Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (Article 35-1 - Exhaustion of domestic remedies);Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 13 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Respondent State to take individual measures (Article 46 - Pilot judgment;Systemic problem;Individual measures);Respondent State to take measures of a general character (Article 46 - Pilot judgment;Systemic problem;General measures);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)

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

Mr Neshkov was born in 1971 and is currently detained in Belene Prison. Mr Tsekov was born in 1973 and is currently detained in Stroitel, an open-type prison hostel attached to Burgas Prison. Mr Simeonov was born in 1976. He was detained in Burgas Prison until 15 July 2014, when he was released; his current whereabouts are unknown. Mr Yordanov was born in 1962 and is currently detained in Atlant, a closed-type prison hostel in Troyan attached to Lovech Prison. Mr Zlatev was born in 1965 and is currently detained in Burgas Prison.

Since his incarceration Mr Neshkov has been placed successively in Varna Prison (2002-05), Lovech Prison (2005-06), Vratsa Prison (2006-14), and Belene Prison (2014-present). In the course of transfers to court hearings he also spent short periods of time, one to two days on each occasion, in Stara Zagora Prison.

Mr Neshkov was placed in Varna Prison on 19 June 2002 in execution of eight separate criminal sentences. In a decision of 25 October 2007 of the Lovech District Court these were combined into an aggregate sentence of twenty-eight years and eleven months’ imprisonment.

In the course of his stay in Varna Prison Mr Neshkov was kept in the prison’s high-security area, Group 3 (life prisoners and other prisoners under special regime) on the ground floor, in cells nos. 15, 19, 19a and 24. Cell no. 15 measured 6.5 by 3.2 metres and had two windows letting in enough sunlight and allowing the cell to be properly aired. Cells nos. 19 and 24 each measured 3.2 by 2 metres and had one window, and, according to the Government, were not overcrowded. According to them, cell no. 19a measured 2 by 1.9 metres, and was equipped with a bed, a metal locker and a table. According to Mr Neshkov, the cell was only equipped with a bed and a plastic bucket. According to the Government, Mr Neshkov was during most of the time kept alone in these cells, all of which had windows that let in enough sunlight and allowed them to be properly aired. According to Mr Neshkov, the cell windows were covered with metal sheets, which did not permit sunlight or fresh air to come in, and the cells were not equipped with a ventilation system. None of these cells was equipped with a toilet. The Government said that they had no records on the exact amount of time spent by Mr Neshkov in each of these four cells. Mr Neshkov submitted that he had spent two years in cell 19a. This cell, as well as the others in which he had been housed – and indeed all cells in the prison’s high security area – had been kept locked all the time, save for three periods of thirty to forty minutes in the morning, at lunch and in the evening. During these periods, he was able to go to the toilet, but the rest of time he had to use a bucket to relieve his sanitary needs. Mr Neshkov submitted that while in cell 24, he was tied to the bed with handcuffs for thirty-four days.

According to the Government, all inmates in Varna Prison, including Mr Neshkov, were provided with adequate health care. Varna Prison had a medical centre, and where necessary inmates were consulted by outside medical doctors.

On 29 June 2005 Mr Neshkov was transferred to Lovech Prison, then on 11 October 2006 to Vratsa Prison, and then on 23 May 2014 to Belene Prison, where he is currently housed. He did not provide any information about the conditions in these prisons.

Between 2002 and 2008 Mr Neshkov spent periods of time of several days in Stara Zagora Prison on a number of occasions in connection with court hearings.

According to the Government, all inmates from other prisons who spent short periods of time in Stara Zagora Prison were housed in a special wing. Since they were very diverse – sentenced and remand prisoners, men and women, adults and minors, inmates from open and closed correctional facilities, first time and repeat offenders – they had to be kept separated in locked cells, primarily for their own security. That, and the fact that this wing contained the disciplinary cells, had made it necessary to classify as a high-security zone. The sometimes high number of such transit prisoners had made it necessary to put up to four of them in one cell. They had been allowed to visit the toilet three times a day, separately for men and women and for adults and minors, and to spend time in the open air. They had taken their meals in the cells. Hygiene in the cells had been maintained by the inmates themselves. All the windows had glazing, and the cells had been repainted in 2003 and 2006. However, because of the large number of prisoners transiting through the premises, they were wearing quite fast.

On 8 August 2008 Mr Neshkov brought a claim under section 1 of the State and Municipalities Liability for Damage Act 1988 (see paragraph 125 below) in relation to the conditions of his detention in Stara Zagora Prison. He sought 7,000 Bulgarian levs (BGN) in nonpecuniary damages. On 25 September 2008 the Sofia City Administrative Court discontinued the proceedings, citing Mr Neshkov’s failure to state clearly the alleged facts and his request for relief. Following an appeal by Mr Neshkov, in a decision of 16 December 2008 (опр. № 13975 от 16 декември 2008 г. по адм. д. № 14809/2008 г., ВАС, ІІІ о.) the Supreme Administrative Court quashed that decision and directed that the claim be examined on the merits. On 18 February 2009 the Sofia City Administrative Court transferred the case to the territorially competent Stara Zagora Administrative Court.

At Mr Neshkov’s request, the Stara Zagora Administrative Court ordered the administration of Stara Zagora Prison to provide information about Mr Neshkov’s stays in this prison between 10 October 2002 and 25 February 2008 and about the conditions in which he had been kept in the course of these stays. The prison administration was able to provide such information only in relation to 2007, explaining that the records concerning short-term stays of prisoners normally housed in other prisons were not kept for more than a year.

In a judgment of 6 July 2009 (реш. № 12 от 6 юли 2009 г. по адм. д. № 104/2009 г., АС-Враца) the Vratsa Administrative Court dismissed Mr Neshkov’s claim. It noted that the exact periods of time when he had been housed in Stara Zagora Prison in 2002-08 could only be established for 2007, because the prison’s records for the remaining years had not been preserved. In 2007, Mr Neshkov had been housed in this prison on five occasions: on 18-19 January, alone in a cell; on 30-31 March, in a cell with three other inmates; on 4-6 April, in a cell with three other inmates; on 14-15 June, in a cell with two other inmates; and on 3-4 July, in a cell with one other inmate. During these periods, he had not been provided with bed linen. The cells in which he had been kept had been infested with cockroaches, had not been sufficiently lit during the day but constantly lit at night, and had not had in-cell toilets. As a result, Mr Neshkov had had to relieve himself in a bucket and urinate in a plastic bottle. The court made no findings in relation to the size of the cells or the number of inmates held in them, noting that at the relevant time there had been no binding legal requirement for minimum space per prisoner. However, it went on to say that Mr Neshkov had failed to prove that he had suffered non-pecuniary damage as a result of these conditions. Moreover, he had only spent short periods of time in these cells. While a long period of time in such extremely poor conditions of detention could cause mental suffering, the same could not be said of a short period. There was therefore no damage to make good.

Mr Neshkov appealed on points of law, arguing, inter alia, that the Vratsa Administrative Court had erred by dismissing his claim as unproved in relation to the remainder of the period 2002-08 based on the lack of relevant prison records. He also challenged the court’s ruling on the existence or otherwise of non-pecuniary damage.

In a judgment of 19 March 2010 (реш. № 3608 от 19 март 2010 г. по адм. д. № 11645/2009 г., ВАС, ІІІ о.) the Supreme Administrative Court upheld the lower court’s judgment, fully agreeing with its reasoning. It noted, in particular, that Mr Neshkov had failed to prove the existence of damage.

On 24 April 2009 Mr Neshkov brought a claim against the Ministry of Justice under section 1 of the State and Municipalities Liability for Damage Act 1988 (see paragraph 125 below) in relation to the conditions of his detention in Varna Prison in 2002-05. He sought BGN 50,000, plus interest, in non-pecuniary damages.

Mr Neshkov requested to be exempted from paying a court fee. On 28 April 2009 the Varna Administrative Court refused his request, holding that the declaration of means that he had presented was not sufficient to elucidate his and his family’s financial situation. It could not therefore be accepted that he was indigent.

At the first hearing, held on 18 September 2009, the court instructed Mr Neshkov to specify which part of the damage allegedly suffered by him was due to acts and which part to omissions of prison officials. The court also directed the governor of Varna Prison to provide information about the conditions of Mr Neshkov’s detention, gave leave to Mr Neshkov to call witnesses, and ordered an expert report on the compatibility of the conditions in the cells and toilets in Varna Prison with the applicable standards.

On 28 September 2009 Mr Neshkov requested to be exempted from paying a deposit for the expert report. The next day, 29 September 2009, the court refused his request, giving the same reason as previously: that the declaration of means presented by Mr Neshkov was not sufficient to elucidate his and his family’s financial situation and show that he was indeed indigent. Mr Neshkov appealed against this ruling, but in a decision of 10 November 2009 (опр. № 13367 от 10 ноември 2009 г. по адм. д. № 14179/2009 г., ВАС, ІА о.) a three-member panel of the Supreme Administrative Court refused to examine the appeal, holding that such rulings by the first-instance court were not subject to appeal. Mr Neshkov appealed further. In a decision of 25 January 2010 (опр. № 912 от 25 януари 2010 г. по адм. д. № 16497/2009 г., ВАС, петчл. с-в) a fivemember panel of the Supreme Administrative Court upheld the threemember panel’s decision.

In the meantime, on 29 September 2009 the Varna Administrative Court decided to strike one of Mr Neshkov’s witnesses off. It found that this witness, who was incarcerated, was a dangerous criminal regarded by the prison authorities as cruel and extremely resilient. There was therefore a risk that, if brought to the court to take part in a hearing, he might try to flee. The court instructed Mr Neshkov to seek another witness in relation to the facts that he was seeking to prove through this witness’ testimony.

Following further applications by Mr Neshkov, on 17 March 2010 the court refused to vary its earlier evidentiary rulings.

At a hearing on 9 April 2010 Mr Neshkov asked the judge hearing the case to recuse herself, citing her rulings in relation to the evidence. She refused to do so, saying that these rulings were not indicative of any bias against Mr Neshkov. The court then heard one witness called by Mr Neshkov and ordered the prison governor to present the medical documents relating to Mr Neshkov’s stay in Varna Prison in 2002-05.

In a judgment of 5 July 2010 (реш. № 1405 от 5 юли 2010 г. по адм. д. № 1093/2009 г., АС-Варна) the Varna Administrative Court dismissed Mr Neshkov’s claim. It held that Mr Neshkov, who bore the burden of proving all elements of the tort under section 1 of the State and Municipalities for Damage Act 1988, including the existence of damage, had failed to make out his claim that he had suffered harm as a result of the conditions of his detention. He had not presented evidence that he had felt bad or fallen ill as a result of these conditions. The witness evidence that he had adduced was – unlike medical expert evidence – not sufficient to prove medical complaints. There was no indication that the pain and suffering allegedly endured by him had led to any permanent damage to his health. Moreover, it could not be overlooked that, in view of the fact that he had been incarcerated pursuant to more than two sentences, he had been placed under a prison regime entailing heightened security.

On an appeal by Mr Neshkov, in a judgment of 23 February 2011 (реш. № 2738 от 23 февруари 2011 г. по адм. д. № 11507/2010 г., ВАС, ІІІ о.) the Supreme Administrative Court quashed the Varna Administrative Court’s judgment and remitted the case. It held that the lower court had, in breach of the rules of procedure, failed to indicate to Mr Neshkov which of his allegations were unsupported by evidence. For instance, the lower court had held Mr Neshkov’s omission to present medical evidence on his state of health against him without instructing him to present such evidence. Since it was apparently of the view that such evidence was required, it could have even appointed a medical expert of its own motion. Its failure to do so could not be explained by Mr Neshkov’s inability to bear the costs of such an expert report. Such financial considerations could not be allowed to trump the fundamental constitutional right of access to an independent court. The lower court had in addition failed to rule in terms on several of Mr Neshkov’s evidentiary requests. That, as well as its failure to obtain the medical documents concerning Mr Neshkov’s stay in Varna Prison, had in effect prevented Mr Neshkov from making out his claim.

The Varna Administrative Court re-examined the case at four hearings. It also obtained, by way of a letter of request to the Lovech Administrative Court, the statement of a witness for the applicant who was housed in Lovech Prison.

In a judgment of 11 November 2011 (реш. № 2647 от 11 ноември 2011 г. по адм. д. № 758/2011 г., АС-Варна) the Varna Administrative Court again dismissed Mr Neshkov’s claim. It found that after his admission to Varna Prison, between 19 June and 19 August 2002 Mr Neshkov had been kept in cell no. 15. This cell had measured twelve by three metres and had been full of beds and cabinets. Mr Neshkov had had to share the cell with ten to fifteen other inmates, some of whom smokers. The cell had not had proper artificial lighting or access to sunlight. It had not had a ventilation system either, and it had not been possible to air it properly because its windows could not open widely. Nor had the cell had a toilet; it had only been equipped with a bucket for sanitary needs. Following a serious deterioration in Mr Neshkov’s mental state as a result of the conditions in this cell, on 19 August 2002 the prison administration had moved him to cell no. 24, an isolation cell, where he had remained alone. This cell had not had a ventilation system or direct access to sunlight, because its window had been covered with a metal sheet. It had not had a toilet or any furniture apart from a bed. During his time in this cell – until 19 November 2002 – Mr Neshkov had not always been allowed to use the half-an-hour out-of-cell time permitted three times a day under his prison regime. After that he had been moved for a period of about eight or nine months to cell no. 19a, which had been two by two metres and had only been equipped with a bed and a bucket for sanitary needs. This cell’s window had been covered with a perforated metal sheet. The court said that the evidence presented by Mr Neshkov did not enable it to make any findings of fact in relation to the period after 19 August 2003.

Based on these findings of fact, the Varna Administrative Court held that the state of affairs which lay at the origin of Mr Neshkov’s claim had come to an end on 19 August 2003. The applicable five-year limitation period had therefore expired on 19 August 2008, whereas Mr Neshkov’s claim had been lodged in April 2009. Therefore, in as much as it concerned the period before 19 August 2003, the claim was time-barred. In as much it concerned the period after that date, it was unproved: there was no evidence of either unlawful acts or omissions on the part of the prison authorities or of harm suffered by Mr Neshkov as a result of that.

Mr Neshkov appealed on points of law. He argued, inter alia, that the Varna Administrative Court had completely disregarded part of the evidence and had erroneously found that there was no evidence in relation to the period after 19 August 2003. For instance, the prison administration had itself admitted that throughout Mr Neshkov’s stay in Varna Prison the cells had not been equipped with toilets or ventilation systems.

In a judgment of 3 July 2012 (реш. № 9586 от 3 юли 2012 г. по адм. д. № 1247/2012 г., ВАС, ІІІ о.) the Supreme Administrative Court upheld the Varna Administrative Court’s judgment in the following terms:

“... [T]he [lower] court gathered all relevant evidence, analysed it in depth and in detail, and came to correct and lawful findings that are fully shared by this court.

Having elucidated the facts, the [lower] court was correct to hold that the latest date on which prison officials were proved to have carried out the impugned acts or omissions during the period under consideration was 19 August 2003. Not one piece of evidence concerns the period after that date. The court was therefore correct to hold that that was the point in time when the impugned acts and omissions of the [prison] administration had come to an end. ... [T]he five-year limitation period [therefore] started to run on that date and expired on 19 August 2008. In these circumstances, and given that the statement of claim was lodged on 24 April 2009, it was proper to hold that, regardless of the veracity or otherwise of the allegations about the period of time between 7 June 2002 and 23 April 2004, the claim concerning that period was timebarred. As regards the remainder of the period – between 24 April 2004 and 20 May 2005 – the case file does not contain any evidence showing that the alleged unlawful acts and omissions of officials of Varna Prison have indeed taken place. The prerequisites for allowing a claim under section 1 of the [1988 Act] are not in place, and the lower court was right to reject the claim as unproved.”

On 2 September 2011, following his extradition from Romania, Mr Tsekov was placed in Sofia Prison to serve a sentence of seven years’ imprisonment whose execution had started on 27 August 2008. He remained in this prison until 25 January 2012, when he was transferred to Burgas Prison. He arrived in Burgas Prison on 30 January 2012, and the same day was placed in Unit five, where he remained until 13 February 2014, when he was transferred to Stroitel open-type prison hostel, attached to Burgas Prison.

Mr Tsekov alleged that the cells in which he was kept, first cell no. 317 and then cell no. 309 on the third floor, measured about four by five metres, making for a total surface of 20 square metres, and housed between fourteen and twenty-two inmates, which made for less than one square metre each. Since the cell had six triple-bunk and one double-bunk beds, six lockers, and three table, the actual amount of free space was even less, as low as 0.2 square metre per person. The Government did not provide any information in relation to cell no. 317, but said that cell no. 309 was 4.23 by 7.05 metres, which made for 29.82 square metres of surface. According to them, the number of inmates in the cell was thirteen, and the amount of space per inmate was 2.29 square metres. The cell had two windows close to the ceiling, one metre by fifty centimetres each, which allegedly did not allow direct sunlight into the cell or its proper ventilation. Since there were no cells for non-smokers, Mr Tsekov had to share the cell with smokers, which was allegedly particularly problematic for him in view of the lack of ventilation. According to the Government, the issue of smoking was being resolved amicably among the cellmates; according to Mr Tsekov, that was absolutely not the case. He said that the problem could not be solved as up to 90% of inmates in Burgas Prison were smokers. Mr Tsekov was not one, and he only received cigarettes from the outside to use them as currency, as was customary in the prison. He also said that there were four or five television sets in the cell that showed different programmes, which, given the little space available and the level of noise, made it impossible to watch television. There were no newspapers or magazines available in the prison either, and access to the poorly stocked library was only possible once a week.

According to Mr Tsekov, there was no running water or toilet in the cell, and inmates had to use a bucket to relieve themselves at night, when the cell was locked. Mr Tsekov’s floor had only four Asian-type toilets without running water for the approximately two hundred and ten inmates housed on that floor, and only two or three showers, which often did not work (and, when they worked, had hot water only twice a week for four hours); as a result, inmates had to use small cans to bathe themselves. According to the Government, there was running water in the toilets, and hot water was made available twice a week for five hours. Mr Tsekov also said that cleaning the toilets was very hard because the prison administration did not supply enough cleaning products.

According to Mr Tsekov, the prison canteen measured about four or five by fifteen metres and accommodated eighty people at the same time, which caused severe overcrowding and discomfort while eating. According to the Government, the number of inmates in the canteen during meals was between fifty and sixty. Mr Tsekov said that the quality of the food was very poor, and that outside food parcels did not compensate for that, especially since there were no refrigerators in which to store them. According to the Government, each inmate was provided with 2,622 calories a day, in line with official tables. Each inmate was entitled to receive five kilogrammes of food parcels a month and five kilogrammes of fruit and vegetables. According to Mr Tsekov, inmates were in practice given less than half of what was necessary in terms of food.

Mr Tsekov alleged that there was no place in the prison for selfcooking, sports or cinema. The Government said that self-cooking in the cells could not be allowed for hygiene reasons. They also said that in 2012 Mr Tsekov had been enrolled in a volleyball tournament, but had desisted after one match for health reasons. In February 2013 He had refused to take part in another tournament, again for health reasons. Mr Tsekov disputed these assertions. According to the Government, the outside walking area of the prison had bodybuilding equipment that the inmates could use, and the prison authorities regularly organised chess, backgammon, bridge and arm-wrestling contests. The prison was also equipped with a projection room, where the Advent and Evangelical churches showed religious films; Mr Tsekov had not expressed a wish to attend a projection. Mr Tsekov said that since his arrival in Burgas Prison there had been only one projection.

Mr Tsekov also referred to the problems that he was encountering in relation to telephone communication with the outside world.

Lastly, Mr Tsekov, who apparently had no health insurance, claimed that health care in prison was inadequate, with no qualified doctors but only a feldsher working on site, and no provision of medicines free of charge. An outside medical doctor visited the prison twice a week, and it was almost impossible to see him in view of the large number of inmates in the prison and the need to obtain an appointment. According to the Government, Mr Tsekov had on two occasions in 2011 and 2013 been treated in the prison hospital in Sofia and in a hospital in Burgas.

Mr Simeonov entered Burgas Prison on 12 April 2012 to serve a sentence of two and a half years’ imprisonment; he was released on 15 July 2014. He was placed in unit four. On 7 December 2012, following a decision of the commission in charge of allocating prisoners, he was transferred to Zhitarovo open-type prison hostel, attached to Burgas Prison.

Mr Simeonov alleged that the cell in which he was kept, cell no. 309 on the third floor, measured about twenty square metres and housed fifteen inmates. There was no running water or toilet in the cell. From eight o’clock in the evening until six o’clock in the morning, during which time the cell apparently remained locked, the inmates had to use buckets to relieve their needs. There were four toilets on the floor but access to them was limited as they were used by about two hundred inmates. According to the Government, cell no. 309 measured 29.82 square metres and housed thirteen inmates, which gave 2.29 metres per inmate.

Mr Simeonov said that he was allowed to take a shower twice a week, between 1.30 p.m. and 5.30 p.m. However, the bathroom, which measured six square metres, featured only one shower and two sinks and usually the inmates used small cans to pour water on themselves. The size of the bathroom and the time allowed for showering made it impossible for all two hundred inmates who used the bathroom to shower properly. Immediately adjacent to the bathroom were the two litter containers for the entire floor.

According to Mr Simeonov, many inmates in Burgas Prison suffered from tuberculosis as a result of the poor hygienic conditions there. He did not however allege that he had himself contracted the disease. According to the Government, in Burgas Prison there had been six registered cases of tuberculosis in 2012, four cases in 2013, and five cases in 2014. None of these had been in units four or five.

Mr Simeonov also complained that telephone calls made from prison were expensive, that the food shop in the prison was overpriced, and that health care in the prison was inadequate.

Since his incarceration in Bulgaria in 2007 Mr Yordanov has been placed successively in Sofia Prison (2007), Pleven Prison (2007-10), Lovech Prison (2010-12) and Atlant Prison Hostel in Troyan (2012present).

Mr Yordanov was placed in Sofia Prison on 13 August 2007 in execution of a sentence of seventeen years’ imprisonment meted out by the Sofia City Court. According to him, he was not medically screened upon his arrival in prison. According to the Government, the prison’s medical journal showed that Mr Yordanov was medically examined on 13 August 2007 and found to be healthy, with no traces of violence. On 31 August 2007 Mr Yordanov was placed under the “strict” regime. He was initially allocated to prisoner group 8, the intake unit for new prisoners. On 11 September 2007 a special commission in charge of allocating prisoners decided to place him in group 2, where he remained until his transfer to Pleven Prison several weeks later (see paragraph 51 below).

The Government submitted that on 31 August 2007 Mr Yordanov had been provided with two bed sheets, one pillow cover and two blankets. In reply, Mr Yordanov pointed out that this meant that he had had to do without these and sleep on a bare mattress for eighteen days, between 13 and 31 August 2007. He further submitted that he had not been provided with cutlery and had been forced, like the other detainees, to eat with his hands from random boxes that had come into his possession. Moreover, the prison was not equipped with enough tables and chairs, and as a result inmates had to eat sitting on their beds. The food that he was being provided was of very poor quality, often causing vomiting and diarrhoea. The Government did not contest these allegations.

On 4 October 2007 Mr Yordanov was transferred to Pleven Prison.

The Government submitted that on 11 October 2007 he was placed in prisoner group 6. Later he was placed in group 5, which consisted of convicted criminals. On 14 August 2008, following the re-opening of the criminal proceedings against him by the Supreme Court of Cassation on 20 February 2008 and the change in his procedural situation, he was placed in group 7, for persons awaiting trial. On 1 March 2010 he was placed in group 6, also for persons awaiting trial. When his conviction and sentence by the Sofia City Court became final on 20 April 2010, Mr Yordanov was placed in group 2, for convicted persons.

Mr Yordanov submitted that following the re-opening of the proceedings against him by the Supreme Court of Cassation on 20 February 2008, he was transferred to the prison’s recidivists unit, and, in spite of his numerous complaints, was not moved from there until 2010. In support of this assertion he pointed out that two researches retained by his legal representative in these proceedings had visited Pleven Prison on 24 September 2014 and spoken with the prison’s deputy governor, who had said that there were currently no records on the allocation of prisoners in 2007-10. Both he and members of the prison staff had explained that at that time all prisoners without final convictions and sentences had been placed on the prison’s fourth floor, where their cells were separated by mere iron grills allowing free contacts between all inmates.

When Mr Yordanov was transferred to Pleven Prison, the cells there were not equipped with in-cell toilets or running water. According to the Government, such toilets were installed on 1 September 2008. Thus, after the locking of his cell at about 8 p.m. each evening, he was forced to relieve himself in a bucket. According to a declaration by another inmate, the cells remained locked between 8.30 p.m. and 5.30 a.m. or 5.45 a.m. during weekdays and 6.30 a.m. on weekends. The cells were left unlocked until late at night, allowing access to the common toilets, only at times of epidemics of intestinal disorders in the prison. Initially, Mr Yordanov had been placed in a cell measuring 9.5 by 5.2 metres that he had shared with fifteen to twenty-two other inmates. After Christmas 2007 he had been placed in a cell measuring 5 by 4 metres that he had shared with five or six other inmates. Both cells had been equipped with one bucket of about ten litres.

The Government conceded that in 2007 Pleven Prison had been overcrowded. The total floor space of the prison building was 984.02 square metres. In 2007, it was occupied by six hundred and seven prisoners; in 2008, by four hundred and forty-four prisoners; in 2009, by three hundred and eighty-seven prisoners; and in 2010, by five hundred and one prisoners. The surface of the fourth floor, where Mr Yordanov was kept, was 149.88 square metres. In 2007, it was occupied by seventy-six prisoners; in 2008, by fifty-six prisoners; in 2009, by forty-two prisoners; and in 2010, by thirty-six prisoners. The Government nevertheless submitted that at that time conditions in this prison had been fully compliant with the applicable legal framework and pointed out that, while Mr Yordanov had filed six complaints with the prison authorities, he had not complained in terms of the conditions of his detention there. In reply, Mr Yordanov said that he had not made such complaints because conditions in the prison had been the same for all prisoners, but that, as evident from a complaint that he had filed on 19 January 2010, he had sought a transfer to Vratsa Prison precisely because of the poor conditions in Pleven Prison. That transfer request had been denied by the prison authorities.

On 22 July 2010 Mr Yordanov was transferred to Lovech Prison. He was initially placed in prisoner group 3, and then in prisoner groups 2, 10 and 1.

Mr Yordanov alleged that the conditions of his detention in this prison were as poor as in the previous two prisons. He said that in winter heating had been turned on only twice a day for about twenty minutes. As a result of that and of the fact that the windows did not close properly, the temperature in the cell never went above 14 degrees Celsius. The Government submitted that the heating boilers in Lovech Prison had been fired twice a day, for about two and a half to four hours. If Mr Yordanov had had a problem with the window in his cell, he should have brought that to the attention of the responsible prison officials, who would have taken steps to tackle it. Mr Yordanov retorted that, while he could not say for how long the boilers had been fired each day, the amount of time during which the radiators in his cell had been warm was a mere twenty minutes.

Mr Yordanov also submitted that he had worked in the prison’s workshop, which was not properly heated in winter either. The Government submitted that the workshop had been heated with wood-burning stoves, and when necessary also with electrical heaters.

Mr Yordanov further submitted that the toilets had been very dirty. The Government submitted that it was the inmates’ duty to keep the premises clean, and that the prison authorities provided them with cleaning products for that. Mr Yordanov retorted that, in view of the small amounts and the low quality of the cleaning products provided by the prison authorities, it had not been possible properly to clean the toilets.

Mr Yordanov alleged that inmates who had spent less than three years in prison had no health insurance, and as a result did not get proper medical treatment. He said that as a result of the poor conditions of his detention he was suffering from chronic colitis and periodontitis, and had lost four teeth. The Government submitted that, while in Lovech Prison, Mr Yordanov had visited a dentist twice, on 30 July 2010, when he had had a tooth extracted in order to treat his periodontitis, and on 21 February 2011, when he had been prescribed medication for bleeding in the gums. Mr Yordanov retorted that although he had not been health insured during his stay in Pleven Prison, the resident dentist there had provided him with the necessary medication free of charge. However, in Lovech Prison, despite being already health insured, he was not provided with medication free of charge, and experienced great difficulties in obtaining that medication.

On 21 January 2012 Mr Yordanov was transferred to Atlant Prison Hostel, a closed-type prison hostel in Troyan attached to Lovech Prison. He complained of overcrowding and said that the conditions there were similar to these in the prisons in which he had been housed before that. According to two declarations by other inmates submitted by Mr Yordanov, in 2013 and 2014 he was kept in a cell measuring 62.8 square metres together with between fourteen and twenty-two inmates. The cell had ten bunk beds and a toilet in the corner, all of which further reduced the amount of living space. The Government submitted that Atlant Prison Hostel was one of the best heated prison hostels in the country and that the temperature in the living quarters was always adequate. An inmate was designated as responsible for the heating central and took constant care of it, even remaining there overnight.

In late 2010 Mr Yordanov brought a claim under section 1 of the State and Municipalities Liability for Damage Act 1988 (see paragraph 125 below) in relation to the conditions of his detention in Sofia Prison earlier that month. He sought BGN 1,000 in non-pecuniary damages. In a judgment of 10 April 2012 (реш. № 1997 от 10 април 2012 г. по адм. д. № 9619/2010 г., АС-София град) the Sofia City Administrative Court found that the conditions of Mr Yordanov’s confinement in Sofia Prison between 15 and 17 December 2010 – lack of glazing on the windows during a very cold winter period, poor hygiene, and lack of proper separation between the in-cell toilet and the rest of the cell – did not meet the minimum standards laid down in the Execution of Punishments and Pre-Trial Detention Act 2009 and the regulations for its application (see paragraphs 107-120 below). The court also had regard to Article 3 of the Convention. Taking however into account the small amount of time – less than forty-eight hours – that Mr Yordanov had spent in these conditions, the court decided to award him BGN 100. The Chief Directorate for the Execution of Punishments appealed, and in a judgment of 4 April 2013 (реш. № 4688 от 4 април 2013 г. по адм. д. № 7759/2012 г., ВАС, III о.) the Supreme Administrative Court fully upheld the lower court’s judgment.

On 13 April 2011 Mr Yordanov brought another claim under section 1 of the 1988 Act (see paragraph 125 below) in relation to the conditions of his detention in a transfer cell in Sofia Prison on 3-7 April 2011 and the failure of the prison authorities to provide him a hot meal on 7-8 April 2011. He sought BGN 1,000 in non-pecuniary damages in relation to the stress endured by him on account of the poor conditions in the cell, BGN 1,000 in non-pecuniary damages in relation to the fact that the cell had been infested with rats, and BGN 1,000 in non-pecuniary damages in relation to the failure to provide him with a hot meal. In a judgment of 1 April 2013 (реш. № 2146 от 1 април 2013 г., по адм. д. № 3060/2011 г., АС-София-град) the Sofia City Administrative Court, having regard to, inter alia, Article 3 of the Convention, found that the poor conditions in the cell in which Mr Yordanov had been kept, the presence of rats in that cell, and the lack of proper food had caused him non-pecuniary damage. The court awarded him BGN 100 in respect of the first head of claim, BGN 300 in respect of the second head of claim, and BGN 100 in respect of the third head of claim. In a judgment of 17 January 2014 (реш. № 619 от 17 януари 2014 г. по адм. д. № 9147/2013 г., ВАС, ІІІ о.) the Supreme Administrative Court quashed that judgment and partly dismissed the claim and partly remitted the case. It held, by reference to this Court’s judgment in Shahanov v. Bulgaria (no. 16391/05, 10 January 2012), that the lower court had erred by dealing with the first and second heads of claim separately. The proper approach was to analyse them in combination and focus on their cumulative effect on the inmate’s well-being. That part of the case was therefore to be remitted. The head of claim concerning the failure to provide Mr Yordanov with a hot meal was, for its part, unfounded, because there was evidence that he had been provided with a sufficiently calorific food package instead. The proceedings on remittal are apparently still pending.

In 2012 Mr Yordanov brought a claim under section 1 of the State and Municipalities Liability for Damage Act 1988 (see paragraph 125 below) in relation to the conditions of his detention in Stara Zagora Prison, through which he had been transferred on 21 and 22 May 2012. He alleged that there he had been subjected to ill-treatment because he had at first been put for about an hour together with fifteen other inmates in a cell measuring two by two metres, and then moved to a cell measuring two and a half by two and a half metres, which he had had to share with three other inmates. This cell had had no running water, toilet or proper access to sunlight and air. In a judgment of 11 March 2013 (реш. № 92 от 11 март 2013 г. по адм. д. № 800/2012 г., АС-Велико Търново) the Veliko Tarnovo Administrative Court dismissed the claim, noting that section 43(3) of the Execution of Punishments and Pre-Trial Detention Act 2009, which laid down a minimum requirement of four square metres of floor space per prisoner, as well as regulation 20(3) of the regulations for the application of this Act, which made the availability of in-cell toilets and running water mandatory, had not yet come into force (see paragraphs 115, 118 and 119 below). The prison authorities had therefore not acted unlawfully by putting Mr Yordanov in the two cells. Mr Yordanov appealed. In a judgment of 17 February 2014 (реш. № 2204 от 17 февруари 2014 г. адм. д. № 5584/2013 г., ВАС, ІІІ о.) the Supreme Administrative Court quashed the lower court’s judgment and remitted the case. It noted that the lower court had constituted as a co-defendant the administration of Stara Zagora Prison, which could not be a proper defendant to a claim under section 1 of the 1988 Act. Its judgment was therefore inadmissible. The proceedings on remittal are apparently still pending.

Mr Zlatev has been detained in Burgas Prison since 10 September 2002 in execution of a fourteen-year sentence of imprisonment. In the course of his imprisonment there, he was moved between different units. According to information supplied by the Government, on 24 January 2005 he was placed in unit two, which was a high-security unit. On 22 June 2005 he was moved to unit four, but on 5 May 2006 was moved back to unit two. On 11 April 2007 he was transferred to Zhitarovo open-type prison hostel, attached to Burgas Prison, but on 14 December 2007 moved back to unit four. On 14 March 2008 he was moved to unit eight. On 16 June 2008 he was once again transferred to Zhitarovo open-type prison hostel. On 18 January 2009 he escaped, but was re-captured on 23 April 2009. On 8 May 2009 he was against placed in unit two, the high-security unit. On 1 June 2009 he was moved to unit eight, on 4 June 2010 to unit seven, on 13 January 2012 to unit five, and on 3 October 2013 to unit three.

In 1980 or 1984 Mr Zlatev’s left hand was amputated at the wrist following a trauma suffered as a conscript in the army. Since 1983 he has been suffering from bronchial asthma. Since his incarceration he has been admitted to the prison hospital in Lovech for treatment of his asthma at least seven times, the latest apparently being in May-June 2011. According to the Government, Mr Zlatev was being provided with the requisite medical care and medicines.

Mr Zlatev complained of overcrowding and said that his cell measured fifteen square metres and housed twenty inmates. He alleged that there was insufficient light in the cell and that the inmates had to use buckets to relieve their needs at night. He also submitted that there were only four Asian-type toilets, two sinks and one shower on his floor, for one hundred and seventy-seven inmates. According to the Government, the toilets were disinfected with chlorine solution once a month.

Mr Zlatev also complained of the allegedly poor hygiene in the prison canteen. According to him, as a result inmates routinely suffered from stomach and intestinal infections. According to the Government, hygiene in the prison canteen was maintained by four inmates assigned to that task by the prison governor. They cleaned the canteen four times a day, after each meal. Once a week the canteen was disinfected with chlorine tablets. Between 2012 and 2014 there had been no registered cases of intestinal disorders among the inmates of groups four and five.

On 22 March 2013 Mr Zlatev poured boiling water on his left leg, either as a result of an incident or as an act of self-harm. He was urgently sent to a hospital in Burgas, and then moved to the special prisoners’ hospital in Sofia, where he was treated between 23 March and 5 April 2013. After his return to the prison he behaved in an aggressive and suicidal way, which made it necessary to place him in psychiatric institutions for inmates between 19 April and 7 May 2013, 17 and 23 June 2013, and 23 August and 12 September 2013. On 8 October 2013 a special medical commission found that he was to be classified as 84% handicapped, based on his missing left hand, the injuries to his legs following the incident of 22 March 2013, and his mental problems.

In October 2014 Mr Zlatev swallowed four needles and, following pain in the stomach, on 20 October 2014 he was urgently hospitalised in a hospital in Burgas, where he underwent surgery of the abdomen. He was discharged from this hospital on 29 October 2014 and placed in a constantly locked cell in unit two, the high-security unit.


Preliminary objection partially dismissed (Article 35-3 - Ratione temporis);Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed;Non-pecuniary damage - award

Dmitry Dedov;Elisabeth Steiner;Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre;Julia Laffranque;Khanlar Hajiyev;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Ksenija Turković

I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE

The applicant was born in 1934 and lives in Sisak.

A. Killing of the applicant’s husband and investigation

According to the applicant at 9.45 p.m. on 15 November 1991 five men, wearing camouflage uniforms and balaclavas, had come to their house in Sisak and taken her husband, Vaso Jelić, who was of Serbian ethnic origin. All five men were carrying firearms. She had reported the entire incident to the police on the same evening.

On 19 November 1991 the Sisak Police interviewed a certain B.S., who told them that on 15 November 1991 four men dressed in camouflage uniforms and wearing balaclavas had come to his flat and taken him to a lorry, where they had tied his hands and blindfolded him. Soon afterwards they had placed another person in the van, and they were transported to an unknown building. There the men had questioned him, then driven him somewhere else and released him. Later he learned that the other person who had been taken with him was Vaso Jelić.

On 9 February 1992 the body of Vaso Jelić was found on the banks of the river Kupa in Sisak. An autopsy carried out on 10 February 1992 showed that he had been shot dead.

On 10 February 1992 the applicant learned that her husband’s body had been found in Sisak, on the banks of the river Kupa.

On 3 April 1992 the Sisak Police lodged a criminal complaint with the Sisak County State Attorney’s Office against a person or persons unknown on charges of murdering Vaso Jelić.

It appears that no further investigative measures were taken in respect of the death of Vaso Jelić between 1992 and September 1999.

In 1996 the United Nations Security Council established the United Nations Transitional Administration in Eastern Slavonia, Baranja and Western Sirmium (the “UNTAES”). On 15 January 1998 the UNTAES mandate ceased and the transfer of power to the Croatian authorities began.

On 10 September 1999 the Prevention of Terrorism Unit in the Criminal Justice Section of the Sisak County Police (Policijska uprava sisačko-moslavačka, Odjel kriminalističke policije, Odsjek za suzbijanje terorizma, hereinafter “the Sisak Police Prevention of Terrorism Unit”) interviewed a certain S.K. He said that he had been collecting information about the killing of persons of Serbian ethnic origin in Sisak and its area. To his knowledge fifty-four Serbs had been killed in Sisak and a further twenty-nine in Kinjačka, a village near Sisak, all of them in the period 1991-1992. In addition, about five hundred persons of Serbian origin were listed as having disappeared. S.K. also said that he had heard that Đ.B., then Head of the Sisak Police, had expressed his surprise that one S.B. had been killed, given that he had not been on the list for liquidation.

On 8 December 2000 the Sisak Police Prevention of Terrorism Unit interviewed the applicant. She reiterated that at 9.45 p.m. on 15 November 1991 five men, wearing camouflage uniforms and balaclavas, had come to their house and taken her husband. All five men were carrying firearms. She further reiterated that she had reported the entire incident to the police on the same evening.

On 9 January 2001 the Sisak Police Prevention of Terrorism Unit again interviewed B.S. (see paragraph 7 above) and on 12 January 2001 they questioned the doctor who had, on 10 February 1992, carried out the autopsy on Vaso Jelić’s body.

On 25 January 2001 the Sisak Police Prevention of Terrorism Unit interviewed M.Lj. and Mi.Lj., who had lived with the Jelić family at the relevant time; they confirmed the statement given by the applicant.

On 24 December 2002 an investigating judge at the Sisak County Court heard evidence from witness M.M., who said that in 1991 he had been a member of the reserve police. One night he had been driving in a car with three of his colleagues (he identified them by their nicknames) when they saw a van parked in the street and several men dressed in camouflage uniforms standing around it. M.M. and his colleagues asked those men what was happening and were told that they had come “to search the house of a Serb who had some hunting weapons”. One of the men took off his balaclava and M.M. recognised him as [A.]H. He also saw an older woman crying and wailing, and asking the men to release the man they were taking with them. M.M. and his friends had then driven away. Later he heard that the man who had been taken away was Vaso Jelić; he had been taken to Jodno, a sanatorium where Croatian troops were stationed at the material time, opposite the Siscia factory. He had received that information from a person called G., who also told him that Vaso Jelić had been liquidated and thrown in the river Kupa.

M.M. further explained that one night he noticed that several persons were being held in the toilet of the ORA military base near Sisak, where he was stationed. Next to the toilet he saw three bodies covered with a blanket. He asked some of his colleagues to give him a lift in their van from the military base to Sisak. They had stopped before arriving in Sisak and thrown three bodies, covered in blankets, into a hole. He had later met all of the men who had been in the van with him in Sisak, but did not know their names. He had been told not to tell anyone.

Finally, M.M. said that on several occasions he had seen the police taking naked persons into the ORA Croatian military base, and sometimes he had heard screams from the barracks.

On 26 March 2003 the Sisak Police interviewed an anonymous witness who gave information about the killings of persons of Serbian origin in the Sisak area in 1991 and 1992. He said that the arrests and killings of persons of Serbian ethnic origin had been carried out on the orders of Đ.B., Head of the Sisak Police, who had a list of persons to be arrested and liquidated. His main assistant was his Deputy, V.M. The motive for the arrests had often been material gain. The individuals in question had first been labelled as having abetted enemy activity and being members of the Serbian Democratic Party and then, once they had been arrested, all their valuables had been taken from their houses and sold on. The money had been divided between V.M. and Đ.B.

As regards the arrest of Vaso Jelić, the witness identified M.M. as one of the persons implicated. He said that Vaso Jelić had first been taken to the police station and then to Jodno. He had then been taken to the ORA and killed there. One of the persons who had arrested Vaso Jelić was A.H., who had also killed him.

The witness added that he was willing to give his evidence about those events before a court.

On 19 May 2003 another anonymous witness was interviewed by the Sisak County State Attorney’s Office. He said that at the beginning of 1991 he joined the Croatian Army, namely the Office for the Defence of Sisak. He had been assigned to the reserve units of the Sisak County Police, headed by Đ.B., whose Deputy was V.M. The unit the witness had joined had been headed by Ma.M. The witness named several of his colleagues. Đ.B., V.M. and the late J.B. had made a list of persons to be arrested and brought to the First Police Station, and given orders to that effect. A.H. had almost always been present when the orders for arrests were given. The members of the reserve units had been given Serbian flags with four C-s, badges and cards allegedly issued by the Serbian Democratic Party, and certificates issued by that Party recognising contributions to its spread in the occupied territories; these items were to be planted in the houses of Serbs in the Sisak area so that they could serve as evidence of enemy activity.

He stated that victims had been arrested at their homes and that money, gold and other valuables had always been taken. The victims had first been taken to the police station, then to Jodno, and later to the ORA military base, where they had been stripped and killed.

He said that he had personally been involved in the arrest of Vaso Jelić and that his hunting guns had also been taken from his house.

On 29 July 2005 the State Attorney’s Office issued a document on enquiries into the killings of civilians between 1991 and 1995. The document was addressed to the County State Attorney’s Offices, which were required to examine all of the information collected to date on the killings of civilians during that period and to concentrate their activities on identifying the perpetrators and gathering the relevant evidence in order to initiate criminal proceedings.

On 29 May 2006 the Office of the Head of the Sisak County Police (Policijska uprava sisačko-moslavačka, Ured načelnika), interviewed a certain A.R., a former member of the police, who told them that he would inform the media of everything he knew about the killing of Serbs and mining of their houses during the war in Croatia and would testify against Đ.B., a former Head of the Sisak County Police during the war, if his request for alterations to his “war record” were not complied with. He added that he had carried out orders, as had many others, and that he knew who had ordered what at Jodno, and what had happened there and in other locations in Sisak and the surrounding area.

On 9 October 2008 the State Attorney’s Office issued an instruction for implementation of the Criminal Code and the Code of Criminal Procedure to the County State Attorney’s Offices, in which they indicated that an inspection of their work had indicated two main problems: possible partiality of the persons involved in the pending proceedings as regards the ethnicity of the victims or the perpetrators; and the problem of trials in absentia. The instructions favoured impartial investigations of all war crimes, irrespective of the ethnicity of those involved, whether victims or perpetrators, and stressed the duties of those working for the State Attorney in that respect.

On 24 March 2009 the War Crimes Unit in the Criminal Justice Section of the Sisak County Police (Policijska uprava sisačko-moslavačka, Odjel kriminalističke policije, Odsjek ratnih zločina, hereinafter “the Sisak Police War Crimes Unit”), sent a gun belonging to A.H. and a bullet extracted from the body of Vaso Jelić for ballistic examination. The report of 30 April 2009 indicated that they did not match.

On 23 August 2010 the Criminal Justice Section of the Sisak County Police filed a report with the Sisak County State Attorney’s Office, informing it that they had carried out an analysis of their Section’s official documents and found documents concerning the arrest and killing of a number of civilians. With regard to Vaso Jelić, it was stated that his dead body had been found on 9 February 1992 on the Kupa river bank in Sisak.

On 28 March 2011 the Sisak County Police, Criminal Justice Section interviewed M.Mi., President of the Sisak Area Municipality during the war, who identified the commander of the Croatian Army units stationed in Jodno in 1991.

B. Proceedings on indictment

On 20 June 2011 the Sisak County Police lodged a criminal complaint against Đ.B., V.M and D.B. on charges of war crimes against the civilian population. This included the killing of the applicant’s husband. On the same day Đ.B., Head of the Sisak Police Department in 1991 and 1992, V.M., police commander at the border territory of Sisak and Banovina in 1991 and 1992 and Deputy of Sisak Police Department, and D.B., a member of the “Wolves” Unit of the Croatian Army, were arrested.

On an unspecified date the investigation was opened and on 13 July 2011 Đ.B. died.

On 16 December 2011 the Osijek County State Attorney’s Office lodged an indictment against V.M. and D.B. at the Osijek County Court, alleging that they had been in command of the unit whose unknown members committed a number of crimes against the civilian population between July 1991 and June 1992, including the killings of the applicant’s husband. They were charged with war crimes against the civilian population.

On 9 December 2013 a first-instance judgment was delivered. V.M. was found guilty of war crimes against the civilian population in that he, in his capacity as “the commander of police forces in the broader area of Sisak and Banovina” and “Deputy Head of the Sisak Police”, had allowed the killings of persons of Serbian origin and had failed to undertake adequate measures to prevent such killings. The relevant part of the judgment concerning the applicant’s husband reads:

“on the evening of 15 November 1991 in Sisak a group of unidentified armed members of the Sisak Police wearing camouflage uniforms and balaclavas ... went to the home of Vaso Jelić and, under the threat of arms, tied his hands and blindfolded him and then drove him to an unknown location in Sisak ... and killed him with firearms ... [H]is body was found on 9 February 1992 with seven shots to the head, chest and left hand, on the left bank of the river Kupa near the Old City in Sisak.”

V.M. was sentenced to eight years’ imprisonment. D.B. was acquitted of all charges.

C. Civil proceedings

On 28 February 2003 the applicant brought a civil action against the State in the Sisak Municipal Court, seeking compensation in connection with the death of her husband. The claim was dismissed on 6 December 2005 and was upheld on appeal by the Sisak County Court and the Supreme Court on 22 March 2007 and 23 December 2008 respectively. The national courts found that the claim had been submitted after the statutory limitation period had expired.

A subsequent constitutional complaint lodged by the applicant was dismissed on 17 February 2011.


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

Alena Poláčková;Branko Lubarda;Georgios A. Serghides;Helen Keller;Helena Jäderblom;Luis López Guerra;Pere Pastor Vilanova

The applicant was born in 1965 and is currently detained in Czarne Prison in Poland.

The applicant was placed in detention on remand at Nicosia Central Prisons on 14 September 2010 pending criminal proceedings against him before the Limassol District Court (case no. 25536/10).

On 11 January 2011 the applicant was convicted of a number of offences (including burglary, theft, various road traffic offences and unlawful residence). On 24 January 2011 the court imposed four sentences ranging from six months’ to two years’ imprisonment, to run concurrently from 5 September 2010.

The applicant was released on 18 May 2012 following the suspension of his sentence by virtue of a decree issued by the President of the Republic concerning a number of prisoners.

In his application form the applicant, without specifying the exact period of his detention, submitted that he had been held in overcrowded cells at Nicosia Central Prisons, where there was only 0.5 to 1.7 sq. m of personal space for each detainee. He stated that the cells were cold and lacked adequate light. Furthermore, there were no toilets in the cells. He sometimes had to wait two to three hours to use the toilet, and, when the cells were locked, he had to urinate into a bottle and defecate into a waste bag.

The Government submitted that the applicant had been detained from 14 September 2010 until his release on 18 May 2012 in three different parts of Nicosia Central Prisons. Between 14 September 2010 and 24 January 2011 he had been detained in Block 5, which accommodated remand prisoners. Following his conviction and sentence he had been transferred to Block 2B, where he had been detained between 24 January 2011 and 5 October 2011. On the latter date he had been placed in Block 2A, where he had been detained until his release on 18 May 2012. Both Block 2B and 2A accommodated sentenced prisoners. The Government provided copies of Nicosia Central Prisons’ daily occupancy records (ημερήσιες χωρητικότητες των κεντρικών φυλακών) indicating the number of prisoners in each block per day. However, they submitted that no records were kept in relation to occupancy of particular cells in the blocks.

Block 5 could accommodate up to sixty-eight remand prisoners; it had thirty-four double occupancy cells measuring 6.21 sq. m, eight toilets and eight showers. Block 5 included Block 5A, which had twenty-three double occupancy cells of the same size as Block 5, accommodating forty-three remand prisoners. It was almost certain that during his detention in Block 5 the applicant had shared a cell with another inmate and that therefore he had had 3.10 sq. m of personal space.

At the time the applicant had been detained there Block 2B had not yet been renovated. It had twenty-six double occupancy cells measuring 9.98 sq. m; two large cells measuring 19.55 sq. m, which accommodated five to seven detainees, and a common room which had been made into a dormitory for between twenty and fifty inmates. The dormitory measured 90 sq. m and had nineteen windows. Prisoners with short-term sentences had been kept in the dormitory. Block 2B had six toilets and six showers.

Based on the daily occupancy records for the relevant period, the number of inmates in the block varied from 80 to 124 per day. The Government stated that it was possible that the applicant had spent time in all the different types of cells in this block during his detention. In the double occupancy cell the applicant would have had 4.99 sq. m of personal space; in the larger cell he would have had from approximately 2.8 to 3.9 sq. m, depending on whether he had shared the cell with five, six or seven inmates; and, lastly, in the dormitory he would have had from 1.8 sq. m to 4.5 sq. m of personal space, depending on the number of inmates detained there with him. If the applicant had been held in the dormitory in early spring or during the winter (see paragraph 49 below), he would have disposed of between 2.04 and 3.2 sq. m of personal space as the daily occupancy records indicated that the block had accommodated between 94 and 110 inmates per day during those periods.

On 5 October 2011 the applicant was transferred to Block 2A, which had been renovated. The block had forty-one double occupancy cells, accommodating eighty-two prisoners. The cells measured 9.80 sq. m and thus the applicant had had 4.9 sq. m of personal space at his disposal. There were six toilets, six showers and three urinals.

The various parts of the prison were equipped with a central heating system which covered all the blocks and cells. The central air conditioning system which functioned in the summer months was in the corridors and there were individual electrical fans in the cells. All the cells had properly insulated windows, which provided natural light and ventilation. The dimensions of the windows varied. Detainees were free to move outside their cells in the closed prison, including the yard, workshops, kitchen and school from 6 a.m. to 5 p.m. (winter time) or to 6 p.m. (summer time). After that, the detainees could move freely within their blocks until 9 p.m. on weekdays and 10 p.m. on weekends and public holidays.

Following the 2012 report of the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture (“CPT”) on its visit to Cyprus from 12 to 19 May 2008, the prison administration discontinued the practice of switching off cell bells during the night, hence detainees had access to the toilets during those hours (see paragraphs 26-27 and 30 below). The administration of the prison had issued order no. 32/2008 concerning prisoners having access to the toilet facilities whenever necessary. The order had also directed prison staff to check and ensure that the call panel in the warden’s room was active at all times, especially during the evening, so that prisoners could be assisted and emergencies prevented. A violation of the order constituted a disciplinary offence. According to a letter by the prison director dated 27 February 2014, records were not kept of when cells were opened for toilet visits during the night, that is between 9 p.m. and 6 a.m. However, a detainee could leave his cell for up to three toilet visits during that period.


Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Administrative proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court);Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for family life;Respect for private life)

Jon Fridrik Kjølbro;Julia Laffranque;Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström

The applicants were born in 1971, 1953 and 1976 respectively and live in Bergama, İzmir.

On 16 August 1989 the public limited company E.M. Eurogold Madencilik (“the company”), subsequently renamed Normandy Madencilik A.Ş., received an authorisation to begin prospecting for gold. Subsequently, the company was authorised to use cyanide leaching in the gold extraction process by the Ministry of Energy and Natural Resources.

On 19 October 1994 the Ministry of the Environment decided to issue an operating permit to the company for the Ovacık gold mine.

On 2 July 1996 the İzmir Administrative Court dismissed a case brought before it for the annulment of the permit of 19 October 1994. On 13 May 1997 the Supreme Administrative Court quashed the first-instance judgment and decided that the permit should be annulled. It referred to the State’s obligation to protect the right to life and to a healthy environment and assessed the physical, ecological, aesthetic, social and cultural effects of the mining activity in question as described in the environmental impact report and the various expert reports which had been submitted to it. It held that those reports demonstrated the risk posed to the local ecosystem and to human health and safety by sodium cyanide use. It concluded that the operating permit in issue did not serve the public interest and that the safety measures which the company had undertaken to implement did not suffice to eliminate the risks involved in such an activity. On 15 October 1997, in compliance with the Supreme Administrative Court’s judgment, the Administrative Court annulled the Ministry of the Environment’s decision to issue a permit for the mine. On 27 February 1998 the İzmir provisional governor’s office ordered that the mine be closed. On 1 April 1998 the Supreme Administrative Court upheld the judgment of 15 October 1997.

On 5 April 2000 the Prime Minister’s office drew up a report on the mine. It concluded that operations at the mine could be authorised, having regard to the additional measures taken by the company, the conclusions of a report by the Turkish Institute of Scientific and Technical Research (“TÜBİTAK”), the Ministry of the Environment’s favourable opinion and an opinion of the President’s Administration, which had emphasised the economic importance of an investment of that type.

On 1 June 2001 the İzmir Administrative Court delivered a judgment on an application for judicial review of the report of the Prime Minister’s office, brought by twenty-five residents of Bergama, including the second and third applicants, Mr Mustafa Demirgan (Demircan) and Mr Yılmaz Acar. The administrative court decided to set aside the report, which, in its opinion, constituted an enforceable administrative decision giving rise to the issuing of permits. Notwithstanding the measures taken by the company, the court held that judicial decisions which had become final had found that the “risk and threat” in question resulted from the use of sodium cyanide in the gold mine and that it was impossible to conclude that those risks could be avoided by implementing new measures. Equally, it had been established that the risk connected with the accumulation of heavy elements or cyanide could persist for twenty to fifty years and was likely to infringe the right of the area’s inhabitants to a healthy environment. Accordingly, it was appropriate to conclude that the decision at issue could lead to the circumvention of a final judicial decision and was incompatible with the principle of the rule of law.

On 29 March 2006 the Supreme Administrative Court upheld the judgment of 1 June 2001 in so far as it had been brought by nineteen of the plaintiffs, including the second and third applicants and dismissed a rectification application by the Prime Minister’s office on an unspecified date.

In the meantime, on 22 December 2000 the Ministry of Health decided to authorise the continued use of the cyanidation process at the mine for an experimental period of one year. The company re-started mining operations on 13 April 2001.

In a judgment of 27 May 2004, the İzmir Administrative Court set aside the provisional permit issued by the Ministry of Health on 22 December 2000 in a case brought by fourteen people, including the first applicant, Ms Feride Genç. In particular, it considered that the risks highlighted in the judgment of 13 May 1997 were, inter alia, linked to the use of sodium cyanide in the gold mine and to the climatic conditions and features of the region, which was situated in an earthquake zone. It held that those risks and threats could not be eliminated by supplementary measures which continued to be based on the same leaching process. It also concluded that the issuing of the permit in question had been incompatible with the principle of the rule of law as that administrative decision had in reality been intended to amend a judicial decision that had become final.

On 2 February 2005 the Supreme Administrative Court upheld the judgment of 27 May 2004 and dismissed a rectification application by the Ministry of Health on 3 April 2006.

On 29 March 2002 the Cabinet of Ministers took a “decision of principle”, stating that the gold mine situated in the area of Ovacık and Çamköy, in the district of Bergama (İzmir) and belonging to the Normandy Madencilik A.Ş. company, could continue operations. The decision was not made public.

On 23 June 2004 the Supreme Administrative Court ordered a stay of execution of the Cabinet decision in a case brought by twenty-four plaintiffs, including the second and third applicants. The Supreme Administrative Court found that the Prime Minister’s decision had been unlawful as the environmental impact assessment report which had allowed for the operating of the gold mine had been previously annulled. The Prime Minister’s office objected.

On 18 August 2004 referring to the decision of 23 June 2004, the İzmir governor’s office ordered the closure of mine.

On 7 October 2004 the Supreme Administrative Court upheld the stay of execution of 23 June 2004.

On 20 May 2005 the goldmine began operating again under a permit of the same date issued by the İzmir governor’s office.

On 22 March 2006 the Supreme Administrative Court annulled the decision of the Cabinet of Ministers a decision which was upheld on 21 February 2008 by the Supreme Administrative Court.

According to the documents in the case file, various sets of other proceedings were brought between 2006 and 2012 by other residents of Bergama against various administrative authorities and Normandy Madencilik A.Ş. before the administrative courts, some of which are still ongoing. The gold mine was in operation until at least 2014.


Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions)

Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Ledi Bianku;Paul Mahoney

The applicant was born in 1929 and lived in Moiano.

The facts of the case may be summarised as follows.

The applicant was the owner of a plot of land in Moiano. The land in issue was recorded on the land register as folio no. 11, parcels no. 392 and 396.

On 18 June 1987, a decree authorising the Moiano Municipality to take possession of a portion of the applicants’ land was issued for a period of three years, through an expedited procedure and on the basis of a public-interest declaration, in order to begin the construction of a road.

On 14 July 1987 the authorities took physical possession of the land.

By a writ served on 1 October 1990, the applicant brought an action for damages against the Moiano Municipality before the Benevento District Court. He alleged that the occupation of the land was illegal and that the construction work had been completed without there having been a formal expropriation of the land and payment of compensation. He claimed a sum corresponding to the market value of the land and a further sum in damages for the loss of enjoyment of the land during the period of lawful occupation.

On an unspecified date the court ordered an expert valuation of the land. In a report submitted in September 1992, the expert concluded that the occupied land covered a surface area of 109 square metres. The expert further concluded that the market value of the land on the date the land had been irreversibly transformed, which he identified as having occurred in May 1998, corresponded to 50,000 Italian lire (ITL) (EUR 25.80) per square metre.

By a judgment delivered on 9 March 2005 and filed with the court registry on 18 March 2005, the Benevento District Court declared that the possession of the land, which had been initially authorised, had become unlawful as of 14 July 1990. It found that the land had been irreversibly transformed by the public works. As a result, in accordance with the constructive-expropriation rule (occupazione acquisitiva or accessione invertita), the applicants had been deprived of their property, by virtue of its irreversible alteration, on the date on which the possession had ceased to be lawful. In the light of those considerations, the court concluded that the applicant was entitled to compensation in consideration for the loss of ownership caused by the unlawful occupation.

The court drew on the expert valuation and considered that the market value of the land, which in 1998 corresponded to ITL 50,000 (EUR 25.82) per square metre, corresponded to ITL 57,000 (EUR 29.43) per square metre on the date the occupation had become unlawful in 1990.

The court held that the applicant was entitled to compensation, calculated in accordance with Law no. 662 of 1996, which had entered into force in the meantime, in the sum of ITL 2,997,500 (equivalent to EUR 1,548.08), to be adjusted for inflation, plus statutory interest.

The court further awarded the applicant ITL 408,750 (equivalent to EUR 211.10) as compensation for the damage occasioned by the unavailability of the land during the period from the beginning of the lawful occupation (June 1987) until the date of loss of ownership (July 1990), as well as ITL 5,000,000 (EUR 2,582.28) for the damage caused by the building works and ITL 3,000,000 (EUR 1,549.37) as compensation for the decrease in the value of the adjoining land.

The judgment became final in May 2006.


No violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for family life)

Julia Laffranque;Paul Lemmens;Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström;Georges Ravarani;Ksenija Turković

The applicant was born in 1969 in Lebanon.

On 12 January 1993, at the age of 23, he entered Denmark and requested asylum, which was refused by a final decision of 31 October 1994.

On 17 November 1994 he applied for a residence permit based on his marriage to a Danish national of Lebanese origin. She had entered Denmark as a child in 1985. His request was granted temporarily, until August 1996. Subsequently it was granted permanently. In 2000 he was also granted asylum under section 7 of the Aliens Act (Udlændingloven).

The couple have eight children, all Danish nationals, who at the beginning of 2010 were 14, 13, 12, 10, 9, 7, 6 and 4 years old, respectively.

The applicant never went to school in Lebanon and he has never had a job, either in Lebanon or in Denmark. In Denmark he received social benefits until 16 November 2004, when he was granted an early retirement pension by the State due to his poor health: he suffered in particular from post-traumatic stress disorder. His wife was granted an early retirement pension due to back problems.

The applicant speaks and understands Danish but he cannot read or write the language. He also speaks and understands Arabic, but cannot read or write it. The same applies to his wife. They speak Arabic between themselves and with their children.

The applicant’s wife has eighteen siblings living in Denmark.

The applicant has no other family in Denmark. His mother and sister live in Lebanon. He also has a sister in Syria.

The applicant has a criminal record which includes, inter alia, a conviction in 2000 for grave disturbance of public order and a suspended sentence of twenty days’ imprisonment, a conviction in June 2005 sentencing him to twenty days for committing violence against a public servant in the performance of his office, and a conviction in February 2007 for the same kind of offence, for which he was sentenced to three months’ imprisonment.

On 9 September 2009 the applicant was arrested and detained on remand charged with, inter alia, various counts of drug trafficking and dealing.

By a judgment of 10 June 2010 the City Court in Odense (retten i Odense) found him guilty, in part jointly with others, of 18 counts of offences including drug trafficking and drug dealing contrary to Article 191 of the Criminal Code with regard to a significant amount of hashish (more than 100 kg in total, in addition to an attempt to import a large supply from Holland) and an attempt to buy 200 g of cocaine, all committed in the period from 2006 until 9 September 2009. In addition he was convicted of coercion by violence and threats, blackmail, theft, handling stolen property, escaping while under arrest and possession of weapons.

When sentencing the applicant to five years’ imprisonment the City Court took into account, in particular, the significant amount of hashish and cocaine; that the latter was a “hard drug”; the huge profit that the applicant had obtained from the resale; the long period concerned; the applicant’s absolute leading role, notably in relation to the drug dealers under him, whom he had subjected to violence and threats; and that as a member of a gang, he had delivered hashish for resale to various towns in the region. It was also noted that the applicant had previous convictions. Finally, the sentence was determined partially as a supplementary penalty because some of the offences had been committed before the applicant’s previous conviction.

The amount of 404,500 Danish kroner (DKK), equivalent to approximately 54,000 euros (EUR), and gold jewellery found in the applicant’s home during a search were confiscated as profit from the crimes. It was noted that the applicant and his wife, who both received State benefits and who, when calculating their expenses, apparently had a deficit in their household budget for 2007, 2008 and 2009 amounting to a total of at least DKK 2.5 million (approximately EUR 335,600) could not substantiate that they had obtained the goods legally. For example, the applicant’s wife denied knowledge of a receipt dated 20 October 2008 for 255.6 g of gold jewellery bought in her name in Dubai for DKK 43,000.

Moreover, pursuant to section 24b of the Aliens Act, the City Court ordered the applicant’s expulsion, suspended and with two years’ probation. The City Court noted that the seriousness of the crimes spoke heavily for his expulsion without suspension, but having regard to his wife, who stated that she could not follow her husband to Lebanon, and his eight children in the country, the court did not find that there was sufficient basis for an unsuspended expulsion order.

On appeal, by a judgment of 30 March 2011 the conviction was upheld in part by the High Court of Eastern Denmark (Østre Landsret) and the sentence was increased to six years’ imprisonment due notably to the nature and quantity of the drugs, the extent of the drug offences committed and the applicant’s leading role. By three votes to three, with the more beneficial outcome in the applicant’s favour, the expulsion order remained suspended.

The public prosecution appealed to the Supreme Court (Højesteret) against the judgment as regards the suspended expulsion order. New evidence was adduced in this respect, notably as regards the applicant’s and his wife’s ties to Denmark, Lebanon and Syria. They were both heard.

The applicant explained that he had been in Lebanon for thirty days during the summer of 2009. He had no contacts there but his mother and sister. His other sister lived with her husband and their five children in a refugee camp in Syria. He had stayed there for twenty or twenty-two days during the summer of 2007, for fourteen days during the summer of 2008 and for sixteen days in December 2008.

The applicant’s wife and children had been to Syria two or three times in 2009 to visit the applicant’s sister there. Since the applicant’s arrest in September 2009, she and the children had spent one and a half months in Syria in 2010, and two months in 2011. During the spring of 2011 she had gone alone to Syria for seven or ten days because the sister had fallen ill.

During the summer of 2009 the applicant began negotiations to buy an apartment in Syria because his wife and children went there quite often. He also wanted to buy a shop in the same building. Twice he transferred money via Western Union to his sister to buy the apartment, but it was given up when he was arrested.

The applicant’s wife stated that she could not follow her husband if he were expelled to Lebanon or Syria. She and the children would not be able to stand living in either of those countries, and the children could not live outside Denmark.

Statements obtained from the Children’s Department at the municipality and the children’s schools and day-care institutions recounted that several of the eight children had serious problems, including of a psychological and educational nature. Four of the children received special education and several of the children needed extra support and supervision in their schools and institutions. Massive public support measures had been provided due to a significant need to teach them normal social behaviour. Finally, the placement of some of the sons in public care was under consideration.

According to a police report of 9 August 2011, based on interceptions carried out during the criminal proceedings against the applicant, it was established that in the period from 21 April 2009 to 10 September 2009, thus a period of less than 5 months, there had been nine hundred and sixtyseven calls to and from overseas numbers on the applicant’s and his wife’s home telephone. These concerned eighty different foreign telephone numbers, including thirty-eight in Lebanon and nine in Syria. To the numbers in Lebanon there had been in total four hundred and thirty-three calls, and to the numbers in Syria there had been three hundred and six calls. The applicant explained in this connection that the calls to Lebanon had mainly been to people from Denmark who had been on vacation in Lebanon and that the calls to Syria had been to his sister. The applicant’s wife explained that she often talked to her sister-in-law in Syria. She also had family in Lebanon. Nevertheless she did have difficulties understanding why there had been calls to thirty-eight different numbers in Lebanon.

According to a police report of 18 August 2011, it appeared that in the period from 18 January 2006 to 15 June 2011 the applicant, his wife and their children had made various transfers of money to Syria and Lebanon. Sixteen of those concerned a total of DKK 71,471 and were made in the applicant’s name. After the applicant’s arrest in September 2009, his wife had transferred money to the applicant’s sisters in Lebanon and Syria.

In its judgment of 12 October 2011, by a majority of six votes to one, the Supreme Court decided to expel the applicant with a life-long ban on his return.

It observed that the applicant had been convicted of drug trafficking offences under Article 191 of the Penal Code and attempt thereof on five counts for 59.5 kg of hashish for resale (count 53a); 23 kg for resale (count 56); not less than 15 kg for resale (count 58); entering a deal to buy 200 g of cocaine for resale, which failed (count 60); and an attempt to smuggle in a large amount of hashish from Holland, which failed (count 61). He had also been convicted of offences under the Stimulants Act for having possessed and transferred not less than 10.6 kg of hashish, which failed as to 6 kg (count 59); and for having possessed 1.632 kg of hashish for resale.

In addition he was convicted of coercion by use of violence or threats of violence (counts 54 and 57a); extortion (count 57); theft (count 64); six counts of handling stolen goods (counts 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 and 71); under the Act on Weapons (count 65); and under Article 124 of the Penal Code for having fled as a detainee (count 74).

The Supreme Court went on to analyse the case in the light of the Court’s case-law, notably Maslov v. Austria [GC], no. 1638/03, ECHR 2008 and took the following into account.

The applicant was a stateless Palestinian who had entered Denmark in 1993 at the age of 23. He had been sentenced to six years’ imprisonment for comprehensive and organised resale of large amounts of hashish, for attempting to buy 200 g of cocaine, and for attempting to smuggle in hashish. Moreover, the drug trafficking had taken place over more than two and a half years and the applicant had had a leading and central role.

In addition he had committed coercion by use of violence or threat of violence against his drug dealers to maintain them as sellers and against clients who could not pay for the drugs. He claimed to have been among the top five members of the “Black Ghost” gang in Odense. He had also been convicted of extortion for having demanded so-called “protectionmoney” for “Black Ghost”. Moreover, he had previously been convicted under Article 119 of the Penal Code for violence against a public servant and sentenced to three months’ imprisonment.

The Supreme Court also emphasised that although the applicant had been in Denmark since 1993, he was not well integrated into Danish society and he had limited Danish language skills. He had no ties to Denmark via work or education. He had been receiving State early retirement pension since 2004.

The applicant’s spouse was a Danish citizen. She was born a Palestinian national and had lived briefly in Lebanon, arriving in Denmark at the age of nine. The couple’s children, who at the relevant time were between five and sixteen years old, were also Danish citizens. They were born in Denmark and went to school and institutions in the country.

The applicant and his family spoke Arabic.

The Supreme Court further noted that the applicant still had ties to Lebanon, where his mother and sister lived and where the applicant had lived until he entered Denmark at the age of 23. He also had ties to Syria, where a sister and her family lived, and where the applicant had stayed for three weeks in 2007, for four weeks in 2008, and in 2009. Before his arrest, the applicant had set about buying an apartment in Syria for the family to use during stays there.

The applicant’s spouse had family in Lebanon. Moreover, she had regular contact with the applicant’s sister and family in Syria, and she had spent several vacations there, for instance in 2008 and 2009 as well as one and a half months in 2010 and two months in 2011. She had eighteen siblings in Denmark. She had stated that she would be unable to follow the applicant if he were deported from Denmark to Lebanon or Syria, and that the children would not manage outside Denmark.

The majority of six judges concluded: “[the applicant] has had a leading and central role in the commission of persistent, organised and aggravated drug crimes. Despite regard for his spouse and children in Denmark, we therefore find that he should be expelled with a permanent ban on his entry, see section 32, subsection 2 (V), of the Aliens Act.”

The minority of one judge found “As found by the majority, [the applicant] is guilty of drug offences of particular gravity. However, I find that regard for his eight minor children makes expulsion conclusively inappropriate, see section 26, subsection 2, of the Aliens Act.”

On 11 January 2012 the applicant was convicted for having possessed a mobile phone while in prison. He was sentenced to imprisonment for seven days.

It transpires from the Danish Civil Registration System that the applicant and his wife divorced with effect from 21 November 2012.

According to the Prison and Probation Service, the applicant had served two-thirds of his sentence on 22 September 2013.

In the meantime, on 13 August 2013, the National Police had submitted the applicant’s case to the Danish Immigration Service (Udlændingestyrelsen) for a decision as to whether, upon return, the applicant would risk treatment as described in section 31 of the Aliens Act.

Having found, inter alia, that the applicant would not be at risk of being subjected to the death penalty, or to torture, or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment upon return, on 11 July 2014 the Danish Immigration Service found that the applicant could be returned to Lebanon. That decision was upheld on appeal on 19 November 2014 by the Refugee Appeals Board (Flygtningenævnet).

The applicant’s request that the Court apply Rule 39 of the Rules of Court was refused on 23 December 2014 by the Acting President of the Second Section.

It appears that the applicant was deported to Lebanon shortly thereafter.