary as a cleaning lady and disability benefit for her daughter , who suffered from cerebral palsy , was equivalent to FAC . The applicant ’s representative submitted that the court had exempted her from paying court fees but had dismissed her application for legal aid .

On DATE ORG dismissed the claim . The court examined the treatment that the applicant had undergone since his arrest in DATE and the prosecutor ’s case file concerning the investigation into the applicant ’s death . It found that ORG could not be held liable for damage , as it had not been established that the applicant ’s death had been caused by unlawful actions or omissions of the detention centre officials . In addition the court found that the applicant had failed to prove that her financial situation had deteriorated as a result of her husband ’s death .

The applicant ’s wife appealed against the judgment .

DATE . On DATE ORG dismissed the appeal . The court agreed with the first - instance court ’s assessment that the applicant ’s wife had not sustained damage as a consequence of her husband ’s death , and that her claim had thus been ill - founded . The court also dismissed as unsubstantiated the applicant ’s complaints that the prison authorities had contributed to her husband ’s death by failing to provide him adequate medical care .

The applicant failed to lodge a cassation appeal with ORG against that judgment . She did not apply to a court to have a legal - aid lawyer appointed for the purpose of lodging such appeal on her behalf .

The relevant domestic law and practice concerning the imposition of pre - trial detention ( aresztowanie tymczasowe ) , the grounds for its extension , release from detention and the rules governing other , socalled “ preventive measures ” ( środki zapobiegawcze ) are set out in the ORG ’s judgments in the cases of ORG v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , § § DATE , CARDINAL DATE and PERSON v. GPE , no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , § § DATE , CARDINAL DATE .

The Code sets out the margin of discretion as to the continuation of a specific preventive measure . In so far as relevant , Article CARDINAL provides :

“ CARDINAL . Pre - trial detention shall not be imposed if another preventive measure is sufficient . ”

The relevant part of Article CARDINAL provides :

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

( CARDINAL ) seriously jeopardise his life or health ; or

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


András Sajó;David Thór Björgvinsson;Françoise Tulkens;Giorgio Malinverni;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque

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

In DATE , after GPE had re - established independence , the applicant and PERSON started working at ORG ( ORG apsaugos departamentas ) .

On TIME of CARDINAL DATE the NORP army launched military operations against GPE . NORP troops entered the television tower of GPE and the headquarters of NORP public television , and also tried to take the NORP parliament . Massive crowds of NORP citizens came to the rescue of the institutions of the newly independent GPE . CARDINAL NORP civilians were killed and CARDINAL injured during the clash with the NORP army ( see PERSON v. GPE [ ORG ] , no . CARDINAL , § CARDINAL , ORG CARDINALIV ) . At the time of the events , the applicant and ORG were on the premises of the NORP parliament building , where they worked as guards .

In DATE a publishing house released a book by ORG According to the applicant , it contained false and defamatory information about him .

On DATE the applicant addressed the publishing house requesting the opportunity to respond critically to the content of the book . In his letter to the publisher the applicant described ORG negatively and criticised ORG ’s actions during the events of DATE . The applicant ’s letter contained allegations that ORG had deserted his post at the barricades of the ORG building and that he had not passed the psychiatric check for permission to carry a gun .

Following these events , on DATE ORG brought a private prosecution against the applicant for defamation . The applicant made a counterclaim , alleging that ORG had defamed him in his private prosecution statement .

The applicant states that during the initial examination of the case by ORG he was undergoing medical treatment . He asked for a longer break before the later hearings , for health reasons . The applicant states that the judge suggested that he did not have to be present at the final CARDINAL hearings of his case , at which ORG was due to give his final submissions and judgment would be adopted . The applicant admits that no request for a longer break was noted in the official hearing record . Although the applicant then informed the court that he would not be present at the CARDINAL final hearings , they were not postponed .

On DATE the FAC found the applicant guilty of defamation , given that his statements that “ J.U. had deserted his post during the tragic events of DATE ” and “ ORG had not passed the psychiatric check for permission to carry a gun ” had not been proved . The applicant was fined CARDINAL NORP litai ( ORG , MONEY ( ORG ) ) and ordered to pay compensation for non - pecuniary damage in the sum of LTL MONEY ( EUR CARDINAL ) . The court terminated the proceedings in so far as the counterclaim by the applicant was concerned . ORG and his lawyer , as well as the applicant , were present at the hearing .

In finding the applicant guilty , the court noted that the applicant had failed to submit credible evidence in support of his statement that ORG had deserted his post . In this connection the court noted that in an official document ORG ’s superior had given a positive evaluation of ORG ’s behaviour during the events of DATE . The submissions of CARDINAL independent witness , PERSON , questioned in the courtroom , were also taken into account . The court further established that the statement that ORG had not passed the psychiatric check for permission to carry a firearm was false , given that the medical records showed that he had passed the examination in respect of his mental health .

The applicant states that he saw the record of the hearing of DATE only on DATE , at TIME

The applicant appealed , mainly arguing that the trial court had distorted the testimony of GPE , had misunderstood the circumstances surrounding the events of DATE , and assessed the evidence and applied domestic law wrongly .

On DATE ORG upheld the applicant ’s conviction . In the appellate proceedings the applicant was represented by a lawyer . As the transcript of the hearing on appeal shows , the court deemed it unnecessary to question witness PERSON , who had testified before the trial court , again , but granted the applicant ’s request to add written evidence to the file and to question CARDINAL more witnesses , GPE and PERSON One more witness , ORG , was questioned at the request of ORG

ORG dismissed the applicant ’s argument that the official transcript of the hearing was inaccurate , finding that the applicant had had the right to comment on the record of the hearing within DATE of its signing by the judge , if he believed there were mistakes or inconsistencies . However , he had not made use of this right . The court reviewed the findings of the lower court and decided that the latter had assessed the evidence correctly and reached reasoned conclusions . The appellate court also emphasised that GPE , who had testified before the trial court at the request of the applicant , could not unambiguously confirm the fact that PERSON had left his post at the barricades in DATE . Another witness , ORG , had testified that ORG had not deserted his post . The appellate court also noted that written evidence - a report by ORG ’s superior - stated that during the events of DATE ORG was “ holding firm ” .

Lastly , the court observed that the lower court had correctly concluded that the assertion that ORG had not passed the psychiatric check was a pejorative allusion to his mental health , and thus was damaging to his reputation . No procedural violations were found . This decision was final , as there is no right to appeal on points of law under the domestic law in private prosecution cases .

Subsequently , the applicant unsuccessfully tried to reopen the proceedings , alleging that the courts were unfair . His requests were dismissed by the public prosecutor and the GPE City Second ORG as unsubstantiated ; they found no procedural irregularities when handling the applicant ’s case at both levels of jurisdiction .

Articles CARDINAL of LAW provide that a participant in the criminal proceedings may raise an objection on the grounds of partiality of a judge .

Article CARDINAL § § CARDINAL of LAW provides that a transcript of a hearing must be prepared and signed by the judge who heard the case and the recording officer of the hearing DATE after the hearing took place . The participants in the proceedings have the right to acquaint themselves with the transcript within DATE of its signing . Any objections as to the accuracy of the transcript must be put to the judge who heard the case . If the judge agrees with the objections , he or she adds them to the transcript of the hearing . Should the judge deem that the original transcript was accurate , he may dismiss the participant ’s objections by adopting a ruling in a new hearing .

Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL of LAW provides that an appeal on points of law may not be lodged in cases of private prosecution .


Violation of Art. 6-1;Not necessary to examine Art. 6-3-c;Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed;Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient;Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings

The applicants , PERSON and PERSON , are NORP nationals . They were both born in DATE and live in GPE , GPE .

On DATE the applicants were taken into custody by the PERSON on suspicion of being members of an illegal organisation , namely , the DHKP - C ( Revolutionary ORG ) . The applicants were kept in custody until DATE . They were interrogated by the police on DATE in the absence of their lawyers .

On DATE the applicants were brought before ORG and then before a judge . On both occasions they repeated their statements of DATE . The applicants were released on DATE . They were not represented by lawyers .

On DATE the public prosecutor at ORG filed an indictment with the court and accused the applicants and CARDINAL other co - accused of aiding and abetting an illegal terrorist organisation and requested the court to apply LAW and LAW . ORG ( the Prevention of Terrorism Act DATE as amended ) .

On DATE the ORG requested the applicants ' observations on the charges against them for submission to ORG . According to TIME of the hearing which took place before ORG , the applicants did not want to be represented by lawyers . They challenged for the first time the authenticity of the statements which they gave to the police , to the public prosecutor and to the judge .

On DATE the applicants requested ORG not to require them to appear at any of the hearings since they had to attend school . This request was upheld by the court and the applicants were legally represented by CARDINAL lawyers in their absence in subsequent hearings .

On DATE ORG found the applicants guilty of aiding and abetting the DHKP - C , and sentenced them to DATE and DATE imprisonment . The court pointed out that the applicants ' defence statement to ORG alleging that they had been forced to repeat the prepared confession statements when brought before the public prosecutor and the judge on DATE was unconvincing . The court concluded that the applicants aided and abetted the DHKP - C by painting a slogan on a wall , distributing publications supporting ORG and putting up a placard in the entrance of a shop .

The applicants appealed on the ground that they were convicted on the basis of the statements they had given under duress and that there was , therefore , no concrete evidence on which they could be convicted .

On DATE ORG dismissed the appeal lodged by the applicants and upheld ORG decision . ORG noted in its decision that the applicants ' lawyers , despite having requested ORG to hold an appeal hearing , did not attend the hearing .

In accordance with established practice , the judgment of ORG of DATE was sent to ORG and deposited with that court 's Registry on DATE .

The applicants claim that they became aware of the decision on DATE .

On DATE the applicants applied for rectification of ORG decision on the ground that the preliminary investigation was unlawful having been conducted without their lawyer being present and given that they were minors at the date of the offences . The applicants ' rectification request was rejected on CARDINAL DATE .

The Court refers to the overview of the domestic law derived from previous submissions in other cases , in particular PERSON v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , § § DATE , DATE ) and PERSON v. GPE ( no . MONEY , § § DATE , DATE ) .


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

NORP The applicant , Mr ORG , is a NORP national who was born in DATE and is being held in custody in Daugavpils prison . He was represented before the ORG by PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE . ORG ( “ the Government ” ) were represented by their Agent , PERSON .

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

Criminal proceedings against the applicant

On DATE the applicant was arrested on suspicion of burglary . On DATE he was remanded in custody . On DATE a charge of burglary was brought against him . On DATE the detention order was lifted and the applicant was released .

On DATE the applicant was arrested on suspicion of burglary and the following day he was remanded in custody . The applicant was placed in NORP prison , which , at the time , had recently been converted into a remand centre ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . On DATE a charge of murder was brought against the applicant .

On DATE charges of burglary and aggravated murder were brought against the applicant and , after the applicant had become acquainted with the case materials , a final bill of indictment was issued on DATE .

On DATE ORG found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced him to DATE imprisonment . The applicant appealed against that judgment . His appeal was admitted on DATE .

The proceedings are currently pending and the next hearing before the appellate court is scheduled for DATE .

Applicant 's state of health while at liberty

On DATE the applicant was released from prison , where he had been serving a sentence following another set of criminal proceedings . Soon after his release , on DATE , he was admitted to ORG , where he was diagnosed with chronic pancreatitis and gastritis . He was treated in that hospital for DATE after which doctors recommended a course of outpatient treatment and advised him not to consume alcohol . He was also treated in that hospital from DATE . Doctors recommended a diet and prescribed PERSON , a non - prescription drug used for pancreatic enzyme replacement therapy , and advised him not to consume alcohol .

From DATE he was treated for chronic pancreatitis at ORG . From DATE he was again hospitalised . Among other illnesses , he was diagnosed with liver cirrhosis . He underwent several operations , including a laparotomy , and was prescribed antibiotics and anti - inflammatory drugs . Doctors recommended a course of outpatient treatment under the supervision of a general practitioner .

Applicant 's state of health while in custody

The applicant 's medical records kept by ORG contain no reference to the applicant 's state of health DATE , when he was first arrested , and DATE , when it appears that he was first seen by a prison doctor in PERSON prison . On that date he was diagnosed with chronic pancreatitis . He also had his lungs scanned as a result of which bronchitis was discovered . He was also seen by prison doctors on CARDINAL and DATE .

On DATE a prison doctor diagnosed him with liver cirrhosis and chronic pancreatitis . He was prescribed PERSON , which he had to pay for himself .

On DATE a prison doctor gave him PERSON and prescribed a further two days ' treatment of several medicines including pancreatin and PERSON , which he also had to pay for himself . On DATE a prison doctor noted that a previous course of therapy should be followed , while nutrition plan CARDINALB , which encourages the use of white bread , should be followed for DATE . On DATE the applicant 's condition deteriorated and on DATE he was sent to ORG in Central prison in GPE .

DATE the applicant was kept in ORG and was treated in relation to chronic pancreatitis , liver cirrhosis and chronic gastritis . While there , he received several courses of medication including medication for enzyme replacement therapy . Recommendations from doctors included the use of hepatoprotectors ( FAC ) for a duration of CARDINAL and a half months , twice a year . GPE is a product of plant origin with hepatoprotective and anti - oxidative qualities ; it is a non - prescription drug for additional therapy for chronic liver diseases , including liver cirrhosis . It is used for preventive purposes as well .

Upon his return to Daugavpils prison , on DATE a prison doctor prescribed Carsil to the applicant . Subsequently , the applicant was prescribed pancreatin and GPE on several occasions . In addition , nutrition plan CARDINALB was prescribed to the applicant for DATE and DATE . On CARDINAL occasion , the applicant was advised to buy pancreatin , which he had to pay for himself . Overall , the applicant was examined by a prison doctor on CARDINAL occasions in DATE and different drugs were prescribed , including GPE on CARDINAL occasions , pancreatin on CARDINAL occasions and PERSON on CARDINAL occasion . In addition , on several occasions in DATE , the applicant 's mother sent him pancreatin and PERSON .

In DATE the applicant 's state of health continued to be examined on a regular basis . Overall , he was examined on nineteen occasions . Among other things , the doctor prescribed several medicines and advised the applicant not to smoke . On CARDINAL occasion the doctor advised the applicant to buy pancreatin and , on another , the applicant was advised to buy hepatoprotectors . On CARDINAL occasions GPE was prescribed and on CARDINAL occasions he received white bread for DATE . In addition , from CARDINAL to CARDINAL DATE the applicant was treated in ORG and received further medication .

NORP In DATE the applicant 's state of health continued to be examined in Daugavpils prison where medication was prescribed on several occasions . On CARDINAL occasion the applicant was prescribed to follow nutrition plan CARDINALB and , on another , to receive white bread for DATE .

Review of complaints by the applicant

On DATE a prosecutor from ORG replied to the applicant that , pursuant to ORG no . CARDINAL ( DATE ) , only primary medical assistance was provided free of charge to detainees ; detained persons suffering from chronic illnesses had to pay for necessary medicine themselves .

On DATE the applicant complained to ORG ( “ MADEKKI ” ) that the medical assistance in NORP prison was inadequate . In particular , he complained that , as a person suffering from chronic pancreatitis and liver cirrhosis , he had not received adequate medical treatment or nutrition plan CARDINALB.

DATE and CARDINAL DATE an expert examined the applicant 's complaint in the course of administrative proceedings initiated by PERSON . She concluded as follows :

( a ) the applicant had been diagnosed with liver cirrhosis , chronic pancreatitis and chronic gastritis ;

( b ) the applicant had been examined by prison doctors on a DATE basis in DATE , he had received adequate treatment in compliance with ORG no . CARDINAL ( DATE ) ;

( c ) he had been examined and treated in ORG in DATE ; upon his release from hospital , it had been recommended that he use hepatoprotectors twice a year , which he had had to pay for himself ;

( d ) there had been no grounds for prescribing nutrition plan CARDINALB for the applicant in relation to his illnesses pursuant to ORG no . CARDINAL ( DATE ) even though a doctor had prescribed it to him on CARDINAL occasions ;

( e ) the applicant had also been placed in ORG in DATE in order to carry out medical analyses and examinations necessary for confirming the diagnoses .

On DATE PERSON decided to terminate the administrative proceedings on the basis of the expert 's conclusions and concluded that no breaches in relation to the applicant 's medical care had taken place . The applicant did not appeal against that decision .

On DATE ORG replied to the applicant that he had received nutrition in accordance with applicable domestic rules contained in LAW no . CARDINAL ( DATE ) and in LAW no . CARDINAL ( DATE ) . Those regulations had been drawn up in co - operation with ORG and ensure sufficient nutrition .

On DATE , following its second periodic visit to GPE , which had taken place from DATE to DATE , ORG for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman and Degrading Treatment or Punishment ( “ CPT ” ) published its report . The ORG had made a full visit to NORP prison and noted the following :

“ CARDINAL . FAC , which was built in DATE in the city centre , is a closed prison for male prisoners ( sentenced and on remand ) . Its official capacity had recently been increased from CARDINAL inmates . At the time of the visit , the establishment was holding CARDINAL prisoners , of whom CARDINAL were sentenced and CARDINAL on remand ( including CARDINAL juveniles ) . In addition , CARDINAL sentenced prisoners , held in a semi - open regime , were assigned to work in the establishment .

At FAC , the health care staff included CARDINAL full - time doctors ( general practitioner , narcologist and psychiatrist / narcologist ) and CARDINAL part - time doctors ( general practitioner , dentist and surgeon ) , as well as CARDINAL full - time feldshers and CARDINAL nurses ( including CARDINAL part - time ) . However , the establishment did not have a psychologist .

Health care staff were present on DATE between TIME and CARDINALhCARDINAL , and on DATE between CARDINALhCARDINAL and CARDINAL . Each shift comprised CARDINAL doctor , CARDINAL nurse and CARDINAL feldsher . For the rest of the time , a prisoner , who was working as an auxiliary within the health care unit , made an initial medical assessment of fellow inmates and then called the ambulance , if needed . On occasion , the Head Doctor was also called in outside TIME .

The ORG is seriously concerned about the absence of qualified health care staff at TIME in an establishment which accommodates CARDINAL prisoners and which , in addition , has an infirmary with in - patients . Further , to entrust a prisoner with the medical examination of fellow inmates is totally unacceptable .

At FAC , medical screening of newly - arrived prisoners was always performed by a doctor within TIME of admission . Blood tests ( in particular for HIV and syphilis ) were carried out with the prisoner 's consent , and a fluorogramme was organised . Medical record cards for each prisoner were well - kept . Medical records were sought from a prisoner 's previous doctor , if requested .

At Daugavpils Prison , the delegation gained a generally favourable impression of the quality of health care provided to prisoners . ...

In both establishments visited , the delegation received a number of complaints from prisoners about access to medical treatment ( especially regarding dental care ) . As in DATE , dental care was limited to emergency treatment and extractions ( cf . paragraph CARDINAL of the report on the DATE visit ) . The ORG reiterates its recommendation that the NORP authorities take steps to provide appropriate medical treatment - including conservative dental care - to all prisoners in NORP prisons ; this treatment should be free of charge for those prisoners who are not in a position to pay for it . ”

On DATE , following its ad hoc visit to GPE , which had taken place from CARDINAL to CARDINAL DATE , that is to say DATE prior to the applicant being placed in NORP prison , the ORG published its report . The ORG had visited Daugavpils prison and made the following remarks :

“ CARDINAL . All establishments visited have already been described in paragraph CARDINAL of the report on DATE visit . The general descriptions contained in that report still remain valid .

ORG had recently been formally transformed into a remand institution , although it was still accommodating sentenced prisoners as well . Its official capacity had been reduced from CARDINAL to CARDINAL places ( including CARDINAL juveniles ) . At the time of the DATE visit , the establishment was accommodating CARDINAL inmates , of whom CARDINAL were sentenced and CARDINAL on remand ( including CARDINAL juveniles ) .

At FAC , the delegation observed some improvements to the health - care services provided . By way of example , there were now CARDINAL well - equipped quarantine rooms and medical confidentiality was respected .

However , the ORG noted with concern that not all newly - arrived prisoners were medically screened upon admission . The lack of psychologists and a psychiatrist also constituted a serious shortcoming . Further , there was still no qualified health - care staff present at TIME . ”

NORP The relevant provision of ORG ( PERSON likums ) , in force at the material time , reads :

Section CARDINAL

“ The quality of professional health care and work disability expert examinations in medical treatment institutions shall be controlled by ORG .... ”

Cabinet Regulations no . CARDINAL ( DATE ) , in force at the material time and effective until DATE , provided as follows :

“ CARDINAL . Convicted persons shall receive free of charge the minimum standard of health care in accordance with the amount established by ORG . In addition , ORG , within its budgetary means , shall provide to convicted persons :

primary , secondary and ( in part ) tertiary medical care ;

emergency dental care ;

medical examinations ;

preventive and anti - epidemic measures ;

medication and injections prescribed by a doctor of the institution ;

medical accessories .

Detained persons shall receive medical care in accordance with LAW , excluding planned in - patient treatment ... Detained persons shall be sent to receive in - patient treatment only when acute circumstances are present .

Cabinet Regulations No . CARDINAL ( DATE ) , in force at the material time and effective until DATE , lay down nutrition guidelines for detainees held in pre - trial detention facilities . It provides that detainees who are ill shall receive nutrition plan CARDINALA. More specifically , detainees diagnosed with certain conditions , for example those who are HIV - positive , shall receive nutrition plan CARDINALB.


The applicants , Mr PERSON , Mr PERSON Fevzi Baybora , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON and PERSON . They were born in DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE respectively and live in GPE ( Kokkina ) , GPE . They are represented before the ORG by Mr PERSON and PERSON , lawyers practising in GPE .

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

The first applicant was living in ORG ( PERSON ) , GPE , when he was abducted on DATE by forces under the control and/or the responsibility of the respondent Government . The second and third applicants are the father and the mother of the first applicant . The other applicants are his brothers and sister .

The applicants submit that in DATE their village had run out of food supplies because hostilities between the CARDINAL communities had prevented any form of safe transportation of food . On DATE the first applicant , together with his friend , PERSON , who owned a bus , took this bus and headed towards the NORP - Cypriot town of GPE . On the way , whilst passing through the NORP - Cypriot village of GPE , he and his friend were abducted by a group of armed NORP , including a police officer , and taken to an unknown destination . They were never heard of again .

The persistent efforts of the relatives to ascertain the fate of the missing persons were in vain . Subsequently , on DATE , the first applicant ’s case was submitted to the appropriate authority on missing persons , ORG on ORG in GPE ( “ CMP ” ) ( case number CARDINAL ) .

According to the personal diary of a certain PERSON , a teacher from the NORP - Cypriot village of ORG , which was found in the possession of a NORP - Cypriot journalist , the missing persons were “ executed ” summarily in the NORP - Cypriot cemetery of NORP village by armed NORP Cypriots named ORG and Pari “ on the instructions of the ORG ” ( the code - name of the then Minister of ORG , ORG ) . Through the intermediary of the NORP - Cypriot member of the ORG , the relatives submitted this additional information to the ORG in the hope of finding out what really happened to the missing persons .

According to the applicants , a number of requests were made to the ORG to conduct an effective investigation into the fate of the first applicant and his friend . However , there was no response to their requests and no hint of any effective investigation having been undertaken . The third applicant wrote to ORG in GPE . He stated in his letter that all of their enquiries had so far borne no results and that ORG had persistently refused to investigate the matter . ORG answered by saying that it appeared that while the ORG may have investigated quite a number of cases submitted to it , it has not been able to bring any of these investigations to a conclusion because the ORG members have been unable to come to an agreement about the ORG ’s working methods .

The accidental discovery of human remains in DATE in the ORG region raised a hope for the applicants . However , a scientific report drafted by an NORP company , following the study of a bone sample , concluded that the individuals whose remains had been found had lived between CARDINAL and DATE .

On DATE ORG of the ORG sent to the ORG the following letter :

“ I am referring to the human remains which were accidentally discovered DATE in ORG . My letter dated CARDINAL , as well as your letter dated CARDINAL on this issue , are hereby appended for any reference .

Further to a conversation you had with PERSON concerning recent developments on the matter , I wish to inform you that on CARDINAL separate occasions , members of the team of ORG , assisted by our investigating officer and myself , searched the area for additional skeletal remains . All remains were subsequently taken to the laboratory of ORG for anthropological analysis , and for decent keeping .

Moreover , skeletal samples were sent to a laboratory in GPE for specialised tests in order to ascertain the period that the remains were buried . The report of the laboratory concerning the remains is appended , as well as a letter by Dr PERSON Director ORG .

We would be most grateful if you could inform accordingly ORG of the CMP of this development . We strongly suggest that the NORP family , which claimed in the press that the remains might belong to their missing father , should also be informed of the results of the scientific analysis by you too . We are at your entire disposal for any further information ... ” .