George Nicolaou;Ineta Ziemele;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Ledi Bianku;Päivi Hirvelä;Zdravka Kalaydjieva

NORP The applicant in the first application ( no . CARDINAL ) , PERSON PERSON , is a NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in GPE . She is not legally represented .

NORP The applicant in the second application ( no . CARDINAL ) , Mr ORG ORG , is a NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in PERSON . He is represented before the Court by Mr PERSON and PERSON , lawyers practising in GPE .

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

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

On DATE the GPE ORG , having been tipped off by PERSON , a member of FAC , that her former de facto spouse had committed documentary fraud , asked the GPE police to inquire into the matter . On DATE the police proposed that criminal proceedings be brought against PERSON de facto spouse .

On DATE the GPE ORG opened criminal proceedings against him . In DATE it gathered evidence , heard CARDINAL witnesses , including PERSON , and obtained a graphological expert report .

As the evidence led the investigator in charge of the case to believe that PERSON had forged an employment certificate to enable her de facto spouse to obtain a retirement pension , on DATE he brought charges of documentary fraud against her .

On DATE PERSON was allowed to inspect the case file , and on DATE the investigator proposed that she be brought to trial .

On DATE the GPE ORG indicted Ms ORG and her de facto spouse , alleging that he had committed documentary fraud by using the employment certificate to obtain a retirement pension , and that she had consciously enabled him to commit that fraud by forging that certificate .

ORG held a hearing on DATE . Noting that the alleged victim of the offence – the social security authorities – had not appeared , it decided to adjourn the case .

The next hearing took place on DATE . The social security authorities brought a civil claim against PERSON and her de facto spouse , seeking repayment , plus interest , of the amounts that the latter had obtained by way of a retirement pension . The president of the panel hearing the case recused himself , citing the fact that PERSON was a member of FAC . On DATE , DATE and DATE all other judges of ORG also declined to sit in the case , citing the same reason . Accordingly , on DATE the court ’s president sent the case to ORG for a decision to which other district court the case was to be transferred , and on DATE ORG chose ORG .

NORP The trial before ORG was due to start on DATE . However , on that date the court found that it could not proceed with the case because the prosecution had not appeared , and decided to adjourn it . On DATE the case was again adjourned because Ms ORG ’s de facto spouse was ill and could not attend .

The trial started on DATE . ORG heard CARDINAL witnesses and an expert and admitted an expert report .

On an unspecified date in DATE the social security authorities withdrew their civil claim against PERSON de facto spouse because he had repaid the amounts that he had obtained by way of a retirement pension . At the next hearing , held on DATE , he entered into a plea agreement with the prosecution . After approving the agreement , the panel hearing the case recused themselves by reference to a rule of criminal procedure barring judges and lay judges from sitting in a case in which they had approved a plea agreement .

The case was then assigned to another panel , which held hearings on DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE .

A hearing listed for DATE had to be postponed because it coincided with the DATE plenary meeting of ORG , and took place on DATE . ORG asked the court to discontinue the trial and refer the case back to LOC with a view to clarifying the charges against Ms Valcheva . The court , observing that the indictment did not clearly spell out the time , the place or the manner of commission of the offence alleged against her , acceded to the request .

On DATE the GPE ORG lodged an amended indictment against PERSON with ORG . On DATE the judge to whom the case had been assigned again withdrew , citing his earlier decision to withdraw from the case in DATE . Noting that ORG had already determined which court should deal with the case , on DATE the president of ORG sent it to ORG .

On DATE ORG set the case down for trial . It was due to take place on DATE but was adjourned due to Ms ORG ’s failure to appear without showing cause . The court fined her for that failure . She appealed the fine .

The trial was held on DATE and CARDINAL DATE . On the lastmentioned date ORG acquitted PERSON , finding that the charges against her had not been made out to the required criminal standard of proof .

NORP The prosecution appealed . ORG heard the appeal on CARDINAL and DATE . In a final judgment of DATE , it fully upheld PERSON acquittal .

On DATE the ORG opened criminal proceedings against Mr Abrashev on suspicion that he had committed aggravated documentary fraud .

On CARDINAL DATE Mr PERSON was charged with attempting , with the help of an accomplice , to obtain a large sum of money by using a false promissory note . PERSON alleged accomplice was likewise charged DATE .

Having interviewed the CARDINAL accused and a number of witnesses , and having obtained other evidence , including a graphological expert report , on DATE the investigator in charge of the case proposed that Mr PERSON and his alleged accomplice be brought to trial .

On DATE the ORG referred the case back to the investigator , citing a number of omissions in the investigation . The investigator objected to the referral , but on DATE the ORG dismissed his objections .

On DATE the investigator ordered a financial expert report . The report was ready on DATE . On DATE the investigator again proposed that Mr PERSON be brought to trial . By contrast , this time he proposed that the charges against PERSON alleged accomplice be dropped for lack of sufficient evidence .

On DATE ORG decided that the charges against ORG alleged accomplice should be dropped and that PERSON should not be prosecuted for documentary fraud but simple fraud . It went on to note that the prosecution of simple frauds fell within the competence of ORG , and referred the case to that office .

On CARDINAL DATE the investigator laid the amended charges against PERSON , accusing him of aggravated simple fraud , and on DATE proposed that he be brought to trial .

On DATE the ORG decided to discontinue the proceedings , considering that the charges against Mr PERSON had not been made out and that the facts alleged against him did not constitute an offence . On an application by the victim of the alleged offence , on DATE ORG set the discontinuance aside .

On DATE ORG again discontinued the proceedings . The victim of the alleged offence again sought judicial review . On DATE the ORG found that it could not examine the application , because the lawyer who had lodged it had not enclosed with it a power of attorney . The victim then asked ORG to vary its decision to discontinue the proceedings – as possible when it had not been reviewed by a court on the merits DATE , and on DATE that office acceded to her request . PERSON appealed to ORG , but on DATE that office upheld the lower office ’s decision . PERSON appealed further , but on DATE ORG also upheld the lower offices’ decisions .

On DATE the ORG indicted PERSON , but on DATE the ORG referred the case back to it , citing defects in the indictment .

On DATE the ORG again indicted PERSON .

This time the case proceeded to trial , which took place on DATE , CARDINAL DATE and CARDINAL DATE , and on DATE , DATE and DATE . ORG heard a number of witnesses and obtained an expert report . CARDINAL trial sitting was adjourned because Mr PERSON was ill and could not attend , and another was adjourned due to the absence of witnesses . On DATE the ORG acquitted PERSON .

On DATE the victim of the alleged offence , who had taken part in the trial as a private prosecutor , appealed . The public prosecutor likewise appealed on DATE . Having heard the appeals on DATE , on DATE ORG decided to quash the lower court ’s judgment and to remit the case .

On DATE ORG in turn decided to refer the case back to the prosecuting authorities , citing , inter alia , defects in the indictment .

On DATE the ORG presented the amended charges to PERSON . On CARDINAL DATE it indicted him .

On DATE ORG , considering that the facts of which PERSON stood accused did not constitute an offence , decided to discontinue the proceedings against him . The public prosecutor and the private prosecutor both appealed . On DATE the Stara Zagora Regional Court quashed the discontinuance , holding that it had been improper for the lower court to proceed in that manner , and remitted the case to a different formation .

On DATE the ORG once more referred the case back to the prosecution , citing defects in the indictment .

On DATE the ORG again indicted PERSON .

The case proceeded to trial , which took place on DATE , CARDINAL DATE and DATE , and on DATE , DATE and CARDINAL DATE . CARDINAL trial sitting was adjourned because PERSON counsel was busy elsewhere and could not attend . On DATE the ORG acquitted PERSON .

NORP The public prosecutor and the private prosecutor both appealed . The first hearing before ORG , initially fixed for DATE , had to be postponed because counsel for PERSON was busy elsewhere . It took place on DATE . The second hearing was held on DATE . On DATE ORG quashed the lower court ’s judgment and referred the case back to the prosecuting authorities , citing their failure to specify the charges against PERSON .

In DATE ORG again indicted PERSON .

On DATE the Stara Zagora District Court , considering that the facts of which PERSON stood accused did not constitute an offence , decided to discontinue the proceedings against him . The public prosecutor and the private prosecutor both appealed . Having heard the appeals on DATE , in a final decision of DATE ORG upheld the lower court ’s decision .

On DATE the victim of the alleged offence asked the Chief Prosecutor to seek reopening of the proceedings . On DATE the Chief Prosecutor requested ORG to reopen the proceedings , citing flagrant breaches of the rules of procedure and the substantive law in the making of ORG ruling of CARDINAL DATE and ORG ruling of DATE . ORG heard the request on DATE . On DATE it decided to reopen the case and refer it back to the Stara Zagora District Court for trial .

ORG held CARDINAL hearings : on DATE and DATE , and on DATE , DATE and CARDINAL DATE . At the last of those hearings it found Mr PERSON not guilty .

NORP The public prosecutor and the private prosecutor both appealed . A number of judges at ORG withdrew from sitting in the case because they had previously sat in it . The court heard the appeal on DATE and , in a judgment of the same date , quashed Mr PERSON ’s acquittal , convicted him and sentenced him to QUANTITY months’ imprisonment , suspended .

Both PERSON and the private prosecutor appealed on points of law . The hearing before ORG was initially listed for DATE , but was adjourned at the request of counsel for ORG , and took place on DATE . In a final judgment of DATE , ORG quashed the lower court ’s judgment and acquitted PERSON .

A DATE amendment to the DATE LAW added a new LAW , which envisaged the creation of an ORG attached to ORG . The ORG , which consists of a Chief Inspector and CARDINAL inspectors , is tasked with checking the work of the judiciary without infringing the independence of judges , prosecutors or investigators ( LAW ) . It can act either of its own motion or pursuant to reports by private individuals , legal persons or ORG authorities ( LAW ) . It has the power to refer matters to the appropriate authorities , or make suggestions or reports to them ( LAW ) . Both the Chief Inspector and the inspectors are elected by ORG by a majority of CARDINAL ; the term of office of ORG is DATE and that of the inspectors is DATE ( Article GPE § CARDINAL and CARDINAL ) .

The manner of election and dismissal of the inspectors is laid down in sections CARDINAL of LAW DATE ( “ the DATE LAW ) . They must be lawyers having high professional and moral qualities ( section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) ) . ORG must have DATE of professional experience , and the inspectors DATE of professional experience ( section ORG ) and ( CARDINAL ) ) . They can not engage in a number of activities – such as business or being member of a political party DATE that might prejudice their independence ( section CARDINAL read in conjunction with section CARDINAL ) ) . They may be dismissed before the expiry of their term of office only if they resign , are finally convicted of a criminal offence , are unable to carry out their duties for DATE , are deprived of the right to exercise as a lawyer , heavily or systematically breach their duties or commit acts which tarnish the prestige of the judiciary , or do not cease activities that they are prohibited from pursuing while in office ( section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) ) . The proposal for dismissal must be made by at least onefifth of the members of ORG ( section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) ) . The remuneration of ORG is equal to that of a section president of ORG , and the remuneration of the inspectors is equal to that of a judge of that court ( section CARDINAL ) .

DATE . On DATE the Government laid before ORG a bill for the amendment of the DATE Act . The explanatory notes to the bill said the following :

“ Slow judicial proceedings lead to an enormous amount of judgments of ORG . In its judgments concerning the right to a fair trial within a reasonable time ORG ( ‘ the ECtHR’ ) emphasises the need for the introduction of an effective domestic remedy in respect of such breaches . With a view to securing the effective exercise of the right to a fair trial within a reasonable time , in its case - law the ECtHR points to the need to introduce a remedy capable of providing compensation for damage resulting from delays in proceedings ( compensatory remedy ) .

The systemic problem found by the ECtHR in relation to the excessive duration of criminal and civil cases in GPE calls for urgent legislative measures to introduce the remedies suggested by ORG .

With a view to the effective use of the available resources , it is expedient to give the power to find a breach and set compensation to an existing authority with similar competences . In view of the constitutional function of the ORG attached to ORG to check the work of the judiciary ( LAW ) and more specifically its power under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(CARDINAL ) of LAW [ DATE ] to check the processing of court , ORG and investigation cases and their completion within the prescribed time - limits , the bill envisages the creation of a special unit attached to the ORG . That special unit will examine and decide complaints relating to breaches concerning the unreasonable length of completed civil , administrative and criminal cases , as well as discontinued pre - trial proceedings . An important premise for laying down the procedure in such a way is the ORG ’s constitutional obligation to carry out checks pursuant to reports by private individuals and legal persons ( LAW ) .

The right to complain is open to all persons who may suffer damage as a result of delays in proceedings : parties to judicial proceedings ( civil , administrative and criminal ) or persons subjected to the pre - trial phase of criminal proceedings ( accused , victims and wronged legal persons ) .

The envisaged procedure will be a light ( simple ) way of obtaining redress . The complainant will not have to produce evidence – it will be gathered by the checking panel of their own motion ; no fees will be due ; the proceedings will finish in DATE with a settlement , which will ensure fast payment of the compensation .

Since the proposed procedure envisages a light and fast mode of redress , there is a cap on the maximum amount of compensation . This cap conforms with the DATE ’s case - law on the amount of compensation awarded in past cases .

The transitional and concluding provisions allow the procedure to be applied in respect of complaints already lodged through the ECtHR .

The compensatory remedy has to have retrospective effect , so as to be available to persons who have become victim of excessive length of proceedings even before the coming of the LAW into force , including those who have lodged applications with the ECtHR , if that court has not yet ruled on the admissibility of those applications .

The creation of an effective domestic remedy will ensure a drastic reduction of the number of applications to the ECtHR and will thus lead to less judgments finding a breach of LAW . ”

The bill underwent its first reading on DATE , and its second reading on DATE , when it was adopted . The LAW was published in ORG on DATE . It inserted a new LAW in the DATE Act . The LAW is entitled “ Examination of applications against breaches of the right to examination and determination of the case within a reasonable time ” and consists of CARDINAL sections . The newly introduced provisions , the bulk of which came into force on DATE , read as follows :

DATE . ( CARDINAL ) This chapter applies to applications by individuals and legal persons against decisions , actions or omissions of judicial authorities which infringe their right to have their cases examined and decided within a reasonable time .

( CARDINAL ) ORG under subsection CARDINAL shall be lodged by individuals and legal persons who are :

NORP parties to finished civil , administrative or criminal proceedings ;

NORP accused , victims or wronged legal persons in discontinued pretrial proceedings ;

( CARDINAL ) This chapter set out the manner of determining and paying compensation in line with the case - law of ORG not amounting to MONEY .

( CARDINAL ) ORG under subsection CARDINAL shall be lodged within DATE after the conclusion of the proceedings at issue with a final decision , though the ORG attached to ORG to the Minister of ORG .

( CARDINAL ) A special register shall be created for the applications , and it shall be published on the internet site of the ORG attached to ORG .

( CARDINAL ) No fees shall be due for the examination of applications under this chapter .

DATE . ( CARDINAL ) The application must be written in NORP and set out :

NORP for NORP nationals – their names as featuring in the identification documents ; uniform citizen number and address ; telephone , fax and electronic address , if any ;

NORP for foreigners – their names as featuring in the identification documents ; uniform foreigner number and address ; telephone , fax and electronic address , if any ;

NORP the commercial firm of the trader or the name of the legal person , written in NORP ; the seat and the latest registered address and electronic address ;

NORP the decision , action or omission alleged to amount to a breach by the respective authority ;

NORP the authority to which the application is addressed ;

the request for relief ;

NORP the applicant ’s signature .

( CARDINAL ) Applicants shall submit a declaration that they have not sought or obtained compensation in respect of the same breach in other proceedings .

DATE . ( CARDINAL ) ORG under section CARDINALa(CARDINAL ) shall be examined by the ORG attached to ORG , which shall set up a special unit for this purpose .

( CARDINAL ) The experts staffing the unit shall be lawyers who have DATE of professional experience . Their remuneration shall be equal to that of a district court judge .

( CARDINAL ) The chief inspector shall allocate incoming applications to panels consisting of CARDINAL inspector and CARDINAL experts , randomly selected , and CARDINAL of the experts shall be appointed as rapporteur .

( CARDINAL ) If the application does not meet the requirements of section CARDINAL ) or ( CARDINAL ) , the applicant shall be given notice to rectify the deficiencies within DATE of receiving the notice .

( CARDINAL ) If the applicant does not rectify the deficiencies , the application and the supporting documents shall be returned .

DATE . ( CARDINAL ) The results of the examination shall be noted down in a record of findings .

( CARDINAL ) That record shall be signed by the members of the panel and shall contain information about :

NORP the time and place where and when it has been drawn up ;

NORP the applicant ;

NORP the panel which has examined the application ;

NORP the case in respect of which it is being drawn up ;

NORP the overall duration of the proceedings ; the period of delay attributable to the competent authority ; the period of delay attributable to actions or omissions of the complainant or his legal or procedural representative ;

( CARDINAL ) The record of findings shall also set out the view of the panel as to whether the time - limit under section CARDINAL ) has been met .

ORG . The record of findings under section DATE shall be drawn up within DATE of receipt of the application or the rectification of its deficiencies , as the case may be . The record , along with the application and all supporting documents , shall be sent immediately to the Minister of ORG .

DATE . ( CARDINAL ) Based on the findings of the panel , the Minister of ORG or a person authorised by him or her shall reject the application as unfounded if

NORP the length of the proceedings has not exceeded a reasonable time ;

NORP the delay is due to actions or omissions of the applicant or his legal or procedural representative .

( CARDINAL ) NORP If the right of the applicant to have his or her case examined and decided within a reasonable time has been breached , the Minister of Justice or a person authorised by him or her shall fix the amount of compensation in line with the caselaw of ORG and shall propose the conclusion of a settlement with the applicant .

CARDINAL g . NORP The underlying circumstances shall be examined and the application shall be determined within DATE of the application ’s receipt .

Compensation shall be paid on the basis of the concluded settlement .

PERSON . The funds required for the payment of sums under concluded settlements shall be covered by the NORP budget .

DATE . NORP ( CARDINAL ) ORG due under this chapter shall be paid out of the budget of ORG .

( CARDINAL ) Each DATE the Minister of Finance shall make available to the budget of ORG funds matching the compensations actually paid under subsection CARDINAL during that DATE through a modification of the budgetary arrangements with the central ORG budget .

Persons who have received compensation under this chapter may not seek compensation in respect of the same matter by way of civil proceedings .

( CARDINAL ) Every quarter the chief inspector shall send to ORG information about breaches found , and Minister of Justice – about compensations paid out .

( CARDINAL ) Every DATE ORG shall analyse the reasons for the breaches and shall take measures to eliminate them .

( CARDINAL ) ORG shall publish on its internet site the information under subsections CARDINAL and CARDINAL .

Paragraphs DATE and CARDINAL of the transitional and concluding provisions of the amending LAW provide as follows :

( CARDINAL ) Within DATE of the entry into force of LAW or of notification by ORG , persons who have lodged with ORG applications concerning breaches of their right to have their cases examined and decided within a reasonable time may submit applications under LAW , except in cases where the ORG has already given judgment on the merits of the application or has rejected the application as inadmissible .

( CARDINAL ) ORG under subparagraph CARDINAL shall be examined within DATE of their receipt .

To ensure the application of LAW in DATE ORG shall make available additional funds in the budgets of the ORG and ORG .

In a decision of CARDINAL DATE that came into effect on DATE ( PERSON № CARDINAL от CARDINAL септември DATE г. за одобряване на допълнителни бюджетни кредити по бюджета на съдебната власт и по бюджета PERSON на правосъдието за DATE г. ) , ORG increased the budget of the judiciary with CARDINAL NORP levs earmarked for the creation , in the ORG attached to ORG , of the special unit dealing with applications under LAW of the DATE LAW of the decision ) .

In DATE the ORG appointed a number of officials and assigned them to the special unit dealing with applications under LAW of the DATE Act . On DATE the ORG published on its website an application form and a sample declaration under section CARDINALb(CARDINAL ) of the CARDINAL Act ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . It later put on its website software allowing applicants to lodge applications electronically and track their progress online .

On DATE the Government laid before ORG a bill for the amendment of the ORG and ORG DATE ( “ the DATE LAW ) . The explanatory notes to the bill said the following :

“ An analysis of the judgments in which ORG has found violations in respect of GPE shows that there are repetitive violations due to the lack of an effective domestic remedy allowing those concerned to obtain redress . More specifically , there is a need to create a domestic remedy allowing those concerned to obtain compensation for damage resulting from a breach of the [ Convention ] made by the ORG or its authorities or officials . ORG finding that the law of GPE does not make provision for such a remedy calls for its creation through an expansion of the ambit of the ORG and ORG [ DATE ] . This will overcome the prior approach – to provide for liability only in specific circumstances DATE which has led to many violation judgments of [ the ORG ] against GPE .

For that purpose , it is proposed to make the following amendments and additions to the LAW :

NORP The proposal to insert a new section CARDINAL seeks to broaden the ambit of the LAW , so that it embrace also cases of ‘ delayed justice’ . Under the pilot judgments of ORG in the case of Finger [ cited above ] ( which concerns civil cases ) and the joined cases of GPE and GPE [ cited above ] ( which concern criminal cases ) , which find breaches of LAW , the NORP authorities must , within DATE ( until DATE ) put in place a mechanism to resolve the systemic problem concerning the ‘ reasonable time’ of proceedings . The envisaged amendments create a mechanism for the compensation of damage .

Individuals and legal persons whose right to have their cases examined and decided within a reasonable time been breached may bring claims under section CARDINAL only if they have exhausted the administrative procedure for obtaining compensation under LAW of LAW [ DATE ] but have not reached a settlement .

At the same time , in cases of separate breaches occurring in one and the same proceedings , the fact that a person has brought a claim in respect of CARDINAL breach does not prevent him or her from seeking compensation in respect of a breach of the right to a trial within a reasonable time in cases where the overall length of the proceedings has been excessive .

NORP ... As regards claims for compensation in respect of breaches of the right to have one ’s case examined and decided within a reasonable time , [ the amendments ] envisage that such claims , in view of their character and subject matter , shall be examined by the court having local jurisdiction in the place where the aggrieved person has his or her current address or its seat .

It is proposed to insert transitional provisions under which , within DATE of the entry into force of the LAW or of notification by ORG , persons whose applications to [ that ORG ] have been rejected due to failure to exhaust the newly created domestic remedies , and whose proceedings are still pending before the national courts , may also bring claims for compensation under section CARDINAL .

In respect of proceedings which have already ended at the national level , within DATE of the entry into force of the LAW or of notification by ORG , persons whose applications to [ that ORG ] have been rejected due to failure to exhaust the newly created domestic remedies may lodge applications for compensation under LAW of LAW [ DATE ] .

Persons whose national pretrial or judicial proceedings have ended at the time when the LAW comes into force , and DATE have elapsed since the final decision , shall also have the right to lodge applications for compensation under LAW of LAW [ DATE ] within DATE of the LAW ’s entry into force .

The bill reflects the proposals of nongovernmental organisations , ORG Rights’ caselaw , and the recommendations of ORG , and with it GPE shall fulfil its duties of ORG to the [ Convention ] . ”

The bill underwent its first reading on DATE and its second reading on DATE , when it was adopted . LAW was published in ORG on DATE and came into force on DATE . It amended a number of provisions of the CARDINAL Act . In particular , it inserted a new section CARDINAL , which is entitled “ Liability of the judicial authorities for breaches of the right to have one ’s case examined and decided within a reasonable time ” and reads as follows :

“ CARDINAL . The ORG shall be liable for damage caused to individuals or legal persons by breaches of the right to have one ’s case examined and decided within a reasonable time , in accordance with LAW .

Claims under subsection CARDINAL shall be examined in the manner provided by LAW [ DATE ] , and the court shall take into account the overall duration and the subject matter of the proceedings , their factual and legal complexity , the conduct of the parties and their procedural or legal representatives , the conduct of the other participants in the proceedings and of the competent authorities , as well as other facts which have a bearing on the proper determination of the dispute .

The bringing of a claim for damages in respect of pending proceedings shall not preclude the bringing of a fresh claim after the proceedings have come to end . ”

A new section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) provides that claims for compensation under section CARDINAL are to be brought in the court in whose region the aggrieved person has his or her current address or seat .

A new section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) provides that individuals or legal persons may bring claims under section CARDINAL ) in respect of proceedings which have ended only if they have already exhausted the administrative procedure under LAW of the CARDINAL LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) but that procedure has not resulted in a settlement .

Paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the transitional and concluding provisions of the amending LAW provide as follows :

“ CARDINAL . ( CARDINAL ) Within DATE of the entry into force of this LAW or of notification by ORG , persons whose applications to ORG have been rejected due to failure to exhaust the newly created domestic remedies , and whose proceedings are still pending before the national courts , may also bring claims for compensation under section CARDINAL .

( CARDINAL ) Within DATE of the entry into force of this LAW or of notification by ORG , persons whose applications to ORG have been rejected due to failure to exhaust the newly created domestic remedies , and whose proceedings at national level have already ended , may lodge applications for compensation under LAW of the [ CARDINAL Act ] .

Persons whose national pretrial or judicial proceedings have ended at the time when this LAW comes into force , and DATE have elapsed since the final decision , shall also have the right to lodge applications for compensation under LAW of the [ CARDINAL Act ] within DATE of this LAW ’s entry into force . ”

Section CARDINAL of the DATE Act provides that the ORG is liable for all pecuniary and nonpecuniary damage which is a direct and proximate result of the impugned act , action or omission . However , ORG and ORG have held that legal persons , such as commercial companies , can not suffer nonpecuniary damage and are not entitled to compensation for such damage ( see опр. № CARDINAL от CARDINAL март DATE г. по гр. д. № DATE г. , ORG , III г. о. , and реш. № DATE от CARDINAL юни DATE г. по адм. д. № DATE г. , PERSON , ORG ) .

Section CARDINALa(CARDINAL ) of the LAW , which was inserted in DATE and came into force in DATE , provides that the fee due in respect of cases under the LAW is flat and is to be fixed in a tariff adopted by the ORG . Under the LAW of fees collected by the courts under LAW , as currently in force , the fee is ORG in respect of firstinstance proceedings , ORG in respect of appellate proceedings , and ORG in respect of cassation proceedings . The fee is payable upfront ( see опр. № DATE от CARDINAL октомври DATE г. по адм. д. № DATE г. , PERSON , ORG ) .

Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the LAW , as worded after DATE , provides that if the claim is rejected in full , the court must order the claimant to pay the costs of the proceedings . The claimant must also pay those costs if he or she withdraws the claim in its entirety .

Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the LAW , which was also inserted in DATE and came into force in DATE , provides that if a claim under the LAW is allowed fully or in part , the court is to order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings and to reimburse the court fee paid by the claimant . The defendant must also pay the claimant the fee of CARDINAL counsel , if the claimant had retained counsel , pro rata the allowed part of the claim .

In their caselaw under section ORG ) and ( CARDINAL ) , ORG and ORG have held that it is a lex specialis in relation to the general rules on costs in LAW , and that in the case of a partly rejected claim the defendant authority is not entitled to costs ( see опр. № DATE от CARDINAL октомври DATE г. по адм. д. № DATE г. , PERSON , I о. ; MONEY от CARDINAL март DATE г. по гр. д. № CARDINAL г. ВКС , III г. о. ; and опр. № CARDINAL от CARDINAL октомври DATE г. по ч. гр. д. № CARDINAL г. , ORG , III г. о. ) .

Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL of the Code of Civil Procedure DATE , superseded on DATE by LAW DATE , which is couched in identical terms , provided that when on account of the character of the right in dispute the court ’s ruling had to be the same in relation to all coclaimants or codefendants , they were regarded as mandatory coclaimants or codefendants ( необходими другари ) and the procedural steps taken by CARDINAL of them produced effects in respect of all of them .

Article CARDINAL of the Code of Civil Procedure DATE provides as follows :

“ CARDINAL . The enforcement of money claims against ORG bodies and municipalities is not allowed .

Money claims against ORG bodies and municipalities shall be paid out of funds allotted for that purpose in their budgets . For this purpose , the writ of execution shall be presented to the financial department of the [ ORG ] body in issue . If no funds have been allocated , the higher [ ORG ] body shall take the necessary measures to provide such funds at the latest in the next budget . ”

In DATE the Ombudsman of the Republic challenged that provision before ORG . He argued , inter alia , that it fell foul of several Articles of the DATE LAW CARDINAL § CARDINAL of the Convention and Article CARDINAL of Protocol No . CARDINAL . On DATE ORG , noting that under LAW of the DATE LAW the ORG was not entitled to seek from ORG declarations that statutes are contrary to international treaties to which GPE is party , declared the request admissible in so far as the allegations of unconstitutionality were concerned and inadmissible in so far as the allegations of lack of compliance with the LAW and its LAW were concerned . In a judgment of DATE ( реш. № CARDINAL от CARDINAL декември DATE г. по к. д. № CARDINAL/CARDINAL г. , обн. GPE , бр. CARDINAL/CARDINAL г. ) , ORG refused to declare LAW unconstitutional in so far as it concerns ORG bodies , but declared it unconstitutional in so far as it concerns municipalities .

ORG examined the amendments to the DATE and the DATE Acts at its CARDINALth meeting , held on CARDINAL September CARDINAL . Based on an information document drawn up by ORG of ORG ( CM / Inf / DH(CARDINAL)CARDINAL ) , the ORG adopted the following decision :

“ The Deputies

took note with interest of the revised action report submitted by the authorities on DATE presenting the introduction of an administrative compensatory remedy in the field of excessive length of proceedings , as well as of a draft bill for the introduction of a judicial compensatory remedy in this field ;

NORP approved the assessment of the administrative remedy and of the draft judicial remedy contained in information document ORG / DH(CARDINAL)CARDINAL and invited the NORP authorities to provide clarifications as concerns outstanding questions identified in this information document ;

invited the NORP authorities to adopt rapidly the proposed judicial remedy and to amend the provision governing the retrospective effect of the administrative remedy in order to take into account the requirements of the ORG in this respect ;

decided to declassify information document ORG / DH(CARDINAL)CARDINAL ;

ORG decided to resume consideration of these cases , including the question of the measures aimed at reducing the length of the judicial proceedings , during one of their next Human Rights meetings and invited the authorities to provide additional information also on this question . ”

DATE . ORG again examined the amendments at its CARDINALth meeting , held on DATE . Based on an information document drawn up by ORG of ORG ( CM / Inf / DH(CARDINAL)CARDINAL ) , ORG adopted the following decision :

“ The Deputies

As regards the effective remedies required in this field :

recalled their decision adopted during their CARDINALth meeting ( DH ) ( DATE ) according to which the administrative compensatory remedy recently adopted by the authorities and the judicial compensatory remedy proposed in the field of length of proceedings , taken together , seem capable of meeting the main requirements of the caselaw of the ORG ;

NORP noted with satisfaction the adoption by ORG , on DATE , of the legislative amendments aimed at introducing the abovementioned judicial remedy ; noted in this respect that according to the information submitted , the adopted provisions are identical to those already assessed by the ORG , except for those relating to the competent courts ; invited the authorities to keep the ORG informed about the entry into force of the adopted provisions and to provide it with their translation ;

NORP noted with interest the explanations provided by the NORP authorities in relation to some outstanding questions identified in Information document ORG , in particular their intention to modify the provision governing the retrospective effect of the administrative remedy in order to ensure its compliance with the requirements of ORG in this respect ; invited them to reply to the other outstanding questions contained in ORG document ORG GPE , namely as concerns the functioning of the administrative compensatory remedy ;

invited the authorities to reply to the other outstanding questions identified in Information document ORG / GPE and decided to declassify it . ”

The information document forming the base for this decision ( ORG DH(CARDINAL)CARDINAL ) was drawn up on DATE and reads as follows :

I. Compensatory remedies elaborated in response to the pilot judgments

NORP Presentation of the adopted administrative compensatory remedy

Positive aspects of the administrative compensatory remedy

The [ DATE ] Act provides that applications for compensation in respect of excessive length of proceedings are to be addressed to the Minister of ORG through ORG . When examining these claims , the Minister ( or a person authorised by him or her ) is assisted by a panel made up of an Inspector and CARDINAL experts working in a special unit of that ORG . The timelimit for the examination of applications is DATE . The procedure is free of charge for the claimants .

NORP The applications are to be directed ‘ against acts , actions or omissions of judicial authorities’ , breaching the right to have a case heard and decided within a reasonable time . The authorities have indicated that this wording would not preclude the examination of applications concerning delays that do not stem from omissions by individual judges or judicial officers but , for instance , from an overburdening of the judicial system as a whole .

The criteria which must be taken into account when examining applications are the overall length of the proceedings , the delays attributable to the authorities , as well as the delays attributable to the applicant and his representative ( [ s]ection CARDINALd(CARDINAL)(CARDINAL ) ) . The merits of the application and the amount of compensation are to be determined in light of the ORG ’s caselaw .

The compensation is to be paid out of the budget of ORG . ORG must then restore to the budget of ORG the funds paid as compensation DATE .

Assessment :

The law governing the administrative remedy imposes on the authority competent to examine applications for compensation the obligation to take into account the overall length of the proceedings and the conduct of the parties and of the competent authorities , in line with the ORG ’s caselaw . The legal or factual complexity of the case and the stakes involved in the dispute are not mentioned explicitly , but the general reference to the ORG ’s case - law should be enough to cause them to be taken into account as well . The new provisions also seem to take into account the caselaw of the ORG as to , inter alia , the promptness of the examination , the absence of charges for the introduction of a claim and the existence of specific budgetary provisions . In conclusion , this administrative remedy takes into account , to a very large extent , the criteria used by ORG for the assessment of the excessive length of proceedings .

Questions raised by the administrative compensatory remedy

The administrative remedy put in place raises a number of questions , namely : ( a ) the fact that it does not apply to proceedings which are pending , ( b ) the wording of the provision governing the retrospective effect of the remedy and ( c ) the compliance of the remedy with the institutional requirements of LAW , ( d ) the compensation ceiling and ( e ) the payment of compensation . In this respect , it should be recalled that the ORG has constantly indicated in its caselaw that even if a particular remedy does not fully satisfy the requirements of LAW , the aggregate of remedies under domestic law may satisfy these requirements . Therefore , the questions raised by this remedy and its weaknesses may be examined also in the light of the judicial compensatory remedy adopted at first reading by ORG ( for a detailed presentation of the judicial remedy , see paragraphs PERSON below ) .

( a ) ORG of the administrative remedy to proceedings which are still pending

NORP The administrative remedy provides that only parties to completed judicial and pre - trial proceedings are entitled to introduce applications for compensation within DATE of the end of the proceedings in question . If the proceedings are still pending , the parties have to wait for them to end in order to submit a claim to the Minister of ORG , whatever the delays already accumulated . In contrast , it appears from the information presented by the NORP authorities that the proposed judicial remedy for length of proceedings would also be applicable to proceedings which are still pending .

Assessment :

It should be recalled that the ORG has already held that the impossibility to use a remedy against the excessive length of proceedings which are still pending may render such a remedy ineffective . It should also be recalled that the pilot judgments require the introduction , within the timelimit set in the operative part of the judgments , of a remedy that fully complies with the ORG ’s caselaw . It thus appears that the introduction of just an administrative remedy with limited scope is not sufficient to ensure the full execution of the pilot judgments . This lacuna could , however , be overcome by the introduction , without delay , of a judicial remedy which fully complies with the requirements of the ORG ’s caselaw , as the NORP authorities seem to have foreseen .

( b ) Wording of the provision governing the retrospective effect of the remedy

Paragraph CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the transitional provisions of the [ DATE Act ] , which concerns the retrospective effect of the new remedy , is worded as follows ( emphasis added ) :

‘ Within DATE of the entry into force of LAW or notification by ORG , persons who have lodged with ORG applications concerning breaches of their right to have their cases examined and decided within a reasonable time may submit applications under LAW , except in cases where the ORG has already given judgment on the merits of the application or has rejected the application as inadmissible.’

Assessment :

The current wording of paragraph CARDINAL suggests that the new remedy will not be available to applicants whose applications are declared inadmissible by the ORG , and this without making the distinction between the different grounds of inadmissibility . This provision should therefore be amended in order to indicate clearly that it will be available to persons whose applications , introduced before its adoption , are declared inadmissible for nonexhaustion of the domestic remedies . Thus , if the ORG confirms the effectiveness of the new remedy or of the aggregate of new remedies , it will be able to declare inadmissible the applications pending before it for non - exhaustion of this remedy / these remedies and the applicants concerned will be able to introduce their applications for compensation at the domestic level . The authorities have indicated that this provision will be amended in the near future in order to ensure that applicants whose applications have been declared inadmissible for nonexhaustion of the domestic remedies will be able to use effectively this new remedy at the domestic level . Information is awaited on the timetable for the adoption of this amendment .

( c ) Compliance of the remedy with the institutional requirements of LAW

The new provisions of the [ DATE ] Act describe in considerable detail the procedure for the examination of applications for compensation for excessive length of proceedings . The relevant facts for the examination of a complaint concerning excessive length of proceedings are to be established by a panel of CARDINAL Inspector from ORG and CARDINAL experts working in a special unit of this ORG . This panel communicates its findings to the Minister or to the person whom he or she has authorised to act on his or her behalf .

NORP If the Minister of Justice or the person designated by him or her finds that the reasonable - time requirement has not been breached , he or she has to reject the application . If the Minister or the person designated by him or her finds , on the contrary , that the reasonable - time requirement has been breached , he or she has to fix the amount of compensation in line with the ORG ’s case - law and propose a settlement to the claimant . Claimants who have accepted the settlement and have obtained compensation under that procedure can not claim compensation in judicial proceedings .

The [ DATE ] Act does not contain specific provisions concerning a possible judicial review of the decisions rejecting applications or proposing a settlement .

Assessment :

It should be recalled that the authority to which LAW refers does not need to be a judicial one for a remedy to be considered effective under the ORG ’s caselaw . However , the effectiveness of the remedy before that authority is assessed by reference to the guarantees that it affords ( see , among other authorities , PERSON [ v. ] GPE , CARDINAL DATE , § CARDINAL , Series A No . CARDINAL ) . In particular , the decisionmaking body needs to have a ‘ sufficiently independent standpoint’ ( see , among other authorities , Silver and [ O]thers [ v. ] GPE , DATE , § QUANTITY , Series A No . CARDINAL ) . It should also be noted that the ORG requires in principle that the authority in charge of the implementation of a domestic remedy be able to come up with a ‘ legally binding GPE , some element of enforceability being generally required ( see , among other authorities , GPE , cited above , § CARDINAL ) . As said above , the caselaw also indicates that even if a single remedy does not fully satisfy the requirements of LAW , the aggregate of remedies under domestic law may do so ( see , among other authorities , GPE , cited above , § CARDINAL ) .

In the light of the information currently available , it is not clearly established whether the new administrative procedure under the [ DATE ] Act can be regarded as providing alone the required ‘ element of enforceability’ and sufficient ‘ ORG . However , for the reasons set out below , if an effective judicial remedy is introduced without delay , the aggregate of remedies could in principle meet the institutional requirements of LAW .

According to the authorities , the settlements proposed by the Minister of ORG should be considered as legally binding decisions , because under the [ CARDINAL]Act , as amended , the Minister of Finance has to guarantee to ORG funds up to the amounts paid in compensation to claimants . However , a question remains whether the decision of the Minister of ORG taken on applications for compensation , whether positive or negative , can be considered to have itself a legally binding effect in cases in which no settlement has been concluded . In any event , according to the draft bill for the amendment of the [ CARDINAL Act ] ( aiming at the introduction of a judicial remedy ) , unsuccessful claimants in the procedure before the Minister of Justice and claimants who have refused to conclude a settlement , will have the right to request compensation in the context of judicial proceedings ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL below).Thus , it seems that DATE if the foreseen judicial remedy is adopted DATE in the absence of a settlement the claim could be resolved by a final and legally binding decision in the context of judicial proceedings .

As to the issue of independence of the decisionmaking body , it should be recalled that , in a case against GPE , the ORG accepted that an administrative remedy was effective because the persons who were not satisfied with the decision of ORG on their applications for compensation could seek compensation in the context of judicial proceedings ( see PERSON [ v. ] GPE DATE . ) , No . CARDINAL , § CARDINAL , DATE ) . Thus , if only an administrative remedy is introduced , the availability of judicial review of the decisions of the Minister of ORG may prove crucial for the remedy to meet the institutional requirements of the ORG ’s caselaw . By contrast , if an effective judicial remedy is introduced without delay as foreseen by the NORP authorities , the aggregate of the CARDINAL remedies could in principle meet the institutional requirements of LAW , even in the absence of judicial review of the minister ’s decisions .

( d ) Compensation ceiling

The [ DATE Act ] provides that compensation can not exceed MONEY ( ORG ) ( MONEY ( ORG ) ) .

Assessment :

As concerns the abovementioned compensation ceiling , there may be situations in which that sum will fall short of the amounts awarded in compensation by the ORG . That said sums of up to ORG CARDINAL appear sufficient , in the light of the ORG ’s judgments against GPE concerning length of proceedings , to compensate adequately the nonpecuniary damage arising in the majority of cases concerning excessive length of proceedings in GPE . Moreover , if an effective judicial remedy is introduced without delay as foreseen by the NORP authorities , the aggregate of newly introduced remedies would normally be sufficient to provide an adequate level of compensation in all situations , as the draft law concerning the introduction of judicial remedy does not provide for a compensation ceiling .

( e ) Timelimit and procedure for payment of compensation

The [ DATE ] Act makes provision for a specific funding mechanism for the payment of compensations for excessive length of procedure ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . It does not seem to contain any specific provisions concerning the procedure for payment of compensation . In their reply to the questions identified in the memorandum ORG ( see PERSON ) , the authorities indicated that budgetary funds and other measures have been foreseen in order to avoid delays in the payment of compensation .

Assessment :

The ORG ’s caselaw requires that payment should normally be made not DATE after a judgment or a decision in that respect has become enforceable . Given the importance attached by the ORG to this requirement , it seems useful to provide the ORG with detailed information on the payment procedure and on the timelimits in which the payments are made in practice .

B. Presentation of the proposed judicial remedy

The following presentation is based on the translation of the draft bill for the amendment of LAW presented by the NORP authorities on DATE ( see DHDD(CARDINAL)CARDINAL ) . The judicial remedy adopted at first reading by ORG seems to comply in principle with the main requirements of the ORG ’s case - law in the field of compensatory remedies for excessive length of proceedings . However , some clarifications still seem necessary .

( a ) Scope of the remedy

Section CARDINAL of the draft bill for the amendment of the [ CARDINAL Act ] provides that the ORG is responsible for damages caused to persons and legal entities through breaches , by the judicial authorities , of the right enshrined in LAW to have their cases examined and resolved within a reasonable time . The claims have to be examined under the rules of LAW . The court have to take into account the legal and factual complexity of the case , the conduct of the claimant , the conduct of the other parties and participants in the proceedings and the conduct of the competent authorities , the stakes involved in the dispute , as well as the overall length of the proceedings . The introduction of a claim for damages while the proceedings are still pending is not an obstacle to introducing a claim for damages after the end of these proceedings . The authorities have confirmed that the scope of the judicial remedy comprises the actions of the prosecutors and the investigating magistrates , as well as the actions of the police investigators ( to which makes reference paragraph CARDINAL of the transitional and final provisions of the draft bill for the amendment of the [ CARDINAL Act ] ) .

As concerns the question of the applicability of the judicial remedy to the procedures concerning execution of court decisions , it should be noted that the majority of the execution proceedings in GPE are conducted by private bailiffs whose civil responsibility can be engaged in a case of damage caused by their activity . As far as the public bailiffs are concerned , although their status is governed by the [ CARDINAL ] Act , they are not magistrates . Therefore , it is not clear whether their actions are covered or not by the scope of the proposed judicial remedy .

Assessment :

The scope of the proposed judicial remedy seems to comply with the relevant requirements of the ORG ’s caselaw . The draft Section CARDINAL refers to breaches of the reasonable time requirement attributable to the judicial authorities . Although this provision does not mention explicitly the delays caused by the police investigators , the NORP authorities have indicated that the delays which have occurred at the stage of the preliminary investigation and are attributable to the police investigators will fall within the scope of the judicial remedy . It would be useful to clarify whether this is so also in respect of the actions of the public bailiffs responsible for the execution of a court decision .

( b ) Procedure according to which a claim should be examined : length and applicable court fees

The draft bill for the amendment of the [ CARDINAL Act ] provides that claims will be examined under the rules of LAW [ DATE ] . Under NORP law , a civil dispute can be examined by CARDINAL levels of jurisdiction .

Under the provisions of [ LAW ] , a flatrate court fee is due to file a claim under LAW which is either ORG for physical persons or ORG CARDINAL for legal persons ( EUR CARDINAL.CARDINAL or EUR CARDINAL ) . The claimants must pay all the costs incurred in the proceedings only if their claim has been entirely rejected or if they withdraw or waive their claim entirely . If the court decides in favour of the claim , in whole or in part , the defendant should be ordered to pay the costs relating to the proceedings , as well as the claimant ’s court fees . If a claim is granted only in part , the claimant receives only partial reimbursement of the lawyer ’s fees . The authorities have specified that according to domestic caselaw , if a claim is partially rejected , the claimant should not be required to pay the part of the lawyer ’s fees incurred by the defendant .

Assessment :

One of the principles set out in the pilot judgments is that a claim for compensation must be examined within a reasonable time . The ORG suggested in this respect that ‘ consideration may be given to subjecting the examination of such claims to special rules that differ from those governing ordinary claims for damages , to avert the risk that , if examined under the general rules of civil procedure , the remedy may not be sufficiently ORG . However , the introduction of such special rules was not set out as a requirement for the effectiveness of the future remedy or aggregate of remedies . Therefore , the absence of such special rules does not per se put into question the efficiency of the proposed judicial remedy . Moreover , the adopted administrative remedy , if correctly implemented , could provide swift redress to many potential claimants .

As concerns the requirement set out in the pilot judgments that the rules governing costs must not place an excessive burden on litigants where their claim is justified , it seems that , even if a claim has been partly rejected , successful claimants could not be required to pay costs relating to the proceedings and the part of the lawyer ’s fees incurred by the defendant and that their court fees are to be reimbursed .

( c ) Need to exhaust the administrative remedy in some situations

NORP Parties to completed judicial proceedings will need to exhaust the administrative remedy before introducing a judicial claim . According to [ LOC ) of the draft bill for the amendment of LAW , the judicial remedy is not available to claimants who have concluded a settlement in the administrative procedure .

Assessment :

As said above , CARDINAL of the principles set out in the pilot judgments is that a claim for compensation must be examined within a reasonable time . It seems that the requirement for a certain category of claimants to exhaust the administrative remedy before introducing a judicial remedy will not have a considerable impact on the promptness of the compensation process as a whole , because it seems that the administrative phase could be very short ( cf . the sixmonth’ timelimit for the examination of applications , paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

( d ) Retrospective effect

Paragraph CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the transitional and final provisions of the draft bill for the amendment of the [ CARDINAL Act ] provides that persons whose applications have been rejected by ORG on the ground of nonexhaustion of the newly introduced domestic remedies and who have been parties in completed judicial proceedings will be able to introduce administrative applications for compensation within DATE of the entry into force of the amendments or within DATE of the notification by ORG . Under the same conditions , applicants to the ORG who have seen their application rejected for nonexhaustion of the domestic remedies and who are parties in pending proceedings at the domestic level will be able to introduce judicial claims for compensation .

According to paragraph CARDINAL of the transitional and final provisions of the draft bill for the amendment of the [ CARDINAL Act ] , parties to proceedings which have been completed DATE before the entry into force of the draft bill will also have access to the judicial remedy .

Assessment :

The provisions concerning the scope of the retrospective effect of the proposed judicial remedy seem to comply with the recommendations given by ORG under Article CARDINAL in the pilot judgments .

( e ) Timelimit and procedure for payment of compensation

Unlike the [ DATE ] Act , the draft bill for the amendment of the [ CARDINAL Act ] does not seem to provide for specific budgetary provisions concerning the payment of compensations for excessive length of proceedings . In their response to the questions identified in the memorandum ORG ( see PERSON ) , the authorities indicated that it is foreseen that the amendments to the [ CARDINAL LAW ] will be accompanied by the provision of budgetary funds to the institutions concerned .

It seems that according to the relevant budgetary rules , the payment of compensation granted in the event of successful claim against a court / the prosecution should be made out of the budget of the court in question / of the prosecution . Likewise , LAW provides that persons who have financial claims against public institutions have to submit the writ of execution to the institution ’s financial department in order to receive payment . Payments are made out of the funds earmarked for that purpose in the institution ’s budget . If there are no funds available , a budgetary provision for this purpose should be made available DATE .

Assessment :

As said above in paragraph DATE , the ORG ’s caselaw requires that payment should normally be made not DATE after a judgment or a decision in that respect has become enforceable . Given the importance attached by the ORG to this requirement , it seems useful to provide the ORG , in due time , with information on the exact content of the budgetary provisions taken by the authorities in order to ensure the funding of compensations for excessive length of proceedings and on any other measure aimed at avoiding late payment of compensation .

Conclusion

In the light of the information available , it seems that the administrative remedy which entered into force on [ DATE ] represents a very positive step forward towards the execution of the pilot judgments of the ORG . This remedy does not in itself comply with all the requirements of the LAW , but most of the outstanding questions could be addressed by the proposed judicial remedy in the field of excessive length of proceedings , if the latter is adopted without delay . Thus , it seems that the aggregate of these CARDINAL remedies could in principle comply with the main requirements of the ORG ’s caselaw . Therefore , it seems useful to invite the NORP authorities to adopt without delay the judicial remedy proposed and to encourage them to take the necessary measures in order to ensure for themselves that the new remedies will be applied in compliance with this case - law . Likewise , it seems useful to encourage the authorities to continue with their works regarding the introduction of a remedy which allows requesting the acceleration of the criminal proceedings . ... ”


Preliminary objection joined to merits (Article 35-1 - Exhaustion of domestic remedies);Preliminary objection not necessary to examine (Article 35-1 - Exhaustion of domestic remedies);No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);No violation of Article 13 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy)

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

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in ORG in the GPE region .

On DATE the applicant was found fit for mandatory military service and was drafted into the army . He was willing to perform his military service and had no psychiatric or psychological concerns . Nor had he previously experienced any mental disorders .

After a brief period in a training camp , the applicant was assigned to ORG , subsequently renamed PERSON ( hereinafter referred to as MUCARDINAL ) . According to the applicant , he was regularly subjected to bullying and ill - treatment by senior officers in that unit . CARDINAL such incident allegedly took place in DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

On DATE the applicant was transferred to Military Unit АCARDINAL , subsequently renamed ORG ( hereinafter referred to as MUCARDINAL ) . He immediately attracted the attention of the commanding officers and medical staff by what they perceived as inadequate behaviour . That is , he appeared very sensitive , was not willing to communicate with fellow servicemen and expressed thoughts that could be interpreted as indicating suicidal tendencies . As a result , on DATE of his arrival , the applicant was placed in the medical station , where he was kept for DATE . According to the authorities , the purpose of that measure was to monitor the applicant ’s behaviour to see whether it gave rise to doubts about his fitness for continuing with his military service . The military officials also referred to the necessity to isolate the applicant from other soldiers on account of his psychological condition . According to the applicant , who did not deny the above account of his mental state , the real purpose of his placement in the medical station was to allow time for some bruises which he had to fade .

The case file does not contain the applicant ’s medical file for the period from DATE to DATE . According to the ORG , those documents were probably destroyed or lost during the reorganisation of the military unit in DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

NORP On DATE the applicant was taken to the psychiatric department of the hospital of ORG ACARDINAL ( hereinafter referred to as MUCARDINAL ) for an examination and treatment .

On DATE a medical panel at MUCARDINAL examined the applicant with a view to establishing whether he was fit for further military service . It noted in its report that the applicant complained of irritability , mood swings and headaches , the intolerable nature of the army atmosphere , and being homesick . The panel further noted that he had initially been willing to serve in the army and had had no prior psychiatric problems . However , during military service his health had gradually deteriorated . The applicant had been characterised by his fellow servicemen as unsociable , slow , untidy , short - tempered and suicidal . During his conversation with the doctors he appeared sad and emotionally fragile , sometimes tearful . The panel diagnosed him with moderate neuroticism expressed over a protracted period of time following situational triggers . It stated that his illness was related to his military service . The panel reached the conclusion that the applicant was not fit for further military service in peacetime and partially fit for service in wartime . He was also found to require a carer .

On DATE the applicant was discharged from the military hospital and from the army .

In DATE , as part of the reorganisation of ORG , the control of MUCARDINAL was transferred from ORG to ORG .

On DATE ORG of ORG ( “ the ORG ” ) registered the applicant as “ Category CARDINAL ” disabled on account of his mental condition , finding that he had lost MONEY of his capacity to work .

The applicant was granted a disability pension in the amount of CARDINAL NORP hryvnias ( ORG ) per month ( then the equivalent of QUANTITY ) .

On DATE ORG issued a note , at the applicant ’s request , detailing his medication needs and their costs . It specified that he required , on a regular basis , antipsychotic drugs , antidepressants and nootropics amounting to ORG CARDINAL per month , as well as some treatment which cost ORG MONEY per year .

By decisions of CARDINAL DATE , DATE and DATE , ORG confirmed that the applicant was “ LAW ” disabled on account of “ an illness related to his performance of military service ” . On the last - mentioned date it decided that his disability was permanent and that no future reassessments were required .

NORP In DATE the applicant ’s mother complained to the President of GPE , and apparently to some other authorities , that the applicant had been subjected to bullying and beatings during his military service at MUCARDINAL ( she probably meant MUCARDINAL – see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

On DATE ORG of the Dnipropetrovsk Garrison ( hereafter referred to as “ the Dnipropetrovsk Military Prosecutor ” ) , to whom the aforementioned complaint had been forwarded , refused to institute criminal proceedings . He relied on the statements by ORG of MUCARDINAL and MUCARDINAL and the squadron commanders in those CARDINAL units , who denied that the applicant had been ill - treated or bullied , or that they had received any complaints from him in that regard . The prosecutor also questioned the chief of the medical station in MUCARDINAL , who stated that the applicant had displayed “ inadequate ” behaviour , but had had no injuries and had not complained of any ill - treatment . After DATE of monitoring by the medical station ’s doctors , it had been decided to transfer the applicant to MUCARDINAL for further examination , as that unit had a specialised psychiatric department in its hospital . Lastly , the prosecutor relied on the findings of the medical report of DATE , according to which the applicant had not raised any allegations of ill - treatment or bullying at that stage . Nor had his medical examination discovered any injuries . In sum , the prosecutor concluded that there was no case to answer .

On an unspecified date , ORG quashed the aforementioned decision and ordered an additional investigation .

On DATE the applicant gave a written statement to ORG of FAC ( near his place of residence ) in respect of his alleged ill - treatment in the army . He submitted that from DATE he had been bullied by senior soldiers in MUCARDINAL , who had extorted his military allowance and had used every possible pretext for beating him – such as allegedly inadequate cleaning or failure to accomplish a task . The applicant noted that there had been CARDINAL other junior soldier in the military unit , apart from himself , S. According to the applicant , they had often discussed their impressions of military service and had discussed the bullying incidents . The applicant admitted that he had not complained to his commanding officers , fearing that it would be considered ‘ squealing’ and would trigger reprisals . Nor had he mentioned the matter to his parents , not wanting to upset them . The applicant stated that the last time he had been beaten up was by CARDINAL officers , PERSON and another one whose name he did not know , in DATE . On DATE he had not felt well and had sought medical assistance , explaining to the doctor what had happened . According to the applicant , the actual purpose of his placement in the medical station was to allow time for his bruises to fade . At the same time , he specified that he had not been ill - treated in MUCARDINAL , where he was transferred shortly before his discharge from the army .

NORP In response to a question about the delay of DATE in raising the complaint of ill - treatment , the applicant submitted that he had been ashamed of his discharge from the army and that he had hoped to stay strong and to still be able to complete his military service . He stated that he had not realised how serious his condition was . The constant deterioration of his health had prompted him to complain to the prosecuting authorities .

As to the denial by the doctors of any injuries on the applicant at the material time , he contended that they had lied .

The applicant further noted in his statement to the prosecutor that his memory had seriously deteriorated . He could not remember the date of the beginning of his military service . Nor was he able to give details as to his alleged bullying prior to the last incident in DATE . The applicant explained that he remembered clearly only the said incident , because it had been the last one and because he had been hospitalised thereafter .

On DATE the applicant sent a letter to ORG , by registered post , requesting a copy of the decision refusing to open a criminal case into his alleged ill - treatment in the army ( which appears to be that of CARDINAL DATE see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . According to him , he received no reply .

On DATE the applicant challenged the Dnipropetrovsk Military Prosecutor ’s decision of CARDINAL DATE before ORG . He complained , in particular , that certain important witnesses had not been examined , namely S. and PERSON ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

On DATE ORG informed the applicant by a letter that the contested decision had already been quashed in the meantime . The applicant confirmed in his submissions to the ORG that he had received the letter .

On DATE ORG again refused to institute criminal proceedings against officials of MUCARDINAL and MUCARDINAL , having discerned no corpus delicti in their actions . In addition to the reasoning given in the decision of DATE , the prosecutor referred to the applicant ’s statements of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . Further , the investigation had established that PERSON , whom the applicant had mentioned in his submissions , had only served at MUCARDINAL until DATE , after which he had been transferred to another unit . S. was questioned and refuted the applicant ’s allegations , as did officer PERSON , whom the applicant had accused of ill - treating him . The prosecutor also took note of the fact that the applicant had never complained during his medical examinations of any ill - treatment or bullying . Nor had those examinations revealed any injuries on him .

According to the Government , on DATE the above - mentioned decision was sent to the applicant ’s mother . According to the applicant and his mother , they became aware of the decision only from the ORG ’s observations on the case in the proceedings before the ORG .

On DATE the Dnipropetrovsk Military Prosecutor destroyed CARDINAL investigation files which had been opened in connection with various complaints dating DATE , as the time - limits for their storage had expired . The applicant ’s case was among them .

On an unspecified date in DATE the applicant ’s mother enquired with ORG as to whether the applicant could use its medical facilities free of charge , given that he had become disabled during his mandatory military service .

On DATE ORG Deputy Chief of ORG replied in the negative . He explained that while the legislation provided for such privileges as free use of ORG medical establishments , the applicant was not eligible because “ [ his ] disability did not result from a wound , a contusion , maiming , or a disease related to the discharge of military service duties , but was caused by a disease related to the performance of his military service . ”

On DATE the applicant lodged an administrative claim against MUCARDINAL with ORG ( “ the ORG ” ) , seeking compensation for damage caused by his disability , which he claimed had resulted from his ill - treatment in the army . He claimed a lump sum of ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL in compensation for lost income , a DATE disability allowance of UAH CARDINAL , and an additional DATE allowance of LAW for his medical expenses .

On DATE ORG rejected the applicant ’s claim , finding that he had already received all payments he was entitled to .

On DATE ORG upheld that judgment . It noted that the applicant was receiving a disability pension and that he had already received an insurance payment due to him ( UAH CARDINAL,CARDINAL ) .

On DATE ORG upheld the lower courts’ decisions .

The relevant provisions of the LAW read as follows :

“ The human being , his or her life and health , honour and dignity , inviolability and security are recognised in GPE as having the highest social value . ... ”

“ Everyone has the right to respect for his or her dignity .

No one shall be subjected to torture , cruel , inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment that violates his or her dignity . ... ”

According to LAW of LAW CARDINAL , the activities of the armed forces shall be based , in particular , on the principles of the rule of law , lawfulness , respect for humanity , and respect for the individual and his or her constitutional rights and freedoms .

In her Report DATE , ORG Commissioner for ORG dedicated a separate chapter to the issues of “ respect for human rights in the armed forces of GPE and other military establishments ” , in which she condemned the widespread phenomena of bullying and ill - treatment in the army .


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

The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a NORP national who was born in DATE . He was serving a sentence in FAC when the application was lodged .

On DATE , to celebrate World Peace day , the applicant participated in a demonstration in the district of GPE in GPE , outside the building that housed the DEHAP ( ORG ) . During the demonstration someone read out a press statement and the crowd , including the applicant , shouted slogans .

Subsequently , criminal proceedings were initiated against the applicant and CARDINAL other accused persons , pursuant to LAW , for praising a criminal and a crime . In the indictment , the prosecution stated that the applicant had shouted “ ORG , ORG cepheye misillemeye ” ( Long live Apo ! ORG ( the armed wing of the ORG ) to the front line in retaliation ! ) .

During the proceedings , the court took into consideration the defence statements of the accused , as well as CD recordings and photographs taken during the demonstration . Before the court , the applicant accepted that he was the person in the CD recording and the photograph . He further stated he had shouted slogans in support of peace .

In a final decision dated DATE , ORG convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to DATE imprisonment . The court then commuted the prison sentence to a fine of MONEY ( TRY ) ( equivalent to CARDINAL ) . As the applicant failed to pay the fine , he served his sentence of imprisonment .


Violation of Art. 5-3;Violation of Art. 6-1;Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed;Non-pecuniary damage - award

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

The applicant , PERSON Adam Kauczor , is a NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in Siemianowice Śląskie .

On DATE the applicant was arrested . On DATE ORG ( Sąd Rejonowy ) remanded him in custody on suspicion of murder . That decision was upheld by ORG ( PERSON ) on DATE .

The applicant ’s pretrial detention was subsequently extended by ORG decisions of DATE , DATE ( upheld by ORG ( Sąd Apelacyjny ) on DATE ) , and DATE .

Meanwhile , on DATE the applicant was indicted for murder and illegal possession of weapons . The Prosecutor requested that CARDINAL witnesses be heard by the trial court and the testimonies of a further QUANTITY witnesses be read out at the trial .

The first hearing was scheduled on DATE . It was adjourned , however , due to the absence of a key witness .

Subsequently the court held QUANTITY hearings . CARDINAL hearings were cancelled or adjourned either because of the absence of the applicant ’s counsel or summoned witnesses , or because of the illness of a judge .

On DATE ORG decided to extend the applicant ’s detention until DATE . However that decision was changed by ORG decision of DATE . ORG agreed to continue the applicant ’s detention , but only until DATE . It was held that the firstinstance court was no longer competent to extend the preventive measure , since the length of the applicant ’s detention was about to reach the statutory DATE timelimit laid down in Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL of the Code of Criminal Procedure ( Kodeks postępowania karnego ) .

DATE the court held a hearing DATE .

During this time , the applicant ’s detention was extended by ORG decisions of DATE ( confirmed by the same court on DATE ) , CARDINAL DATE ( upheld on DATE ) , DATE ( upheld on DATE ) , DATE ( upheld on DATE ) .

On DATE the applicant ’s trial commenced de novo because the judge rapporteur had retired .

The first hearing scheduled on DATE was adjourned due to the absence of a key witness and CARDINAL of the lay judges .

From DATE until midCARDINAL the court held on average CARDINAL hearing per month .

On DATE the President of the Criminal Section ( przewodniczący wydziału ) ordered that hearings be scheduled more often than once a month .

In DATE the court scheduled CARDINAL hearings , of which CARDINAL did not take place . It appears that DATE the court scheduled QUANTITY hearings .

Meanwhile , the applicant ’s detention was extended by ORG decisions of DATE ( upheld on DATE ) , CARDINAL DATE ( upheld on CARDINAL DATE ) , CARDINAL DATE ( upheld on DATE ) , CARDINAL DATE ( upheld on DATE ) , CARDINAL DATE ( upheld on DATE ) , DATE ( upheld on DATE ) , DATE ( upheld on DATE ) , DATE ( upheld on DATE ) , DATE ( upheld on DATE ) , DATE ( upheld on DATE ) , DATE ( upheld on DATE ) , DATE ( upheld on DATE ) , and CARDINAL DATE .

The domestic courts justified the applicant ’s pretrial detention in its initial phase by the existence of strong evidence against the applicant and the likelihood that a severe penalty would be imposed , as well as by the need to secure the proper course of the proceedings . The latter was derived from the fact that there was a suspicion that the applicant had been aided in committing the offence charged and that the alleged accomplices were being sought by the authorities . During that time numerous witnesses were heard and an identification parade was held .

At the later stage of the applicant ’s detention , the authorities relied on the complexity of the case as the reason for extending the measure . It was also emphasised that many of the scheduled court hearings did not take place for various objective reasons , such as the illness of a judge , the applicant ’s request for the withdrawal of a judge , the absence of witnesses or of the applicant himself , as well as difficulties in obtaining the report of ballisticforensic experts as requested by the applicant at an advanced stage of the proceedings .

On DATE ORG decided to lift the preventive measure and to release the applicant . On an unspecified date that decision was upheld by ORG .

The case is currently pending before ORG as the court of first instance .

On an unspecified date in DATE the applicant lodged a complaint about unreasonable length of proceedings under LAW June CARDINAL 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 ” ) .

On DATE ORG dismissed the complaint . Although the court examined the entire length of the proceedings , it held that there had been no inactivity or undue delay on the part of the relevant court . It was observed that until DATE the court had been dealing with the case speedily and there had been no periods of inactivity . It was acknowledged that the proceedings had been obstructed when the case had had to be opened de novo and a new judge rapporteur had had to be assigned . The court emphasised that from DATE until DATE over CARDINAL hearings had been scheduled . The fact that some of them were cancelled was attributable to objective factors such as the absence of a lay judge , illness of a presiding judge or absence of the applicant ’s lawyer . Finally , it was pointed out that the case was of a complex nature and , moreover , that the applicant himself had contributed to the delay because of his multiple requests for new evidence to be admitted .

The Code of Criminal Procedure of DATE , which entered into force on DATE , defines pre - trial detention ( aresztowanie tymczasowe ) CARDINAL of the so - called “ preventive measures ” ( środki zapobiegawcze ) . The other measures are bail ( poręczenie majątkowe ) , police supervision ( dozór policji ) , guarantee by a responsible person ( poręczenie osoby godnej zaufania ) , guarantee by a social entity ( poręczenie społeczne ) , temporary ban on engaging in a given activity ( zawieszenie oskarżonego w określonej działalności ) and prohibition on leaving the country ( zakaz opuszczania kraju ) .

Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL sets out the general grounds for imposition of the preventive measures . That provision reads :

“ Preventive measures may be imposed in order to ensure the proper conduct of proceedings and , exceptionally , also in order to prevent an accused ’s committing another , serious offence ; they may be imposed only if evidence gathered shows a significant probability that an accused has committed an offence . ”

Article CARDINAL lists grounds for pre - trial detention . It provides , in so far as relevant :

“ CARDINAL . Pre - trial detention may be imposed if :

( CARDINAL ) there is a reasonable risk that an accused will abscond or go into hiding , in particular when his identity can not be established or when he has no permanent abode [ in GPE ] ;

( CARDINAL ) there is a reasonable risk that an accused will attempt to induce [ witnesses or codefendants ] to give false testimony or to obstruct the proper course of proceedings by any other unlawful means ;

NORP If an accused has been charged with a serious offence or an offence for the commission of which he may be liable to a statutory maximum sentence of CARDINAL CARDINAL years’ imprisonment , or if a court of first instance has sentenced him to CARDINAL CARDINAL years’ imprisonment , the need to continue detention to ensure the proper conduct of proceedings may be based on the likelihood that a severe penalty will be imposed . ”

The provisions on pre - trial detention are based on the precept that pretrial detention , the most extreme among the preventive measures , should not be imposed if more lenient measures are adequate .

Article CARDINAL reads , in so far as relevant :

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

Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL reads :

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

( CARDINAL ) seriously jeopardise his life or health ; or

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

Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL provides :

“ Pre - trial detention shall not be imposed if an offence attracts a penalty of imprisonment not exceeding DATE . ”

Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL specifies that the rule provided for in LAW is not applicable when the accused is attempting to evade justice , when he persistently fails to comply with summonses or when his identity can not be established .

A more detailed description of the relevant domestic law and judicial practice concerning the imposition of pre - trial detention , the grounds for its extension , release from detention and rules governing other “ preventive measures ” are stated in the ORG ’s judgments in the cases of ORG v. GPE , no . GPE , § § DATE , DATE and PERSON v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , § § DATE , CARDINAL DATE .

On DATE the NORP Constitutional Court , having examined jointly CARDINAL constitutional complaints ( skarga konstytucyjna ) lodged by former detainees , declared Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL of LAW unconstitutional in so far as it related to the investigation stage of criminal proceedings ( No . ORG CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) . The provision in question provided that the detention measure might be extended beyond DATE if the pretrial proceedings could not have been completed because of “ important obstacles ” which could not have been overcome . The provision in question did not set any statutory time - limit for extending the detention measure . ORG considered that the impugned provision , by its imprecise and broad wording , could lead to arbitrary decisions of the courts on pre - trial detention and thus , infringe the very essence of constitutional rights and freedoms .

ORG ruled that the unconstitutional provision was to be repealed within DATE from the date of the publication of the judgment in ORG ) .

As a result of ORG judgment , LAW was amended as follows :

“ The pre - trial detention shall be extended beyond the period specified in DATE and DATE , only by the court of appeal in whose jurisdiction the proceedings are conducted , upon a motion from the court before which the case is pending , and at the investigation stage , upon a motion from the appellate prosecuting authorities . This can be done if deemed necessary in connection with a suspension of criminal proceedings , in connection with actions aiming at establishing or confirming the identity of the accused , prolonged psychiatric observation of the accused , prolonged preparation of an opinion of an expert , conducting evidentiary action in a particularly intricate case or conducting them abroad , or intentional protraction of proceedings by the accused . ”

However , a new provision was added in § CARDINAL(a ) of Article CARDINAL :

“ The court of appeal , in whose jurisdiction the proceedings are being conducted may also , on a motion from the court before which the case is pending , order the extension of the detention on remand for a fixed period , exceeding that specified in paragraph CARDINAL , because of other important obstacles whose removal has not been possible ” .

The above amendment was adopted on DATE and entered into force on DATE ( Journal of Laws of DATE , No . CARDINAL , item CARDINAL ) .

In the framework of the procedure before ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) the NORP Government supplied statistical data concerning the number and the length of pre - trial detentions ordered in DATE by the domestic courts .

According to these statistics , in DATE the total number of cases in which pre - trial detention was ordered by regional courts amounted to CARDINAL . That number comprised PERCENT of cases in which the measure lasted CARDINAL , and PERCENT of cases in which the measure exceeded DATE . In DATE the total number cases in which pre - trial detention was ordered by district courts was CARDINAL . It comprised PERCENT of cases in which the detention measure lasted TIME , and PERCENT of cases in which the measure exceeded DATE . District courts ordered pre - trial detention in CARDINAL cases in DATE and CARDINAL cases in DATE . In DATE , PERCENT of cases the detention measure lasted TIME and in PERCENT over DATE .

The relevant domestic law and practice concerning remedies for excessive length of judicial proceedings , in particular the applicable provisions of DATE Act , are stated in the ORG ’s decisions in the cases of ORG v. GPE no . CARDINAL ( dec . ) , § § CARDINAL , ORG CARDINALV and PERSON v. GPE no . CARDINAL ( dec . ) , ECHR CARDINALVIII , and its judgment in the case of PERSON v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , § § CARDINAL , ORG CARDINAL

In addition to new LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) new amendments , designed to streamline criminal proceedings , entered into force on DATE ( PERSON of DATE on amendments to LAW ; Journal of Laws of DATE , No . CARDINAL , item CARDINAL ; PERSON o zmianie ustawy - Kodeks postępowania karnego oraz niektórych innych ustaw ) . Those amendments strengthened the powers of the authorities to discipline the participants .

In particular , newly added Article CARDINAL § l ( a ) , which applies in the investigative and judicial phase of criminal proceedings , empowers a trial court to impose a fine of MONEY ( ORG ) on a defence counsel or a representative of a party who has failed to obey the summons of the authority conducting the proceedings or who , without the approval of the competent authority , has left the venue of the proceedings before they were completed .

A similar admonishing measure may be applied in respect of experts , witnesses , interpreters and other persons participating in the proceedings ( see among others , Articles CARDINAL § CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL § CARDINAL ( a ) ) .

In addition , new LAW entered into force on DATE . According to this provision it is sufficient if CARDINAL of the defence lawyers or representatives of a party ( who has CARDINAL defence lawyer or representative ) is present before the authority to proceed with the case .

Another amendment , preventing the obstruction of proceedings was introduced , to LAW . According to the new provision a trial court shall appoint ex officio a defence counsel if the accused has dismissed his lawyer or the lawyer himself has resigned and the accused has not appointed a new defence counsel . Previously , in such a situation , the court had to fix a time - limit for the accused to choose a new defence counsel and only after this time had lapsed , could the court act ex officio .

According to the information supplied by ORG to ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL above and paragraph CARDINAL below ) , in addition the NORP trial courts and prosecution authorities have undertaken a series of practical measures in order to organise criminal proceedings in a more efficient manner , i.e. by scheduling time - limits for hearings well in advance , holding hearings on DATE or severing charges against co - accused to separate proceedings under LAW of LAW if the joint examination proves difficult and time - consuming .

On CARDINAL DATE ORG ( PERSON ) adopted the “ Plan of Actions of the Government for the execution of judgments of ORG in respect of GPE ” ( Program PERSON w sprawie wykonywania wyroków PERSON ) . By virtue of that document the Minister of ORG was obliged to disseminate among judges and prosecutors on a regular basis information on the standards concerning the length of pre - trial detention stemming from the LAW and the case - law of the ORG in NORP cases and to include this topic in the programmes of workshops and seminars for judges .

On DATE ORG adopted an Interim Resolution concerning the judgments of ORG in CARDINAL cases against GPE relating to the excessive length of detention on remand ( “ the DATE Resolution ” ) . It reads , in its relevant parts , as follows :

“ ... Having regard to the great number of judgments of the ORG finding GPE in violation of LAW , paragraph CARDINAL , of the Convention on account of the unreasonable length of detention on remand ( ... )

Recalling that the obligation of every state , under LAW , paragraph CARDINAL , of the LAW , to abide by the judgments of the ORG involves an obligation rapidly to adopt the individual measures necessary to erase the consequences of the violations found as well as general measures to prevent new , similar violations of the LAW ;

Stressing the importance of rapid adoption of such measures in cases where judgments reveal structural problems which may give rise to a large number of new , similar violations of the Convention ;

Taking note of the steps taken so far by the authorities to remedy the structural problems related to detention on remand in GPE ( ... )

Noting also that , although some courts have begun to refer to the Convention and ORG case - law in rendering decisions on the use of detention on remand , this preventive measure still seems often to be ordered without taking into consideration the ORG ’s requirements ;

Underlining that continued detention can be justified only if there are specific indications of a genuine requirement of public interest which , notwithstanding the presumption of innocence , outweighs the rule of respect for individual liberty ;

Recalling that the persistence of reasonable suspicion that a person arrested has committed an offence , although a condition sine qua non for the lawfulness of the continued detention , may no longer suffice after a certain lapse of time and that consequently other relevant and sufficient grounds must be presented in order to extend such detention ;

Noting that the number of cases in which ORG has found similar violations is constantly increasing ,

ENCOURAGES the NORP authorities , in view of the extent of the systemic problem concerning the excessive length of detention on remand :

- to continue to examine and adopt further measures to reduce the length of detention on remand , including possible legislative measures and the change of ORG practice in this respect , to be in line with the requirements set out in the Convention and ORG case - law ; and in particular

- to take appropriate awareness - raising measures with regard to the authorities involved in the use of detention on remand as a preventive measure , including judges of criminal courts and prosecutors ;

- to encourage domestic courts and prosecutors to consider the use of other preventive measures provided in domestic legislation , such as release on bail , obligation to report to the police or prohibition on leaving the country ;

- to establish a clear and efficient mechanism for evaluating the trend concerning the length of detention on remand ;

On DATE ORG Commissioner for Human Rights released the Memorandum to the NORP Government concerning , among other issues , the use of the detention measure in GPE . It reads , in its relevant parts , as follows :

“ CARDINAL . ORG has repeatedly found violations of LAW ( right of a person subject to pre - trial detention to be tried within a reasonable time ) in respect of GPE . Examples of cases brought to GPE where pre - trial detention has lasted DATE are not uncommon .

NORP The Commissioner urges the NORP authorities to review the application and functioning of pre - trial detention in NORP law . The training of judges and prosecutors as regards NORP standards and case - law of ORG is crucial . The general rule should be the release rather than the detention on remand and this message needs to be strongly underlined to national judges ... ”