The applicant , PERSON , is an NORP national , born in DATE and living in GPE / GPE .

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

On DATE ORG of PERSON ( ORG - katholische ORG , hereafter “ the NORP ” ) , the owner of an estate in ORG , concluded a contract with Mr PERSON , the owner of CARDINAL adjacent estates , authorising him to use its estate for the construction of a sales hall . The agreement was subject to the condition that PERSON obtained the prior permission by the PERSON company , the tenant of the Rectory ’s estate . PERSON transferred his entitlement as regards the sales hall to the L. company .

On DATE a donation contract of CARDINAL DATE between the L. company as donor and the applicant as recipient was deposited with ORG and subsequently entered into the land register . The purpose of this contract was to transfer to the applicant the ownership of the sales hall , including the part of the building that had been constructed on the PERSON ’s estate .

On DATE the Rectory brought an action against the applicant before ORG , requesting that the entry of the above donation contract into the land register be declared null and void . In an alternative claim the Rectory requested a declaratory judgment that the applicant had no property rights regarding the part of the sales hall constructed on the Rectory ’s estate .

On DATE the ORG refused to deal with the action for lack of competence and transferred the case to ORG . The Rectory ’s appeal against this decision remained unsuccessful . In DATE the court file arrived at ORG .

At the hearing of CARDINAL DATE ORG closed the proceedings and announced that the judgment would be given in writing .

By judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG dismissed the plaintiff ’s main as well as its alternative claim . It found that the Rectory lacked legal interest in the matter since its own legal position was in no way affected by the registration of the donation .

On DATE ORG , upon the Rectory ’s appeal , partly quashed the judgment for errors of law and referred the case back to ORG .

On DATE ORG , on both parties’ appeals , quashed ORG decision and referred the case back to ORG .

On DATE the H. company , the successor of the M. company as tenant of the ORG ’s estate , intervened in the proceedings as coplaintiff . Hearings took place on DATE , CARDINAL DATE , DATE and CARDINAL DATE . On the latter date the applicant requested the court to revoke the co - plaintiff ’s admission to the proceedings . On DATE ORG rejected the applicant ’s request . On DATE the applicant appealed against this decision . On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s appeal .

On DATE ORG announced a hearing to be held at FAC on DATE and DATE , at which CARDINAL witnesses residing in GPE would be heard . On DATE the applicant requested the court to cancel that hearing . He referred to the imminent change of judges .

On DATE ORG , following a change of the competent judge , resumed the proceedings and heard a number of witnesses . The parties to the proceedings requested the court to hear further witnesses . Those not residing in PERSON should be heard by way of judicial assistance .

On DATE , CARDINAL DATE and DATE judicial assistance hearings were held at ORG .

Further judicial assistance hearings were held at FAC on DATE , at GPE on DATE , and at ORG on DATE .

On DATE ORG held a hearing , at which it heard witnesses proposed by the applicant , and subsequently rejected the requests to hear further witnesses as irrelevant . It announced that the written version of the judgment would be served as soon as witness PERSON had been heard by way of judicial assistance at ORG .

Witness PERSON failed to appear before ORG on DATE and DATE . He was heard on DATE .

On DATE ORG granted the Rectory ’s claim and ordered that the entry in the land register of the donation contract between the L. company and the applicant concerning the part of the building located on the tenant ’s estate of the Rectory be annulled . The court , having regard to the documentary evidence and the statements of the witnesses heard , found that in the absence of an agreement by the tenant of the Rectory ’s estate ( the LOC company ) , the authorisation by the Rectory of DATE was not valid . LAW and his successors could not lawfully acquire any ownership rights regarding the part of the sales hall situated on the Rectory ’s estate .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s appeal of DATE .

On DATE ORG refused to deal with the applicant ’s appeal on points of law . The decision was served on the applicant ’s counsel on DATE .

Section CARDINAL of LAW ( PERSON ) , which has been in force since DATE , provides as follows .

" ( CARDINAL ) If a court is dilatory in taking any procedural step , such as announcing or holding a hearing , obtaining an expert ’s report , or preparing a decision , any party may submit a request to this court for the superior court to impose an appropriate time - limit for the taking of the particular procedural step ; unless sub - section ( CARDINAL ) of this section applies , the court is required to submit the request to the superior court , together with its comments , forthwith .

( CARDINAL ) If the court takes all the procedural steps specified in the request within DATE after receipt , and so informs the party concerned , the request is deemed withdrawn unless the party declares within DATE after service of the notification that it wishes to maintain its request .

( CARDINAL ) The request referred to in sub - section ( CARDINAL ) shall be determined with special expedition by a chamber of the superior court consisting of CARDINAL professional judges , CARDINAL of whom shall preside ; if the court has not been dilatory , the request shall be dismissed . This decision is not subject to appeal . "


No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial;Violation of Article 34 - Individual applications (Article 34 - Hinder the exercise of the right of petition);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)

The applicant was born DATE and is now serving a custodial sentence in the town of GPE in GPE .

On DATE ORG of LOC convicted the applicant of aggravated robbery ( LAW of LAW ) and the involvement of minors in criminal activities ( LAW of FAC ) . It sentenced him to DATE imprisonment in a correctional colony . On CARDINAL DATE ORG upheld the judgment on appeal .

The applicant was sent to a correctional colony to serve his sentence . On DATE the colony director granted him home leave and he travelled to his native village in GPE . He was due back at the colony on DATE .

According to the applicant , he found his wife and children in a precarious situation and decided not to return to the colony but to start working to support his family . The applicant and his family moved to the town of GPE in GPE .

On DATE the colony officials launched a criminal investigation in connection with the applicant 's failure to return from home leave . On DATE the applicant was summoned to a police station in GPE and taken into custody .

On DATE ORG of GPE convicted the applicant of evading punishment ( LAW ) and sentenced him to DATE imprisonment to run consecutively to the time left to serve under the judgment of CARDINAL DATE ( DATE and DATE in total ) .

NORP The applicant filed an application for supervisory review of the judgment of DATE . On DATE the Prosecutor General 's office refused his application but forwarded a copy of it to the PERSON prosecutor “ to bring the applicant 's sentence into conformity with the new Criminal Code [ of DATE ] ” . The PERSON prosecutor forwarded the request to the NORP prosecutor .

On an unspecified date a deputy prosecutor of GPE lodged an application “ for [ an order ] bringing the applicant 's sentence into conformity with LAW of the GPE ” .

On DATE the ORG of GPE granted the prosecutor 's motion . It established that LAW of GPE provided for a more lenient punishment for aggravated robbery than LAW . As the provisions providing for lighter sentences could be applied retrospectively to convicted prisoners , the court considered it necessary to recharacterise the offence committed by the applicant in accordance with LAW . It also deleted from the original judgment a reference to the applicant 's inebriated state at the time of the offence as the new Code no longer classified inebriated as an aggravating circumstance . However , that did not result in a reduction of the applicant 's sentence because the original sentence remained within the limits of LAW of LAW .

On DATE the colony correspondence office informed the applicant that the application by the NORP prosecutor “ would be heard in the ORG ” .

On DATE the applicant asked ORG to obtain the case file from ORG to enable him to study the file , attend the hearing , make representations and apply for legal aid . According to the stamp on the applicant 's letter , ORG received it on DATE .

On DATE the applicant received a copy of the ruling of DATE from the prosecutor 's office .

On DATE the judge of ORG who had made the ruling of DATE , advised the applicant that that court had no power to obtain case files from other courts or to review final convictions and that the applicant could seek legal aid from the local bar council .

On DATE the prosecutor of GPE lodged an application for supervisory review of the ruling of DATE on the ground that it had been made in the applicant 's absence .

On DATE the Presidium of ORG of GPE granted the prosecutor 's application . It quashed the ruling of DATE and remitted the matter to the same court .

NORP The applicant described the subsequent events as follows :

“ On DATE I was called to the colony headquarters where I was told , in room no . CARDINAL , that the ruling of the PERSON court of DATE would now be reviewed ... I was told right away that the new ruling would be identical to the ruling of DATE , the only difference being that it would be made in my presence . I asked to appoint prisoner PERSON as my representative but was told , ' Prisoner S. is now restricted in his movements and can not attend the court hearing ' . I asked for the refusal to be certified in writing , but this was refused . I asked those present at the ' court hearing ' to give their names , but was told , ' you will find out from the ruling ' .

I considered my further participation in this farce inappropriate and asked that my refusal to participate further in the hearing ... be entered in the record and left the room . On DATE I received the ruling of CARDINAL DATE containing the phrase , ' ... having heard the submissions by convict PERSON ... ' ”

On DATE ORG issued a new ruling similar to the ruling of DATE .

The applicant lodged an appeal . On DATE the judge informed him that his appeal could not be processed because of certain formal defects . The applicant did not re - submit his appeal .

According to the applicant , on DATE he submitted an application to ORG to the correspondence office of colony CARDINAL - CARDINAL/CARDINAL ( спецчасть ИК DATE ) . DATE the application was returned to him and he was told that he had no right to petition international institutions until he had exhausted all domestic remedies .

He sent a copy of his application to the ORG through an informal channel and complained about the actions of the colony administration to a prosecutor 's office .

On DATE the Ust - Vymskiy prosecutor in charge of compliance with laws in correctional colonies ( прокурор по надзору за соблюдением законов в ИУ ) confirmed the lawfulness of the actions of the colony administration , finding as follows :

“ An application to [ i]nternational institutions is only possible after the issue has been resolved ( or has not proved possible to resolve ) within the country because otherwise the complaint or application would immediately be returned for resolution in the country ... This procedure also applies to convicted prisoners ...

Therefore the actions of the administration of correctional colony no . CARDINAL declining to send your application to ORG were lawful ... ”

The applicant further submitted that the first package sent by ORG on DATE had not been given to him until DATE . The envelope had been removed to make verification of the date of receipt impossible .

On DATE the acting deputy colony director approved the findings of an internal inquiry that had been carried out by the deputy colony director in charge of prisoners ' human rights into the circumstances surrounding the applicant 's request to dispatch his application to ORG . According to the inquiry 's findings , in DATE the applicant had asked a senior inspector of the special registration group about the procedure for lodging applications with ORG . The inspector had advised him to apply first to the competent domestic authorities . The applicant had made no further demands to the colony administration concerning his application and had sent it to the ORG through informal channels , in breach of the internal regulations . The human - rights deputy director proposed to consider it established that the alleged hindrance had not taken place .

On DATE the acting deputy director issued order no . CARDINAL-A on behalf of the PERSON directorate of correctional facilities ( PERSON управление лесных исправительных учреждений ) for the attention of the human - rights deputy director and the directors of other correctional colonies in the region . The introductory part of the order related the exchange that had taken place between the applicant and the colony inspector . The human - rights deputy director was ordered to provide each colony with a set of educational materials on the procedures for applying to , inter alia , ORG and ORG and to prepare test questions on human rights for colony officials . The colony directors were instructed to study the educational materials and to ensure compliance with the order of ORG of DATE prohibiting all hindrances to the communication between convicted prisoners and the ORG .

On DATE the deputy Minister of Justice – the authority in charge of the penitentiary system – sent a circular to the heads of regional departments of the Chief Penitentiary Directorate , reminding them that the decision as to whether domestic remedies had been exhausted was made by ORG itself and that the administration of a penal institution was not competent to determine this issue and were not to prevent prisoners from lodging applications with international human rights ' organisations . The deputy minister called for rigorous compliance with the ORG 's obligations under LAW .

Pursuant to LAW ( in force until DATE ) , aggravated robbery was punishable by DATE imprisonment and the confiscation of property . Article CARDINAL provided that involving minors in criminal activities , loitering or prostitution was punishable by DATE imprisonment .

Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL of LAW of GPE ( in force since DATE ) provides that involving a minor in the commission of a criminal offence through promises , deception , threats or otherwise is punishable by DATE imprisonment . Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL provides that aggravated robbery is punishable by DATE imprisonment and the confiscation of property .

Article CARDINAL of LAW ( “ Retrospective effect of criminal law ” ) provides that where a new criminal law decriminalises an offence , provides for more lenient punishment or otherwise improves the situation of the offender it shall apply with retrospective effect to offences committed before it came into force , even where the offender is already serving sentence . If the new law provides for a shorter sentence , then the offender 's sentence must be reduced accordingly . Laws providing for a heavier sentence or otherwise aggravating the situation of the offender have no retrospective effect .

Section CARDINAL of LAW ( Entry into LAW ( no . CARDINAL-FZ of DATE ) provided as follows :

“ Where a convicted prisoner who was sentenced under LAW has not yet served his sentence , the sentence shall be brought into conformity with LAW of GPE if the sentence imposed by the court was more severe than the maximum sentence laid down by the relevant provision of LAW of GPE .

If the criminal law otherwise improves the situation of offenders or convicted prisoners ... , convictions and judicial acts concerning other criminal - law measures must be reviewed by the convicting court or the court with jurisdiction for the locality where the sentence is being served .

Relief from punishment , a reduction in sentence or any other improvement in the situation of the offender ... shall be decided upon in accordance with Articles CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the RSFSR Code of Criminal Procedure . ”

Article CARDINAL in LAW ( “ Execution of Sentences ” ) of LAW ( in force until DATE ) provided that a court , acting on an application by a convict or prosecutor in connection with the enactment of a law with retrospective effect , could exempt the convicted prisoner from serving the sentence , reduce his sentence or otherwise improve his situation . In such proceedings the court was required to base its ruling ( определение ) solely on the circumstances that were established in the final conviction and could not overrule the interpretation of the criminal law by the convicting court .

Article CARDINAL determined the territorial jurisdiction of the courts . Article CARDINAL provided that these issues were to be decided at a hearing . “ As a rule ” , the convict was to be summoned to the hearing .

Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL in LAW ( “ Proceedings for Examination and Determination of Issues Relating to the Execution of Sentences ” ) of LAW of GPE of DATE ( in force since DATE ) provides that decisions on a reduction of sentence following the enactment of a law with retrospective effect shall be made in accordance with LAW .

As worded at the material time , LAW and paragraph CARDINAL of LAW ( Order no . CARDINAL of ORG of DATE ) provided that all incoming and outgoing correspondence of detainees , other than correspondence with courts , prosecutors , penitentiary officials , the ORG and counsel , was subject to censorship by the colony officials . Letters were to be put in mailboxes or given to the officials in an unsealed envelope . LAW required detainees to submit all complaints through the colony officials .

By Order no . CARDINAL of DATE , ORG approved the Directive on the Functioning of Special Departments in Correctional Colonies . Paragraph CARDINAL.CARDINAL established that complaints addressed to authorities , organisations or officials who were not competent to deal with the matter concerned should not be forwarded to the addressees . The complainant was to be informed of that decision in writing and advised where to send his complaint . If the complainant disagreed with the decision not to forward his complaint , he could contest it by applying to the supervising prosecutor .


Preliminary objection dismissed (non-exhaustion of domestic remedies);Violation of Art. 6-1;Violation of Art. 8;Violation of Art. 13;Remainder inadmissible;Non-pecuniary damage - financial award;Costs and expenses partial award - domestic proceedings;Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings

In DATE the applicant married PERSON and in DATE their daughter PERSON was born .

In DATE the applicant started having marital problems , apparently as a result of her contracting HIV .

On DATE PERSON left GPE , a part of GPE where she lived with her parents , to stay with her grandparents for a while .

NORP In DATE , ORG brought PERSON back to GPE .

Shortly afterwards , however , the applicant 's marriage broke down and ORG ceased living with the applicant . He also took PERSON to his parents ' flat , denying the applicant any contact with her .

On DATE the applicant filed a claim with ORG in GPE ( “ PERSON opštinski sud u ORG ” ) , seeking dissolution of the marriage , sole custody of PERSON and child maintenance . In addition , she requested interim relief , granting her temporary custody or , in the alternative , regular DATE contacts with PERSON until the conclusion of the civil proceedings .

On DATE ORG in GPE ( hereinafter “ the ORG ” ) ordered ORG ( “ NORP za socijalni rad opštine ORG Grad ” ) to produce an expert opinion as to which party should be granted custody .

PERSON ( hereinafter “ the respondent ” ) appears to have been informed about the applicant 's lawsuit during CARDINAL of the meetings held at ORG in DATE .

Following the institution of proceedings , ORG adjourned CARDINAL separate hearings , including the hearings scheduled for CARDINAL DATE , DATE and DATE , respectively .

NORP Throughout this time , though mostly in response to the applicant 's numerous proposals , ORG attempted to obtain information as regards the respondent 's correct address from various ORG bodies , including the tax authorities , municipalities , ORG and even ORG .

Summonses were sent to a number of addresses but each time the respondent could not be served , which led ORG to conclude , on DATE , that he was “ clearly avoiding receipt ” of all court documents .

On DATE the respondent was duly served for the first time , the summons having been sent to GPE , GPE , on which occasion he was both provided with the applicant 's claim against him and informed about the next hearing scheduled for DATE .

On DATE the applicant 's lawyer informed ORG that she could not attend that hearing .

The applicant maintained that during the proceedings in question the presiding judge had stated publicly that she would either rule in favour of the respondent or dismiss the applicant 's claim on procedural grounds . The Government contested this submission .

In DATE , the presiding judge was replaced by another and the case itself taken under review by ORG .

On DATE , inter alia , the applicant complained to the President of ORG , requesting that the presiding judge in her case be removed .

She claimed that the judge in question had tried to serve the respondent via regular mail only but had failed to attempt to do so through the bailiffs , as envisaged by LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

Further , despite the fact that it was up to the courts to establish the respondent 's correct address , she pointed out that on DATE the judge had ordered her specifically to provide the court with the address in question , in default of which her claim would be dismissed .

Finally , the applicant alleged that the judge herself had indicated that she did not know what to do with the case and that the best solution would have been for the applicant to withdraw her claim . The Government contested this submission .

On DATE the applicant 's motion was rejected by the President of ORG .

On DATE ORG ordered the respondent to facilitate the applicant 's access to PERSON , twice a month , until the adoption of a final decision on the merits of the case .

On DATE the applicant filed a submission with ORG , stating that the respondent had refused receipt of the said decision and requesting that he be served formally in accordance with the relevant provisions of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

On DATE and DATE , respectively , the applicant sent CARDINAL separate requests to ORG , seeking effective enforcement of the interim access order .

On DATE the applicant 's lawyer withdrew her request of CARDINAL DATE .

On DATE the bailiffs attempted to enforce the said interim access order but , apparently , there was no one to be found at the respondent 's address . This enforcement would appear to have been envisaged by means of a seizure of the respondent 's movable assets and their subsequent sale , the proceeds of which would then have been used to cover the fine apparently imposed on the respondent for his failure to comply with the order in question ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

On DATE the applicant filed another complaint with ORG , seeking effective enforcement .

From DATE until DATE the bailiffs tried again , on a number of occasions and at several different addresses , but to no avail .

On DATE the applicant was ordered by ORG to provide the respondent 's correct address .

On DATE a medical clinic ( “ ORG ” ) attested that the applicant was HIV positive but that she was being treated and was feeling well . The clinic added that there was no reason why she should not be allowed to see PERSON

On DATE , DATE and CARDINAL DATE , respectively , medical opinions to the same effect were again issued by the said clinic , as well as CARDINAL other medical institutions ( “ ORG poliklinika za građanska lica ” and “ NORP za infektivne i tropske bolesti ” ) .

The opinion of CARDINAL DATE was addressed expressly to “ the competent ORG ” .

The applicant stated that she had frequently seen the respondent in the streets of GPE throughout the period in question and pointed out that he had also appeared in a television programme on several separate occasions .

The applicant further noted that she was informed by ORG that the respondent had publicly stated that he did not want to be bothered by any legal proceedings and , in addition , that he had told PERSON that her mother , the applicant , had died .

It would appear that ORG held a hearing on DATE and that it did so in the respondent 's absence given that he had been duly served at CARDINAL of his addresses in GPE .

On DATE ORG informed ORG that the respondent could not be found at his address in GPE but that his neighbours had said that he had moved back to GPE .

At the hearing held on DATE , the applicant informed ORG that the respondent had re - registered his former company and that its seat was now in GPE . She then went on to provide the court with this address , as well as the current address of the respondent 's parents , and stated that PERSON was in fourth grade in CARDINAL of the primary schools in GPE .

On DATE ORG sent a letter to ORG ( “ LOC privredne registre ” ) and the tax authorities , seeking information about the respondent 's income and his tax situation , as well as whether the respondent was the owner , founder , manager or deputy manager of the said company .

On DATE ORG was informed that the respondent was indeed the manager of the company in question .

The next hearing was scheduled for DATE and the court summonses in this respect were sent both to the respondent 's address in GPE and to his address in GPE , via the GPE and GPE police departments , respectively .

On DATE , CARDINAL DATE and DATE , ORG urged the competent ORG to “ finalise ” its report and submit a proposal as to who should get custody of PERSON

ORG thereafter obtained the medical reports concerning the applicant 's health of DATE and CARDINAL DATE , respectively ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , as well as a new report produced by the Infectious and ORG ( “ NORP za infektivne i tropske bolesti ” ) - Centre for HIV / AIDS of DATE , stating that there was no medical reason why the applicant should not be granted custody of PERSON

On DATE ORG heard the applicant and ordered ORG to produce its report as to who should be given custody of PERSON

On DATE ORG heard both the applicant and the respondent , on which occasion the latter , inter alia , stated that the former had not been honest about her medical situation , or conscientious in terms of taking medication , which seriously endangered his own life as well as that of PERSON The respondent thus proposed that the applicant 's health be reassessed and ORG , having so ordered , scheduled the next hearing for DATE .

On DATE ORG adjourned the hearing , stating that the case file was still with ORG which was about to rule in respect of the respondent 's appeal filed against the interim custody order issued on DATE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL below ) .

ORG scheduled the next hearing for DATE .

On DATE ORG granted provisional custody of PERSON to the applicant and ordered the respondent to surrender the child , pending a final decision in the ongoing civil suit . In its reasoning , inter alia , it found that : i ) the respondent had made it clear , from the outset , that he would “ not allow ” the applicant to have contact with PERSON because of his fear that she might also be “ infected ” with HIV ; ii ) the applicant was , despite the respondent 's claims to the contrary , a responsible and motivated parent whose medical condition was stable , constantly under review , and who presented no danger to PERSON ; and iii ) the respondent had not only failed to comply with his obligation to inform the court of his correct address but had in addition , for DATE , deliberately avoided receipt of court summonses which , in turn , had resulted in the applicant being denied all contact with PERSON and indicated a gross disregard for the interests of PERSON on his part . Finally , the execution of this order was not to be deferred pending any appeal filed against it .

On DATE the applicant requested enforcement of the above order and again provided ORG with the respondent 's various addresses .

On DATE the respondent filed an appeal .

On DATE the applicant complained to the President of ORG , seeking speedy enforcement .

On DATE ORG accepted the respondent 's appeal , quashed the impugned order and instructed ORG to re - examine the issue of the applicant 's interim custody .

In DATE the applicant filed a separate civil claim against the respondent , seeking the removal of his parental rights . These proceeding were also brought before ORG and were at the time of adoption of this judgment apparently still ongoing .

Articles CARDINALb , CARDINAL and CARDINAL provided that all maintenance - related suits and child custody enforcement proceedings were to be dealt with by the courts urgently .

Under LAW all family - related disputes involving children must be resolved urgently . The first hearing must be scheduled within DATE of the date when the claim is filed . First instance courts should conclude the proceedings following CARDINAL hearings , and second instance courts must decide on appeal within DATE .

Similarly , LAW defines all maintenance suits as “ particularly urgent ” . The first hearing must be scheduled within DATE of the date when the claim is filed and second instance courts must decide on appeal within DATE .

This Act entered into force on DATE and thereby repealed ORG referred to above .

The relevant provisions of this Act provided as follows :

“ The court shall appoint a temporary representative to [ act on behalf of ] the respondent if it finds , in the course of the proceedings before the court of first instance , that the regular procedure for appointment of ... [ such a representative ] ... could last too long , resulting in harmful consequences for CARDINAL or both parties .

Under the conditions set forth in LAW , the court shall appoint a temporary representative ...

CARDINAL ) when the place of residence of the respondent is unknown and the respondent has no counsel ... ”

“ Written pleadings ... [ including initial claims aimed at the institution of court proceedings ] ... must state ... the name , occupation and the permanent or current address of the parties ... ”

“ ... [ C]ourt documents shall primarily be delivered through regular post but may also be delivered by a designated court employee [ “ the bailiff ” ] ... or directly in court . ”

“ If the person to whom a court document is to be delivered does not happen to be [ at home ] , the delivery shall be accomplished by serving the court documents on an adult member of his [ or her ] household who must receive them . If such persons also happen not to be [ at home ] , the ... [ court documents shall be served on ] ... the building manager or neighbour , if they agree .

If the delivery is to be performed at the office of a person who does not happen to be there , it may be accomplished by serving the court documents on a person working in the same office , if that person so agrees . ”

“ A complaint ... [ as well as ] ... a court decision against which a separate appeal may be filed shall be delivered to ... [ the respondent ] ... in person ...

If a person who is to be served ... does not happen to be at the place where the delivery is to be performed , the bailiff shall find out when and where that person can be found and shall leave a written notice with one of the persons mentioned in LAW , paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL of this LAW , requesting that he [ or she ] be present on a certain day and hour in his [ or her ] flat or office . If the bailiff does not find the person to be served even after this , he [ or she ] shall proceed in accordance with the provisions of LAW and the delivery shall thus be considered as having been carried out . ”

“ If the person to be served , an adult member of the household , ... or an employee of a ORG body or a legal entity refuses to receive the court documents without legal reason , the bailiff shall leave the said documents in the flat or at the office of that person or post it on the door of the flat or the office in question . The bailiff shall make a note on the delivery slip concerning DATE , hour and reason for refusal of reception , as well as the place where he or she left the court documents , and thus the service shall be considered accomplished . ”

“ When a party ... changes its place of residence or moves to another flat ... [ prior to the adoption of the final decision in the proceedings ] ... [ it ] ... shall immediately inform the court thereof .

If ... [ it ] ... fails to do so and the bailiff is unable to establish ... [ its ] ... new flat or place of residence , the court shall order that all further deliveries in respect of this party be posted on the court 's own notice board .

DATE ... [ thereafter ] ... the delivery at issue shall be deemed duly accomplished . ”

“ The court shall invite a party ... who ... [ is ] ... abroad and does not have a representative in ... [ GPE ] ... to ... authorise ... [ another person ] ... to receive all ... [ NORP court - related correspondence ] ... If the party ... fails to do so , the court shall appoint ... [ such a person ] ... on a temporary basis ... and at the party 's own expense ... ”

“ If a party is unable to establish the address of a person to whom the delivery is to be made , the court shall attempt to obtain relevant information from ... [ other ORG bodies ] ... or in some other way . ”

The substance of Articles CARDINAL § CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) , CARDINAL § CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL of this Act corresponds , in the relevant part , to that of the provisions of LAW quoted above .

In addition , Article CARDINAL provides that , should “ normal ” delivery during the course of the proceedings prove to be unsuccessful , all court documents shall be posted on the court 's own notice board and that DATE thereafter the delivery at issue shall be deemed duly accomplished .

Finally , under LAW and CARDINAL , parties may file an appeal on points of law ( “ revizija ” ) with ORG . They may do so under certain very specific conditions only and against a final judgment rendered at second instance .

This Act entered into force on DATE , thereby repealing LAW referred to above .

Article CARDINAL of LAW of DATE ( Zakon o izvršnom postupku ; published in ORG FRY nos . CARDINAL , CARDINAL ) , while placing special emphasis on the best interests of the child , states that there shall be an initial period of DATE for voluntary compliance with a child custody order . Beyond that , however , fines shall be imposed and , ultimately , if necessary , the child taken forcibly , in co - operation with ORG . Finally , LAW , only the enforcement order and the court 's decision in respect of any complaints filed against this order shall be served in accordance with the relevant civil procedure rules . In all other instances the court 's own notice board shall be made use of for this purpose .

LAW of CARDINAL ( Zakon o izvršnom postupku ; published ORG no . CARDINAL ) entered into force on DATE , thereby repealing LAW of DATE . In accordance with LAW , however , all enforcement proceedings instituted prior to DATE are to be concluded pursuant to LAW of DATE .

The relevant provisions of this LAW read as follows :

“ A party or another participant in the court proceedings shall have the right to complain about the work of a court when they consider the proceedings delayed , improper , or that there has been an [ untoward ] influence on their course and outcome . ”

“ The President of a higher instance court shall have the right to monitor the court administration of a lower instance court , and the President of a directly higher court shall have the authority to adopt an act from within the competence of the President of a lower instance court , if the latter omits to perform his duty .

The President of a higher instance court may request from the lower instance court information regarding the implementation of existing legislation , information concerning any problems about trials and all information regarding the work of the court .

The President of a higher instance court may order a direct inspection of the work of a lower instance court . ”

“ When a party to a case or another person taking part in the proceedings files a complaint , the President of the court must , having considered it , inform the complainant about his views concerning its merits as well as any measures taken in this respect , within DATE of receipt of the complaint .

If a complaint was filed through ORG or through a higher instance court , the Minister and the President of a higher court shall be informed of the merits of the complaint and of any measures taken in this respect . ”

DATE . Under LAW , inter alia , the President of a court must ensure that the court 's work is carried out in a timely manner . He or she shall also look into every complaint filed by a party to the proceedings in respect of delay and respond within DATE , giving his or her decision and , if necessary , ordering that steps be taken to remedy the situation .

DATE , inter alia , provides that ORG shall supervise the work of the courts in terms of their timeliness . Should certain problems be identified , the Ministry shall “ propose ” specific measures to be undertaken within DATE .

“ ORG shall set up a ORG [ “ PERSON odbor ” ] ( “ the Board ” ) .

ORG shall be composed of CARDINAL ORG judges elected for DATE by the plenary session of ORG . ”

“ In response to a complaint or ex officio , ORG is authorised to oversee judicial proceedings and look into the conduct of individual cases .

Following the conclusion of this process , the ORG may initiate , before ORG , proceedings for the removal of a judge based on his unconscientious or unprofessional conduct , or propose the imposition of other disciplinary measures . ”

Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL provides that a legal entity ( “ pravno lice ” ) , which includes the ORG , is liable for any damage caused by CARDINAL of “ its bodies ” ( “ njegov organ ” ) to a “ third person ” .

Under ORG CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW , inter alia , anyone who has suffered fear , physical pain or mental anguish as a consequence of a breach of “ personal rights ” ( “ prava ličnosti ” ) may , depending on their duration and intensity , sue for financial compensation before the civil courts and , in addition , request other forms of redress “ which may be capable ” of affording adequate non - pecuniary satisfaction .

Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL provides , inter alia , that “ whoever ” by means of “ deceit ” removes or holds another with the intent to ... coerce ” him or her , or another person , to “ endure something ” shall be sentenced to a prison term of DATE .

Under LAW anyone who , inter alia , obstructs the enforcement of a child custody decision shall be fined or sentenced to a prison term not exceeding DATE .

Article CARDINAL states that “ an official or another ' person in charge ' who refuses to enforce a final court decision , or does not enforce it within the period prescribed by law or a period set forth in the decision itself , shall be fined or sentenced to a prison term not exceeding two years ” .

DATE . The relevant provisions concerning ORG and GPE and the succession of ORG and GPE are set out in GPE judgment ( no . CARDINAL , § § CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL , DATE ) .


The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a GPE national , born in DATE , and he is currently in prison in GPE .

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

On DATE the applicant was convicted on CARDINAL counts of robbery , CARDINAL of attempted robbery , CARDINAL of carrying an imitation firearm and CARDINAL of using a firearm to resist arrest . He was sentenced to CARDINAL concurrent sentences amounting to DATE imprisonment .

On DATE he was convicted of CARDINAL charges of robbery and CARDINAL of carrying imitation firearms . He received a life sentence pursuant to section CARDINAL of LAW DATE and his tariff was fixed at DATE . In sentencing , the judge stated that DATE would have been the appropriate determinate sentence in his case and referred to the terror experienced by the victims of the robberies and the long - term traumatic effects .

The applicant did not seek leave to appeal against sentence . His application for permission to appeal against conviction was refused by ORG on DATE .

The DATE Act came into force on DATE . Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) and ( CARDINAL ) provide as follows :

“ ( CARDINAL ) This section applies where -

( a ) a person is convicted of a serious offence committed after the commencement of this section ; and

( b ) at the time when that offence was committed , he was DATE or over and had been convicted in any part of GPE of another serious offence .

( CARDINAL ) The court shall impose a life sentence , that is to say -

( a ) where the person is ORG over , a sentence of imprisonment for life ; ( b ) where he is DATE , a sentence of custody for life under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW DATE ,

unless the court is of the opinion that there are exceptional circumstances relating to either of the offences or to the offender which justify its not doing so .

( CARDINAL ) Where the court does not impose a life sentence , it shall state in open court that it is of that opinion and what the exceptional circumstances are . ”

Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) listed the offences considered “ serious ” for the purposes of the section . The offences listed in section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) were already punishable by a maximum of life imprisonment and they include rape .

In this case , decided after the entry into force of LAW DATE , ORG adopted a more flexible interpretation of the words “ exceptional circumstances ” in section DATE CARDINAL Act .

The appellants contended that section CARDINAL was incompatible with , inter alia , Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the Convention . ORG agreed that the manner of interpreting section DATE meant that that section could clearly operate in a disproportionate manner , it not being difficult to find examples of situations where it would be wholly disproportionate to impose a life sentence even for a second serious offence .

Noting that in the earlier case of PERSON [ DATE ] CARDINAL WLR CARDINAL an appeal had already been allowed where on the evidence it could not be concluded that the defendant did not present a serious and continuing danger to the public such as could justify the imposition of a life sentence , it considered that the problem would disappear if the words “ exceptional circumstances ” in CARDINAL were construed in a manner which accorded with the policy of ORG in adopting the section . That policy was to protect the public . Accordingly , a finding that an offender does not constitute a significant risk to the public should be considered to constitute “ exceptional circumstances ” which approach , ORG considered , would accord with parliamentary intent and with the provisions of the Convention .


No violation of Art. 3;Violation of Art. 13;Remainder inadmissible (other aspect of the Art. 3 complaint);Non-pecuniary damage - financial award;Costs and expenses award - Convention proceedings

The applicant was born in DATE and is currently detained in FAC

On DATE at TIME the applicant , who was working for a newspaper called GPE , was taken into police custody in the district of ORG in the province of GPE by police officers on suspicion of membership of an illegal organisation , namely ORG ) . At TIME she was taken to ORG , where a medical report was issued . In the report , the presence of a CARDINAL x QUANTITY . abrasion under the right eye was noted . It was stated that this abrasion had probably been caused as a result of an irritation . The medical report further indicated that there were no signs of ill - treatment on her body .

On DATE , the applicant was transferred to the province of GPE to be interrogated by LAW of ORG . Before being taken to ORG , at TIME the applicant was sent to ORG for a medical examination . The medical report indicated the presence of a hyperaemia under the right eye and an abrasion on the right side of the nose . Thereafter at TIME the applicant was taken to ORG for a gynaecological examination with a request to establish her virginity status . As she did not give her consent , the applicant did not undergo a gynaecological examination . At TIME the applicant was taken once again to ORG , this time for a rectal examination . As the applicant refused to be examined , no rectal examination was performed .

On DATE before being released from custody , the applicant was taken to ORG for a gynaecological and rectal examination . As she did not give her consent , the doctors did not perform the examinations . Subsequently , she was taken to ORG , where she was examined by a doctor . According to the doctor ’s report , no signs of ill - treatment were observed on the applicant ’s body .

On DATE the applicant was brought before the GPE public prosecutor . Before the public prosecutor , she denied the allegations against her and maintained that her police statement , dated DATE , had been taken under duress . She stated that she had been hosed with cold water , subjected to electric shocks and NORP hanging .

DATE the applicant was further brought before the investigating judge at FAC where she repeated her statement taken by the prosecutor . The investigating judge decided to place her in detention on remand on account of the evidence in the file and the nature of the offences against her .

On DATE the GPE public prosecutor declined jurisdiction and transferred the case to the public prosecutor at ORG .

In an indictment dated DATE , ORG initiated criminal proceedings against the applicant and accused her of being a member of an illegal organisation .

On DATE the applicant sent a letter to the court and retracted her statement made to the police , alleging that it was taken under duress . In this letter , she explained in detail the various forms of ill - treatments she had been allegedly subjected to in custody . In particular , she maintained that during her police custody she had been stripped naked , threatened with rape , beaten , hosed with cold water , subjected to electric shocks and hung from her arms .

On DATE ORG found that the applicant had been continuously working for the said illegal organisation . It therefore found the applicant guilty as charged under LAW and sentenced her to DATE months’ imprisonment .

On DATE the applicant submitted her appeal petition to ORG . While challenging the decision of the first - instance court , she particularly referred to her ill - treatment under custody . She also stated that she had been taken to the hospital on CARDINAL occasions during her police custody to undergo a gynaecological examination . She alleged that this treatment constituted degrading treatment .

On DATE ORG , upholding ORG reasoning and assessment of evidence , rejected the applicant ’s appeal .


Violation of Art. 14+8;Not necessary to examine Art. 8;Non-pecuniary damage - financial award;Costs and expenses partial award - domestic proceedings;Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings

The applicants were born in DATE and DATE respectively and live in GPE .

On DATE ORG ( PERSON für PERSON ) convicted the first applicant under LAW ) of homosexual acts with adolescents and sentenced him to DATE imprisonment suspended on probation for DATE . Relying mainly on the first applicant 's diary , in which he had made entries about his sexual encounters , the court found it established that DATE the first applicant had had , in GPE and in a number of other countries , homosexual relations either by way of oral sex or masturbation with numerous persons DATE , whose identity could not be established .

On DATE ORG ( Oberster Gerichtshof ) , upon the first applicant 's plea of nullity , quashed the judgment regarding the offences committed abroad .

NORP On DATE ORG resumed the proceedings , which had been discontinued as far as the offences committed abroad were concerned , and found the first applicant guilty under LAW of the offences committed in GPE , sentencing him to DATE imprisonment suspended on probation for a period of DATE .

On DATE ORG dismissed the first applicant 's plea of nullity in which he had complained that the application of LAW of LAW violated his right to respect for his private life and his right to non - discrimination and had suggested that ORG request ORG to review the constitutionality of that provision .

On DATE ORG ( Oberlandesgericht ) , upon the first applicant 's appeal , reduced the sentence to DATE imprisonment suspended on probation for DATE .

On DATE ORG convicted the second applicant under LAW of homosexual acts with adolescents , and on one minor count of misappropriation . It sentenced him to DATE imprisonment suspended on probation for DATE . The ORG found it established that on CARDINAL occasion the second applicant had had oral sex with a DATE .

On DATE ORG dismissed the second applicant 's appeal on points of law , in which he had complained that LAW was discriminatory and violated his right to respect for his private life and had suggested that ORG request ORG to review the constitutionality of that provision . It also dismissed his appeal against sentence . The decision was served on DATE .

Any sexual acts with persons DATE are punishable under ORG CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW .

Article CARDINAL of LAW , in the version in force at the material time , read as follows :

“ A male person who after attaining DATE fornicates with a person of the same sex who has attained the age of DATE but not the age of CARDINAL shall be sentenced to imprisonment for DATE . ”

This provision was aimed at consensual homosexual acts , as any sexual act of adults with persons DATE are punishable under LAW if the adult abuses a position of authority ( parent , employer , teacher , doctor , etc . ) . Any sexual acts involving the use of force or threats are punishable as rape , pursuant to LAW , or sexual coercion pursuant to LAW . Consensual heterosexual or lesbian acts between adults and persons over DATE are not punishable .

Offences under LAW were regularly prosecuted , an average of QUANTITY criminal proceedings being opened per year , out of which a third resulted in a conviction . As regards the penalties applied , a term of imprisonment usually exceeding DATE was imposed in PERCENT of the cases , of which PERCENT were not suspended on probation . According to information given by the Federal Minister of Justice in reply to a parliamentary question , in DATE CARDINAL persons were serving a term of imprisonment based only or mainly on a conviction under LAW and CARDINAL others were held in detention on remand in proceedings relating exclusively to charges under LAW .

On DATE , following ORG judgment of DATE ( see below ) , ORG decided to repeal LAW . It also introduced LAW , which penalises sexual acts with a person DATE if that person is for certain reasons not mature enough to understand the meaning of the act and the offender takes advantage of this immaturity or if the person DATE is in a predicament and the offender takes advantage of that situation . Article PERSON also penalises inducing persons DATE to engage in sexual activities in return for payment . Article CARDINALb applies irrespective of whether the sexual acts at issue are heterosexual , homosexual or lesbian . The above amendment , published in ORG ( ORG ) no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , came into force on DATE .

According to the transitional provisions , the amendment does not apply to criminal proceedings in which the judgment at first instance has already been given . It does exceptionally apply , subject to the principle of the application of the more favourable law , where a judgment is set aside , inter alia , following the reopening of the proceedings or in the context of a renewal of the proceedings following the finding of a violation of the Convention by ORG . Apart from these situations , convictions under LAW remain unaffected by the amendment .

In a judgment of PERCENT , ORG found that LAW was compatible with the principle of equality under constitutional law and in particular with the prohibition on gender discrimination contained therein . That judgment was given upon the complaint of a person who subsequently brought his case before ORG ( see PERSON v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , Commission decision of CARDINAL DATE , unreported ) .

NORP The relevant passage of ORG judgment reads as follows :

“ The development of the criminal law in DATE has shown that the legislature is striving to apply the system of criminal justice in a significantly more restrictive way than before in pursuance of the efforts it is undertaking in connection with its policy on the treatment of offenders , which have become known under the general heading of ' decriminalisation ' . This means that it leaves offences on the statute book or creates new offences only if such punishment of behaviour harmful to society is still found absolutely necessary and indispensable after the strictest criteria have been applied . The criminal provision which has been challenged relates to the group of acts declared unlawful in order to protect – in so far as strictly necessary DATE a young , maturing person from developing sexually in the wrong way . ( ' Homosexual acts are only offences of relevance to the criminal law inasmuch as a dangerous strain must not be placed by homosexual experiences upon the sexual development of young males ... ' PERSON , in PERSON / PERSON ( publishers ) , PERSON , DATE , paragraph CARDINAL on Article CARDINAL ... ) Seen in this light , it is the conviction of ORG that from the point of view of the principle of equality contained in LAW those legislating in the criminal sphere can not reasonably be challenged for taking the view , by reference to authoritative expert opinions coupled with experience gained , that homosexual influence endangers maturing males to a significantly greater extent than girls of the same age , and concluding that it is necessary to punish under the criminal law homosexual acts committed with young males , as provided for LAW CARDINAL of LAW . This conclusion was also based on their views of morality , which they wanted to impose while duly observing the current policy on criminal justice which aims at moderation and at restricting the punishment of offences ( while carefully weighing up all the manifold advantages and disadvantages ) . Taking everything into account , we are dealing here with a distinction which is based on factual differences and therefore constitutionally admissible from the point of view of LAW read in conjunction with LAW . ”

On DATE ORG dismissed ORG request to review the constitutionality of LAW of LAW .

ORG had argued , inter alia , that Article CARDINAL violated Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the Convention as the theory that male adolescents ran a risk of being recruited into homosexuality on which ORG had relied in its previous judgment had since been refuted . ORG found that the issue was res judicata . It noted that the fact that it had already given a ruling on the same provision did not prevent it from reviewing it anew , if there was a change in the relevant circumstances or different legal argument . However , ORG had failed to give detailed reasons for its contention that relevant scientific knowledge had changed to such an extent that the legislator was no longer entitled to set a different age - limit for consensual homosexual relations than for consensual heterosexual or lesbian relations .

On DATE , upon a further request for review made by ORG , ORG found that LAW was unconstitutional .

ORG had argued , firstly , as it had done previously , that LAW violated Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the Convention and , secondly , that it was incompatible with the principle of equality under constitutional law and with LAW , as a relationship between male adolescents aged DATE first legal , but became punishable as soon as one reached DATE and became legal again when the second one reached the age of DATE . ORG held that the second argument differed from the arguments which it had examined in its judgment of CARDINAL DATE and that it was therefore not prevented from considering it . It noted that LAW concerned only consensual homosexual relations between men aged over DATE and adolescents between CARDINAL and DATE . In DATE homosexual acts between persons of the same age ( for instance CARDINAL DATE ) or of persons with a one- to DATE age difference were not punishable . However , as soon as CARDINAL partner reached DATE , such acts constituted an offence under LAW . They became legal again when the younger partner reached the age of DATE . Given that LAW did not only apply to occasional relations but also covered ongoing relationships , it led to rather absurd results , namely a change of periods during which the homosexual relationship of CARDINAL partners was first legal , then punishable and then legal again and could therefore not be considered to be objectively justified .

In DATE ORG , ORG and ORG brought motions in ORG to repeal LAW . They argued in particular that in DATE the legislator had justified this provision on the theory that male adolescents were at a risk of being recruited into homosexuality while female adolescents were not . However , modern science had shown that sexual orientation was already established at DATE . Moreover , different ages of consent were not in line with NORP standards . In this connection they referred in particular to Recommendation CARDINAL ( DATE ) of ORG of ORG which had advocated equal ages of consent for heterosexual and homosexual relations . Protection of juveniles against sexual violence and abuse was sufficiently afforded by other provisions of LAW , irrespective of their sexual orientation .

Subsequently , on DATE , a sub - committee of ORG of ORG heard evidence from CARDINAL experts in various fields such as medicine , sexual science , Aids prevention , developmental psychology , psychotherapy , psychiatry , theology , law and human rights law . CARDINAL were clearly in favour of repealing LAW , an important argument for the experts in the fields of medicine , psychology and psychiatry being that sexual orientation was , in the majority of cases , established before DATE , which disproved the theory that male adolescents were recruited into homosexuality by homosexual experiences . Another recurring argument was that penalising homosexual relations made Aids prevention more difficult . CARDINAL experts were in favour of keeping LAW : CARDINAL simply stated that he considered it necessary for the protection of male adolescents ; the other considered that despite the fact that there was no such thing as being recruited into homosexuality , not all male adolescents were already sure of their sexual orientation and it was therefore better to give them more time to establish their identity .

On DATE ORG held a debate on the motion to repeal LAW . Those speakers who were in favour of repealing LAW relied on the arguments of the majority of the experts heard in the sub - committee . Of those speakers who were in favour of keeping LAW , some simply expressed their approval while others emphasised that they still considered the provision necessary for those male adolescents who were not sure of their sexual orientation . There was an equal vote at the close of the debate ( CARDINAL to CARDINAL ) . Consequently , LAW remained on the statute book .

On DATE ORG again brought a motion before ORG to repeal LAW . The ensuing debate followed much the same lines as before . The motion was rejected by CARDINAL votes to CARDINAL .

On DATE ORG decided to repeal LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .


Violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression -{General} (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression);Non-pecuniary damage - award

David Thór Björgvinsson;George Nicolaou;Lech Garlicki;Ledi Bianku;Nebojša Vučinić;Päivi Hirvelä;Vincent A. De Gaetano

The applicant , PERSON , is an NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in PERSON . At the material time she worked as a journalist for NORP , a DATE magazine .

NORP In DATE there was a public debate in the print and televised media in GPE on whether the regulations pertaining to strip clubs should be made stricter or whether such clubs should be banned . In DATE a magazine named ORG published an article discussing the links between such clubs and prostitution . It maintained that the conditions of strip club dancers originating from eastern LOC could be compared to human trafficking as defined in the relevant ORG instruments .

Subsequently , NORP published in its issue no . CARDINAL interviews with CARDINAL east NORP women who worked at a strip club called PERSON owned by PERSON They had stated that they were happy working for Mr Y and that the critical remarks made about strip clubs could only be explained by the envy of certain other women . In the same issue , NORP published the interviews of CARDINAL anonymous strip dancers who described negative aspects of their jobs , namely that it was accompanied by prostitution and drug addiction .

Thereafter NORP was contacted by a young NORP woman , PERSON , who offered to tell her story . She was a former strip dancer who had worked at several strip clubs and had worked for Mr Y. She said that she had felt offended at seeing strip dancing being portrayed as a glamorous career . Mrs Z met the applicant for an interview , which the applicant tape recorded and then typed up on the basis of the recording . The applicant sent the typed version to Mrs Z by e - mail for confirmation and consent to publish the story . PERSON responded in the affirmative .

On DATE NORP published in its issue no . CARDINAL an article based on the interview conducted by the applicant with PERSON introduction referred to the above - mentioned coverage in issue no . DATE . In the interview , PERSON described her work as a striptease dancer in various establishments , notably at PERSON owned PERSON article , which had a number of sub - headings , comprised , inter alia , PERSON description of prostitution which she was reported to have said went on unhindered in these establishments , for example at PERSON ; her drug addiction after she had started working as a striptease dancer ; and threats she had been subjected to in connection with her work . The front cover of the magazine displayed a photograph of PERSON , which was also found on the first inside page of the magazine next to an editorial by PERSON , the magazine ’s editor , dealing with the above - mentioned article . Photographs of Mrs Z also featured on the title page of the article , next to its main text and a photograph of Mr Y.

Alongside the latter photograph it was stated that the magazine had contacted him and had asked his opinion about PERSON account that he “ encourage[d ] girls who work[ed ] for him to engage in prostitution and act[ed ] as an intermediary in this respect ” . It was further stated :

“ [ Mr Y ] totally rejected this . ‘ I can categorically state that not one of my girl employees is encouraged to engage in prostitution . But , on the other hand , I can not prohibit acts by them in their free time.’ When it was put to him that prostitution reportedly took place within the walls of his club , his answer was that this was not , to his knowledge , true to fact . ‘ This is simply a tremendous lie and it seems that those who are successful must always be slandered . I have always tried to act as fairly as I possibly can towards my girls . I have been active in this branch for DATE , and I would not have retained my employees if I had asked them to do something against their will , ... [ Mr Y ] also was of the view that NORP ’s account of these matters was prompted by vicarious considerations , as NORP was published by the same company as GPE and GPE , against which he said that he had initiated legal proceedings . [ Mr Y ] was emphatic that no falsehood should be published about him or his business , and finally stated : ‘ I hope to God that you will not have any troubles on account of what you publish in your magazine.’ ”

On DATE and DATE Mr Y lodged defamation proceedings against the applicant , the editor , ORG , and Mrs Z before ORG . In his writ , in which he set out the CARDINAL judicial claims described below , he requested that the following statements published by NORP in the relevant issue , be declared null and void ( dauð og ómerk ) :

A. “ I ended up working for [ Mr Y ] , but there was a lot of prostitution at his clubs , and huge pressure was placed upon the girls who worked for him to engage in such activities . ”

B. “ [ Mr Y ] has always been strongly involved in prostitution which occurs inside his clubs . After dancing in private was banned , the prostitution has simply been carried out behind curtains allegedly used for the purpose of talking to the clients in private . ”

C. “ It varies a lot whether the clients pay [ Mr Y ] himself for the service or deal directly with the girls ... ”

D. “ I have overcome my fear of those men , although I have certainly been threatened with death and for a while I was too afraid to leave the house . ”

PERSON The girls he employs come here temporarily for DATE at a time and are treated as if they were in prison . ”

F. “ In between , they are really under house arrest in the building apart from a period of time during which they are permitted to go outside . ”

PERSON “ The reason for this is that girls were discovered to have found clients for themselves outside the club without [ Mr Y ] receiving a share of the fee ; he wants to control the prostitution himself . ”

A. “ Prostitution the rule rather than the exception . ”

B. “ Threatened with death . ”

C. “ Brought to GPE without any suspicion of what was going to happen . ”

A. “ Threatened with death if she told anyone . ” [ Published as a heading on the front page . ]

B. “ [ Mrs Z ] worked as a stripper and tells the NORP reporter all about the prostitution and the threats to her life . ” [ Published in a summary in the table of contents . ]

C. “ [ Mrs Z ] says the prostitution is allowed to continue unhindered and that it is conspicuous inside the striptease clubs . ” [ Published in a summary in the table of contents . ]

“ [ PERSON ] is incredibly brave to have the courage to step forward and tell her story despite having been threatened with death ... . ”

Mr Y argued that the responsibility for the statements in judicial claim no . CARDINAL lay mainly with PERSON or , in the alternative , with the applicant as the author of the article . The latter was responsible for the remarks in judicial claim no . CARDINAL and the defendant G.E.A. , as the magazine ’s editor , was responsible for the remarks in judicial claim no . CARDINAL . Alternatively , in the event that the court did not accept this claim , Mr Y requested that the applicant be held responsible as the author of the article referred to in the heading and summary in question .

In addition , Mr Y requested an order that the respondents , jointly and severally , be ordered to pay him CARDINAL NORP krónur ( ORG ) in respect of damages and LAW to cover the cost of publishing the judgment in the case in CARDINAL newspapers and also in the following issue of NORP .

In disputing the above claims , the applicant and the editor of NORP argued inter alia :

“ Most people would agree that the plaintiff is a controversial individual because of the activities in which he has been involved in PERSON and PERSON . The debate relating to the connection between striptease dancing and prostitution is tenacious , not least because abroad such operations are often run side by side , openly and in a legal manner , but also because of the nature of these activities . As an example of the persistence of such rumours in GPE , a report on human trafficking in GPE ( court document no . CARDINAL ) , by ORG in GPE , dating from DATE , could be mentioned . At page CARDINAL of the report , it is stated that during its compilation , a member of the embassy staff was offered sexual services at the restaurant PERSON . It is an established fact that the operation of pole - dancing establishments comprises obtaining girls , for the most part foreign nationals , for the purpose of dancing scantily clad or nude in front of the clients of the establishment , or in private cubicles , and , as indicated by the term , it is hard to observe everything that goes on inside such closedoff spaces . Furthermore , the plaintiff has admitted in public that there have been incidents at Goldfinger where clients were offered sexual services , cf . an interview with the plaintiff on ORG , DATE ( court document no . CARDINAL ) . Because of the mystique , among other things , which to most people , surrounds such activities as well as persistent rumours regarding prostitution and human trafficking , the defendants felt that a discussion of this matter would be of interest and relevance to the general public . The defendants refer , for example , to a news item contained in court document no . CARDINAL , which cites the Chief of Police in PERSON as stating in his report regarding a licence for PERSON that NORP research has shown striptease dancers to be subjected to various kinds of abuse and , in many cases , they become the victims of human trafficking or other crimes . The defendants feel that the plaintiff has to accept and tolerate controversial discussion with regard to the operation of PERSON .... The presentation of the plaintiff ’s case , however , is characterised by the shortcoming that he appears to identify himself with the operation of all the poledancing establishments in GPE . ”

In the course of the oral proceedings before ORG , Mr Y and PERSON concluded a judicial settlement agreement , whereby he withdrew his action against her . He maintained his claims against the applicant and the editor .

By a judgment of DATE ORG found that several of the statements originating from PERSON had been defamatory and that she in principle could be held liable but the action against her had been withdrawn . In contrast , the applicant and the editor could not be held liable and so ORG dismissed Mr Y ’s action against them .

Mr Y then appealed against ORG judgment to ORG .

The applicant and the editor referred to their arguments before ORG and disputed that the allegations that had formed the subjectmatter of Mr Y ’s defamation action had constituted defamatory statements and innuendos against him . In any event , with regard to judicial claim no . CARDINAL , according to section CARDINAL of LAW , the respondents could not be held responsible for the affirmations made by PERSON in the interview and who ought to be considered as their author . As to judicial claim no . CARDINAL , the disputed sub - headings had not contained innuendos directed against the appellant ’s honour or allegations to the effect that he had organised prostitution or other illicit activities . The interview had been conducted with PERSON who had spoken unreservedly about her experience of working as a striptease dancer in a number of striptease establishments . In processing the interview the applicant had used sub - headings in order to divide the text into chapters for clarification and to highlight each topic separately . She had only referred to the interviewee ’s words and had made no independent contribution . The same or similar considerations applied to judicial claims nos . CARDINAL and DATE . The conditions for liability under LAW no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL had not been fulfilled . The respondents had not made any allegations that exceeded their constitutionally protected right to freedom of expression ( LAW ) .

By a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG rejected Mr Y ’s appeal in so far as it concerned the editor . In so far as it concerned the applicant , it upheld judicial claim no . CARDINAL , items A to C and E to G , and judicial claim no . CARDINAL , item A. It ordered the applicant to pay the appellant ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL ( MONEY ( ORG ) ) in compensation for nonpecuniary damage and ORG CARDINAL , plus interest , for his costs before ORG and ORG . Its judgment contained the following reasons :

“ The main issue in dispute in the present case is whether the respondents are liable on the basis of section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) and ( CARDINAL ) of LAW , No . CARDINAL/CARDINAL for statements that [ the applicant ] had cited from the interviewee and whether headings and references which the respondents themselves had created , which they maintained was done in close connection with the words used by their interviewee , fell within the provision on freedom of expression in LAW . The grounds of the case of each party are sufficiently described in the judgment which is being challenged . As indicated therein , the plaintiff based his claim for the annulment of the remarks in judicial claim no . CARDINAL , items A to G , on the premise that they contained defamatory innuendos regarding his character , which are the responsibility of the [ applicant ] as the author of the article , see section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of Act No . CARDINAL . The title page of the article stated that its text had been prepared by [ the applicant ] . She confirmed at the court hearing that she had been the author of the article and had also formulated the sub - headings . She had determined the wording of the sub - headings , which , like the article , contained a near - verbatim rendering of [ Mrs Z ] ’s statements . This was indeed her ( [ Mrs Z ] ’s ) account . [ The applicant ] stated that she had tape - recorded the interview , used the recording as a foundation for the article and had sent the result to [ Mrs Z ] . Subsequently [ Mrs Z ] had confirmed by email that this was an accurate rendering of her account . When comparing the manuscript of the interview and its tape - recording , on the one hand , and the article in question with its subheadings , on the other hand , it is however clear that this is not a verbatim rendering of the interviewee ’s statements . However , it is also clear that the [ applicant ] in the main accurately rendered the substance of what her interviewee had said . As mentioned above , she had later confirmed that her story had been accurately rendered . Since the [ applicant ] is , as stated on the front page [ ... ] , the author of the text and has admitted to having written the article and its sub - headings , she is considered to be the author of the article and the sub - headings in the sense of section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of Act No . MONEY and as such bears responsibility for this work . It is of no consequence whether [ Mrs Z ] may also be regarded as the author of the article in the sense of this provision of the law .

By the remarks identified in items A , B , С and D of judicial claim no . CARDINAL of his claim , the plaintiff [ Mr Y ] is alleged to be guilty of offences under LAW [ ... ] , by organising for his own profit prostitution among the girls working for him on his LOC and by exerting pressure on them for this purpose . The words in items Ε and F , however , convey the suggestion that Mr Y had deprived the girls who worked for him of their freedom , which constituted an offence under LAW . The main text under the sub - heading ‘ Prostitution the rule rather than the exception’ contained , inter alia , the words specified in items A and B of judicial claim no . CARDINAL , as well as other allegations relating to [ Mr Y ] and his striptease LOC , PERSON . It is clear from the relationship between the main text and the heading , that the heading is directed against [ Mr Y ] . The same applies to this heading as to the remarks in judicial claim items A , PERSON , С and G above . The remarks identified in items A , B , C , E , F and G of judicial claim no . CARDINAL and the sub - heading referred to in item A of judicial claim no . CARDINAL constitute a violation of LAW . They do not comprise an expression of opinion or values but statements of fact that are not covered by LAW with respect to freedom of expression . In accordance with LAW ( CARDINAL ) of the LAW they are declared null and void by the court .

The words mentioned in item D of judicial claim no . CARDINAL were directed against unspecified persons , not against the appellant [ Mr Y ] . The sub - headings in items B and C of judicial claim no . CARDINAL were of a general nature ; nor did the text below those headings appear to link them to [ Mr Y ] . Therefore , the [ applicant ] is acquitted with respect to those judicial claims . The words indicated in judicial claim CARDINAL . CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the claim , for which the respondent [ editor , G.E.A. ] bears responsibility according to section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of Act No . CARDINAL , are also of a general nature and she is therefore acquitted with respect to these judicial claims .

The reasoning and conclusions of the present judgment are to be published in the first issue of NORP that appears after its delivery . However , the claim in respect of expenses for further publication are rejected .

Under section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of LAW No . CARDINAL , [ Mr Y ] is awarded compensation , to be paid by [ the applicant ] with respect to the abovementioned defamatory statements , in an amount of ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL , plus interest [ ... ] , which is deemed actionable . In accordance with this conclusion , the [ applicant ] is ordered to pay the appellant legal costs before ORG and ORG [ ... ] . In other respects , legal costs are not recoverable . ”

Article CARDINAL of the LAW of GPE No . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , read :

Article CARDINAL

“ Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and belief .

Everyone shall be free to express his thoughts , but shall also be liable to answer for them in court . The law may never provide for censorship or other similar limitations to freedom of expression .

Freedom of expression may only be restricted by law in the interests of public order or the security of the ORG , for the protection of health or morals , or for the protection of the rights or reputation of others , if such restrictions are deemed necessary and in agreement with democratic traditions . ”

The Penal Code No . CARDINAL contained in Chapter XXV , entitled “ Defamation of character and violations of privacy’ , the following relevant provisions :

Article CARDINAL

“ Any person who harms the reputation of another person by an insult in words or in deed , and any person spreading such insults shall be subject to fines or to imprisonment of DATE . ”

Article CARDINAL

“ If a person alleges against another person anything that might be harmful to his or her honour or spreads such allegations , he shall be subject to fines or to imprisonment of DATE . ”

Article CARDINAL

“ The making or spreading of an injurious allegation against a person ’s better knowledge , this shall be subject to up to DATE imprisonment .

If an allegation is published or spread in a public manner , even where the person spreading the allegation did not have a probable reason to believe it to be correct , this shall be subject to fines or up to CARDINAL years’ imprisonment . ”

Article CARDINAL

“ In a defamation action , defamatory remarks may be declared null and void at the demand of the injured party .

A person who is found guilty of a defamatory allegation may be ordered to pay to the injured person , on the latter ’s demand , a reasonable amount to cover the cost of the publication of a judgment , its main contents or reasoning , as circumstances may warrant in CARDINAL or more public newspapers or publications . ”

Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW No . CARDINAL/CARDINAL provided :

“ A person who

a. deliberately or through gross negligence causes physical injury or

b. is responsible for an unlawful injury against the freedom , peace , honour or person of another party

may be ordered to pay non - pecuniary damages to the injured party . ”

The Printing Act No . GPE , LAW on the liability for the contents of publications , contained the following relevant provisions .

Section CARDINAL

“ Any person who publishes , distributes , or is involved in the publishing or distribution , of any publication other than a newspaper or periodical shall bear criminal liability and liability for damages pursuant to the general rules of law if the substance of the publication violates the law . ”

Section CARDINAL

“ As regards liability for newspapers or magazines other than those listed in section DATE , the following rules shall apply :

The author is subject to criminal liability and liability for damages if he or she is identified and either resident in GPE when the publication is published or within NORP jurisdiction at the time proceedings are initiated .

If no such author is identified , the publisher or editor are liable , thereafter the party selling or distributing the publication , and finally the party responsible for its printing or lettering . ”

The Code of Ethics of ORG included the following provisions :

Article CARDINAL

“ A journalist will endeavour to do nothing which will bring discredit upon his or her profession or professional association , paper or newsroom . A journalist shall avoid any actions which could undermine the public opinion of PERSON work or damage the interests of the profession . A journalist shall always exhibit fairness in dealings with colleagues . ”

Article CARDINAL

“ A journalist is aware of his or her personal responsibility for what he or she writes . He or she shall bear in mind that he or she will generally be regarded as a journalist in his or her writings and speech , even when he or she is acting outside his or her profession . A journalist will respect the confidentiality of his or her sources . ”

Article CARDINAL

“ A journalist will exercise care in his or her gathering of material , the use of the material and presentation to the extent possible , and show due consideration in sensitive matters . A journalist shall avoid any actions which could cause unnecessary distress or dishonour . ”


Remainder inadmissible;No violation of Art. 6-1

Anatoly Kovler;Christos Rozakis;Elisabeth Steiner;George Nicolaou;Giorgio Malinverni;Khanlar Hajiyev

The applicant was born in DATE . Formerly a resident of the village of GPE of ORG in GPE , he is currently living in the town of GPE in GPE . He is a lawyer at ORG .

NORP In DATE the applicant was appointed head of the administration of ORG . In DATE the district administration stopped paying his salary because of lack of funds .

NORP In DATE NORP rebel fighters took power in PERSON , the capital of GPE .

NORP In DATE the NORP federal government regained control over ORG . In DATE the district administration was re - established and the applicant applied for payment of his salary . He states that the administration promised to pay his salary as soon as the money arrived from the federal budget .

NORP In DATE ORG ( “ the ORG ” ) started functioning , but it was located in GPE , the administrative centre of LOC of GPE , QUANTITY from GPE . The applicant submitted that he could not go to ORG to lodge his claim because of the poor overall security situation and a curfew imposed by the military . Moreover , he had no money for travel and accommodation there .

On DATE the applicant again applied to the district administration for payment of his salary . On DATE he received a reply from the head of the administration dated DATE in which the latter informed him that the salary would be paid as soon as funds were available .

Sometime after DATE ORG moved from ORG .

NORP On DATE the applicant brought a court action with ORG against the district administration for payment of salary arrears over the period DATE and DATE .

On DATE he lodged a formal request for reinstatement of time - limits for lodging his claim . It read as follows :

“ Courts started functioning in GPE in DATE . Therefore , I could lodge a claim against the administration of ORG for salary arrears due for my work as head of administration of ORG in DATE only from that moment . However , in the beginning the court was located in ORG and it was difficult to go there because of numerous checkpoints , curfew and lack of money for travel . Furthermore , on numerous occasions I have applied to the administration of ORG with requests to pay me the salary arrears , considering that my claims were lawful . On DATE I received a letter signed by the head of the administration of ORG , from which it emerged that the payment of salary arrears had again been postponed . Until the last moment I hoped that the salary arrears would be paid to me voluntarily , as it was an obligation of any state authority .

For the above reasons I missed the time - limits for lodging a claim against the administration of ORG for salary arrears .

Taking into consideration the above statements and in accordance with LAW I request [ ORG ] to restore the procedural time - limit for lodging a claim for salary arrears . ”

On DATE ORG held a hearing in the applicant ’s case . According to the record of the hearing , the applicant gave the following explanation as regards his failure to comply with the timelimits :

“ I applied to a court only on DATE as I did not know that law established the time - limits for applying to a court . I request the court to reinstate the time - limits for applying to a court and to recover salary arrears ... ”

The defendant accepted the applicant ’s salary claims only for the period DATE and submitted that the applicant would receive the arrears as soon as funds were available .

On DATE ORG adopted a judgment in the case , which in its relevant part provided as follows :

“ ... [ Mr PERSON ] applied to the court only on DATE because he did not know that law established the time - limits for applying to a court and he requests the court to reinstate the time - limit for applying to the court and to recover salary arrears ...

The defendant ’s representative submitted that ... ORG agreed to pay the applicant salary arrears for the period DATE as soon as the funds were available .

Having regard to the parties’ submissions and having read the materials of the case , the court comes to the following conclusion :

... According to LAW an application concerning the settlement of a labour dispute is to be lodged with a district court within DATE when an employee knew or should have known about the violation of his right . In violation of this statutory provision , the applicant did not apply to a court DATE , when the courts started functioning in GPE , and DATE . The court considers that the applicant ’s arguments that he had missed the time - limits because the head of administration of LOC had promised to pay him salary and that he was not aware of time - limits are unsubstantiated .

Therefore the court comes to a conclusion that the applicant missed the time - limit without any valid reason and that there are no grounds to restore it . ”

The applicant alleged that the presiding judge had relied on an order from “ higher ” authorities not to accept claims similar to that of the applicant ’s for examination on the merits and that he had to seek advice from judge PERSON of ORG of GPE ( “ the Supreme Court ” ) . The applicant also indicated that the presiding judge had been appointed for DATE and therefore he could not be considered independent .

The applicant provided the ORG with a copy of the decision delivered by ORG on DATE in a case of a certain PERSON , who had claimed from the district administration salary arrears due to his wife . He submitted that his wife had been killed in DATE and that he was in a very difficult financial situation because he had borrowed money to bury her . ORG restored the time - limit for lodging his claim and examined it on the merits . It held as follows :

“ ... the court finds that the plaintiff missed the time - limit for a valid reason , because no courts were functioning in GPE DATE , and DATE the court was based in PERSON and he could not have applied there for lack of funds ... ”

On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal with ORG against the judgment of DATE . In so far as he contested the application of time - limits in his case , the applicant made CARDINAL arguments .

In the first place he submitted that he had applied for the reinstatement of time - limits because ORG requested him to do so . However , LAW could not be applied in his case , as the antiterrorist operation was still going on in GPE . On DATE he had received a letter from the head of the district administration by which he was informed that his salary arrears would be paid as soon as funds were available . Therefore his right had been infringed at DATE . The DATE time - limit had started to run from DATE and he had applied to the court in due time .

Secondly , assuming that he had missed the time - limit , ORG could and should in accordance with LAW accept that he had missed the time - limit for valid reasons which were as follows :

“ ( a ) I was appointed head of a rural administration in DATE and worked in this position in very difficult conditions , sometimes at risk to my life .

( b ) I think that it is a matter of honour for the NORP state to pay at least salary arrears to heads of administrations of communities which were appointed in that period and who had worked with federal authorities .

( c ) On numerous occasions I have applied orally to ORG . And when I was told that there were no funds , that I would have to wait and that I would be paid , I continued to wait , believing the authorities and understanding the situation which existed in the Republic .

( d ) ORG should not have punished me , as it did , and taken the side of those who in that period killed and continue to kill people who work for the state . As a matter of fact , ORG have now punished me for my work for the state in DATE .

( e ) There existed no legal conditions in GPE to apply LAW in labour disputes involving state authorities because of the circumstances which existed in DATE . ”

The applicant requested the appeal court to take into account the above circumstances , to quash the judgment of DATE and deliver a new decision in his case .

On DATE ORG , comprising judges PERSON and PERSON and presided over by Judge PERSON , upheld the judgment of DATE . It held as follows :

“ ... Having regard to the materials of the case and to the submissions by the plaintiff , ORG finds that the judgment is lawful and reasoned .

According to LAW an application concerning the settlement of a labour dispute is to be lodged with a court within DATE when an employee knew or should have known about the violation of his right . However , since DATE the plaintiff has not made such an application to a court .

The [ Town ] court has thoroughly examined the submitted evidence and reasonably found that the reasons advances by the plaintiff for missing the time - limit were not valid and refused to restore the time - limit . ”

The applicant was present at the hearing . He alleged that Judge PERSON , to whom , ORG judge had allegedly referred , was a member of the court . Furthermore , according to the applicant , his appeal was not examined in a public hearing , but took place in CARDINAL of the rooms in the ORG building .

Article CARDINAL of the NORP Labour Code of DATE ( in force at the material time ) provided in its relevant part that an application concerning the settlement of a labour dispute had to be lodged with a district court within DATE when an employee knew or should have known about the violation of his right . In instances where the periods established in that Article lapsed for justifiable reasons , they could be reinstated by a court .

Article CARDINAL of ORG ( in force at the material time ) provided in its relevant parts that in cases where individuals missed the statutory time - limits for reasons which the court considered valid , the time - limits could be restored by a court . An application for reinstatement of time - limits had to be lodged with a court with jurisdiction to take a procedural decision on the matter , and had to be examined in a hearing . A claim in respect of which the time - limits had expired had to be lodged together with the application for reinstatement of the time - limits .

Ruling of the plenary session of ORG of GPE of DATE No . CARDINAL ( applied until DATE ) “ On Some Issues related to ORG of GPE when resolving ORG ” provided in relevant parts of paragraph CARDINAL that a judge could not refuse to accept a claim for consideration on the ground of expiration of time - limits , as LAW did not provide for such a possibility . Where a court considered that the time - limits had not been respected for valid reasons , it had to restore them . In cases where a court , after having thoroughly examined the materials of the case , established that the time - limits had not been complied with for a non - valid reason , it had to dismiss the claim .