Preliminary objection rejected (non-exhaustion of domestic remedies);No violation of Art. 5-4

Mr PERSON , a farmer , lives in GPE , GPE . On DATE he was remanded in custody on a charge of armed robbery . During his detention on remand in GPE prison , he filed CARDINAL applications for release .

An investigating judge of the GPE tribunal de grande instance dismissed the first CARDINAL applications , lodged on DATE and DATE , by orders of CARDINAL DATE and DATE . No appeal was filed from the first order ; the second was confirmed by ORG of the Aix - en - ORG of Appeal on DATE .

On DATE the investigating judge also dismissed the third application , which had been made on DATE .

On DATE ORG found inadmissible the appeal filed by the applicant on DATE against that decision , which it declared void inasmuch as it had been made in respect of an application which did not comply with procedural requirements , not having been filed in the manner prescribed in LAW .

On CARDINAL DATE the applicant appealed to ORG , which received the file on DATE . On DATE it quashed the contested decision and remitted the case to ORG of ORG .

The file reached the registry on DATE . On DATE the principal public prosecutor at ORG notified the applicant that the hearing had been set down for DATE .

In a memorial of CARDINAL DATE Mr PERSON ’s lawyer complained of the failure to comply with the time - limit within which , according to LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , the appeal of CARDINAL DATE should have been examined . He also maintained that the matter had not been decided " speedily " , as required by LAW CARDINAL ( article CARDINAL ) of the Convention .

On DATE ORG declared the appeal of CARDINAL DATE ill - founded and confirmed the order made on DATE dismissing the application for release of DATE . It noted as follows :

The proceedings followed a normal course and in these circumstances it does not appear that there was a failure to comply with the provisions of LAW , as is claimed by ORG lawyer in his memorial .

On DATE the applicant appealed to ORG , alleging that ORG had not replied to the submission based on Article CARDINAL para . CARDINAL ( article CARDINAL ) of the Convention .

ORG dismissed this appeal on CARDINAL DATE , on the following grounds :

" ... ORG , which found , moreover correctly , that the judgment quashed had been given within the time - limit laid down in LAW , replied sufficiently , albeit implicitly , to the submission in the memorial before it complaining of a failure to comply with the time - limit , and was not open to the criticism levelled in the second limb of the submission , which must accordingly be dismissed ;

On DATE and CARDINAL DATE the applicant lodged his fourth and fifth applications for release . The investigating judge of the GPE tribunal de grande instance dismissed them by orders of DATE and CARDINAL DATE , which were upheld by ORG of the Aix - en - ORG of Appeal on DATE and CARDINAL DATE .

On the other hand , on DATE the investigating judge allowed the sixth and last application , which had been lodged DATE .

On DATE the investigating judge made an order finding that Mr PERSON had no case to answer .

On DATE , pursuant to LAW , the applicant sought MONEY in compensation for the detention on remand that he had undergone from CARDINAL DATE to CARDINAL DATE . On CARDINAL DATE ORG of ORG declared the claim admissible but ill - founded .

As applicable at the material time , the relevant provisions of LAW are as follows :

" Whatever the classification of the offence , the accused or his lawyer may lodge at any time with the investigating judge an application for release ...

The investigating judge shall immediately communicate the file to the public prosecutor for his submissions . He shall at the same time , by whatever means , inform any party seeking damages , who may submit observations ...

The investigating judge shall rule , by an order giving specific grounds ... , not DATE after the communication of the file to the public prosecutor .

When an order is made releasing the accused it may be accompanied by an order placing him under court supervision .

The PERSON of DATE added to the third paragraph a sentence , which is worded as follows :

" However , where a decision has not yet been made on a previous application for release or on the appeal from a previous order refusing release , the DATE prescribed period begins to run with effect from the decision given by the investigating authority . "

" Any court called upon to rule ... on an application for release shall give its decision after hearing the prosecution and the accused or his counsel . Where the accused is not in custody , he and his counsel shall be summoned by registered letter at least TIME before the date of the hearing .

The court hearing the application shall give its decision within DATE of receipt of the application at first instance or within DATE of the appeal at second instance ; ... where no decision is forthcoming on expiry of the above time - limits , the detention on remand shall be terminated and the accused , if not detained in connection with other matters , shall automatically be released .

The [ first instance ] court ’s decision shall be immediately enforceable notwithstanding any appeal ; where the accused remains in detention , ORG shall give its decision within DATE of the appeal , failing which , if he is not detained in connection with other matters , the accused shall automatically be released . "

" ... a person who has been held in detention on remand during proceedings which have been terminated in so far as he is concerned by a finding that he has no case to answer ( non - lieu ) that has become final or by an acquittal that has become final shall be entitled to compensation where such detention has caused him damage of a clearly exceptional and particularly serious nature . "

" The principal public prosecutor [ at ORG ] shall prepare the case file for hearing within TIME of receiving the documents for questions relating to detention on remand , and within DATE in all other cases , and shall forward it , together with his submissions , to ORG .

ORG shall , when dealing with questions relating to detention on remand , give its decision as speedily as possible and not DATE after the appeal provided for in LAW , failing which the accused shall automatically be released , except where verifications concerning his application have been ordered or where unforeseeable and insurmountable circumstances prevent the matter being decided within the time - limit laid down in the present Article . "

A PERSON of DATE , which came into force on DATE , reduced the time - limit from DATE .

" The criminal division hearing an appeal on points of law against the decision of ORG concerning detention on remand shall rule within DATE of the file ’s receipt at ORG , failing which the accused shall automatically be released .


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

On DATE the car driven by the applicant collided with a different car at a road crossing in PERSON . No one was injured and the police found no alcohol on the drivers’ breath . The police withheld the driving licence from the applicant on the spot .

On DATE ORG in PERSON decided that the driving licence would not be restored to the applicant prior to a final decision on the case . The decision stated that the applicant had not respected a red traffic light and that it could be reasonably expected that a court or other competent authority would prohibit him from driving motor vehicles . Reference was made to ORG ) of FAC .

On DATE the applicant appealed . He alleged that the decision was based on the false statement of the other driver . The applicant argued that a witness had confirmed that the traffic light had been green when he had entered the crossing .

On DATE ORG in PERSON upheld the decision of DATE . ORG held that it was irrelevant for the purpose of the decision on withdrawal of the driving licence how the matter was qualified from the point of view of the criminal law or minor offences law . ORG had regard to the facts of the case as established at that time . The reasons invoked by the applicant were irrelevant in the context of deciding on the withdrawal of the driving licence . The applicant had to submit his objections or proofs in the context of the proceedings on the minor offence which was imputed to him .

On DATE FAC in PERSON found that the applicant had not complied with FAC thereby committing a minor offence under LAW ) of LAW of DATE . A fine of CARDINAL NORP korunas ( SKK ) was imposed on the applicant and he was prohibited from driving motor vehicles for DATE . The period from DATE when the police had withheld the applicant ’s driving licence was to be deducted from the above period of DATE . The police authority established that the applicant had failed to respect a red traffic light and had thereby caused the accident .

On DATE the applicant appealed and argued that the investigation had been flawed .

On DATE ORG in PERSON quashed the first instance decision for procedural shortcomings . It ordered ORG to obtain an expert opinion and to take further evidence with a view to establishing the relevant facts .

On DATE the applicant requested that his driving licence should be restored to him .

On DATE ORG in PERSON informed the applicant that the reasons for withdrawal of his driving licence as set out in the decision of DATE still existed .

On DATE ORG stayed the proceedings concerning the minor offence of which the applicant was accused on the ground that an expert opinion had to be obtained . On DATE an expert was appointed .

On DATE the applicant requested ORG in PERSON to determine the case as the length of the proceedings was excessive .

On DATE FAC informed the applicant that the case could not be proceeded with as the expert had failed to submit his opinion .

On DATE the applicant asked the ORG of ORG to quash the above decision of DATE relating to the withdrawal of his driving licence .

The expert submitted his opinion on DATE .

On DATE FAC informed the applicant that the case could not be dealt with as the file had been submitted to institutions to which the applicant had complained about shortcomings in the proceedings .

On DATE ORG returned the driving licence to the applicant . The relevant police note states that the reasons for withholding the driving licence had ceased to exist on DATE . Reference was made to the decision of CARDINAL DATE under which the applicant had been prohibited from driving motor vehicles for DATE . The document further reads as follows :

“ For this reason , and even in the event that [ the applicant ] were again to be examined in respect of the minor offence in question , he could be prohibited from driving for the said DATE . This period expired on DATE . For this reason the driving licence will be returned to [ the applicant ] which does not mean that the case is closed . ”

On DATE ORG in PERSON found , in reply to the applicant ’s complaint , that ORG in PERSON had acted erroneously in that it had stayed the proceedings pending the submission of an expert opinion and that it had not used all available means with a view to obtaining the expert opinion without unjustified delay . The administrative authority had not displayed due diligence when proceeding with the case . The public prosecutor therefore asked ORG in PERSON to remedy the shortcomings found .

On DATE FAC again found that the applicant had committed a minor offence under LAW ) of LAW of DATE . A fine of SKK CARDINAL,CARDINAL was imposed on the applicant and he was prohibited from driving motor vehicles for DATE including the period during which the driving licence had been withdrawn from him . The decision stated that an appeal with suspensive effect could be filed against it .

On DATE the applicant appealed .

On DATE ORG in PERSON discontinued the proceedings . The decision referred to Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(f ) of LAW of DATE and it stated that the liability for the minor offence in question had lapsed as DATE had passed since the date when it had been committed . Since the applicant could no longer be held liable for any minor offence arising out of the above accident , the reason for proceeding with the case had fallen away .

The applicant submits that he can not claim compensation for damage which he suffered as a result of the accident of DATE as a claim for compensation on the basis of the compulsory insurance of motor vehicles is dependent on the result of the police investigation . He further submits that he learned , on DATE , that the insurance company had informed the other driver involved in the accident that it had arranged for him to be compensated from the applicant ’s insurance having regard to the outcome of the examination of the accident .

Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(a ) entitles the police to withhold a driving licence from a driver who grossly violates LAW or other generally binding rule relating to it and thereby directly threatens the security or disturbs the smooth flow of road traffic or causes a road traffic accident .

Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) provides that FAC is to deliver a decision , within DATE , on the withdrawal of a person ’s driving licence where the reasons for withholding the licence continue or where it can be reasonably expected that a court or a different competent authority will prohibit its holder from driving motor vehicles . Otherwise the driving licence is to be restored to the person concerned without delay .

Under paragraph CARDINAL of LAW , the authorities dealing with the case have to examine at all stages of the proceedings whether the reasons for withholding a person ’s driving licence still exist . When such reasons fall away , the driving licence is to be restored to its owner without delay .

ORG ) excludes the application of the general rules on administrative proceedings to decisions under LAW ) relating to the withdrawal of a driving licence .

Section CARDINAL provides that a minor offence can not be examined , inter alia , after the lapse of DATE from the moment when it was committed .

Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(b ) governs minor offences against road traffic security . It extends to cases where a person violates the relevant regulations and thereby puts in danger the security of road traffic , disturbs its smooth flow or causes an accident . LAW provides that a person who committed such a minor offence can be fined up to SKK CARDINAL,CARDINAL and he or she can be prohibited from driving motor vehicles for a period DATE .

Pursuant to LAW ) an administrative authority discontinues proceedings relating to a minor offence where the liability for such minor offence has ceased to exist .

Under LAW ) and ( CARDINAL ) , participants in administrative proceedings can seek a judicial review of the decision on a minor offence after the exhaustion of the ordinary remedies in the context of administrative proceedings .


No violation of Art. 3;No violation of Art. 5;Violation of Art. 10;Pecuniary damage - claim rejected;Non-pecuniary damage - finding of a violation sufficient

David Thór Björgvinsson;Giovanni Bonello;Ján Šikuta;Mihai Poalelungi;Nicolas Bratza;Päivi Hirvelä

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

At the material time she was living alone in her family house in the village of GPE Triada , GPE , in the NORP region of northern GPE . She was a teacher at the NORP - Cypriot elementary school in that village .

The parties disagree as to the facts of the case .

In DATE the applicant went to spend DATE with members of her family in southern GPE . On DATE she was transported by a ORG bus with other “ enclaved ” NORP to the FAC crossing point in GPE . From there they were due to be taken to GPE Triada by a bus driven by a NORP settler .

At the barricade , which was guarded by NORP and/or “ GPE ” ( “ TRNC ” ) police and customs officers , the applicant and the other CARDINAL or CARDINAL enclaved NORP - Cypriot women who were on the bus with her were searched . When the customs officers asked to search the applicant again , she refused , claiming that she had already been searched and nothing had been found . She was then taken to a small room near the barricade and was told that she would be searched by police officers . The applicant continued to refuse to submit to another search . The officials then tried to force the applicant into a small private car . She resisted and started shouting . The officials covered her mouth with their hands and started hitting her on her arms and feet in order to force her into the car . They pushed her in the car headfirst and then took hold of her legs . They managed to put her in the car with her legs upwards and feet pointing towards the roof .

She was subsequently taken to a building that appeared to be a police station . There her bag was thoroughly searched and whenever she tried to see what the officers were doing she was hit on the head and shoulders by a person whom she was able to identify from the discussions held among the officials present as a member of the NORP secret service . She was then taken to an adjacent room where she was interrogated and mocked . When the interrogation was over , the bag was returned to her empty . The officers also kept part of her money – CARDINAL GPE pounds ( ORG ) of the ORG CARDINAL she had on her .

Afterwards , the officers took her in the same car to the bus that would have taken her to PERSON . As she did not feel well , she asked to be allowed to return to southern GPE . However , the officers started to hit her once again and forced her into the bus . CARDINAL of the women on the bus told them to “ let her go or you will kill her ” .

Upon her return to PERSON , the applicant asked to be taken to a female NORP - Cypriot doctor in nearby GPE but her request was refused . DATE a NORP - Cypriot took the applicant to the above - mentioned doctor . The doctor offered her medical treatment but refused to certify the existence of bruises on her body .

During DATE that followed stones were thrown at her house .

On DATE the applicant was visited at the school of GPE Triada by representatives of ORG , to whom she showed the bruises she had on her legs , hands and head . In its relevant parts , the report of Doctors of the ORG reads as follows :

“ Although [ PERSON ] knew we were coming and had agreed to meet us , nevertheless when she first saw us she became very nervous . Her respiration increased , and she seemed to have trouble breathing . We reassured her that we had come from ... Doctors of the World but it still took TIME to be able to speak normally . The first thing she did , somewhat frantically , was to show us the bruises up and down her legs which she received , she says , as a result of being beaten by the police . At the time of our visit , she said the beating had occurred over DATE . She also said the police were from the neighbouring town of GPE , QUANTITY away from PERSON . She claims that the reason she was beaten is that she had tried to bring across the border some textbooks for the children and some religious crosses , after having visited relatives [ on ] the NORP side of GPE over DATE . She claims she was detained , beaten , interrogated many times , and released TIME . She also claims that she is experiencing a lot of pain in the back of her head , her neck and her lower back as a result of this beating . She says that the police came from the station of NORP and systematically harass her ; they often arrive in the village , and either follow her or simply walk around in what she interprets as an attempt to intimidate her and others who might have rebellious thoughts or want to help her . She claims the police keep her under constant surveillance . ”

DATE , a representative of ORG in GPE ( ORG ) visited the applicant and reported that she had bruises and blood stains on her shins and thighs . On DATE a medical officer of ORG was denied permission to visit the applicant . The officer was eventually granted permission on DATE . Accordingly , the medical officer visited the applicant and examined her on DATE . The applicant appended a “ note to the file ” in this respect by the Humanitarian Branch of the ORG of ORG dated CARDINAL DATE . This note read as follows :

“ On DATE the Humanitarian Branch was informed by ORG that GPE . was ill treated and arrested by ORG when crossing to the north on CARDINAL after a DATE ’s stay in the south and that a team of the “ Doctors of the World ” has visited her in Ay . PERSON on DATE to question her about her mistreatment .

On DATE . O. sector CARDINAL and the interpreter visited PERSON . in the school as requested by ORG . She stated that she was beaten by hand from ORG in the office at FAC . and another office somewhere in GPE on the head , neck and back . She said that on DATE about TIME a team of CARDINAL persons ( QUANTITY male doctors , CARDINAL lawyer and CARDINAL official from a presidential palace not nearer described ) has been visiting her . She gave the same statement to them as ORG and showed bruises and blood effusions on shin bones and thighs as she did to ORG . The team of the “ doctors of the world ” left her after TIME and they used the LANGUAGE language only while speaking to PERSON . ORG then proceeded to PERSON station for further clarification . All ORG officers however were very reluctant in answering ORG questions and very reserved . On DATE TIME ORG Personnel from the LP in GPE has been sent to TCPE PERSON to inform that PERSON accompanied by ORG Sec CARDINAL intends to visit PERSON . again in order to have her injuries examined . However permission was not granted at that stage . PERSON tasked LAW to investigate and liaise with TKCYP police at ORG in order to get permission for the medical exam . ‘ Clearance ” was granted on CARDINAL and the message relayed to ORG CARDINAL to set up the examination on DATE which was then carried out successfully . See GPE . Rep. PERSON CARDINAL dated CARDINAL plus attached note of ORG ) .

Investigation on the confiscated items is still ongoing by LAW . ”

The applicant claimed that she had been under constant surveillance by the local police and subjected to further harassment , including threats that she would be forcibly expelled from northern GPE or killed .

In a letter dated DATE the applicant ’s lawyer informed the ORG that in DATE the applicant had needed to seek urgent medical treatment in southern GPE . However , the applicant had then not been allowed by the NORP military and the “ LOC ” authorities to return to her home and property in GPE Triada and had therefore been living in GPE ever since .

On DATE the applicant , along with CARDINAL other teachers from the PERSON elementary school and CARDINAL students , crossed over to southern GPE via the FAC checkpoint . DATE the group flew to GPE on an excursion organised by the NORP - Cypriot and/or NORP authorities for DATE in order to take part in various anti - NORP campaigns that received considerable publicity .

On DATE , at TIME , the applicant , who was returning from southern to northern GPE , was subjected to routine police and immigration control by NORP - Cypriot officials at the FAC checkpoint . When the officers asked the applicant if she had anything to declare she said she did not . When they asked her to give them her handbag for search purposes , she refused to do so , thus preventing the officers from executing their duties and committing an offence under “ GPE ” laws ( section CARDINAL of the Customs and Excise Law , no . CARDINAL of DATE ) .

When a female police officer arrived , the applicant continued to resist . She was then requested to accompany the officials to the Lefkoşa police headquarters ( PERSON ) for further examination . She once again resisted and started kicking and shouting that she did not recognise any legal authority in northern GPE . Subsequently , she was led to a police car . She refused to get into the car and stated that she wanted to return to southern GPE . She was then driven to police headquarters . The NORP police used only force that was reasonable and necessary . The applicant may have caused injury to herself in an effort to resist the body search and efforts to take her to the police station . This was not evident , however , as she was wearing thick dark stockings .

Once at the police headquarters , the applicant continued to act irrationally , resisting the police officers and pushing them away . Eventually , a female police officer searched her handbag . She found CARDINAL silver necklaces and CARDINAL gold crosses , items that were subject to customs duty and that the applicant had refused to declare . The applicant agreed to pay the equivalent of MONEY as customs duty and/or fine . Furthermore , various other items were found in her bag , such as books and brochures . It was considered that these contained anti - NORP , racist and defamatory material liable to incite racial hatred and aggravate inter - communal relations . The authorities then attempted to carry out a body search , which the applicant resisted . The applicant attacked the female customs officer , who called for police assistance . During the body search , radio - cassettes were found hidden inside the applicant ’s clothing . The authorities kept all the items for the purposes of further examination . The applicant was detained only for a transitory period to enable completion of the search under more appropriate circumstances and to calm her down . She was not under arrest during this period and was offered refreshments , which she refused to take .

Having paid the fine , the applicant returned to her village on the bus with other NORP Cypriots .

On DATE the applicant visited the health centre of LANGUAGE ( Dipkarpaz ) and asked for a medical report to certify that she had been beaten . The doctor on duty , not being a private practitioner , offered to examine the applicant if she were intending to lodge a complaint with the police . The doctor would then have examined the applicant and written up her findings on the form supplied by the police . However , the applicant failed to complain to any NORP - NORP authority and did not visit any doctor before or after DATE . On DATE she was examined by a ORG doctor in the presence of a NORP - Cypriot doctor at the health centre in PERSON . The Government appended a ORG medical report of a routine interview and examination of the applicant by a ORG medical officer in the presence of a local doctor on CARDINAL DATE . The report identified “ scratches on the applicant ’s back [ and ] right calf ” .

The CARDINAL “ Doctors of the World ” , CARDINAL GPE , CARDINAL NORP and CARDINAL NORP citizens , had entered the “ LOC ” as tourists intending to go to PERSON but upon entry , contrary to their declaration to the “ GPE ” authorities , they had hired a car and apparently visited the area in question .

On DATE the books , brochures and photos that had been taken from the applicant on CARDINAL DATE , were returned to her in the presence of the NORP - Cypriot representative of the village . However , the NORP - Cypriot authorities kept QUANTITY cassettes , CARDINAL paperbacks , a diary and a postcard which they considered as likely to provoke racial hatred and anti - NORP enmity . The cassettes , which had been recorded in GPE , contained songs and poems dedicated to the so - called NORP who allegedly lived in LOC region of GPE , to ORG ( ORG ) movement and to those killed in terrorist activities carried out against the NORP . The other articles contained propaganda and a map of GPE showing the border area marked in blood .

In DATE , when the applicant retired from her teaching post , arrangements were made between the NORP - Cypriot and NORP - Cypriot authorities to replace her as teacher . The applicant has been living in southern GPE ever since .

As from DATE new measures had been adopted by the “ NORP ” authorities regarding crossings from northern to southern GPE and vice versa through specified checkpoints . NORP Cypriots now had free access to the north and NORP to the south upon presentation of an identification document .

The Government have produced several documents before the ORG . In so far as relevant , their content can be summarised as follows .

In his report , police officer PERSON stated that the applicant had constantly insulted GPE and used to bring a NORP flag to school lessons . She was a fanatical nationalist who behaved strangely , pretended to have received death threats and was asocial . She had wanted to enter the territory of “ LOC ” without an identification card , passport or other travel document and had tried to avoid the border control . On DATE she had been scratched by her cat ; the doctors who visited her had diagnosed that she was in good health .

In a statement of CARDINAL DATE , customs officer PERSON stated that on DATE he was checking bags and luggage of persons crossing at the FAC border . The applicant had not allowed him to search her bags and had resisted . She had started swearing loudly at the officers and at NORP people in general . When the custom officers intervened , the applicant had assaulted them . She had then been brought to a police station where she had been fined for having tried to cross the border without declaring the necklaces and the gold crosses . She had paid cash . Although the police had acted in good faith , the applicant had been constantly aggressive towards them and had used racist expressions .

Police PERSON stated that at the relevant time , it was the general practice of the “ TRNC ” custom officers to check the bags of people crossing the GPE palace border and to confiscate goods that needed to be declared but were not . The applicant had refused to have her bag checked and had caused trouble . She had been brought to a police station where her bags had been searched . In addition to the undeclared necklaces and gold crosses , books and tape recordings insulting the “ GPE ” and NORP people in general had been found in her possession and confiscated . During her stay at the police station , the applicant had not been ill - treated or harassed ; on the contrary , she had caused problems to the officers and refused everything that was offered to her including water .

Police Sergeant Işin Sevindik stated that on CARDINAL DATE the applicant had refused to have her bag searched . She had started shouting and had been taken to a police station . After she had paid the fine , she had been taken back to the ORG entry point . PERSON had not seen the applicant being forced to do anything or being ill - treated . A similar statement was made by Inspector PERSON .


CASE OF JELIČIĆ v. BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA

Violation of Art. 6;Violation of P1-1;Pecuniary damage - financial award;Non-pecuniary damage - financial award

Ján Šikuta;Josep Casadevall;Kristaq Traja;Matti Pellonpää;Nicolas Bratza;Rait Maruste

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

DATE and DATE the applicant deposited in total MONEY ( ORG ) in her savings account at the then ORG - owned GPE banka GPE Filijala PERSON . In GPE , as well as in other successor GPE of the former ORG ( “ SFRY ” ) , such savings are commonly referred to as “ old ” foreign - currency savings , having been deposited prior to the dissolution of the SFRY . The relevant background information on this subject is set out in detail in the ORG ’s decision on the admissibility of the present application ( see PERSON v. GPE DATE . ) , no . CARDINAL , ORG CARDINAL-XII ) .

On DATE the balance in the applicant ’s account , which included accrued interest , was DEM CARDINAL ( in the former SFRY , foreign - currency deposits earned high interest ) .

On several occasions in DATE and DATE , the applicant managed to withdraw in total PERSON , regardless of statutory restrictions which had been introduced in DATE .

On DATE the applicant initiated civil proceedings against the ORG banka , the legal successor of the GPE banka GPE Filijala PERSON , seeking the recovery of her entire “ old ” foreign - currency savings and accrued interest .

On DATE the Banja Luka Court of First Instance established that the balance in the applicant ’s account indicated above was DEM CARDINAL , including accrued interest . The court also found that the applicant had DEM CARDINAL,CARDINAL in another account at the same bank . The ORG banka was ordered to pay the applicant , within DATE , DEM CARDINAL ( MONEY ( ORG ) ) , default interest on the above amount at the rate applicable in the country of the currency ( namely GPE ) from DATE , legal costs in the amount of MONEY ( approximately EUR CARDINAL ) and default interest on the last - mentioned amount at the statutory rate from the date of the judgment .

On DATE the Banja Luka Court of First Instance mistakenly held that the ORG banka had not appealed against the judgment of CARDINAL DATE and accordingly issued a writ of execution ( rješenje o izvršenju ) . On DATE the Banja Luka Court of First Instance established that an appeal had in fact been submitted . On DATE the Banja ORG rejected that appeal and the first - instance judgment of CARDINAL DATE therefore became enforceable .

Meanwhile , the applicant filed an application with FAC , who referred the application to ORG ( the human rights bodies set up by Annex DATE LAW ) .

On DATE ORG found a violation of LAW No . CARDINAL arising from a failure to enforce the judgment of CARDINAL DATE . ORG held ORG responsible and ordered it to ensure full enforcement without further delay .

After the ORG banka had failed to execute the judgment voluntarily , on DATE the competent court sent a fresh writ of execution to ORG ( ORG PERSON ) .

On DATE ORG of the Republika Srpska rejected an appeal on points of law ( revizija ) against the judgment of DATE .

On DATE the writ of execution was returned to the competent court , execution having been impossible on account of a statutory prohibition ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

On DATE the applicant converted part of her savings ( DEM CARDINAL ) into privatisation coupons under LAW DATE . She subsequently sold those coupons on the secondary market , allegedly for LAW .

On DATE the privatisation of the ORG banka was completed and the applicant ’s “ old ” foreign - currency savings became a public debt of the Republika Srpska pursuant to section CARDINAL of LAW DATE .

On DATE and CARDINAL DATE the applicant converted a further part of her savings ( ORG CARDINAL in total ) into privatisation coupons as before . She subsequently sold those coupons on the secondary market , allegedly for ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL in total .

On DATE Bosnia and GPE took over the debt arising from “ old ” foreign - currency savings from its constituent units pursuant to section QUANTITY of ORG DATE .

The judgment of CARDINAL DATE has not yet been enforced .

Enforcement of such judgments has been prevented in ORG since DATE in accordance with the relevant instructions of the government of PERSON ( ORG o obustavljanju isplate “ stare ” devizne štednje , ORG of ORG ( “ ORG RS ” ) no . CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE , and PERSON , ORG no . CARDINAL of DATE ) and the following legislation :

( a ) The Foreign - Currency Transactions Act CARDINAL ( Zakon o deviznom poslovanju , ORG no . CARDINAL of DATE , amendments to which were published in ORG no . CARDINAL of DATE ) ;

( b ) The Postponement of Enforcement Act DATE ( Zakon o odlaganju od izvršenja sudskih odluka na teret sredstava budžeta PERSON po osnovu isplate naknade materijalne i nematerijalne štete nastale uslijed ratnih dejstava i po osnovu isplate stare devizne štednje , ORG no . CARDINAL of DATE , amendments to which were published in OG RS no . CARDINAL of DATE ) ;

( c ) The Foreign - Currency Transactions Act DATE ( Zakon o deviznom poslovanju , ORG no . CARDINAL of DATE ) ;

( d ) LAW DATE ( Zakon o privremenom odlaganju od izvršenja potraživanja iz budžeta PERSON , ORG no . CARDINAL of DATE ) ;

( e ) The Settlement of Domestic Debt Act DATE ( Zakon o utvrđivanju i načinu izmirenja unutrašnjeg duga PERSON , ORG no . CARDINAL of DATE , amendments to which were published in ORG no . CARDINAL of DATE ) ; and

( f ) The Old Foreign - Currency Savings Act DATE ( Zakon o izmirenju obaveza po osnovu stare devizne štednje , ORG Herzegovina ( “ ORG ” ) no . CARDINAL of DATE – “ the DATE Act ” ) .

In accordance with section CARDINAL of LAW DATE ( Zakon o početnom bilansu stanja u postupku privatizacije državnog kapitala u bankama , ORG no . CARDINAL of DATE , amendments to which were published in OG RS no . CARDINAL of DATE ) , as amended , liability for any debt arising from “ old ” foreign - currency savings shifts from the bank in which the savings have been deposited to the PERSON upon the completion of the bank ’s privatisation .

On DATE Bosnia and GPE took over from its constituent units the debt arising from “ old ” foreign - currency savings ( section QUANTITY of LAW ) .

LAW has been in force since DATE . The following are its relevant provisions .

“ ( CARDINAL ) This Act defines the procedure , manner and deadlines for the fulfilment of the obligations of GPE arising from old foreign - currency savings deposited in local banks in the territory of GPE .

( CARDINAL ) While GPE shall be responsible for the fulfilment of obligations arising from old foreign - currency savings , ORG , PERSON and PERSON of GPE and GPE shall provide the means .

( CARDINAL ) In accordance with LAW , successor GPE to the former ORG of GPE shall be liable for foreign - currency accounts opened at banks which had their seat in their respective territories . GPE and GPE shall provide assistance , within the scope of its international activities , to the holders of such foreign - currency accounts ...

( CARDINAL ) GPE and GPE shall fulfil its obligations defined in DATE and CARDINAL above following a verification process . ”

“ ( CARDINAL ) Under this LAW , old foreign - currency savings are foreign - currency savings in banks located in the territory of GPE as at DATE , including interest earned until DATE , less any payment after that date and any funds transferred to special privatisation accounts .

( CARDINAL ) NORP foreign - currency savings defined in paragraph CARDINAL above shall not include foreign - currency savings in branch offices located in the territory of GPE of the GPE banka , Invest banka or other foreign banks . ”

“ According to preliminary data ... old foreign - currency savings amount to CARDINAL NORP markas . The amount shall be determined in the verification process . ”

“ Any interest accrued after DATE but not paid shall be cancelled . Interest for the period DATE and the entry into force of this Act shall be calculated afresh at an DATE rate of PERCENT . ”

“ The fulfilment of obligations arising from old foreign - currency savings , if not verified in accordance with this LAW , can only be requested in court proceedings . ”

( CARDINAL ) Following the verification process , each claimant shall be provided with a certificate which identifies him or her and the amount of his or her old foreign - currency savings .

( CARDINAL ) The certificate referred to in paragraph CARDINAL above ... shall include , inter alia , the following :

( c ) a statement that the claimant will renounce any legal action following a cash payment ;

( CARDINAL ) Following the verification process , a written decision shall be given to each claimant .

( CARDINAL ) It shall be permitted to appeal against a [ first - instance ] decision to the [ competent second - instance body ] . It shall be permitted to pursue an administrative dispute before the competent court against a [ second - instance ] decision .

( CARDINAL ) The legislation concerning administrative procedure of the Entities and District shall apply to the verification process . ”

“ An application for verification can be submitted by [ DATE ] and the verification process shall be completed by [ DATE ] . ”

( CARDINAL ) Should the claimant accept the amount determined in the verification process , the claimant shall sign a verification certificate . Following the claimant ’s waiver of the right to appeal , a maximum of CARDINAL NORP markas , or the total amount of savings CARDINAL NORP markas , shall be paid ...

( CARDINAL ) Furthermore , by DATE a maximum of CARDINAL NORP markas , or the total amount of savings lower than CARDINAL NORP markas , shall be paid . The remaining amount shall be reimbursed in ORG bonds in accordance with this Act ...

“ ... All ORG bonds shall be issued at the same time ... at the latest by DATE on the following conditions :

( a ) they shall become due within DATE and at the latest by DATE ... ;

( b ) they shall earn interest at an DATE rate of PERCENT ;

( c ) they shall be redeemable before their maturity . ”

“ ( CARDINAL ) LOC judicial decisions concerning old foreign - currency savings shall also be subject to verification ...

( CARDINAL ) ... The provisions of this LAW concerning the cancellation of interest , cash payments and ORG bonds shall apply . ”

“ The competent court shall of its own motion submit any pending case to the verification process in accordance with this LAW . ”

This Act was in force from DATE until DATE . The following were the relevant provisions :

“ A person who has ‘ old’ foreign - currency savings in a bank located in ORG and who is a citizen of PERSON at the date of the entry into force of this LAW shall be entitled to coupons for the purchase of shares pursuant to this LAW .

A person who is entitled to coupons in accordance with this section may decide to convert into coupons his or her entire savings or a part thereof . ”

The privatisation coupons acquired in accordance with the above provisions were transferable ; this included the possibility of selling them on the secondary market ( section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) ) . Any conversion into privatisation coupons was irrevocable ( section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) ) .

This Act has been in force since DATE . Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) provides that “ old ” foreign - currency savings may be used for the purchase of ORG - owned business LOC and garages on condition that a minimum of PERCENT of the price is paid in cash .

In accordance with LAW NORP zakon ORG , ORG . CARDINAL of DATE and CARDINAL of DATE , amendments to which were published in ORG . CARDINAL of DATE , CARDINAL of DATE , CARDINAL of DATE and CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE ) , non - enforcement of a final and enforceable decision of the former ORG amounts to a criminal offence :

“ Any official of the institutions of GPE , of the Entities or of GPE of GPE who refuses to enforce a final and enforceable decision of ORG , of ORG , or who prevents the enforcement of any such decision , or who frustrates the enforcement of the decision in some other way , shall be punished by imprisonment for a term DATE . ”


Violation of Article 6+6-3-d - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing) (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial;Article 6-3-d - Witnesses);Violation of Article 38 - Examination of the case-{general} (Article 38 - Obligation to furnish all necessary facilities);Non-pecuniary damage - award

Anatoly Kovler;Elisabeth Steiner;Erik Møse;Julia Laffranque;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska

The applicant was born in DATE and is serving a sentence in a correctional colony in GPE , GPE .

Criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicant in GPE . The prosecution suspected that in DATE he and PERSON had robbed and murdered an elderly woman in GPE . After the murder they had allegedly packed the victim ’s body in a box and given the box to bus drivers at a local market to transport it to a supermarket in another town . The applicant and his accomplice had also allegedly sold the victim ’s property , including furniture , carpets , clothes , and household utensils , to a number of individuals in DATE following the murder .

According to the Government , after committing the criminal offences the applicant fled GPE and returned to GPE . On an unspecified date NORP prosecution officials opened a criminal case against the applicant for crimes allegedly committed in GPE . On DATE the applicant was arrested and placed in a detention facility in GPE .

In DATE the applicant was committed for jury trial .

On DATE ORG initiated the jury selection process . CARDINAL people reported for jury duty on DATE .

Three potential jurors were excused for personal reasons . The prosecution successfully challenged CARDINAL potential juror for cause and made CARDINAL successful peremptory challenges . The defence made CARDINAL jury challenges for cause and CARDINAL peremptory challenges , which were accepted .

A jury of CARDINAL was selected and CARDINAL alternates appointed . It appears from the record of the ORG responses to the questions asked by the presiding judge that close relatives of CARDINAL jurors worked for the police and at ORG . In particular , the husband of juror no . CARDINAL and the son of juror no . CARDINAL worked as traffic police officers . The son - in - law of juror no . CARDINAL was employed by the Service for the Execution of Sentences . The husbands of jurors QUANTITY . CARDINAL and CARDINAL worked for the police as telecommunications and radio operators respectively . In addition , CARDINAL jurors on the panel had been victims of criminal offences . In DATE juror no . CARDINAL had been attacked by a drunk person , but the matter was subsequently settled out of court . In DATE the son of juror no . CARDINAL died as a result of a house collapse .

After the jury had been empanelled and sworn in , defence counsel challenged the entire jury venire upon account of partiality . The defence alleged that the fact that certain jurors had been victims of criminal offences could influence their judgment . The challenge for the array was dismissed .

On DATE the President of ORG sent a letter to NORP law - enforcement officials asking for assistance . The letter , in so far as relevant , read as follows :

“ In compliance with ORG ( GPE , DATE ) , which came into force for GPE on DATE and for GPE on DATE , ORG asks competent officials of GPE to provide legal assistance in a criminal case ...

According to the case - file materials all the witnesses the court wants to call to testify in the present case live in GPE .

In this respect , [ I ] ask you to provide legal assistance in ensuring the appearance of the witnesses in the criminal case before ORG ... at TIME on DATE , by serving the individuals listed below with the enclosed summons and by providing [ the Ivanovo Regional ] court with documents confirming that the summonses have been served :

[ ORG enclosed a list of CARDINAL witnesses , including their dates of birth and home addresses . All but CARDINAL of the witnesses , lived in GPE . The remaining CARDINAL were registered in the town of GPE ] . ”

A similar letter was sent on DATE by ORG to ORG of GPE .

On DATE ORG issued a decision , which read as follows :

“ [ The applicant ] is accused of murdering , on DATE , together with Mr A. , an elderly woman , PERSON , in GPE , with the intention of taking her property .

[ The prosecution ] included PERSON on the list of those to be heard in court as witnesses for the prosecution ... PERSON [ who had already been found guilty of those offences by a court in GPE and sentenced to DATE imprisonment ] is currently serving his sentence in [ a correctional colony ] in the town of ORG in GPE of GPE .

Having regard to the fact that pursuant to LAW all items of evidence in a case , including statements by witnesses , are to be examined in open court , [ I ] consider it necessary to take steps to ensure the presence of that witness at a court hearing , in compliance with the requirements of international law .

Paragraph CARDINAL of Article CARDINAL of LAW , which defines how a person who is detained in a foreign ORG is to be called to a court hearing , refers to paragraph CARDINAL of LAW , by virtue of which a request for legal assistance is to be submitted in accordance with an international agreement between GPE [ and the foreign State ] . ORG ( GPE , DATE ... ) ... plays the role of that international agreement in the present case .

Article CARDINAL of the ORG provides for the possibility of conveying a person who is serving a sentence ( if he agrees ) to be questioned as a witness , following a decision by ORG requesting ORG .

By virtue of LAW the actions in question which require authorisation by a prosecutor ( a court ) are to be carried out by prosecuting authorities within the procedure defined by ORG . ”

On DATE the President of ORG , relying on the norms of ORG ( “ the GPE Convention ” ) , sent similar letters to the offices of ORG and that of GPE . The court president asked the prosecuting authorities of the both countries to convey the applicant ’s associate , PERSON , to GPE for him to testify in open court in the criminal case against the applicant .

NORP In DATE ORG received information regarding attendance by CARDINAL witnesses from the list . A judge from ORG in GPE informed ORG that the whereabouts of CARDINAL witness were unknown and that another witness could not travel to GPE in view of his difficult financial situation . The judge also noted that the second witness stood by the statements he had given to the investigating authorities .

On DATE and DATE ORG received e - mails from CARDINAL other witnesses who , in similar wording and citing their difficult family situation and poor health , informed the court that they were unable to attend the trial . The witnesses also gave their full support to the statements made during the pre - trial investigation . A telegram from another witness arrived on DATE . This witness refused to travel to GPE , citing poor health . ORG did not receive any information pertaining to the remaining witnesses .

On DATE ORG held a trial hearing .

The prosecution requested ORG to read out statements made by the prosecution witnesses and the applicant ’s associate , PERSON , to the NORP authorities , arguing that it was impossible to obtain their attendance . CARDINAL witnesses failed to appear for various personal reasons and the remaining witnesses lived in GPE . The applicant and his counsel objected , relying on the defendant ’s right to cross - examine witnesses testifying against him . The applicant noted that during the pre - trial investigation he had repeatedly asked the investigating authorities to hold confrontation interviews with the witnesses . However , his requests had been dismissed without any explanation .

ORG agreed to read out statements by the CARDINAL prosecution witnesses who had failed to appear for personal reasons , finding those reasons to be valid . As regards statements by the remaining witnesses and PERSON , ORG held as follows :

“ During DATE the court has taken all lawful steps to ensure the witnesses’ presence , and certain witnesses have sent in information which confirmed that they had been summoned properly . Due to the fact that other witnesses live in another ORG , and taking into account that they confirmed their statements in a court hearing in ORG [ during the trial against Mr A. ] , [ the court ] considers that the present extraordinary circumstances preclude their attendance [ and ] decides to read out the statements of the ... witnesses who failed to appear . ”

ORG read out statements by the remaining CARDINAL prosecution witnesses and by PERSON It also announced the results of photo - identification parades conducted by the NORP investigating authorities during which the witnesses had identified the applicant and PERSON

A copy of the court hearing records presented to the ORG by the parties show that in addition to the ORG depositions ORG studied the records of the crime scene examinations of CARDINAL and DATE , an autopsy report , a document confirming the victim ’s identity , a search report , a warrant for the applicant ’s arrest and records of pre - trial confrontation interviews between PERSON and the witnesses whose statements had been read out by ORG . The ORG further heard the applicant and his parents , who denied the applicant ’s involvement in the robbery and murder and insisted that at the time of the crime he was staying with his family in GPE .

At the same hearing the applicant accused the prosecution of jury tampering and sought the discharge of the entire panel . He claimed that juror no . CARDINAL had tapped the prosecutor on the hand and the prosecutor had responded with a nod of the head . Defence counsel supported the accusation claiming that he had witnessed the incident . The prosecutor denied the incident , stating that he was not acquainted with juror no . CARDINAL . Juror no . CARDINAL , in response to questions from the presiding judge , stated that he had not known the prosecutor before the trial and that he had never had a conversation with him . The presiding judge , without giving any reasons , dismissed the applicant ’s challenge to the empanelled jury .

NORP The parties’ closing arguments followed . The defence argued that there was no material evidence , such as fingerprints , bloodstains and so on , linking the applicant to the criminal offences , and that the applicant had been denied an important right to cross - examine witnesses against him .

On DATE the jury , by CARDINAL votes , found the applicant guilty of aggravated murder and robbery .

On DATE ORG accepted the verdict and sentenced the applicant to DATE imprisonment .

The applicant and his lawyer appealed , arguing that the jury had not been fair and impartial because certain jurors had been victims of criminal offences and the prosecution had tried to exert improper influence on CARDINAL of the jurors . They further alleged a violation of the applicant ’s rights , having regard to the fact that at no stage of the proceedings had either he or his lawyer been offered the opportunity to question the prosecution witnesses .

On DATE ORG of GPE upheld the conviction , finding that the investigating authorities and ORG had not committed any serious violations of the criminal procedural law .

LAW provides that an officer of a court or a judge ’s assistant has to compile a list of jury candidates for the trial . The candidates are to be drawn at random from the district or regional list of jurors . The candidates’ names are entered in the list in the order in which their lots were drawn . The list of jury candidates is then served on the parties . The parties have the right to make an unlimited number of challenges for cause and CARDINAL peremptory challenges to potential jurors . The presiding judge decides on the challenges . After deleting the names of the successfully challenged candidates , the court secretary or the judge ’s assistant makes up the list of the remaining jury candidates , whose names are to appear in the same order as in the first list . The CARDINAL candidates whose names appear first on the list form the jury , and the CARDINAL candidates whose names appear next become substitutes . Before the jury is sworn in , the parties may challenge the entire panel if they argue that due to particular features of a criminal case the panel will be unable to render an objective verdict . The presiding judge is to decide on any such challenge to the empanelled jury ( Articles CARDINAL ) .

ORG Earlier statements made by a victim or witness may be read out if the parties give their consent to it and if ( CARDINAL ) there are substantial discrepancies between the earlier statement and the later statement before the court or ( CARDINAL ) the victim or the witness has not appeared before the court ( Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL ) .

The court may , without seeking the consent of the parties , read out earlier statements by the defaulted a victim or witness in case of ( CARDINAL ) death , ( CARDINAL ) serious illness , ( CARDINAL ) the refusal to appear by a victim or the witness who is a citizen of another GPE or ( CARDINAL ) natural disaster or other force majeure circumstances ( LAW ) .

Chapter CARDINAL of the Code determines steps to be taken when asking foreign authorities for legal assistance . In particular , Article CARDINAL provides that a prosecutor , an investigator or a court , when they need to carry out an interrogation , a search , seizure or any other procedural action in the territory of a foreign ORG , may ask assistance from investigating or judicial officials of that ORG to organise / perform that procedural action . Records of procedural actions performed by foreign officials on a request by NORP authorities will have the same evidentiary weight as evidence received by NORP officials in the territory of GPE ( Article CARDINAL ) . Article CARDINAL deals with the issue of summoning witnesses who live outside GPE to give statements regarding a criminal case pending before NORP authorities .

ORG ( signed in GPE on DATE and amended on DATE , “ the DATE Minsk Convention ” ) , to which both GPE and GPE are parties , provides that a witness and a victim who are subjects of CARDINAL ORG can be summoned , for the purpose of their examination , by a “ body of justice ” of ORG . The witness and the victim are entitled to reimbursement of travel , and certain other , costs and expenses incurred in connection with their participation in the criminal proceedings ( Section CARDINAL ) .

If a witness or a victim does not obey a summons to appear without a valid reason , they may be brought to a courtroom under escort ( Article CARDINAL ) .

Witnesses and victims are entitled to reimbursement of costs and expenses incurred in connection with their participation in criminal proceedings ( Article CARDINAL ) .

Witnesses and victims who live abroad may be summoned , with their consent , to criminal proceedings conducted in GPE ( Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL ) .

Article CARDINAL of LAW , setting out the procedure for reopening of criminal cases , reads , in so far as relevant , as follows :

“ CARDINAL . ORG judgments and decisions which became final should be quashed and proceedings in a criminal case should be re - opened due to new or newly discovered circumstances .

New circumstances are :

( CARDINAL ) a violation of a provision of LAW committed by a court of GPE during examination of a criminal case and established by ORG , pertaining to :

( a ) application of a federal law which runs contrary to provisions of LAW ;

( b ) other violations of provisions of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms ;

( c ) other new circumstances . ”


Giovanni Bonello;Ján Šikuta;Lech Garlicki;Mihai Poalelungi;Nebojša Vučinić;Nicolas Bratza

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

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

The applicant was allocated a flat in DATE in a building owned by ORG in GPE . In DATE the applicant started experiencing problems with the ventilation system . He complained to the housing cooperative about this and the presence of carbon monoxide in the flat . On DATE he sued the cooperative , inter alia , for an order that it repair the ventilation in the flat and for compensation .

On DATE ORG ordered the housing cooperative to repair the ventilation system in the applicant ’s flat by DATE . It further awarded the applicant compensation . It found on the basis of expert evidence that the ventilation system was malfunctioning because of a construction defect in the building . On DATE ORG dismissed an appeal by the applicant . On DATE a writ of execution was issued in respect of the judgment of DATE .

In DATE the cooperative concluded a contract with a contractor DATE concerning repairs to the ventilation duct in the applicant ’s building . The works were terminated on DATE .

On DATE the ventilation system was checked by a chimney sweep , who found that it now complied with the relevant norms .

On DATE the applicant made an application to ORG for an order requiring the housing cooperative to comply with the judgment of DATE .

The ventilation system again started to malfunction and so on DATE the housing cooperative concluded another contract with a construction company to repair the ventilation duct .

On DATE ORG set a time - limit until DATE for the cooperative to comply with the judgment . At the time , it found that the judgment could also be executed by the applicant in the cooperative ’s stead and at its expense .

On DATE the housing cooperative informed the applicant that the repair works had been completed . However , the applicant was not satisfied with the result and requested PERSON and FAC to take appropriate measures .

Subsequently , he requested an advance on the costs of the necessary works . However , in the subsequent proceedings , ORG decided on the basis of an expert opinion that the judgment of DATE could be executed only by the cooperative itself . According to an expert opinion , in order to repair the ventilation system in the applicant ’s flat it was necessary to have access to and carry out works in other flats in the building , which precluded the applicant carrying out the works himself . On DATE ORG set a new time - limit of DATE from the date on which its decision had become final for the housing cooperative to repair the ventilation system in the applicant ’s flat . The applicant appealed . On DATE ORG dismissed his appeal .

On DATE and CARDINAL DATE the ventilation system in the applicant ’s building was checked . No technical irregularities were noted .

On an unspecified date in DATE the housing cooperative instituted proceedings in ORG against the applicant , claiming that it had complied with the obligations imposed by the judgment of DATE . On DATE ORG imposed a fine of MONEY ( ORG ) on the president of the housing cooperative or CARDINAL days’ imprisonment in default for failing to comply with the court ’s decision of DATE . It further ordered the cooperative to comply with the judgment of CARDINAL DATE by DATE . In the event of default , a fine of ORG CARDINAL would be imposed on the president and the deputy president of the housing cooperative . The housing cooperative appealed . It submitted that it had enforced the judgment of DATE . On CARDINAL DATE ORG dismissed the appeal .

On DATE ORG set a new time - limit of DATE from the date on which its decision had become final for the cooperative to comply with the judgment and stated that the president and deputy president would be liable to a fine of QUANTITY FAC in default . On DATE the President of ORG informed the applicant that the repair works specified in the judgment of DATE could only be performed by the cooperative . In the event of a continued failure to comply , the applicant could request the imposition of higher fines .

According to official tests carried out in DATE , the concentration of carbon monoxide in the applicant ’s kitchen was over the permissible limit .

Meanwhile , on DATE the housing cooperative filed a motion to stay the writ of execution on the grounds that it had complied with the obligations imposed by the judgment of CARDINAL DATE .

On DATE the ORG gave judgment in which it deprived the judgment of DATE of its enforceability in so far as it had ordered the cooperative to repair the ventilation system in the applicant ’s flat . It held that the judgment of DATE did not indicate the exact manner in which the ventilation system was to be repaired and that it was not possible for the system to be repaired only in the applicant ’s flat , as a more general solution had to be found . Works had been performed by the cooperative in DATE and DATE to restore the permeability of the ventilation system . While , according to several measurements that had been taken the level of carbon monoxide in the applicant ’s flat was too high , that level also depended on the proper functioning of the ventilation system and the expert opinions indicated that the applicant himself had prevented the proper functioning of the system by sealing off the access of air through the windows . ORG therefore concluded that the ventilation system in the applicant ’s flat had been repaired in accordance with the judgment of DATE .

The applicant appealed . On DATE ORG dismissed his appeal . It upheld the first instance judgment and referred to the expert ’s opinion confirming that the cooperative had complied with the judgment of DATE

The relevant domestic law and practice concerning remedies for the excessive length of judicial proceedings , in particular the applicable provisions of LAW , are stated in the ORG ’s decisions in the cases of ORG v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ( dec . ) , § § DATE , ECHR CARDINAL-V ) and NORP v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL ( dec . ) , ORG CARDINAL-VIII ) and judgment in the case of GPE v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL , § § DATE , ECHR CARDINAL-V ) .


Violation of Art. 6-1;Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed;Non-pecuniary damage - financial award;Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings

NORP In DATE the applicant was employed at the refinery “ T. ” as director of a department . DATE the conditions of his contract of employment were changed several times . On DATE the refinery gave notice to terminate the applicant ’s contract .

On DATE the applicant lodged with ORG a compensation claim against the refinery , in the amount of ORG CARDINAL , for unlawful termination of his contract . He also claimed reinstatement . By a decision of DATE ORG considered that it was not competent to examine his case and transmitted it to ORG .

By a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG ordered the refinery to pay the applicant compensation of ORG CARDINAL for unlawful termination of the employment contract . The compensation corresponded to CARDINAL months’ remuneration . The court dismissed the remaining claims .

Both parties to the proceedings appealed against the first - instance judgment . By a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG dismissed their appeals .

On DATE the applicant requested ORG to grant legal aid for the purpose of instituting cassation proceedings . He referred to his difficult financial situation and to the fact that he had been unemployed from DATE to DATE due to the termination of his employment contract by the defendant company . He also submitted that from DATE he had been receiving a net salary of ORG CARDINAL and submitted documents to show the period of his unemployment and his earnings . In DATE the applicant , having received no response from ORG , lodged a cassation appeal himself .

By a decision of CARDINAL DATE ORG dismissed his request for legal aid for the purpose of instituting the cassation proceedings without giving written reasons for its decision .

On DATE , ORG rejected the applicant ’s cassation appeal on the ground that it had not been lodged by a lawyer , as required by the law .

The applicant lodged an appeal against these decisions with ORG . He also requested the grant of retrospective leave to lodge a cassation appeal out of time . He further asked that court to appoint a lawyer for him in order to assist him in the preparation of his appeal . The applicant argued that ORG had failed to deal within the time - limit with his request for legal aid . This had forced the applicant to lodge the cassation appeal himself . The fact that the cassation appeal had been rejected , combined with the unmotivated refusal of legal aid , had made it impossible to have his interests protected and his arguments properly presented to the cassation court .

By a decision of CARDINAL DATE ORG dismissed his appeal against the decision rejecting the cassation appeal . The court observed that the applicable law clearly provided that a cassation appeal could only be lodged by a lawyer . ORG further refused to entertain the appeal in so far as it was related to the refusal of legal aid , observing that under the applicable legal provisions an appeal to ORG against an interlocutory decision of ORG was only available against a decision to reject a cassation appeal .

Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that a party to the proceedings may ask the court competent to deal with the case to grant him or her an exemption from court fees provided that he submits a declaration to the effect that the fees required would entail a substantial reduction in his and his family ’s standard of living .

Pursuant to ORG CARDINAL of the Code , persons exempted from the court fees may request that legal aid be granted to them . The court will then request the relevant ORG or ORG to assign an advocate or a legal adviser to the claimant ’s case .

LAW lays down the principle of mandatory assistance of an advocate in cassation proceedings . Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL of the Code of Civil Procedure , applicable at the relevant time , required that a cassation appeal be filed by an advocate or a legal adviser .

Under LAW a cassation appeal had to be lodged with the court that had given the relevant decision within DATE from the date on which the decision with its written grounds was served on the party concerned . Cassation appeals which were not lodged by an advocate or a legal adviser would be rejected .

Article CARDINAL of the Code of Civil Procedure guarantees to a party to the proceedings a right to appeal against a decision of the first - instance court which terminates the proceedings . Such an interlocutory appeal ( zażalenie ) is also available against certain interlocutory decisions , specified in this provision . An appeal is available against a refusal of exemption from court fee and , likewise , against a refusal of legal aid , when such decisions were given by a first - instance court .

ORG held in a number of its decisions that no appeal to ORG is available against an interlocutory decision on legal aid given by a second - instance court . It observed that a decision on legal aid was expressly mentioned in a list of interlocutory decisions against which an appeal was specifically provided for under LAW , but only when they were given by the first - instance court . Furthermore , under this provision an appeal was available against decisions which terminated the proceedings in the case . However , the court noted that a refusal of legal aid could not be regarded as “ terminating the proceedings in the case ” within the meaning of this provision because this notion had to be reserved for decisions containing a certain element of assessment of the merits of a given claim . The decisions on legal aid issues did not contain such elements . As they did not fall into either of the CARDINAL principal categories listed in Article CARDINAL , the only possible conclusion was that no appeal was available against them ( II CZ CARDINAL , DATE , unpublished ; I ORG CARDINAL , DATE , OSNC DATE , No . CARDINAL , item CARDINAL ; I ORG CARDINAL , DATE , ORG No . CARDINAL , item CARDINAL ) .

Pursuant to LAW , written grounds for interlocutory decisions shall be prepared by the court only if an appeal is available against such a decision .

Pursuant to LAW , a party to the proceedings may ask for retrospective leave to appeal outside the prescribed time - limit ; the appeal shall be submitted simultaneously with the lodging of such a request .


Violation of Art. 10;Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient;Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings

C. Russo;John Freeland;N. Valticos;R. Pekkanen

Mr PERSON , a NORP national , is a journalist and lives in GPE .

ORG On DATE the applicant joined the staff of The Engineer , published by ORG ( " the publishers " ) , as a trainee journalist . He was employed by ORG ( " the employer " ) .

On DATE the applicant was telephoned by a person who , according to the applicant , had previously supplied him with information on the activities of various companies . The source gave him information about ORG ( " Tetra " ) , to the effect that the company was in the process of raising a MONEY loan and had financial problems as a result of an expected loss of MONEY for DATE on a turnover of MONEY . The information was unsolicited and was not given in exchange for any payment . It was provided on an unattributable basis . The applicant maintained that he had no reason to believe that the information derived from a stolen or confidential document . On CARDINAL and CARDINAL DATE , intending to write an article about ORG , he telephoned the company to check the facts and seek its comments on the information .

The information derived from a draft of ORG ’s confidential corporate plan . On DATE there had been CARDINAL numbered copies of the most recent draft . CARDINAL had been in the possession of senior employees of ORG , one with its accountants , one with a bank and one with an outside consultant . Each had been in a ring binder and was marked " Strictly Confidential " . The NORP file had last been seen at TIME on DATE in a room they had been using at ORG ’s premises . The room had been left unattended TIME and during that period the file had disappeared .

ORG On DATE Mr Justice PERSON of ORG ) granted an application by ORG of the same date for an ex parte interim injunction restraining the publishers of The Engineer from publishing any information derived from the corporate plan . The company informed all the national newspapers and relevant journals of the injunction on DATE .

ORG In an affidavit to ORG dated DATE , ORG stated that if the plan were to be made public it could result in a complete loss of confidence in the company on the part of its actual and potential creditors , its customers and in particular its suppliers , with a risk of loss of orders and of a refusal to supply the company with goods and services . This would inevitably lead to problems with ORG ’s refinancing negotiations . If the company went into liquidation , there would be CARDINAL redundancies .

ORG On DATE Mr Justice PERSON , on an application by ORG , ordered the publishers , under LAW DATE ( " the CARDINAL Act " ; see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , to disclose by TIME on DATE the applicant ’s notes from the above telephone conversation identifying his source . On DATE , the publishers having failed to comply with the order , PERSON Justice PERSON granted ORG leave to join the applicant ’s employer and the applicant himself to the proceedings and gave the defendants until TIME on DATE to produce the notes .

On DATE ORG made a further order to the effect that the applicant represented all persons who had received the plan or information derived from it without authority and that such persons should deliver up any copies of the plan in their possession . The motion was then adjourned for the applicant to bring this order to the attention of his source . However , the applicant declined to do so .

ORG On DATE Mr Justice PERSON ordered the applicant to disclose by TIME on DATE his notes on the grounds that it was necessary " in the interests of justice " , within the meaning of section CARDINAL of the CARDINAL Act ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , for the source ’s identity to be disclosed in order to enable Tetra to bring proceedings against the source to recover the document , obtain an injunction preventing further publication or seek damages for the expenses to which it had been put . The judge concluded :

" There is strong prima facie evidence that it has suffered aserious wrong by the theft of its confidential file . Thereis similar evidence that it would suffer serious commercialdamage from the publication of the information in the fileduring the near future . It is true that the source may notbe the person who stole the file . He may have had theinformation second hand , although this is less likely . PERSON case , however , he was trying to secure damagingpublication of information which he must have known to besensitive and confidential . According to the respondent , having given him the information he telephoned again a fewdays later to ask how the article was getting on . The plaintiff wishes to bring proceedings against the source forrecovery of the document , an injunction against furtherpublication and damages for the expense to which it has beenput . But it can not obtain any of those remedies because itdoes not know whom to sue . In the circumstance of this case , in which a remedy against the source is urgently needed , PERSON that disclosure is necessary in the interests ofjustice .

... There is no doubt on the evidence that the respondent wasan innocent recipient of the information but the ORG case shows that this does not matter . The questionis whether he had become mixed up in the wrongdoing ...

The respondent has sworn an affidavit expressing the viewthat the public interest requires publication of theplaintiff ’s confidential commercial information . Counsel forthe respondent says that the plaintiff ’s previous publishedresults showed it as a prosperous expanding company andtherefore the public was entitled to know that it was nowexperiencing difficulties . I reject this submission . Thereis nothing to suggest that the information in the draftbusiness plan falsifies anything which has been previouslymade public or that the plaintiff was under any obligation , whether in law or commercial morality , to make thatinformation available to its customers , suppliers andcompetitors . On the contrary , it seems to me that businesscould not function properly if such information could not be kept confidential . "

ORG On DATE ORG rejected an application by the applicant for a stay of execution of ORG order , but substituted an order requiring the applicant either to disclose his notes to ORG or to deliver them to ORG in a sealed envelope with accompanying affidavit . The applicant did not comply with this order .

ORG On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal with ORG from Mr Justice PERSON ’s order of CARDINAL DATE . He argued that disclosure of his notes was not " necessary in the interests of justice " within the meaning of LAW ; the public interest in publication outweighed the interest in preserving confidentiality ; and , since he had not facilitated any breach of confidence , the disclosure order against him was invalid .

ORG dismissed the appeal on DATE . Lord PERSON held :

" The existence of someone with access to highly confidentialinformation belonging to the plaintiffs who was prepared tobreak his obligations of confidentiality in this way was apermanent threat to the plaintiffs which could only beeliminated by discovering his identity . The injunctionswould no doubt be effective to prevent publication in thepress , but they certainly would not effectively preventpublication to the plaintiffs’ customers or competitors .

... I am loath in a judgment given in open court to give adetailed explanation of why this is a case in which , if thefull facts were known and the courts had to say that theycould give the plaintiffs no assistance , there would , PERSON , be a significant lessening in public confidence in theadministration of justice generally . Suffice it to say thatthe plaintiffs are a , and perhaps the , leader in their veryimportant field , which I deliberately do not identify , withnational and international customers and competitors . They are faced with a situation which is in part the result oftheir own success . They have reached a point at which theyhave to refinance and expand or go under with the loss notonly of money , but of a significant number of jobs . This isnot the situation in which the court should be or be seen tobe impotent in the absence of compelling reasons . The plaintiffs are continuing with their refinancing discussionsmenaced by the source ( or the source ’s source ) ticking awaybeneath them like a time bomb . Prima facie they are entitledto assistance in identifying , locating and defusing it .

That I should have concluded that the disclosure of Mr PERSON ’s source is necessary in the interests of justiceis not determinative of this appeal . It does , however , meanthat I have to undertake a balancing exercise . On the onehand there is the general public interest in maintaining theconfidentiality of journalistic sources , which is the reasonwhy section CARDINAL was enacted . On the other is , in my judgment , a particular case in which disclosure is necessary in thegeneral interests of the administration of justice . If thesetwo factors stood alone , the case for ordering disclosurewould be made out , because the parliamentary intention mustbe that , other things being equal , the necessity fordisclosure on any of the CARDINAL grounds should prevail . ORG Were it otherwise , there would be no point in having these doorways .

But other things would not be equal if , on the particular facts of the case , there was some additional reason formaintaining the confidentiality of a journalistic source . It might , for example , have been the case that the information disclosed what , on the authorities , is quaintly called ` ORG . Or the plaintiffs might have been a publiccompany whose shareholders were unjustifiably being kept inignorance of information vital to their making a sensibledecision on whether or not to sell their shares . Such afeature would erode the public interest in maintaining theconfidentiality of the leaked information and correspondingly enhance the public interest in maintaining theconfidentiality of journalistic sources . Equally , onparticular facts such as that the identification of thesource was necessary in order to support or refute a defenceof alibi in a major criminal trial , the necessity fordisclosure ` in the interests of justice’ might be enhancedand overreach the threshold of the statutory doorway requiring some vastly increased need for the protection ofthe source if it was to be counterbalanced . Once the[plaintiffs ] can get through a doorway , the balancing exercise comes into play .

On the facts of this case , nothing is to be added to eitherside of the equation . The test of the needs of justice ismet , but not in superabundance . The general public interestin maintaining the confidentiality of journalistic sourcesexists , but the facts of this particular case add absolutelynothing to it . No ` ORG has been shown . No shareholders have been kept in the dark . Indeed the publichas no legitimate interest in the business of the plaintiffswho , although corporate in form , are in truth to becategorised as private individuals . This is in reality apiece of wholly unjustified intrusion into privacy .

Accordingly , I am left in no doubt that , notwithstanding thegeneral need to protect journalistic sources , this is a casein which the balance comes down in favour of disclosure . Iwould dismiss the ORG appeals . I can see no reason injustice for doing otherwise with regard to Mr Goodwin’sappeals . "

Lord Justice PERSON stated that the applicant must have been " amazingly naïve " if it had not occurred to him that the source had been at the very least guilty of breach of confidence .

ORG granted the applicant leave to appeal to ORG .

ORG upheld ORG decision on DATE , applying the principle expounded by Lord PERSON in ORG v. ORG and Excise Commissioners [ DATE ] Appeal Cases CARDINAL , a previous leading case :

" if through no fault of his own a person gets mixed up in thetortious acts of others so as to facilitate their wrongdoinghe may incur no personal liability but he comes under a dutyto assist the person who has been wronged by giving him fullinformation and disclosing the identity of the wrongdoers . "

Lord Bridge , in the first of the CARDINAL separate speeches given in the applicant ’s case , underlined that in applying section CARDINAL it was necessary to carry out a balancing exercise between the need to protect sources and , inter alia , the " interests of justice " . He referred to a number of other cases in relation to how the balancing exercise should be conducted ( in particular Secretary of ORG [ DATE ] Appeal Cases CARDINAL ) and continued :

" ... the question whether disclosure is necessary in theinterests of justice gives rise to a more difficult problemof weighing CARDINAL public interest against another . A questionarising under this part of section CARDINAL has not previously comebefore your Lordships’ ORG for decision . In discussing thesection generally Lord PERSON said in Secretary of ORG forDefence v. ORG [ DATE ] Appeal Cases CARDINAL :

` The exceptions include no reference to " the public ORG and I would add that in my view the PERSON " , the interests of which are entitled to protection , is not used in a general sense as the antonym of " GPE in the technical sense of the administration of justicein the course of legal proceedings in a court of law , or , byreason of the extended definition of " court " in section LAW of DATE before a tribunal or body exercising thejudicial power of the state.’

I agree entirely with DATE dictum . To construe ` justice’ as the antonym of ` ORG insection CARDINAL would be far too wide . But to confine it to the`technical sense of the administration of justice in thecourse of legal proceedings in a court of law’ seems to me , with all respect due to any dictum of the late Lord PERSON , to be too narrow . It is , in my opinion , ` in the interests of justice’ , in the sense in which this phrase is used insection CARDINAL , that persons should be enabled to exerciseimportant legal rights and to protect themselves from seriouslegal wrongs whether or not resort to legal proceedings in acourt of law will be necessary to attain these objectives . Thus , to take a very obvious example , if an employer of alarge staff is suffering grave damage from the activities ofan unidentified disloyal servant , it is undoubtedly in theinterests of justice that he should be able to identify himin order to terminate his contract of employment , notwithstanding that no legal proceedings may be necessary to achieve that end .

Construing the phrase ` in the interests of justice’ in thissense immediately emphasises the importance of the balancingexercise . It will not be sufficient , per se , for a partyseeking disclosure of a source protected by LAW toshow merely that he will be unable without disclosure toexercise the legal right or avert the threatened legal wrongon which he bases his claim in order to establish thenecessity of disclosure . The judge ’s task will always be toweigh in the scales the importance of enabling the ends ofjustice to be attained in the circumstances of the particularcase on the one hand against the importance of protecting thesource on the other hand . In this balancing exercise it isonly if the judge is satisfied that disclosure in theinterests of justice is of such preponderating importance asto override the statutory privilege against disclosure thatthe threshold of necessity will be reached .

Whether the necessity of disclosure in this sense is established is certainly a question of fact rather than anissue calling for the exercise of the judge ’s discretion , but , like many other questions of fact , such as the questionof whether somebody has acted reasonably in givencircumstances , it will call for the exercise of adiscriminating and sometimes difficult value judgment . PERSON the weight to be attached to the importance ofdisclosure in pursuance of the policy which underliessection CARDINAL on the other hand , many factors will be relevanton both sides of the scale .

It would be foolish to attempt to give a comprehensive guidance as to how the balancing exercise should be carriedout . But it may not be out of place to indicate the kind offactors which will require consideration . In estimating theimportance to be given to the case in favour of disclosurethere will be a wide spectrum within which the particularcase must be located . If the party seeking disclosure shows , for example , that his very livelihood depends upon it , thiswill put the case near one end of the spectrum . If he showsno more than that what he seeks to protect is a minorinterest in property , this will put the case at or near theother end . On the other side the importance of protecting asource from disclosure in pursuance of the policy underlyingthe statute will also vary within a spectrum . CARDINAL importantfactor will be the nature of the information obtained fromthe source . The greater the legitimate interest in theinformation which the source has given to the publisher orintended publisher , the greater will be the importance ofprotecting the source . But another and perhaps moresignificant factor which will very much affect the importanceof protecting the source will be the manner in which theinformation was itself obtained by the source . If it appearsto the court that the information was obtained legitimatelythis will enhance the importance of protecting the source . Conversely , if it appears that the information was obtainedillegally , this will diminish the importance of protectingthe source unless , of course , this factor is counterbalancedby a clear public interest in publication of the information , as in the classic case where the source has acted for thepurpose of exposing iniquity . I draw attention to theseconsiderations by way of illustration only and I emphasiseonce again that they are in no way intended to be read as acode ...

In the circumstances of the instant case , I have no doubtthat [ ORG ] and ORG were right infinding that the necessity for disclosure of Mr Goodwin’snotes in the interests of justice was established . Theimportance to the plaintiffs of obtaining disclosure lies inthe threat of severe damage to their business , andconsequentially to the livelihood of their employees , whichwould arise from disclosure of the information contained intheir corporate plan while their refinancing negotiations arestill continuing . This threat ... can only be defused ifthey can identify the source either as himself the thief ofthe stolen copy of the plan or as a means to lead to theidentification of the thief and thus put themselves in aposition to institute proceedings for the recovery of themissing document . The importance of protecting the source onthe other hand is much diminished by the source ’s complicity , at the very least , in a gross breach of confidentiality whichis not counterbalanced by any legitimate interest whichpublication of the information was calculated to serve . Disclosure in the interests of justice is , on this view ofthe balance , clearly of preponderating importance so as tooverride the policy underlying the statutory protection ofsources and the test of necessity for disclosure is satisfied ... "

Lord PERSON added that the applicant should have " recognised that [ the information ] was both confidential and damaging " .

ORG In the meantime , on DATE , the applicant had been served with a motion seeking his committal for contempt of court , an offence which was punishable by an unlimited fine or up to CARDINAL years’ imprisonment ( section CARDINAL of the DATE Act ) . On DATE , at a hearing in ORG , counsel for the applicant had conceded that he had been in contempt but the motion was adjourned pending the appeal .

Following the ORG of Lord ’s dismissal of the appeal , ORG , on DATE , fined the applicant £ CARDINAL,CARDINAL for contempt of court .

Section CARDINAL of the Contempt of Court Act DATE provides :

" No court may require a person to disclose , nor is a personguilty of contempt of court for refusing to disclose thesource of information contained in the publication for whichhe is responsible , unless it be established to thesatisfaction of the court that disclosure is necessary in theinterests of justice or national security or for theprevention of disorder or crime . "

Section CARDINAL reads :

" In any case where a court has power to commit a person toprison for contempt of court and ( apart from this GPE limitation applies to the period of committal , thecommittal shall ( without prejudice to the power of the courtto order his earlier discharge ) be for a fixed term , and thatterm shall not on any occasion exceed DATE in the caseof committal by a superior court , or DATE in the case ofcommittal by an inferior court . "

ORG In Secretary of ORG Newspapers Lord PERSON considered the expression " interests of justice " in section CARDINAL of the DATE Act :

" The exceptions include no reference to the ‘ public interest’generally and I would add that in my view the expression’justice’ , the interests of which are entitled to protection , is not used in a general sense as the antonym of ‘ injustice’but in a technical sense of the administration of justice inthe course of legal proceedings in a court of law ... [ The expression ` interests of justice’ ] ... refers to theadministration of justice in particular legal proceedingsalready in existence or , in the type of ` bill of GPE ... exemplified by ORG v. ORG ... a particular civil action whichit is proposed to bring against a wrongdoer whose identityhas not yet been ascertained . I find it difficult toenvisage a civil action in which section CARDINAL of the [ DATE ] Actwould be relevant other than one of defamation or fordetention of goods where the goods , as in the instant caseand in ORG v. ORG ... consist of or include documents that have been supplied tothe media in breach of confidence . "