ITEMID: 001-22891
LANGUAGEISOCODE: ENG
RESPONDENT: SVK
BRANCH: ADMISSIBILITY
DATE: 2002
DOCNAME: BABINSKY v. SLOVAKIA
IMPORTANCE: 4
CONCLUSION: Inadmissible
JUDGES: Nicolas Bratza
TEXT: The applicant, Mr Stanislav Babinský, is a Slovakian national, who was born in 1939 and lives in Trstená. The respondent Government were represented by Mr P. Vršanský, their Agent.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
Proceedings concerning the applicant’s action against the Slovakian Film Company and the Slovakian Television
On 25 July 1991 the applicant lodged an action for protection of his reputation with the Bratislava I District Court. He claimed that a film concerning his person produced by the defendant company was defamatory.
On 3 February 1992 the action was transferred to the Bratislava III District Court for reason of jurisdiction. On 9 July 1992 the Bratislava III District Court found that it lacked jurisdiction to deal with the case. On 30 September 1992 the case file was submitted to the Bratislava City Court and on 2 October 1992 the latter instructed the Bratislava III District Court to deal with the case.
On 8 July 1993 the District Court held a hearing. The applicant submitted a document dated 15 June 1993 by which he amended his action and explained that it was directed also against the Slovakian Television. The case was adjourned as the presiding judge considered herself biased.
On 14 October 1993 the Bratislava City Court excluded three District Court judges from dealing with the applicant’s case.
Between 20 December 1993 and 12 July 1997 the District Court unsuccessfully attempted to obtain from the Bratislava Regional Court the file concerning criminal proceedings against the applicant which had been terminated earlier and which had given rise to the film in question. The file could not be submitted to the District Court as it was needed in the context of examination of the applicant’s request for re-opening of the criminal proceedings.
On 14 September 1995 the president of the Bratislava III District Court transferred the case to a different chamber.
On 10 June 1997 the Bratislava III District Court granted the applicant’s request to extend the action and to consider also the Slovakian Television as a defendant in the case.
On 12 November 1997 the District Court held a hearing.
On 26 November 1997 Štúdio Koliba, a.s. informed the District Court that it was the legal successor to the Slovakian Film Company.
On 12 November 1997 and on 12 March 1998 the applicant submitted to the District Court the judgment delivered in the criminal proceedings against him and also a decision by which his request for re-opening of the criminal proceedings had been dismissed.
On 6 and 20 April 1998 the District Court summoned the applicant’s lawyer to an informative hearing. The lawyer appeared on 30 April 1998.
On 3 December 1998 a judge of the Bratislava III District Court heard the applicant’s lawyer.
On 16 February 2000 the Bratislava III District Court discontinued the proceedings.
On 1 August 2000 the Bratislava Regional Court quashed the first instance decision.
On 4 December 2000 one of the defendants informed the court that a different company owned the rights in respect of the film. On 2 January 2001 the court requested the company concerned to submit a video-tape of the film. On 17 January 2001 a representative of the company informed the court that the company did not possess the film.
On 28 February 2001 the case was adjourned as one of the defendants failed to appear.
Subsequently the applicant requested that the case be transferred to a different court. The Supreme Court’s decision to dismiss this request was served on the applicant’s lawyer on 10 July 2001.
On 1 August 2001 one of the defendant companies informed the court that it had become bankrupt and requested that the proceedings be adjourned.
The District Court held hearings on 6 March 2002 and on 26 April 2002. The case was adjourned until 26 June 2002. The proceedings are pending.
Proceedings concerning the applicant’s action against a publisher
On 25 July 1991 the applicant brought proceedings for protection of his reputation on the ground that a book published by “Práca - vydavateľstvo a nakladateľstvo odborárov na Slovensku” contained defamatory statements in respect of his person. On 26 August 1991 the applicant paid the court fees.
Subsequently the Bratislava I District Court took several procedural steps with a view to obtaining the relevant documentary evidence.
On 13 February 1992 the judge invited the applicant’s lawyer to specify which statements he considered defamatory. The applicant was further informed that the court could not proceed with the case as the criminal file concerning the applicant’s case, which the District Court deemed necessary to consult, had been sent to the Office of the General Prosecutor of the Czech and Slovak Federal Republic.
On 23 April 1992 the applicant submitted further information to the Bratislava I District Court at the latter’s request.
On 12 May 1992 the Bratislava I District Court suspended the proceedings as the file concerning criminal proceedings against the applicant was still being examined by the Office of the General Prosecutor.
On 25 August 1992 the District Court requested the latter to submit the criminal file to it. On 22 September 1992 the Office of the General Prosecutor replied that a complaint in the interest of the law had been lodged on the applicant’s behalf in the criminal proceedings and that the case file had been submitted to the Supreme Court of the Czech and Slovak Federal Republic.
On 10 September 1993 the president of the Bratislava I District Court assigned the applicant’s case to a different judge. The latter received the case file on 1 August 1995.
On 7 September 1995 the District Court requested the above criminal file. On 14 September 1995 the Bratislava Regional Court replied that the file was about to be sent to the Supreme Court in the context of examination of the applicant’s request for re-opening of the criminal proceedings. Subsequently the District Court reiterated the request several times.
On 18 December 1997 the Bratislava I District Court adjourned the case. On 26 February 1998 the applicant submitted further information at the judge’s request.
A hearing scheduled for 2 March 1998 was adjourned as the defendant could not attend. The applicant requested that the case be transferred to the Dolný Kubín District Court. On 5 August 1998 the Supreme Court dismissed this request.
The parties failed to appear at a hearing scheduled for 24 February 1999.
On 26 April 1999 the District Court adjourned the case as the defendant’s counsel claimed that his client was not a successor to the company against which the applicant had originally lodged his action.
On 14 May 1999 the applicant’s lawyer asked for access to the companies register with a view to establishing the relevant facts concerning the defendant. On 9 September 1999 and on 1 December 1999 the Bratislava I District Court judge requested the relevant file from the companies register.
On 24 October 2000 the applicant requested a change in the defendants.
On 1 December 2000 the case was assigned to a different judge.
On 26 April 2001 the applicant was requested to specify his claims. He replied on 31 May 2001. The proceedings are pending.
Article 48 (2) of the Constitution provides, inter alia, that every person has the right to have his or her case tried without unjustified delay.
As from 1 January 2002, the Constitution has been amended in that, inter alia, individuals and legal persons can complain about a violation of their fundamental rights and freedoms pursuant to Article 127 the relevant part of which reads as follows:
“1. The Constitutional Court shall decide on complaints lodged by natural or legal persons alleging a violation of their fundamental rights or freedoms or of human rights and fundamental freedoms enshrined in international treaties ratified by the Slovak Republic ... unless the protection of such rights and freedoms falls within the jurisdiction of a different court.
2. When the Constitutional Court finds that a complaint is justified, it shall deliver a decision stating that a person’s rights or freedoms set out in paragraph 1 were violated as a result of a final decision, by a particular measure or by means of other interference. It shall quash such a decision, measure or other interference. When the violation found is the result of the failure to act, the Constitutional Court may order that [the authority] which violated such rights or freedoms should take the necessary action. At the same time the Constitutional Court may return the case to the authority concerned for further proceedings, order that such an authority abstain from violating fundamental rights and freedoms ... or, where appropriate, order that those who violated the rights or freedoms set out in paragraph 1 restore the situation existing prior to the violation.
3. In its decision on a complaint the Constitutional Court may grant adequate financial satisfaction to the person whose rights under paragraph 1 were violated.” ...
The implementation of the above constitutional provisions is set out in more detail in Sections 49 - 56 of Act No. 38/1993 (the Constitutional Court Act), as amended with effect from 20 March 2002.
After that date the Constitutional Court delivered a number of decisions in which it found a violation of Article 48 (2) of the Constitution, ordered the general court concerned to avoid any further delays in the proceedings and awarded the successful complainants financial compensation in respect of delays which had already occurred.
According to an explanatory letter by the president of the Constitutional Court of 6 June 2002, nothing prevents the Constitutional Court from dealing with complaints about length of proceedings in cases in which proceedings have also been instituted before the European Court of Human Rights provided that the domestic proceedings complained of are still pending at the moment when the constitutional complaint is filed.


ITEMID: 001-22038
LANGUAGEISOCODE: ENG
RESPONDENT: FIN
BRANCH: ADMISSIBILITY
DATE: 2001
DOCNAME: ANTIKAINEN v. FINLAND
IMPORTANCE: 4
CONCLUSION: Inadmissible
JUDGES: Georg Ress
TEXT: The applicant, Jorma Antikainen, is a Finnish national, born in 1942 and living in Joensuu. He is represented before the Court by Mr U.Väänänen, a lawyer practising in Joensuu.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
The applicant is a professional race horse trainer who participates in trotting races with his own horses and/or horses trained by him. On 9 November 1996 a horse called Brisco Vencedor, which was trained by the applicant, tested positive in a doping-test at the Kouvola Race.
On 18 December 1996 the Board of Directors of Hippos (Suomen Hippos r.y., Finlands Hippos r.f; the Central Organisation for Finnish Horse Racing and Breeding.) suspended the applicant and Brisco Vencedor from racing for a period of six months (from 2 December 1996 until 1 June 1997). The suspension order included racing, training a horse as its official trainer and enrolment of a horse in a race. The prize money of 30,000 Finnish Marks (FIM) won by Brisco Vencedor in Kouvola was withdrawn and the prize money of 20,000 FIM won by the same horse in the Vermo Race earlier was ordered to be refunded to the race organiser. The applicant’s request to be heard before the Board of Directors and to hold an oral hearing was refused.
On 31 December 1996 the applicant appealed against the Board of Directors’ decision to the Race Court (ravituomioistuin, travdomstolen), requesting an oral hearing. The applicant insisted that it would have been important to hear witnesses about the circumstances in which the doping-test was taken and the methods used.
On 14 May 1997 (i.e. two weeks before the suspension order ended) the Race Court rejected the applicant’s appeal without holding an oral hearing.
The applicant has not instituted any proceedings before ordinary courts.
B. Relevant domestic law and practice
Horse racing (in the present case, in particular, trotting) is administered in Finland by Hippos, a registered association to which the Act on Associations (yhdistyslaki, föreningslag; 1989/503) is applied. The Board of Directors of Hippos ratifies the trotting regulations to be followed in the trotting races in Finland. Rule 40 of the above-mentioned regulations deals with questions concerning doping, medical substances and punishment for breaching the rule. According to Rule 40, the punishment for a breach of the said rule is determined by the Board of Directors of Hippos. If the length of such a punishment exceeds three months, the decision may be appealed against to the Race Court. The Members of the Race Court are appointed by the Delegation of Hippos.
According to the Act on Associations, an association must have rules which fulfil all the conditions given in the Act. The lawfulness of the rules of an association are examined by the Association Register (yhdistysrekisteri, föreningsregistret) at the time of the registration of the association. According to Section 32 of the Act on Associations, a member of an association may institute proceedings against the association before ordinary courts if he considers a decision of the association to be unlawful.
Hippos only allows other associations as it members. Private persons are members of such associations instead of being members of Hippos itself and have, thus, no right to institute proceedings against Hippos.
In its decision of 14 October 1998 the Supreme Court (KKO 1998:122) observed that a manifest and sufficient need for legal protection constitutes a ground for bringing a case concerning a suspension order given by a sports association before a court to obtain a decision on merits. The Supreme Court further reasoned that such a need for legal protection arises when the suspension order has “such significant financial and other effects as are usually not involved in the membership of an association”. In the said case the District Court had issued its decision on 22 May 1996 and the Court of Appeal on 24 October 1996.
The decision of 25 November 1998 of the Supreme Court (KKO 1998:143) did not concern the legitimacy of a suspension order but a request to have enforcement of a suspension order repealed as an interim measure in the ordinary court. The Supreme Court found that the repealing of the enforcement of a suspension order fell within the scope of application of Chapter 7, Section 3 of the Code on Judicial Procedure, providing for interim measures. In the said case the District Court had issued its decision on 29 October 1997.


ITEMID: 001-100990
LANGUAGEISOCODE: ENG
RESPONDENT: POL
BRANCH: COMMITTEE
DATE: 2010
DOCNAME: CASE OF POLANSKI v. POLAND
IMPORTANCE: 4
CONCLUSION: Violation of Art. 5-3
JUDGES: Lech Garlicki;Nebojša Vučinić
TEXT: 5. The applicant was born in 1973 and lives in Bierutów.
8. The applicant's appeal against the detention order, likewise his further appeals against decisions prolonging his detention and all his subsequent applications for release and appeals against refusals to release him, were unsuccessful.
9. It appears that between 8 August and 27 September 2006 the applicant served a sentence of fifty days' imprisonment ordered in another set of proceedings against him.
10. In the course of the investigation, the applicant's detention was prolonged by decisions of the Warsaw Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) delivered on 2 March and 1 June 2007. In the latter decision the court stressed that an expertise on several documents, due at the end of May, had not yet been submitted
11. On 3 July 2007 the bill of indictment against the applicant and four other defendants was lodged with the Warsaw District Court. It appears that three defendants, including the applicant, were charged with offences committed in an organised criminal group.
12. Further decisions extending the applicant's pre-trial detention were taken by the Warsaw Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) on 8 October 2007 and by the Warsaw District Court on 9 January 2008.
13. In all their detention decisions the authorities repeatedly relied on a strong suspicion that the applicant had committed the offences in question, which was supported by evidence from witnesses. They attached importance to the fact that the offences had been committed in an organised criminal group. They further stressed that the applicant, if released, could easily abscond, having access to forged identity documents and being in contact with criminal groups abroad. In this respect the courts stressed that in the initial stage of the investigation the applicant had used a false identity and appeared under the name of Petro Polyansky, a Ukrainian national. Lastly, the courts found no special grounds, as specified in Article 259 § 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, that would justify lifting the detention.
In a decision of 9 January 2008 the Warsaw District Court stressed that two wanted notices had been issued in the applicant's case.
14. On 15 February 2008 the trial court held the first hearing. It subsequently held, until 24 October 2008, some seventeen hearings in the case.
15. During the court proceedings the applicant's detention was further prolonged by the Warsaw Court of Appeal on 4 March 2008. The court repeated the grounds previously given for the applicant's continued detention.
16. On 3 July 2008 the Warsaw Court of Appeal lifted the applicant's detention. The court decided that the applicant could be released under police supervision and a prohibition on his leaving the country.
17. It seems that on 2 February 2009 the applicant was again arrested in the same set of criminal proceedings. On 4 February 2009 the Warsaw Regional Court remanded him in custody. It would appear that additional charges of organising illegal border crossing were laid against the applicant.
18. The applicant's detention was further extended by decisions of the Warsaw Regional Court delivered on 27 April and 27 July 2009. The applicant's interlocutory appeal against the former decision was dismissed by the Warsaw Regional Court.
19. On 7 September 2009 the Warsaw Court of Appeal decided to lift the applicant's detention. The court held that his detention after 2 February 2009 has lacked a legal basis and had therefore been in breach of procedural criminal law, as ordered and subsequently extended by courts that had not been competent to deal with the case. It stressed that having regard to the fact that the applicant had already been detained in the same set of proceedings for over two years, his re-arrest should have been ordered and extended by the Appellate Court.
20. The proceedings are still pending before the first-instance court.
21. The relevant domestic law and practice concerning the imposition of detention on remand (aresztowanie tymczasowe), the grounds for its prolongation, release from detention and rules governing other, so-called “preventive measures” (środki zapobiegawcze) are set out in the Court's judgments in the cases of Gołek v. Poland, no. 31330/02, §§ 27-33, 25 April 2006 and Celejewski v. Poland, no. 17584/04, §§ 22-23, 4 August 2006.
22. Relevant statistical data, recent amendments to the Code of Criminal procedure designed to streamline criminal proceedings and references to the relevant Council of Europe materials including the 2007 Resolution of the Committee of Ministers can be found in the Court's judgment in the case of Kauczor (see Kauczor v. Poland, no. 45219/06, § 27-28 and 30-35, 3 February 2009).
VIOLATED_ARTICLES: 5
VIOLATED_PARAGRAPHS: 5-3


ITEMID: 001-126908
LANGUAGEISOCODE: ENG
RESPONDENT: RUS
BRANCH: CHAMBER
DATE: 2013
DOCNAME: CASE OF VLADIMIR BELYAYEV v. RUSSIA
IMPORTANCE: 4
CONCLUSION: No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect)
JUDGES: Dmitry Dedov;Erik Møse;Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre;Julia Laffranque;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Ksenija Turković
TEXT: 5. The applicant was born in 1968 and is serving a prison sentence in the Sverdlovsk region.
6. On 14 November 2003 the St Petersburg City Court found the applicant guilty of murder and of membership of an organised criminal gang, and sentenced him to twenty-one years’ imprisonment. On 11 November 2004 the Supreme Court of Russia upheld the applicant’s conviction, in substance, on appeal.
7. It appears that the applicant has been serving his prison sentence in different correctional facilities. From 6 April to 23 December 2005 the applicant was held in correctional colony no. IK- 4 in the Magadan region. Throughout the period in question, he was repeatedly sanctioned for failure to comply with the colony’s internal regulations and was continuously detained in disciplinary cells.
8. In particular, on 12 and 20 April 2005 the applicant was placed in a punishment cell for ten days for refusal to participate in cleaning work in the colony. On 28 April 2005 he spoke rudely to guards and was placed in a punishment cell for three days. On 3 May 2005 the applicant was placed in a punishment cell for seven days for having brought, in contravention of internal regulations, black tea leaves into the punishment cell. On 11 May 2005 the applicant refused to participate in cleaning work in the colony and was placed in a punishment cell for ten days. On 20 May 2005 the applicant was placed in a punishment cell for fifteen days for refusing to wear prison uniform and for swearing at colony officers. On 6 June 2005 the applicant wrenched the sink off the wall, broke the window frame and crushed a bulb with a kettle in the cell where he was detained. He was placed in a prison-type cell for one month.
9. The Government’s submissions as regards the conditions of the applicant’s detention can be summarised as follows:
10. All the cells were equipped with a ventilation system in working order. There was access to natural light. During the night the cells were lit with a 40-watt electric bulb. The windows measured 50 x 90 centimetres and were covered with a steel grille whose openings measured 0.3 x 3 centimetres. The grille did not prevent access to daylight. The toilet was located in the corner of the cell, some 1.5 metres from the dining table and the nearest bed. It was separated by a 1.1-metre-high brick wall with a door. The temperature in the cells was at least 160C. The colony’s disciplinary premises were provided with six exercise areas measuring from 7.5 to 10.6 square metres. The inmates had an hour’s daily outdoor exercise.
11. The applicant provided the data similar to the Government’s submissions as regards the size and the population of the cells where he had been detained.
12. According to the applicant, the cells where he was held were located in the basement of the building. They were damp and cold. The walls were covered with mould. There was no ventilation or hot water. The potable water contained yellowish residue and sand. The beds and mattresses were in poor condition and uncomfortable. The cells were overcrowded. The one-and-a-half-hour’s exercise took place in small yards which were always overcrowded. Nor was any exercise equipment available there. The applicant was allowed to take a shower every 7 to 10 days. On those days he was not allowed to have an outdoor exercise. The shower facilities were dirty.
13. On an unspecified date the applicant complained to the Magadan Town Court that the conditions of his detention were not in compliance with the applicable domestic standards. In particular, he alleged that the disciplinary cells where he was detained were not suitable for detention. There was no ventilation; the lighting was poor; the cells were overcrowded. There was no hot water. The cells were cold and damp. The wash sinks were not isolated from the toilet. On 12 October 2005 the Town Court dismissed the applicant’s complaint. The court noted as follows:
“It follows from the materials in the case-file, that the punishment and prison type cells in correctional colony no. IK-4 are lit with electric bulbs of appropriate voltage. The temperature in the cells is in accordance with [statutory requirements].
According to certificate no. 49/4 of 21 September 2005 submitted by correctional colony no. IK-4, from 6 April 2005 to date [the applicant] has been detained in punishment and prison-type cells nos. 1, 11, 15, [and] 22.
Pursuant to Article 99 of the Russian Code on the Execution of Criminal Sentences, the personal space afforded per convict cannot be lower than 2 square metres in correctional colonies and 2.5 square metres in prisons.
The materials in the case-file demonstrate that cell no. 11 measures 8.8 square metres, cell no. 22 measures 6.4 square metres, cell no. 1 measures 14 square metres, cell no. 15 measures 10.2 square metres. [The applicant] was detained in cells nos. 11 and 22 alone. In cell no. 1 there were five detainees, in cell no. 15 there were three detainees.
Accordingly, the personal space afforded per convict in correctional colony no. IK-4 where [the applicant] has been detained to date is in compliance with law.
...
According to the certificate of 7 October 2005 submitted by the respondent party, [the administration] conducted an inspection of cell no. 22 where [the applicant] is currently detained. Cell no. 22 measures 6.5 sq. m and houses ... two inmates. The floor is made of wood and covered with oil-based paint. The walls are 1.75 m high and covered with oil-based paint. The top part of the walls and the ceiling are white-washed. The lighting is combined. There is artificial electric lighting ... Natural light is ensured by a window measuring 50 by 90 cm. There are window panes and a vent. The temperature in the cell is 210 C. The toilet is separated by a partition which is 1.1 m high. There is a centralised cold water supply. The bench is attached to the floor. Its base is made of concrete with a wooden seat... The table is made of concrete and attached to the floor. The pull-down beds are made of wood and have a smooth surface. The door is heat-insulated and adheres tightly to the door frame.
Regard being had to the above, the court concludes that the conditions of the [applicant’s] detention in correctional colony no. IK-4 are in compliance with applicable laws ... .”
14. On 8 November 2005 the Magadan Regional Court upheld the judgment of 12 October 2005 on appeal.
15. On numerous occasions the applicant challenged in court the actions taken against him by the authorities of correctional colony no. IK-4, including the disciplinary sanctions imposed on him. Each time the courts considered his complaints in his absence, noting that the domestic rules of civil procedure did not impose on the court an obligation to ensure the convict’s presence in the courtroom. The applicant’s representative attended all the hearings, and made submissions to the court on the applicant’s behalf.
16. Article 99 § 1 of the Russian Code on the Execution of Criminal Sentences of 8 January 1997 (the “Code”) provides for a minimum standard of two square metres of personal space for male convicts in correctional colonies. They should be provided with their own sleeping place and given bedding, clothes and toiletries. In prisons, the personal space afforded per male convict is 2.5 square metres.
17. The Code provides for five main types of penal institutions for convicted criminals: correctional settlement, general regime colony, strict regime colony, special regime colony, and prison (Article 74 of the Code).
18. The convicts have a different scope of rights depending on the regime of the correctional facility where they serve a sentence. In particular, the number of family visits and parcels the convicts may receive per year, as well as the amount of cash they are allowed to spend vary depending on the regime of the correctional facility.
19. The conditions imposed on an inmate serving a sentence in a correctional settlement are the mildest. In particular, the convicts do not live in cells or barracks but in unguarded dormitories. They have the right to move freely within the correctional settlement during the day. The number and length of family visits are not limited, nor is the possibility of receiving parcels and money from home. As an incentive for good behaviour, and subject to approval by the administration, the convicts may, inter alia, live outside the correctional settlement with their families, live in rented flats, leave the correctional settlement for holidays and weekends, and move freely within the city or district where the settlement is situated. They do not wear a uniform and can dispose of their money as they please. The convicts may even be granted leave to work in another town or district, or participate in distance-learning programmes of higher education establishments (Article 129 of the Code).
20. The regime in a prison is the most severe. The convicts are detained in cells. They are allowed daily outdoor exercise not exceeding one hour and a half. The number of family visits and parcels received per year is limited. So is the amount of money the convicts may spend during a month (Article 131 of the Code).
21. The convicts serving a sentence in the strict regime colonies are placed in dormitories. They are allowed six family visits per year. They may receive eight parcels per year. These numbers may be decreased or increased subject to the convict’s compliance with internal regulations of the correctional colony (Articles 122-23 of the Code).
22. For failure to comply with the colony’s internal regulations a convict may be placed in a disciplinary cell. During the period of detention in a punishment cell a convict has a right to one-hour daily outdoor exercise. In the event of repeated violations, a convict can be transferred to a prison-type cell. During the period of detention there, a convict has a right to a 1.5-hour daily outdoor exercise which may be increased up to 2 hours per day (Article 155 of the Russian Code on the Execution of Criminal Sentences).
NON_VIOLATED_ARTICLES: 3