[New search]
[Contents list]
[Printable RTF version]
[Help]
FIRST
SECTION
CASE OF PILČIĆ v. CROATIA
(Application
no. 33138/06)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
17 January 2008
This
judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44
§ 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial
revision.
In the case of Pilčić v. Croatia,
The
European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Chamber
composed of:
Christos Rozakis,
President,
Loukis Loucaides,
Nina Vajić,
Anatoli
Kovler,
Elisabeth Steiner,
Sverre Erik
Jebens,
Giorgio Malinverni, judges,
and Søren
Nielsen, Section Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 11 December 2007,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in an application (no. 33138/06) against the Republic
of Croatia lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention
for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the
Convention”) by a Croatian national, Mr Boris Pilčić
(“the applicant”), on 12 July 2006.
- The
applicant was represented by Mr R. Čogurić, a lawyer
practising in Zagreb. The Croatian Government (“the
Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mrs Š.
StaZnik.
- On
12 March 2007 the Court decided to give notice of the application to
the Government. Under the provisions of Article 29 § 3 of the
Convention, it decided to examine the merits of the application at
the same time as its admissibility.
THE FACTS
I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
- The
applicant was born in 1951 and is presently serving a prison sentence
in Lepogalva State Prison.
- Following
the institution of criminal proceedings against the applicant, he was
apprehended on 31 July 2001 and placed in pre-trial detention in
Zagreb County Prison (OkruZni zatvor Zagreb), where he had
stayed until 24 February 2003. After that date, having being
convicted of murder, attempted murder, forgery and robbery, he was
sent to serve the remainder of his sentence of thirty years and six
months' imprisonment in Lepoglava State Prison.
1. The applicant's health condition
- According
to medical documentation submitted by the parties, the applicant
suffers from kidney stones, varicose veins, liver damage and a number
of spinal ailments such as scoliosis (curvature of the spine),
lordosis (inward curve of the lower back),
discopathy (cervical disc injury) and discarthrosis (structural and
functional failure of the discal joint).
- The
applicant's medical record, kept in Lepoglava State Prison, and
additional medical documentation submitted by the parties provides
the following information:
- A
copy of a medical report drafted at Zagreb Prison Hospital on 24
January 2002 specifies that the applicant was suffering from one
stone in his right ureter (ureters are ducts that carry urine from
the kidneys to the urinary bladder) measuring about 3-4 millimetres,
and two stones in his left kidney, each measuring about 1.5
centimetres. It was recommended that the applicant be given
painkillers and be seen by a urologist.
- After
being incarcerated in Lepoglava State Prison the applicant was seen
by a prison doctor for his kidney and spinal ailments on five
occasions during the period from 28 February to 28 May 2003. The
applicant was regularly given urological tea for his kidney ailment
and, in addition, on each occasion he was given various spasmolytics
to prevent or relieve spasms. For the pain associated with his spinal
ailments, the applicant was prescribed painkillers, including two
different types of soothing gels. On 28 May 2003 the applicant
was seen by a urologist in VaraZdin, who found a stone in the
applicant's left kidney and recommended his hospitalisation.
- From
29 May to 4 July 2003 the applicant was hospitalised in Zagreb Prison
Hospital, where a medical report was drafted, specifying that the
applicant was suffering from three stones in his left kidney,
measuring 1 centimetre each. It was recommended that surgery be
carried out. The report notes that the applicant had been put on the
waiting list of the Rebro Hospital in Zagreb and that the exact date
of the operation was yet to be determined.
- From
his return to Lepoglava State Prison in July 2003 until 26 September
2005 the applicant was seen by the prison doctor on sixty-five
occasions; on twenty of these he was given spasmolytics for the pain
associated with his kidney ailment. He was also regularly given
urological tea as well as painkillers for his spinal ailment.
- The
applicant was again hospitalised in Zagreb Prison Hospital from 26 to
30 September 2005. A medical report of 30 September 2005
specifies that the kidney stones from which the applicant was
suffering required surgery, although not urgently, as they could not
be treated by ultrasound waves (lithotripsy).
- From
his return to the prison until 31 March 2006 the applicant was seen
by the prison doctor on twenty-nine occasions. Within that period he
was given spasmolitycs for the pain associated with his kidney
ailment on fourteen occasions. On 4 November 2005 the applicant
underwent urological tests in the Zagreb Prison Hospital laboratory.
On 17 November 2005 the applicant refused to go to Zagreb Prison
Hospital. On 20 February 2006 a nurse from the prison reported that,
during a telephone conversation with a surgeon from Zagreb Prison
Hospital, she had been told that the applicant should not be sent
there because they were not going to carry out the surgery. On 2
March 2006 the applicant again underwent urological tests in Zagreb
Prison Hospital.
- On
31 March 2006 the applicant was seen by a urologist in VaraZdin
Hospital. The diagnosis of kidney stones was confirmed and surgery in
this respect was recommended, although not urgently.
- From
his return to the prison until 26 October 2006 the applicant was seen
by the prison doctor on thirty-four occasions. Within that period he
was given spasmolytics for his kidney aliment on six occasions. On
several occasions he asked that the recommended surgery in connection
with his kidney ailment be carried out.
- The
applicant was again hospitalised in Zagreb Prison Hospital from 26
October to 17 November 2006. A report drawn on the latter date
specifies that the applicant was suffering from kidney stones and
that there was no possibility of carrying out the relevant operation
in the Zagreb Prison Hospital; it could only be carried out in an
ordinary hospital. The applicant had been offered surgery for his
varicose veins in Zagreb Prison Hospital, which he had refused,
insisting on his return to the prison.
- On
his return to the prison the applicant was seen by the prison doctor
on twenty-six occasions, mostly in connection with his spinal
ailment. On one occasion he was given spasmolytics for his kidney
ailment. He was prescribed a supplementary diet (pojačani
obrok) from 1 December 2006 until 1 February 2007 and from 4 May
to 1 August 2007.
2. Remedies used by the applicant
- On
30 August 2006 the applicant petitioned both the VaraZdin County
Court judge responsible for the execution of sentences and the Head
Office of the Prison Administration complaining about the lack of
adequate medical care for his various health problems, including
those mentioned in paragraph 6 above.
- The
Head Office of the Prison Administration replied to the applicant's
allegations by a letter of 12 December 2006, the relevant parts of
which read as follows:
“...
Your medical record shows that since your arrival at
Lepoglava State Prison on 24 February 2003, you have received regular
treatment by the prison doctor.
On 28 February 2003 it was noted that you suffered from
kidney stones and were on that account twice hospitalised in [Zagreb]
Prison Hospital. It was further noted that you suffered from
back-pain and varicose veins on your right shin. During your
hospitalisation from 29 May to 4 July 2003 it was recommended that
surgery be carried out and you were put on the waiting list of the
Rebro Hospital in Zagreb.
Owing to frequent pain in the kidney area you were again
hospitalised in [Zagreb] Prison Hospital from 26 to 30 September 2005
where a specialist established that your kidney stones could be
treated by ultrasound.
You continued to receive regular treatment by the prison
doctor and were prescribed adequate medical therapy. On 17 November
2005 you refused to be hospitalised and said that you would report
when you wished to be hospitalised. Since you had refused
hospitalisation, on 20 February 2006 it was communicated from
[Zagreb] Prison Hospital that you were not going to be operated and
it was recommended further that you be seen by a urologist in
VaraZdin. A prescription was issued for consultation with a urologist
and prior laboratory tests. Laboratory tests showed the presence of
blood in urine and signs of liver damage.
On 31 March 2006 you were seen by a urologist who found
alterations in your kidneys, but established no need for an urgent
surgical intervention. A CT [computer tomography] of your abdomen was
planned and carried out on 20 April 2006. It showed no
pathological alterations. You were twice seen by an internist in
Lepoglava [State] Prison, who recommended that arrangements be made
between the prison authorities and [Zagreb] Prison Hospital.
On 21 June 2006 you were sent for an X-ray examination
in connection with frequent back-pain. Discopathy and discarthrosis
were diagnosed. Deforming spondylosis was in an advanced stage. On 16
October 2006 a prescription for your hospitalisation in [Zagreb]
Prison Hospital was issued, but you refused hospitalisation. Owing to
frequent pain in your left kidney and your back you agreed to be
hospitalised in [Zagreb] Prison Hospital from 26 October to
17 November 2006, when laboratory tests were carried out as well
as an ultrasound examination of your liver, cholecyst, bile ducts,
pancreas, spleen and kidneys. An X-ray examination showed that your
heart and lungs were healthy. An X-ray examination of your abdomen
showed two round calcareous shadows in the lower pole of your left
kidney, which was an indication of the [presence of] stones.
Laboratory tests showed further even and sufficient urinary flow in
both kidneys. The ureters had adequate flow, lumen width and
porosity; the urinary bladder was normal. The previously recommended
surgery, despite having been scheduled for your stay at the hospital,
was not carried out.
Possible surgery on your varicose veins was not carried
out since you refused it, and you were returned to the prison at your
request.
A CT [computer tomography] of your spine was recommended
and the exact date was to be determined. A prescription in that
respect was issued on 20 November 2006.
In our opinion, regular [medical] checks are needed in
the Lepolgava [State] Prison infirmary as well as regular intake of
the prescribed therapy, and an arrangement for another
hospitalisation in [Zagreb] Prison Hospital is soon to take place
with a view to carrying out the surgery for your kidney stones.
In view of the above [considerations] it has been
established that you received adequate medical care in Lepoglava
[State] Prison.”
- The
judge responsible for the execution of sentences likewise answered
the applicant's allegation by a letter of 13 December 2006, the
relevant parts of which read as follows:
“As to your complaint lodged on 31 August 2006 ...
concerning your allegations that you had been denied hospital
treatment in connection with a number of diseases ... I reply as
follows:
...
The medical documentation submitted shows that, as early
as 2003, you were hospitalised in [Zagreb] Prison Hospital in
connection with kidney stones, pain in the back and varicose veins on
your right shin. It was recommended that surgery be carried out, you
were put on the waiting list of the Rebro Hospital [in Zagreb] and
that the exact date of the operation was to be communicated. Owing to
repeated pain in the kidney area and in order to continue the
treatment, in 2005 it was established that the stones were to be
broken by ultrasound. You then reported to the Lepoglava [State]
Prison infirmary and received regular therapy for pain. On 17
November 2005 you were offered hospitalisation. However, it was
communicated from Zagreb Prison Hospital not to send you there
because you were not to be operated. On 31 March 2006 you were seen
by a urologist in VaraZdin, who established the cause of your kidney
ailment and indicated that there was no need for urgent surgery.
After that arrangements for your hospitalisation in [Zagreb] Prison
Hospital took place and you were hospitalised from 26 October to 17
November 2006. There you were examined and laboratory [tests] showed
toxic damage to your liver and the presence of stones in your
kidneys. An x-ray showed that your heart and lungs were healthy and
that you had so-called nephroliths in your kidneys.
According to [Zagreb] Prison Hospital, all treatment
available there had been exhausted and in order to continue your
treatment in an outside hospital it was necessary for an agreement to
be reached between the prison and the hospital. There was a
possibility that surgery be carried out in [Zagreb] Prison Hospital
at the same time as surgery for your varicose veins, which you
declined. You were returned to the prison where it was recommended
that a CT [computer tomography] of lumbosacral spine be carried out,
and a prescription was issued in that connection on 20 November 2006.
The doctor also recommended regular checks in the prison infirmary
and regular intake of prescribed therapy, and that an arrangement be
made between the prison and the [Zagreb] Prison Hospital for your
hospitalisation and eventual surgery for the kidney stones.
Therefore, your complaints concerning the alleged denial
of hospital treatment are unfounded because the medical documentation
shows that care was taken of your [need for] ambulant and hospital
treatment. Your allegations concerning the prison authorities' hatred
towards you are entirely unfounded.
...”
- The
applicant also submitted a copy of a letter of 15 September 2006
drafted by the registry of the Constitutional Court, stating that his
application lodged with that court on 12 September 2006 had not been
suitable for examination.
II. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW
- Article
23 of the Croatian Constitution (Ustav Republike Hrvatske)
provides as follows:
“No one shall be subjected to any form of
ill-treatment...”
- The
Enforcement of Prison Sentences Act (Zakon o izvršavanju
kazne zatvora, Official Gazette no. 128/1999 of 30 November
1999, and no. 190/2003 of 3 December 2003 (consolidated
text) – “the Act”) came into force on 1 July 2001,
while the provisions concerning the judge responsible for the
execution of sentences came into force six months later, on 1 January
2002. The relevant provisions of the Act read as follows:
COMPLAINTS
Section 15
“(1) Inmates shall have the right to complain
against an act or decision of a prison employee.
(2) Complaints shall be lodged orally or in writing with
a prison governor, a judge responsible for the execution of sentences
or the Head Office of the Prison Administration. Written complaints
addressed to a judge responsible for the execution of sentences or
the Head Office of the Prison Administration shall be submitted in an
envelope which the prison authorities may not open...”
JUDICIAL PROTECTION
AGAINST ACTS AND DECISIONS OF THE PRISON ADMINISTRATION
Section 17
“(1) An inmate may file a request for
judicial protection against any acts or decisions unlawfully denying
him, or limiting him in, any of the rights guaranteed by this Act.
(2) Requests for judicial protection shall be
decided by the judge responsible for the execution of sentences.”
HEALTH PROTECTION
Section 103
“(1) Inmates shall be provided with medical
treatment and regular care for their physical and mental health...”
II. COUNCIL OF EUROPE SOURCES
- The
Committee of Ministers
Recommendation
No. Rec(2006)2 of the Committee of Ministers to member states on the
European Prison Rules (adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 11
January 2006 at the 952nd meeting of the Ministers' Deputies):
Section 46.1 of the recommendation provides as follows:
“Sick prisoners who require specialist treatment
shall be transferred to specialised institutions or to civil
hospitals, when such treatment is not available in prison.”
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 3 OF THE CONVENTION
- The
applicant complained that the Lepoglava State Prison authorities had
failed to ensure adequate medical care for his health problems. He
relied on Article 3 of the Convention, which provides:
“No one shall be subjected to torture or to
inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”
- The
Government contested that argument.
A. Admissibility
- The
Government requested the Court to declare the application
inadmissible for failure to exhaust domestic remedies. They submitted
that the applicant had failed to lodge a constitutional complaint
about the failure to provide adequate medical treatment for his
ailments.
- The
applicant submitted that he had exhausted all remedies available
within the domestic legal system in respect of the alleged violation.
- The
Court observes that the rule of exhaustion of domestic remedies
contained in Article 35 § 1 of the Convention requires that
normal recourse should be had by an applicant to remedies which are
available and sufficient to afford redress in respect of the breaches
alleged. The existence of the remedies in question must be
sufficiently certain not only in theory but in practice, failing
which they will lack the requisite accessibility and effectiveness.
It is incumbent on the Government claiming non-exhaustion to satisfy
the Court that the remedy was an effective one available in theory
and practice at the relevant time, that is to say, that it was
accessible, was one which was capable of providing redress in respect
of the applicant's complaints and offered reasonable prospects of
success (see, among other authorities, Akdivar and Others
v. Turkey, judgment of 16 September 1996, Reports
of Judgments and Decisions 1996-IV, pp. 1210 and 1211, §§ 65
and 68).
- Turning
to the present case, the Court observes at the outset that the letter
of 15 September 2006 sent to the applicant by the registry of the
Constitutional Court confirms that the applicant had filed an
application with that court, though it did not specify the content of
that application and the exact reason for that court's finding that
the application had not been suitable for examination (see § 21
above). Without assessing whether the applicant did or did not in
fact file a constitutional complaint about the alleged lack of
adequate medical treatment provided to him by the Lepoglava State
Prison authorities, the Court observes further that the established
practice of the Constitutional Court is to declare inadmissible
constitutional complaints which do not concern the merits of a given
case. Having regard to such a practice and the failure of the
Government to produce before the Court any case-law supporting their
argument concerning the sufficiency and effectiveness of that remedy,
and leaving aside the question of the adequacy of a constitutional
complaint as a remedy capable of providing redress in respect of the
applicant's complaint, the Court concludes that a constitutional
complaint about the lack of adequate medical treatment in prison is
not a remedy whose existence has been established with sufficient
certainty.
- The
Court finds that, by complaining to the competent judge for the
execution of sentences and to the Head Office of the Prison
Administration, the applicant made adequate use of the remedies
provided for in domestic law that were at his disposal in respect of
his complaint concerning the lack of adequate medical assistance. In
particular, the Court points out that although under relevant
domestic law there existed a possibility of lodging an appeal against
a decision of the judge responsible for the execution of sentences
with a three-member panel of a competent County Court, the applicant
was not in a position to make use of such an appeal because the
competent judge responsible for the execution of sentences answered
the applicant's complaint by letter and not in a decision and that it
is impossible to lodge an appeal against a letter. Accordingly, the
application cannot be dismissed for failure to exhaust domestic
remedies.
- The Court notes that the application is not manifestly
ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the
Convention. It further notes that it is not inadmissible on any other
grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible.
B. Merits
- As
to the merits of the application, the Government submitted that the
alleged failure to provide adequate medical treatment for the
applicant's ailments did not satisfy the minimal level of severity
requirement under Article 3 of the Convention. They further argued
that the applicant had been receiving proper treatment both by the
Lepoglava State Prison physician and during his stay at Zagreb Prison
Hospital. They also contended that the applicant had refused
hospitalisation on three occasions, namely on 17 November 2005
and 16 October and 17 November 2006.
- The
applicant argued that he had seriously suffered as a result of the
lack of adequate medical treatment for his condition. He further
stressed that surgery related to his kidney ailment had never been
offered and that the surgery he had refused had concerned only his
varicose veins.
- The
Court reiterates that ill-treatment must attain a minimum level of
severity if it is to fall within the scope of Article 3. The
assessment of this minimum is, in the nature of things, relative; it
depends on all the circumstances of the case (see Vilvarajah and
Others v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 30 October 1991, Series
A no. 215, p. 36, § 107).
- The
Court has consistently stressed that the suffering and humiliation
involved must in any event go beyond that inevitable element of
suffering or humiliation connected with a given form of legitimate
treatment or punishment. Measures depriving a person of his liberty
may often involve such an element. Under this provision the State
must ensure that a person is detained in conditions which are
compatible with respect for his human dignity, that the manner and
method of the execution of the measure do not subject him to distress
or hardship of an intensity exceeding the unavoidable level of
suffering inherent in detention and that, given the practical demands
of imprisonment, his health and well-being are adequately secured
(see Kudła v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, §§
91-94, ECHR 2000-XI).
- As
to the present case, the Court notes at the outset that it is
undisputed that the applicant has been suffering from various
ailments, including kidney stones, ever since January 2002. The Court
considers that the applicant's medical problems, other than the
kidney stones, have been adequately addressed by providing
painkillers and offering him the possibility of surgery for his
varicose veins. In this respect the Court also notes that no further
recommendations were made with regard to these ailments.
- As
to the applicant's problem with regard to kidney stones, the Court
notes that the medical documentation submitted by the Government
shows that the applicant was given spasmolytics for the purpose of
relieving him of the pain associated with his kidney ailment on
forty-six occasions in the period from 28 February 2003 to 1 August
2007. The Court is thus persuaded that the applicant has
occasionally suffered from considerable pain as a result of having a
number of stones in his left kidney and right ureter, the only pain
relief associated with that ailment being administration of
painkillers by the prison physician.
- As
regards the adequacy of the medical care provided to the applicant in
this respect, the Court firstly stresses that it is not in a position
to make an independent assessment as to the necessity of surgery in
connection with the applicant's kidney ailment. However, it notes
that doctors in Zagreb Prison Hospital established that even
if an operation was not urgent the applicant's kidney condition could
be properly removed only by way of surgery. However, that
recommendation has never been followed up. Therefore, the Court is
not convinced by the Government's submissions.
- As
to the Government's contention that the applicant had refused the
hospitalisation offered, the Court notes that the only
hospitalisation provided for was in Zagreb Prison Hospital, although
it had been clearly established that the recommended surgery could
not be carried out in that hospital (see paragraphs 13 and 16 above).
The medical documentation submitted shows that the surgery expressly
refused by the applicant concerned his varicose veins (see paragraph
16 above).
- An
important factor to be taken into consideration is the time the
applicant has spent in detention without surgery for his kidney
condition. In this respect the Court notes that the relevant domestic
authorities, namely the personnel of Zagreb County Prison, Zagreb
Prison Hospital and Lepoglava State Prison, were undoubtedly aware of
the applicant's kidney ailment since January 2002, when the first
medical report to that effect was drafted. The Court notes however
that the Government failed to submit any indication that the
Lepoglava Prison or some other authorities undertook any relevant
steps to ensure that the surgery recommended in 2003 (see paragraph
12 above) for the applicant's kidney ailment would actually be
carried out. In this respect the Court accepts that having surgery
carried out in an ordinary hospital on a person serving a prison
sentence after having being convicted of serious crimes presents a
security risk and might therefore involve a certain degree of
associated operational problems, which may cause some delay. However,
the medical documentation submitted shows that the relevant
authorities, namely the Zagreb Prison Hospital and the Lepoglava
State Prison personnel have been aware since July 2003 that the
surgery in question was recommended; during a period of more than
four years, no steps were taken to have the surgery carried out. In
this connection the Court does not consider relevant the Government's
submission that the applicant had been put on the Rebro Hospital
waiting list, because there is no mention of any date or even an
approximate term within which the actual surgery would take place.
Putting the applicant on a waiting list and then failing to ensure
that specific and genuine steps be taken over a long period of
several years shows that the doctors' recommendation in connection
with the applicant's kidney ailment has not been followed up in an
adequate manner.
- The Court considers that by leaving the applicant to
suffer considerable occasional pain for a prolonged period of time
without a foreseeable prospect of being permanently relieved of his
kidney ailment, on account of the Lepoglava State Prison authorities'
failure to follow up the applicant's illness and to organise the
recommended surgery, the prison authorities failed in fulfilling
their obligation to provide the applicant with required medical
treatment. In the circumstances of the present case and in particular
in view of the substantial duration of the applicant's prison term,
such a failure on the part of the domestic authorities is found to go
beyond the threshold of severity required under Article 3 of the
Convention and constitutes inhuman and degrading treatment within the
meaning of Article 3 of the Convention.
- The
Court therefore finds that there has been a violation of that
provision.
II. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
- Article 41 of the Convention provides:
“If the Court finds that there has been a
violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the
internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only
partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford
just satisfaction to the injured party.”
A. Damage
- The
applicant claimed 100,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary
damage.
- The
Government deemed the requested amount excessive.
- The Court notes that it has found that the applicant's
rights guaranteed by Article 3 of the Convention have been violated.
In particular, it has found that while serving his prison term the
applicant has not received adequate medical treatment. That fact has
indisputably caused him some physical and mental suffering.
Consequently, ruling on an equitable basis, as required by Article 41
of the Convention, the Court awards the applicant EUR 2,000 under
this head, plus any tax that may be chargeable.
B. Costs and expenses
- The
applicant did not submit a claim for any costs and expenses incurred.
Accordingly, the Court considers that there is no call to award him
any sum on that account.
C. Default interest
- The
Court considers it appropriate that the default interest should be
based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to
which should be added three percentage points.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY
- Declares the application admissible;
- Holds that there has been a violation of Article
3 of the Convention;
- Holds
(a) that
the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months
from the date on which the judgment becomes final in accordance with
Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, EUR 2,000 (two
thousand euros) in respect of non-pecuniary damage, to be converted
into the national currency of the respondent State at the rate
applicable at the date of settlement, plus any tax that may be
chargeable;
(b) that
from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement
simple interest shall be payable on the above amount at a rate equal
to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the
default period plus three percentage points;
4 Dismisses the remainder of the applicant's claim for
just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 17 January 2008, pursuant
to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Søren Nielsen Christos Rozakis
Registrar President
