No violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2 - Positive obligations;Article 2-1 - Life) (Substantive aspect);No violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect)

André Potocki;Angelika Nußberger;Ann Power-Forde;Helena Jäderblom;Mark Villiger;Paul Lemmens

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in ORG . She is the mother of PERSON , who was born in DATE .

On DATE the applicant ’s son was convicted of rape , grievous bodily harm and deprivation of liberty . He was sentenced to DATE in prison . On DATE he started serving his prison sentence in FAC .

The applicant ’s son had been dependent on drugs since DATE . As a part of his medical treatment in prison he received substitutes for opiates , such as GPE , ORG , which is a hypnotic , PERSON , which is an antipsychotic drug , and PERSON , which is an anti - depressant . Before beginning his sentence , the applicant ’s son made an appointment at a drug dependency treatment centre at a psychiatric hospital . Its report , dated DATE , shows that he had stated that he wished to be hospitalised , but had failed to meet the conditions , namely abstinence . On DATE the applicant ’s son was examined privately by a psychiatrist , who noted that he had no sign of abstinence and was referred to his general practitioner for treatment for drug dependency .

As regards the facilities available to the applicant ’s son in the cells and common areas in GPE , as well as the health care regime in the prison and the conditions imposed on him regarding activities outside the cells and contact with the outside world , see the ORG ’s decision in the case of PERSON and PERSON v. GPE ( dec . ) , no . CARDINAL etc . , DATE .

As regards drug users , the prison offers medical ( including methadone substitution ) treatment and therapeutic help in accordance with a specialised drug treatment programme . Prisoners who successfully undergo methadone substitution treatment are able to undergo detoxification , which normally takes DATE . Further rehabilitation of previous drug users is provided in the drug - free sections of the prison , to which only those prisoners who are no longer dependent on drugs and who are no longer undergoing opiate replacement therapy may be assigned .

When he arrived in GPE , the applicant ’s son underwent an admission interview , conducted by a social worker , which , apart from his dependency problem , did not show anything giving rise to particular concern . On DATE he was examined by a doctor , who prescribed him substitution therapy for drug dependency . On DATE he was seen by a drug abuse therapist .

The applicant ’s son was initially placed in a QUANTITY cell , which he shared with another prisoner . DATE and CARDINAL DATE he was accommodated in cell CARDINAL , ORG . The cell , in which CARDINAL prisoners were held , measured QUANTITY .

On DATE the applicant ’s son developed an infection in his right arm and underwent surgery on DATE . DATE and DATE his wound was cleaned and dressed DATE .

On DATE and DATE the applicant asked ORG authorities to move her son to FAC . She stated that the latter prison was closer to their home and had better living conditions . She also stated that her son was often ill and was in hospital at the time of the request . Her request was rejected on the grounds that proper medical assistance could also be provided in FAC .

In the meantime , the prison psychologist saw the applicant ’s son on DATE . He noted , inter alia , that no serious mental difficulties or suicidal tendencies could be observed . On DATE a prison social worker GPE , held a meeting with the applicant , her son and his sister . The applicant inquired about the prison regime and repeated her requests for a transfer for her son .

On DATE the applicant told the drug abuse therapist that he was in crisis with his drug dependency and that he had stopped taking his substitution medication . The therapist informed him of the possible treatments for his drug dependency in the prison . On DATE the applicant had a consultation with the psychologist . On DATE the general practitioner noted in the report that the applicant had stopped taking the substitution medication .

On DATE a “ personal plan ” ( osebni načrt ) was set up for the applicant ’s son . Referring to the judgment by which he had been convicted and the report from the drug abuse therapist , the plan noted that the applicant ’s son ’s substitution therapy should be monitored and that he should be encouraged to deal with his drug dependency . It was envisaged that a urine test be regularly taken ; that he have special psychological therapy with regard to the criminal offence he had committed ; and that he be given the opportunity to continue his primary education . It was also noted that social worker GPE was the officer responsible for his case .

On DATE the applicant ’s son had a consultation with the drug abuse therapist . On DATE he was also introduced to leisure activities provided by the prison . It was agreed that he would attend such activities for TIME every Wednesday . However , he attended CARDINAL times and after DATE he gave up the enrolment .

On DATE a meeting was held with the applicant ’s son . The report prepared by the head of ORG following the meeting does not reveal anything untoward .

On DATE the applicant ’s son told the psychiatrist that he had started taking heroin again . He told the drug abuse therapist , whom he saw DATE , the same thing . During DATE the applicant ’s son also had CARDINAL consultations with the psychologist .

On DATE the applicant ’s son was seen by a social worker , following an “ urgent request ” in which he complained about extortion by his co - inmate , PERSON , from other inmates , including himself . The applicant ’s son gave a statement on the record in which he alleged that PERSON had taken money from him , as well as clothes and slippers . On DATE S.B. was moved to ORG ( high - security regime ) .

In TIME of CARDINAL DATE , CARDINAL guards entered the cell and found the applicant ’s son using a wet towel to cool his face . He told them that he had been attacked by ORG because of a dispute over a ORG network key . The operative head of the prison then talked to both prisoners , who reached agreement . After the incident , the applicant ’s son ’s personal belongings were searched . It was discovered that his computer was connected to the internet and drugs were found in his cupboard . The computer and the drugs were seized . Following the search , the applicant ’s son repeatedly said that he would cut or hang himself and that he would not survive the night . The applicant ’s son was then transferred to a special cell with video surveillance , where he remained from TIME On DATE a report noting these events was prepared by the prison guard who was on duty that evening .

At TIME on DATE the applicant ’s son was returned to an ordinary regime . Before this transfer he was seen by the head of Block CARDINAL . According to the report prepared by the head , the applicant ’s son had said that he had had no intention of committing suicide and that he had calmed down . It was also noted that he had refused to be examined by a doctor , as he had not sustained any injuries . Lastly , the report noted that the psychologist had talked to the applicant ’s son and that the prison guards had been informed that they needed to pay special attention to him .

On DATE the head of ORG and the prison psychologist held a meeting with the applicant , her son and his sister . The report of the meeting notes that the applicant alleged that her son was in danger and that it was no surprise that he was on drugs . They also discussed the incident of CARDINAL DATE and the applicant ’s transfer request . As regards the latter , the prison officers explained to the applicant that her son could not simply be moved to ORG or DATE , and informed her that the prisoner who had extorted money from the applicant ( presumably PERSON ) was now being held in a high - security block ( i.e. Block CARDINAL ) . DATE , CARDINAL DATE , the applicant was transferred to ORG . The decision referred to his drug problem , refusal to give urine samples and possession of illegal items . His transfer to ORG implied that he could only have TIME of outdoor exercise and was not allowed to spend time in the recreation room . He was allowed to receive visits of an TIME ’s duration , and to use the telephone in accordance with the DATE schedule . When leaving the cell he was accompanied by a guard and he could spend time outdoors only in the Block CARDINAL yard . CARDINAL prisoners were allowed to be in the same area of the yard , under supervision . the applicant ’s son was held in cells CARDINAL , DATE and CARDINAL .

On DATE and DATE social worker GPE invited the applicant ’s son for a consultation , but he refused . He also refused to have a consultation with the drug abuse therapist on DATE and DATE . However , in DATE the applicant ’s son had one consultation with the drug abuse therapist and CARDINAL with the psychologist . In DATE he saw the drug abuse therapist once and the psychologist twice . Moreover , DATE and DATE the ORG son had CARDINAL consultations with the psychiatrist , in which they discussed his drug dependency and substitution therapy .

The applicant made further requests for a transfer for her son , which were refused on DATE .

On DATE the team of officers dealing with the applicant ’s son ’s case decided that he should be moved to Block CARDINAL .

On DATE , DATE and DATE social worker GPE held meetings with the applicant ’s son . They discussed transferring him to an ordinary regime , where he would be able to participate in a drug treatment group and attend school as well as take part in leisure activities . They also discussed his problem with debt . The applicant ’s son said that he had a debt of MONEY ( ORG ) but he did not fear the person to whom he owed the money . He had more concern about a certain ORG , to whom he owed ORG CARDINAL and whom he might meet on the yard if transferred . He added that he would not provoke ORG When reminded , on DATE , that it was planned to transfer him to ORG , the applicant ’s son requested that this be delayed for DATE . He said he did not feel strong enough to reject drugs if they were offered to him . He was reminded that he was continuing to refuse to give urine samples , which was an indication that he was taking drugs while in FAC .

Following the meeting with social worker GPE on DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , at which he had opposed the idea of being transferred to an ordinary regime , a decision was taken that he should stay in ORG .

Following unsuccessful attempts to reach the Head of ORG Sentences ( “ the NORP ” ) by email or telephone , the applicant sent him a letter on DATE . She complained about the refusal of her request for transfer , stating that it was clear from the documentation available to the prison authorities that her son had lodged a complaint against ORG and that she had asked for him to be transferred out of the cell following the attack by PERSON She also complained that the applicant ’s son had previously been in a cell with CARDINAL prisoners , although the statutory limit was CARDINAL prisoners , and that , unlike in FAC , in FAC he was not provided with the opportunity to study or work . She also stated that of CARDINAL prisoners CARDINAL were taking drugs and that CARDINAL psychiatrist was employed for TIME a day and was not sufficiently accessible . This letter was treated as an appeal and rejected by the ORG on DATE . The latter reiterated that ORG did not provide any special psychological treatment targeted at her son ’s drug abuse and the offence he had committed , and that FAC had sufficient means at its disposal to ensure his safety .

It would appear that on DATE the governor of ORG requested , of his own motion , that the applicant ’s son be transferred to FAC , stating that this would have a positive effect on his motivation for realisation of his “ personal plan ” .

On DATE , DATE and DATE the applicant ’s son saw the psychologist .

On DATE it was ordered that the applicant ’s visits to her son should be held behind a glass partition . The decision referred to the fact that following visits from his sister and the applicant on CARDINAL and DATE he was found to be in possession of a presumably illegal substance .

On DATE , during a conversation with a psychiatrist , the applicant ’s son became very upset and threatened to harm himself . The prison governor ordered that he be placed in a single cell under supervision and afterwards remain in FAC .

On DATE the psychiatrist had a discussion with the applicant about her son ’s situation . The applicant ’s son was also examined by the psychiatrist . At that examination he said that he wished to reduce substitution therapy . He also confirmed that he had had suicidal thoughts twice before . The physiatrist prescribed him substitute therapy and anti - stress medication . The applicant ’s son saw the psychologist DATE .

On DATE and CARDINAL DATE social worker GPE invited the applicant ’s son for a consultation , but he refused to attend .

On CARDINAL DATE social worker GPE and the prison governor held a meeting with the applicant and her son . The applicant stressed that her son was in danger and referred to her requests that he be transferred .

In the meantime , on CARDINAL DATE the applicant ’s son reported to the prison authorities that he had been attacked by an inmate from the same cell and asked to be transferred to another cell .

On CARDINAL DATE the Head of the ORG issued a decision refusing the request by the governor of Dob Prison on the grounds already given in the previous decisions ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) , but ordered of his own motion a temporary placement of the applicant ’s son in FAC for the period between DATE and DATE .

On DATE a report was sent to FAC , which noted the applicant ’s son ’s addiction problem and his fear of fellow inmates to whom he owed money . It was also mentioned in the report that officers from FAC had noticed that a certain prisoner was putting pressure on the applicant and was demanding that he return money .

NORP On DATE and CARDINAL DATE the applicant ’s son was examined by a general practitioner in PERSON , who noted that he had not been taking substitution medication .

On DATE , after a visit from his mother and sister , the applicant ’s son was found to be in possession of a bag containing QUANTITY tablets , which had been hidden in a shampoo bottle . Because of this incident , as well as because of his lack of interest in education and drug rehabilitation , the applicant ’s son was returned to FAC on DATE .

Following his return to Dob Prison , the applicant ’s son was interviewed by a prison officer , who noted in a special questionnaire that he had a history of drug abuse and attempted suicide . The doctor who examined him noted that his medical condition remained unchanged . The applicant ’s son was placed in a single cell CARDINAL ( QUANTITY ) in FAC . The electric light in this cell was not functioning .

On DATE the drug abuse therapist held a consultation with the applicant ’s son . The latter said that he wished to discontinue the substitution therapy , but did not want to participate in drug therapy or give urine samples . He also alleged that he had intended to use the tablets he had been found to possess in FAC to “ clean himself ” .

On DATE the psychologist discussed a “ personal plan ” with the applicant ’s son .

On DATE the applicant ’s son lodged a request to be given leave to bring into his cell certain objects , such as an electric extension cable , a ORG key and so on , which was granted on DATE .

On DATE the applicant was transferred to single cell CARDINAL in FAC , which was identical to cell CARDINAL but had functioning electricity .

During his stay in Dob Prison the applicant ’s son sent CARDINAL letters and received CARDINAL packages . He had telephone contact with his father , his sister and the applicant . He was visited regularly by the applicant and by his sister . He was allowed to bring in his computer , radio , headphones , boxing equipment and so on . In the period DATE the applicant ’s son participated in FAC to education ” programme . He attended TIME of this course .

On DATE , the technical facilities in the cell were inspected and the applicant ’s son was given a DVD player , a night light and some other items for personal use brought in by his mother . TIME and TIME the applicant telephoned his mother . Beforehand , while waiting for the telephone in the corridor , he was attacked by prisoner PERSON security camera footage from the staircase area at the time of the attack , which was submitted to the ORG , show that PERSON and the applicant ’s son met at the stairs and that the former swung his hand towards the latter and grabbed or attempted to grab him , possibly around the neck . PERSON is then seen leaving , being followed by the guard who was rushing after him . These events took TIME .

At TIME , in the context of regular supervision when the guard changed , CARDINAL guards on day duty entered cell no . CARDINAL and saw the applicant ’s son sitting smoking . They later said that the applicant ’s son looked at them and greeted them and that he seemed normal , as he had earlier in DATE . At TIME CARDINAL guards from the night shift opened cell CARDINAL for a nurse to deliver the prescribed medication . They found the applicant ’s son hanging from a water pipe by his bed sheet . The nurse examined him and concluded that he was dead . At TIME a doctor arrived . Officers from a local police station arrived at the scene at TIME The investigating judge on duty was informed of the incident but declined to attend . According to a report dated DATE the doctor found that the applicant ’s son had died as a result of suicide , that there were no signs of violence and that the cause of suicide was a depressive syndrome and drug addiction . The remains were taken to a hospital , where an autopsy was carried out .

Immediately after the death of her son , the applicant requested the police to seize the applicant ’s son ’s personal file kept in the prison , which they did .

Following the death of the applicant ’s son , CARDINAL report was prepared by PERSON , head of security at FAC , and another by a CARDINAL - member commission formed within the ORG .

The first report , which is dated DATE , concluded :

“ We regret the incident . The prisoner was a known drug addict when he started serving his sentence . Due to his drug addiction , the enforcement of the prison sentence was very difficult ... Due to his drug addiction , [ the applicant ’s son ] soon got into trouble with other inmates and suffered mental difficulties .

It is our assessment that the treatment of the prisoner was lawful , respectful and professional ...

We believe that the prisoner ’s suicide could not have been prevented , due to the complexity of his problems . ”

On DATE the Head of the ORG appointed a CARDINAL - member commission to investigate the circumstances of the applicant ’s son ’s death . The commission held interviews with the CARDINAL prison guards who were on duty on DATE of the suicide , the prison psychologist , certain prisoners , the nurse who was present at the scene of the suicide , the governor , and ORG , S.Ž , , and examined documents which remained available after the seizure . It issued a report on CARDINAL DATE . According to the report , the prison doctor and GPE stated that the applicant ’s son had not shown any suicidal tendencies . It noted that the applicant ’s son had not reported the conflict he had with PERSON on DATE of his death , which was only observed when the video recordings were inspected after the suicide . The commission concluded :

“ According to the assessment made by the commission , the treatment [ of the applicant ’s son ] was lawful , respectful and professional . However , by his conduct and actions the prisoner contributed to several conflict situations , which the authorities could not entirely prevent . The fact that the prisoner was often transferred within the establishment as well as to FAC demonstrates that efforts were made to ensure his safety .... The commission also notes that the deceased never reported maltreatment by or conflicts with the prison staff . It was also denied by the prisoners heard by the commission that the deceased was maltreated , threatened or intimidated by prison staff .

On the basis of the established facts , the commission concludes that the [ authorities of ] Dob Prison could not have prevented the suicide of the deceased . ”

On DATE the governor of Dob Prison sent the ORG an additional report , focusing on the conflict between the applicant ’s son and PERSON It noted that the contact between the applicant ’s son and PERSON took TIME . Having regard to the statements of prison staff and a prisoner who were near the staircase at the time in question and did not observe or hear anything , as well as to the fact that the applicant ’s son sustained no injuries , it was unlikely that PERSON had hit the applicant . The report also noted that the prison staff was of the opinion that there had been much more conflict going on than had actually been observed by them , and that some inmates claimed that the applicant ’s son had debts amounting to a total of around LAW . According to the report , the telephone booths were situated near the staircase and inmates often encountered each other there . This was a known problem , and efforts to change the system were under way . The report suggested that it would have been easier for the applicant ’s son to serve a sentence in a smaller prison and that a systemic solution to cases such as his would have been isolation from other inmates , which was legally and practically impossible at the material time .

Previously , on DATE , the applicant had lodged a criminal complaint against the prisoners who had allegedly intimidated and beaten her son on several occasions . Her statement given to the police read , as far as relevant , as follows :

“ PERSON started serving his sentence in DATE . He was placed in Building CARDINAL . There , he was intimidated by a prisoner called ... [ S.B. ] , who would take his things ( money and other things ) and beat him ( for example , every day he would wait for him outside the bathroom , slap him and demand that PERSON give him everything he had ) . This was confirmed by another prisoner ... who shared a cell with PERSON . [ Further to complaints from PERSON and another prisoner ] ... [ S.B. ] was transferred to Building CARDINAL ... PERSON was then beaten by a prisoner ... [ D.M ] on DATE ... Immediately after that attack , PERSON reported the incident to the prison guards and told them that he would cut his throat ( this is what the administration told me ) . For that reason , PERSON was put under video surveillance for TIME in a special room ... On DATE PERSON was moved to Building CARDINAL and since then he has been afraid to leave the room ... He is afraid of ... [ S.B and D.M. ] , who were also moved to this building ... so that now all CARDINAL of them are there ...

I asked for a transfer for my son ... but was unsuccessful on the grounds that I failed to bring evidence showing that PERSON was in danger .

I am very afraid for the safety of my son ... PERSON is also very very afraid . I wish they would transfer him anywhere , just away from here , as he still has DATE to serve ... ”

NORP The police forwarded the above criminal complaint to the ORG ( “ the Prosecutor ” ) . On DATE the ORG requested the police to collect evidence and requested that the case be examined as a priority . Subsequently , the police forwarded to him a report which included a statement by the applicant ’s son . The latter told the officers that he had no interest in pursing the proceedings and that it was his father who had started them . On DATE the Prosecutor again requested the police to collect evidence , in particular as regards the allegations concerning ORG and a certain ORG , who was also mentioned by the applicant at some point . He instructed them to question the suspects as well as prison staff , and also to investigate what measures were being taken by the prison staff to monitor the applicant ’s son and what the prison authorities’ findings were as regards the applicant ’s son ’s endangerment and debts .

Following the applicant ’s son ’s death , on DATE the police secured the evidence at the scene and ordered an autopsy . They took statement from , inter alia , the inmates who had had contact with the applicant ’s son and seized the video recordings of his contact with PERSON on DATE of the suicide . On DATE the police interviewed the applicant . On DATE a hospital autopsy report was issued . It stated that there were no signs of violence on the applicant ’s son ’s body and found that the death had been caused by hanging .

On DATE the applicant complained to FAC about the conditions of her son ’s detention , and alleged that she had not been taken seriously by prison officers , in particular the governor , PERSON

On DATE the applicant told ORG that a prisoner from ORG had called her DATE to tell her that her son had been attacked by another prisoner shortly before his suicide and that the prison officers had done nothing to stop the attack . She also alleged that her son had died in suspicious circumstances and that the head of ORG , GPE , had intimidated her son . She further alleged that the authorities had not adequately responded to her warnings about the fragile mental state of her son and his risk of suicide . On DATE the applicant also went to FAC , where she alleged that her son had been beaten up prior to his death , that the head of ORG , GPE , had threatened her son and had moved him to a cell with no amenities on CARDINAL DATE . She also alleged that governor PERSON performed his duties in a negligent manner . On DATE the investigating judge on duty ordered a new autopsy to be carried out by ORG to establish the exact cause of death , whether there were injuries on the body , and whether prompt help could have prevented the death .

An autopsy report was prepared by ORG on DATE . It showed no injuries on the body which could have been caused by the use of violence ; it noted suicide as the certain cause of death . It also noted that the applicant ’s son was not under the influence of drugs and that the death could have been prevented only if he had been found TIME after the hanging .

On DATE the applicant alleged at the ORG office that her son ’s suicide had been caused by the extortion by PERSON and his attack on DATE of her son ’s death . She also alleged that the prison guards should be held responsible for the attack , which they could have prevented .

On DATE the Prosecutor ordered the police to collect evidence concerning the suspects referred to by the applicant , to conduct interviews with the prison guards and relevant inmates and to prepare a report concerning the video recordings .

On DATE the applicant reported to ORG her suspicion that her son had been murdered in the prison . She said that her son took a large number of tablets , then lost consciousness and was hanged by the prison guards .

On DATE the ORG sent a letter to police urging them to collect evidence , as previously requested by him . He emphasised the need for an extensive and thorough investigation of the allegations made by the applicant . He also stated that the investigation should be based on direct taking of evidence by police , and gave them certain instructions in this regard .

On DATE a forensic report was issued . It found that the fingerprints at the scene of the suicide were those of the applicant ’s son .

On DATE the police submitted their report concerning the applicant ’s allegations . It transpires from the report that the police had questioned , among others , the head of Block CARDINAL GPE , the social worker GPE and CARDINAL inmates . The report referred also to the findings of autopsy reports , the toxicological report , the applicant ’s son ’s prison file and his diary . It noted that the time of death was sometime between TIME and TIME

On DATE the ORG requested that a criminal investigation be opened against PERSON concerning the criminal offence of extortion . His request was upheld by the investigating judge . A number of witnesses , including prisoners who knew the applicant ’s son and the applicant , were heard . PERSON stated in those proceedings that the applicant ’s son had sold everything he had for drugs and had borrowed money from co - inmates , but not from him . According to PERSON , the applicant ’s son , in order to get more money from his family , falsely reported to authorities that he and ORG had been extorting money from him . This had had consequences for PERSON as he had been moved to ORG for DATE . PERSON also admitted that he had met the applicant ’s son at the staircase on DATE of his death . He said that the applicant ’s son had greeted him and that he in response had pushed him , saying that he did not have the right to greet him as he had been the reason for his transfer to FAC . As there was insufficient evidence that ORG had extorted money from the applicant ’s son , and in particular there was insufficient proof that the applicant ’s son had owed anything to PERSON , the prosecutor eventually discontinued the proceedings ( on DATE ) . The applicant subsequently took them over in her capacity as a subsidiary prosecutor . The proceedings are currently pending trial .

DATE . On DATE the ORG requested the police to take further measures to investigate the allegations concerning the alleged lack of protection of the applicant ’s son by prison staff and ill - treatment by fellow inmates , in particular GPE and ORG He also requested that the role of the prison governor PERSON be explored .

On DATE the police obtained a forensic report which indicated that the handwriting on the letter found next to the body was that of the applicant ’s son .

On DATE and CARDINAL and CARDINAL DATE the applicant lodged further criminal complaints against named prisoners and prison officials , including the governor PERSON and the head of ORG , GPE She alleged , inter alia , that they had committed the criminal offence of negligence by denying her son access to psychiatric care . The Prosecutor subsequently requested the police to question the relevant prison staff with regard to these allegations .

On DATE the Prosecutor rejected the applicant ’s criminal complaints concerning the criminal offences of extortion , endangering the security of a person , murder , abuse of office , violation of human dignity by abuse of power , and theft allegedly committed against the applicant ’s son by fellow inmates or prison staff . The written reasons given for the ORG ’s decision , which is CARDINAL pages long , refer to , inter alia , statements by prisoners . While most of them did not indicate anything which would attract particular attention , CARDINAL of them testified that the applicant ’s son prior to his death had mentioned to them that he was unhappy about not having a television , and that he had said he did not feel well , but did not mention suicide . CARDINAL also said that the applicant ’s son had told him that he wanted to sue the Head of Block CARDINAL , ORG said that the applicant ’s son had been addicted to heroin and spent DATE on drugs per day . ORG said that he had lent him ORG CARDINAL , and had taken his jacket as EUR CARDINAL of it . The decision further refers to the analysis of the video recordings and to the limited contact between the applicant ’s son and PERSON It also notes that PERSON was sanctioned in disciplinary proceedings for an attack on the applicant ’s son . The decision moreover refers to statements by GPE , who said during questioning by the police that he had been in DATE contact with the applicant ’s son in DATE preceding his death . After his return from FAC , GPE had not noticed any changes in his behaviour which would indicate that he was a suicide risk . According to GPE , the applicant ’s son wished to stay in a single cell and the fact that there was no light in cell CARDINAL did not appear to bother him . Moreover , he seemed content on DATE , after being moved to a new cell . GPE also said that the applicant called the prison authorities on an almost DATE basis , in particular before the applicant ’s son ’s transfer to FAC , requesting her son ’s transfer and claiming that he felt unsafe . On the basis of the evidence in the file , the Prosecutor concluded that PERSON ’s behaviour had not caused the applicant ’s son ’s suicide . The Prosecutor also found that there was not the slightest indication that the applicant ’s son had been murdered . Furthermore , he noted that his accommodation had been determined in the standard procedure and not at the discretion of GPE , that the prison staff had acted within their competences , and that GPE and PERSON had tried to make the applicant ’s son ’s accommodation as comfortable as possible in the circumstances . He established that the applicant ’s son had never been denied medical or psychiatric assistance . There was also no evidence of other acts alleged by the applicant , including the alleged extortion by ORG

The applicant , in the capacity of a subsidiary prosecutor , subsequently took over the prosecution in the above cases and lodged an indictment . The proceedings appear still to be pending .

On DATE , the Prosecutor also rejected the applicant ’s remaining criminal complaints ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , in particular those concerning alleged negligence at work aimed at certain prison personnel .

For the relevant domestic law and practice see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL - CARDINAL of the ORG ’s judgment in the case of ORG and Others v. GPE ( nos . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , CARDINAL/CARDINAL and ORG , DATE ) , paragraphs CARDINAL of ORG and PERSON GPE ( nos . CARDINAL/CARDINAL and CARDINAL , CARDINAL DATE ) , and PERSON and Others , cited above , as well as paragraphs CARDINAL of NORP v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , DATE ) .


Preliminary objection joined to merits (non-exhaustion of domestic remedies);No violation of Art. 2;Violation of Art. 2;No violation of Art. 3;Not necessary to examine Art. 6-1;Violation of Art. 13;Not necessary to examine Art. 14;Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed;Non-pecuniary damage - financial award;Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings

The applicants were born in DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE respectively . The first applicant lives in GPE and the remainder of the applicants live in GPE . The first applicant is the father , the second applicant is the wife and the remainder of the applicants are the children of PERSON , who was killed on DATE .

On DATE at TIME while PERSON was leaving the casino at FAC in the LOC area of GPE with his CARDINAL friends PERSON and Hacı Karay , CARDINAL people wearing bullet - proof vests and carrying firearms approached them . They introduced themselves as police officers and forced the CARDINAL men into CARDINAL cars .

The applicants were informed of the incident on DATE . They immediately contacted the PERSON public prosecutor and the NORP police headquarters to find out more about the kidnapping . They were informed that the QUANTITY persons had not been taken into custody . DATE , the brother of FAC filed a complaint with the PERSON public prosecutor and complained that his brother and his CARDINAL friends , PERSON and PERSON , had been abducted by people who had introduced themselves as police officers .

On DATE at TIME PERSON contacted the ORG gendarmerie station within the district of Bolu . He informed the gendarmes that he had seen CARDINAL bodies in an area near the river where he had gone to fish . At TIME the gendarmerie arrived at the scene . The positions of the bodies were recorded . No documents or other property were found on the bodies which might establish their identities . The corpses were taken to ORG in GPE for further examination .

On DATE a post mortem examination of PERSON body was carried out by CARDINAL doctors in the presence of the GPE public prosecutor . In the body examination report , it was noted that there was an ecchymosis measuring QUANTITY and an abrasion on the surface of the knee cap of the second body that was later identified as that of PERSON . It was further recorded that cyanosis was noted on the front part of the body , left leg upper part , left knee , genitals and the head . It was perceived that rigor mortis was fading . According to the report , when the body was touched , the skin peeled - which was most probably due to its damp condition . CARDINAL bullet entrance hole on right occipital area and burnt hair caused by a close - range shot and a bullet exit hole behind the right ear ( which damaged the tissue , internal tissue and bones ) were noted . A wide haematoma on the left eye due to trauma caused by a blunt object , fracture of the nose , and blood from the nostrils to the moustache area were also noticed . No other signs or abnormalities were observed either on the back of the body or the genital area . There were no documents to prove identification , nor were there any valuables or money . On the surface of the right hand and wrist a further ecchymosis measuring QUANTITY . in width was noted , which was probably caused when the hands were tied with a rope . The doctors further concluded that as the cause of death was clearly cerebral haemorrhage , there was no need to conduct a classical autopsy . The estimated time of death was given as TIME before the autopsy was carried out .

The bullets recovered from the bodies were sent for ballistic examination to ORG , which prepared CARDINAL forensic reports dated CARDINAL and DATE respectively . The report dated DATE showed that the CARDINAL spent bullet cases found at the scene of the killing had been discharged by CARDINAL different pistols . The report concluded that comparisons of the CARDINAL spent bullet cases with other bullet cases recovered from the scenes of other unknown perpetrator killings since DATE did not reveal any similarities .

The bullets were then sent to ORG which prepared its own report on DATE . The report stated that comparisons of the CARDINAL spent bullet cases found at the scene of the killing with other bullet cases recovered from the scenes of other unknown perpetrator killings did not reveal any similarities .

On DATE the ORG public prosecutor conducted a search of the scene of the crime in the presence of PERSON , who had found the bodies . During the examination , a person named PERSON told the public prosecutor that she had heard a gun shot in TIME of DATE .

DATE the ORG gendarmerie took statements from CARDINAL persons .

On DATE the ORG public prosecutor took a statement from ORG , the doorman at FAC . In his statement , ORG explained that when PERSON , PERSON and Hacı Karay , who were regular customers at the hotel casino , left the hotel around CARDINAL a.m. on DATE , CARDINAL or CARDINAL persons , who had arrived in CARDINAL cars , approached them and conducted body searches holding them against the wall . The QUANTITY persons were then put into a dark - coloured Mercedes car with registration number CARDINAL ORG CARDINAL . The doorman stated that he had overheard CARDINAL of the men saying that they were police officers and that they would release the CARDINAL persons as soon as their statements were taken . The ORG was followed by a sports car . The doorman was unable to describe any of the men , since it was dark and he had seen them from a distance .

Also on DATE the ORG public prosecutor took the statement of ORG , a security guard at FAC . He stated that CARDINAL men , wearing waistcoats and carrying weapons , had approached the CARDINAL men as they walked out the door . They forced the QUANTITY men into the waiting cars , after having conducted body searches . This witness stated that CARDINAL of the cars was a sports car .

On DATE PERSON , a taxi driver waiting at the taxi rank outside FAC , gave his statement to the PERSON public prosecutor . He stated that while waiting for customers , he had noticed CARDINAL persons coming out of the casino . At that very moment , QUANTITY men walked towards them , made the QUANTITY persons face the wall and then searched them . Afterwards , the QUANTITY were put into the waiting cars . CARDINAL of the cars was a black - coloured ORG CARDINAL ORG . The second car was a cherry - red ORG . The witness also recalled that he had seen a third car , a sports car , which was driven away by one of the men wearing a waistcoat . The witness had been unable to see the licence plates of the cars or the faces of these men .

Again on DATE the ORG public prosecutor took a statement from another taxi driver , PERSON . He stated that as he approached the taxi rank outside the hotel , he saw some people forcing CARDINAL men into a black car .

On DATE ORG established that the car with registration number CARDINAL ORG CARDINAL was a burgundy coloured DATE model ORG and that it belonged to a certain FAC , who resided in GPE .

On DATE the first applicant , PERSON , gave a statement to the police . He stated that his son , PERSON , had been abducted from FAC . He explained that when ORG informed him about the CARDINAL dead bodies that had been found in GPE , he had identified his son 's body in ORG . He asked the authorities to find the perpetrators of this crime .

The preliminary enquiries led the ORG public prosecutor to issue a continuous search warrant on DATE , which was valid for DATE . The investigation file was forwarded to the ORG public prosecutor on CARDINAL DATE since the bodies were found within his area of jurisdiction .

As it had not been possible to establish the identities of the perpetrators , on DATE the ORG public prosecutor issued a permanent search warrant for the perpetrators of the killings , which would remain valid for DATE pursuant to LAW . The prosecutor further stated in his report that no evidence had been found during the investigation . Copies of this search warrant were distributed to the ORG gendarmerie and the GPE police as well as to the PERSON public prosecutor in GPE so that they could inform the GPE public prosecutor if they found the perpetrators . The prosecutor also instructed these authorities to continue carrying out meticulous searches for the perpetrators .

After the GPE incident , PERSON , who was the Head of ORG of ORG at the time , gave a statement to the public prosecutor in connection with the GPE incident . In his statement , he referred to the killings of FAC , PERSON and PERSON as the work of an illegal group . He further stated that , as that information was based on secret intelligence , he did not have any documents to prove the allegations . He was , however , of the opinion that , if an investigation was carried out into certain sources , it would be possible to find documents to verify the accuracy of these allegations . He was prepared to indicate those issues in respect of which it might be possible to find documents . Among his submissions , which were recorded in a CARDINAL - page statement , Mr PERSON stated , inter alia , the following :

“ The ORG and ORG ( PERSON , hereinafter ORG ) became concerned about the financial assistance being provided to the ORG from certain members of the NORP community , which they felt accounted for its increased activity DATE . They did not feel that they had enough evidence to bring charges and consequently some officers from the Police , ORG and ORG started talking about using different methods of dealing with certain members of the NORP community . A special team was formed for this purpose by , inter alia , the Chief of Police , PERSON and the Chief of ORG , PERSON . This team consisted both of members of ORG and certain civilians , including PERSON . The activities of this special team were known to other members of the ORG and the Intelligence Branch of the ORG ( the GPE ) . The kidnapping and the killing of PERSON and his friends formed part of such activities . It was established that these persons were helping the ORG financially . The way they were kidnapped and killed did not bear any resemblance to the activities of a ORG or other underground organisation known to us . Police identity cards and policing methods were used during the kidnapping of PERSON and his friends , otherwise it would not have been possible to kidnap them and to kill them as there are checkpoints on the roads along which they would have been stopped . To go through these checkpoints could only have been possible by making use of an official title ” .

On DATE PERSON was interrogated once again in GPE at the request of the GPE public prosecutor . In his statement , he stated that he did not know how and by whom the killings were carried out .

On DATE the police officers PERSON , PERSON and PERSON , who were in detention in connection with an investigation into the GPE incident , were shown to the eyewitnesses to the abduction , PERSON and ORG . However , the eyewitnesses stated that they had not seen these persons before .

The photo - fit drawings of the CARDINAL abductors made on the basis of the statements of the witnesses were compared with the photographs of PERSON , PERSON and PERSON at FAC . In the laboratory report , dated DATE , it was stated that the photo - fits did not have the necessary facial characteristics to make a positive comparison .

The photo - fits were also compared with the photograph of ORG , another suspect detained in connection with the GPE investigation . The report of the criminal laboratory dated DATE concluded that CARDINAL of the photo - fits bore resemblances to the photograph and that the person in the photo - fit could be PERSON . Accordingly , on DATE ORG issued an arrest warrant for PERSON . On DATE PERSON gave a statement to the public prosecutor . He stated that he was not in GPE DATE and DATE and that he did not know who had carried out the kidnapping on DATE . He further stated that he did not fit the description of any of the abductors as he had had a beard at the time of the kidnapping . He explained that this fact could be easily verified because he had given an interview to a local television channel in PERSON at around the time of the kidnapping .

On DATE ORG rejected the appeal of ORG against the decision ordering his arrest for the kidnapping and killing of the applicants ' relative and the other CARDINAL persons . On CARDINAL DATE an identity parade was held in the prison where PERSON was being detained on remand . Both ORG , the doorman at FAC , and PERSON , the taxi driver who had witnessed the kidnapping on DATE , stated that PERSON , who was included in a line - up of QUANTITY persons , was not one of the men who had carried out the kidnapping . On DATE PERSON was questioned by the public prosecutor . Mr PERSON was a watchman working at ORG , which was on the road to FAC . He referred to his previous statement which he had given on DATE and stated that he had only seen a red car stop outside his office in the forest at TIME on DATE . CARDINAL person had left the car and filled a container with water from a fountain . When he was shown pictures of PERSON , the witness stated that the person he had seen did not look like PERSON .

On DATE the ORG public prosecutor took a decision of non - jurisdiction in respect of ORG . The prosecutor sent the investigation file to ORG which , in the prosecutor 's opinion , was the competent court to prosecute PERSON .

In the meantime , on DATE , ORG wrote to the management of ORG and requested that the video recordings of the security camera for TIME DATE be transmitted to them . In reply , on DATE the casino management informed the security department that the video recordings were kept for DATE and then erased . They further stated that as the casino was closed as of CARDINAL DATE , all video recordings were deleted .

On DATE the public prosecutor attached to ORG took a decision of non - jurisdiction in respect of PERSON . The prosecutor concluded that there was insufficient evidence to suggest that the killings had been carried out by or on behalf of an illegal organisation . He therefore concluded that ORG did not have jurisdiction in this matter . The file was sent to the PERSON public prosecutor , who later transferred the file to the ORG public prosecutor .

On DATE the ORG public prosecutor , noting that ORG had been arrested and put on trial for the killings , decided to continue the search for the other perpetrators . The prosecutor also asked the PERSON public prosecutor to charge PERSON , who , according to the evidence gathered by the ORG public prosecutor , was CARDINAL of the perpetrators of the kidnappings and subsequent killings .

On DATE the PERSON public prosecutor filed a bill of indictment with ORG . The prosecutor alleged that the evidence justified the prosecution of PERSON for the murder of the applicant 's brother and his CARDINAL friends .

During the proceedings before ORG , the court took into consideration the indictment which had been submitted to ORG on DATE and which dealt with PERSON role in the GPE affair . ORG noted that , according to this indictment , PERSON was a notorious international drugs trafficker who held CARDINAL official service passports , CARDINAL of which were in the names of PERSON and ORG .

The Düzce Assize Court finally noted that ORG name had been implicated in ORG which had concluded that the fight against terrorism had gained momentum in DATE when PERSON was appointed head of ORG in GPE . According to this ORG , there had been a number of unknown perpetrator murders in the area between GPE , Adapazarı and Bolu after the then prime minister declared publicly that she had in her possession a list containing the names of those businessmen who were supporting the ORG . The ORG further stated that the killings of FAC , PERSON , ORG , ORG and ORG formed part of such activities .

Recalling that PERSON , PERSON and ORG had been kidnapped by CARDINAL persons and then killed in the area between GPE , Adapazarı and Bolu , ORG held that these killings resembled the above - mentioned killings in the same area . Considering that the defendant was already facing prosecution before another court for membership of an organisation which was allegedly responsible for killing persons who had much in common with the deceased persons in the present case and as there was no other evidence to suggest that these killings were carried out for personal reasons , ORG concluded on DATE that it was precluded from examining the merits of the case for reasons of jurisdiction .

The case file was transferred to ORG which had jurisdiction to deal with cases involving organised crime . On DATE the court concluded that it too did not have jurisdiction to deal with the case . It held that , according to the PERSON public prosecutor 's indictment of CARDINAL DATE , ORG was charged with multiple murders . The indictment had made no reference to organised crime and the court did not have jurisdiction to examine this allegation ex officio . The case file was sent to ORG in order to resolve the dispute over jurisdiction .

On DATE ORG , upholding the decision of ORG , ruled that ORG had jurisdiction to deal with the case .

Seven hearings were held before ORG in the course of the criminal proceedings against ORG . The applicants joined the proceedings as a civil party . PERSON told the court that there was no evidence to link him to the killings and that the only reason for putting him on trial was to prove to the NORP courts that the killings were being investigated . QUANTITY eyewitnesses , who had either seen the QUANTITY men being put into the cars outside the hotel in GPE or had seen the CARDINAL cars near the spot where these persons were killed , stated during the hearings that they had never seen PERSON before .

On DATE the ORG acquitted PERSON of the charge of multiple murders due to lack of evidence . On DATE ORG upheld this decision .

The parties submitted various documents with a view to substantiating their claims . These documents , in so far as they are relevant , may be listed as follows .

( i ) Scene of incident report , dated DATE , prepared by the NORP Commander .

( ii ) Second scene of incident report , dated DATE , prepared by the NORP Commander .

( iii ) Sketch of the scene of incident drawn by ORG , dated DATE .

( iv ) Decision of the ORG public prosecutor for a continuous search warrant , dated DATE .

( v ) A further scene of incident report , dated DATE , prepared by the ORG public prosecutor .

( vi ) Further statement of PERSON , dated DATE , who allegedly heard gun shots on DATE of the incident .

( vii ) A further sketch of incident , dated DATE , prepared by the ORG public prosecutor 's office .

( viii ) An expert report , dated DATE , stating that from the point where the witness , PERSON , had been standing on DATE of the incident it was probable that she might have heard gun shots .

( ix ) The letter of ORG , dated DATE , to the PERSON public prosecutor 's office .

( x ) Periodic follow - up reports ( CARDINAL in all ) of gendarmes DATE .

( xi ) PERSON public prosecutor 's decision to transfer the case file to GPE public prosecutor 's office , dated DATE .

( xii ) Report of ORG to the GPE police , dated DATE .

( xiii ) Report of identity parade , in which it is indicated that PERSON , PERSON and PERSON were shown to QUANTITY eyewitnesses to the kidnapping , PERSON and PERSON , and that no similarities with the perpetrators had been noted .

( xiv ) Letter of Çınar Hotel Casino Management to ORG , dated DATE .

( xv ) Decision of the ORG public prosecutor to continue searching for the perpetrators of the killings , dated DATE .

( i ) Statements of ORG , doorman of ORG , dated DATE and DATE respectively , taken by the ORG public prosecutor 's office .

( ii ) Statement of PERSON , security guard of the FAC hotel , dated DATE , taken by the PERSON public prosecutor 's office .

( iii ) Statement of PERSON , dated DATE , taken by the PERSON public prosecutor 's office .

( iv ) Statements of ORG , dated DATE and DATE respectively , taken by the PERSON public prosecutor 's office .

( v ) Statement of PERSON , a villager , dated DATE , taken by ORG .

( vi ) Statements of PERSON , a villager , dated DATE and DATE , taken by ORG and the public prosecutor respectively .

( vii ) Statement of PERSON , a student , dated DATE , taken by ORG .

( viii ) Statement of PERSON , a student , dated DATE , taken by ORG .

( ix ) Statements of ORG , a villager , dated DATE and DATE , taken by ORG and the public prosecutor respectively .

( x ) Statement of PERSON , driver of the school bus , dated DATE , taken by ORG .

( xi ) Statements of PERSON , a villager , dated DATE and DATE , taken by ORG and the public prosecutor respectively .

( xii ) Statements of PERSON , a villager , dated DATE and DATE , taken by ORG and the public prosecutor respectively .

( xiii ) Statement of Fevzi PERSON , a villager , dated DATE , taken by ORG .

( xiv ) Statement of ORG , a villager , dated DATE , taken by ORG .

( xv ) Statements of İrfan PERSON , a villager , dated DATE and CARDINAL June CARDINAL , taken by ORG and the public prosecutor respectively .

( xvi ) Statements of PERSON , a villager , dated DATE and CARDINAL DATE taken by ORG and the public prosecutor respectively .

( xvii ) Statements of PERSON , a villager , dated DATE and DATE , taken by ORG and the public prosecutor respectively .

( xviii ) Statement of PERSON , a villager , dated DATE , taken by ORG .

( xix ) Statements of PERSON , a villager , dated DATE and DATE , taken by ORG and the public prosecutor respectively .

( xx ) Statements of PERSON , dated DATE and DATE , taken by ORG and the public prosecutor respectively .

( xxi ) Statement of PERSON , who works at the GPE national park , dated DATE , taken by ORG .

( xxii ) Statement of PERSON , who works at the GPE national park , dated DATE , taken by ORG .

( xxiii ) Statement of PERSON , dated DATE , taken by ORG .

( xxiv ) Statement of PERSON , dated DATE , taken by ORG .

( xxv ) Statement of PERSON , dated DATE , taken by ORG .

( xxvi ) Statements of PERSON , dated DATE and DATE , taken by ORG and the prosecutor .

( xxvii ) Statement of PERSON , dated DATE , taken by ORG .

( xxviii ) Statement of PERSON , dated DATE , taken by ORG .

( xxix ) Statement of İlyas PERSON , dated DATE , taken by ORG .

( xxx ) Statements of PERSON , dated DATE and DATE , taken by ORG and the public prosecutor respectively .

( xxxi ) Statement of PERSON , dated DATE , taken by ORG .

( xxxii ) Statement of Fevzi Aydın , dated DATE , taken by ORG .

( xxxiii ) Statement of PERSON , dated DATE , taken by ORG .

( xxxiv ) Statements of PERSON , dated DATE and DATE , taken by ORG and the public prosecutor respectively .

( xxxv ) Statement of ORG , dated DATE , taken by ORG .

( xxxvi ) Statement of PERSON , the brother of PERSON , dated DATE , taken by ORG .

( xxxvii ) Statement of PERSON , the brother of PERSON , dated DATE , taken by the police .

( xxxviii ) Statement of ORG , dated DATE , taken by the police .

( i ) Body examination report , dated DATE .

( ii ) Photo - fits of CARDINAL of the perpetrators .

( iii ) Ballistics examination reports , dated DATE and DATE , prepared by ORG .

( iv ) Ballistics report dated DATE , prepared by ORG .

( v ) Ballistics examination report dated DATE , prepared by ORG .

( vi ) Ballistics examination report of ORG , dated DATE .

( vii ) Report of ORG dated DATE , comparing the photo - fits of the perpetrators to PERSON , PERSON and PERSON .

( i ) Statement of GPE , Head of ORG team , dated DATE .

( ii ) Statements of Hanefi Avcı , dated DATE , DATE , and DATE concerning the GPE incident .

( iii ) Report of ORG indicating that the photo - fits of the perpetrators had similarities with the photo of ORG .

( iv ) Statement of ORG , dated DATE .

( v ) Report of identity parade , dated DATE , which indicates that although ORG had been shown to CARDINAL eye witnesses to the kidnapping , Mr PERSON and PERSON , the witnesses concluded that they had not seen PERSON before .

( vi ) Decision of non - jurisdiction , delivered by the ORG public prosecutor concerning the prosecution of ORG , dated DATE . The file was transferred to ORG .

( vii ) Non - jurisdiction decision of ORG , dated DATE .

( viii ) Non - jurisdiction decision of ORG , dated DATE , and transfer of case file to ORG .

( ix ) Non - jurisdiction decision of ORG , dated DATE . The case was sent to ORG to settle the dispute on jurisdiction .

( x ) Decision of the Court of Cassation , dated DATE , settling the dispute over jurisdiction between ORG and ORG . The case file was sent to ORG .

( xi ) Minutes of the criminal proceedings against ORG before ORG .

( xii ) Decision of the Düzce Assize Court , dated DATE , by which ORG was acquitted of the charges against him due to lack of evidence .

( xiii ) Judgment of ORG , dated DATE , upholding the decision of ORG dated DATE .

The applicants submitted a copy of the so - called “ ORG ” , which was produced at the request of the Prime Minister by Mr FAC , Vice - President of ORG within ORG . After receiving the report in DATE , the Prime Minister made it available to the public , although CARDINAL pages and certain annexes were withheld .

The introduction states that the ORG was not based on a judicial investigation and did not constitute a formal investigation report . It was intended for information purposes and purported to do no more than describe certain events which had occurred mainly in south - east GPE and which tended to confirm the existence of unlawful dealings between political figures , government institutions and clandestine groups .

The ORG analyses a series of events , such as murders carried out under orders , the killings of well - known figures or supporters of the NORP and deliberate acts by a group of “ informants ” supposedly serving the ORG , and concludes that there was a connection between the fight to eradicate terrorism in the region and the underground relations that formed as a result , particularly in the drug - trafficking sphere . In the ORG , reference is made to the killing of the applicant 's brother :

“ All the relevant ORG bodies were aware of these activities and operations . ... When the characteristics of the individuals killed in the operations in question are examined , the difference between those NORP supporters who were killed in the region in which a state of emergency had been declared and those who were not lay in the financial strength the latter represented in economic terms . These factors also operated in the murder of PERSON , a smuggler and pro - ORG activist . ( page CARDINAL ) . ”

The ORG concludes with numerous recommendations , such as improving co - ordination and communication between the different branches of the security , police and intelligence departments ; identifying and dismissing security force personnel implicated in illegal activities ; limiting the use of “ confessors ” ; reducing the number of village guards ; terminating the use of the Special Operations Bureau outside the south - east region and incorporating it into the police force outside that area ; opening investigations into various incidents ; taking steps to suppress gang and drug - smuggling activities ; and recommending that the results of ORG inquiry be forwarded to the appropriate authorities for the relevant proceedings to be undertaken .

For the relevant domestic law and background information on ORG , the ORG refers to the judgments of GPE v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL , § § CARDINAL - CARDINAL , DATE ) and PERSON v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL , § § CARDINAL , CARDINAL DATE ) .


Alvina Gyulumyan;Corneliu Bîrsan;Egbert Myjer;Elisabet Fura;Josep Casadevall

The first applicant was born in DATE and died in DATE . The other CARDINAL applicants were born in DATE respectively and live in GPE .

In DATE , GPE nos . CARDINAL and CARDINAL situated in GPE , PERSON no . CARDINAL - CARDINAL , the property of B.M. , were seized by ORG no . CARDINAL on nationalisation . PERSON was GPE ’s stepfather , GPE being the husband of the first applicant and the father of the other CARDINAL applicants .

In DATE GPE together with his brother ORG sought to have the seizure declared null and void and to recover ownership of the CARDINAL apartments .

On DATE ORG allowed the action by GPE and ordered restitutio in integrum of the CARDINAL apartments . However , on the basis of an inheritance certificate , it held that ORG had no standing in the proceedings .

An appeal by the authorities was dismissed on DATE by ORG , which considered the seizure as being unlawful . That judgment became final .

On DATE , at the request of GPE , ORG , having regard to the fact that the judgment of CARDINAL DATE had become enforceable , ordered the restitution of GPE CARDINAL and CARDINAL .

NORP Although GPE had secured judicial recognition of his property right , he was not able to recover possession of those apartments because the ORG had sold them on DATE and DATE respectively to the then tenants , under PERSON no . LANGUAGE .

In DATE GPE lodged CARDINAL requests to have the sales by the ORG declared null and void . GPE died in DATE and the applicants continued the proceedings .

On DATE ORG , by a final decision , dismissed the action regarding FAC , considering that the sale had complied with the provisions of Law no . DATE and that the former tenants had made the purchase in good faith .

On DATE the applicants applied to the administrative authorities for restitution of Apartment CARDINAL under PERSON no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL governing immovable property wrongfully seized by the ORG . By a letter of DATE ORG informed the Agent of the Government that the file was incomplete as it lacked some of the necessary documents .

On DATE ORG , by a final decision , upheld the other action lodged by GPE in DATE and declared the sale of Apartment CARDINAL null and void .

On DATE ORG allowed a request by the second and third applicants to have the former tenants of Apartment CARDINAL evicted from that apartment .

On DATE ORG dismissed an appeal by the former tenants . The latter lodged a further appeal on points of law . The proceedings are still pending .

On DATE ORG , at the request of the former tenants of Apartment CARDINAL , sought the revision of the judgment of CARDINAL DATE ( cerere de revizuire ) , on the basis of alleged new documents attesting the lawfulness of the DATE nationalisation . The former tenants also intervened in the proceedings .

ORG dismissed that request as being out of time , by a final decision of DATE .

On DATE ORG again sought to have that judgment revised , following a request by the same former tenants of Apartment CARDINAL , alleging that there were new documents proving that GPE was not the only heir of PERSON The former tenants intervened in the proceedings .

On DATE ORG Instance dismissed the action as being out of time . There is nothing in the file to say that an appeal was lodged against that judgment .

On DATE , at the request of the former tenants , ORG attached to ORG brought proceedings to have that judgment revised , on the basis of an inheritance certificate from DATE , considered to be a new document attesting that GPE was not the only heir .

On DATE ORG Instance found that request inadmissible , since that certificate could have been obtained by the authorities , which were defendants in those proceedings , with minimum diligence .

NORP The prosecutor , the town council and the former tenants of Apartment CARDINAL appealed . Eventually , on DATE ORG dismissed their appeals as groundless or for lack of interest .

All the parties lodged a further appeal on points of law . According to the documents in the file , the proceedings are still pending .

On DATE ORG made a fresh attempt , at the request of the same former tenants who had intervened in the proceedings , to have the judgment of DATE revised . The former tenants informed ORG that the prosecutor had found that the signatures on the DATE application form ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) were forged , since they belonged to the GPE lawyer , although it had been alleged that they belonged to the plaintiffs themselves . However , the prosecutor acknowledged that the lawyer ’s criminal responsibility had become time - barred .

On DATE ORG upheld the action and declared null and void the action introduced by those plaintiffs in DATE , for lack of a valid signature .

On DATE ORG considered an appeal by the applicants as being out of time .

On DATE ORG allowed a further appeal , on points of law , by the second and third applicants , quashed the previous judgment and sent the case back for fresh consideration of the ORG appeal against the judgment of DATE .

On DATE ORG allowed the ORG appeal against that judgment and dismissed the request for revision , considering that the application form had not represented relevant evidence in delivering that judgment .

ORG lodged a further appeal on points of law . By a letter of DATE the Government informed the ORG that the proceedings were still pending .

The relevant legal provisions and jurisprudence are described in the judgments ORG v. GPE ( [ ORG ] , no . CARDINAL , § § CARDINAL - CARDINAL , ECHR CARDINALVII ) ; PERSON and Others v. GPE ( no . MONEY , § § DATE , ORG CARDINALVII ) ; ORG v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL , § § CARDINAL - CARDINAL , DATE ) ; and PERSON v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL , § § CARDINAL , DATE ) .


András Sajó;Guido Raimondi;Helen Keller;Nebojša Vučinić;Peer Lorenzen

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

ORG ( “ the Government ” ) are represented by their Agent .

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

NORP On DATE the applicants’ DATE daughter PERSON , while walking with the second applicant , was severely injured and later died , after a rubbish container she had touched fell on top of her .

According to the post - mortem examination report , dated DATE , the cause of death was bleeding into the chest cavity ( haemothorax ) , possibly resulting from the falling of a rubbish container on the deceased . A classic autopsy was not deemed necessary .

On DATE the first applicant gave a statement to the police in which he stated , inter alia , that if the incident was the result of negligence on the part of the GPE then he wished to lodge a complaint .

On DATE the second applicant gave evidence to the police . She submitted that while they were walking home from a visit , her daughter had grabbed the open metal lid of the rubbish container and the rubbish container had fallen on top of her .

On DATE the second applicant ’s sister – an eye - witness to the events – also gave evidence along the same lines as the second applicant .

On DATE CARDINAL police officers inspected the area where the incident had taken place . They noted , inter alia , that the back wheels of the container were faulty and that the container had a tendency to fall backwards if the lid was pulled .

On DATE the prosecutor heard evidence from Mr PERSON , the municipal official responsible for rubbish containers , as a suspect . He maintained , inter alia , that he had been informed of the incident DATE after the events , that the municipality had given financial support to the family , and that the incident had been due to the applicants’ daughter pulling the lid of the rubbish container .

On DATE , DATE , the prosecutor filed a bill of indictment charging the second applicant and Mr PERSON with causing death by negligence . The charges were brought under LAW ( no . CARDINAL ) .

Subsequently , criminal proceedings commenced before ORG .

On DATE ORG conducted an on - site inspection .

On DATE an expert report , prepared by PERSON , found that the degree of fault attributable to the second applicant for the death of the applicants’ daughter was CARDINAL , and it was CARDINAL in respect of Mr PERSON The defendants objected to the report and a second expert report was commissioned by the court .

On DATE a second expert report , prepared by CARDINAL lawyer and CARDINAL experts on job safety , held that no fault could be attributed to the accused as the responsibility lay with GPE , on the basis of the notion of service fault ( hizmet kusuru ) , since the wheels of the rubbish container in question had been broken and it had been placed on an uneven surface .

On DATE ORG , on the basis of the expert report , acquitted the applicant of the charges against her . It also decided to halt the proceedings against Mr PERSON since no prior authorisation for his prosecution had been obtained , as required under domestic legislation .

On an unspecified date the prosecuting authorities requested LOC Office to grant authorisation for Mr PERSON ’s prosecution .

On DATE the ORG Office , after a preliminary investigation , declined to grant the necessary authorisation for Mr PERSON ’s prosecution . In its decision , ORG noted that under the provisions of the contract concluded between GPE and the ORG limited company ( the firm responsible for rubbish collection – hereinafter “ the company ” ) , it had been the responsibility of the company to repair the faulty container and to inform the municipal official with responsibility for rubbish containers about it .

On DATE ORG dismissed an objection by the prosecutor and upheld the decision of LOC .

On DATE the prosecutor , noting that authorisation to prosecute Mr PERSON had been refused , decided not to prosecute him .

On DATE the applicants had applied to ORG for compensation . Since no response was received , on CARDINAL DATE the applicants brought an action for compensation in ORG against the Municipality .

On DATE the first - instance court dismissed the applicants’ claim for compensation on the ground that they had submitted it too late ( süre aşımı ) . In this connection , the court , referring to LAW no . CARDINAL , noted that it should have been obvious to the applicants that the responsibility of the GPE was engaged and therefore they should have applied to the relevant authority within DATE of the death of their child .

On DATE ORG , by a majority , upheld the judgment of the first - instance court . A request by the applicants for rectification of its judgment was also dismissed by the same court on DATE . On both accounts CARDINAL judge dissented on the ground , inter alia , that the applicants had become aware of the fault of the municipality only on receipt of the expert reports , and that therefore they were within the applicable time - limits .

On DATE the applicants lodged a criminal complaint with the ORG public prosecutor ’s office against Mr GPE , the authorised representative of the ORG limited company , requesting that he be prosecuted and convicted for the death of their daughter . They submitted that DATE had elapsed since the prosecutor ’s office had decided not to prosecute the municipal authorities and that no other steps had been taken since that time . In this connection , the applicants requested the prosecutor ’s office to act without further delay as the statutory time - limit for trial in respect of the offence was approaching .

Mr GPE gave evidence to the police on DATE , denying the allegations against him and claiming that the company was responsible only for collecting rubbish in and around the rubbish containers and nothing further .

In an indictment dated CARDINAL DATE ORG charged Mr GPE with causing death by negligence . The charges were brought under LAW , CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW .

On DATE the criminal proceedings against the accused began before ORG .

In the course of the trial the court heard evidence from the accused and the applicants , commissioned expert reports and conducted an on - site inspection .

The expert report prepared by PERSON , an inspector at ORG , concluded that the Municipality and the company responsible for collecting the rubbish were at fault .

On DATE the applicants joined the proceedings as civil parties ( müdahil ) .

On DATE an expert report prepared by CARDINAL engineers , experts on job safety , concluded that the second applicant was at fault to the degree of CARDINAL for the death of the applicants’ daughter as she had not been diligent , the Municipality was at fault CARDINAL for not conducting the necessary inspections , and Mr GPE was at fault CARDINAL for failing to replace the broken wheels of the rubbish container .

On DATE the first - instance court , relying on the findings of the expert reports of DATE and DATE , found that Mr GPE was guilty as charged and sentenced him to CARDINAL years’ imprisonment . This sentence was subsequently reduced to CARDINAL months’ imprisonment and commuted to a fine .

On DATE ORG quashed the decision of the first - instance court and discontinued the proceedings against the accused on the ground that the prosecution of the offence had become timebarred under LAW § CARDINAL and CARDINAL § CARDINAL of LAW ( no . CARDINAL ) and LAW .

On DATE the applicants initiated compensation proceedings against the company on the ground that the latter was responsible for the death of their daughter . The first applicant requested MONEY ( TRL ) in respect of pecuniary damage and GPE CARDINAL in respect of nonpecuniary damage . The second applicant requested FAC in respect of pecuniary damage and FAC in respect of non - pecuniary damage . The applicants further requested , on behalf of their remaining CARDINAL children , GPE CARDINAL,CARDINAL in respect of non - pecuniary damage . They further requested the court to issue a temporary injunction banning the sale or transfer of the cars belonging to the company .

The company requested the court to dismiss the proceedings as they considered that no fault could be attributed to it .

On DATE the compensation proceedings commenced before ORG . Regular hearings were held . The court examined the case - file of the criminal proceedings brought against the company representative and commissioned an additional expert report to examine the discrepancies between the expert reports contained in the casefile .

At a hearing on DATE the first - instance court issued an injunction in respect of CARDINAL cars belonging to the company .

On DATE an expert report prepared by PERSON concluded that both the GPE and the company were PERCENT at fault .

On DATE an expert report prepared by a lawyer was submitted to the court . This report concerned the amount of pecuniary damage to be awarded to the applicants on the basis of the findings of the expert report of DATE .

Another expert report prepared by CARDINAL engineers , experts on job safety , concluded , on DATE , that the company was at fault in the circumstances of the present case . They considered that since the municipality had not been informed of the condition of the rubbish container , no fault could be attributed to it . The report further concluded that no fault could be attributed to the second applicant , as she had been holding the deceased ’s hand at the time of the incident .

At a hearing held on DATE the first - instance court decided to commission an additional expert report , as it considered the conclusions as to the attribution of fault in the earlier reports were divergent .

On DATE an expert report prepared by CARDINAL engineers , experts on job safety , was submitted to the court . That report concluded that the company was PERCENT at fault for not preventing its workers from misusing the containers , for not supervising the work , for the placing of the container on an uneven surface , and for the failure to inform the authorities about the broken wheel . It considered that Mr GPE was PERCENT at fault for not ensuring general work discipline . The second applicant was PERCENT at fault for not preventing the child from touching the container , and the Municipality was PERCENT at fault for not placing the container on an even surface , for not ensuring the container did not overbalance when the lid was open , for not checking or prescribing and taking measures to prevent misuse of the container from causing harm , and for not checking whether the relevant work was being conducted in accordance with the provisions of the contract .

On DATE an additional expert report was prepared by a lawyer , calculating the amount of pecuniary damage to be awarded to the applicants on the basis of the findings of the latest expert report .

On DATE and CARDINAL DATE the applicants requested the court to broaden the case so as to include Mr GPE and the GPE as co - defendants in the compensation claim .

On DATE the first - instance court partially ruled in the applicants’ favour . It first held that the second applicant was at fault for letting her child get too close to a rubbish container in the middle of the night ; the municipality was at fault for several reasons , such as not placing the bin on a proper surface , not ensuring that its lid was properly functional , and not checking whether the rubbish container posed a danger , or whether the company was abiding by its contractual obligations . It found that the company was at fault for various reasons , such as not enforcing work discipline , not preventing the misuse of its rubbish containers , and failing to monitor and inform the relevant authorities about faulty rubbish containers . It considered that the responsibility of the company for the incident was PERCENT . It thus awarded the first applicant GPE CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL in respect of pecuniary damage and GPE CARDINAL in respect of non - pecuniary damage , and the second applicant FAC in respect of pecuniary damage and GPE CARDINAL in respect of non - pecuniary damage . It further awarded TRL CARDINAL in respect of nonpecuniary damage to each of the ORG surviving children . The court fixed the interest at the statutory rate applicable on DATE , the date of the incident . Finally , the court dismissed the ORG request for the broadening of the case to include Mr GPE and the GPE as codefendants , as no such procedure existed in domestic law .

The applicants appealed .

On DATE the applicants commenced enforcement proceedings in order to claim the sums due , which amounted in total to TRL PERSON at the time . The ORG submitted correspondence between the enforcement office and various institutions , notably banks , concerning whether the company had any existing assets . According to the record prepared by PERSON , a deputy enforcement officer , on DATE no movable or immovable property was registered under the name of the firm and the case - file was closed on DATE .

On DATE ORG rectified and upheld the decision of the first - instance court .

DATE . On DATE the applicants initiated compensation proceedings against ORG . The latter raised the objection that the court was prevented from examining the case as the statutory time - limit had expired .

On DATE ORG held that the statutory time - limit for examining a compensation claim arising out of a tortious act ( haksız fiil ) had expired . Referring to LAW , the court noted that the liability of the municipality as regards the events had been held to be PERCENT in the previous compensation proceedings , and thus the applicants had failed to lodge an application with the court against GPE within DATE of the date on which they had learned of the damage and its perpetrator .

The relevant domestic law applicable at the time of the events is as follows .

DATE LAW provides that everyone has the right to life .

Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL of LAW ( no . CARDINAL ) reads :

“ Anyone who , through carelessness , negligence or inexperience in his profession or craft , or through non - compliance with laws , orders or instructions , causes the death of another shall be liable to a term of imprisonment of DATE and to a fine of CARDINAL . ”

A prosecution for an offence punishable by a prison sentence of a maximum of DATE must be brought within DATE ( LAW ( no . CARDINAL ) ) .

At the time of the incident , under LAW , a public prosecutor who , in any manner whatsoever , was informed of a situation which gave rise to a suspicion that an offence had been committed was required to investigate the facts with a view to deciding whether or not criminal proceedings should be brought ( LAW ) . However , the public prosecutor ’s jurisdiction was restricted ratione personae at the preliminary investigation stage if the suspected offender was a ORG employee or public servant and the alleged offence had been committed during the exercise of official duties . Law no . DATE ( PERSON on the prosecution of civil servants and public officials ) determined which authorities were empowered to give permission for a ORG employee or public servant to be prosecuted for an offence committed in the exercise of official duties and regulated the procedure to be followed . In such cases , it was for the competent authority ( depending on the suspect ’s status ) to conduct a preliminary investigation and , consequently , to decide whether criminal proceedings should be opened . The decision given by the relevant authority could be challenged before ORG . A decision not to prosecute was automatically reviewed by that court .

On DATE a new Criminal Code ( Law no . DATE ) entered into force . Under LAW of the new LAW a person causing the death of another person by negligence was liable to a term of imprisonment of DATE .

Section CARDINAL of Law no . CARDINAL ( Code on Administrative Procedure ) provides that persons who have suffered damage on account of a wrongful act of the administration must apply to the relevant authority for rectification of the situation within DATE on which they were notified or otherwise learned of the impugned act , before bringing a lawsuit . Should all or part of the claim be dismissed , or if no reply is received within DATE , the victim may bring administrative proceedings .

Under LAW ( no . CARDINAL ) , anyone who has suffered damage as a result of a tortious or criminal act may bring an action for damages for pecuniary loss ( ORG CARDINAL - CARDINAL ) and non - pecuniary loss ( Article CARDINAL ) . The civil courts are not bound by either the findings or the verdict of the criminal courts on the issue of the defendant ’s guilt ( Article CARDINAL ) .

In civil law , the claim for damages must be initiated within DATE of the date when the prejudiced party has received knowledge of the damage and of the person liable , but in any case within DATE of the date when the act which caused the damage took place ( Article CARDINAL of LAW ( no . CARDINAL ) ) .


Egbert Myjer;Elisabet Fura;Ineta Ziemele;Josep Casadevall;Luis López Guerra

NORP The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a NORP national who was born on DATE . His current place of residence is ORG , GPE , his place of birth . He was represented before the ORG by Mr M. Wijngaarden , a lawyer practising in GPE .

ORG and as apparent from information available to the public , may be summarised as follows .

NORP The applicant entered the GPE in DATE , at DATE , for the purpose of lawful family reunion . He was granted a residence permit ( vergunning tot verblijf ) for that purpose , which was extended several times at his request until the events complained of .

After his arrival in the GPE , the applicant went to school for a time ; he later became unemployed .

NORP In DATE the applicant was arrested on suspicion of belonging to an NORP terrorist group known as the “ NORP group ” ( GPE ) , from its being based in the town of GPE which is the place of residence of the Queen ( Hofstad , town where the royal residence is located ) .

On DATE the then Minister for ORG ( Minister PERSON Integratie ; “ the Minister ” ) notified the applicant of her intention to withdraw his residence permit on the ground that he posed a threat for national security . That finding was based on an individual intelligence report ( individueel ambtsbericht ) dated DATE that ORG ( Algemene Inlichtingen- en ORG ; “ ORG ” ) had submitted , and which was appended .

According to the intelligence report of DATE , the applicant was a member of a group led by a NORP national who recruited radical NORP youths . The group , of which the applicant was stated to be one of the more radical members , held regular meetings , during which the NORP preached NORP extremism and violent jihad ( holy war ) . The applicant was understood to be in the possession of tape recordings calling for armed jihad and stating that it was forbidden to have dealings with “ NORP dogs ” ( dat omgang met “ christenhonden ” is verboden ) . The applicant was stated to have radicalised a young woman of NORP origin to the point where she had taken to wearing a burka and refused to pray with her own family . The report identified other members of the group by name ; of these , the best known was PERSON , who was later convicted of the murder of the film director PERSON .

An earlier intelligence report , dated DATE and on which the later intelligence report was based in part , described the members of the group meeting to discuss and plan violent jihad , and watching and expressing approval of films showing the beheading of persons including hostages in GPE .

On DATE the applicant , through his counsel , submitted written comments denying his involvement in the planning of unlawful violence , arguing that the ORG information was unreliable and unverifiable , and that the measure intended was a disproportionate interference in his family life .

On DATE the Minister gave a decision withdrawing the applicant 's residence permit , essentially on the same grounds as those stated in the original notification . The following day she gave an additional decision declaring the applicant an undesirable alien , entailing the imposition of an exclusion order ( ongewenste vreemdeling ) .

On DATE the applicant applied for an interim measure ( voorlopige voorziening ) aimed at preventing his deportation pending the outcome of the proceedings . He lodged an objection ( bezwaarschrift ) against each of the CARDINAL decisions on DATE .

On DATE the applicant supplemented his objection with a statement of grounds in which he argued that the ORG information was unreliable and that he could not be expected to return to GPE and accept permanent separation from his parents . In a separate letter of DATE he asked to see the information on which the ORG intelligence report was based .

On DATE the applicant asked for the decision on his objection to be deferred until he had had a chance to study the ORG information . This request was repeated on DATE and DATE . On DATE , however , the Minister for ORG replied that there was no reason not to proceed .

On DATE the Minister gave CARDINAL separate decisions dismissing the objections . The conclusions reached by the ORG were presumed correct ; the immigration authorities were not duty bound to undertake any further investigation of their own .

The applicant appealed to ORG ( rechtbank ) of GPE against both decisions on DATE .

On DATE , in criminal proceedings distinct from the immigration proceedings , ORG of GPE convicted the applicant of membership of a criminal organisation and membership of an organisation aiming to commit terrorist crimes and sentenced him to DATE imprisonment .

On DATE ORG of GPE , sitting in GPE , gave an order for a provisional measure that would allow the applicant to await the outcome of the proceedings in the GPE . In separate decisions , it declared the appeals well - founded ; it considered the ORG intelligence reports to be insufficiently “ objective and transparent ” ( objectief en inzichtelijk ) . The Minister 's decisions were annulled and the Minister was ordered to decide afresh .

On DATE the Security and Integrity Office ( Bureau PERSON ) of ORG ( Immigratie- en Naturalisatiedienst ) submitted a written statement to the Minister to the effect that , after examination of the documents underlying the reports , it appeared that the ORG intelligence investigation had met applicable standards of due care as regards content and procedure followed and was transparent .

NORP The Minister appealed to ORG of ORG ( Afdeling Bestuursrechtspraak van de Raad van State ) against ORG decisions on DATE .

NORP In parallel , the Minister gave a new decision on the objection against the withdrawal of the applicant 's residence permit on DATE . She accepted that the ORG reports were adequate as to their objectivity , impartiality and thoroughness and that the ORG had to protect their sources of information . In so far as the applicant had denied the accuracy of the ORG reports , he had not given any relevant arguments .

The following day the Minister gave a new decision in much the same terms in which she dismissed the objection against the decision to impose an exclusion order on the applicant .

On DATE the President of ORG of ORG declared the Minister 's appeal of DATE well - founded . He annulled ORG decisions of DATE and remitted the cases to ORG . In the same decision he annulled the Minister 's decisions of DATE , which had been adopted pursuant to ORG decision of DATE , and ordered the deferral of the applicant 's deportation until DATE so that the applicant had a realistic chance to seek a provisional measure from ORG itself .

The applicant applied to ORG of GPE for a stay of deportation on DATE . In his statement of grounds , submitted the following day , he now relied on Article CARDINAL , arguing that the NORP authorities treated terrorist suspects harshly . On DATE ORG granted an interim measure allowing the applicant to await the outcome of his appeals in the GPE .

Having held a hearing on DATE , ORG decided that it needed to study the information on which the conclusions of the ORG intelligence reports were based . To that end , it reopened the case .

ORG gave its decision on DATE . Having studied the ORG information , it found that the ORG 's conclusions had an adequate basis in fact ; there was no need to reopen the discussions on that score . A threat relevant to LAW in the event of the applicant 's return to GPE had not been established . The applicant 's appeal against the withdrawal of his residence permit was held to be inadmissible in view of the decision to impose an exclusion order on the applicant ; the appeal against the latter decision was dismissed as unfounded .

The applicant lodged an appeal with ORG of ORG , which on DATE dismissed it , referring to standing case - law .

The applicant was deported to GPE on DATE .

The applicant appealed against his conviction ( paragraph CARDINAL above ) . On DATE ORG of The GPE quashed the conviction and acquitted the applicant .

ORG lodged an appeal on points of law ( cassatie ) with ORG ( PERSON ) against the acquittal . On DATE ORG quashed the judgment of ORG and remitted the case to ORG of GPE where it remains pending .

On DATE ORG adopted a list of persons , groups and entities to be subjected to restrictive measures pursuant to ORG ( ORG ) No CARDINAL/CARDINAL of DATE on specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities with a view to combating terrorism ( ORG CARDINAL/CARDINAL/EC ) . This list was updated on DATE ( ORG CARDINAL/CARDINAL/EC ) . These lists mentioned the applicant as follows :

“ PERSON , PERSON , born CARDINAL in PERSON ( GPE ) , passport ( GPE ) No . PERSON ( Member of the ' PERSON ' ) ”

As provided for in Council Regulation ( ORG ) ORG , this restricted the applicant 's use of financial services and of any assets which he might possess , access to these being permissible only for limited purposes including the fulfilment of essential human needs and the payment of taxes .

The applicant brought actions in ORG ( now re - named ORG ; the first - instance body of ORG of ORG , as it was named at the time ) for annulment of ORG DATE and CARDINAL in so far as they included his name ( Cases T-CARDINAL/CARDINAL and T-CARDINAL/CARDINAL respectively ) . ORG and ORG sought , and were granted , permission to intervene .

On DATE ORG Instance dismissed both actions and ordered the applicant to pay his own costs and those of the ORG .

Section CARDINAL of LAW ( Vreemdelingenwet DATE ) provides that a foreign national may be declared an undesirable alien , entailing the imposition of an exclusion order , on the ground , inter alia , that he or she poses a danger to national security . An alien on whom an exclusion order has been imposed can not be lawfully resident in the GPE .

An exclusion order may be revoked , upon request , if the alien concerned has been residing outside the GPE for a period of DATE ( section DATE of LAW ) . Such revocation entitles the alien to seek readmission to GPE territory subject to the conditions that are applicable to every alien .