CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 6 juillet 2006

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s7BE5FA78 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s23860FF7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center } .sE208486F { font-family:Arial; color:#ff0000 } .s598389FF { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:18pt } .sF5E1C6CF { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; color:#ff0000 } .s491F5244 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; color:#ff0000 } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .s61ED8A2B { width:14.36pt; display:inline-block } .s61E420C2 { font-family:Arial; font-variant:small-caps } .s84D0D60A { width:8.36pt; display:inline-block } .sEC177689 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s967D43C6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s87F05BA2 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sC443675D { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:30pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sD2857263 { margin-top:30pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s401C450A { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s7EE1C8F0 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sD5DF731 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sC702907E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s1913A4C6 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s984A15CA { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s6477A72F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sA1CDB767 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s281358E1 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sFD4D42B6 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s11869A80 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s93EDF1FF { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:30pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s3C0142D3 { margin-top:30pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s684F2214 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s25BD2B45 { margin-top:24pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sEC2CB098 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s8EB5F569 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s8F4EE4B8 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s9F223FEE { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s63B454A9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:0.05pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .sCA92750 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:42pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sD777C0A5 { margin-top:42pt; margin-bottom:30pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sE7C30868 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sE6F6C865 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s988F61DE { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s8C771D24 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s8A9F351B { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sC31874BD { margin-top:24pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sF0957490 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s8E011338 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sD0489F03 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sB90861A5 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; letter-spacing:-0.1pt } .sAB173E38 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify } .s127C7598 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify } .s11EE8375 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s7409CDC0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .s3B3A5DE9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s7CB9076 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA0AF7C1A { width:39.27pt; display:inline-block } .s21D34249 { width:170.29pt; display:inline-block } .sF2E32F9B { width:36.61pt; display:inline-block } .s5F32E900 { width:208.31pt; display:inline-block } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s85226119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt }     THIRD SECTION     CASE OF BAYBAŞIN v. THE NETHERLANDS     (Application no. 13600/02)       JUDGMENT       STRASBOURG   6 July 2006       FINAL     06/10/2006       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 Baybaşın v. the Netherlands, The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:   Mr   B.M. Zupančič , President ,   Mr   J. Hedigan ,   Mr   L. Caflisch ,   Mr   C. Bîrsan ,   Mr   V. Zagrebelsky ,   Mrs   A. Gyulumyan ,   Mr   E. Myjer, judges , and Mr V. Berger , Section Registrar , Having deliberated in private on 15 June 2006, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: PROCEDURE 1.     The case originated in an application (no. 13600/02) against the Kingdom of the Netherlands lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a Turkish national, Hüseyin Baybaşın (“the applicant”), on 28 February 2002. 2.     The applicant was represented by Ms J. Serrarens, a lawyer practising in Maastricht. The Netherlands Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms J. Schukking, of the Netherlands Ministry of Foreign Affairs. 3.     On 6 October 2005 the Court declared the application partly inadmissible and decided to communicate to the Government the applicant’s complaint that the weekly routine strip-searches to which he had been subjected between 16 July 2001 and 21   November 2002 in the course of his stay in the maximum security institution ( Extra Beveiligde Inrichting – “EBI”) breached his rights under Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention. Under the provisions of Article 29 § 3 of the Convention, it decided to examine the merits of this part of the application at the same time as its admissibility. It rejected the remainder of the applicant’s complaints. 4.     In accordance with Article 36 § 1 of the Convention and Rule 44   of the Rules of Court, the Registrar informed the Turkish Government of their right to submit written comments. They did not avail themselves of this right. THE FACTS I.     THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE 5.     The applicant was born in 1956 and is serving a sentence of life imprisonment in the Netherlands. A.     The circumstances of the applicant’s detention 6.     On an unspecified date in 1996 the applicant was detained in the Netherlands in connection with a request for his extradition to Turkey, where he was suspected of murder. During his detention, there were serious indications that the applicant’s life was at risk from foreign State or non-State agents. 7.     Shortly before his release in December 1996 – after a Netherlands court had ruled that the applicant’s extradition to Turkey was not permissible – the prison authorities received indications that the applicant and three co-detainees harboured escape plans. On 25 February 1998, the applicant filed a criminal complaint with the police, alleging that the Turkish authorities planned to kill him. 1.     The criminal proceedings against the applicant 8.     On 27 March 1998 the applicant was arrested and placed in pre-trial detention ( voorlopige hechtenis ) on suspicion of having committed serious crimes within a violent criminal organisation in which he played a leading role. Criminal proceedings were brought against the applicant, who was sentenced in first-instance proceedings to twenty years’ imprisonment. On 30 July 2002, following proceedings on appeal, the Court of Appeal ( gerechtshof ) of ‘s-Hertogenbosch quashed the first-instance judgment, convicted the applicant of several offences and sentenced him to life imprisonment. His subsequent appeal on points of law to the Supreme Court ( Hoge Raad ) was dismissed on 21 October 2003. 2.     The applicant’s detention during and after the criminal proceedings 9.     The applicant was initially detained in an ordinary remand centre ( huis van bewaring ). Shortly after he was apprehended, and on the basis of information indicating a risk that he would seek ways to escape and also reports that he was in danger of being “liquidated”, he was transferred to the National Segregation Unit ( Landelijke Afzonderingsafdeling ) in a Rotterdam detention facility. 10.     On 26 June 1998, on the advice of the special selection board of the maximum security institution ( Extra Beveiligde Inrichting – “EBI”), the Minister of Justice decided to place the applicant in the pre-trial detention unit of the EBI, which is part of the Nieuw Vosseveld Penitentiary Complex in Vught. His detention in the EBI prison was reviewed and extended by the Minister every six months. The applicant unsuccessfully challenged each decision to extend before the Appeals Board ( beroepscommissie ) of the Central Council for the Administration of Criminal Justice ( Centrale Raad voor Strafrechtstoepassing ). On 1 April 2001 the Central Council was replaced by the Council for the Administration of Criminal Justice and Protection of Juveniles ( Raad voor Strafrechtstoepassing en Jeugdbescherming ). 3.     The decision of 16 July 2001 extending the applicant’s stay in the EBI 11.     By letter of 16 July 2001 the applicant was informed that the Minister of Justice had decided to extend his detention in the EBI once again. According to information contained in the proposal of 25 June 2001 to extend the applicant’s stay in the EBI, he had not had any contact with social workers during the previous six months and apparently did not feel the need to have such contact. The proposal, which describes in detail the applicant’s attitude, behaviour and activities in the EBI, does not mention any psychological problems encountered by the applicant caused by his detention in the EBI. 12.     The letter of 16 July 2001, in its relevant part, reads as follows: “From the information available about you, it appears that you must be regarded as likely to try to escape ( vluchtgevaarlijk ). On this subject, I would inform you as follows. Official reports ( ambtsberichten ) that have been received point out that – quite apart from your membership of a criminal organisation – you are suspected of having committed serious crimes. You are suspected of leadership of an international criminal organisation that must be regarded as very violent. You are suspected of having personally instigated very serious and very violent crimes that have seriously undermined law and order. You have since been sentenced at first instance to twenty years’ imprisonment, after a sentence of life imprisonment was sought [by the prosecution]. You have lodged an appeal. When you were being transferred to the Breda Regional Court ( arrondissementsrechtbank ) and the National Segregation Unit in Rotterdam on 8   April 1998 and 10 April 1998 respectively, “suspect” cars were observed [whose registered owners] may have been connected to persons with a criminal background. You have indicated that you(r family) are wealthy. It is therefore also reasonable to conclude that you are capable of providing financial backing for escape plans, in this instance for the organisation of an escape (attempt) via the hiring of third parties. Also during a previous detention, in the ... detention facility, there were indications, on 29 November 1996, that you had plans to mount an escape together with others, in an operation involving a firearm. On 9 December 1996, in the same detention facility, information (was found) that could be connected to the indications referred to above. Your previous detention was a consequence of the fact that Turkey (unsuccessfully, as it later transpired) had requested your extradition in connection with serious crimes. As during your previous detention, you have indicated that you are being threatened with “liquidation”, even whilst in detention. You also lodged a criminal complaint to that effect with the Rotterdam police on 25 February 1998. Accordingly, as during your previous detention, you were transferred – in view of the seriousness of the information, which became apparent after the investigation – [to the National Segregation Unit on 10 April 1998] in order to secure not only your safety but also the order, peace and security of the prison where you were detained. The fears which you expressed were confirmed once more in May 1998 by official reports. On 13 September 1999 you and your sister, who was visiting you, acted in breach of the rules governing the regime in the EBI. Your sister allowed you to read uncensored reports which she then destroyed. Disciplinary action was taken against you as a result. With reference to the contents of the third paragraph, I would inform you that in January 2001 the presence of another “suspicious” car was noted near the EBI around the time of your transfer to the Rotterdam Regional Court. Three persons who had been travelling in the car were present in the courtroom on 25 January 2001. They turned out to have criminal records. On 30 October 2000 you and a co-detainee had a conversation about one of the latter’s escape attempts elsewhere in the Netherlands. In this context the co-detainee concerned told you that he had paid 25,000 Netherlands guilder for this. It was noted that your co-detainee added that ‘that would never succeed here because the staff and the Governor work closely together’. In the meantime, after life imprisonment was sought [by the prosecution], you have been sentenced at first instance to twenty years’ imprisonment. You have lodged an appeal. An escape on your part would be unacceptable to society and would seriously undermine law and order, having regard to the serious crimes of which you are suspected and, in this case, of which you have been convicted at first instance. If plans to “liquidate” you were to materialise, this would give rise to offences creating social unrest and seriously undermining law and order. In view of the above, the [EBI] selection board, having heard evidence from the selection officer (with whom you refused to speak), has advised me to continue your detention in the EBI. I have taken a decision to that effect. To give you as full a picture as possible, I would further inform you that the rules governing the EBI regime offer added guarantees for preventing the implementation of (possible) plans to “liquidate” you. In this connection it must be mentioned, with reference to what has been stated above, that (at the beginning of 2000) “liquidation plans” concerning you came to light within the EBI, in this case death threats by third persons. You indicated that you took these threats very seriously; you appeared frightened and it was clear that they had made an impression on you.” 13.     On 25 July 2001 the applicant, as in the case of the previous decisions to extend, again challenged the extension of his stay in the EBI by lodging an appeal with the Appeals Board of the Council for the Administration of Criminal Justice and Protection of Juveniles. In his appeal against the decision of 16 July 2001 the applicant challenged the necessity of his continued detention in the EBI. He also stated that he was suffering both physically and mentally as a result of the EBI detention regime without, however, substantiating that claim. Relying on the findings of the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (“CPT”) in respect of its visit to the EBI in 1997 and on the Court’s decision on admissibility of 28 August 2001 in the case of Van der Ven v. the Netherlands (no.   50901/99), he argued that his (continued) detention in the EBI infringed his rights under Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention on account of the EBI detention regime. 14.     On 27 February 2002 the Appeals Board dismissed the appeal. It held, on the basis of the different elements set out in the impugned decision, that the applicant was extremely likely to try to escape and, in view of the offences of which he was suspected, that he posed an unacceptable risk in terms of the danger of his committing further serious violent crimes. Noting that the applicant was suspected of offences in respect of which a twenty-year prison sentence had been imposed at first instance and which were a source of grave concern to society and public opinion, the Appeals Board was of the opinion that the applicant, in the event of an escape, would pose an unacceptable risk to society. It also took into account the fact that specific threats to kill the applicant or to have him killed had repeatedly come to light. It therefore concluded that the applicant’s stay in the EBI corresponded to both situations provided for in Article 6 (a) and (b) of the Regulation on the selection, placement and transfer of detainees ( Regeling selectie, plaatsing en overplaatsing van gedetineerden ) of 15 August 2000. As regards the applicant’s reliance on the Convention, it held that the proceedings on the extension of the applicant’s stay in the EBI fell outside the scope of Article 6 of the Convention and that the interference with the rights guaranteed by Article 8 § 1 of the Convention was permissible to the extent that such interference was in accordance with the law and necessary in a democratic society in the interests of, inter alia , the prevention of disorder or crime. Lastly, it held that the decision to extend the applicant’s stay in the EBI was lawful and that, weighing up all the interests involved, it could not be considered as unreasonable or unjust. It did not deal with the applicant’s argument that the extension of his stay in the EBI was contrary to Article 3 of the Convention. 4.     Subsequent decisions extending the applicant’s stay in the EBI 15.     In the meantime, on 21 December 2001, the applicant’s detention in the EBI had been extended again. His appeal to the Appeals Board was dismissed on 30 May 2002 on the same grounds as those given in the Appeal Board’s decision of 27 February 2002. 16.     On 21 May 2002 the applicant’s detention in the EBI was extended once more. The applicant lodged an appeal with the Appeals Board against this decision on 30   May 2002. No further information has been submitted about these appeal proceedings. 17.     On 24 December 2003 the applicant was transferred from the EBI to another prison with a different regime. 18.     On 23 March 2004 Dr R.J.P. Rijnders – a psychiatrist attached to the Centre 1945 Foundation ( Stichting Centrum ‘45 ), a national centre for the medical-psychological treatment of members of the Resistance in the Second World War, victims of war and organised violence, and asylum seekers suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder related to experiences in their country of origin – drew up a report on the applicant’s state of mental health. According to the report the applicant had developed various mental problems (chronic post-traumatic stress disorder, depression and a strong tendency towards somatisation) during his detention in the EBI. The post-traumatic stress phenomena were mainly linked to his experiences in the EBI and only some of his complaints and symptoms were connected with his experiences in Turkey. B.     The applicant’s civil action in tort against the Netherlands State 19.     On 10 August 2004 the applicant brought a civil action in tort ( onrechtmatige daad ) against the Netherlands State before the Hague Regional Court. One of the grounds on which he claimed payment of compensation in respect of non-pecuniary damage for unlawful acts for which he considered the Netherlands State to be liable was that, from his arrest in March 1998 until the end of December 2003, he had been subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment on account of the conditions of his detention, including “(continuous) sensory deprivation and insufficient social contact (extensive social isolation), humiliating and unnecessary strip-searches, frisking, [and] being prohibited ( inter alia ) from communicating in Kurdish with, for instance, his mother and children”. The applicant based this part of his claim on the Court’s findings in its judgments of 4 February 2003 in the cases of Van der Ven v. the Netherlands (no. 50901/99, ECHR 2003-II) and   Lorsé and Others v. the Netherlands (no. 52750/99), the findings of the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT) as set out in two reports (see paragraphs 46-47 below), a report drawn up on 10 October 2003 by academic researchers on the psychological impact of the EBI regime on the mental well-being of (former) inmates (see paragraph 23 below), and the report drawn up on 23 March 2004 by the psychiatrist R.J.P. Rijnders (see paragraph   18 above). These civil proceedings are currently pending before the Regional Court. II.     RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW AND PRACTICE A.     Weekly routine strip-searches in the EBI 20.     An overview of the relevant domestic law and practice is given in the Court’s judgment of 4 February 2003 in the case of Van der Ven v. the Netherlands (no. 50901/99, §§ 26-35, ECHR 2003-II) and in Baybaşın v. the Netherlands ((dec.), no. 13600/02, 6 October 2005). 21.     On 1 March 2003, in view of the Court’s findings in its judgments of 4 February 2003 in the cases of Van der Ven (cited above) and Lorsé and Others (cited above), the EBI house rules ( huisregels ) were amended, with the result that the practice of weekly routine strip-searches accompanying the weekly cell inspections was abandoned. Under the amended Article 6(4) of the EBI house rules, strip-searches could be carried out at random during or directly after a weekly cell inspection. 22.     As from 10 July 2003, pursuant to a ruling given on 7 July 2003 by the judge responsible for provisional measures ( voorzieningenrechter ) of the Hague Regional Court in summary injunction proceedings brought against the Netherlands State in June 2003 by thirteen EBI detainees, the random strip-searches were no longer linked to cell inspections and the EBI authorities from then on determined in the case of each individual detainee to what extent random strip ‑ searches were called for. The situation of each individual detainee is now discussed at the monthly EBI staff meeting on detainees. 23.     On 10 October 2003 researchers from the Free University of Amsterdam presented a report on a study, commissioned in January 2001 by the Minister of Justice, about the psychological impact of the EBI regime on the mental well-being of (former) inmates (see paragraphs 47-48 below). It concluded that the EBI regime affected the cognitive functioning of detainees in a negative manner, with particular reference to the speed of processing information and response inhibition. This was probably a result of the lack of stimuli in the detention situation. The report further concluded that the EBI regime caused more depression than a restricted community regime and that strip-searches were perceived as humiliating, constituting an extra burden for persons detained in the EBI. On the other hand, the EBI regime provided a better balance between rest and activity than a restricted community regime, as a result of which EBI detainees maintained a healthier life rhythm. In addition it had not been demonstrated that EBI detainees displayed more physical symptoms of persistent mental stress. B.     Civil actions for compensation in tort brought against the Netherlands State 1.     Judicial review by the civil courts of acts by public authorities 24.     Under Netherlands law the civil courts have traditionally had jurisdiction to grant relief against the authorities, if and in so far as no other relief is available. Where a person bases a claim against the authorities on an allegation that the latter have committed a tort within the meaning of Article 6:162 of the Dutch Civil Code ( Burgerlijk Wetboek ) against him or her, the civil courts have jurisdiction in principle. Where the civil courts have jurisdiction, they can also act in summary injunction proceedings ( kort geding ) in which a plaintiff can, inter alia , request the civil court to issue an order against the authorities. An act by the authorities is unlawful and constitutes a tort when it violates a right of the plaintiff or is contrary to a rule of international or domestic law which seeks to protect the plaintiff’s interests, or to general principles of proper administration ( algemene beginselen van behoorlijk bestuur ). An action in tort is subject to a limitation period of five years under Article 3:310 (1) of the Civil Code. 25.     However, as to the jurisdiction of the civil courts in cases where an administrative appeal lies, it is an established principle under Netherlands law that – given the closed system of legal remedies ( gesloten system van rechtsmiddelen ) in the Netherlands legal system – the civil court should refrain from examining the lawfulness of an administrative decision, provided that the administrative appeal offers sufficient guarantees as to a fair procedure. On this topic, extensive case-law has been developed by the Netherlands Supreme Court ( Hoge Raad ) over the last decades, supported by several authorities, to the effect that where an administrative appeal does not offer sufficient guarantees of a fair procedure, the civil courts have full jurisdiction to review the lawfulness of the administrative decision. On the other hand, a civil action should be declared inadmissible when another specific remedy exists which offers sufficient guarantees of fair proceedings (see Supreme Court, 12 December 1986, Nederlandse Jurisprudentie (Netherlands Law Reports – “NJ”) 1987, no. 381; see also Oerlemans v.   the   Netherlands , judgment of 27 November 1991, Series A no. 219, §§   21-35 and §§ 53-56). 26.     In a case in which it gave judgment on 3 December 1971, the Supreme Court examined the question whether a party which considers that it has been injured by a judicial ruling against it can bring a subsequent civil action in tort against the State arguing that the judge failed to act with due care in giving that ruling. The Supreme Court found that this was not possible, holding that it was solely for the legislature to decide in what cases a remedy was to be provided. It would be incompatible with this principle if an unsuccessful party were to have the possibility, via a civil action, of making the correctness of a [final] judicial ruling the subject matter of new proceedings, and thus to obtain a renewed examination in another manner than that provided for by statute. It added that only if the proceedings leading to a judicial decision had breached such fundamental legal principles ( fundamentele rechtsbeginselen ) that the case could no longer be said to have been determined in a fair and impartial manner, and if there was no possibility of appeal nor had there ever been such a possibility, could the State be held liable for the effects of such a ruling in a civil action in tort (NJ 1972, no. 137; see also Supreme Court, 29 April 1994, NJ 1995, no. 727; Court of Appeal of The Hague, 16 July 1998 and 12 November 1998, NJ 1999, nos. 256 and 127; and Court of Appeal of The Hague, 7   April 2000 and 18 May 2000, Administrative Law Reports ( Jurisprudentie Bestuursrecht ) 2000, nos. 147 and 142). 27.     In a judgment given on 3 April 1987 concerning civil proceedings taken against the Netherlands State by an association of detainees who wished to challenge a special restricted ‑ detention regime in a specific wing of the prison in The Hague, the Supreme Court held that, as individual detainees had available to them a specific remedy to challenge a transfer to the wing concerned (that is to say, the individual complaint procedure provided for in Article 51 et seq. of the Prison Act 1953 ( Beginselenwet Gevangeniswezen ) as in force at that time) and it was not in dispute that that remedy offered sufficient procedural safeguards, the plaintiff’s case had been correctly declared inadmissible, as the association had acted solely “in the context of promoting the interests of its members”, which were already safeguarded by the individual complaint procedure under Article 51 et seq. of the Prisons Act 1953 (NJ 1987, no. 744). 28.     In a judgment given on 1 February 1991 (NJ 1991, no. 413) in a civil action against the Netherlands State brought by a co ‑ accused of a successful applicant in Strasbourg ( Kostovski v. the Netherlands , judgment of 20   November 1989, Series A no. 166), the Supreme Court held: “It is embedded in the [Netherlands] legal system that a criminal court conviction against which an ordinary appeal can no longer be lodged not only should, but must, be executed. It is further incompatible with the closed system of legal remedies in criminal cases that a convicted person should have the opportunity, via a claim [for damage arising from tort] against the State, to bring a fresh set of legal proceedings challenging the decision of the criminal court or the acceptability of the [criminal] proceedings leading to the decision and to have [the subject matter of those proceedings] reviewed by the civil courts. Considering the obligations flowing from Articles 1, 5 and 13 [of the Convention] to secure the rights set out in Article 6 [of the Convention] and to provide an effective remedy in the event of a violation of those rights, an exception must be made to the above-mentioned rules should a ruling of the European Court [of Human Rights], which the criminal court judge could not take into account in his decision, prompt the conclusion that the decision had come about in such a manner that it could no longer be said that there had been a fair hearing of the case within the meaning of Article   6   §   1 [of the Convention]. When such an exceptional case occurs, immediate execution of the decision can no longer be regarded as permitted under the legal system, and the person convicted can institute interim injunction proceedings [before the civil court judge] seeking – depending on the circumstances – to have execution prohibited, suspended or limited. The nature of interim injunction proceedings and the reticence to be observed by the judge in interim injunction proceedings when examining the manner in which an irrevocable decision of the criminal court judge has come about, mean that there is scope for granting such a claim only when it is beyond reasonable doubt that the ruling of the European Court [of Human Rights] indeed requires that the above-mentioned conclusion be reached.” In this case, the Supreme Court accepted the Court of Appeal’s finding against the plaintiff in view of the fact that, when the impugned ruling was given on 22   December 1988, the Court had not yet delivered its judgment in the Kostovski case. 2.     Civil actions brought by persons detained in the EBI 29.     A number of persons detained in the EBI have in the past sought to bring interim injunction proceedings before the civil courts in order to have the regime, or certain aspects of it, relaxed (for further details, see Lorsé and Others , cited above, §§ 40-42). 3.     Revision of final criminal convictions 30.     On 1 January 2003 an amendment to Article 457 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ( Wetboek van Strafvordering – “the CCP”) entered into force, governing possible means of obtaining revision ( herziening ) of final judgments. This amendment extended the existing grounds on which a revision of a final conviction could be sought by including as a ground for revision a ruling by the European Court of Human Rights that the criminal proceedings leading to that conviction had been in violation of the Convention. The relevant part of the amended text of Article 457 of the CCP reads: “1. An application for revision of a final ruling ( eindbeslissing ) entailing a conviction which has obtained the force of res iudicata can be lodged: ... 3 o . on the ground of a ruling of the European Court of Human Rights in which it has been established that [the Convention or one of its Protocols] has been violated in the proceedings leading to the conviction ... if revision is necessary in order to secure reparation within the meaning of Article 41 of [the Convention].” A request for revision can be lodged with the Supreme Court by the Procurator-General, the convicted person or the latter’s lawyer within a period of three months after the convicted person has become aware of the Court’s ruling referred to in Article 457 (1), subparagraph 3 (Article 458 of the CCP). 31.     If the Supreme Court accepts a request for revision based on Article 457 (1), subparagraph 3, it can either itself determine the criminal charges after reopening of the criminal proceedings, or order the suspension of execution of the original judgment and remit the case for a fresh determination to a Court of Appeal different from the one that gave the original judgment (Article 567 (2) of the CCP). 4.     Domestic proceedings brought by applicants after proceedings under the Convention in which the Court found a violation of the Convention and in which it examined and determined claims by the applicants for just satisfaction under Article 41 of the Convention 32.     In its judgment of 23 April 1997 in the case of Van Mechelen and Others v. the Netherlands ( Reports 1997 ‑ III), the Court found a violation of the Convention in that the criminal proceedings against the four applicants had not been conducted in compliance with the requirements of Article   6   §§   1 and 3 (d) of the Convention. In its judgment it awarded each of the applicants an amount for costs and expenses and adjourned its examination of the applicants’ claim for non-pecuniary damage, considering that that part of the applicants’ claim for just satisfaction was not ready for decision. 33.     On 23 April 1997 the applicants in that case lodged a request for their immediate release from detention, failing which they would bring summary injunction proceedings against the State. On 25 April 1997 the Minister of Justice decided to grant them temporary release ( strafonderbreking ) and they were released from prison on the same day. 34.     The Court determined the applicants’ claims for non-pecuniary damage in its judgment of 30 October 1997 ( Van Mechelen and Others v. the Netherlands (Article 50), Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997 ‑ VII), in which it noted that under domestic law it was not possible for the applicants to obtain a retrial [1] . The applicants had claimed 250   Netherlands guilders (NLG) for each day spent in detention, resulting in total claims of between NLG 746,000 and NLG 752,500. After having examined the respondent Government’s comments on those claims, the Court awarded one applicant NLG 30,000 (13,613.41 euros (EUR)) and each of the three other applicants NLG 25,000 (EUR 11,344.51) for non-pecuniary damage, and rejected the remainder of the applicants’ claims for non-pecuniary damage. 35.     On 19 February 1999 the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, exercising its supervisory powers under the Convention as regards the execution of the Court’s judgments of 23 April 1997 and 30   October   1997, adopted a final resolution (Res DH(99)124) in the case. Having noted the measures taken by the Netherlands on the basis of the Court’s judgments, the Committee of Ministers concluded that the manner in which the Netherlands had executed both judgments was in compliance with their obligations under the Convention. 36.     On 29 April 1999 three of the four applicants brought a civil action in tort against the Netherlands State before the Hague Regional Court. They sought a declaratory ruling that the Netherlands State was liable for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage arising out of unlawful administration of justice in violation of their rights under Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d). They sought payment of compensation corresponding to NLG 250 for each day spent in detention, less the compensation amount awarded by the Court. They based their claims on the argument that, given the Court’s findings in its judgment of 23 April 1997, it had been established that in the domestic criminal proceedings against them the Netherlands judge had breached fundamental legal principles and that the resulting judgment and their detention had been unlawful. 37.     In its judgment of 5 July 2003, following appeal proceedings taken by the Netherlands State, the Hague Court of Appeal quashed the impugned judgment given on 17 January 2001 by the Regional Court, and for the time spent in detention (pre-trial and following conviction) awarded compensation for non-pecuniary damage to the first plaintiff in the amount of EUR 190,240, less EUR 13,613.41 already awarded by the Court. It awarded the second plaintiff EUR 127,120, less EUR 11,344.51 awarded by the Court, and the third plaintiff EUR 127,140, less EUR 11,344.51 awarded by the Court. The Court of Appeal held, inter alia , that: “The finding of the European Court [of Human Rights] that full redress ( volledige genoegdoening ) by means of a ‘retrial’ in the Netherlands is not possible, means that the European Court may award compensation on grounds of equity ( vergoeding naar billijkheid ), but not that in subsequent civil proceedings the domestic judge can no longer award full compensation for damage ( volledige schadevergoeding ). The State’s argument, that [the three plaintiffs] requested compensation for damage for the first time before the European Court and not previously before the domestic judge, and that the European Court would have taken into account in its judgment the same claims for damages ( schadeposten ) as those now in issue in the present procedure, fails because no rule exists prohibiting the bringing of a claim before the Netherlands judge seeking compensation for damage, a part of which – namely an award in equity – has already been awarded in separate proceedings before the European Court.” 38.     In its judgment of 18 March 2005 on the appeal on points of law brought by the Netherlands State against the ruling of 5 July 2003, the Supreme Court held that the State had been correct in not challenging this part of the reasoning in the impugned judgment. 39.     On 4 February 2003 the Court delivered its judgment in the case of Lorsé and Others (cited above), finding a violation of Article 3 of the Convention in respect of the applicant Lorsé in that, during his stay in the EBI of more than six years, the applicant – who was already subjected to a great number of control measures – had been subjected to weekly routine strip-searches without convincing security reasons. It found no violation in respect of the other grievances raised by Mr Lorsé and the other applicants (his spouse and his children) under Articles 3, 8 and 13 of the Convention. As regards damages, the applicants requested the Court to award them a symbolic amount of NLG 1,000 (EUR 453.78), stating that no amount of money would be capable of compensating for the harm suffered by them. Taking the view that Mr Lorsé had sustained some non-material damage on account of the treatment which had been found contrary to Article 3, the Court awarded him for non ‑ pecuniary damage EUR   453.78, that is to say, the full amount claimed under that head. 40.     On 6 February 2003 Mr Lorsé brought summary injunction proceedings against the Netherlands State before the judge responsible for provisional measures in the Civil Law Division of the Hague Regional Court, seeking an order against the State to cease with immediate effect the execution of the fifteen-year prison sentence that had been imposed on him, to release him immediately from prison and not to seek payment of the fine of NLG 1,000,000 (EUR 453,780.22) that had also been imposed. 41.     On 12 February 2003 the judge responsible for provisional measures ruled on the applicant’s request. This decision, in its relevant part, reads: “3.1. The plaintiff has an urgent interest in his claim. The civil court judge – in this case the judge responsible for provisional measures in summary injunction proceedings – is empowered to take cognisance [of the case], as the plaintiff claims that the State has acted unlawfully toward him by, inter alia, continuing his detention. 3.2. For the determination of the claim, it is a fact that the State has violated the applicant’s rights under Article 3.... 3.3. Under Article 41 of [the Convention] the applicant is entitled to reparation ( rechtsherstel ) in respect of this irreparable violation of the Convention. If need be, he can assert that right before the courts. The State is deemed to be acting unlawfully towards him if no suitable form of redress is provided. 3.4. The parties provide different answers to the question as to whether the measures requested by the plaintiff ... constitute a form of redress compatible with our legal system and, if so, whether those measures are suitable and appropriate in this case. 3.5. [The judge responsible for provisional measures rejects] the argument of the State that the closed system of legal remedies in criminal proceedings and the corresponding obligation of the State to execute rulings of the criminal courts, militate against this form of redress. In this system, no provision has been made to date for (a suitable response to) a violation of the kind at issue in the instant case. There have been no prior similar cases, and the possible occurrence of such cases has apparently not been taken into consideration in legislation or in existing case-law. In principle, early release or non-execution of a fine imposed may constitute a suitable form of redress for a violation of Article 3 of the Convention of the kind in issue. This exception to the closed system of legal remedies in criminal cases is, to that extent, consistent with the Supreme Court’s approach in its judgment of 1 February 1991 (NJ   1991, 413). 3.6. The State has referred to the financial compensation awarded by the [European Court of Human Rights] and to the just satisfaction which, in the case of the applicant, lies in the fact that his complaint was declared well-founded [by the European Court of Human Rights]. However, these two elements do not form a suitable, and certainly not a sufficient, form of redress for the plaintiff. Consequently, they do not stand in the way of the claims being allowed. The plaintiff can request the domestic judge to order that additional measures be taken. 3.7. In reply to a question, the State stated that it was possible, in this respect, to consider measures such as the plaintiff’s serving the remainder of his prison sentence under a less strict regime or the granting of a pardon in accordance with existing procedure. ... Again, these options do not form an obstacle to allowing the claims. The first option does not constitute sufficient redress in this case, while the option of a pardon corresponds to (a request for) a concession rather than the granting of a right, which is what is at issue here. 3.8. In these circumstances, the State should release the plaintiff earlier than June 2004 [when the plaintiff becomes eligible for early release] and waive the execution of the sentence in its entirety. Having regard to the nature of the violation of the Convention which is an established fact, a form of redress ( genoegdoening ) which relates to the applicant’s liberty is more suitable, and in any event warrants greater priority than waiving payment of the part of the fine still outstanding. 3.9. No fixed standard exists for ‘offsetting’ the remaining part of the plaintiff’s prison sentence. There are no pertinent reference points on the subject in the existing legislation. This means that the amount of the compensation must be determined on an equitable basis ( naar billijkheid ). The seriousness of the violation [of the Convention] justifies reduction of the sentence by a period equal to 10% of the number of days for which the applicant was subjected to the regime in the EBI... This amounts to a reduction of 230 days (round figure)... 3.10. On the basis of this solution, the plaintiff’s claim should be rejected. Indeed, the plaintiff has no urgent interest in a provisional measure which will only take effect after about nine months [when the applicant has served his mitigated sentence]... It is assumed that the State (the Minister of Justice) will execute this ruling and release the plaintiff at a time that can be determined precisely on the basis of the standard set out here. If need be, the plaintiff can apply again in due course to the judge responsible for provisional measures. 3.11. Each of the parties can in fact be deemed to have been ruled against.” 42.     Both parties agreed to lodge a direct “leapfrog” appeal on points of law ( sprongcassatie ) with the Supreme Court, which dismissed both appeals on 31 October 2003. Although it agreed with the Netherlands State that the judge responsible for provisional measures had incorrectly assumed that Article 41 of the Convention gave Mr Lorsé an (independent) right to redress which, if need be, could be asserted before the domestic judge, it held that this could not lead to the setting-aside of the judgment as, pursuant to the Convention, the State was obliged to provide redress. However, relying on the Court’s reasoning in the cases of Papamichalopoulos and Others v. Greece ((Article 50), judgment of 31 October 1995, Series A no.   330 ‑ B) and Scozzari and Giunta v. Italy ([GC], nos. 39221/98 and 41963/98, ECHR 2000 ‑ VIII), the Supreme Court considered that, although the State was in principle free to determine the manner in which redress was to be provided, that freedom did not mean that the domestic judge was u