Datasets:

coastalcph

/

lex_glue

like 45

[ "4. The applicant was born in 1931 and lives in Milan.", "5. He is the owner of a flat in Milan, which he had let to B.L.", "6. In a registered letter of 11 October 1993, the applicant informed the tenant that he intended to terminate the lease on expiry of the term on 29 September 1994 and asked her to vacate the premises by that date.", "7. The tenant told the applicant that she would not leave the premises.", "8. In a writ served on the tenant on 2 May 1994, the applicant reiterated his intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before the Milan Magistrate.", "9. By a decision of 2 June 1994, which was made enforceable on 13 June 1994, the Milan Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit on 29 September 1996 and ordered that the premises be vacated by 31 December 1996. The delay of two years is due to Law no. 359/1992, which extended for two years the expiry of the term.", "10. On 14 February 1997, the applicant served notice on the tenant requiring her to vacate the premises.", "11. On 26 February 1997, he served notice on the tenant informing her that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 21 March 1997.", "12. Between 21 March 1997 and 29 January 1998, the bailiff made five attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicant was not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession.", "13. The applicant, then, decided to suspend the enforcement proceedings in order to avoid additional costs.", "14. On an unspecified date of April 2001, the applicant recovered possession of the apartment because the tenant, who was in rent arrears since 29 December 1999, had disappeared." ]

[ 3, 9 ]

[ "9. The applicant was born in 1939 and lives in Sofia.", "10. On 8 February 1995 the District Prosecutor’s Office in Sofia opened an inquiry following a complaint by the director of the local telephone service that the applicant had been harassing him and other employees by making offensive statements and allegations that his telephone had been tapped.", "11. On 5 June 1995 one of the applicant’s children complained about her father’s aggressive behaviour and requested that he be examined by a psychiatrist. She later made a further complaint in writing, stating that the applicant had beaten her. She enclosed a medical certificate as proof of this.", "12. Between September and November 1995 the local police department collected written statements from employees of the telephone service, the applicant’s daughter, his wife and neighbours.", "13. The District Prosecutor’s Office in Sofia requested the applicant to undergo a psychiatric examination on 23 January 1996. The applicant did not comply with the request.", "14. On 13 February 1996 a prosecutor ordered the applicant’s forced psychiatric examination and instructed the police to arrest him and bring him to the local mental health centre. These instructions did not refer to the length of time the applicant’s confinement was to last.", "15. The applicant was not informed of the above decisions.", "16. On 22 February 1996 the applicant was arrested and brought to the Sofia mental health centre. On the same day, after a short examination, he was transferred to a psychiatric hospital.", "17. It transpires from a letter written in 2001 by the director of the hospital concerning the complaints which the applicant lodged with the Court that the hospital administration believed that the prosecutor had ordered that the applicant was to be confined for thirty days.", "18. On 26 February 1996 the applicant submitted a written complaint to the hospital administration requesting his release. He also complained orally that his detention was unlawful and, on at least one occasion, asked for a lawyer.", "19. On 22 March 1996 the applicant was discharged. He attended voluntarily an examination held on 28 March 1996 but did not turn up when invited for another examination on 5 April 1996.", "20. On 2 May 1996 the psychiatric hospital forwarded to the District Prosecutor’s Office the doctors’ opinion on the applicant’s mental condition. The doctors noted in their opinion that the applicant was suffering from certain disorders, but concluded that the need to subject the applicant to compulsory psychiatric treatment should be decided by the competent court following a fresh assessment of his mental condition.", "21. On 5 June 1996 the prosecution authorities submitted to the Sofia District Court a request for the applicant’s compulsory psychiatric treatment under section 36 of the Public Health Act. On 8 April 1997 the proceedings were terminated.", "22. On an unspecified date in 1996 the applicant complained to the Sofia City Police Department about his arrest and detention as well as about the behaviour of the police officers involved in these measures.", "23. On 1 September 1997 the applicant filed complaints with the Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office and with the Minister of the Interior in which he described the events surrounding his arrest and subsequent detention in the psychiatric clinic. The applicant maintained that the authorities had acted unlawfully. By letter of 16 September 1997 the Third District Police Department in Sofia, to which the Ministry of the Interior had transmitted the applicant’s complaints, replied that the police officers involved had acted pursuant to the order of a prosecutor order and, therefore, lawfully. In reply to the applicant’s request for further information, the same police department, in a letter of 20 October 1997, stated that the police had acted lawfully in accordance with the order of a prosecutor." ]

[ 2 ]

[ "4. The applicant was born in 1946 and lives in Rome.", "5. She is the owner of a flat in Coperchia (Salerno), which she had let to F.T.", "6. In a registered letter of 12 June 1993, the applicant informed the tenant that she intended to terminate the lease on expiry of the term on 30 August 1994 and asked him to vacate the premises by that date.", "7. In a writ served on the tenant on 28 June 1993, the applicant reiterated her intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before the Salerno Magistrate. The tenant told the applicant that he would not leave the premises.", "8. By a decision of 6 July 1993, which was made enforceable on 22 February 1995, the Salerno Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 28 February 1995.", "9. On 4 March 1995, the applicant served notice on the tenant requiring him to vacate the premises.", "10. On 24 March 1995, she served notice on the tenant informing him that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 3 April 1995.", "11. On 3 April 1995, the bailiff made one attempt to recover possession, which proved unsuccessful, as the applicant was not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession.", "12. On 2 January 1996, the applicant made a statutory declaration that she urgently required the premises as accommodation for herself.", "13. On 8 January 1997, the applicant asked the Salerno Magistrate to be granted the assistance of the police in enforcing the order for possession.", "14. On 8 May 1998, the Salerno Magistrate decided to grant the assistance of the police.", "15. Between 16 July 1998 and 27 January 1999, the bailiff made five attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicant was never granted the assistance of the police in enforcing the order for possession.", "16. Pursuant to law no. 431/98, the enforcement proceedings were suspended.", "17. On 20 February 2000, the applicant recovered possession of the flat." ]

[ 3, 9 ]

[ "4. The applicants were respectively born in 1955, 1923, 1957 and 1961 and live in Rome.", "5. The applicants are the owners of a flat in Rome, which they had let to M.T.S.", "6. In a writ served on the tenant on 29 April 1992, the applicants informed the tenant of their intention to terminate the lease on expiry of the term on 31 December 1992 and summoned the tenant to appear before the Rome Magistrate.", "7. By a decision of 3 December 1992, which was made enforceable on the same day, the Rome Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 30 May 1995.", "8. On 8 August 1995, the applicants served notice on the tenant requiring her to vacate the premises.", "9. On 15 September 1995, they served notice on the tenant informing her that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 13 October 1995.", "10. Between 13 October 1995 and 27 October 1999, the bailiff made twenty-six attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicants were not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession.", "11. On 23 March 2000, the applicants recovered possession of the flat." ]

[ 3, 9 ]

[ "9. The applicants are Irish citizens, born in 1958 and 1957, respectively, and they both live in County Wicklow, Ireland.", "10. On 12 September 1990 they agreed to buy a site with planning permission from “the vendors” on which they intended to build a house. The sale was completed in October 1990. It subsequently emerged that, because of discrepancies in the relevant site maps on which they relied during the sale, they did not have access to the site from the road. They were obliged to discontinue building and to sell the site.", "11. On 31 May 1991 the Minister for Agriculture and Food established the Tribunal of Enquiry into the Beef Processing Industry (“Beef Tribunal”) and nominated the President of the High Court to be the sole member of the Tribunal. While conducting the Beef Tribunal, the President continued, when possible, to sit in cases in the High Court.", "12. On 17 July 1991 the applicants instituted High Court proceedings for negligence, negligent misstatement, breach of contract, misrepresentation and breach of warranty against their own solicitors (“the applicants' solicitors”), the vendors and “the vendors' solicitors”. On 10 March 1992 the High Court ordered discovery on a consent basis. Pursuant to the applicants' motion and the defendants' consent, on 4 May 1992 the High Court ordered the defendants to file their defence within 4 weeks. Further motions of the applicants were struck out on 22 and 24 June and on 19 October 1992. On 18 May 1993 the case was certified ready for hearing by the applicants' senior counsel.", "13. The case was originally listed for hearing on 8 July 1993 but it was adjourned (the applicants objected) due to the illness of one of the defendants to 15 July 1993 when another hearing date would be fixed. On 15 July 1993 a hearing date was fixed for 6 October 1993. On that date there was no judge available and the matter was heard on 7 October 1993 when the President of the High Court (“the trial judge”) made himself available.\nThe Government maintained that the trial judge was advised by counsel present that the hearing required two days, that the judge had notified the parties that his tribunal commitments meant that he had only two days for their case so that, if the case took longer, he would be obliged to adjourn until after the Beef Tribunal, that he would only deal with issues of liability and that the applicants agreed to this. The applicants denied that their counsel so advised the trial judge, that the trial judge had informed them that the trial would be so adjourned, that their counsel would have agreed to an indefinite adjournment (given the second applicant's psychological state) or that they agreed to the separation of issues of liability and damages.", "14. The applicants' case was heard on 7 and 8 October 1993 and, since it was unfinished, the trial judge adjourned it. On 2 November 1993 and 8 February 1994 the applicants wrote to the Chief Registrar of the High Court asking for enquiries to be made as to when the action would be resumed. On 16 March 1994 they wrote to the Registrar asking him to intervene with the trial judge to fix a date and enclosing a medical report of the second applicant's doctor dated 12 March 1994 (see paragraph 32 below). The Registrar was also contacted by telephone on numerous occasions by the applicants regarding a hearing date. In March 1994 the Registrar informed the applicants by telephone that the trial judge had confirmed a hearing date in July 1994. A letter to the Registrar of 9 June 1994 requested that a hearing date be fixed.", "15. During this period, the applicants wrote also wrote to, inter alia, numerous members of Dáil Eireann (the House of Representatives) including to the Minister for Justice. The Deputy Chair of Dáil Eireann indicated, in a letter dated 25 March 1994, that he had contacted the Acting President of the High Court asking the latter to intercede on the applicants' behalf. On 7 April 1994 the Acting President responded that the case would be taken in July 1994.", "16. On 29 July 1994 the trial judge completed his report on the Beef Tribunal. On 19 September 1994 he was appointed Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. The trial judge resumed the hearing of the applicants' case on 5 October 1994. He heard the last two witnesses and requested legal argument in writing. He reserved judgment, indicating that he would deliver it approximately one week after receipt of the written submissions. Those submissions were made by the end of October 1994", "17. On 29 November 1994, 2 February, 12 April and 22 May 1995 the applicants wrote to certain Registrars of the High Court requesting information as to when the judgment would be delivered. A response, dated 26 May 1995, stated that the trial judge could not confirm when he could deliver his judgment given his heavy commitments. Further to the applicants' letter, the Minister for Justice indicated in a letter of 10 July 1995 that, while she could not intervene, she had brought the matter to the attention of a Registrar of the High Court. The applicants also wrote to a Registrar on 12 July 1995 again requesting an early delivery date. A Registrar's letter of 13 July 1995 indicated a delivery date before the end of the month. By letter dated 25 July 1995 the Minister for Justice responded to a further letter from the applicants indicating that she had forwarded a copy of the applicants' correspondence to the trial judge. Further to another letter from the applicants, a Registrar subsequently confirmed delivery of the judgment on 12 September 1995.", "18. Judgment was orally delivered on that date. Both the vendors and the applicants' solicitors were found liable in damages and the claim against the vendors' solicitors was dismissed. On 21 September 1995 the Court made various orders concerning damages (adjournment of the assessment of damages) and costs to be paid by the unsuccessful parties. Pending finalisation by the trial judge of the written judgment, the form of order was not to be perfected in order to allow the applicants time to consider the text of that judgment prior to the expiration of the time-limit for appealing any orders of the High Court. The applicants wrote two letters to a Registrar of the High Court (dated 6 and 13 October 1995) and the text of the judgment became available in mid-October 1995. The order of the High Court was perfected on 17 October 1995 and on 3 November 1995 the applicants appealed the findings in favour of the vendors' solicitors to the Supreme Court. The vendors also appealed the High Court findings against them.", "19. Since a stenographer had not been present during the High Court hearings, it was necessary to prepare and agree a record of the evidence given during those hearings for the purposes of the appeal. By 9 February 1996 the applicants had completed a substantial note of evidence and on 29 March 1996 they submitted it to the vendors and to the vendors' solicitors for their agreement. On 17 July 1996 the applicants issued two motions. The first sought the comments of the vendors' solicitors on the note of evidence and the second requested that the vendors' appeal be struck out for “want of prosecution” since the vendors had not filed documents in their appeal.", "20. On 26 July 1996 the Supreme Court heard both motions with the trial judge (then Chief Justice) presiding. The court requested the vendors and the vendors' solicitors to submit their comments on the note of evidence within two weeks, in default of which the trial judge would finalise the note. On the second motion, the vendors were given until 7 October 1996 to file the relevant appeal documents, in default of which the Supreme Court envisaged striking out the vendors' appeal. Both motions were adjourned until 11 October 1996. The vendors' appeal and the related motion were later dropped.", "21. Following further letters from the applicants in August 1996, on 17 September 1996 the vendors' solicitors indicated that they disagreed with 16 items in the note of evidence. On 11 October 1996 the applicants' motion concerning the note of evidence was adjourned to 18 October 1996. Three days later the vendors' solicitors confirmed that agreement would not be reached on the note. On 18 October 1996 three judges of the Supreme Court (not including the trial judge) directed the trial judge to settle the note of evidence. On 24 October 1996 the applicants submitted the note of evidence together with a note of the 16 disputed points to the trial judge.", "22. In or around November 1996 the President of the High Court gave directions that all complaints about delays in proceedings should be forwarded to him. A memorandum of the President of the High Court published in the Bar Review of January/February 1997 noted the delays in delivering reserved judgments due to the shortage of judges and requested legal practitioners formally to notify the President of the High Court of their concerns about such delays.", "23. Subsequently, the applicants wrote to a Registrar of the High Court on a number of occasions (including on 14 January, 12 March and 25 June 1997) requesting the early settlement of the note of evidence. On 8 July 1997 the applicants wrote to the President of the High Court requesting him to intervene given the delay in their proceedings. In July 1997 a Registrar of the High Court indicated orally that the trial judge would deal with the matter after 20 August 1997. The applicants sent a further reminder to that Registrar on 18 September 1997. On 10 October 1997 the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform (“the Department of Justice”) requested the Chief Registrar's comments on the alleged undue delay in the case. On 16 October 1997 a Registrar indicated to the Department of Justice that the note of evidence matter would be resolved in one week.", "24. By letter dated 22 October 1997 the trial judge forwarded a report (six pages) he had prepared on the evidence and on the points disputed by the relevant parties and he apologised to the applicants for the delay. By letter dated 24 October 1997 a Registrar assured the Department of Justice that the note of evidence matter had been resolved and that an early date for a hearing of the appeal would be made available.", "25. Further to the applicants' complaints to their member of Dáil Eireann and to the Tánaiste (the deputy Prime Minister), the Attorney General expressed, by letter dated 30 October 1997 to the applicants, his concern at the delay in their case. While he was constitutionally obliged not to interfere in judicial matters, he had mentioned the matter informally to the trial judge and the latter assured him that all outstanding matters had been dealt with. In a letter dated 4 November 1997 the Attorney General confirmed to the Tánaiste that he was concerned about the delays which the applicants had experienced in their case and that he had raised these matters in a private and informal manner with the trial judge who had assured him that all outstanding matters had been dealt with. Following an invitation, the applicants met with a member of the Attorney General's Office in late November 1997, although the advice was that that office could not interfere in judicial processes.", "26. By motion dated 9 December 1997 the applicants amended their appeal. By letter dated 21 January 1998 the Minister for Justice responded to queries of the Taoiseach (Prime Minister) concerning the applicant's case pointing out that on 21 November 1997 the appeal hearing had been fixed for 2 February 1998.", "27. The Supreme Court delivered its reserved judgment on the applicants' appeal on 9 March 1998 and found in the applicants' favour, considering that the vendors' solicitors were also liable in negligence to the applicants.", "28. The case was remitted to the High Court for the assessment and apportionment of damages. By letter dated 7 May 1998 the Attorney General responded to queries raised by the applicants' member of Dáil Eireann: he indicated that their case was “concerning” and that it was hoped that the recently established system for monitoring judicial delays would ensure that their experience would not be repeated.", "29. The vendors' solicitors filed an amended defence in May 1998 and the applicants filed further particulars of damage in June 1998. On 26 June 1998 the vendors' solicitors made a late lodgement into court in the sum of 85,000 Irish pounds (IR£). The applicants objected. A letter dated 13 July 1998 from the Attorney General's office to the applicants explained that his previous intervention related to an administrative act by the trial judge (the note of evidence) but that the outstanding matters were judicial in which he could not interfere. By letter dated 22 July 1998 the Attorney General's office confirmed that it had been informed that a hearing date had been fixed by the High Court for 13 October 1998. A letter dated 6 August 1998 from the Taoiseach's office to the applicants confirmed that increased resources to the courts meant that it was hoped that their experiences would not be repeated. On 9 October 1998 the applicants also met with the Tánaiste to discuss the length of their ongoing proceedings.", "30. On 13-16 October 1998 an assessment hearing took place in the High Court. On 25 November 1998 the High Court awarded the applicants approximately IR£200,000 in respect of pecuniary loss and IR£10,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage (the High Court finding that both applicants had been put through “a high degree of anxiety and upset” as a consequence of the defendants' negligence). The applicants were also awarded their costs when taxed and ascertained. On 11 December 1998 the High Court dealt with matters concerning the attribution of liability between the defendants. The order of the High Court was perfected in early February 1999. There was no appeal on these matters to the Supreme Court.", "31. The Taxing Master abridged the time for service of the applicants' bill of costs (Order 99, Rule 28(1) of the Rules of the Superior Courts) and fixed a hearing for 29 July 1999. The bill of costs contained 519 items and comprised 172 pages. This hearing was then adjourned on the application of the vendors' solicitors until 20 October 1999. The hearing took place on that date and, since it did not finish, it was adjourned to and continued on 20 November 1999. It was again adjourned and concluded on 22 November 1999, when the Taxing Master delivered his reserved ruling. The Certificate on Taxation (approximately IR£300,000) was signed by the Taxing Master on 15 December 1999.", "32. The applicants submitted a number of medical certificates to the Court.\nA certificate prepared by the second applicant's doctor on 26 May 1993 attested to her severe symptoms of anxiety since the legal problems had arisen. She had required repeated courses of medication and she was, at that stage, depressed and on medication. Her anxiety symptoms were likely to continue until the legal situation was resolved. The same doctor confirmed, in a certificate dated 12 March 1994, a deterioration of the second applicant's condition into “frank depression”. Medication had initially helped but the delay in the proceedings was worsening her condition. A psychiatric report on the second applicant dated July 1998 recorded her significant clinical depression since the start of the proceedings which warranted anti-depressants and tranquillisers on many occasions. It was considered that the proceedings continually threatened to bring about a relapse, in spite of certain periods of recovery following appropriate treatment. It was also considered that a full recovery was foreseeable only after the proceedings terminated. A psychiatric report on the first applicant dated August 1998 attested to the great strain the proceedings had caused him." ]

[ 3 ]

[ "4. The applicant was born in 1922 and lives in Rome.", "5. She is the owner of a flat in Rome, which she had let to B.C.", "6. In a registered letter of 19 February 1986, the applicant informed the tenant that she intended to terminate the lease on expiry of the term on 31 October 1986 and asked him to vacate the premises by that date.", "7. The tenant told the applicant that he would not leave the premises.", "8. In a writ served on the tenant on 9 November 1987, the applicant reiterated her intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before the Rome Magistrate.", "9. By a decision of 20 February 1988, which was made enforceable on the same day, the Rome Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 31 January 1989.", "10. On 16 January 1990, the applicant served notice on the tenant requiring him to vacate the premises.", "11. On 27 January 1990, she served notice on the tenant informing him that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 5 April 1990.", "12. Between 5 April 1990 and 3 May 2000, the bailiff made twenty attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicant was never granted the assistance of the police in enforcing the order for possession.", "13. On 24 April 1996, the applicant made a statutory declaration that she urgently required the premises as accommodation for her nephew.", "14. Pursuant to section 6 of Law no. 431/98 the tenant asked for a suspension of the enforcement proceedings. The Rome Magistrate suspended the enforcement proceedings from 1 September 1999 until 24 November 1999.", "15. On 7 June 2000, the applicant recovered possession of the flat." ]

[ 3, 9 ]

[ "8. The applicant was born in 1952 and lives in Łódź, Poland.", "9. On 8 December 1992, relying on information provided by a certain X, the Łódź-Górna District Prosecutor (Prokurator Rejonowy) opened an investigation against the applicant concerning theft and obstructing X’s use of certain objects.", "10. On 30 July 1993 the District Prosecutor submitted the bill of indictment to the Łódź District Court (Sąd Rejonowy).", "11. X and witness L. K. failed to attend the hearing of 2 February 1994. On 8 February 1994 the court requested the police to provide the address of L. K.", "12. The hearing scheduled for 28 February 1994 was adjourned because of the presiding judge’s illness.", "13. The court held hearings on 30 March and 4 May 1994. The hearing scheduled for 11 May 1994 was adjourned due to the absence of three witnesses and the applicant’s lawyer.", "14. On 16 May 1994 the court ordered a psychiatric examination of the applicant. It considered that her behaviour in the course of the proceedings and the nature of her pleadings caused it to doubt whether she was capable of understanding the meaning of the criminal act allegedly committed by her and whether she was capable of taking part in the proceedings.", "15. On 23 May 1994 the court rejected the applicant’s eight petitions concerning evidence.", "16. On 14 June 1994 the examination was carried out. The applicant submitted that it had lasted a few minutes and the psychiatrists had seemed not to have read the case-file. The Government submitted that the psychiatrists had prepared a five-page opinion. On the same day the court ordered the applicant to undergo observation in a psychiatric hospital, relying on the psychiatrists’ statement that they had not been able to prepare their opinion on the basis of their single examination. The applicant appealed.", "17. On 6 July 1994 the Łódź Regional Court (Sąd Wojewódzki) amended the decision under appeal by indicating that the observation would not last more than three weeks. The court dismissed the remainder of the applicant’s appeal.", "18. In her letter of 14 July 1994 she requested the annulment of those decisions, alleging that they had been given by persons who were not judges.", "19. On 25 July 1994 the court held a hearing. It imposed a fine on a witness for his failure to attend that hearing.", "20. On 29 August 1994 the court issued an order concerning the taking of the applicant’s child into public care during her psychiatric observation, which was supposed to be carried out from 1 to 9 September 1994.", "21. The applicant left Łódź with her child before the starting date of her observation. On 21 September 1994 her lawyer informed the court that he ceased to represent her in the proceedings.", "22. On 14 October 1994 a legal-aid lawyer refused to represent the applicant.", "23. On 18 October 1994 the court held a sitting concerning the applicant’s motion for a new expert opinion.", "24. Subsequently, it adjourned a hearing at the request of the applicant, who had not accepted her new legal-aid lawyer.", "25. On 28 October 1994 the Regional Court quashed the decision concerning the taking of the applicant’s child into public care.", "26. On 3 November 1994 the District Court held a hearing at which it decided to make an enquiry with a psychiatric hospital about a date on which the observation could be carried out. The applicant appealed that decision, pointing out that the psychiatrists’ opinion of 14 June 1994 was of a poor quality and that the court had overlooked the fact that during her observation her child would be left without care. She submitted that her requests to be examined by other psychiatrists or to undergo short observations in a hospital with the possibility of returning home every day so as to take care of her child had been refused. The appeal was rejected as not provided for by law in such cases.", "27. On 28 November 1994 the applicant submitted further pleadings.", "28. On 7 December 1994 the Regional Court upheld the District Court’s order rejecting the applicant’s appeal against a decision concerning an expert opinion.", "29. Between 28 November 1994 and 7 June 1995 the applicant filed with the court twenty-eight pleadings and motions.", "30. On 14 June 1995 the Regional Court quashed the decision of 22 May 1995 staying the proceedings.", "31. On 25 September 1995 the applicant was placed for three weeks in a psychiatric hospital. She submitted that she had been treated with strong medicines which severely affected her health and consciousness. On the basis of the observation, the psychiatrists stated that the applicant suffered from stress caused by court proceedings as well as from delusions.", "32. On 20 November 1995 the District Court stayed the proceedings, considering that the applicant was unable to participate because of her mental illness.", "33. On 7 May 1996 the court ordered a psychiatric opinion as to whether she was able to participate in the proceedings.", "34. On 17 June 1996 psychiatrists examined the applicant and found that her health had deteriorated.", "35. On 24 June 1996 the court refused the applicant’s request to remit the case to the prosecutor. On the same day it declined the legal-aid lawyer’s request to be released from the duty to represent the applicant.", "36. On 4 September 1996 the Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the decision staying the proceedings.", "37. The applicant failed to appear at the psychiatric observation scheduled for 30 September 1996.", "38. On 21 July 1997 the court rejected the applicant’s challenge to the participation in the proceedings of one of the judges.", "39. On 28 August 1997 it held a sitting regarding the resumption of the proceedings. The court heard two experts in psychiatry and ordered a further opinion by other experts.", "40. The applicant failed to attend the examination scheduled for 9 October 1997.", "41. On 26 February 1998 the court refused her request that the proceedings be resumed. The court considered that a decision to resume the proceedings should be based on a psychiatric opinion confirming that the applicant’s health was no longer an obstacle to her participation. It noted that the opinions available to it were not persuasive in this respect, and that the applicant kept failing to attend further examinations.", "42. On 11 June 1999 the court held a hearing concerning the applicant’s motion for the resumption of the proceedings. It ordered another expert opinion on the state of her mental health. The applicant having failed to attend two examinations, the experts prepared their opinion on the basis of the case-file.", "43. On 24 August 1999 the court resumed the proceedings. It discontinued the proceedings in their part concerning one of the charges.", "44. On 26 August 1999 the applicant filed a request concerning new evidence.", "45. On 7 September 1999 she appealed against the reasoning for the decision resuming the proceedings.", "46. On 9 September 1999 the court held a hearing concerning that appeal. The applicant failed to attend that hearing. She submitted that she had not been informed about that hearing. On 29 September 1999 the Regional Court upheld the reasoning challenged by the applicant.", "47. In her pleadings of 30 December 1999 the applicant challenged the participation of the presiding judge in the proceedings. On 3 January 2000 she filed eight motions concerning evidence.", "48. On 5 January 2000 the applicant requested that the psychiatrists who had issued the opinions on her mental health be excluded from the proceedings.", "49. At the hearing of 11 January 2000 the court rejected the applicant’s motions concerning the psychiatrists and evidence.", "50. Subsequently, the applicant filed four further pleadings and motions.", "51. On 3 February 2000 the court held a hearing. Six witnesses failed to appear.", "52. On seven occasions in February and March 2000 the applicant filed further pleadings.", "53. On 1 March 2000 the court held a hearing. Six witnesses and one of the two experts summoned to the hearing failed to attend it.", "54. The police informed the court that the whereabouts of witness K. K. were unknown and that witness K. P. lived in Germany, which made it impossible to serve summonses on them.", "55. On 29 March 2000 the court held a hearing.", "56. On 7 April 2000 the Łódź District Court gave a judgment in which it acquitted the applicant. The prosecutor appealed.", "57. The hearing before the Łódź Regional Court, scheduled for 15 September 2000 was adjourned because of the presiding judge’s illness. On the same day the applicant challenged the impartiality of seven judges of that court.", "58. On 2 October 2000 the court held a hearing.", "59. On 12 October 2000 the Łódź Regional Court dismissed the appeal against the District Court’s judgment." ]

[ 3 ]

[ "9. In April 1989 the applicant instituted proceedings in the District Court (tingsrätten) of Stockholm against a forwarding agent, claiming that goods belonging to the applicant had been damaged or lost while in the care of the agent. The agent was later declared bankrupt but the bankruptcy estate of the agent declined to enter as a party to the proceedings. On 16 December 1991 the District Court gave judgment in default (tredskodom) according to which the agent – the bankruptcy debtor – was to pay the applicant 112,340 Swedish kronor (SEK) in damages and SEK 199,210 in litigation costs. No appeal was made and the judgment acquired legal force.", "10. In March 1992 the applicant and the bankruptcy estate of the agent signed an agreement according to which the estate assigned to the applicant the estate’s right to compensation from an insurance company under a third party insurance which had been taken out by the agent to cover possible liabilities incurred in connection with its forwarding business. Subsequently, the applicant instituted proceedings against the insurance company in the District Court, claiming that the insurance company should pay the applicant SEK 29,648 in compensation for damaged or lost goods and SEK 199,210 for the above-mentioned litigation costs.", "11. On 7 July 1995 the District Court rejected the applicant’s claims against the insurance company and ordered the applicant to pay the insurer’s litigation costs in the amount of SEK 276,760. The court found that the bankruptcy estate of the forwarding agent had not been a party to the proceedings concluded by the judgment of 16 December 1991 – which had only determined the agent’s liability vis-à-vis the applicant – and that, thus, the estate had not acquired any rights or obligations on account of that judgment. Accordingly, the estate of the agent had not been in a position to assign to the applicant any rights emanating from the third party insurance.", "12. The applicant appealed to the Svea Court of Appeal (Svea hovrätt) and requested that the enforcement of the District Court’s judgment be suspended as it had not acquired legal force. On 9 August 1995 the appellate court found that there was no legal possibility to suspend the enforcement and thus rejected the applicant’s request.", "13. In order to recover its litigation costs, the insurance company requested the Enforcement Office (kronofogdemyndigheten) to levy execution on the applicant’s assets. The Enforcement Office found, however, that the applicant had no seizeable assets. The insurance company then filed a bankruptcy petition against the applicant. In a decision of 19 October 1995 the District Court considered that the applicant’s appeal against the judgment of 7 July 1995 had no prospects of success and that, consequently, its liability to pay the litigation costs in question would remain unchanged. Noting further that the applicant was insolvent as it had no assets to pay the litigation costs, the court declared the applicant bankrupt and ordered it to pay the insurer’s litigation costs in the bankruptcy proceedings.", "14. The declaration of bankruptcy was upheld by the Court of Appeal on 27 November 1995. However, the applicant made a further appeal to the Supreme Court (Högsta domstolen), and on 12 September 1996 that court quashed the appellate court’s decision, rejected the bankruptcy petition filed against the applicant and ordered the insurance company to pay the applicant’s litigation costs in the bankruptcy proceedings. The Supreme Court found that, by declining to enter as a party to the original damage proceedings, the bankruptcy estate of the forwarding agent had not renounced any rights it might have had vis-à-vis the insurance company under the third party insurance. Consequently, the transfer of its rights under that insurance to the applicant was in fact valid. In view of this and the complexity of other issues raised by the parties in the compensation proceedings adjudicated by the District Court on 7 July 1995, there was no basis for concluding that the applicant’s appeal against that judgment lacked prospects of success. As the inventory of the applicant company did not reveal any other important debts, the declaration of bankruptcy was entirely dependent on the applicant’s possible liability to pay the insurance company’s litigation costs in the compensation proceedings. Having found that the outcome of those proceedings was uncertain, the Supreme Court concluded that the insurer had failed to show that the applicant was insolvent.", "15. Following the Supreme Court’s decision, the District Court, on 4 December 1996, fixed the fee to be paid to the official receiver who had been in charge of the applicant’s bankruptcy at SEK 5,000. The District Court further recalled that the fee was to be paid by the bankruptcy estate. In so doing, it referred to Chapter 2, Section 25 of the Bankruptcy Act (Konkurslagen, 1987:62) which provides that, following the decision by a superior court to quash a declaration of bankruptcy, the assets of the estate shall be returned to the bankruptcy debtor to the extent they are not required for the defrayal of the bankruptcy costs. The receiver’s fee is considered as a bankruptcy cost, according to Chapter 14, Section 1 of the Bankruptcy Act.", "16. The applicant appealed to the Court of Appeal. It did not challenge the fee as such but claimed that liability to bear the bankruptcy costs would violate the property rights of the estate and – consequently – the applicant. The applicant invoked Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.", "17. In a decision of 30 December 1996, the Court of Appeal stated that the District Court had only recalled that, under the relevant law, the receiver’s fee was to be paid by the bankruptcy estate. It had not ruled on the question whether the receiver’s claim for remuneration had priority over the applicant’s right to the assets. As a consequence, this question could not be examined by the Court of Appeal which, accordingly, dismissed the appeal.", "18. The applicant made a further appeal to the Supreme Court. It claimed that, in referring to the above-mentioned provision of the Bankruptcy Act, the District Court had in fact determined that the bankruptcy estate – and not the State – was to defray the receiver’s fee. The use of the word “recall” rather than “decide” was, in these circumstances, irrelevant. The applicant stated further that there was no other legal remedy available for the determination of the liability to pay the fee in question. Referring to Article 6 of the Convention, the applicant therefore claimed that the Court of Appeal was obliged to determine that liability.", "19. On 5 June 1997 the Supreme Court refused the applicant leave to appeal against the Court of Appeal’s decision.", "20. The assets of the bankruptcy estate – SEK 1,597 according to the inventory deed – were appropriated to cover part of the receiver’s fee. The remainder of the fee was paid by the insurance company.", "21. By a decision of 22 September 1997 the Court of Appeal quashed the District Court’s judgment of 7 July 1995 and referred the compensation case back to the latter court for re­examination. The appellate court found that the District Court had not examined the applicant’s claim that the rights under the third party insurance had been transferred from the forwarding agent to its bankruptcy estate at the time when the agent was declared bankrupt, rather than as a consequence of the default judgment of 16 December 1991. The District Court had also failed to consider the insurance company’s counter-claim that, under the relevant provision of the Insurance Contracts Act (Lagen om försäkringsavtal, 1927:77), it was not liable to pay any compensation as, at the time of the declaration of bankruptcy, the policy-holder, i.e. the forwarding agent, had had no claim for compensation. Thus, the District Court had made a procedural error which presumably had affected the outcome of the case and which could not be remedied by the Court of Appeal.", "22. After the case had been referred back to the District Court, the insurance company conceded the applicant’s compensation claims. Consequently, on 22 January 1999, the District Court gave judgment in the applicant’s favour, ordering the insurance company to pay the compensation claimed and the applicant’s litigation costs." ]

[ 9 ]

[ "8. The applicant was born in 1960 and lives in Warsaw.", "9. On 8 June 1994 the applicant was charged with having forced a witness in his divorce proceedings to withdraw her testimony. On 12 July 1994 the Warsaw District Prosecutor (Prokurator Rejonowy) submitted to the Warsaw District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) a bill of indictment concerning that charge.", "10. On 20 June 1994 the prosecutor submitted to District Court another bill of indictment against the applicant. The applicant was charged with domestic violence against his wife.", "11. On 13 July and 13 September 1994 he requested the appointment of a legal-aid lawyer.", "12. On 15 September 1994 the Warsaw District Court joined those two cases.", "13. On 23 September 1994 the court appointed a lawyer for the applicant.", "14. On 27 September, as well as on 4 and 7 October 1994, the applicant submitted several pieces of evidence to the court.", "15. The court held hearings on 10 and 11 October 1994. On the latter date it ordered the psychiatric examination of the applicant. On 2 December 1994 the psychiatric opinion was submitted to the court.", "16. On 2 December 1994 another hearing was held. The court summoned certain witnesses. On 1 February 1995 it adjourned a hearing, as witness M., the examination of whom had been requested by the applicant, failed to appear. The court established that the witness resided abroad, in France or Germany. It ordered the police to find out when that witness would return to Poland.", "17. On 8 February, as well as on 9, 20 and 29 March 1995, the applicant submitted further petitions concerning evidence.", "18. On 24 April 1995 the police informed the court that witness M was still abroad.", "19. On 14 September 1995 the applicant requested that a further hearing be scheduled in the case. On 19 September 1995 he informed the court that M had already returned to Poland. However, on 8 October 1995, upon the court’s order, the police again established that M was abroad.", "20. On 8 November 1995 the court informed the applicant that the only reason why the hearings were not scheduled was witness M’s absence.", "21. On 15 November 1995 the applicant informed the court about M’s alleged return to Poland and specified his place of residence. The police again found out that M was still abroad.", "22. On 27 November 1995 the Warsaw District Prosecutor submitted to the court another bill of indictment in which he charged the applicant with the evasion of the payment of maintenance for his daughter.", "23. On 11 and 12 December 1995 the applicant submitted to the court further petitions concerning evidence.", "24. The hearing scheduled for 18 March 1996 was adjourned because of the presiding judge’s illness. After that date the court did not schedule any hearings until 8 June 2000.", "25. On 18 April 1996 it joined the bill of indictment of 27 November 1995 to the proceedings.", "26. On 22 April 1996 the court informed the applicant that due to the change of the presiding judge further hearings would be scheduled only in the second half of 1996.", "27. On 29 April 1996 the applicant requested that all his cases which had been joined be examined separately. Subsequently, he was informed that no appeal lay against the decision of 18 April 1996 and that the case had to be re-opened due to the change of the presiding judge.", "28. On 10 and 23 May 1996 the applicant again requested that witness M be summoned to appear before the court. Subsequently, he requested also that a hearing be scheduled.", "29. On 8 June 2000 the court ordered the applicant’s psychiatric examination, at his counsel’s request.", "30. On 27 June 2000 the applicant requested the appointment of another lawyer for him and expressed his doubts as to the impartiality of the court.", "31. In reply to the court’s request, on 14 July 2000 the applicant specified that it was not his intention to challenge the participation of the judges in the proceedings.", "32. On 25 August 2000 the applicant asked permission to record the course of the hearing on his tape-recorder. After the presiding judge’s refusal the applicant decided to leave the courtroom and challenged the participation in the proceedings of the presiding judge.", "33. On 30 August 2000 the Warsaw District Court declined the applicant’s request.", "34. On 11 September 2000 the applicant petitioned the court to quash the decisions of 25 and 30 August 2000.", "35. On 11 October 2000 the court ordered another psychiatric examination of the applicant, considering that the two psychiatric opinions issued in the course of those proceedings were incomplete and superficial.", "36. The applicant did not attend the examination scheduled for 2 November 2000.", "37. On 7 March 2001 the court ordered an inquiry as to whether the applicant had undergone the examination scheduled for December 2000 and when the psychiatric opinion would be submitted. The court’s registry established that the examination was arranged for 30 May 2001. The presiding judge ordered that the applicant be brought to the psychiatric hospital by the police.", "38. In June 2001 the psychiatric and psychological opinions were submitted to the court. The experts stated that the overall examination of the applicant’s mental health would require his observation in a psychiatric hospital.", "39. On 13 November 2001 the court ordered the applicant’s observation. On 8 January 2002 the Warsaw Regional Court dismissed his appeal against that decision. The applicant was taken under observation in May 2002.", "40. The District Court held hearings on 5 August and 16 October 2002, as well as 15 January, 24 March, 15 April, 8 May and 12 June 2003. The applicant filed motions concerning the correction of minutes and a challenge to the participation of certain judges in the proceedings.", "41. On 24 March 2003 he was fined for contempt of court. On 6 May 2003 the Regional Court upheld that decision.", "42. The proceedings are still continuing." ]

[ 3 ]

[ "10. The applicant was born in 1959 and lives in Iceland. She is the mother of two daughters, V.A, who was born in 1981, and A.A, who was born in 1982. At the time of their births the applicant was living in Reykjavik with Mr Halil Al, a Turkish citizen. The children were born out of wedlock.", "11. On 13 April 1984 the couple married in Iceland. Halil Al obtained Icelandic citizenship three years later.", "12. The applicant and Halil Al separated in November 1989 and Halil Al moved from the house they shared in February 1990.", "13. In June 1990 Halil Al went to Turkey with the two girls for a holiday. The applicant gave her consent to allow her daughters to accompany their father to Turkey. In August 1990 the applicant received a telephone call from Halil Al, who told her that her daughters would not be returning to Iceland. From that point on Halil Al refused to communicate with the applicant. Over the following months the applicant received no information about the children or their condition in Turkey.", "14. The applicant applied to the Icelandic authorities for a decree of divorce and custody of her two daughters.", "15. On 11 January 1991 the Ministry of Justice issued a separation licence and provisionally granted custody of the children to the applicant.", "16. On 10 April 1992 the Ministry of Justice decided that the applicant should be granted custody of the children in view of the fact that they had been living with their mother since their parents separated and that Iceland had always been their home. The Ministry based its decision on the opinion of the Reykjavik Child Welfare Committee, which made an overall assessment of the applicant’s and Halil Al’s financial situation and living conditions.", "17. On the same date the Ministry of Justice issued a divorce decree, under which Halil Al was to pay the applicant maintenance for each child until the age of eighteen and the children were to have access to their father under arrangements to be determined by mutual agreement between the parents.", "18. On 25 October 1991 the applicant brought an action before the Bakırköy Civil Court of General Jurisdiction (Asliye Hukuk Mahkemesi) in Istanbul in which she sought a divorce and custody of her daughters.", "19. At a hearing held on 12 March 1992 V.A and A.A appeared before the court. V.A stated as follows:\n“I want to remain in the custody of my father. Sophia was my mother once upon a time. She is not my mother anymore. She was bad to me. She has left us alone. She was going out with other men. I love my father.” A.A stated:\n“I want to remain in the custody of my father. Sophia was my mother once upon a time. I do not want her anymore. She has left us alone. We were frightened. She was always going somewhere. I love my father.”", "20. On 12 November 1992 the Bakırköy Civil Court of General Jurisdiction declared the applicant and Halil Al divorced and granted custody of the children to the father. It considered in accordance with Law no. 2675 that the applicable law in the case was Turkish law.", "21. The Civil Court considered that the children had expressed the wish to stay with their father, who tended to their emotional needs and gave them a decent education. The children had adjusted to their life in Istanbul and to their father’s environment. If they were removed from their surroundings, they would suffer psychologically and emotionally. It was therefore in the children’s best interest to remain with their father, who had sufficient income to support them and pay for their education. The Civil Court also granted the applicant visiting rights allowing her to see the children every July for thirty days.", "22. The case attracted the attention of the media and the general public and a group of Turkish and Icelandic reporters were in court when it gave its decision.", "23. The applicant appealed. On 23 February 1993 the Court of Cassation quashed the decision of the Civil Court on the grounds that it had failed to clarify whether the applicant had obtained Turkish citizenship and whether Halil Al had obtained Icelandic citizenship as a consequence of their marriage. It had also failed to establish whether the couple’s marriage had been recognised and certified in Turkey.", "24. On 7 October 1993 the Civil Court decided not to follow the Court of Cassation’s decision. In its opinion the nationality of the couple bore no relevance to the case before it. Furthermore, the case-file revealed that the couple had been married in accordance with Icelandic law and, therefore, it was unnecessary to consider whether the marriage had been certified by the Turkish authorities.", "25. On 30 March 1994 the Joint Civil Divisions of the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay Hukuk Dairesi Genel Kurulu) quashed the decision of 7 October 1993. It held that the couple’s nationality and the question whether their marriage had been recognised in Turkey were the main issues in the case. The Civil Court’s task was to clarify those facts so that it could decide on the applicable law in the light of the rules governing conflicts of laws and the provisions of Law no. 2675.", "26. The case was remitted to the Bakırköy Civil Court of General Jurisdiction.", "27. In a letter dated 8 February 1995 the Civil Court requested the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to inform it whether the marriage certificate issued by the Icelandic authorities on 13 December 1984 had been certified by the Turkish authorities.", "28. In a letter of 18 April 1995 the Ministry of Foreign Affairs informed the Civil Court that the marriage certificate issued on 13 April 1984 by the Register of Births, Marriages and Deaths in Iceland and the divorce decree issued on 10 April 1992 by the Ministry of Justice had been certified by the Turkish Embassy in Oslo.", "29. At a hearing on 20 April 1995 the applicant withdrew her divorce petition and asked the Civil Court to rule on the issue of custody.", "30. In its decision of the same date the Civil Court referred to its correspondence with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, which confirmed that Halil Al had both Turkish and Icelandic citizenship and that the applicant had not obtained Turkish citizenship as a consequence of their marriage. It dismissed the divorce petition. It held that it did not, therefore, have jurisdiction to decide the issue of custody.", "31. On 28 November 1995 the Court of Cassation quashed the decision of 20 April 1995. In the opinion of the Court of Cassation, the first instance court should have decided which parent would be granted the custody of the children pursuant to the provisions of Law no. 2675 and Article 312 of Civil Code. It was necessary to determine who would have the parental authority over the children because they had been registered as “children born out of wedlock” (gayri sahih nesepli) in the Turkish Register of Births, Marriages and Deaths.", "32. The case was once again remitted to the Bakırköy Civil Court of General Jurisdiction.", "33. On 13 June 1996 the children were brought to the courthouse for a hearing along with fifteen other girls all wearing the same headscarves and black sunglasses as the applicant’s daughters. A group of people gathered in front of the courthouse chanting slogans and waving banners calling for the children to be allowed to remain with their father in Turkey. The applicant and her lawyers were harassed by the crowd.", "34. At the hearing the applicant’s lawyer requested the court to sit in camera, as that would serve the children’s best interest. The court rejected the request on the ground that the circumstances of the case did not require the exclusion of the public. The applicant’s lawyer further requested the court to invite the Ambassador of Iceland, the Icelandic Consul in Istanbul, the translators and other Icelandic nationals to attend the hearing. The court accepted that request.", "35. At the hearing V.A stated as follows:\n“I have been staying with my father for almost six years. I am happy with my father. I do not want to stay with my mother. I want to enjoy the Islamic way of life. That’s why I want to stay with my father. My mother tried to kidnap me. That’s why I do not want her. I do not want to stay with her. I am having an Islamic education. At the same time I go to a public school. I cannot say the name of the school for security reasons. I am not under the pressure of my father.” A.A stated:\n“I have been staying with my father for six years. I am happy with him. I am happy being with him. I have no worries. My stepmother Mülkiye Al is staying with us. My father takes care of us. My stepmother helps him. I do not want to see my mother. I do not want to say the name of my school. I am afraid that my mother will intervene.”", "36. The applicant’s lawyer alleged that the children were under the influence of their father and not giving testimony of their own free will. He submitted that the children should undergo a psychological examination by child therapists. The court did not rule on that request.", "37. Having regard to the statements of the children and other evidence before it, the Civil Court decided to award custody of the children to their father and granted the applicant visiting rights. It reached the following conclusions:", "38. During the proceedings the children had stated on several occasions that they had been living with their father for six years and were happy being with him. They did not want to see their mother and feared that she might kidnap them. The case-file showed that the children had no psychological, mental or physical problems. Their father had given them sufficient financial support, they had adjusted to their father’s environment and were happy to live with him. In the light of those facts the children’s interest would best be served by their remaining with their father. However, it was also necessary to satisfy the children’s maternal needs. Therefore, having regard to the distance between Turkey and Iceland and the children’s summer holidays, the applicant should be granted visiting rights every July and August for sixty days.", "39. On 18 November 1996 the Court of Cassation upheld that decision.", "40. The Court of Cassation rejected an application by the applicant for rectification of the judgment on 31 March 1997.", "41. The applicant brought civil proceedings against Halil Al claiming that he had abused his authority as the children’s guardian (velayetin nezi davası).", "42. At a hearing held on 5 May 1998 the children appeared before the Bakırköy Civil Court of General Jurisdiction.", "43. V.A stated:\n“I am living with my father. He takes care of my sister and me. I do not agree to seeing my mother because I do not want to see her. I do not sympathise with my mother because she did not show any interest or concern during my childhood. I am studying at a private school. I do not want to disclose its name for security reasons. I want to remain in the custody of my father. I do not agree to my mother’s request [to see us]. I am aware that it is a criminal offence to refuse to see my mother. In 1997, I met my mother at the request of police officers. I do not have any involvement in the Kadri cult.” A.A stated:\n“I have been living with my father for eight years. My sister is also living with us. My father has always fulfilled his parental duties. My sister and I did not want to live with our mother because we were not happy with her. She never took care of us. I want to stay with my father. I am continuing my studies at a private school. I am not going to tell the school’s name. If I do, my mother might follow us. I met my mother in 1992 and 1997 because I wanted to see her. My mother forced me to testify against my father in the proceedings before the Bakırköy 8th Civil Court of General Jurisdiction.”", "44. On 12 March 1992 the Bakırköy Civil Court of General Jurisdiction provisionally granted the applicant access to her children on the first and third Saturday of every month. However, she was able to see her children on only two occasions. Her subsequent attempts to have access were unsuccessful.", "45. On 4 June 1992 Halil Al informed the Bakırköy Enforcement Officer (İcra Müdürü) that his daughters would be staying in Sivas between 6 June 1992 and 6 September 1992 for their summer holidays. He also communicated his addresses in Istanbul and in Sivas.", "46. While staying in Sivas, Halil Al informed the Enforcement Officer that the family had prolonged their stay because V.A. was ill and that they would now be staying in Sivas until 4 October 1992.", "47. In the meantime, the Magistrate’s Court (Sulh Ceza Mahkemesi) in Bakırköy acquitted the applicant, on 6 October 1992, of a charge of attempted kidnapping of the children on 17 October 1991, following a complaint by Halil Al.", "48. On 12 November 1992 the Bakırköy Civil Court of General Jurisdiction dissolved the applicant’s marriage and granted custody of the children to their father and access to the applicant. Having regard to the need to satisfy the children’s maternal needs, the distance between Turkey and Iceland and the children’s summer holidays, the court held that the applicant should be granted visiting rights every July for thirty days (see, paragraph 21 above).", "49. Subsequently, Halil Al requested the office of the Bakırköy Enforcement Judge (İcra Tetkik Mercii Hakimliği) to stay the execution of that decision. He submitted that the Court of Cassation had quashed the decision of the first-instance court and that, therefore, the execution proceedings should be halted. In the meantime, the applicant applied to the Bakırköy Civil Court of General Jurisdiction for access to her children since the Court of Cassation had quashed the decision of the first-instance court (see, paragraph 23 above).", "50. On 30 June 1993 the Bakırköy Civil Court of General Jurisdiction provisionally granted the applicant visiting rights from 5.00 p.m. on every Friday to 5.00 p.m. on every Sunday. The court noted that the children could visit their mother in the apartment that she had rented in Istanbul.", "51. Between 2 July and 10 September 1993 the enforcement officers went to Halil Al’s home eleven times. However, on none of these occasions did they manage to find him or the children. On two occasions the doorkeeper of the building told the officers that Halil Al had gone to Sivas with his daughters for a holiday.", "52. The applicant filed several complaints. The Bakırköy Public Prosecutor instituted criminal proceedings against Halil Al on the ground that he had failed to comply with court orders.", "53. On 19 January 1994 the Bakırköy Criminal Court of First Instance (Asliye Ceza Mahkemesi) sentenced Halil Al to three months and ten days’ imprisonment. The penalty was converted into a fine of 500,000 Turkish Liras.", "54. Attempts by the applicant to see her children on 15 July 1994, 22 July 1994, 29 July 1994, 5 August 1994, 19 August 1994, 26 August 1994, 2 September 1994 and 9 September 1994 all failed. The officers did not find the children at their home on any of those dates.", "55. On 16 September 1994 the enforcement officers forcibly entered Halil Al’s house and found the children’s stepmother. Halil Al arrived later. He told the officers that only V.A was at home. The officers left without taking V.A with them since A.A was not there.", "56. When the officers returned to Halil Al’s house on 23 September 1994 they again found the children’s stepmother. The children and their father were absent. Halil Al again refused to comply with the access arrangements on 30 September 1994, 14 October 1994, 21 October 1994 and 25 November 1994.", "57. On 10 October 1994 the Court of Cassation upheld the decision of the Bakırköy Criminal Court of First Instance of 19 January 1994 (see, paragraph 53 above).", "58. On 6 January 1995, 20 January 1995, 3 February 1995, 10 March 1995, 24 March 1995 and 7 April 1995 Halil Al again failed to comply with the access arrangements. He was not found at his home on any of those dates.", "59. On 14 April 1995 the applicant arrived at Halil Al’s house accompanied by enforcement officers. The children’s grandfather, who was at home, said that the children were at school but he did not know which school. The enforcement officers searched the house but could not find the children.", "60. On 13 June 1996 the Bakırköy Civil Court of General Jurisdiction granted the applicant visiting rights every July and August for sixty days (see, paragraph 38 above).", "61. The Bakırköy Enforcement Officer sent an official letter to Halil Al on 10 July 1996 inviting him to be present at his home on 12 July 1996 at 5.00 p.m.", "62. On 11 July 1996 Halil Al requested the office of the Bakırköy Enforcement Judge to set aside the order for enforcement of access rights. On 12 July 1996 the judge rejected that request. However, the officers who visited Halil Al’s home did not manage to find the children or Halil Al.", "63. In a letter of the same day Halil Al informed the Enforcement Office that V.A was in Erzurum and A.A was in Sivas for a holiday and that the applicant could visit the children in those cities.", "64. On 19 July 1996 the enforcement officers were again unable to find Halil Al at his home. The doorkeeper of the building told them that the children had left home early in that morning.", "65. The applicant lodged three complaints with the office of the Bakırköy Public Prosecutor on 12 July 1996, 20 August 1996 and 11 September 1996.", "66. On 24 July 1996 the Bakırköy Public Prosecutor filed a bill of indictment with the Bakırköy Criminal Court of First Instance, accusing Halil Al of non-compliance with court orders.", "67. In a letter of 26 July 1996 the Bakırköy Enforcement Officer informed the local police station of a visit planned on the same date and requested a policeman to accompany the officers. In their subsequent visits a policeman accompanied the enforcement officers.", "68. On 4 September 1996 the Bakırköy Public Prosecutor filed a further bill of indictment with the Bakırköy Criminal Court of First Instance, again accusing Halil Al of non-compliance with court orders.", "69. When they attended the premises on 13 September 1996 the children’s grandfather told the officers that the children had not come back from Sivas. The officers noted that the children’s beds were made.", "70. On 20 September 1996 the enforcement officers did not find anyone at Halil Al’s home. A neighbour told them that she had not seen anyone come in or out of the house for a long time.", "71. The applicant’s subsequent visits on 5 October 1996, 18 October 1996, 26 October 1996, 1 November 1996, 8 November 1996, 15 November 1996, 22 November 1996 and 29 November 1996 were also in vain. The children were not at their father’s home on any of those dates.", "72. According to the Icelandic Government, an exceptional meeting had been arranged between the applicant and her children on 1 December 1996 following previous discussions between the Turkish and Icelandic authorities and pressure imposed on the Turkish authorities by the Icelandic Foreign Ministry and the Ambassador of Iceland to Turkey who was also present at the meeting.", "73. On 7 March 1997 the Bakırköy Criminal Court of First Instance convicted Halil Al of non-compliance with court orders and sentenced him to three months and 26 days’ imprisonment.", "74. In a letter of 27 March 1997 the Turkish Ministry of Foreign Affairs informed the Ministry of Justice that the applicant would be coming to Turkey on 29 or 30 March 1997 and requested it to take the necessary steps so that she could exercise her access rights without hindrance.", "75. On 10 April 1997 the applicant urged the office of the Bakırköy Public Prosecutor to have Halil Al arrested.", "76. On 21 August 1997 the applicant’s lawyer travelled to Divriği in the province of Sivas in order to meet the applicant’s daughters. Halil Al arrived at the meeting point with his daughters. When the children left their father they started shouting and were reluctant to travel with the applicant’s lawyer. They said that they did not want to see their mother anymore because she had never been a real mother to them. They refused to get into the car when the applicant’s lawyer told them to do so. He requested assistance from the police officers and asked if they would accompany them to Ankara. However, the police officers refused, saying that they would only escort him to the boundaries of Sivas province. The applicant’s lawyer declined to travel with the children, as he feared for their safety owing to terrorist activity in the region.", "77. The applicant lodged another criminal complaint with the office of the Bakırköy Public Prosecutor. On 24 September 1997 the Bakırköy Criminal Court of First Instance dismissed the applicant’s claims and acquitted Halil Al. It noted that the children had repeatedly expressed their reluctance to see their mother and stayed in friends’ houses just before the scheduled visits in order to avoid seeing her. They were not under the influence of their father and genuinely did not want to see their mother. The court held that there was no evidence on which to convict Halil Al.", "78. On an unspecified date the Ministry of Justice notified the Ministry of Foreign Affairs that the applicant had been informed that she could see her children in Sivas, Ankara or Kayseri and that it would be more appropriate for her to go to one of these cities in order to satisfy the children’s maternal needs. However, the applicant had not considered visiting her children in those cities. The Ministry of Justice further emphasised that, as a general rule, a claimant should make use of the relevant legal procedures and apply to the competent authorities in order to exercise his or her access rights. In the present case, however, the applicant had not made use of the legal procedures that were available to everyone.", "79. The Bakırköy Criminal Court of First Instance brought the criminal proceedings that had begun on 4 September 1996 (see, paragraph 68 above) to an end. In a decision of 13 January 1998 it convicted Halil Al of non-compliance with court orders and sentenced him to four-months’ imprisonment. The penalty was converted into a fine of 1,200,000 Turkish Liras.", "80. By letters of 8 June 1998 and 8 July 1998 the Ministry of Justice requested the public prosecutors in Sivas and Divriği to take the necessary measures to facilitate the access arrangements specified in the order of the Bakırköy Civil Court of General Jurisdiction. The Ministry of Justice also informed the Ministry of the Interior that the applicant’s lawyer’s efforts to have access to her children had been hampered during the meeting of 21 April 1997 because of security concerns. It was suggested that the Ministry of the Interior take the necessary measures in order to facilitate the applicant’s meeting with her daughters the following July.", "81. On 15 July 1998 the Bakırköy Criminal Court of First Instance again sentenced Halil Al to one month and five days’ imprisonment. The penalty was converted into a fine of 350,000 Turkish Liras.", "82. The applicant met her daughters on 8 July 1998 for four days in Divriği. However, Halil Al did not allow his daughters to see their mother for any longer period. The applicant returned to Iceland.", "83. On 27 August 1998 the applicant arrived in Divriği in order to meet her daughters. However, she was not able to see them.", "84. The access rights became unenforceable when V.A reached the age of eighteen in June 1999 and A.A in October 2000, as the children were considered adults under Turkish law." ]

[ 4 ]

[ "7. The applicant was born in 1937 and lives in Warsaw, Poland.", "8. On 17 December 1990 the applicant sued the “Dromex” Company (“the defendant”) in the Warszawa-Praga District Court of Labour and Social Security (Sad Rejonowy dla Warszawy-Pragi Wydzial Pracy), seeking payment of her remuneration.", "9. The trial court held hearings on the following dates: 22 February, 17 April, 8 November 1991 and 10 January 1992.", "10. On 24 August 1992 the expert opinion was submitted to the court. Subsequently, the court held hearings on 16 December 1992 and 12 March 1993.", "11. On 4 May 1993 a supplementary expert opinion was submitted to the court.", "12. The court held further hearings on: 3 September, 24 November 1993 and 25 February 1994.", "13. On 21 June 1994 a second supplementary expert opinion was submitted to the court.", "14. Subsequently, the trial court held a new round of hearings on: 24 June, 9 November 1994, 3 February 1995, 7 April, 21 July, 13 November 1995, 14 June, 9 October 1996 and 7 March 1997.", "15. On 30 November 1997 the court obtained a fresh expert opinion from another expert.", "16. The court held additional hearings: 16 February 1998, 26 January, 27 June, 8 November 1999, 20 January and 7 April 2000.", "17. On 17 April 2000 the court gave judgment. It became final on 8 May 2000." ]

[ 1 ]

[ "9. Between 1979 and 1985 the applicants were arrested by policemen and placed in police custody. They were accused of membership of an illegal organisation, the Dev-Yol (Revolutionary Way). The Ankara Martial Law Court (Sıkıyönetim Mahkemesi) remanded the applicants in custody.", "10. The beginning and the end of the criminal proceedings against the applicants are as follows:\n \nApplicant's name\nBeginning of the criminal proceedings\nEnd of the criminal proceedings\n1) Şaban Değirmenci\n17 February 1981\n27 December 1995\n2) Mehmet Baha Çetintaş\n5 February 1981\n27 December 1995\n3) Yılmaz Ergül\n17 July 1980\n27 December 1995\n4) İbrahim Arslan\n9 July 1981\n27 December 1995\n5) Ercan Uğur\n18 August 1981\n27 December 1995\n6) İsmail Tayfun Üstün\n27 December 1980\n27 December 1995\n7) Abdullah Evcil\n9 April 1980\n27 December 1995\n8) Abdullah Şengörenoğlu\n6 December 1980\n27 December 1995\n9) İsmail Tümay\n12 December 1980\n27 December 1995\n10) Ziya Uncu\n24 November 1980\n27 December 1995\n11) Mehmet Üresin \n17 July 1980\n27 December 1995\n12) Naci Zaman\n17 September 1980\n27 December 1995\n13) Özgür Ovacık\n24 September 1980\n27 December 1995\n14) Kemal Elhan \n27 October 1980\n27 December 1995\n15) Murat Parlakay\n23 November 1980\nstill pending\n16) Celal Mut\n1 October 1980\nstill pending\n17) Mehmet Hassoy\n24 January 1980\nstill pending\n18) Bedia Zehra Torun\n22 January 1981\n27 December 1995\n19) Arif Kandemir\n10 September 1981\n27 December 1995\n20) Nejdet Özen \n11 April 1980\n27 December 1995\n21) Metin Bakkalcı\n8 October 1980\n27 December 1995\n22) Lütfi Doğan Tılıç\n20 April 1981\n27 December 1995\n23) Hürriyet Eğer\n2 September 1979\n27 December 1995\n24) Esma Güzel\n9 September 1980\n27 December 1995\n25) Tuncay Kara\n24 November 1980\n27 December 1995\n26) Ali Özkan Çakırlar\n1 December 1980\n27 December 1995\n27) Ertuğrul Özbek\n31 August 1980\n27 December 1995\n28) Mehmet Şahin\n4 September 1980\n27 December 1995\n29) Mehmet Akif Aküzüm\n31 October 1980\n27 December 1995\n30) Mehmet Nuri Sarpkaya\n11 November 1980\n27 December 1995\n31) Abdülrezzak Erten\n29 October 1980\n27 December 1995\n32) İlhan Burhan Çam1\n7 November 1980\n27 December 1995\n33) Hacı Badem\n9 September 1980\n27 December 1995\n34) Sami Altuntaş\n29 October 1980\n27 December 1995\n35) Ahter Yıldız\n12 July 1981\n27 December 1995\n36) Recai Kireç\n7 September 1979\n27 December 1995\n37) Halil Ulutaş\n21 September 1984\n27 December 1995\n[1. Rectified on 18 November 2003. The name of İlhan Burhan Çam was mentioned as : 'Burhan Çam'.]", "11. On 26 February 1982 the Military Public Prosecutor filed a bill of indictment with the Ankara Martial Law Court setting out the charges against 723 defendants, including the applicants. He accused the applicants of membership of an organisation whose aim was to undermine the constitutional order and replace it with a Marxist-Leninist regime, contrary to Article 146 § 1 of the Turkish Criminal Code.", "12. On different dates the applicants were all released pending trial by the Ankara Martial Law Court.", "13. After martial law was lifted, the Ankara Martial Law Court was thereafter referred as the Martial Law Court attached to the 4th Army Corps.", "14. On 19 July 1989 the Martial Law Court convicted the applicants and sentenced them to various terms of imprisonment.", "15. As the applicants' sentences exceeded 15 years' imprisonment, their cases were automatically referred to the Military Court of Cassation (Askeri Yargıtay).", "16. Following promulgation of the Law of 26 December 1994, which abolished the jurisdiction of the martial law courts, the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay) acquired jurisdiction over the cases, and the files were sent to it.", "17. On 27 December 1995 the Court of Cassation decided:\n- to uphold the first-instance court's judgment in respect of 13 of the applicants (Baha Çetintaş, Yılmaz Ergül, Mehmet Üresin, İbrahim Arslan, Tayfun Üstün, Abdullah Evcil, Kemal Elhan, Ercan Uğur, Naci Zaman, Özgür Ovacık, Abdullah Şengörenoğlu, İsmail Tümay and Ziya Uncu);\n- to quash the first-instance court's judgment on the ground that the court had failed to apply the legal provisions relevant to the crime in question in respect of 3 of the applicants (Murat Parlakay, Celal Mut and Mehmet Hassoy) and to transfer the cases to the Ankara Assize Court; and\n- to uphold the first-instance court's judgment with some amendments in respect of 7 of the applicants (Arif Kandemir, Hürriyet Eğer, Nejdet Özen, Lütfi Doğan Tılıç, Bedia Zehra Torun, Metin Bakkalcı and Şaban Değirmenci).", "18. As regards 14 of the applicants (Tuncay Kara, Ertuğrul Özbek, Mehmet Şahin, İlhan Burhan Çam [Rectified on 18 November 2003. The name of İlhan Burhan Çam was mentioned as : 'Burhan Çam'.], Esma Güzel, Ali Özkan Çakırlar, Mehmet Akif Aküzüm, Mehmet Nuri Sarpkaya, Abdülrezzak Erten, Hacı Badem, Sami Altıntaş, Ahter Yıldız, Recai Kireç and Halil Ulutaş), the Court of Cassation held that the criminal proceedings should be discontinued on the ground that the prosecution was time-barred (zamanaşımı)." ]

[ 1, 2 ]

[ "6. The applicant was born in 1937 and lives in Zduńska Wola, Poland.", "7. In 1980 the applicant was convicted of “having organised an illegal demonstration and having made disrespectful remarks concerning the Polish Nation” and sentenced to one month’s imprisonment. On 20 March 1996 the Supreme Court acquitted him of all charges.", "8. On 17 May 1996 the applicant filed a request for compensation with the Warsaw Regional Court ( Sąd Wojewódzki) for his wrongful conviction and imprisonment.", "9. On 28 January 1997 the applicant’s lawyer requested the Regional Court to accelerate examination of the case. In reply, the Regional Court informed the applicant that, due to a large number of similar cases pending before the court, it could not set any approximate date for a hearing in the case.", "10. On 19 June 2001 the applicant again requested the Regional Court to accelerate examination of his case. The Regional Court informed the applicant that the explanation given in its previous letter remained valid.", "11. It appears that the proceedings are pending before the Warsaw Regional Court." ]

[ 3 ]

[ "7. The applicant was born in 1957 and lives in Cracow, Poland.", "8. On 21 October 1991 the applicant’s husband filed a divorce petition with the Cracow Regional Court (Sąd Wojewódzki).", "9. Subsequently, the court held hearings on 13 February and 7 May 1992.", "10. On 20 July 1992 the trial court secured the applicant’s maintenance claims. The applicant’s husband appealed. On 23 November 1992 the Cracow Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) dismissed his appeal.", "11. The court held hearings on the following dates: 11 May, 22 June, 14 September 1993, 13 September and 4 November 1994.", "12. On 12 April 1995 the trial court again secured the applicant’s maintenance claims. The applicant’s husband appealed. On 3 August 1995 the Cracow Court of Appeal dismissed his appeal.", "13. Subsequently, the trial court held hearings on the following dates: 17 October 1995, 5 March, 11 June, 5 November 1996, 4 March and 26 June 1997.", "14. On 8 July 1997 the court granted a divorce decree. The applicant appealed.", "15. On 21 January 1998 the Cracow Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal.", "16. On 5 February 1998 the applicant lodged a cassation appeal against the judgment. On 28 July 1999 the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal. The judgment was delivered to the applicant on 1 December 1999." ]

[ 3 ]

[ "7. The applicant was born in 1952 and lives in Piła, Poland.", "8. On 28 September 1992 the applicant sued T.K and J.J. (“the defendants”) in the Poznań Regional Court (Sąd Wojewódzki), seeking a payment by bill of exchange.", "9. On 10 March 1993 the trial court held the first hearing. Subsequently, the court held hearings on the following dates: 11 July 1994 and 14 February 1995.", "10. In the meantime the applicant had complained to the President of the trial court about the length of the proceedings.", "11. The court held hearings on the following dates: 16 November 1995, 20 June 1996, 3 February, 5 September and 16 October 1997.", "12. On 29 October 1997 the court gave judgment. The defendants appealed.", "13. On 21 April 1998 the Poznań Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) dismissed the appeal.", "14. On 22 October 1998 the applicant complained to the Minister of Justice about the slow conduct of the proceedings.", "15. On 6 July 1998 the defendants lodged a cassation appeal against the judgment. In the meantime, the applicant had applied for enforcement of the judgment.", "16. On 22 October 1998 the applicant complained to the President of the Poznań Regional Court about the delay in deciding her request for enforcement of the judgment.", "17. On 28 April 1999 the Supreme Court gave judgment and remitted the case for re-examination.", "18. On 19 August 1999 the Poznań Court of Appeal gave judgment and remitted the case for re-examination.", "19. On 3 November 1999 the applicant requested the court to secure the claim.", "20. On 25 January 2000 the applicant again complained to the Minister of Justice about the length of the proceedings.", "21. On 17 February 2000 the Poznań Regional Court held a hearing.", "22. On 28 April 2000 the court dismissed the applicant’s request to secure the claim. Subsequently, the trial court held hearings on the following dates: 1 June, 7 November 2000 and 9 January 2001.", "23. It appears that the proceedings are still pending." ]

[ 3 ]

[ "7. On 11 August 1995 on a public bus in the city of Århus the applicant, born in 1928, had a dispute with a ticket inspector, who accused her of having travelled without a valid ticket. When he was about to issue a penalty fare she refused to disclose her identity and the police were consequently called. They requested that the applicant give her name and address, and since she refused, she was arrested at 9.30 p.m. in accordance with section 755, subsection 1, cf. section 750 of the Administration of Justice Act (Retsplejeloven) and brought to the police station.", "8. From the police reports it appears that the police estimated that the applicant was approximately sixty years old. Having been deprived of her personal belongings, she was put in a waiting room at 9.45 p.m. and after a visit to the toilet at 11.00 p.m. she was moved to a detention cell. On 12 August 1995 at 10.45 a.m. the applicant revealed her identity and she was released at 11.00 a.m.", "9. Immediately after her release, the applicant collapsed and was hospitalised for three days diagnosed with high blood pressure.", "10. The charge with the offence of refusing to reveal her identity was not followed up by an indictment. The outcome of the applicant's dispute with the bus company is unknown.", "11. On 16 August 1995 the applicant complained about the detention to the Chief Constable of Århus (Politimesteren i Århus). In a letter of 14 September 1995 the Chief Constable provided his comments on the course of event, stating inter alia that the applicant had not been in possession of any papers which could have revealed her identity, that she appeared hysterical and refused to reveal her identity and that in the light thereof for security reasons she was placed in a detention cell. Furthermore, the Chief Constable noted that during the detention the applicant was regularly attended to and called upon through the intercommunication system but that each approach was met with screaming and continuing refusal to reveal her identity,", "12. On 14 June 1996 the applicant claimed compensation for having been detained. The Chief Constable decided on the matter on 18 July 1996, and in so far as relevant his letter of the same day to the applicant reads as follows:\n“In connection with your previous complaint ... you received a ... letter of 14 September 1995 from Chief Superintendent HJH. [My] reply to your complaint... will not differ essentially from the content of [that letter]. \nHowever, in view of your relatively advanced age I find reason to regret that you were not, as promised, attended to by a doctor in connection with your stay in the detention cell. \nIn general, I find the fact that you were taken to the police station, that you were placed in the detention cell, and that the length of your stay in the detention cell from 11.00 p.m. until your release the following day at 11.00 a.m., totalling 12 hours can be ascribed substantially to your conduct and unwillingness to assist in replying to the question on which the police needed clarification.\nThis decision can be appealed against to the Ministry of Justice...\nThe claim for compensation made by you as regards the deprivation of liberty will be decided by the Regional State Prosecutor, who has received a copy of this letter”.", "13. The applicant did not appeal to the Ministry of Justice against the Chief Constable's decision, but on 31 July 1996 she complained against the decision to the Regional State Prosecutor in Viborg (Statsadvokaten i Viborg), who refused to grant her compensation on 6 February 1997.", "14. In accordance with section 1018 e of the Administration of Justice Act on 5 and 12 March 1997 the applicant appealed to the Prosecutor General, who upheld the decision on 25 November 1997.", "15. Thereafter, pursuant to section 1018 a of the Administration of Justice Act the applicant brought her claim for compensation before the City Court of Århus (Retten i Århus). The prosecution maintained that the applicant's behaviour necessitated the arrest and the length of the detention. A court session was held on 26 June 1998, in which the applicant, represented by counsel, explained inter alia that she had refused to give her name to the ticket inspector partly because she was angry, partly because he already knew her. She alleged that the police did not question her or talk to her during the arrest, during the transportation to the police station, or after the arrival to the station. She had handed over various belongings among those, she believed, various letters from public authorities bearing her name. Four police officers were heard as witnesses on 17 September 1998. The two police officers who made the arrest explained inter alia that the applicant twice had refused to give her name and address on their request, once after they had warned her that she would be arrested did she not state the data required. It had been difficult to get in touch with the applicant, who screamed and appeared hysterical. At the police station she was brought before the officer on duty and again she refused to reveal her identity. She had not been in possession of any identification. The officer who had been on duty on 11 August 1995 explained among other things that after repeated attempts to obtain the applicant's name and date of birth, he gave up and the applicant was thereafter placed in a waiting room, whereto he went at least once without success to ask her to disclose her personal data before he was off duty at 11 p.m. The officer who had been on duty on 12 August 1995 as from 6.30 a.m. stated inter alia that several times during the morning he send a colleague down to try to get the requested data from the applicant, but they only succeeded around 10.45 a.m., whereupon she was released. A note of 9 July 1996 from the Chief of Police in Århus was submitted, of which it appeared that the applicant's case had been thoroughly talked over with the group of duty officers. It had been discussed in particular that the applicant had not been attended to by a doctor in connection with her placement in the detention cell, that she had been detained for many hours, and that no documentation existed to substantiate which steps had been taken during the evening, the night and the early morning hours in order to gain knowledge of the applicant's identity. The duty officers were ordered, in the future, to appoint at the commencement of every duty period one among them to be responsible for the detainees.", "16. By judgment of 25 September 1998 the City Court decided as follows:\n“As the [applicant] did not disclose her name and address to the two [named] police officers, she infringed section 750 of the Administration of Justice Act, which authorises the imposition of a fine. Thus, pursuant to section 755, subsection 1 of the Administration of Justice Act the [applicant] could be arrested. \nAlso, when brought to the police station immediately after the arrest [the applicant] refused to reveal her name and address and consequently, she was put in a waiting room. It is unknown, which efforts were taken to identify [the applicant] in the period between 11.00 p.m. and 06.30 a.m. during which, the sixty-seven year old [applicant] was placed in the detention cell at least for some time, and during which according to the information available she was denied medical treatment. Having regard to the fact that [the applicant] was detained for breaching section 750 of the Administration of Justice Act, the police officers on duty were under an obligation continuously to make attempts to establish her identity, and to secure that the detention did not exceed a period proportionate to the cause of the detention cf. the principles set out in section 760, subsection 1 and section 755, subsection 4 of the Administration of Justice Act. Under these circumstances, the court finds that there was no reason to extend the detention until the following day 11.00 a.m. Accordingly, [the applicant] is entitled to compensation in the amount of DKK 2,200 pursuant to section 1018 a, subsection 1 of the Administration of Justice Act.”", "17. The prosecution appealed against the judgment to the High Court of Western Denmark (Vestre Landsret), before which the applicant amended slightly her statement given before the City Court in that she admitted that the police had asked her before and after the arrest to provide them with her personal data, but that she had refused because she had been angry. Two of the police officers who were heard as witnesses before the City Court repeated their testimonies.", "18. On 11 February 1999 the High Court gave judgment against the applicant stating as follows:\n“Having breached section 750 of the Administration of Justice Act [the applicant] could be arrested pursuant to section 755, subsection 1 of the Administration of Justice Act.\nDuring the arrest, and the subsequent detention [the applicant] was requested continuously to reveal her name and address, which she refused. Furthermore, she did not possess any identity papers, which could have enabled the police to determine her name and address. Finally, [the applicant] was released as soon as she revealed her name and address.\nUnder these circumstances, there is no basis for granting [the applicant] compensation pursuant to section 1018 a, subsection 1 of the administration of Justice Act.\nMoreover, as no circumstances has been established, which could provide a basis for granting compensation pursuant to section 1018 a, subsection 2, [the court finds for the prosecution.]”", "19. The applicant's request of 24 February 1999 for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court (Højesteret) was refused by the Leave to Appeal Board (Procesbevillingsnævnet) on 25 May 1999." ]

[ 2 ]

[ "6. The applicant was born in 1966 and lives in Istanbul.", "7. On 21 January 1997 the prison warders found three issues of a magazine titled “The Imperialist Capitalist System and the YPD” (Emperyalist Kapitalist Sistem ve YPD Üzerine) on Y.Ö. and S.Ö. who were paying a visit to N.Ö. and S.S. in the Gebze Prison. The magazines were published by the PKK (Worker's Party of Kurdistan) and the TRK/RIZGARİ.", "8. In their statements Y.Ö. and S.Ö. stated that they obtained the magazines from the applicant at the Komal Publication House in Istanbul.", "9. On 23 January 1997 police officers from the Istanbul Security Directorate conducted a search at the premises of the Komal Publication House and subsequently arrested the applicant along with eight others.", "10. On 24 January 1997 the Istanbul Security Directorate requested the public prosecutor attached to the Istanbul State Security Court to authorise an extension of the applicant's detention period. On the same day the public prosecutor authorised the Security Directorate to extend the detention period until 31 January 1997.", "11. On 27 January 1997 the applicant's lawyer petitioned the public prosecutor attached to the Istanbul State Security Court and requested to see the applicant. The public prosecutor rejected this request without giving any reasons.", "12. On 31 January 1997 the applicant was questioned by the public prosecutor and refused the accusations against him. The applicant was released on the same day.", "13. On 3 February 1997 the public prosecutor decided not to commit the applicant for trial (takipsizlik kararı) on the grounds that there existed no evidence to substantiate his involvement in the activities of terrorist organisations." ]

[ 0, 1, 2 ]

[ "6. The applicant was born in 1949 and lives in Istanbul.", "7. At the time of the events giving rise to the present application the applicant was the major shareholder and the editor in a publication company called “Evrensel Ltd”.", "8. In 1992 Evrensel Limited published a book entitled “Conference Documents” (Konferans Belgeleri) comprising documents related to a conference organised by the Turkish Revolutionary Communist Party (an outlawed political party in Turkey).", "9. On 2 September 1992 the public prosecutor at the Istanbul State Security Court charged the applicant under sections 7 and 8 of the Anti-Terror Law with disseminating propaganda against the indivisible integrity of the State and making propaganda of terrorist organisations.", "10. In the proceedings before the Istanbul State Security Court, the applicant pleaded that the book only contained historical documents. She also referred to her freedom of expression.", "11. In a judgment dated 1 July 1993, the Court found the applicant guilty of disseminating separatist propaganda, an offence under section 8 of the Anti-Terror Law as the publisher of the book. The applicant was sentenced to five months' imprisonment and payment of a fine. The Court noted that the book referred to a certain part of the Turkish territories as Kurdistan. The book also claimed that Turkish citizens living in those territories were of the Kurdish nation and that they should be given the right to self-determination, including the right to form a separate State, and that the Turkish army had invaded those territories. The Court concluded the book had disseminated propaganda against the indivisible integrity of the State.", "12. The applicant appealed. She submitted that her conviction constituted an unjustified interference with her freedom of expression guaranteed under Article 10 of the Convention.", "13. On 2 December 1993 the Court of Cassation quashed the decision of the State Security Court. It considered that the publication of the book constituted an offence also under section 7 of the Anti-Terror Law, disseminating propaganda of terrorist organisations, and that the applicant should have been also convicted separately under section 7.", "14. In a judgment dated 24 March 1994 the Istanbul State Security Court considered that the applicant should be sentenced to 10 months' imprisonment and a fine under sections 7 and 8 of the Anti-Terror Law. However, having regard to the fact that no appeal had been filed by the Public Prosecutor against the judgment of 1 July 1993, the Court held that the applicant's sentence should not exceed the sentence pronounced in that judgment. The applicant was finally sentenced to five months' imprisonment and payment of a fine of 41,666,666 Turkish Lira (TRL).", "15. The applicant appealed. On 22 September 1994 the Court of Cassation, upholding the cogency of the State Security Court's reasoning and evaluation of evidence in the judgment of 24 March 1994, dismissed the appeal.", "16. On 18 October 1994 the public prosecutor at the Istanbul State Security Court notified the prison sentence and fine to the applicant.", "17. On 17 March 1995 the applicant began serving her sentence at the Bayrampaşa Prison in Istanbul. She was later transferred to the prison in İzmit. She was released after having served 112 days in prison. She also paid TRL 27,090,000 of the fine.", "18. On 27 October 1995, after the custodial sentence imposed on the applicant was enforced, Law no. 4126 came into force amending, inter alia, section 8 of Law no. 3713. It modified the mens rea laid down by the former text of section 8 as to the commission of the act of propaganda in question. It also imposed a lighter custodial sentence for that offence, but increased the fines. In a temporary provision, Law no. 4126 also provided for an ex officio re-examination of earlier convictions imposed under section 8.", "19. The applicant's case was re-examined ex officio by the Istanbul State Security Court. In its judgment of 22 December 1995 the State Security Court finally sentenced Ms Caralan to five months' imprisonment and a fine of TRL 41,666,666, which it decided to defer in accordance with section 6 of Law no. 647. The court stipulated that a new judgment had thus been delivered, and ordered that execution of the previous sentence be stopped.", "20. The applicant appealed to the Court of Cassation. On 27 February 1997 the Court of Cassation quashed the judgment of 22 December 1995 on the ground that the trial court had erred in not commuting the applicant's prison sentence to a fine as required by domestic law.", "21. On 19 June 1997 the Istanbul State Security Court commuted the applicant's prison sentence to a fine of TRL 750,000. The sentence was suspended.", "22. The applicant appealed again. She argued that the prison sentence imposed on her had already been served and therefore the court was wrong in suspending the sentence. In her petition to the Court of Cassation the applicant also referred to her rights under Articles 6 and 10 of the Convention.", "23. While the proceedings were still pending, Law no. 4304 was promulgated on 14 August 1997. That Law provided for the deferment of judgment and of execution of sentence in respect of offences committed by editors before 12 July 1997.", "24. In a judgment of 12 September 1997 the State Security Court decided, pursuant to section 1(3) of Law no. 4304, to defer judgment against the applicant, but to proceed to delivery if, within three years from the date of deferment, the applicant was convicted of an intentional offence in her capacity as editor, and, lastly, that the criminal proceedings against her would be discontinued if no similar conviction was made before the expiry of that three-year period." ]

[ 9 ]

[ "9. The applicant was born in 1966 and lives in the Paris area.", "10. The applicant has been physically disabled since the age of seven. He was adopted by Mr Bernard Poirrez, a French national, under the terms of a judgment of 28 July 1987 of the Bouaké Court of First Instance. On 11 December 1987 the Bobigny tribunal de grande instance granted authority for the judgment to be executed.", "11. In December 1987 the applicant applied for a declaration of French nationality. His application was found inadmissible on the ground that he was over 18 years old when it was submitted. He appealed to the Bobigny tribunal de grande instance, which gave judgment on 15 January 1988 declaring the application inadmissible. That judgment was upheld by the Paris Court of Appeal on 24 June 1993.", "12. In the meantime, the Seine-Saint-Denis Occupational Counselling and Rehabilitation Board (commission technique d'orientation et de reclassement professionnel – “COTOREP”) registered the applicant as 80% disabled and issued him with an invalids' card. In May 1990 he applied to the Family Allowances Office (caisse d'allocations familiales – “CAF”) for the Paris area for an “allowance for disabled adults” (allocation aux adultes handicapés – “AAH”). In support of his application, he stated that he was a French resident of Ivory Coast nationality and the adopted son of a French national residing and working in France. His application was rejected on the ground that, as he was neither a French national nor a national of a country which had entered into a reciprocity agreement with France in respect of the AAH, he did not satisfy the relevant conditions laid down in Article L. 821-1 of the Social Security Code (see paragraph 24 below).", "13. On 13 June 1990 the applicant brought his case before the Friendly Settlements Board of the Family Allowances Office.", "14. In a decision of 6 September 1990, the Board confirmed the CAF's decision on the ground that the applicant did not satisfy the conditions laid down in Article L. 821-1 of the Social Security Code. The authorities noted that the Ivory Coast, of which the applicant was a national, had not signed a reciprocity agreement with France in respect of the AAH.", "15. On 26 February 1991 the applicant lodged an application with the Bobigny Social Security Tribunal for judicial review of the decision rejecting his claim. The applicant and the CAF lodged their pleadings on 26 February and 25 April 1991 respectively.", "16. In a judgment of 12 June 1991, the court decided to stay the proceedings pending the referral of a question to the European Court of Justice (ECJ) for a preliminary ruling. The question was whether the decision not to award the allowance for disabled adults to the applicant, a member of the family (adopted son) of a European Community national resident in the country of which the head of household (the adoptive parent) had the nationality (in accordance with French legislation) was compatible with the European provisions contained in the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community (“the EEC Treaty”). In a judgment of 16 December 1992 the ECJ replied to the question with a ruling that the refusal to award the benefit to the applicant was not incompatible with the relevant Articles of the EEC Treaty. It pointed out that the applicant's adoptive father could not claim to be a “migrant worker”, which was the category to which the European provisions in question applied. It based that finding on the fact that the applicant's adoptive father, being French, had always lived and worked in France. The ECJ accordingly concluded that the applicant could not “rely on Community law in support of his application for a social security benefit awarded to migrant workers and members of the family”. In doing so, it did not examine the question whether the refusal to award the applicant the allowance was, in general, compatible with Community law or not.", "17. The applicant started receiving the minimum welfare benefit (revenu minimum d'insertion – “RMI”) on 17 December 1991.", "18. On 31 March 1993, on the strength of the reply from the ECJ, the Bobigny Social Security Tribunal rejected the application as ill-founded. The applicant appealed against that decision on 27 July 1993. He applied for legal aid on 23 November 1993.", "19. On 14 January 1994 the Legal Aid Office at the Paris tribunal de grande instance rejected the application for legal aid to fund the applicant's appeal on the ground that the request was manifestly ill-founded. On 21 February 1994 the applicant appealed against that decision. In a decision of 5 May 1994 the President of the Legal Aid Office allowed the appeal.", "20. In a judgment of 19 June 1995, the Paris Court of Appeal upheld the decision of 31 March 1993. It referred to the provisions of Article L. 821-1 of the Social Security Code in the wording then applicable and to the lack of a reciprocity agreement between France and the country of the applicant's nationality in respect of the allowance.", "21. On 2 May 1996 the applicant appealed to the Court of Cassation on points of law. The applicant and the CAF lodged their pleadings on 1 August and 21 October 1996 respectively. On 2 June 1997 a reporting judge was appointed. He filed his report on 10 October 1997. A hearing before the Court of Cassation took place on 27 November 1997. In a judgment of 22 January 1998, the Court of Cassation dismissed the appeal lodged by the applicant and worded as follows:\n“With regard to the applicant's ground of appeal that '... Article 26 of the Covenant of New York prohibits any discrimination, including on grounds of national origin; that, in refusing to award Mr Koua Poirrez an allowance for disabled adults on grounds of his nationality, the Court of Appeal disregarded the binding nature of that provision, which it subsequently breached by refusing to apply ...' ”", "22. The Court of Cassation ruled as follows:\n“Article 26 of the International Covenant of New York of 19 December 1966, which prohibits any discrimination on grounds of national origin, cannot be construed as forbidding all nationality criteria on which domestic law makes the availability of a right conditional.\nAfter reiterating the terms of Article L. 821-1 of the Social Security Code, which restricts the right to an award of the allowance for disabled adults to French nationals and nationals of a country that has signed a reciprocity agreement, the Court of Appeal properly decided that Mr Koua Poirrez, an Ivory Coast national, could not claim that allowance in the absence of a reciprocity agreement between France and the Ivory Coast. ...”", "23. Following the enactment of the Act of 11 May 1998, which lifted the nationality condition for awards of non-contributory allowances, the applicant reapplied for an allowance for disabled adults from 1 June 1998. His application was rejected by the CAF, whereupon he applied to the Social Security Tribunal again. In a judgment of 11 June 1999 that court declared his application ill-founded on the ground that the applicant had not complied with the formal conditions governing the submission of his application for the allowance because he had not submitted to the CAF all the documentary evidence of his financial situation. The applicant appealed. According to information provided by the Government and undisputed by the applicant, the COTOREP re-examined the applicant's claim, at the request of the CAF, and awarded him the allowance for the period from June 1998 to November 2000. It is not apparent from the file whether the applicant continued to receive the benefit after that date. In any event, the applicant has not made any complaint regarding the current period and has not alleged that the allowance has been withdrawn.\n" ]

[ 8 ]

[ "7. The applicant was born in 1937 and lives in Szczecin, Poland.", "8. In 1989 the applicant, who worked as head of a department in a state-owned enterprise dealing with conservation of old buildings, was dismissed. Subsequently, he filed with the Szczecin District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) an action in which he requested that his dismissal be declared null and void, as well as that he be reinstated in his former post.", "9. On 16 February 1990 the court dismissed his action. The applicant appealed, but on 22 June 1990 the Szczecin Regional Court (Sąd Wojewódzki) dismissed his appeal.", "10. On 7 June 1993 the Ombudsman lodged an extraordinary appeal against the Regional Court’s judgment.", "11. On 14 July 1993 the Supreme Court quashed that judgment and remitted the case for re-examination.", "12. In his pleadings of 28 March 1994 the applicant withdrew his claim for reinstatement in his former post and raised a compensation claim.", "13. The District Court held hearings on 9 May and 28 November 1994, as well as on 2 and 25 January 1995.", "14. On 25 January 1995 it dismissed the action again.", "15. On 30 June 1995 the Szczecin Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the District Court’s judgment.", "16. On 2 August 1996 the Ombudsman lodged a cassation appeal against that judgment.", "17. On 13 December 1996 the Supreme Court quashed the Regional Court’s judgment and remitted the case for re-examination.", "18. On 23 April 1997 the Szczecin District Court stayed the proceedings, because of the fact that insolvency proceedings concerning the defendant were pending. The applicant lodged an appeal against that decision. On 30 June 1997 it was dismissed by the Szczecin Regional Court.", "19. On 21 September 1998 the District Court resumed the proceedings.", "20. On 22 October 1998 it held a hearing.", "21. On 26 October 1998 the court awarded the applicant a partial compensation. The applicant appealed against that judgment.", "22. On 17 February 1999 the Szczecin Regional Court held a hearing.", "23. On 24 February 1999 it quashed the judgment of 26 October 1998 and remitted the case for re-examination.", "24. The District Court held hearings on 23 July, as well as on 15 and 29 November 1999.", "25. On 29 November 1999 it gave a judgment, in which it awarded the applicant compensation. The applicant appealed.", "26. The Szczecin Regional Court held hearings on 10 and 31 May 2000.", "27. On 31 May 2000 it amended the judgment under appeal in that it increased the amount of the compensation." ]

[ 3 ]

[ "6. The applicant was born in 1958 and lives in Dunabogdány, Hungary.", "7. On 16 May 1991 the applicant brought an action against her former husband before the Szentendre District Court for a division of their matrimonial property.", "8. On 4 November 1991 and 8 January 1992 the parties were heard by the District Court and the applicant was ordered to submit her motions for the hearing of evidence within 30 days.", "9. Further hearings took place on 6 April and 13 August 1992, at which the parties announced that they hoped to reach an agreement. At the hearing on 16 November 1992 the parties informed the court that the settlement negotiations had proved unsuccessful.", "10. At the hearing on 24 May 1993 the applicant failed to appear. The District Court heard two witnesses. It also ordered the applicant to deposit an advance to cover the costs of an expert. Further hearings were held on 17 January, 9 February and 16 February 1994. At the hearing on 30 March 1994 the District Court found it necessary to appoint an expert and ordered the parties to deposit the anticipated costs or submit a request for exemption. The applicant submitted a request for exemption; the defendant, despite a warning, failed to comply with the order.", "11. The hearing scheduled for 15 February 1995 was postponed due to the illness of the judge. Further hearings took place on 22 March, 24 April, and 2 October 1995, 2 September and 18 December 1996. On 27 November 1997 the court appointed an expert. Further hearings were held on 5 February, 23 June, 28 September and 23 November 1998, 18 and 25 January 1999.", "12. On 17 February 1999 the Szentendre District Court delivered judgment, which was served on 27 April 1999 and became final on 13 May 1999." ]

[ 1, 2 ]

[ "9. The applicant was born in 1938 and lives in Oberwart/Austria. He is an auditor and tax consultant (Wirtschaftstreuhänder).", "10. In December 1989, the Salzburg Tax Office (Finanzamt), in the course of investigations into a large scale fraud relating to the “WEB/IMMAG” group, instituted criminal proceedings against 97 persons, requesting them to submit in writing their comments as suspects.", "11. On 14 December 1989 the applicant, who in his professional capacity assisted the “WEB/IMMAG” group, wrote a letter to the Oberwart Tax Office. Therein he asked that his income tax declarations for the years 1985 to 1987 be corrected, so that the losses declared be cancelled, in particular ATS 541,585 for the year 1985; ATS 1 million for 1986 and ATS 220,000 for 1987. He further asked that following a re-calculation of his income, new tax assessment orders be issued.", "12. On 27 and 28 December 1989 the Salzburg Tax Office informed the applicant that he was suspected of tax evasion in that he had acted as a sham holder of shares in three cases concerning the years 1985–87. It further invited him to submit his comments in writing.", "13. After the applicant's request of 15 January 1990 for an extension of the time-limit had been granted, he submitted his comments on 31 January 1990.", "14. Until 29 October 1992 the Salzburg Tax Office for the Audit of Large-scale Companies (Großbetriebsprüfung) examined the “WEB/IMMAG” group.", "15. On 22 March 1993 the Salzburg Tax Office requested the Oberwart Tax Office to transmit the applicant's tax file in order to determine the amount of evaded taxes.", "16. On 17 May 1993 the Oberwart Tax Office replied to the Salzburg Tax Office that the file could not be transferred because of pending investigations.", "17. Following another request for transfer of the file by the Salzburg Tax Office on 23 July 1993, the Oberwart Tax Office, on 24 January 1994, replied that the file had been sent to the Vienna Tax Office for the Audit of Large-scale Companies and could only be transmitted after these investigations had been completed.", "18. Upon the Salzburg Tax Office's request of 28 January 1994, the Vienna Tax Office for the Audit of Large-scale Companies transferred the applicant's file on 25 May 1994.", "19. On 3 June 1994 the Salzburg Tax Office informed the Salzburg Public Prosecutor's Office of the result of its investigations and requested that the applicant be prosecuted for tax evasion. It noted that the losses declared by the applicant for the years 1985–1989 (ATS 541,585 for the year 1985, ATS 1 million for 1986 and ATS 220,000 for 1987) resulted in tax evasion of ATS 327,016 for the year 1985, ATS 603,552 for 1986 and ATS 148,821 for 1987. Thus, the total amount of evaded taxes was ATS 1,079,389.", "20. On 8 August 1994, when interrogated by the Oberwart District Court, the applicant stated that he wished to submit his comments in writing directly to the Salzburg Regional Court by 31 August 1994. On that date and on 30 September 1994, he requested extensions of the time-limit as he had fallen ill. On 27 January 1995 he submitted his comments and observations in writing.", "21. On 9 February 1995 the Public Prosecutor's Office preferred a bill of indictment against the applicant charging him with tax evasion of ATS 1,079,389 in that he had made false statements of losses in his income tax forms between 1985 and 1987 (ATS 541,585 for 1985; ATS 1 million for 1986 and ATS 220,000 for 1987). The bill of indictment comprised eleven pages.", "22. On 31 March 1995, the presiding judge of the chamber dealing with the applicant's case informed the President of the Regional Court that he considered himself biased since he had been the deputy investigating judge in proceedings against other accused relating to the same case. On 21 June 1995, the President decided nevertheless that the presiding judge should not withdraw from the case.", "23. On 4 September 1995 the applicant requested that the trial scheduled for 13 September 1995 be adjourned. This request was granted by the court.", "24. On 22 November 1995 the Regional Court convicted the applicant of tax evasion, pursuant to Section 33 § 1 of the Code of Tax Offences (Finanzstrafgesetz). As regards the applicant's argument that he could not be punished because his letter of 14 December 1989 constituted “self-denunciation” of a tax offence resulting in exemption from punishment, the court observed that it had not been made in time because the tax authorities had already discovered the offence, and it had not been sufficiently detailed for the purposes of a “self-denunciation”.", "25. On 29 October 1996 the written version of the judgment, comprising twelve pages, was served on the applicant's counsel. Thereupon, on 26 November 1996, the applicant filed a plea of nullity (Nichtigkeitsbeschwerde) and requested that the transcripts of the trial be corrected. On 4 February 1997, after having obtained various statements, the Salzburg Regional Court corrected the transcripts.", "26. On 28 May 1997 the Procurator General (Generalprokurator) submitted his observations on the applicant's plea of nullity.", "27. On 25 June 1997 the Supreme Court scheduled the hearing on the plea of nullity for 29 July 1997. On that day the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant's plea of nullity. This decision was pronounced orally. On 2 October 1997 the written version of the judgment, consisting of twelve pages, was served on the applicant's counsel." ]

[ 3 ]

[ "4. The applicant was born in 1968 and lives in Salerno.", "5. M.G. was the owner of a flat in Salerno, which he had let to U.A.", "6. In a registered letter of 23 May 1988, the owner informed the tenant that he intended to terminate the lease on expiry of the term on 31 December 1991 and asked him to vacate the premises by that date.", "7. In a writ served on the tenant on 10 December 1988, the owner reiterated his intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before the Salerno Magistrate.", "8. By a decision of 3 February 1989, which was made enforceable on the same day, the Salerno Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 31 May 1993.", "9. On 21 December 1990, the applicant became the owner of the flat and pursued the enforcement proceedings.", "10. On 17 April 1993, the applicant served notice on the tenant requiring him to vacate the premises.", "11. On the same day, the applicant made a statutory declaration that she urgently required the premises as accommodation for herself.", "12. On 21 May 1993, she served notice on the tenant informing him that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 30 June 1993.", "13. On 30 June 1993, the bailiff made one attempt to recover possession, which proved unsuccessful, as the applicant was not granted the assistance of the police in enforcing the order for possession.", "14. Thereafter, the applicant decided to suspend the bailiff's attempts in order to avoid any additional costs and because she would not be granted the assistance of the police.", "15. In the meanwhile, the tenant died and on 11 October 1999, his wife asked the Salerno Magistrate to suspend the enforcement proceedings.", "16. The Salerno Magistrate suspended the enforcement proceedings until 13 May 2000.", "17. The tenant's wife informed the applicant that she would not leave the premises.", "18. On 11 October 2000, the applicant served notice on the tenant's wife informing her that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 6 November 2000.", "19. On 6 November 2000, the bailiff made one attempt to recover possession, which proved unsuccessful, but the tenant's son informed the bailiff that he and his mother would leave the premises on 29 November 2000.", "20. On 27 November 2000, the applicant recovered possession of the flat." ]

[ 3, 9 ]

[ "8. The applicant, Mrs Ayşenur Zarakolu, was a Turkish national and lived in Istanbul. She was represented before the Court by Mr Özcan Kılıç, a lawyer practising in Istanbul.", "9. On 25 April 2002 the Court was informed of Mrs Zarakolu's death on 28 January 2002 and that Mr Ragıp Zarakolu, her widower, wanted the proceedings to continue and wished to participate in them, retaining the applicant's lawyer as his representative.", "10. For practical reasons, Mrs Zarakolu will continue to be called “the applicant”, although Mr Zarakolu is now to be regarded as such (see Dalban v. Romania [GC], no. 28114/95, § 1, ECHR 1999-VI and see also Ahmet Sadık v. Greece, judgment of 15 November 1996, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-V, p. 1641, § 3).", "11. The applicant was the owner of a publishing company, Belge Uluslararası Yayıncılık, in Istanbul.", "12. In June 1996 the applicant's company published a book entitled Özgürlüğün Bedeli (The Price of Freedom), written by Lissy Schmidt, a German journalist. The book, which was translated from German to Turkish, is a chronological compilation of articles and interviews involving the socio-economic and political evolution of an autonomous Kurdish region in Northern Iraq and criticism of Turkey's policy on the Kurdish issue.", "13. On 15 January 1997 the principal public prosecutor at the Istanbul State Security Court lodged an application with the court requesting an order for the seizure of the book.", "14. On the same day the 6th Chamber of the Istanbul State Security Court, sitting with a single civilian judge, ordered the seizure of the book in accordance with Article 28 of the Constitution and Article 86 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The court considered that the chapter between pages 111 and 120 of the book contained separatist propaganda against the integrity of the State.", "15. On 29 January 1997 the applicant filed an objection with the Istanbul State Security Court against its order of 15 January 1997. She pleaded that the book, including the article impugned by the principal public prosecutor, did not contain any element of separatist propaganda. She further stated that the court's order lacked reasons and merely repeated the request of the Public Prosecutor. She maintained that in publishing the book she aimed at enjoying her right to express ideas and impart information to the public. She also contended that the court's order for the seizure of the book contravened Articles 6, 9 and 10 of the Convention. She finally asked the court to set aside the seizure order of 15 January 1997.", "16. On 3 February 1997 the 1st Chamber of the Istanbul State Security Court, sitting with three full members, including a military member, unanimously dismissed the applicant's objection and upheld the order for the seizure of the book.", "17. In the meantime, on 28 April 1997 the principal public prosecutor at the Istanbul State Security Court filed an indictment with the court charging the applicant and two others who had translated the book, with disseminating separatist propaganda, an offence under Article 8 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act (Law No. 3713). The public prosecutor alleged that the applicant published a book, translated from German to Turkish by Süheyla Kaya and Zeynep Herkmen, in which references were made, between the pages 111-119, 163-165 and 167-182, to a certain part of Turkish territory as “Kurdistan”. He requested that the court punish the applicant in accordance with Article 8 § 3 of Law no. 3713, and that the incriminated book be confiscated in accordance with Article 36 of the Turkish Criminal Code.", "18. In the proceedings before the 6th Chamber of the Istanbul State Security Court the applicant denied the charges against her. She pleaded that the incriminated book did not contain any separatist propaganda against the integrity of the State. She asserted that the book was the analysis of certain events in the eyes of a journalist.", "19. On 13 October 1997 the Istanbul State Security Court postponed the criminal proceedings against the applicant pursuant to Article 1 § 3 of Law no. 4304 of 14 July 1997. The court also decided, under Article 2 of the same Law, that the criminal proceedings would be set aside provided that the applicant did not intentionally commit any offence in her capacity as an editor within three years of this decision.", "20. The applicant appealed against the Istanbul State Security Court's decision of 13 October 1997.", "21. On 13 April 1999 the 9th Chamber of the Court of Cassation dismissed the appeal." ]

[ 3 ]

[ "8. The applicant, Mrs Ayşenur Zarakolu, was a Turkish national and lived in Istanbul. She was represented before the Court by Mr Özcan Kılıç, a lawyer practising in Istanbul.", "9. On 25 April 2002 the Court was informed of Mrs Zarakolu's death on 28 January 2002 and that Mr Ragıp Zarakolu, her widower, wanted the proceedings to continue and wished to participate in them, retaining the applicant's lawyer as his representative.", "10. For practical reasons, Mrs Zarakolu will continue to be called “the applicant”, although Mr Zarakolu is now to be regarded as such (see Dalban v. Romania [GC], no. 28114/95, § 1, ECHR 1999-VI and see also Ahmet Sadık v. Greece, judgment of 15 November 1996, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-V, p. 1641, § 3).", "11. The applicant was the owner of a publishing company, Belge Uluslararası Yayıncılık, in Istanbul.", "12. In April 1994 the applicant's company published a book entitled Emekçiye Mektuplar-1, Türkiye'nin Düzeni ve Kürt Sorunu (Letters to the Worker-1, The Order of Turkey and the Kurdish Problem), written by Haluk Gerger. The book is a chronological compilation of newspaper articles written by the author and published in various newspapers between 1991 and 1993.", "13. On 8 March 1995 the chief public prosecutor at the Istanbul State Security Court examined the book and decided not to take any action in respect of its publication.", "14. On 17 January 1997 the principal public prosecutor at the Istanbul State Security Court lodged an application with the court requesting an order for the seizure of the book which was by that time in its 4th edition.", "15. On the same day the 6th Chamber of the Istanbul State Security Court, sitting with a single civilian judge, ordered the seizure of the book in accordance with Article 28 of the Constitution, Article 86 of the Code on Criminal Procedure and Article 2 § 1 of the Press Law no. 5680. The court considered that the book, at certain pages and taken as a whole, contained statements which provoked feelings of hatred and enmity among the people by discriminating on the grounds of race and region, offences under Article 8 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act (Law No. 3713) and under Article 312 § 2 of the Criminal Code respectively.", "16. On 29 January 1997 the applicant filed an objection with the Istanbul State Security Court against its order of 17 January 1997. She pleaded that the book as a whole, including the pages impugned by the principal public prosecutor, did not contain any element of the offence described in Article 8 of the Law No. 3713 or in Article 312 § 2 of the Criminal Code. She further stated that the court's order lacked reasons and merely repeated the request of the public prosecutor. She maintained that in publishing the book she aimed at enjoying her right to express ideas and impart information to the public. She also contended that the court's order for the seizure of the book contravened Articles 6, 9 and 10 of the Convention. She finally asked the court to set aside the seizure order of 17 January 1997.", "17. On 3 February 1997 the 6th Chamber of the Istanbul State Security Court, sitting with three full members including a military member, dismissed the applicant's objection and upheld the order for the seizure of the book.", "18. On 2 July 1997 the principal public prosecutor at the Istanbul State Security Court filed an indictment charging the applicant with disseminating separatist propaganda under Article 8 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act, and with incitement to hatred under Article 312 § 2 of the Criminal Code.", "19. On 16 June 1998 the Istanbul State Security Court noted that the chief public prosecutor at the Istanbul State Security Court had already examined the book on 8 March 1995 and had decided not to take any action. The court stated that it was not clear how and why an indictment was filed on 2 July 1997, outside the statutory period. The court finally decided to discontinue the trial on the ground that the statute of limitations in respect of the offences in question was one year from the publication of the book." ]

[ 9 ]

[ "4. The applicant was born in 1950 and lives in Florence.", "5. He is the owner of a flat in Florence, which he had let to A.R.", "6. In a registered letter of 29 June 1987, the applicant informed the tenant that he intended to terminate the lease on expiry of the term on 31 December 1987 and asked him to vacate the premises by that date.", "7. The tenant told the applicant that he would not leave the premises.", "8. In a writ served on the tenant on 7 July 1989, the applicant reiterated his intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before the Florence Magistrate.", "9. By a decision of 21 September 1989, which was made enforceable on the same day, the Florence Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 21 September 1990.", "10. On 25 November 1994, the applicant served notice on the tenant requiring him to vacate the premises.", "11. On 9 February 1995, he served notice on the tenant informing him that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 22 February 1995.", "12. Between 22 February 1995 and 13 June 2001, the bailiff made nine attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicant was never granted the assistance of the police in enforcing the order for possession.", "13. On 6 December 1995, the applicant made a statutory declaration that he urgently required the premises as accommodation for his son", "14. On 17 August 2000, pursuant to section 6 of Law no. 431/98, the enforcement proceedings were suspended until 13 June 2001.", "15. On 29 June 2001, the applicant recovered possession of the flat." ]

[ 3, 9 ]

[ "8. The applicant, Mrs Ayşenur Zarakolu, was a Turkish national and lived in Istanbul. She was represented before the Court by Mr Özcan Kılıç, a lawyer practising in Istanbul.", "9. On 25 April 2002 the Court was informed of Mrs Zarakolu's death on 28 January 2002 and that Mr Ragıp Zarakolu, her widower, wanted the proceedings to continue and wished to participate in them, retaining the applicant's lawyer as his representative.", "10. For practical reasons, Mrs Zarakolu will continue to be called “the applicant”, although Mr Zarakolu is now to be regarded as such (see Dalban v. Romania [GC], no. 28114/95, § 1, ECHR 1999-VI and see also Ahmet Sadık v. Greece, judgment of 15 November 1996, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-V, p. 1641, § 3).", "11. The applicant was the owner of a publishing company, Belge Uluslararası Yayıncılık, in Istanbul.", "12. In November 1996 the applicant's company published a book entitled Dersim Tertelesi (Dersim Uprising), written by Haydar Işık. The book is a novel of 240 pages, telling the story of the public upheavals at the end of the 1930s in Dersim (the Kurdish name for Tunceli).", "13. On 22 January 1997 the principal public prosecutor at the Istanbul State Security Court lodged an application with the court requesting an order for the seizure of the book.", "14. On 23 January 1997 the 6th Chamber of the Istanbul State Security Court, sitting with a single civilian judge, ordered the seizure of the book in accordance with Article 28 of the Constitution, Article 86 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and Article 2 § 1 of the Press Act no. 5680. The court considered that the novel, at certain pages and taken as a whole, contained separatist propaganda against the integrity of the State.", "15. On 29 January 1997 the applicant filed an objection with the Istanbul State Security Court against its order of 23 January 1997. She pleaded that the novel as a whole, including the pages impugned by the public prosecutor, did not contain any element of separatist propaganda. She further stated that the court's order lacked reasons and merely repeated the request of the public prosecutor. She maintained that in publishing the novel she aimed at enjoying her right to express ideas and impart information to the public. She also contended that the court's order for the seizure of the novel contravened Articles 6, 9 and 10 of the Convention. She finally asked the court to set aside the seizure order of 23 January 1997.", "16. On 6 February 1997 the 1st Chamber of the Istanbul State Security Court, sitting with three full members including a military member, dismissed the applicant's objection and upheld the order for the seizure of the novel.", "17. In the meantime, on 25 April 1997 the principal public prosecutor at the Istanbul State Security Court filed an indictment with the court charging the applicant and the author of the novel with disseminating separatist propaganda. The public prosecutor alleged that in the book the Tunceli province was defined as “Kurdistan” and that a distinction was made between Turks and Kurds. He requested the court to punish the applicant in accordance with Article 8 § 3 of Law no. 3713 (Prevention of Terrorism Act) and to order the confiscation of the incriminated novel.", "18. In the proceedings before the 5th Chamber of the Istanbul State Security Court the applicant denied the charges against her. She pleaded that the incriminated novel did not contain any separatist propaganda against the integrity of the State.", "19. On 25 September 1997 the Istanbul State Security Court postponed the criminal proceedings against the applicant pursuant to Article 1 § 3 of Law no. 4304 of 14 July 1997. The court also decided, under Article 2 of the same Law, that the criminal proceedings would be set aside provided that the applicant did not intentionally commit any offence in her capacity as an editor within three years of this decision.", "20. On 27 November 1997 the applicant appealed against the Istanbul State Security Court's decision of 25 September 1997.", "21. On 22 March 1999 the 9th Chamber of the Court of Cassation dismissed the appeal." ]

[ 1 ]

[ "4. The applicants were respectively born in 1946 and 1950 and live in Rome.", "5. They are the owners of a flat in Rome, which they had let to A.M.", "6. In a writ served on the tenant on 19 December 1986, the applicants informed her of their intention to terminate the lease and summoned her to appear before the Rome Magistrate.", "7. By a decision of 9 May 1987, which was made enforceable on the same day, the Rome Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 30 September 1988.", "8. On 7 October 1989, the applicants served notice on the tenant requiring her to vacate the premises.", "9. On 12 December 1989, they served notice on the tenant informing her that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 29 December 1989.", "10. Between 29 December 1989 and 20 April 2001, the bailiff made fifty-one attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicants were not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession.", "11. On 6 May 2001, the applicants recovered possession of the flat." ]

[ 3, 9 ]

[ "7. The applicant, Mr Egon von Bülow, is a United Kingdom national, who was born in 1946 and is currently serving a sentence of life imprisonment at HM Prison Erlestoke.", "8. The applicant was convicted in 1975 for the murder of a policeman and attempted murder of two other policemen arising out of an incident in the early hours of 6 July 1974 when, on being stopped by the police, he had pulled out a pistol and shot all three officers. He was sentenced to mandatory life imprisonment for the murder and to two concurrent terms of fifteen years imprisonment for the attempted murders.", "9. After his trial, the trial judge recommended that he serve a tariff (minimum period of detention representing the elements of retribution and deterrence) of 20 years. The Lord Chief Justice agreed. The Secretary of State did not set a tariff.", "10. By letter dated 25 July 2000, the applicant was informed that the Secretary of State had given fresh consideration to the tariff in his case. The letter stated that the Secretary of State had decided to set the tariff at 23 years and that, as this period had expired, the tariff was no longer a factor in the applicant’s continued detention.", "11. By letter dated 27 March 2001, the applicant was informed that the Parole Board had not recommended his release. Though some improvement had been observed, it was noted that the reports on the applicant agreed that he still had some way to go before a move to open conditions could be contemplated. As his progress in a category C prison had been encouraging however, his next review was set to commence on March 2002." ]

[ 2 ]

[ "14. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.", "15. The first applicant is Mrs Tatjana Slivenko, born in 1959. The second applicant is her daughter, Ms Karina Slivenko, born in 1981.", "16. The applicants are of Russian origin. The first applicant was born in Estonia into the family of a military officer of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR). At the age of one month she moved to Latvia together with her parents. Her husband, Nikolay Slivenko, born in 1952, was transferred to Latvia in 1977 to serve as a Soviet military officer. He met the first applicant in Latvia and married her there in 1980. In 1981 the first applicant gave birth to their daughter, the second applicant. The first applicant's father retired from the army in 1986.", "17. Latvia regained independence from the USSR in 1991. On 28 January 1992 the Russian Federation assumed jurisdiction over the former Soviet armed forces, including those stationed in the territory of Latvia.", "18. On 4 March 1993 the applicants and the first applicant's parents were entered in the register of Latvian residents (“the register”) as “ex-USSR citizens” (see paragraphs 50-56 below). At that time, none of them were citizens of any particular State. In her request to be entered in the register, the first applicant had not indicated that her husband was a Russian military officer.", "19. The respondent Government state that, in requesting her entry in the register, the first applicant submitted false information about the occupation of Nikolay Slivenko, stating that he worked at a factory. The respondent Government have submitted a copy of an annex to the first applicant's application for residence in Latvia, including the statement that her husband worked at a factory.", "20. The applicants and the third party submit that the document is falsified, and that it does not exist. They also refer to the fact that, during the subsequent proceedings concerning the legality of their stay in Latvia (see paragraphs 34-39 below), the immigration authorities did not refer to any such false information, and the Latvian courts did not establish that the applicants had at any point submitted the information mentioned by the respondent Government.", "21. Nikolay Slivenko, who had become a Russian citizen on an unspecified date in the early 1990s, continued his service in the Russian army until his discharge in 1994 on the ground of the abolition of his post. The parties disagree as to the actual date of his discharge: the applicants state that he was discharged on 2 March 1994. They rely on the fact that an order for his discharge was signed and became effective on 2 March 1994. The Russian Government support this conclusion. The respondent Government argue that the first applicant's husband was discharged on 5 June 1994 as it was only on that date that he formally completed his leave; his leave allowance and retirement benefits had been calculated with reference to that date.", "22. The treaty between Latvia and Russia on the withdrawal of the Russian troops (“the treaty”) was signed in Moscow on 30 April 1994 and became effective on that date (see paragraphs 64-67 below).", "23. According to the respondent Government, even before the signature and entry into force of the treaty, various Latvian and Russian authorities cooperated in establishing the names of the Russian military personnel liable to be removed from Latvia. In this context, on 31 March 1994, the Russian military authorities submitted to the Latvian authorities a list of the Russian military officers in Latvia, including the first applicant's husband, with an accompanying request to prolong his and his family's temporary residence in Latvia. This, the respondent Government contend, made it clear that their stay in Latvia was temporary, and that they would be required to leave.", "24. According to the applicants and the Russian Government, the list of 31 March 1994 did not entail any obligation on Nikolay Slivenko to leave Latvia as it was a document solely requesting the prolongation of his temporary stay in Latvia, submitted before the actual signature and entry into force of the treaty.", "25. On 7 October 1994 Nikolay Slivenko applied to the Latvian Citizenship and Migration Authority (“the CMA”) for a temporary residence permit in Latvia by reason, inter alia, of his marriage to the first applicant, a permanent resident of Latvia. This was refused on the ground that, as a Russian military officer, he was required to leave Latvia as a result of the withdrawal of the Russian troops in accordance with the treaty.", "26. On 29 November 1994 the CMA annulled the applicants' entry in the register on the ground of Nikolay Slivenko's military status. The applicants state that they were not informed about the decision, and that they found out about it only in 1996, in the context of the court proceedings brought by the first applicant's husband (see paragraph 29 below).", "27. The respondent Government have also produced a list dated 10 December 1994, which according to them had been submitted to the Latvian authorities by the Russian armed forces. In the list Nikolay Slivenko was included in the category of military personnel who had retired after 28 January 1992. The applicants and the third party contest the authenticity of the list.", "28. The respondent Government have further produced a list dated 16 October 1995, which according to them had been sent to the Latvian Ministry of Foreign Affairs by the Russian consulate in Riga. According to the respondent Government, Nikolay Slivenko's name appeared on the list among those Russian military pensioners who had been discharged from the Russian armed forces after 28 January 1992. It was also noted in the list that on 3 August 1994 Nikolay Slivenko had been given housing in the city of Kursk in Russia, and that he had left Latvia on 31 December 1994. The applicants and the third party contest the authenticity of the list.", "29. In point of fact, however, the first applicant's husband had stayed in Latvia. He brought a court action against the CMA, claiming that their refusal to issue him with a temporary residence permit was void. On 2 January 1996 the Riga City Vidzeme District Court found in his favour. The CMA appealed against the judgment.", "30. On 19 June 1996 the Riga Regional Court allowed the CMA's appeal, finding, inter alia, that Nikolay Slivenko had been a Russian military officer until 5 June 1994 and that the treaty of 30 April 1994 required all Russian officers in service on 28 January 1992 to leave Latvia together with their families. The Regional Court referred, inter alia, to the list of 16 October 1995, which confirmed that he had been provided with accommodation in Kursk, and that he had left Latvia in 1994. He did not bring a cassation appeal against the appellate judgment.", "31. On 20 August 1996 the immigration authorities issued a deportation order in respect of the applicants. The order was served on them on 22 August 1996.", "32. On that date the local authorities decided to evict the applicants from their flat, which they rented from the Latvian Ministry of Defence. Russian military officers and their families as well as other residents of Latvia lived in the block where the flat was located. The eviction order was not enforced.", "33. On an unspecified date in 1996 Nikolay Slivenko moved to Russia, while the applicants remained in Latvia.", "34. The first applicant brought a court action in her own name and on behalf of her daughter, claiming that they were in fact permanent residents of Latvia and that they could not be removed from the country.", "35. On 19 February 1997 the Riga City Vidzeme District Court found in favour of the applicants. The court held, inter alia, that the first applicant had come to Latvia as a relative of her father, not her husband. As her father had retired in 1986, he could thereafter no longer be regarded as a military officer, and his close relatives, including the applicants, could be entered in the register as permanent residents of Latvia. The court quashed the deportation order in respect of the applicants and authorised their re-entry in the register.", "36. The CMA appealed against the judgment of 19 February 1997. On 30 October 1997 the Riga Regional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the first-instance court had decided the case properly. Upon a cassation appeal by the CMA, on 7 January 1998 the Supreme Court quashed the decisions of the lower courts and remitted the case to the appellate court for a fresh examination. The Supreme Court referred to the fact that the applicants had been provided with a flat in Kursk, and that they were subject to the provisions of the treaty of 30 April 1994.", "37. On 6 May 1998 the Riga Regional Court allowed the CMA's appeal, finding that Nikolay Slivenko had been a serving Russian military officer until 5 June 1994. Referring to the fact that he had been given housing in Kursk in 1994 following his retirement from the Russian military, the court decided that he had been required to leave Latvia with his family in accordance with the treaty. The court found that the decision of the immigration authorities to annul the applicants' entry in the register had been lawful.", "38. On 12 June 1998 the first applicant was informed by the immigration authorities that the deportation order of 20 August 1996 had become effective upon the delivery of the appellate court's judgment of 6 May 1998.", "39. On 29 July 1998, on a cassation appeal by the applicants, the Supreme Court confirmed the decision of 6 May 1998. The Supreme Court stated that Nikolay Slivenko had been discharged from the Russian armed forces on 5 June 1994. The Supreme Court noted that the applicants had been allocated the flat in Kursk in the context of the material assistance provided by the United States of America for the withdrawal of Russian troops. Relying on the fact that Nikolay Slivenko had been discharged from the military after 28 January 1992, the Supreme Court concluded that the applicants, as part of his family, had also been required to leave Latvia in accordance with the treaty.", "40. On 14 September 1998 the first applicant requested the CMA to defer execution of the deportation order. That was refused on 22 September 1998.", "41. On 7 October 1998 the first applicant lodged with the immigration authorities an appeal against the deportation order, requesting a residence permit and her re-entry in the register. She stated, inter alia, that Latvia was her and her daughter's motherland as they had lived there all their lives and had no other citizenship, and that she was required to take care of her disabled parents who were permanently resident in Latvia.", "42. In the late evening of 28 October 1998 the police entered the applicants' flat. They were arrested at 10.30 p.m. on the same date. On 29 October 1998, at 12.30 a.m., a police officer issued an arrest warrant in respect of the applicants on the basis of section 48-5 of the Aliens Act. The warrant stated that the applicants had no valid documents justifying their stay in Latvia, and that the applicants' entry in the register of Latvian residents had been annulled by the Supreme Court's final judgment of 29 July 1998. It was also mentioned in the warrant that the applicants “did not leave Latvia following the judgment, and there were reasonable grounds to suspect that they were staying in Latvia illegally”. The warrant was signed by the applicants. On the basis of the warrant the applicants were immediately detained in a centre for illegal immigrants.", "43. Also on 29 October 1998 the Director of the CMA sent a letter to the immigration police, stating that the applicants' arrest had been “premature” in view of the fact that the first applicant had lodged an appeal on 7 October 1998. No reference to domestic law was made in the letter. The Director of the CMA ordered the immigration police to release the applicants. They were released at an unspecified time on 29 October 1998.", "44. On 3 February 1999 the applicants received a letter from the Director of the CMA dated 29 October 1998, informing them that they were required to leave Latvia immediately. They were also informed that, if they complied voluntarily with the deportation order, they could thereafter be issued with a visa enabling them to stay in the country for ninety days per annum.", "45. On 16 March 1999 the flat of the first applicant's parents was searched by the police in the presence of the second applicant. On the same date, at 9 a.m., a police officer issued a warrant for the second applicant's arrest on the basis of section 48-5 of the Aliens Act. The warrant stated that the second applicant had no valid document justifying her stay in Latvia, and that there were reasonable grounds to suspect that she was staying in Latvia illegally. The order was signed by the second applicant. She was immediately arrested and thereafter detained for thirty hours in a centre for illegal immigrants. She was released on 17 March 1999.", "46. On 11 July 1999 the applicants moved to Russia to join Nikolay Slivenko. By that time the second applicant had completed her secondary education in Latvia. On an unspecified date in 2001 the applicants adopted Russian citizenship as former nationals of the USSR. The applicants now live in Kursk, in accommodation which was provided by the Russian defence authorities. After the applicants left Latvia, their flat in Riga was taken back by the Latvian authorities. Meanwhile, the first applicant's parents continued living in Latvia on the basis of their status as “ex-USSR citizens”.", "47. According to the applicants, the first applicant's parents are seriously ill, but the applicants have not been able to go to Latvia to visit them. The deportation order of 20 August 1996 prohibited the applicants from entering Latvia for five years. That prohibition expired on 20 August 2001. Towards the end of 2001 the applicants obtained visas permitting their stay in Latvia for no more than ninety days per annum.", "48. In view of the fact that Nikolay Slivenko had left Latvia voluntarily, the prohibition on entering Latvia was not extended to him. He was allowed to visit Latvia several times in the period between 1996 and 2001." ]

[ 4 ]

[ "5. The applicant was born in 1937.", "6. He was the owner of a flat in Livorno, which he had let to M.S.", "7. In a registered letter of 4 March 1983, the applicant informed the tenant that he intended to terminate the lease on expiry of the term on 31 December 1983 and asked him to vacate the premises by that date.", "8. On 9 October 1984, he served a notice to quit on the tenant, but he refused to leave.", "9. In a writ served on the tenant on 7 January 1986, the applicant reiterated his intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before the Livorno Magistrate.", "10. By a decision of 20 January 1986, which was made enforceable on 21 January 1986, the Livorno Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 20 December 1986.", "11. On 2 April 1987 the applicant served notice on the tenant requiring him to vacate the premises.", "12. On 21 April 1987 he served notice on the tenant informing him that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 24 May 1987.", "13. Between 24 May 1987 and 27 November 1998 the bailiff made eighteen attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as, the applicant was not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession.", "14. On 15 December 1998, the applicant recovered possession of the flat." ]

[ 3, 9 ]

[ "4. The applicant was born in 1957 and lives in Torino.", "5. He is the owner of a flat in Turin, which he had let to A.G.", "6. In a registered letter of 27 November 1991, the applicant informed the tenant that he intended to terminate the lease on expiry of the term on 31 October 1992 and asked her to vacate the premises by that date.", "7. In a writ served on the tenant on 17 March 1993, the applicant reiterated his intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before the Turin Magistrate.", "8. By a decision of 27 April 1992, which was made enforceable on the same day, the Turin Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 31 March 1993.", "9. On 5 November 1993, the applicant served notice on the tenant requiring her to vacate the premises.", "10. On 18 January 1994, he served notice on the tenant informing her that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 28 January 1994.", "11. On 19 January 1994, the applicant made a statutory declaration that he urgently required the premises as accommodation for himself.", "12. Between 28 January 1994 and 23 September 1998, the bailiff made fourteen attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicant was never granted the assistance of the police in enforcing the order for possession.", "13. On 12 July 1999, pursuant to Law no. 431/98 the enforcement proceedings were suspended for eighteen months.", "14. On 18 November 2000, the applicant recovered possession of the flat." ]

[ 3, 9 ]

[ "6. The applicant was born in 1931 and lives in Milan.", "7. She is the owner of a flat in Milan, which she had let to W.V.", "8. In a registered letter of 10 September 1991, the applicant informed the tenant that she intended to terminate the lease on expiry of the term on 23 March 1992 and asked him to vacate the premises by that date.", "9. In a writ served on the tenant on 17 November 1992, the applicant reiterated her intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before the Milan Magistrate.", "10. By a decision of 14 December 1992, which was made enforceable on 8 January 1993, the Milan Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 14 December 1993.", "11. On 21 November 1994, the applicant served notice on the tenant requiring him to vacate the premises.", "12. On 11 January 1995, she served notice on the tenant informing him that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 10 February 1995.", "13. Between 10 February 1995 and 10 December 2001, the bailiff made twenty-seven attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicant was not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession.", "14. On 10 January 2002, following the voluntary surrender of the tenant, the applicant recovered possession of her flat." ]

[ 4 ]

[ "7. The applicant was born in 1935 and lives in Naples.", "8. She is the owner of a flat in Naples, which she had let to A.M.", "9. In a registered letter of 27 November 1978, she informed the tenant that she intended to terminate the lease on expiry of the term on 3 June 1979 and asked him to vacate the premises by that date.", "10. On 30 June 1980, she served a notice to quit on the tenant, but he refused to leave.", "11. In a writ of 5 March 1981, the applicant reiterated her intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before the Naples Magistrate.", "12. At the hearing of 5 May 1981, A.M. opposed alleging the expiry of the term on 31 January 1984. The Magistrate declared his incompetence and referred the parties to the Naples Tribunal.", "13. By a decision of 13 February 1985, which was made enforceable on 11 March 1987, the Naples Tribunal upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 20 February 1986.", "14. At the hearing of 21 June 1985, A.M. opposed, alleging the expiry of the term on another date.", "15. On 12 December 1986, the Naples Tribunal rejected the appeal.", "16. On 15 November 1989, the applicant served notice on the tenant informing him that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 13 June 1990.", "17. On 17 January 1990, the applicant made a statutory declaration that she urgently required the premises as accommodation for her daughter.", "18. Between 13 June 1990 and 13 October 1997, the bailiff made twenty-six attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicant was never granted the assistance of the police in enforcing the order for possession.", "19. On 18 June 2002, the applicant' representative informed the Court that in the meantime, the applicant had entered into a new lease with the tenant." ]

[ 3 ]

[ "4. The applicant was born in 1967 and lives in Florence.", "5. She is the owner of a flat in Sesto Fiorentino (Florence), which she had let to G.L.M.", "6. In a writ served on the tenant on 18 September 1987, the applicant informed the tenant of her intention to terminate the lease on expiry of the term on 31 December 1987 and summoned him to appear before the Florence Magistrate.", "7. By a decision of 12 October 1987, which was made enforceable on 26 October 1987, the Florence Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 31 December 1988.", "8. On 11 July 1989, the applicant served notice on the tenant requiring him to vacate the premises.", "9. On 15 September 1989, she served notice on the tenant informing him that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 9 October 1989.", "10. Between 9 October 1989 and 10 November 1998 the bailiff made twenty attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicant was not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession.", "11. Pursuant to section 6 of Law no. 431/98, the tenant asked for a suspension of the enforcement proceedings.", "12. On an unspecified date in April 2000, the applicant recovered possession of the flat because the tenant spontaneously left the premises." ]

[ 3, 9 ]

[ "4. The applicant was born in 1933 and lives in Sesto Fiorentino (Florence).", "5. He is the owner of a flat in Sesto Fiorentino, which he had let to G.C. and G.P.", "6. In a registered letter of 29 November 1990, the applicant informed the tenants that he intended to terminate the lease on expiry of the term on 31 December 1991 and asked them to vacate the premises by that date.", "7. In a writ served on the tenants on 17 April 1991, the applicant reiterated his intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenants to appear before the Florence Magistrate.", "8. By a decision of 23 May 1991, which was made enforceable on 31 July 1991, the Florence Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 31 December 1992.", "9. On 29 April 1993, the applicant made a statutory declaration that he urgently required the premises as accommodation for his son.", "10. On 14 May 1993, the applicant served notice on the tenants requiring them to vacate the premises.", "11. On 2 June 1993, he served notice on the tenants informing them that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 15 July 1993.", "12. Between 15 July 1993 and 15 October 1998, the bailiff made eleven attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicant was never granted the assistance of the police in enforcing the order for possession.", "13. Pursuant to section 6 of Law no. 431/98, the enforcement proceedings were suspended until 27 June 1999.", "14. On that date, the tenants asked the Florence Magistrate for a new suspension. On 11 July 2000, the Florence Magistrate decided to fix a new date for the enforcement proceedings, namely 25 January 2001.", "15. On 31 October 2000, the applicant recovered possession of the flat because the tenants spontaneously vacated the premises." ]

[ 3, 9 ]

[ "8. The applicant was born in 1927 and lives in Zagreb.", "9. From 1 August 1992 until 31 August 1995 the Croatian army used the applicant's cottage in Gospić, Croatia, for military purposes. After the members of the army had left, the applicant found that the house had been wrecked and his possessions removed.", "10. On 20 March 1996 the applicant instituted civil proceedings for damages against the Republic of Croatia with the Zagreb Municipal Court (Općinski sud).", "11. At the preliminary hearing on 18 November 1997 the applicant lodged an application to be exempted from payment of the court fees. The court heard the applicant, who stated that he lived with his daughter, son-in-law and grandchild in a flat in Zagreb which he owned. He also stated that he owned a small cottage and that his pension amounted to 1,624 kunas (HRK) per month. The court rejected the applicant's application for exemption from payment of the court fees and ordered him to pay the amount of HRK 6,780 within sixty days.", "12. On 21 November 1997 the applicant appealed against the above decision to the Zagreb County Court (Županijski sud). He submitted a written copy of the appeal to the Zagreb Municipal Court. In the appeal he stated that his pension was his only income and that he had to support his daughter. Furthermore, his possessions were of no great value since his cottage had been wrecked. By paying the fees imposed, he would have jeopardised his own means of subsistence and those of the persons whom he supported.", "13. However, the Zagreb Municipal Court did not forward the appeal to the Zagreb County Court, as the appellate court, because there was no written court decision on the applicant's application to be exempted from the court fees, which was a prerequisite for an appeal. On 31 December 1998 the statutory limitation period for non-payment of court fees expired and the issue thus became irrelevant.", "14. On 6 November 1999 Parliament introduced a change to the Civil Obligations Act to the effect that all proceedings concerning claims in respect of damage resulting from acts carried out by members of the Croatian army and police in the performance of their duties during the Homeland War in Croatia were to be stayed.", "15. On 28 November 2000 the proceedings were stayed.", "16. In the meantime, on 24 August 2000, the applicant filed a constitutional complaint challenging the constitutionality of the above legislation. The Constitutional Court has not yet adopted any decision on that complaint.", "17. The applicant also filed a constitutional complaint about the length of the proceedings.", "18. On 18 December 2000 the Constitutional Court dismissed the latter complaint, finding that the applicant's right to have his civil claim decided within a reasonable time had not been violated as the courts had not been in a position to proceed with his case on account of the changes in legislation.", "19. On 14 July 2003 Parliament passed new legislation concerning liability for damage resulting from acts carried out by members of the Croatian army and police in the performance of their duties during the Homeland War in Croatia." ]

[ 3 ]

[ "4. The applicants were both born in 1936 and live in La Spezia.", "5. They are the owners of a flat in Florence, which they had let to G. and M. D.", "6. In a registered letter of 3 April 1987, the applicants informed the tenants that they intended to terminate the lease on expiry of the term on 31 December 1987 and asked them to vacate the premises by that date.", "7. In a writ served on the tenants on 25 June 1987, the applicants reiterated their intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenants to appear before the Florence Magistrate.", "8. By a decision of 19 October 1987, which was made enforceable on 2 November 1987, the Florence Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 31 December 1988.", "9. On 5 April 1989, the applicants made a statutory declaration that they urgently required the premises as accommodation for their son.", "10. On 29 June 1989, the applicants served notice on the tenants requiring them to vacate the premises.", "11. On 21 July 1989, they served notice on the tenants informing them that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 11 September 1989.", "12. Between 11 September 1989 and 14 December 1998, the bailiff made twenty attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicants were never granted the assistance of the police in enforcing the order for possession.", "13. On 17 June 1999, the applicants recovered possession of the flat." ]

[ 3, 9 ]

[ "4. The applicants were respectively born in 1927 and 1929 and live in Rome.", "5. They are the owners of a flat in Rome, which they had let to L.S.", "6. In a registered letter of 19 February 1990, the applicants informed the tenant that they intended to terminate the lease on expiry of the term on 31 December 1991 and asked him to vacate the premises by that date.", "7. In a writ served on the tenant on 28 December 1990, the applicants reiterated their intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before the Rome Magistrate.", "8. By a decision of 9 May 1991, which was made enforceable on the same day, the Rome Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 31 December 1992.", "9. On 12 February 1993, the applicants served notice on the tenant requiring him to vacate the premises.", "10. On 16 April 1993, they served notice on the tenant informing him that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 6 May 1993.", "11. Between 6 May 1993 and 7 December 1999, the bailiff made twelve attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicants were not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession.", "12. On 6 June 2000, the applicants recovered possession of the flat." ]

[ 3, 9 ]

[ "15. The first applicant, born in the United Kingdom in 1967, lived in London until he was 4 years old. He then resided in Nigeria until he was 22 years old, after which he returned to the United Kingdom.", "16. In 1991 he was convicted of rape, possessing an imitation firearm and attempted murder. He was sentenced to three concurrent terms of imprisonment, the longest term being twelve years.", "17. On 14 October 1996 the first applicant attended a meeting in the “C Wing interview room” with his probation officer for the preparation of his parole assessment report. The probation officer later alleged that the first applicant had threatened to kill her if she did not write down what he said. The first applicant was charged with an offence contrary to Rule 47(17) of the Prison Rules 1964 (“the Prison Rules”).", "18. He was “put on report” and an adjudication hearing before the prison governor was convened for 15 October 1996. The first applicant requested legal representation in a form submitted to the governor dated 15 October 1996 and also during the hearing on that day before the governor. His reasons for such a request were not considered sufficient by the governor, but the hearing was adjourned to allow him to obtain legal advice. The first applicant's representative then advised him about the nature and format of the adjudication proceedings and about the questions he should raise.", "19. In his detailed reply to the complaint lodged against him and written after the hearing on 15 October 1996, the first applicant stated that he required legal representation to put his points clearly to the authorities.", "20. The hearing resumed on 21 October 1996. The record of the hearing indicates that the first applicant was asked whether he had had time to speak to his solicitor and whether he was ready to proceed. The relevant part of the record was ticked to indicate that this was the case. The hearing went ahead. The first applicant disputed that he had used threatening words against the probation officer. He submitted that the probation officer had misunderstood the actual words he had used, because of either his accent or language, and that the impugned remarks were about his life in Nigeria. Evidence was heard from the first applicant and the probation officer, to whom questions were put by the governor and the first applicant.", "21. The first applicant was found guilty and awarded 40 additional days' custody (pursuant to section 42 of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 – “the 1991 Act”) together with 14 days' cellular confinement, 14 days' exclusion from associated work and 14 days' forfeiture of privileges. This was the applicant's twenty-second offence against discipline and his seventh offence of threatening to kill or injure a member of the prison staff.", "22. On 22 October 1996 and 11 February 1997 the applicant unsuccessfully petitioned the Secretary of State about the conduct of his adjudication proceedings. In a letter dated 1 May 1997, it was confirmed that the Secretary of State had reviewed the adjudication procedure as a whole and found it to have been satisfactory.", "23. The second applicant was born in 1954.", "24. In January 1988 he was convicted on two counts of rape and of robbery and was sentenced to four concurrent terms of imprisonment, the longest being eighteen years.", "25. On 23 March 1997 the second applicant was jogging around a track in the prison exercise yard when he collided with a prison officer. The officer alleged that the second applicant had run into him deliberately and he was charged with the offence of assault, contrary to Rule 47(1) of the Prison Rules.", "26. The adjudication hearing before the governor commenced on 24 March 1997, when the second applicant requested legal representation (or, in the alternative, representation by his probation officer) at the hearing. This was refused but the hearing was adjourned to allow him to obtain legal advice, which he did on 27 March 1997. The second applicant's representative then advised him about the nature and format of the adjudication proceedings and about the questions he should raise. He was also advised to request legal representation again for the adjudication hearing, which he did on 31 March 1997.", "27. The adjudication hearing was reconvened on 11 April 1997. The governor rejected the application for legal representation. He heard evidence from the relevant prison officer and another prison officer, from the second applicant and from two prisoners called by the second applicant. The second applicant's case was that the collision had been accidental.", "28. The second applicant was found guilty of assault and awarded 7 additional days' custody (pursuant to section 42 of the 1991 Act). Three days' cellular confinement were also awarded and he was fined GBP 8. It was his thirty-seventh offence against discipline.", "29. On 16 June and 7 July 1997 respectively, the applicants requested leave to apply for judicial review of the governor's refusal of legal representation. Mr Ezeh also applied for an extension of time in which to do so. The applicants argued that the various statutory and regulatory changes since Hone and McCartan v. Maze Prison Board of Visitors ([1988] 1 Appeal Cases 379) had made adjudication of prison disciplinary matters indistinguishable from matters of summary jurisdiction and, therefore, legal representation ought to have been allowed as of right. On 1 August 1997 a single judge of the High Court refused leave to both applicants. He observed that there was no right to legal representation in adjudication hearings and that the governor's exercise of his discretion not to allow such representation was not irrational or perverse given the facts of the cases. In Mr Ezeh's case he added that there was therefore no good reason for extending time.", "30. On 10 August 1997 the applicants' counsel advised that a renewed application for leave had no realistic prospect of success, given the views expressed by the single judge of the High Court." ]

[ 3 ]

[ "6. The applicant was born in 1925 and lives in Rome.", "7. He is the owner of a flat in Rome, which he had let to F.M. and G.C.", "8. In a registered letter of 8 June 1983, the applicant informed the tenants that he intended to terminate the lease on expiry of the term on 31 December 1983 and asked them to vacate the premises by that date.", "9. The tenants told the applicant that they would not leave the premises.", "10. In a writ served on the tenants on 18 May 1985, the applicant reiterated his intention to terminate the lease and summoned them to appear before the Rome Magistrate.", "11. By a decision of 29 June 1985, which was made enforceable on the same day, the Rome Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 28 June 1986.", "12. On 26 May 1986, the applicant served notice on the tenants requiring them to vacate the premises.", "13. On 9 July 1986, he served notice on the tenants informing them that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 31 July 1986.", "14. Between 31 July 1986 and 19 May 2000, the bailiff made seventy-three attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicant was not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession.", "15. On 14 June 2000, the applicant recovered possession of the apartment" ]

[ 1, 4 ]

[ "4. The applicant was born in 1966 and lives in Częstochowa, Poland.", "5. In June 1995, on his way to work, the applicant bought a bottle of sparkling mineral water. While he was opening it, the bottle exploded and its metal cap hit the applicant’s left eye. The accident, despite the subsequent surgeries and medical treatment, resulted in the applicant’s loss of vision in his left eye. He was declared an invalid and was granted a disability pension by the Social Security Board (Zakład Ubezpieczeń Społecznych).", "6. In August 1997 the applicant instituted civil proceedings for compensation and pension against the producer of the mineral water. He submitted medical certificates issued by the Częstochowa and Katowice Hospitals which treated his injury.", "7. On 23 October 1997 the Częstochowa Regional Court (Sąd Wojewódzki w Częstochowie) exempted the applicant from the court fees.", "8. On 15 November and 15 December 1997 the trial court held hearings.", "9. In December 1997 the “S” assurance company joined the proceedings as an intervener.", "10. In 1998 the trial court held four hearings at which it heard witnesses.", "11. On 8 December 1998 the court, sitting in camera, ordered a medical expert opinion.", "12. On 18 May 1999 the court received the opinion.", "13. On 25 May 1999 the court, sitting in camera, ordered the Social Security Board to provide a copy of the applicant’s file.", "14. Between 24 November 1998 and 7 September 1999 no hearings were held.", "15. At the subsequent hearings held on 8 September 1999, 12 January and 14 June 2000 the court heard witnesses and ordered the preparation of new expert opinions.", "16. On 13 December 2000 the trial court held a hearing at which it asked for another expert medical opinion to be prepared.", "17. On 10 April 2001 the court received the expert opinion. The intervener challenged it.", "18. At the hearing held on 20 June 2001 the court requested an expert opinion concerning the applicant’s pension.", "19. The expert submitted the opinion on 31 January 2002. Again, the intervener challenged the opinion.", "20. The next hearing, which was held on 20 March 2002, was adjourned sine die. The court ordered another expert opinion.", "21. On 24 May 2002 the opinion was submitted to the court. Subsequently, the intervener challenged it.", "22. On 27 September 2002 the trial court held a hearing.", "23. On 30 September 2002 the Częstochowa Regional Court gave judgment. The defendant was found liable for the damage sustained by the applicant. The court awarded the applicant PLN 85,000 in compensation but dismissed his claim for pension.", "24. Both parties appealed against this judgment.", "25. On 4 April 2003 the applicant was exempted from the court-fees in the appeal procedure. The proceedings are pending before the Court of Appeal." ]

[ 3 ]

[ "4. The applicant, Mr Józef Gidel, is a Polish national, who was born in 1959 and lives in Kraków, Poland.", "5. The applicant runs a car repair shop in Kraków. On 11 March 1993 he sued a certain I.K. and the State Treasury before the Kraków District Court (Sąd Rejonowy), seeking payment for the repair of I.K’s car. On 27 August 1993 the statement of claim was served on I.K who, at that time, lived in Germany.", "6. The first hearing was set down for 21 December 1993 but was later adjourned because the presiding judge was ill. The court held hearings on 26 April, 26 August, 4 November 1994 and on 21 March 1995.", "7. Subsequently, the defendant challenged the impartiality of all the judges of the Kraków District Court. On 8 November 1995 the Kraków Regional Court (Sąd Wojewódzki) dismissed his challenge, finding that it lacked any basis and that the relevant statutory requirements for the disqualification of the judges were not satisfied. His further appeal was dismissed by the Kraków Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) on 30 January 1996.", "8. On 23 October, 1 December 1995 and on 13 May 1996 the applicant sent letters to the court asking for a hearing date to be fixed as soon as possible.", "9. On 30 August 1996 the court ordered an expert to prepare a report. However, the expert failed to comply with the court’s order. On 21 October 1996 the court ordered yet another expert to prepare a report within one month. It was submitted to the court on 17 December 1996.", "10. On 28 March 1997 the applicant again asked the court to fix a date for a hearing.", "11. On 12 December 1997 the court held a hearing.", "12. At the hearing held on 3 April 1998 the court ordered that the claim against the State Treasury be examined separately. The next hearing, scheduled for 12 May 1998, was cancelled as there was no courtroom available.", "13. On 1 April 1998 I.K. challenged the impartiality of the presiding judge. On 1 June 1998 a panel of three judges, sitting as the Kraków District Court, dismissed the defendant’s challenge, ruling that it was totally unsubstantiated. The court also imposed a fine on him, holding that the challenge had been made in bad faith. His further appeal was dismissed by the Kraków Regional Court on 10 February 1999.", "14. On 26 June 1998 the Kraków District Court gave an interlocutory judgment. It dismissed the applicant’s claim against the State Treasury on the ground that its liability had not been established.", "15. Meanwhile, the defendant had informed the trial court that he had moved to Poland. This resulted in Kraków-Śródmieście District Court no longer having territorial jurisdiction over the case. On an unknown date the applicant was asked to indicate in which court he wished to pursue his claim: Kraków-Podgórze District Court or Kraków-Nowa Huta District Court. The applicant failed to do so. On 12 July 2000, of the court’s own motion, the case was referred to the Kraków-Podgórze District Court.", "16. On 16 October 2000 the applicant sent a letter to the President of the Kraków Regional Court. He complained about the slow conduct of the proceedings. On 17 November 2000, in reply to his complaints, the President observed that the proceedings were indeed lengthy and gave his assurance that he would supervise their conduct.", "17. At the hearing held on 9 February 2001 the Kraków District Court gave judgment. On 27 April 2001 the applicant appealed. On 15 October 2001 the Kraków District Court rejected the appeal, as the applicant had failed to pay the required court fee within the statutory time-limit. On 30 January 2002 the Kraków Regional Court quashed this decision and allowed the applicant’s appeal of 27 April 2001.", "18. The proceedings are pending before the Kraków Regional Court." ]

[ 3 ]

[ "4. The applicant was born in 1919 and lives in Lubań, Poland.", "5. The applicant was involved in administrative proceedings concerning the amount of the veteran benefit he had been receiving since 1974. On 12 September 1995 the Supreme Administrative Court gave a judgment in his case. The court, inter alia, ordered the Office for Veterans and Persecuted Persons (Urząd do Spraw Kombatantów i Osób Represjonowanych) to pay the applicant a sum of PLN 10 as reimbursement of the court fees. In May 1997 the applicant received from the Office for Veterans and Persecuted Persons only a half of the awarded sum (PLN 5).", "6. In April 1997 the applicant lodged with the Lubań District Court (Sąd Rejonowy w Lubaniu) a civil action against the Office for Veterans and Persecuted Persons. He claimed compensation and payment of, inter alia, the remaining sum of PLN 5.", "7. On 7 May 1997 the Lubań District Court transmitted the case to the Warsaw District Court.", "8. The Warsaw District Court held one hearing and on 30 November 1998 it gave a default judgment (wyrok zaoczny) against the defendant ordering it to pay PLN 50 in compensation and PLN 30 as a reimbursement of the court fees. The court ordered that the judgment should be immediately enforceable.", "9. On 30 March 1999 the defendant lodged an objection against this decision.", "10. On 18 October 1999 the Warsaw District Court suspended the enforcement order in respect of the judgment of 30 November 1998.", "11. The applicant asked the court to order again that the judgment of 30 November 1998 be immediately enforceable. On 29 October 1999 the Warsaw District Court dismissed his request. The applicant appealed against this decision and was ordered to pay the court-fees. On 22 August 2000 his appeal was rejected due to the applicant's failure to pay the court fees. In the appeal procedure against this decision he was also ordered to pay the court‑fees. Finally, the applicant paid the court-fees and on 16 December 2002 the Warsaw Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) examined his appeal against the decision of 29 October 1999 and dismissed it.", "12. On 23 October 1999 the Warsaw District Court, sitting in camera, decided that the applicant would be heard by the Lubań District Court. It appears that this court failed to hear the applicant and on 25 April 2002 the trial court repeated its request.", "13. On 28 June 2002 the Lubań District Court heard the applicant.", "14. The proceedings are pending before the Warsaw District Court." ]

[ 3 ]

[ "4. The applicant was born in 1927 and lives in Zamość, Poland.", "5. In 1991 the applicant noticed a lump on her neck and went to the Lublin Hospital. After a general examination she was diagnosed with a non‑cancerous salivary gland tumor. In October 1991 she underwent a surgery. Only after her operation were the relevant tests carried out, which proved the malignant nature of her tumor. Subsequently, the applicant turned to another hospital, in Szczecin, where she underwent a second operation. This additional surgery has led to serious complications such as jaundice and post-traumatic stress disorder.", "6. On 27 January 1994 the applicant initiated before the Lublin District Court (Sąd Rejonowy w Lublinie) civil proceedings for compensation against the State Treasury represented by the Lublin Hospital. She claimed that she was a victim of medical malpractice because of the errors committed while making the diagnosis and during the first surgery which led to additional surgery and caused enormous suffering and general deterioration of her health.", "7. On 17 March 1994 the applicant was partly exempted from the court‑fees.", "8. On 20 June 1994 the trial court held a first hearing.", "9. Between 21 November 1994 and 28 March 1995 six hearings were held. The trial court heard witnesses and the applicant, and ordered preparation of expert opinions.", "10. In April and July 1995 two expert opinions prepared by the Lublin Medical Academy were submitted to the court.", "11. Between 29 March 1995 and 19 August 1996 no hearings were held.", "12. At the hearings held on 20 August and 10 December 1996 the court ordered two additional expert medical opinions.", "13. On 17 March 1997 the court, sitting in camera, dismissed the parties’ applications for another expert opinion because they had failed to pay the costs of the opinion.", "14. At the hearing held on 4 April 1997 the court allowed the parties’ application for an additional expert opinion.", "15. On 9 June 1997 the opinion was submitted to the court.", "16. Subsequently, the trial court held hearings on 2 September and 27 November 1997.", "17. In 1998 the trial court held in total six hearings and on 24 November 1998 it gave judgment. It awarded the applicant PLN 3,500 in compensation and dismissed the remaining part of her action.", "18. Both parties appealed against the judgment.", "19. On 6 May 1999 the Lublin Regional Court (Sąd Wojewódzki) held a hearing and on 20 May 1999 it gave judgment. The court quashed the first‑instance judgment and remitted the case to the Lublin District Court.", "20. On 4 November 1999 the trial court held the first hearing at which the applicant changed the value of her claim. In consequence, the case was transferred to the Lublin Regional Court.", "21. Subsequently, hearings were held on 25 January and 21 March 2000.", "22. On 4 May 2000 the trial court, sitting in camera, decided that in view of the changes in the law on the administrative organisation of Poland the Lublin Governor would represent the Lublin Hospital.", "23. On 18 July 2000 the applicant further extended her action. She requested PLN 35,000 as compensation for non-pecuniary and pecuniary damage.", "24. On 7 September 2000 the trial court, sitting in camera, ordered two medical expert opinions. The court also exempted the applicant from the court‑fees for the extended value of her claim.", "25. On 11 September, 11 December 2001 and 23 January 2002 the court held hearings.", "26. On 1 February 2002 the Lublin Regional Court gave judgment. It awarded the applicant PLN 20,000 for non-pecuniary damage and PLN 4,000 for pecuniary damage. The court found, inter alia, that the surgery carried out in the Lublin Hospital did not satisfy the requirements of diligent medical care (niezgodna z zasadami sztuki lekarskiej) and was done without the obligatory consent of the applicant. The malpractice during the surgery had to be remedied by the second, additional, operation which resulted in unnecessary physical and psychological suffering on the part of the applicant and prolonged the period of insecurity about the final diagnosis of her life-threatening illness.", "27. The parties did not appeal against this judgment and it became final." ]

[ 3 ]

[ "9. The applicant was born in 1954 and at the relevant time he lived in Košice. At present he lives in Spain.", "10. In the morning of 30 November 1996 the applicant’s wife warned the police by telephone that the applicant intended to drive his car after having drunk alcoholic beverages, that he carried a weapon, that his behaviour was strange and that it was possible that he could cause injury to other persons. Upon this information the police stopped the car driven by the applicant. As the applicant actively resisted his search, the police handcuffed him. A sword was taken away from him. The analysis of his breath indicated that the applicant had alcohol in his blood. According to the applicant, the breath test was forged.", "11. The police brought the applicant to a police station, where they withdrew his driving licence. Subsequently he was brought to a psychiatrist. After a short examination the applicant was released. Later on the same day the doctor issued a certificate, at the request of the applicant’s wife, in which the police were requested for assistance in transporting the applicant to a mental hospital.", "12. In the afternoon of 30 November 1996 the applicant returned to his home but he could not unlock the door. He asked the police for assistance. Upon the arrival of the police the applicant’s wife opened the door and asked that the applicant be taken away. He was brought to a mental hospital in an ambulance. After he had refused to undergo an examination, the applicant was brought against his will to another hospital. Medicaments were administered to him during three days and he had to undergo psychiatric tests.", "13. On 2 December 1996 the administration of the hospital to which the applicant had been brought on 30 November 1996 informed the Košice II District Court about the applicant’s detention on account of the suspicion that he suffered from a mental disorder.", "14. On 6 December 1996 the Košice II District Court delivered a decision by which it started proceedings, with reference to Sections 191a (1) and 191b (1) of the Code of Civil Procedure, with a view to determining whether the applicant’s placement in a mental hospital was justified. By another decision delivered on 6 December 1996 the District Court appointed a guardian to defend the applicant’s rights in the proceedings.", "15. On 9 December 1996 a record concerning the applicant’s detention in the mental hospital was drawn up in the presence of the applicant, the Košice II District Court judge dealing with the case and the doctor who treated the applicant. Reference was made to statements of the wife according to which the applicant’s behaviour had changed following his return from Venezuela where he had been on business for one year. According to her, the applicant alleged hearing strange voices and that his flat was monitored from outside by means of a fax machine. He had altercations with his colleagues and started carrying weapons. His wife feared that the applicant wanted to drown her in the bath and stated that he had not allowed their children to go to school. The applicant denied such allegations and explained that there had been disagreements between him and his wife. He affirmed that he was not ill and refused examination by psychologists. The record further stated that the applicant was being treated with medicaments and that his brother suffered from paranoid schizophrenia. It concluded that a professor would decide on 10 December 1996 whether further treatment was necessary.", "16. In a decision delivered on 9 December 1996 the Košice II District Court found that the applicant’s detention in the mental hospital was lawful. Reference was made to the doctors’ presumption that the applicant suffered from a mental disorder and to the fact that he was treated with medicaments.", "17. On 10 December 1996 the applicant was released from the hospital.", "18. On 30 April 1998 the president of the Košice II District Court apologised to the applicant for the delay in serving on him the above decision of 9 December 1996.", "19. On 13 May 1998 the applicant was allowed to consult the court’s case file. On this occasion he was served with the District Court’s decision of 9 December 1996 concerning the lawfulness of his examination in a mental hospital. On 18 May and on 12 August 1998 the applicant appealed against this decision and also against the decision of 6 December 1996 on the appointment of a guardian. He alleged, in particular, that his arrest had been unjustified, that he had been heard by a judge on 9 December 1996, that is several days after his arrest, and that the court had taken more than five days to decide on the lawfulness of his detention contrary to the relevant law.", "20. On 25 September 1998 the Košice Regional Court dismissed the appeal. It found that the applicant’s detention had been justified by his strange behaviour and by the doctors’ presumption that he had suffered from a mental disorder. The Regional Court considered irrelevant the applicant’s objection concerning the delay in deciding on his case at first instance and in serving the District Court’s decision of 9 December 1996." ]

[ 2 ]

[ "6. The applicant was born in 1975 and lives in Stary Lubliniec, Poland.", "7. On 10 October 1994 the applicant filed an application for delimitation of plots of land with the Lubaczów District Court (Sąd Rejonowy).", "8. On 9 November 1994 the court held the first hearing. Further hearings were held on 29 November, 20 December 1994, 27 November 1995 and 25 April 1996.", "9. On 5 June 1996 the court held an inspection of the site. From 6 March 1997 to 22 June 1999 the court held nine hearings.", "10. During the first-instance proceedings the court heard evidence from three witnesses and obtained reports from two experts.", "11. On 5 November 1999 the Lubaczów District Court held a hearing and delivered judgment.", "12. On 13 December 1999 the applicant appealed. The proceedings were terminated by the judgment of the Przemyśl Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) of 17 February 2000." ]

[ 2 ]

[ "4. The applicant was born in 1938 and lives in Partizánske.", "5. The applicant proposed two technological improvements to the company in which he worked. They were not accepted.", "6. On 21 November 1989 the applicant filed an action with the Topoľčany District Court. He claimed the protection of his intellectual property in that his above proposals were not accepted.", "7. On 14 February 1990 the applicant amended his action in that he claimed that one of the technological improvements proposed by him was submitted prior to other proposals concerning the same issue submitted by other persons, and that he should be compensated for both improvements proposed by him.", "8. On 21 January 1991 the District Court dismissed the applicant’s action after having ordered two expert opinions. On 20 March 1991 the Bratislava Regional Court quashed this decision on the ground that the first instance court had failed to establish the facts correctly and that it had proceeded erroneously.", "9. On 18 July 1991 and on 30 September 1991 the appellate court dismissed the applicant’s requests for the exclusion of the District Court judges.", "10. On 5 December 1991 the District Court appointed an expert. On 25 February 1992 the expert informed the District Court that he had a heavy workload and that he would be able to submit the opinion only after 21 April 1992. Subsequently the District Court repeatedly urged the expert to submit the opinion. The opinion was submitted on 23 November 1992. On 14 December 1992 the applicant submitted his comments on the opinion. On 14 January 1993 he challenged the District Court judge. The Nitra branch office of the Bratislava Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s request for exclusion of the District Court judge on 26 February 1993.", "11. On 15 September 1993 the case was adjourned as the defendant and the expert did not appear. The expert subsequently died.", "12. On 23 May 1994 the District Court appointed an expert. The latter submitted the opinion on 8 December 1994.", "13. On 25 January 1995 the Topoľčany District Court delivered an interim judgment in which it found, with reference to two expert opinions, that the applicant’s proposal concerning the circulation of air in the defendant company was to be given priority. The District Court further dismissed the claim for compensation concerning the applicant’s second proposal.", "14. The defendant appealed on 6 March 1995, and on 13 July 1995 the Nitra branch office of the Bratislava Regional Court quashed the first instance judgment to the extent that it had allowed the applicant’s claim for his proposal to be given priority. The decision stated that the first instance court had failed to follow the instructions set out in the Regional Court’s above decision of 20 March 1991.", "15. On 26 October 1995 the District Court heard the experts with a view to clarifying the differences in their conclusions. On 7 January 1996 it obtained a third expert’s opinion. Hearings were held on 22 February 1996 and on 6 March 1996.", "16. Between 11 March and 9 September 1996 the case file was examined by the Constitutional Court.", "17. On 28 October 1996 the Topoľčany District Court dismissed the remainder of the applicant’s action.", "18. On 11 December 1996 the applicant appealed and claimed that the decision was arbitrary. He also challenged the District Court judge.", "19. On 28 February 1997 the Constitutional Court found that the Topoľčany District Court had violated the applicant’s constitutional right to have his case examined without undue delay. In its finding the Constitutional Court admitted that the case was complex from the legal point of view. It found no particular delays in the proceedings which should be imputed to the applicant and held that the District Court had failed to proceed with the case in an effective manner as required by the relevant provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure. The decision stated, in particular, that there had been shortcomings in the judge’s work which had caused excessive delays in the proceedings.", "20. On 30 June 1997 the appellate court adjourned the case as the applicant had challenged its judges dealing with the case. On 27 October 1997 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant’s request for exclusion of the judges.", "21. On 20 January 1998 the Nitra Regional Court upheld the District Court’s finding that the applicant was not entitled to compensation for the proposal in question as it was neither genuine nor did it resolve the technical problem in question as required by the relevant law. The Regional Court further discontinued the proceedings as regards the applicant’s claim that his proposal should be given priority as it was outside the courts’ jurisdiction. Finally, the Regional Court upheld the District Court’s decision on the expert’s fees and decided that the District Court judge involved was not biased. The Regional Court’s judgment was served on the applicant on 4 August 1998." ]

[ 3 ]

[ "4. The applicant was born in 1924 and lives in Warsaw, Poland.", "5. On 12 July 1995 the applicant’s brother initiated court proceedings before the Warsaw District Court (Sąd Rejonowy w Warszawie) in order to obtain a decision declaring heirs to his late mother’s estate. The applicant’s brother applied to establish heirs on the basis of a will allegedly prepared by his mother.", "6. On 13 February 1996 the applicant challenged the will.", "7. The hearing scheduled for 4 April 1996 was adjourned upon the request filed by the applicant’s lawyer.", "8. Subsequently, hearings were held on 16 May and 5 September 1996 at which the court allowed the parties’ applications to hear witnesses.", "9. The hearings scheduled for 19 November, 16 December 1996 and 23 February 1997 were adjourned because the applicant’s brother was ill.", "10. On 18 June 1997 the court stayed the proceedings since the applicant’s brother had died.", "11. On 13 November 1997 the applicant requested the court to resume the proceedings because the proceedings concerning her brother’s inheritance had ended and in consequence the reason for staying the proceedings had ceased to exist.", "12. On 10 January 1998 the court resumed the proceedings. Ms M.P.P., the daughter of the applicant’s late brother and his heir, joined the proceedings.", "13. On 23 April and 10 July 1998 the court held hearings. The trial court heard a witness requested by Ms M.P.P.", "14. The hearing scheduled for 5 November 1998 was adjourned.", "15. Subsequently, the court held hearings on 21 January and 19 April 1999. Ms M.P.P. applied to the court to prepare an expert opinion and the applicant’s lawyer asked the court not to schedule any hearings until September 1999.", "16. The next hearing was held on 16 September 1999.", "17. The hearings scheduled for 4 November 1999 and 20 January 2000 were adjourned due to the illness of the applicant’s lawyer and Ms M.P.P.", "18. On 6 April, 21 September and 21 December 2000 the court held hearings. Both parties requested preparation of an expert opinion.", "19. On 5 April 2001 the court held a hearing at which it heard the parties. The court requested a hospital to provide documents concerning the health of the applicant’s late mother.", "20. On 26 April 2001 the court received the requested documents.", "21. On 18 June 2001 the court, sitting in camera, ordered preparation of an expert opinion. The opinion was submitted to the court on 12 February 2002.", "22. On 23 April 2002 the applicant’s counsel informed the court that he had ceased to represent her and would be absent at the next hearing scheduled for 26 April 2002. The court appointed another lawyer for the applicant, however, the latter refused to accept the appointment.", "23. On 4 September 2002 the court ordered the Bar Association to designate a lawyer to represent the applicant.", "24. Between 6 April 2001 and 25 April 2002 no hearings were held.", "25. The hearings scheduled for 26 April and 5 September 2002 were adjourned because the applicant’s new lawyer failed to appear.", "26. On 20 November 2002 the applicant’s lawyer informed the court that she would be absent at the next hearing scheduled for 21 November 2002.", "27. At the hearing held on 21 November 2002 the court decided to inform the Bar Association about the continued absence of the lawyer at the hearings.", "28. Subsequently, the Warsaw District Court scheduled a hearing for 24 April 2003.", "29. The proceedings are pending before the Warsaw District Court." ]

[ 3 ]

[ "4. The applicant was born in 1914 and lives in Warsaw, Poland.", "5. In November and December 1989 the applicant’s neighbours were renovating an attic over her flat and partly removed the roof. As a result, the applicant’s flat was flooded and her belongings were damaged.", "6. On 3 June 1992 the applicant lodged with the Warsaw District Court (Sąd Rejonowy w Warszawie) a civil action against her neighbours. She requested PLN 4,000 in compensation for damage to her property. On 16 October 1992 the case was transferred to the Warsaw Regional Court (Sąd Wojewódzki w Warszawie).", "7. On 17 February 1993 the trial court held its first hearing at which it heard both parties.", "8. In December 1993 the applicant challenged a judge. On 4 January 1994 her application was dismissed.", "9. In 1994 the trial court held five hearings. The applicant’s lawyer twice asked the court not to schedule any hearings during a total period of five weeks because of her holidays.", "10. In 1995 six hearings were held. The trial court ordered preparation of an expert opinion and held a view of the property.", "11. On 28 December 1995 the Warsaw Regional Court gave judgment. It awarded the applicant PLN 1,500 by way of pecuniary damage and dismissed the remaining part of her action.", "12. Both parties lodged appeals.", "13. In August 1996 the President of the Warsaw Regional Court informed the applicant that her case-file was lost. Subsequently, the applicant was requested to provide copies of all documents in order to reconstruct it.", "14. On 13 November 1996 the Warsaw Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny w Warszawie) held a hearing at which it gave a judgment. It partly quashed the Regional Court’s judgment and remitted the case to the court of first‑instance.", "15. On 24 July 1997 the Warsaw District Court held the first hearing.", "16. On 2 October 1997 the court, sitting in camera, ordered an expert opinion. Subsequently, the court expert who was ordered to inspect the flat and evaluate the damages informed the court about his difficulties in entering the apartment in question.", "17. Between 25 July 1997 and 8 June 1998 no hearings were held.", "18. On 9 June 1998 the court held a hearing and decided to set a new deadline for the expert opinion. The applicant informed the court that in 1994 her flat had been sold by the City Council and that the new owner did not agree to the inspection. The hearing was adjourned sine die.", "19. On 22 October 1998 the trial court held a hearing at which it again decided to send the case-file to the expert and set a one-month deadline for the expert opinion.", "20. In November 1998 the applicant challenged a judge. On 19 November 1998 her application was dismissed.", "21. In April 1999 the applicant’s lawyer asked the court not to schedule any hearings during a three-week period in July because of her holidays.", "22. Between 23 October 1998 and 29 January 2001 no hearings were held.", "23. In January 2001 the case was taken over by another judge.", "24. On 30 January, 10 April and 16 May 2001 the court held hearings.", "25. At the hearing held on 16 May 2001 the court again decided to send the case-file to the expert.", "26. Between 17 May 2001 and 3 December 2002 no hearings were held.", "27. On 4 December 2002 the Warsaw District Court held a hearing and on 18 December 2002 it gave a judgment.", "28. On 25 February 2002 the applicant lodged an appeal. It appears that the proceedings are pending before the appellate court." ]

[ 3 ]

[ "4. The applicant was born in 1961 and lives in Ciechanów, Poland.", "5. In August 1992 the applicant, at that time thirty-years-old, underwent gynaecological surgery. A few days later, due to post‑operative complications, the applicant had to undergo another operation during which her uterus and one ovary were removed.", "6. In October 1992 the applicant requested the prosecution service to initiate criminal proceedings against the doctors and the hospital. On 15 February 1996 the proceedings were finally discontinued.", "7. On 29 April 1993 the applicant lodged with the Warsaw Regional Court (Sąd Wojewódzki w Warszawie) a civil action for compensation against the hospital. She claimed that she was a victim of medical malpractice which deprived her of a possibility of having more children and caused enormous psychological suffering. She requested compensation of PLN 50,000.", "8. On 4 May 1993 the Warsaw Regional Court exempted the applicant from the court fees.", "9. On 5 July 1994 the court held the first hearing at which the applicant was heard. The court requested from the prosecution service the case‑file concerning the criminal case against the doctors.", "10. On 25 January 1995 the trial court stayed the proceedings because the prosecution service refused to provide the file of the criminal case while the criminal proceedings were pending.", "11. On 21 June 1996 the trial court resumed the civil proceedings.", "12. On 23 August 1996 the court held a hearing which had to be adjourned because of the absence of the defendant’s representative.", "13. On 27 November 1996, 15 January and 12 February 1997 the trial court held hearings at which it heard witnesses.", "14. On 2 April 1997 the court, sitting in camera, ordered an expert opinion. The opinion was prepared on 17 July 1997.", "15. At the hearing which was held on 26 September 1997 the court heard an expert witness.", "16. On 21 October 1997 the applicant requested the court to order the preparation of another expert opinion.", "17. In February 1998 the applicant dismissed her lawyer because she could not any longer afford this expense. It appears that she applied for a court‑appointed lawyer but her application was not examined.", "18. On 13 March 1998 the court, sitting in camera, allowed the applicant’s application for a second expert opinion. Subsequently, the applicant informed the court that she wished to cross-examine the expert witnesses.", "19. On 15 July 1998 the court, sitting in camera, dismissed the applicant’s request to exempt her from the costs of the expert opinion.", "20. On 30 September 1998 the applicant received the expert opinion and again requested the court to hear expert witnesses.", "21. In May 1999 the court asked the applicant to designate the defendant because after the administrative reform the Mazowsze Governor had become a competent authority to represent the State Treasury. The applicant complied with this order. She also asked the trial court to call as a co‑defendant the doctor who performed the surgery, but on 8 December 1999 the court refused her application.", "22. Between 27 September 1997 and 6 February 2000 no hearings were held.", "23. On 7 February 2000 the court held a hearing. The applicant was informed that the court had lost her application to hear expert witnesses and her questions to them. The new date for cross-examination was set for 29 June 2000 before the Kraków Regional Court.", "24. The applicant went to Kraków to take part in the hearing scheduled for 29 June 2000, however, it was adjourned because the expert witnesses were not properly notified.", "25. On 19 October and 16 November 2000 the expert witnesses were heard before the Kraków District Court. The applicant who could not attend that hearing, submitted her questions in writing.", "26. On 8 January 2001 the trial court held the last hearing.", "27. On 5 February 2001 the Warsaw Regional Court gave judgment. It found no negligence on the part of doctors. Nevertheless, the applicant was awarded PLN 10,000 as compensation for her suffering.", "28. In April 2001 the applicant lodged an appeal against this judgment.", "29. On 28 February 2002 the applicant’s appeal was rejected by the Warsaw Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) as lodged out of time. The applicant appealed against it and on 20 May 2002 the Warsaw Court of Appeal, sitting in camera, partly exempted her from the court fees in the appeal procedure.", "30. On 11 October 2002 the Supreme Court (Sąd Najwyższy) dismissed her appeal against the Court of Appeal’s decision of 28 February 2002." ]

[ 3 ]

[ "4. The applicant was born in 1954 and lives in Žiar nad Hronom. At the relevant time he was a police investigator. On 29 October 1996 a private TV company broadcast a statement by a Member of Parliament in which the applicant was accused of covering up crime.", "5. On 29 November 1996 the applicant sued the Member of Parliament before the Žiar nad Hronom District Court. He claimed that the above statement was defamatory and sought protection of his reputation. On 3 December 1996 the applicant was requested to pay the court fees. On the same day the defendant was asked to submit his observations.", "6. On 11 December 1996 the case file was transferred to the Banská Bystrica Regional Court as the District Court judges considered themselves biased. On 30 December 1996 the Regional Court excluded two District Court judges from dealing with the case. The decision was transmitted to the District Court on 7 February 1997. On 7 March 1997 the President of the Žiar nad Hronom District Court returned the case file to the Regional Court with a more detailed explanation as to why all District Court judges considered themselves biased. The Regional Court was requested to transfer the case to another court.", "7. On 30 April 1997 the Regional Court excluded the Žiar nad Hronom District Court judges and transferred the case to the District Court in Veľký Krtíš. The case file was transferred to the latter court on 2 June 1997.", "8. On 12 June 1997 the District Court in Veľký Krtíš discontinued the proceedings on the ground that the applicant had failed to pay the court fees. On 30 June 1997 the applicant appealed. On 3 July 1997 the District Court quashed the decision as the applicant had paid the fees in the meantime.", "9. On 14 August 1997 the Supreme Court, upon the proposal of the District Court judge to whom the case fell to be examined, transferred the case to the Bratislava I District Court. The latter received the case file on 22 September 1997.", "10. On 30 January 1998 the applicant claimed that the transfer of the case to the Bratislava I District Court had been unlawful.", "11. On 12 February 1998 the Bratislava I District Court heard the parties.", "12. On 16 March 1998 the Bratislava I District Court asked the applicant to which court he wished the case to be transferred and to pay the court fee in respect of that request.", "13. On 20 March 1998 the applicant replied that he could accept that the case be assigned to any court in the vicinity of Žiar nad Hronom district. On 26 March 1998 the applicant asked the court to specify the legal basis for the request for court fees. The applicant’s replies were not included in the case file.", "14. On 11 September 1998 the District Court judge reiterated her request of 16 March 1998. On 23 September 1998 the applicant submitted copies of his above letters of 20 and 26 March 1998 and pointed out that he had received no reply to them.", "15. On 12 October 1998 the District Court judge again requested the applicant to pay the fee in respect of his request that the case be transferred to a different court and to specify the court which, in his view, should deal with the case.", "16. On 4 November 1998 the applicant reiterated that he wished the case to be examined by a court in the vicinity of Žiar nad Hronom district. He also complained that the judge had failed to proceed with the case.", "17. On 7 January 2000 the applicant complained to the President of the Bratislava I District Court that his case had not been proceeded with.", "18. On 14 April 2000 the Bratislava I District Court again asked the applicant to specify the court to which the case should be transferred and to pay the fee in respect of this request.", "19. On 4 May 2000 the applicant explained that he had not requested that the case be transferred to a different court for reasons of convenience. He argued that the case fell outside the territorial jurisdiction of the Bratislava I District Court and that the determination of that issue was not subject to payment of court fees and fell within the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.", "20. On 12 July 2000 the vice-president of the Bratislava I District Court admitted, in reply to the applicant’s complaint, that there had been delays in the proceedings in the course of 1999. The letter further stated that the applicant had contributed to the overall length of the proceedings in that he had failed to co-operate with the court.", "21. On 6 September 2000 the applicant informed the District Court that he would not attend the hearing scheduled for 25 September 2000 as he considered that that court lacked jurisdiction to deal with the case. As a result, the case was adjourned.", "22. On 25 September 2000 the District Court imposed a fine on the applicant on the ground that he had failed to appear. On 18 October 2000 the applicant appealed against the decision to fine him. He also requested the exclusion of the judge. On 30 November 2000 the Bratislava Regional Court upheld the decision on the fine and found that the Bratislava I District Court judge was not biased.", "23. On 20 February 2001 the applicant informed the court that he was ill and that he would not be able to attend a hearing scheduled for 22 February 2001.", "24. On 9 March 2001 the applicant informed the court that he wished to withdraw the action and requested that the court fees be returned to him. He explained that he had lost confidence in the proper administration of justice as the Bratislava I District Court had failed to proceed with the case.", "25. On 12 March 2001 the District Court discontinued the proceedings with reference to the applicant’s request. It further decided that the sum which the applicant had paid in court fees should be restored to him and that he had to pay the defendant’s costs.", "26. On 27 April 2001 the applicant appealed against the decision concerning the defendant’s costs. On 9 May 2001 he submitted reasons for the appeal.", "27. On 28 August 2001 the Bratislava Regional Court upheld the relevant part of the District Court’s decision. The court fees paid by the applicant were returned to him on 5 June 2002.", "28. On 13 December 1996 the applicant sued the TV company which had broadcast the above statement by a Member of Parliament. He claimed that the statement was defamatory and sought protection of his reputation.", "29. On 7 January 1996 the applicant was invited to pay the court fees.\nOn 13 January 1997 the case file was submitted to the Banská Bystrica Regional Court as the District Court judges considered themselves biased. On 14 January 1997 the Regional Court excluded one of the District Court judges from dealing with the case.", "30. On 10 and 13 February 1997 the defendant company submitted observations on the applicant’s action.", "31. On 7 March 1997 the president of the District Court sent the case file again to the Banská Bystrica Regional Court with the explanation that all judges of the District Court considered themselves biased. In an annex, the judges concerned explained in more detail why they considered that they lacked impartiality. The Regional Court was requested to transfer the case to a different court.", "32. On 30 April 1997 the Regional Court excluded the Žiar nad Hronom District Court judges and transferred the case to the District Court in Veľký Krtíš. The case file was transferred to the latter court on 2 June 1997.", "33. On 12 June 1997 the District Court in Veľký Krtíš discontinued the proceedings on the ground that the applicant had failed to pay the court fees. On 30 June 1997 the applicant appealed. On 3 July 1997 the District Court quashed the decision as the applicant had paid the fees in the meantime.", "34. On 21 August 1997 the Supreme Court, upon the proposal of the District Court judge to whom the case fell to be examined, transferred the case to the Bratislava I District Court. The latter received the case file on 22 September 1997.", "35. On 26 January 1998 the Bratislava I District Court discontinued the proceedings on the ground that the designation of the defendant company in the applicant’s action was not correct. The applicant appealed on 9 March 1998. The case file was submitted to the Bratislava Regional Court on 16 April 1998. It quashed the District Court’s decision on 29 May 1998.", "36. On 21 July 1998 the applicant claimed that the transfer of the case to the Bratislava I District Court had been unlawful.", "37. On 7 September 1998 the Bratislava I District Court adjourned the case with reference to the applicant’s above objection.", "38. On 25 September 1998 the Bratislava I District Court asked the applicant to specify to which court he wished the case to be transferred and to pay a court fee in respect of that request.", "39. On 4 November 1998 the applicant replied that he considered that the Bratislava I District Court lacked territorial jurisdiction to deal with the case and that it should be examined by a court in the vicinity of Žiar nad Hronom district.", "40. On 14 April 2000 the District Court judge reiterated her request of 25 September 1998.", "41. On 1 May 2000 the applicant explained that he had not requested that the case be transferred to a different court for reasons of convenience. He argued that the case fell outside the territorial jurisdiction of the Bratislava I District Court and complained about delays in the proceedings. The applicant also asked the judge to specify any further points which, as the case might be, were to be explained by him.", "42. On 12 June 2000 the vice-president of the Bratislava I District Court admitted, in reply to the applicant’s complaint, that there had been delays in the proceedings in the course of 1999. The letter further stated that the applicant had contributed to the overall length of the proceedings in that he had failed to co-operate with the court.", "43. On 1 September 2000 the applicant informed the District Court that he would not attend the hearing scheduled for 25 September 2000 as he considered that that court lacked jurisdiction to deal with the case and that his complaints in that respect had been to no avail.", "44. On 25 September 2000 the District Court imposed a fine on the applicant on the ground that he had failed to appear at a hearing.", "45. On 18 October 2000 the applicant appealed against the decision to fine him. He also requested the exclusion of the judge.", "46. On 30 November 2000 the Bratislava Regional Court upheld the decision on the fine and found that the Bratislava I District Court judge was not biased.", "47. On 20 February 2001 the applicant excused his absence, due to illness, at a hearing before the District Court scheduled for 22 February 2001.", "48. On 9 March 2001 the applicant informed the District Court that he wished to withdraw the action and requested that the court fees be returned to him. He explained that he had lost confidence in the proper administration of justice as the Bratislava I District Court had failed to proceed with the case.", "49. On 12 March 2001 the District Court discontinued the proceedings with reference to the applicant’s request. It further decided that the sum which the applicant had paid in court fees should be restored to him and that he had to pay the defendant’s costs.", "50. On 27 April 2001 the applicant appealed against the decision concerning the defendant’s costs. On 9 May 2001 he submitted reasons for the appeal. On 30 July 2001 the Bratislava Regional Court upheld the relevant part of the District Court’s decision. The court fees paid by the applicant were returned to him on 5 June 2002." ]

[ 3 ]

[ "4. The applicant was born in 1960 and lives in Rome.", "5. She is the owner of a flat in Rome, which she had let to A.D'A.P.", "6. In a registered letter of 29 July 1982, the applicant informed the tenant that she intended to terminate the lease on expiry of the term on 31 December 1983 and asked her to vacate the premises by that date.", "7. In a writ served on the tenant on 7 October 1985, the applicant reiterated her intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before the Rome Magistrate.", "8. By a decision of 12 December 1985, which was made enforceable on the same day, the Rome Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 30 June 1986.", "9. On 31 October 1986 and 3 November 1986 the applicant served notices on the tenant requiring her to vacate the premises.", "10. On 25 November 1986 she served notice on the tenant informing her that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 15 January 1987.", "11. Between 15 January 1987 and 12 November 1992 the bailiff made forty attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as, under the statutory provisions providing for the suspension, the applicant was not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession.", "12. On 15 October 1987, the applicant instituted civil proceedings against the Ministry of the Interior and the prefect in order to obtain reimbursement of the damages resulted from the refusal or delay to grant her police assistance. The proceedings was declared inadmissible.", "13. In May 1989, Mr S.S. reiterated his proposition made in 1987, to rent the flat at a price of 1,100,000 Italian lire (ITL) [568.10 euros (EUR)] for the first year and ITL 1,200,000 [EUR 619.75] for the second year.", "14. On 6 April 1994 the applicant served another notice on the tenant requiring her to vacate the premises.", "15. On 11 May 1994 she served notice on the tenant informing her that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 3 June 1994.", "16. Between 3 June 1994 and 23 October 1998 the bailiff made twenty attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as, under the statutory provisions providing for the suspension, the applicant was not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession.", "17. On 17 August 1998, the tenant died.", "18. On 3 November 1998, the applicant recovered possession of the flat." ]

[ 3, 9 ]

[ "7. The applicant, born in 1939, is currently detained in HM Prison Full Sutton.", "8. In 1964, the applicant was convicted of the murder of a woman whom he had violently assaulted. He was sentenced to a mandatory term of life imprisonment. In May 1980 (or November 1979, according to the applicant's submissions), he was released on life licence after a positive recommendation from the Parole Board.", "9. In June 1981, the applicant killed a 75 year old woman. His plea of manslaughter on grounds of diminished responsibility was accepted by the court. In January 1982 a discretionary sentence of life imprisonment was imposed by the judge having regard to the extreme danger to the public posed by the applicant. At the same time, the court revoked his life licence concerning his earlier sentence of mandatory life imprisonment.", "10. In December 1985, the applicant was transferred to the hospital wing of Parkhurst prison. Since then, he has been transferred into ordinary prison locations as a “Category A” (high security) prisoner.", "11. The applicant learned that his “tariff” period fixed by the trial judge on the manslaughter offence expired in June 1991. He was informed by a Home Office Memorandum of 5 June 1992 that his continued detention was based on the risk he represented.", "12. According to the applicant's submissions, his only Parole Board review took place in 1999, when, without holding an oral hearing, the Board declined to recommend release. According to the Government's submissions, the Parole Board considered the applicant's case in September 1994 and January 1997. In 1994, it concluded that his behaviour was aggressive and intimidatory and that he represented a high risk to the public. On 10 January 1997, it concluded that he remained far too great a risk to warrant transfer to open conditions. Of the reports before the Parole Board, none recommended early release or early transfer to open conditions." ]

[ 2 ]

[ "4. The applicant was born in 1911 and lives in Chieri.", "5. He is the owner of a flat in Turin, which he had let to C.V.", "6. In a writ served on the tenant on 5 May 1986, the applicant informed the tenant of his intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before the Turin Magistrate.", "7. By a decision of 4 June 1986, which was made enforceable on the same day, the Turin Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 4 June 1987.", "8. On 16 January 1991, the applicant served notice on the tenant requiring him to vacate the premises.", "9. On 25 February 1991, he served notice on the tenant informing him that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 27 March 1991.", "10. On 27 March 1991, the bailiff made one attempt to recover possession, which proved unsuccessful, as, the applicant was not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession.", "11. On 11 May 1992, the applicant served notice on the tenant requiring him to vacate the premises.", "12. On 1 June 1992, he served notice on the tenant informing him that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 8 July 1992.", "13. Between 8 July 1992 and 16 October 1998, the bailiff made twelve attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicant was not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession.", "14. Pursuant to Section 6 of Law no. 431/98, the enforcement proceedings were suspended.", "15. On 24 January 2000, the applicant recovered possession of the flat." ]

[ 3, 9 ]

[ "4. The applicant was born in 1934 and lives in Florence.", "5. He is the owner of a flat in Florence, which he had let to R.C.", "6. In a writ served on the tenant on 14 May 1990, the applicant informed the tenant of his intention to terminate the lease on expiry of the term on 31 October 1992 and summoned him to appear before the Florence Magistrate.", "7. By a decision of 11 June 1990, which was made enforceable on 26 June 1990, the Florence Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 31 October 1993.", "8. In the meanwhile, the enforcement proceedings were suspended until 31 October 1994.", "9. On 28 June 1995, the applicant served notice on the tenant requiring him to vacate the premises.", "10. On 19 July 1995, he served notice on the tenant informing him that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 18 September 1995.", "11. Between 18 September 1995 and 30 November 1999, the bailiff made thirteen attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicant was not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession.", "12. On 2 May 2000, the applicant recovered possession of the flat." ]

[ 3, 9 ]

[ "4. The applicant was born in 1929 and lives in Rome.", "5. He is the owner of a flat in Rome, which he had let to O.S.", "6. In a writ served on the tenant on 28 October 1992, the applicant informed the tenant of his intention to terminate the lease and summoned her to appear before the Rome Magistrate.", "7. By a decision of 3 March 1993, which was made enforceable on the same day, the Rome Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 3 March 1994.", "8. On 9 April 1994, the applicant served notice on the tenant requiring her to vacate the premises.", "9. On 26 April 1994, he served notice on the tenant informing her that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 24 May 1994.", "10. Between 24 May 1994 and 26 November 1999, the bailiff made nineteen attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicant was not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession.", "11. On 26 November 1999, the applicant recovered possession of the flat." ]

[ 3, 9 ]

[ "4. The applicant was born in 1956 and lives in San Cesareo (Rome).", "5. P.C. was the owner of a flat in Rome, which she had let to A.C.", "6. In a writ served on the tenant on 3 March 1986, the owner informed her of her intention to terminate the lease and summoned her to appear before the Rome Magistrate.", "7. By a decision of 12 June 1986, which was made enforceable on 6 November 1986, the Rome Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 31 December 1988.", "8. On 30 April 1990, a notice was served on the tenant requiring her to vacate the premises.", "9. On 18 May 1990, a notice was served on the tenant informing her that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 11 July 1990.", "10. Between 11 July 1990 and 5 October 1999, the bailiff made thirty attempts to recover possession, but they proved unsuccessful as the owner and then the applicant were not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession.", "11. On 21 June 1991, the applicant became the owner of the flat and pursued the enforcement proceedings", "12. On 13 October 1997, he made a statutory declaration that he urgently required the premises as accommodation for himself.", "13. On 2 May 2000, the applicant recovered possession of the flat." ]

[ 3, 9 ]

[ "4. The applicant was born in 1933 and lives in Bielsko-Biała, Poland.", "5. In 1993 the Szczecin Regional Court annulled the decision given in 1947 by the Szczecin Military Court which had convicted the applicant’s father and had sentenced him to imprisonment and the forfeiture of his property.", "6. On 25 September 1995 the Szczecin Regional Court (Criminal Chamber) awarded the applicant compensation for his father’s imprisonment.", "7. On 20 July 1995 the applicant initiated before the Szczecin Regional Court (Sąd Wojwódzki w Szczecinie) civil proceedings against the State Treasury. He claimed compensation for the forfeited estate and farm machinery.", "8. On 25 September 1995, upon the trial court’s request, the applicant called as defendant the State Treasury represented by the Bydgoszcz Regional Court.", "9. In January 1996 the trial court requested the Criminal Chamber of the same court to provide the applicant’s case-file. It received the file in September 1996.", "10. On 10 February 1999 the trial court held the first hearing at which it heard the applicant. It further decided that three witnesses would be heard by the Myslibórz District Court.", "11. On 23 March and 13 April 1999 the Myslibórz District Court held hearings at which it heard the witnesses.", "12. On 4 August 1999 the applicant applied to the trial court to give a partial judgment relating only to the pecuniary damage sustained by his father in respect of loss of income which, according to him, was fully justified by the provided documents.", "13. On 14 February 2000 the trial court joined as a co-defendant the Minister of Finance. Three months later the trial court joined as another co‑defendant the Minister of the Treasury.", "14. On 6 September 2000 the court held hearing at which it asked for an expert opinion concerning the value of the farm machinery.", "15. On 8 May 2001 the expert opinion was submitted to the trial court.", "16. On 18 May 2001 the court requested another expert opinion concerning the value of the land and buildings.", "17. On 17 October 2001 the trial court held a hearing.", "18. On 29 October 2001 the Szczecin Regional Court gave a partial judgment. It awarded the applicant PLN 21,105 as compensation for the confiscated machinery. The remaining part of the action was to be examined at the later date. The Minister of the Treasury appealed against this judgment.", "19. On 21 May 2002 the Poznań Court of Appeal dismissed the Minister’s appeal against the Szczecin Regional Court’s partial judgment. The Minister of the Treasury lodged a cassation appeal with the Supreme Court. This part of the proceedings is pending before the Supreme Court.", "20. The proceedings relating to the part of the applicant’s action which was not examined by the Szczecin Regional Court in its partial judgment, are still pending before the trial court." ]

[ 3 ]

[ "6. The applicant was born in 1926 and lives in Poznań.", "7. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.", "8. On 10 September 1985 the applicant lodged a compensation claim with the Poznań Regional Court, claiming PLZ (old Polish zlotys) 1,530,000 from the military hunting association “P.” for unpaid salary. Later on, he extended his claim to PLZ 4,138,729.", "9. The court held a hearing on 2 December 1985.", "10. By a decision of 16 January 1986, the court stayed the proceedings at the applicant’s request, having regard to the fact that criminal proceedings had been instituted against him. The civil proceedings were resumed on an unspecified date in 1987.", "11. The court held hearings on 9 September 1987, 3 December 1987, 7 January 1988 and 21 January 1988.", "12. On an unspecified date in 1991 the court ordered an expert opinion.", "13. Another expert opinion was ordered by virtue of a decision of 14 January 1995.", "14. In a letter of 8 December 1997 the applicant requested the court to adjourn the hearing scheduled on 16 December 1997 due to his bad health.", "15. In 1997 the applicant requested the court to order a further expert opinion and he paid an advance fee for it in January 1998. Apparently, the court failed to order the relevant opinion.", "16. By a decision of 9 March 1998 the court stayed the proceedings as the applicant was ill. The proceedings were resumed on an unspecified date in 2001.", "17. The court held hearings on 24 April and 23 August 2001.", "18. By virtue of a court settlement concluded on an unspecified date, on 14 December 2001 the applicant received a partial compensation from the military hunting association.", "19. By a decision of 18 December 2001 the Poznań Regional Court terminated the proceedings as the applicant had withdrawn his claim." ]

[ 6, 2 ]

[ "8. The applicant is a bank, a joint stock company with its registered office in Prague.", "9. On 27 September 1993 the Czech National Bank (Česká národní banka) (“the CNB”), pursuant to section 26(1)(a) of the Banks Act (no. 21/1992) (zákon o bankách) (“the Act”), placed the applicant bank in compulsory administration with effect from 30 September 1993 to 31 March 1994, on the grounds that the financial situation and liquidity of the applicant bank had repeatedly been unsatisfactory and that the previous measures had not remedied the situation. A compulsory administrator (nucený správce) was appointed to replace the applicant bank's statutory body. The decision (rozhodnutí) contained a notice to the effect that the provisions of administrative procedure did not apply to it and that no appeal lay against it.", "10. On 29 September 1993 the compulsory administration decision was published in the Commercial Bulletin (obchodní vĕstník).", "11. In a ruling (usnesení) of 30 September 1993 the Prague 1 District Court (obvodní soud) (“the District Court”), upon the CNB's proposal, decided to allow an entry concerning the compulsory administration and the appointment of the compulsory administrator to be made in the Companies Register (obchodní rejstřík). The ruling fixed the date of 30 September 1993 as the date of the entry in the Companies Register and stated that the compulsory administrator represented the applicant bank. The ruling was not served on the applicant bank. On the same date, the compulsory administrator and a representative of the CNB came to the bank and informed all employees that the applicant bank had been placed in compulsory administration. The representative of the CNB served the CNB's decision of 27 September 1993 on Mr Moravec, the chairman of the bank's Board of Directors and its majority shareholder. On 4 October 1993 the District Court confirmed its ruling of 30 September 1993 by issuing a certificate of legal validity (právní moc).", "12. On 18 March 1994 the CNB extended the compulsory administration until 30 June 1994.", "13. On 22 March 1994 the applicant bank's legal representative, Mr Choděra, sent his power of attorney to the District Court, and requested that the proposal for an entry concerning the compulsory administration and the District Court's decision delivered in this regard be sent to his office. He noted that under Article 200(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure, the applicant bank was a party to the proceedings.", "14. On 30 March 1994 notice of the extension was published in the Commercial Bulletin. In a ruling of 30 March 1994 the District Court, upon a proposal of the CNB, approved an entry concerning the extension in the Companies Register. The court did not hold a public hearing. On the same day it confirmed the ruling by a certificate of legal validity. The ruling was not served on the applicant bank.", "15. On 1 and 6 April 1994 respectively, the applicant bank, represented by the chairman of its Board of Directors and Mr Choděra, its legal representative, having become aware of the existence of the rulings of 30 September 1993 and 30 March 1994, appealed against them to the Prague Municipal Court (městský soud) (“the Municipal Court”). It claimed that it should have been treated as a party to the proceedings in which the court had approved the entries concerning the compulsory administration and its extension in the Companies Register, and contended that the rulings had not been served on it. The applicant bank also claimed that the CNB's decision of 27 September 1993 had not been sufficiently reasoned and that it was therefore not able to say whether the compulsory administration had been imposed in accordance with the law or not, and that the decision contained an incorrect notice to the effect that no appeal lay against it. It added that when the rulings of the District Court were served on it, it would make more complete submissions.", "16. In a ruling of 17 May 1994, rejecting the appeals against the rulings of 30 September 1993 and 30 March 1994 without holding a public hearing, the Municipal Court stated, inter alia:\n“... the decisions of the [CNB] concerning the imposition of compulsory administration and its extension were fully within its competence under section 25 of [the Act]. ... In the light of the decision of 27 September 1993, compulsory administration was imposed because of the repeatedly unsatisfactory financial situation ... of the bank. Section 26(4) of [the Act] expressly states that administrative law applies to the procedure concerning the imposition of penalties ... Administrative law does not, therefore, apply to other decisions taken under section 26 of this Act ... It is true that the court of first instance acted incorrectly when it did not notify both rulings to the appellant. However, it is apparent from the appeals which the appellate court considered to have been lodged in time that [the appellant] has become familiar with both of them ... [Moreover], the entries in the Companies Register were made [by the court of first instance] in accordance with section 29 [of the Act].”", "17. On 21 June 1994 the applicant bank, represented by the chairman of its Board of Directors and Mr Choděra, filed an appeal on points of law (dovolání) with the Prague High Court (Vrchní soud) against the Municipal Court's ruling of 17 May 1994, pursuant to Articles 237(f) and 241 § 2(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure.", "18. On 22 June 1994 the bank lodged a constitutional appeal (ústavní stížnost) with the Constitutional Court (Ústavní soud) against the District Court's rulings of 30 September 1993 and 30 March 1994 and the Municipal Court's ruling of 17 May 1994, with a proposal to repeal sections 26(4) and 41(2) of the Act.", "19. On 23 June 1994 the CNB extended the compulsory administration until 31 December 1994. On 29 June 1994 notice of the extension was published in the Commercial Bulletin. In a ruling of 30 June 1994 the District Court, upon a proposal by the CNB, approved an entry concerning the extension in the Companies Register. The court did not hold a public hearing. On the same day, it approved the ruling by issuing a certificate of legal validity. The ruling was sent to the office of Mr Choděra. On 21 July and 15 August 1994 the applicant bank, represented by Mr Choděra, appealed against the ruling to the Municipal Court.", "20. In the meantime, on 29 June 1994, the Constitutional Court had declared the applicant bank's constitutional appeal inadmissible, finding, inter alia, that the ruling of 17 May 1994 had not been served on the parties to the proceedings and, therefore, had not become final.", "21. On 29 July 1994 Act No. 156/1994, which amended the Act as regards, inter alia, the procedure on compulsory administration, came into force. Section IV provided that the Act was applicable in all cases where compulsory administration had been imposed before that date.", "22. On 30 August 1994 the ruling of the Municipal Court of 17 May 1994 was served on the applicant bank and thereby became final.", "23. On 31 August 1994 the applicant bank, represented by the chairman of its Board of Directors and Mr Choděra, renewed its appeal on points of law against the Municipal Court's ruling of 17 May 1994. The appeal contained the same arguments as in the previous appeal, which appeal had, however, been lodged before the notification of the ruling.", "24. On the same day the applicant bank, represented by the chairman of its Board of Directors and Mr Choděra, lodged a second constitutional appeal against the Municipal Court's ruling of 17 May 1994. It pointed out that the ruling had become final by its notification and that, therefore, an appeal lay against it to the Constitutional Court. It submitted that it should have been a party to the proceedings on entries in the Companies Register and that all decisions relating to these proceedings should have been served on it. It further challenged an allegedly wrong interpretation of section 26(4) of the Act by the Municipal Court and suggested that this provision, together with section 41(2) of the Act, should be repealed.", "25. On 13 October 1994 the Municipal Court dismissed the applicant bank's appeal against the District Court's ruling of 30 June 1994 as being lodged by an unauthorised person. The court found that the applicant bank's statutory body had, pursuant to section 29(2) of the Act as amended, been replaced by the compulsory administrator, who alone could represent the bank or authorise a legal representative, but who had not granted such authorisation to Mr Choděra.", "26. On 1 December 1994 the CNB decided that the compulsory administration would not finish on 31 December 1994, but would be terminated for one of the reasons indicated in section 33 of the Act as amended. On 7 December 1994 that decision was entered in the Companies Register.", "27. In the meantime, on 6 December 1994, the applicant bank, represented by the chairman of its Board of Directors and by Mr Choděra, had lodged a third constitutional appeal, this time against the Municipal Court's ruling of 13 October 1994. It complained, in particular, that the Municipal Court had violated the applicant bank's right to be protected by a court considering that its appeal had been lodged by an unauthorised person. It further suggested that section IV(3) of Act No. 156/1994 should be repealed.", "28. On 13 December 1994 the Constitutional Court declared inadmissible the applicant bank's second constitutional appeal against the Municipal Court's ruling of 17 May 1994, holding in particular that when the constitutional appeal had been lodged, the Municipal Court had been dealing with the applicant bank's appeal and the appeal on points of law filed in the meantime had still been pending. Accordingly, no final decision had been given at that stage.", "29. On 31 January 1995 the Constitutional Court dismissed the applicant bank's third constitutional appeal as being unsubstantiated and as being lodged by an unauthorised person. The court stated, in particular:\n“... the Prague Municipal Court founded its decision expressly on section 29(2) of [the Act] ... according to which a compulsory administrator replaces the statutory body of a bank during compulsory administration. ... [The applicant bank's legal representative] was not authorised by the compulsory administrator of the bank to make an appeal or lodge a constitutional appeal.\n... The Constitutional Court found from the case file of the Prague 1 District Court that the decision imposing compulsory administration ... was ordered by the [CNB] on 27 September 1993 ... The compulsory administration became effective, in accordance with section 29(1) of [the Act], by its registration in the Companies Register, pursuant to the Prague 1 District Court's ruling of 30 September 1993 which became final on 4 October 1993. ...\nMoreover, according to [the Act], administrative law was not applicable to proceedings concerning compulsory administration, with the exception of cases explicitly referred to in this Act (sections 26(4) and 41). Administrative law became applicable only after the entry into force of Act No. 156/1994 (section 26(4)). To that end, an administrative complaint could be lodged against a decision given by the [CNB] (section 26(8)). An administrative complaint could also be made under section 41(1) of [the Act]. However, only by section 26(7) of the [Act] as amended did the [CNB] become obliged to notify its decision on compulsory administration to [the bank]. In addition the administrative complaint does not have suspensive effect (section 8) ...”", "30. On 15 June 1995, pursuant to section 33(1) of the Act as amended, the CNB withdrew the applicant bank's banking licence (povolení působit jako banka) and on 15 August 1995, on an appeal of the applicant bank, it confirmed that decision.", "31. On 2 October 1995 the Commercial Court instituted bankruptcy proceedings against the applicant bank.", "32. On 6 January 1997 the District Court stayed the proceedings instituted on 6 October 1995 by the applicant bank, represented by Mr Choděra, against the CNB and the compulsory administrator, requesting the latter to fulfil his obligation (o splnění povinnosti nuceného správce). It stated that the applicant bank had not submitted a power of attorney.", "33. On 7 January 1997 the Commercial Court, to which the appeal on points of law against the Municipal Court's ruling of 17 May 1994 had been referred, stayed the proceedings on the ground that Mr Moravec had not paid the court fees despite having been ordered to do so by the court's ruling of 22 May 1995, which was modified on 10 July 1996 and served on him on 12 August 1996.", "34. On 2 April 1998 the Municipal Court quashed the District Court's ruling of 6 January 1997, stating, inter alia:\n“There is no doubt that the claim was made on 6 October 1995 and that a power of attorney issued by the applicant bank's statutory body was attached to it. There is also no doubt that on 2 October 1995 bankruptcy proceedings were instituted against the bank ... (By that date) the company that had been declared bankrupt had not lost its capacity to act in legal proceedings but only the right to dispose of property forming part of the estate of the company. By section 14(1)(h) of Bankruptcy and Equalisation Act No. 328/1991 [(zákon o konkurzu a vyrovnání)], powers of attorney relating to the property forming part of the estate of a company declared bankrupt lose their validity. However, that was not so in the present case ...”.", "35. On 30 November 2000 the Supreme Court declared inadmissible the applicant bank's appeal on points of law against the Municipal Court's ruling of 17 May 1994. It held that pursuant to Article 237(f) of the Code of Civil Procedure, an appeal on points of law was admissible if a party to the proceedings could not act as a result of a procedural step taken by the court. According to the law then in force, compulsory administration became effective on the date on which the relevant entry was made in the Companies Register; the applicant bank's own statutory body was therefore empowered to act on its behalf until that date and to appeal against the ruling of the District Court on the registration of the compulsory administration in the Companies Register. The District Court had then to notify its ruling to the applicant bank. However, in the present case the applicant bank had validly appealed against the ruling concerned to the Municipal Court, which had considered it on the merits. Seeing that the ruling was not reasoned, notification of it could not improve the procedural position of the applicant bank. The Supreme Court added that the fact that the applicant bank had not received the text of the CNB's proposal for the entry concerning the compulsory administration in the Companies Register did not remove the applicant bank's right to act in proceedings before the court as provided for in Article 237(f) of the Code of Civil Procedure.\nIn so far as the appeal on points of law concerned the entry of the first extension of the compulsory administration in the Companies Register, the Supreme Court pointed out that section 29 of the Act as in force at the time when compulsory administration had been imposed provided that compulsory administration became effective on the date on which the relevant entry was made in the Companies Register, the functions of the statutory body of the bank being suspended by the appointment of a compulsory administrator until the compulsory administration ended. In the present case, on 30 September 1993 the statutory body of the applicant bank had been replaced by the compulsory administrator, who alone was entitled to appeal in the proceedings concerning the proposal for an entry concerning the extension of compulsory administration to be made in the Companies Register. However, the appeal against the District Court's ruling of 30 March 1994 had been lodged by Mr Choděra who had acted on the basis of a power of attorney issued by Mr Moravec, chairman of the applicant bank's Board of Directors, on 9 February 1994.", "36. On 30 November 2000 the Supreme Court likewise declared inadmissible the applicant bank's appeal on points of law against the Municipal Court's ruling of 13 October 1994. It stated, inter alia, that Article 237(b) of the Code of Civil Procedure provided that an appeal on points of law was admissible if the person who acted as a party to the proceedings lacked the capacity to be the party to those proceedings. The applicant bank claimed that the compulsory administrator had not had the capacity to be the party to the proceedings. The Supreme Court stated that in the present case the applicant bank had the capacity to be a party to the proceedings; another question was who could act on its behalf before the court.\nThe Supreme Court then examined the conditions of admissibility of the applicant bank's appeal on points of law under Article 237(f) of the Code of Civil Procedure. It stated that according to the law then in force, compulsory administration became effective on the date on which the relevant entry was made in the Companies Register; on that date the statutory body of the bank was replaced by the compulsory administrator. Article 200(b) § 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure provided that the court decided on the contents of the entry in the Companies Register without holding a hearing. It specified the date of the entry in its decision. The entry had to be effected within one month after the decision had been taken. The Supreme Court underlined that the date of the entry in the Companies Register was not to be confused with the date on which the decision authorising the entry was delivered, with the date of its notification, or with the date on which the court approved the decision by issuing the certificate of legal validity. The court concluded that the compulsory administrator alone was entitled to appeal in the proceedings concerning the proposal to make an entry in the Companies Register of the second extension of the period of compulsory administration. However, the appeal against the District Court's ruling of 30 June 1994 had been lodged by Mr Choděra who had acted on the basis of a power of attorney issued by Mr Moravec, chairman of the applicant bank's Board of Directors, on 9 February 1994. Consequently, the applicant bank had not had the right to have its appeal examined on the merits by the appellate court.", "37. On 19 March 2001 the applicant bank, represented by Mr Choděra, lodged a fourth constitutional appeal, this time against two decisions of the Supreme Court, alleging a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention." ]

[ 3 ]

[ "9. Mrs Lászlóné Nyírő (“the first applicant”) was born in 1947 and lives in Budapest. Mrs Lajosné Takács (“the second applicant”) was born in 1944 and lives in Budaörs, Hungary.", "10. In the late 1980s the applicants, employed by a State-owned Hungarian company, were working in Tengiz, at a mineral, oil and gas mining construction site in Kazakhstan (former USSR).", "11. On account of various obscure illnesses, the applicants were forced to retire prematurely. The applicants pointed out in their observations that they became disability pensioners after their return to Hungary.", "12. On 16 December 1991 the first applicant brought an action before the Budapest Labour Court. She claimed that her illnesses had been caused by the hazardous working environment in Tengiz and that her former employer should be ordered to pay her compensation.", "13. The first hearing in the case took place on 11 March 1993. On that occasion, two witnesses were heard and a medical expert was appointed. On 17 June 1993 another hearing was held and a chemistry institute was designated to provide an expert opinion.", "14. Following the first applicant’s complaint to the Ministry of Justice about the slowness of the procedure, on 15 May 1995 another bench was assigned to deal with the case.", "15. Another hearing took place on 30 August 1995. An expert witness failed to appear at the hearing. According to the Government’s observations, the defendant was ordered to file with the court the expert opinions which had been previously drawn up in connection with the construction work in Tengiz. The court decided that further experts should be appointed, if necessary, in the light of the documents to be submitted by the defendant company.", "16. On 26 March 1996 the judge in charge of the case specified the questions to be put to the chemistry institute. On 2 October 1996 the institute declined to give answers to the questions put by the court as it had no experts available who could address such complex matters.", "17. On 21 January 1997 the Budapest Technical University, which was subsequently appointed as the expert institution, also declined to carry out the examination as it lacked the competence to deal with air-pollution matters.", "18. At the request of the first applicant’s lawyer, her proceedings were joined to those of the second applicant on 10 June 1997.", "19. On 22 July 1991 the second applicant brought an action before the Budapest Labour Court against her former employer for compensation for damage caused by work-related illnesses. The first hearing was held on 19 March 1992. However, the second applicant failed to appear.", "20. The next hearing was held on 9 July 1993. However, the second applicant did not attend the hearing. The court ordered the defendant company to submit various expert opinions as well as the results of medical examinations carried out on other persons employed at Tengiz.", "21. At a hearing on 17 January 1995 the second applicant was heard and her doctor was invited to submit the second applicant’s medical files.", "22. On 26 April 1996 the court appointed a medical expert. On 26 September 1996 the medical expert submitted his opinion. He relied on the previously submitted medical files, as the second applicant refused to undergo further medical examinations.", "23. At a hearing on 26 November 1996, the court appointed a legal aid lawyer at the second applicant’s request and the medical expert’s opinion was discussed.", "24. Further hearings were held on 28 January, 11 March and 15 April 1997. On these occasions, several witnesses failed to appear, but four witnesses, including experts in the area of chemistry and labour protection, were heard. Numerous related documents were examined and further clarifications were sought from an ophthalmologist.", "25. At the hearing on 10 June 1997 the Labour Court heard a third plaintiff in the case. Moreover, a report from 1991 on an on-site inspection at Tengiz presented by the National Labour Institute was discussed by the parties. The court confirmed that an expert in the fields of geology and oil had still to be designated.", "26. At a hearing on 9 September 1997, five witnesses, including four experts, were heard.", "27. In 1998 yet another judge was assigned to deal with the case. At the hearing on 30 September 1998 an expert in the field of toxicology was heard.", "28. Subsequently, the first applicant extended her action against the Hungarian State, as was permitted under section 146 § 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. On 16 November 1998 the State was ordered by the court to join the proceedings as the second defendant.", "29. At a hearing on 18 January 1999, at which five witnesses failed to appear, the Labour Court appointed several institutions to act as experts as well as a medical expert to examine the first applicant.", "30. On 28 January 1999 the second applicant also extended her action against the Hungarian State. On 2 February 1999 she modified her claims.", "31. At a hearing on 3 March 1999, the judge in charge of the case issued an order urging the appointed expert institutions to submit their opinions. She repeatedly ordered that the first applicant be examined by a medical expert and that writs be served on witnesses.", "32. At a hearing on 28 April 1999 two witnesses were not present and three others were heard. On 14 December 1999 a medical expert opinion on the first applicant’s condition was filed.", "33. On 18 and 21 January 2000 the applicants made their final submissions to the Labour Court.", "34. On 21 February 2000 the Labour Court delivered its judgment in which it found the Hungarian State liable to the applicants. In so far as the applicants’ claims had been directed against their former employer, the Labour Court discontinued the proceedings.", "35. The Labour Court awarded the first applicant 1,905,000 Hungarian forints (HUF), plus accrued interest, by way of compensation for pecuniary damage, HUF 1 million for non-pecuniary damage and HUF 154,250 for legal costs. It awarded the second applicant HUF 1,710,000, plus accrued interest, for pecuniary damage, HUF 1 million for non-pecuniary damage and HUF 144,500 for legal costs. Both applicants were awarded pro futuro a monthly allowance of HUF 15,000. The remainder of their claims was dismissed.", "36. The judgment was corrected and supplemented on 6 May 2000. In June 2000 the applicants and the Hungarian State appealed.", "37. On 22 September 2000 the Budapest Regional Court held a hearing and appointed the Forensic Committee of the Scientific Health Council to review the previous medical opinions. A hearing scheduled for 17 January 2001 was postponed twice.", "38. Meanwhile, the applicants were examined by the Scientific Health Council on 13 December 2000 and its review of the various opinions was submitted on 19 March 2001.", "39. In a judgment delivered on 11 May 2001, the Regional Court, as regards the Hungarian State, quashed the first instance decision and discontinued the proceedings. The court also quashed the first instance judgment in the part concerning the first defendant and, in this respect, dismissed the applicants’ action.", "40. On 28 February 2002, on the parties’ petition for review, the Supreme Court quashed, in regard to the applicants, the first and second instance decisions and remitted them to the first instance court. It held that the second instance decision relied on contradictory expert opinions, that a more thorough taking of evidence was required and that the responsibility of the Hungarian State in the matter was unclear.", "41. In the resumed proceedings, a hearing took place on 30 September 2002. A further hearing was scheduled for 30 November 2002. The proceedings are pending at first instance." ]

[ 3 ]

[ "7. The applicant was born in 1948 and lives in Orsk.", "8. In 1981 criminal charges were brought against the applicant for dissemination of anti-Soviet propaganda. On 30 July 1981 the police searched his home and confiscated certain items – a radio, audio records, books, newspaper clippings and manuscripts – which he had allegedly used in his unlawful activity.", "9. On 7 April 1982 the Orenburg Regional Court held that the applicant was not guilty on the ground of insanity and ordered him to be placed in a mental asylum.", "10. On 23 April 1986 the Oktyabrskiy District Court of Orsk found that the applicant's mental health had improved and that he could be released.", "11. On 15 September 1992 the Orenburg Regional Public Prosecutor's Office issued a statement to acknowledge that the applicant had been unlawfully persecuted by the State. The applicant was reinstated in his rights.", "12. In the course of 1995 to 1997 the applicant made several unsuccessful attempts to recover the property that had been confiscated in 1981. His requests to prosecutors' offices and the organisations then in possession of the property were rejected.", "13. On 28 June 1996 the applicant brought a claim for repossession against the Orenburg Regional Public Prosecutor's Office and the Orsk City Committee of the Voluntary Society for Assistance to the Army, Air Force and Navy. He also brought a claim for damages against the Orsk City Council.", "14. On 22 July 1998 the Leninskiy District Court of Orsk granted the applicant's claims in part and ordered the Federal Treasury Department to pay the applicant 2,570.92 Russian roubles (RUR) compensation and RUR 200 by way of legal costs. On appeal, the judgment was upheld by the Civil Chamber of the Orenburg Regional Court on 8 December 1998.", "15. On 5 February 1999 the applicant submitted a writ of execution in respect of the judgment of 22 July 1998 to the registry of the Oktyabrskiy District Court.", "16. He was not notified in time whether enforcement proceedings had been opened, or what action had been taken to execute the judgment. For this reason, he issued proceedings against the bailiff in charge of the execution. On 14 May 1999 the Oktyabrskiy Court found in the applicant's favour, holding that the bailiff had acted unlawfully. The applicant was also informed that responsibility for enforcement of the judgment had been passed to a different bailiff's service – the Leninskoye Bailiff's Service of Orenburg.", "17. On 25 May 1999 the Leninskiy Court issued clarification on how its judgment of 22 July 1998 was to be enforced. It confirmed that, even though the Ministry of Finance was the defendant in the case, the compensation should be recovered from the Treasury Department – the authority liable for debts of the Ministry. The applicant appealed, insisting that the debtor's bank account details should be included in the operative part of the judgment to make the enforcement easier. The appeal was dismissed on 8 July 1999.", "18. As no progress was made in the enforcement proceedings, on an unspecified date the applicant issued fresh professional negligence proceedings against the bailiff. On 28 July 1999 the Leninskiy District Court of Orenburg examined the complaint and dismissed it. It found that the bailiff had lawfully stayed the enforcement proceedings because an acting Public Prosecutor of the Orenburg Region had initiated supervisory-review of the judgment of 22 July 1998. The court stated that under national law, enforcement could be stayed pending supervisory review. The applicant's appeal was dismissed on 23 September 1999 by the Regional Court.", "19. On 3 February 2000 the bailiff attempted to attach the accounts of the Federal Treasury Department. The Department challenged the bailiff's actions in court. The complaint was granted by the Central District Court of Orenburg on 23 March 2000. The court concluded that the seizure of the Department's assets had been unlawful because, according to the clarifications provided on 25 May 1999 concerning the enforcement, the debt should have been recovered from the Treasury of the Russian Federation. The applicant had not been aware of these proceedings, and was not summoned to the hearing. He successfully raised this point on appeal to the Orenburg Court. The decision of 23 March was quashed and a fresh examination of the case was ordered.", "20. On 9 February 2000 the Leninskiy Court refused the applicant's application to have the judgment enforced in a different way. His appeal against that decision was dismissed on 21 March 2000.", "21. On 10 and 21 February 2000 the bailiff stayed the enforcement proceedings because the Treasury Department had requested supervisory-review of the judgment of 22 July 1998.", "22. In March 2000 the applicant learned that the President of the Regional Court had stayed the execution because the supervisory-review of the judgment of 22 July 1998 had been in progress. The applicant lodged a complaint against the President, which was dismissed on 12 April 2000 by the Sovetskiy District Court of Orsk as not amenable to judicial review. The applicant was later informed that the stay of execution had been lifted.", "23. On 27 September 2000 the Senior Bailiff of the Leninskoye Bailiff's Service decided that the execution should be stopped as the writ of execution did not unequivocally identify the debtor. The applicant successfully appealed against this decision: on 16 November 2000 the Central District Court of Orenburg held that the Senior Bailiff had exceeded her authority when she closed the enforcement proceedings.", "24. On 30 November 2000 the bailiff responsible for the applicant's file revoked her decision of 9 April 1999 commencing the enforcement since the writ of execution did not clearly identify the debtor and its address. The applicant successfully complained to the Central Court about this decision: on 1 March 2001 the court ordered the bailiff to proceed with the execution of the judgment.", "25. On 14 December 2000 the same court ruled that the stay of execution pending the supervisory review was unlawful and ordered the bailiff to continue the execution.", "26. On 21 March 2001 the bailiff applied to the Leninskiy District Court for clarification as to how the judgment should be enforced, what legislation should be applied and which accounts of which branch of the Treasury Department should be charged. The court did not satisfy the bailiff's request as the writ of execution was sufficiently clear, and the court had no competence to advise the bailiff on possible modes of enforcement.", "27. On 4 April 2001 the acting Public Prosecutor of the Orenburg Region lodged an application for supervisory review of the judgment of 22 July 1998 on the ground that the compensation should have been awarded against the Regional Authority and not against the Treasury Department. On 16 April 2001 the Presidium of the Orenburg Regional Court granted the prosecutor's application and quashed the judgments of 22 July 1998 and 8 December 1998. The case was remitted for a new examination.", "28. On 15 May 2001 the Central District Court of Orenburg refused the Treasury Department's application to lift the attachment of its accounts. Instead, the court ordered that the execution should cease since the judgment debt had been quashed on 16 April 2001.", "29. On 29 June 2001 the Lenisnkiy District Court gave a new judgment in the case. The applicant was awarded RUR 2,869.50 in compensation for the property and RUR 1,000 in legal costs. The compensation was to be paid by the financial department of the Orsk City Council. The claims for repossession and non-pecuniary damages were dismissed. The applicant's appeal against the judgment was disallowed by the Orenburg Regional Court on 14 August 2001.", "30. On 18 December 2001 the bailiff closed the enforcement proceedings because the award had been credited to the applicant's bank account on 30 November 2001. The applicant challenged this decision in court claiming that he had not received the money. On 15 February 2002 the Leninskiy District Court established that there was insufficient evidence that the award had indeed been paid to the applicant and annulled the bailiff's decision to close the enforcement.", "31. By letter of 31 October 2002 the Government informed the Court that the award of 29 June 2001 had been paid to the applicant on 30 November 2001.", "32. By letter of 18 October 2002 the applicant informed the Court that he had not received the money awarded." ]

[ 3, 9 ]

[ "10. The applicant was born in 1946 and lives in Vratsa.", "11. On 22 June 1994 criminal proceedings were opened against him for having threatened another person with murder.\nA witness was questioned on 9 August 1994. Two other witnesses were questioned on 15 May and 25 June 1996.", "12. The applicant was questioned as a witness on 23 August 1996. According to his submissions, it was only then that he became aware of the proceedings. On the same date the investigator in charge of the case commissioned a graphological expert to determine whether a threat note left in the victim's postal box had been written by the applicant. The expert's report was ready on 25 September 1996.", "13. On 7 October 1996 the applicant was charged. He contested the authenticity of the threat note. On 21 October 1996 the investigator rejected this objection and on 22 October 1996 recommended that the applicant be committed for trial.", "14. On 5 December 1996 the prosecution submitted to the Vratsa District Court an indictment against the applicant. On 15 January 1997 the judge to whom the case was assigned set it down for hearing.", "15. On 1 April 1997 the applicant, who was involved in numerous proceedings together with his wife, requested the judge's withdrawal, because his wife had commenced a civil action against the judge for having insulted her in public. On 7 April 1997 the applicant's request was granted and the case was assigned to a new judge.", "16. On 8 April 1997 the applicant requested that his case be examined by another court, arguing that all judges in the Vratsa District Court were “biased”. As a result of his request, on 14 May 1997 the case was transferred to the Biala Slatina District Court.", "17. On 13 October 1997 the Biala Slatina District Court fixed a hearing for 13 March 1998.", "18. On 20 January 1998 the applicant asked the court to reschedule the hearing, because on 13 March 1998 he had to attend a hearing in another case in a different town. The court rescheduled the hearing for 25 September 1998.", "19. The hearing took place on 25 September 1998. The prosecutor asked the court to remit the case to the phase of the preliminary investigation, stating that the available evidence was not sufficient to sustain a finding of guilt and that certain witnesses had not been questioned. The court acceded to the request over the applicant's objection. The court's decision stated that it was subject to appeal before the Vratsa Regional Court.", "20. On 5 October 1998 the applicant filed an interlocutory appeal against the remitting of the case. On 21 October 1998 he amended his appeal. On 5 November 1998 the Vratsa Regional Court declared the appeal inadmissible, holding that the lower court's decision to remit the case was not subject to appeal as it did not put an end to the criminal proceedings. On 9 November 1998 the applicant appealed against this decision to the Supreme Court of Cassation. On 12 January 1999 the Supreme Court of Cassation rejected the appeal.", "21. The case file was then returned to the prosecution, which forwarded it to the investigation authorities on 22 March 1999 with instructions to question several witnesses. On 6 April 1999 the case was assigned to an assistant investigator.", "22. On 30 July 2001 the applicant was charged anew.", "23. On 5 September 2001 the investigator, having completed his work on the case, transmitted the file to the Vratsa District Prosecutor's Office.", "24. On 11 October 2001 the Vratsa District Prosecutor's Office decided to discontinue the proceedings, finding that the relevant limitation period had expired in July 2001. On appeal by the applicant its decision was upheld by the Vratsa District Court on 3 December 2001, by the Vratsa Regional Court on 11 February 2002, and by the Supreme Court of Cassation on 11 July 2002." ]

[ 3 ]

[ "5. The applicants were born in 1932 and 1934, respectively, and live in Schalchen, Austria.", "6. The applicants run a fishing farm in Schalchen since 1976. Before that date the parents of the first applicant had run the fishing farm.", "7. Between 1956 and 1969 the Braunau River Engineering Directorate (Flussbauleitung) carried out regulation works on a small river in the vicinity of the applicants' estate without permission under the Water Act (Wasserrechtsgesetz 1959).", "8. In October 1969 the former owners of the estate requested the Braunau District Authority (Bezirkshauptmannschaft) to order the Municipalities of Mattighofen and Schalchen (“the Municipalities”) to re-establish the former state of the river bed maintaining that the regulation works had damaged the well which supplied their fishing farm with water. They submitted that the original capacity of the well had been 800 litres of water per second. After the regulation of the river the capacity of the well had been reduced to 100 litres of water per second. This constituted an interference with their water-rights. In case that the regulation could not be reversed they requested that the Municipalities be ordered to take other steps to ensure the water supply of the fishing farm.", "9. On 14 January 1970 the District Authority dismissed this request.", "10. On 20 May 1970 the Upper Austria Regional Governor allowed the appeal and remitted the case to the District Authority to decide on the request.", "11. On 13 January 1971 the applicants' predecessors filed a request for transfer of jurisdiction (Devolutionsantrag) as the District Authority failed to decide within the statutory six months time-limit. On 11 February 1971 the Regional Governor dismissed this request.", "12. On 3 September 1971 they filed again a request for transfer of jurisdiction and the Regional Governor again dismissed this request. The applicants' predecessors filed an appeal against this decision.", "13. On 10 February 1972 the Federal Minister for Agriculture and Forestry (Bundesminister für Land- und Forstwirtschaft) allowed the appeal as a consequence of which the Regional Governor had to take a decision on the merits.", "14. On 8 August 1972 the Regional Governor ordered the Municipalities to ask for an ex post permission of the regulation works which had already been carried out or to re-establish the former state of the river.", "15. On 23 August 1973 the Federal Minister dismissed the Municipalities' appeal.", "16. Subsequently, on 28 November 1973 the Municipalities applied for an ex post permission. On 3 June 1975 the District Authority held a hearing. At this hearing the applicants' predecessors requested that the Municipalities be ordered to pay compensation as they had suffered prejudice caused by the regulation works.", "17. On 3 September 1975 the District Authority granted the ex post permission and ordered the Municipalities to take specific steps to ensure the water supply of the fishing farm before 31 December 1976. The District Authority dismissed the request for compensation.", "18. On 2 December 1975 Regional Governor dismissed the applicants' predecessors' appeal and found that their water rights were not violated by the granted permission.", "19. On 27 January 1976 the Federal Minister rejected the applicants' predecessors' appeal as belated. Subsequently, they lodged a request for leave to appeal out of time (Wiedereinsetzung in den vorigen Stand).", "20. On 2 April 1976 the Federal Minister granted this request and, consequently, had to take a decision on the merits on the appeal against the Regional Governor's decision of 2 December 1975.", "21. On 25 November 1976 the ownership on the fishing farm was transferred to the applicants and thereby, they became parties to the proceedings at issue.", "22. On 5 July 1977 the Federal Minister dismissed the appeal and confirmed the Regional Governor's decision of 2 December 1975.", "23. On 30 November 1979 the Administrative Court, upon a complaint lodged by the applicants, quashed this decision and found that the administrative authorities had not properly decided whether the applicants' water rights had been prejudiced by the regulation works.", "24. Subsequently, on 19 November 1980, the Federal Minister remitted the case to the Regional Governor and on 15 December 1980 the Regional Governor remitted the case to the District Authority.", "25. On 28 May 1982 the District Authority granted once more the ex post permission for the regulation works and dismissed the applicants' request for compensation.", "26. On 28 June 1982 the applicants filed an appeal against this decision. In the years to follow several technical experts were appointed in order to establish whether the regulation works had damaged the well.", "27. On 11 November 1984, as the District Authority had not taken a decision, the Municipalities filed an application for transfer of jurisdiction (Devolutionsantrag) with the Regional Governor. On 21 January 1985, as also the Regional Governor had not taken a decision, the applicants filed an application for a transfer of jurisdiction with the Federal Minister.", "28. On 5 December 1987, as the Federal Minister had not taken a decision, the applicants lodged an application against the administrative authorities' failure to decide (Säumnisbeschwerde) with the Administrative Court.", "29. On 7 January 1988 the Administrative Court ordered the Federal Minister to issue a decision within three months.", "30. On 22 January 1988 the Federal Minister rejected the applicants' application for transfer of jurisdiction. The applicants lodged a complaint with the Administrative Court against this decision.", "31. On 3 October 1991 the Administrative Court quashed this decision as a consequence of which the Federal Minister had to take a decision on the merits.", "32. On 14 October 1996, after having held hearings on 1 and 2 July 1996, the Federal Minister dismissed the applicants appeal. The Minister found that the regulation works had not damaged the applicants' well and dismissed the request for compensation.", "33. The applicants lodged a complaint with the Constitutional Court as well as with the Administrative Court.", "34. On 13 March 1997 the Constitutional Court declined to deal with the applicants' complaint.", "35. On 6 August 1998 the Administrative Court quashed the Federal Minister's decision of 14 October 1996 on the ground that the Federal Minister had failed to take into account the expert reports submitted by the applicants.", "36. Subsequently, the Federal Minister appointed new technical experts and on 16 July 1999 the Federal Minister served a new expert report on the applicants.", "37. On 27 October 1999 the applicants filed their comments on the expert report and challenged the experts appointed by the Federal Minister for bias (Ablehnungsantrag).", "38. On 27 April 2000 the applicants agreed with the Federal Minister on the further conduct of the proceedings. The Federal Minister would furnish a questionnaire to the expert in order that he supplemented his report. Thereafter the applicants would be given the opportunity to comment on the revised report and another hearing would be held.", "39. The proceedings are still pending." ]

[ 3 ]

[ "6. The applicants Talip Kalın, Ali Gezer and Ekrem Ötebay are Turkish citizens who live in Ağrı, Kahramanmaraş and Muş respectively. The first applicant was born in 1967, the second and the third applicants in 1973. They are all represented before the Court by Mr Talat Tepe, a lawyer practising in Istanbul.", "7. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.\nApplication no. 24849/94", "8. On 17 February 1994 the applicant was taken into police custody in Istanbul on suspicion of membership of the PKK. According to the official files the apprehension seems to have occurred on 24 February 1994.", "9. On 28 February 1994 the applicant was interrogated by police officers and made confessions, allegedly under duress.", "10. On 9 March 1994 the applicant, however, denied the allegations against him before the public prosecutor at the Istanbul State Security Court (“the public prosecutor”).", "11. On the same day the applicant was seen by a doctor at the Istanbul Forensic Medicine Institute who did not note any signs of beating or injuries on the applicant's body.", "12. On 11 March 1994 the applicant was put in detention on remand. On 22 March 1994 the applicant was further examined by the prison doctor who noted in his report the presence of some injuries on his body.", "13. On 27 March 1994 the applicant filed a complaint with the office of the Istanbul public prosecutor alleging that he had been subjected to torture while in custody, which lasted twenty-three days.", "14. On 23 June 1994 the public prosecutor filed an indictment with the Istanbul State Security Court requesting the conviction and sentencing of the applicant under Article 125 of the Criminal Code and Article 5 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act.", "15. On 21 December 1995 the Istanbul public prosecutor filed an indictment with the Istanbul Assize Court against the four police officers who allegedly tortured the applicant.", "16. On 27 June 1996 the Istanbul Assize Court held that there was no evidence on which to convict the police officers. \nApplication no. 24850/94", "17. On 9 February 1994 the applicant was taken into police custody in Istanbul on suspicion of membership of the PKK. According to the official files the apprehension seems to have occurred on 28 February 1994.", "18. On 1 March 1994 during interrogation by the police officers the applicant confessed his involvement in certain PKK activities.", "19. On 9 March 1994 the applicant was seen by a doctor at the Istanbul Forensic Medicine Institute who noted the presence of some injuries on the applicant's body, which were not life-threatening but would prevent him from working for two days.", "20. On 9 March 1994 during questioning by the public prosecutor at the Istanbul State Security Court (“the public prosecutor”) the applicant stated that he had signed his statement under duress and denied all the allegations.", "21. On 11 March 1994 the Istanbul State Security Court ordered the applicant's detention on remand.", "22. In an indictment dated 23 June 1994, the public prosecutor requested the conviction and sentencing of the applicant under Article 168 § 2 of the Criminal Code and Article 5 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act.", "23. On 23 March 1994 the applicant was examined by the prison doctor. The doctor noted in his report the presence of fading bruises and injuries on the applicant's body. The applicant later underwent another medical examination where the same fading injuries were noted.", "24. On 11 July 1994 the applicant filed a complaint with the Istanbul public prosecutor alleging that he had been tortured while in custody which had lasted thirty-one days.", "25. On 5 June 1995 the Istanbul public prosecutor filed an indictment with the Istanbul Assize Court against the police officers who allegedly ill‑treated the applicant.", "26. On 23 September 1996 the Istanbul Assize Court rejected the applicant's allegation that he had been tortured due to lack of evidence.", "27. On 5 March 1999 the Istanbul State Security Court acquitted the applicant. \nApplication no. 24941/94", "28. On 20 February 1994 the applicant was taken into police custody on suspicion of membership of the PKK. According to the official documents the applicant appears to have been arrested on 7 March 1994.", "29. On 17 March 1994 during his questioning by the police officers the applicant confessed his involvement with the activities of the PKK, allegedly under duress.", "30. On 18 March 1994 the applicant was seen by a doctor at the Istanbul Forensic Medicine Institute who did not note any signs of beating or use of force on his body.", "31. On 21 March 1994 during his questioning before the Istanbul State Security Court the applicant confessed to the charges against him. On the same day the Istanbul State Security Court judge ordered the applicant's detention on remand.", "32. On 23 June 1994 the public prosecutor filed an indictment with the Istanbul State Security Court requesting the conviction and sentencing of the applicant under Article 168 § 2 of the Criminal Code and Article 5 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act.", "33. On 22 March 1994 the applicant was further examined by the prison doctor who noted in his report the presence of some injuries on the applicant's body.", "34. On 9 May 1994 the applicant underwent another medical examination where the doctor noted the previous medical findings as well as other injuries. The report concluded that these injuries were not life-threatening but would prevent the applicant from working for seven days.", "35. On 11 July 1994 the applicant filed a complaint with the office of the Istanbul public prosecutor complaining that he had been tortured while detained in police custody and that his detention period had lasted too long.", "36. On 28 September 1995 the Istanbul public prosecutor filed an indictment with the Istanbul Assize Court (Istanbul Ağır Ceza Mahkemesi) against the police officers who allegedly ill-treated the applicant.", "37. On 7 December 1995 the Istanbul Assize Court rejected the applicant's allegation that he had been tortured. The court reasoned that there was no evidence to support his allegation.", "38. On 5 March 1999 the Istanbul State Security Court ordered that the applicant's case be severed from the cases brought against the other defendants as he had not submitted his defence to the court." ]

[ 3 ]

[ "8. The applicant was born in 1961 and lives in Yekaterinburg.", "9. On 25 September 1999 the applicant was visiting her acquaintance M.", "10. According to the applicant, she stayed overnight to study the Bible and share her religious opinions. On 26 September 1999, M., offended by the applicant's views, called an ambulance to escort her to a mental hospital. Confused by the arrival of the ambulance, the applicant asked M. for an explanation, but was ordered by the medical staff to follow them.", "11. According to the Government, the acquaintance had met the applicant in the street the day before and, perplexed by her unusual behaviour, took her home to take care of her. The applicant did not sleep all night long, cried, looked around, called for her mother (who lived in Kazakhstan) and hallucinated. The acquaintance therefore had to call an ambulance.", "12. The applicant was taken to the Yekaterinburg City Psychiatric Hospital No. 26. The doctor on duty considered that she was suffering from a grave mental disorder, displaying symptoms of fear, anxiety and disorientation, which rendered the applicant a danger to herself and helpless. The applicant had cried and was uncooperative with the doctor.", "13. On 26 September 1999 the hospital applied to a court for approval of the applicant's confinement.", "14. Two days later, on 28 September 1999, a medical commission diagnosed the applicant as suffering from paranoid schizophrenia and confirmed that she should be kept in hospital. According to the doctors, once in the hospital, the applicant remained suspicious and distrustful. She did not reveal her emotions or explain the behaviour which had led to her hospitalisation. She accused the medical staff of stealing her belongings. The applicant insisted that her detention had been inspired by her acquaintance who was a member of a religious sect and who had intended to lure her into the sect. Having no trust in the doctors, the applicant refused any treatment. She was untidy, wore three jerseys at once and did not undress for bed. The applicant also refused to wash for fear of catching a cold, and wrote complaints which she hid in her underwear. All that time, according to the medical report, she remained emotionally cold and mannered, whilst repeating herself.", "15. On 5 November 1999 the Ordzhonikidzevskiy District Court of Yekaterinburg, after a hearing at the hospital, confirmed that the detention had been necessary as the applicant had suffered from an acute attack of paranoid schizophrenia. In its findings, the court relied on assertions by the hospital that the applicant's aggravated mental condition had put her physical integrity in danger and that she had been delirious. The hospital's representatives also testified that the applicant had been taken to the hospital by the emergency services in a deranged state of mind and that she “had remained awake throughout the night studying the Bible and weeping”. A work colleague of the applicant testified that the applicant “had become uncooperative and filed frequent complaints about her co-workers' alleged prejudices”.", "16. The applicant's representative allegedly did not have any access to the report of the medical commission either before or after the hearing, despite his requests.", "17. On 11 November 1999 the applicant lodged an appeal against the decision of 5 November. The applicant states that she was unable to file detailed points of appeal as, at that time, the final text of the court decision had not been served on her.", "18. On 24 December 1999 the Sverdlovsk Regional Court dismissed the appeal and confirmed that the applicant's detention had been necessary. However, the court established that the applicant no longer needed in-patient treatment as she had a job, was a single mother of a schoolboy and had already spent a considerable time in the hospital." ]

[ 2 ]

[ "9. The applicant is a Netherlands national who was born in 1951 and lives in Oegstgeest. He is a practising lawyer (advocaat en procureur). He was not represented before the Court.", "10. On 26 November 1992 the social security investigating officer (sociaal rechercheur) Mr W. took and recorded a statement from one Mr B., a person of Surinamese origin who was suspected of having unjustly received social security benefits and, in this context, of having committed forgery. Mr B. was alone with Mr W. at the time and did not have the assistance of either a lawyer or an interpreter.", "11. Subsequently, Mr B. was prosecuted for social security fraud. In addition, civil proceedings were instituted against him by the social security authorities for the recovery of the excess benefits paid to him. The applicant acted as Mr B.'s counsel in both sets of proceedings.", "12. In the civil proceedings, the applicant declared, inter alia:\n “The statement recorded in writing by Mr W. cannot have been obtained in any other way than by the application of pressure in an unacceptable manner in order to procure incriminating statements, the significance of which was not or not sufficiently understood by Mr B. given the absence of an interpreter.”\nThis passage appears in pleading notes submitted to the Hague Regional Court (arrondissementsrechtbank) at a hearing held on 27 June 1994.", "13. Having learned of this statement in May 1995, Mr W. filed a disciplinary complaint within the meaning of section 46c of the Legal Profession Act (Advocatenwet) against the applicant to the Dean (deken) of the local Bar Association (Orde van Advocaten). He complained that the applicant's unfounded insinuations had tarnished his professional honour and good reputation, that the applicant had transgressed the limits of decency, and that the applicant had accused him obliquely of having committed perjury in drawing up the record in question.", "14. Following an exchange of correspondence, the Dean forwarded Mr W.'s complaint to the Disciplinary Council (Raad van Discipline) of The Hague.", "15. In its decision of 1 July 1996, following adversarial proceedings, the Disciplinary Council rejected as unfounded the complaint that the applicant had, in veiled terms, accused Mr W. of perjury. It did, however, consider that the applicant, by contending that Mr W. had exerted unacceptable pressure on Mr B., had made an assertion that was not supported by any facts. It concluded that the applicant had thus transgressed the limits of acceptable behaviour and failed to observe the standards expected from a lawyer (“... de grenzen van het toelaatbare overschreden en heeft hij in strijd gehandeld met hetgeen een behoorlijk advocaat betaamt”). Noting the nature and the limited degree of seriousness of the applicant's conduct, the Disciplinary Council considered it sufficient to declare the complaint of Mr W. partially well-founded without imposing any sanction.", "16. The applicant lodged an appeal with the Disciplinary Appeals Tribunal (Hof van Discipline). He submitted that Mr B. had not had the assistance of a lawyer before he signed his written statement, despite having asked for a lawyer to be present, that no interpreter had been present at the interrogation, that Mr B. was a drug addict and that he had told him that pressure had been brought to bear. The applicant also referred to a statement taken by the investigating judge (rechter-commissaris) from Mr B. on 5 December 1994, which reads as follows:\n“In reply to the question why I stated to the police that I had lived together with my ex-wife during the relevant period ... I say that I was pressured during that interrogation.\nThis pressure consisted of kicking against the table and kicking motions in my direction. I was also verbally abused.\nWhen it came to signing the statement, I asked for the chief, but he was said to have already gone home. I then asked for a lawyer because I wanted an interpreter to come and read my statement to me. The police said, however, that no lawyer could come. So in the end I just signed the statement.”", "17. The applicant argued that in defending his client he should have been free to conclude, as he had, that his client's confession could only have resulted from unacceptable pressure being brought to bear by the investigating officer. It would then have been for the court to which this conclusion was presented to decide whether or not it hat been established that such unacceptable pressure was in fact exerted. But it was not for a disciplinary tribunal to find that a statement made at a trial in defence of his client was unacceptable because it had not been sufficiently verified.", "18. In its decision of 26 May 1997, following adversarial proceedings, the Disciplinary Appeals Tribunal dismissed the applicant's appeal and upheld the decision of 1 July 1996 in its entirety.", "19. It noted that, in the civil proceedings involving Mr B., the allegation in issue had been made in the applicant's submissions during the first-instance proceedings as well as in the proceedings on appeal before the Hague Regional Court (in the latter proceedings in the course of a hearing held on 27 June 1994). It did not find it established that, at the material time, the applicant had in fact been informed by Mr B. that he considered that unacceptable pressure had been exerted on him when Mr W. took his statement. It further noted that the applicant's contention had remained wholly unsubstantiated at the material time.", "20. The Disciplinary Appeals Tribunal agreed with the Disciplinary Council that a lawyer was not entitled to express reproaches of the kind in issue without any factual support, which implied that a lawyer, prior to raising such allegations, should seek information from his client as to the circumstances constituting the unacceptable pressure allegedly exerted." ]

[ 6 ]

[ "9. The applicant was born in 1928 and lives in Maaseik (Belgium).", "10. On 15 February 1993 the applicant was arrested and taken into police custody (verzekering) on suspicion of forgery and of being an accessory to bribery of a public official. The public official concerned was a Mr B. The applicant was released from police custody on 19 February 1993. On 7 June 1995 the applicant was informed that the preliminary judicial investigation (gerechtelijk vooronderzoek) into the case had been closed.", "11. By summons of 24 August 1995, the applicant was ordered to appear on 7 September 1995 before the Maastricht Regional Court (arrondissementsrechtbank) on charges of forgery committed together with others between 5 October 1991 and 5 November 1992.", "12. Criminal proceedings had already been brought before the Maastricht Regional Court against Mr B. in relation to the same facts. Although both sets of criminal proceedings concerned the same facts, the criminal proceedings brought against Mr B. and the applicant were conducted separately.", "13. In its judgment of 11 October 1995 in the applicant's case, the Maastricht Regional Court declared the prosecution inadmissible. It held that the judicial authorities had failed to deal with the applicant's case with the required diligence and that therefore the applicant's right to a trial within a reasonable time under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention had been violated. The public prosecutor lodged an appeal with the 's-Hertogenbosch Court of Appeal (gerechtshof), but informed the applicant on 17 August 1996, before the appeal proceedings had commenced, that this appeal had been withdrawn.", "14. On 20 January 1997, in the course of the criminal proceedings on appeal in the case of Mr B., the applicant was heard as a witness before the 's‑Hertogenbosch Court of Appeal. In its judgment of 3 February 1997, the 's‑Hertogenbosch Court of Appeal convicted Mr B. of, inter alia, participating in forgery. It was found established that a receipt dated 9 October 1991 in relation to an alleged payment of NLG 7,414 by Mr B. to the applicant had been fraudulently written out in co-operation with Mr B.", "15. In the meantime, on 18 November 1996, the applicant had lodged a request under Article 591a of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Wetboek van Strafvordering) for the reimbursement of costs and expenses incurred in the course of the criminal proceedings against him. His total claim amounted to NLG 104,708.80. On the same day he had lodged a request under Article 89 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage caused by his having been kept in police custody. This claim amounted to NLG 205,000.", "16. In its decision of 2 April 1997 in respect of the applicant's claim for costs and expenses incurred, the Maastricht Regional Court awarded the applicant an amount of NLG 114.60 for travel expenses and rejected his claims for the remainder. In a separate decision of the same date, the Maastricht Regional Court rejected the applicant's claim for compensation for the time spent in pre-trial detention. The applicant lodged appeals against both decisions with the 's-Hertogenbosch Court of Appeal.", "17. In two separate decisions of 19 March 1998, the Court of Appeal rejected the applicant's appeals against the two decisions of 2 April 1997 in relation to his claim for costs and expenses and his claim for the time spent in pre-trial detention. Its reasoning in both decisions included the following:\n“It appears from the case against the co-accused B., in which the Court of Appeal delivered its final judgment on 3 February 1997 convicting B. of, amongst other things, 'participating in forgery', that the document referred to under a. above is a receipt.\nThe Court of Appeal takes the view that this receipt was forged by the applicant together with B. who was then an alderman of Maastricht. Given the following circumstances: \na. It is stated on this receipt that it was drawn up on 9 October 1991, whereas B. has stated that he was not in the Netherlands on that date and the applicant, heard as a witness at the appeal hearing on 20 January 1997 in the criminal case against B., has stated that the receipt was drawn up and signed after the journey to Egypt, i.e. after 27 or 28 November 1991;\nb. B. initially stated that he had received the sum allegedly paid to him by the applicant from his son, which his son confirmed;\nc. B. stated, after he and his son had withdrawn these statements, that he had received that money from his mother-in-law;\nd. B.'s mother-in-law stated unambiguously on 12 February 1993 that she had never given her son-in-law any money, nor given any into his safe-keeping;\ne. all the expenses for the journey to Egypt billed by the ... travel agency were debited to the account of 'travel, accommodation and representation expenses' of Baars Contractors and Road Builders Ltd. (Aannemings- en wegenbouwmaatschappij Baars B.V.) – that is, as business expenses – and were only debited to the private current account of the applicant, on the applicant's instructions, on 21 January 1992,\nthe Court of Appeal finds in its judgment of 3 February 1997 that B. did not at any time, and in particular, did not on 9 October 1991 pay the sum of NLG 7,414 to the applicant.\nBased on these circumstances, from which it follows that the applicant – if the prosecution department had not forfeited the right to prosecute by exceeding a reasonable time and [the prosecution] had not been declared inadmissible by the Regional Court for that reason – would in all likelihood (met grote mate van waarschijnlijkheid) have been convicted, the Court of Appeal finds no reasons in equity for awarding compensation, and it will therefore dismiss the appeal.”" ]

[ 3 ]

[ "6. The applicant, Krzysztof Pieniążek, is a Polish national, who was born in 1960 and lives in Gdynia, Poland.", "7. On 3 July 1989 the applicant and his wife obtained a divorce decree. On 14 July 1989 the applicant filed with the Ełk District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) a petition for division of the matrimonial property. On 8 September 1989 the case was transferred to the Gdynia District Court.", "8. On 14 April 1992 the court gave a preliminary decision (postanowienie wstępne). Before 1 May 1993 the court held nine hearings and heard evidence from several witnesses. The court also obtained evidence from two experts.", "9. On 14 June and 28 June 1993 the court held hearings. On 5 July 1993 the Gdynia District Court delivered another preliminary decision. It was upheld on 6 October 1993 by the Gdańsk Regional Court.", "10. On 21 July 1993, in reply to the applicant's complaint about the excessive length of the proceedings, the President of the Gdańsk Regional Court (Sąd Wojewódzki), informed him that the delay was caused by the process of obtaining evidence. The trial court held further hearings on 29 April, 20 May, 10 and 28 June 1994.", "11. On 8 July 1994 the court ordered that expert evidence be obtained. Between 6 February and 15 December 1997 the court held eight hearings. In 1998 the trial court held six hearings.", "12. On 12 October 1998 the Gdynia District Court gave a decision. It was served on the applicant on 19 March 1999. The applicant lodged an appeal against that decision on 1 April 1999. On 28 October 1999 the Gdańsk Regional Court granted the applicant a total exemption from the court fees due for lodging an appeal.", "13. On 12 December 2000, 23 February and 29 March 2001 the Regional Court held hearings. On 12 April 2001 the Gdańsk Regional Court delivered a final decision. The applicant's subsequent cassation appeal against that decision was rejected as being inadmissible in law." ]

[]

[ "15. On 2 February 1985 the applicant was arrested and placed in police custody. He was accused of membership of an illegal organisation, the Dev-Yol (Revolutionary Way). On 18 March 1985 the Ankara Martial Law Court (Sıkıyönetim Mahkemesi) ordered the applicant's detention on remand.", "16. On 26 February 1982 the Military Public Prosecutor filed a bill of indictment with the Ankara Martial Law Court setting out charges against seven hundred and twenty-three defendants, including the applicant. The military prosecutor accused the applicant of membership of an organisation whose aim was to undermine the constitutional order and replace it with a Marxist-Leninist regime, contrary to Articles 146 § 1 and 168 § 2 of the Criminal Code.", "17. After martial law was lifted, the Ankara Martial Law Court took the name of the Martial Law Court attached to the 4th Army Corps.", "18. On 19 July 1989 the Martial Law Court convicted the applicant and sentenced him to death penalty. The applicant appealed against the conviction and the case was referred to the Military Court of Cassation (Askeri Yargıtay).", "19. Following promulgation of the Law of 26 December 1994, which abolished the jurisdiction of the martial law courts, the Court of Cassation (Yargıtay) acquired jurisdiction over the cases and the files were sent to it.", "20. On 6 February 1995 the applicant was released pending trial.", "21. On 27 December 1995 the Court of Cassation upheld the applicant's conviction." ]

[ 3 ]

[ "9. The applicant is an Italian national who was born in 1958. He was in Spoleto Prison when he lodged his application.\nAmong other measures, he was held in pre-trial detention for his involvement in the murder of Judge Falcone and his escort on 26 September 1997. He was subsequently sentenced to life imprisonment by the Caltanissetta Assize Court. On 12 November 1997 he was given a second life sentence, on other charges, by the Palermo Assize Court. That sentence became final on 26 November 1999.", "10. After his arrest on 4 June 1993 the applicant was placed under the special prison regime provided for in section 41 bis of the Prison Administration Act, which derogates from the conditions for ordinary detention laid down in the Act.\nBetween 13 November 1996 and 31 December 2000 the Minister of Justice issued nine decrees, each introducing restrictions for the following six-month periods: 13 November 1996 to 13 May 1997 (decree no. 1); 13 May 1997 to 13 November 1997 (decree no. 2); 14 November 1997 to 14 May 1998 (decree no. 3); 15 May 1998 to 15 November 1998 (decree no. 4); 12 November 1998 to 12 May 1999 (decree no. 5); 11 May 1999 to 11 November 1999 (decree no. 6); 8 November 1999 to 31 December 1999 (decree no. 7); 28 December 1999 to 28 June 2000 (decree no. 8); and 23 June 2000 to 31 December 2000 (decree no. 9).\nThe applicant indicated that he had remained under the same regime for the period following 31 December 2000, but did not provide any precise details.", "11. Decrees nos. 2 to 9 were not formal extensions of the previous decree, but fresh decisions that nonetheless reiterated the earlier decision.", "12. By virtue of the nine decrees, the following restrictions were imposed on the applicant:\n(a) limits on visits by family members, with a maximum of one visit for one hour per month;\n(b) no meetings with third parties;\n(c) prohibition on using the telephone, except for one call – to be recorded – per month to members of the family if the applicant had not had a visit;\n(d) prohibition on receiving or sending out sums of money in excess of a specified amount, except for defence costs or fines;\n(e) no more than two parcels of laundry per month;\n(f) no organisation of cultural, recreational or sports activities;\n(g) no right to vote in elections for prisoners' representatives or to be elected as a representative;\n(h) no handicrafts;\n(i) no more than two hours per day to be spent outdoors.", "13. The applicant appealed against those decrees to the court responsible for the execution of sentences. The parties submitted the factual information set out below.\nDecree no. 1 – The applicant appealed on 2 January 1997. The Palermo court responsible for the execution of sentences held a hearing on 11 March 1997. In an order of 11 March 1997, deposited with the registry on 15 March 1997, the court declared the appeal inadmissible in accordance with the restrictive case-law followed at the time to the effect that the court hearing the case did not have power to examine the merits of the restrictions imposed.\nDecree no. 2 – In an order of 29 July 1997, deposited with the registry on 31 July 1997, the Florence court responsible for the execution of sentences declared inoperative the restrictions referred to in (a), (e) and (f) of the above list.\nDecree no. 3 – On an unknown date the applicant appealed to the Bologna court responsible for the execution of sentences. The court held a hearing on 27 January 1998 and dismissed the appeal in an order of the same day, which was deposited with the registry on 30 January 1998.\nDecree no. 4 – The applicant appealed on 19 May 1998. On 10 October 1998 the Perugia court responsible for the execution of sentences set the case down for hearing on 12 November 1998. On 30 March 1999 the President of the court declared the appeal inadmissible. He noted that the period of validity of the decree had expired and that the applicant accordingly no longer had any interest in having it examined.\nDecree no. 5 – The applicant did not appeal against this decree.\nDecree no. 6 – The applicant appealed on 14 May 1999. On 9 June 1999 the rehabilitation unit of Spoleto Prison confirmed a report that had previously been made in connection with another appeal. In a request of 21 September 1999 sent to the Perugia court responsible for the execution of sentences, the applicant's lawyer asked for the appeal to be heard. On 4 December 1999 the President of the court declared the appeal inadmissible. He noted that the period of validity of the decree had expired and that the applicant accordingly no longer had any interest in having it examined.\nDecree no. 7 – The applicant appealed on 12 November 1999. On 12 February 2000 the President of the Perugia court responsible for the execution of sentences declared the appeal inadmissible. He noted that the period of validity of the decree had expired and that the applicant accordingly no longer had any interest in having it examined.\nDecree no. 8 – On 28 March 2000 the President of the Perugia court responsible for the execution of sentences granted the applicant legal aid. On 10 April 2000 he set the case down for hearing on 4 May 2000. In an order of the same date, deposited with the registry on 8 May, the court allowed the appeal regarding the restriction on the applicant's right to receive parcels and dismissed the remainder.\nDecree no. 9 – The applicant appealed on 28 June 2000. On 8 January 2001 the President of the Perugia court responsible for the execution of sentences declared it inadmissible on the ground that the applicant no longer had any interest in having it examined since the period of validity of the decree had expired on 31 December 2000." ]

[ 3 ]

[ "9. The applicant was born in 1944 and lives in Lublin, Poland.", "10. On 23 May 1996 the applicant was taken into custody by the police. On 24 May 1996 the Lublin District Prosecutor (Prokurator Rejonowy) charged the applicant with hiding a stolen car and possession of a counterfeit banknote and remanded him in custody. The District Prosecutor considered that there existed a danger of pressure being brought to bear on witnesses. Moreover, he referred to a significant danger to society of the criminal acts allegedly committed by the applicant.", "11. The applicant appealed against the District Prosecutor's decision but on 18 June 1996 the Lublin Regional Court (Sąd Wojewódzki) dismissed his appeal. The court considered that the reasons given for the applicant's detention had not ceased to exist.", "12. On 14 August 1996 the Lublin Regional Court extended the applicant's detention until 23 November 1996. It pointed out that the investigation had not been completed and that there was a risk that if released the applicant would obstruct the criminal proceedings against him. The applicant appealed against this decision but on 12 September 1996 the Lublin Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) dismissed his appeal.", "13. On 14 October 1996 the Lublin Regional Prosecutor decided to take evidence from an anonymous witness. The applicant did not appeal against this decision.", "14. In November 1996 the prosecution dropped the charge of possession of a counterfeit banknote.", "15. On 22 November 1996 the Lublin Regional Prosecutor filed with the Lublin Regional Court a bill of indictment against the applicant.", "16. On 16 December 1996 the applicant applied for bail but on 17 December 1996 the Lublin Regional Court dismissed his application. It considered that the applicant's two adult children could help his wife, who was ill. Moreover, the evidence gave rise to reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed the criminal offence with which he was charged. The court referred to Articles 209 and 218 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.", "17. The applicant appealed against this decision but on 15 January 1997 the Lublin Court of Appeal dismissed his appeal. The appellate court referred to Articles 209 and 217 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It considered that the prison term to which the applicant could be sentenced justified his detention. The court also pointed out that the recent medical examinations of the applicant's wife had shown that she did not need the help of third persons.", "18. On 24 March 1997 the applicant applied to the Lublin Regional Court for release from detention. He submitted that his wife was ill and required his help.", "19. On 25 March 1997 the Regional Court dismissed the applicant's application. It considered that the evidence gave rise to a reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed the criminal offence with which he was charged. In addition, the applicant's wife did not require hospitalisation and could be helped by other members of her family.", "20. On 28 August 1997 the first hearing took place before the Lublin Regional Court.", "21. On 26 September 1997 the Lublin Regional Court examined an anonymous witness.", "22. Subsequently, hearings took place on 1 October and 5 November 1997.", "23. During the hearing held on 20 November 1997 the Regional Court released the applicant from detention.", "24. On 18 December 1997 and 7 January 1998 the trial court held hearings.", "25. On 9 January 1998 the Lublin Regional Court convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to one year and five months' imprisonment and a fine. The applicant appealed his conviction.", "26. On 26 May 1998 the first hearing took place before the Lublin Court of Appeal.", "27. During the hearing held on 20 August 1998 the appellate court decided to refer a question on a point of law to the Supreme Court (Sąd Najwyższy). The question concerned the legal qualification of the criminal offence with which the applicant was charged.", "28. On 18 November 1998 the Supreme Court adopted a resolution on the question submitted by the Lublin Court of Appeal.", "29. The next hearing before the Lublin Court of Appeal took place on 10 December 1998. The court quashed the applicant's conviction and remitted the case to the trial court.", "30. In the course of 1999 the Lublin Regional Court held hearings on 26 March, 29 April, 2 June, 6 and 9 September, and 8 October.", "31. On 24 and 29 September, 5 and 26 October 1999, and also 5 April and 10 May 2000, the anonymous witness failed to appear before the court.", "32. The first hearing in 2000 was held on 8 August. On 18 September 2000 the applicant informed the court that he was ill.", "33. The next hearing took place on 4 October 2000. The Regional Court decided to consider the charges against the applicant in separate proceedings.", "34. On 17 October 2000 the Regional Court stayed the criminal proceedings against the applicant because he was in a hospital and could not attend hearings.", "35. On 19 December 2000 the court examined the anonymous witness.", "36. On 4 January 2001 the court received information that the applicant was released from the hospital. On 13 March 2001 it resumed the proceedings.", "37. Subsequently hearing were held on 7 May, 6 June, 5 July and 20 September 2001.", "38. On 20 September 2001 the court fined several witnesses who had failed to attend hearings.", "39. During the hearing held on 5 December 2001 before the Lublin Regional Court the applicant requested that his case be transmitted to another court as he considered that the Lublin Regional Court was a party to the proceedings before the European Court of Human Rights concerning his application. On 15 January 2002 his request was rejected.", "40. On 23 April, 15 May, 20 June and 19 July 2002 the Regional Court held hearings.", "41. On 23 July 2002 the Lublin Regional Court convicted the applicant of receiving stolen cars and sentenced him to two years' imprisonment and a fine.", "42. On 19 August 2002 the applicant appealed his conviction. On 26 November 2002 the Lublin Court of Appeal dismissed his appeal.", "43. On 13 October 1997 the applicant mailed a letter to the European Commission of Human Rights. He handed a sealed envelope containing the letter to the prison authorities. The authorities submitted it to the Lublin Regional Court where the letter was opened and read.", "44. On 20 October 1997 the court returned the letter to the applicant.", "45. Subsequently, he did not send the letter through the prison service but instead mailed it through third persons. The letter was received by the European Commission of Human Rights on 4 November 1997." ]

[ 2, 3, 4 ]

[ "4. The applicant was born in 1940 and lives in Salerno.", "5. He is the owner of a flatt in Salerno, which he had let to R.C.", "6. In a writ served on the tenant on 3 May 1990, the applicant informed the tenant of his intention to terminate the lease on expiry of the term on 30 November 1990 and summoned her to appear before the Salerno Magistrate.", "7. By a decision of 15 May 1990, which was made enforceable on 1 June 1990, the Salerno Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 31 December 1991.", "8. On 28 January 1992, the applicant served notice on the tenant requiring her to vacate the premises.", "9. On 6 April 1992, he served notice on the tenant informing her that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 21 April 1992.", "10. On 21 April 1992 the bailiff made one attempt to recover possession that proved unsuccessful as, under the statutory provisions providing for the suspension, the applicant was not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession.", "11. On 27 January 1997, the applicant made a statutory declaration that he urgently required the premises as accommodation for himself.", "12. Pursuant to article 6 of Law no. 431/98, the Salerno Magistrate suspended the eviction proceedings until 19 November 1999.", "13. On 20 October 1999, he served a second notice on the tenant informing her that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 19 November 1999.", "14. On 19 November 1999, the applicant recovered possession of the flat." ]

[ 3, 9 ]

[ "4. The applicants were respectively born in 1962, 1932 and 1934 and live in Florence.", "5. They are the owners of a flat in Florence, which they had let to P.V.", "6. In a registered letter of 25 July 1983, the applicants informed the tenant that they intended to terminate the lease on expiry of the term on 30 April 1984 and asked him to vacate the premises by that date.", "7. In a writ served on the tenant on 24 April 1984, the applicants reiterated their intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before the Florence Magistrate.", "8. By a decision of 11 May 1984, which was made enforceable on 13 June 1984, the Florence Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 11 May 1985.", "9. The tenant asked the Florence Magistrate that the enforcement be postponed.", "10. On 21 June 1985, the Florence Magistrate ordered that the premises be vacated by 30 April 1986.", "11. On 5 June 1986, the applicants served notice on the tenant requiring him to vacate the premises.", "12. On 23 June 1986, they served notice on the tenant informing him that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 3 September 1986.", "13. Between 3 September 1986 and 16 December 1998, the bailiff made thirty-five attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicants were not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession.", "14. On 12 July 1999, pursuant to article 6 of Law no. 431/98, the tenant asked the Florence District Court to suspend the eviction proceedings.", "15. On 9 April 2001, the tenant died and his son refused to leave the flat.", "16. On 11 May 2001, the bailiff made one attempt to recover possession, which proved unsuccessful, as the applicants were never granted the assistance of the police in enforcing the order for possession. The next attempt was deferred to 16 October 2001.", "17. Between 16 October 2001 and 21 November 2002, the bailiff made four attempts to recover possession, which proved unsuccessful as the applicants were never granted the assistance of the police in enforcing the order for possession.", "18. On 3 March 2003, the applicants recovered possession of the flat." ]

[ 3, 9 ]

[ "4. The applicants were respectively born in 1951 and 1952 and live in Messina.", "5. They are the owners of a flat in Milan, which they had let to F.G.", "6. In a registered letter of 29 April 1993, the applicants informed the tenant that they intended to terminate the lease on expiry of the term on 30 December 1993 and asked him to vacate the premises by that date.", "7. The tenant told the applicants that he would not leave the premises.", "8. In a writ served on the tenant on 30 June 1993, the applicants reiterated their intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before the Milan Magistrate.", "9. By a decision of 28 October 1993, which was made enforceable on 8 November 1993, the Milan Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 31 January 1996.", "10. On 6 February 1996, the applicants served notice on the tenant requiring him to vacate the premises.", "11. On an unspecified date, they served notice on the tenant informing him that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 15 March 1996.", "12. Between 15 March 1996 and 21 September 2001, the bailiff made eleven attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicants were not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession.", "13. On 29 January 2002 and on 16 April 2002, the bailiff made two attempts to recover possession which proved unsuccessful, as the applicants were not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession.", "14. In July 2002, the applicants recovered possession of the flat." ]

[ 3, 9 ]

[ "6. The applicant was born in 1945 and lives in Rome.", "7. He is the owner of a flat in Rome, which he had let to P.C. who lived with his sister L.C.", "8. In a registered letter of 22 June 1983, the applicant informed the tenant that he intended to terminate the lease on expiry of the term on 31 December 1983 and asked him to vacate the premises by that date.", "9. The tenant told the applicant that he would not leave the premises.", "10. In a writ served on the tenant on 28 October 1983, the applicant reiterated his intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before the Rome Magistrate.", "11. By a decision of 18 November 1983, which was made enforceable on the same day, the Rome Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 31 December 1984.", "12. On 24 February 1986, the applicant served notice on the tenant's sister.", "13. In the meanwhile, the tenant had died and the applicant required the tenant's sister to vacate the premises.", "14. On 15 May 1986, the applicant served notice on the tenant's sister informing her that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 20 May 1986.", "15. Between 20 May 1986 and 16 December 1998, the bailiff made forty-nine attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicant was not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession.", "16. On 12 September 1998, the applicant made a statutory declaration that he urgently required the premises as accommodation for his son.", "17. Pursuant to section 6 of Law no. 431/98, the enforcement proceedings were suspended first until 28 June 1999 and then until 20 April 2000.", "18. On 13 October 2000, the applicant recovered possession of the flat." ]

[]

[ "4. The applicant was born in 1958 and lives in Hetes, Hungary.", "5. In February 1990 the applicant’s father (“the plaintiff”) had a traffic accident. With a view to seeking compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and for loss of work capacity, he brought an action on 30 December 1991 against his insurer before the Pest Central District Court.", "6. Hearings took place on 22 May and 12 November 1992. On the latter date, the District Court appointed medical and agricultural experts. The person who had caused the plaintiff’s injuries intervened in the case.", "7. Meanwhile, on 30 September 1992 the District Court dismissed the plaintiff’s request for interim measures to be applied. On 3 March 1993 the Budapest Regional Court dismissed his appeal against this decision.", "8. The medical expert submitted his opinion on 25 May 1993. On 16 June 1993 the District Court held a hearing and on 12 July 1993 the agricultural expert presented his opinion.", "9. The next hearing took place on 28 January 1994. Pursuant to a change in legislation, the action was extended to include the National Institute for Development.", "10. On 4 February 1994 the District Court decided to award 89,550 Hungarian forints (HUF) plus accrued interest to the plaintiff and granted him an allowance.", "11. On appeal, on 10 November 1994 the Budapest Regional Court quashed the appealed part of the first instance decision and remitted the case in this respect.", "12. On 21 December 1994 the District Court dismissed the plaintiff’s renewed request for interim measures. This decision was upheld by the Budapest Regional Court on 27 April 1995.", "13. In the resumed proceedings, the District Court held a hearing on 14 June 1995 and decided to obtain the opinions of medical, agricultural and motor-vehicle experts. A hearing took place on 15 November 1995. On 14 December 1995 the District Court ordered that the agricultural expert’s opinion be completed. On 27 February 1996 the court appointed a new expert.", "14. On 22 April 1996 the District Court excused the agricultural expert since he had previously worked for the first defendant and appointed a third one.", "15. On 21 May 1996 the agricultural expert appointed informed the court that he was not competent to provide an opinion on the issues raised. On 23 May 1996 the District Court discharged the expert and invited the parties to submit proposals for a competent agricultural expert.", "16. On 23 August 1996 the District Court dismissed the request of the Hungarian State to join the proceedings due to a change in legislation. On the appeals of the first defendant and the State, the Budapest Regional Court quashed the decision and gave the State leave to join the proceedings.", "17. On 17 December 1996 the District Court appointed another agricultural expert. On 24 March 1997 he was warned that he would be fined in the event of his non-compliance with his duties. This expert was replaced by another expert on 2 April 1997.", "18. On account of the wishes of the experts to be excused for reasons of lack of competence or other commitments, they had to be replaced on 30 May, 5 June, 11 July and 5 September 1997.", "19. On 5 November 1997 the District Court ordered the expert who was eventually appointed to submit her opinion as soon as possible and warned her that in the event of non-compliance she would be fined. On 9 December 1997 the court imposed a fine of HUF 25,000 on the expert. Despite warnings, the expert repeatedly failed to comply with the order and the court imposed another fine of HUF 50,000 on her.", "20. On 14 July 1998 a newly appointed expert submitted an opinion in reply to the court’s questions as to the value, before the accident, of the plaintiff’s livestock, the income which the plaintiff could have expected from his livestock and the number of workers and the working hours required for tending to it.", "21. The next hearing took place on 21 October 1998. The plaintiff failed to appear at the hearing and his counsel’s replacement was not prepared to make a statement in the case.", "22. Meanwhile, on the defendant’s appeal, on 25 January 1999 the Budapest Regional Court upheld an order of 27 August 1997 concerning the agricultural expert’s fee. A hearing scheduled for 27 January 1999 had to be postponed as the case-file had not yet been returned by the District Court.", "23. In order to reconcile different medical opinions, the District Court ordered the medical expert to complete his opinion. The opinion submitted on 5 May 1999 was further supplemented on 7 July 1999 in view of the defendant’s observations.", "24. Further hearings took place on 27 September and 18 October 1999. On the latter occasion both the plaintiff and his representative failed to appear or to request that the hearing be held in their absence. Therefore, the District Court ordered the suspension of the proceedings. On 29 October 1999 the proceedings were reinstated at the plaintiff’s request.", "25. On 8 December 1999, 13 March, 17 April and 15 May 2000 the District Court heard further witnesses.", "26. On 21 May 2000 the plaintiff died. As the District Court had not been informed of this, it delivered its judgment on 22 May 2000. The judgment did not take effect. On 3 July 2000 the District Court ordered a stay of the proceedings.", "27. On 14 August 2000 the applicant was declared his father’s sole heir. On 6 September 2000 he joined the proceedings before the District Court as his late father’s successor.", "28. The parties failed to appear at the hearings held on 13 September, and 2 and 30 October 2000. On the latter date the District Court decided to award HUF 7,257,275 plus accrued interest to the applicant.", "29. On appeal, the Budapest Regional Court held hearings on 17 April and 26 June 2001 in the applicant’s absence. In a judgment of the latter date, it amended part of the first instance decision and lowered the award to HUF 5,507,485." ]

[ 3 ]

[ "4. The applicant was born in 1953 and lives in Nowogard, Poland.", "5. The applicant co-owned an estate. On 15 January 1988 she filed with the Goleniów District Court (sąd rejonowy) an action against the other co-owners for overdue rent and the recovery of possession of some property located on that estate.", "6. On 30 June 1992 the court gave judgment, in which it dismissed the action.", "7. On 9 March 1993 the Szczecin Regional Court (sąd wojewódzki) dismissed the applicant's appeal against that judgment.", "8. On 12 May 1993 she requested the reopening of the proceedings, submitting that she had not been notified of the appellate hearing.", "9. On 16 September 1993 the Regional Court quashed the judgment of 9 March 1993 and a part of the District Court's judgment. It remitted the part of the case concerning rent for re-examination.", "10. On 24 November 1994 the District Court summoned the applicant to specify her claim. On 16 February 1995 the court, having received the applicant's response, requested her to specify it once more.", "11. On 28 March 1995 the case was transferred to the Szczecin Regional Court, which was competent to examine it as a court of the first-instance.", "12. On 31 October 1995 it held a hearing. The applicant withdrew her claim against one of the co-owners and raised a claim against the Goleniów District Office (Urząd Rejonowy), which also co-owned the disputed property.", "13. On 5 September 1996 the court held a hearing. On the same day it summoned the Goleniów District Office (Urząd Rejonowy) to participate in the procedure as the defendant.", "14. On 18 July 1997 the court stayed the proceedings after the applicant's failure to specify her claim within the set time-limit. The applicant did not appeal against that decision.", "15. On 8 August 1997 she requested that her legal-aid lawyer be replaced with another one.", "16. On 17 May 1999 the applicant's lawyer asked the court to resume the examination of the case. On 26 May 1999 the court summoned the applicant to specify her claim and identify the defendant. The applicant submitted that that order was not served on her. She stated that she had been unable to comply with the court order because of difficulty in assessing the value of the property the possession of which she had sought.", "17. By 28 August 2003 the court had not resumed the proceedings.", "18. On 6 June 1991 the applicant filed with the Goleniów District Court an action in which she requested that the co-ownership of an estate be dissolved.", "19. On 17 December 1993 and 12 January 1994 the court held hearings.", "20. In March 1994 an expert opinion was prepared.", "21. The Government submitted that on 22 March 1994 the applicant challenged that opinion and changed her statement of claim. The applicant stated that she had never challenged that opinion and that the modification of her claim had only followed the conclusions of the expert opinion.", "22. On 19 April 1995, as well as 12 June and 17 July 1996 the court held hearings. In June 1996 the applicant changed her statement of claim.", "23. On 12 November 1996 the court exempted the participants to the proceedings from fees relating to an expert opinion. It also ordered the preparation of an opinion.", "24. In 1997 an expert proposed two projects for the division of the estate. The applicant requested a correction to those projects. The Goleniów District Office, being one of the co-owners of the disputed property, did not accept the correction proposed by applicant.", "25. On 17 November 1997 the court issued a decision on remuneration for an expert. In February 1998 that decision was amended.", "26. On 20 May and 30 November 1998 hearings were held.", "27. On 10 December 1998 an expert opinion was ordered.", "28. On 10 February 1999 the court awarded the expert remuneration for the opinion. The applicant appealed that decision. In reply to the court's enquiry, she stated that in fact she intended to challenge that opinion.", "29. On 30 April and 17 May 1999 the court held hearings.", "30. On 24 May 1999 the applicant challenged the participation of an expert in the proceedings. On 12 July 1999 the court dismissed her challenge. On 19 August 1999 it rejected the applicant's appeal against that decision.", "31. On 9 February and 10 April 2000 the court held hearings. It ordered the preparation of another expert opinion. In September an expert informed the court that due to a heavy workload he was unable to prepare that opinion.", "32. On 30 November 2000 the court ordered another expert to carry on that opinion. The expert submitted the opinion in February 2001 and an annex to it in June 2001. The applicant submitted that she was served with a copy of that opinion on 24 July 2001. Subsequently, she challenged it.", "33. The hearing scheduled for 26 November 2001 was adjourned because of the absence of an expert.", "34. On 17 December 2001 the applicant modified her claim.", "35. On 19 December 2001 and 11 January 2002 the court held hearings.", "36. On 13 February 2002 it gave judgment. The applicant lodged an appeal.", "37. On 21 January 2003 the Szczecin Regional Court dismissed her appeal." ]

[ 3 ]

[ "4. The applicant was born in 1937 and lives in Padua.", "5. He is the owner of a flat in Battipaglia, which he had let to E.T.", "6. In a writ served on the tenant on 9 July 1991, the applicant communicated his intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before the Eboli Magistrate.", "7. By a decision of 15 July 1991, which was made enforceable on 4 September 1991, the Eboli Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 30 March 1992.", "8. On 30 May 1994, the applicant served notice on the tenant requiring him to vacate the premises.", "9. On 11 August 1994, he served notice on the tenant informing him that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 26 August 1994.", "10. On 26 August 1994, the bailiff made an attempt to recover possession which proved unsuccessful as, under the statutory provisions providing for the staggering of evictions, the applicant was not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession.", "11. Thereafter, the applicant decided not to pursue the enforcement proceedings, given the lack of prospects of obtaining the assistance of the police.", "12. On 11 November 1999, the applicant resumed the proceedings. He served notice on the tenant requiring him to vacate the premises.", "13. On 1 December 1999, the tenant instituted civil proceedings before the Salerno District Court contesting the enforcement proceedings.", "14. According to the last information provided by the applicant, pursuant the entry into force of Law Decree no 450 of 27 December 2001, the enforcement proceedings were suspended until the 30 June 2002.", "15. On 15 November 2002 the applicant had not yet recovered possession of the flat." ]

[ 3, 9 ]

[ "8. The applicant is a Lithuanian national, born in 1972 and living in Vilnius.", "9. In November 1994 the applicant became a suspect in a criminal case of fraud. On 29 November 1994 a search was conducted in his flat in the context of the proceedings.", "10. On 14 August 1996 the applicant was charged on five counts, including cheating and embezzlement. On 22 August 1996 he was remanded on bail. There were four other co-accused persons in the case.", "11. On 10 September 1996 the pre-trial investigation was concluded. From 10 September 1996 until 14 November 1996 the applicant and the co-accused had access to the case-file. On 18 November 1996 the Deputy Prosecutor General confirmed the bill of indictment. On 20 November 1996 the case was transmitted to the Kaunas City District Court.", "12. On 3 January 1997 the Kaunas City District Court committed the applicant for trial. On 23 May 1997 the court ordered further investigations in the case and returned the case-file to the investigators.", "13. The prosecution appealed against the above decision, complaining that there was no need for further investigation, and that the trial could proceed. On 26 August 1997 the Kaunas Regional Court rejected the prosecution's appeal, holding that further investigation measures were required.", "14. On 26 September 1997 the Prosecutor General lodged a cassation appeal against the decisions of 23 May 1997 and 26 August 1997, stating that there was no need for further investigation, and that the trial should resume. On 29 January 1998 the Court of Appeal examined the prosecuting authorities' cassation appeal. The cassation court quashed the decisions of 23 May 1997 and 26 August 1997, deciding that the trial could be resumed. It transmitted the case to the Kaunas City District Court for a new examination.", "15. On 13 October 1998 the applicant was taken to hospital with a stomach illness.", "16. On 15 October 1998 the Kaunas City District Court found the applicant guilty on four counts, the applicant's defence counsel being present. He was sentenced to five years' imprisonment.", "17. On 16 October 1998 the applicant was transferred from the hospital to the prison on the basis of the judgment of 15 October 1998.", "18. Upon the applicant's appeal, on 22 March 1999 the Kaunas Regional Court amended the applicant's conviction insofar as it concerned damages which had been awarded against him. The applicant's sentence was not changed.", "19. Upon the applicant's cassation appeal, on 30 September 1999 the Supreme Court quashed the conviction and the appellate decision because of numerous breaches of domestic criminal procedure. The Supreme Court found in regard to the applicant that the findings by the lower courts of his guilt on two counts had not been properly motivated, and that the question of damages against him had not been adequately resolved. The case was returned to the Kaunas City District Court for a new examination to be carried out. The Supreme Court ordered the applicant's release on bail. The applicant was not present during the cassation hearing. He was released on the next day when the decision of the Supreme Court was sent to the prison.", "20. On 25 October 1999 the Kaunas City District Court returned the case to the prosecution for further investigations to be carried out. On an unspecified date the investigation was concluded. The applicant's trial is currently pending before the first instance court." ]

[ 3 ]

[ "9. The applicant company is the publisher of a newspaper (Neue Kronenzeitung) with its registered office in Vienna.", "10. In July 1996 the Neue Kronenzeitung published several articles on a case of parents, Ms and Mr K. who had abused their daughter. In the articles it was alleged that they had homo-bisexual inclinations. Subsequently Ms K. filed a compensation claim under the Media Act (Mediengesetz) with the Vienna Regional Criminal Court (Landesgericht für Strafsachen) against the applicant company.", "11. On 30 July 1996 the court ordered the applicant company under Section 8a § 5 of the Media Act to publish a notice concerning the institution of the proceedings. On 4 September 1996 this notice was published in the Neue Kronenzeitung.", "12. On 5 and 10 September 1996 Ms K. filed enforcement requests (Durchsetzungsanträge) under Section 20 of the Media Act against the applicant company. Referring to Section 13 § 3 of the Media Act, requiring a notice of the same “publishing value” (Veröffentlichungswert) as the original message, she argued that the notice of 4 September 1996 was smaller than the articles of July 1996 and was, thus, not published in due form.", "13. On 17 December 1996 the Regional Court dismissed Ms K.'s request. The court found that the notice of 4 September 1996, though somewhat smaller, had the same “attention value” (Auffälligkeitswert) and, thus, the same “publishing value” as the articles.", "14. With the Vienna Court of Appeal's (Oberlandesgericht) decision of 14 July 1997 the compensation proceedings were finally determined. The court ordered the applicant company to pay ATS 115,000 in compensation to Ms K. for breach of the presumption of innocence in its reporting about Ms K. and to publish the sentence. The applicant company complied with these orders.", "15. On 30 July 1997 the Court of Appeal, upon Ms K.'s appeal, quashed the Regional Court's decision of 17 December 1996 and ordered the applicant company to pay a coercive indemnity (Geldbuße) of ATS 24,000 to Ms K., namely ATS 4,000 for each issue of the newspaper between 5 and 10 September 1996. The court considered that, in one of the disputed articles, Ms K. had been defamed even in a subtitle, whereas the notice had no subtitle. Therefore the “publishing value” was diminished.", "16. Following this decision, Ms K. filed further enforcement requests for the period of 11 September 1996 until 4 August 1997.", "17. On 23 September 1997 the applicant company requested that Section 20 § 4 of the Media Act be applied by analogy. This provision allowed for an exemption from the imposition of coercive indemnity for the duration of appeal proceedings in case a first-instance court had imposed a coercive indemnity for an inappropriate publication of the notice - which, however, had been published in a manner close to the due form - and the respondent had appealed against this decision. The applicant company argued that after the first-instance court's decision in its favour, finding that the notice had the same publishing value, it had not been required to publish another notice. Therefore the above rule of exemption from imposition of coercive indemnity during the appeal proceedings applied even more in its case. The applicant company further requested that Section 20 § 3 of the Media Act - which, in cases of special circumstances, allows the authority to stop or remit the imposition of coercive indemnity, once the notice has been published in due form - be applied for the period of 5 to 10 September 1996.", "18. On 27 October 1997 the Regional Court ordered the applicant company to pay ATS 508,000 to Ms K., namely ATS 4,000 for each issue of the Neue Kronenzeitung between 20 September 1996 and 16 January 1997, the date of the introduction of Ms K.'s appeal against the decision of 17 December 1996. It dismissed the remainder of Ms K.'s request and the applicant company's request under Section 20 § 3 of the Media Act. The court found that Section 20 § 4 of the Media Act applied by analogy for the period of the appeal proceedings, therefore no coercive indemnity had to be paid from 17 January to 4 August 1997.", "19. On 30 January 1998 the Vienna Court of Appeal, on both parties' appeal, quashed the Regional Court's decision in part. It decided that the applicant company had to pay a coercive indemnity of ATS 1,304,000 to Ms K., i.e. ATS 4,000 for each issue of the newspaper between 11 September 1996 and 4 August 1997. The court considered that the applicant company could not be exempted from paying the coercive indemnity for the period of the appeal proceedings, as the notice of 4 September 1996 had not come close to a notice in due form as required by Section 20 § 4 of the Media Act.", "20. On 30 June 1998 the Procurator General's Office (Generalprokuratur) lodged a plea of nullity for the preservation of the law (Nichtigkeitsbeschwerde zur Wahrung des Gesetzes) with the Supreme Court. It argued that the coercive indemnity under Section 20 of the Media Act was a coercive measure (Beugemittel). According to the Office, it was unreasonable to impose a coercive indemnity for the period after the first instance court's decision of 17 December 1996, since after that decision the applicant company was to be considered as having acted in good faith when it did not publish another notice. The coercive indemnity should therefore only be imposed for the period before 17 December 1996.", "21. On 15 September 1998 the Supreme Court dismissed the plea of nullity. It argued that the question of good faith could not be resolved under Section 20 § 4 of the Media Act. Rather, the applicant company would have to commence indulgence proceedings (Nachsichtsverfahren) under Section 20 § 3 of the Media Act. In such proceedings, its particular situation after the first instance decision of 17 December 1996 could be taken into account." ]

[ 6 ]

[ "4. The applicants were respectively born in 1938, 1943 and 1948 and live in Rome.", "5. The applicants' father was the owner of a flat in Rome, which he had let to C.C.", "6. In a writ served on the tenant on 24 January 1984, the applicants' father informed the tenant that he intended to terminate the lease on expiry of the term and summoned him to appear before the Rome Magistrate.", "7. By a decision of 17 April 1984, which was made enforceable on 2 May 1984, the Rome Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 16 April 1985.", "8. On 10 March 1985, the applicants' father served notice on the tenant requiring him to vacate the premises.", "9. On 3 April 1987, the applicants' father served notice on the tenant informing him that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 12 May 1987.", "10. On 14 February 1992, the applicants' father died and they inherited the flat. Subsequently they became parties to the eviction proceedings.", "11. Between 12 May 1987 and 15 February 2000, the bailiff made fifty-seven attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as neither the applicants' father nor themselves were entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession.", "12. On an unspecified date in February 2000, reaching an agreement with the tenant, the applicants recovered possession of the flat." ]

[ 3, 9 ]

[ "8. The applicant is an Italian limited company, settled in Naples.", "9. The applicant is the owner of a flat in Naples, which it had let to B.L.\nOn an unspecified date, the applicant informed the tenant that it intended to terminate the lease on expiry of the term on 31 December 1983 and asked him to vacate the premises by that date.", "10. In a writ served on the tenant on 9 March 1984, the applicant reiterated its intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before the Naples Magistrate. The Magistrate declared that it was not competent to examine the matter, following which it was transferred to the Naples Tribunal.", "11. By a decision of 8 July 1988, the Tribunal confirmed that the rent contract had expired on 31 December 1983. It ordered the tenant to vacate the premises by 28 June 1989.", "12. On 4 February 1990, the applicant served notice on the tenant informing him that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 19 February 1991", "13. On 12 November 1990, the applicant once more required the tenant to vacate the premises.", "14. Between 19 February 1991 and 9 October 1997, the bailiff made twenty-eight attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicant was not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession.", "15. On an unspecified date in September 1998, the applicant recovered possession of the flat." ]

[ 3 ]

[ "8. The applicant was born in 1920 and lived in Florence.", "9. Until 1992, she was the owner of a flat in Florence, which she had let to A.P.", "10. After that date, by contract, she kept a life and controlling interest (usufrutto) in the flat, i.e. the right to use it and derive any benefits therefrom. Her representative, Mrs A.M. Foti, had the title (nuda proprietà) over that flat.", "11. In a writ served on the tenant on 23 November 1982, the applicant communicated her intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before the Florence Magistrate.", "12. By a decision of 3 October 1983, which was made enforceable on 16 December 1983, the Florence Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises must be vacated by 31 December 1984. At the tenant’s request the Magistrate postponed the deadline for vacation to an unspecified date.", "13. On 30 September 1987, the applicant served notice on the tenant requiring him to vacate the premises.", "14. On 2 November 1987, she served notice on the tenant informing him that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 9 December 1987.", "15. Between 9 December 1987 and 16 September 1998, the bailiff made twenty-four attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as, under the statutory provisions providing for the staggering of evictions, the applicant was not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession.", "16. On 12 July 1999, the tenant requested the Florence District Court to set a fresh date for the enforcement of the order for possession pursuant to Section 6 of Law No. 431/98. The Court set the date for 26 January 2001.", "17. On 7 November 1999, the applicant died and Mrs A.M. Foti acquired full interest in the flat as she was the owner with all the rights over the flat. Subsequently, she also became a part of the eviction proceedings.", "18. According to the last information provided by Mrs A. M. Foti in her fax of 15 November 2002, the Florence District Court has now set the new date for 15 January 2004 for the enforcement of the order for possession with the assistance of the police.", "19. As of today, Mrs A.M. Foti has not yet recovered possession of the flat." ]

[ 0, 1, 2 ]

[ "6. The applicant was born in 1972 and lives in Szydłowiec, Poland.", "7. On 17 January 1995 the applicant was arrested by the police on suspicion of robbery. On 18 January 1995 the Przysucha District Prosecutor (Prokurator Rejonowy) charged him with robbery and detained him on remand on the ground that there was a reasonable suspicion that he had committed the offence in question.", "8. On 13 March 1995 the applicant was indicted before the Radom Regional Court (Sąd Wojewódzki).", "9. The trial began on 17 August 1995. On 11 July 1996 the Radom Regional Court convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to 4 years' imprisonment. On 16 April 1997, on the applicant's appeal, the Warsaw Court of Appeal amended that judgment in part and reduced the sentence to 3 years' and 6 months' imprisonment.", "10. On an unknown date the applicant was detained in Radom Remand Centre (Areszt Śledczy). On 18 September 1995 he was placed in a cell of 12.49 square metres together with 5 other prisoners, all of whom were heavy smokers. There was no running water, no sewage system, no toilet and insufficient natural lighting. The glow-lamps were switched on from morning to night. The cell lacked adequate ventilation. The detainees were given two buckets of drinking water and one extra bucket, which was used as a toilet by all of them.", "11. The applicant many times complained about the conditions of his detention, in particular the size of his cell and the fact that he was detained together with heavy smokers. He also complained that he was deprived of any opportunity to exercise in the open air since detainees were only allowed a daily walk in a well in the prison building.", "12. On 12 March and 28 May 1996, in letters to the applicant, the Governor of Radom Remand Centre acknowledged that the prison conditions were difficult since Radom Remand Centre was one of the oldest prisons in Poland. He added that the prison was constantly overcrowded by 20%.", "13. On 17 July 1998 the applicant was released from prison.", "14. On 15 March 1996 the applicant's wrote his first letter to the Commission. The letter was opened by the authorities. In the top left hand corner of the letter there was a stamp, which read: “censored” (“ocenzurowano”). The stamp was followed by an illegible signature.", "15. Following the communication of the application, the Government enquired into the circumstances surrounding the censoring of the applicant's letter. They found that an employee of the Radom Regional Court had stamped the applicant's letter “censored”. They maintained that that had happened by mistake since the employee was an inexperienced clerk who had been unfamiliar with the rules governing the censorship of correspondence." ]

[ 6 ]

[ "4. The applicant was born in 1957 and lives in Nagytarcsa, Hungary.", "5. On 13 October 1995 the applicant filed for divorce before the Budapest Regional Court. She also claimed custody of the couple's three children, born respectively in 1984, 1986 and 1992, and requested the payment of maintenance and the division of the matrimonial property.", "6. After repeated motions for bias filed by the applicant's husband, the Buda Central District Court was first appointed to hear the case. As a consequence of the husband's further motion for bias, the case-file was then transferred to the Zalaegerszeg District Court.", "7. On 24 September 1996 the President, the Vice-President and all the judges of the Zalaegerszeg District Court declared bias.", "8. On 6 February 1997 the Supreme Court appointed the Miskolc District Court and the Borsod-Abaúj-Zemplén County Regional Court to hear the case.", "9. On 2 April 1997 the Miskolc District Court requested the applicant to supplement her action within 8 days. Following the grant of an extension of this time-limit, the applicant submitted additional material on 5 May 1997.", "10. A hearing was held on 24 June 1997.", "11. On 26 August 1997 the District Court requested the school attended by the couple's children to provide an opinion. It also appointed the Budapest Forensic Medical Expert Institute (“the Institute”) to give an expert psychological opinion on the parties and their children and requested to be advised as to which parent was the more suitable to raise the children.", "12. The applicant together with the three children failed to appear at the examinations scheduled for 1 October 1997 as they had not received any notification.", "13. The examinations scheduled for 18 November 1997 could not be carried out as the husband and two of the children failed to appear.", "14. On 9 December 1997 the Borsod-Abaúj-Zemplén County Regional Court found the husband's renewed motion for bias of 4 September 1997 unsubstantiated.", "15. On 12 January 1998 the Miskolc District Court ordered the parties to provide information about the children's situation and the issue of maintenance.", "16. In her letters of 15 January and 5 May 1998, the applicant requested the District Court to schedule a hearing in the case and, as an interim measure, to order her husband to pay maintenance.", "17. On 25 January 1998 the husband filed a motion for bias against all of the judges of the county.", "18. On 5 May 1998 the applicant requested the District Court to deal with the case urgently. On 15 July 1998 she repeatedly requested the court to pronounce the divorce, to grant her custody of the children, to oblige her husband to leave their flat and to pay maintenance.", "19. On 26 October 1998 the Supreme Court dismissed the husband's renewed motion for bias and warned him that if he submitted another unsubstantiated motion, he would be fined.", "20. At the court's request of 27 November 1998, the applicant provided information about the maintenance of the children.", "21. On 14 December 1998 the husband again filed a motion for bias against the judges dealing with the case.", "22. On 22 December 1998 the District Court suspended the proceedings pending the outcome of a parallel action to place the husband under guardianship.", "23. At the applicant's request, on 6 October 1999 the District Court decided to resume the proceedings and to appoint a guardian ad litem to represent the husband.", "24. On 9 November 1999 the applicant elaborated her action and requested the court to obtain psychological and educational opinions on the children. The latter opinion was submitted on 24 November 1999. On 7 December 1999 the Institute appointed an expert psychologist.", "25. On 27 January 2000 the parties' two eldest children requested the court to place them, by way of an interim measure, with the applicant.", "26. On 3 February 2000 the Institute informed the court that it struck the case out of its list as the husband and the two eldest children had repeatedly failed to appear for the examination.", "27. On 8 February 2000 the District Court ordered that the two eldest children be placed with the applicant and obliged the husband to hand them over to her within three days. On 17 February 2000 the husband appealed against this decision. On 23 February 2000 the applicant informed the court that its order could not be executed as the children had in the meantime been placed in a children's home.", "28. On 29 June 2000 the Supreme Court dismissed the husband's renewed motion for bias of 7 March 2000.", "29. On 26 September 2000 the Borsod-Abaúj-Zemplén County Regional Court quashed the order of 8 February 2000 and remitted the issue of interim measures to the District Court.", "30. At the applicant's request, on 29 September 2000 the Miskolc District Court discontinued the proceedings. In her appeal, the applicant requested that the proceedings be resumed and that the case, rather than being discontinued, should be transferred from Miskolc to a court in the town where she was domiciled. On 30 January 2001 the Borsod-Abaúj-Zemplén County Regional Court dismissed her appeal.", "31. On 21 July 2001 the applicant renewed her action before the Buda Central District Court.", "32. A hearing took place on 15 January 2002 and a further hearing was scheduled for 30 May 2002.", "33. At present, the case is pending before the District Court." ]

[ 3 ]

[ "4. The applicant was born in 1917 and lives in Rome.", "5. She is the owner of four flats in Rome, which she had let to P.C., G.F. and R.R., E.T. and S.A..\n1) Proceedings against P.C. and then his widow M.L.", "6. In a writ served on the tenant on 19 November 1990, the applicant informed him of her intention to terminate the lease on expiry of the term on 31 December 1991 and summoned him to appear before the Rome Magistrate.", "7. By a decision of 3 May 1991, which was made enforceable on 15 May 1991, the Rome Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 31 December 1992.", "8. On 1 February 1993, the applicant served notice on the tenant requiring him to vacate the premises.", "9. On 17 February 1993, she served notice on the tenant informing him that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 7 April 1993.", "10. Between 7 April 1993 and 18 November 1999, the bailiff made twenty-three attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicant was not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession.", "11. On 15 December 1999, the applicant recovered possession of the flat.\n2) Proceedings against G.F. and R.R.", "12. In a registered letter of 14 September 1989, the applicant informed the tenants that she intended to terminate the lease on expiry of the term on 30 April 1990 and asked them to vacate the premises by that date.", "13. In a writ served on the tenants on 19 November 1990, the applicant reiterated her intention to terminate the lease and summoned them to appear before the Rome Magistrate.", "14. By a decision of 3 May 1991, which was made enforceable on 17 May 1991, the Rome Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 3 May 1992.", "15. On 19 October 1992, the applicant served notice on the tenants requiring them to vacate the premises.", "16. On 18 December 1992, she served notice on the tenants informing them that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 8 January 1993.", "17. Between 8 January 1993 and 6 October 1999, the bailiff made twenty-four attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicant was not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession.", "18. On 10 January 2000, the applicant recovered possession of the flat.\n3) Proceedings against E.T.", "19. In a writ served on the tenant on 19 November 1990, the applicant informed him of her intention to terminate the lease on expiry of the term on 31 December 1991 and summoned him to appear before the Rome Magistrate.", "20. By a decision of 3 May 1991, which was made enforceable on 15 May 1991, the Rome Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 31 December 1992.", "21. On 1 February 1993, the applicant served notice on the tenant requiring him to vacate the premises.", "22. On 17 February 1993, she served notice on the tenant informing him that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 7 April 1993.", "23. Between 7 April 1993 and 24 November 2000, the bailiff made thirty-two attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicant was not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession.", "24. On 15 December 2000, the applicant recovered possession of the flat.\n4) Proceedings against S.A. and then his widow M.B.", "25. In a writ served on the tenant on 20 July 1990, the applicant informed the tenant of her intention to terminate the lease on expiry of the term on 30 June 1991 and summoned him to appear before the Rome Magistrate.", "26. By a decision of 17 January 1991, which was made enforceable on 15 April 1991, the Rome Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 30 April 1992.", "27. On 19 October 1992, the applicant served notice on the tenant requiring him to vacate the premises.", "28. On 19 December 1992, she served notice on the tenant informing him that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 8 January 1993.", "29. Between 8 January 1993 and 6 October 1999, the bailiff made twenty-five attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicant was not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession.", "30. On 4 February 2000, the applicant recovered possession of the flat." ]

[ 3, 9 ]

[ "10. The case concerns events in November and December 1993 when the applicants were taken into custody for questioning about their alleged links with the PKK (the Kurdish Workers' Party).", "11. The facts being disputed by the parties, the Commission appointed Delegates who took evidence in Ankara from 7 to 11 December 1998. They heard all the applicants (except for Hüsniye Ölmez) as witnesses, as well as Abdülhakim Güven, Fatma Demırel, Lokman Eğilmez, Eşref Hatipoğlu, Mahmut Demırel, Hasan Bozoğlu, Mithat Gül, Burhanettin Kiyak, Fırat Yavuz Yedekçi, Ünal Haney, Batuhan Özer, Murat Kirikçi, Hüsein Gazi Ateş, Ercüment Dönmez, Ali Kara, Hasan Şener, Cafer Öngün and Mehmet Durmaş.", "12. The transcripts of the oral evidence, together with the documentary evidence provided by the parties to the Commission, have been transmitted to the Court. The relevant material is summarised below (Sections C and D), as are the original submissions by the parties concerning the facts (Sections A and B).", "13. On 23 November 1993 at around 8.30 a.m. two plain-clothed policemen went to the applicant Tahir Elçi's office in Cizre. After being searched, the applicant was taken to the gendarmerie. At 10 a.m. six policemen, including the two who had detained the applicant, returned with him to search his office. They seized all the applicant's note-books, powers of attorney, case files (particularly concerning applications to the Commission - no. 21689/93 Özkan and 31 others v. Turkey, no. 21895/93 Cağirge v. Turkey and no. 20764/92 Ertak v. Turkey). His collection of newspapers (the pro-Kurdish Özgür Gündem, Özgür Halk and Rawson), magazines and books were also seized. The applicant signed a procès-verbal concerning his provisional detention. At 11 a.m. the policemen took the applicant to his home, where they made a search but did not seize anything. He was kept at the police station until being handed over to the Cizre gendarmerie command a day or so later.", "14. He alleged that he was ill-treated by the Cizre police. He was stripped naked, insulted, threatened and beaten up. His testicles were squeezed and cold water was poured on him. This lasted about an hour. Then they took the applicant to the Cizre district gendarmerie command where he was kept, blindfolded, for a couple of days in a basement. Thereafter he was handed over to the Diyarbakır provincial gendarmerie command.", "15. On 25 November 1993 the applicant's brothers were informed by the prosecuting authorities and a captain of the gendarmerie that he had been taken into detention on 24 November.", "16. The applicant was detained in Diyarbakır incommunicado until his formal remand in custody on 10 December 1993. He alleged that during this first period of detention he was interrogated under torture concerning and because of applications he had filed on behalf of clients with the Commission. Correspondence and documentation relating to those applications were put to him by his interrogators. He was supposed to confess to having relations with the PKK and being a PKK courier. When he refused he was tortured. The interrogators assaulted and abused him, particularly concerning one of the cases he had taken to the Commission involving events at the Ormaniçi village. He was stripped and left naked. He was threatened with death should he pursue claims of village evacuations and disappearances. At one point he was taken to the countryside in a military vehicle and told that he was to be killed. However, he refused to sign any confession statement, even after being hosed down with cold water (as was Niyazi Çem) and having had his testicles squeezed.", "17. In the gendarmerie command he was forced to lie on a concrete floor, blindfolded, being forbidden to speak to others or to stand up. Within a 24 hour period he received a stale slice of bread and was taken to the toilet twice. A request for other needs to be met was an excuse for further torture sessions.", "18. He was brought before a Prosecutor on 10 December 1993, where charges based on the allegations of a certain Abdülhakim Güven, a PKK confessor benefiting from the Remorse Law, were put to him. It was incorrectly alleged that an illegal magazine and document had been found in his office. His brother, Ömer, who had also been present during the search and had counter-signed the search report, could confirm this error, as could his other brother, Mehmet, who had also been present during the search (see paragraph 480 below). A false search report (a faxed not an original copy) supplanted the genuine version in the domestic court file.", "19. The applicant was remanded in custody by a judge from 10 December 1993 until 17 February 1994, when he was released after a hearing before the State Security Court. Despite repeated requests from his legal representatives, his case files and Commission correspondence were allegedly never returned to him. His legal practice was irreparably damaged by these proceedings, following which he moved to Diyarbakır. (For further details see the summary of his oral evidence, §§ 79-102 below.)", "20. On 7 December 1993 İmam Şahin was taken into custody by policemen from the Anti-Terror Department in İstanbul, when he was about to attend a hearing before the State Security Court. After being held at the Anti-Terror Department for a while, he was taken to his home where a search was carried out, but nothing incriminating was seized. His wife, Arzu Şahin, who was at home, was also taken into custody and they were both blindfolded and placed in a cell in the Security Directorate. They claim that they were not informed of the reasons for their detention.", "21. On 11 December 1993 they were handed over to plain-clothed gendarmes from Diyarbakır. Mr Şahin had to pay for the air fares to Diyarbakır of himself, his wife and these officials. On arrival, the couple were detained at the provincial gendarmerie command. Mr Şahin alleged that he was tortured over 14 days, being given a quarter of a loaf of bread (about 200 g.) to eat a day. He did not see his wife during this time, nor was he informed of her fate. Prior to being brought to court, he was interrogated in the middle of the night and, after threats of rape had been made against his wife, he was made to scribble blindfolded on certain papers. He did not know their contents.", "22. Arzu Şahin also claimed to have been interrogated under duress. She was detained in similar conditions to those of the other applicants, with a meagre daily ration of bread and minimal access to toilet facilities.", "23. On 21 December 1993 Mr and Mrs Şahin were brought before the Investigating Judge who remanded them in custody on the basis of incriminating accusations made against them by the aforementioned Abdülhakim Güven (paragraph 18 above). Mr Şahin said that he neither knew this person nor had had any relations with him. He had not been to several of the prisons cited by Mr Güven in his connection, as a verification of prison visiting records could establish.", "24. Throughout this time the applicants had to leave their children with neighbours.", "25. In the indictment issued on 22 December 1993, Arzu Şahin was charged, inter alia, with “drawing up documents belittling the Turkish State and faxing them to human rights organisations in European countries”. This was understood to be a reference to Mrs Şahin's role in the preparation of the Özgür Gundem newspaper's application to the Commission, submitted in December 1993 (Özgür Gündem v. Turkey, no. 23144/93, ECHR 2000-III).", "26. Mr and Mrs Şahin were released on 17 February 1994 after a hearing before the State Security Court. Mr Şahin claimed that these proceedings wrought irreparable damage on his professional and family life. (For further details see the summary of their oral evidence, §§ 103-122 below.)", "27. On the afternoon of 18 November 1993, three armed gendarmes carried out a search of Mr Kaya's office, with his consent, which was described in a report which he signed. He was taken to the Diyarbakır provincial gendarmerie command and was required to hand over his personal effects, which were noted. Nothing incriminating was found. He was then taken for a medical examination before being handed over to the JITEM (the Gendarmerie's Intelligence and Anti-Terror Department).", "28. JITEM officers blindfolded the applicant after putting him in a vehicle. The ensuing journey lasted 25 to 30 minutes. In the vehicle he was asked what connections he had with the PKK and was slapped and threatened with death if he did not speak. The applicant denied support for the PKK and acknowledged that some of the clients he was defending professionally, charging fees, were accused of PKK offences. The applicant claimed that he was later taken to an unknown place where his identity was recorded, after which he was taken to a room and ordered to squat on the floor. He heard people screaming and very loud music was played.", "29. During the evening of the following day, the applicant was interrogated. He was accused of being the PKK's lawyer and ordered to explain himself. The applicant insisted that he had no relations with the PKK other than in his authorised professional capacity as a defence lawyer. The applicant alleged that he was then ill-treated. He was confronted with Abdülhakim Güven who stated that the applicant had organised the PKK lawyers, which the applicant denied. He had met Mr Güven, a prisoners' representative, when he had visited clients at the Diyarbakır E-type prison.", "30. The next day the applicant returned to the interrogation room where the torture was repeated, accompanied by threats to damage his sexual organs. The applicant wrote a statement himself denying any connection with the PKK. All detainees were blindfolded and slept on a concrete floor. Half a loaf of bread and two visits to the toilet were offered per day. On the seventh or eighth day of custody, the applicant and his colleagues decided to carry out a hunger strike, which lasted two and a half days.", "31. On the night of 8 December 1993, the detainees were called up one by one and ordered to sign a number of documents, followed by more ill-treatment. The applicant did not sign during the first session. At the second session Fuat Hayri Demir told the applicant that everyone else had signed. He was then forced to sign documents without reading them, so their contents were unknown to him. Because of the bad state of health of his colleagues - MM. Elçi and Çem and Mmes Beştaş and Ölmez - on 9 December 1993, no one was taken to court that day.", "32. On 10 December 1993 he was brought to court after a cursory medical examination by a doctor who, apparently being frightened of the gendarmes, did not mention the evidence of torture in his report. After his release, the applicant received treatment for kidney and stomach problems. (For further details see the summary of his oral evidence, §§ 123-132 below.)", "33. On 15 November 1993 in the evening, the applicant was taken into custody by the police after his house had been searched with his father's consent. A search report stated that nothing incriminating had been found. He protested against his apprehension, as lacking any authority or jurisdiction. (He had been detained on three previous occasions in 1991, 1992 and 1993 in connection with PKK activities; the last occasion led to a conviction and prison sentence, which was the subject of an appeal at the material time.)", "34. He was handed over to the Diyarbakır provincial gendarmerie command and interrogated there for 26 days (25 days according to official records). A former PKK member, Abdülhakim Güven, who was a confessor, confronted the applicant and accused him and other practising lawyers of assisting the PKK. The allegations focused on the exchange of notes between different prisons concerning the PKK and organic relations with that organisation. The applicant was forced to sign pre-prepared statements as he was scared. He had not known their contents and, when he was later informed, he repudiated them.", "35. The applicant alleged that during his detention he was severely beaten, threatened with execution, insulted, deprived of sleep and food and blindfolded much of the time. He stated that Tahir Elçi, Niyazi Çem and Meral Daniş Beştaş had been tortured with cold water.", "36. On 10 December 1993 the applicant was released by a judge who did not take into account the statements made in detention. (For further details see the summary of his oral evidence, §§ 133-145 below.)", "37. On 15 November 1993 at about 6.30 p.m., there was a ring at Mr Acar's door bell and he was told to open up for the police. In order to check their credentials, in view of recent police impostors abducting and killing human rights workers in the region, the applicant called the Chief Prosecutor at the State Security Court. His nephew, Burhan Acar, was at the applicant's house, together with a guest. Three hours later, a commissioner arrived from the Diyarbakır provincial gendarmerie command, whom the applicant knew, whereupon the applicant opened his door to about 15 policemen, gendarmes and special team members, who then conducted a thorough, two-hour search of his flat.", "38. The applicant was taken from his home by gendarmes, together with some of his books, cassettes and articles concerning work he had completed for the Human Rights Association when he had been a member of its management. He was blindfolded for the journey and taken to the provincial gendarmerie command. He was not informed of the reasons for his apprehension. He was then locked in a dark, damp cell, without any heating, after being given a blanket, although the temperature outside was below 0oC.", "39. On the third day of his detention he was taken somewhere for interrogation. The interrogators asked him, in particular, whether he had relations with the PKK, whether he had attended hearings before the State Security Court concerning PKK militants and whether he had prepared reports on human rights. (This was understood to be a reference to his work in the preparation of application no. 22947/93, Nebahat Akkoç v. Turkey, to the Commission [Court judgment of 10 October 2000], as well as his communications with the London based Kurdistan Human Rights Project). Then he was confronted with a PKK confessor, Abdülhakim Güven. When the applicant refused to accept the accusations made against him, he was taken outside and stripped naked. He was threatened with being taken into the hills and killed. He alleged that, during interrogations, he was slapped, kicked and beaten. The applicant finally signed a statement whilst blindfolded as he was ill and scared.", "40. During his detention he was taken to the toilet twice a day, at 6 in the morning and evening. It was impossible to use the toilet or get drinking water at other times. He received a slice of stale bread every 24 hours.", "41. 26 days later (25 days according to official records), on 10 December 1993, he was brought before a Prosecutor of the State Security Court when he was informed of the contents of the document he had signed. He was accused of many acts which had not been mentioned during the interrogations. He was remanded in custody at the Diyarbakır E-Type Prison. (For further details see the summary of his oral evidence, §§ 146-158 below.)", "42. In front of the building of the İstanbul State Security Court on 23 November 1993 around midday, Mr Çem was taken into custody by five policemen from the Anti-Terror Department. The relevant report on that date stated that he had been apprehended at the request of the Diyarbakır provincial gendarme command in connection with organisational activities for the PKK, which included acting as a courier. The “house search with consent” report of that date mentioned that the applicant had been detained with the permission of the Chief Public Prosecutor of the State Security Court.", "43. Mr Çem was taken to the police station of the Gayrettepe 1 Division. His house was searched, but nothing was seized. His bag was searched and in the evening he was thrown into a cell.", "44. On 26 November 1993 he was transferred to the Bursa Osmangazi Detention Centre and returned to the Gayrettepe premises on the evening of the following day. On 28 November 1993 the applicant and a suspect from Bursa were taken by air to Diyarbakır and the premises of the JITEM at the Diyarbakır provincial gendarmerie command.", "45. For the first two days Mr Çem was not interrogated. Interrogation began on 1 December 1993 at around 11.30 p.m. Three more blindfolds were wrapped over his eyes. The applicant was accused of having accompanied a certain Riza Altun, a PKK protector, by plane, to İstanbul and of having sent him to join the PKK, of acting as a PKK courier between prisons, of organising PKK relations between İstanbul and Europe, and of having contacts with the political branch of the PKK, as well as with the Özgür Gündem and Özgür Halk newspapers. The applicant denied any relations with the PKK, other than with certain clients whom he had defended before the State Security Court. He was then sworn at, hit and his hair was pulled. Abdülhakim Güven was brought in and accused the applicant of being a prison courier. The applicant replied that Mr Güven was inventing such accusations in order to benefit from the Remorse Law, and he explained his position regarding prison visits to his clients. On one such occasion he had met Mr Güven. The next day he was again interrogated with the same accusations being made, which he continued to deny.", "46. The applicant stated that throughout the 18 days of his detention (17 days according to official records), he was beaten, threatened, abused, insulted, forced to listen to loud music and to sleep on a cold, concrete floor, whilst being blindfolded all the time. He was given a half a loaf of bread once and taken to the toilet twice each day. There were blankets on the stone, corridor floor - two for three people. The detainees put one on the floor and covered themselves with the other.", "47. He alleged that he was stripped naked, together with Tahir Elçi, and hosed down with pressurised cold water in the toilet on 9 December 1993 as he had refused to sign statements, the contents of which were not disclosed to him. The cold water torture only ceased when he began bashing his own head against the wall as he could not bear it any more. Tahir Elçi, Meral Daniş Beştaş and Hüsniye Ölmez suffered the same treatment. Everyone in the place heard the screams of Hüsniye Ölmez.", "48. During the evening of 8 December 1993, the interrogators tried to make him sign a statement they had prepared without allowing him to read it first. As he refused, he was beaten. On 9 December 1993 he was again told to sign the statement and, when he refused, he and Tahir Elçi were taken to the toilet, stripped naked and tortured with cold pressurised water. When he could not take any more, the applicant began hitting his head against the wall. He was then taken out, dressed and placed with his friends. The next day he was brought before a court. (For further details see the summary of his oral evidence, §§ 159-172 below.)", "49. On 20 November 1993 at 7.20 a.m., the applicant was taken into custody by gendarmes from his home, after it was searched. Nothing was seized. He believed that his arrest was based on the abstract declarations of a PKK confessor, Abdülhakim Güven, whom the applicant had met when visiting clients in prison, and who was seeking to save himself. He also considered his arrest to have been unlawful, as being contrary to the safeguards provided by the Law on Advocates (see paragraphs 584-586 below).", "50. He was blindfolded and transported to the Diyarbakır provincial gendarmerie command. He was placed in a crowded, damp corridor near a toilet where he was required to lie on the cold, concrete floor with only a blanket. As everyone was blindfolded, he made voice contact with the other detained lawyers.", "51. During the 21 days he was in custody (20 days according to official records), he alleged that he was punched, slapped, kicked, threatened with death and kept constantly blindfolded. He was given nothing to eat apart from half a loaf of bread a day. He was made to sign a fabricated record of the aforementioned search (which falsely indicated that a PKK note had been seized), as well as a statement, which he later repudiated before the Public Prosecutor.", "52. On 10 December 1993 he was brought before the Diyarbakır State Security Court, when he was released. On 15 December 1993 he was re-arrested after the Prosecutor's appeal, and remanded in the Diyarbakır E-type prison. (For further details see the summary of his oral evidence, §§ 173-187 below.)", "53. Mrs Beştaş and her husband were taken into custody during the early evening of 16 November 1993 when leaving the Diyarbakır State Security Court. They were transported in a car by people who said they were contra-guerillas disguised as officers. During transportation she and her husband were threatened with death. They were taken to what she later learned was the Diyarbakır provincial gendarmerie command. She was kept standing, facing a wall, for a couple of hours and then put in a very cold, dark cell on her own and given a blanket. Half an hour later she was taken to the interrogation room and accused of being a courier for the PKK. She replied that she had visited prisons by reason of her job. She alleged that she was slapped twice and told to strip. As she was removing her jumper, she was ordered to get dressed again. She was advised to confess later or be tortured. She was then returned to her cell. During the evening of the following day, she was interrogated again. She was accused of being the secretary of the Human Rights Association and of working for the PKK. For a whole week she was questioned about her activities for the Association, and particularly about applications against Turkey made to European institutions.", "54. Two days before being brought to court, she was taken from her cell in the middle of the night. She was given a pen and told to sign some papers. She refused to do so without reading them first, whereupon she was taken elsewhere and tortured, being stripped naked, subjected to continual insults and hosed down with cold water three times, for at least an hour each time. She was threatened with being tortured in front of her husband. As a result of the cold water treatment and the probable ensuing hypothermia, she contracted pneumonia, of which she had medical evidence.", "55. During her 25 days in custody (24 days according to official records), the applicant was allowed to go to the toilet twice daily and was given a piece of bread once a day. Deafening music was played throughout her detention and she heard others screaming.", "56. She was released on 10 December 1993. (For further details see the summary of her oral evidence, §§ 188-204 below.)", "57. Apart from the death threat, Mr Beştaş recounts similar events to those experienced by his wife concerning their apprehension on 16 November 1993 (paragraph 53 above). At the Diyarbakır provincial gendarmerie command, he was put in a cell and given a single blanket, which was insufficient protection from the cold. He was allowed a slice of bread a day during his detention.", "58. He was accused of being a courier for the PKK. The applicant insisted that he was a lawyer who took on all kinds of cases. He claimed that he was frequently taken to the interrogation room, being beaten up on his way there, and being threatened with torture. During his 25 days in custody (24 days according to official records), he was blindfolded and he was forced to listen to very loud music and nationalist songs. He was also forced to sign a statement after threats to sexually abuse his wife were made.", "59. The applicant was brought before the State Security Court Prosecutor on 10 December 1993. The questions put to him were based on the false declarations of a former PKK member, Abdülhakim Güven, who had benefited from the Remorse Law. He was released and then re-arrested on 14 December 1993, after the Prosecutor's appeal, and remanded in the Diyarbakır E-type prison. At a hearing before the State Security Court on 17 February 1994, he was released, after being threatened, together with his colleagues, by a gendarme commander. He stated that he had contracted pneumonia because of the cold he had experienced in gendarme custody. (For further details see the summary of his oral evidence, §§ 205-219 below).", "60. On 23 November 1993 when leaving the Diyarbakır State Security Court around midday, Mr Erten was apprehended by gendarmes, who refused to draw up a report on this in the presence of witnesses. An “apprehension and search report” was drafted later, which he alleged was unlawful. He gave all his belongings and documents to a trainee lawyer. The gendarmes took him to the Diyarbakır provincial gendarmerie command where he was questioned about his reasons for taking political cases. The applicant replied that as a lawyer it was his duty to do so, and that not all his cases were political. He claimed that he was made to strip naked, abused, insulted, kicked and slapped. His colleagues - MM. Elçi and Çem and Mmes Beştaş and Ölmez - were stripped naked and doused with cold water. False accusations, which the applicant denied, were made against him by Abdülhakim Güven.", "61. On 8 December 1993 he was forced to sign some papers because he was scared. He was unaware of their contents as he was blindfolded. The conditions of detentions were inhuman: a slice of bread once and brief toilet visits twice a day. Moreover, he and the other detainees were crowded together in a wet corridor.", "62. When he was brought to court on 10 December 1993, he learned of the statements made against him by Abdülhakim Güven. The Prosecutor alleged that he had been apprehended in possession of an incriminating PKK document. The applicant replied that this was impossible and illogical. He claimed to have been “framed”, for he knew of the wave of arrests of his colleagues at that time and the rumours about Abdülhakim Güven. So he would have had to have been out of his mind to carry such papers around with him.", "63. The applicant was released then re-arrested a few days later on an arrest warrant dated 14 December 1993, following the Prosecutor's appeal. He was remanded in custody in the Diyarbakır E-type prison. He was again released on 17 February 1994 by the State Security Court. (For further details see the summary of his oral evidence, §§ 220-234 below.)", "64. On 16 November 1993 the applicant was taken into custody when he was leaving the Diyarbakır State Security Court. He was transported to the Diyarbakır provincial gendarmerie command. In general he was made aware by his interrogators that the PKK confessor, Abdülhakim Güven, had alleged that he was in league with PKK prisoners, had acted as a courier for them, and had smuggled unlawful materials into prisons, e.g. a flick knife. The applicant denied the allegations.", "65. The applicant's brother had been detained in the same prison as Mr Güven. Mr Güven also attended all interviews with clients. The applicant was confronted, whilst blindfolded, with Mr Güven. He signed certain statements, the contents of which he did not know, because of the psychological pressure brought to bear on him. He was released on 10 December 1993. (For further details see the summary of his oral evidence, §§ 235-239 below.)", "66. On 16 November 1993 the applicant was taken into custody by gendarmes after leaving the Diyarbakır State Security Court around 4.30 p.m., together with Meral Daniş Beştaş, Mesut Beştaş and Baki Demirhan. He was transported to the Diyarbakır provincial gendarmerie command. When he was interrogated, he was questioned about the cases he had defended before the State Security Court. He was accused of assisting PKK detainees by acting as a courier and not charging fees for his work. He was told that the PKK confessor, Abdülhakim Güven, had made certain allegations about him and other local lawyers. The applicant denied these allegations. He signed various statements, the contents of which he did not know, under physical and psychological duress. He was released on 10 December 1993. (For further details see the summary of his oral evidence, §§ 240-248 below.)", "67. On 30 November 1993 the applicant was arrested at another lawyer's office. After the official search report noted that nothing incriminating had been found, he was taken into custody by gendarmes. He was transported to the Diyarbakır provincial gendarmerie command. He was accused of being a member of and assisting the PKK, and of constantly defending PKK cases. He denied the allegations. The applicant signed certain documents under duress in order to avoid being tortured. He did not know their contents at that point as he had been blindfolded. He was released on 10 December 1993. (For further details see the summary of his oral evidence, §§ 249-255 below.)", "68. On 3 December 1993 the applicant was arrested by gendarmes from the Diyarbakır provincial gendarmerie command as he was leaving the State Security Court around 12.30 p.m. One or two days later he was taken for interrogation and accused of being a courier for the PKK between prisons, and of assisting and harbouring the PKK. Someone calling himself Mr Güven was apparently present and urged the applicant to confess like him. He denied these allegations. Under threat of torture, he signed certain documents, the contents of which were unknown to him, as he was blindfolded. He was released on 10 December 1993. (For further details see the summary of his oral evidence and the summaries of his statements, §§ 262-278 and 424-442 below.)", "69. On 16 November 1993 the applicant was apprehended by gendarmes from the Diyarbakır provincial gendarmerie command. She alleged that she was made to strip naked and tortured with beatings and cold water dousing during her detention. She was constantly threatened and forced to sign some papers, the contents of which she did not see as she was blindfolded, with her hand being held. She was remanded in custody on 10 December 1993 and released by the State Security Court on 17 February 1994. (Ms Ölmez did not appear before the Commission Delegates, but further details were given by some of her colleagues; see the summary of the evidence - §§ 31, 47 and 60 above and §§ 96, 141, 153, 166, 197, 228, 254 below; see also §§ 287, 505-506, 521, 539 and 548 below).", "70. Following incriminating statements made by Abdülhakim Güven, who was on trial for his active membership of the PKK terrorist organisation, an investigation was instigated against the applicants. He alleged that the applicants had aided and abetted the organisation in various ways. (For further details see the summary of his statements to the gendarmerie and the Diyarbakır State Security Court below, §§ 424-442.)", "71. The periods of custody with the gendarmerie or police and the periods of detention on remand after a judicial decision in relation to the applicants were as follows:\n \n \nPeriods of detention in the custody of gendarmes / police\nPeriods of detention ordered by a judge\nTahir Elçi", "72. At no point were the applicants ill-treated. They were dealt with in accordance with the law and their conditions of detention were acceptable.", "73. On 10 December 1993 most of the applicants were brought before Judge Cafer Sadık Ural and released on bail, with the exception of Mr Elçi, Mr Acar and Ms Ölmez, who were remanded in custody. However, the Public Prosecutor of the Diyarbakır State Security Court appealed ex parte against these releases, whereupon the State Security Court ordered the re-arrest of MM. Kurbanoğlu, Beştaş and Erten, who were remanded in custody. Mr and Mrs Şahin were brought before Judge İsmail Gündez on 21 December 1993 and remanded in custody.", "74. As a result of the preliminary investigation, a Public Prosecutor of the Diyarbakır State Security Court, Mr Ünal Haney, drew up an indictment dated 22 December 1993 against 23 people, including the applicants in the present case and certain prison officers, on charges of being members of and acting for the PKK terrorist organisation. Some of them were accused of other serious offences, such as helping PKK terrorists procure weapons, smuggling in and out of prison proscribed materials, such as cyanide or a knife, and receiving and implementing instructions from the PKK leadership.", "75. On 17 February 1994 all the applicants had their first hearing before the State Security Court and were released on bail the same day. The prosecution had three principal witnesses. The main witness was Abdülhakim Güven, the PKK repented confessor, who confirmed his allegations against the applicants. A second PKK member, Fatma Demirel, appeared in court only to retract her previous statement, which she alleged had been extracted from her under torture. She predictably claimed before the court that that part of her statement concerning the lawyers' involvement with the PKK had been drafted by gendarmes who had forced her to sign it (paragraph 533 below). The evidence of a third informer was deemed inadequate.", "76. Other evidence against the applicants consisted of their statements at the gendarmerie command, which they subsequently repudiated as having been made under duress. The State Security Court reserved the issue of the admissibility of those statements. The remaining evidence comprised incriminating documents such as PKK notes, receipts and newsletters, which the applicants alleged had been fabricated.", "77. On 22 February 2001 the State Security Court suspended the proceedings for 5 years, to be taken up again should any of the applicants commit an offence of the same or more serious kind during that time; otherwise they would be definitively closed (see Law No. 4616 on conditional release, the suspension of proceedings or the execution of sentences in respect of crimes committed before 23 April 1999, paragraph 573 below).", "78. Three Delegates of the European Commission of Human Rights took evidence in Ankara between 7 and 11 December 1998. The applicants, with the exception of Hüsniye Ölmez, appeared before the Delegates, as did several Government witnesses. The applicants' representatives stated that Ms Ölmez maintained her application even though she did not testify for fear of having to re-live the events and because she was pregnant at the time. The oral evidence may be summarised as follows:", "79. Mr Elçi was born in 1966. At the material time he was a practising lawyer in Cizre, but was now working in Diyarbakır.", "80. In 1993 there had been some 10 practising lawyers in Cizre. He himself was registered at the Cizre Bar and handled different types of criminal cases. However, many people were taken into custody at that time and the applicant found himself more and more defending people before the Diyarbakır State Security Court.", "81. On 23 November 1993 he was in his Cizre office at around 8.30 a.m. preparing a case with a client. Suddenly two armed officials entered his office and demanded that he accompany them to the Cizre police station. Two other officials waited outside. He was taken to the Cizre police headquarters, and his car was removed.", "82. After waiting there for some time, Mr Elçi was taken back to his office by several other officials (requiring 2 or 3 vehicles). His office was searched. All his belongings were put in sacks, including many case files, notebooks, books (except legal text books), newspapers, magazines, an address book and other documents. Amongst the case files were several involving applicants to the European Commission of Human Rights: Ahmet Özkan and others v. Turkey (No. 21689/93), Cağirge and others v. Turkey (No. 21895/93) and Ertak v. Turkey (No. 20764/92). A further application by Süleyman Kutluk and 50 others was in the course of preparation. These Commission files were never returned to the applicant in their entirety, unlike the domestic files.", "83. In answer to questions from the Commission Delegates, Mr Elçi claimed that a document purporting to have been found in his office headed “Comrade Elçi” with an “ERNK”[2] stamp on it, was a complete fabrication and was not to be found in the document delivery report.", "84. The officials had drawn up a short, hand-written report, concluding that nothing incriminating had been found. His brother, Ömer Elçi, being present, had signed the report.", "85. The applicant was then taken to his house where another search was conducted, but nothing incriminating was found. He was returned to the Cizre police headquarters where his personal belongings (belt, money and wallet) were removed. He was blindfolded and put in a dark cell in the basement.", "86. Later he was taken out of the cell by a large group of officials and kicked, beaten, threatened with his life and insulted. He was made to remove his clothes, cold water was poured over him and his testicles were squeezed. He was asked why he took cases concerning villagers who had been evacuated from their homes, and why he denounced Turkey abroad. He did not think this was an interrogation, rather the officials were venting their anger on him. This ill-treatment lasted some 15 to 20 minutes before he was returned to his cell.", "87. One of the Cizre policemen involved in this was a certain Ramaran Hoca or Kanlıdere, who had already accosted the applicant in the street to check his identity. As a member of the Diyarbakır Human Rights Association, assisting destitute villagers at a time of great tension in Cizre, involving clashes between the PKK and State forces, threats had been made to him previously by the Cizre police.", "88. During the night he was transferred to the Cizre district gendarmerie command, where he was kept blindfolded in a corridor in the basement. He was not ill-treated there. Either the next day or the day after, he was taken to the Diyarbakır provincial gendarmerie command where he was made to lie, double-blindfolded, on a cement floor. There were other detainees, including the applicant Mehmet Selim Kurbanoğlu, but nobody really talked to each other except in short whispers.", "89. On the second or third day Mr Elçi was taken for interrogation. He was asked about his dealings with the PKK; when he said he had none, he was punched very hard.", "90. Two days later he was interrogated again. He was confronted with Abdülhakim Güven, a prisoner and PKK confessor, whom Mr Elçi had known as a neighbour and fellow student. Mr Güven recounted that Mr Elçi had acted as a courier for him, taking notes to PKK aids in Cizre. Mr Elçi vehemently denied the allegations, whereupon he was beaten.", "91. The Delegates of the Commission asked Mr Elçi about a statement made by Mr Güven that he had met a PKK connection called Beriwan at Mr Elçi's house. Mr Elçi denied this, suggesting that Mr Güven might have slandered him out of jealousy because of his success as a lawyer, whereas Mr Güven was a common criminal and murderer.", "92. Mr Elçi claimed that two documents purporting to be records of interviews with him and a confrontation with Mr Güven were complete fabrications, as shown by the fact that he had not signed them.", "93. A few days later he was taken in a vehicle to a field where his execution was simulated - officials fired a gun about 10 times and ordered him to talk. Mr Elçi shouted insults in reply. On the way back to the detention centre, he was again ordered to get out of the vehicle on a gravel road and a couple of shots were fired. He had been extremely frightened.", "94. Three or four days later he was presented to the Public Prosecutor to whom he recounted his background. However, to avoid any fabrication of his statement, he refused to sign anything, whereupon he was insulted and returned to his place of detention.", "95. Perhaps a couple of days later, Mr Elçi was to be presented to a court. He was taken into a room where his blindfold was removed and placed at a simple table where a bright light was shone in his face. He refused to sign a statement that was put in front of him, despite efforts to trick him into doing so. He was then taken to a back room, stripped naked and hosed down with cold, pressurised water, to the front of his body and genitals. His testicles were squeezed two or three times and he was freezing, aggravated by the fact that it was winter.", "96. There were other people detained with him, including the applicant Fuat Hayri Demır, who at one point covered Mr Elçi with his jacket to protect him from the cold. He heard the applicant Hüsniye Ölmez moaning and crying. Niyazi Çem also called out to him. Mr Elçi was returned to the previous detention room where co-detainees said they had signed documents out of fear.", "97. He was subjected to cold water hosing whilst naked on another day, together with Niyazi Çem, who was screaming. It seemed to last an hour and a half. Loud nationalistic music was played at the same time. They were ordered to sign or die. However, neither of them signed any document. Mr Elçi believed at that stage that he was indeed about to die.", "98. Mr Elçi had only met Mr Çem when they had been detained together. The latter had been brought from İstanbul. Mr Elçi was not in custody at the same time as Mr and Mrs Şahin, who were also brought from İstanbul.", "99. During his detention, Mr Elçi received generally only one piece of bread a day and was taken to the toilet twice a day. Despite the bitter winter cold, he was given no blanket. He sat on concrete in his own clothes. Some of the other detainees had a thin smelly blanket.", "100. Mr Elçi had not been seen by a doctor when he was first detained. He was presented to a doctor on 10 December 1993, when he was taken to the Public Prosecutor. Apart from asking him whether he had any ailments, this doctor did not examine him, and Mr Elçi did not mention the ill-treatment, in order not to prolong his detention any longer. Anyway, he had no corroborating injuries on his body as far as he knew then.", "101. Mr Elçi told the Public Prosecutor and the Diyarbakır State Security Court about the ill-treatment to which he had been subjected, but his impression was that he was not taken seriously. In the statement to the Prosecutor he was recorded as having complained of having been left naked with cold water being poured on him, of torture by electricity and of having had his testicles squeezed. However the electricity claim was incorrect. He had signed his statement to the Public Prosecutor without reading it over, as nothing detrimental had been said about him. From 10 December 1993 to 17 February 1994, Mr Elçi was detained on remand without further ill-treatment. On the latter date, he was discharged after recounting to the court his allegations of ill-treatment, and nothing had happened since, although the prosecution against him was still pending. At first he was accused of being a member of an illegal organisation, modified later to assisting members of that organisation.", "102. Some time in 1995 or 1996, Mr Elçi was summoned by the police headquarters in Diyarbakır to give a statement about the treatment to which he had been subjected in Cizre. Some three years later, he was required by the prosecution office to undergo a medical examination which, naturally, disclosed nothing so long after the events. However, he repeated his earlier allegations. In the summer of 1998 he was informed that the Administrative Council of Cizre had decided not to pursue criminal proceedings against any of the Cizre officials allegedly involved in the matter. Mr Elçi objected to that decision but did not know what the outcome of that had been.", "103. Mr Şahin was born in 1958 and was a practising lawyer in İstanbul at the material time.", "104. On 7 December 1993, whilst the applicant was waiting to plead a case in the İstanbul State Security Court, he was taken into custody by policemen from the İstanbul Anti-Terror Department. From there, the applicant was taken to his home, where his wife was waiting, and a search was made. Both were taken back to the Anti-Terror Department before their children came home from school, so a neighbour agreed to look after them.", "105. The officials were unable to explain why the couple had been detained, other than saying that they were acting on the instructions of the Diyarbakır gendarmerie. Mr and Mrs Şahin were kept together in the same cell until around 11 a.m. Two or three officers from Diyarbakir arrived and Mr Şahin was taken to a Turkish Airlines office where he paid for everyone's tickets to Diyarbakır, for which destination they left at 7 a.m. on 11 December 1993.", "106. At Diyarbakır airport they were handed over to other officers and taken in a minibus, with their heads covered, to what he later learnt was the Diyarbakır provincial gendarmerie command.", "107. Mr Şahin was not told about the charges against him. During interrogation he was accused of being involved in the closure of Eskişehir Prison, of being a PKK courier between various prisons, in some of which he had never set foot, and of denigrating Turkey. He acknowledged involvement in the campaign to close Eskişehir Prison.", "108. He was asked questions about Abdülhakim Güven, whom he had never met directly. It was alleged that Mr Güven had used him as a courier. He and his wife were accused of defending left-wing and PKK cases.", "109. It was five days later, when he was presented to the Diyarbakır State Security Court, that he was informed that Mr Güven had made formal allegations against him. He was not confronted with Mr Güven during his detention as far as he was aware, having been blindfolded throughout.", "110. Mr Şahin had not made any applications outside Turkey on behalf of any of his clients. He had contacted the Human Rights Association and similar institutions about the allegedly inhuman conditions in the cell system at Eskişehir prison. He had not filed any applications for clients to the European Commission of Human Rights.", "111. He had signed a confrontation record and statement which he subsequently disavowed, as the signature had been made under pressure after being tortured.", "112. He was taken before an Investigating Judge who apologised for having to arrest him and his wife despite the two children, but he had been ordered to do so by his “chief”.", "113. Mr Şahin was released on 17 February 1994, together with his wife. It took him two and a half years to recover from the experience and before he could resume his legal practice in İstanbul. In the meantime he performed his military service. He had no clients left when he started work again.", "114. Mrs Şahin was born in 1961 and was a practising lawyer in İstanbul at the material time.", "115. On 7 December 1993 she had been at home when her husband telephoned around 10 a.m. to say that he had been taken into custody and that she should wait for him to be brought home by the police.", "116. Four police officers and her husband arrived between 11-11.30 a.m. and she was told that she was also to be taken into custody. A search of about 40 to 45 minutes was made of the house and a report drawn up which they did not sign there. Nothing was seized. She asked a neighbour to look after their two children, as she was expecting to be away for several days. Mr and Mrs Şahin were taken to the First Branch of the İstanbul Police Headquarters, without being told of the reasons for their detention, other than a reference to unspecified instructions from Diyarbakır.", "117. Around 4 a.m. on 11 December she and her husband were handed over to two plain-clothed officials from Diyarbakır, to where they flew at around 7 a.m. They were taken, head-covered, to a place called the JITEM at the Diyarbakır provincial gendarmerie command, according to the officials there. She claimed that the JITEM had no legal status.", "118. In Diyarbakır they were not informed of what they were accused. The questions put to them were unrelated to any possible criminal offence. She was asked about her work for newspaper publishers whose editions included “Özgür Gündem”, a purportedly separatist newspaper. She was asked why she had married a Kurd and why she defended dissidents. She was told that she was a traitor and a separatist. No mention was made of European complaints.", "119. It was only before the Public Prosecutor of the State Security Court, to whom she was presented on 21 or 22 December 1993, that she heard that Abdülhakim Güven had made specific allegations against her. She had not been confronted with him, as far as she was aware, being blindfolded throughout. The Prosecutor said that Mr Güven accused her of acting as a PKK courier, serving as a PKK lawyer for the newspaper, being financed by them and the like. It was true that she had signed a confrontation document concerning Mr Güven, but this was at the end of the alleged torture period when she was disoriented, intimidated and tricked into signing a document, the contents of which she had been unable to verify due to the blindfold.", "120. The indictment dated 22 December 1993 concerning her and other detainees was not shown to her until 20 to 25 days after its issue, by her lawyers, when she was on remand at the Diyarbakır central maximum security prison.", "121. The indictment mentioned that Mrs Şahin had drawn up documents which had been faxed to human rights associations in European countries. Mrs Şahin acknowledged having prepared documents which colleagues in Europe would have submitted to the European Commission of Human Rights. She also actively campaigned in Turkey against unlawful events and had spoken to foreign human rights delegations who had visited Turkey.", "122. Prior to her arrest, she had visited a prison in Diyarbakır where she researched an article for “Özgür Gündem”, and had acted as the newspaper's representative in a civil defamation claim. During that visit, Abdülhakim Güven had been in the room. She had not taken up the defence of any PKK prisoners.", "123. Mr Kaya was born in 1961 and at the material time was a practising lawyer in Diyarbakır.", "124. On 18 November 1993 at about 3 or 4 p.m., three plain-clothed policemen went to the applicant's office which they searched even though they did not have the proper authorisation from the Public Prosecutor pursuant to Articles 58 and 59 of the Law on Advocates.They had had Mr Kaya's agreement. A record of the search was drawn up, which he signed. Nothing was seized.", "125. He was then taken into custody at the Diyarbakır provincial gendarmerie command without any reasons being given. Prior to that time, he knew that other colleagues of his had been taken into custody by the JITEM, but he was detained by the police, so he made no connection with the previous events. On arrival at the police station he was told that he had been detained on the JITEM's instructions. His personal belongings were removed and he was taken for a medical examination before being handed over to JITEM officers at the hospital.", "126. During interrogation he was told that he had PKK connections, about which he was asked. It was said that he was a PKK lawyer. He was confronted with someone purporting to be Abdülhakim Güven. The applicant did not see him because of a double blindfold. He had met Mr Güven when interviewing clients in Diyarbakır prison, at which interviews the former had been present as a prisoners' representative.", "127. Mr Güven accused him of recruiting lawyers for the PKK, which Mr Kaya denied. According to a written statement by Mr Güven, not put to the applicant orally during the interrogation, Mr Kaya was accused of having acted as a courier between Mardin and Gaziantep prisons. However, Mr Kaya had never set foot in the latter establishment, and he denied the allegation.", "128. Mr Kaya signed statements at the end of his interrogations after having been intimidated by harassment, kicking and beatings, and the fear of being left a cripple.", "129. Among his co-detainees, the applicant saw that Tahir Elçi had been beaten up and was in acute pain. Meral Daniş Beştaş was moaning and freezing cold, presumably after being hosed down with cold water. This treatment had been inflicted on Tahir Elçi and Niyazi Çem in the toilet area at the end of the cell corridor, from which one could hear screams, shouting and pouring water. It was very cold outside at the time.", "130. They were kept in a corridor and slept on the floor, one blanket for three people. Each day they were fed about half a loaf of left-over bread which had traces of other food on it. They were taken to the toilet twice a day and were given drinking water. Deafening nationalistic music was blaring all the time and they were blindfolded.", "131. Before the Public Prosecutor Mr Kaya refuted the statement he had signed under torture.", "132. On his release being ordered by a court, the applicant and several other lawyers were addressed by a gendarme regiment commander, Eşref Hatipoğlu, who warned them that, just because they had been released, they had not been cleared of suspicion as far as the security forces were concerned.", "133. Mr Tur was born in 1971 and at the material time was a practising lawyer in Diyarbakır.", "134. On 15 November 1997 around 8.30 p.m. police arrived at his house and conducted a search. A report was drawn up concluding that no incriminating evidence had been found, and nothing was seized. Mr Tur was taken into custody at the Diyarbakır provincial gendarmerie command.", "135. Mr Tur protested at the lack of authority and jurisdiction for his detention by the gendarmerie. He was told that he was in the hands of a gendarmerie intelligence service - the JITEM.", "136. He was detained for 26 days (25 days according to official records) and interrogated about his professional activities and alleged involvement with the PKK, given his legal representation of cases before the State Security Court.", "137. Mr Tur was confronted with Abdülhakim Güven, a PKK confessor whom the applicant had met as a prisoners' representative in Diyarbakır Prison when visiting clients there. The applicant's name and that of several lawyers had been cited in his confessions, but Mr Tur believed that these events would in any event have happened to him, without such denunciations, because of his human rights involvement. Mr Tur vehemently denied Mr Güven's allegations.", "138. Contrary to official claims, he had not been confronted with his maternal aunt's husband, Seyfettin Aslan. He denied having carried out PKK tasks with him, including aiding, abetting and harbouring a wounded PKK member, who, in the applicant's view, had never existed.", "139. Mr Tur was kept in a cell 2 x 1 metres. When in the cell, he was able to remove his blindfold. He received about a quarter of a loaf of bread a day and, as far as he could remember, he was taken to the toilet once every 24 hours. Drinking water was not readily available. He was forbidden to speak to other co-detainees. Those who disobeyed were severely beaten, insulted and tortured.", "140. He claimed to have been severely beaten, insulted and threatened with execution. He was deprived of sleep due to very loud music being played all the time. He had been blindfolded throughout and had signed statements 25 days later under duress. He repudiated the contents of those statements.", "141. Tahir Elçi, Hüsniye Ölmez and Meral Daniş Beştaş (and possibly Niyazi Çem) were also tortured, particularly with cold water hosing, which he heard being used on them in the toilet area. He recognised their voices, as he knew them well. They lost weight and their overall demeanour deteriorated as a result.", "142. The officers who escorted them to interrogation were not the same as those who performed the interrogation. As far as he could tell, being blindfolded, 3 or 4 people conducted his interrogation.", "143. Mr Tur was taken to a doctor at the end of the custody period but, as he showed no visible marks of torture, the doctor said he was unable to record anything. He nevertheless related his complaints of torture to the doctor, the Public Prosecutor and the Investigating Judge.", "144. Before being released, he and some of his colleagues were addressed by a Diyarbakır regiment commander who warned them that the case was not closed and they would still be followed.", "145. Mr Tur had been detained three times previously in connection with the PKK activities of his brother, Cesur Tur. His brother was killed in a clash in 1992. The applicant was convicted and sentenced to imprisonment twice for assisting and harbouring the PKK. This background might have explained his detention in December 1993. At the time of his appearance before the Delegates, he was serving a 6 year prison sentence for PKK related offences.", "146. Mr Acar was born in 1964 and at the material time was a practising lawyer in Diyarbakır. His work involved both civil and criminal cases, including State Security Court defendants. He had visited some clients in the various regional prisons.", "147. Around 9.15 p.m. on 15 November 1993 some 15 policemen, gendarmes and members of a special team went to the applicant's house and made a three hour search, without asking his permission and without any explanations. All his personal correspondence, articles and reports which he had written, and books which they considered to be illegal, were seized. However, the latter had all been lawfully purchased from book shops. A report was drawn up, listing the seized items. Nothing was ever returned to the applicant. Some of the materials were put in the prosecution file.", "148. Mr Acar was escorted to hospital by police superintendent Numan, where a certificate of good health was delivered. He was then blindfolded and taken to the Diyarbakır provincial gendarmerie command in a taxi, during which trip he was punched and insulted. He was severely beaten on arrival, causing him earache. He was then thrown into a cell. He believed he was at the JITEM interrogation centre of the gendarmerie in the Ofis neighbourhood of Diyarbakır.", "149. Two or three days later he was interrogated, double blindfolded. Three or four people seemed to speak. He was asked why he went to the prisons to talk to political prisoners; why he took on their defence; why he was a member of the Human Rights Association; why he prepared reports, inspected and gathered evidence of human rights abuses; and what connections he had with the PKK for whom he was said to be working. He was insulted, kicked, slapped and beaten during the interrogations, as well as being threatened with death.", "150. Abdülakim Güven made allegations against him. Mr Acar knew Mr Güven, who had been present as a prisoner's representative when he had visited clients in prison. Although blindfolded, he accepted that he had been confronted with Mr Güven during the second (or third) interrogation.", "151. Mr Acar denied all of Mr Güven's allegations against him, particularly the allegation that he had brought cyanide into Diyarbakır prison. In order to mitigate his own crimes, Mr Güven had obviously made things up, copying from another PKK confessor's statement involving a similar allegation about someone else (paragraph 532 below). He signed certain incriminating statements, unbeknownst to him at the time, under the pressure of torture, for fear of resuscitating a previous kidney injury he had sustained in a car accident, and of being left a cripple.", "152. He was kept in custody 26 days (25 days according to official records) and recognised other colleagues who were there by their voices, such as Meral Daniş Beştaş, Mesut Beştaş and Arif Altinkalem. Tahir Elçi, Vedat Erten, Fuat Hayri Demir and Nevzat Kaya were in the corridor. Hüsniye Ölmez, together with Mr and Mrs Beştaş, were in cells.", "153. Tahir Elçi, Niyazi Çem who had been brought from İstanbul, Meral Daniş Beştaş and Hüsniye Ölmez were subjected to a different form of torture than him - cold water hosing. He could tell from their screams and moaning.", "154. The cell in which he was detained was small, dark, damp and very cold (below freezing). There was no heat or light. A filthy, worn out blanket was provided. He received a piece of stale bread once a day, drinking water twice daily and was allowed two visits, at 6 a.m. and 6 p.m., to the toilet per day.", "155. He was brought to a doctor on 10 December 1993 who was afraid to note the applicants' allegations of torture in the absence of any visible injury, all bruising or other injury having cleared up during his 26 days' detention. He told the Public Prosecutor about the alleged torture, but it was not recorded. The Investigating Judge before whom he was brought noted some, but not all, of the applicant's allegations.", "156. Mr Acar was indicted before the State Security Court and the proceedings were still pending.", "157. Prior to his detention, Mr Acar had reported on human rights matters to Amnesty International and other international non-governmental organisations. He had been the Director of the Diyarbakır branch of the Human Rights Association between 1990 and 1992. Human rights abuses were frequent in the area at that time. The Association's premises were bombed and he was threatened and insulted in public by policemen. In this way he was harassed in his legal practice. The articles and reports which he had written about human rights abuses and which were seized during the search on 15 November 1993 were used by the Prosecutor against him.", "158. In the indictment, reference was made to faxes he was alleged to have sent to human rights associations in Europe. He did not know whether this was a reference to the European Commission of Human Rights. He presumed it had meant non-governmental associations.", "159. Mr Çem was born in 1965 and at the material time was a practising lawyer in İstanbul.", "160. On 23 November 1993 he participated in a press conference given by the İstanbul Human Rights Association and lawyers of the İstanbul contemporary Jurists' Association, in front of the building of the İstanbul State Security Court, in order to denounce the allegedly unlawful detention and interrogation of fellow lawyers by the JITEM. At some time between 12 and 1 p.m., he was taken into custody.", "161. He was held for two days in Gayrettepe, İstanbul (the police centre for political detainees), then he was transferred to the Bursa Orhangazi Gendarme Station. Around 25 or 26 November 1993, he was taken to Diyarbakır, where he was held at the Diyarbakır provincial gendarmerie command for 15 days.", "162. Mr Çem's house was searched, but not his office. Nothing was seized.", "163. In Diyarbakır he was taken by a team of plain-clothed policemen to an unknown destination. He was not interrogated on the first day.", "164. On 27 or 28 December 1993 he was interrogated and accused of assisting a certain Rıza Altun to make contact with the PKK, which organisation the latter then joined. The applicant denied the allegation. He was told that Abdülhakim Güven had made the allegation. He had met Mr Güven as a prisoners' representative when interviewing clients. He was purportedly confronted with Mr Güven during the interrogation but, as he was blindfolded, he did not know if it was truly him. He refused to sign any confrontation report or statement, as he was not allowed to know their contents.", "165. During the first days of detention he was severely beaten, his hair was pulled and he was threatened with various kinds of torture. He was stripped naked and hosed down with cold water. He was deprived of sleep by blaring military and Arab music.", "166. Tahir Elçi was hosed too. He heard the screams of Meral Daniş Beştaş and Hüsniye Ölmez under torture. He had not met these people prior to his detention. He and Tahir Elçi whispered their names to each other.", "167. On the day of his release, 10 December 1993, he was taken with others to see a doctor who asked if any of them had any visible wounds. Only one person, possibly Arif Altinkalem, had a bruise which the doctor recorded. Any injuries to the applicant had cleared up.", "168. Mr Çem told the Public Prosecutor and the Investigating Judge about the ill-treatment to which he had allegedly been subjected. He repudiated the statements he had purportedly given. Neither recorded the torture allegations.", "169. He was indicted before the State Security Court for having connections with the PKK. He was falsely accused of such activities as transporting heroin for the PKK and taking money from Mr Güven to assist the financially ailing newspaper, “Özgür Halk”, in İstanbul. Mr Güven subsequently withdrew the latter allegation. The proceedings were still pending.", "170. During his detention Mr Çem was detained in a corridor with 10 to 15 other people; 3 or 4 people would share one blanket. Once a day he received a quarter of a stale loaf of bread and was taken to the toilet first thing in the morning. In case of urgency, people would be taken to the toilet. No washing facilities were provided.", "171. Mr Çem saw two of his interrogators when his blindfold slipped whilst he was being hosed down with cold water. He saw them later when he was taken to the Prosecutor's office, but the escorting officer stifled any protest. He told the Prosecutor that he could identify at least two of his torturers, but it was not taken up.", "172. When he was released by the court, he and other lawyers were addressed by a regiment commander called Eşref Hatipoğlu, and warned to be careful as they would be followed.", "173. Mr Kurbanoğlu was born in 1970 and at the material time was a practising lawyer in Diyarbakır. Most of his cases were before the State Security Court.", "174. On 20 November 1993 at 7.20 a.m. armed men rang at his door. He opened up and they searched his apartment without introducing themselves. He was allowed to telephone a cousin, Sadik Ateş, who came over. Nothing was seized. His cousin countersigned the search report.", "175. He was taken into custody, blindfolded, at the Diyarbakır provincial gendarmerie command where, but a week before, colleagues of his had also been detained. He was held in a corridor for 21 days (20 days according to official records). After 2 or 3 days he was taken to another side of the corridor where there was a blanket on the floor. Around midnight he was interrogated. He was accused of doing more than just providing legal representation for PKK people. His interrogators tried intimidating him by saying he was not being detained in Diyarbakır but in Elazığ where it was known that the bodies of “disappeared” persons had been found.", "176. He was constantly beaten when taken back and forth from interrogation, always after midnight, 5 or 6 times. He was kept blindfolded throughout the 21 days without any washing facilities. The corridor was crowded and he was unable to stretch out his legs. A piece of bread was given out in the evening, a quarter or half a loaf. In the beginning it was fresh, but after a few days it was stale and was obviously left-overs. They were given drinking water once a day and taken to the toilet twice a day. In case of urgency they would be allowed to go to the toilet. It was cold in winter, with a fan which made the air even colder. Loud martial music was played continuously except for a 2 or 3 hour break during the night.", "177. Tahir Elçi and Niyazi Çem were held with him. They were taken to the toilet, from where he heard them screaming and shouting. They were beaten up and hosed with cold water. Mr Çem returned soaking wet and the applicant tried to dry his hair for him.", "178. He believed that Gazanfer Abbasioğlu and Fuat Hayri Demir arrived after him and were in cells, as were Şinasi Tur and Arif Altinkalem. Mr and Mrs Beştaş were detained also.", "179. Mr Kurbanoğlu had met Abdülhakim Güven when visiting clients in the Diyarbakır E-type prison where the latter was the prisoners' representative. He was confronted with someone purporting to be Mr Güven during an interrogation, but the applicant was not sure whether it was truly him due to the blindfold. This person made remarks about the applicant's associate, Şinasi Tur, but said nothing about the applicant. The applicant had had no prior knowledge of Mr Tur's purported PKK activities for which he was subsequently convicted and sentenced. They had just been school friends and had shared a legal practice together.", "180. Later an interrogator told Mr Kurbanoğlu that Mr Güven had alleged that the applicant had acted as a PKK courier. Mr Kurbanoğlu denied this.", "181. He signed certain statements, including a second fabricated search report, after being beaten and threatened with death. He was punched, slapped and kicked, with blows to his whole body. However, he was never stripped naked or doused with cold water like some of the other lawyers.", "182. Prior to being presented to the Public Prosecutor, Mr Kurbanoğlu was seen by a doctor, to whom he recounted the beatings. However, nothing was noted as he had no corroborating marks on his body.", "183. Before the Public Prosecutor, he denied Mr Güven's allegations and that any incriminating document had been seized at his home. No such document had been openly put to him during his interrogation.", "184. Neither the Prosecutor, nor subsequently the Investigating Judge, commented on or recorded the applicant's account of torture.", "185. Before being released on 10 December 1993, he and his colleagues were addressed by a plain-clothed officer who warned them that they were still under surveillance. Eventually he was released around 1 a.m.", "186. Four days later the Public Prosecutor filed an ex parte objection to the applicant's release, as a result of which he was arrested on 20 December 1993 and detained for a night at police headquarters. Then he was transferred to the Diyarbakır E-type prison. Some 9 or 10 days later he and other lawyers were transferred to Mardin prison. He saw a doctor there about a chill he had caught and internal problems.", "187. Criminal proceedings were still pending against him.", "188. Mrs Beştaş was born in 1967 and was a practising lawyer in Diyarbakır at the material time.", "189. On 16 November 1993 around 5 or 6 p.m., when the State Security Court was closing down for the day, the applicant and her husband were stopped by four plain-clothed officials when they were leaving the court building. Her husband was told he was to be detained and interrogated and he gave her his personal belongings, whereupon she was told that she was also to be detained. Baki Demırhan and Arif Altinkalem had been detained at the same time. They gave their personal belongings to another colleague, F.L., who was with Gazanfer Abbasioğlu. They were blindfolded and there was talk of taking them to Silvan or Elazığ where the bodies of murdered persons had been found lately.", "190. They were driven around, then taken into a building, separated, and left waiting, standing with their blindfolded faces to the wall for a couple of hours. Mrs Beştaş was then taken to a small room where she was ordered to hand over all her personal belongings, after which she was put in a cell, where her blindfold was removed.", "191. Half an hour later she was taken out of the cell blindfolded to an interrogation room. She was made to sit on a stool and was pushed. Someone said, “Admit that you are a courier - a courier for the organisation”. She denied it and was slapped hard. She was threatened with electric shocks and being suspended. She was taken back to her cell to reflect on her situation.", "192. The following night, around midnight, she was interrogated again. She denied that she was the branch manager of the Human Rights Association, and stated that she was its secretary. She was told that she had ties with the PKK. She was asked about her work for the Association, its links with the PKK, complaints made about Turkey to Europe and human rights abuses put before the European Commission of Human Rights. She acknowledged that she had denounced human rights abuses to foreign visitors and had sought to take measures to prevent further abuses. She had prepared cases for presentation to the European Commission of Human Rights. She insisted, however, that she had no ties with any illegal organisation.", "193. Such interrogations went on for a week, including a more gentle interrogation when the interviewer talked with her about her work for the Association, her opinions and the legal profession.", "194. Two days before being brought to court, attempts were made to get her to sign documents, the contents of which were not known to her. When she refused she was taken somewhere else, ordered to strip and hosed down with cold water for about an hour, fainting at one point. She was threatened with being tortured in front of her husband. However, she did not sign anything.", "195. Mrs Beştaş knew Abdülhakim Güven as the brother of one of her clients and a prisoners' representative. When visiting clients at Diyarbakır E-Type prison he would be present. She was purportedly confronted with him while she was still blindfolded, but did not recognise his voice. She had been told that he had made accusations concerning her. She acknowledged in his presence that she had denounced human rights violations involving detained persons and had defended cases before the State Security Court.", "196. Through a peep-hole in her cell she saw Tahir Elçi and Niyazi Çem (who had shouted out his identity on arrival in the corridor) standing naked in the toilet, which was near her cell. They were hosed with cold water twice and she heard screams and shouts.", "197. Sabahattin Acar and Arif Altinkalem were in the cell to her left, Şinasi Tur to her right. Across from her was Hüsniye Ölmez who cried loudly “Don't do this”. Tahir Elçi and Niyazi Çem were kept in the corridor, where they and others were kicked and insulted.", "198. She was in a large, damp cell on her own with two pieces of wood on the floor and a disgusting blanket. It was very cold. There was no heating or lightning. She was only allowed out for interrogation and the use of the toilet morning and evening. In the evening she was given a piece of bread, sometimes fresh, sometimes stale and sometimes obviously left over from someone's meal. There were no female officials or separate sanitary facilities for women.", "199. On 10 December 1993 she was put before a doctor, to whom she said she was sick. He refused to examine her or assess the cough she had, only being prepared to note visible injuries from ill-treatment.", "200. On 10 December 1993 she was brought before a Public Prosecutor, Ünal Haney, and an Investigating Judge, Cafer Sadik Üral, to whom she recounted her ordeal in detention, but neither showed any interest.", "201. They failed to acknowledge her ill-health even though, unusually, she had to sit down in front of them rather than stand up. They ignored her claims that she could identify her torturers.", "202. Before being released, she and other lawyers were addressed by a gendarme regiment commander called Eşref Hatipoğlu, who warned them that he knew that suspicious dealings were being carried out in the guise of human rights' advocacy.", "203. After her release, she was so ill that on 13 December 1993 she went to a doctor, who diagnosed pneumonia and ordered her to stay in bed for 15 days. He gave her a medical certificate to that effect. She did not tell the doctor what she had experienced in detention.", "204. Some time, perhaps in 1996, on an evening before the general election, Mrs Beştaş was followed by Abdülhakim Güven and 2 gendarmes, one of whom was from the JITEM. She and her husband were then followed by other people. She contacted fellow lawyers and the Bar association, and talked to the Chief Public Prosecutor, Bekir Selçuk, who advised her not to walk alone in the street.", "205. Mr Beştaş was born in 1966 and was a practising lawyer in Diyarbakır at the material time.", "206. The applicant gave the same account as his wife concerning their being taken into detention at the Diyarbakır provincial gendarmerie command (paragraphs 189-190 above). He was separated from her in the detention centre and taken to a cell upstairs. In the cell his blindfold was removed. Forty-five minutes later he was taken blindfolded to a room downstairs and asked questions about his position in the Human Rights Association, of whose administration he was not a member. He only worked in the same building as the Association, on the same floor.", "207. At a second interrogation the next day he was accused of helping the PKK, acting as a courier between prisons, in some of which he had never set foot, as could be verified from prison visiting records. Similar accusations were made concerning certain provinces of whose whereabouts he was unsure. He denied any such involvement.", "208. During the three or four interrogations, he was threatened that he would be tortured - suspension and electric shocks - in front of his wife, during which both of them would be naked. He was frequently slapped, kicked and pushed on his way to interrogation and punched a couple of times during interrogation. On the 24th or 25th day of his detention, he was taken to sign documents, the contents of which were unknown to him. He signed out of fear of what might happen to his wife. On his signature he wrote “IMT”, indicating his refusal.", "209. There was a wooden board in his cell. It was dark and cold. He was taken to the toilet in the morning and evening where there was drinking water. In the evening he was given a piece of bread. There was so little of it that he was constipated throughout his detention. He had a stinking half-torn blanket which was too small to cover himself with, so he wrapped it around his feet.", "210. A couple of days before the end of this detention period, loud music was played and he heard horrible screaming. He learned afterwards that probably people had been hosed with cold water.", "211. He managed to make his wife aware of his presence in the building by coughing loudly, to which she replied with a similar cough.", "212. He was purportedly confronted with Abdülhakim Güven during his detention, although he did not see him because of the blindfold. Mr and Mrs Beştaş had represented his brother. Mr Güven was also a prisoners' representative and was present during client interviews in the Diyarbakır prison. Mr Güven had not accused him of anything at that point.", "213. Before being brought before the Public Prosecutor he was taken to a doctor who refused to examine the applicant's lung complaint. He was only prepared to note visible marks or bruises, of which the applicant apparently had none.", "214. He was video filmed when brought before the Public Prosecutor. This film was relayed on television.", "215. He gave a statement to the Public Prosecutor and Investigating Judge and told them of his ill-treatment.", "216. Before being released he and his colleagues were addressed by gendarme regiment commander, Eşref Hatipoğlu, who called them “slime” and warned that he would not forget them. The applicant arrived home around 1 a.m. on the Friday.", "217. After his release he consulted a doctor at the Mardin State Hospital Emergency Department, who diagnosed pneumonia. He did not recall what became of the medical certificate which he was given.", "218. The following Monday, 15 December 1993, he was re-arrested following the Public Prosecutor's ex parte objection to his release. He was remanded in custody at the Diyarbakır E-Type prison for about 25 days before being transferred to Mardin prison for another 35 days. At a hearing on 17 February 1994 he was released. Proceedings were still pending before the Diyarbakır State Security Court.", "219. He consulted the Diyarbakır prison doctor who prescribed medicine for him. He did not ask for a certificate.", "220. Mr Erten was born in 1965 and was a practising lawyer in Diyarbakır at the material time.", "221. On 23 November 1993 when leaving the Diyarbakır State Security Court around 11.50 a.m., he and a trainee lawyer were stopped by two plain-clothed officials who asked for their identity cards. After confirming Mr Erten's identity, he was obliged to go with them, giving his personal belongings to the trainee.", "222. He was put in a car, blindfolded and taken to the Diyarbakır provincial gendarmerie command where he was kept for 18 days (17 days according to official records). He had been aware that colleagues of his had been detained in recent days. According to prosecution sources, this was because of accusations being made by a PKK confessor called Abdülhakim Güven. He realised he was being detained for the same reason, and was told as much by the detaining officers.", "223. On entering the building he was asked if he was Vedat Erten and, when he confirmed that, he was slapped twice in the face, causing him to fall over. He was made to crouch down for 15 minutes and then told to strip off his clothes. Mention was made of taking him to a helicopter which, from a previous experience as a student detained by the JITEM in 1987, he had understood to refer to the form of torture known as “Palestinian hanging”. Ultimately his clothes were slung back at him and he was taken to some narrow place a few metres along where he was obliged to sit on a wet concrete floor, which smelt of toilets. He was ordered not to remove his blindfold. He heard the voices of some of his colleagues.", "224. He was given about a quarter of a loaf of bread a day, sometimes a bit more if he asked for it. Drinking water was available in the toilet area where he was taken twice a day. One day no bread was distributed and he sensed that his colleagues must have been staging a protest. Loud music was played.", "225. His interrogators ate food smelling of oil, onions and tomato purée. They threw their left-overs into a bin in the toilet, which the applicant took as a provocation to humiliate the detainees even more should they take food out of the bin in desperation. However, no prisoner touched the bin. Once when Mr Erten complained of the way the prisoners were being treated, he was kicked in the face, belly and chest. Thereafter he would be kicked whenever an official passed by.", "226. After 10 to 12 days in custody, he was taken for interrogation. He sat on a stool and was allowed to remove his blindfold but was blinded by a very bright lamp shining directly into his face, which made it impossible to see anyone or anything else in the room.", "227. He was ordered to “tell” and when he replied that he had nothing to say, he was beaten up. He was accused of acting as a PKK prison courier, which he denied. He was again beaten with the light off. He was forced to confess that he had taken several diaries, pens and cigarettes between prisons.", "228. In the narrow place where he was held, he could hear Tahir Elçi's appalling screams, and his and Niyazi Çem's chattering teeth after they had been hosed with cold water. He heard Meral Daniş Beştaş sobbing. He heard someone threatening Hüsniye Ölmez with death if she did not tell all, after which she cried, “They'll kill me. They're out to get me. If I don't die, I'll be killed outside.” Mr Erten was slapped when he tried commiserating with Tahir Elçi, whose clothes were wet. Mr Erten was also slapped for chasing a fly from his face when the guard thought he was tampering with his blindfold.", "229. Two days before being brought to the Public Prosecutor he was made to sign documents, the contents of which were unknown to him, for fear of being beaten up again. He heard other colleagues screaming and shouting, “Don't kill me. That's enough”, both before and after this document session.", "230. He was taken to a doctor who refused to examine the applicant fully, just noting that the applicant had no marks on his face. The doctor did not therefore see the marks which were left after he had been beaten on the belly, back and the nape of his neck.", "231. Two days later, around midnight, he was taken to the Public Prosecutor, who told him that he was accused of being a PKK courier both between prisons and between PKK members at large and prisoners. He was also accused for the first time of carrying on his person a document concerning the function of a PKK co-ordinator in the region.", "232. Mr Erten claimed that he had been illegally framed and that the documents allegedly found on his person were inadmissible fabrications. A record of a purported confrontation with Abdülhakim Güven was read out to him, but the applicant could not confirm that Mr Güven was indeed the person who had been presented to him during an interrogation, and who had, in a forced, hoarse voice, accused the applicant of an offence. He had met Mr Güven when the latter was a prisoners' representative accompanying the applicant's clients at Diyarbakır prison.", "233. Mr Erten told the Public Prosecutor, and subsequently the Investigating Judge, that he had been tortured and that the statements had been signed under duress. He told the Judge that he had resisted pressure from Abdülhakim Güven to act as a courier. The Judge released him. However he was kept blindfolded and returned with his colleagues to the interrogation centre. He was convinced they were going to be killed. Instead they were addressed by an officer who uttered warnings. He was released on 10 December 1993.", "234. The Public Prosecutor lodged an ex parte objection to Mr Erten's release. Consequently, he was taken back to court a couple of days later and remanded in custody at the Diyarbakır E-Type prison. He was again presented to the court on 17 February 1994 and released. He told the court that he had been tortured and that the statements which he had signed were false. He denied the charges made against him.", "235. Mr Demırham was born in 1966 and was a practising lawyer in Diyarbakır at the material time.", "236. On coming out of the Diyarbakır State Security Court on 16 November 1993, he and Arif Altinkalem were stopped by members of the security forces who they guessed were from the JITEM. On disclosing their identities they were put in a car where they waited while a similar procedure was performed in respect of Mr and Mrs Beştaş. They were taken to the Diyarbakır provincial gendarmerie command, blindfolded. The applicant and Mesut Beştaş were put in cells on the upper floor, where he was held for 26 days (24 days according to official records).", "237. He had anticipated his arrest as several of his colleagues had been detained the day before. On the first night he was taken for interrogation. In general he was made aware that the PKK confessor, Abdülhakim Güven, had alleged that he was in league with PKK prisoners, had acted as a courier for them, and had smuggled unlawful materials into prisons, e.g. a flick knife. The applicant denied the allegations.", "238. The applicant's brother had been detained in the same prison as Mr Güven. Mr Güven also attended all interviews with clients. The applicant's brother said he had been under pressure to join the PKK and Mr Güven had told the applicant that his brother had not kept his promises.", "239. The applicant was confronted, blindfolded, with Mr Güven. He signed certain statements, the contents of which he did not know, because of the psychological pressure brought to bear on him. During interrogation no mention was made of European human rights associations. He had assisted the Diyarbakır Human Rights Association prepare papers for clients. He was unaware of what the European reference could mean. He himself had never filed a petition for a client with the European Commission of Human Rights.", "240. Mr Altinkalem was born in 1965 and was a practising lawyer in Diyarbakır at the material time.", "241. He gave a similar account of his detention on 16 November 1993 as Mr Demırham (paragraph 236 above).", "242. In the Diyarbakır provincial gendarmerie command he was made to crouch down, face to the wall, in a corridor. After an hour or two he was put in a cell. He did not know if he had been detained by the JITEM or the anti-terror department of the police. He was not told of the reasons for his detention even when he asked for explanations.", "243. He was not taken for interrogation for one or two days. When he was interrogated, he was questioned about the cases he had defended before the State Security Court and asked if he had been paid. The implication was that there was a link between his cases and the PKK. He was accused of assisting PKK detainees by acting as a courier and not charging fees for his work. He was told that the PKK confessor, Abdülhakim Güven, had made certain allegations about him and other local lawyers. Mr Güven had been the prisoners' representative and attended the consultations he had had with his clients at the Diyarbakır E-Type prison.", "244. He was confronted with someone purporting to be Mr Güven, but did not recognise him due to the blindfold. Mr Güven implied that the applicant's legal work made him a possible PKK sympathiser but no specific allegation was formulated. r Güven acknowledged that he had not given the applicant any notes to pass on as a courier.", "245. He signed various statements. Being under physical and psychological duress, he was unaware of the contents of the statements except for a report which was headed “ERNK Receipt”, being evidence of financial assistance to the PKK, which document he had never possessed.", "246. A medical certificate dated 10 December 1993 recorded that he bore marks of blows and violence on his body. He saw the doctor before being brought before the State Security Court and released. Once formally released, he and his colleagues were subjected to a warning speech by a gendarme.", "247. The applicant discovered later that his name had never been mentioned in any of Mr Güven's earlier statements to the police. Afterwards he thought that he must have been detained because of his membership of the Human Rights Association and his assistance in preparing cases to the European Commission of Human Rights.", "248. He stayed out of Diyarbakır for the next few months as there was an in absentia arrest warrant issued against him.", "249. Mr Abbasioğlu was born in 1967 and was a practising lawyer in Diyarbakır at the material time.", "250. On or around 15 November 1993, coming out of the State Security Court, he and several colleagues were subjected to an identity check. Several lawyers had previously been taken into custody and, that day, others were detained, but not the applicant.", "251. On 30 November 1993 he was at a colleague's office when plain-clothed policemen and gendarme officers entered and checked his identity. He was told he was being taken into custody. He was taken by gendarmes to see a doctor. He was then taken somewhere, blindfolded, where he realised there were some of his colleagues. He was not given any reason for his detention until a couple of hours later, when he was accused of being a member of and assisting the PKK. He denied the allegations.", "252. He had known earlier that Abdülhakim Güven had become a confessor; it was then that the arrests had started. He had met Mr Güven as a prisoners' representative who was present when the applicant interviewed a client accused of political offences. Whilst blindfolded, he was confronted with Mr Güven during his first interrogation. He recognised his voice. He was accused of being a member of and assisting the PKK, and of constantly defending PKK cases.", "253. On release and after examining his case file, he realised more detailed false allegations had been made, such as that of being a courier.", "254. The applicant signed certain documents under duress in order to avoid being tortured as Tahir Elçi, Meral Daniş Beştaş, Niyazi Çem and Hüsniye Ölmez had been. He did not know the contents of those documents at that point as he had been blindfolded.", "255. After being technically released by the Judge, he and his colleagues were subjected to a warning speech by the gendarme regional commander, Eşref Hatipoğlu. The applicant understood the speech as a threat. It was only then that he was actually released.", "256. Mr Demır was born in 1967 and was a practising lawyer in Diyarbakır at the material time.", "257. Mr Demir was leaving the Diyarbakır State Security Court at lunchtime on 3 December 1993 with a colleague when he was stopped by two people in plain-clothes who checked their identity. They said they were from the gendarmerie intelligence unit. After confirming the applicant's identity, he was told that he was to be taken into custody.", "258. He was put in a vehicle and his scarf was tied over his eyes. He was driven for about five minutes, got out of the car and was told to wait by a wall. Later he was taken into a building and made to crouch down in a corridor where he heard the whispers of some of his colleagues, such as Gazanfer Abbasioğlu and Tahir Elçi. They sat on a blanket on the concrete floor for some 8 days (7 days in custody according to official records).", "259. He was not told why he had been detained although he knew that there were colleagues already in custody who, as rumour had it, had been incriminated by the PKK confessor, Abdülhakim Güven. He had met Mr Güven as a prisoners' representative in Diyarbakır prison. He had accompanied the clients whom the applicant had interviewed. The applicant did not suspect that Mr Güven had made allegations against him as he had no connections with him whatsoever, either professional or otherwise.", "260. One or two days later he was taken for interrogation and accused of being a courier for the PKK between prisons, and assisting and harbouring the PKK. Someone calling himself Mr Güven was apparently present and urged the applicant to confess like him. The applicant said to this person, whom he presumed to be Mr Güven, that he knew very well that the applicant had not carried notes between prisons.", "261. A few days later there was a terrible noise, with martial music blaring, and he heard people being ordered to sign documents or be killed. He was similarly threatened with torture - electric shocks - and felt obliged to sign documents, the contents of which were unknown to him. He had heard Tahir Elçi, Niyazi Çem and Meral Daniş Beştaş being subjected to cold water ill-treatment.", "262. Mr Güven was born in 1962 and had no specific profession other than trading. At the material time he was remanded in custody in Diyarbakır E-Type prison, charged with membership of the PKK. In 1993 he had left the PKK over a disagreement and became a confessor, giving information to the State about the PKK, starting with certain lawyers whom he had known before his imprisonment (which started in 1989). The PKK had made him the representative of its organisation in prison and he was in charge and supervised all members' contacts with the outside world, including their defence lawyers. This was part of the education given to PKK associates.", "263. Mr Güven had little recollection of the events and allegations he had made concerning the applicants, but confirmed many leading questions from the Delegates and the parties, which resulted in the following account:", "264. Mr Güven confirmed a statement he had given in November 1993 (paragraph 425 below), which revealed that he had met a PKK member, code name Beriwan, at the house of Tahir Elçi, and that he had given Mr Elçi messages for certain PKK members outside the prison. Mr Elçi sometimes brought back the replies. He had known Mr Elçi since they were teenagers.", "265. As regards Şinasi Tur, all he could remember was that Mr Tur had had contacts with the PKK in the area.", "266. Mr Güven confirmed his allegation that in 1992 Sabahattin Acar had brought cyanide poison into the prison in order to harm PKK opponents who were putting pressure on members' families. Mr Acar had handed over the poison to Mr Güven directly. He had no comment on the statement of another PKK confessor, Abdülhakim Bakir, who had earlier identified someone else as having brought the poison into the prison (paragraph 530 below).", "267. Without recalling details, Mr Güven said that Niyazi Çem had contacted a PKK association in Bursa prison. He stated that Mehmet Selim Kurbanoğlu, Vedat Erten, Mesut Beştaş, Meral Daniş Beştaş, Nevzat Kaya and Hüsniye Ölmez had all acted as couriers between prisons and with outsiders.", "268. He confirmed his allegation that Baki Demırhan had given him a knife in prison, which Mr Güven had asked Sabahattin Acar to procure. He had no comment on the earlier statement made by Abdülhakim Bakir that he had obtained the knife from someone else (paragraph 532 below). Mr Güven did not recall what had happened to the knife or the cyanide poison. Perhaps the knife had been confiscated in a later search before any harm was done.", "269. Mr Güven said that he had had only one or two contacts with Arif Altinkalem who, as far as he could remember, had helped in the exchange of notes once or twice. Gazanfer Abbasioğlu and Fuat Hayri Demır had acted as couriers.", "270. Mr Güven was unable to specify the content of any particular note or document which any applicant had passed on, given the voluminous material involved and the passing of years. He remembered that İmam Şahin had been an İstanbul lawyer who had visited a client at the Diyarbakır E-Type prison, and Mr Güven had received notes from the Bursa and Gaziantep prisons via Mr Şahin. He had no special information about the services which Mr and Mrs Şahin had rendered the PKK. He could not recall exactly when he had met Arzu Şahin. According to information he had obtained from his friends, Mr Güven considered that he could trust Mr and Mrs Şahin.", "271. Mr Güven had made statements to the Public Prosecutor about all the lawyers and had repeated them before the State Security Court, perhaps in late 1994. However, he had not answered the summons to attend the applicants' State Security Court hearings out of concern for his personal safety, having made an enemy of the PKK.", "272. Mr Güven said that there may not be records of any visits to himself or other PKK members in prison by the applicants because those lawyers could have given any remand prisoner's name and entered the prison, thereby seeing Mr Güven or his associates.", "273. He confirmed his confrontation with certain lawyers during their interrogations. Most of them were co-operative. Only Tahir Elçi and Meral Daniş Beştaş objected to certain statements. Neither party was blindfolded during the confrontation. Two officers were always present. His signature on the confrontation report only confirmed the accuracy of what he alone had said.", "274. Mr Güven denied a statement in which he had purportedly confessed to carrying weapons which were subsequently used to kill two police officers prior to his apprehension in 1989. He later conceded that he may just have forgotten the details. He acknowledged his involvement in a plan to kill a prison officer while he was still a PKK associate remanded in custody. He also acknowledged that some of his statements about being tortured during interrogation to make him sign incriminating statements had been lies.", "275. Prior to becoming a confessor, he had expected to serve some 8 years in prison (a 15 year sentence with early release), rather than receiving the death sentence or life imprisonment for his role in the death of the police officers. He denied that, in order to avoid dangerous repercussions from the PKK when he became a confessor, he had given the names of persons who had had no connection whatsoever with the PKK. In no way did the advantages of the Remorse Law lead him to accuse the applicants. However, after the life sentence was imposed on him, his confessor statements permitted his release from custody. Since then he had been a target for the PKK, although he acknowledged that he had been able to move around freely in Diyarbakır. He had changed his identity and was initially provided with a little financial assistance by the gendarmerie, from Commander Eşref Hatipoğlu. He knew that, if he gave false testimony as a confessor, an additional 5 year term of imprisonment could be added to his original sentence.", "276. Mr Güven denied being encouraged by any officials to denounce the applicants, or the Human Rights Association, or to become a confessor. He left the PKK because their original aims, in which he had believed, had been undermined, and they were inflicting damage on the Kurdish people.", "277. Mr Güven said that the lawyers' confessions had been recorded on videotape. His confrontations with them had lasted a whole day from 8 or 9 a.m. until night-time, a few days after the lawyers had been apprehended. His own legal representative, F.V., had suggested the applicants' names to him as being people who were “patriots and could join the struggle”. It was PKK established policy that its members should systematically refute any incriminating statements they had made before a Public Prosecutor or Investigating Judge.", "278. He knew of a Fatma Demirel who had been a PKK member but, once in prison, she had been isolated because she was suspected of being a State agent.", "279. Ms Demirel was born in 1970 and she had been detained on remand since January 1993 (7 years) for PKK offences, in particular the unlawful possession and transport of weapons. The criminal proceedings against her were still pending.", "280. Ms Demirel had consulted the applicant, Hüsniye Ölmez, for legal advice in early 1992 prior to her detention, and they had become friends. Under torture, Ms Demirel had been obliged to become a confessor and had signed statements, the contents of which were not fully known to her. She discovered later that in such a statement, dated 26 January 1993, she had denounced Ms Ölmez, and other local lawyers whom she had never met, as being PKK couriers. However Ms Ölmez had not been her representative for these pending criminal proceedings and Ms Demirel had had no contact with Ms Ölmez or any other of the cited lawyers during her detention. There was no way, therefore, in which they could have delivered documents for her.", "281. Before the Diyarbakır State Security Court on 22 November 1994, Ms Demirel refuted the contents of her original statement (paragraph 533 below).", "282. Ms Demirel alleged that just before being brought before the Commission Delegates she saw somebody, with a name like Haci, on a higher floor of the court building who indirectly threatened her with unpleasant repercussions if she did not give testimony to the Delegates in the State's favour. He was apparently some expert sergeant.", "283. Dr Eğilmez was born in 1958. At the material time he was a forensic expert at the Diyarbakır Forensic Medical Branch Office. Detainees were referred to him for a medical examination before or after they were taken into custody.", "284. On 10 December 1993 Dr Eğilmez carried out an oral and external physical examination of the applicants. It was early in the morning. The security forces stayed outside and he examined them in groups of 3 or 4.", "285. From the external examination he saw that one of the applicants had a simple lesion on his knee which he recorded. Although individuals had complained of ill-treatment, the doctor was not convinced of any systematic ill-treatment. Five or six people had said they had breathing difficulties. He began examining one or two of them with a stethoscope, whereupon the others decided not to be examined and withdrew their complaints.", "286. They were all examined stripped to the waist. They were asked whether they had any marks on their bodies and they were told that, if there were, he would make a detailed examination. Apart from the bruised knee mentioned above, no one complained of any visible marks, although they all said they had been beaten. He saw no such marks himself. It was rare that he was presented with such a case and, when he was, he recorded it. The same day he re-examined Hüsniye Ölmez and Meral Daniş Beştaş who complained that they had been struck on their buttocks, but Dr Eğilmez found no marks.", "287. He acknowledged certifying three days later, on 13 December 1993, two bruises on the lower knee of Hüsniye Ölmez. It had escaped his attention in the two earlier examinations because it was not shown to him. Sometimes ladies are reluctant to reveal parts of their bodies.", "288. Hüsniye Ölmez had been examined on the 13 December 1993 in the company of Meral Daniş Beştaş. There were no marks on the latter. Another doctor had certified that Mrs Beştaş was suffering from pneumonia, which she had not mentioned to Dr Eğilmez on 10 December 1993. At that stage one would have expected her to show a fever, coughing and phlegm. However, she made no complaint.", "289. Pneumonia is not a traumatic lesion. It can be contracted after catching cold and is often preceded by bronchitis. It would take about a week to develop and would induce fever. An x-ray would be needed to establish the condition and hospital treatment would also normally be required.", "290. Dr Eğilmez could not remember how the applicants looked - whether the men were clean-shaven, unwashed or the like. He did remember, however, that they did not look tired, worn out or feverish.", "291. As a forensic doctor his task was to record findings, not to take a patient's medical history or make a clinical examination. This is why he did not note people's general complaints and why he would only record visible marks.", "292. If a man had had his testicles squeezed and had complained to him of that fact, Dr Eğilmez would have expected to see sensitivity in the genital area, reddening and swelling. None of the male lawyers complained of this, and he would not have examined genitalia unless asked to do so by a complainant.", "293. The first question addressed in such examinations was whether there were any signs of blows, force or violence. However, if the individual was found to be suffering from an illness, such as a fever or heart condition, he would have noted the need for follow-up treatment in his report.", "294. Around the relevant time he prepared some 4,500 reports, of which about 10% were custody examinations.", "295. The examinations he conducted in the present case were recorded in a single report.", "296. Dr Demirel was born in 1967 and was a general medical practitioner at the material time. He did not recall having certified on 13 December 1993 that Meral Daniş Beştaş had had pneumonia. He had known her previously when she was a childhood neighbour.", "297. Pneumonia would disclose symptoms of fever, malaise and lateral pain from coughing. It did not have to be preceded by bronchitis, but might be. A stethoscope examination could distinguish between the two. How someone reacted to the illness depended on his/her physical condition. Such a person would be able to stand up with assistance.", "298. It may be caught by being exposed to cold. The diagnosis may be confirmed by an x-ray. Bed rest and antibiotics may be sufficient treatment. It is an acute illness which may not show any symptoms three days earlier.", "299. Mr Hatipoğlu was born in 1945. At the material time he was a senior gendarme colonel, responsible for law and order in the province of Diyarbakır.", "300. There was an interrogation and detention centre under his command within the city boundary. This unit was headed by Lieutenant Colonel Hasan Bozoğlu, the director of operations. The person in charge of interrogations was a non-commissioned officer (“NCO”), Sergeant Firat Yavuz Yedekçi.", "301. The detention centre had been inspected by the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture (the “CPT”) every year and had been found to be up to standard after improvements had been made. It was not overcrowded. If it was full, detainees would be kept in their original place of detention awaiting transfer.", "302. Mr Hatipoğlu remembered the detention of the applicants as it was an unusual incident. Abdülhakim Güven had made certain allegations against them concerning events in prisons, and the role of these lawyers was raised, albeit not proved.", "303. Mr Güven, being a top-ranking PKK member, had given much reliable information, not just about the lawyers. He had repented and was entitled, like every citizen, to take advantage of the law of the country. Mr Hatipoğlu had given orders for him to receive a small sum of money, some 50 US dollars, for his personal needs. Mr Güven did not enrich himself by his confession; he only received bare subsistence from the State.", "304. The gendarmerie had its own intelligence too. Following a rural operation and a skirmish, a PKK shelter was captured which contained archives, including a list of 8 people to be killed. His own name was at the top of that list. It was said to have been smuggled out of prison in a fountain pen carried by a lawyer. Lawyers were serving as couriers for the PKK, but did not confess to this in order to protect themselves from a ruthless PKK reaction.", "305. As the person responsible for law and order in that region, he had been the person most responsible for the decision to detain the applicants. However, before the decision could be implemented it was necessary to notify the Regional Commander, as his superior, the Regional Governor and the Chief Prosecutor. The actual decision to detain had to be taken by the Prosecutor. There was only a single decision taken to detain all the applicants, although they could not all necessarily be taken into custody at the same time.", "306. The detention centre at the time could hold 20 people (later reduced to 10 on the recommendation of the CPT). He denied that 45 people would have been held there, as might have been suggested by the number of names in the custody ledger. One person was held in each cell, according to the rules, so that they could not communicate with each other and co-ordinate their stories. When there were too many arrivals to accommodate all the detainees in the detention centre, other places of custody - at the central gendarme station, the provincial gendarmerie regiment or the police headquarters - would be used, but this would be recorded in the custody ledger.", "307. He denied the possibility that people had slept in a corridor. His staff were instructed to treat detainees warmly and humanely. There was no hostility towards the applicants. Inhuman treatment was impossible.", "308. Each cell had a collapsible camp bed, with a wooden floor. A blanket was given to each detainee. The cells were not dark although, on the CPT's recommendations, lighting and ventilation were later improved. At the end of the stairs there was a toilet and bathroom. There was a hot water heater in there now; he could not remember if it had been installed at the time. When a detainee needed to use the toilet, he would be escorted there. There was heating in the corridor which was sufficient. There were no women guards or separate facilities for women.", "309. Three meals a day were served: a bread breakfast, a light lunch at noon consisting mostly of bread, and in the evening detainees were served the same meals as the soldiers, with not less than 3 dishes. Water was freely available.", "310. Mr Hatipoğlu was not a specialist in interrogation and did not attend such sessions. He was kept informed of their progress by Mr Bozoğlu.", "311. A specialised interrogation officer was alone with the detainee and another typed the record. Video recordings were made too, which included the 16 applicants. The tapes had been handed to the Public Prosecutor. He had watched the tape of the applicants twice and was struck by the naturalness of their facial expressions. The lawyers' statements had not been obtained by force, as was shown by the fact that a few of them refused to sign the various documents. Nothing happened to those people who refused.", "312. After their release he met the applicants and they had a friendly private chat, over some tea. They told him that they had experienced certain difficulties, that they had not committed any crime and that it was impossible for them to have done so. However, they did not allege any ill-treatment. If they had done so, he would have replaced the interrogators and taken legal measures against them, as was his duty. However, nobody who was detained during his three years in that job was ever injured or killed. The CPT once arrived at 3 a.m. but found nothing untoward and heard no complaints, otherwise they would have reported it.", "313. When most of the applicants were released on 10 December 1993 they were brought back to the detention centre to collect their personal belongings and Mr Hatipoğlu addressed them collectively. They had not been blindfolded once released. He congratulated them that the matter was over and said, inter alia, that they should be more careful and that everyone's existence depended on that of the State. He exhorted them to be good in their future conduct, because they could see that people who committed crimes would be brought to places like the detention centre. Tea was served. The applicants said they had been wronged and slandered. After midnight they left, shaking hands with him and they were taken to the town centre, as they had requested. A minibus was put at their disposal with a military escort. He did not see them again.", "314. Mr Hatipoğlu accepted that some of the applicants may have found him threatening, but others found him to be friendly. He had had the power to do whatever he wanted with them at that time - torture, ill-treatment, brute force, etc.; instead he had offered them tea and transport.", "315. However, such allegations were only made by people who worked against Turkey - as had been legally established. Nevertheless, he extended a friendly hand to them. The judicial authorities had a separate duty to perform from his.", "316. He denied having threatened any of the applicants and was embarrassed by any such allegation.", "317. Mr Bozoğlu was born in 1948 and at the material time he was the law and order director of the Diyarbakır provincial gendarmerie command. He supervised, inter alia, the interrogation unit.", "318. The detention centre in Diyarbakır could hold around 20 people in individual cells with peepholes for surveillance. The floors had wooden grids and collapsible beds. Blankets were provided. There was lighting and heating in the corridors which filtered into the cells. People were taken to the toilet according to their needs and there was a bathroom. Interrogations were held in a special room. Breakfast and lunch were offered, possibly below the standard soldier rations, but a full evening meal was provided.", "319. The custody records were accurate; the 45 people mentioned in the record would not all have been held at the centre. They would have been in the attached units (of which there were around 17). Interrogations were performed by individual, trained specialists accompanied by a typist. In important cases, interrogations were recorded. The detainee was not blindfolded.", "320. Mr Bozoğlu had never met any of the applicants. Reports were made to him and he had never heard any allegations of ill-treatment. He had not been involved in the decision to detain them, nor had he seen them on their release. They would not have been blindfolded on their way from the court to the detention centre after their release in order to fetch their personal belongings.", "321. Mr Bozoğlu was unable to say whether the law required that an interrogator put his name to a statement rather than just his service code number, as had occurred in the present case.", "322. Mr Gül was born in 1960 and was the gendarme captain and commander of the district centre of Diyarbakır at the material time. He had been under the direct orders of Mr Hatipoğlu.", "323. Based on information from a confessor, Abdülhakim Güven, the gendarmerie obtained the Prosecutor's permission to detain the 16 lawyers. The regiment commander, the Public Prosecutor at the State Security Court and the Provincial Governor were aware of that authorisation. When people were taken into custody, the Public Prosecutor was contacted to determine the length of the detention period. Nobody could be taken into custody without the Prosecutor's knowledge and approval. His verbal instructions on the matter were equivalent to an order, but the instructions would be later recorded in written form. It was the decision of the Public Prosecutor to detain the applicants in the present case. A record would have been kept indicating the name of the person who had informed the Prosecutor and had requested his authority to detain. The gendarmerie could take people into custody on their own initiative as long as the judicial authorities were informed and approved the decision. Written authority could exceptionally be given after a person had been detained, but in such a case the authority would be back-dated to the day when the person had been taken into custody.", "324. Mr Güven's accounts confirmed other information in the gendarmerie's possession, the most important of which had been publications, documents and materials which were deemed unlawful and had been found in prisons during searches.", "325. Mr Gül did not participate in the interrogation, but followed the results. The chief of interrogations at that time was Firat Yavuz Yedekçi. There was a special interrogation room measuring some 15 to 20 square metres or more in the Diyarbakır provincial gendarmerie command. One person interrogated. If a statement were to be taken, there was sometimes a typist, although the statement was recorded elsewhere. In the meantime, notes were taken by the interrogator himself which were not archived. People were never blindfolded during interrogation, but were under spotlights which prevented the interrogators' identification. The detainee sat on a stool in a comfortable environment.", "326. Adjacent to the interrogation room was a listening room, connected electronically, so that questions could be relayed from the (unseen) chief interrogator to the interrogator, to be put to the detainee.", "327. The results of the applicants' interrogations were reported verbally to Mr Gül, but he no longer remembered what was said. The interrogations were carried out strictly according to the law, despite allegations to the contrary in the media and by the PKK.", "328. Some of the lawyers refused to sign certain documents, such as the confrontation reports with Abdülhakim Güven who had recognised all the applicants and made certain allegations. People were free not to sign such documents.", "329. The jurisdiction of the police and gendarmerie could sometimes overlap and they could operate within each other's jurisdiction provided that there was proper notification. The external security of places of detention was the gendarmerie's responsibility. Accordingly, even though most of the applicants were arrested within the municipal boundaries of Diyarbakır, under police jurisdiction, it was for the gendarmerie to effect their detention and interrogation.", "330. Mr Gül acknowledged that the applicant Arif Altinkalem was detained with others on 16 November 1993. He could only assume that there must have been good reason for that even though Mr Altinkalem's name did not feature in the previous statements of Mr Güven, and the applicants had not at that stage been interrogated, so his name would not have arisen during questioning. Mr Gül denied the suggestion that Mr Altinkalem had been detained at random.", "331. The applicants immediately accepted the allegations against them, but it took 26 days to verify and investigate the case in depth, and to consult the judicial authorities. It was out of the question that the applicants had had to wait 10 to 15 days unnecessarily before being brought before the Prosecutor to make statements.", "332. Twenty people were kept in cells at the Detention Centre. The others would have been kept at the provincial central gendarmerie command and would have been brought to the Detention Centre for interrogation.", "333. The cells had wooden planks in the form of a grill to prevent contact with the concrete floor. There was a camp bed and one or two blankets depending on the cold. Portable electric heaters were in the corridor. It was not necessary to provide separate facilities for women.", "334. The interrogator's identity could easily have been found by the judicial authorities if that had been necessary, even though his identity may not have been disclosed in any of the applicants' statements. This was to protect the interrogators' security and was lawful. There would be clear records still in existence of who had interrogated whom.", "335. Mr Kayak was born in 1966 and was a gendarme special sergeant at the Cizre district gendarmerie command at the material time.", "336. On 23 November 1993 he had received instructions to detain Tahir Elçi, who was to make a statement before the State Security Court. A police team was sent to detain Mr Elçi and he was handed over to the provincial gendarmerie command two days later for transfer to Diyarbakır. He had no other information about Mr Elçi.", "337. Mr Kiyak was not involved in the actual arrest or subsequent searches of Mr Elçi or his premises. All seized documents were handed over with Mr Elçi to the Diyarbakır team and he had no involvement in the return of such documents.", "338. Mr Elçi was kept in the custody room which was 3 square metres in size and had a camp bed.", "339. Mr Yedekçi was born in 1962 and at the material time he was chief of the interrogation unit at the Diyarbakır provincial gendarmerie command.", "340. There was a team of 10 interrogators by whom interrogations were conducted under his control. From the listening room connected with a closed circuit television system and a microphone, he could intervene with the interrogators to direct questioning. He was always accompanied by someone in the listening room, but the interrogator was alone with the detainee. The interrogator would make notes of the interrogation, on the basis of which questions would be put again in an interview room and a statement typed up.", "341. The interrogator would sit at a table with the detainee sitting opposite him, on whom spotlights were trained. The closed circuit television system permitted relevant video recordings to be made, which in the present case were handed to the prosecutor's office of the State Security Court. A hidden microphone hung above the person being interrogated.", "342. A prisoner called Abdülhakim Güven, the political representative in prison, was interviewed over a few days and made a statement about PKK activities. The statement (more than 100 pages) was handed to the Chief Public Prosecutor at the State Security Court who then gave instructions to apprehend and interrogate certain people.", "343. Some of the applicants immediately accepted having acted unlawfully. Others refused to sign statements.", "344. Mr Yedekçi had not participated in the confrontation sessions between the applicants and Mr Güven which had taken place in the interview room. This room was not connected to the closed circuit television system and, therefore, the confrontations were not recorded on video. Mr Hüseyin Gaziankep had signed the confrontation documents in the present case.", "345. None of the applicants were blindfolded during interrogations. Nor did any of them allege having been exposed to ill-treatment or threats during interrogation.", "346. The interrogator would conduct the interview session when a statement would be typed up following the individual's responses. There was normal lighting in that room and blindfolds were not used. The interrogator had no fear of being identified. That was his job.", "347. Murat Kirikçi conducted the applicants' interrogation. The statement procedure did not necessarily occur on the same day as the interrogation, but was based on the interrogator's notes.", "348. Mr Yedekçi did not recall the exact reason why Arif Altinkalem was detained on 16 November 1993, the same day as Mr Güven's incriminating statement, even though Mr Altinkalem's name had not featured in that statement.", "349. People were usually told when they were apprehended why they were being detained and it had to be recorded in the apprehension report. Although there was no specific mention in any of the applicants' apprehension reports, they must have been informed orally.", "350. If people were unaware of the reason for their detention, his staff would tell them.", "351. The detention area had two floors, with 20 cells, later reduced to 10 after the CPT's intervention. Each cell had metal doors with slits in the upper part. There was a wooden plank on the floor and a military camp bed. Detainees received the same food as the soldiers, and their needs were catered for. There was fuel central heating which had replaced burning stoves.", "352. Mr Haney was born in 1958 and at the material time was a Public Prosecutor (no. 26050) at the State Security Court.", "353. In Diyarbakır it was the Chief Public Prosecutor at the State Security Court who gave orders to detain people. Investigations could be instigated on the basis of verbal instructions; the law did not require a written order.", "354. Mr. Haney stated that he had had nothing to do with the apprehension of the present applicants. They were apprehended on the instructions of the Chief Public Prosecutor, Bekir Selçuk, in accordance with Article 104 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Such instructions could have been given orally. Mr. Haney did not know if the Chief Prosecutor would have kept a note of such oral instructions.", "355. The applicants were brought before him on 10 December 1993. He explained the charges against them and asked to hear their defence. He read out their statements as recorded by the gendarmes, listened to their defence and recorded fresh statements.", "356. They denied the charges and complained of ill-treatment, all of which was recorded. If there were corroborative evidence of ill-treatment in a file, he would take action.", "357. He had been a Prosecutor for some 10 years by then and knew what an ill-treated person would look like. So he considered that the applicants' mere allegations were insufficient to be taken seriously. The bruise found on someone's knee did not indicate torture. 95% of detainees connected with terrorist offences claimed to have been tortured. It was a mere defence tactic. He never came across a case which required further action from him because of alleged ill-treatment. Anyway, it was not his duty to investigate allegations of torture, being a State Security Court Prosecutor, and the applicants, all lawyers, could have filed complaints in the normal courts.", "358. Mr Haney had drawn up the indictment in the applicants' case based on Abdülhakim Güven's considerable evidence, and the incriminating documents about the PKK found in the offices of nine of the lawyers.", "359. The search of Tahir Elçi's office revealed a note addressed to “Comrade Tahir Elçi”, bearing the stamp “ERNK” (the political wing of the PKK) and sent to him by the PKK. A note addressed “to the office of the co-ordinator of the Amed State (Amed being the PKK's name for Diyarbakır) was found in Vedat Erten's possession. It was a note written to PKK members in the mountains and who were active in the area. A note with the stamp “ERNK” was found on Mehmet Selim Kurbanoğlu. A note addressed to “Comrade Fuat Demir” with an “ERNK” stamp on it was found in Fuat Hayri Demir's office. A note addressed to “Comrades Mesut and Meral” were found in the possession of Mesut and Meral Beştaş. These notes were written by PKK members.", "360. A report in Hüsniye Ölmez' possession was addressed to “Mr President”. A document was found in Sabahattin Acar's possession signed by the “Union of Patriotic Intellectuals of Kurdistan”, regarding the work and activities of the PKK's congress. Four receipts from the “ERNK” to be passed on to lawyers handling PKK cases were found in the possession of Arif Altinkalem. Mr Haney considered that the applicants' denial of the authenticity of these documents was another mere defence tactic.", "361. The reference to European institutions in the indictment concerning Mr Elçi, Mr Demırhan and Mr and Mrs Şahin, related to the PKK campaign to discredit Turkey in the eyes of foreign Governments and to weaken it, in order to further their separatist objectives. In no way were these references to the European Commission of Human Rights, to whom individuals were entitled to complain, and the State had not put any obstacles in the applicants' way.", "362. Mr Haney was involved in the initial court proceedings, during which the applicants denied the charges against them and were released. Perhaps the fact that the cases were still pending [in December 1998] was caused by the complexity of the case, involving a large number of suspects and numerous prison establishments.", "363. Article 10 of Law No. 2845 on the establishment and judicial practice of the State Security Courts gave State Security Court Prosecutors powers to investigate the offences within that court's jurisdiction under Articles 154 and 156 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. This overrode the special jurisdictional protection given to the prosecution of lawyers for ordinary criminal offences under Articles 58 and 59 of Law No. 1136 on Advocates. This was also made explicit in Article 9 (a), (b) and (c) of Law No. 2845:\n“Those who commit and who are accessories to the above mentioned crimes, regardless of their title and the nature of their official duty, must be prosecuted by the State Security Court”.", "364. In other words the procedures in the present case were carried out in accordance with Articles 9 and 10 of Law No. 2845 and Articles 154 and 156 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.", "365. Mr Özer was born in 1971 and at the material time he was working at the Diyarbakır Detention Centre. His principal task was to take the completed criminal files of detainees to the State Security Court. He had had nothing to do with the applicants' detention or interrogation. He had just taken their files to court.", "366. He knew of the 16 lawyers but had only met Mr and Mrs Şahin at the time, neither of whom had been blindfolded.", "367. If a colleague forgot to sign a document, he would sign it for him. He had signed one such document in the case of İmam Şahin, although he had not formulated its contents. He thought that the person who typed the statement had been Hüseyin Gazi Ates; Murat Kirikçi had been the interrogator. As far as he could remember, the witness had had Mr Kirikçi's notes and he had put the latter's questions to Mr Şahin and had the replies typed up. Mr Özer was present when Mr Şahin signed his statement. He had chatted at length with Mr and Mrs Şahin many times and Mr Şahin had lamented the fact that he and his wife had been used by “them” and duped.", "368. Mr Özer then said that he had not been present when Mr Şahin signed his statement. He had no opinion on whether it was desirable or not to keep a suspect unaware of the identity of the interrogator. The suspect was not, however, blindfolded.", "369. Mr Özer acknowledged that a signature seemingly like his was on a statement purportedly made by Arzu Şahin but not signed by her, but he did not remember exactly.", "370. Mr Kiricki was born in 1971 and was an NCO for interrogation and investigation in the Diyarbakır gendarmerie. He had had a month's training for that job.", "371. He had interrogated the 16 lawyers. He thought that the detention of so many lawyers was normal although he could not recall a similar incident. He had been guided during the interrogations via the closed circuit television system by his superior officer, Mr Yedekçi.", "372. First the lawyers asked why they had been detained, even though they must have been given the reasons earlier. They were informed that they were there to answer Abdülhakim Güven's allegations, and the interrogation started with the allegation that they had acted as couriers between prisons. Mr Kiricki did not recall what had been the applicants' initial reaction to the allegations.", "373. The interrogation was then interrupted and resumed later (lapse of time unspecified), when they confessed to the courier charges. The change of attitude was probably due to reformulated questions which had been drawn up after the first interrogation had been analysed by his superiors.", "374. The lawyers were confronted with Mr Güven, who spoke first and to whom the detainees responded. They knew Mr Güven but disagreed about certain matters amongst themselves. However, there were no significant contradictions.", "375. Mr Kiricki refused to comment on whether he should have further questioned those lawyers who refused to sign their statements. Then he explained that those had been busy days; the applicants' detention periods were coming to an end; there was little time left; he had taken statements from them; he accepted any refusal not to sign and, anyway, the Public Prosecutor was to take another statement.", "376. Interrogations took place in the morning, after breakfast. The detainee would then have lunch and dinner. He would be taken to the toilet as needed and given water when it was requested. Interrogations varied in length from two to two and a half hours and could have been every day.", "377. In the interrogation room spotlights were trained on the detainee so he could not see the interrogator, who sat at a desk. The closed circuit video system was on the back wall.", "378. The inability to see the interrogator was a security precaution and had a psychological effect on the detainee. He took notes of the interrogation. Later the detainee would be taken to an interview room where his statement would be taken by a transcriber in his presence. Blindfolds were not forbidden, but were not used. He was not in fear of his safety in the interview room when he could be seen by the detainee.", "379. Mr Kirikçi could not recall why Mr Özer's name appeared on Mr Şahin's statements. Mr Özer was one of the 9 or 10 people who made up the interrogation team.", "380. He had not signed the record of Mrs Şahin's statement and could not recall the reason for that. He had interrogated her. A colleague must have signed it when he saw that Mr Kiriçki's signature was missing.", "381. During interrogations, he communicated with the persons in the adjacent room with microphones and a closed circuit system.", "382. Mr Ateş was born in 1967 and at the material time was working as a typist at the investigation and interrogation branch headquarters. He had typed the statements of the 16 lawyers in the presence of the interrogator and each suspect. He typed what the suspect had said. He could not understand the question whether it was the interrogator who read out his notes, which the suspect would just confirm. He had never experienced a situation where the suspect disagreed with the interrogator about what the former had said on a previous occasion.", "383. Mr Ateş would sign what he had typed; later the interrogator would sign the statement and take it to the suspect.", "384. There had been another typist at the time called Adem Aktaş who could have signed the statement of Mrs Şahin.", "385. Mr Dönmez was born in 1962 and at the material time worked in the interrogation section of the anti-terror department at Cizre police headquarters.", "386. A warrant order was received by fax from the Diyarbakır gendarmerie to apprehend Tahir Elçi. It was stated that Mr Elçi had links with the PKK and was involved in that organisation's activities, particularly as a courier. This information was conveyed to Mr Elçi when he was apprehended.", "387. On 23 November 1993 he went with a team of six or so people, accompanied by the team responsible for external security, to Mr Elçi's business premises. The people in that team included Ali Kara and perhaps Ramazan Hoca.", "388. During the search of Mr Elçi's office, which lasted about half an hour, many documents were seized which, for security reasons, could not be catalogued in detail on the spot. A first report was signed straight away indicating what had been seized. A subsequent confiscation report indicating the same documents would have been drawn up. The body search report was also drawn up at headquarters although it had been conducted when Mr Elçi was apprehended in the early morning.", "389. The more detailed catalogue of the materials was made up at police headquarters and indicated that 68 case files had been seized.", "390. The documents and Mr Elçi were handed over to the gendarmerie. Mr Dönmez could not explain why there was a faxed confiscation report in the Diyarbakır Prosecutor's file and not an original. Mr Dönmez knew nothing about the return of documents to Mr Elçi.", "391. The return of documents would be recorded in writing and signed by the owner. Documents containing no incriminating evidence would be returned in this way by the judicial authorities. One of the seized files concerned the application to the European Commission of Human Rights by Süleyman Kutluk.", "392. A large number of journals or newspapers were seized for examination as to their possible incriminating nature. He did not know the results of that examination.", "393. The list of documents in the confiscation report was drawn up in Mr Elçi's presence in the office of the head of department, Ali Kara. Mr Dönmez did not recall a document with an “ERNK” stamp on it. Mr Elçi was not held in the detention room as he was a well-known lawyer. He did not see Mr Elçi after he had been handed over to the gendarmes.", "394. Mr Kara was born in 1967 and at the material time was the head of the Cizre district anti-terror department of the Şırnak police headquarters.", "395. Mr Elçi was apprehended and his office searched following a fax from the Diyarbakır gendarmerie command headquarters in connection with alleged offences arising from the statement of Abdülhakim Güven. However Mr Kara did not recollect clearly whether Mr Güven's name had been cited in that fax. It appears that Mr Elçi was told this. According to new human rights rules, when someone was apprehended he was told of the offence of which he was accused. The Public Prosecutor may have been informed verbally as a matter of urgency.", "396. Objects and documents that might have involved an offence would have been seized. If the location were unsuitable, the record would have been drawn up at headquarters, with the detainee's consent.", "397. It was a sensitive matter to search a lawyer's office. Mr Kara did not know about confidential lawyer/client matters but, anyway, he did not examine the seized documents. He could not recall the signatures on various documents, but their identity could be established by the directorate general. All the documents and objects seized in Mr Elçi's office and home, including his 68 case files, were handed over to the Cizre district gendarmerie command. Mr Kara did not know anything about their return.", "398. The document bearing the “ERNK” stamp was found in Mr Elçi's diary which he had on his person. Mr Kara's signature appeared on the faxed confiscation report which mentioned this document. As a rule, documents were handed over with the individual, but perhaps this one was overlooked at the time. The original would have been sent to court, if requested. If not, it would have been archived at the district police headquarters in the individual's file. Mr Kara had no explanation for the existence of two confiscation reports, one more detailed, but both with the hour 12h.00, 23 November 1993, on them.", "399. The officers making the final delivery report must have forgotten to recover the significant “ERNK” document. Mr Kara did not have an explanation for the discrepancy of 67 case files seized in one report and 68 case files in another. Nor he could explain why the delivery report referred to the Commission case file of Süleyman Kutluk but not the confiscation report that he had signed.", "400. Mr Kara had no knowledge of the systematic use of code-names by the PKK whereas the “ERNK” document referred directly to “Comrade Tahir Elçi”. Nor did he know why Mr Elçi would be carrying such a document on his person when the wave of arrests concerning lawyers had begun a week earlier. He denied having fabricated the document.", "401. Mr Elçi stayed in Mr Kara's office, drinking tea, while at the Cizre police station, and would have been handed over around midday that same day, 23 November 1993, to the Cizre gendarmerie, as soon as the procedures had been completed.", "402. Mr Kara denied that Mr Elçi had been put in a police cell and ill-treated. He did not know about any administrative investigation into this matter. He had been the subject of another investigation concerning a signature.", "403. Mr Şener was born in 1964 and was a team leader in the Diyarbakır gendarmerie at the material time. He had apprehended Şinasi Tur, Nevzat Kaya and Ganzanfer Abbasioğlu.", "404. Mr Tur was apprehended at his home on the evening of 15 November 1993, following an order from the provincial gendarmerie command in connection with the alleged PKK activities of the three applicants. Mr Şener did not see the written order himself.", "405. Accompanied by Mr Yildirim, Mr Şener entered Mr Tur's house. A third member of the team, Mr Dogan, waited outside in a vehicle. Mr Tur was told that, according to the provincial gendarmerie command, he was active in the PKK; hence his apprehension had been requested. His house was searched, but nothing incriminating was found. He was taken to a doctor at the State Hospital and then delivered to the gendarmerie.", "406. Nevzat Kaya was apprehended at his office on 18 November 1993. The office was searched but nothing incriminating was found. He was also taken to hospital before being handed over to the gendarmerie.", "407. Mr Şener had no clear recollection of Mr Abbasioğlu's apprehension on 30 November 1993, other than the fact that the search had not revealed any incriminating evidence.", "408. None of the detainees was blindfolded.", "409. Mr Öngün was born in 1960 and at the material time was a police officer in Diyarbakır.", "410. He was involved in the apprehension of Sabahattin Acar on 15 November 1993 around 7 p.m. Officials from the provincial gendarmerie command had called at police headquarters and requested that Mr Acar be apprehended and handed over to them.", "411. Mr Öngün went with 4 or 5 other officers to Mr Acar's house, Mr Acar refused to open the door until the authenticity of the procedure had been confirmed. He required an acquaintance of his, Chief Superintendent Numan, to call by and identify Mr Öngün and his colleagues as police officers.", "412. Mr Numan arrived around 10 p.m., during which time documents could have been destroyed, although no evidence of that was found.", "413. Mr Numan told Mr Acar that he was being investigated for suspected PKK connections and that he was to be taken into custody and handed over to the Diyarbakır gendarmes.", "414. Mr Acar then allowed the team to enter and search his house. A record of seized documents was drawn up. He had no clear recollection of certain incriminating documents such as that bearing an “ERNK” stamp or another entitled the “Union of Patriotic Intellectuals of Kurdistan”. All he remembered was gathering and recording documents and books with a political content, without examining them.", "415. Mr Acar was not blindfolded at any stage.", "416. Mr Durmuş was born in 1965 and at the material time was the head of a team at the İstanbul Anti-Terror Department.", "417. He was involved in the apprehension of Niyazi Çem and İmam Şahin.", "418. A fax message was received from the Diyarbakır gendarmerie that these lawyers were wanted for assisting the PKK by acting as couriers for prisoners.", "419. On 23 November 1993 Mr Çem was accosted at the İstanbul State Security Court. He was told of the charges against him. He was taken to the Department where he was body searched. A team went to his house to conduct a search. A detention note was sent to the State Security Court for a period of time to be authorised for his detention pending the arrival of the Diyarbakır gendarmes. 7 days were authorised but, before the expiry of that period, he was handed over to the Diyarbakır gendarmes who apparently took him to Bursa.", "420. Nothing was seized during the body or house searches.", "421. Mr Durmuş knew Mr İmam Şahin and apprehended him at the State Security Court just before a hearing. Mr Durmuş recalled nothing about Azru Şahin.", "422. He met Mr Şahin some time after these events at the State Security Court where they did not have any time to talk. All Mr Şahin said was that he had been detained in connection with some PKK confessor.", "423. The parties submitted various documents to the Commission and the Court. The Government also presented two video cassettes. The Court has had particular regard to the following material: 1.The relevant parts of the four statements of Abdülhakim Güven (a PKK confessor) to the gendarmerie\n \na) statement of 15 November 1993", "424. Lawyers acted as couriers between the PKK and prisoners. They set up firms, as required by that organisation, e.g. the partnership of E.Y. with Gazanfer Abbasioğlu, and Selim Kurbanoğlu with Şinasi Tür. Nevzat Kaya was making similar efforts. Gazanfer Abbasioğlu acted as a courier.\n \nb)statement of 16 November 1993", "425. Mr Güven stated that he had met a PKK guerrilla (code name Beriwan) at Tahir Elçi's house. Mr Elçi was a courier between prisons and the Hakari – Şırnak and Siirt areas.", "426. At the PKK's request, Baki Demırhan brought a flick knife into prison, and Sabahattin Acar brought cyanide with the help of his client, the brother of Recip Akkus. Mr Demırhan was part of a team of lawyers who brought PKK publications and books into prison.", "427. Hüsniye Ölmez, Meral Daniş Beştaş, Baki Demırhan, Vedat Erten, Mehmet Selim Kurbanoğlu and Fuat Demır (to a lesser extent) also acted as couriers between the Diyarbakır E-type prison, as well as the Mardin, Batman, Mus and Merkez (women only) prisons. They carried, inter alia, notes, instructions and educational materials.", "428. Mr Tur had various PKK duties, including acting as a courier and transmitting the PKK's decisions to the prison and prisoners' statements recorded for the organisation. He was also part of the team bringing in PKK publications and books. He had the trust of the organisation and had official links with it.", "429. Mr and Mrs Şahin were PKK contacts for İstanbul and its European organisation, passing on information from prisons.", "430. Mr Çem was in touch with the PKK's centres in prison. Mesut Beştaş transmitted notes with the help of other PKK couriers. He was also part of the team of lawyers bringing in PKK publications and books. He passed on messages to two previous detainees in the PKK militia, called Cevat and Mahmut. He was the latter's legal representative. They were caught in possession of PKK money amounting to £ 90 million.\n \nc)First supplementary statement", "431. Mr Güven mentioned contact with a PKK member called Ahmet Elçi. The latter was in charge of the incidents in Cizre during Newroz in 1992.", "432. Hüsniye Ölmez was asked on behalf of the PKK to find a buyer for furniture left in the apartment of a detained PKK member, F.A., who had been jailed. She did not manage to do so.", "433. Mesut Beştaş acted as a courier for the PKK, transmitting notes. For example, once he passed information to a person called Fehim (code name Kocer) who was wanted by the security forces, and he also took notes to the militia members called Cevat and Mahmut.\n \nd)Second supplementary statement", "434. Mr Güven alleged the involvement of Hüsniye Ölmez in the disposal of the furniture of a PKK detainee, with the initials C.K.", "435. Mr Güven stated that he had become a PKK sympathiser after being influenced by PKK propaganda provided by a certain Ahmet Elçi. He later met a PKK member (code name - Beriwan) at the house of Tahir Elçi, and thereafter began working for the organisation as a courier, propaganda and activity organiser, recruiter and fund raiser. After his capture, he became the PKK's political representative in the Third Dormitory of the Diyarbakır E-Type Prison, where plans were made to kill prison warders. There were also plans concerning turned confessors. To this end, Sebahattim Acar delivered cyanide to him and Bakir Demırhan brought him a flick knife. However, these items were found in the confessors' dormitory before they could be used.", "436. Tahir Elçi had conveyed messages to Cizre by way of notes placed in an address book. Mesut Beştaş also took notes to Mr Güven's friends. Hüsniye Ölmez, Meral Daniş Beştaş, Bakir Demırhan, Vedat Erten and Mehmet Selim Kurbanoğlu frequently carried organisational notes and educational materials to other prisons and the rural section of the organisation. Fuat Hayri Demır did so less often. Şinasi Tur maintained relations between the prison and the rural section, conveying journals and conference reports. Mr and Mrs Şahin and Mr Çem maintained the co-ordination between the European and İstanbul organisations and between İstanbul and the prisons. Gazanfer Abbasioğlu acted as a courier and maintained contacts between the Diyarbakır and Gaziantep prisons.", "437. Various applicants complained of the excessive pressure being placed on members to become confessors by Prosecutor Tanju at the State Security Court. Mrs Beştaş and Ms Ölmez stressed the matter more than others. They insinuated that he should be killed.", "438. Mr Güven also mentioned plans to kill the provincial gendarmerie command's most senior officer.", "439. At a Diyarbakır State Security Court hearing on 1 June 1995, Abdülhakim Güven appeared and the statement he had made to the gendarmerie was read out to him. He confirmed its correctness. [Defence counsel for the applicants repudiated his statements as being a self-serving attempt to gain an acquittal and release.]", "440. Mr Güven stated that he was the general representative of the PKK in prison and used to attend the interviews which defence lawyers had with their clients. These lawyers thus mostly saw PKK members.", "441. He denied that he had been tried as being a member of the PKK. An investigation against him was made, apparently concerning some written material, but a decision not to proceed was taken.", "442. Once the prison PKK members identified a lawyer as being “patriotic”, a decision was taken to contact him, as had been the case with Şinasi Tur.\n[Defence counsel denounced these declarations as fictitious.] 4. Statements (all subsequently repudiated by the applicants) taken by officers of the Diyarbakır provincial gendarmerie command\n \na) Tahir Elçi\n(Undated statement which Mr Elçi was recorded as having refused to sign)", "443. Mr Elçi was recorded as stating that since his school days he had had a circle of friends who had relations with the PKK. Names of PKK members were cited. He maintained PKK activities in the urban area. He had become a PKK sympathiser in Cizre in 1987. He was apprehended in 1989 and detained at the Diyarbakır E-type prison in 1990 where he received PKK ideological and theoretical training. As a student he organised forums, boycotts, protests and propaganda slogans.", "444. Mr Elçi introduced Mesut Beştaş to Abdülhakim Güven, whom he had known for a long time and who liaised with Mr Elçi's brother. A PKK member (Beriwan) was in charge of the town of Silopi, Cizre, and frequently went to Mr Elçi's house. He had acted as a courier for Mr Güven once the latter was in prison, taking notes and the like, hidden in address books and diaries. He had helped a member, code name Firat, to transport sacks full of guns. Mr Elçi was said to have acknowledged his possession of an “ERNK” document and connections with Abdullah Öcalan, the leader of the PKK. He kept and disseminated propaganda publications.\n \nb) İmam Şahin\n(Statement dated 20 December 1993 and signed)", "445. Mr Şahin was recorded as stating that he had sympathised with the PKK, being influenced by its propaganda. He carried out various tasks assigned to him, such as liaising between members held in different prisons and helping members settle in İstanbul. He had connections with certain high-ranking members (whom he named). His wife assisted the organisation by conveying correspondence and co-ordinating various activities in different prisons. He was the lawyer for the Özgür Gündem newspaper.", "446. Mr Şahin took part in the campaign to close the Eskişehir Prison, having repeatedly been asked by “them” to put pressure on State authorities. He and his wife, Niyazi Çem and certain Diyarbakır lawyers analysed the situation. They pursued members' cases and passed on any State security information they obtained to the PKK.", "447. He had direct contact with the European PKK organisation. He cited certain incidents and members' names. He brought together other İstanbul lawyers who were deemed “patriots”. He selected potential members of the DEP Party, which many lawyers joined, following the efforts of himself, his wife and Niyazi Çem.", "448. Amongst his duties, he was to collect, fabricate and spread propaganda about, for example, ill-treatment in police custody, allegations of extorted statements, the unlawful operation of courts, and unlawful arrests and detention; and about the fact that the PKK was an organisation acting in self defence, not for terrorism, that villages were burned down and plundered and that State death “squads” were in operation, etc. The intention was to defame the State, and all kinds of lies were faxed to Europe on the instructions of the PKK. His wife was involved in this work, as were Selim Kurbanoğlu, Sebahattim Acar, Hüsniye Ölmez, Niyazi Çem, Meral and Mesut Beştaş, Vedat Erten, Gazanfer Abbasioğlu, Nevzat Kaya, Şinasi Tur, Fuat Hayri Demır, Arif Altinkalem, Tahir Elçi and Baki Demırham.", "449. Mr Şahin was also recorded having admitted that he acted as a courier out of the Bursa, Gaziantep, Mardin, Elazığ and İstanbul prisons.\n \nc) Arzu Şahin\n (Statement dated 22 December 1993 and signed)", "450. Arzu Şahin was recorded as stating that one of her PKK duties was to belittle the Republic of Turkey in the international arena. This was done by fabricating applications to the European Court of Human Rights, in which false allegations were made of torture being used against people, even lawyers.", "451. Mrs Şahin was further recorded as having said that she was a PKK sympathiser as her husband was Kurdish and gave assistance to the PKK. She acted as a PKK courier between prisons and PKK prisoners. She took part in the successful campaign to close down the Eskişehir Prison. She and her spouse had connections with PKK activities in Europe.", "452. On one occasion she believed she had transported documents and hand grenades for the PKK from Diyarbakır to İstanbul. Two people picked them up from her house. They stayed two days and then were taken away by Niyazi Çem. One of these people was a woman called Beriwan. Other lawyers working for the PKK were MM. Elçi, Acar, Tur, Erten, Çem, Beştaş, Demırhan and Demir, and Mrs Beştaş.\n \nd) Nevzat Kaya\n(Statement dated 6 December 1993 and signed)", "453. Mr Kaya was recorded as stating that he had met members of the PKK for the first time in 1990. A young man came to his office saying that he was a PKK member and the “ERNK” leader in Diyarbakır. Mr Kaya was asked to help by acting as a PKK defence lawyer for a small fee. Mr Kaya was anyway charging low fees at that time. A week later he took a sealed envelope from this person to a client of his who was detained on remand at the Diyarbakır E-type prison. He acted as a courier between members, such as Abdülhakim Güven, in different prisons. On one occasion he brought many T‑shirts, pyjamas, jackets and shirts for the PKK prisoners, together with pamphlets. He sent a fax on behalf of a representative called R.A. from the Diyarbakır Human Rights Association to the European Human Rights Association. He also smuggled audio-cassettes for this person. Almost all the lawyers were engaged in such activities, including all the applicants in the present case, whom he cited.\n \ne) Şinasi Tur\n(Statement dated 8 December 1993 and signed)", "454. Mr Tur was recorded as saying that he had been imprisoned in 1993 when he underwent a high-level training course, after having made a “statement of self-criticism”. Before his imprisonment, he had had contacts with PKK leaders in the Gap district and the mountains, and had acted as a courier to such prisoners as Abdülhakim Güven, using cigarette packets, address books, diaries and the like. He had harboured a dying PKK member at a relative's house and, with the help of Selim Kurbanoğlu, delivered the body to a specific place in November or December 1992. Mr Tur cited various lawyers involved in similar activities, including all the applicants. Moreover Sebahattim Acar together with someone else were said to have smuggled cyanide into the Diyarbakır E-type prison.\n \nf) Sabahattim Acar\n(Statement dated 7 December 1993 and signed)", "455. Mr Acar was recorded as stating that he had first met PKK members when visiting his father's village. He had considered them “liberators”, having sympathised with them since he was a schoolboy. He was taken to meet other members and advised that, as a Kurd, he should struggle against the “fascist Turkish State” in the urban areas, defending PKK detainees for a small fee. Mr Acar had mentioned that all the Diyarbakır lawyers working in the State Security Court, including the applicants, were voluntarily working for the PKK.", "456. He informed these people that the commander of the Diyarbakır provincial gendarme command was anti-Kurdish, exerting extreme pressure on PKK supporters in the region, and that he should be assassinated.", "457. Thereafter he acted as a courier between prisons, constantly meeting Abdülhakim Güven and other political representatives. He defended detained PKK militiamen for a small fee, spread propaganda and persuaded and threatened recalcitrant militiamen to return to the mountains on release.", "458. The defence lawyers ensured PKK coordination between prisons, smuggled out press-releases for the Özgur Gündem newspaper, smuggled in poison, a knife, messages and prohibited publications, intimidated Public Prosecutors to ensure the aims of the PKK detainees, and disseminated false propaganda in Europe. He worked closely with Hüsniye Ölmez on all of this. He was paid between 500,000 and 1,000,000 lire in travel expenses each time he carried a message between prisons. He himself had smuggled cyanide to Abdülhakim Güven. He photocopied the State Security Court files of PKK confessors and other captured members, giving the files to a specified PKK member, code named Şehmuz. Other such incidents were described.", "459. He had obtained books and articles praising the PKK in order to learn more about the organisation, and took them into prison for training people there. He used to write reports on incidents in the region which he faxed to Human Rights associations in Europe with a view to blackening and discrediting Turkey in its treatment of Kurds.\n \ng) Niyazi Çem\n(Statement dated 7 December 1993, which Mr Çem was recorded as having refused to sign)", "460. Mr Çem was recorded as stating that he sympathised with the PKK because of his Kurdish origins and had used his professional skills to assist it - acting as a courier and defence lawyer. He was engaged in disseminating propaganda to discredit the Turkish State abroad. He conveyed oral instructions to Abuldhakim Güven regarding the interruption of a review called “Free people”. He was given 5‑10 million lire, as his activities for the PKK prevented him doing more legal work, and once transported 2 kilos of heroin from Diyarbakır to İstanbul. For five days he also harboured an ailing PKK woman in his house and procured medicine for her.", "461. Mr Çem was tipped off not to return to Diyarbakır as Abdülhakim Güven had become a confessor and might have been about to denounce him.\n \nh) Mehmet Selim Kurbanoğlu\n(Statement dated 6 December 1993 and signed)", "462. Mr Kurbanoğlu was recorded as stating that he had sympathised with the PKK since his school days and had become more and more influenced by them when he acted as their defence lawyer and through his friend Şinasi Tur. He met Abdülhakim Güven who said he would provide him with cases, in return for which he had to act as a courier, as did other lawyers. He received occasional sums of up to 1,000,000 lire in travel expenses for carrying messages between prisons. He helped Şinasi Tur transport the body of a dead PKK member.", "463. He had received an “ERNK” note about his courier activities one evening on his way home from the State Security court. He had forgotten to take it out of his pocket, so it was found on him when he was apprehended.\n \ni) Meral Danis Beştaş \n(Undated statement, which Mrs Beştaş claimed she had not signed, but her refusal was not recorded on the document)", "464. Mrs Beştaş was recorded as stating that she had known PKK members for years, having become a sympathiser when she was a law student, it being an organisation engaged in an armed struggle with the Turkish State for Kurdish freedom and independence.", "465. After marrying Mesut Beştaş and setting up a law practice with him, they gradually became involved as PKK couriers between prisons. Lawyers who did not support the PKK could not plead cases before the State Security Court. She spread propaganda belittling the Turkish State. She and Hüsniye Ölmez tried to expose the State Security Court to public scrutiny and she worked for the Diyarbakır Human Rights Association. She acted in solidarity with other applicants.", "466. The PKK had told her that she would receive PKK funding to open an office. She had a close friendship with Abdülhakim Güven. She denounced to the PKK a particular prosecutor who intimidated and hindered her and Ms Ölmez in their defence work, and had threatened them with arrest. There was talk of eliminating him. Discussions were held about defence tactics, as some accused PKK members were too passive before the State Security Court, and the training of remand prisoners was raised.", "467. Mrs Beştaş copied the court case files of confessors and showed them to the organisation. She and her husband converted PKK money into Deutschmarks. They took oral and written messages to the women's section of the Mardin Elaziğ Central Closed Prison. They delivered other messages to the Diyarbakır E-Type Prison. On one occasion she received 400,000 lire for travel expenses. She had had a PKK brochure in her bag when she was apprehended, which she had intended to photocopy and give to her friends.\n \nj) Mesut Beştaş\n(Statement dated 6 December 1993 which, although signed, had been marked by Mr Beştaş with the letters “IMT”, to signify his refusal)", "468. Mr Beştaş was recorded as stating that he had become a PKK sympathiser at school due to the second-class status of Kurds and the PKK goal of Kurdish freedom and independence. He cited several applicants who, together with him, defended PKK members on the instructions of the organisation. If one did not support the PKK, one had no State Security Court work. He acted as a PKK courier to and from prisons and gave several specific examples. Militiamen visited him at home to receive information about the cases of detained members. At Abdülhakim Güven's request, he conveyed a message hidden in an address book and a pen to PKK members and he brought messages back to Mr Güven. He changed millions of lire into Deutschmarks, given to him regularly once a month, which he handed over to a high-ranking PKK member. He accused many of the applicants of being PKK couriers too. On the day of his apprehension he was carrying an “ERNK” sealed message which he had forgotten to take out of his pocket.\n \nk) Vedat Erten\n(Statement dated 8 December 1993 and signed)", "469. Mr Erten was recorded as stating that he had become a PKK sympathiser through the influence of propaganda disseminated when he was a student. It was a “fashionable” opinion to hold. He cited many of the applicants as having close relations with the PKK, advocating its policies and defending its interests. They all acted as prison couriers, meeting people like Abdülhakim Güven. Mr Erten was paid for his travel expenses. He gave specific examples of messages he had carried. As he had no work, he asked the PKK representatives to refer cases to him. When he was not paid, he received a minimum 750,000 lire fee per client from the organisation.\n \nl) Baki Demırham\n(Statement dated 7 December 1993 and signed)", "470. Mr Demırham was recorded as stating that he had commenced sympathising with the PKK at school where its publications were circulated. Once in legal practice, he visited clients in prison and met people like Abdülhakim Güven, who criticised him for providing insufficient support to the PKK. They threatened him with no work if he continued in this manner. As Mr Demırham was extremely poor and the PKK was fighting for Kurdish independence, he accepted all their assignments. Mr Güven used him as a courier and paid him 500,000 lire for travel expenses. He carried hidden notes in a diary and a pen. He cited a few examples. He smuggled a flick knife into prison and gave it to Mr Güven. Many of the applicants were also involved in courier work. They sent faxes to European human rights associations and denounced incidents as if they had been perpetrated by security forces, with the intention of blackening the reputation of the Turkish State. He recalled a PKK forum where certain lawyers had received political, theoretical and military training for 6 months. He felt no remorse for his PKK activities.\n \nm) Mehmet Arif Altinkalem\n(Statement dated 7 December 1993 and signed)", "471. Mr Altinkalem was recorded as stating that he had been impressed at school with PKK exploits in 1978-1979. When the army took power in 1980, the PKK's activities were interrupted but as of 1984 they resurfaced. He supported the PKK, taking part in demonstrations and the like. He frequently visited the Diyarbakır Human Rights Association which was spreading PKK propaganda and receiving PKK visitors. He worked closely with another lawyer, Sedat Aslantaş, who had PKK connections. He accompanied Mr Aslantaş to see clients in prison and was introduced to Abdülhakim Güven. They took a message for him to the Gaziantep prison. They used an address book and a pen. They were to procure PKK publications for Mr Güven which were to be sent through himself, Baki Demırham or Meral Danis Beştaş. Mention was also made of Tahir Elçi's assistance. Messages were carried back from Gaziantep to Mr Güven. Mr Aslantaş and Mr Altinkalem were given 500,000 lire for travel expenses. He said that nearly all the Diyarbakır lawyers were engaged in PKK activities, and cited most of the applicants.", "472. He had been given four “ERNK” receipts to transmit to lawyers from outside the area who had made PKK contributions. These were allegedly found on his person when he was apprehended.\n \nn) Mehmet Gazanfer Abbasioğlu\n(Partial statement submitted, undated, unsigned)", "473. Mr Abbasioğlu was recorded as saying that he had become a PKK sympathiser and had participated in demonstrations and the like in their support. The organisation suggested that the lawyers would be more effective working in teams, so Mr Abbasioğlu joined the office of a colleague. He used to visit the Diyarbakır E-Type prison where he met Abdülhakim Güven, a high-ranking PKK officer. Clients were referred to Mr Abbasioğlu.\n \no) Fuat Hayri Demir\n(Partial statement submitted, dated 8 December 1993 and signed)", "474. Mr Demir was recorded as stating that he had acted as a prison courier for people like Abdülhakim Güven, using a small address book and cigarette packets. He and his fellow lawyers were shocked when they learned that Mr Güven had become a confessor, and they feared denunciation. He cited the code names of various PKK members whom he had met. In one message he carried, there was mention of Hüsniye Ölmez and Nevzat Kaya. He procured 20 micro-cassettes for a PKK member. The message asking him to do this was found on him when he was apprehended.\n \np) Hüsniye Ölmez\n(Statement dated 8 December 1993 and signed)", "475. Ms Ölmez was recorded as stating that she had some sympathy with the PKK, being Kurdish herself. She was contacted by two PKK members and asked to assist. She had replied that she was already doing so in defending militants and militiamen captured by the security forces. She gave her visitors 300,000 lire as they said they had no money. On another occasion she doctored an identity card for one of these PKK members. Once she harboured a 2 kilo bag of heroin overnight. She gave more money and procured medicines on other occasions. On a visit to her father, she was photographed with PKK members, she being dressed in PKK colours, holding a gun. She received an increasing number of PKK defendants, but did not charge for her legal services. She worked for the PKK and acted on their instructions.", "476. She became a prison courier, such work intensifying in 1992. She tried doing less but it was not possible. She carried messages for Abdülhakim Güven using a pen and a diary. She gave a few examples of those messages and cited various other PKK contacts, as well as many of the applicants. Lawyers who refused to assist the PKK received no cases. She was also required to assist in order to protect her family. She contributed to the defamation of the Turkish State with faxes addressed to the European human rights association. At one stage Mr Güven had asked Ms Ölmez about a particular Public Prosecutor, but she did not know him. She heard later that there were plans to assassinate this person. She cited many of the applicants who had also acted on PKK instructions.", "477. A document in which she had denounced the Turkish army was found on her when she was apprehended.", "478. A collective statement in which Mr Güven identified the applicants, and they acknowledged him, was drawn up on 7 December 1993 and signed by Mr Güven as well as by most of the applicants. Although the names of MM. Elçi and Çem and Mrs Beştaş appeared, it was recorded that they did not sign the document.", "479. Mr Güven alleged that the applicants had worked as PKK couriers and the applicants purportedly conceded that in a standardised form. Similar reports were drawn up on 8 December 1993 in respect of Mr Tur, and on 16 December 1993 in respect of Mr and Mrs Şahin.", "480. Shortly after their initial period in gendarme custody, the applicants gave statements to the Diyarbakır Human Rights Association which were apparently forwarded to the London based Kurdish Human Rights Project in December 1993 and January 1994. The statements became part of the applications to the Commission and are summarised in paragraphs 13-69 above. Other statements were taken by the Association around that time, including a statement dated 30 November 1993 from Burhan Acar, the nephew of Sabahattin Acar, confirming the latter's description of his arrest and the search of his home on 15 November 1993 (paragraph 37 above). The brothers of Tahir Elçi, Ömer and Mehmet, confirmed in a statement dated 15 December 1993 the applicant's version of the search and seizures made at his office and home on 23 November 1993 (paragraphs 13 and 18 above).", "481. An associate of Gazanfer Abbasioğlu, Zeynep Tasli, who had been present when the former was aprehended, stated that she and Mr Abbasioğlu had signed a search report of his office even though no such search was in fact made.", "482. Further detailed statements were submitted to the Commission in late October and early November 1998 by MM Elçi, Çem, Beştaş, Altinkalem, Abbasioğlu and Demirhan, as well as by Mrs Beştaş, confirming their original allegations. 7. Search, seizure and apprehension reports\n \na) A disputed seizure record concerning the office of Tahir Elçi (faxed copy only provided by Government)", "483. The report dated 23 November 1993 recorded a search at Mr Elçi's office around 10.30 a.m. and the seizure of several documents, including materials entitled “Kurdish-triumph”, “Kurdish-merciless”, “The DCP (the Democratic Party) Constitution”, “Kurdish-motherland”, “ERNK” (National Liberation Front of Kurdistan) publications - “The hope of the people”, 67 case files and a hand-written note saying:\n \n“Comrade Tahir Elçi, Comrade, we have received the Mazlum Doğan Conference Resolution you sent to us, and we have passed on the note you gave to Ferhat to the leader. But there are not enough weapons. Put pressure on the smuggler; and our old messenger has been caught. Look after his case as well. Rescue him and tell Comrade Selahattin to do that job quickly. Revolutionary greetings. Signed Roserin”.", "484. The note had Mr Elçi's signature on it, and was stamped “ERNK”, but no original was ever produced. Only a faxed copy existed in the State Security Court file.\n \nb) Undisputed report concerning Tahir Elçi", "485. This report described documents seized at Mr Elçi's office, including 68 case files (instead of 67), one of which was an application by Suleyman Kutluk to the European Commission of Human Rights. However, none of the Kurdish or “ERNK” documents mentioned in the preceding seizure report, other than the document entitled “Kurdish-merciless”, were noted. It stated that nothing incriminating was found on Mr Elçi. His personal belongings and all the seized papers were handed over, together with Mr Elçi, to the Cizre district gendarme command on 23 November 1993.\n \nc) Undisputed confiscation record concerning the office materials of Tahir Elçi", "486. This record was significantly shorter and stated that files, journals and documents had been confiscated and taken to the District Security Directorate. The report had the same date and times as the foregoing records, and an original version was in the State Security Court file bearing Mr Elçi's signature.\n \nd) Search with consent report concerning Mr Elçi's office", "487. This report stated that Mr Elçi's office was searched on 23 November 1993 at 10.30 a.m. with his consent, a large number of documents being seized for further examination. Mr Elçi indicated that no loss or damage had occurred as a result of the search.\n \ne) Search with consent and confiscation report concerning the house of Sebahattim Acar", "488. Gendarmes and police officer searched Mr Acar's house on 15 November 1993. The report was made up and signed at 11.30 p.m. It described the seizure of various documents, including those entitled “The paths and tasks of the Turkish Revolution”, “Thoughts on the PKK”, “Kurdistan under fire” and several publications by or concerning Abdullah Öcalan, such as “Facism and the PKK resistance” and “Questions of socialism and revolution”.\n \nf) Undisputed search report of the home of Mehmet Selim Kurbanoğlu", "489. The report noted the search of Mr Kurbanoğlu's home on 20 November 1993, during which nothing incriminating was found.\n \ng) Disputed search report of the home of Mehmet Selim Kurbanoğlu", "490. The report again recorded the search of Mr Kurbanoğlu's home on 20 November 1993, during which a note was found with an “ERNK” stamp on it.\n \nh) Disputed report on the taking into custody and personal search of Meral Danis Beştaş and Mesut Beştaş", "491. The report noted that a Kurdish leaflet entitled “BANG” from the “YRWK” (the intellectuals' wing of the PKK) was found on Meral Danis Beştaş and an “ERNK” document was found on Mesut Beştaş.\n \ni) Disputed report on the taking into custody and personal search of Arif Alltinkalem", "492. It was recorded that an “ERNK” receipt was found on Mr Altinkalem.\n \nj) Apprehension and body search report concerning Fuat Hayri Demir", "493. The report signed by the applicant and dated 3 December 1993, the day of his apprehension, stated that the applicant was wanted for his connections with the PKK and for acting as a courier. It also recorded that a note bearing an “ERNK” stamp on it and addressed to Comrade Fuat Demir was found. No other incriminating material was discovered.", "494. The custody records showed that 73 people had been taken into custody by the gendarmerie from 15 November 1993, when Sabahattin Acar was detained, until 11 December 1993 when Mr and Mrs Şahin were noted as having been detained. The records revealed that some 45 people were being held at the same time.", "495. To some extent the dates recorded corresponded to those set out in the indictment table (paragraph 534 below), except for the following:\n-Tahir Elçi's custody was recorded as of 25 November 1993 (probably the date of his transfer to Diyarbakır from Cizre, where he had been apprehended on 23 November 1993);\n-Mr and Mrs Şahin's custody was recorded as of 11 December 1993 (probably the date of their transfer from İstanbul, where they had been apprehended on 7 December 1993);\n-Niyazi Çem's custody was recorded as of 28 November 1993 (probably the date of his transfer from İstanbul, where he had been apprehended on 23 November 1993); and\n-Mehmet Selim Kurbanoğlu's custody was recorded as of 20 November 1993, although the indictment refers to 19 November 1993.", "496. The Government submitted two video cassettes showing a four-hour interrogation of a few applicants in November and December 1993.", "497. The sound quality of the recordings was poor and in black and white. The location and exact dates were not given. People were filmed in close-up, seated in front of a back-drop of the Turkish flag and an unseen, unidentified man asked questions. There were strong spotlights directed at the interviewee. The people recorded were apparently Şinasi Tur, Baki Demırhan and Hüsniye Ölmez on the first tape, and Selim Kurbanoğlu, Arif Altinkalem and Vedat Erten on the second tape, as well as a deputy prison director and a prison officer.", "498. The aforementioned applicants said that they had started out as lawyers who, in the course of their work and in order to earn a living, sometimes had to represent people accused of terrorist, PKK involvement. When visiting such clients in prison, the “head of the political prisoners” systematically sat in on the interview to monitor the conversation and intervene when he thought appropriate. The prison officers stated that they had left the political prisoners to organise themselves in this and other business for fear of reprisals to either themselves or their families.", "499. Most of the lawyers recounted that they had not actively collaborated with the PKK or its prison members. However, some of them acknowledged that they had carried notebooks, diaries, pens and the like between prisons from one client to another. They had not inquired as to the reason or the content, knowing that it was in their best interests to remain ignorant, if they wished to continue in legal practice without reprisal from the PKK.", "500. Şinasi Tur recounted, inter alia, that his brother had been a member of the PKK who had been killed. He himself had been given 5000 Deutschmarks to buy mobile telephones for a PKK member. He had also prepared some fake identity cards for that organisation.", "501. Baki Demırhan said, inter alia, that the Diyarbakır lawyers like himself had been manipulated by the PKK emotionally, politically and economically. He had received instructions from the “head of the political prisoners” at the Gaziantep Prison, and he had carried notes and booklets between prisoners, to and from that prison and the Diyarbakır Prison. The defence lawyers had been instructed to set up human rights commissions within the bar associations.", "502. Hüsniye Ölmez stated, inter alia, that after two years of scraping a living as a lawyer in Diyarbakır, she had had to appear as a PKK sympathiser in order to get work. She was recognised as a good lawyer, which is why the Government accused her of being a PKK member. Her family and its considerable wealth had been attacked and intimidated in an attempt to force them to pay “tax” to the PKK. She had come under pressure from the “head of the political prisoners” to act as a courier. She had once taken some belongings out of one of the prisons.", "503. Vedat Erten claimed, inter alia, that he had never knowingly or overtly assisted the PKK, and that his law practice had suffered as a result. He had had a few PKK clients.", "504. Mr Haney took statements from the applicants at the end of their detention by the gendarmes. They all rejected the charges against them and the allegations of Abdülhakim Güven, as well as claims that they had been found with incriminating PKK or “ERNK” documents. Those who had signed statements at the gendarmerie said that they had been forced to do so.", "505. Şinasi Tur and Sebahattim Acar specified that the severe torture of Mmes Beştaş and Ölmez and MM. Elçi and Çem had scared them into signing.", "506. Mr Elçi alleged that he had been tortured, as had Mr Çem and Ms Ölmez. This was confirmed by Mr Çem in his statement to the Prosecutor, who also alleged that Mrs Beştaş had beeen tortured. The latter declared that she had been kept blindfolded in a cell and tortured. MM. Beştaş and Erten alleged they had been tortured, as did Ms Ölmez.", "507. Several applicants said they had not been confronted with Mr Güven, one reason being that, as they had been blindfolded, they could not identify anyone who spoke to them. They all repudiated the confrontation records with Mr Güven and / or his statements about them.", "508. Mr Demırhan refuted the charges read out to him by the Investigating Judge. He had had no relationship with the PKK other than acting as a defence counsel. He had not acted as a courier between prisons (especially Gaziantep prison where he had never set foot). Nor had he brought into prison any knife. At that time lawyers were searched before being admitted into the prison, so carrying in a knife would have been impossible. He knew Abdülhakim Güven, who was angry with Mr Demırhan for dissuading his brother from joining the PKK.", "509. Mr Demırhan rejected the statement he had signed under pressure at the gendarmerie and the allegations of Mr Güven against him. He therefore repudiated the confrontation record concerning the latter. He denied having been confronted with him at all.\n \nb)Gazanfer Abbasioğlu", "510. Mr Abbasioğlu rejected the charges read out to him as groundless, as well as his statement to the gendarmes. He denied the accusations of Mr Güven with whom he had been purportedly confronted, but as he had been blindfolded he had not been able to identify him fully. He had been punched at that moment. He had not acted as a courier for him and had only signed the statements because he had been scared by the screams of Tahir Elçi, Meral Daniş Beştaş and Niyazi Çem when they had been tortured for a long time with cold water.", "511. He acknowledged the statement he had made to the Public Prosecutor.\n \nc)Mesut Beştaş", "512. Mr Beştaş denied the charges read out to him as groundless. He had not acted as a courier or possessed a document stamped by the “ERNK” purportedly found on him. He said that the stamp was not of the usual kind which could be found and that it would have been illogical of him not to have destroyed it at the State Security Court before the end of the day after he had been identified earlier by the officers who were to detain him.", "513. He repudiated a preliminary inquiry report dated 6 December 1993 and pointed out how he had tried to record an abstention on that document. This accounted for the difference in signature from the statement he had made to the Public Prosecutor, which statement he confirmed. He also rejected a confrontation record with Mr Güven, given that he had been held blindfolded and had not spoken to anyone.\n \nd) Meral Daniş Beştaş", "514. Mrs Beştaş denied the charges, read out to her, of having been a PKK courier and of having been found with an “ERNK” document on her. She repudiated the contents of a preliminary statement, which she had not signed. She alleged she had been in agony for 25 days, having been sexually harassed, stripped naked and doused with cold water for 3 hours. Despite that treatment, she refused to sign any documents.", "515. She denied the allegations made by Mr Güven, whose brother she had defended, as she had defended other persons accused of PKK-related crimes. That was her sole contact with the PKK - acting professionally as a defence lawyer.", "516. She confirmed the statement she had made to the Public Prosecutor.\n \ne)Nevzat Kaya", "517. Mr Kaya denied acting as a PKK courier. He had no relation other than that of lawyer/client with the prison. He repudiated the preliminary statement which he had signed after repression and torture – cold water and sexual harassment. He also rejected the confrontation report with Mr Güven, who had intervened in conversations he had had with his clients, being the prisoners' representative. He confirmed his statement to the Public Prosecutor.\n \nf)Arif Altinkalem", "518. Mr Altinkalem denied any relations with the PKK. He denied having been a PKK courier and having been found in possession of an “ERNK” receipt. If he had had a PKK document on him, he would have destroyed it during the day after he had been incorrectly identified as Baki Demırhan. He said that the signature on the arrest and search report was not his. A preliminary statement was taken from him by force, a fact of which he had medical proof. He confirmed his statement to the Public Prosecutor, but not the confrontation record with Mr Güven, as he had been blindfolded and had not recognised the voice of the persons who had spoken to him. Mr Güven was the prisoners' representative and had listened to the conversations between lawyers and their clients. Mr Güven had confirmed that he had never seen or heard of any note, information or PKK comment being transmitted by the applicant.\n \ng)Vedat Erten", "519. Mr Erten denied acting as a PKK courier and said that he used to get angry when Mr Güven approached him to listen to his conversations with his clients. He disputed Mr Güven's statements against him, the confrontation record and the preliminary statement, which he alleged had been forced from him under torture. He had not had any PKK document on him when apprehended. It would have been irrational to have carried such a document at that time.\n \nh)Mehmet Selim Kurbanoğlu", "520. Mr Kurbanoğlu denied assisting the PKK either alone or with his partner, Şinasi Tur. Nothing incriminating had been found on him and allegations that he had held PKK documents were groundless. He had not admitted the police officers to his home when they first arrived, and any such document would have been destroyed while the police waited outside. The house search report should also have had his cousin's signature on it. His signature on the arrest report and preliminary statement were made under pressure. He confirmed his statement to the Public Prosecutor.\n \ni)Sabahattin Acar", "521. Mr Acar denied the charges against him and alleged that he had been subjected to repression and torture during his detention, together with Tahir Elçi, Niyazi Çem, Meral Daniş Beştaş and Hüsniye Ölmez. He had been stripped naked and beaten, whereas cold water had been poured on Tahir Elçi and Niyazi Çem. After seeing that, he had signed whatever was required in order to avoid aggravating a kidney problem he had.", "522. His preliminary statement was taken by force. He denied any involvement in bringing cyanide into prison, as alleged by Mr Güven. He also denied that he had acted as a courier and that PKK documents were found during the search of his house. They had been attached to the file after the search had been made. He acknowledged a photograph of himself and his nephew, who was wearing a tie in PKK colours.", "523. He had been working on files for the Human Rights Association between 1990 and 1992, which documents were seized, and following which he was victimised.\n \nj)Fuat Hayri Demır", "524. Mr Demır denied acting as a PKK courier, passing money, or the like. He claimed that no PKK documents had been found on him. As he was aware of the arrest of his friends earlier, it would have been irrational of him to carry around such documents.", "525. He alleged that he had signed the preliminary statement after electric shock torture. He disputed Mr Güven's allegations, which he may have made because Mr Demır had tried to prevent him interfering in his discussions with his clients in prison.", "526. He confirmed the statement he had made to the Public Prosecutor.\n \nk)Şinasi Tur", "527. Mr Tur denied the new charges against him of having acted as a courier and of having harboured a PKK member at his brother-in-law's house. He said that Mr Güven's allegations were groundless.\n \nl)Tahir Elçi", "528. Mr Elçi denied the charges against him and any allegation that “ERNK” or illegal documents had been found in his office or house. He denied the preliminary statement and confrontation record with Mr Güven, both of which he had refused to sign. Mr Güven's only relation to him was as a neighbour. A faxed arrest report did not have his authentic signature on it. He confirmed the statement he had made to the Public Prosecutor.\n \nm) Niyazi Çem", "529. Mr Çem denied having acted as a courier for the PKK, having accompanied a PKK member by aeroplane and having transmitted money to Mr Güven. He repudiated the preliminary statement and the confrontation record with Mr Güven, which he had not signed. He confirmed his statement to the Public Prosecutor.\n \nn)Hüsniye Ölmez", "530. Ms Ölmez denied the contents of the preliminary statement which she was ashamed to say had been extracted from her under torture, including being stripped naked, sexually harassed and beaten while being doused with cold water. She also refuted the statements of Mr Güven and Fatima Demirel. (Ms Demirel had retracted her incriminating statement against the applicant later - paragraph 533 below.) Ms Ölmez had been a lawyer for 20 years and had not plotted with the PKK. Mr Güven had been a prisoners' representative and had given statements in order to benefit from the Remorse Law. She confirmed her statement to the Public Prosecutor and denied the slanderous allegation that she had hidden heroin.\n \no) The Court's decision", "531. In conclusion, the Investigating Judge decided to remand in custody Sabahattin Acar, Tahir Elçi and Hüsniye Ölmez under Article 104 of the Code of Criminal Procedure; to release Bakir Demırhan, Gazanfer Abbasioğlu, Mesut Beştaş, Meral Daniş Beştaş, Nevzat Kaya, Arif Altinkalem, Vedat Erten, Mehmet Selim Kurbanoğlu, Sabahattin Acar, Fuat Hayri Demır, Şinasi Tur, Tahir Elçi, Niyazi Çem and Hüsniye Ölmez “having regard to the characteristics of the offence and the existing evidence”; and to release pending trial Mesut Beştaş, Meral Daniş Beştaş, Arif Altinkalem, Mehmet Selim Kurbanoğlu, and Fuat Hayri Demır “considering the date of their arrest, the evidence, the characteristics of the offence, and that the fact that their residence is known”.", "532. Mr Bakir, a PKK confessor like Mr Güven, described how poison and a flick knife had been smuggled into prison in January 1993 by a certain A.K.\n \nb) Evidence given by Fatma Demirel to the Diyabakır State Security Court on 22 November 1994", "533. Ms Demirel said that she had heard of Hüsniye Ölmez and Meral Daniş Beştaş but that she had never met them. She repudiated the statements she had given in custody, particularly the allegations regarding these two lawyers, which had been written by the interrogators and which she had been forced to sign.", "534. The indictment dated 22 December 1993 and drawn up by Prosecutor Ünal Haney first listed 19 defendants (excluding MM. Tur and çem), and then proceeded to elaborate the alleged offences of a total of 23 defendants, including all the applicants. It gave the following dates as regards the applicants' custody and formal arrest:\n \n \nDate of being taken into custody \nDate of formal arrest - “fa”[3]; with or without a mention of remand in custody - “ric”; or the date when an arrest warrant[4] was issued - “aw” \n Tahir Elçi", "535. All the applicants were charged generally with “being subsidiary persons of an illegal organisation”, i.e. the PKK. Specific allegations relating to this charge were set out in each case, ranging from providing free or cheap legal representation to PKK members, acting as couriers, handling weapons and drugs, making financial donations, organising propaganda, etc. In the case of İmam Şahin, it was alleged, inter alia, that he had “prepared documentation showing the PKK as innocent, stating that the incidents in the region occurred with the support of the State, belittling the State and ...that [he had] faxed these to Europe and made propaganda against [the State]”. Arzu Şahin and Baki Demırhan were similarly accused of belittling the Turkish State in documentation which they had allegedly sent to European human rights associations. Sebahattin Acar, a member of the Diyarbakır Human Rights Association (the “IHD”), was accused of sending such anti-Turkish propaganda to the IHD in Europe.", "536. The indictment required that all the defendants\n \n“be tried according to the rules of Law No. 2845, penalised severely under Articles 168/2, 31, 33 and 40 of the Turkish Criminal Code, and 5 of Law No. 3713, and that the offending articles recorded as being in safe-keeping be confiscated.”", "537. The records submitted in the case showed that, on 10 January 1993 (read 1994), Tahir Elçi's lawyer asked that documents be returned. That same day the Diyarbakır State Security Court ordered their return, and the lawyer, Mr Dinler, signed a receipt which included a reference to a file (No. 72.1) containing documents concerning “the Human Rights Commission”.", "538. At the hearing on 17 February 1994 before the court, all the applicants, except for Vedat Erten and Arif Altinkalem, complained of having been tortured, ill-treated or subjected to undue pressure during gendarme/police custody. Vedat Erten and Arif Altinkalem, as well as some of the other applicants, had already made such complaints to the Investigating Judge on 10 December 1993. Arif Altinkalem referred to such treatment at the hearing before the State Security Court on 28 April 1994.", "539. Some of the applicants who had been remanded in custody - Tahir Elçi, Sabahattin Acar, Mehmet Selim Kurbanoğlu, Mesut Beştaş, Vedat Erten, Arif Altinkalem, Hüsniye Ölmez, İmam Şahin and Arzu Şahin - submitted a joint statement of defence to the court on 17 February 1994 and requested their release, which was granted. In their statements they denounced, inter alia, the lack of evidence against them, unlawful interrogation methods, which had led some of them to sign fabricated confession statements, and fabricated search reports by gendarmes in which it was falsely alleged that certain PKK documents had been found on them.", "540. Mehmet Selim Kurbanoğlu lodged a defence statement with the court on 20 January 1997 in which, inter alia, he denounced the absence of evidence against him and disputed a fabricated search report of his home (paragraph 490 above) in which a note with an “ERNK” stamp on it had purportedly been found. He alleged that his statement to the gendarmes had been extracted under torture, contrary to Article 135a of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and that the whole case was based on an intolerance of defence lawyers before the court.", "541. Vedat Erten lodged a separate objection to his arrest, detention and remand in custody with the State Security Court Prosecutor for submission to that court, and requested bail. He alleged, inter alia, that he had been treated shamefully in the custody of the gendarmes for 18 days (17 days according to official records), being interrogated with illegal and inhuman practices which led him to sign documents, the contents of which he repudiated. Despite the general awareness of the round-up of the Diyarbakır lawyers at that time, strangely enough all of them were purportedly found with compromising documents on them.", "542. The Diyarbakır provincial gendarmerie commander submitted to the State Security Court a global statement which included, inter alia, the following elements:\n- Tahir Elçi had been in contact with PKK members in the mountains, providing them with weapons, and had liaised between Cizre and Diyarbakır;\n- Nevzat Kaya confessed to being a PKK courier and had procured clothing which he had given to Mr Güven, as well as two micro-tapes;\n- Şinasi Tur had confessed to being a PKK courier, and had harboured an injured PKK member and, when he died, helped in the disposal of the body;\n- a note had been sent by the “YRWK” (the intellectuals' wing of the PKK) which had been found on Sabahattin Acar;\n- Niyazi çem had been a courier and had transported heroin for a PKK member to İstanbul;\n- Mehmet Selim Kurbanoğlu acknowledged his involvement as a PKK courier and regional representative, and in the disposal of the body of a deceased PKK member;\n- Meral Danis Beştaş admitted that she was a PKK courier, and had faxed PKK materials to Europe through the Human Rights Association which had defamed the Turkish State; she had given information to the PKK about a particular Public Prosecutor whom it was planned to assassinate and had been found in possession of a “YWRK” document called “BANG”;\n- Mesut Beştaş had confessed to being a courier; he had defended PKK members, had had a PKK note on him when apprehended and had sent PKK people to the mountains;\n- Vedat Erten had been a PKK courier and had been found with a note on him from a prisoner;\n- Baki Demırhan had admitted that he was a PKK courier and that he had tried to smuggle a flick knife into prison;\n- Arif Altinkalem had said that he was a PKK courier and had been found with a receipt from the “ERNK” and a PKK photograph;\n- Gazanfer Abbasioğlu admitted that he was a PKK courier, and had given information to the PKK about a particular Public Prosecutor whom it was planned to assassinate;\n- Fuat Hayri Demır was a PKK courier who had established connections between the Tunceli Human Rights Assocation and the prison there; he had been arrested with a PKK note on him; and\n- Hüsniye Ölmez had said that she was a PKK courier; she had kept 2 kilos of heroin for the PKK at her home, had been planning to help an imprisoned PKK member sell his personal property, and had proposed that a Diyarbakır Public Prosecutor be killed; a PKK report had been found on her and the address book of another suspect in the case had been found at her home.", "543. The commander also submitted to the court the video recordings that had been made of the applicants' interrogations, their statements, as well as that of Mr Güven, the PKK documents purportedly found on the accused and a weapon.", "544. After the hearings on 17 February and 28 April 1994, the State Security Court took certain procedural decisions, although none related to the allegations of torture, ill-treatment or undue pressure.", "545. Records of the hearing of the State Security Court dated 17 September and 7 November 1996, 21 January, 8 April, 16 June, 16 September, 4 November and 23 December 1997, and 3 March, 21 April and 9 June 1998, were submitted to the Commission. They showed constant adjournments and certain procedural decisions, with the case eventually being stalled due to the non-appearance of certain key witnesses, especially Abdülhakim Güven whose address was unknown.", "546. Following their apprehension on 7 December 1993, Mr and Mrs Şahin were taken by the police to an İstanbul medical institute on 10 December 1993 which certified that they were fit.\n \nb) Medical report by Dr Lokman Eğilmez, dated 10 December 1993 at 7.30 a.m.", "547. Dr Eğilmez, in a one page collective report, certified that the applicants showed “no marks of blows or force”, except for Mr Altinkalem who had a small, violet coloured bruise on the outer side of his right knee.\n \nc)Further medical report by Dr Lokman Eğilmez of Hüsniye Ölmez at her request on 13 December 1993", "548. Dr Eğilmez noted two faded, green bruises, 1 cm in diameter on the left side and lower part of her knee.\n \nd)Medical report of Dr Mahmut Demirel dated 13 December 1993 of Meral Daniş Beştaş", "549. Dr Demirel diagnosed that Mrs Beştaş was suffering from pneumonia and recommended 15 days' bed rest.\n \ne) The medical opinion of Dr C.M. Milroy, Senior Lecturer in Forensic Pathology at Sheffield University [GB] (document dated 11 November 1998, submitted by the applicants' representatives)", "550. In the context of the cases of Tahir Elçi, Niyazi Çem, Şinasi Tur, Sabahattin Acar, Selim Kurbanoğlu, Meral Daniş Beştaş, Mesut Beştaş, Vedat Erten and Hüsniye Ölmez, Dr Milroy commented on the medical procedures for the examination of detainees.", "551. Much of the treatment alleged by the applicants (blindfolding, being spread-eagled, being subjected to continuous loud music, death threats, slapping or being stripped naked and doused with cold water) would not leave any external physical signs. However, the cold water treatment could result in hypothermia and pneumonia.", "552. General beating may lead to bruising and a meagre diet would lead to weight loss, hence the need to record a prisoner's weight at the start and at the end of the detention period. A general assessment of the patient's physical condition would also provide evidence of the prisoner's nutritional status.", "553. As regards Meral Daniş Beştaş, the findings of Dr Mahmut Demirel (paragraphs 296-298 and 549 above) on 13 December 1993 were consistent with the allegations of being stripped naked and doused with cold water, resulting in hypothermia, complicated by pneumonia.", "554. The report denounced the murder of several members of the Diyarbakır Bar between 1993 and 1995 by unknown perpetrators. Because of the state of war prevailing in the region at that time, most of the lawyers sided with the victims of violated rights. Lawyers were unlawfully detained, tortured, arrested and prosecuted on the basis of fabricated evidence. Some of the lawyers were convicted of offences. Others' trials were still pending. The applicants' “collective case” was referred to.\n \nb) The opinion of Mehmet Nur Terzi, an Izmir lawyer, on Articles 58 and 59 of Law No. 1136 on Advocates", "555. Mr Terzi confirmed the opinion of Prosecutor Ünal Haney that the protection afforded to lawyers as to their arrest, detention and interrogation (requiring the authority and / or presence of a Public Prosecutor) was overridden at the time by Law No. 2845 on the establishment and judicial practice of the State Security Courts in respect of suspected terrorist offences (see paragraph 363 above). The rationale for this was that crimes which fell within the remit of the State Security Courts were crimes against the State and therefore could have nothing to do with lawyers' professional duties, and were personal crimes.", "556. However, circulars issued by the Ministry of Justice affirmed that such cases should still be investigated by the State Prosecutors, not the security forces. The fact that these compulsory directives were not followed in certain provinces led to a protest from many legal institutions, particularly the Bar Associations.\n \nc) Extracts from the official Susurluk report on unknown perpetrator killings[6]", "557. Reference was made in this report to a certain Mahmut Yıldırım (code name “Yeşil”) who at one time was assigned to the Diyarbakır gendarmerie command. He was responsible for several murders of PKK members, the extortion of money and illegal interrogations which, if unsuccessful, resulted in the disappearance of the person concerned. In effect, he led a “death squad”, which went unpunished.\nd) Statement of the Minister of Justice, Mr Kazan, reported in the daily newspaper “Sabah” on 14 November 1996, concerning the allegedly unethical practices of certain lawyers", "558. The Minister was reported as saying that around 300 lawyers within the Diyarbakır Human Rights Association, receiving money from abroad, had been contacting citizens in the Emergency Rule Region and convincing them to sign and finger print blank sheets of paper.\n \ne) Extract of the report dated 7 November 1996 by the Lawyers' Committee (USA) on an exchange with the Chief State Security Court Prosecutor, Bekir Selçuk", "559. Mr Selçuk was reported as saying, as regards incommunicado detention in contravention of international norms, “I have my own objectives, and if the European Convention conflicts with them, it must take second place.”\n\nf) Preliminary report of a European Lawyer's Committee for Human Rights dated 7 November 1996", "560. Members of this Committee held a 16-day inquiry in Turkey in 1996, out of concern for allegations of hostility from the Turkish authorities to Turkish lawyers engaged in the promotion of human rights. The pressures on lawyers were such that very few practitioners were prepared to take on State Security Court cases, particularly in the South East of the country. Nezmattullah Gündüz, a former President of the Diyarbakır Bar Association told the Committee that, “No one can fulfil his duties as a lawyer in these cases... The work is a kind of slow suicide”.", "561. In contrast, in two interviews with the Diyarbakır Chief State Security Prosecutor, Bekir Selçuk, the latter maintained that there were no cases where lawyers had been prosecuted for defending terrorists. Rather they were prosecuted for having organic links with the PKK. In no way were lawyers sanctioned for their contacts with the European Commission of Human Rights.", "562. The Committee expressed concern about the practice of prolonged incommunicado pre-trial detention in State Security Court proceedings. Such detention was devoid of essential safeguards, in particular prompt access to legal advice and judicial supervision of the detention of suspects and, thus, there was an enhanced possibility of torture with impunity.\n \ng) The Report of the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment 1993", "563. This report referred to allegations that no judicial or disciplinary proceedings appeared to have been taken against officials accused of unlawful practices, and listed examples of pressure being brought to bear on doctors to issue misleading reports and to note complaints perfunctorily if any investigations into such matters were commenced.\n \nh) The United Nations Statement of the Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers, adopted by consensus by the Eighth United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders on 7 September 1990", "564. The applicants referred to several of the basic principles set out in this Statement:\n \n- that lawyers, in protecting their clients' rights, shall seek to uphold human rights, should be able to act freely and diligently, in accordance with the law and professional ethics;\n- that Governments should ensure that lawyers may exercise their profession without hindrance, intimidation or sanction;\n- that lawyers should not be identified with the clients they defend;\n- that lawyers should enjoy civil and criminal immunity for all statements they make in good faith; and\n- that the lawyer/client relationship, correspondence and consultation should be confidential.\n \ni) Report on the arrest of defence lawyers in Turkey by Jon Rud for the Norwegian Bar Association (26 April to 1 May 1994)", "565. Mr Rud was looking into the allegations in the present case. In a meeting with the Chief State Security Court Prosecutor, Bekir Selçuk, he reported the latter as saying that he was aware of the applicants' complaints of torture, which had not been submitted to the proper authorities and were a classic defence tactic. When apparently asked why complaints to the European Commission of Human Rights featured in the indictment against the applicants, Mr Selçuk replied that the right of appeal to the Commission had been abused, which was an offence under Turkish law, being propaganda directed against the State, belittling Turkey. The lawyers had not exhausted domestic remedies and were making false allegations. Lawyers should examine their clients' cases more carefully before submitting unwarranted claims simply on the clients' instructions.\n \nj) Amnesty International Urgent Action Communiqués, dated 19 and 24 November 1993, 9 and 17 December 1993 and 25 January 1994", "566. The communiqués referred to the applicants' arrest and detention as they evolved. That of 17 December 1993 recorded the allegations of Meral Daniş Beştaş of having been tortured whilst in the custody of the gendarmerie. That of 25 January 1994 recorded the similar allegations of Tahir Elçi and Sabahattin Acar.\n \nk) Amnesty International Report on Turkey - Human Rights Defenders at risk, dated September 1994", "567. Amnesty International took up the allegations of the Turkish Human Rights Association concerning the harassment and prosecution of defence lawyers. Meral Daniş Beştaş was recorded as having complained of her detention by the gendarmerie in November 1993, and of torture and severe ill-treatment, including being doused with cold water." ]

[ 1, 2, 4 ]

[ "8. The applicant was born in 1947 and lives in Karlovac, Croatia.", "9. On 6 February 1999 the applicant was driving from Bosnia and Herzegovina and crossed the border to Croatia at the checkpoint at Maljevac. He was stopped by a customs officer for a routine check.", "10. The applicant gives the following account of what happened at the border checkpoint. Before arriving in Croatia, the applicant and another person, K.B., had purchased four cartons of cigarettes and two litres of cooking oil.", "11. At the border checkpoint they were approached by a customs officer who asked the applicant if he had anything to declare. The applicant pointed at the purchased goods, lying in the backseat of the car, inviting the customs officer to take a look. The officer then asked the applicant to show him his passport. While holding the applicant's passport the officer told the applicant that he had failed to declare the goods and thus committed a customs offence. He asked the applicant to pay a fine in the amount of two hundred Croatian Kunas (hereinafter HRK).", "12. The applicant told the officer that he could not pay the fine right away because he did not have enough money on him. The officer did not return the applicant's passport and told him that he would receive his passport when he had paid the fine. The applicant then continued to Croatia.", "13. The Government gave the following account of the facts. While entering Croatia the applicant failed to declare goods that he had purchased in Bosnia and Herzegovina. However, a customs officer found five cartons of cigarettes and two litres of cooking oil in the applicant's car. He routinely fined the applicant with HRK 200 [Approximately 30 euros] for a minor customs offence. The applicant was immediately given a document which stated that he was fined with HRK 200 for having failed to declare five cartons of cigarettes he was importing. The applicant signed the document. During this procedure the applicant's passport was kept by the customs officer, who had intended to return it to the applicant. However, the applicant refused to pay the fine and demonstratively drove away, leaving his passport behind.", "14. On 10 February 1999 the applicant wrote from his address in Karlovac to the Ministry of Finance, Customs Administration Headquarters asking that his passport be returned.", "15. On 22 February 1999 the Customs Administration replied to the applicant's address in Karlovac that the custom officers acted in accordance with law when they seized the applicant's passport because he had refused to pay the fine for a customs offence which he had committed by failing to declare goods at a border checkpoint. They relied on Sections 325 to 333 of the Customs Act which, inter alia, provided that a person, while crossing a customs check point, had to declare and show all goods that he was importing. Failure to declare such goods represented a customs offence. The letter also stated that since the applicant had not declared the goods that he had been importing to Croatia, he had committed a customs offence under Section 353 of the Customs Act and fined pursuant to § 2 of that Section. The applicant's passport had been kept because the applicant had refused to pay the fine. The letter contained no indication of how and when the applicant's passport would be returned.", "16. Although the applicant did not pay the imposed fine no other proceedings were instituted against him for the alleged customs offence.", "17. In the meantime, on 12 February 1999, the Customs Administration, apparently having decided not to institute any further proceedings against the applicant, handed over the passport to the Slunj Customs Police Department. The Police noticed, however, that the applicant was registered as living in Zagreb for which reason, on 4 March 1999, the passport was sent to the Zagreb Police Department.", "18. On 5 March 1999 the Zagreb Police Department wrote to the applicant's registered address in Zagreb inviting him to collect his passport. The letter was returned. On 6 April 1999 the Zagreb Police Department wrote once more to the applicant, but the letter was again returned. The receipt showed that the applicant was unknown at that address.", "19. The Police discovered subsequently that the applicant, although registered as living in Zagreb, actually lived in Karlovac. On 23 March 2001 the passport was sent to the Karlovac Police Department which invited the applicant to collect his passport. He did so on 4 April 2001.", "20. Having received the Customs Administration's letter of 22 February 1999 the applicant filed a civil suit on 2 March 1999 in the Zagreb Municipal Court against the Ministry of Finance, seeking the return of his passport and damages flowing from his inability to leave Croatia. He also requested the court to adopt an interim measure and order that his passport be returned to him immediately.", "21. On 13 April 1999 the applicant also filed an application in the Zagreb County Court claiming that the seizure of his passport by a customs officer was an unlawful act and that therefore, his right to freedom of movement had been violated. He requested the court to order the Ministry of Finance to return his passport forthwith.", "22. On 21 September 1999 the Zagreb County Court dismissed the applicant's claim. It found that a claim for protection from an unlawful act was permitted only if there was no other remedy available. In the opinion of the court the applicant had at his disposal another remedy - a civil action for the return of his property. Accordingly, it instructed the applicant to institute civil proceedings in a municipal court against the Ministry of Finance for the return of his passport.", "23. The applicant appealed against the decision.", "24. The applicant's appeal was rejected on 20 April 2000 by the Supreme Court (Vrhovni sud Republike Hrvatske).", "25. In the meantime, at a hearing on 12 April 1999 the Zagreb Municipal Court, in the proceedings instituted on 2 March 1999, against the Ministry of Finance, separated the applicant's claim for damages from the claim for return of the passport.", "26. Concerning the claim for return of the applicant's passport the next hearing was held on 11 February 2000. At that hearing the court heard the applicant and then decided to hear K.B., who was with the applicant in the car at the material time. It was furthermore agreed between the parties to adjourn the issue of damages pending the outcome of the claim for the return of the passport.", "27. At a hearing on 1 December 2000 the court heard the customs officer who took the applicant's passport. It also invited the applicant to submit within thirty days a copy of the letter that he had sent to the Customs Administration as well as their reply.", "28. On 23 January 2001 the applicant submitted the Customs Administration's reply of 22 February 1999.", "29. At a hearing on 21 February 2001 the court heard another customs officer and once again the applicant. It then rejected the applicant's request for an interim measure finding that the applicant's main claim, i.e. to have his passport returned, was exactly the same as his request for the interim measure and that, therefore, such a request could only be decided after the court established all the relevant facts of the case.", "30. On 23 February 2001 the applicant filed an application asking that the judge be removed from the case. On 7 March 2001 the President of the Zagreb Municipal Court rejected the applicant's motion.", "31. The next hearing was held on 13 April 2001. The applicant informed the court that on 4 April 2001 the Karlovac Police Department had returned his passport. Therefore, he no longer sought the return of his passport but instead sought a declaratory decision to the effect that on 6 February 1999 his passport was taken from him by the Croatian authorities and returned on 4 April 2001. He also sought costs.", "32. On 24 April 2001 the applicant filed submissions with the court repeating the statements and claims he made at the hearing on 13 April 2001.", "33. On 16 May 2001 the applicant's counsel appeared before the judge and agreed to reformulate the applicant's claim having regard to the fact that the passport had already been returned to him.", "34. The next hearing was held on 28 May 2001 during which it was formally recorded that the passport had been returned to the applicant. The applicant's counsel sought from the court permission to specify the applicant's remaining claims. The court allowed her to do so within thirty days.", "35. On 7 June 2001 the applicant himself filed submissions to the court reiterating the same claims as those submitted on 24 April 2001. No additional claims were submitted by the applicant's counsel.", "36. On 13 August 2001 the applicant again filed an application asking that the judge be removed from the case. The President of the court accepted the request and the case was transferred to another judge.", "37. Following a hearing on 14 November 2001 the court dismissed the applicant's claims. It found that the applicant had no further legal interest in seeking a declaratory decision that his passport had been taken from him by the Croatian authorities on 6 February 1999 and then returned on 4 April 2001. The applicant was also ordered to pay the defendant's costs.", "38. The applicant's subsequent appeal was dismissed and the first instance decision was upheld by the Zagreb County Court (Županijski sud u Zagrebu) on 10 September 2002. It held that the applicant had no legal interest in seeking a declaratory decision and that the Zagreb Municipal Court's decision on the costs of the proceedings was well-founded because the applicant had lost his case.", "39. According to the applicant the proceedings concerning his claim for damages have never been resumed and on 24 January 2002 the case was closed without any decision on the merits been taken.", "40. According to the Government the case has not been closed and the proceedings are still pending." ]

[ 3 ]

[ "12. The first applicant, an Austrian national born in 1943 and living in Vienna, is a journalist by profession. The applicant company is the owner and publisher of the Austrian weekly magazine News.", "13. In 1995 the first applicant published a one-page article under the heading “Brown instead of Black and Red?” (Braun statt Schwarz und Rot?) in the applicant company's magazine News. In the Austrian political context, “Brown” means a person or group having some affinity with National Socialist ideology, “Black” refers to the People's Party (ÖVP) and “Red” to the Social Democratic Party (SPÖ). The article discussed the question whether it was possible and desirable to form a coalition government with the Austrian Freedom Party (FPÖ) under the leadership of Jörg Haider.", "14. The first applicant explained why, in his view, such a coalition government was not desirable. He gave nine reasons, each of which was dealt with under a separate subheading. Referring to statements by Jörg Haider and other FPÖ members, he broached topics such as the FPÖ's specific view of history, its German jingoism (Deutschtümelei), that is, its chauvinist and nostalgic affinity with Germany, its inclination towards racism, the opinion poll “Austria first” (Österreich zuerst) initiated by it, its political style and the possible negative reaction by foreign countries. 1. The passage in issue\n“4. Violent Scene [Gewaltszene]\nRight-wing thugs [Braune Schläger], fire-raisers and bomb-throwers have emerged from the FPÖ. Leading figures of brown terror, such as Burger, Haas, Honsik and Küssel, started their career with the Freedom Party. Under Steger the 'old closet Nazis' [Kellernazi] had left the party. Under Haider they are returning and are even allowed to run for office. Names such as B., Bl., D., Dü., G., Gr., H., Hat., K., M., Mi., Mrs Rosenkranz, S., Sch., St., Su. and W. show that the dissociation [Abgrenzung] from the extreme right that is constantly being stressed by Haider has in reality never taken place.”", "15. Mr Steger was Chairman of the FPÖ in the early 1980s, when the party supported more moderate positions. In 1986 Mr Haider became Chairman of the FPÖ. Mrs Rosenkranz is a politician. At the material time, she was a member of the Lower Austria Regional Parliament (Landtag) and the deputy chairperson of the Lower Austria regional branch of the FPÖ; at present, she is a member of the Austrian National Assembly (Nationalrat) and the chairperson of the Lower Austria regional branch of the FPÖ. Her husband is a well-known right-wing politician and the editor of the magazine fakten, which is considered to be extreme right-wing.", "16. Mrs Rosenkranz filed a private prosecution for defamation (üble Nachrede) against the first applicant and a compensation claim against the applicant company under the Media Act (Mediengesetz) in the St. Pölten Regional Court (Landesgericht).", "17. On 21 June 1998 the first applicant was convicted of defamation under Article 111 of the Criminal Code (Strafgesetzbuch). The court sentenced him to forty day-fines (Tagessätze) of 1,500 Austrian schillings (ATS) each (that is, a total of ATS 60,000) or twenty days' imprisonment in default, suspended for a three-year probationary period. The applicant company was ordered to pay ATS 30,000 in compensation to Mrs Rosenkranz pursuant to section 6 of the Media Act.", "18. The court noted in its reasoning that the passage in issue was to be understood in the way it would be perceived by an average reader. The term “closet Nazi” was used to describe a person who supported National Socialist ideas, not in public, but in private through clandestine activities. Belonging to such a circle of persons meant having a contemptible character and behaving in a manner contrary to honour or morality. According to the court, it could not be established that Mrs Rosenkranz was a co-author of her husband's magazine. Even assuming that she had contributed to certain passages of some of the articles published in it, as contended by the applicants, these were unproblematic in terms of the National Socialism Prohibition Act (Verfassungsgesetz vom 8. Mai 1945 über das Verbot der NSDAP, Verbotsgesetz 1947 – “the Prohibition Act”). As regards a statement by Mrs Rosenkranz in which she had said that she did not find her husband's activities immoral, the court found that Mr Rosenkranz had so far not been convicted of contravening the Prohibition Act. On the other hand, Mrs Rosenkranz had not said that she supported her husband's activities or identified herself with them. Moreover, a wife could not be expected to criticise her husband in public. Although she had criticised the National Socialism Prohibition Act in public statements, the court found that the applicants had failed to provide evidence of any clandestine National Socialist activities undertaken by Mrs Rosenkranz that would justify calling her a “closet Nazi”.", "19. The applicants appealed, arguing that the term “closet Nazi” had been coined by Mr Steger when he was Chairman of the FPÖ. It was meant to describe those of his party colleagues who, officially, demonstrated support for democracy, but who, unofficially or secretly, did not dissociate themselves from neo-Nazi ideas or from contacts with the neo-Nazi scene. Therefore, their relation to the extreme right appeared to be unclear. The applicants complained that the court had in fact failed to conclude that Mrs Rosenkranz had contributed to the editing of her husband's xenophobic magazine. They argued that Mrs Rosenkranz, as a politician, exposed herself to public scrutiny and advocated views of a political nature. As a politician, it was part of her functions to participate in political debate. Therefore, in the light of the right to freedom of expression and information of citizens and the electorate, it was legitimate to expect her to take a stand also in regard to her husband's political activities. Taking sides with her husband might do her credit as a wife, but, as a politician, she had to bear criticism under such circumstances, as her failure to dissociate herself from the extreme right could be perceived as an approval of her husband's political activities. Had the court correctly assessed the meaning of the incriminated passage, it would have concluded that the applicants had furnished proof of its factual basis.", "20. On 3 March 1997 the Vienna Court of Appeal (Oberlandesgericht) dismissed the appeal and upheld the lower court's judgment.", "21. It considered that the Regional Court had correctly found that the term “closet Nazi” was to be assessed from the point of view of an average reader, who could not be expected to know the original meaning given to it by Mr Steger some six years previously. Therefore, the article had insinuated clandestine neo-Nazi activities on the part of Mrs Rosenkranz that were not proved. Consequently, it was irrelevant to take evidence relating to possible extreme right-wing activities of her husband, as proposed by the applicants. Moreover, the first-instance court had correctly found that neither Mrs Rosenkranz's public speeches when compared to certain passages of articles in her husband's magazine, nor her statement that she did not find her husband's activities immoral warranted the conclusion that she supported National Socialist ideas. Therefore, the evidence the applicants' proposed to adduce to the effect that Mrs Rosenkranz knew the contents of her husband's magazine and that she in fact contributed from time to time to its editing was not sufficient to furnish proof of her clandestine support for National Socialist ideas." ]

[ 6 ]

[ "4. The applicant was born in 1956 and lives in Wizna, Poland.", "5. In 1991, in the course of court proceedings concerning child support maintenance the Łomża District Court (sąd rejonowy) imposed on the applicant an interim ban on leaving the territory of Poland. She was not notified of that decision until 16 July 1991, when she was stopped at an airport, on her way to the United States of America.", "6. On 30 September 1991 the applicant filed with the Łomża Regional Court (sąd wojewódzki) an action in which she claimed damages from the State Treasury. She argued that that ban was wrongful and not served on her, which had made it impossible for her to return to the United States of America and pursue her application for a residence permit there. The applicant submitted that judge X who had issued that order had known her former husband, who had been a party to those proceedings.", "7. On 31 October 1991 the Białystok Court of Appeal (sąd apelacyjny) transferred the case to the Białystok Regional Court.", "8. The latter court held hearings on 7 April, 24 September and 17 December 1992.", "9. On 5 January 1993 it rejected a part of the applicant's claim.", "10. At the hearing held on 13 May 1993 the court, at both parties' request, stayed the proceedings until the completion of disciplinary proceedings against judge X.", "11. On 3 September 1993 the court resumed the proceedings.", "12. It held further hearings on 7 October and 16 December 1993, as well as 20 January 1994.", "13. On 3 February 1994 the Białystok Regional court gave judgment. It awarded the applicant damages in the amount of 145.820.500 old zlotys with interest. The defendant and judge X, who joined the proceedings as an intervener, appealed.", "14. On 7 July 1994 the Białystok Court of Appeal quashed the Regional Court's judgment and remitted the case for re-examination.", "15. On 1 August 1994 the applicant challenged the participation in the proceedings of all the judges from the Białystok Regional court.", "16. On 15 December 1994 the Białystok Court of Appeal dismissed that petition.", "17. The Regional Court held hearings on 26 April, 28 June and 6 September 1995. At the former the court decided to request the U.S. embassy to submit a certain piece of information. At the hearing of 26 June 1995 it imposed a fine on a witness for non-attendance before the court.", "18. Hearings were held on 22 August, 19 September and 28 November 1996.", "19. The hearing scheduled for 18 December 1996 was adjourned because of the presiding judge's illness.", "20. The court held a hearing on 17 April 1997.", "21. On 30 April 1997 it gave judgment. The court dismissed the applicant's action. She appealed.", "22. On 7 November 1997 the Regional Court refused the applicant's request for exemption from the appellate court costs. On 2 December 1997 the Court of Appeal changed that decision and exempted her from part of those costs.", "23. It held hearings on 5 February and 3 March 1998.", "24. On 10 March 1998 the Białystok Court of Appeal amended the judgment of 30 April 1997 in that it awarded the applicant damages in the amount of 23,864 zlotys (PLN) with interest. All the participants to the proceedings lodged cassation appeals against that judgment.", "25. On 12 May 1998 the Court of Appeal rejected the applicant's cassation appeal. She appealed. On 27 August 1998 the Supreme Court quashed the Court of Appeal's decision.", "26. On 28 June 2000 the Supreme Court quashed the judgment under appeal and remitted the case for re-examination.", "27. On 30 November 2000 the Court of Appeal held a hearing.", "28. On 7 December 2000 it gave judgment. The court dismissed the applicant's appeal against the judgment of 30 April 1997 given by the Białystok Regional Court. The applicant lodged a cassation appeal against that judgment.", "29. On 14 June 2002 the Supreme Court rejected that cassation appeal on procedural grounds.", "30. Subsequently, the applicant's lawyer requested the re-opening of the case, relying on a recent judgment of the Constitutional Court concerning the State's liability for damage caused by a State official while giving a decision or carrying out other official duties. The request was rejected.", "31. On 4 November 2002 the applicant's lawyer lodged a constitutional complaint relating to the rejection of her request for re-opening. On 9 June 2003 the Constitutional Court gave judgment.", "32. Relying on that judgment, the applicant again filed a request for re-opening. On 9 October 2003 she informed the Court that her request had not yet been examined." ]

[ 3 ]

[ "7. The applicant is a United Kingdom national, who was born in 1944 and is currently serving a sentence of imprisonment in HMP Maidstone.", "8. The applicant and his wife frequently travelled between various European countries. On 16 April 1997, the Chief Constable of South Wales authorised the installation of covert recording devices at the applicant's cottage and this was carried out on 23 April 1997. Authority for a further 28 days' surveillance was granted on 14 May 1997.", "9. Over 160 hours of tapes were obtained between the period of 25 April to 9 June 1997, on which latter date the applicant and his wife were arrested. The transcripts of the taped conversations made up the bulk of the case against the applicant.", "10. At trial, the applicant's defence alleged that the recorded discussions, which occurred while he and the others concerned were under the influence of drugs, were “drug-crazed ramblings” and challenged their admissibility. A “voir dire” took place from 28 May to 1 June 1998, during which the defence made submissions concerning the procedure for authorisation of the surveillance and seeking inter alia to exclude irrelevant or prejudicial material under sections 78 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE). By agreement, the transcript evidence was reduced from five to two files and an agreed schedule was adopted by all counsel concerning the occasions on which the conversations occurred at the same time as drug taking. In summing up to the jury at the conclusion of the trial, the judge directed their attention to the fact that the supposedly incriminating statements taped at the cottage were or may have been the product of the participants' intoxicated state and that it was for them to assess whether despite the drugs the defendants were expressing rational, genuine thoughts, real ideas, plans or arrangements.", "11. On 15 June 1998, the applicant was convicted of charges inter alia of conspiracy to import controlled drugs and possession of controlled drugs in connection with importation of marijuana and cocaine from overseas. He was sentenced to a total of fifteen years' imprisonment. A confiscation order was imposed on him on 24 September 1998 in the sum of 50,169.18 pounds sterling (GBP).", "12. On 10 November 1999, a single judge of the Court of Appeal refused an extension of time to appeal against sentence and refused leave to appeal against conviction, noting that no satisfactory or sufficient reason had been given for the 11 month delay in lodging the application. The applicant's renewed application was refused by the Court of Appeal on 17 October 2000." ]

[ 4 ]

[ "4. The applicant was born in 1915 and lives in Budapest.", "5. On 12 January 1995 the applicant brought an action before the Budapest XVIII/XIX District Court. She requested that the invalidity of a contract, by which her late husband had sold their house, be established. On 25 June 1995 she completed her statement of claim.", "6. On 9 December 1995 the applicant requested the District Court to hold a hearing urgently.", "7. A hearing was held on 25 March 1996.", "8. On 21 October 1996 the District Court dismissed the applicant's action. On 14 October 1997 the Budapest Regional Court dismissed her appeal of 27 December 1996.", "9. On 19 December 1997 the applicant pursued a petition for review before the Supreme Court.", "10. On 27 May and 18 August 1998 the applicant requested the Supreme Court to give her case priority.", "11. On 1 September 1998 the Supreme Court appointed a legal-aid lawyer for the applicant. On 23 September 1998 the lawyer requested to be relieved of his duties. On 27 October 1998 the Supreme Court appointed another legal-aid lawyer to represent the applicant in the review proceedings.", "12. The applicant's petition for review was renewed by the lawyer on 27 November 1998.", "13. On 11 December 1998 the Supreme Court informed the parties that it intended to deliver its judgment without holding a hearing and requested the parties to submit their opinions on this matter within 8 days. On 15 January 1999 the applicant requested the Supreme Court to schedule a hearing.", "14. On 23 June 1999 the Supreme Court quashed the final judgment on account of substantial procedural shortcomings, and remitted the case to the first-instance court.", "15. In the resumed proceedings, on 22 December 1999 the Budapest XVIII/XIX District Court requested the applicant to extend her action to include Mr A.T. in the proceedings.", "16. The applicant failed to comply with this order within the statutory time-limit. Consequently, the court decided to discontinue the case.", "17. On 22 February 2000 the applicant's legal-aid lawyer appealed against the order to discontinue the case. Simultaneously, she complied with the order of 22 December 1999.", "18. On 16 March 2000 the applicant renewed the motion to include Mr A.T. in the proceedings. On the same date, the defendant submitted his observations and counter-claims.", "19. On 2 June 2000 the District Court accepted the applicant's procedural appeal and reinstated the proceedings.", "20. Following the retirement of the applicant's lawyer, on 26 June 2000 the District Court appointed another legal-aid lawyer and scheduled a hearing for 19 September 2000.", "21. The applicant failed to appear at the hearing held on 19 September 2000. She submitted that she was being treated in hospital. The District Court decided to enquire with the hospital about the applicant's health. On 24 October 2000 the hospital informed the court that the applicant was no longer a patient.", "22. On 25 October 2000 the District Court dismissed the applicant's motion challenging the presiding judge for bias.", "23. In her submissions of 22 December 2000, the applicant requested the court to hold a hearing urgently, notwithstanding her potential absence. At the same time, she objected to being represented by a legal aid-lawyer, which was not obligatory before a first-instance court. Consequently, on 17 April 2001 the District Court relieved the lawyer of her duties. On the same date, the court adjourned a hearing scheduled for 4 May 2001 and requested the applicant to complete her claims.", "24. In her submission of 1 May 2001, the applicant again requested the District Court to hold a hearing in her absence and to deliver a judgment.", "25. On 3 June 2001 the District Court enquired with the applicant as to whether she objected to a hearing being conducted at her home. On 5 August 2001 the applicant replied that she preferred to answer the court's questions in writing.", "26. On 28 October 2001 the applicant informed the court that she would not be present at the hearing scheduled for 7 November 2001. She requested the court to hold a hearing in her absence. The court held a hearing on the latter date.", "27. On 10 December 2001 the applicant submitted observations on the defendant's preparatory document of 11 November 2001. She requested that the next hearing be held in her absence.", "28. The District Court held a hearing on 13 December 2001 and scheduled a hearing for 13 February 2002.", "29. On 17 December 2001 the applicant modified her claim. On 30 December 2001 she submitted additional material. She requested the court to order the Land Registry to register the fact that proceedings were pending challenging the validity of the sales contract. On 21 January 2002 the court granted this request.", "30. On 30 January 2002 the applicant filed additional submissions.", "31. At the hearing on 13 February 2002 the District Court heard the applicant's sister as a witness and scheduled a hearing at the home of the applicant for 22 March 2002. On the latter date, however, the applicant did not allow the visiting judge to enter her house claiming that her bad health prevented her from being heard.", "32. On 26 March 2002 the applicant submitted additional observations concerning the hearing of 13 February 2002.", "33. On 23 May 2002 the District Court requested information from the Mayor's Office concerning the name of the social worker taking care of the applicant in order to summon her as a witness.", "34. At present, the proceedings are still pending before the District Court." ]

[ 3 ]

[ "4. The applicant was born in 1937 and lives in Brwinów, Poland.", "5. On 15 March 1985 the applicant instituted before the Warsaw District Court (Sąd Rejonowy w Warszawie) civil proceedings concerning an inheritance dispute (o zachowek) against Mr A.Ł. The applicant sought a part of his late mother's estate.", "6. Between April 1985 and January 1993 the court held over twenty hearings.", "7. Between March 1988 and February 1990 as well as between June 1991 and December 1992 no hearings were held.", "8. The hearing held on 11 January 1993 was adjourned.", "9. On 25 April 1994 the court, sitting in camera, requested two expert opinions.", "10. On 3 November 1994, 29 March and 26 June 1995 the Warsaw District Court obtained expert opinions.", "11. On 30 January 1995 the court exempted the applicant from the court‑fees.", "12. On 4 August 1995 the court, sitting in camera, decided to prepare another expert opinion. The defendant appealed against this decision. On 8 February 1996 the Warsaw District Court dismissed the appeal. The defendant's appeal against this decision was finally dismissed on 24 April 1996 by the Warsaw Regional Court.", "13. On 11 October 1995 the court appointed a lawyer for the applicant.", "14. On 5 August 1996 the expert submitted his opinion to the court.", "15. Between 11 January 1993 and 13 December 1996 no hearings were held.", "16. In 1997 the court held six hearings. Some of them were adjourned because the parties were not properly notified of them.", "17. On 13 February and 6 April 1998 the court held hearings.", "18. At the hearing held 25 June 1998 the applicant extended his claim.", "19. On 26 June 1998 the court decided to transfer the case to the Warsaw Regional Court because of the increased value of the claim.", "20. At the hearing held on 14 May 1999 the Warsaw Regional Court discontinued the proceedings with regard to the applicant's sister.", "21. On 14 October 1999 the applicant extended his claim and applied to the court to give an interim ruling. On 18 September 2000 the court dismissed his application for the interim ruling. The applicant's appeal was dismissed on 1 March 2001 by the Warsaw Court of Appeal.", "22. On 26 October 2001 the Warsaw Regional Court held a hearing at which it heard both parties.", "23. In November 2001 the court, sitting in camera, requested another expert opinion.", "24. In July and August 2002 the President of the Warsaw Regional Court informed the applicant that “due to the delay in the proceedings the case is going to be under constant supervision of the President”.", "25. Subsequently, a hearing scheduled for 13 March 2003 was adjourned at the applicant's request. The new date was set for 23 March 2003.", "26. The proceedings are pending before the Warsaw Regional Court." ]

[ 3 ]

[ "6. In a writ served on the tenant on 23 January 1987, the applicant informed him of its intention to terminate the lease on expiry of the term on 3 December 1988 and summoned him to appear before the Torre Annunziata Magistrate.", "7. By a decision of 25 February 1987, which was made enforceable on the same day, the Torre Annunziata Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 31 March 1990.", "8. On 21 April 1995, the applicant served notice on the tenant requiring him to vacate the premises. It also informed him that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 2 May 1995.", "9. Between 2 May 1995 and 5 November 1997, the bailiff made six attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicant was not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession.", "10. On 1 September 2000, the tenant spontaneously left the premises and the applicant recovered possession of the flat.\n2) Application no. 41935/98", "11. In a writ served on the tenant on 23 June 1983, the applicant informed him of its intention to terminate the lease on expiry of the term on 31 December 1983 and summoned him to appear before the Torre Annunziata Magistrate.", "12. By a decision of 8 October 1983, which was made enforceable on the same day, the Torre Annunziata Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 1 January 1986.", "13. On 2 February 1995, the applicant served notice on the tenant requiring them to vacate the premises.", "14. On 21 April 1995, it informed him that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 2 May 1995.", "15. Between 2 May 1995 and 5 November 1997, the bailiff made six attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicant was not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession.", "16. On 3 June 2001, the tenant spontaneously left the premises and the applicant recovered possession of the flat.\n \n \n3) Application no. 42732/98", "17. In a writ served on M.A. (the tenant) on 23 January 1987, the applicant informed her of its intention to terminate the lease on expiry of the term on 31 December 1988 and summoned her to appear before the Torre Annunziata Magistrate.", "18. By a decision of 25 February 1987, which was made enforceable on the same day, the Torre Annunziata Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 30 May 1991.", "19. On 2 February 1995, the applicant served notice on the tenant requiring her to vacate the premises.", "20. On 21 April 1995, it informed her that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 2 May 1995.", "21. Between 2 May 1995 and 27 November 1998, the bailiff made eight attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicant was not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession.", "22. On 3 August 2002, the applicant recovered possession of the flat." ]

[ 9 ]

[ "7. The applicant, who was born in 1925, is currently in prison in Nantes.", "8. During the past few years he has been convicted of various criminal offences. In particular, he was sentenced on 9 November 1992 by the Assize Court for the département of Cher to ten years' imprisonment for armed robbery; on 2 September 1998 by the Bernay Criminal Court to six months' imprisonment for making off without payment; on 14 January 1999 by the Nevers Criminal Court to five years' imprisonment for armed robbery; and on 20 January 1999 by the Rouen Court of Appeal to six months' imprisonment for making off without payment. He was due for release from September 2001 onwards according to him, and from 17 February 2002 onwards according to the Government.", "9. In February 1998 the applicant was also sentenced to six months' imprisonment by the Nevers Criminal Court for failing to return to prison on time after his last period of leave in 1998, having complied with the arrangements on the previous four occasions. The experts who examined him on the subject concluded that “at the material time” he had been suffering from a “psychological disorder” that had temporarily “impaired his judgment” and that prison could not be “therapeutic” for him, especially in view of his advanced age.", "10. The applicant subsequently underwent a medical examination in prison and was found to have swollen glands in the throat area. The relevant service accordingly prescribed medical treatment. It was decided that the applicant would undergo an operation on 8 November 2000 after being taken to hospital on 7 November 2000 at 2.30 p.m.", "11. On 6 November 2000 the governor of Eysses Prison informed the prefect that the prisoner needed to be taken to hospital and requested the presence of a police escort to supervise and guard him throughout his stay. As regards the security risk, the prison staff were issued with instructions that the applicant was to be kept under normal and not heightened supervision, left to the discretion of the senior escorting officer but in principle not requiring the permanent use of handcuffs and restraints.", "12. On 7 November 2000, the day before the operation, the applicant was transferred, in handcuffs, to Pellegrin Hospital in Bordeaux in a prison van. Two police officers were waiting for him at the hospital in order to supervise and guard him throughout his time there. For the rest of the day the applicant remained handcuffed but not shackled.", "13. During the night, a restraint was used on the applicant, consisting of a chain attaching one of his ankles to the bedpost. The Government assert that the restraint left him considerable freedom to move about in the bed, whereas the applicant maintains that the tension of the chain made any movement difficult or painful and sleep impossible.", "14. On 8 November 2000, in the morning, the applicant stated that, if he could not be kept in humane conditions in hospital, he would prefer to be operated on once he had been released from prison. After a meeting with the hospital staff, he returned to prison on the same day at 11.45 a.m.", "15. On 9 November 2000 the applicant lodged a criminal complaint, together with an application to join the proceedings as a civil party, with the senior investigating judge at the Agen tribunal de grande instance, alleging “serious ill-treatment”, “assault” and “torture”. In the complaint, lodged against the two police officers who had guarded him while he was in hospital, he alleged a violation of Article 803 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and of Article 3 of the Convention, on account of the use of a restraint during the night of 7 to 8 November 2000.", "16. In an order of 16 November 2000, served on 24 November, the senior investigating judge set the amount of the security payable for costs at 6,000 French francs.", "17. On 24 November 2000 the applicant appealed against that order in a registered letter with acknowledgment of receipt to the senior registrar of the Agen tribunal de grande instance, and also applied to the legal aid office on account of his limited resources. On the same day, he informed the senior investigating judge that he was appealing because his means were insufficient.", "18. The application for legal aid was registered on 8 December and refused on 15 December 2000. In an order of 23 March 2001 the President of the Agen tribunal de grande instance confirmed the refusal on the following ground:\n“The Code of Criminal Procedure expressly reserves the use of restraints for persons who are likely to attempt to abscond. That is so in the case of a prisoner who is outside the prison compound.”", "19. In an order of 15 May 2001, the senior investigating judge declared the applicant's complaint inadmissible for failure to pay the security.", "20. In the meantime, on 4 April 2001, the Investigation Division of the Agen Court of Appeal had declared the appeal against the order for payment of a security inadmissible for failure to comply with Article 503 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, by which an appeal by a prisoner must be lodged through the prison governor.", "21. On 11 April 2001 the applicant appealed on points of law against that judgment. The proceedings are currently pending before the Court of Cassation.", "22. Having been released on 1 October 2001 after completing his sentence, the applicant has subsequently been imprisoned in the context of separate proceedings." ]

[ 1 ]

[ "8. The applicant was born in 1947 and lives in Rdzawka.", "9. In a dispute with her neighbours about a right of way, she was a party to various sets of legal proceedings, as detailed below.", "10. The applicant's neighbours accused her of preventing them on 27 August 1993 from taking the track leading to the housing estate. On 29 December 1993 the Nowy Targ District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) made a summary order (nakaz karny) requiring the applicant and her husband to pay a fine. On 10 February 1994 the same court, taking into account the low level of the disturbance to public order caused by the offence, made a discontinuation order (postanowienie o umorzeniu postepowania), coupled with a probationary period of one year.\nOn 24 May 1996 it found the accused not guilty (wyrok uniewinniający). Having compared the evidence given by the victims and the witnesses they had asked to be called, it noted differences which undermined the credibility of their version of the facts. On 14 October 1996 the Nowy Sącz Regional Court (Sąd Wojewódzki) dismissed an appeal by the prosecution.", "11. In 1994 the applicant was prosecuted under Article 167 § 1 of the Criminal Code (see “Relevant domestic law” below) for an offence committed on 27 August 1993. On 6 July 1994 the Nowy Targ District Court asked for the applicant to be examined by two psychiatrists in order to determine whether, at the material time, she had been in full possession of her mental faculties. The court grounded this request on the fact that the applicant was under treatment as an outpatient of the neurology centre and the fact that she had also been required to undergo a psychiatric examination in connection with another case. The examination was arranged for 3 August 1994. The applicant was duly informed of the appointment but did not attend.", "12. On 12 August 1994 the consultation was put back to 31 August 1994, but did not take place on that date because the applicant announced that she was seriously ill.", "13. On 26 September 1994 the District Court informed the applicant in an ordinary letter that the consultation had been put back to 12 October 1994 and made it clear that her attendance was compulsory and that if she did not comply with the order it would be obliged to have her arrested.", "14. On the same day the District Court issued a warrant for the applicant's arrest, if required, in order to enforce her attendance at the psychiatric examination on 12 October 1994.", "15. The applicant was arrested at her home on 12 October 1994 at 8.50 a.m. At 9.10 she signed the arrest report and wrote on it that she had heart problems, that she intended to complain about the arrest and that she did not want anyone in her family to be informed.", "16. Initially (in her observations of 6 October 2000), the applicant submitted that she had sent a medical certificate to explain why she could not attend the appointment with the psychiatrist.", "17. The Government asserted that no certificate had been received by the court, which had ordered the applicant to be escorted to her medical examination, and that a certificate could not have been mislaid by the District Court's registry.", "18. In reply the applicant submitted that, not having received a summons, she did not find out about the court's decision until the police arrived. It was then that she had informed them that she had been unable to attend the appointment and had given them a medical certificate dated 9 October 1994 showing that she had been admitted to hospital with a heart condition.", "19. The Government then asserted that no medical certificate dated 9 October 1994 mentioning that the applicant had to be treated in hospital had been received by the District Court.", "20. The applicant insisted that she had handed over such a certificate to the police, pointing out that she could not be held responsible if the police officers had omitted to send it on to the court.", "21. According to the applicant, her daughter, then aged 10, had been present when she was arrested. One of the police officers had snatched the child out of her arms, as a result of which the girl had been traumatised. She alleged that the police made her get into the van, leaving the child at home unsupervised. She produced a certificate drawn up on 9 August 1995 by a psychologist, stating that her two daughters were receiving treatment for sleep disorders, namely nightmares and sudden panic attacks.", "22. As regards the presence of the applicant's daughter when she was being arrested, the Government asserted that they were unable to say whether or not the child had been left alone. The arrest report contained no information of that kind and the applicant had not at any time asked to be allowed to contact a member of her family. The Government submitted a letter dated 11 June 2002 in which the commander of the local police stated that, when he interviewed the officer responsible for the arrest, the latter had informed him that he no longer remembered the exact circumstances but that if the child had been present he would have taken the normal steps to ensure that there was someone to look after her. The Government also pointed out that the medical examination had taken only a few hours and that the applicant had soon been able to go home.", "23. The applicant, on the other hand, said that the police had forbidden her to contact a member of her family or her doctor. She also presented an affidavit signed by a third party who had been in the same police van, certifying that when the vehicle broke down they had been obliged to wait in it on the road without any concern being shown by the police as to whether they were correctly dressed to protect themselves from the cold.", "24. On 12 October 1994 the applicant complained about being arrested. On 13 October 1994 the President of the District Court refused to entertain her application, since there was no provision for such a remedy. On 10 December 1994 that decision was upheld on appeal by the Nowy Sącz Regional Court.", "25. According to the information noted by the Nowy Sącz Regional Court in its decision of 15 December 1995 concerning another case in which the applicant was involved (see Section C of this statement of the facts), the report on the examination on 12 October 1994 said that the applicant had not been in full possession of her mental faculties at the material time. The doctors also pointed out that since 1992 she had been receiving treatment for epilepsy.", "26. On 23 September 1995 the family affairs judge (sędzia rodzinny) brought proceedings against the applicant's two minor daughters to establish whether or not on 13 June 1995, as alleged, they had thrown stones at their neighbour and insulted her, in the presence of and encouraged by their mother.", "27. On 29 September 1995 the applicant protested against that measure.", "28. On 26 April 1996 the Nowy Targ District Court issued a warning (upomnienie) to the girls and noted that one of them had partly lost her moral bearings. It found that the incident had formed part of the ongoing dispute between the victim and the children's parents. It further noted that the two girls were model pupils and had never been convicted of similar offences.", "29. On 25 June 1996 the Nowy Sącz Regional Court dismissed an appeal by the applicant. It found that a warning was not only the least severe correctional measure but also the most appropriate one in the circumstances. On 10 January 1997 the Minister of Justice refused leave to appeal on points of law to the Supreme Court.", "30. On 30 September 1995 the Nowy Targ district prosecutor's office (Prokuratura Rejonowa) preferred an indictment against the applicant. She was prosecuted for inciting her daughters on 13 June 1995 to attack their neighbour physically and verbally, as a result of which the victim had sustained numerous lesions.", "31. On 17 November 1995 the applicant was also charged under Article 167 § 1 of the Criminal Code for having, on 9 August 1995, threatened her neighbour with a shovel handle and prevented her using the track to the housing estate.", "32. On 20 December 1995 the Nowy Targ District Court decided to require the applicant to undergo a psychiatric examination. On 10 January 1996 the Krakow-Kobierzyn neuropsychiatric hospital asked the applicant to go for an examination on 8 February 1996. On 4 March 1996 the same court decided to place the applicant in the Krakow-Kobierzyn psychiatric hospital for observation. It noted that the report produced after the medical examination of 8 February 1996 revealed a risk that the applicant might be suffering from delusions (psychoza urojeniowa). As it found the consultation inconclusive, the court accepted the doctors' opinion that a longer period of observation was necessary. It concluded that, if the applicant's state of health could be known with certainty, it would be possible to decide what provisional measures should be taken.", "33. On 21 March 1996 the applicant appealed against the decision of 4 March 1996. She said that on 6 March 1996 she had already been required to undergo a psychiatric examination in Nowy Targ in connection with another case. She also complained that she had not been informed of the doctors' findings.", "34. On 15 July 1996 the Nowy Targ District Court again ordered the applicant to undergo a psychiatric examination. It noted that psychiatric reports had been ordered twice in quick succession. As views on the applicant's state of health were divided, it considered that a fresh consultation was required. That took place on 28 August 1996.", "35. On 28 November 1995 the District Court decided to send the file back to the prosecutor for further investigation. It pointed out that the applicant had been required to undergo a psychiatric examination in a similar case before the same court (see Section B above) and that the prosecutor was therefore under an obligation to provide all the useful information about her in his possession. The court also pointed out that on 1 January 1996 a criminal-law reform was due to come into force in Poland and that that might have a bearing on how the further proceedings would be organised.", "36. On 11 December 1995 the applicant appealed against the decision to transfer the file. She argued that the doubts expressed by the judge about her mental health were unfounded, especially as the findings of the psychiatric examination referred to by the court had been favourable.", "37. On a date which has not been specified the district prosecutor appealed against the same decision, arguing that the prosecution had not been aware either that another similar case was pending before the District Court or that the applicant had already been required to undergo a psychiatric examination.", "38. On 15 December 1995 the Nowy Sącz Regional Court dismissed the appeals by the applicant and the district prosecutor. It noted that, since the psychiatric report of 12 October 1994 (see Section B above) had stated that the applicant was not in full possession of her mental faculties at the material time, a further expert report was necessary. The main aim of the new examination should be to establish whether the applicant was still in the same condition as she had been at the material time. The court also pointed out that the district prosecutor had taken part in the 1994 proceedings.", "39. On 12 January 1996 the Nowy Targ district prosecutor decided to order the applicant to undergo a psychiatric examination at the Nowy Targ hospital with a view to establishing whether she was suffering from a mental illness, whether at the material time she had been in full possession of her mental faculties and whether the fact that she was still at liberty posed a threat to public order. On 17 January 1996 the applicant complained about the prosecutor's decision. She contended, among other arguments, that ordering a consultation on the ground that she had already been examined in a similar case was an abuse of the legal means placed at the judicial authorities' disposal.", "40. On 17 January 1996 the Rabka police summoned the applicant to attend a consultation at the hospital in Nowy Targ on 12 February 1996. On 14 February 1996, for a reason not explained in the file, the Rabka police again summoned the applicant to attend a consultation arranged for 6 March 1996.", "41. The report on the consultation of 6 March 1996 stated that the applicant's mental health was good.", "42. On 14 March 1996 the Rabka police summoned the applicant for the third time, to a consultation on 4 April 1996. On the date specified the applicant went to the hospital. The doctor discovered that she had been examined on 6 March 1996 and explained that the local police must have made a mistake.", "43. On 31 January 1997 the Nowy Targ District Court found the applicant guilty of inciting her children on 13 June 1995 to insult and throw stones at their neighbour and of threatening the neighbour on 9 August 1995 with a shovel handle, thereby preventing her from taking the track leading to the housing estate. It sentenced the applicant to a fine, together with a term of imprisonment in default of payment within the time allowed.", "44. On 3 June 1997 the Nowy Sącz Regional Court dismissed an appeal against the District Court's judgment. It held that, as regards the assault on 9 August 1995, the applicant had not been in full possession of her powers of discernment so that she was unable to understand the significance of what she had done. It noted that two medical reports of 30 September 1996 and 22 April 1997 had established that the applicant was not in full possession of the mental faculties she needed to be able to understand the consequences of her conduct.", "45. On 25 March 1998 the Nowy Targ district prosecutor preferred an indictment against the applicant and her husband, accusing them of carrying out unauthorised renovation work on a roof supported on wooden props previously built with planning permission.", "46. On 12 February 1998 the district prosecutor had ordered the applicant to undergo a psychiatric examination. On 24 February 1998 the doctors reported that the applicant was not suffering from any mental disorder. At the interview she explained that the purpose of the roof was to protect her family from the smells given off by the neighbours' septic tank. She also said that she had not known such a structure required planning permission.", "47. On 18 June 1998 the Nowy Targ District Court found the applicant and her husband guilty of the offence as charged and ordered them to pay a fine." ]

[ 4 ]

[ "6. The applicant was born in 1947 and lives in Naples.", "7. She is the owner of a flat in Casoria (Naples), which she had let to A.I.", "8. In a writ served on the tenant on 14 December 1987, the applicant informed the tenant of her intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before the Casoria Magistrate.", "9. By a decision of 22 January 1988, which was made enforceable on 31 September 1988, the Casoria Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 22 February 1989.", "10. On 15 January 1990, the applicant served notice on the tenant requiring him to vacate the premises.", "11. On 3 April 1990, she informed the tenant that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 12 April 1990.", "12. Between 12 April 1990 and 30 November 1999, the bailiff made twenty-one attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicant was not entitled to police assistance in enforcing the order for possession.", "13. On 6 December 1999, the applicant recovered possession of the flat." ]

[ 3 ]

[ "4. The applicant was born in 1954 and lives in Rome.", "5. A.S. was the owner of a flat in Rome, which he had let to G.C. and then to his wife L.C.", "6. In a registered letter of 25 June 1991, the owner informed the tenant that he intended to terminate the lease on expiry of the term on 31 December 1991 and asked her to vacate the premises by that date.", "7. In a writ served on the tenant on 13 December 1991, the owner reiterated his intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before the Rome Magistrate.", "8. By a decision of 10 April 1992, which was made enforceable on 23 April 1992, the Rome Magistrate upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by 28 February 1993.", "9. On 9 December 1993, the applicant became the owner of the flat and continued the enforcement proceedings.", "10. On 4 January 1994, the applicant served notice on the tenant requiring her to vacate the premises.", "11. On 4 February 1994, he informed the tenant that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on 22 March 1994.", "12. Between 22 March 1994 and 16 September 1999, the bailiff made eighteen attempts to recover possession. Each attempt proved unsuccessful, as the applicant was never granted the assistance of the police in enforcing the order for possession.", "13. On 13 November 1997, the applicant made a statutory declaration that he urgently required the premises as accommodation for himself.", "14. On 4 October 1999, the enforcement proceedings were suspended until 17 May 2000.", "15. On 3 July 2000, the applicant recovered possession of the flat." ]

[ 3, 9 ]