Remainder inadmissible;No violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2 - Positive obligations) (Procedural aspect)

András Sajó;Egidijus Kūris;Guido Raimondi;Helen Keller;Nebojša Vučinić;Robert Spano

The applicant was born in 1973 and lives in Diyarbakır. At the time of the events giving rise to the present application, the applicant was a member of the DTP (Party for a Democratic Society), a pro-Kurdish political party whose dissolution was ordered by the Constitutional Court in 2009, and a member of the Parliament of Turkey. The applicant is currently the co-chair of the HDP (People’s Democratic Party).

In 11 October 2007 an article entitled “Turk, here is your enemy” (Türk, işte karşında düşmanın) was published in a Bolu local newspaper, the Bolu Express. The article in question was also published on the newspaper’s website. In it, the author, Mr I.E., made the following statements:

Here are some newspaper titles from the last few days:

- A landmine exploded in Diyarbakır. One non-commissioned officer was martyred and three privates were injured.

- Twelve village guards were killed while returning to their village in Beytüşşebap.

- Attack on a military unit with a rocket-propelled grenade in the Başkale district of Van. A soldier was martyred.

- A landmine exploded in the region of Namaz mountain, in Şırnak. A specialist sergeant was martyred.

- Ambush in the region of Gabar mountain, in Şırnak. 13 soldiers were martyred.

These are news articles which we have come across by chance over the last week or ten days.

I would not be surprised if, after research, we found other similar news stories.

For almost 25 years, you have deceived us with statements such as ‘they will be avenged’, ‘we are more determined than ever’ or ‘we will eradicate it’.

We have had enough of your lies and fairy tales.

Civilians and the military, are you fooling children?

Or are you mocking the nation?

Can there be a State or an army which cannot defeat three to five thousand ‘looters’?

Shame on you, since you cannot defeat them.

If you are a State, be a State. If you are the Legislature, act as one. If you are the Government, govern. If you are the Judiciary, do what you have to do.

It is enough. This has been the last straw!

We went crazy when we heard that thirteen soldiers from the Bolu Commando Brigade had been killed last Sunday.

How can one preserve one’s sanity?

While the instigators of the terrorists who kill our soldiers, policemen, civilians and our protectors without hesitation are under the roof of the Grand National Assembly of Turkey,

While there are DTP mayors and provincial and district administrators who call these terrorist murderers ‘my brothers/my sisters’ and who wash the carcasses of terrorists who die like dogs,

Is it right to chase those who are in the mountains? Are the hit men the real murderers?

Do you know who the real murderers are?

The real murderers are those who use yellow, green and red, the colours of the PKK, in their political party’s flag. They are those who back the bullets of the members of the PKK, murdering bastards, and who call them their brothers and sisters. The real murderers are those who instigate murder.

They are: the President of the DTP (Party for a Democratic Society) A.T; the DTP’s Members of Parliament, namely A.A.A., B.Y., M.N.K., A.B., Selahattin Demirtaş, G.K., A.T., P.B., S.T., E.A., S.S., M.N.Y., O.Ö., İ.B., S.B., H.K., Ş.H., F.K., Ö.Ü.; the members of the DTP’s executive council ... and all DTP mayors and presidents of DTP provincial and district branches.

Great Turkish Nation, here is your enemy.

These persons will be the target of ‘civilian patriots’ as the enemies of Turks, if they do not state that the PKK is a separatist terrorist organisation and that its members are traitors.

Instead of chasing the terrorists in the mountains, a few microbes should be ‘wiped out’ and the question should be put to them – ‘one from us, five from you: do you still wish to continue?’ Of course, there will be patriots who will be able to do this. This is society’s intense desire.

It is now the majority’s wish that for every security officer who is killed, one of these people should share the same fate. It is time to cut out those organs which suffer from necrosis.

May God rest the souls of our martyrs and give patience to their families. We sincerely share their pain. We also offer our condolences to the Bolu Commando Brigade.

Tomorrow is the sacred Eid. Could you celebrate if you were the parents or siblings of one of the thirteen brave soldiers who lost their lives for their country in the region of Gabar mountain, in Şırnak? Think about it. May your Eid be blessed although it is sad and painful.”

On 2 November 2007 the applicant’s lawyer filed a petition with the Bolu public prosecutor’s office, requesting that a criminal investigation be initiated and that Mr I.E. be punished for incitement to commit a crime and incitement to disrespect the law, and for insulting his client. The lawyer also noted that Mr I.E. had committed these offences through the press. In his petition, the applicant’s lawyer stressed that two recent murders (those of Andrea Santoro, a Catholic priest, and Hrant Dink, the editor-in-chief of AGOS, a bilingual Turkish-Armenian newspaper published in Istanbul) had been committed subsequent to publication of articles on the Internet. He stated that the content of the article openly incited society to kill the persons listed in it, including the applicant, and that by using the expression “murderer” in respect of the applicant, the author had insulted him.

On an unspecified date Mr I.E. sent a petition to the Bolu public prosecutor containing his defence submissions. He maintained at the outset that he had defended the Turkish Republic and the Turkish military forces throughout his life. He further contended that, had he committed an offence in his article as alleged by the complainant, then he had committed it under severe provocation. He submitted that the complainant had never condemned the PKK’s activities and that he had referred to PKK members as “brothers and sisters”. Mr I.E. noted that he had been demonstrating solidarity with the families of the martyrs killed by the terrorists and that, were his solidarity to be regarded as an offence, then as a Turkish nationalist he was proud of committing the offence in question. He also claimed that he had criticised the DTP’s ideology and activities in his article and had intended to inform society. He contended that a case had been brought before the Constitutional Court for the DTP’s dissolution, and that the content of his article had been similar to the indictment brought by the Chief Public Prosecutor at the Court of Cassation in that case. He had not used the word “Kurdish” in his article, since he accepted all citizens of Turkey as Turkish. Until the complainant stated “How happy is he who says ‘I am a Turk’”, he would struggle against him. He also maintained that in view of the hundreds of cases brought against DTP members on charges of separatism, aiding and abetting the PKK and hostility towards the State, the complainant had been shameless in daring to file a complaint against him. He further noted that he had targeted those who were terrorists, that is, PKK members, and if the complainant considered himself the subject of the article, then he (Mr I.E.) had been right to identify him as a target. Mr I.E. maintained that nobody had been hurt as a result of his article, but that many people had died as a result of terrorism. At the end of his submissions, he again noted that the applicant had been unable to say “How happy is he who says ‘I am a Turk’” and that, therefore, the applicant’s Turkishness was open to doubt.

On 7 December 2007 the Bolu public prosecutor decided not to bring criminal proceedings against Mr I.E. In his decision, the public prosecutor stated that the article had been drafted as a reaction to the PKK, an organisation recognised internationally as a terrorist organisation, which had carried out acts of terrorism and killed both civilians and soldiers. According to the public prosecutor, after listing the killings committed by the PKK, the author had stated his opinion as to why society and the State should act together against the killings committed by the PKK and had articulated public reaction and anger in the face of those killings. The author had even criticised the State’s activities in relation to acts of terrorism. The Bolu public prosecutor held that Mr I.E. had severely criticised the DTP, which had not condemned the PKK’s illegal activities and which was considered to have failed to act side by side with society and the State. The public prosecutor considered that the article expressed the author’s opinions and offered a number of proposals with a view to eradicating the terrorist organisation in issue.

The Bolu public prosecutor further noted that the PKK’s supporters had described the organisation’s so-called political aims in the press and elsewhere, although its activities had created great anger and hatred in society. The public prosecutor maintained that articles had also appeared in the press expressing society’s anger and hatred. In spite of all these publications, there had been no armed conflict between different ethnic groups in Turkey, due to the culture of tolerance, respect and understanding which existed in the country. The Bolu public prosecutor stated that in the light of the aforementioned sociological and political background in Turkey, the article should be considered as using freedom to disseminate information, to criticise and to comment within the context of freedom of the media, given that it contained somewhat exaggerated criticism of a political party, its members and activities.

In his decision, the public prosecutor considered that the case was comparable to another case. According to the judgment in that case, which contained a reference to the Court’s judgment in Prager and Oberschlick v. Austria (26 April 1995, Series A no. 313), in cases concerning defamation, if a factual basis existed, then certain expressions could not be regarded as extreme. Considering that freedom of the media included the expression of social reactions and opinions using strong language, and referring to the above-mentioned domestic judgment, the public prosecutor concluded that there was no reason to bring a case against Mr I.E.

On 30 July 2008 the applicant’s lawyer objected to the decision of 7 December 2007. In his pleadings, the lawyer reiterated the arguments contained in the submissions of 2 November 2007. He further maintained that the content of Mr I.E.’s article had been alarming and that the DTP members who were named in the article had been marked as targets on account of their adherence to a political opinion. He also noted that the applicant had not been alone in being affected by the article’s content; it posed a further threat to society as a whole. Lastly, the applicant’s lawyer contended that the public prosecutor’s finding that there had been a factual basis for the author’s expressions in the article demonstrated that he had taken the applicant’s political identity into account in issuing his decision.

On 21 August 2008 the Düzce Assize Court dismissed the applicant’s objection, holding that the decision of 7 December 2007 had been correct. On 18 September 2008 this decision was served on the applicant’s lawyer.

In October 2008 a number of news reports were published in the national press and on the Internet, according to which Mr Mehmet Ali Şahin, Minister of Justice at the relevant time, had set out his position with regard to the investigation into Mr I.E. Mr Şahin stated that, in his view, the content of the article in issue should not have been protected within the scope of the right to freedom of thought and expression. The Ministry of Justice would therefore apply to the Court of Cassation and request that the decision of 21 August 2008 be quashed.

On 15 October 2008, through the public prosecutor’s office at the Court of Cassation, the Ministry of Justice applied to the Court of Cassation.

On 30 September 2009 the Court of Cassation issued its decision on the Ministry’s request. It noted that the applicant had lodged his objection to the decision of 7 December 2007 outside the relevant time-limit and that the Düzce Assize Court had incorrectly examined the decision on the merits. Considering that the Düzce Assize Court’s decision had nevertheless brought about the correct result, namely dismissal of the objection, the Court of Cassation dismissed the Ministry’s request.


Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court);Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions)

The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table.

The applicants complained of the non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of domestic decisions and of the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law.


Carlo Ranzoni;Egidijus Kūris;Ganna Yudkivska;Marko Bošnjak;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque

The applicant, Mr Aidas Kazlauskas, is a Lithuanian national who was born in 1968 and is detained in Lukiškės Remand Prison. He was represented before the Court by Ms L. Meškauskaitė, a lawyer practising in Vilnius.

The Lithuanian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms K. Bubnytė.

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

The applicant has been serving a life sentence since 1994. In 2005 he was transferred to Pravieniškės Correctional Facility. In April 2005 the applicant attempted to murder another convicted inmate and in 2007 he was transferred back to Lukiškės Remand Prison. In his written appeal concerning his conviction for the attempt of murder, the applicant asked to be transferred back to Lukiškės Remand Prison and never to be returned to freedom, because he was afraid of liberty.

In 2009 the applicant married. At that time his wife was also serving a sentence in Lukiškės Remand Prison but in 2011 was transferred to Panevėžys Correctional Facility.

In June 2011 the applicant wrote to the administration of Lukiškės Remand Prison requesting a visit from his spouse; the duration of the visit was not specified in the applicant’s request. His request was granted; however, the director of Panevėžys Correctional Facility refused to allow his wife to attend the visit, referring to the provisions of domestic law (see paragraph 19 below).

In July 2011 the applicant complained to the Parliamentary Committee on Human Rights about the refusal of Panevėžys Correctional Facility to bring his wife to the visit. The complaint was forwarded to the Prison Department. In August 2011 it issued a response stating that the applicant did not have a right to long-term conjugal visits because he was serving his sentence in prison. The Prison Department stated that the law did not provide for short–term visits for spouses who were both convicted and serving their imprisonment sentences. In February 2012 he received similar response from the Parliamentary Committee on Human Rights. In the same month the applicant also received a response from the Ministry of Justice stating that long-term conjugal visits were not available to convicted inmates serving their sentences in prison. He was also informed that, in accordance with the provisions of domestic law, he would have been entitled to a long-term conjugal visit if he had been transferred to a correctional facility.

In September 2012 the Parliamentary Commission on Petitions examined the applicant’s proposal to amend the Code for the Execution of Sentences, so it allowed the spouses who were both serving their imprisonment sentences, and one of them was serving his or her sentence in prison, to have three long-term or short-term visits per year without the guards’ supervision. The Parliamentary Commission on Petitions held that the applicant’s proposal did not follow the principles of just and progressive execution of sentences and that if the applicant’s proposal had been adopted, the convicted spouses, both serving their sentences in correctional facilities, would have been deprived of visits, and would be discriminated. It was also observed that in a number of European Union Member States long-term conjugal visits were not allowed for convicted prisoners, and that they could communicate with their family members through short-term or home visits, as well as telephone conversations and letters.

The applicant brought court proceedings complaining about the refusal of his request to be allowed a short-term visit of up to four hours from his imprisoned spouse without guards’ supervision. The representative of Panevėžys Correctional Facility claimed that long-term conjugal visits were not allowed if one of the spouses was serving his or her sentence in prison. Convicted inmates, serving their sentences in prisons, had a right to short-term visits but this right was restricted by the provisions of domestic law (see paragraph 19 below). The Prison Department stated that the contested provision of domestic law was not applicable to convicted inmates, serving their sentences in prisons because such persons had a right only to short-term visits. But because the provisions of domestic law were silent about short-term visits when both spouses were serving their prison sentences, the Prison Department considered that short-term visits were not available to persons in the applicant’s situation. On 12 July 2012 the Panevėžys Regional Administrative Court held that the applicant and his wife had a right to a short-term visit of up to four hours and that his wife also had a right to a long-term conjugal visit of up to two days. The court also noted that, under the provisions of domestic law, the applicant could see his spouse at a short-term visit without guards’ supervision, in equipped premises, upon the approval of the prison director. The court therefore ordered Panevėžys Correctional Facility to organise a short-term visit of up to four hours for the applicant and his wife.

The Prison Department appealed, and on 20 December 2012 the Supreme Administrative Court held that a convicted inmate serving a life sentence in prison and belonging to the “ordinary” group of prisoners had a right to short-term visits of up to four hours every two months. However, the court also held that the court of first instance should not have ordered the Panevėžys Correctional Facility to organise a short-term visit and instead ordered it to reconsider the applicant’s request to be allowed a shortterm visit.

Following the decision of the Supreme Administrative Court (see paragraph 10 above), on 6 February 2013 Panevėžys Correctional Facility decided that the applicant’s wife could attend a short-term visit of up to four hours at Lukiškės Remand Prison.

On 25 April 2013 the applicant received a response from Panevėžys Correctional Facility stating that it had decided to allow his wife to attend a short-term visit at Lukiškės Remand Prison.

The applicant was granted short-term visits of up to four hours with his imprisoned spouse on five occasions in 2013 (14 May, 31 July, 30 September, 8 October and 10 December), six occasions in 2014 (12 February, 15 April, 18 June, 19 August, 22 October and 30 December), five occasions in 2015 (3 March, 5 April, 7 June, 8 September and 10 November) and five occasions in 2016 (12 January, 30 March, 31 May, 9 August and 6 September). The applicant used his right to ask for additional short-term visits and was granted them on 30 September 2013 and 6 September 2016.

According to the information available to the Court, the applicant never requested any long-term conjugal visits from his wife; he also never complained that he was not provided with more short-term visits up to four hours.

In February and July 2016 the applicant refused to participate in social rehabilitation programmes.

Article 62 § 1 provides that there are four types of correctional institutions: correctional facilities, juvenile correctional facilities, prisons and open colonies.

Article 72 provides that convicted inmates serving their sentences in a correctional facility are divided into ordinary, light and disciplinary groups. At the material time, Article 73 provided that convicted inmates in a correctional facility assigned to the ordinary group of prisoners had a right to receive one long-term and one short-term visit every three months. Since an amendment that came into force on 1 January 2017, convicted inmates in a correctional facility assigned to the ordinary group of prisoners have had the right to two long-term and one short-term visit every two months.

Article 84 provides that convicted inmates in prisons are assigned to ordinary and disciplinary groups of prisoners. Article 85 § 1 provides that convicted inmates in prisons assigned to the ordinary group of prisoners have a right to receive one short-term visit every two months. Article 85 § 2 provides that a short-term visit may take place without the supervision of a representative of the correctional facility. In such cases, visits take place in special premises.

At the material time, Article 94 § 1 provided that convicted inmates had the right to short-term visits of up to four hours and long-term visits of up to forty-eight hours. The nature and number of visits depended on the group of convicted inmates and the correctional institution. Article 94 § 6 provided that a husband and wife both serving prison sentences were allowed to have two long-term visits a year.

Article 165 § 1 provides that life prisoners serve their sentences in prison. Convicted inmates who have served the first ten years of their life sentence may, taking into account their behaviour in prison and the security risk they pose, at the request of the prison administration or by a decision of the district court be transferred to a correctional facility for the remainder of their sentence.

At the material time, Article 51 of the Criminal Code provided that life prisoners served their sentences in prison.


Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Length of pre-trial detention)

Branko Lubarda;Georgios A. Serghides;Pere Pastor Vilanova

The applicant was born in 1985 and lives in Perm.

On 22 April 2008 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of drug dealing and was placed in pre-trial detention on the ground that he was suspected of committing a serious offence, was a foreign national, had no permanent place of residence in Perm, no job, no income, he could abscond and commit crimes.

On 18 June 2008 the Permskiy District Court of the Perm Region extended his pre-trial detention on the same grounds.

On 5 August 2008 the Permskiy District Court issued the first conviction which was quashed by the Perm Regional Court on 14 October 2008. The court held that the applicant should remain in detention without indicating any reasons.

By decisions of 1 November 2008 and 18 March 2009, as upheld on appeal, the Permskiy District Court extended the applicant’s pre-trial detention reiterating its earlier reasoning and stating that he could interfere with the investigation and put pressure on witnesses.

On 20 May 2010 the District Court issued a new conviction. On 14 December 2010 the Perm Regional Court quashed this conviction. The applicant remained in detention.

On 26 May 2011 the Perm Regional Court convicted the applicant of drug dealing and smuggling and sentenced him to 10 years’ imprisonment. On 25 October 2011 the Supreme Court of Russia commuted the sentence to 8 years’ imprisonment.


Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention;Procedure prescribed by law)

André Potocki;Angelika Nußberger;Carlo Ranzoni;Erik Møse;Khanlar Hajiyev;Síofra O’Leary;Yonko Grozev

The applicant was born in 1980 and lives in Pleven.

On 25 April 2012 he was arrested in Sofia and subsequently charged with the unlawful possession of firearms and ammunition. He remained in detention on remand throughout the pre-trial proceedings. Eventually he entered into a plea agreement with the prosecution, acknowledging that he had committed the offence he had been charged with and accepting a suspended sentence of two years’ imprisonment.

The plea agreement was approved at a court hearing before the Sofia District Court on 7 June 2012. The court’s decision was final. At the end of the hearing, at 5.16 p.m., the court ordered the discontinuation of the applicant’s pre-trial detention.

After the hearing the applicant was brought to the Sofia Investigative Service, where his pre-trial detention was formally discontinued at about 7 p.m. However, he was not released but was instead taken to a police station, where he remained throughout the night and the next day. On the morning of 9 June 2012 he was transferred to the city of Pleven where, by an order issued at 12.10 p.m., he was once again formally placed in police custody. That measure was taken in the context of another set of criminal proceedings against the applicant which had been instigated in April 2012. On 10 June 2012 the investigator in charge of that case brought charges against the applicant in connection with another count of unlawful possession of firearms.

In the proceedings before the Court, the Government submitted an order dated 8 June 2012, issued by the investigator in charge of the case in Pleven and requiring that the applicant be taken by the police to appear before her in order to have charges brought against him. The order referred, in particular, to Article 71 §§ 1, 2 and 3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (see paragraph 12 below) and, by way of justifying the need to bring the applicant by force, stated that there was a risk of his absconding. The Government explained that by the time that order had been received by the police in Sofia, it had become impossible to organise the applicant’s transfer to Pleven the same day. That is why the applicant had been kept in the police station overnight and was only transported to Pleven the next day, 9 June 2012.


CASE OF MOZER v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA AND RUSSIA

Preliminary objections dismissed (Article 35-3 - Ratione loci;Ratione personae) (Russia);Preliminary objection dismissed (Article 35-1 - Exhaustion of domestic remedies) (the Republic of Moldova);Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect) (Russia);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention) (Russia);Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for family life) (Russia);Violation of Article 9 - Freedom of thought conscience and religion (Article 9-1 - Freedom of religion) (Russia);Violation of Article 13+3 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 3 - Prohibition of torture;Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Russia);Violation of Article 13+8-1 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life;Article 8-1 - Respect for family life) (Russia);Violation of Article 13+9-1 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 9 - Freedom of thought conscience and religion;Article 9-1 - Freedom of religion) (Russia);No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect) (the Republic of Moldova);No violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention) (the Republic of Moldova);No violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for family life) (the Republic of Moldova);No violation of Article 9 - Freedom of thought conscience and religion (Article 9-1 - Freedom of religion) (the Republic of Moldova);No violation of Article 13+3 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 3 - Prohibition of torture;Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (the Republic of Moldova);No violation of Article 13+8-1 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life;Article 8-1 - Respect for family life) (the Republic of Moldova);No violation of Article 13+9-1 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 9 - Freedom of thought conscience and religion;Article 9-1 - Freedom of religion) (the Republic of Moldova);Pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction) (Russia);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction) (Russia)

Dean Spielmann;Dmitry Dedov;Erik Møse;George Nicolaou;Guido Raimondi;Ján Šikuta;Johannes Silvis;Josep Casadevall;Kristina Pardalos;Luis López Guerra;Mark Villiger;Mihai Poalelungi;Nebojša Vučinić;Paul Lemmens;Paul Mahoney;Ksenija Turković

I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE

The applicant is a Moldovan national belonging to the German ethnic minority. He was born in 1978 and lived in Tiraspol until 2010. Since 2011 he has been an asylum seeker in Switzerland.

The Moldovan Government submitted that despite all their efforts they had been unable to verify most of the facts of the present case owing to a lack of cooperation on the part of the authorities of the self-proclaimed “Moldavian Republic of Transdniestria” (the “MRT”). They had therefore proceeded, broadly speaking, on the basis of the facts as submitted by the applicant.

The Russian Government did not make any submissions in respect of the facts of the case.

The background to the case, including the Transdniestrian armed conflict of 1991-1992 and the subsequent events, is set out in Ilaşcu and Others v. Moldova and Russia ([GC], no. 48787/99, §§ 28-185, ECHR 2004VII) and in Catan and Others v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia ([GC], nos. 43370/04, 8252/05 and 18454/06, §§ 8-42, ECHR 2012).

A. The applicant’s arrest, detention and release

On 24 November 2008 the applicant was detained on suspicion of defrauding the company he worked for and another company belonging to the same group. The companies allegedly claimed initially that the damage had been 40,000 United States dollars (USD) and then increased that amount to USD 85,000. The applicant was asked to confess to the crime, which he claims he did not commit. He signed various confessions, allegedly following threats to him and his relatives. He claimed to have been first detained by his company’s security personnel and subjected to threats if he did not confess to the crime, before being handed over to the investigating authority.

On 26 November 2008 the “Tiraspol People’s Court” remanded the applicant in custody for an undetermined period.

On 5 December 2008 the “MRT Supreme Court” rejected an appeal by the applicant’s lawyer as unfounded. Neither the applicant nor his lawyer was present at the hearing.

On 20 March 2009 the “Tiraspol People’s Court” extended the applicant’s detention for up to five months from the date of his arrest.

On 21 May 2009 the “Tiraspol People’s Court” extended the applicant’s detention for up to eight months from the date of his arrest. That decision was upheld by the “MRT Supreme Court” on 29 May 2009. Neither the applicant nor his lawyer was present at the hearing.

On 22 July 2009 the “Tiraspol People’s Court” extended the applicant’s detention until 24 September 2009.

On 22 September 2009 the “Tiraspol People’s Court” extended the applicant’s detention until 24 November 2009. That decision was upheld by the “MRT Supreme Court” on 2 October 2009. The applicant’s lawyer was present at the hearing.

On 4 November 2009 the applicant’s criminal case was submitted to the trial court.

On 21 April 2010 the applicant’s detention was extended again until 4 August 2010.

On 1 July 2010 the “Tiraspol People’s Court” convicted the applicant under Article 158-1 of the “MRT Criminal Code” of defrauding two companies, and sentenced him to seven years’ imprisonment, suspended for five years. It ordered the confiscation of the money in his and his girlfriend’s bank accounts and of his personal car, in a total amount equivalent to approximately USD 16,000, and additionally ordered him to pay the two companies the equivalent of approximately USD 26,400. It also released him subject to an undertaking not to leave the city. No appeal was lodged against that decision. According to the applicant, in order to pay a part of the damages his parents sold his flat and paid USD 40,000 to the companies.

On an unknown date shortly after 1 July 2010 the applicant left for treatment in Chișinău. In 2011 he arrived in Switzerland.

On 25 January 2013 the “Tiraspol People’s Court” amended the judgment in the light of certain changes to the “MRT Criminal Code” providing for a more lenient punishment for the crime of which the applicant had been convicted. He was thus sentenced to six years and six months’ imprisonment, suspended for a period of five years.

By a final decision of 15 February 2013 the same court replaced the suspended sentence owing to the applicant’s failure to appear before the probation authorities, and ordered that the prison sentence be served in full.

Following a request from the applicant’s lawyer of 12 October 2012, on 22 January 2013 the Supreme Court of Justice of the Republic of Moldova quashed the judgment of the “Tiraspol People’s Court” of 1 July 2010. With reference to Articles 114 and 115 of the Constitution and section 1 of the Law on the status of judges (see paragraphs 69 and 70 below), the court found that the courts established in the “MRT” had not been created in accordance with the Moldovan legislation and could not therefore lawfully convict the applicant. It ordered the materials in the criminal file to be forwarded to the prosecutor’s office with a view to prosecuting the persons responsible for the applicant’s detention and also to determining whether the applicant had breached the rights of other persons.

On 31 May 2013 the Prosecutor General’s Office of the Republic of Moldova informed the applicant’s lawyer that it had initiated a criminal investigation into his unlawful detention. Within that investigation, “all possible procedural measures and actions [were] planned and carried out”. No further progress could be achieved owing to the impossibility of carrying out procedural steps on the territory of the self-proclaimed “MRT”.

B. The applicant’s conditions of detention and medical treatment

The applicant’s medical condition (bronchial asthma, an illness which he has had since childhood) worsened while in prison, and he suffered several asthma attacks. He was often moved from one temporary detention facility (IVS) to another (such as the IVS at Tiraspol police headquarters and the IVS in Slobozia, as well as colony no. 3 in Tiraspol and the IVS in Hlinaia), all of which allegedly provided inadequate conditions of detention.

The applicant described the conditions at Tiraspol police headquarters as follows. There was high humidity, no working ventilation and a lack of access to natural light (since the detention facility was in the basement of the building), while the windows were covered with metal sheets with small holes in them. The cell was overcrowded (he was held in a 15 sq. m cell together with twelve other people). They had to take turns to sleep on the single large wooden platform, which was not covered. The applicant was allowed fifteen minutes’ daily exercise, spending the remainder of the time in the cell. Many of the detainees smoked in the cell, which contributed to his asthma attacks. The metal truck he was transported in when being brought before the investigator was suffocating, and he was placed in a cell without a toilet for hours on end (while waiting to be interviewed by the investigator) and suffered numerous asthma attacks. Laundry could only be done in the cells, where wet clothes would also be hung out to dry. The food was scarce and inedible. The cells were full of parasites. There were no hygiene products except for those brought in by detainees’ relatives. For several months the applicant was detained in a cell which became very hot in summer, causing him to suffer more asthma attacks.

The applicant described in a similar manner the conditions of his detention in the Slobozia detention facility, where he lacked any sort of hygiene products, was transported in a crammed and unventilated truck, and was fully reliant on his parents for any sort of medication.

As for colony no. 3 in Tiraspol, the applicant again noted the insufficient medical treatment, overcrowding (with one hour’s exercise per day, the remaining time being spent in the cell) and a lack of ventilation coupled with the heavy smoking of his cellmates. The food was inedible, with worms and rotten produce. In the winter the heating was on for only a few hours a day and, as at the Tiraspol police headquarters, a shower was allowed once a week (all the detainees in his cell had a combined total of twenty minutes in which to take a shower with cold water).

In the IVS in Hlinaia the applicant was again placed in an overcrowded cell and received virtually no medical assistance.

During his detention the applicant often complained about his medical condition and asked for medical assistance. His parents requested on many occasions that their son be seen by a lung specialist. On 12 March 2009 he was eventually seen and various tests were carried out. He was diagnosed with unstable bronchial asthma and prescribed treatment.

In May 2009 the applicant was transferred to the Medical Assistance and Social Rehabilitation Centre of the “MRT Ministry of Justice” (“the Centre”). Doctors there confirmed his previous diagnosis and the fact that he suffered frequent asthma attacks and had second and third degree respiratory insufficiency, and that his medical condition was continuing to worsen. On 7 May 2009 the Centre informed the applicant’s relatives that it had neither a lung specialist nor the required laboratory equipment to treat the applicant properly. The doctors added that he needed to be transferred to the respiratory medicine department of the Republican Clinical Hospital, but that this would be impossible to arrange because the hospital was shortstaffed and had no one to guard the applicant during his stay.

On an unknown date in 2009 the applicant’s mother asked for the applicant to be transferred to a specialist hospital, as bronchial asthma was one of the illnesses listed by the “MRT Ministry of the Interior” as a reason warranting a transfer to hospital. In its reply of 1 June 2009 the “MRT Ministry of the Interior” informed her that only convicted prisoners could be transferred to hospital on those grounds.

On 21 September 2009 the Centre informed the applicant’s parents that since May 2009 their son had continued to be treated on an in-patient basis, but that his medical condition was continuing to worsen, with no visible improvement as a result of treatment.

On 15 February 2010 a medical panel composed of four senior “MRT” doctors established as follows:

“Despite the repeated treatment given, the respiratory dysfunction continues to increase and treatment is having no noticeable effect. A continuing downward trend is observed, with an increase in the frequency of asthma attacks and difficulty in stopping them.”

In addition to the initial diagnosis of bronchial asthma and respiratory insufficiency, the panel found that the applicant had second degree posttraumatic encephalopathy. It concluded that:

“The [applicant’s] life expectancy/prognosis is not favourable. His continued detention in the conditions of [pre-trial detention centres] appears problematic owing to the absence of laboratory equipment and specially qualified medical staff at [the Centre] for the purposes of carrying out the required treatment and its monitoring.”

Despite the panel’s findings, the applicant was transferred on the same day to the IVS in Hlinaia, which, as stated by the applicant and not contradicted by the respondent Governments, was less well equipped than the Centre. On 16 February 2010 the applicant’s mother was allowed to see him. He told her about his poor conditions of detention (lack of ventilation, heavy smoking by detainees, overcrowding) and said that he had already had two asthma attacks that day. The applicant’s mother was told by the prison staff that she had to bring her son the medication he required since there was none available in the prison.

On 18 February 2010 the applicant’s mother asked the “MRT President” for the applicant to be transferred as a matter of urgency to a specialist hospital and for his release from detention pending trial in order to obtain the treatment he required. On 20 February 2010 she received a reply saying that her complaint had not disclosed any breach of the law.

On an unknown date after 18 February 2010 the applicant was transferred to Prison no. 1 in Tiraspol. On 17 March 2010 he was again admitted to the Centre for in-patient treatment.

In a letter to the applicant’s lawyer dated 11 June 2010 the Centre’s director stated that in addition to the applicant’s main diagnosis of asthma, he was also found to have terminal respiratory insufficiency, symptoms of a head injury with localised areas of brain damage, the first signs of hypertonic disease, an allergy in his lungs making treatment and the ability to stop his asthma attacks more difficult, post-traumatic encephalopathy, arterial hypertension, toxoplasmosis, giardiasis (a parasite), chronic gastroduodenitis, pancreatitis and pyelonephritis. His prognosis was worsening.

In a number of replies to complaints by the applicant’s parents, the “MRT” authorities informed them that the applicant was seen regularly by various doctors. After his transfer from the Centre to the IVS in Hlinaia on 15 February 2010, his state of health had deteriorated and on 17 March 2010 he had been immediately transferred to the Centre for treatment.

According to the applicant, his state of health improved after his release and the treatment he received in Chișinău. However, because he feared re-arrest by “MRT militia”, he fled to Switzerland and applied for asylum there (see paragraph 23 above).

C. The applicant’s meetings with his parents and his pastor

From November 2008 until May 2009 the applicant was not allowed to see his parents, despite repeated requests (for instance on 5 March and 13, 16 and 30 April 2009). The first authorised meeting took place six months after the applicant’s arrest, on 4 May 2009. On 9 December 2009 a judge of the “Tiraspol People’s Court” refused to allow a further meeting because examination of the case was pending. Another request for a meeting was refused on 15 February 2010. On 16 February 2010 a meeting was authorised, but the applicant and his mother had to talk to each other in the presence of a prison guard. They were not allowed to speak their own language (German) and were made to speak Russian or risk the guard calling off the meeting.

In June and September 2009 pastor Per Bergene Holm from Norway attempted to visit the applicant at the latter’s request in order to provide him with religious services, including “listening to [the applicant’s] confession and giving him the sacraments”. He was denied access to the applicant, a refusal which he subsequently confirmed in a letter to the Court dated 29 September 2010. On 30 September 2009 an “MRT presidential adviser” acknowledged that there was no reason to refuse the pastor access and that such a refusal was incompatible with the “MRT Constitution and laws”. The pastor was finally allowed to see the applicant on 1 February 2010. As stated by the applicant and not disputed by the Governments, a guard remained in the room throughout the meeting.

D. Complaints to various authorities

The applicant’s parents made several complaints to the Moldovan authorities and the Russian embassy in Moldova concerning their son’s situation.

On 12 October 2009 the Centre for Human Rights of Moldova (the Moldovan Ombudsman) replied that it had no means of monitoring the applicant’s case.

On 3 November 2009 the Moldovan Prosecutor General’s Office informed the applicant’s parents that it could not intervene owing to the political situation in the Transdniestrian region since 1992. It also referred to Moldova’s reservations in respect of its ability to ensure observance of the Convention in the Eastern regions of Moldova.

A complaint made on an unknown date to the Russian embassy in Moldova was forwarded to the “MRT” prosecutor’s office. The latter replied on 1 February 2010, saying that the applicant’s case was pending before the “MRT courts”, which alone were competent to deal with any complaints after the case had been submitted to the trial court. On 10 February 2010 the Russian embassy forwarded that reply to the applicant’s mother.

The applicant also complained to the Joint Control Commission (“the JCC”), a trilateral peacekeeping force operating in a demilitarised buffer zone on the border between Moldova and Transdniestria known as the “Security Area”. For further details, see Ilaşcu and Others v. Moldova and Russia (cited above, § 90). It is unclear whether he obtained any response.

After notice of the present application had been given to the respondent Governments, the Moldovan Deputy Prime Minister wrote on 9 March 2010 to the Russian, Ukrainian and US ambassadors to Moldova, as well as to the Council of Europe, the European Union and the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), asking them to assist in securing the applicant’s rights.

On 16 July 2010 the applicant asked the Moldovan Prosecutor General’s Office to provide witness protection to him and his parents, since the “MRT militia” had been looking for him at his home in Tiraspol while he was in hospital in Chișinău. On the same day the applicant was officially recognised as a victim. However, on 19 July 2010 the Bender prosecutor’s office refused his request to be provided with witness protection, since it had not been established that his life or health were at risk.

On 6 August 2010, following a complaint by the applicant, the investigating judge of the Bender District Court in Moldova set aside the decision of 19 July 2010 on the grounds that the applicant had been unlawfully arrested and convicted and had had his property taken away from him. He ordered the Bender prosecutor’s office to provide witness protection to the applicant and his family. The parties did not inform the Court of any further developments in this regard.

E. Information concerning alleged Russian support for the “MRT”

The applicant submitted reports from various “MRT” media outlets. According to an article dated 13 April 2007 from Regnum, one of the leading Russian online news agencies at the relevant time, the Russian ambassador to Moldova had given a speech in Tiraspol the previous day in which he declared that Russia would continue its support for the “MRT” and would never give up its interests there. The diplomat added that “Russia has been here for more than a century. Our ancestors’ remains are buried here. A major part of our history is situated here”.

On 20 April 2007 the same news agency informed the public of a decision by the Russian Ministry of Finance to give the “MRT” USD 50 million in non-reimbursable aid, as well as USD 150 million in loans secured on “MRT” property.

In a news item dated 23 November 2006 the Regnum news agency reported a statement by the “MRT President” to the effect that each “MRT Ministry” was working on harmonising the legislation of the “MRT” with that of Russia, and that a group of representatives of “MRT Ministries” was to travel to Moscow within the next few days to discuss the matter.

According to the Moldovan Government, “the last and non-significant” withdrawal of armaments from the “MRT” to Russia took place on 25 March 2004. Almost twenty thousand tonnes of ammunition and military equipment are purportedly still stored on the territory controlled by the “MRT”. On 26 January 2011 Russian and Ukrainian officials were able to visit the Colbasna (Колбасна) arms depot, while Moldovan officials were neither informed of nor invited to participate in the visit.

In February 2011 the Russian Ambassador to Moldova declared, inter alia, in public speeches that since 2003, when Moldova had refused to sign a settlement agreement with the “MRT” (the so-called Kozak Memorandum, 2003), Russia had no longer been able to withdraw arms from the “MRT” owing to the latter’s resistance.

According to the Moldovan Government, Tiraspol Airport, which was officially closed down by the Russian authorities on 1 December 2005, continues to serve “MRT” military and civilian helicopters and aircraft. Russian military planes and helicopters are still parked there. Between 2004 and 2009 over eighty flights from that airport which were not authorised by the Moldovan authorities were recorded, some of which appear to have been bound for Russia.

According to the Moldovan Government, the “MRT” received a total of USD 20.64 million in Russian aid in 2011, in the form of either the waiving of debts for natural gas consumed or of non-refundable loans. During 2010 the “MRT” consumed natural gas from Russia to a value of USD 505 million. It paid the Russian company Gazprom USD 20 million, about 4% of the price for that gas. At the same time, the local population paid the “MRT” authorities approximately USD 163 million for gas in 2010, a sum which remained largely at the disposal of the “MRT”.


Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect)

Marko Bošnjak;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Georges Ravarani

The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table.

The applicants complained of the inadequate conditions of their detention.


Violation of Article 13 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy)

Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Helena Jäderblom

The relevant details of the application are set out in the appended table.

The applicant complained of the inadequate conditions of his detention. He also raised a complaint under Article 13 of the Convention.


No violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression -{General} (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression)

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

The applicant was born in 1970 and lives in Helsinki.

The applicant, a former girlfriend of the Prime Minister at the time, wrote an autobiographical book about her relationship with the Prime Minister. The book described a period of nine months in the applicant’s life when, as a single mother, she dated the Prime Minister, who had earlier divorced his wife. The book described the dating couple’s life and made references to their intimate interactions. It was published on 19 February 2007. The Prime Minister held office from June 2003 to June 2010 when he stepped down.

On 5 October 2007 the public prosecutor brought charges under Chapter 24, section 8, of the Penal Code against the applicant, the publishing company and the representative of the publishing company for having disclosed information about the private life of the Prime Minister (yksityiselämää loukkaavan tiedon levittäminen, spridande av information som kränker privatlivet). He also requested that the proceeds of the crime be ordered forfeit to the State in accordance with Chapter 10, section 2, of the Penal Code. The Prime Minister did not pursue any charges or compensation claims against the applicant. The publishing company and its representative have lodged a separate application with the Court (see Ojala and Etukeno Oy v. Finland, no. 69939/10).

On 15 February 2008 the book was withdrawn from sale.

On 5 March 2008 the Helsinki District Court (käräjäoikeus, tingsrätten), after having voted, dismissed the charges against the applicant. It found that the book disclosed a lot of information about the Prime Minister’s private life but that he had already widely disclosed information about his family and habits as well as about his relationship with the applicant. Even though he himself had published an autobiography in 2005, had given several interviews, ran a blog and even permitted photographs to be taken at his home, he was known as a politician who strictly controlled his public image. The book also contained some information which had not previously been disclosed to the public. In this respect the court found that these new details only completed the information the Prime Minister had disclosed earlier. It was never suggested that the facts disclosed were not true. The book covered a period of nine months in the applicant’s and the Prime Minister’s private life. The court found that the applicant had the right to recount her private life. She also described the Prime Minister, his actions and family in a compassionate manner. The court found that, even though the information disclosed in the book had no direct relevance to the Prime Minister’s political functions or his hierarchical position in the State, it had relevance as far as the Prime Minister’s person was concerned. The Constitution required that ministers were “known to be honest and competent”. Moreover, the book described a situation in which two different realities of present day Finnish society met: a wealthy party leader and Prime Minister on the one hand, and a single mother with everyday money problems on the other hand. The court found that the fact that the applicant was writing about her life and her relationship with one of the highest authorities in the country did not restrict but in fact widened her freedom of expression. When weighing the freedom of expression against the protection of private life, the court found that the need to resort to criminal liability decreased when the disclosed information became more widely known. Criminal liability was the last resort in guiding human behaviour and its use had to be proportionate. The court could therefore not hold that the publication of the applicant’s book was a criminal act. Moreover, as the applicant was not a professional writer, she could not be regarded as having acted with intent and could not therefore be considered as a perpetrator.

By letter dated 18 April 2008 the public prosecutor appealed to the Helsinki Appeal Court (hovioikeus, hovrätten). The Prime Minister also appealed.

On 10 February 2009 the Helsinki Appeal Court convicted the applicant for dissemination of information violating personal privacy and sentenced her to 20 day-fines, in total 300 euros. The proceeds of the crime, 4,270 euros, were ordered forfeit to the State. The court found that the passages in the book concerning the Prime Minister’s intimate dating and his children’s feelings and behaviour unnecessarily violated the core areas of his protected private life. He had not disclosed these details of his private life earlier in the media. The fact that he had disclosed some parts of his private life, the protection of which was, due to his status, much narrower than a private person’s, did not mean that he could not benefit at all from any protection of his private life. He had thus not waived his right to the protection of private life, nor implicitly consented to the disclosure of information concerning details about his private life. Even though the applicant had the right to write about her private life, disclosure of intimate details of another person’s private life always required his or her consent. The aim of the applicant’s book had been to discuss matters of private life and it had no relevance to the Prime Minister’s political functions or his hierarchical position in the State. Nor had it any relevance to the assessment of his personal qualities, such as his lack of honesty and judgment, as the relationship fell within the core areas of his private life and had no relevance to his position as a Prime Minister. Moreover, the applicant could be held as a perpetrator even though she was not a professional writer. Her acts had been intentional.

By letter dated 14 April 2009 the applicant appealed to the Supreme Court (korkein oikeus, högsta domstolen), requesting that the court establish a precedent in the case as the court had not yet in its case-law assessed freedom of expression in the context of an autobiography.

On 11 June 2009 the Supreme Court granted the applicant leave to appeal.

On 16 June 2010 the Supreme Court, after having held an oral hearing, upheld the Appeal Court’s conviction but quashed the forfeiture. In particular, by referring extensively to the Court’s case-law, it gave a more narrow scope to the Prime Minister’s private life than the Appeal Court. The court found that information about the Prime Minister’s sex life and intimate events and his children’s feelings and behaviour had not been disclosed to the public before. The fact that some details of his private life had been disclosed before did not mean that they could not fall within the scope of criminal liability under Chapter 24, section 8, of the Penal Code. The Prime Minister had not waived his right to protection of private life in these respects. Nor had he given his consent to their publication by consenting to the use of his photograph on the cover of the book. The court considered, contrary to the Appeal Court, that the information about how and when the Prime Minister had met the applicant and how quickly their relationship had developed had had relevance to general public discussion as these issues had raised the question of whether, in this respect, he had been dishonest and lacked judgment. Also the information concerning the great differences in the standard of living between the applicant and the Prime Minister, his lifestyle, the data protection concerns and the protection of the highest political authorities in general had had relevance to general public discussion. The court found also that disclosure of information about the Prime Minister’s children was not conducive to causing him damage, suffering and contempt as the applicant had only given her own interpretation of the children’s attitudes. However, the only references which, according to the court, had illegally disclosed information about the Prime Minister’s private life were the applicant’s information and hints about their sex life and intimate events between her and the Prime Minister. The court enumerated in particular seven parts of the book which contained information about the start of the sex life in the beginning of their relationship, descriptions of their brief and passionate intimate moments as well as giving massages to each other, and accounts of their sexual intercourse. The court found that such information and hints fell within the core area of private life and their unauthorised publication was conducive of causing the Prime Minister suffering and contempt. It was thus necessary to restrict the applicants’ freedom of expression in this respect in order to protect the Prime Minister’s private life.


Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect)

The applicant, Mr Ruslan Nushravanovich Gasanov, was a Russian national, who had been born in 1979 and lived in Vyshniy Volochek.

On 20 April 2006 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of drugrelated offences.

During several periods between July 2006 and May 2008, the applicant was detained in the police ward (IVS) of Vyshniy Volochek in the Tver Region. He claimed, in particular, that the cells of the ward were overcrowded and in a poor sanitary condition.

On 29 January 2009 the Supreme Court of Russia found the applicant guilty as charged and gave him a custodial sentence.


Angelika Nußberger;Erik Møse;Mārtiņš Mits;Síofra O’Leary;Yonko Grozev

A list of the applicants is set out in the appendix.

Applicants one to seventeen were represented initially by Mr Adam Weiss, from the AIRE Centre, London and, subsequently, by Mr M. Evans, director of the AIRE Centre, London, and a lawyer practising in London. Applicants eighteen to twenty-three were represented, initially, by Mr Adam Weiss from the AIRE Centre, London and, subsequently, by P. Radev, a lawyer practising in Varna.

The Bulgarian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms D. Dramova, from the Ministry of Justice.

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

The applicants are members of three Roma families from the Varna municipality in Bulgaria. They were represented during the domestic proceedings by association “Obnovlenie” (hereafter “the association”), a nongovernmental organisation based in Varna which deals with Roma issues and whose chair and representative was Ridvan Saly.

The three applicant families indicated that they had been living in dwellings at 1 and 1a Borimechkata Street in the Mladost borough of Varna for up to twenty years. Those dwellings were owned by the municipality and were in a serious state of disrepair.

On 22 January 2008 an expert committee, tasked by the municipality with verifying the state of repair of municipal buildings, established that the houses at 1 and 1a Borimechkata Street were unfit for use and recommended their demolition.

Once the occupants had been formally put on notice, the mayor of Varna issued two orders on 25 May 2008, ordering the houses’ demolition as they were unsafe for occupation and also posed a threat to passers-by. The orders indicated that the first, second, fifth, sixth, seventh, eight, fourteenth, fifteenth, eighteenth, twentieth, twenty-first and twenty-second applicants were occupying the houses at 1 and 1a Borimechkata Street, unlawfully.

The mayor contracted a private company to demolish the two houses. A municipal company was tasked with ensuring that the necessary conditions for the demolition were in place. Representatives of the municipality were instructed to be present during the demolition and the police were asked to send officers to ensure that public order was observed.

On 21 November 2008, demolition works started on one of the two houses mentioned above. Following an intervention by the association, the municipality orally granted a ten-day postponement for the demolition in order to find alternative housing for the applicants. They also announced on the radio that alternative accommodation would be found, especially for the children, as it was winter. Press reports described how some of the Roma inhabitants had positioned themselves on the roofs of the houses to prevent demolition.

On 5 December 2008, without alternative accommodation having been found, the council proceeded with the demolition, with the police entering the houses at 7 a.m. The applicants were evicted by the police with the help of a private security firm. According to the applicants, disputed by the Government, the police destroyed household items with clubs and poured water over the burning stove. All the applicants were ordered to go out into the street. A record, signed 8 December 2008 by a police officer who was present during the demolition, stated that “on 5 December 2008, between 7 a.m. and 1 p.m., teams of police officers from Varna assisted the municipality with the demolition of the buildings at 1 and 1a Borimechkata Street. No disturbance was observed during the demolition.” Another record drawn up by municipal officials on 5 December 2008 indicated that at 7.30 a.m. both houses were free of items and ready to be demolished.

The parties dispute whether Sava Zyumbyulkov Savov, aged oneanda-half months at the time of the events, was among those evicted. He was the youngest child of the Savovi family (applicants eighteen to twentythree); his birth certificate indicated that he was born on 20 October 2008 and lived at 1a Borimechkata Street, Varna.

According to the applicants, the officials present, including the mayor of Mladost, made insulting remarks to them, such as “Take that back home” and “You are too dirty, go take a shower and then come back”. In addition, the children witnessed their homes being destroyed and their parents’ distress.

The Dimitrovi family (applicants one to four) moved into another municipal dwelling situated at 115 Pop Hariton Street, to which they were directed by the borough authorities after the demolition on 5 December 2008. They were left in the street for approximately six hours before this accommodation was made available. The four members of the family were accommodated in one room in which they lived until 2014, at some point in time with an additional baby. Six months after they moved in the roof collapsed in the Dimitrovi family room. They patched it up themselves but the roof continued to leak.

The Savovi family (applicants eighteen to twenty-three) were not directed promptly to alternative housing. At approximately noon on 5 December 2008, the eighteenth applicant, Ms Savova, concerned about the situation of her new-born baby, enquired with the borough authorities where her family could move. The borough authorities directed them to the dwelling at 115 Pop Hariton Street. The Savovi family was only able to move there at 11 p.m. that day. In the meantime they were left in the street for about sixteen hours. They took shelter under a block of flats, where they had to change the baby’s nappies and clean their children in the open. They were finally accommodated in one room of the house at 115 Pop Hariton Street. At that point, ten members of the family occupied the same room.

The Atanasovi family (applicants five to seventeen) moved into a makeshift house at 4 Georgi Peyachevich Street which they put together out of wooden blocks and cardboard collected from a rubbish dump. The house did not have a toilet and its inhabitants used an area behind the house for this purpose. There was no running water so they washed in the sea. A certificate provided by the municipal authorities indicated that in 2009 the ninth applicant was listed as an occupant of the house together with the rest of the Atanasovi family.

The building at 115 Pop Hariton Street was a single-storey house with a total of three rooms. On 5 December 2008, the third room was uninhabitable. The Savovi family made the room habitable so that three people could live in it, while six others (applicants eighteen to twenty-three) lived in the room to which they originally moved. When the Dimitrovi and Savovi families moved into the house, there was no electricity supply and no hot water. The only toilet was an external one which was extremely dilapidated and there was no place to shower or bath. There was only one sink. The applicants attached photographs of the house to their application.

On 8 December 2008 the first and the eighteenth applicants signed typed-up declarations provided by the municipality, stating that they were aware that the dwelling which they occupied at the time, the house at 115 Pop Hariton Street, Varna, was in a state of disrepair and posed a danger to the life and limb of its occupants, and that they undertook to inform the people living with them at that address accordingly.

The mayor of Mladost ordered on 22 March 2012 that the house the Atanasovi family occupied be demolished as it posed a danger to human occupation. On 5 November 2013 the municipal authorities proposed to the sixth applicant, Mr Atanasov, to move with his minor children and his wife to a small municipal apartment on the 8th floor of a block of flats. Following hesitations expressed by him, the authorities allegedly informed him that if he refused the offer, something he effectively did, more appropriate housing would be offered to his family. This did not happen.

On 21 July 2014 the mayor of Mladost ordered the eviction of the first, third, fourth, eighteenth, nineteenth, twentieth, twenty-first and twentythird applicants from 115 Pop Hariton Street, on the ground that they occupied it unlawfully. On 23 July 2014 the mayor ordered that the Savovi family, plus a baby born on 8 April 2014 to the eighteenth applicant, be allocated subsidised municipal housing. This order was enforced on the same day when the applicants moved into a flat of twenty-three metres squared.

The Dimitrovi family was not proposed any shelter after their eviction ordered in July 2014. While officially still registered at 115 Pop Hariton Street, they rented a room in a house at 44 Krayezerna Street where they were living at the time of their last communication with the Court.

At about 4 a.m. on 30 December 2008, the eighteenth applicant, the mother of Sava, had called an ambulance as the child was not breathing. Sava Zyumbyulkov Savov, aged two months and ten days, was declared dead by the emergency doctor. A hospital record announcing his death listed 1a Borimechkata Street as his permanent address and another address in Varna as his current address. The same two addresses had been indicated on the hospital record announcing his birth.

A preliminary criminal investigation against an unknown perpetrator was immediately opened into his death. A number of investigative measures were carried out. Those included an examination of the dwelling where the child had died and the creation of an album of pictures of the child in his cot, interrogation of the mother, as well as a forensic medical expertise, which comprised an autopsy of the infant’s body. The mother was provided with an ex officio lawyer.

The prosecutor terminated proceedings on 24 March 2009 for absence of a crime as the authorities considered that the child had died of natural causes. The death certificate indicated the cause of death as bilateral pneumonia and acute respiratory and cardiac failure. It listed the child’s address as 1 Borimechkata Street, Varna. The child’s mother, the eighteenth applicant, who was provided with legal assistance, did not make of her own motion any explicit complaint before the investigating authorities. Nor did she challenge the termination of the preliminary investigation.

On 9 October 2009, the chairman of the association brought an application before the Varna Administrative Court, entitled “complaint”, against Varna municipality. In it he complained of “drastic consequences” endured by the inhabitants of a number of dwellings following their eviction from those dwellings and the latter’s demolition. He claimed that those consequences included the death of one child and the severe psychological traumatism of several other children. He referred to evictions and demolitions carried out by the municipality since November 2008 on six different streets, among which Borimechkata Street, from which the individual applicants in the present case had been evicted.

He emphasised, without further detail and without listing the names of the individual applicants, that the actions of the municipality breached the affected persons’ human rights. He submitted that, while those persons would bring proceedings before the Commission for Protection Against Discrimination, that process would take too long and the families under threat of being evicted at that time risked being left in the street without shelter during the winter. He asked the court to order the municipality to provide shelter to the people facing eviction or to halt the planned eviction until shelter was secured.

By an order of 9 October 2009 the Varna Administrative Court found that the application did not meet the requirements of Article 150 of the Code of Administrative Procedure (“the 2006 Code”, see paragraph 40 below) and that it was necessary for the representative of the association to correct the irregularities in it. More specifically, the court order stated that he had to clarify the object of his application. If it was a complaint against an individual administrative act then he needed to specify the act, the body which had issued it and in what way the act was unlawful. Similarly, if he was complaining about actions or omissions on the part of an administrative body, then those had to be specified, together with their alleged unlawfulness. Further, it was necessary to indicate what he was asking of the court: the quashing of an unlawful administrative act or the discontinuation of actions or omissions by an administrative body. If he was asking for the latter, then he had to state whether those actions were carried out on the basis of an administrative act, or whether they were carried out without a lawful basis. He further had to provide proof of a paid state fee (of about 5 EUR), as well as of the existence of the association and of its valid representation. The court suspended the case so that the association’s representative could comply with the above instructions.

On 21 October 2009 the association’s representative filed a submission entitled “clarifying application” in response to the Varna Administrative Court’s order of 9 October 2009. It indicated that it was brought by Ridvan Sali, acting as a head and representative of association “Obnovlenie”. The modified application specified that it was a complaint representing, on the one hand, a challenge to the implementation by Varna municipality of the ordinance on people’s housing needs. On the other hand, the complaint was a challenge to the authorities’ actions and omissions relating to the eviction of the individual applicants in November and December 2008 from 1a Borimechkata Street in Varna and the authorities’ continued failure thereafter to provide the evicted Roma people with adequate shelter. He identified the authorities in question as Varna municipal council officials, the Varna social assistance directorate, police officials and the private security firm’s staff hired by the municipality to assist during the above-mentioned eviction and demolition. He further complained about the inaction of the social assistance department which, despite having been repeatedly informed by the association of the children’s imminent eviction in November 2008, had contented themselves with the drawing up of a report concluding that it was beyond their mandate to act.

The association’s representative further listed the names of the individual members of the Roma families who he claimed had suffered damage as a result of the authorities’ actions and inactions. The latter were enumerated as follows: the forced removal of the named individuals from their dwellings by the police; the humiliating treatment of the former by authorities involved in the eviction and demolition; the selective demolition of dwellings occupied by Roma only; forcing a one-month-old baby to spend a whole winter day in his cot in the open in the street, as a result of which he had died several weeks later from double-sided pneumonia; psychological harassment of the children from the demolished homes and failure to provide them with psychological support for the shock of witnessing their homes being destroyed and the helplessness of their parents; subsequent housing of the Roma families in conditions unsuitable for human occupation; unfair and discriminatory treatment during the last fifteen years of Roma in need of social housing including the families listed; and discriminatory treatment on the basis of people’s social status in the distribution of municipal dwellings. The association’s representative stated that those actions and inactions had breached the Protection Against Discrimination Act (hereafter “the PADA”), the human rights and freedoms provided for in the Convention for the Protection of the Child and the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Freedoms and, in particular, Articles 2, 3, 13 and 14.

He asked the court to order the municipality to audit its municipal housing policy as regards the ethnicity and social status of the people given municipal dwellings. In addition, he asked the court to compel the municipality to provide normal living conditions to the applicant families. He also asked the court to order the municipality to pay just compensation to them for the humiliating living conditions in which they had been forced to live after the eviction and demolition, as well as for having discriminated against them as regards the provision of housing. He also sought compensation for the family of the dead child, Sava Zyumbyulkov Savov, and for all three families for the insufficient protection provided to the children during the demolition and thereafter. He sought costs and expenses and submitted proof of payment of the state tax due and of the existence of the association. He also listed the written items of evidence which he submitted together with his application.

The Varna Administrative Court examined the clarified application on 23 October 2009. The court found, in the first place, that this application had made it clear that the complaint was against the actions and inactions of municipal officials from Varna municipality, of police officers and private contractors at the time of the demolition of dwellings in November-December 2008. The court further concluded that the complaint was against the inaction of the social assistance department for having refused to draw up a report on the living conditions of the children in the Savovi family during the said period. It then observed that the association was seeking, on behalf of three families, pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages stemming from the actions and omissions of the municipal administration in relation with the demolition of the municipal houses in which those families had been living and damages for placing those individuals in inappropriate municipal dwellings.

The court noted that the aforementioned actions and omissions had been presented as being unlawful and in breach of the Convention for the Protection of the Child, the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and the PADA.

The Varna Administrative Court decided that it had not been seized with a complaint against a specific individual administrative act under Article 145 § 2 of the 2006 Code, nor with a proper complaint against specific actions or omissions under Article 250 of the 2006 Code (see paragraph 37 below), or with a proper claim for damages under the State and Municipalities Responsibility for Damage Act 1988 (hereafter “the SMRDA”, see paragraphs 42-43 below). In particular, neither in the initial application of 9 October 2009 nor in the clarified application thereafter had the association representative specified an individual administrative act against which judicial review proceedings could be brought. Even assuming that this act was the eviction and demolition order in respect of the dwelling at 1a Borimechkata Street, the association was not a party to, or personally affected by, that order and the fourteen-day statutory period for judicial review of such orders had long expired. Furthermore, the claim against the administrative actions or omissions under Article 250 §§ 1 and 5 of the 2006 Code was likewise out of time, given that the authorities’ actions complained of had taken place in November-December 2008. The court further noted that a claim under section 1(1) of the SMRDA was inadmissible due to the lack of standing of the association and because such a claim would require a prior declaration of illegality in accordance with Article 204 of the 2006 Code. The court declared the application inadmissible.

Apart from the restating the complaint made by the association that the actions and omissions in question had been unlawful and in breach of the PADA, among other legal instruments (see paragraph 32 above), at no point in its decision did the Varna Administrative Court refer to the PADA – the legislative act to which the association had made explicit reference –, examine the procedural regularity or irregularity of the application from the perspective of the PADA or explain why, for all or any of the association’s complaints made in it, the PADA could not constitute an effective remedy.

On 11 December 2009, in the context of a cassation review, the SAC upheld the lower court’s decision in its entirety.

It found that the application before it was admissible as submitted within the statutory limitation period. However, it was not well-founded. In particular, the lower court had correctly established that it had not referred to a specific administrative act under Article 150 of the 2006 Code. Neither had it pointed out specific actions or omissions under Article 250 of the 2006 Code. Given that from the applicant association’s submissions it had been clear that the events complained of had taken place in NovemberDecember 2008, it was indisputable that the statutory limitation period had lapsed, which in turn was an additional ground for not examining the application on its merits. Finally, the applicants had not made a valid claim for compensation under section 1 of the SMRDA, given that they had failed to specify the concrete acts, actions and omissions in connection with which compensation was being sought, or its amount. The SAC did not address the applicability of the PADA either.

Individuals can seek protection against actions and omissions of administrative bodies under Chapter 11 of the 2006 Code. Article 250 stipulates that everyone with a legal interest can bring a claim before the administrative court, seeking the discontinuation by an administrative body of an action not based on an administrative act or in the law.

According to Article 145 §§ 1 and 2 an administrative act may be contested before a court within fourteen days of its communication.

All claims for damages stemming from unlawful acts, actions or omissions by public bodies or officials are heard at first instance by the competent administrative court (Article 128 §§ 1 and 5).

According to Article 150 § 1, judicial review of an individual administrative act has to be lodged in writing and must indicate, inter alia, the court, personal and contact data of the applicant, the administrative act which is contested and the essence of the request. The administrative court may collect evidence admissible under the Code of Civil Procedure 2007 (Article 171 § 2) and it assists the parties in proceedings before it to correct formal errors and lack of clarity in their submissions (Article 171 § 4).

If an irregular application has been made challenging an individual administrative act before a court, the court specifies the irregularity and invites the party to correct it and resubmit the application (Article 158). Thus, in two decisions, the Sofia Administrative Court, referring to the latter provision, returned an application twice to the claimant, indicating each time its irregularities and how to correct them (see опр. на адм. съд София град от 14.05.2010 и 26.06.2010 по адм. д. № 3537/2010).

Section 1(1) of the SMRDA provides that the State and, as of July 2006, the municipalities are liable for damage caused to individuals and legal entities as a result of unlawful decisions, acts or omissions by their own authorities or officials while discharging administrative duties. Pursuant to Article 204 (4) of the 2006 Code, the lawfulness of administrative actions or omissions is established by the court in the context of the same proceedings for damages.

Persons seeking redress for damage resulting from acts or omissions falling within the scope of the SMRDA have no claim under general tort law as the SMRDA is a lex specialis and excludes the application of the general regime (section 8(1) of the SMRDA; see also реш. от 29 юли 2002 г. по гр.д. № 169/2002 г. на СГС, ГК, ІVб отд., as well as реш. № 1370/1992 г. от 16 декември 1992 г., по г.д. № 1181/1992 г. на ВС ІV г.о., referred to in, among others, the case of Iovchev v. Bulgaria, no. 41211/98, § 80, 2 February 2006).

Article 6 § 2 of the Constitution bans discrimination on the grounds of race, national origin, ethnicity, sex, religion, education, conviction, political affiliation, personal or public status and property status.

The PADA, which was adopted in 2003 and came into force on 1 January 2004, transposes Council Directive 2000/43/EC of 29 June 2000 implementing the principle of equal treatment between persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origin (OJ L 180, p. 22) and Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation (OJ L 303, p. 16).

It prohibits discrimination on grounds of sex, race, national origin, ethnicity, human genome, nationality, origin, religion or faith, education, beliefs, political affiliation, personal or public status, disability, age, sexual orientation, family status, property status, or any other ground provided for by law or an international treaty to which Bulgaria is a party. The Act also defines racial segregation, explicitly providing that it is a form of discrimination.

The PADA is a lex specialis in relation to general administrative and civil law.

Section 9 provides for the shifting of the burden of proof in discrimination cases. Under that section, where a claimant is able to prove facts from which an inference may be drawn that there has been discriminatory treatment, it is incumbent on the defendant to prove that there has not been a violation of the right to equal treatment.

A complainant may first file a complaint with the Commission for Protection against Discrimination (section 50 of the PADA) or instead bring an action directly in court (section 71 of the PADA).

According to section 71(1) of the PADA, every individual who considers himself or herself to be a victim of discrimination can bring a claim before the first-instance civil court, seeking in particular to establish that he or she has been discriminated against, that the defendant be made to discontinue the discriminatory treatment and to refrain for the future from it, and that compensation be paid to the victim.

Section 71(2) of the PADA entitles non-governmental organisations to bring claims on behalf of victims complaining of discriminatory treatment and seek compensation on their behalf. Section 71(3) of the PADA authorises non-governmental organisations to bring such proceedings in their own name when a high number of individuals is concerned. In such cases the compensation sought by the non-governmental organisation is in the interest of the individuals allegedly discriminated.

Domestic judicial practice on the question which courts have competence to hear discrimination claims under section 71(1) of the PADA has varied considerably in the past. An interpretative decision of a joint bench of judges from the SCC and SAC decided on 19 May 2015 that the administrative, and not civil, courts were competent to hear discrimination claims against public bodies or officials under section 71(1) of the PADA. This decision put an end to the lack of clarity regarding which courts – civil or administrative – were competent to hear such claims.


Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Luis López Guerra

The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table.

The applicants complained of the excessive length of their pre-trial detention.


Violation of Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 - Right not to be tried or punished twice-{general} (Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 - Right not to be tried or punished twice)

George Nicolaou;Ineta Ziemele;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Nona Tsotsoria;Päivi Hirvelä;Zdravka Kalaydjieva

The applicant was born in 1957 and lives in Klaukkala.

The tax inspector conducted a tax inspection of the applicant’s attorney’s office in 2006.

On 18 and 19 December 2006 the tax authorities considered that the applicant had received disguised dividends from his company during the tax years 2000 to 2004. The amounts of the disguised dividends were the following: 107,152 euros (EUR), EUR 1,673, EUR 48,711, EUR 32,759, and EUR 18,842. Additional taxes and tax surcharges (veronkorotus, skatteförhöjning) were imposed in the amount of EUR 5,300, EUR 84.09, EUR 2,400, EUR 1,600 and EUR 900 respectively.

By letter dated 9 March 2007 the applicant sought rectification from the local Tax Rectification Committee (verotuksen oikaisulautakunta, prövningsnämnden i beskattningsärenden).

On 30 May 2007 the Tax Rectification Committee rejected the applicant’s requests. It found that the applicant had given incomplete information to taxation authorities and tax had therefore been incompletely or partially levied. Therefore the additional tax and the tax surcharges imposed on him were not considered to be too high.

By letter dated 11 June 2007 the applicant appealed to the Helsinki Administrative Court (hallinto-oikeus, förvaltningsdomstolen).

On 22 December 2008 the Helsinki Administrative Court rejected the applicant’s appeal on the same grounds as the Tax Rectification Committee.

By letter dated 27 February 2009 the applicant appealed to the Supreme Administrative Court (korkein hallinto-oikeus, högsta förvaltningsdomstolen).

On 11 January 2010 the Supreme Administrative Court refused the applicant leave to appeal.

On 15 December 2008 the public prosecutor brought charges against the applicant on, inter alia, five counts of embezzlement and two counts of aggravated tax fraud (törkeä veropetos, grovt skattebedrägeri) concerning the tax years 1997 to 2003. According to the charges, the applicant was accused of aggravated tax fraud as, in his personal capacity, he had underdeclared his income. The undeclared income amounted in total to EUR 500,895 and, consequently, the tax imposed had been EUR 263,711.68 too low.

On 6 November 2009 the Helsinki District Court (käräjäoikeus, tingsrätten) convicted the applicant, inter alia, on four counts of embezzlement and two counts of aggravated tax fraud and sentenced him to a prison sentence of 2 years and 8 months. He was also ordered to pay the taxation authority EUR 214,168.38 plus interest.

By letter dated 25 January 2010 the applicant appealed to the Helsinki Appeal Court (hovioikeus, hovrätten), requesting that the charges be dismissed. He claimed, inter alia, that one of the embezzlement charges was statute-barred.

On 23 December 2010 the Helsinki Appeal Court, after having held an oral hearing on 28 and 29 October 2010, convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to 2 years and 8 months in prison. It upheld the District Court’s judgment in respect of the compensation award. The court found that one of the embezzlement charges was not statutebarred. As concerned the aggravated tax fraud in the applicant’s personal taxation, the court noted that tax surcharges had been imposed on the applicant and that the taxation proceedings had become final on 11 January 2010. As the charges had been brought on 20 August 2009, that was, before the taxation proceedings had become final, there were no obstacles to examining the charge concerning aggravated tax fraud.

By letter dated 21 February 2011 the applicant appealed to the Supreme Court (korkein oikeus, högsta domstolen), requesting that the charges be dismissed. He claimed that there had been a lack of a fair trial and a violation of the legality principle in respect of the embezzlement charges as he had been convicted of something other than the charges against him and the conviction had been based on a wrong Penal Code provision. Also one of the changes had been statute-barred. As concerned the tax fraud charges, he claimed that the ne bis in idem principle had been violated when he was convicted of aggravated tax fraud in respect of his personal taxation. That principle and the legality principle had also been violated when he was convicted of aggravated tax fraud and bookkeeping crime as a representative of the company as the undeclared income was the same as in his personal taxation. He also claimed that there had been a lack of a fair trial before the Appeal Court as he was not allowed to obtain detailed information about the charges and to put questions to one of the witnesses.

On 18 May 2011 the Supreme Court refused the applicant leave to appeal.

By letter dated 6 June 2011 the applicant lodged an application for an extraordinary appeal with the Supreme Court, requesting, inter alia, that the execution of the prison sentence be stayed. He repeated this request on 10 July 2011, and on 24 and 29 August 2011.

On 15 June, and 17, 25 and 30 August 2011 the Supreme Court refused to grant a stay of execution.

On 31 August 2011 the applicant started serving his sentence.

On 12 December 2011 the Supreme Court refused the applicant’s request for the reopening of the case.

By letter dated 16 December 2011 the applicant lodged a new extraordinary appeal with the Supreme Court concerning its decision of 12 December 2011. He referred, inter alia, to Article 6 of the Convention and the lack of a fair trial.

It is not known whether the case is still pending before the Supreme Court.

By letters dated 24 and 29 August 2011 and 7 February 2012 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Chancellor of Justice (oikeuskansleri, justitiekanslern), asking him to examine whether the Supreme Court justices had acted in accordance with the law and their duties when rendering the decision of 12 December 2011.

On 20 March 2012 the Chancellor of Justice informed the applicant that he was not going to investigate the matter as it was still pending before the Supreme Court. However, he indicated that the general interpretation was that the duty to give reasons did not apply to decisions concerning leave to appeal or extraordinary remedies.

By letter dated 14 May 2012 the applicant asked the Chancellor of Justice to re-examine the matter and to take action in order to have the Supreme Court decision of 12 December 2011 re-opened.

It is not known whether the case is still pending before the Chancellor of Justice.