6.  The applicant was born in 1977 and lives in Lublin. 7.  The applicant and the Government gave partly different statements in respect of certain facts of the case concerning the “dangerous detainee” regime, the conditions of the applicant’s detention and his contact with his family during his detention (see paragraphs 54-71 and 87-98 below). The remaining facts were not in dispute. 8.  On 21 June 2006 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of drug trafficking committed together with other identified and yet unidentified persons. 9.  On 22 June 2006 the Lublin District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) remanded him in custody, relying on the reasonable suspicion that he had committed the offence in question. It attached importance to the likelihood of a severe sentence of imprisonment being imposed on the applicant and the risk that he would attempt to obstruct the proceedings by bringing to bear pressure on – unspecified – witnesses and co-suspects, in order to create favourable conditions for his defence. 10.  An appeal by the applicant against the detention order and further decisions extending his detention, and his numerous applications for release and appeals against refusals to release him, were all unsuccessful. 11.  In the course of the investigation, the applicant’s detention was extended on 15 September 2006 (to 20 December 2006) and 5 January 2007 (to 14 April 2007). In their decisions on the matter the authorities relied on the original grounds given for his detention. The courts also stressed that, owing to the complexity of the case, the investigation had still not been completed. 12.  On 4 April 2007 a bill of indictment was lodged with the Lublin District Court. The applicant was charged with drug trafficking, attempted money laundering and obtaining a loan by deception. A.W., the applicant’s common-law wife (konkubina), was indicted on a charge of attempted money laundering in that she had attempted to invest the proceeds of crime received by the applicant from drug trafficking in the purchase of a car and entering into a bank loan agreement in order to conceal the criminal origins of the invested money. 13.  On 10 April 2007 the District Court prolonged the applicant’s detention until 14 July 2007 and then, on the latter date, until 14 October 2007. The courts repeated the original grounds for his detention. 14.  On 17 July 2007 the Lublin District Court made a severance order referring part of the charges to the Lublin Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy). Both the prosecutor and the applicant lodged interlocutory appeals against that decision. 15.  On 16 August 2007 the case in its entirety was referred to the Lublin Regional Court. However, on account of the subsequent amendment to the provisions governing the jurisdiction of criminal courts, the case was eventually referred back to the District Court on 30 October 2007. 16.  In the meantime, on 9 October 2007, the Lublin Regional Court had further extended the applicant’s detention until 14 January 2008, holding that evidence so far gathered sufficiently supported the suspicion that he had committed the offences with which he had been charged. It stressed the likelihood of a severe sentence of imprisonment being imposed on the applicant and the fact that he was a recidivist offender. 17.  During the court proceedings the applicant’s detention pending trial was extended on several occasions, namely on 28 December 2007 (to 14 April 2008), 11 April 2008 (to 30 June 2008), 27 June 2008 (to 30 September 2008), 23 July 2008 (to 24 October 2008). The courts repeated the grounds that had previously been given for keeping him in custody. 18.  The trial was to start on 28 December 2007 but it was adjourned until 22 February 2008 due to the absence of one of the witnesses. 19.  On 22 February 2008 the trial was again adjourned because the presiding judge was ill. 20.  The first hearing was held on 28 March 2008. 21.  On 24 October 2008 the District Court decided that the applicant’s detention should no longer be continued but he remained in custody in the third set of criminal proceedings (see paragraphs 32-39 below). 22.  On 12 July 2011 the Lublin District Court convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to a cumulative penalty of five years’ imprisonment and a fine. 23.  The proceedings are pending the parties’ appeals. 24.  On 22 June 2006 the Lublin District Court remanded the applicant in custody, relying on the reasonable suspicion of his having committed robbery, theft and unlawful detention. It attached importance to the likelihood of a severe sentence of imprisonment being imposed on the applicant and the risk that he would attempt to obstruct the proceedings by bringing pressure to bear on witnesses and co-suspects in general – their names or any related circumstances were not specified. 25.  An appeal by the applicant against the detention order, and likewise his further appeals against decisions extending his detention and all his subsequent applications for release and appeals against refusals to release him were unsuccessful. 26.  In the course of the investigation, the applicant’s detention was extended on 7 September 2006 (to 30 December 2006) and 29 December 2006. In their decisions on the matter the authorities relied on the original grounds given for holding him in custody. 27.  On an unspecified date in December 2006 a bill of indictment was lodged with the Lublin District Court. The applicant was indicted on charges of robbery, theft and unlawful detention. 28.  The first hearing was scheduled for 28 February 2007 but it was adjourned. The trial started on 15 March 2007. 29.  During the court proceedings the applicant’s detention pending trial was further extended on 17 April, 29 June and 23 October 2007 (to 31 January 2008), 29 January (to 31 March 2008) and 18 March 2008 (to 21 June 2008). The courts repeated the grounds that had previously been given for his continued detention. 30.  On 21 June 2008 the court decided that the applicant’s detention should no longer be continued in this case since the maximum statutory time-limit of two years for pre-trial detention had expired. He was still detained on remand in the first and the third set of criminal proceedings against him (see paragraphs 8 and 21 above and paragraphs 32 and 37 below). 31.  On 2 July 2009 the Lublin District Court gave judgment. The applicant was acquitted of all the offences with which he had been charged. 32.  On 10 October 2007 the Lublin District Court remanded the applicant in custody, relying on the suspicion that he had set up and organised a criminal group involved in drug-trafficking. It attached importance to the likelihood of a severe sentence of imprisonment being imposed on the applicant, the serious nature of the offences of which he was suspected, the large quantities of drugs involved and the risk that he would attempt to obstruct the proceedings. That risk was based on the assumption that, having regard to the leading role played by him in the group, he might bring pressure to bear on witnesses or other suspects in general; no specific persons were named. 33.  An appeal by the applicant against the detention order, likewise his further appeals against decisions extending his detention and all his subsequent applications for release and appeals against refusals to release him were unsuccessful. In his submissions, the applicant first of all stressed that the evidence gathered had not supported sufficiently the suspicion that he had committed the offences in question. He maintained that the grounds given for his detention were vague and general and did not indicate any concrete circumstances justifying the risk that he would obstruct the course of the proceedings. He also stated that the prosecutor’s refusal to grant him access to the case file made it impossible for him to challenge the grounds for his continued detention.
In its decision of 25 October 2007, rejecting his appeal against the order of 10 October 2007 the Lublin Regional Court held, among other things, the following:
“It must be firmly stressed that the material gathered in the case [in the form of other accused’s testimonies and the results of searches carried out] makes it highly probable that [the applicant] had committed the offences with which he had been charged. ...
The offence in question is liable to a maximum sentence of ten years’ imprisonment which, having regard to the social danger of the offences, the fact that [the applicant] acted together with other persons in an organised criminal group and made crime his permanent source of income, as well as to the quantity of drugs distributed and [the applicant’s] criminal record, supports the [lower court’s] conclusion as to the severity of the anticipated penalty.
The District Court was also right in relying on the justified fear that [the applicant] might unlawfully influence statements of other persons. The realisation of the purposes of the investigation requires [the authorities] to make such actions impossible, in particular influencing the content of testimonies or evidence given by the accused.
It must be added that, as demonstrated by evidence so far obtained, [the applicant] set up and led an organised criminal group and had a decisive say in all matters concerning its functioning. ...
In these circumstances, the imposition of detention is entirely justified because other preventive measures would not be sufficient to ensure the proper course of the investigation.” 34.  In the course of the investigation, the applicant’s detention was extended on 8 January 2008 (to 9 April 2008) and 1 April 2008 (to 9 June 2008). In their decisions the authorities relied on the original grounds given for keeping him in custody, stressing, in particular, the severity of the penalty – up to eight years’ imprisonment. 35.  On 2 June 2008 a bill of indictment was lodged with the Lublin Regional Court. It comprised 36 charges brought against 17 accused. The applicant was indicted on charges of drug‑trafficking committed as a leader of an organised criminal group. 36.  During the court proceedings the courts further extended the applicant’s detention pending trial on several occasions, namely on 5 June 2008 (to 9 October 2008), 7 October 2008 (to 9 January 2009), 30 December 2008 (to 9 April 2009), 7 April 2009 (to 7 June 2009), 27 May 2009 (to 27 August 2009), on 25 August 2009 (to 9 October 2009), on 7 October 2009 (to 9 December 2009) and on an unspecified subsequent date. The courts essentially repeated the grounds that had previously been given for his continued detention. In some decisions, they also relied on the highly complex nature of the case, stressing that the case file comprised 20 volumes, and the need to carry out time-consuming procedural actions (such, as for instance, the need to acquaint the accused with classified material – a process that lasted for some three weeks in August-September 2009). 37.  On 2 July 2010 the court released the applicant on bail and under police supervision, i.e. on condition that he would report weekly to a police station. It also imposed on the applicant a ban on leaving the country. 38.  On 16 June 2011 the Lublin Regional Court convicted the applicant of setting up and leading an organised criminal group and of participating in the distribution of large amounts of drugs. It sentenced him to a cumulative penalty of five years’ imprisonment and a fine. 39.  The proceedings are pending the parties’ appeals. 40.   On 2 November 2007, in connection with his appeals against the detention order (see paragraphs 32-33 above) the applicant requested the Lublin Regional Prosecutor (Prokurator Okręgowy) to grant him access to the investigation file and to allow him to obtain photocopies of some documents relating to the grounds given for his detention. 41.  On 8 November 2007 the prosecutor refused that request, relying on the important interests of the proceedings (ważny interes postępowania). The prosecutor observed that the investigation was still in progress and, in these circumstances, the interests of the investigation outweighed the applicant’s right to be acquainted with the evidence so far obtained by the prosecution. The applicant appealed. 42.  On 10 December 2007 the Lublin Deputy Regional Prosecutor upheld the refusal of 8 November 2007. He observed, in particular, that the right to full disclosure of evidence gathered at the investigative stage of criminal proceedings was not absolute and could, in pursuit of a legitimate aim such as the protection of witnesses or secret sources of information or the interests of the investigation, be subject to limitations. It was also underlined that such limitations were even more stringent during the investigation as at that stage the principle of adversarial proceedings did not apply. 43.  On 27 December 2007 the applicant again asked the investigating prosecutor to grant him access to the case file in order to enable him to make photocopies of certain parts of the file. He listed 86 relevant pages out of some 1,200 contained in the file. The applicant relied on Article 5 § 4 of the Convention and the principle of equality of arms, stressing that in anticipation of the prosecutor’s request to the trial court for his detention to be further extended, he needed to inspect at least some parts of the evidence in order to challenge properly and effectively the lawfulness of his detention. In their requests, he added, the prosecution relied on evidence, premises and circumstances that were unknown to him, which made it impossible for him to respond to the arguments adduced by them in the procedure for the extension of his detention. Lastly, the applicant invoked his constitutional right to defend himself. 44.  On 8 January 2008 the District Court extended the applicant’s detention until 9 April 2008 (see also paragraph 34 above). 45.  On 15 January 2008 the prosecutor, relying on Article 156 § 5 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Kodeks postępowania karnego), refused to grant the applicant access to the case file. The prosecutor observed that it was already the second such request lodged within a short period of time. The only difference was that this time the applicant relied on the Constitution and international law. That being so, the grounds given for the previous refusal were still valid. It was stressed that the prosecutor in his actions, in particular in assessing evidence, must be guided by the principle of objectivity and must respect the suspect’s defence rights. However, the prosecutor should first of all ensure the efficient and unimpeded course of the investigation. Since several other persons had been charged together with the applicant, the interests of the investigation required the prosecution to keep secret the findings of fact so far made in order to secure an undisturbed process of obtaining evidence and to avoid any attempt to obstruct unlawfully the outcome of the investigation. As regards the constitutional and international-law arguments advanced by the applicant, the prosecutor considered that they had a marginal impact in the context of this decision since it had a legal basis in the Code of Criminal Procedure. The applicant appealed. 46.  On 29 February 2008 the Lublin Deputy Regional Prosecutor upheld the refusal, repeating the previous grounds. 47.  On 11 March 2008 the applicant made a subsequent request to the investigating prosecutor, asking for photocopies of certain documents contained in the case file. He listed a total of 97 relevant pages, out of some 1,500 currently contained in the file. He relied on the previous arguments, stressing that, given that his last detention order would expire on 9 April 2008, he needed to get acquainted with at least the selected documents – without being given access to the entire case file – so as to be able to challenge effectively the likely prolongation of his detention. 48.  On 31 March 2008 the prosecutor rejected the request without giving any specific grounds for his refusal. 49.  On 1 April 2008 the District Court extended the applicant’s detention until 9 June 2008 (see paragraph 34 above). 50.  The applicant submitted that as of May 2008, i.e. the time when he had been about to be indicted before the Lublin District Court (see paragraph 35 above), he still had no access to the file. 51.  The applicant submitted that during his detention his correspondence was continually censored by the authorities.
He produced seven envelopes of the censored letters. 52.  Four envelopes bear a stamp that reads: “Censored, date ..., Prosecutor” (Ocenzurowano, dnia ... Prokurator), a hand written date and an illegible signature. Those envelopes contained:
1)  one letter from the Main Police Headquarters (Komenda Główna Policji), censored on 2 August 2006;
2)  two letters from the Central Administration of Prison Service (Centralny Zarząd Służby Więziennej), censored on 19 October and 8 December 2006 respectively;
3)  one letter from the Warsaw Regional Inspectorate of Prison Service (Okręgowy Inspektorat Służby Więziennej), censored on 8 December 2006.
Three envelopes bear a stamp that reads: “Censored, the Lublin Regional Court, received date ..., sent date ...” (Cenzurowano, Sąd Okręgowy Lublin, otrzymano dnia ..., wysłano dnia ...), a stamped date and an illegible signature. The envelopes contained the following letters:
1)  from the applicant’s defence counsel; censored on 25 June 2007;
2)  from the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman and Degrading Treatment, censored on 13 August 2007;
3)  from the Office of the Committee for European Integration, censored on 16 August 2007. 53.  The applicant did not lodge a civil action for compensation for the infringement of his personal rights on account of censorship of his correspondence under Article 24 read in conjunction with Article 448 of the Civil Code. 54.  Between 21 June 2006 (when he was arrested in the first set of proceedings) and 12 March 2007 (when he was indicted before the Lublin District Court), the applicant, despite numerous requests to that effect, was not allowed to receive visits from his son, M.P., born in 2004. 55.  Between 28 April and 10 October 2007 the applicant was granted several open visits (widzenie przy stoliku) from the child, who was brought to the remand centre by a certain N.S., a third party. 56.  On several occasions the applicant requested the Governor of the Lublin Remand Centre to have the standard 60-minute long visits from the son prolonged to 90 minutes. All his requests were dismissed as the authorities considered that the applicant’s behaviour was not “more than exemplary as regards respecting the internal order in the remand centre and the prison rules” – a circumstance which justified granting visiting privileges. 57.  Between 10 October 2007 (when the applicant was remanded in custody in the third set of proceedings) and 3 December 2007 he was again not allowed to see his son.
(b)  The Government 58.  The Government submitted that over the period from 21 June 2006 to 12 March 2007 the applicant had not asked for permission to receive visits from the son. 59.  They stated that between 10 October and 3 December 2007 the applicant did not receive visits from the son. 60.  The Government produced a detailed list of visits received by the applicant between 12 July 2006 and 19 January 2010. As from 3 December 2007 he received visits from his son on the following dates: 24 December 2007, 14 January, 11 February, 31 March, 21 April, 19 May, 23 June, 7 and 28 July, 11 and 25 August, 29 September, 13 and 20 October, 3 and 17 November and 22 December 2008. In 2009 the visits took place on 12 January, 2, 16 and 23 February, 9 and 30 March, 17 and 24 April, 11 and 18 May, 1 and 15 June, 6, 20 and 30 July, 3, 17 and 31 August, 13 and 28 September, 4 and 26 October, 8 and 22 November, 6, 20 and 27 December. Further visits took place on 10 and 17 January 2010.
The child was initially accompanied by N.S and, as from 29 September 2008 by A.W., the applicant’s common-law wife and the mother of his son.
(c)  Material in the Court’s file 61.  On 26 November 2007 W.W., the applicant’s defence counsel, made a declaration that reads, in so far as relevant, as follows:
“As [the applicant’s] defence counsel from the date on which he had been detained on remand [in the first set of the criminal proceedings against him], i.e. 22 June 2006 to 4 April 2007 I made numerous requests on his behalf to the investigating prosecutor, asking him to issue permission for my client to have a visit form his 3‑year old son M. ...
Despite my repeated requests, I did not obtain such permission. The grounds given for these decisions referred to [such circumstances as] the child’s interests and the possibility of obtaining additional evidence or new facts from my client. Throughout the entire investigation, the prosecutor issued only one permission in March 2007, which was about the time when [the applicant] was indicted before the court. I should add that this put a severe strain on my client and had a negative impact on his psychological state.” 62.  On 7 December 2007 the Lublin Regional Prosecutor informed the applicant that he had granted N.S. a closed visit (widzenie przez telefon) and that the latter was allowed to bring the applicant’s son with him. The visit took place in a special room with a Perspex partition separating the applicant from his visitors. The applicant was informed that in the future he would be granted one such visit from the son monthly and that visits enabling them to have direct contact could not be allowed at that stage of the procedure. 63.  From 21 June 2006 to 29 September 2008 the applicant was not allowed to receive visits from A.W. Initially, the investigation authorities informed him that since A.W. was to be heard as a witness in the first set of criminal proceedings against him she could not obtain permission for visits. Later, on an unspecified date in 2006, in those proceedings A.W. was charged with money laundering committed together with the applicant. She was indicted on that charge before the Lublin District Court on 4 April 2007 (see paragraph 12 above). On this basis, the authorities refused to grant her permissions for visits for some further two years. 64.  On 8 January 2007 the applicant was allowed to have a 60-minute long conversation on the prison phone with A.W.
On 29 September 2008 the applicant was granted the first open visit from A.W., who was allowed to bring their son with her. Since then the applicant has been granted on average 2 visits from her and the son monthly (see also paragraphs 60 above and 70 below).
3  Contact with the mother
(a)  The applicant 65.  The applicant maintained that from 21 June 2006 until 12 March 2007 he had not been allowed to receive visits from C.K., his mother, on the ground that she was to be heard as a witness in the first set of criminal proceedings against him.
(b)  The Government 66.  The Government submitted that the applicant’s mother visited the applicant in prison on 6 December 2006 and 12 March 2007. On the first date, the applicant was granted an open visit. The second visit, in which M.K., his son, also participated was closed.
The applicant was also allowed to have a 60-minute long conversation on the prison phone with his mother on 11 October 2006 and 30 January 2007.
(c)  Material in the Court’s file 67.  A copy of the applicant’s request of 7 March 2007 for permission to have a visit from his mother and his son, addressed to the Lublin Regional Prosecutor’s Office (Prokuratura Okręgowa), shows that on the original request the prosecutor made a handwritten note: “I grant permission for a supervised visit; 08.3.2007” and that the permission document was given to the person concerned on 9 March 2007. 68.  The list of visits supplied by the Government shows that between 12 July 2006 and 19 January 2010 the applicant received 147 visits, of which 78 were meetings with his defence counsel (including one together with a police officer), 2 meetings with police officers, 2 meetings with prosecutors and 1 meeting with a notary.
The meetings with the defence counsel took place once a month on average.
The remaining 64 visits involved the applicant’s family. They lasted from 30 to 60 minutes but on most occasions were 60-minute long. 69.  At the initial stage of his detention the applicant was only allowed to have a 60-minute long conversation on the prison phone with his mother on 11 October 2006. He received the first family visit on 6 December 2006 – it was an open visit from his mother and lasted 60 minutes. 70.  Later, he was allowed to have one 60-minute long phone conversation with his common-law wife, A.W., on 8 January 2007.
He was allowed to have a second phone conversation with his mother on 30 January 2007.
On 12 March 2007 the applicant received the first – supervised – visit from his son, M.P., who was brought to the remand centre by the applicant’s mother.
On 29 September 2008 the applicant received the first visit from A.W., who was allowed to bring their son with her. It was an open visit that lasted 60 minutes. 71.  As regards the visits which took place after the applicant was classified as a “dangerous detainee” (see paragraph 74 below), i.e. from 12 October 2007 onwards, the list of visits supplied by the Government shows that the applicant received 102 visits altogether, of which 53 were meetings with his lawyers, 1 with a police officer, 1 with a notary and 2 with prosecutors. The 45 remaining visits were from his family. 72.  On 21 June 2006 the applicant was placed in the Radom Remand Centre (Areszt Śledczy). On 8 December 2006 he was transferred to the Lublin Remand Centre. 73.  Between 23 February and 14 June 2007 the applicant was placed in a solitary cell for dangerous detainees (a so-called “tymczasowo aresztowany niebezpieczny”; in the relevant legal provisions referred to as „tymczasowo aresztowany stwarzający poważne zagrożenie społeczne albo poważne zagrożenie dla bezpieczeństwa aresztu”) without having been classified as such. The authorities of the Lublin Remand Centre justified their decision by security reasons. At that time, the applicant was not subjected to the stringent regime for dangerous detainees. 74.  On 14 June 2007 the applicant was transferred to a cell for regular prisoners. 75.  On 12 October 2007 the Lublin Remand Centre Penitentiary Commission (Komisja Penitencjarna) classified the applicant as a “dangerous detainee”. It considered that it was necessary to place him in a cell for dangerous detainees as he had been charged with numerous offences, including unlawful detention and violent robbery, committed as a leader of an organised criminal group. The commission also referred to the applicant’s serious lack of moral character (wysoki stopień demoralizacji). The applicant unsuccessfully appealed against this decision. 76.  From 12 October 2007, when the applicant was placed in a cell for dangerous detainees, he remained under increased supervision. The cell, including its sanitary facilities, was constantly monitored via close-circuit television. He was subjected to a body search every time he left and entered the cell, which in practice meant that he had to strip naked in front of prison guards and was required to carry out deep knee-bends. The body search was performed in a separate room, which was monitored and its recording was viewable in a duty room. 77.  The applicant, whenever he was outside his cell, including his appearances at court hearings or medical visits, wore the so-called “joined shackles” (kajdanki zespolone) on his hands and feet. Those shackles consisted of hand‑cuffs and fetters joined together with chains. 78.  On 9 February 2008 he was taken to the Lublin Civil Hospital, where he underwent a number of medical examinations and tests in connection with severe pains in the abdominal cavity. He remained there for several hours, being handcuffed and fettered. He was all the time accompanied and watched by 3 policemen. 79.  The applicant was allowed to spend one hour per day in an outdoor yard but was segregated from other detainees. 80.  Between 20 December 2007 and 6 February 2008, at the applicant’s request, another inmate, a certain L.G. was placed in his cell. Later, from 29 February to 14 April 2008 and from 6 August to 22 September 2008 he had one inmate assigned to his cell. 81.  Every three months the Lublin Remand Centre Penitentiary Commission reviewed, and upheld, its decision classifying the applicant as a “dangerous detainee”. The relevant decisions were limited to a short description of the nature of the suspicions or charges laid against him which, as such, justified the maintaining of the previous decisions.
For example, the decision of 31 July 2008 read, in so far as relevant, as follows:
“Pursuant to Article 212a § 1 of the Code of Execution of Criminal Sentences, the Penitentiary Commission assigned [the applicant] to the category of detainees who should be placed in a remand centre in conditions ensuring increased protection of society and the security of the remand centre. The decision was based on the suspicion that he had a very high rank in organised crime structures and that he was a person displaying a serious lack of moral character. The detainee is suspected of committing offences of unlawful detention and robbery, which involved particular suffering for victims. On 10 October 2007 a fresh detention order was issued by the Lublin District Court, from which it transpired that he was suspected of setting up and leading an organised criminal group involved in the illegal distribution of large amounts of drugs. For this reason, the Commission upholds its decision to classify him in the category of detainees who should be placed in a remand centre in conditions ensuring increased protection of society and the security of the remand centre because the grounds for the further application of Article 212a § 1 of [the Code of Execution of Criminal Sentences] did not cease to exist.” 82.  The applicant appealed against all the decisions, arguing that the authorities violated the provisions of the Code of Execution of Criminal Sentences (Kodeks karny wykonawczy) relating to that matter. He also complained about being regularly subjected to a body search, constant monitoring of his cell and the generally inadequate equipment of the solitary cell. For instance, in his appeal against the Penitentiary Commission’s decision of 2 July 2009, upholding his classification as a “dangerous detainee”, he submitted, among other things, the following:
“ ... Since 12 October 2007 I have been classified as a ‘dangerous detainee’ .... This decision is arbitrary and was given without any evaluation of the circumstances that had given rise to classify me as such. I am suspected of drug trafficking in an organised criminal group ... and for this reason I was assigned the “dangerous” category. Article 212a § 1 of the Code of Execution of Criminal Sentences obliges the prison administration to evaluate the circumstances that justify the maintaining of this classification.
Regrettably, the assessment of [the need to maintain it] is illusory or non-existent and the subsequent extensions of the classification as ‘dangerous’ are, so to speak, automatic.
The very fact that I was charged with acting in an organised criminal group is not sufficient to consider me a dangerous person, and certainly not sufficient to maintain this classification for 2 years, having regard to the extent of the interference with [my] civil rights and liberties ... .
Relying on this classification, the Lublin Remand Centre subjects me to repression and interferences:
- stripping me naked (including underwear) and inspection of the anus – at least twice a day;
- isolating me from all persons (I am in a solitary cell) for more than 500 days;
- watching me during my physiological acts in the toilet;
- making it impossible for me to participate in any kind of sports activity in the prison sports field (I do not leave the cell at all);
- walking me in joined shackles all the time.
Given the degree of the interference in my life, which amounts to daily ill-treatment and which is not based on a court conviction, one should ask to what extent a mere charge of participating in a criminal group suffices to treat me in this way, especially over the lengthy period of 2 years.
For that reason, the acts of the prison administration are in breach of the law, in particular Article 3 of [the Convention]. ... This conclusion is reinforced by the fact that for my part there has never been any danger to the functioning of the remand centre – this is confirmed by the fact that there has been no single instance of the use of force against me. ...[T]he prison administration subjects me to these practices without good reason, and the status of ‘dangerous’ serves, so to speak, as a measure of prevention, whereas this status should be restricted to the necessary minimum – otherwise it becomes an arbitrary interference with the most intimate spheres of human life. ...” 83.  All the applicant’s subsequent, similar appeals were dismissed. The authorities relied on the grounds given for the initial decision.
By way of example, the Regional Court’s decision of 19 August 2009, upholding the Penitentiary Commission’s decision of 2 July 2009 (the object of the appeal cited in paragraph 82 above) read, in so far as relevant, as follows:
“The detainee’s appeal is groundless and will not be allowed. ...
Pursuant to Article 212a § 3 of the Code of Execution of Criminal Sentences, a detainee who is suspected of committing an offence in an organised criminal group or organisation aimed at committing offences shall be placed in a remand centre in conditions ensuring increased protection of society and the security of the remand centre.
According to paragraph 1 of that provision, the review of a decision on classification of a detainee in conditions ensuring increased protection of society and prison security shall take place at least once every three months.
[The applicant] still poses a serious danger to society and prison security. In addition, he is remanded by the Lublin Regional Court as a person suspected of setting up and leading an organised criminal group involved in illegal distribution of large amounts of drugs.
Accordingly, it transpires from the material gathered in the present case that the conditions of the above-cited provision have been fulfilled and, by the same token, the contested decision is lawful.” 84.  In 2007-2009 the applicant made many requests to the prison authorities, asking for permission to have in his cell his own sports equipment (i.e. dumb-bells), own TV set, “Playstation” console, computer games, CD‑player and CDs with foreign language courses and music but all those requests were refused. He also asked the authorities to enable him to take part in training, workshops, courses or any sports activities organised for other inmates or to allow him to perform any unpaid work, submitting that his complete isolation from other people was putting an exceptionally severe strain on him. The authorities replied that there would be advertisements informing prisoners of the possibility of enrolling on courses or trainings or of unpaid work opportunities. They added, however, that the need to socialise with others was not a ground for being qualified for participation in such activities in prison. 85.  As of 20 April 2010 the applicant was still not allowed to perform any paid or unpaid work, take part in any training course, workshop or sports activity. 86.  Until his release on 2 July 2010 he was continually classified as a “dangerous detainee”. 87.  The Government submitted that between 23 February and 14 June 2007 the applicant was placed in a solitary cell in accordance with the Ordinance of the Minister of Justice of 31 October 2003 on means of protection of organisational units of the Prison Service (Rozporządzenie Ministra Sprawiedliwości z dn. 31 października 2003 r. w sprawie sposobów ochrony jednostek organizacyjnych Służby Więziennej) (“the 2003 Ordinance”). They did not indicate any specific provision of that ordinance. They added that during his placement in the solitary cell the applicant could watch television.
They further stated that in the Lublin Remand Centre the cells in which the applicant was held were equipped with a television set and a radio enabling him to listen to various radio stations. Every Sunday Mass was broadcast. 88.  The applicant stated that he had never had radio in his cell. 89.  The applicant submitted that the living conditions in the Lublin Remand Centre and the Radom Remand Centre were inadequate. The cells were unventilated; the windows were covered by a plastic blind, which made the cell very hot during the summer. The applicant could not wear his own clothes but only a red uniform designated for dangerous detainees, which was not warm enough during the winter time. The furniture was permanently fixed to the floor.
The applicant made numerous complaints to the prison authorities and the Ombudsman but they were to no avail. 90.  The applicant was detained in the Radom Remand Centre from 21 June to 8 December 2006. Until 22 November 2006 he was in a cell designated for 3 persons. Each inmate had at his disposal a cell surface of 3 m2. From 22 November to 8 December 2006 (i.e. for 18 days) the space available was 2.73 m2 per person.
The cells in which the applicant was placed were equipped with a sanitary corner with a sliding door. 91.  The conditions of detention in the Radom Remand Centre were good. All detainees were provided with the appropriate clothing, linen and detergents. Personal hygiene products were distributed once a month. The bed linen was washed at least twice a month and underwear once a week. Other clothes and footwear were changed depending on a given detainee’s needs. 92.  The detainees received meals in their cells. The meals were always served at the proper temperature and contained all the required nutritional values.
(b)  Lublin Remand Centre 93.   From 8 December 2006 onwards the applicant was detained in the Lublin Remand Centre. From 6 August 2008 to the beginning of 2010 he was placed in the following cells: X-114 (surface 9.23 m2), X-129 surface 9.23 m2), X-128 (surface 8.13 m2), X-125 (surface 9.62 m2), X- 127 (surface 7.97 m2) and X-117 (surface 7.96 m2). From 29 February to 14 April 2008 and from 6 August to 22 September 2008 he had one inmate assigned to his cell. 94.  All the cells in which the applicant was placed were equipped with a sanitary corner, to which the applicant had permanent access. 95.  The detainees were provided with appropriate clothing, linen and detergents. Personal hygiene products were given to the applicant once a month. The bed linen was washed at least twice a month and underwear once a week. Other clothes and footwear were changed according to a given detainee’s needs. 96.  On 12 October 2007, at the applicant’s request, the authorities provided him with an extra pullover. 97.  The detainees received meals in their cells. The meals were always served at the proper temperature and contained all the required nutritional values. The quality of meals was verified by a doctor and approved by the governor. All the cells were equipped with ventilation and heating. Detainees, including those classified as dangerous, could open the windows in their cells. 98.  Throughout his detention the applicant received adequate medical treatment from prison doctors. He also consulted specialists in psychiatry, dermatology and surgery. 99.  In August 2007 the applicant sued the State Treasury – station fisci the Radom Remand Centre and the Lublin Remand Centre before the Lublin Regional Court, seeking damages for the degrading conditions of his detention. On an unspecified date the particulars of claim were returned to the applicant for non-compliance with formal requirements. 100.  On 15 February 2008 the applicant lodged a fresh claim for damages arising from the physical conditions of his detention (in particular, overcrowding, lack of proper light and ventilation and inadequate clothing provided by the authorities) against the same defendants. It was registered in the Lublin Regional Court under no. IC 90/08. According to the material in the Court’s possession, the proceedings are pending.


4.  The applicant was born in 1944 and lives in Istanbul. 5.  On 22 March 1994 the applicant was granted a lease by the Istanbul Municipality to run a car park on a plot of land by the coast in the Kadıköy district of Istanbul. 6.  On 14 and 27 July 1999 and 24 March 2000 the National Estate Directorate attached to the Istanbul Revenue Office issued three orders requesting the applicant to pay compensation for occupying the car park between 1 March 1998 and 31 December 1999. 7.  On 11 August 1999, 29 September 1999 and 14 April 2000 respectively the applicant filed three separate cases with the Istanbul Administrative Court against the Istanbul Revenue Office, requesting that the orders be annulled. The first case concerned the period between 1 March and 31 December 1998, the second case concerned the period between 1 January and 1 August 1999 and the third case concerned the period between 1 August and 31 December 1999.
As regards the first two proceedings 8.  On 25 May 2000 the Istanbul Administrative Court annulled the orders dated 14 July 1999 and 27 July 1999. The administrative authority appealed. Subsequently on 17 December 2004 the Supreme Administrative Court quashed the respective judgments of the Istanbul Administrative Court. 9.  On 24 June 2005 the Istanbul Administrative Court followed the reasoning set out in the Supreme Administrative Court's decision and dismissed the cases. The applicant appealed. 10.  On 13 March 2006 the Supreme Administrative Court quashed the respective judgments of the Istanbul Administrative Court once again. 11.  On 13 November 2006 the Istanbul Administrative Court decided to annul the respective compensation orders. 12.  According to the information in the case file based on the latest submissions by the parties, both actions are apparently still pending before the Supreme Administrative Court.
As regards the third set of proceedings 13.  On 23 February 2001 the Istanbul Administrative Court annulled the compensation order dated 24 March 2000. The administrative authority appealed and subsequently on 4 February 2005 the Supreme Administrative Court quashed the judgment of the Istanbul Administrative Court. 14.  On 18 April 2006 the Istanbul Administrative Court followed the reasoning set out in the Supreme Administrative Court's decision and dismissed the case. According to the information in the case file, this action is still pending before the Supreme Administrative Court.


4.  The applicant was born in 1990 and lives in Maribor. 5.  On 20 August 1999 the applicant through guardian instituted proceedings against her father before the Maribor District Court seeking an increase in alimony. 6.  On 11 October 2000 the first-instance court held the first hearing. A hearing scheduled for 8 December 2000 was postponed at the applicant’s request and was held subsequently on 16 February 2001. 7.  On 22 May 2001 the first-instance court rendered a judgment upholding the applicant’s request in part by increasing the amount of alimony. The defendant appealed. 8.  On 27 November 2001 the Maribor Higher Court upheld the appeal and remitted the case for re-examination. 9.  On 8 May 2002 the first-instance court held a hearing. 10.  On 30 May 2002 the first-instance court issued a judgment upholding the applicant’s request in part. The defendant appealed. 11.  On 19 November 2002 the appeal court rendered a judgment and remitted the case once more for re-examination. The court found that the operative part of the first-instance judgment was not clear and the judgment insufficiently reasoned in some parts. 12.  Further to the remittal the Maribor District Court held two hearings on 27 October 2004 and 13 July 2005. 13.  After the last hearing the court rendered a judgment upholding the applicant’s request. The defendant appealed. 14.  On 11 April 2006 the Maribor Higher Court rejected the appeal.


5.  The applicants were born in 1975, 1974, 1961 and 1972 respectively. They all live in the town of Cizre. 6.  In March 1994 Abdulaziz Gasyak, Süleyman Gasyak, Yahya Akman and Ömer Candoruk were killed. The applicants were related to these people as follows: Sabri Gasyak is the brother of Abdulaziz Gasyak; Leyla Gasyak was the wife of Süleyman Gasyak; İsa Akman is the father of Yahya Akman and Hanım Candoruk was the wife of Ömer Candoruk. The application was brought by the applicants on their own behalf and on behalf of the remaining heirs of the four deceased men. 7.  The facts of the case, particularly concerning events which took place on 6 March 1994, are disputed by the parties. 8.  The facts as presented by the applicants are set out in Section B below (paragraphs 9-21). The Government’s submissions concerning the facts are summarised in Section C below (paragraph 22).The documentary evidence submitted by the applicant and the Government is summarised in Section D (paragraphs 23-50). 9.  The applicants’ four relatives were working as tradesmen, buying food, tea and tobacco from the area near the Turkish-Iraqi border and selling them in the nearby town of Cizre and the surrounding areas. 10.  On 6 March 1994 the four men were travelling from Cizre to Silopi in a vehicle which was being driven by Ömer Candoruk. They were stopped by gendarmes at a checkpoint approximately five to six kilometres outside the town of Silopi. Two unmarked Renault cars were parked nearby. At that point, a certain Mr A.M., who lived in Cizre and who knew the four men, was travelling from Cizre to Silopi in a minibus and saw the four men arguing with a group of gendarme officers in plain clothes. Abdulhakim Güven and Adem Yakın, who used to be PKK[1] members but who had been working for the gendarmerie since their arrests, were also with the gendarme officers. MM. Güven and Yakın were referred to in the area as “confessors”[2]. The applicants’ relatives were then put into vehicles. They were joined by gendarme officers and the confessors and the cars began driving in the direction of Cizre. 11.  Mr A.M. then saw something being thrown out of one of the vehicles. He stopped and picked it up and realised that it was Ömer Candoruk’s driving licence. The vehicles then turned off the main road and started heading towards Holan village. Mr A.M. did not see the vehicles again. 12.  According to the information the applicants subsequently gathered from a number of villagers living in Holan village, one of their relatives had jumped out of the moving vehicle and tried to run away, but was shot by one of the confessors or the gendarme officers. His body was put in the boot of one of the vehicles. 13.  The three surviving men were then taken to the gendarme station in Bozalan village, which is located approximately seven to eight kilometres from Cizre. Before sunset they were taken in the same vehicles to a place nearby and were shot and killed. 14.  The killing was witnessed by a certain Mrs E.T. and her female friends who were working in a nearby field. 15.  The following day, 7 March 1994, Mr A.M. told the applicants what he had seen and gave them Ömer Candoruk’s driving licence. The applicants then contacted the police and the gendarmerie in Silopi, but were unable to obtain any information from them. The same day Mrs E.T. told the applicants about the fate of their relatives. The applicants then contacted the gendarmerie and informed the offices of the prosecutor and the governor. 16.  On 8 March 1994 gendarmes found the bodies of the four men covered with soil and stones. They had all been shot dead and their heads smashed with stones. An on-site report prepared the same day stated that the killings had probably been carried out by members of the PKK in a revenge attack because the deceased had been village guards. However, the deceased had never agreed to become village guards, contrary to the advice of the gendarmerie. 17.  No other action was taken in the area by the gendarmes. They did not question the applicants or any of the persons present in the vicinity. 18.  Furthermore, no steps were taken by the Cizre prosecutor who, on 5 April 1994, sent the investigation file to the prosecutor at the Diyarbakır State Security Court who had jurisdiction to continue the investigation. 19.  The investigation carried out by the prosecutor in Diyarbakır was limited to the sending of occasional letters to the gendarmerie, asking them to search for the perpetrators. The gendarmerie replied that they had been unable to find the perpetrators despite their searches. 20.  The number plate of the vehicle in which the applicants’ relatives had been travelling on 6 March 1994 was subsequently changed, and the vehicle continued to be used by confessors and other plain clothes officials in Cizre. 21.  The authorities unsuccessfully searched for the two confessors, MM. Güven and Yakın. The requests by the prosecutor to be informed of their whereabouts were ignored by the gendarmerie for a long time. Mr Güven was subsequently found and questioned by a police officer. Although the applicants were able to find Mr Yakın’s address and gave it to the authorities, no steps were taken to question him. During the eventual trial of the two confessors for homicide (see paragraphs 36-45 below), neither of them ever appeared before the Şırnak Assize Court (hereafter “the trial court”) to give evidence. 22.  The Government’s submissions were based on the documents drawn up by the national authorities in the course of the investigation, the trial and the compensation proceedings, which documents are summarised below. 23.  On 8 March 1994 the bodies of the four men were recovered by gendarmes and identified by villagers who were present in the area at the time. The gendarmes found five Kalashnikov-type spent bullet cases around the bodies. It was concluded in an on-site report prepared by the gendarmes that the four men had probably been killed by members of the PKK in order to deter other members of their families from becoming village guards. It was established that the four men had been killed where they were found. 24.  The same day the bodies were examined in situ by a doctor who concluded that the four men had been killed by gunshot wounds. The doctor, who observed a large number of bullet entry and exit holes on the bodies, deemed it unnecessary to conduct a full autopsy; the cause of death was established and that was sufficient. A bullet which had entered and exited the body of Abdulaziz Gasyak was secured for further examination. The Cizre prosecutor was also present at the time of the doctor’s examination. 25.  Also that day the Cizre prosecutor decided that his office lacked jurisdiction to investigate the killings “perpetrated by members of the illegal organisation” and sent the file to the Diyarbakır State Security Court prosecutor’s office (“the Diyarbakır prosecutor”). 26.  The Diyarbakır prosecutor instructed the gendarmerie on 18 April 1994 to search for the perpetrators of the killings. 27.  According to a ballistic examination, the five spent bullet cases had been fired by two separate weapons. 28.  On a number of occasions between 1 September 1995 and 22 March 2002, the gendarmerie reported to the Diyarbakır prosecutor that they had been “unable to find the perpetrators of the killings which, in all likelihood, had been carried out by members of the PKK”. On 16 February 2002 a number of soldiers had visited the place where the bodies had been found in 1994, but they had been unable to establish the identities of the perpetrators. 29.  On 11 July 2002 a lawyer representing the applicants wrote to the Diyarbakır prosecutor and asked him to investigate the killings. The lawyer pointed to the fact that none of the relatives of the deceased men or anyone living in the area where the bodies had been found had been questioned by the authorities. He also informed the prosecutor that Mr A.M. and Mrs E.T had witnessed the incidents. 30.  The applicants, who were questioned by the Diyarbakır prosecutor on 15 July 2002, stated that after the killing of their relatives they had been warned by the security forces not to make any complaints. They also told the prosecutor that no investigating authority had ever questioned them. 31.  The same day Mr A.M. and Mrs E.T were also questioned by the Diyarbakır prosecutor. They gave the prosecutor their eyewitness accounts of the events – which are summarised above (see paragraphs 10-11 and 14-15 above) – leading up to the killing of the four men. 32.  Also that day the Diyarbakır prosecutor decided that he lacked jurisdiction to investigate the killings because, although it had been stated by his opposite number in Cizre in 1994 that the killings had been carried out by members of the PKK (see paragraph 25 above), it was now being alleged by the applicants that their relatives had been killed on account of their refusals to become village guards. The two confessors and “their accomplices whose identities could not be determined” were referred to in this document as the “accused”. The Diyarbakır prosecutor then forwarded the file to the office of the Cizre prosecutor. 33.  The applicants and the two eyewitnesses, Mr A.M. and Mrs E.T, were questioned by the Cizre prosecutor on various dates in December 2002 and January and May 2003. They repeated their respective complaints and eyewitness accounts of the events. Mr A.M. also told the prosecutor that he would be willing to identify the two confessors in an identity parade. 34.  On 17 March 2003 Abdulhakim Güven, one of the two confessors allegedly involved in the killings, was questioned by a police officer. He denied the accusations against him. 35.  The other confessor, Adem Yakın, was questioned by the Cizre prosecutor on 15 July 2003. He also denied the accusations and stated that he had been performing his military service at the material time. 36.  On 5 August 2003 the Şırnak prosecutor filed an indictment with the Şırnak Assize Court (“the Şırnak court”), charging the two confessors with the offence of multiple homicide. 37.  In the course of its first hearing on 7 August 2003 the Şırnak court sent letters rogatory to the Assize Courts in Diyarbakır and Batman where the two defendants were living, and asked those courts to question the defendants. 38.  On 12 September 2003 the Diyarbakır Assize Court questioned Abdulhakim Güven who disputed the allegations and stated that at the time of the killings he had been in prison. 39.  During a hearing held on 9 October 2003, Mr A.M. and Mrs E.T repeated their eyewitness accounts before the Şırnak court. The same day the Şırnak court issued an arrest warrant for Adem Yakın. It also ordered that Abdulhakim Güven be photographed with a view to showing his photographs to the eyewitnesses. 40.  On 14 November 2003 Adem Yakın was arrested and questioned by the Batman Assize Court pursuant to the letters rogatory mentioned above. He denied the accusations and maintained that he had been performing his military service at the time of the killings. He was released the same day. 41.  On 30 March 2004 the lawyer for the applicants sent a letter to the Şırnak court, requesting permission for his clients to join the proceedings as interveners. This request was accepted on 12 October 2004. 42.  During the subsequent stages of the proceedings it transpired that on 28 February 1994 – that is, some six days before the killings – Abdulhakim Güven had been released from prison for a period of ten days with the permission of the Diyarbakır State Security Court so that he could “help the security forces with their anti-terrorism operations”. In fact, on various dates in 1994 he had been released from prison to help the security forces. 43.  The Şırnak court had to postpone a number of its hearings to wait for the photographs of Abdulhakim Güven. 44.  After having sent a number of reminders, on 27 January 2005 the Şırnak court was finally provided with the photographs of Abdulhakim Güven taken on 17 January 2005. During a hearing held on 29 March 2005, the eyewitness Mr A.M. was shown the photographs but was unable to identify Abdulhakim Güven. Mr A.M. told the Şırnak court that he had last seen Mr Güven more than ten years ago and that at that time Mr Güven had had a long beard; the person in the photograph did not have a beard. 45.  At the same hearing the prosecutor asked the Şırnak court to acquit the defendants. The Şırnak court accepted that request and acquitted the defendants for lack of sufficient evidence. It considered, in particular, that although Mr A.M. had been in a minibus with a number of other persons, he had been the only person to witness the alleged abduction of the four men. In any event, the defendants had been working as informers and helping the security forces. Such informers were not well regarded by the residents of the region and, as such, the testimony of Mr A.M. implicating the confessors in the killings was disregarded. According to the Şırnak court, the fact that Abdulhakim Güven was not in prison at the time of the killings did not prove that he had taken part in them. He had been helping the security forces with their operations and, as such, it was not logical that he would be involved in a killing. The Şırnak court also decided to inform the relevant prosecutor to continue with the search for the perpetrators. 46.  The applicants appealed. In their appeal petition they referred to the obligations under Articles 2 and 13 of the Convention to carry out effective investigations into incidents of killings, and alleged that the investigation into the killing of their relatives had been flawed. They maintained that the eyewitnesses had been consistent throughout the criminal investigation. The confessor Abdulhakim had lied to the investigating authorities when he said that he had been in prison on 6 March 1994 (paragraph 38 above). The Şırnak court had contented itself with showing the photographs of one of the defendants to an eyewitness and had not summoned the defendants to the trial. Furthermore, the investigating authorities had failed to follow up leads concerning the involvement of the gendarmerie and the security services and had only prosecuted the two confessors. They argued that the trial court had also failed to ensure an identity parade so that the eyewitnesses could have seen and identified the two confessors. 47.  On 14 November 2006 the Court of Cassation rejected the appeal and upheld the two defendants’ acquittals. 48.  In their letter of 20 August 2009 the applicants informed the Court that the same two confessors (that is, Mr Abdulhakim Güven and Mr Adem Yakın), a high-ranking army official and three intelligence officers working for the gendarmerie had been indicted in July 2009 and put on trial for the killing of their four relatives as well as the killing of a number of other persons at around the same time. 49.  On 25 July 2005 the second to fourth applicants, together with a number of other heirs of their deceased relatives, submitted petitions to the Şırnak Governor’s office and claimed compensation under the provisions of the Law on Compensation of the Losses resulting from Terrorism and the Measures Taken against Terrorism (Law no. 5233 of 27 July 2004). In their petitions the three applicants repeated their allegations of State involvement in the killings. 50.  On 10 July 2006 the Şırnak Governor’s office partially accepted the compensation claims made by the three applicants in respect of the killings of their relatives “by members of the PKK”. The second applicant Leyla Gasyak was awarded approximately 2,500 euros (EUR) in respect of the killing of her husband Süleyman Gasyak. The third applicant İsa Akman was awarded approximately EUR 5,000 in respect of the killing of his son Yahya Akman. The fourth applicant Hanım Candoruk was awarded approximately EUR 2,500 in respect of the killing of her husband Ömer Candoruk. Other heirs of these three deceased men were also awarded various sums of money.


5.  The applicant was born in 1975 and lives in Vorkuta, in the Republic of Komi. 6.  On 30 October 1996 police apprehended the applicant on suspicion of having committed theft from a garage, together with Sh. Upon arrival at the police station the applicant and Sh. admitted the charges. The applicant told the police the location of the garage they had robbed. It appears from the records of the applicant’s arrest and first questioning that his right to have legal assistance provided by the state or of his own choosing was explained to him. However, he declined the offer initially and said that he would appoint a counsel to defend him during the trial. 7.  On 1 November 1996 the applicant was remanded in custody. 8.  On 28 February 1997 the prosecution authorities referred the criminal case to the Vorkuta Town Court of the Republic of Komi (“the Town Court”) for trial. 9.  On 9 December 1997 the Town Court found that during the pre-trial investigation the applicant had been deprived of an opportunity to appoint legal counsel of his own choosing. In the Town Court’s view, the applicant’s defence rights had not been respected and the charges against him had been based to a large extent on his self-incriminating testimony. Furthermore, the Town Court established that the applicant had been in custody for a year and that he had contracted tuberculosis. In those circumstances it decided to release the applicant on the undertaking not to leave his place of residence, and returned the case to the prosecution authorities for further investigation. The Town Court ordered that all investigative measures, including questioning the applicant, should be conducted in the presence of the applicant’s legal counsel. 10.  In July 1998 the investigating authorities discontinued the criminal proceedings against the applicant in the absence of any corpus delicti. However, in November 1998 the Deputy Prosecutor of Vorkuta ordered them to be re-opened. 11.  On 18 December 2000 the Town Court examined the applicant’s case. The applicant was represented by K., a counsel appointed by him. The applicant and Sh. denied all charges. They submitted that they had confessed to theft to protect Sh.’s brother. The applicant refused to give any further testimony, relying on his right not to incriminate himself. 12.  The Town Court heard testimonies by a victim, several witnesses and the investigator in charge of the case, who stated that the applicant had been assisted by a lawyer throughout the proceedings, except at times when he had refused to call one. Each time his refusal had been noted in the records of questioning and endorsed by the applicant. The Town Court held that the applicant had admitted the charges and that other evidence examined in the trial proved his guilt. It dismissed as unsubstantiated the applicant’s complaint that he had been questioned on occasion with no counsel present, finding that according to the records of questioning sessions signed by the applicant, he had declined to call a lawyer. 13.  On the same date the Town Court convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to two years’ imprisonment, but ordered the sentence to be lifted under the Amnesty Act of 26 May 2000. On 26 January 2001 the Supreme Court of the Republic of Komi (“the Supreme Court”) upheld the conviction on appeal. 14.  On 22 December 1998 the applicant brought a court action against the Ministry of Finance of the Russian Federation, seeking to recover lost wages and obtain compensation for his allegedly unlawful detention. He also claimed damages for his alleged infection with tuberculosis while in detention. He relied on Articles 1070 and 1100 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation and claimed 150,000 Russian roubles (RUB). In the course of the proceedings, on 5 July 2001, the applicant increased his claim to RUB 300,000. 15.  In support of his claims concerning his alleged infection with tuberculosis, the applicant provided the Town Court with an extract of his medical record delivered by the hospital of the village of Severnyy on 23 October 1998, and medical certificates delivered by the tuberculosis dispensary of Vorkuta on 23 December 1997 and 5 August 1998. According to those documents the applicant had been diagnosed with tuberculosis in 1997, while in pre-trial detention, and had to follow regular in-patient and sanatorium therapy. 16.  The Town Court delivered its judgment on 23 January 2003. It held that the applicant’s pre-trial detention had been lawful and dismissed his claim in respect of compensation for detention. It did not address the applicant’s complaint about his alleged infection with tuberculosis. On 17 March 2003 the Supreme Court upheld the judgment on appeal.


4.  The applicants were born in 1933, 1938, 1952, 1948 and 1945 respectively, and live in Balıkesir and Istanbul. 5.  On 8 December 1972 the applicants' mother lodged a case with the Gönen Civil Court against the Treasury and the Office of the Headman of the Paşaçiftlik village (muhtarlık), requesting that plots of land nos. 117, 130, 135, 168, 274, 438, 494, 497 and 578 be registered in her name. Six other persons intervened in the case, laying claim to the same plots. 6.  On 28 March 1977 the Gönen Civil Court delivered a decision of non‑jurisdiction and transferred the case to the Gönen Cadastre Court. 7.  On an unspecified date the applicants' mother died. On 24 October 1984 the applicants informed the first-instance court that they wished to become parties to the proceedings, as heirs. 8.  On 18 March 2005 the court dismissed the applicants' case and held that the land should have been registered in the name of the interveners' heirs. 9.  On 22 June 2006 the Court of Cassation quashed the judgment of the first-instance court. 10.  On 4 March 2007 the first-instance court resumed the examination of the case following its remittal by the Court of Cassation. 11.  On 28 January 2009 the last hearing was held. 12.  According to the information submitted to the case file in June 2009, the proceedings are currently pending before the Gönen Cadastre Court.


4.  The applicants were born in 1980, 1980, 1981, 1983, 1980, 1983, 1978 and 1983, respectively, and live in Istanbul. They were students at various faculties attached to Istanbul University at the time of the events. The applicants were also members of a group called Istanbul University Students’ Coordination (İstanbul Üniversite Öğrencileri Koordinasyonu). 5.  On 3 October 2002 Istanbul University held its opening ceremony for the academic year 2002-2003. During the ceremony, which was attended by politicians, businessmen and the press, the applicants were forcibly removed from the conference hall by plain clothed policemen and taken to Beyazıt police station, approximately 500-600 metres away from the university[1]. 6.  According to the incident report drafted by police officers at 12.15 p.m., the events unfolded as follows. At around 11.20 a.m., while the Chancellor Mr Alemdaroğlu was speaking, some students, from the upper stage of the hall, started shouting out “Freedom to University, an end to investigations” and “Oppression will not intimidate us, decree belongs to the State and the University to us”, and raised banners and placards with similar messages. They also held up enlarged photocopies of disciplinary sanctions given to various students, including one of the applicants, Mr Haşim Özgür Ersoy. Further to a request from the Chancellor’s security adviser, the police warned the students that theirs was an unlawful demonstration and that they were breaching public order by interfering with freedom of education and instruction and disrupting the ceremony. They were asked to come to the police station. However, since the students continued their protest and shouted out “Oppression will not intimidate us”, the police, together with the private security guards of the university, intervened and arrested nineteen students, including the applicants, by using force. The applicants were taken to Beyazıt police station. 7.  At 12.15 p.m. records of the applicants’ arrest were drawn up, which they refused to sign. 8.  At 2 p.m. the applicants were medically examined by a doctor at Haseki Hospital. At 4.55 p.m. they were again examined by a doctor at the Istanbul Forensic Medicine Department. 9.  The doctor at the Haseki Hospital noted that the applicant had ecchymosed lesions in the middle of her left arm. 10.  The doctor at the Istanbul Forensic Medicine Department noted that the applicant had a bruise of 2.5 cm on the middle inside part of her left arm and another bruise of 1 cm on the lower left arm. 11.  The doctor at Haseki Hospital found that the applicant had a skin graze and redness in her lower back region. 12.  The doctor at the Istanbul Forensic Medicine Department noted, in addition to the above, a skin graze of 1 cm on the right side of her neck. It was noted that the applicant had stated that she had sustained these injuries during the upheaval on the university stairs. 13.  The doctor at the Haseki Hospital found an area of bruising and swelling on the applicant’s forehead, bruises and swelling on the nose and a skin graze on the back of the right ear. Further medical analysis did not reveal any bleeding or other problems in the nasal region. 14.  The doctor at the Istanbul Forensic Medicine Department noted the same injuries on the applicant. It was further noted that, as regards the injury on his forehead, the applicant had stated that he had been punched in the face. As to the other injuries, the applicant failed to remember how they had happened during the commotion. 15.  The doctor at Haseki Hospital observed an area of bruising on the applicant’s left arm and four to five areas of redness of 2 cm x 1 cm on the right side of his neck. 16.  The doctor at the Istanbul Forensic Medicine Department noted a 2.5 cm area of bruising on the right shoulder and on the middle of his left arm. The applicant also had a skin graze of 0.5 cm on the middle front part of the neck and a 1 cm skin graze on the right upper and lower part of the neck. 17.  The doctors who examined the applicants found no signs of ill‑treatment on their bodies. In the report drafted by the doctor at the Istanbul Forensic Medicine Institute, it was noted that Ayfer Çiçek had refused to take off her clothes for the examination, stating that she had no injuries. 18.  On the same day the applicants were brought before the Istanbul public prosecutor’s office, from where they were released. The applicants allege that they were detained in police custody for about eleven and a half hours. 19.  On 9 October 2002 the applicants filed a complaint with the Istanbul public prosecutor against the university security guards and the police on duty at the conference hall that day. In their identical complaints, the applicants claimed that, during the Chancellor’s speech, a fellow student had got up to speak and had been impeded by a plain-clothes police officer. Then the applicants had also got up and had been beaten and arrested by the police. The applicants complained that their arms had been twisted and that they had been beaten, particularly on the head. They claimed that the beating had continued outside the conference hall. In the complaints it was also stated that the intervention by the security forces was an interference with their right to freedom of expression, and that they had the right to protest against the existing anti-democratic measures and express their desire for a democratic university at the opening ceremony. They submitted that their arrest and detention had been unlawful and that the disproportionate force used against them had constituted inhuman and degrading treatment. 20.  On 4 November 2002 the Istanbul public prosecutor issued a decision not to prosecute the police officers or the university security guards. In his decision, the public prosecutor noted that the applicants had breached public order by preventing freedom of education and by disrupting the ceremony when shouting slogans and raising banners. Despite having been invited to come to the police station and to end their unlawful demonstration, they had continued. As a result 19 students had been arrested and detained in police custody using force. It was noted that some of the plaintiffs had suffered minor injuries but others had suffered none, and that the police had had to use force because they had resisted arrest. 21.  On 22 November 2002 the applicants objected to the prosecutor’s decision. In particular, they submitted that the prosecutor had relied solely on police records and had failed to hear evidence from anyone, including themselves. They further challenged the official version that they had resisted arrest, stating that they had not been given any prior warning. 22.  On 26 December 2002 the Beyoğlu Assize Court dismissed the applicants’ objections. That decision was served on them on 18 January 2003. 23.  The Government informed the Court that no criminal proceedings had been instituted against the applicants in respect of the above event.


9.  The applicant company is based in Hoofddorp. Its business is publishing and marketing magazines, including the weekly Autoweek, which caters for readers who are interested in motoring. 10.  On 12 January 2002, an illegal street race was held in an industrial area on the outskirts of the town of Hoorn. Journalists of Autoweek attended this race at the invitation of its organisers. 11.  The applicant company state that the journalists were given the opportunity to take photographs of the street race and of the participating cars and persons on condition that they guarantee that the identities of all participants would remain undisclosed. The Government, for their part, dispute the existence of any agreement involving more than a small number of organisers or participants at most. 12.  The street race was ended by the police, who were present and eventually intervened. No arrests were made. 13.  The applicant company intended to publish an article about illegal car races in Autoweek no. 7/2002 of 6 February 2002. This article would be accompanied by photographs of the street race held on 12 January 2002. These photographs would be edited in such a manner that the participating cars and persons were unidentifiable, thus guaranteeing the anonymity of the participants in the race. The original photographs were stored by the applicant company on a CD-ROM, which was kept in the editorial office of a different magazine published by the applicant company (not Autoweek). 14.  The police and prosecuting authorities were afterwards led to suspect that one of the vehicles participating in the street race had been used as a getaway car following a ram raid on 1 February 2001 (see paragraphs 27-29 below). 15.  On the morning of Friday 1 February 2002, a police officer contacted the Autoweek editorial office by telephone, summoning the editors to surrender to the police all photographic materials concerning the street race of 12 January 2002. This police officer was informed by the staff member whom she had called, namely the features chief editor (chef reportage), that this request could not be met as the journalists had only been given permission to take photographs of the street race after having guaranteed the anonymity of the participants in the race. The features chief editor further told this police officer that he thought that the press was reasonably protected against this kind of action and advised her to contact the editorial office in writing. 16.  In the afternoon of 1 February 2002, at 2.30 p.m., two police detectives visited the Autoweek editorial office and, after having unsuccessfully tried to obtain the surrender of the photographs, issued Autoweek’s editor-in-chief with a summons, within the meaning of Article 96a of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Wetboek van Strafvordering). This summons had been issued by the Amsterdam public prosecutor; it ordered the applicant company to surrender, in the context of a criminal investigation into offences defined in Articles 310-312 of the Criminal Code (Wetboek van Strafrecht) against an unspecified person, the photographs taken on 12 January 2002 during the illegal street race in Hoorn and all related materials. On behalf of the applicant company, Autoweek’s editor-in-chief Mr Broekhuijsen refused to surrender the photographs, considering this to be contrary to the undertaking given by the journalists to the street race participants as regards their anonymity. 17.  Later that day, a telephone conversation took place between, on the one side, two public prosecutors and, on the other, the lawyer of the applicant company Mr Jansen. Mr Jansen was told by the public prosecutors that “it concerned a matter of life and death”. No further explanation was given and Mr Jansen’s request for written confirmation that the matter was one of “life and death” was not entertained. 18.  The police detectives and the public prosecutors threatened to detain Mr Broekhuijsen during the weekend of 2 to 3 February or even longer for having acted in violation of Article 184 of the Criminal Code, i.e. the offence of failure to comply with an official order (ambtelijk bevel), and to seal and search the whole of the applicant company’s premises, if need be for the entire weekend period and beyond, and remove all computers. The threatened search would entail financial damage for the applicant company as, during that weekend, articles were to be prepared for publication on the subject of the wedding of the Netherlands Crown Prince, due to take place on 2 February 2002. 19.  At 6.01 p.m. on 1 February 2002, Mr Broekhuijsen was arrested on suspicion of having violated Article 184 of the Criminal Code. He was not taken to the police station but remained on the applicant company’s premises. After the Amsterdam public prosecutor had arrived on these premises and after he had been brought before the prosecutor, Mr Broekhuijsen was released at 10 p.m. 20.  The applicant company then consulted their counsel, Mr S., and a second lawyer, Mr D., the latter being a specialist in criminal procedure. At some point the CD-ROM was transferred to the lawyers’ offices unbeknown to the public prosecutor and the police investigators. Upon this, the public prosecutor and the other persons involved went to the lawyers’ offices. 21.  Mr D. spoke with the public prosecutors involved for some two hours, from 11.15 p.m. onwards. Taking the view that judicial authorisation was required, he sought and obtained the agreement of the public prosecutors to seek the intervention of the duty investigating judge (rechter-commissaris) of the Amsterdam Regional Court (rechtbank), who was then contacted by telephone. After having spoken with Mr D., and after having been briefed by one of the public prosecutors, the investigating judge expressed the view that the needs of the criminal investigation outweighed the applicant company’s journalistic privilege. While recognising from the outset that by law he lacked competence in the matter, he also stated that, had he had the power to do so, he would have been prepared to give an order to that effect and even to sanction a search of the offices. 22.  On 2 February 2002 at 1.20 a.m., the applicant company, through Mr S. and Mr D. and under protest, surrendered the CD-ROM containing the photographs to the public prosecutor, who formally seized it. An official receipt issued by a police officer describes it as a CD-ROM in purpose-made packaging, the packaging labelled in handwriting “Photos Illegal Street Races, ANWB [Royal Netherlands Tourist Association] driving simulator, sidecar motorcycle with coffin”. The receipt stated that Mr S. had handed over the CD-ROM under protest. 23.  On 15 April 2002 the applicant company lodged a complaint under Article 552a of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking the lifting of the seizure and restitution of the CD‑ROM, an order to the police and prosecution department to destroy copies of the data recorded on the CD-ROM and an injunction preventing the police and prosecution department from taking cognisance or making use of information obtained through the CD-ROM. 24.  On 5 September 2002 a hearing was held before the Regional Court during which the public prosecutor explained why the surrender of the photographs had been found necessary. The summons complained of had been issued in the context of a criminal investigation concerning serious criminals who had pulled cash dispensers out of walls with the aid of a shovel loader, and there was reason to believe that a car used by participants in the street race could lead to the perpetrator(s) of those robberies. 25.  In its decision of 19 September 2002 the Regional Court granted the request to lift the seizure and to return the CD-ROM to the applicant company as the interests of the investigation did not oppose this. It rejected the remainder of the applicant company’s complaint. It found the seizure lawful and, on this point, considered that a publisher/journalist could not, as such, be regarded as enjoying the privilege of non-disclosure (verschoningsrecht) under Article 96a of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Statutorily, the persons referred to in Article 218 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and acknowledged as enjoying the privilege of non-disclosure were, amongst others, public notaries, lawyers and doctors. It considered that the right to freedom of expression, as guaranteed by Article 10 of the Convention, included the right freely to gather news (recht van vrije nieuwsgaring) which, consequently, deserved protection unless outweighed by another interest warranting priority. It found that, in the instant case, the criminal investigation interest outweighed the right to free gathering of news in that, as explained by the public prosecutor during the hearing, the investigation at issue did not concern the illegal street race, in which context the undertaking of protection of sources had been given, but an investigation into other serious offences. The Regional Court was therefore of the opinion that the case at hand concerned a situation in which the protection of journalistic sources should yield to general investigation interests, the more so as the undertaking to the journalistic source concerned the street race whereas the investigation did not concern that race. It found established that the data stored on the CD-ROM had been used for the investigation of serious offences and that it had been made clear by the prosecutor that these data were relevant to the investigation at issue as all other investigation avenues had led to nothing. It therefore concluded that the principles of proportionality and subsidiarity had been complied with and that the interference had thus been justified. The Regional Court did not find that the seizure had been rash, although more tactful action on the part of the police and the public prosecutor might have prevented the apparent escalation of the matter. 26.  The applicant company lodged an appeal on points of law with the Supreme Court (Hoge Raad), which on 3 June 2003 gave a decision declaring it inadmissible. The Supreme Court held that, as the Regional Court had accepted the applicant company’s complaint in so far as it related to the request to lift the seizure and to return the CD-ROM, the applicant company no longer had an interest in its appeal against the ruling of 19 September 2002. Referring to its earlier case-law (Supreme Court, 4 October 1988, Nederlandse Jurisprudentie (Netherlands Law Reports – “NJ”) 1989, no. 429, and Supreme Court, 9 January 1990, NJ 1990, no. 369), it held that this finding was not altered by the circumstance that the complaint – apart from a request to return the CD-ROM – also contained a request to order that any print-outs or copies of the CD-ROM were to be destroyed and that data collected with the aid of the CD-ROM could not be used: neither Article 552a nor any other provision of the Code of Criminal Procedure provided for the possibility of obtaining a declaratory ruling that the seizure or the use of the seized item was unlawful once the item had been returned. 27.  The order issued under Article 96a of the Code of Criminal Procedure was closely related to a criminal investigation into a series of ram raids which had taken place on 20 September 2001, 6 November 2001 and 30 November 2001. In these ram raids, cash dispensers were removed from walls using a shovel loader. A group of suspects was identified, the main suspects being A and M. 28.  A telephone conversation involving M, tapped in the context of the investigation into those raids on 12 January 2002, revealed that M and A had participated in an illegal street race in Hoorn with an Audi RS4 motor car earlier that day. 29.  On 1 February 2002 another ram raid took place. During the incident, a bystander was threatened with a firearm. After ramming a wall, the perpetrators removed a cash dispenser and hauled it off in a lorry, which was followed closely by an Audi RS4. The police, who had already been informed of the incident, saw the lorry stop and the driver get into an Audi, which then drove away with three people inside. The police followed, but the Audi accelerated to over 200 kilometres per hour and disappeared from view.


4.  The applicant was born in 1953 and lives in Duderstadt. 5.  On 25 May 1997 the applicant had a traffic accident and suffered severe injuries. He disagreed with the insurance companies involved about the seriousness of his permanent injuries and the amount of insurance benefits due. Three expert medical opinions concerning the degree of his invalidity produced differing results. The dispute resulted in three sets of court proceedings, only one of which is the subject of the present application. 6.  On 28 November 2001 the applicant brought a claim for 219,000 German marks (DEM, 111,972.92 euros (EUR)) plus interest before the Göttingen Regional Court. The claim was registered under file number 2 O 503/01. Prior to the institution of the proceedings he had already been paid DEM 231,000.00 (EUR 118,108.42) by the insurance company. 7.  On 15 May 2002 the court suggested a friendly settlement, which the parties did not accept. 8.  On 8 August 2002 a hearing was held. 9.  On 29 August 2002 the Regional Court ordered a comprehensive expert report regarding the degree of the applicant’s invalidity up to 25 May 2000. The expert was asked not to take into account any developments in the applicant’s health which occurred after that date. 10.  On 19 September 2002 the court sent the files to the appointed expert. 11.  On 16 October 2002 it received the expert’s observation that additional expert reports in the field of thoracic surgery, neurology and psychiatry were also necessary. He suggested two suitable experts. 12.  On 31 October 2002 both the applicant and the defendant consented to the two additional expert opinions and agreed with the proposed choice of experts. 13.  On 14 February 2003 the court received the additional opinion from the thoracic surgery expert, dated 30 January 2003. It informed the applicant but failed to inform the defendant. 14.  On 24 June and 16 September 2003 the applicant asked the court about the status of the proceedings and urged it to expedite the completion of the outstanding expert opinions. 15.  On 26 June and 20 November 2003 the court replied to him that the case files had been sent to an expert in the parallel proceedings. 16.  On 26 January 2004 the applicant asked the court to retrieve the case files from the parallel proceedings. 17.  On 4 May 2004 the applicant informed the court that the expert opinion in the parallel proceedings had already been concluded in 2003 and asked about the whereabouts of the case files. 18.  On 26 July 2004 the court informed the applicant that the expert opinion which had been drawn up in the parallel proceedings would also be considered in the present proceedings. 19.  On 30 September 2004 the applicant opposed this, observing that on 31 October 2002 the parties had agreed upon the experts to be appointed in these proceedings and that the expert opinion in the parallel proceedings was deficient and concerned the applicant’s state of health at the present time, not on 25 May 2000. 20.  On 13 June 2005 the case files and the medical documentation were resubmitted to the main expert. 21.  In the summer of 2005 the defendant was notified of the opinion of the thoracic surgery expert and criticised it on several grounds. 22.  On 14 September 2005 the main expert reminded the court of the need to appoint an additional expert for a neurological and psychiatric expert opinion. 23.  On 1 December 2005 the court appointed the expert whom the parties had agreed upon on 31 October 2002 to prepare the additional neurological and psychiatric expert opinion. 24.  On 6 December 2005 the case files were sent to the neurological and psychiatric expert. 25.  On 10 January 2006 that expert indicated that he wished to involve an additional expert who would draw up a separate expert opinion with regard to the psychiatric aspects. On 31 January 2006 the applicant consented. 26.  On 23 February 2006 the applicant was examined by both experts. 27.  On 16 March 2006 the applicant challenged the main expert on grounds of bias, on the basis of his conduct as an expert in the parallel proceedings. 28.  On 24 March 2006 the court requested the main expert to send back the case files so that it could rule on the challenge for bias. 29.  On 3 April 2006 the main expert submitted his comments on the challenge for bias and sent the case files back to the court. 30.  On 11 August 2006 the applicant urged the court to decide on the challenge for bias and to set a time-limit for the submission of the neurological and psychiatric expert opinions. 31.  On 24 August 2006 the court informed the applicant that the neurological and psychiatric experts had undertaken to submit their opinions by 10 September 2006. 32.  On 10 October 2006 the court urged the neurological and psychiatric experts to submit the opinions but received no answer. 33.  On 11 October 2006 the applicant inquired whether the neurological and psychiatric expert opinions had been submitted. 34.  On 21 October 2006 the present case was transferred to the Sixth Civil Division of the Regional Court and was filed under the number 6 O 95/06. 35.  On 8 December 2006 the applicant again asked the court to set a time-limit for the neurological and psychiatric expert opinions. 36.  On 31 January 2007 the court asked the neurological expert to submit the expert opinions but received no answer. 37.  On 8 February 2007 the applicant reminded the court to urge the expert to submit the neurological and psychiatric expert opinions. 38.  On 12 January 2007 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Federal Constitutional Court concerning the undue length of the proceedings. 39.  On 2 February 2007, the Federal Constitutional Court requested the Regional Court to provide a status update on the proceedings, which the latter transmitted on 22 February 2007 after having requested the neurological and psychiatric experts to return the files. The submissions of the Regional Court, however, mainly explained the circumstances of the parallel proceedings. 40.  Following a corresponding request by the Federal Constitutional Court, the Regional Court transmitted copies of the case files on 9 June 2007 and returned the original files to the neurological and psychiatric expert. 41.  On 20 September 2007 the Federal Constitutional Court found a violation of the applicant’s right to an effective remedy pursuant to Articles 2(1) and 20(3) of the Basic Law (Grundgesetz) in the present case on account of the length of the proceedings before the Göttingen Regional Court by explicitly referring to Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. It observed that the delay between the order of 29 August 2002 to prepare a comprehensive expert opinion and the forwarding of the case files to the neurological and psychiatric expert on 6 December 2005 was contrary to the principle of expeditious proceedings. In this connection it noted that the Regional Court had been aware of the necessity of a neurological and psychiatric expert opinion since 16 October 2002 but had failed to pursue the proceedings which were merely handled as a file joined to the parallel proceedings between June 2003 and August 2004, at least. It found that the Regional Court should have produced copies of the entire case files to facilitate expeditious proceedings and simultaneous examination by the numerous experts. It also found that the court had failed to adopt adequate procedural measures, which the applicant had suggested on several occasions, to facilitate the submission of the neurological and psychiatric expert opinions. It further observed that the Regional Court had failed to decide on the applicant’s challenge for bias against the main expert without giving any reasons. It stated that the Regional Court would subsequently have to take all appropriate measures to expedite the proceedings. 42.  On 15 October 2007 the Federal Constitutional Court sent back the case files to the Regional Court. 43.  On 25 October 2007 the Eighth Civil Division of the Regional Court, under the new file number 8 O 133/07, set a time-limit of 19 November 2007 for the neurological expert to submit his opinions. 44.  On 23 November 2007 the applicant suggested that the neurological expert’s appointment be withdrawn and that a partial judgment be pronounced. 45.  On 29 November 2007 the court extended the time-limit for the neurological expert until 17 December 2007, on pain of a fine of EUR 500. 46.  On 21 December 2007 a neurological expert opinion dated 17 December 2007 and an additional psychiatric expert opinion dated 6 June 2006 were submitted to the court. The neurological expert opinion was forwarded to the applicant on 7 January 2008. 47.  On 21 December 2007 the Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s challenge for bias against the main expert. 48.  On 21 January 2008 the applicant appealed against this decision. His appeal was dismissed by the Braunschweig Court of Appeal on 7 March 2008. 49.  On 10 June 2008 the neurological expert was heard by the Regional Court with a view to solving preliminary questions regarding the main expert opinion. The Court further heard the thoracic surgery expert regarding his expert opinion dated 30 January 2003. 50.  On 16 July 2008 the files were sent to the main expert for the preparation of an expert opinion. 51.  The case is still pending before the Regional Court to this date.


4.  The applicant was born in 1955 and lives in Eisenstadt. 5.  The applicant is a judge at the Eisenstadt Regional Court. In July 1997 he made a study visit to the Commission of the European Union in Brussels. The Federal Ministry of Justice paid his travel expenses and granted the applicant two weeks’ special leave, in addition to which he took two weeks of his annual leave. 6.  On 9 July 1997 the Federal Minister of Justice informed the applicant on his return that it would not reimburse any of the additional expenses he had claimed in the meantime on 20 June 1997. 7.  On 5 September 1997 the applicant formally requested the reimbursement of further costs, incurred during the study visit, in particular the costs for his accommodation in the amount of Austrian schillings 17,699.75 (ATS - 1,284.11 euros (EUR)), and submitted additional records. 8.  On 20 March 1998 the Federal Minister dismissed the applicant’s request on the grounds that the trip had not been an official journey – this having been made clear by the fact that the applicant had taken some annual leave during that period. 9.  On 3 June 1998 the applicant filed a complaint with the Administrative Court. He submitted that the Federal Minister had interpreted the relevant law incorrectly and that if he had properly assessed the evidence he would have concluded that the study visit to Brussels had to be treated as an official journey. 10.  On 30 January 2002 the Administrative Court quashed the Federal Minister’s decision finding that the President of the Vienna Court of Appeal had been the authority competent to decide on the request for reimbursement at first instance, rather than the Federal Minister. 11.  Thereupon, the matter was transferred to the President of the Vienna Court of Appeal who requested the applicant and the Federal Minister to submit explanations regarding the study visit. 12.  On 17 September 2002 the applicant lodged a complaint (Säumnisbeschwerde) with the Administrative Court against the alleged failure of the President of the Court of Appeal to decide on his request within the statutory six-month time-limit. 13.  On 23 October 2002 the Administrative Court rejected the complaint because the applicant had not made a prior request under Section 73 of the General Administrative Procedure Act for jurisdiction to be transferred to the Federal Minister of Justice as the authority responsible for hearing appeals. 14.  On 29 November 2002 the President of the Vienna Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s request for reimbursement of the costs of his accommodation in Brussels on the grounds that the applicant had not been given instructions for an official journey and had not performed any official duties during his stay in Brussels. Therefore he was not entitled to reimbursement of his costs. 15.  On an unspecified date the applicant appealed against that decision to the Federal Minister of Justice. 16.  On 4 February 2003 the Federal Minister dismissed the applicant’s appeal, confirming the findings in the first-instance decision. 17.  On 14 April 2003 the applicant filed a complaint with the Administrative Court against the Federal Minister’s decision. He submitted that while acknowledging that his trip had been in the interest of his official duties (dienstliches Interesse), the Minister had incorrectly assumed that the applicant’s study visit was not to be treated as an official journey. The applicant did not ask for a hearing before the Administrative Court. 18.  On 24 February 2006 the Administrative Court dismissed the applicant’s complaint, finding that the Minister had correctly assessed the evidence before him and had correctly concluded that the applicant’s study trip had not been treated as an official journey.