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

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

The applicant runs a car repair shop in GPE . On DATE he sued a certain PERSON and ORG before ORG ( Sąd Rejonowy ) , seeking payment for the repair of ORG ’s car . On DATE the statement of claim was served on ORG who , at that time , lived in GPE .

The first hearing was set down for DATE but was later adjourned because the presiding judge was ill . The court held hearings on CARDINAL DATE , CARDINAL DATE , CARDINAL DATE and on DATE .

Subsequently , the defendant challenged the impartiality of all the judges of ORG . On DATE ORG PERSON ) dismissed his challenge , finding that it lacked any basis and that the relevant statutory requirements for the disqualification of the judges were not satisfied . His further appeal was dismissed by ORG ( Sąd Apelacyjny ) on DATE .

On DATE , DATE and on CARDINAL DATE the applicant sent letters to the court asking for a hearing date to be fixed as soon as possible .

On DATE the court ordered an expert to prepare a report . However , the expert failed to comply with the court ’s order . On DATE the court ordered yet another expert to prepare a report within DATE . It was submitted to the court on DATE .

On DATE the applicant again asked the court to fix a date for a hearing .

On DATE the court held a hearing .

At the hearing held on DATE the court ordered that the claim against ORG be examined separately . The next hearing , scheduled for CARDINAL DATE , was cancelled as there was no courtroom available .

On DATE PERSON challenged the impartiality of the presiding judge . On DATE a panel of CARDINAL judges , sitting as ORG , dismissed the defendant ’s challenge , ruling that it was totally unsubstantiated . The court also imposed a fine on him , holding that the challenge had been made in bad faith . His further appeal was dismissed by ORG on DATE .

On DATE the ORG gave an interlocutory judgment . It dismissed the applicant ’s claim against ORG on the ground that its liability had not been established .

Meanwhile , the defendant had informed the trial court that he had moved to GPE . This resulted in FAC no longer having territorial jurisdiction over the case . On an unknown date the applicant was asked to indicate in which court he wished to pursue his claim : ORG or ORG . The applicant failed to do so . On DATE , of the court ’s own motion , the case was referred to the FAC .

On DATE the applicant sent a letter to the President of ORG . He complained about the slow conduct of the proceedings . On DATE , in reply to his complaints , the President observed that the proceedings were indeed lengthy and gave his assurance that he would supervise their conduct .

At the hearing held on DATE the ORG gave judgment . On DATE the applicant appealed . On DATE ORG rejected the appeal , as the applicant had failed to pay the required court fee within the statutory time - limit . On DATE the ORG quashed this decision and allowed the applicant ’s appeal of CARDINAL DATE .

The proceedings are pending before ORG .


George Nicolaou;Lech Garlicki;Ledi Bianku;Nicolas Bratza;Päivi Hirvelä;Vincent A. De Gaetano

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

On DATE a hearing in a criminal case concerning a largescale fraud and generating considerable media interest was held before FAC . Advocate PERSON , representing CARDINAL accused ( DATE ) submitted to the court a power of attorney authorising another advocate , Ms GPE who also represented LANGUAGE , to replace him for the purposes of representing his other CARDINAL clients . The court accepted that document without any comment .

During the same hearing a heated exchange broke out between lawyers representing various defendants as to the possibility of a conflict of interest between various clients of lawyers involved in the case , including between ORG CARDINAL clients PERSON and GPE on the one hand and A.M.D. , represented by advocate GPE , on the other . During that exchange advocate PERSON declared that he would not represent A.M.D. any longer .

The court expressed the view that it was too early at that stage of the proceedings to determine whether there was any conflict of interest between the accused which would have prevented the same lawyers from representing them . The courts admonished the lawyers several times for allowing the debate to get out of hand and for their inappropriate conduct in the courtroom .

On DATE informed his clients PERSON and GPE on the phone that he would not be able to attend the hearing scheduled for DATE . He referred to the authorisation he had given to Ms GPE on DATE to replace him for the purposes of that hearing . He also informed PERSON accordingly .

On DATE the court held the hearing . Advocate PERSON was absent . Advocate PERSON informed the court that he had informed her that he had authorised her to replace him for the purposes of that hearing and referred to the authorisation submitted to the case file at the hearing of DATE .

Subsequently , the court declared , having regard to the testimony given by LANGUAGE at the previous hearing , that there was a conflict of interest between LOC and LOC and that , accordingly , they could not be represented by the same lawyer .

The court adjourned the hearing having regard to the fact that advocate PERSON was to represent both her client A.M.D. and PERSON on the basis of the authorisation given to her by advocate PERSON on DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

On DATE PERSON , a newspaper published in GPE , published an article written by the applicant and entitled “ A Lawyer ’s Nonchalance ? ”

The applicant alleged that ORG , the advocate representing the accused in a major criminal case pending before FAC , had failed to meet his professional obligations and act diligently by failing to attend the hearing held on DATE .

The relevant part of the text read :

“ ( ... ) ‘ it is the absence of the defence lawyer which is a ORG explained the presiding judge , ORG

Advocate PERSON failed to attend the hearing and did not justify his absence . He only asked another advocate to tell the court that he could not attend the hearing and requested that advocate ( DATE before the hearing ) to replace him . The court could not accept that replacement , because the interests of the defendants represented by ORG and by that advocate were in conflict . The court could not but adjourn the hearing .

Advocate PERSON was well aware of that conflict . Other defence lawyers in that case had drawn his attention to it . It is difficult not to see his absence as disrespect towards the court , the prosecutor ( ... ) , the parties who reside in GPE . He is , after all , supposed to know how to justify an absence before a court .

‘ I am baffled by the attitude of the defence lawyer’ said judge ORG

The court informed the local ORG about the lawyer ’s conduct . ”

After the hearing , advocate ORG first requested the newspaper to publish a rectification , within the meaning of LAW , arguing that the conflict of interest between his clients and the client of PERSON had been officially acknowledged only on DATE . Hence , he could not reasonably have been expected to know that his absence on that date would entail the adjournment of the proceedings . He argued that at the hearing held on DATE there had been an exchange between the lawyers involved in the case as to the possibility of a conflict arising between the various defendants , including between his CARDINAL clients and PERSON , represented by PERSON However , on that date the court had only expressed the view that it was inappropriate to have that argument in the courtroom . No finding in respect of the conflict of interest had been made on that date . In any event , he had stepped down as LOC ’s defence lawyer .

NORP The newspaper refused to publish a rectification within the meaning of the DATE LAW . On DATE it merely published the advocate ’s letter under the heading “ Letters ” , accompanied by the applicant ’s unfavourable comment , essentially reiterating the allegation of negligence on his part . The applicant wrote that ORG had informed his clients by phone on DATE that he had given PERSON his authorisation to act on his behalf in their defence . It was further stated that his clients had been unaware that he would be absent on DATE . “ [ t]his is what they told me ” – the applicant concluded .

Subsequently , the advocate sued the newspaper , the applicant and the editorinchief of PERSON for breach of his personal rights within the meaning of Articles DATE and CARDINAL of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

At a hearing in that case held on DATE ORG heard as witnesses PERSON and GPE , the claimant ’s clients and defendants in the criminal case . PERSON stated that the claimant had known as early as DATE that he would not be able to attend the hearing scheduled for DATE and that he had therefore authorised PERSON to replace him . The criminal judge had accepted that authorisation without objections . A.D. made a similar statement . He added that after the hearing of DATE he had briefly talked with a journalist in the court ’s corridor and that he had not told her that he had not been informed about the advocate ’s absence prior to that hearing .

The court had regard to the article published by the applicant on DATE and to her comments on the claimant ’s letter published on DATE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above ) , to the correspondence between the claimant and the defendant editor - in - chief , to the minutes of the hearings held on CARDINAL and DATE and to the parties’ statements .

The first - instance judgment was given on DATE . ORG first recounted the exchange of views between the lawyers during the hearing held in the criminal case on DATE as to the possible conflict of interest between their clients . It noted the criminal court ’s statement , recorded in TIME of that hearing , that there had been no basis at that time to find that a conflict of interest had indeed existed . It further found that on DATE the lawyer had informed his clients and PERSON on the phone that he would not be able to attend the hearing scheduled for DATE . On DATE the criminal court had made an official declaration , again recorded in the minutes , that a conflict existed between the interests of A.M.D. and PERSON and that they could therefore not be represented by the same lawyer , and adjourned the hearing until DATE .

The civil court noted that in her CARDINAL articles the applicant had accused the claimant of unprofessional conduct . She had made an untrue statement to the effect that the claimant ’s clients had not known before the hearing of DATE that the claimant would not attend it . The articles had been widely discussed in local legal circles and had had a negative impact on the claimant ’s situation . Some of his clients had lost their trust in him .

The court noted that the evidence before it had demonstrated that the applicant ’s allegation that LOC and GPE had been informed of the claimant ’s absence only at the hearing of DATE was untrue . The claimant had already known about his absence on DATE . It was shown by the fact that on that date he had authorised another lawyer to act on his behalf in the defence of his clients . They had already been aware of it on that date . The criminal court had accepted this authorisation for Ms GPE to act without comments or objections . On that date no finding had been made by that court that there had been a conflict of interest between the clients represented by the claimant and those represented by Ms GPE In these circumstances , the claimant had had no reason to expect that his absence on DATE would disturb the conduct of the proceedings . Consequently , his non - attendance on DATE could not be seen as unjustified or his conduct regarded as nonchalant or disrespectful .

The court was of the view that the articles concerned had breached the claimant ’s personal rights . The applicant had alleged that he had failed to attend the hearing and to justify his absence and that the hearing on DATE had had to be adjourned because of his conduct .

The court noted that under LAW the press enjoyed freedom of expression . That freedom was not absolute ; it could be restricted in certain circumstances . In particular , the press was obliged to respect the rights of other persons . LAW obliged journalists to show diligence and integrity in gathering materials and publishing articles , because press publications could potentially harm individuals in a manner much more powerful than any other means of defamation .

The court was of the view that the applicant should have contacted the claimant before the publication of the article on DATE and ask for his comments . She had failed to do so .

The article published by the applicant had lacked objectivity , contained undeserved criticism of the claimant and had been sensationalist rather than aimed at informing readers about the criminal case in a balanced manner . In particular , its title was particularly sensationalist . The newspaper had a wide readership in the region and therefore the impact of the article on public opinion was likely to have been significant and seriously detrimental to the claimant ’s interests . Hence it was necessary to impose on the defendants an obligation to publish an apology and a rectification .

NORP The court further imposed on the defendants an obligation to pay , jointly , MONEY ( ORG ) to a charity . It observed that that amount was significant enough to have an impact on the publisher , but not high enough to be seen as seriously detrimental to his financial position .

The applicant appealed , submitting that she had fulfilled her journalistic duties in reporting the case . Her view that the advocate had failed to act diligently in the representation of his clients had been well - founded and the firstinstance court had wrongly established the facts of the case .

On DATE ORG upheld the contested judgment , essentially sharing the conclusions of the lower court .

It observed that the right to freedom of expression guaranteed both by the LAW and the ORG could be restricted in a NORP society for the purposes of the protection of individual rights such as dignity or personal rights within the meaning of LAW and in compliance with the principle of proportionality enshrined in LAW . Where the exercise of the freedom of expression collided with the protection of the reputations of individuals , such a conflict had to be resolved with due regard being had to the case - law of ORG .

The court noted that the applicant ’s article published on DATE concerned the conduct of a criminal case generating considerable interest among the general public . However , that did not imply that an interference with the claimant ’s personal rights had been necessary . Judicial reporting had to be objective and strict priority had to be given to information , with due regard to the facts recorded by way of court records , which could be considered reliable ; not to the reporter ’s opinions and views . In the light of this principle , nothing justified the title “ A Lawyer ’s Nonchalance ? ” , referring to the lawyer who had been named in the article . Moreover , the text had contained untrue information to the effect that the court had made clear its intention to complain about the lawyer ’s conduct to ORG . It had not been shown that the court had indeed made such a declaration or even suggested that it intended to do so . The ORG s intention to annoy the claimant and to undermine his professional reputation and integrity for the purposes of making the text more attractive or sensational could not be open to any doubt .

On DATE ORG refused to entertain the applicant ’s cassation appeal .

Article CARDINAL of the LAW provides :

“ CARDINAL . Freedom to express opinions , and to acquire and disseminate information shall be ensured to everyone .

Preventive censorship of means of social communication and licensing of the press shall be prohibited . ”

The relevant provisions concerning the correction of information in the press and other media are contained in LAW ( Prawo prasowe ) of DATE .

Section CARDINAL provides , in so far as relevant , as follows :

“ At the request of a natural or legal person or other organisational entity , the editor - in - chief of the relevant DATE or magazine is under an obligation to publish , free of charge :

a factually based ( rzeczowe i odnoszące się do faktów ) rectification of untrue or inaccurate statements ,

a factually based ( rzeczową ) reply to any statement which might infringe an individual ’s personal rights ”

DATE the Civil Code contains a non - exhaustive list of the rights known as “ personal rights ” ( dobra osobiste ) . This provision states :

“ The personal rights of an individual , such as , in particular , health , liberty , reputation ( cześć ) , freedom of conscience , name or pseudonym , image , secrecy of correspondence , inviolability of the home , scientific or artistic work , [ as well as ] inventions and improvements shall be protected by the civil law regardless of the protection laid down in other legal provisions . ”

Article CARDINAL of the Civil Code provides for ways of redressing infringements of personal rights . Under that provision , a person facing a risk of an infringement of his or her rights may demand that the prospective perpetrator refrain from the wrongful activity , unless it is not unlawful . Where an infringement has taken place , the person affected may , inter alia , request that the wrongdoer make a relevant statement in an appropriate form , or claim just satisfaction from him / her . If an infringement of a personal right causes financial loss , the person concerned may seek damages .

Under LAW of LAW , a person whose personal rights have been infringed may seek compensation . That provision , in its relevant part , reads :

“ The court may grant an adequate sum as pecuniary compensation for non - material damage ( krzywda ) caused to anyone whose personal rights have been infringed . Alternatively , the person concerned , regardless of seeking any other relief that may be necessary for removing the consequences of the infringement sustained , may ask the court to award an adequate sum for the benefit of a specific public interest ... ”


No violation of Art. 3 (in case of extradition to Pakistan)

Dean Spielmann;Elisabet Fura;Ganna Yudkivska;Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre;Karel Jungwiert;Mark Villiger

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

On DATE , at DATE , she arrived in GPE . The following day she applied to ORG ( Migrationsverket ) for asylum and a residence permit .

On DATE counsel was appointed for the applicant , who in a communication of CARDINAL DATE and during an interview on DATE held by ORG , stated her reasons for requesting asylum as follows . The applicant was born and raised in GPE in a family which had been NORP for several generations . She had a university degree and had taught GPE in a secondary school in GPE from DATE until she left the country . She was married , but had been separated from her husband since DATE . Her parents and CARDINAL of her siblings remained in GPE . In DATE she had become active in a NORP organisation called ORG , ORG ( NORP JPIC ) . She had worked as a volunteer in her free time and the purpose of the NORP JPIC had been to create understanding between NORP and NORP and to carry out charity work on a local level . She had , inter alia , helped women in vulnerable situations . In DATE she and some of the members of the organisation had been threatened and harassed through letters and text messages to their mobile phones . She was convinced that religious fundamentalists were responsible for the threats because they wrongly believed that the NORP JPIC tried to convert NORP to ORG . Her father had destroyed the CARDINAL or CARDINAL letters which had come to their home and she had only read CARDINAL of them . She had read CARDINAL text messages , thereafter she disposed of her ORG card . In TIME CARDINAL DATE , following TIME mass , she had been travelling on the organisation ’s minibus with the President , Vice - President and CARDINAL other members when they had been stopped by CARDINAL fundamentalists on motorbikes . She seemed to remember that the minibus had a red cross on the roof . The assailants had used cricket bats to try to break the windows of the minibus and had accused the group of blasphemy against ORG . The driver had succeeded in driving away from the assailants . The President of the organisation had reported the assault to the police . Thereafter , the applicant lived with her aunt in another town until she left GPE on DATE .

Following the applicant ’s arrival in GPE , she was informed by her father that she had been formally accused of blasphemy and that an arrest warrant had been issued against her . Her father sent her a copy of the arrest warrant and of a police report , but she did not know how her father had obtained them or where the originals were . She believed that the arrest order had only been shown to her father . Later , he also sent her a copy of a summons , but she was not sure whether it was an arrest warrant or a summons ; she would have to verify that with her father . The said documents could be described as follows :

“ CARDINAL . A copy of poor quality of a document in GPE which was not translated . According to the applicant , the translation was the “ ORG ” ( FIR ) lodged by CARDINAL named persons at a GPE police station on DATE . It was registered as ORG . CARDINAL/CARDINAL and contained accusations against the applicant and CARDINAL other members of the NORP JPIC of having violated Articles CARDINAL(b ) and CARDINAL ) of LAW . The document stated that the person who lodged the report attacked and assaulted the applicant and CARDINAL others and tried to kill them . It further stated that the attackers searched for the applicant in her home with the intention of killing her .

A copy of a document in LANGUAGE , stating “ the summons / warrant noted on the margin is forwarded herewith for service ” . The names of the applicant and QUANTITY other persons were inserted in handwriting as was case no . “ CARDINAL/CARDINAL ” , “ FIR no . CARDINAL ” and ORG “ CARDINAL ( b ) and CARDINAL ) ” of LAW . It was allegedly issued by ORG Judicial LOC and directed to FAC “ FAC NORP ” ( inserted in hand writing ) in GPE . It stated : “ You are hereby directed to depute some responsible officer not less then the rank of ORG for the service and also direct him to present in person along with process and report on DATE ( the date in handwriting ) at TIME without fail . ” It was signed and stamped .

A copy of an alleged warrant for arrest in LANGUAGE . The document contained very few lines typed with an old type writer , for example “ you are herewith directed to arrest the said ... and to produce him befo(deleted ) . GPE fail not . ” The main parts were inserted in hand writing such as FIR no . CARDINAL , case no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , the court as above , the same Articles of the Penal Code as above , and the names of the applicant and the same other QUANTITY persons as the above , and the dates . Allegedly the police were asked to arrest them before DATE and the warrant was signed and stamped on DATE . ”

The applicant also submitted :

“ CARDINAL . A copy of a certificate written by the President of ORG , dated DATE , in which he certified that the applicant was an acting member of the NORP JPIC GPE and that she had visited him to ask for help because she felt threatened by religious fundamentalists . She and her colleagues had reported this to the police and the President had also looked into her claims together with his team and had found that the applicant ’s life was endangered by religious fundamentalists . He considered that the applicant was in need of complete protection .

A copy of a certificate dated DATE by the Director of the NORP Justice , FAC and ORG , Custody of GPE the GPE , GPE . The Director certified that the applicant had been an active member of the organisation since DATE and that she had voluntarily devoted her time to the organisation . The organisation worked for peace and justice and to bring harmony through interfaith dialogue in order to allow different religions to understand each other . They also assisted poor people , in particular women . It was further stated that the applicant and other members of the organisation had received life - threatening calls , letters and text messages . CARDINAL times , unknown persons had thrown stones at them . NORP extremists wanted to kill them and their families because the extremists mistakenly believe that the organisation wants to convert NORP to ORG . The last threatening letter had stated that the members of the NORP JPIC were “ kafar ” and that the authors had commenced “ jihad ” against them and would kill them . They also threatened to have them punished through the blasphemy laws . The organisation had reported this to the police but without results so they had stopped their activities . The Director requested that the applicant be granted asylum in order to save her life .

A copy of a letter very similar to the CARDINAL above but written by the President of the NORP JPIC , dated DATE . ”

On DATE ORG rejected the application . It first noted that neither the general situation in GPE nor the general situation for NORP in GPE were such as to justify granting the applicant protection in GPE . As concerned her personal grounds , ORG considered that the certificates from the NORP JPIC did not substantiate that she had been the victim of threats and harassment . Moreover , the arrest warrant did not state expressly why she was sought by the authorities . Hence , even if the documents were real , they did not show that she would risk being punished for blasphemy in a discriminatory manner . The ORG further questioned whether the police report was genuine as the applicant had handed it in to ORG after she had submitted the arrest warrant . It also found it unlikely that persons would admit to crimes in a report to the police giving their names and details , since making threats and assaulting someone were also crimes in GPE . Lastly , it found it remarkable that the applicant could not explain how her father had obtained the documents . Hence , the documents did not substantiate the applicant ’s story . Turning to her credibility , ORG considered that the applicant had given a rather vague and unclear account . She had also altered some of her statements and , in large parts , her story was based on information from her father , as he had read and destroyed the letters and obtained the documents concerning blasphemy . Furthermore , the applicant had not been able to explain why she had been of particular interest to the fundamentalists as opposed to the others who had been prominent members of the organisation . Her explanation , that she had been very active as a volunteer and thus visible , was not convincing to ORG . In any event , the acts of which she had been the victim were criminal acts and for the NORP authorities to deal with . Although some discrimination existed in NORP society , it was not so flagrant that it could be said that the authorities lacked ability or willingness to protect its citizens . In this respect , the ORG observed that the applicant had not reported any of the threats , and that her family had not tried to find out the details about why the police were looking for her . It did not consider that the applicant faced a real and concrete risk of being punished for blasphemy . Furthermore , it noted that the applicant had an aunt in another city and that , since the NORP JPIC according to the applicant was a very small and local organisation , she should be able to avoid problems by settling in the same city as her aunt . Consequently , the ORG concluded that the applicant was not in need of protection in GPE .

NORP The applicant appealed to ORG ( Migrationsdomstolen ) and requested a change of lawyer . She alleged that her sister had been kidnapped and her parents had disappeared . She further alleged that she could not live with her aunt , as her cousin had abused her while she had been staying with them in DATE . She pointed out that the warrant of arrest did state why she was sought by the authorities in that it made reference to LAW which concerned defiling and similar of the Holy Koran and could lead to imprisonment for life . Reference had also been made to LAW , which concerned the use of derogatory remarks and similar in respect of ORG and could lead to the death sentence . Furthermore , she had received CARDINAL leaflets from a friend in GPE showing that fatwas had been issued against her and her colleagues in the NORP JPIC . Also , it was clear that the applicant , as a NORP and as a woman , could not count on the protection of the police . Instead , going to a police station where there were only NORP men would put her at further risk of abuse . Furthermore , the organisation had reported the threats to the police and the other members at risk had also fled the country . Lastly , she stated that she was in very poor mental health following the disappearance of her family , which she considered to be her fault .

She submitted , inter alia , the following documents :

“ CARDINAL . A copy of a letter dated DATE sent by the applicant to the President of ORG informing him , inter alia , that the organisation had received threatening letters and that CARDINAL times unknown persons had thrown stones at them .

A copy of a letter by the President of ORG in GPE , dated DATE , and addressed to the Inspector General of Police in GPE . It referred to a letter from the applicant as “ acting member , NORP JPIC GPE , ” which the President had received and which he enclosed ( it referred to the threats made by extremists against the applicant and other members of the NORP JPIC ) . The President was asking the Inspector General to take the necessary legal action in order to protect the life of the applicant and her colleagues .

A copy of a handwritten letter from the NORP JPIC to ORG in GPE in which they reported that they had been attacked , when travelling on their bus , by a group of unknown men who had thrown stones at them . The letter was stamped as received at FAC on DATE .

A CARDINAL - page leaflet in LANGUAGE which , allegedly , was a fatwa issued by PERSON and in which the applicant and the other named members of the NORP JPIC were accused of having insulted Allah and the Prophet . They should therefore be killed in Jihad and the person who carried out this deed would be allowed into heaven . He requested all NORP to join in this work of justice .

A CARDINAL - page leaflet in LANGUAGE which , allegedly , described how NORP were insulted by other religions and stated that the applicant and other named members of the NORP JPIC had insulted the Koran and the PERSON . It requested ORG to arrest the guilty parties immediately and to hang them . If not , it was all ORG duty to participate in Jihad against the infidels and to kill them .

A medical certificate by a physician in psychiatry dated DATE , which stated that the applicant had been treated at the clinic CARDINAL DATE for suicidal thoughts . According to the physician the applicant was suffering from serious depression and ORG ( PTSD ) , In particular , the applicant was worried about returning to GPE and her relatives in GPE . Some family members had fallen ill and her sister had been kidnapped .

A medical certificate , dated DATE , written by the same doctor as above . It stated that the applicant had been in treatment since DATE . She had been committed to a closed psychiatric unit DATE because she had collapsed and had suffered from a serious mental disorder , including suicidal thoughts and depression . Due to her severe depression she had been treated with ECT ( electric shocks ) . Since then she had been taking antidepressants and seeing a doctor DATE . In DATE she had been found still to be suffering from severe depression and she claimed to hear voices from her family and sometimes to see them in front of her . ”

On DATE the applicant ’s request for a change of counsel was rejected by ORG , notably because the case was almost ready for judgment and the acknowledged differences between counsel and the applicant could not justify a change of counsel . Leave to appeal against that decision was refused by ORG ( Migrationsöverdomstolen ) on DATE .

On DATE ORG held an oral hearing during which the applicant was heard . Her appointed counsel was present , as well as an adviser . The applicant maintained that her parents had disappeared DATE after they had reported the kidnapping of her sister to the police . When the applicant had learned what had happened to her family , she was admitted to hospital .

By judgment of DATE ORG found against the applicant . From the outset it considered that the written evidence submitted in the case was of low evidential value as the copies were of very poor quality and unclear . The leaflets allegedly containing fatwas issued against the applicant , for example , which were shown to the court in originals ( documents nos . CARDINAL and DATE ) , could easily be produced and did not have much weight as evidence . Moreover , the applicant had not known how her father had obtained the alleged arrest warrant or the police report ( FIR ) . As concerned the applicant ’s credibility in general , the court found that her story had been vague and uncertain , in particular in respect of the content of the threats . She had claimed that her father had protected her from most of the threats arriving at the home by letter and telephone and , hence , she could not account for their content . She had also claimed that she did not know the identity of those who had threatened her . In the court ’s view , however , this was rather contradictory since these persons allegedly had stated their names in the FIR . It thus appeared odd that they would have made anonymous threats . Furthermore , in the ORG the persons had written that they had sought the applicant at her home with the purpose of killing her . However , the applicant had not mentioned this at all . Also , the court considered that the threat against the applicant appeared disproportionate having regard to the fact that she had not been a member of the organisation , just a volunteer , and that she had not held any prominent or official role . Allegedly , the organisation was very small and worked only locally . As concerned the applicant ’s family in GPE , the court noted that it was very unclear what had happened to them . In any event , it had not been substantiated that their alleged disappearance had anything to do with the threats against the applicant . Lastly , it considered that the applicant was suffering from poor mental health but that this was not life - threatening or so serious that it could justify the granting of asylum in GPE .

The applicant appealed to ORG , relying on the same grounds as previously . She added that the President of the NORP JPIC had been granted asylum in GPE and that the Vice - President had been granted asylum in GPE . She submitted :

“ CARDINAL . A medical certificate dated DATE issued by the physician in psychiatry mentioned in documents CARDINAL and CARDINAL . He stated that the applicant was still under treatment at the out - patient psychiatric unit and that she was suffering from an acute crisis reaction and a severely depressive period . He concluded that the applicant ’s mental state of health was fairly bad and that the risk for suicide was probably high . ”

Anew the applicant requested a change of counsel , which was refused by ORG on DATE .

On DATE ORG refused leave to appeal on the merits .

On DATE , upon request by the applicant , the ORG applied Rule CARDINAL of ORG until further notice .

NORP Before the Court the applicant submitted :

“ CARDINAL . A letter from ORG . PERSON , Bishop of GPE , dated DATE , stating that the ORG had made enquiries about the applicant ’s family but that all of them had been missing since DATE of DATE . They were not at their home address and the local police had refused to cooperate in finding them . ”

The Government requested assistance from ORG in GPE , which in return requested assistance from , inter alia , ORG in GPE in order to verify the authenticity of some of the documents submitted by the applicant . As to the copy of the FIR no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ( document no . CARDINAL ) , an officer from ORG visited the police station in GPE in GPE . Without supplying background information , the police registrar at the above police station was asked to show FIR no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , which he did . It related to a theft from a computer shop lodged at the police station on DATE under LAW and CARDINAL .

The registrar of the police station provided a copy of a stamped FIR CARDINAL/CARDINAL in GPE . It was translated as follows :

“ CARDINAL . FIR no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL was the first information report regarding a crime and included a signed statement by the person reporting it to the police . The report was issued at the LOC police station , district FAC NORP Town . The person reporting to the police , Mr. PERSON , reported on DATE , an armed robbery committed by CARDINAL unknown persons . The robbery had occurred DATE at ORG , where Mr. PERSON worked . The thieves stole mobile phones and cash from people at the centre . They also stole a car which was parked outside the centre . The report is signed by the policeman who issued the report . Legal reference of the crime is made to rule CARDINAL of the Pakistani Constitution . ”

NORP The office of the Judicial Magistrate PERSON was also visited for the purpose of verification of the alleged summons and the arrest warrant ( documents nos . CARDINAL and CARDINAL ) . The total number of cases registered with the office for DATE was CARDINAL . Case number CARDINAL/CARDINAL does therefore not exist and there are no records at ORG PERSON of the summons or of the arrest warrant . Furthermore , no arrest warrant was issued by the office in the name of the applicant and others on DATE .

The Office of the Judicial Magistrate PERSON stated that the text on the copied stamps on the CARDINAL documents ( documents FAC . CARDINAL and CARDINAL ) was false . The text of the genuine , round stamps should read “ ORG / Judge Judicial Magistrate - XII GPE - East ” , whereas the round stamp seen on the alleged summons and arrest warrant reads “ Court of XII . Judicial Magistrate First Class GPE ” . As regards the second stamp on the alleged arrest warrant , the text of the genuine stamp underneath the initials of the magistrate should read “ Civil Judge , Judicial Magistrate PERSON , GPE - East ” , whereas the stamp on the alleged warrant read “ Judicial Magistrate First Class Court No . ORG , GPE ” . Finally , ORG PERSON stated that the signature on the documents was not recognised .

The address provided by the applicant in her asylum application as being her home address , where she had lived with her parents until shortly before leaving GPE , was also visited by a contact person from ORG . The family still resided there and there was no indication that they had disappeared .

The basic provisions applicable in the present case , concerning the right of aliens to enter and to remain in GPE , are laid down in LAW ( Utlänningslagen , DATE hereafter referred to as “ the Aliens Act ” ) , as amended on DATE and described inter alia in GPE v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , § DATE , DATE .

ORG “ DATE ORG : GPE ” , of DATE , stated among other things :

“ Arrest Procedures and Treatment While in Detention

A ORG ( FIR ) is the legal basis for any arrest . Police may initiate FIRs when complainants offer reasonable proof a crime was committed . A ORG allows police to detain a named suspect for TIME , after which only a magistrate can order detention for DATE , if police show such detention is material to the investigation . In practice authorities did not observe fully these limits on detention . Authorities frequently issued FIRs without supporting evidence to harass or intimidate detainees , or did not issue them when adequate evidence was provided unless the complainant paid a bribe . Police sometimes detained individuals arbitrarily without charge or on false charges to extort payment for their release . Police also detained relatives of wanted individuals to compel suspects to surrender .

Freedom of Religion

The constitution states that adequate provisions shall be made for minorities to profess and practise their religions freely , but the Government limited freedom of religion in practice . ORG is the state religion , and the constitution requires that laws be consistent with ORG . The ORG court ensures that laws are consistent with Shari’a . All citizens are subject to the blasphemy laws . Freedom of speech is constitutionally subject to “ any reasonable restrictions imposed by law in the interest of the glory of NORP ” .

According to the ORG ( ORG of GPE ) there was an increase in cases of violence against minorities during DATE . Reprisals and threats of reprisals against suspected converts from ORG occurred . Members of religious minorities were subject to violence and harassment , and at times police refused to prevent such actions or charge persons who committed them , leading to an atmosphere of impunity . The constitution stipulates that the president and the prime minister must be NORP . The prime minister , federal ministers , and ministers of state , as well as elected members of the ORG and ORG ( including non - NORP ) , must take an oath to “ strive to preserve the NORP ideology ” , the basis for the creation of the country . Religious groups must be approved and registered ; there were no reports that the government refused to register any group .

The penal code calls for the death sentence or life imprisonment for anyone who blasphemes the Prophet PERSON . The law provides for life imprisonment for desecrating the Koran and DATE in prison for insulting another ’s religious beliefs with the intent to offend religious feelings . The latter penalty was used only against those who allegedly insulted the Prophet PERSON .

On DATE ] , police arrested PERSON , the country director of a NORP human rights ORG , after a member of a militant NORP organization accused him of sending a blasphemous text message from his cell phone . Although the blasphemy charges were dropped after evidence showed the text message was not sent from PERSON ’s cell phone , the charges of abetting blasphemy stood . A judge denied bail on DATE and remanded PERSON in custody “ for his own protection ” after a religious extremist lawyer threatened his life in a court hearing ... At DATE , PERSON remained in jail awaiting trial on charges of abetting blasphemy .

On DATE ] , a local court acquitted and freed PERSON and his daughter , PERSON . They had been detained in DATE in GPE after the father was accused of desecrating the Koran . ... ”

The Country of Origin Information ( COI ) Report produced by ORG on DATE stated among other things :

“ CARDINAL . FREEDOM OF RELIGION

CARDINAL The ORG IRF Report DATE ( ORG DATE ) observed that :

PERCENT of the population is NORP ( PERCENT NORP , CARDINAL percent NORP ) . ORG composing PERCENT of the population or less include NORP , NORP , GPE / NORP , ORG , NORP , NORP , NORP , and others ...

CARDINAL NORP The ORG ( ORG ) Report DATE stated that “ The State of GPE is failing at all levels to address the problem of malicious complaints of violations of the blasphemy law being pursued against NORP and NORP , as well as members of other religious communities .

CARDINAL The HRCP Report DATE noted that “ In DATE , a total of CARDINAL complaints of blasphemy were registered by the police . Some CARDINAL Ahmedis were booked under blasphemy laws and CARDINAL LOC were charged under GPE - specific laws . However , many cases were registered against NORP as the rival sects of ORG increasingly used the blasphemy law against each other ... ORG gave a number of accounts of blasphemy cases filed during DATE .

CARDINAL The ORG special report Policing Belief : ORG , published DATE , noted that “ According to data compiled by nongovernmental organizations ( NGOs ) and cited by ORG , a total of CARDINAL people were accused of blasphemy in GPE DATE . Of those , CARDINAL were NORP , CARDINAL were NORP , DATE were NORP , and CARDINAL were NORP . The NORP DATE newspaper PERSON has reported that CARDINAL cases were registered DATE , and CARDINAL people were charged with blasphemy .

CARDINAL The PERSON ( ORG ) Report DATE provided slightly different data and noted that “ According to data collected by ORG and Peace ( NCJP ) , CARDINAL persons were alleged under these anti - blasphemy clauses from DATE to DATE , while CARDINAL persons were killed extra - judicially by the angry mob or by individuals .

CARDINAL According to ORG and Peace ( NCJP ) , CARDINAL cases were registered under the blasphemy laws during DATE . “ Of the CARDINAL persons , CARDINAL were identified as NORP , NORP , and CARDINAL NORP . A total of CARDINAL persons have been charged under the blasphemy laws DATE . ... ”

As to mental health , the ORG report went on :

“ CARDINAL The ORG Report DATE recorded that “ According to an expert every fifth person in the country suffers from some kind of psychological disease . The most common form of mental ailment is depression . Social behaviour creates hurdles in curing psychological diseases because people generally shy away from consulting doctors lest they attract stigma . There are CARDINAL qualified psychologists to handle the rapidly growing number of psychiatric cases in the country .

CARDINAL ORG Mental Health DATE for GPE stated that :

The primary sources of mental health financing in descending order are : out of pocket expenditure by the patient or family , tax based , social insurance and private insurances . The country has disability benefits for persons with mental disorders . Disability benefit is paid to individuals who are not able to work due to mental illness . Mental health is a part of primary health care system . Actual treatment of severe mental disorders is available at the primary level . The programme has initially started in GPE , the largest province , in DATE and is being extended to others over DATE . There are many residential and day - care facilities , especially for people with learning disabilities providing social , vocational and educational activities . Regular training of primary care professionals is carried out in the field of mental health . Training programmes have started in the province of GPE as a part of in - service training for primary care personnel . Till now , CARDINAL primary care physicians and QUANTITY primary care workers have been trained . Community activists from NGOs ( e.g. ORG ( NRSP ) are also being trained . Though there are training programmes for physicians , nurses and psychologists , there are no such facilities for social workers . Mental health training has been included in the programme of ORG .

ORG , ORG , was the first ORG collaborating PERSON and is acting as a resource centre at national and regional level for training , services information system and research . Multiple training manuals for primary health care physicians , paramedics , community workers and teachers have been developed . In an additional training package on counselling skills for health professionals , a package for rehabilitation of mentally ill has been developed ... There are community care facilities for patients with mental disorders . .. More than CARDINAL junior psychiatrists have been trained in community mental health to act as resource persons in the development of programmes in their areas . ORG evaluates the quality of care delivery on a regular basis .

CARDINAL ORG listed the following therapeutic drugs as generally being available at the primary health care level of the country : carbamazepine , phenobarbital , chlorpromazine , diazepam , haloperidol ; imipramine ( is supplied instead of amitriptylline ) ; and procyclidine . ”


Remainder inadmissible;No violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for private life);No violation of Article 14+8 - Prohibition of discrimination (Article 14 - Discrimination) (Article 8-1 - Respect for private life;Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life)

George Nicolaou;Lech Garlicki;Ledi Bianku;Nebojša Vučinić;Päivi Hirvelä;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Zdravka Kalaydjieva

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

The applicant was born male . She always felt that she was a female in a male body but decided to cope with the situation . In DATE she married a woman and in DATE they had a child .

The applicant started feeling worse in DATE , and decided in DATE to seek medical help . In DATE she was diagnosed as transgender . Since that time , she has lived as a woman . On DATE she underwent gender re - assignment surgery .

On DATE the applicant changed her first names and renewed her passport and driver ’s licence but she could not have her identity number changed . The identity number still indicates that she is male , as does her passport .

On DATE the applicant requested the local ORG ( maistraatti , magistraten ) to confirm her as being female and to change her male identity number to a female one as it no longer corresponded to reality .

On DATE the local ORG refused the applicant ’s request . It found that , according to sections CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the Act on Confirmation of ORG ( laki transseksuaalin sukupuolen vahvistamisesta , lagen om fastställande av transsexuella personers könstillhörighet ) , the confirmation required that the person was not married or that the spouse gave his or her consent . As the applicant ’s wife did not give her consent to the transformation of their marriage into a civil partnership ( rekisteröity parisuhde , registrerat partnerskap ) , the applicant ’s new gender could not be introduced in the population register .

On DATE the applicant appealed to ORG ( hallinto - oikeus , förvaltningsdomstolen ) complaining , inter alia , that her wife ’s decision not to give consent , to which she was perfectly entitled as they both preferred to remain married , meant that the applicant could not be registered as a female . A divorce would be against their religious convictions . A civil partnership did not provide the same security as a marriage and this would mean , among other things , that their child would be put into a different situation vis - à - vis children born within wedlock .

On DATE ORG rejected the applicant ’s appeal on the same grounds as the local ORG . Moreover it found , inter alia , that the impugned decision of DATE was not contrary to LAW as same - sex partners had a possibility , by registering their relationship , to benefit from family law protection in a manner partially comparable to a marriage . Similarly , Sections CARDINAL and QUANTITY of the Act on Confirmation of ORG did not violate the constitutional rights of the applicant ’s child .

On DATE the applicant appealed to ORG ( korkein hallinto - oikeus , högsta förvaltnings - domstolen ) , reiterating the grounds presented before the local ORG and ORG . She also asked the court to make a request for a preliminary ruling to ORG of ORG , in particular on the interpretation of LAW . Referring to Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the LAW , the applicant claimed that the ORG should not tell her that a civil partnership was appropriate for her , especially when it required that her wife become a lesbian . Their sexual identity was a private matter which could not be a condition for the confirmation of gender . Transgenderism was a medical condition falling within the scope of private life . The ORG was violating her right to privacy every time the male identity number revealed her to be transgender . Moreover , she claimed that if her marriage were turned into a civil partnership , it would mean that she could no longer be a legal father to her child nor his mother , as a child could not have CARDINAL mothers .

On DATE ORG refused the applicant ’s request for a preliminary ruling and rejected her appeal . It found that by adopting the LAW on Confirmation of the Gender of a Transsexual the legislator did not mean to change the fact that only a man and a woman could marry and that same - sex partners could have their relationship judicially confirmed by registering it . ORG had found under LAW that there were no acceptable grounds to deny transgender persons their right to marry but that the margin of appreciation in this respect was large . It was not possible under NORP law for persons of the same sex to marry but , in such a case , it was a question of a civil partnership . As to its juridical and economic consequences , a civil partnership was essentially comparable to a marriage . The question of transforming the marriage institution into a gender - neutral one was connected to significant ethical and religious values and it was to be solved by an act enacted by ORG . The current state of law was within the margin of appreciation given to the ORG by ORG .

On DATE the applicant lodged an extraordinary appeal with ORG , requesting it to annul its previous decision of DATE . She stated that she had undergone gender reassignment surgery on DATE and that she could no longer prove that she had been male , as indicated by her identity number and passport . Even though , for marriage purposes , she would still be considered as male , the fact remained that she should not be discriminated against due to her gender .

On DATE ORG refused the extraordinary appeal .

On DATE the applicant applied for reimbursement of the costs of some hormonal medicine which was part of her treatment .

On DATE ORG ( Kansaneläkelaitos , Folkpensionsanstalten ) refused her application as she was deemed to be entitled to the reimbursement only once she had been given a new identity number .

By letter dated CARDINAL DATE the applicant appealed to ORG ( PERSON muutoksenhakulautakunta , GPE för social trygghet ) claiming , inter alia , that she had been discriminated against .

On DATE ORG accepted the applicant ’s appeal and changed the decision of CARDINAL DATE by ORG , finding that the applicant was entitled to reimbursement .

As no appeal was made against this decision , it became final .

On an unspecified date the applicant also filed a complaint with ORG ( NORP - arvovaltuutettu , PERSON ) , complaining about the wrong identity number as well as the reimbursement of medical costs .

On DATE the Ombudsman for ORG stated that she could not take a stand on the identity number issue as the matter had already been dealt with by ORG and the ORG was not competent to supervise the courts . Moreover , the matter was pending before ORG . As to the reimbursement of medical costs , the ORG found that the fact that the reimbursement was conditional on the identity number and not on medical grounds placed transgender persons in a different position to other persons receiving the same treatment . She recommended that ORG change its practice in this respect in order to prevent discrimination against transgender persons .

DATE ( Suomen perustuslaki , PERSON grundlag ; Act no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) provides the following :

“ Everyone is equal before the law .

No one shall , without an acceptable reason , be treated differently from other persons on the ground of sex , age , origin , language , religion , conviction , opinion , health , disability or other reason that concerns his or her person . Children shall be treated equally and as individuals and they shall be allowed to influence matters pertaining to themselves to a degree corresponding to their level of development .

Equality of the sexes is promoted in societal activity and working life , especially in the determination of pay and the other terms of employment , as provided in more detail by an LAW . ”

Section CARDINAL of the Act on Confirmation of the Gender of a Transsexual ( laki transseksuaalin sukupuolen vahvistamisesta , lagen om fastställande av transsexuella personers könstillhörighet ; Act no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) provides that it shall be established that a person belongs to the opposite gender to the one noted in the population register if he or she :

“ CARDINAL ) provides medical clarifications that he or she permanently feels that he or she belongs to the opposite gender and lives in the corresponding gender role as well as that he or she has been sterilised or is for some other reason incapable of reproducing ;

CARDINAL ) is DATE ;

CARDINAL ) is not married or in a civil partnership ; and

CARDINAL ) is a NORP citizen or has residence in GPE . ”

Section CARDINAL of the same LAW provides for exceptions from the marital status requirement . A marriage or a civil partnership does not prevent the confirmation of gender if the spouse or the partner personally gives his or her consent to it before a local ORG . When belonging to the opposite gender is confirmed , a marriage is turned ex lege into a civil partnership and a civil partnership into a marriage . This modification shall be noted in the population register .


The applicants , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON and PERSON , are NORP nationals . They are represented before the ORG by Mr PERSON and Mr PERSON , lawyers practising in ORG .

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

Until DATE the applicant lived in GPE , a hamlet of the GPE , in the ORG district of GPE , where he owns property .

In DATE security forces evacuated GPE within the context of military operations in the region . They also destroyed the applicant ’s property . The applicant and his family then moved to the NORP village of ORG , where they currently live .

In DATE and DATE the applicant filed petitions with the GPE office in ORG , Governor ’s office in GPE , ORG and the Prime Minister ’s office requesting compensation and permission to return to his village . It is to be noted that the applicant did not submit any document attesting his petitions to these offices .

On an unknown date the District Governor ’s office in ORG sent a letter to the applicant stating that he would be given a compensation of MONEY for his damages . When the applicant applied to the District Governor ’s office to receive the compensation in question , the authorities refused his request on account of lack of resources . It is to be noted that the applicant did not submit any document in relation to his request of compensation and the authorities’ reply thereto .

On DATE the applicant filed further petitions with the Prime Minister ’s office and the District Governor ’s office in ORG requesting information about the proceedings concerning the burning down of his house in DATE and permission to return to his village . He further reiterated his request for compensation for the damages he suffered .

On DATE he received a letter from the Prime Minister ’s office informing him that his petition had been referred to ORG .

On DATE the District Governor ’s office in ORG sent the following reply to the applicant :

It was established that you voluntarily left your village following the burning down of your house . Besides , on DATE you received CARDINAL NORP liras accommodation aid from ORG .

Until DATE the applicant lived in PERSON , a village of the GPE district in GPE , where he owns property .

In DATE security forces evacuated PERSON , holding the inhabitants of the village responsible for the disturbances in the region . They also destroyed the applicant ’s property . The applicant then moved to ORG , where he currently lives .

In DATE the applicant lodged a petition with ORG office in GPE complaining about the burning down of his house by the security forces . It is to be noted that the applicant did not submit any document attesting his petition with ORG office in GPE .

On unspecified dates the applicant filed several petitions with the District Governor ’s office in GPE , Governor ’s office in GPE and ORG requesting compensation and permission to return to his village . It is to be noted that the applicant did not submit to ORG a copy of these decisions .

On DATE the GPE office in GPE sent the following letter to the applicant in reply to his last petition :

“ Your petition containing a request of permission to return to your village has been received by the District Governor ’s office and will be considered under the ‘ Return to the Village and Rehabilitation Project’ . ”

Until DATE the applicant lived in ORG , a hamlet of the GPE , in the NORP district of GPE , where he owns property .

In DATE security forces evacuated ORG within the context of military operations in the region . They also destroyed the applicant ’s property . Following the destruction of his property , the applicant moved to Hozat . He then moved to PERSON , where he currently lives .

On DATE the applicant filed petitions with the Prime Minister ’s office , ORG and the Governor ’s office in GPE requesting compensation for pecuniary and non - pecuniary damages he suffered .

On DATE the GPE office in GPE rejected the applicant ’s request , stating that he did not fulfil the conditions required by LAW , no . CARDINAL .

On an unknown date the applicant filed a further petition with the District Governor ’s office in GPE requesting information about the proceedings concerning the burning down of his house in DATE and permission to return to his village . He further reiterated his request for compensation for the damages he suffered .

On DATE he received the following reply from the District Governor ’s office in GPE :

“ ... The Project ‘ Return to the Village and Rehabilitation in NORP and LOC - eastern ORG was developed by the LOC - eastern ORG ( GAP Bölge Kalkındırma İdaresi Başkanlığı ) . It aims to provide the re - settlement of any inhabitants who unwillingly left their land due to various reasons , particularly terrorist incidents and who now intend to return to secure collective settlement units , since the number of the terrorist incidents have relatively decreased in the region . The ORG also aims to create sustainable living standards in the re - settlement areas .

It was established that you had not filed a complaint against the perpetrators of the alleged incident .

An investigation will be initiated should you request and inform the District Governor ’s office about the identities of the perpetrators who are responsible for your eviction from your village . ”

Until DATE the applicant lived in GPE , a village of the GPE district , in GPE . It is to be noted that the documents attesting the ownership of the property that the applicant used in Şahverdi bear the applicant ’s father ’s name .

In DATE security forces evacuated Şahverdi , holding the inhabitants of the village responsible for the disturbances in the region . They also destroyed the applicant ’s property . Following the destruction of his property , the applicant moved to GPE . He then moved to ORG in DATE , where he currently lives .

On DATE the applicant filed a petition with the District Governor ’s office in GPE requesting information about the proceedings concerning the burning down of his house in DATE and permission to return to his village .

On DATE the District Governor ’s office in GPE sent a letter to the applicant stating that there would not be an investigation into his allegations as it was established that the offence in question had been committed by members of the ORG . He was also informed that his petition would be considered under the ‘ Return to GPE Project’ .

On an unknown date the applicant filed a further petition with the District Governor ’s office in GPE reiterating his request of permission to return to his village .

On DATE ORG of the GPE office in GPE sent the following letter in reply to the applicant :

In DATE security forces evacuated PERSON holding the inhabitants of the village responsible for the disturbances in the region . They also destroyed the applicant ’s property . The applicant then moved to ORG , where he currently lives .

On DATE the village mayor ( muhtar ) of PERSON , PERSON petitioned the Governor ’s office in GPE , ORG , ORG , ORG Presidency , the Prime Minister ’s office and the Presidency of the ORG , on behalf of the villagers . He requested compensation for their losses .

On DATE Mr PERSON lodged further petitions with various government offices , namely the Governor ’s office in GPE , the Presidency of the ORG , the Prime Minister ’s office and the office of the President of the Republic , requesting permission on behalf of the villagers to return to their villages .

On an unknown date the applicant filed a petition with the District Governor ’s office in GPE requesting permission to return to his village .

On DATE ORG office in GPE sent the following reply to the applicant :

On DATE the applicant lodged a further petition with the District Governor ’s office in GPE , requesting compensation for the damages he suffered and permission to return to his village .

The applicant received no response to his last petition .

The investigation carried out by the authorities indicated that the applicants had left their villages on their own will . The security forces had not forced the applicants to leave their village .

The official records indicated that there was no obstacle preventing villagers from returning to their homes and possessions in their villages . Persons who had left their villages as a result of terrorism had already started returning and regaining their activities in their villages .

On DATE the Law on Compensation for Losses resulting from Terrorism and the Fight against Terrorism was passed by ORG and entered into force on DATE ( “ Compensation Law ” ) . That PERSON provided for a sufficient remedy capable of redressing the LAW grievances of persons who were denied access to their possessions in their villages .

In that connection Damage Assessment and Compensation Commissions were set up in QUANTITY provinces . Persons who had suffered damage as a result of terrorism or of measures taken by the authorities to combat terrorism could lodge an application with the relevant compensation commission claiming compensation .

The number of persons applying to these commissions had already attained CARDINAL . CARDINAL persons , whose applications were pending before the ORG , had also applied to the compensation commissions . Many villagers had already been awarded compensation for the damage they had sustained .

A description of the relevant domestic law can be found in the ORG ’s decision of PERSON v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , § § DATE , DATE ) and in its judgment of ORG and Others v. GPE ( nos . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , CARDINAL/CARDINAL and CARDINAL - CARDINAL/CARDINAL , § § DATE , ORG CARDINAL-VI ) .


The applicant is an NORP citizen , born in DATE and currently serving a prison sentence in GPE .

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

A.

On DATE criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicant on the suspicion of his having committed a murder on DATE . On DATE the applicant was taken into custody . On DATE he was formally charged with deliberate homicide and unlawful possession of a firearm . On DATE ORG ( ORG ) , having regard to the nature of the crime committed , the danger of his absconding and the fact that the weapon used in the crime had not been found , ordered the applicant ’s remand in custody until DATE . On DATE the applicant ’s defence lawyer lodged an appeal against the order with ORG ( GPE ) which dismissed it on CARDINAL DATE . The applicant ’s detention on remand was subsequently extended until DATE .

On DATE , apparently on the investigator ’s order , the authorities seized from the applicant ’s apartment , and in his absence , CARDINAL passports and CARDINAL other items . The applicant claims that the authorities also seized other objects which were not entered in the official records . He further claims that the authorities conducted an undocumented search at his work place .

Upon conclusion of the preliminary investigation the applicant and his defence lawyer were presented with the contents of the case file on DATE .

On DATE the GPE public prosecutor approved the summary of charges against the applicant and transferred the case for examination to ORG where it was registered on DATE . On DATE ORG held a preliminary hearing in which it considered that due to its case load it was not possible to begin the applicant ’s trial immediately , and extended the applicant ’s detention until DATE .

On DATE ORG held another preliminary hearing in which it committed the applicant for trial and set its date for DATE . It prolonged the applicant ’s detention accordingly .

On DATE the applicant complained to ORG that it had violated procedural time - limits under ORG CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the Criminal Procedure Code concerning the start of the trial . He also complained that the authorisation for his detention was renewed DATE after the prior authorisation had expired on DATE .

The formal indictment was served on the applicant on DATE and his trial commenced on DATE . As the applicant considered that his witness GPE , who testified before ORG and was questioned by the parties on DATE , had been subjected to undue influence by unknown persons , he requested ORG on DATE to hear promptly his witnesses NL and VL . ORG postponed the PERSON session until DATE . The applicant ’s witness ORG appeared before ORG on DATE where she gave evidence and was questioned by the parties . Her husband VL was also summoned but was not heard . The ORG submit that VL failed to appear in the hearing while the applicant argues that ORG refused to hear VL who was therefore denied entry into the court building . On DATE the defence lawyer requested the confrontation of CARDINAL witnesses GPE and GPE both of whom had been previously heard by ORG . The request was turned down as ORG considered that it possessed sufficient evidence in the case .

On DATE the applicant complained to ORG that the authorities’ actions in his apartment on DATE were unlawful as they had in fact performed a search which required the public prosecutor ’s authorisation and that the seizure of objects took place without his presence . The applicant alleges that he also complained to the public prosecutor .

By judgment of ORG DATE the applicant was found guilty of the charges against him and sentenced to CARDINAL years’ imprisonment .

On DATE the applicant complained to the judge of ORG about having had inadequate time to read through TIME of the court sessions and to comment on them . He also pointed to the alleged violation of the procedural rules concerning the timelimits in examining his case .

On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal against ORG judgment disputing the assessment of evidence for his conviction . He further complained about the refusal of ORG to allow the confrontation of the CARDINAL witnesses and stated that ORG had not addressed multiple violations of procedural norms during the pre - trial investigation . In particular , the applicant submitted that it made no mention of his complaint of DATE regarding the search of his apartment and workplace and the seizure of his personal effects . In a hearing on DATE before ORG ( GPE ) the applicant also referred specifically to the interrogation of GPE witnesses without an interpreter and to falsified additions to the records of witness testimonies .

On DATE the applicant requested a new expert opinion on the cartridge cases . ORG granted the request and adjourned its examination of the applicant ’s case pending the outcome of the expert opinion .

On DATE the applicant complained to ORG about the discovery of changes in several case file documents , e.g. the crime scene record , which were introduced after the termination of the preliminary investigation without his knowledge . According to his lawyer , the changes were probably made after the judgment of ORG .

By judgment of DATE ORG confirmed the judgment of the first instance court holding it lawful , well - founded and sufficiently motivated . As regards the applicant 's complaint of DATE , the ORG held that the alleged changes in the case file documents would not have influenced ORG judgment as they were introduced only subsequently .

On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal in cassation to ORG ( NORP ) in which he questioned the evaluation of evidence and pointed again to the allegedly unlawful search and seizure and other violations of procedural norms during the pre - trial investigation , including the interrogation of witnesses without an interpreter and the falsification of witness testimonies . He stated that he had received no reaction from either ORG or ORG to his complaints . He further complained about the introduction of later changes in the file documents and the failure of ORG to fully address this issue .

On DATE ORG refused the applicant leave to appeal against ORG judgment . On DATE it allowed , however , the applicant ’s appeal for correction of court errors . By judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG dismissed his application holding the judgments of ORG and ORG lawful and not subject to annulment . It agreed with the analysis of the evidence and the conclusions reached in these judgments and did not find any substantial violations of the criminal procedure law which would have hindered the thorough , complete and objective investigation of the case or prevented the courts from rendering a lawful and substantiated judgment .

B. Relevant domestic law

According to LAW must take a decision to try the accused who is in custody within DATE from the arrival of the case file in the court . Its Article CARDINAL provides that the trial must start DATE from the taking of that decision .

Under LAW CARDINAL of LAW a special appeal on the decisions concerning pre - trial detention and its prolongation can be submitted within DATE to a higher court .

Pursuant to LAW supervision over the following of laws by the organs of preliminary investigation is carried out by the public prosecutor . According to its ORG and CARDINAL complaints regarding the activities of the police investigator are submitted to the public prosecutor whose decisions and actions concerning the complaints can be appealed to the higher level public prosecutor .

LAW ) of LAW provides that ORG is competent to deal with appeals against the organs of the executive ORG power or the legal acts or action by CARDINAL of its officials .

Article CARDINAL of the Code of Criminal Procedure stipulates that if an investigator has sufficient reason to believe that in a certain room , location or in a person ’s possession there might be items of significance to a criminal case he may conduct a search to find them . A search may be conducted on the basis of a decision of an investigator and only upon the authorisation of the public prosecutor or his deputy . If an investigator knows the exact location of an item which is of significance to a criminal case , he may conduct the seizure of that item . A seizure is carried out on the basis of a decision of an investigator .

Under LAW an investigator , in performing a search and a seizure , can take away only those items and documents which are relevant to a criminal case . Each seized item and document must be entered in a protocol indicating their exact amount , format , weight and individual characteristics .

Article CARDINAL of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides that a search and a seizure is conducted in the presence of the person concerned or his adult family member or , if this is not possible , in the presence of a local government representative .


András Sajó;Antonella Mularoni;Françoise Tulkens;Vladimiro Zagrebelsky

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

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

On DATE the applicant brought an action against his employer before ORG requesting compensation in the amount of MONEY ( ORG ) ( MONEY ( ORG ) ) for non - pecuniary damage and an additional DATE allowance of ORG CARDINAL ( approximately EUR CARDINAL ) for pecuniary damage . ORG transferred the case to ORG , because in the meantime the defendant company had gone into liquidation and ORG was the competent authority to deal with the issue . The initial date of the liquidation procedure was DATE .

On DATE ORG , after having held CARDINAL hearings and obtained the opinion of a forensic medical expert , dismissed the applicant 's claims . On appeal , ORG , acting as a second - instance court , quashed the first - instance decision and remitted the case to ORG on DATE .

Subsequently , the applicant raised his claims again . After having held QUANTITY hearings , ORG delivered a decision on DATE . It partly found for the applicant and ruled that ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL,CARDINAL ( approximately ORG MONEY ) , and an additional HUF CARDINAL ( approximately EUR CARDINAL ) had to be registered on the applicant 's behalf as a creditor 's claim ( hitelezői igény ) in the liquidation procedure . On appeal , ORG , acting as a second - instance court , upheld this decision on DATE .

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

ORG returned the applicant 's motion for completion , observing that it did not meet the minimum requirements of a petition for review in that it failed to indicate a relevant breach of law or contain a clear request to have the final decision changed . It required the applicant to resubmit an amended petition in order that an examination of at least the admissibility thereof could be carried out . However , the applicant failed to comply with ORG supplementation order .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant 's petition for review as inadmissible , since it was incomplete . The applicant lodged a complaint against this decision .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant 's complaint as incompatible ratione materiae with the relevant provisions of LAW . It pointed out that , in accordance with those provisions , no appeal whatsoever lay against inadmissibility decisions of ORG .

In DATE the debtor began to transfer the sum awarded into the applicant 's bank account in instalments . The last instalment was paid in DATE .