Violation of Art. 3;Not necessary to examine Art. 8;Just satisfaction reserved

The applicant was born in DATE and is currently serving a prison sentence in the GPE .

On DATE the applicant was detained on remand ( voorlopige hechtenis ) on suspicion of involvement , together with others , in the robbery of a couple in the GPE in the course of which the man had been killed in front of the woman , who had been raped several times and had eventually been killed in GPE . The criminal proceedings brought against the applicant , in which he stood accused of offences including rape , deprivation of liberty , murder , theft and robbery , came to an end on DATE when ORG ( PERSON ) confirmed the judgment of the ' s - ORG ( gerechtshof ) dated DATE in which the applicant had been sentenced to DATE imprisonment . In the meantime , requests for his extradition from the authorities of both GPE and GPE , where the applicant was wanted on suspicion of various serious offences , had been declared permissible on DATE and DATE respectively .

The applicant was initially detained in an ordinary remand centre ( huis van bewaring ) . On DATE , on the basis of information that the applicant appeared to be playing a key role in the preparation of an escape plan involving the taking of hostages , he was transferred to ORG ) in a GPE detention facility . On DATE he returned to an ordinary remand centre , but on CARDINAL DATE following a report that the applicant and another detainee were involved in smuggling a telephone and weapons into the remand centre – he was transferred back to ORG .

On DATE , on the advice of the special selection board of the ORG , the Minister of ORG decided to place the applicant in the pre - trial detention unit of the ORG , which is part of the PERSON Penitentiary Complex in FAC . His detention in the pre - trial unit of the ORG was reviewed and extended by the Minister DATE . On DATE , on the advice of the ORG special selection board , the applicant 's stay in the ORG was extended once again by the Minister . As the applicant 's conviction had become final in the meantime , he was transferred to the ORG prison unit . His detention in the ORG prison was reviewed and extended by the Minister DATE . The applicant unsuccessfully challenged each extension decision before ORG ( beroepscommissie ) of ORG ( Centrale PERSON ) . On DATE ORG was replaced by ORG ( PERSON GPE ) .

In DATE , after a fight between the applicant and a co - detainee , the applicant was placed under a so - called individual regime , as it was held that his security could not be guaranteed by the institution if he were to come into contact with other detainees . This measure , which resulted in the applicant 's being excluded from communal activities and being allowed to participate in activities on an individual basis only , was reviewed and extended DATE . The applicant unsuccessfully challenged each decision to extend the measure . The measure was lifted on an unspecified date in DATE .

According to a report dated DATE further to an examination of the his psychological condition by ORG ) , the applicant left a strong impression of a very angry , impulsive and combative man . He displayed no clear symptoms of depression and his references to suicide appeared to arise from feelings of anger at having been unjustly convicted and placed in the ORG and to be aimed at “ punishing ” those around him for what they had done to him . He gave the impression of suffering from a serious personality disorder with mainly narcissistic and anti - social features . After a difficult period , the situation around him had now stabilised to a reasonable degree and his dealings with the ORG staff had become easier .

In a letter of DATE the applicant was informed that the Minister of ORG had decided to extend his detention in the ORG once again . That letter , in its relevant part , read as follows :

“ From the information held about you , it appears – quite apart from your membership of a criminal organisation DATE that you must be regarded as likely to try to escape ( vluchtgevaarlijk ) . In this respect , I would inform you as follows .

You are currently detained in connection with the commission , together with others , of very serious crimes which provoked a public outcry and undermined law and order to a serious degree . In addition you are suspected of having committed very serious crimes in other NORP countries , resulting in extradition requests by GPE and GPE which have been accepted as permissible by ORG ( arrondissementsrechtbank ) . You will be extradited to GPE . On DATE you were questioned by the NORP police and on DATE by the NORP authorities . The expectation is that you will face ( a ) lengthy prison DATE ) in those countries . On DATE there were indications concerning you – in [ the ordinary ] ORG [ remand centre ] DATE from which it appeared that you ( and others ) intended to escape . It further appeared that there were plans to take staff members hostage . You were to play a key role in the planned escape attempt . At an earlier stage of your detention – also in GPE [ remand centre ] – ( official ) reports had been received indicating that you had the intention of escaping using a visitor 's pass . This resulted in your placement – on DATE in the [ GPE ] ORG .

On DATE you were placed in [ the ordinary ] PERSON [ remand centre ] . On DATE you reported that you had received clothes and shoes not belonging to you . A clasp knife measuring QUANTITY was found in the shoes , which you surrendered to a staff member . On DATE you smashed in the window of your cell .

On DATE reports concerning you were received , according to which you were intending to smuggle a telephone and/or weapons into the detention centre inside audio equipment .

On DATE you were again placed in ORG , pending a decision on a proposal to place you in the ORG .

After you had been placed in the ORG on DATE you displayed a particular interest in the security of the establishment . When other detainees were being moved , you observed the course of events closely , noting which doors opened and which remained closed . You also enquired of staff how well the building was secured , whether conversations were monitored and how many detainees the building could accommodate .

DATE you twice tried to circumvent the ORG security measures , resulting in a warning being issued to you . In the period DATE and DATE you displayed recalcitrant behaviour and a desire to push back boundaries , in particular with regard to the rules governing the prison regime .

DATE and DATE you issued threats against various persons , including a judge . You declared in that connection ' that you still knew people outside who would take care of this for you ' .

Also in the period DATE and DATE , you issued threats against ORG staff . You argued that the prison authorities and prison doctor were to blame for the situation in which you found yourself . In that connection you ( further ) indicated that those persons would pay for the things that they , in your opinion , had done to you .

From the above , the assumption appears justified that ( you realise that ) you have nothing more to lose and , in consequence , will seize every opportunity to escape .

After you had been sentenced to life imprisonment in first - instance proceedings , you were sentenced by an irrevocable judgment to DATE imprisonment for serious crimes . In addition , you are suspected of having committed very serious crimes in various other NORP countries , resulting in extradition requests by GPE and GPE which have been accepted as permissible by ORG . You will be extradited to GPE . The expectation is that you will face ( a ) lengthy prison sentence(s ) in those countries .

An escape on your part would be unacceptable to society . Noting the above , and also the grave concern expressed by society and public opinion at the very serious crimes which you have committed , as a result of which law and order was undermined to a serious degree , the [ ORG ] selection board , having heard evidence from the selection officer who has spoken with you , has advised me to continue your detention in the ORG . I have taken a decision to that effect . ”

As he had done in respect of the previous such decisions , the applicant again challenged the decision to extend his stay in the ORG , by lodging an appeal with ORG , arguing that his ( continued ) detention in the ORG was , inter alia , in breach of his rights under LAW and CARDINAL of the Convention .

NORP On DATE ORG dismissed the appeal . It noted that the applicant had been sentenced to DATE imprisonment for very serious crimes giving rise to grave concern in society and public opinion . In addition , he was suspected of having committed serious offences in other NORP countries , in connection with which GPE and GPE had sought his extradition . The expectation was that he would face lengthy prison sentences in both countries . It therefore considered that the applicant , in the event of an escape , would pose an unacceptable risk to society , in terms of severe disturbance of public order . Of lesser importance was the risk of escape in itself , that is , the situation provided for in LAW ( b ) of the Regulation of DATE on the selection , placement and transfer of detainees ( PERSON selectie , plaatsing en overplaatsing van gedetineerden ) . ORG further concluded that , having found no facts or circumstances militating against the continuation of the applicant 's stay in the ORG , the decision to extend his detention there was lawful and that , weighing up all the interests involved , it could not be considered as unreasonable or unjust . ORG did not deal with the applicant 's arguments under LAW and CARDINAL of the Convention .

By a decision of DATE the applicant 's detention in the ORG was again extended . His appeal to ORG , in which he again relied on , inter alia , Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the LAW , was dismissed on DATE .

ORG reaffirmed its opinion that the applicant , in the event of an escape , would pose an unacceptable risk to society in terms of severe disturbance of public order , and that the risk of escape was , in itself , of lesser importance . In the absence of any facts or circumstances militating against a continuation of the applicant 's stay in the ORG , it also found that the decision to extend his detention there was lawful and that , weighing up all the interests involved , it could not be considered as unreasonable or unjust . It did , however , add DATE before a decision was taken on whether to extend further the applicant 's detention in the ORG – the applicant should speak with a psychologist from ORG , and that the report to be drawn up following that conversation was to be taken into account in the decisionmaking process .

On DATE the applicant was transferred to an ordinary prison in GPE .

On DATE another individual – who had been detained in the ORG DATE and DATE brought a civil action in tort ( onrechtmatige daad ) against GPE before ORG of GPE . CARDINAL of the grounds on which he claimed payment of compensation in respect of non - pecuniary damage for unlawful acts for which he considered GPE to be liable was that , from his arrest in DATE until DATE , he had been subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment on account of the conditions of his detention , including having had to undergo humiliating and unnecessary strip - searches . He based this part of his claim on , inter alia , the ORG 's findings in its judgments of CARDINAL DATE in the cases of PERSON the GPE ( no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , ORG CARDINAL ) and PERSON and Others v. the GPE ( no . CARDINAL ) , the findings of ORG for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment ( ORG ) as set out in CARDINAL reports ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL below ) , and a report drawn up on DATE by academic researchers on the psychological impact of the ORG regime on the mental well - being of ( former ) inmates ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

On DATE the applicant and CARDINAL other ( former ) EBI detainees applied to ORG for leave to join the civil action against ORG . Their application related to the part of the claim concerning compensation for non - pecuniary damage sustained as a result of inhuman and degrading treatment on account of the conditions of detention in the ORG , including having had to undergo humiliating and unnecessary strip - searches . Those civil proceedings are still pending and , to date , no decision has been taken on the applicant 's request to join them .

An overview of the relevant domestic law and practice is given in the ORG 's judgment of CARDINAL DATE in the case of PERSON the GPE , no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , § § DATE , ORG CARDINAL-II , and in GPE v. the GPE ( dec . ) , no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , DATE .

On DATE , in the light of the ORG 's findings in its judgments of CARDINAL DATE in the cases of PERSON , cited above , and PERSON and Others , cited above , the ORG house rules ( huisregels ) were amended with the result that the practice of DATE routine strip - searches accompanying the DATE cell inspections was abandoned . Under the amended Article CARDINAL ) of the ORG house rules , strip - searches could be carried out at random during or directly after a DATE cell inspection .

From DATE , pursuant to a ruling given on DATE by the judge responsible for provisional measures ( voorzieningenrechter ) at ORG of The Hague in summary injunction proceedings brought against ORG by CARDINAL ORG detainees in DATE , the random strip - searches were no longer linked to cell inspections and the ORG authorities from then on determined in the case of each individual detainee to what extent random stripsearches were called for . The situation of each individual detainee is now discussed at the DATE ORG staff meeting on detainees .

On DATE researchers from ORG presented a report on a study , commissioned in DATE by the Minister of ORG , about the psychological impact of the ORG regime on the mental well - being of ( former ) inmates ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL below ) . It concluded that the ORG regime affected the cognitive functioning of detainees in a negative manner , with particular reference to the speed of processing information and response inhibition . This was probably a result of the lack of stimuli in the detention situation . The report further concluded that the ORG regime caused more depression than a restricted community regime and that strip - searches were perceived as humiliating , constituting an extra burden for persons detained in the ORG . On the other hand , the ORG regime provided a better balance between rest and activity than a restricted community regime , as a result of which ORG detainees maintained a healthier rhythm of everyday life . In addition it had not been demonstrated that ORG detainees displayed more physical symptoms of persistent mental stress .

Under GPE law the civil courts have traditionally had jurisdiction to grant relief against the authorities , if and in so far as no other relief is available . Where a person bases a claim against the authorities on an allegation that they have committed a tort within the meaning of Article CARDINAL of the Dutch Civil Code ( Burgerlijk Wetboek ) against him or her , the civil courts have jurisdiction in principle . Where the civil courts have jurisdiction , they can also act in summary injunction proceedings ( kort geding ) in which a claimant can , inter alia , request the civil court to issue an order against the authorities . An act by the authorities is unlawful and constitutes a tort when it violates a right of the claimant or is contrary to a rule of international or domestic law which seeks to protect the claimant 's interests , or to general principles of proper administration ( algemene beginselen van behoorlijk bestuur ) . An action in tort is subject to a DATE limitation period under LAW .

NORP However , as to the jurisdiction of the civil courts in cases where an administrative appeal lies , it is an established principle under GPE law that DATE given the closed system of legal remedies ( gesloten system van rechtsmiddelen ) in the GPE legal system – the civil court should refrain from examining the lawfulness of an administrative decision , provided that the administrative appeal offers sufficient guarantees as to a fair procedure . On this topic , extensive case - law has been developed by ORG ( PERSON ) over DATE , supported by a number of authorities , to the effect that where an administrative appeal does not offer sufficient guarantees of a fair procedure , the civil courts have full jurisdiction to review the lawfulness of the administrative decision . On the other hand , a civil action should be declared inadmissible when another specific remedy exists which offers sufficient guarantees of fair proceedings ( see ORG , DATE , PERSON ( GPE Law Reports – “ GPE ” ) DATE , no . CARDINAL ; see also NORP v. the GPE , judgment of CARDINAL DATE , Series A no . CARDINAL , § § CARDINAL and § § DATE ) .

NORP In a case in which it gave judgment on DATE , ORG examined the question whether a party which considered that it had been injured by a judicial ruling against it could bring a subsequent civil action in tort against the ORG , arguing that the judge had failed to act with due care in giving that ruling . ORG found that this was not possible , holding that it was solely for the legislature to decide in what cases a remedy was to be provided . It would be incompatible with this principle if an unsuccessful party were to have the possibility , through a civil action , of making the correctness of a [ final ] judicial ruling the subject matter of new proceedings , thus obtaining a fresh examination in a manner other than that provided for by statute . It added that only if the proceedings leading to a judicial decision had breached such fundamental legal principles ( fundamentele rechtsbeginselen ) that the case could no longer be said to have been determined in a fair and impartial manner , and if there was no possibility of appeal nor had there ever been such a possibility , could the ORG be held liable for the effects of such a ruling through a civil action in tort ( GPE DATE , no . CARDINAL ; see also ORG , DATE , GPE DATE , no . CARDINAL ; ORG of The Hague , DATE and CARDINAL DATE , GPE DATE , ORG . CARDINAL and CARDINAL ; and ORG of The Hague , DATE and CARDINAL DATE , ORG ( ORG ) DATE , nos . CARDINAL and CARDINAL ) .

In a judgment given on DATE concerning civil proceedings taken against ORG by an association of detainees who wished to challenge a special restricteddetention regime in a specific wing of the prison in GPE , ORG held that , as individual detainees had available to them a specific remedy to challenge a transfer to the wing concerned ( that is to say , the individual complaint procedure provided for in Article CARDINAL et seq . of LAW ( ORG ) as in force at that time ) and it was not in dispute that that remedy offered sufficient procedural safeguards , the claimant 's case had been correctly declared inadmissible , as the association had acted solely “ in the context of promoting the interests of its members ” , which were already safeguarded by the individual complaint procedure under LAW seq . of LAW ( GPE DATE , no . CARDINAL ) .

In a judgment given on DATE ( GPE DATE , no . CARDINAL ) in a civil action against GPE brought by a coaccused of a successful applicant to GPE ( PERSON v. the GPE , judgment of DATE , Series A no . CARDINAL ) , ORG held as follows :

“ It is embedded in the [ GPE ] legal system that a criminal court conviction against which an ordinary appeal can no longer be lodged not only should , but must , be executed . It is further incompatible with the closed system of legal remedies in criminal cases that a convicted person should have the opportunity , through a claim [ for tortious damage ] against the ORG , to bring a fresh set of legal proceedings challenging the decision of the criminal court or the acceptability of the [ criminal ] proceedings leading to the decision and to have [ the subject matter of those proceedings ] reviewed by the civil courts .

Considering the obligations flowing from ORG , CARDINAL and CARDINAL [ of the Convention ] to secure the rights set out in LAW ] and to provide an effective remedy in the event of a violation of those rights , an exception must be made to the above - mentioned rules should a ruling of ORG [ of Human Rights ] , which the criminal court judge could not take into account in his decision , prompt the conclusion that the decision had come about in such a manner that it could no longer be said that there had been a fair hearing of the case within the meaning of Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL [ of the Convention ] .

When such an exceptional case arises , immediate execution of the decision can no longer be regarded as permitted under the legal system , and the person convicted can institute interim injunction proceedings [ before the civil court ] seeking DATE depending on the circumstances DATE to have execution prohibited , stayed or limited . Having regard to the nature of interim injunction proceedings and the reticence to be observed by the judge in such proceedings when examining the manner in which an irrevocable decision of the criminal court has come about , there is scope for granting such a claim only when it is beyond reasonable doubt that the ruling of ORG [ of Human Rights ] indeed requires that the above - mentioned conclusion be reached . ”

In that case , ORG accepted ORG finding against the claimant in view of the fact that , when the impugned ruling was given on DATE , the ORG had not yet delivered its judgment in the PERSON case .

A number of persons detained in the ORG have in the past sought to bring interim injunction proceedings before the civil courts in order to have the regime , or certain aspects of it , relaxed ( for further details , see PERSON and Others , cited above , § § DATE ) .

On DATE an amendment to LAW “ the ORG ” ) entered into force , governing possible means of obtaining revision ( herziening ) of final judgments . The amendment extended the existing grounds on which a revision of a final conviction could be sought by including as a ground for revision a ruling by ORG that the criminal proceedings leading to that conviction had been in violation of the LAW . The relevant part of the amended text of LAW ORG reads :

“ CARDINAL . An application for revision of a final ruling ( eindbeslissing ) entailing a conviction which has obtained the force of res judicata can be lodged :

on the ground of a ruling of ORG in which it has been established that there was a violation of [ the ORG or one of its Protocols ] in the proceedings leading to the conviction ... if revision is necessary in order to secure reparation within the meaning of LAW of [ the LAW ] . ”

A request for revision can be lodged with ORG by the Procurator General , the convicted person or the latter 's lawyer within DATE after the convicted person has become aware of the ORG 's ruling referred to in LAW ( CARDINAL ) , subparagraph CARDINAL ( LAW .

If ORG accepts a request for revision based on LAW , subparagraph CARDINAL , it may either itself determine the criminal charges after reopening the criminal proceedings , or order the suspension of execution of the original judgment and remit the case for a fresh determination to a ORG different from the one that gave the original judgment ( LAW .

In its judgment of DATE in the case of PERSON and Others v. the GPE ( Reports of Judgments and Decisions CARDINAL ) , the ORG found a violation of the LAW in that the criminal proceedings against the CARDINAL applicants had not been conducted in compliance with the requirements of LAW and CARDINAL ( d ) of the LAW . In its judgment it awarded each of the applicants an amount for costs and expenses and adjourned its examination of the applicants ' claim for non - pecuniary damage , considering that that part of the applicants ' claim for just satisfaction was not ready for decision .

On DATE the applicants in that case lodged a request for their immediate release from detention , failing which they would bring summary injunction proceedings against the ORG . On DATE the Minister of ORG decided to grant them temporary release ( strafonderbreking ) and they were released from prison on DATE .

The ORG determined the applicants ' claims for non - pecuniary damage in its judgment of DATE ( PERSON and Others v. GPE ( LAW ) , Reports CARDINALVII ) , in which it noted that under domestic law it was not possible for the applicants to obtain a retrialCARDINAL . The applicants had claimed MONEY ( NLG ) for DATE spent in detention , resulting in total claims of MONEY and NLG CARDINAL,CARDINAL . After having examined the respondent Government 's comments on those claims , the ORG awarded CARDINAL applicant NLG CARDINAL ( MONEY ( ORG ) ) and each of the CARDINAL other applicants NLG CARDINAL ( EUR CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL ) for non - pecuniary damage , and rejected the remainder of the applicants ' claims for non - pecuniary damage .

On DATE ORG , exercising its supervisory powers under the Convention as regards the execution of the ORG 's judgments of DATE and DATE , adopted a final resolution ( Res DH(CARDINAL)CARDINAL ) in the case . Having noted the measures taken by the GPE on the basis of the ORG 's judgments , ORG concluded that the manner in which the GPE had executed both judgments was in compliance with their obligations under LAW .

On DATE CARDINAL of the CARDINAL applicants brought a civil action in tort against GPE before ORG of GPE . They sought a declaratory ruling that GPE was liable for pecuniary and non - pecuniary damage arising out of unlawful administration of justice in violation of their rights under LAW and CARDINAL ( d ) . They sought payment of compensation corresponding to LAW for DATE spent in detention , less the compensation awarded by the ORG . They based their claims on the argument that , given the ORG 's findings in its judgment of DATE , it had been established that in the domestic criminal proceedings against them the NORP court had breached fundamental legal principles and that the resulting judgment and their detention had been unlawful .

In its judgment of DATE , following appeal proceedings taken by GPE , ORG of The GPE quashed the impugned judgment given on DATE by ORG , and for the time spent in detention ( pre - trial and following conviction ) awarded compensation for non - pecuniary damage to the first claimant in the amount of ORG , less ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL already awarded by ORG . It awarded the second claimant ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL , less ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL awarded by ORG , and the third claimant ORG CARDINAL , less EUR CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL awarded by the ORG . ORG held , inter alia , as follows :

“ The finding of ORG [ of Human Rights ] that full redress ( volledige genoegdoening ) by means of a ' retrial ' in the GPE is not possible , means that ORG may award compensation on grounds of equity ( vergoeding naar billijkheid ) , but not that in subsequent civil proceedings the domestic court can no longer award full compensation for damage ( volledige schadevergoeding ) . The ORG 's argument , that [ the CARDINAL claimants ] requested compensation for damage for the first time before ORG and not previously before the domestic court , and that ORG would have taken into account in its judgment the same claims for damages ( schadeposten ) as those now in issue in the present proceedings , fails because no rule exists prohibiting the bringing of a claim before the NORP court seeking compensation for damage , a part of which DATE namely an award in equity – has already been awarded in separate proceedings before ORG . ”

In its judgment of DATE on the appeal on points of law brought by ORG against the ruling of DATE , ORG held that the ORG had been correct in not challenging this part of the reasoning in the impugned judgment .

On DATE the ORG delivered its judgment in the case of PERSON and Others ( cited above ) , finding a violation of LAW in respect of the applicant PERSON in that , during his stay in the ORG for DATE , the applicant – who was already subjected to a great number of control measures – had been subjected to DATE routine strip - searches without convincing security reasons . It found no violation in respect of the other grievances raised by PERSON and the other applicants ( his spouse and children ) under LAW , DATE and CARDINAL of the Convention . As regards damages , the applicants requested the ORG to award them a symbolic amount of NLG CARDINAL,CARDINAL ( ORG CARDINAL.CARDINAL ) , stating that no amount of money would be capable of compensating for the harm suffered by them . Taking the view that PERSON had sustained some psychological damage on account of the treatment which had been found contrary to LAW , the ORG awarded him , in respect of such damage , ORG MONEY , that is to say , the full amount claimed under that head .

On DATE PERSON brought summary injunction proceedings against ORG before the judge responsible for provisional measures in ORG of ORG of GPE , seeking an order against the ORG to discontinue , with immediate effect , the execution of the DATE prison sentence that had been imposed on him , to release him immediately from prison and not to seek payment of the fine of NLG MONEY ( ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL ) that had also been imposed .

On DATE the judge responsible for provisional measures ruled on the applicant 's request . The decision , in its relevant part , reads :

“ CARDINAL . The claimant has an urgent interest in his claim . The civil court judge DATE in this case the judge responsible for provisional measures in summary injunction proceedings – is empowered to take cognisance [ of the case ] , as the claimant claims that the ORG has acted unlawfully toward him , inter alia by continuing his detention .

For the determination of the claim , it is a fact that the ORG has violated the applicant 's rights under LAW ...

Under LAW of [ the LAW ] the applicant is entitled to reparation ( rechtsherstel ) in respect of this irreparable violation of the LAW . If need be , he can assert that right before the courts . The ORG is deemed to be acting unlawfully towards him if no suitable form of redress is provided .

The parties have provided different answers to the question whether the measures requested by the claimant ... constitute a form of redress compatible with our legal system and , if so , whether those measures are suitable and appropriate in this case .

[ The judge responsible for provisional measures rejects ] the argument of the ORG that the closed system of legal remedies in criminal proceedings , and the corresponding obligation of the ORG to execute rulings of the criminal courts , militate against this form of redress . In this system , no provision has been made to date for ( a suitable response to ) a violation of the kind at issue in the instant case . There have been no prior similar cases , and the possible occurrence of such cases has apparently not been taken into consideration in legislation or in case - law . In principle , early release or non - execution of a fine imposed may constitute a suitable form of redress for a violation of LAW kind in issue . This exception to the closed system of legal remedies in criminal cases is , to that extent , consistent with ORG approach in its judgment of CARDINAL DATE ( GPE DATE , CARDINAL ) .

The ORG has referred to the financial compensation awarded by the [ ORG ] and to the just satisfaction which , in the case of the applicant , lies in the fact that his complaint was declared well - founded [ by ORG ] . However , these CARDINAL elements do not form a suitable , and certainly not a sufficient , form of redress for the claimant . Consequently , they do not stand in the way of the claims being allowed . The claimant can request the domestic court to order that additional measures be taken .

In reply to a question , the ORG stated that it was possible , in this connection , to consider measures such as the claimant 's serving the remainder of his prison sentence under a less strict regime or the granting of a pardon in accordance with existing procedure . ... Again , these options do not form an obstacle to allowing the claims . The first option does not constitute sufficient redress in this case , while the option of a pardon corresponds to ( a request for ) a concession rather than the granting of a right , which is what is at issue here .

In these circumstances , the ORG should release the claimant earlier than June CARDINAL [ when he becomes eligible for early release ] and waive the execution of the sentence in its entirety . Having regard to the nature of the violation of the ORG which is an established fact , a form of redress ( genoegdoening ) which relates to the claimant 's liberty is more suitable , and in any event warrants greater priority than waiving payment of the part of the fine still outstanding .

No fixed standard exists for ' offsetting ' the remaining part of the claimant 's prison sentence . There are no pertinent reference points on the subject in existing legislation . This means that the amount of the compensation must be determined on an equitable basis ( naar billijkheid ) . The seriousness of the violation [ of the ORG ] justifies reduction of the sentence by a period equal to PERCENT of DATE for which the applicant was subjected to the regime in the ORG ... This amounts to a reduction of DATE ( round figure ) ...

On the basis of this solution , the claimant 's claim should be rejected . Indeed , the claimant has no urgent interest in a provisional measure which will only take effect after DATE [ when the applicant has served his mitigated sentence ] ... It is assumed that the ORG ( the Minister of ORG ) will execute this ruling and release the claimant at a time that can be determined precisely on the basis of the standard set out here . If need be , the claimant may apply again in due course to the judge responsible for provisional measures .

Each of the parties can , in fact , be deemed to have been ruled against . ”

Both parties agreed to lodge a direct “ leapfrog ” appeal on points of law ( sprongcassatie ) with ORG , which dismissed both appeals on DATE . Although it agreed with ORG that the judge responsible for provisional measures had incorrectly assumed that LAW gave Mr Lorsé an ( independent ) right to redress which , if need be , could be asserted before the domestic court , it held that this could not lead to the setting - aside of the judgment as , pursuant to the LAW , the ORG was obliged to provide redress . However , relying on the ORG 's reasoning in the cases of PERSON and Others v. GPE ( ( LAW ) , judgment of DATE , Series A no . CARDINAL ) and PERSON and ORG v. GPE ( [ ORG ] , ORG . ORG and CARDINAL , ORG CARDINALVIII ) , ORG considered that , although the ORG was in principle free to determine the manner in which redress was to be provided , that freedom did not mean that the domestic court was unable to take a decision on that point , but simply that a suitable form of redress was to be sought within the domestic legal order . As ORG had acted unlawfully towards PERSON in so far as his rights under LAW had been violated , as found by the ORG , PERSON was entitled to claim compensation from the ORG , which would be acting unlawfully if it failed to provide a suitable form of redress . ORG accepted that such compensation could be granted in a manner other than by paying a sum of money . In cases such as the present , where the violation found concerned the manner of execution of a custodial sentence , it could take the form of discontinuing the execution of the sentence . ORG found that the order of the judge responsible for provisional measures to discontinue execution of the prison sentence should be regarded as a suitable form of compensation in kind in the case of PERSON . As regards the argument raised by the ORG that the closed system of legal remedies and the corresponding obligation for the ORG to execute rulings of the criminal courts precluded the form of redress claimed by PERSON , ORG – while acknowledging that there was a difference between a situation in which the violation found concerned a domestic criminal conviction itself or the proceedings having led to that conviction [ as in the case of PERSON and Others ] and a situation in which the violation found was unrelated to such a conviction or proceedings [ as in the case of Mr Lorsé ] DATE held that this difference did not mean that the judge responsible for provisional measures had based point CARDINAL of the impugned ruling on an incorrect interpretation of the law . Given the particular violation of Article CARDINAL found by the ORG and the fact that there was no specific statutory remedy for determining redress for such a violation , ORG concluded that in that case an exception to the closed system of legal remedies could be accepted . It further found that the judge responsible for provisional measures had given sufficient reasons as to the determination of the compensation awarded to PERSON .

In its judgment of DATE in the case of PERSON the GPE ( no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) , in which the applicant complained that his telephone conversations with PERSON had been recorded by the latter with equipment provided by the police with a view to their use as prosecution evidence against him , the ORG found a violation of LAW on the ground that the conversations in question had not been recorded “ in accordance with the law ” . As the applicant had declined to submit any claims for compensation in respect of pecuniary or nonpecuniary damage , stating that he intended instead to pursue such claims before the domestic courts , the ORG made no award for just satisfaction under those heads . In so far as the applicant claimed compensation for legal costs and expenses incurred by him in the domestic proceedings , the ORG rejected the applicant 's argument that the criminal proceedings against him had resulted entirely from the violation it had found in his case , taking the view that those proceedings had in fact been occasioned by a reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing on the applicant 's part , and recalling that it had already , at the admissibility stage , rejected the applicant 's complaints touching on the use made of the evidence obtained as a result of the violation found .

On an unspecified date and on the basis of the ORG 's findings in its judgment of DATE , the applicant PERSON filed a request with ORG for revision of the final domestic judgment of DATE , in which ORG – without the recorded telephone conversations having been relied on in evidence – had convicted him of having sexually assaulted PERSON and another woman and had sentenced him to a suspended term of DATE imprisonment , together with a fine of NLG CARDINAL ( EUR CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL ) , to be replaced by DATE detention for default of payment .

On DATE ORG accepted the request for revision and , in accordance with LAW ORG , determined the matter itself . It held as follows :

“ CARDINAL . ... the ORG has the obligation to provide redress if ORG has found a violation of a LAW provision . Such redress can be provided in whole or in part within the framework of the revision procedure , amended for this purpose .

Having regard to the violation of LAW found by ORG , ORG is of the opinion that revision is necessary for the purposes of redress . To that extent , the request is well - founded . ... The request is aimed primarily at having ORG declare the prosecution inadmissible , while quashing the judgment in respect of which revision is sought .

ORG can not accede to this request since it is only in exceptional cases that a prosecution may be declared inadmissible , and the instant case can not be regarded as such . In this connection the petitioner relies mistakenly on [ ORG judgment of DATE ; NL DATE , no . CARDINAL ] . In that case ORG held that , in certain circumstances , a serious breach of the principles of due process may lead to the prosecution being declared inadmissible if , as a result of that breach , deliberately or owing to gross disregard of the defendant 's interests , the defendant 's right to a fair hearing has been infringed . As ORG , in its decision on admissibility [ M.M .. v. the GPE ( dec . ) , no . MONEY ] of DATE , preceding its judgment of DATE , declared inadmissible the [ applicant 's ] complaint under LAW as being manifestly ill - founded , it can not be said that there has been a serious breach of the principles of due process as a result of which , deliberately or owing to gross disregard of the [ applicant 's ] interests , his right to a fair hearing has been infringed .

Taking into account that , in the proceedings leading to the judgment of which revision is sought , there was no breach of LAW and that the content of the recorded telephone conversations was not used in evidence , there is no ground for referring the case to ORG under LAW , as requested by the petitioner in the alternative .

In the light of the significance of the violation [ of the Convention ] and the nature and seriousness of the irreparable defects in the preliminary criminal investigation , as found by ORG , ORG will , after accepting the [ revision ] request , determine the matter itself , in accordance with LAW ORG , and reduce the fine imposed by ORG in the following manner .

ORG quashed the original judgment of ORG in part , that is , in respect only of the amount of the fine imposed and the duration of the detention for default , reducing the fine by PERCENT to ORG CARDINAL and the detention for default to DATE .

The findings of ORG for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment ( ORG ) with regard to the ORG , as set out in its ORG on a visit to the GPE from DATE , together with ORG response to those findings , are set out in the ORG 's judgment of CARDINAL DATE in the case of PERSON ( cited above , § § DATE ) .

The ORG visited the GPE again from CARDINAL to DATE and , in the course of that visit , carried out a follow - up visit to the ORG . Its findings were the following ( ORG to ORG on the visits carried out to GPE and to GPE by ORG for ORG Treatment or Punishment ( ORG ) in DATE , ORG ( DATE ) CARDINAL , excerpts ) :

“ CARDINAL . At the time of the DATE visit , ORG ( ORG ) at the FAC was being renovated , and the inmates allocated to it were being held in FAC ( ( GPE ) building nearby ( cf . paragraph CARDINAL of ORG ( DATE ) CARDINAL ) .

In addition to paying a brief visit to the facilities undergoing renovation , the ORG 's delegation examined the regime currently being applied , and devoted attention to the procedures governing placement and extension of placement in ORG . In the course of the visit , interviews were held with all CARDINAL inmates , the establishment 's management and staff , as well as representatives of ORG .

c. regime

Following its first visit to the ORG , the ORG expressed considerable concern about the regime applied within the institution . It recommended that the regime be revised , in particular as regards certain of its features : the group system ( if not discarded , to at least be relaxed and inmates to be allowed more out - of - cell time and a broader range of activities ) ; searching policies ( to be reviewed in order to ensure that they are strictly necessary from a security standpoint ) ; and visiting arrangements ( to be reviewed , the objective being to have visits take place under more open conditions ) ( cf . paragraphs CARDINAL to CARDINAL of ORG ( CARDINAL ) CARDINAL ) .

However , in their response ( dated DATE ) to the ORG 's visit report , the NORP authorities defended point by point the different aspects of the regime being applied in the ORG ( cf . paragraph CARDINAL of ORG ( CARDINAL ) CARDINAL ) .

In the course of the DATE visit , the Director of the FAC and the Acting Director of the ORG informed the ORG 's delegation that a limited number of modifications to the regime and its implementation had taken place . For instance , steps were being taken to increase staff / inmate communication through a training programme known as “ Safety at the door ” , as well as by the previously - mentioned adaptations of the exercise yards . Further , a slight expansion of the types of activities offered had made it possible for inmates to practice playing musical instruments in their cells . Another positive development was that the special “ handcuffs regime ” ( cf . paragraph CARDINAL of ORG ( DATE ) CARDINAL ) had not been applied in respect of any inmate since DATE .

However , despite these welcome developments , the regime in the unit was essentially the same as in DATE , and the prison 's management acknowledged that there had been “ no change in most of the rules ” . Although the official allowance for activities was generous ( TIME ) , in practice , most inmates ' out - of - cell time did not appear to have increased ( averaging TIME per day ) . The stringing of plastic curtain hooks on short rods , which was performed individually in the cells , continued to be the only work offered . It remained the case that body searches - including anal inspections - were performed on each prisoner at least once DATE , a process which was invariably perceived as humiliating . Conditions under which visits and sessions with non - custodial staff took place also continued to be very restrictive . Inmates ' remarks to the delegation ( e.g. “ losing positivity ” , lacking “ future feelings ” , “ beginning to hate people from the heart ” , and/or having to cope by being “ mentally separate ” ) frequently echoed those made in DATE .

To sum up , inmates held in the ORG remained subject to a very impoverished regime .

In an environment which is potentially hazardous to the mental health of prisoners , it is of critical importance to provide a varied programme of appropriate stimulating activities ( including education , sport , work of vocational value , etc . ) . The ORG calls upon the NORP authorities to make further efforts with a view to increasing out - of - cell time , allowing for more human contact , expanding the range of activities ( work and education ) , and alleviating searching measures for prisoners held in the ORG . Less constrained contact should be encouraged with all staff .

Following a recommendation made by the ORG in its previous periodic visit report ( cf . paragraph CARDINAL of ORG ( DATE ) CARDINAL ) , the NORP authorities commissioned ORG to carry out an independent study of the psychological state of current and former inmates of the ORG . A preliminary study completed on DATE concluded that “ an empirical examination of the possible effects of a maximum security regime on the mental conditions of prisoners is feasible . ” The NORP authorities have indicated that such an empirical examination has in fact commenced and would be completed by DATE . The ORG trusts that it will receive the results of the study in due course .

CARDINAL point raised by the preliminary study may be noted , i.e that the lack of influence of detainees on the severity of the regime being applied to them constitutes a “ contradiction in the policy ” of the ORG . ORG would like to receive the views of the NORP authorities on this statement .

[ footnote ] CARDINAL . Each prisoner was also subjected to such a search before and after being interviewed by members of the ORG 's delegation . ”

ORG responded to these findings in the following terms ( ORG ( DATE ) DATE , excerpts ) :

“ The “ Extra Security Institution ” at the FAC

recommendations

- the NORP authorities [ are called upon ] to make further efforts with a view to increasing out - of - cell time , allowing for more human contact , expanding the range of activities ( work and education ) , and alleviating searching measures for prisoners held in the ORG . Less constrained contact should be encouraged with all staff ( paragraph CARDINAL )

Response : Prisoners in the ORG spend a total of TIME a week on out - of - cell activities , and these activities are no less varied than in other prisons . They include exercise , visits , sport , work , education and recreation . Not all prisoners take part in all activities . What they do depends partly on interest and ability . The work in the ORG is simple . However , it is difficult to provide work that is more varied and yet meets security requirements . In principle , work in the ORG is done jointly . The Government refutes the claim that , on average , prisoners participate in activities for no more than between TIME a day . In fact they spend an average of TIME a day in out - of - cell activities .

The Government agrees that prisoners and staff should have more contact . Fenced - off walkways for staff have now been erected in the exercise yards . They provide more opportunities for informal contact and interaction between prisoners and staff .

The number of searches has been sharply reduced since the opening of the ORG . Besides a DATE search during cell checks , searches are carried out after visits to areas containing potentially dangerous objects , such as the hairdresser 's or the doctor 's or dentist 's surgery , and after contact with the outside world , such as visits . Searches are still necessary from the point of view of security . The Government would point out that searches are also conducted in ordinary prisons .

On DATE , in CARDINAL separate cases against the GPE , ORG ruled that : “ the combination of routine strip - searching with the other stringent security measures in the ORG amounted to inhuman or degrading treatment in violation of LAW . There has thus been a breach of this provision . ” ( PERSON the GPE , ORG no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , DATE , § CARDINAL ; see also PERSON the GPE , ORG no . MONEY , DATE , § CARDINAL ) . These judgments and other considerations have prompted the Government to stop routine DATE searches in the ORG over a long period of time . The ORG 's regulations will be amended .

requests for information

- the results of the “ empirical examination of the possible effects of a maximum security regime on the mental conditions of prisoners ” , being conducted by ORG ( paragraph CARDINAL )

Response : The study is expected to be completed by DATE as indicated . As soon as the findings are available , the ORG will forward them to the ORG .

- the views of the NORP authorities on the statement , made in the preliminary study carried out by ORG , to the effect that the lack of influence of detainees on the severity of the regime being applied to them constitutes a “ contradiction in the policy ” of the ORG ( paragraph CARDINAL )

Response : The Government understands the point made in the preliminary study concerning the lack of influence that prisoners have on the regime . However , opportunities to exercise influence are necessarily more restricted in the ORG than in other prisons because of the nature of the system . The facility is exclusively for prisoners who are highly likely to abscond or who pose a serious threat to society . Placement in the ORG is mainly determined by considerations of safety and security . In this sense the ORG differs from other prisons . The emphasis on safety and security means that placement in the ORG does not depend on a prisoner 's behaviour but on the risk he represents . ”


The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in Brwinów . He is represented before the ORG by PERSON PERSON , his father and legal guardian .

The respondent Government are represented by Mr PERSON , of ORG .

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

The applicant is physically handicapped and suffers from various mental disorders which originated from prenatal damage caused by his mother 's car accident .

On DATE the applicant was arrested and charged with attempted extortion of money by threats .

On DATE ORG dismissed his appeal , finding that the arrest was justified and that his medical records did not indicate that his detention would be incompatible with his condition . On DATE ORG decided to detain the applicant on remand until DATE .

On DATE ORG instructed the administration of the detention centre to set up a medical commission to examine the applicant , to assess whether the state of his health allowed him to remain in custody .

The medical examination was eventually carried out on DATE . The commission concluded that the applicant could remain in a detention centre equipped with a psychiatric and neurological unit .

On an unspecified date after DATE the applicant was transferred to the detention centre GPE , which had a psychiatric clinic .

On an unspecified date the applicant filed an appeal against the detention order , which was dismissed on DATE by ORG . The court shared the arguments of the first instance court and found that the applicant was receiving specialist medical care .

On DATE the ORG prolonged the applicant 's detention until DATE . The applicant appealed . He also contended that , should the detention order be upheld , he should remain in a regular hospital and not in a detention centre .

On DATE ORG found that the detention was necessary as , in particular , a psychiatric report had been requested to establish whether the applicant could be held criminally responsible . It decided , however , that the extension given by ORG was excessively long and ruled that the applicant should be detained until DATE .

On DATE the prosecutor conducting the investigation decided to place the applicant under psychiatric observation . This decision was upheld by a court upon the applicant 's appeal .

On DATE ORG prolonged the applicant 's detention until DATE . The applicant appealed . ORG dismissed his appeal on DATE . On DATE , the same court examined a fresh motion by the prosecutor and again prolonged the applicant 's detention , until DATE .

The bill of indictment in the applicant 's case was lodged with ORG on DATE . The trial was set to commence on DATE .

On DATE the court decided that the applicant should be again examined by a team of CARDINAL psychiatrists who would establish his condition tempore criminis . Their report was submitted on DATE . At the next hearing held on DATE the court decided to conduct the trial ab initio , the composition of the court having changed . The court also ordered , upon the applicant 's request , a new medical opinion as to whether his condition prevented him from participating in the proceedings . This opinion was submitted to the court on DATE . Apparently , no further hearings were held in DATE . On DATE the court decided that it lacked jurisdiction to deal with the applicant 's case . This decision was quashed , following the applicant 's appeal , on DATE .

The next hearings were held on DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE . On DATE ORG refused to transmit the case back to the prosecuting authorities for the investigations to be completed . The applicant appealed . On DATE ORG quashed the decision of DATE and ordered that the request to transmit the case for further investigations be re - examined . On DATE ORG again turned this request down .

By a judgment of DATE ORG found the applicant guilty of an attempt to extort money by threats in collusion with other persons whose identity had not been established . The court sentenced the applicant to DATE imprisonment and stayed the execution of the sentence . The applicant appealed . On DATE ORG quashed the first - instance judgment and ordered that the case be reconsidered . The case is currently pending .

On DATE the Law of CARDINAL DATE on complaints about a breach of the right to a trial within a reasonable time ( LOC o skardze na naruszenie prawa strony do rozpoznania sprawy w postępowaniu sądowym bez nieuzasadnionej zwłoki ) ( “ the CARDINAL Act ” ) entered into force . It lays down various legal means designed to counteract and/or redress the undue length of judicial proceedings .

Section CARDINAL of the CARDINAL Act reads , in so far as relevant :

“ CARDINAL . NORP Parties

Section CARDINAL reads , in so far as relevant :

“ CARDINAL . A complaint about the unreasonable length of proceedings shall be lodged while the proceedings are pending . ... ”

Section CARDINAL provides for measures that may be applied by the court dealing with the complaint . It reads , in so far as relevant :

“ CARDINAL . The court shall dismiss a complaint which is unjustified .

NORP If the court considers that the complaint is justified , it shall find that there was an unreasonable delay in the impugned proceedings .

At the request of the complainant , the court may instruct the court examining the merits of the case to take certain measures within a fixed time - limit . Such instructions shall not concern the factual and legal assessment of the case .

NORP If the complaint is justified the court may , at the request of the complainant , grant ... just satisfaction in an amount not exceeding PLN CARDINAL,CARDINAL to be paid by ORG . If such just satisfaction is granted it shall be paid out of the budget of the court which conducted the delayed proceedings . ”

Section CARDINAL lays down transitional rules in relation to the applications already pending before the ORG . It reads , in so far as relevant :

“ CARDINAL . Within DATE after the date of entry into force of this law persons who , before that date , had lodged a complaint with ORG ... complaining of a breach of the right to a trial within a reasonable time guaranteed by LAW ... , may lodge a complaint about the unreasonable length of the proceedings on the basis of the provisions of this law if their complaint to ORG had been lodged in the course of the impugned proceedings and if the ORG has not adopted a decision concerning the admissibility of their case .

On DATE ORG ( PERSON ) adopted a resolution ( no . III SPP CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) in which it ruled that while LAW produced legal effects as from the date of its date of entry into force ( DATE ) , its provisions applied retroactively to all proceedings in which delays had occurred before that date and had not yet been remedied .


Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect)

Aleš Pejchal;Angelika Nußberger;Ann Power-Forde;Ganna Yudkivska;Helena Jäderblom;Mark Villiger

The applicants live in GPE , ORG . The first applicant is Mr GPE Pozhyvotko ’s widow and the second applicant is his mother .

In TIME of CARDINAL October CARDINAL Mr PERSON was shot dead in a local bar .

On DATE ORG opened an investigation in connection with the death .

During TIME CARDINAL DATE an investigator from the prosecutor ’s office , together with other law - enforcement officers , experts and witnesses , carried out an on - site examination , including photographing and videotaping of the crime scene . Certain material evidence was seized , including CARDINAL pistols , cartridges , bullets and other items . The victim ’s body was sent for a forensic medical examination .

In the subsequent period the investigative authorities ordered forensic examinations of the seized evidence , questioned a number of witnesses and conducted searches in order to find additional evidence .

On DATE the first applicant was admitted to the proceedings as an aggrieved party .

On DATE the investigator charged T. with murder and put him on the list of wanted persons .

On DATE PERSON voluntarily confessed to shooting the victim dead . On DATE PERSON was arrested . The decisions concerning T. were revoked .

On DATE L. was released on the grounds that there was insufficient evidence to charge him with the crime .

On DATE the second applicant was granted the status of aggrieved party in the criminal proceedings .

NORP By letter of CARDINAL DATE the second applicant was informed that the case had been referred to ORG for “ a more qualified investigation ” .

In its letter of DATE ORG informed the second applicant that the investigation had been delayed . They further noted that ORG had been instructed to take comprehensive measures in the case . As regards her request for referral of the case to a different prosecutor ’s office , she was informed that it would not be appropriate to do so .

On DATE the investigator in charge of the case stated in writing that the video recording and photographs of the crime scene made on DATE could not be found .

On DATE the investigation was closed on the grounds that L. had acted in the state of necessary defence and the involvement of other individuals in the crime could not be established .

On DATE the deputy prosecutor of the ORG quashed that decision , noting that the dactylographic examination had not been completed and a number of witnesses had not been questioned .

On DATE , following the additional investigation , the case was closed once again on the grounds that L. had acted in the state of necessary defence , while the involvement of other individuals in the crime could not be established .

On DATE the ORG of ORG quashed that decision , finding that the investigation had not been comprehensive . It noted that there had been a significant number of investigative measures at the initial stage of the proceedings , including an on - site examination and forensic expert examinations , which had been carried out unprofessionally and in breach of procedural rules , and that the video recording and photographs of the crime scene could not be found . The court remitted the case for additional investigation , specifying , inter alia , that it was necessary to investigate the personality of the victim in more detail , establish the precise time of the crime , take measures to find the missing video recording and photographs , question witnesses , and conduct , if appropriate , additional expert examinations .

Following that decision , the investigation was renewed and conducted by ORG .

In his letter of CARDINAL DATE the Deputy Prosecutor of ORG informed the second applicant that the video recording of the crime scene had been found and a range of additional investigative measures had been undertaken . He indicated that the investigator of ORG should have been sanctioned for the inadequate investigation of the case , but he had been dismissed .

NORP In DATE the case was referred to ORG and in DATE it was referred to ORG for further investigative measures .

On DATE the police investigator terminated the proceedings on the grounds that L. had acted in the state of necessary defence . The applicants appealed against that decision .

On DATE ORG quashed that decision as unfounded and ordered further investigative measures .

In DATE and DATE ORG gave instructions to the police investigator as to the further investigations to be carried out . Those instructions included , among other things , an additional examination of the crime scene , questioning of witnesses , a reconstruction of the crime , confrontations between witnesses , and additional expert examinations .

As of DATE the proceedings were pending .

The applicants also instituted CARDINAL sets of civil proceedings against the law - enforcement authorities , claiming that they had failed to investigate the case properly and had breached procedures during the investigation . The claims in the first set of proceedings were rejected . The applicants did not inform ORG outcome of the second set of proceedings .

The applicants also requested that an investigation be opened concerning the disappearance of the harvest of sunflower seeds which had allegedly belonged to Mr V. PERSON and had been entrusted to his business colleagues . The authorities refused to open an investigation , after finding that the matter was of a civil - law nature and that there was no evidence that PERSON had ever owned the harvest in question .

The relevant domestic law can be found in the judgment of GPE v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL , § § DATE and DATE , DATE ) .