No violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Deprivation of liberty;Lawful arrest or detention);No violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Reasonableness of pre-trial detention);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Reasonableness of pre-trial detention);Violation of Article 18+5-1 - Limitation on use of restrictions on rights (Article 18 - Restrictions for unauthorised purposes) (Article 5 - Right to liberty and security;Article 5-1 - Deprivation of liberty;Lawful arrest or detention);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)

András Sajó;Egidijus Kūris;Iulia Motoc;Nona Tsotsoria;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Vincent A. De Gaetano

The applicant was born in 1968 and is currently detained in a prison in Tbilisi.

Prior to the parliamentary election of 1 October 2012, which resulted in a change of power, the applicant, one of the leaders of the then ruling party, the United National Movement (UNM), exercised, for several months in 2012, the function of Prime Minister of Georgia. Prior to that, between 2005 and 2012, he had held the post of Minister of the Interior.

After the political coalition Georgian Dream had won the parliamentary election of October 2012 and formed a new government, the applicant was elected Secretary General of the UNM, which became the major opposition force in the country.

Between 1 November 2012 and 21 May 2013, the date when he was charged with criminal offences and arrested (see paragraph 17 below), the applicant had made five business trips from Georgia to various foreign countries, always returning as scheduled.

On 30 November 2012, when travelling from Georgia to Armenia to attend an international seminar of the European People’s Party, the applicant attempted to cross the Georgian State border at Tbilisi International Airport using an allegedly fake international passport.

After registering the passport in the relevant electronic database, an officer of the Border Police of the Ministry of the Interior of Georgia, Z.D., noticed a discrepancy between the photograph in the passport, which fully matched the applicant’s appearance, and the other data in the travel document, including the name of “Levan Maisuradze”, which differed from the identity information stored about the applicant in the electronic database. The police officer returned the problematic passport to the applicant’s personal assistant, requesting clarification. The assistant immediately brought from the applicant’s office another passport which was issued in the latter’s real name and matched all his other identification data. After checking the authenticity of that second travel document, the applicant was allowed to cross the Georgian border.

The same day, 30 November 2012, a criminal investigation was launched by the Border Police of the Ministry of the Interior into the abovementioned incident. The Chief of the Border Police immediately went to Tbilisi airport to interview the officer, Z.D., who had discovered the allegedly fake passport in the applicant’s possession, in person. As subsequently established by the investigation and confirmed by a number of witnesses, when present at the airport the Chief of the Border Police suddenly received a call from the applicant on his mobile phone. The latter attempted to exert pressure on the Chief by using his status and long-standing personal connections within the hierarchy of the Ministry of the Interior. The applicant demanded categorically that no inquiry be conducted with respect to the incident with the passport and that officer Z.D. never be called to testify as a witness. According to statements subsequently given to the investigation by the Chief of the Border Police, the applicant made career and personal threats and used obscene language during their telephone conversation.

Interviewed on 1 and 7 December 2012 by investigators from the Ministry of the Interior with respect to the incident, the applicant denied presenting to the Border Police a passport under the name of “Levan Maisuradze”, and stated that he possessed only four passports, two ordinary ones and two diplomatic travel documents, all of them issued under his real name.

On 13 December 2012 a new set of criminal proceedings for embezzlement and abuse of official authority were launched against the applicant and the Governor of the Kakheti Region. They both duly appeared before the Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office (“the CPPO”) on the same day, and were interviewed as witnesses.

On 18 January 2013 a third set of criminal proceedings was instituted at the Prosecutor’s Office of the Ajarian Autonomous Republic in respect of another instance of abuse of official authority allegedly committed by the applicant.

On 13 February 2013 the applicant and the Governor of the Kakheti Region were examined as witnesses in the context of the second set of the criminal proceedings.

On 20 May 2013 all three of the above-mentioned sets of criminal proceedings (see paragraph 11, 13 and 14 above) were joined into one criminal case.

On 21 May 2013 the applicant and the Governor of Kakheti were summoned by the prosecution authority for another interview. At the end of that examination both were arrested.

The applicant’s arrest was linked to a suspicion that he had engaged in vote-buying (Article 164(1) of the Criminal Code), misappropriation of another person’s property (182 § 3 of the Criminal Code), abuse of official authority (332 of the Code of Criminal Procedure), and breach of inviolability of another person’s home (Article 160 of the Criminal Code). As confirmed by the relevant record, the arresting officer duly explained to the applicant, who was assisted by a lawyer of his choice, the nature of the above-mentioned charges against him, as well as his procedural rights. The applicant was also briefed on the reasons for his arrest. Notably, that there existed risks that he, as a particularly influential person who had held several high-ranking State offices in the past, might negatively influence the progress of the investigation, and that, having regard to his previous attempt to cross the State border with a fake travel document, he might abscond from the trial.

On the same day, 21 May 2013, the applicant’s wife left Georgia. A judicially authorised search of the applicant’s apartment was conducted later the same day, the results of which confirmed the discovery of large sums of money in cash (see the subsequent paragraph).

On 22 May 2013 the prosecutor in charge of the applicant’s case applied to Kutaisi City Court for pre-trial detention of the applicant as a preventive measure. The prosecutor first gave arguments in support of the risk that the applicant would abscond. Thus, because he had held the posts of Minister of the Interior and Prime Minister of the country in the past, he had formed a broad and extensive personal network within the country and abroad. The applicant possessed two valid diplomatic passports under his real name, and those travel documents allowed him to use simplified procedures for entering any foreign country as well as other privileges reserved for diplomats. Furthermore, it appeared that the applicant also had a false passport (see paragraph 10 above). Moreover, the prosecutor continued, the fact that the applicant’s spouse had hurriedly left Georgia on 21 May 2013, after the applicant had been summoned by the investigating authority, also gave rise to a suspicion that the applicant might aim to join his wife outside the country. The prosecutor also emphasised the fact that during a search of the applicant’s apartment on 21 May 2013, large amounts of money in cash – 54,200 euros (EUR), 33,100 United States dollars ((USD, some EUR 28,560) and 29,000 Georgian laris (GEL, some EUR 11,270) – were discovered, which fact further substantiated the suspicion that the applicant might have been preparing to flee the country.

The prosecutor then enumerated arguments in support of the claim that the applicant might hamper the investigation. Again, given that the applicant had held various high-ranking State posts, he had therefore directed and supervised numerous State agents employed in various public agencies. Considering that the impugned offences were closely related to his past activities in public office, and the fact that the majority of the important witnesses had worked under the applicant’s hierarchical subordination, there was a well-substantiated risk that the applicant might influence those people. The prosecutor’s argument was confirmed by reference to the incident of 30 November 2012, when the applicant had managed to identify the mobile phone number of the Chief of the Border Police, placed a call and exerted pressure on the latter in a rude and obscene manner by uttering personal and career threats (see paragraph 11 above).

By a decision of 22 May 2013 the Kutaisi City Court, after holding an oral hearing with the participation of both the co-accused and their lawyers, decided to release the Kakheti Governor on bail, the amount of which was fixed at GEL 20,000 (some EUR 7,770), and to remand the applicant in custody. Article 205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was mentioned as the legal basis for imposition of the detention in the reasoning part of the decision.

As to the grounds confirming the necessity of the detention measure, the Kutaisi City Court stated that it accepted the prosecution authority’s arguments concerning the risks of absconding and impeding the course of the investigation (see paragraphs 20 and 21 above). Whilst acknowledging that the applicant had proved to be cooperative with the investigation by appearing for interviews, the City Court stated that he could nevertheless use his prominent social position, which emanated from the fact of his having held various high-ranking posts in the past, to hamper the investigation process. The court emphasised that the witnesses who were to be examined had been or still remained under the applicant’s direct hierarchical authority and personal influence. The City Court further specifically noted in that respect that the applicant had already been suspected of an attempt to influence the specific witnesses, the Chief of the Border Police and officer Z.D., within the context of the ongoing criminal proceedings (see paragraph 11 above).

In its decision of 22 May 2013, the Kutaisi City Court indicated, pursuant to Article 208 of the CCP, that a pre-trial conference would open on 15 July 2013.

The applicant appealed against the decision of 22 May 2013, complaining that the imposition of the pre-trial detention had been unreasonable because the Kutaisi City Court had failed to refer to any specific evidence or arguments in support of the supposed risks of hampering the investigation or absconding the trial.

By a decision of 25 May 2013, the Kutaisi Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal as ill-founded, confirming that the lower court had correctly assessed the relevant factual circumstances and applied the legal provisions.

On 2 July 2013 the prosecutor asked the Kutaisi City Court to postpone the opening of the pre-trial conference until 11 September 2013. The prosecutor substantiated his application by the need for certain additional specific investigative measures to be conducted. Both the applicant, represented by three lawyers, and the co-accused Kakheti Governor agreed with that application in part. By a decision of 5 July 2013 the Kutaisi City Court granted the request in part, postponing the date until 23 August 2013.

On 12 August 2013 the applicant’s lawyers sought a further postponement of the pre-trial conference. They argued that the case file was voluminous and more time was needed for the preparation of the defence. The prosecutor objected, indicating that the applicant was attempting to protract the proceedings and leave less time for an examination of the case on the merits. The City Court satisfied, on 14 August 2013, the applicant’s request in full, and a new date for the pre-trial conference was set for 12 September 2013.

On 12 September 2013 the Kutaisi City Court opened the pre-trial conference.

According to a record of a subsequent session of the pre-trial conference held on 25 September 2013, the applicant asked for his pre-trial detention to be replaced by a non-custodial measure of restraint. In support, he referred to the prosecution authority’s failure to indicate any new arguments arguably capable of substantiating the risks of absconding or impeding the investigation. As additional guarantees for his appearance for trial, the applicant referred to the fact that he was the Secretary General of a major political party, that he had made a public pledge to cooperate with the authorities, and that he had never failed to appear before the investigating authorities in the past. As further revealed by an audio record of the relevant court hearing, the applicant argued that his continued detention was no longer necessary, as all the witnesses had already been questioned by the investigating authority. The prosecution authority replied that since the witnesses still had to testify before the trial court, the risk that the accused would exert undue pressure on them was still present. The authority reminded the City Court of the incident with the fake passport, when the applicant had managed to threaten a high-ranking officer of the Border Police (see paragraph 11 above).

The applicant’s request for the termination of the pre-trial detention was examined and rejected by the Kutaisi City Court on the same day, 25 September 2013. Thus, the court, after hearing the parties’ arguments, announced its decision orally, for the audio record. As disclosed by that record, the judge briefly stated, without giving any explanation, that the “request for the termination of the pre-trial detention should be rejected”.

By a judgment of 17 February 2014, the Kutaisi City Court convicted the applicant of the majority of the charges brought against him. Thus, he was found guilty of vote-buying (Article 164 § 1 of the Criminal Code), misappropriation of another person’s property in a large amount (Article 182 §§ 2 (a), (d), and 3 (b) of the Criminal Code on several counts), and breach of inviolability of another person’s home (Article 160 § 3 (b) of the Criminal Code). As regards the offence of abuse of official authority (Article 332 § 2 of the Criminal Code), it was dismissed by the court as redundant. The applicant was sentenced to five years’ imprisonment.

On 21 October 2014 the Kutaisi Court of Appeal upheld the applicant’s conviction of 17 February 2014 in full. According to the file as it stands to date, the applicant lodged a further appeal on points of law, and the ensuing proceedings are currently pending before the Supreme Court.

According to the applicant’s addendum to the case file after the communication of the present case, on 14 December 2013, at approximately 1.30 a.m., he was unexpectedly removed from his prison cell. The accompanying prison guards covered his head with a jacket, put him into a car, and drove him to an unknown destination. The journey lasted some ten minutes, after which he was escorted into a building. When he was brought inside one of the rooms the guards took the jacket off his head, and he saw two people. One of them was allegedly the Chief Public Prosecutor, O.P., and the other was the head of the prison authority, D.D.

According to the applicant, the Chief Prosecutor offered him a bargain during that meeting. Notably, the applicant was invited to reveal the “truth” about the circumstances surrounding the death of the former Prime Minister Zurab Zhvania on 3 February 2005 (who, according to an official version of the events, had died in a rented flat from carbon monoxide poisoning caused by an inadequately ventilated gas heater) and, in addition, to provide information about secret offshore bank accounts of the former President of Georgia. The applicant turned down the deal, describing O.P.’s suggestions as a conspiracy theory and nonsense. In reply, the Chief Prosecutor allegedly threatened the applicant that his detention conditions would worsen if he did not agree to cooperate with the authorities. The applicant was returned to his prison cell at around 3 a.m.

On 17 December 2013, during a public hearing before the Tbilisi City Court, which was already examining the merits of the criminal case against the applicant in the presence of the prosecuting authority and media representatives, the applicant made a statement about what had happened on 14 December 2013. He described in detail his night-time conversation with the Chief Public Prosecutor.

On the same day the Prime Minister of Georgia publicly commented that the applicant’s allegations of the night removal from prison for a meeting with the Chief Prosecutor were a sheer lie, that no investigation would be launched in that respect, and that the applicant should instead “consult a psychiatrist”. Subsequently, paraphrasing another public person’s comment, the Prime Minster made the following remark: “After all, what was this story of abducting [the applicant] from the prison all about? Did [the Chief Public Prosecutor] rape him or what?’” In the same vein, the Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office issued an official statement condemning the applicant’s allegations as “untrue” and “absurd”.

On 18 December 2013 the Minister of Prisons publicly stated that “[the applicant] was not taken out of the prison ... No investigation has been launched into such frivolous allegations.” The Minister added that recordings made by the prison surveillance systems, which could shed light on whether or not the latter had been taken out of and returned to his cell at the specified times on 14 December 2013, could be made public only if a criminal probe was launched in respect of the applicant’s allegation.

On the other hand, certain other high State officials, such as the President of the Parliament and the Minister of Justice, acknowledged, in the immediate aftermath of the incident of 14 December 2013, that there was a need to launch a thorough and impartial criminal investigation into the issue. On 19 December 2013 the Public Defender of Georgia visited the applicant in prison, where they discussed in detail the incident of 14 December 2013. After the meeting, the Defender made a public statement about the necessity to launch a criminal investigation in order to clarify all the facts, and emphasised that the applicant would be ready to cooperate.

On 20 December 2013 the applicant made a formal request to the Ministry of Prisons, of which the Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office and the Tbilisi City Court were also informed, for the video footage from the prison surveillance system covering the night of 14 December 2013 to be provided to his lawyer. Those recordings would prove the need for a criminal investigation into his unlawful removal from the prison on that night.

On 15 January 2014 the Public Defender again called upon the authorities to investigate the applicant’s allegations. On the same day the Minister of Prisons stated that the recordings from the surveillance system of the applicant’s prison covering the night of 14 December 2003 could no longer be extracted as they had automatically been deleted within twentyfour hours after being recorded.

On 6 March 2014 the applicant submitted a question to the Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office about whether or not a criminal investigation had been launched into the incident of 14 December 2013. On 14 April 2014 the prosecutorial authority informed the applicant that an internal probe carried out by the General Inspection Unit of the Ministry of Prisons had not confirmed the applicant’s alleged irregular removal from the prison. No further details about that probe were given.

On 10 May 2014 a Member of Parliament published certain documents showing that high bonuses were paid in December 2013 to a number of officers of the prison where the applicant was detained. The parliamentarian suggested that those officers were financially rewarded for their association with the applicant’s removal from the cell.

On 19 May 2014 L.M., a chief advisor to D.D., the Head of the Prisons Department, made a public statement confirming the truthfulness of the applicant’s allegations. She stated: “[E]ven a child knows that [the applicant] was taken from his prison cell by D.D.”. She further stated that she had been in contact with a number of agents of the Prisons Department who had confirmed to her, in private conversation, that they had been instructed by D.D. to hide surveillance camera recordings covering the night of 14 December 2013.

On the following day, 20 May 2014, D.D. dismissed L.M. from her position. A few days later, on 23 May 2014, he himself resigned from the post of head of the prison authority.

The applicant submitted numerous newspaper articles containing interviews with various high-ranking officials of the current regime in the country (two successive prime ministers, various ministers, Members of Parliament from the ruling coalition, and so on) as a proof that there was politically motivated persecution against him. He also referred to a number of official statements issued by the international community, which conveyed concern over the initiation of criminal proceedings and arrests of a number of former high-ranking Government officials, including the applicant.

Thus, for instance, the President of the European Commission made a public statement on 12 November 2012, after his meeting with the Prime Minister of Georgia, which included the following passage:

“The elections in Georgia were successfully held, and they were recognised as free and fair ... Democracy is more than elections, it is the culture of political relations in democratic environment. In this respect, situations of selective justice should be avoided as they could harm the country’s image abroad and weaken rule of law.”

The European Union High Commissioner for Foreign and Security Policy publicly declared during her visit to Georgia on 26 November 2012 the following: “The European Union calls on all sides in Georgian politics to uphold European values of democracy, freedom and the rule of law. There should be no selective justice; no retribution against political rivals. Investigations into past wrongdoings must be, and must be seen to be, impartial, transparent and in compliance with due process.”

As an additional proof that the current Government was engaged in persecution of its political opponent, the applicant referred to the following excerpt from a Resolution adopted by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) on 1 October 2014:

“It has to be noted that two years on, almost the entire leadership of the former ruling party has been arrested or is under prosecution or investigation: former Prime Minister and UNM Secretary General, [the applicant], former Defence Minister, [B.A.], and former Tbilisi mayor and UNM, campaign manager, [G.U.], are in prison (pre-trial detention). The judicial authorities have charged the former President, [M.S.], and ordered pre-trial detention in absentia, as well as for former Minister of Defence, [D.K.], and former Minister of Justice, [Z.A.].”

On 12 May 2014 the Commissioner for Human Rights of the Council of Europe published a Report on his visit to Georgia which had taken place from 20 to 25 January 2014. Included in an array of various problematic human rights issues affecting the country the Commissioner also addressed the allegations of undue criminal prosecution of members of the former ruling party, the UNM. The relevant excerpt from the Report as emphasised by the applicant, which passage made a separate reference to the incident of 14 December 2013, reads as follows:

“37. The cases of [the applicant], [B.A.], and [G.U.] – all of them members of or associated with the UNM – were discussed by the Commissioner during his visit. [The applicant] was formerly Prime Minister and Secretary General of the UNM at the time of his arrest on 21 May 2013. He has alleged that on 14 December 2013, he was taken away blindfolded from the prison by unknown individuals and brought to the Penitentiary Department of the Ministry of Corrections where he was threatened by the then Chief Prosecutor ... Human rights NGOs have called for an investigation into the foregoing allegations and expressed concerns that the internal inquiry by the Ministry of Corrections failed to clarify the situation and raised more questions, including regarding the unavailability of video footage from surveillance cameras in the prison. In this regard, the Ministry indicated to the Commissioner that due to the fact that [the applicant] made his complaint only on 17 December – three days after the alleged events – the video footage was unavailable because it was automatically overwritten every 24 hours.”

Then, in the relevant concluding part of the Report, the Commissioner made the following call upon the Georgian authorities with regard to the above-mentioned allegations of unduly motivated criminal proceedings:

“41. The Commissioner wishes to underline that the judicial system should be sufficiently resilient so that its proper functioning is not disrupted by the transfers of power which are characteristic of any true democracy. The persistence of allegations and other information indicative of deficiencies marring the criminal investigation and judicial processes in cases involving political opponents are a cause for concern, as this can cast doubt on the outcome of the cases concerned even when there have been solid grounds for the charges retained and the final convictions. The Georgian authorities must address these issues at the systemic level, in the interests of respecting fair trial guarantees for everyone and in enhancing public trust in the institutions responsible for upholding the law.”

In support of his claim of undue political motivation behind the initiation of the criminal proceedings against him, the applicant also referred to a Report published on 9 December 2014 by the OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR) on its trial monitoring activities in Georgia. The ODIHR had started the relevant trial monitoring project in February 2013, focusing on the follow-up of fourteen sets of criminal proceedings unrelated to each other, conducted against senior officials of the previous government, which included the applicant’s criminal case. After having identified, through the prism of all fourteen criminal cases, a number of shortcomings with respect to the fair trial guarantees – such as the principle of equality of arms between parties, the presumption of innocence, the perception of undue influence on the prosecution authority by the executive branch of power, and the unreasonable use of preliminary detention – the ODIHR Report made a number of recommendations to the Georgian authorities on how to improve the system of criminal justice in general.

On 18 December 2014 the European Parliament adopted a Resolution on the endorsement of the Association Agreement between the European Union and Georgia. An excerpt from that Resolution, cited by the applicant himself in support of his claim, read as follows:

“[European Parliament] expresses concern that numerous officials who had served under the previous government and some members of the current opposition have been charged with criminal offences and are imprisoned or placed in pre-trial detention; expresses concern, also, about the potential, use of the judicial system to fight against political opponents, which could undermine the efforts of the Georgian authorities in the area of democratic reform; recalls that the existence of a valuable political opposition is paramount to the creation of a balanced and mature political system, to which Georgia is aspiring.”

Lastly, the applicant referred to the relevant excerpts from the Resolution on Abuse of Pre-trial Detention in States Parties to the European Convention on Human Rights adopted by the PACE on 1 October 2015. These passages read as follows:

“7. The following abusive grounds for pretrial detention have been observed in a number of States Parties to the European Convention on Human Rights, namely:

7.1. to put pressure on detainees in order to coerce them into confessing to a crime or otherwise co-operating with the prosecution, including by testifying against a third person (for example the case of Sergey Magnitsky, in the Russian Federation, and certain cases of opposition leaders in Georgia, such as former Prime Minister, [the applicant]);

7.2. to discredit or otherwise neutralise political competitors (for example, certain cases of United National Movement (UNM) leaders in Georgia); ...

The root causes of the abusive use of pretrial detention include: ...

11.4. the possibility of “forum shopping” by the prosecution, which may be tempted to develop different strategies to ensure that requests for pretrial detention in certain cases are decided by a judge who, for various reasons, is expected to be “accommodating” (for example in Georgia, the Russian Federation and Turkey).”

Subsequent to the communication of the present case, the applicant informed the Court for the first time that four additional sets of criminal proceedings had been launched against him. Those new criminal cases were not linked in any manner to the main set of the criminal proceedings which had served as the basis for the imposition of the pre-trial detention initially contested by the applicant in the present case (see paragraphs 3 and 8-33).

In particular, on 28 May 2013 a charge of exceeding of official powers through the threat or use of force (Article 333 § 3 (b) of the Criminal Code) was brought against the applicant in relation to his role, in his capacity as Minister of the Interior, in the planning and supervision of a violent dispersal of a peaceful demonstration by police forces on 26 May 2011. By a judgment of 27 February 2014, the Tbilisi City Court, having established the fact that the applicant had directly given an order to the police forces to dislodge the demonstrators with an excessive use of force, convicted him of the offence. On 11 August 2014 the Tbilisi Court of Appeals upheld the judgment of the first-instance court, and the proceedings are currently pending, according to the applicant’s latest submissions available in the case file, before the Supreme Court.

On 8 March 2014 CPPO brought new charges against the applicant under Article 332 § 2 (abuse of authority by a high-ranking State official) and Article 341 (falsification of official records). That new criminal case related to the role of the applicant, in his capacity as Minister of the Interior, in the cover-up of a homicide case which had implicated a number of his close associates, high-ranking officers of the same Ministry, as well as his wife, back in 2006 (see Enukidze and Girgvliani v. Georgia, no. 25091/07, § 15 and onwards, 26 April 2011). On 20 October 2014 the Tbilisi City Court, having established that the applicant had personally contributed to perverting the course of the investigation in that homicide case, convicted the applicant of the two above-mentioned charges, and the criminal proceedings are currently pending before a court of higher jurisdiction.

On 28 July 2014 the applicant was charged with a new offence under Article 333 § 3 (b) of the Criminal Code in relation to his role as Minister of the Interior, in the planning and supervision of a police raid on a private television and radio company, Imedi Media Holding, on 7 November 2007 as well as of the subsequent unlawful removal of the broadcasting licence from the company (for more details, see Akhvlediani and Others v. Georgia (dec.), no. 22026/10, 9 April 2013). Finally, on 5 August 2014 yet another charge under Article 333 § 3 (b) of the Criminal Code was brought against the applicant. He was accused of ordering a number of high-ranking police officers to arrange for ill-treatment of a Member of Parliament in retribution for insulting and libellous statements the latter had publicly proffered against the wife of the President of Georgia. The latter two sets of criminal proceedings are, according to the applicant’s latest factual addendum, still pending before the trial court.


No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect)

András Sajó;Egidijus Kūris;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Nona Tsotsoria;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer

The applicant was born in 1964. He is currently serving a prison sentence in the Pravieniškės Correctional Home (Pravieniškių pataisos namai – atviroji kolonija).

In March 2009 the applicant was arrested and placed in pre-trial detention on suspicion of several instances of trafficking drugs in very large amounts as part of an organised group.

Between 30 March 2009 and 14 June 2010 the applicant was held at Lukiškės Remand Prison (Lukiškių tardymo izoliatorius - kalėjimas) in cells which measured approximately eight square metres and which housed between two to four detainees.

On 14 June 2010 the applicant was transferred to Kaunas Remand Prison (Kauno tardymo izoliatorius). According to a document issued by that prison, the average space per prisoner in the cells where the applicant was held varied, but was sometimes less than three square metres per inmate.

On 2 September 2011 the applicant complained to the Prisons’ Department (Kalėjimų departamentas), a body that oversees Lithuanian prisons, about the conditions in which he had been held (dėl buvusių prastų kalinimo sąlygų) in Lukiškės Remand Prison. In its reply of 15 September 2011, the department admitted that the applicant’s allegations that he had been held in overcrowded cells in Lukiškės had been partly proved.

After visiting Kaunas Remand Prison on 28 November 2011, the Public Health Centre (Visuomenės sveikatos centras) found that the prison complied with general health and hygiene requirements.

On 5 August 2013 the applicant started court proceedings for damages, arguing that the conditions of his detention in Lukiškės Remand Prison had been abysmal.

By a decision of 19 November 2013, the Vilnius Regional Administrative Court held that the applicant had missed the three years’ statutory deadline to lodge a claim for damages, because he had been released from Lukiškės Remand Prison on 14 June 2010.

The applicant appealed, arguing that he had only learned in July 2012 that his rights had been breached, when he had started communicating with his current representative before the Court, Mr S. Tomas.

By a final decision of 30 October 2014, the Supreme Administrative Court dismissed the appeal, noting that the applicant could have asked for legal aid to start court proceedings for damages in a timely fashion if he had been without sufficient means to employ a lawyer.

On 22 September 2011, while he was being held at Kaunas Remand Prison, the applicant had his first myocardial infarction. He was taken that day to a public hospital – the cardiology unit of the Hospital of the Lithuanian University of Health Sciences’ Kaunas Clinics (Lietuvos sveikatos mokslų universiteto ligoninė – Kauno klinikos, hereinafter – “the Kaunas Clinics”), where he underwent a surgical intervention. The doctors noted in the applicant’s medical file that he was a heart attack risk because he had smoked 10-15 cigarettes a day for twenty-five years. Another risk factor was hereditary, because the applicant’s father had had myocardial infarction.

On 28 October 2011 the Kaunas Clinics’ doctors concluded that the applicant’s condition had stabilised (būklė stabilizavosi). The applicant was prescribed medications for his condition (medikamentinis gydymas), explained what kind of diet and health regime to follow and transferred to the Prison Department Hospital (Laisvės atėmimo vietų ligoninė).

As can be seen in the documents submitted by the parties, and as was later confirmed by the Ombudsperson (see paragraph 30 below), the doctors at the Prison Department Hospital, on the instructions of the doctors at the Kaunas Clinics, performed a number of tests on the applicant (including urine, blood, and an ECG). They also prescribed a diet that was low on salt and fat. Given that the applicant’s state of health was stable and improving, on 3 November 2011 the applicant was sent back to Kaunas Remand Prison. The doctors recommended that he continue to take the medications he had been prescribed.

On 6 December 2011 the applicant was again placed in the Prison Department Hospital for an earlier scheduled consultation. He had some diagnostic tests and was treated with medications.

On 14 December 2011, while at the Prison Department Hospital, the applicant had a second myocardial infarction and was immediately transferred to a public hospital – the Cardiology and Angiology Centre of Vilnius University Hospital’s Santariškės Clinics (Vilniaus Universiteto Ligoninės Santariškių klinikos, hereinafter – “the Santariškės Clinics”), where he was examined and tests were performed. Two days later, on 16 December 2011, the doctors in Santariškės held that the applicant’s state of health was stable, and on that day he was returned to the Prison Department Hospital.

While being held at the Prison Department Hospital, on 6 March 2012 the applicant was taken back to the Santariškės Clinics for a consultation. The doctors recommended the applicant be treated with medications and also prescribed a diet which was low on salt and fat. The doctors also recommended that the applicant engage in physical activity for 45 to 50 minutes a day. They also recommended that the applicant be “brought back to the Santariškės Clinics’ Cardiology and Angiology Centre after six months (po 6 mėnesių) for a consultation, having registered in advance”.

On 15 March 2012 the Prison Department Hospital released the applicant back to Kaunas Remand Prison. The applicant’s medical record indicates that he was released because his state of health “had improved (pagerėjo)”. It also states that the applicant “could walk (gali eiti)”. Among the risk factors, the doctors noted that the applicant smoked. It was recommended that the applicant have further outpatient treatment with medications (medikamentinis ambulatorinis gydymas), follow a diet that was low on fat and salt and be physically active by taking exercise (fizinis aktyvumas).

On 31 December 2011 the applicant was issued with a certificate that he had lost 60% of his capacity for work. The document stated that he could not perform any work where he needed to lift more than 15 kilograms. However, the applicant could do work that involved walking, sitting or bending.

In reply to a complaint by the applicant’s lawyer, on 14 May 2012 the Prison Department Hospital noted that it had rigorously adhered to the instructions from cardiologists of category III medical care institutions (see paragraph 65 below).

The applicant was again admitted to the Prison Department Hospital, staying there from 27 to 29 March 2012 with digestion-related issues (haemorrhoids). The doctors noted that the applicant had got haemorrhoids three years previously. After examining the applicant, they prescribed outpatient treatment with medications, and noted that he was fit enough to be taken to a court hearing.

In April 2012 the Kaunas Remand Prison’s administration told the applicant in reply to a request that as of that month he would be provided the same menu of food as women (Jums bus tiekiamas maitinimas pagal moterų valgiaraštį).

After visiting the Prison Department Hospital between 7-22 May 2012, the Public Health Centre concluded that the hospital complied with general health-care and hygiene requirements.

The applicant was admitted to the Prison Department Hospital from 21 to 28 June 2012 for a scheduled follow-up (planine tvarka) of his heart condition. The applicant’s medical record shows that a number of tests had been performed on him, the doctors concluded that his state of health was “unchanged (be pakitimų)” and “satisfactory (patenkinama)”. The medical certificate issued at the time of the applicant’s discharge from the hospital on 28 June 2012 also indicated that he smoked, which was a risk factor.

In March 2012 the applicant also wrote to the Ombudsperson, complaining that he had been held at Lukiškės Remand Prison, Kaunas Remand Prison and at the Prison Department Hospital, where he had suffered great psychological stress. He argued that in those facilities his health had worsened and as a consequence he had suffered two myocardial infarctions. He also claimed that in Kaunas Remand Prison he had not been provided with the right diet, going against the doctors’ recommendations. The applicant was also dissatisfied with the fact that he had not been provided rehabilitation therapy. In April 2012 the applicant withdrew, in writing, the part of his complaint concerning Kaunas Remand Prison, stating that he had no complaints about that facility.

On 6 June 2012 the Ombudsperson accepted the applicant’s withdrawal of his complaint as regards Kaunas Remand Prison. The Ombudsperson, however, established that the conditions of the applicant’s detention at Lukiškės Remand Prison, where he had been held between March 2009 and June 2010, as well as at the Prison Department Hospital, where he had been held between 16 December 2011 and 15 March 2012, had been in breach of domestic legislation on overcrowding. In particular, the applicant had been held in the Prison Department Hospital in a room where he had had 4.42 square metres of personal space.

The Ombudsperson nevertheless dismissed the complaint about a lack of proper medical care. After examining the documents related to the applicant’s treatment in hospitals, the Ombudsperson noted that, contrary to the applicant’s submissions, neither the Kaunas Clinics nor the Santariškės Clinics had prescribed him a course of rehabilitation therapy after the applicant’s first and second heart attacks respectively. On the contrary, both Clinics had made recommendations for further treatment, such as the medications, tests and dietary requirements which were required, and which the Prison Department Hospital had followed.

According to three documents provided by the applicant’s representative, Mr. S. Tomas, in September and December 2012 and in April 2013 the outpatient polyclinic in Upninkai (Upninkų ambulatorija, hereinafter – Upninkai Polyclinic), a village in Jonava district in Lithuania, gave “the applicant’s authorised person” three written statements by the polyclinic’s head doctor. They noted that the applicant had suffered from myocardial infarction and summarised his medical history. One of those documents also stated that because of his state of health, as seen in the light of certain legal acts issued by the Minister of Health, the applicant should be released from serving his sentence.

In November 2012 the applicant was taken to the Prison Department Hospital for a planned consultation with a cardiologist. The applicant spent about a month there. During that time, on 15 November 2012, he was also taken to the Santariškės Clinics, where the doctors performed a cardiopulmonary exercise test (veloergometrija) and an ultrasound examination of the heart (ultragarsinis širdies tyrimas). The applicant’s heart was rhythmical, with no decompensation. The cardiologists prescribed medications to treat the applicant, said he should limit his intake of fat and salt (as concerned his diet) and have 45-50 minutes of physical activity a day. He was to return for a further consultation, although the exact date was not indicated.

The doctors in the Prison Department Hospital also performed a number of tests. When they released the applicant back to Kaunas Remand Prison on 5 December 2012 they concluded that “his illness was without complications (ligos eiga: be komplikacijų)”. The applicant’s state of health was “satisfactory (patenkinama)”.

As can be seen from the applicant’s medical records, on 12 February 2013 Kaunas Remand Prison sent him to the Prison Department Hospital for “a full examination, follow-up and treatment” of his heart condition. The doctor’s examined the applicant, including an ECG and blood tests, and concluded that his state of health was “satisfactory”. It was noted that the applicant smoked.

After the applicant’s arrest on 25 March 2009, a court sanctioned his pre-trial detention for an initial duration of three months. The detention was then prolonged a number of times.

On 28 November 2011 the Kaunas Regional Court extended the applicant’s pre-trial detention for three months on the grounds that the applicant was suspected of being the organiser of a criminal group which committed drug-related crimes, that he had connections abroad, did not work and faced a heavy sentence. Moreover, there was evidence in the file that the applicant had attempted to influence other suspects, thus impeding the criminal investigation.

The applicant’s lawyer appealed, arguing that her client had suffered a double myocardial infarction, had been operated on and treated at the Prison Department Hospital. In addition, he had another illness, connected to the digestive system. The lawyer argued that her client would not receive proper medical assistance, as regarded his regime and diet, in the Prison Department Hospital. She asked that a milder remand measure than pre-trial detention be ordered.

On 29 December 2011 the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that milder remand measures would hinder the course of justice. It held that there was no information in the file preventing the holding of the applicant in pre-trial detention because of his state of health. The court noted that the applicant was being held at the time at the Prison Department Hospital and was receiving 24-hour medical assistance.

In March 2012 the applicant’s lawyer submitted several new requests asking to replace detention with a less severe remand measure owing to the deterioration of the applicant’s health while in detention. She also relied on the Santariškės Clinics’ record of 6 March 2012, where it was stated that the applicant needed a low-salt diet, a special regime for his meals and physical activity. The lawyer maintained that such assistance could not be provided at Kaunas Remand Prison or at the Prison Department Hospital, thus preventing the applicant from having satisfactory medical care.

On the basis of the request by the applicant’s lawyer, on 23 March 2012 the Kaunas Regional Court ordered a comprehensive forensic examination to be performed by a doctors’ commission, comprising a cardiologist, to answer the question whether the applicant was ill with a serious, incurable illness (sunki nepagydoma liga), and, if so, whether for that reason he could be released from serving a sentence. In the meantime, the court extended the applicant’s pre-trial detention.

On 20 April 2012 the Court of Appeal upheld the decision to extend the applicant’s detention. The court observed that although the applicant had serious health problems, he had always been provided with adequate treatment at the Prison Department Hospital or, if necessary, in a public hospital.

After examining the applicant’s medical records from the Kaunas Clinics and the Santariškės Clinics, as well as from the Prison Department Hospital, on 11 June 2012 experts from the State Forensic Medicine Service (Valstybinė teismo medicinos tarnyba) produced report no. EKG 24/12 (02). It read that the applicant had an ischaemic heart illness, having suffered a myocardial infarction; he also had hypertension and ischaemic cardiomyopathy. Those ailments should be classified as serious and incurable illnesses. However, the experts concluded that the applicant’s state of health at the time did not meet the criteria which allowed a convicted person to be exempted from serving a sentence, according to the rules set by the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of the Interior (see paragraph 49 below). One of the doctors on the commission was a cardiologist, a professor and habilitated doctor of sciences at the Kaunas Clinics. Another doctor was a surgeon with 35 years of experience.

The applicant’s pre-trial detention was then prolonged by court rulings on 13 June, 24 July and 25 September 2012.

The last pre-trial detention order was upheld on 19 October 2012 by the Court of Appeal. The applicant’s lawyer referred to the reports from the Upninkai Polyclinic and claimed that neither Kaunas Remand Prison nor the Prison Department Hospital could guarantee the necessary medical care for the applicant. The Court of Appeal however noted absence of any new documents showing that the applicant’s state of health had worsened. The Court of Appeal also had regard to the practice of the Court to the effect that the State should protect inmates’ physical health (it relied on Kudła v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, ECHR 2000XI, and Peers v. Greece, no. 28524/95, ECHR 2001III). However, in the applicant’s case there was no evidence that there would be a lack of medical assistance. Furthermore, the comprehensive medical examination (see paragraph 41 above) had not ruled out keeping the applicant detained, and, in the court’s view, its conclusions prevailed over those of the Upninkai Polyclinic. There was no reason to hold that keeping the applicant detained, and, if necessary, treating him at the Prison Department Hospital or in another hospital, could be considered as inhuman or degrading.

By a judgment of 13 December 2012, the Kaunas Regional Court found the applicant guilty of a number of drug-related crimes and sentenced him to sixteen years and six months imprisonment in a correctional home. The applicant was to remain detained until the judgment became final.

The applicant’s conviction was upheld by the Court of Appeal on 31 March 2014, but the sentence was changed to fourteen years of deprivation of liberty in a correctional home.

By a final judgment of 16 December 2014, the Supreme Court upheld the appellate court’s verdict. The Supreme Court also relied on expert report no. EKG 24/12 (02) (see paragraph 41 above), and held that the lower courts had been correct in finding that the applicant’s state of health did not prevent him from serving a prison sentence.


Nebojša Vučinić;Paul Lemmens;Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström;Georges Ravarani;Ksenija Turković

The applicant, Mr Zdravko Folnegović, is a Croatian national, who was born in 1958. He was represented before the Court by Mr I. Skupnjak, a lawyer practising in Zagreb.

The Croatian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms Š. Stažnik.

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

The applicant has lived and worked in Switzerland since 1990.

In the period between 1996 and 2013 the competent prosecuting authorities in Croatia opened in total fifteen criminal cases against the applicant in connection with a suspicion that he had created a network for illegal and fraudulent offering of loans in Switzerland to Croatian citizens. It was alleged that fifty-six individuals had fallen victim to such criminal activities and that the applicant had also caused damage to the State. The total alleged pecuniary gain was estimated to be 645,847.06 euros (EUR).

In the course of the criminal proceedings against him, the applicant several times failed to appear before the competent criminal courts. He referred to reasons such as problems with his car and health issues. In connection with the applicant’s health condition, a medical report was commissioned and on 7 January 2010 a medical expert found that there had been nothing objectively justifying the applicant’s absence from the hearings.

Owing to the inability of the Croatian authorities to secure the applicant’s presence, four sets of criminal proceedings against him were conducted in absentia. In those criminal proceedings he was convicted and sentenced to prison terms ranging from one to three years.

In November 2012, on the basis of an international arrest warrant, the Swiss authorities extradited the applicant to Croatia. Upon his extradition, the applicant was placed in Lepoglava State Prison (Kaznionica u Lepoglavi) where he started to serve his prison sentences.

Following the granting of his application for the reopening of the proceedings conducted in absentia, service of the applicant’s sentence was discontinued on 16 May 2013. He was, however, remanded in pre-trial detention pending the criminal proceedings against him.

On 4 August 2014, after the applicant had deposited bail in the amount of 500,000 Croatian kunas (HRK – approximately EUR 65,000), the Zagreb Municipal Criminal Court (Općinski kazneni sud u Zagrebu), in a case pending before it (case no. Ko-1330/13), found that the applicant should be released if he promised that he would not go into hiding, leave his place of residence in Zagreb without permission, hinder the proper conduct of the proceedings or reoffend. The applicant undertook to obey the conditions of his bail and the Zagreb Municipal Criminal Court released him from detention, instructing the police to supervise the applicant’s compliance with the imposed measures.

At the time when he deposited bail the applicant was still detained on the basis of a detention order of the Zlatar Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Zlataru) in another criminal case against him (case no. K-269/14). Following the applicant’s deposit of the bail before the Zagreb Municipal County Court, on 24 September 2014 the Zlatar Municipal Court found that he should be released from pre-trial detention as his presence could be secured by the measures imposed by the Zagreb Municipal Criminal Court. On the same day, the applicant was released from detention. At the time he was represented before the domestic courts by the same representative as currently before the Court (see paragraph 1 above).

In connection with the applicant’s conviction in absentia in criminal case no. Ko-683/13 on charges of fraudulent offering of loans to several individuals in which he had been sentenced to three years’ imprisonment, on 15 May 2009 the Zagreb Municipal Criminal Court imposed an administrative travel ban on the applicant by ordering the Ministry of the Interior (Ministarstvo unutarnjih poslova Republike Hrvatske), pursuant to section 41 of the Travel Documents (Croatian Citizens) Act (see paragraph 33 below), to confiscate the applicant’s existing travel document and not to issue a new one to him.

Following the setting aside of the applicant’s conviction in absentia and the reopening of the criminal proceedings on the basis of his application, on 12 April 2013 the Zagreb Municipal Criminal Court informed the Ministry of the Interior that the applicant’s travel ban was to remain in force pending the criminal proceedings against him. The applicant was also remanded in pre-trial detention on the grounds of a risk of absconding related to his previous conduct by which he had sought to escape trial.

On 15 November 2013 the decision on the applicant’s pre-trial detention was set aside on the grounds that the maximum period for pre-trial detention had expired.

On 23 January 2014 the Zagreb Municipal Criminal Court informed the Ministry of the Interior that the applicant’s travel ban pursuant to section 41 of the Travel Documents (Croatian Citizens) Act should still remain in force. The same instruction was issued again on 1 October 2014.

Meanwhile, following a retrial, on 4 March 2010 the applicant was found guilty in the above criminal proceedings on charges of fraud and sentenced to three years’ imprisonment. Based on the applicant’s appeal the case was referred to the Slavonski Brod County Court (Županijski sud u Slavonskom Brodu), as the competent appeal court in the case.

On 18 November 2014 the applicant applied to the Zagreb Municipal Criminal Court to have the administrative ban on him obtaining travel documents lifted, arguing that his medical condition had deteriorated and that he urgently needed heart surgery. He contended that he did not have health insurance in Croatia, but only in Switzerland, and that he did not have sufficient financial means to pay for surgery in Croatia. He therefore asked for permission to go to Switzerland for a short period so he could have the surgery. He also pointed out that he had been released from detention on bail and under preventive measures, which, in his view, made the administrative ban at issue obsolete.

As he received no reply from the Zagreb Municipal Criminal Court, in January 2015 the applicant complained to the Ministry of Justice (Ministarstvo pravosuđa Republike Hrvatske) and again urged the Zagreb Municipal Criminal Court to examine his application. Meanwhile, his medical examination of 12 January 2015 indicated that he should have the required heart surgery within three months.

Following his complaint, the applicant received a reply from the Ministry of Justice informing him that the case file had been forwarded to the Slavonski Brod County Court, as the competent appeal court, and that the matter would be examined.

In March 2015 the applicant asked the Slavonski Brod County Court to decide upon his application. On 5 March 2015 the Slavonski Brod County Court replied by an email that it was not competent to decide on the application and that it should be examined by the Zagreb Municipal Criminal Court, which had issued the ban.

On 9 April 2015 the Slavonski Brod County Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the first-instance judgment of the Zagreb Municipal Criminal Court (see paragraph 16 above). His conviction thereby became final.

Following the finalisation of the applicant’s conviction, on 12 June 2015 the case was forwarded to a sentence-execution judge of the Zagreb County Court (Županijski sud u Zagrebu) in order to make the arrangements for the applicant’s service of his prison sentence.

Notwithstanding the repeated attempts by the sentence-execution judge and the police to locate the applicant, he remained unavailable to the Croatian authorities. In February 2016 an international arrest warrant and a European arrest warrant were issued against him.

At present the applicant is still at large.

In addition to the above-noted administrative travel ban in case no. Ko-683/13, an administrative travel ban was also ordered in the Zagreb Municipal Criminal Court’s case no. Ko-1330/13 (see paragraph 10 above). The proceedings in that case are still pending.

The criminal proceedings against the applicant in the Zlatar Municipal Court’s case no. K-269/14 are still pending (see paragraph 11 above).

Other criminal proceedings against the applicant in a case before the Zlatar Municipal Court (case no. K-148/07) are still pending.

According to the applicant, on 27 April 2015 he was asked to come for an interview to a police station where he was questioned about his complaints submitted to the Court.

According to the information provided by the Government, the police were acting upon the media reports that the applicant had effectively lived in Switzerland but maintained his registered residence in Zagreb since 1983.

In this connection the police attempted several times to find the applicant at his registered address in Zagreb but he could not be located. Eventually, he appeared at the police station with his lawyer and gave a statement concerning his residence.

A report on the applicant’s interview of 27 April 2015 contains his statements concerning his residence. According to the report, the applicant was neither questioned on nor did he give any statement concerning his application before the Court.

According to a report by the Ministry of Health (Ministarstvo zdravlja Republike Hrvatske) of 16 April 2015, provided by the Government, the applicant had health insurance in Croatia in the period between 25 October 2013 until 24 September 2014 as a person deprived of his liberty (see paragraph 11 above and paragraph 34 below). Thereafter he had an opportunity to apply for free health insurance within thirty days of his release in accordance with the Mandatory Health Insurance Act (see paragraph 34 below). Moreover, he had an opportunity to apply for comprehensive health insurance but he would have needed to pay certain due instalments and further instalments in the amount of 416.90 Croatian kunas (approximately EUR 55). The health insurance under any of the noted grounds would also cover the heart surgery which had been indicated to the applicant. Such heart surgery could be performed in the Clinical Hospital Centres in Zagreb and Split, and in the Dubrava and Magdalena Clinical Hospitals.

The relevant part of the Travel Documents (Croatian Citizens) Act (Zakon o putnim ispravama hrvatskih državljana, Official Gazette nos. 77/1999, 133/2002, 48/2005, 74/2009, 154/2014 and 82/2015) reads:

“An application for a travel document shall be denied to an applicant in respect of whom there is a justified suspicion that he or she will:

Avoid his or her participation in the criminal proceedings or the enforcement of a judgment by which he or she was sentenced to a sentence of imprisonment longer than three months ... - upon a request by the competent court, ...”

The Mandatory Health Insurance Act (Zakon o obveznom zdravstvenom osiguranju, Official Gazette nos. 80/2013 and 137/2013) in its section 7(28) provides that all individuals deprived of their liberty shall have health insurance. Paragraph 13(c) of the same section provides that every individual who has been deprived of his or her liberty shall be given health insurance if, within thirty days following release, he or she applies for it. Section 18 of the Act provides that health insurance should cover the cost of specialist treatment and hospitalisation.

Section 8 of the Health Care Act (Zakon o zdravstvenoj zaštiti, Official Gazette nos. 150/2008 with further amendments) provides that urgent medical treatment for individuals residing in Croatia without health insurance and sufficient means to pay for their treatment shall be paid for from the State budget.

Under section 12 of the Residence Act (Zakon o prebivalištu, Official Gazette nos. 144/2012 and 158/2013) the police have the right to check whether an individual is residing at his or her registered residence in Croatia, and to institute the procedure for his or her striking out from the register of residence if he or she does not live at the registered residence.


Remainder inadmissible;No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court)

András Sajó;Egidijus Kūris;Guido Raimondi;Helen Keller;Jon Fridrik Kjølbro;Nebojša Vučinić;Paul Lemmens

The applicant was born in 1951 and lives in Gödöllő.

In November 1991 the applicant took up the position of pastor in the Hungarian Calvinist Church (Magyar Református Egyház). As of December 2003, he served in the parish of Gödöllő. His rights and obligations as well as his remuneration were set out in an appointment letter (lelkészi díjlevél) issued by the parish presbyters.

On 22 June 2005 the applicant was informed that disciplinary proceedings had been instituted against him for stating in a local newspaper that State subsidies had been paid unlawfully to a Calvinist boarding school. Meanwhile, on 21 June 2005 the first-instance ecclesiastical court had suspended the applicant’s service with immediate effect until a decision on the merits, for a maximum of sixty days. The applicant received a letter stating that he was entitled, under section 82(1) of Statute no. I of 2000 of the Hungarian Calvinist Church, to 50% of his service allowance during the period of his suspension.

On 27 September 2005 the first-instance ecclesiastical court removed the applicant from service, as a disciplinary measure. On an unspecified date, the second-instance ecclesiastical court upheld that decision and terminated the applicant’s service with effect from 1 May 2006.

On 26 June 2006 the applicant took his case to the Pest County Labour Court, seeking the payment of 50% of his service allowance and other benefits to which, in his view, he should have been entitled during the period of his suspension. Arguing that his suspension had reached its statutory maximum duration on 21 October 2005, he also sought the payment of the whole service allowance from that date until the termination of his service, that is, 30 April 2006. He argued in substance that his ecclesiastical service was analogous to employment, referring to tax rules to that effect (see paragraph 20 below).

On 22 December 2006 the Labour Court discontinued (megszüntette) the proceedings, holding that it had no jurisdiction to adjudicate on the applicant’s claim. It considered that under section 2(3) of Statute no. I of 2000 of the Hungarian Calvinist Church, pastors’ service with the Church was regulated by ecclesiastical rules, whereas laymen’s employment with the Church was governed by the State’s Labour Code. Accordingly, since the dispute before it concerned the applicant’s service as a pastor, the provisions of the Labour Code were not applicable in the case, and there existed no judicial avenue before the State courts to decide on his claims.

The Pest County Regional Court upheld the decision on appeal on 27 April 2007. The applicant did not apply for a review to the Supreme Court.

On 10 September 2007 the applicant lodged a civil-law claim against the Hungarian Calvinist Church. His claim was based in the first place on sections 277(1) and 478(1) of the [old] Civil Code and on the agency contract he had allegedly concluded with the Church. He maintained that for the period from 21 October 2005 (that is, the date when the suspension allegedly became unlawful) until 30 April 2006 (that is, the date of termination of his appointment) he was entitled to a fee for his services, which corresponded to the service allowance set out in his appointment letter. He thus sought enforcement of the contract. Alternatively, he based his claim on sections 318(1) and 339(1) of the [old] Civil Code and on the breach by the Church of its contractual obligations under the agency contract. He argued that by not paying him the allowance due for the period between 21 October 2005 and 30 April 2006, the Church had failed to fulfil its contractual obligations. He thus claimed damages, amounting to the loss of service allowances to which he would have been entitled under the contract for the above-mentioned period.

The Pest Central District Court dismissed the applicant’s claim on the grounds that no contractual relationship had been established between the parties under civil law. In the court’s view, the claim had no basis in civil law. It therefore did not embark on an assessment of the applicant’s secondary claims, such as liability for breach of contract or recognition of debt.

The Budapest Regional Court upheld the first-instance decision on appeal, reasoning that the Hungarian Calvinist Church had no standing in the proceedings, since the applicant had been appointed by the parish of Gödöllő, a separate legal entity.

The applicant lodged a petition for review with the Supreme Court. By its decision of 28 May 2009, the Supreme Court quashed the final decision and discontinued (megszüntette) the proceedings. It stated as follows:

“... In order to determine the rules applicable to the agreement (megállapodás) in question and to the implementation of the rights and obligations arising from it, it is necessary to have regard to the very purpose of the agreement underlying the plaintiff’s actual claim as well as the elements thereof defining the parties’ rights and obligations. The first-instance court rightly stated in its assessment that the agreement serving as the basis of the applicant’s claim was not an agency contract regulated by civil law or concluded by and between parties enjoying personal autonomy in the marketing of [goods and services]. The plaintiff was appointed as a pastor in an ecclesiastical procedure, and the obligations of the respondent were defined in an appointment letter by the assembly of presbyters. The parties established between themselves a pastoral service relationship, regulated by ecclesiastical law.

Under section 15(1) of Act no. IV of 1990 on Freedom of Conscience and Religion and on Churches, the Church is separated from the State. Under sub-section (2), no State coercion can be used to enforce the internal laws and regulations of Churches.

Relying on the above provisions, the applicant can make a claim under the ecclesiastical law before the relevant bodies of the Calvinist Church. The fact that the agreement concluded under ecclesiastical law resembles a contractual agreement under the Civil Code does not prompt State jurisdiction or the enforceability of the claim in a judicial procedure within the meaning of section 7 of the Civil Code. (In the given case the basic elements of an agency contract and the conclusion of such a contract could not be established either.)

The labour court reached the same conclusion in the earlier proceedings when assessing the claim under the State labour law and dismissing its enforcement in judicial proceedings.

The first-instance court was right to point out that as the impugned agreement lacked a civil-law legal basis, the court could not examine the applicant’s secondary claim (compensation for breach of contract). On the basis of the reasoning above, there were no grounds to adjudicate on the claim on the merits.

The Supreme Court accordingly quashes the final judgment, including the firstinstance judgment, and discontinues the proceedings under sections 130(1) (a) and 157 (a) of the Code of Civil Procedure...”

This decision was served on the applicant at some point in time after 9 July 2009.


Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Positive obligations) (Substantive aspect)

Alvina Gyulumyan;Ján Šikuta;Josep Casadevall;Kristina Pardalos;Luis López Guerra

The applicant was born in 1955 and is currently serving a prison sentence. Since his sentence began, he has been imprisoned in a number of prisons in Romania.

On 22 January 2007 the applicant was placed in pre-trial detention on suspicion of murder.

On 10 July 2007 the applicant was convicted of murder and sentenced to seventeen years and six months’ imprisonment.

According to the information provided by the National Prisons Administration (Administraţia Naţională a Penitenciarelor, the “ANP”), from his arrest to January 2012 the applicant was mainly held in Târgu Jiu, Craiova, Giurgiu, Gherla and Arad Prisons. Every two or three months he spent about a week in a prison hospital, in one of Jilava, Colibaşi or Dej Prisons.

During the reporting period, the applicant was transferred forty-seven times between these eight facilities; fifteen of these transfers were to the psychiatric wards of prison hospitals.

The applicant alleged that in all of the prisons in which he had been held other inmates had tried to poison his food and to beat him to death, and had been encouraged to do so or even helped by the prison authorities.

On 14 March 2007, while in detention, the applicant was diagnosed with delusional disorder, a type of psychosis. Psychiatric treatment in Jilava Prison Hospital was recommended.

According to the official prison records, each time the applicant was admitted to a prison hospital the diagnosis was confirmed. From 2007 to March 2010, each time he was discharged from prison hospital he was prescribed medication for his psychiatric disorder. It is mentioned in the official prison records that he refused to accept the diagnosis and to take his medication. For this reason, he was on each occasion discharged from hospital and transferred back to prison.

From March to July 2010 the applicant spent two periods of two weeks and one period of one week in Jilava Prison Hospital. He was discharged from hospital each time, it being considered that no medication was needed for his psychiatric condition. Following a further period of admission to Colibaşi Prison Hospital in September 2010, he was given medication again.

On several occasions the applicant reported to the authorities that the other inmates were trying to poison him. According to him, instead of receiving an answer to his complaints, he was transferred each time to a psychiatric hospital. He also asked to be placed in a cell alone, in order to prevent other attempts at poisoning him.

According to the information provided by the ANP, the quality of food was tested daily, and water quality was tested periodically. The results were satisfactory. The applicant was never admitted to the infirmary with symptoms of poisoning.

In 2009, in Craiova Prison, he was transferred, at his request, to the maximum security wing of that prison, where he shared a room with two others. While he was there, the applicant nevertheless chose to sleep in a small bathtub (measuring 80 cm by 80 cm) in the unheated bathroom from November 2009 to February 2010, as he feared that his cellmates were trying to poison him while he was asleep.

The applicant lodged criminal complaints against the prison guards, the doctor and the governor of Craiova Prison, whom he accused of improper behaviour. On 10 March 2010, 31 March 2010 and 8 July 2011 the Prosecutor’s Office decided not to bring a criminal prosecution. It noted that there was no evidence that prison officers had encouraged the inmates to poison or beat the applicant. The prosecutor also noted that the applicant had never sought medical help in prison for any poison-related symptoms and that he had never been in conflict with the other inmates or with the wardens. The prosecutor took account of the fact that the applicant had been diagnosed with mixed delusional disorder and that he had been compulsorily admitted to hospital several times, but discharged only a few days later, because he had refused to acknowledge the illness or to receive treatment.

Upon receiving the prosecutor’s decision of 10 March 2010, the applicant asked to be examined by the National Institute for Forensic Medicine (“the Forensic Institute”) to prove that he was not mentally ill.

In Gherla Prison, the applicant chose to sleep on the toilet seat to avoid the alleged poisoning and used to wake up in the middle of the night to rinse his mouth, being certain that he had been poisoned in his sleep. According to the official prison records, the most difficult stage of his detention in Gherla Prison was in April 2010, when he repeatedly complained that the administration was promising benefits for inmates if they poisoned his food and water.

In February 2010 the applicant went on hunger strike to force the prison administration to place him alone in a cell. The judge delegated by the court of appeal to supervise the observance of prisoners’ rights for the purpose of Law no. 275/2006 on the execution of sentences (“the postsentencing judge”) visited him and explained that his request could only be met if there were places available in individual cells, which was not the case at that time. In a decision of 24 February 2010 the post-sentencing judge determined that it was appropriate for the applicant to be kept in common dormitories but asked that he be seen daily by a doctor during his hunger strike, to ensure that his life was not endangered.

In 2011, a similar request to be placed alone was denied by the Craiova Prison administration, as there were no individual cells available.

The applicant asked to be transferred to Rahova Prison Hospital, in a single room under medical supervision, from September to November 2009. His request was refused, as it was considered that the conditions of detention in Craiova Prison were appropriate.

On 8 September 2009, 9 November 2009 and 15 June 2011 the Craiova Prison administration responded to inquiries by the ANP concerning the applicant’s allegations of poisoning, explaining the applicant’s mental health problems. In the letter of 15 June 2011 they also informed the ANP that the applicant was not “a person in need” who required the help of another person, as he could take care of himself, notably wash and feed himself.

At the end of its investigation, the ANP informed the applicant that his allegations remained unfounded.

The applicant lodged similar complaints with the post-sentencing judge.

On 9 November 2010 such a complaint concerning the situation in Giurgiu Prison was dismissed as unfounded. On 12 February 2009 the postsentencing judge dismissed a similar complaint concerning Craiova Prison as unfounded.

On 30 August 2008, while in Târgu Jiu Prison, the applicant was involved in a violent incident.

According to the applicant, he was beaten up by three inmates and stabbed in the lungs, kidneys, spleen and other organs by H.G. He was only taken to the doctor seven days after the incident and never received a copy of the medical certificate. Despite the applicant’s complaints H.G. was never punished for the attack.

According to the official prison records, the applicant was found injured by a guard and immediately taken to the prison infirmary, where he refused to be bandaged. As a consequence, he was immediately taken to a civilian hospital. Later on, he was also examined by a forensic doctor, who confirmed the existence of lesions and established that the applicant needed nine to ten days of medical care but that his life had not been endangered.

During disciplinary proceedings opened in the prison, the applicant refused to give statements or to get acquainted with the official reports. On 10 September 2008 the disciplinary commission punished H.G. with three days’ isolation. On 21 November 2008 the same disciplinary commission exonerated the applicant of any responsibility for the incident; a copy of this decision was forwarded on the same day to the applicant.

No criminal complaint was filed with respect to that incident.


Alvina Gyulumyan;Ján Šikuta;Johannes Silvis;Josep Casadevall

The applicant, Ms Elena Petraşcu, is a Romanian national, who was born in 1931 and lives in Bucharest. She was represented before the Court by Mr P. V. Manta, a lawyer practising in Bucharest.

The Romanian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms C. Brumar, from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

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

On 6 November 2008 the applicant brought proceedings against a third party seeking the cancellation of the sale contract with a maintenance clause for her apartment. During the proceedings before the first and second-instance courts, the applicant was assisted by a legal representative of her own choosing.

By an interlocutory judgment (ȋncheiere de şedință) of 2 December 2008 the Bucharest District Court adjourned the proceedings to, inter alia, allow the applicant to specify the value of the object of the dispute, in order for the court to be able to determine its competence ratione materiae and the appropriate form of appeal that could be lodged against the judgment.

At a hearing on 6 January 2009 the applicant submitted to the firstinstance court that the tax value of the apartment, namely 64,959 Romanian lei (approximately 17,500 euros (EUR)), was the value of the object of the dispute.

By a judgment of 12 May 2009 the Bucharest District Court dismissed the applicant’s action as ill-founded on the basis of the available documents, submissions and testimonial evidence. The operative part of the judgment expressly stated that it was amenable to appeal within fifteen days of notification.

On 11 August 2009 the applicant lodged an appeal against the firstinstance court’s judgment without providing reasons.

On 26 October 2009 the applicant also lodged an appeal on points of law (recurs) against the first-instance court’s judgment, for which she did provide reasons.

At a hearing on 2 February 2010 before the Bucharest County Court the applicant argued that the market value of her apartment was RON 110,000 (approximately 29,000 Euros (EUR)).

On 6 April 2010, after hearing submissions from both parties, the Bucharest County Court changed the applicant’s appeal to an appeal on points of law and referred the case to a bench of three judges competent to examine such appeals by virtue of Article 2821 (1) of the Romanian Code of Civil Procedure. It held that on 6 January 2009 the applicant had expressly informed the first-instance court of the value of the apartment, which had not been contested by the third party. In addition, the relevant civil procedure rules and the principle of lawfulness did not allow the parties to choose the form of appeal they wished to lodge against a judgment.

On 1 June 2010 the Bucharest County Court heard submissions from both parties on whether the applicant had provided reasons for her appeal on points of law within the statutory time-limit.

On 2 June 2010 the applicant submitted written observations to the Bucharest County Court. She reiterated her argument that the value of her apartment was RON 110,000 and contended that the second-instance court had wrongfully reclassified her appeal. In addition, she contended that she had submitted the reasons for her appeal within the statutory time-limit.

By a final judgment of 18 June 2010 the Bucharest County Court, sitting as a bench of three judges, declared the applicant’s appeal on points of law invalid. It held that she had not submitted her reasons for it within the statutory time-limit. Moreover, there was no public interest justifying the invalidation of the judgment. Furthermore, the appropriate form of appeal that could be exercised by the parties was prescribed by law and not the judge examining the case. Consequently, the fact that the first-instance court had wrongfully identified the form of appeal that could have been exercised by the applicant did not exempt her from lodging the appropriate form of appeal and from submitting her reasons for it within the statutory time-limit. The applicant appealed on points of law against the judgment and argued, inter alia, that at the time of initiating the proceedings against the third party the domestic legislation on judicial tax had not classified her action as a pecuniary type of action. It was only on 12 December 2008 that the domestic legislation on judicial tax had been amended and the classification had changed. Also, the second-instance court could have ordered an expert report to determine the value of the apartment, given that the applicant had expressly informed the same court that the value in question was in excess of RON 100,000.

On 31 March 2011 the Bucharest Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal on points of law as inadmissible. It held, inter alia, that the judgment in the interest of the law (recurs ȋn interesul legii) delivered by the Court of Cassation on 9 June 2008 had considered that the type of action opened by the applicant against the third party was pecuniary in nature and that the provisions of Article 2821 (1) of the Romanian Code of Civil Procedure therefore applied. In addition, the Bucharest County Court had lawfully interpreted the applicant’s clear and repeated submissions that the value of the apartment in dispute was RON 64,959.

Article 103 (1) and (2) provided that failure to lodge any form of appeal within the statutory time-limit resulted in the deprivation of that right, except when the law provided otherwise or the party proved that it was impeded from doing so by unforeseen circumstances. In the latter case, the right could be exercised within fifteen days of the date the impediment ceased to exist.

Article 112 (3) provided that the application to initiate proceedings had to include a description of the object of the dispute as estimated by the claimant.

Articles 282, 287 and 292 provided that first-instance court judgments were amenable to appeal within fifteen days of the date of notification. Reasons for the appeal had to be submitted by the parties at the time of the first hearing before the court at the latest. Failure to submit the reasons for appeal within the allowed time-limit did not lead to its invalidation, but removed the ability to raise additional issues of fact and law that had not been raised before the first-instance court.

Articles 2821 (1) (amended by Law no. 195/2004, which entered into force on 29 May 2004), 299, 301 and 3021 provided that judgments delivered in respect of disputes where the object of the dispute was valued at less than RON 1 billion (approximately EUR 27,000) were not amenable to appeal. Judgments not amenable to appeal were amenable to appeal on points of law (recurs). An appeal on points of law could be lodged within fifteen days of the judgment being notified to the parties. Reasons for the appeal on points of law had to be submitted within the same fifteen-day period, or it would be declared invalid.

Article 329 (3) provided that judgments in the interest of the law had no impact on existing judgments or on the situation of the parties involved in the proceedings. The solution adopted was binding on the domestic courts.


Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (Article 35-1 - Exhaustion of domestic remedies);Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention;Article 5-1-e - Persons of unsound mind)

Erik Møse;Julia Laffranque;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Ksenija Turković

The applicant was born in 1962 and lives in L.

For several years the applicant had been under the supervision of, and had been receiving various types of financial assistance amounting to some 600 Croatian kunas (HRK) per month from, a local social care centre.

In June 2008, the applicant’s family doctor submitted to the social care centre a report on her medical treatment, stating as follows:

“With regard to your question concerning Ms M.S.’s state of health and treatment and my observations on her health problems ... I confirm that she has been my patient since March 2008. She is a person with polymorphic health issues, and, in terms of the somatic aspect of her state of health, abdominal sensations related to the gynaecological area (a gynaecologist has prescribed surgery, which the patient constantly refuses) and thereby related anaemia – of course, treated by an alternative therapy.

Because of a number of other health issues (frequent headaches, lumbar pain) she has been sent for specialist examinations, which attested to a sufficiency of outpatient treatment, in the form of both medication and physiotherapy.

Unfortunately, the patient has her own peculiar interpretation of her health issues, on which she insists, and therefore I consider that the best help for her would be psychological/psychiatric treatment. Of course, this requires her consent, which so far could not be obtained. The continuity of the treatment is additionally hampered by the patient’s change of her place of residence. Her visits to the doctor are random, and so are her wishes as to the scope and area of treatment.

The particular difficulty in the medical treatment of Ms [M.]S. is related to her mental [state].”

On 26 June 2008 the social care centre instituted proceedings in the competent court for divesting the applicant of legal capacity, which was one of the issues giving rise to a case before the Court in M.S. v. Croatia (no. 36337/10, §§ 40-46, 25 April 2013).

Following an expert report of 19 August 2013 indicating that the applicant had been effectively engaged in psychiatric treatment, which had been progressing well, on 9 September 2013 the social care centre withdrew the request to divest her of legal capacity.

On 29 October 2012 the applicant went to see her family doctor complaining of severe lower-back pain. Her doctor, after having examined her, called the emergency health service and sent the applicant for some further medical checks.

The doctor who received the applicant in the emergency service found that her general condition was good, that she was conscious and well oriented, but that she had difficulty moving. The doctor made a working diagnosis of lumbago and sent the applicant for further medical checks by a neurologist.

The neurologist in the emergency service examined the applicant on the same day and found that the information she was giving was incoherent and disproportionate to her pain, and that she had not been taking her medication. He made a diagnosis of back pain and anxiety disorder, and sent the applicant for a further examination by a psychiatrist.

The applicant was then examined by a psychiatrist in the emergency service who after interviewing her found that she was making fanciful and confusing allegations of persecution by various doctors. The psychiatrist made a diagnosis of acute psychotic disorder, systemic delusional disorder and delusional dysmorphic disorder, and prescribed hospitalisation.

The applicant was immediately admitted to the psychiatric clinic of the R. Clinical Hospital Centre (Klinički bolnički centar R., Klinika za psihijatriju; hereinafter: “the hospital”), a public health-care institution. The relevant parts of the admission record, in so far as legible, indicate as follows:

“Date of admission: 29.10.2012 Date and time of hospitalisation: 29.10.2012

Admission diagnosis: ... anxiety disorder

Patient’s attitude towards the examination: refused examination by a psychiatrist; requested a somatic examination

Psychological condition: conscious and well oriented, suspicious ... tense in the psychomotor sense ... distanced, cold, with ideas of ... persecution, control ...

Neurological condition: syndrome of back pain

Patient’s attitude towards the hospitalisation: refuses

Consent: NO

Physical intervention: physical restraint, tying to a bed

In the evening of the same day, another doctor examined the applicant. The relevant part of the examination record reads:

“The patient was hospitalised after an examination by Dr [T.]L., and after having been treated in the [emergency ward] for persistant severe back pain (documentation in attachment).

She was brought on a stretcher, tied down, maintaining conscience and orientation, negative, arguing, yelling, agitated, affectively dissolute, with a mind-flow disorder, substantively paranoid ideas. ...

Diagnosis: Acute psychotic disorder F 23.2

Delusional disorder ...

Fixation. Th. according to the list.”

According to the applicant, following her admission to hospital she was tied to a bed with four belts tightened around her ankles and wrists, and forcefully injected with a strong drug. She was kept in that position throughout the night and felt severe pain in her back. Her left leg was restrained in such a position that the belts caused her additional pain. The room was small and had no windows. The following morning the belts were removed and she was taken to another room in the psychiatric hospital.

According to the Government, following the applicant’s admission to hospital she was given the usual treatment for patients in a state of psychotic agitation and was then placed in an isolation room. The room had a direct connection with the adjacent staff room and was under constant video surveillance. The room measured 2.50 by 2.12 metres and the height of the ceiling was 3.15 metres. It was equipped only with one bed. It had a heating and air-conditioning system, as well as access to sanitary facilities. The belts used to restrain the applicant to the bed were specially adapted so as to avoid any injuries.

The Government further explained that the applicant had been tied to the bed in the isolation room from the time of her admission to hospital at 8.50 p.m. on 29 October 2012 until the next morning. She was then taken to a regular hospital room where she was again restrained until 12 noon. During that time her condition and all her needs were regularly monitored. After the initial period following the applicant’s admission to hospital until her release, she was not restrained again.

The available medical records concerning the physical restraint used on the applicant in the hospital show that this method was used in the period between 8.50 p.m. on 29 October 2012 until around 12 noon on 30 October 2012. The relevant medical record monitoring the applicant’s physical restraining, in so far as legible, reads as follows:

brought by [the emergency service] on a stretcher ...

upon admission screaming, restive, kicking

came [to the emergency service] because of back pain

taken to the isolation box (hands and legs fixed), screaming, threatening, restive

psychotic, paranoid [ideas]

drunk water

complains of lower back pain

did not sleep well during the night, called [for assistance], drunk water (approximately one litre) ...

manipulative

did not sign the consent to hospitalisation, ...

morning hygiene performed in the box

... around 12 p.m. taken to the intensive care ward ... complains of back pain, unaware of her condition, paranoid ...”

On 30 October 2012 the hospital informed the R. County Court (Županijski sud u R.) that the applicant had been involuntarily admitted for treatment on 29 October 2012, that she had refused further hospitalisation and that her mental condition prevented her from making a sound decision in that respect.

On the same day the R. County Court instituted proceedings for the applicant’s involuntary retention and appointed a legal-aid lawyer, P.R., to represent her.

On 31 October 2012 the judge conducting the proceedings visited the applicant in the hospital. The record of the visit in its entirety reads:

“[Number of the case file]