Angelika Nußberger;Erik Møse;Mārtiņš Mits;Nona Tsotsoria;Rousseva;Síofra O’Leary;Yonko Grozev

NORP The applicant in both applications , Mr PERSON , is a NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in GPE . He was represented by PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE .

ORG ( “ the Government ” ) were represented by their Agent , PERSON of ORG .

The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties and established by ORG of its own motion on the basis of publicly available documents , may be summarised as follows .

Like other former communist countries in LOC , at the time of the communist regime ( DATE ) GPE had a security service , called ORG , CARDINAL of whose main tasks was to supress dissent against the regime . It chiefly operated by keeping people seen as dangerous to the regime under surveillance , which it carried out through a network of secret collaborators . At first , ORG was part of ORG . In DATE it was brought under the direct supervision of ORG , but in the period DATE was again placed under the umbrella of ORG . It was also directly accountable to ORG , ORG and Secretary General .

DATE , when it closed ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , ORG had CARDINAL directorates . The first dealt with intelligence ; the second with counterintelligence ; the third with military counterintelligence ; the fourth with technical and economic espionage ; the fifth with security and protection ; and the sixth with “ the fight against ideological diversion and anti - State acts ” . In addition to those directorates , there were CARDINAL standalone departments : investigation ; external surveillance and research ; records and archiving ; encryption and communications ; and military and combat readiness .

After DATE State Security ’s sixth directorate was composed of CARDINAL departments . The first was tasked with “ the fight against ideological diversion and other subversive activities of the enemy through the intelligentsia ” ; the second with “ the fight against ideological diversion and other subversive activities ” among graduate and postgraduate students ; the third with countering “ subversive activities of the enemy ” in religious organisations ; the fourth with supressing nationalist activities by various ethnic minorities ; and the fifth with countering the activities of NORP emigrant organisations . The sixth department ’s task was thwarting “ antiState activities ” . The seventh department dealt with information and analysis . In DATE a new department was added , the new seventh department , which made the former seventh department the eighth department . It was tasked with “ combatting terrorism , anonymous enemy activities and escapes ” and with tracking down “ State criminals ” . In DATE a new “ T ” ( terror ) unit was spun off from that department .

By section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of a secret DATE Instruction by the Minister of ORG , which remained in effect until the closing of the organisation in DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , ORG kept CARDINAL types of files . They fell into CARDINAL broad categories . The first consisted of CARDINAL types of files relating to targets : “ operative inquiry files ” , “ operative development files ” , “ operative tracing files ” , “ operative surveillance files ” , “ operative files ” , “ object development files ” and “ literal files ” . The second category comprised CARDINAL types of files relating to resources used by ORG : “ secret collaborator files ” and “ secret meeting LOC files ” .

Reference data about the files were recorded in several card indexes and registration journals ( sections CARDINAL of the DATE Instruction ) . Index no . CARDINAL contained cards relating to active and retired collaborators , people groomed for recruitment , and people whose recruitment had been aborted . Index no . CARDINAL contained similar cards to those in Index no . CARDINAL , but was ordered according to operative pseudonym , and Index no . CARDINAL contained cards relating to active collaborators arranged according to department , as well as secret LOC ( section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) ) . The other indexes contained cards relating to surveillance targets : dissidents , emigrants , “ anti - State ” groups , and so on ( section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) ) .

NORP In DATE , shortly after DATE of the communist regime in DATE , the ORG decided to close ORG .

At about the same time , noting the “ complicated political and operative situation ” , on DATE the Deputy Minister of ORG in charge of the Ministry ’s archive secretly proposed that a number of the files kept by ORG be destroyed . The Minister approved the proposal DATE . DATE , on CARDINAL DATE , the Deputy Minister secretly proposed that steps be taken to speed up the files’ destruction . The Minister approved the proposal DATE .

According to an inventory drawn up by ORG in DATE , that covert operation resulted in the destruction of CARDINAL of the total CARDINAL files kept by ORG .

NORP The applicant is a lawyer . He has been a member of ORG since DATE . DATE he was the Secretary General of ORG , and from DATE he was the Secretary General of ORG . DATE he was the liquidator of an insolvent bank . For DATE he was the Minister of ORG and Deputy Prime Minister in a caretaker government .

Government ministers must be checked for affiliation with the security services of the communist regime under section CARDINAL ) of the statute that lies at the heart of this case , the Access to and Disclosure of Documents and Exposure of ORG and ORG ( “ the CARDINAL Act ” – see paragraphs CARDINAL , DATE and CARDINAL below ) . Following an investigation into government ministers , on DATE the Commission administering the Act ( see paragraphs QUANTITY below ) issued a decision exposing the applicant as having been affiliated with the seventh department of the sixth directorate of ORG ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) DATE . It also put the decision on its website . The ORG relied on a registration form , an entry in the registration journal , an index card , a report on the applicant ’s recruitment , and a proposal to discharge him , the latter CARDINAL documents having been drawn up by the officer who , according to the records , had been the applicant ’s handler .

DATE , on DATE the applicant was able to consult these documents . Shortly after that he published them on his website .

He did not seek judicial review of the ORG ’s decision . According to him , this would have been pointless , as this was not an effective remedy .

DATE , on DATE a DATE newspaper published information about the applicant ’s exposure . DATE after that , on DATE the applicant wrote an article in a DATE newspaper in which , among other things , he denied having been a collaborator , said that he had been unaware of the existence of a file relating to him , and contested the truthfulness of the documents in that file , pointing out that all of them emanated from officers of ORG and that those officers might have put false information in them out of a wish to fill their recruitment quotas or for other ulterior motives . He also stated that he had not been particularly impressed or upset by the publication of the information about him .

Following an investigation into members of ORG – who must be checked for affiliation with the former security services under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the CARDINAL Act ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) – on DATE the Commission issued another decision exposing the applicant as having been affiliated with the seventh department of the sixth directorate of ORG ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) . It relied on the same documents as those serving as a basis for the DATE decision ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , plus CARDINAL index cards .

This time , the applicant sought judicial review . He argued that the ORG should only have exposed him if , having carefully examined the former security services’ records , it had been satisfied that they were sufficiently reliable and attested to actual collaboration on his part , which was not the case . ORG allowed the claim and quashed the ORG ’s decision . It agreed with the applicant ’s argument , and noted that the only records showing that he had been affiliated with the former security services were documents drawn up by the officer who had allegedly been his handler , entries in the registration journals , and index cards . Since those did not clearly prove that the applicant had actually collaborated with those services , the decision to expose him had been unlawful ( реш. № CARDINAL от CARDINAL г. по адм. д. № ORG г. , ORG ) .

The Commission appealed on points of law . In a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ( реш. № DATE от CARDINAL г. по адм. д. № DATE г. , ВАС , III о. ) , ORG reversed the lower court ’s judgment . It noted that the ORG ’s first decision to expose the applicant in DATE had not been challenged by him and had become final , and that the applicant ’s claim for judicial review of the third decision to expose him in DATE had already been dismissed in a final judgment ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above and CARDINAL below ) . Those facts were crucial for the determination of the case , and in the light of those facts it had to be concluded that the exposure at issue was lawful .

Following an investigation into the board members of private companies which had bought parts of ORG - owned companies – who must be checked for affiliation with the former security services under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW , as amended in DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) – on DATE the ORG issued a third decision exposing the applicant as having been affiliated with the seventh department of the sixth directorate of ORG ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) . It relied on the same documents as those serving as a basis for the DATE decision ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

NORP The applicant again sought judicial review . He raised the same arguments as those that he had made with respect to the ORG ’s second decision in relation to him ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . This time , however , ORG upheld the ORG ’s decision . Relying on ORG prevailing caselaw under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW and ORG decision to uphold the constitutionality of that provision ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and DATE below ) , GPE held that the Commission did not have to check whether the applicant had in fact collaborated or consented to be recruited as a collaborator , but had been bound to expose him , as it had found records relating to him . It was immaterial whether or not there was enough evidence to show that he had actually collaborated ( реш. № DATE от CARDINAL г. по адм. д. № CARDINAL/CARDINAL г. , АС-София-град ) .

The applicant appealed on points of law , reiterating his arguments . In a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ( реш. № DATE от CARDINAL г. по адм. д. № CARDINAL/CARDINAL г. , PERSON , ORG ) , ORG upheld the lower court ’s judgment , fully agreeing with its reasoning . It likewise held that since the CARDINAL Act did not provide for the exposure of the actual activities of those concerned , but simply the exposure of their affiliation with the former security services , the Commission did not have to assess the nature or extent of their collaboration or establish their actual activities .

Since DATE the applicant has been a member of the supervisory board of ORG , an investment company listed on the alternative - market segment of ORG . He is still a member of ORG .

NORP In DATE the applicant published an article in a DATE newspaper in which he commented on the rules governing the use of firearms by the police .

In DATE he was appointed a member of the civil society council assisting a parliamentary committee tasked with drafting a new LAW . In DATE he gave a radio interview on his work there .

DATE he took part in several television and radio programmes where he was invited , in his capacity as former Minister of Justice , to comment on problems in the judicial system and possible ways of reforming it . In DATE he co - signed an open letter in which a number of lawyers and public figures expressed their indignation at the work of ORG .

Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL of the DATE LAW provides that international treaties which have been ratified and promulgated and have come into force with respect to GPE are part of domestic law and take precedence over any conflicting provisions of domestic legislation .

Article CARDINAL of the LAW enshrines the right to protection of one ’s private life and some related rights in the following terms :

“ CARDINAL . Citizens’ private life shall be inviolable . All shall be entitled to protection against unlawful interferences with their private or family life and against infringements of their honour , dignity or good name .

No one may be placed under surveillance , photographed , filmed , recorded , or subjected to any similar action without his or her knowledge or in spite of his or her express disagreement , save in the cases provided for by law . ”

In defamation cases , the courts have held that infringement of the rights set out in LAW is a tort ( see реш. № CARDINAL от CARDINAL г. по в. гр. д. № CARDINAL/CARDINAL г. , ORG , and реш. № CARDINAL от CARDINAL.CARDINAL.CARDINAL г. по в. гр. д. № DATE г. , ORG ) . ORG has done the same in a case concerning unauthorised filming ( see реш. № CARDINAL от CARDINAL г. по гр. д. № CARDINAL г. , ORG , IV-Б г. о. ) .

Article CARDINAL of the LAW enshrines the right to information in the following terms :

“ CARDINAL . Everyone shall have the right to seek , receive and impart information . The exercise of that right may not be directed against the rights and the good name of other citizens or against national security , public order , public health or morals .

NORP Citizens shall have the right to information from ORG bodies or agencies on any matter of legitimate interest to them , unless the information is a ORG secret or a secret protected by law or affects the rights of others . ”

Article CARDINAL of the LAW enshrines the right to a remedy in the following terms :

“ Every citizen shall have the right to a remedy if his or her rights or legitimate interests have been infringed or threatened . ... ”

Article CARDINAL of the LAW provides for judicial review of administrative action in the following terms :

“ CARDINAL . The courts shall review the lawfulness of the administrative authorities’ decisions and actions .

NORP Citizens and legal persons may seek judicial review of any administrative decision which affects them , save as expressly specified by statute . ”

In DATE members of parliament put forward several bills providing for the lustration of ex - communist cadres and collaborators of the former security services . CARDINAL bills seeking to bar ex - communist cadres from holding any public office did not reach a plenary vote . CARDINAL more limited ones were enacted : paragraph CARDINAL of the transitional and concluding provisions of ORG , which barred such persons from holding executive positions in commercial banks for DATE ; a new section DATE of LAW DATE , which provided that time served in an executive position in the former ORG and its related outfits would not count for retirement pension purposes ; and an LAW Provisionally Laying Down Certain Additional Requirements for the Management of Scientific Organisations DATE , which barred ex - communist cadres and collaborators of the former security services from holding posts in academia . All CARDINAL provisions were immediately challenged before ORG . The court struck down the first and the second on the basis that they were discriminatory and interfered disproportionately with the fundamental rights to choose one ’s profession and receive a pension ( see реш. № CARDINAL от CARDINAL г. по к. д. № CARDINAL/CARDINAL г. , КС , обн. , GPE , бр. MONEY г. , and реш. № CARDINAL от CARDINAL г. по к. д. № DATE г. , КС , обн. , GPE , бр. DATE г. ) . LAW survived the constitutional challenge ( see реш. № CARDINAL от CARDINAL г. по к. д. № CARDINAL г. , PERSON , обн. , GPE , бр. CARDINAL г. ) , but was repealed DATE .

Lustration initiatives were resumed in DATE , with the enactment of paragraph CARDINAL ) of the additional provisions of LAW , which barred ex - communist cadres and staff members or collaborators of the former security services from holding executive posts in ORG administration for DATE , and sections PERSON ) and CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(CARDINAL ) of ORG DATE , which barred such persons from working in the media regulatory authority and in management at ORG . The first provision was declared unconstitutional , chiefly on the basis that it was discriminatory and interfered disproportionately with the fundamental right to work ( see реш. № CARDINAL от CARDINAL г. по к. д. № DATE г. , КС , обн. , GPE , бр. CARDINAL г. ) . The CARDINAL others survived an initial constitutional challenge ( see реш. № CARDINAL от CARDINAL г. по к. д. № DATE г. , КС , обн. , GPE , бр. MONEY г. ) , but were struck down by the Constitutional Court DATE , again chiefly on the basis that they were discriminatory and interfered disproportionately with the right to work ( see реш. № CARDINAL от CARDINAL г. по к. д. № CARDINAL/CARDINAL г. , PERSON , обн. , GPE , бр. CARDINAL/CARDINAL г. ) .

A third wave of lustration laws were passed DATE . The first lustration law , Rule CARDINAL of LAW , barred members of parliament who had been collaborators of the former security services from serving in ORG ’s presidency , from acting as presidents or deputy presidents of parliamentary committees or members of certain key committees , and from becoming members of international parliamentary delegations . The second law , sections CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) , ORG ) and CARDINAL ) of LAW DATE , as amended in DATE , barred such collaborators from serving as ambassadors , deputy ambassadors or general consuls , or from holding certain executive posts in ORG administration . The third law , section PERSON ) of ORG Act DATE , barred collaborators from holding the posts of general director , deputy general director or secretary general of that agency . DATE all those provisions were declared unconstitutional , on the same basis as that declared previously : that they were discriminatory and interfered disproportionately with the fundamental right to work ( see реш. № CARDINAL от CARDINAL.CARDINAL.CARDINAL г. по к. д. № CARDINAL г. , КС , обн. , GPE , бр. CARDINAL г. ; реш. № CARDINAL от CARDINAL г. по к. д. № CARDINAL г. , КС , обн. , GPE , бр. ORG г. ; and реш. № CARDINAL от CARDINAL г. по к. д. № CARDINAL г. , КС , обн. , GPE , бр. CARDINAL/CARDINAL г. ) .

On DATE the Seventh ORG ( “ the ORG ” ) – the first democratically elected legislature after the fall of the communist regime in DATE resolved to set up an ad hoc committee to inquire whether any ORG members had been collaborators of the regime ’s security services . The committee , called ORG after its chairman , submitted its report to ORG on DATE . However , following a leak in the press of the names of CARDINAL ORG members who had allegedly been such collaborators , a scandal erupted in the ORG on DATE , and the committee was disbanded without completing its work .

In a decision of CARDINAL DATE ( обн. , GPE , бр. CARDINAL/CARDINAL г. ) , ORG decreed that information about agents of the former security services relating to the period before DATE was not a ORG secret . However , in the absence of legal provisions specifying the manner in which this information could be made public , the decision did not lead to any specific steps .

In DATE ORG passed an LAW of the Former ORG and the Former ORG of the General Staff Act – providing that some ORG officials ( the President and Vice - President , ministers and deputy ministers , members of parliament , ORG judges , members of ORG , judges of ORG and ORG , prosecutors in ORG , regional governors , heads of some executive and regulatory agencies , and the directors general of ORG , ORG and ORG ) and the executives of ORG - owned banks and insurance companies were to be checked for affiliation with the former security services . By DATE , the check was to be carried out by a commission chaired by the Minister of ORG and comprising the heads of the various intelligence services .

CARDINAL members of parliament almost immediately challenged the constitutionality of the entire Act . In DATE ORG dismissed the bulk of the application , but , despite the dissent of CARDINAL judges , struck down the provisions concerning the investigations into the President , the Vice - President and ORG judges . It held that it would be unconstitutional for them to be checked for affiliation by a commission controlled by the executive . Despite the dissent of CARDINAL judges , the court also struck down the provision concerning people who only featured in the former security services’ secondary records DATE the card indexes and registration journals ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . It held that these records were not sufficient proof that those people had collaborated , and that this could only be proved with documents emanating from the alleged collaborators themselves . Although the files’ partial destruction had restricted the efforts to uncover such documents , the difficulty was not insurmountable , and the burden to do so fell on the State ( see реш. № CARDINAL от CARDINAL г. по к. д. № CARDINAL г. , КС , обн. , GPE , бр. CARDINAL/CARDINAL г. ) . It later transpired that CARDINAL judges from the majority had themselves been collaborators ( see paragraph DATE below ) ; they had not declared that when dealing with the case .

NORP In DATE the LAW was amended , with ORG taking on board the criticisms levelled by ORG : the amendment made the commission administering the LAW independent from the executive , and specifically stated that the card indexes and registration journals ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) were not categorical proof of affiliation . LAW survived a further constitutional challenge ( see реш. № CARDINAL от CARDINAL.CARDINAL.CARDINAL г. по к. д. № CARDINAL/CARDINAL г. , PERSON , обн. , GPE , бр. CARDINAL г. ) , but was repealed just over DATE in DATE . A constitutional challenge to the repealing LAW , chiefly based on its alleged discrepancy with the constitutional right to information , was dismissed ( see реш. № CARDINAL от CARDINAL г. по к. д. № CARDINAL/CARDINAL г. , КС , обн. , GPE , бр. MONEY г. ) .

In DATE ORG added a new subsection CARDINAL to CARDINAL of LAW DATE . It provided that all mayoral and municipal councillor candidates were to be checked for affiliation to the former security services in the manner provided for by LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , and that the results of the investigation were to be given to the political parties or coalitions which had nominated them , so that they could decide whether to withdraw the nominations . The ORG unanimously dismissed a challenge to that provision , holding that it did not strip candidates of the right to run for office , but simply enabled the parties or coalitions which had put the candidates forward to see whether to keep them on the ballot ( see реш. № CARDINAL от CARDINAL г. по к. д. № CARDINAL г. , обн. GPE , бр. CARDINAL/CARDINAL г. ) . ORG for ORG instructed local electoral commissions to make the results of such investigations public , but ORG quashed that decision , holding that it impermissibly extended the purview of section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) ( see реш. № CARDINAL от CARDINAL г. по адм. д. № CARDINAL/ DATE г. , ORG , ORG ) . The provision was repealed in DATE , alongside LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

Paragraph CARDINAL of the transitional and concluding provisions of the Election of Members of Parliament Act DATE provided for a similar investigation into parliamentary candidates , but only at the request of the political parties or coalitions which had nominated them . By section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the LAW , a party or a coalition could withdraw a candidate revealed by such an investigation to have been a collaborator of the former security services . ORG directed that the results of the investigation could be provided by the ORG under LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) by means of a full report or a simple certificate . ORG quashed that decision in part , holding that the only lawful means of establishing that someone had been a collaborator was via a full report , not a certificate ( see реш. № CARDINAL от CARDINAL г. по адм. д. № DATE г. , PERSON , ORG ) . Both provisions were repealed in DATE , alongside LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

A new section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the DATE Act , added in DATE , provided that ORG – the body overseeing the storage and use of classified information – had to check whether parliamentary candidates were affiliated to the former security services , and give the results of the investigation to the leadership of the political party or coalition which had nominated the candidates . The provision was repealed in DATE .

In DATE , shortly before GPE ’s accession to ORG , there was fresh impetus to reveal the identities of staff members and collaborators of the former security services . In DATE and DATE members of parliament introduced CARDINAL separate bills to this effect . In DATE ORG ’s ORG and its ORG reviewed the bills and , by large majorities , proposed that they be examined jointly and approved at first reading . DATE ORG debated the bills , which were supported during the discussion by all major parliamentary parties , and approved them at first reading . The first bill was approved by CARDINAL votes to CARDINAL , with CARDINAL abstentions , the second by CARDINAL votes to CARDINAL , with CARDINAL abstentions , and the third by CARDINAL votes to CARDINAL , with CARDINAL abstentions . The second reading , at which stage the bills had been consolidated into one , took place DATE in DATE and DATE . Nearly all provisions of the consolidated bill were adopted almost unanimously . In particular , the provisions which laid down the sources of information that could be used to establish affiliation with the former security services ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL below ) were adopted by CARDINAL votes to nil , with CARDINAL abstentions , following a lengthy debate and the rejection of CARDINAL alternative proposals .

The Act , whose full name was the Access to and Disclosure of Documents and Exposure of the Affiliation of Bulgarian Citizens to State Security and the Intelligence Services of ORG , was published in ORG on DATE and came into effect on DATE .

By sections CARDINAL ) and CARDINAL ) of the LAW ( the latter provision ’s wording was amended in DATE ) , all those who have held specified “ public office ” or engaged in a specified “ public activity ” at any point since CARDINAL DATE the date on which the communist regime in GPE is deemed to have fallen – must be checked for affiliation with the former security services , and exposed if found to have been so affiliated . By section CARDINAL ) , everyone who accedes to “ public office ” or engages in a “ public activity ” in the future must also be checked for affiliation .

The list of the types of “ public office ” – similar to that in LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , but more extensive – was set out in section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) . At first , it comprised : ( a ) the President and Vice - President ; ( b ) members of parliament and of ORG ; ( c ) the Prime Minister , his or her deputies , ministers , and deputy ministers ; ( d ) judges of ORG ; ( e ) the PERSON , the Deputy PERSON and the secretary general of the PERSON ’s administration ; ( f ) chairpersons and deputy chairpersons of ORG agencies , and members of ORG commissions ; ( g ) judges , prosecutors and investigators ; ( h ) members of ORG ; ( i ) members of ORG ; ( j ) members of ORG ; ( k ) chairpersons , deputy chairpersons , members of the management and supervisory boards , directors , deputy directors , and heads of unit and sector of ORG , ORG , ORG , and ORG ; ( l ) executive directors of executive agencies and heads of ORG institutions created by statute or by decision of ORG , as well as their deputies ; ( m ) members of the management and supervisory boards of ORG and ORG ; ( n ) secretaries general , general directors , deputy general directors , main directors , deputy main directors , directors , deputy directors , heads of local police departments , heads of unit , and heads of sector of ORG ; ( o ) heads and deputy heads of ORG , and heads and deputy heads of staff of the different types of troops ; ( p ) directors , deputy directors , directorate directors , heads of unit and heads of sector of military intelligence , the military police and the military counterintelligence services of ORG , ORG , and ORG ; ( q ) regional governors and their deputies ; ( r ) mayors and their deputies , as well as secretaries of municipalities and municipal councillors ; ( s ) chairpersons , deputy chairpersons , general directors , members of the management and supervisory boards , members , and heads of directorates , units or sectors of ORG , ORG , ORG , and ORG ; ( t ) members of the central electoral commissions ; ( u ) the head of ORG attached to ORG ; ( w ) members of the political cabinets of the Prime Minister , his or her deputies , or ministers ; ( x ) ambassadors , consuls general and deputy heads of diplomatic missions ; ( y ) secretaries general , directors , heads of unit and sector of ORG administration , as well as staff members attached to ORG ’s standing committees ; ( z ) secretaries general , head of cabinet , secretaries , and heads of unit and sector of the President ’s administration ; ( aa ) secretaries general , directors general , deputy directors general , main directors , deputy main directors , directors , deputy directors , and heads of unit and sector in the central and territorial administration of the executive power ; ( ab ) members of ORG ; ( ac ) people employed by ORG , ORG , or any other international organisation of which GPE is member or in whose activities it takes part ; and ( ad ) people holding office to which they were appointed by the President , ORG , ORG , or the Prime Minister .

In DATE , DATE and DATE the list underwent modifications related to the changes in structure of the authorities concerned . In DATE ORG expanded it to include ( a ) investigating police , military police and customs officers , and ( b ) members of the scientific councils of scientific organisations , such as universities . In DATE ORG expanded the list further , to include ( a ) municipal ombudspersons and their deputies ; ( b ) lay judges ; ( c ) secretaries general and directorate directors of ORG ; ( d ) chairpersons , deputy chairpersons , members , secretaries general and directorate directors of ORG and ORG ; ( e ) chief architects of municipalities and local mayoral deputies ; and ( f ) members of the regional and municipal electoral commissions .

NORP The list of “ public activities ” was set out in section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) . At first , it comprised ( a ) owners , directors , deputy directors , editors - in - chief , deputy editors - in - chief , members of editorial boards , political commentators , presenters and newspaper or electronic media columnists , as well as owners and managers of sociological agencies , advertising firms or public - relations firms ; ( b ) the chairperson , deputy chairpersons , main scientific secretary , members of the management boards , directors , deputy directors , and scientific secretaries of ORG and its scientific institutes and other independent units ; ( c ) rectors and deans , their deputies , heads of branches and departments , and heads of cathedrae ( faculty subdivisions ) of ORG - owned and private colleges and universities , as well as heads and deputy heads of schools ; ( d ) managers , executive directors , and members of the management and supervisory boards of health - care institutions , as well as chairpersons , deputy chairpersons , secretaries general and members of the management boards of ORG and ORG , as well as the chairperson , the director general and the deputy directors general of ORG ; ( e ) chairpersons , deputy chairpersons and registered members of the management and supervisory bodies of political parties and coalitions , trade unions , ORG unions , and other not - for - profit legal entities ; ( f ) heads and members of the management bodies of religious communities ; ( g ) chairpersons , deputy chairpersons and members of ORG , ORG , and ORG ; ( h ) chairpersons and members of the management and supervisory bodies of national sport organisations and ORG ; ( i ) members of the management , controlling and supervisory bodies and representatives of banks , insurance and reinsurance companies , stock exchanges , companies organising unofficial securities markets , investment brokers , and investment companies ; ( j ) sole traders , as well as members of the management , controlling and supervisory bodies and representatives of companies engaging in gambling ; ( k ) sole traders , as well as members of the management , controlling and supervisory bodies and representatives of companies providing long - distance communication services ; ( l ) sole traders , as well as the members of the management , controlling and supervisory bodies and representatives of companies which are radio or television operators ; and ( m ) persons authorised to act as the liquidators of insolvent companies or banks .

In DATE ORG expanded this list to include ( a ) media company managers ; ( b ) founders of not - for - profit legal entities ; ( c ) members of the management , controlling and supervisory bodies of privatised ORG and municipal companies , members of the managing or supervisory bodies of private companies or sole traders which have acquired shares in , or parts of , such privatised companies , and members of privatisation funds ; and ( d ) some categories of defaulting debtors of banks which had become insolvent in DATE . In DATE ORG expanded the list further , to include ( a ) chairpersons and deputy chairpersons of the general meetings of universities and faculties ; ( b ) chairpersons , deputy chairpersons and members of Bar councils , Bar budget councils and Bar disciplinary courts ; ( c ) chairpersons and members of the management and supervisory bodies of licensed sport organisations ; ( d ) individuals who have acquired shares in , or parts of , privatised companies ; ( e ) special administrators of banks appointed by ORG ; ( f ) members of the management , controlling and supervisory bodies of ORG and municipal companies , companies in which the ORG or a municipality holds CARDINAL or more of the shares , and subsidiary companies in which such companies hold CARDINAL or more of the shares ; and ( g ) various categories of suspected insider debtors of insolvent banks .

By section CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(CARDINAL ) , anyone who has been registered as a candidate for the office of President , Vice - President , member of parliament , member of ORG , mayor or municipal councillor must likewise be checked for affiliation with the former security services . By section PERSON ) , added in DATE , anyone who becomes a candidate for any type of “ public office ” must likewise be checked .

By section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) , added in DATE , anyone recommended for an order or a medal must be checked as well , and by section CARDINAL ) of the Orders and Medals Act DATE , also added in DATE , any recommendation that the President confer an order or a medal must be accompanied by the results of that check . The DATE private member ’s bill which led to the enactment of those provisions initially proposed to bar anyone found to have been affiliated with the former security services from receiving an order or a medal . It was , however , modified by ORG between the first and second reading to provide for a mere check for such affiliation .

By section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) and section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) and ( CARDINAL ) , the check is carried out by a special Commission .

This Commission has CARDINAL members elected by ORG for DATE ( section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) ) . Before being voted on , candidates must undergo a security check and be heard by ORG ’s ORG ( section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) to ( CARDINAL ) ) . ORG then votes on each candidature , and elects the ORG ’s chairperson , deputy chairperson and secretary ( section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) ) .

No political party may have a majority in the ORG ( section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) ) . Only people enjoying public trust and authority are eligible to serve on it ( section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) ) . During their term , the ORG ’s members may not hold elected office or be in a management position in a political party or professional organisation ( section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) and ( CARDINAL ) ) . They may only be removed from office before the end of their term if they cease to fulfil the eligibility requirements ( section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) ) .

The first Commission members were elected by ORG in DATE . After the expiry of their initial DATE term of office , in DATE CARDINAL of the original CARDINAL members were re - elected by ORG for another DATE term , and CARDINAL new members were elected .

By sections CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) and CARDINAL , the Commission was given custody of the archives of the former security services , which were to be centralised under its control . By sections CARDINAL and paragraph CARDINAL of the Act ’s transitional and concluding provisions , all public authorities which had records of those services in their custody had to turn them over to the Commission within DATE of the LAW ’s entry into force . The ORG ’s task was then to go through those records and check whether the people who had held any of the types of “ public office ” set out in section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the LAW , or engaged in any of the “ public activities ” set out in section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above ) , featured in them ( section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) ) .

The question of whether someone was to be exposed as having been affiliated with the former security services was governed by sections DATE and CARDINAL . By section CARDINAL , as originally enacted , those who had been staff members or collaborators of those services were to be considered as affiliated to them . Section CARDINAL , as originally enacted , provided that this was to be established on the basis of documents contained in the services’ records . It then set out , in subsections CARDINAL , CARDINAL and DATE , the types of documents capable of proving service as , respectively , a regular staff member , a supernumerary staff member , or a collaborator . By paragraph CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the Act ’s additional provisions , a “ document ” is any recorded information , regardless of the medium used to record the information , and includes information in automated and complex information systems and databases .

In DATE , in the wake of an unsuccessful constitutional challenge to section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) , the subsection concerning collaborators ( see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) , ORG deleted section DATE and moved part of it , in a slightly amended form , to section CARDINAL . The explanatory notes to the bill proposing this amendment said that it would clarify a point made by ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) – that the ORG ’s task was not to examine the real activities of those whom it checked for affiliation with the former security services , but simply to see whether a record of them being affiliated with those services existed . The amendment came into force on DATE .

By section GPE ) and ( CARDINAL ) , as worded since the DATE amendment , someone ’s affiliation to the former security services as a regular or supernumerary staff member can be established on the basis of organisational charts , payrolls , or data in his or her personal file .

Paragraph CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) and ( CARDINAL ) of the additional provisions define “ regular staff members ” as NORP nationals formally employed by the former security services as operatives or investigators , and “ supernumerary staff members ” as NORP nationals drafted in by those services to carry out tasks and assignments relating to their mandate .

By CARDINAL ) , as worded since the DATE amendment , someone ’s affiliation to the former security services as a collaborator can be established on the basis of : ( a ) handwritten or signed collaboration declarations ; ( b ) handwritten surveillance reports ; ( c ) remuneration documents ; ( d ) documents handwritten or signed by the collaborator and contained in a surveillance file ; ( e ) documents drawn up by the officer who was the collaborator ’s handler ; and ( f ) data about the collaborator in the registration journals , card indexes , records relating to the destruction of files , or other sources .

Paragraph CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the additional provisions defines “ secret collaborators ” as NORP nationals who have covertly assisted the former security services as residents , agents , keepers of secret meeting LOC , keepers of covert operative LOC , trusted persons , or informers . All these categories were taken from the internal instructions of the former security services .

A Commission decision exposing staff members must set out their names , dates and places of birth , all documents pertaining to their career , the departments where they have worked , and the “ public office ” or “ public activity ” which they held or engaged in at the time of the investigation ( section CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(CARDINAL ) ) .

A Commission decision exposing collaborators must set out their names , dates and places of birth , the names of the officers who recruited them and acted as their handlers , the exact capacity in which they collaborated , their operative pseudonyms , the documents showing their affiliation , the time of their discharge , and the “ public office ” or “ public activity ” which they held or engaged in at the time of the investigation ( section CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(CARDINAL ) ) . By section ORG ) , if information about someone is only found in the card indexes and registration journals ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , the lack of other data must specifically be mentioned in the ORG ’s decision .

The Commission must notify those concerned of its findings and then , within DATE of completing the investigation , publish the findings on its website , and later in its bulletin ( sections CARDINAL ) and PERSON ) ) . The individuals concerned must also be given , upon request , access to the documents in their personal and professional files ( section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) ) . Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) , added in DATE , provides that the documents which have served as a basis for the ORG ’s decision must likewise be published on its website .

Those born after DATE are exempt from being checked ( section CARDINAL ) ) . Those who only collaborated before turning DATE or who are dead at the time of the investigation are not to be exposed ( section CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(CARDINAL ) and ( CARDINAL)(CARDINAL ) ) . The same goes for those who , when notified of the discovery of information showing that they collaborated , withdraw their candidacy for office ( section CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(CARDINAL ) ) , unless they have already been formally registered as election candidates ( section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) ) .

DATE . The Commission gave its first decision on DATE . It has thus far checked CARDINAL people and exposed CARDINAL of them , including a President of the Republic , CARDINAL judges in ORG , CARDINAL members of parliament , CARDINAL government ministers , and a number of prominent politicians , journalists , lawyers , businessmen , academics and religious figures . Though some of those exposed have retreated from public life following their exposure , many continue to be active in politics , government , the media , academia and business .

By DATE , documents showing affiliation with the former security services may not be published or disclosed in any other way . LAW , added in DATE , makes such disclosure a criminal offence .

The Commission ’s decision to expose someone is amenable to review by ORG , whose judgment is , in turn , amenable to an appeal on points of law before ORG ( sections CARDINAL ) , DATE ) ( formerly CARDINAL ) ) , and CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) ) . Although the LAW is silent as to whether a claim for judicial review has suspensive effect , in practice it has no such effect , as the lodging of such a claim does not delay publication of the ORG ’s decision , which is published on its website DATE it is issued .

There are many cases in which those exposed have sought judicial review . The chief point of contention in most of them was whether the records on which ORG had relied under section CARDINAL of the Act ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and DATE above ) to establish affiliation with the former security services were sufficiently probative . The usual argument of those exposed was that the available evidence did not show that they had really collaborated , but only that their names featured in the records . ORG has thus far decided CARDINAL such cases . With CARDINAL isolated exceptions in DATE ( реш. № CARDINAL от CARDINAL г. по адм. д. № DATE г. , ВАС , III о. , and реш. № CARDINAL от CARDINAL г. по адм. д. № CARDINAL/CARDINAL г. , PERSON , ORG ) , since DATE , when it started hearing applications for judicial review under the LAW , it has consistently held that the ORG does not have to check whether the records show that someone has in fact collaborated , or whether the information in those records is rebutted by other evidence . Rather , the ORG must simply note the information , even if it features in only one record , and make it public , having no discretion in the matter . Its task is limited to documentary fact - finding and its decisions are purely declaratory . This is because the LAW does not purport to sanction or lustrate staff members and collaborators of the former security services , but simply to reveal the available information about all publicly active people featuring in the records of those services as staff members or collaborators , with a view to restoring public confidence and preventing those people from being blackmailed ( see , among many others , реш. № DATE от CARDINAL.CARDINAL.CARDINAL г. по адм. д. № CARDINAL/CARDINAL г. , ORG , ORG ; реш. № CARDINAL от CARDINAL г. по адм. д. № DATE г. , PERSON , III о. ; MONEY от CARDINAL г. по адм. д. № DATE г. , PERSON , ORG ; реш. № CARDINAL от ORG г. по адм. д. № DATE г. , PERSON , ORG ; реш. № DATE от CARDINAL г. по адм. д. № DATE г. , ВАС , III о. ; реш. № DATE от CARDINAL г. по адм. д. № DATE г. , PERSON , ORG ; реш. № DATE от CARDINAL.CARDINAL.CARDINAL г. по адм. д. № CARDINAL г. , PERSON , ORG ; реш. № CARDINAL от CARDINAL г. по адм. д. № DATE г. , PERSON , ORG ; реш. № CARDINAL от CARDINAL г. по адм. д. № DATE г. , PERSON , ORG ; реш. № CARDINAL от CARDINAL г. по адм. д. № DATE г. , PERSON , ORG ; and реш. № DATE от CARDINAL г. по адм. д. № DATE г. , PERSON , ORG ) . Even the second case in which ORG departed from this case - law in DATE was ultimately decided in line with the prevailing approach ( see реш. № CARDINAL от CARDINAL г. по адм. д. № CARDINAL/CARDINAL г. , ORG ) .

Attempts to mount indirect challenges to the ORG ’s decisions by way of claims for declaratory judgment in the administrative and the civil courts have failed , on the basis that judicial review is the only possible remedy ( see опр. № CARDINAL от CARDINAL г. по адм. д. № CARDINAL г. , PERSON , ORG ; реш. № DATE от CARDINAL.CARDINAL.CARDINAL г. по адм. д. № CARDINAL/CARDINAL г. , PERSON , ORG ; and опр. № CARDINAL от CARDINAL г. по ч. гр. д. № DATE г. , ORG , I г. о. ) .

Nor is it possible to seek damages under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the ORG and ORG DATE , which provides for State liability for damage suffered as a result of unlawful administrative action , unless the ORG ’s decision has been quashed ( see опр. № ORG от CARDINAL.CARDINAL.CARDINAL г. по адм. д. № DATE г. , PERSON , ORG ) or is void ( see реш. № DATE от CARDINAL г. по адм. д. № DATE г. , PERSON , ORG ) . CARDINAL case in which damages were awarded under that provision concerned an exposed person who had successfully challenged the ORG ’s decision by way of judicial review , chiefly on the basis that he did not fall within the categories of people who were subject to exposure under LAW ( see реш. № CARDINAL от CARDINAL г. по адм. д. № CARDINAL г. , ORG , and реш. № DATE от CARDINAL г. по адм. д. № CARDINAL/CARDINAL г. , PERSON , ORG ) . In a case in which ORG had wrongly exposed someone as affiliated with the former security services and then retracted its decision but not published the retraction on its website swiftly enough , that person was likewise able to obtain damages under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW ( see реш. № DATE от CARDINAL г. по адм. д. № CARDINAL/CARDINAL г. , PERSON , ORG ) .

NORP In DATE a panel of ORG acceded to an application by a claimant to refer section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) to ORG ( see опр. № DATE от GPE г. по адм. д. № CARDINAL/CARDINAL г. , PERSON , ORG ) .

NORP In DATE the Constitutional Court admitted the referral for examination , and invited several ORG authorities and non - governmental organisations to comment on the case ( see опр. от CARDINAL г. по к. д. № CARDINAL/CARDINAL г. , КС ) . ORG , the Minister of ORG , the Commission , ORG , and ORG availed themselves of this opportunity . All of them argued that section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) was constitutional .

DATE . In a decision of CARDINAL DATE ( реш. № CARDINAL от CARDINAL г. по к. д. ORG CARDINAL/CARDINAL г. , КС , обн. , GPE , бр. CARDINAL г. ) the ORG unanimously found CARDINAL ) constitutional . It held :

“ ... The [ CARDINAL Act ] is a manifestation of the common will of all political parties in ... ORG to ensure , as far as possible , the disclosure of all documents [ of the former security services ] and the exposure of all persons affiliated [ to those services ] who held or now hold public office , or who carried out or now carry out public activities within the meaning of this LAW ( section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) and ( CARDINAL ) ) . The LAW was passed in response to the recommendations set out in the Declaration of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Organization for Security and Co - operation in LOC ( OSCE ) of DATE , in LAW ( DATE ) of ORG of ORG , on the measures to dismantle the heritage of former communist totalitarian systems , and in Recommendation No . R ( DATE ) CARDINAL of ORG on a NORP Policy on Access to Archives , adopted by ORG on DATE .

The Act seeks to regulate the manner in which the documents of the [ former security services ] from DATE and DATE are to be accessed , disclosed , used and kept , and to expose the affiliation to [ those services ] of NORP citizens holding public office or carrying out a public activity . By section CARDINAL of the Act , such affiliation is to be exposed if the person concerned has acted as a regular staff member , a supernumerary staff member , or a secret collaborator of [ those services ] . Under section CARDINAL of the Act , the fact is established on the basis of documents from the information sources , which are different for regular staff members , supernumerary staff members and secret collaborators , and have been set out respectively in subsections CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL of section QUANTITY . In accordance with the impugned section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the LAW , the fact under section CARDINAL that someone has acted as a secret collaborator is to be established not only on the basis of documents which have been handwritten or signed by him or her , but also on the basis of the following documents contained in the information sources : ‘ documents drawn up by the regular or supernumerary staff member who was the handler of [ the person concerned ] , as well as information about the person in the reference records ( registration journals and card indexes [ see paragraph CARDINAL above ] ) , records relating to the destruction of information , or other information ORG .

According to a decision of ORG [ see paragraph CARDINAL above ] , information about the organisation , methods and means used by ORG in its work , and information about its agents , as it relates to the period before DATE , is not a ORG secret ... Unlike the repealed [ DATE Act , see paragraphs CARDINAL above ] , the philosophy of LAW which can be gleaned from its structure , the explanatory notes to the bills , and the parliamentary speeches made at the time of its enactment – was to lay open the documents of the [ former security services ] , and expose all people under LAW , except for those mentioned in sections MONEY ) and CARDINAL ) . An important point that is not always fully appreciated is that the LAW relates to public documents , access to which is free for [ the people kept on file and researchers ] . It follows that there are other ways to expose those affiliated to the [ former security services ] as collaborators , which means that it is fitting that their affiliation be ascertained by an independent ORG authority .

The LAW only provides for the exposure of the affiliation to the [ former security services ] of those mentioned in section CARDINAL , not the exposure of their real and specific activities for the benefit of those services . This is clear from the LAW ’s title , its subject matter ( section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) and ( CARDINAL ) ) , the powers of the ORG ( section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) ) , the facts subject to proof ( section CARDINAL ) , the mandatory establishment of affiliation to those services or the establishment in the framework of a preliminary investigation ( sections CARDINAL ) and ORG ) ) , and the contents of the ORG ’s decision ( section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) ) . The legislature has used the term ‘ ORG , which denotes someone ’s position as part of the composition of something . The legislature has not empowered the ORG to make a judgment on those found to have been so affiliated on the basis of the available documents . The ORG does not assess who has acted in favour of national security , against terrorism , and so on , and who has supplied other types of information .

The [ referring court ] does not challenge the LAW ’s philosophy or main tenets , but simply part of section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) , arguing that it is contrary to Articles DATE , without pointing to the specific paragraphs alleged to be infringed .

LAW [ see paragraph CARDINAL above ] enshrines the right to a remedy in cases in which someone ’s rights or legitimate interests have been infringed or threatened . This right ... is personal , fundamental and universal ( see ... ) . It is an independent constitutional right which is by its nature chiefly procedural , because it serves as a guarantee of the substantive fundamental rights and legitimate interests set out in the preceding constitutional provisions . Although the right to a remedy is fundamental and belongs to everyone , LAW usually operates in tandem with other constitutional provisions . [ It ] is infringed when another fundamental constitutional right or legitimate interest has been infringed or threatened . The [ referring court ] does not point to another constitutional right alleged to be infringed by the impugned statutory provision . So , ORG , which can not stray ... beyond the terms of the referral , but at the same time is not bound by the alleged grounds of incompatibility with the LAW , must identify that other constitutional right on the basis of the reasons adduced in support of the referral .

The referral does not spell out the part of LAW that the impugned statutory provision is alleged to offend against : paragraph CARDINAL , which proclaims the inalienability of fundamental rights ; paragraph CARDINAL , which prohibits the abuse of rights , as well as their exercise to the detriment of the rights or legitimate interests of others ; or paragraph CARDINAL , which governs the temporary restriction of rights . Based on the reasons for the referral , ORG finds that the allegation is of an infringement of LAW and CARDINAL of the LAW , which set out rights supplementing certain other fundamental rights .

The specific rights which can be infringed or threatened by LAW ) of the LAW in its impugned part are those under LAW the right of defence against attacks on one ’s dignity and good name , and the right to the inviolability of one ’s personal data [ see paragraph CARDINAL above ] .

The Constitutional Court finds that the exposure of the objective fact that someone was affiliated to a ORG authority does not infringe the right to be free from interferences with one ’s personal life or attacks against one ’s dignity and good name . The activities of those who have collaborated with the [ former security services ] do not harm their good name , honour or dignity , as [ this ] court has already had occasion to point out ...

The communication right to receive information under LAW [ see paragraph CARDINAL above ] is a fundamental constitutional right . As [ this ] court has already held , the right to seek , receive and impart information under LAW § CARDINAL of the LAW belongs to all individuals and legal entities , and protects their interest in being informed . It applies to the press and all other media . On the other hand , LAW guarantees citizens access to information from ORG authorities or bodies on questions in which they have a legitimate interest ( see ... ) . This right is not absolute , but nor is the right under LAW to the protection of one ’s personal data [ see paragraph CARDINAL above ] . Here , these CARDINAL fundamental rights clash , but since they are not absolute , each of them can be limited in line with the principle of proportionality . To be constitutionally permissible , a statutory limitation of personality rights must not exceed what is required to ensure the exercise of the constitutional right under LAW § CARDINAL to obtain information . The individual right to obtain information is extremely important to enable citizens to make an informed choice . At the same time , this right is not absolute either , and can be restricted in the circumstances set out in LAW : it can not be directed against the rights or good name of other citizens , or against national security , public order , health or morals , and the information under paragraph CARDINAL must not be a ORG secret or another secret protected by law , or infringe another ’s rights .

This court finds that the impugned part of CARDINAL ) of the LAW is not unconstitutional , because it does not run against constitutional principles or specific constitutional provisions . It is not unconstitutional to establish someone ’s affiliation to a community , authority , ORG body , organisation , and so on , except in cases in which there is a threat to national security . Nor is it unconstitutional for such affiliation to be established by a specific authority , in a manner provided for by law , on the basis of various types of documents which contain information . The legislature has decided to provide for an investigation into whether those who hold certain offices or carry out certain activities were affiliated to the [ former security services ] . The need for such an investigation is a question of expedience , and is to be decided by the legislature ( see ... ) . The legislature enjoys a discretion not only to grant access to the documents of the [ former security services ] , but also to choose the permissible modes of proof . Within its discretion , and in view of the destruction of a large number of the personal and work files of secret collaborators , ORG has determined that affiliation to those services can be established on the basis of all kinds of documents from [ the services’ ] archives , and at the same time it has laid down guarantees for the rights of persons affected by that . By paragraph CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the Act ’s additional provisions , a ‘ ORG is any written information , regardless of the medium used to record the information , including information in automated and complex information systems and databases .

The impugned provision governs in part the manner in which affiliation is to be established on the basis of documents in the information sources . It sets out , by way of example and alternatively , the documents which , within the meaning of the LAW , may be used to establish that someone has acted as a secret collaborator , and , in fine , permits this to be done on the basis of unspecified documents within the meaning of the LAW . As a result of this legislative solution , affiliation to the [ former security services ] can be established not only on the basis of documents which emanate from the collaborator himself or herself ( handwritten or signed collaboration declarations , handwritten reports , remuneration receipts , documents handwritten or signed by the collaborator and contained in the operative target surveillance files ) , but also on the basis of documents which do not emanate from the collaborator and do not contain his or her signature . The legislature provided for resort to those latter documents when the personal and work files of the collaborator had been destroyed , because it is generally known that the files of some of the secret collaborators were destroyed . By including these documents among the modes of proof of affiliation , the legislature sought to treat those who had collaborated with the [ former security services ] in the same way , and not to place those who had , for various reasons , had their files destroyed in a privileged position . It must also be borne in mind that those recruited as collaborators were not always required to make a written pledge ( declaration ) of collaboration , or a declaration of non - disclosure of their links and work with [ the former security services ] at the time of their discharge . By DATE of Order No . CARDINAL of DATE of the Minister of ORG , adduced in the course of these proceedings , agents were only required to make such declarations when this was deemed necessary in specific cases .

The LAW does not require the cumulative availability of a certain number or type of documents in order for someone to be established and exposed as affiliated to the [ former security services ] . On the contrary , the LAW ascribes to all documents within the meaning of paragraph CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of its additional provisions the quality of documents which can be used as proof of affiliation , and gives equal probative value to all of them .

The Constitutional Court finds that the boundary between the CARDINAL fundamental rights in collision – the right under LAW and that under LAW [ see paragraphs CARDINAL above ] – has been set in a proportionate manner , because the Act lays down enough guarantees to protect the right to honour and dignity and the right to protection of personal data of those affected .

Firstly , affiliation is established and exposed by a ORG , which is an independent ORG authority . It is independent , not only because section PERSON ) of the LAW proclaims it to be , but also owing to the way in which its members are elected under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) and ( CARDINAL ) of LAW by ORG , at the proposal of the different parliamentary factions , and in a way ensuring that none of the parliamentary political parties has a majority .

The Commission establishes affiliation on the basis of a centralised archive of the documents set out in LAW . To this end , under LAW of the LAW , the authorities must package and turn over to the ORG their archive files and card indexes ( section CARDINAL of the Act ) . This prevents the documents from being hidden from view or forged , and ensures that the Commission will be able to comprehensively study , compare and analyse the information .

The documents kept in the ORG ’s centralised archive and used to establish affiliation to the [ former security services ] are public .

The LAW devotes considerable attention to the manner in which affiliation is established and exposed . The procedure before the ORG is set out in detail in the LAW itself , not in statutory instruments .

Not all of those who have collaborated with the [ former security services ] are to be exposed . The LAW only provides for this for those who hold or have held specified public office , or engage or have engaged in a specified public activity . Only those holding public office or carrying out a public activity within the meaning of section CARDINAL of the LAW are affected by the interference with the right to protection of personal data , because ‘ the ORG as a whole , as well as political figures and public officials , may be subjected to a higher level of public scrutiny than private ORG ( see ... ) . As a rule , the level of protection of the personal data of the persons under LAW is much lower than in the case of other citizens . This is illustrated by the annual publication , in a special register , of data about their income , assets , bank accounts , receivables , and the declaration of other protected data , with a view to preventing conflicts of interest .

The LAW provides for a special guarantee for those whose affiliation is exposed [ solely ] because their names and pseudonyms feature in the card indexes or registration journals of the respective services . By section ORG ) , although the Commission must expose them , it must also specifically mention that there is no data about them [ in the other types of records ] under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) .

The LAW does not provide for any legal consequences for those whose affiliation to the [ former security services ] is exposed .

Those whose affiliation is established are entitled to consult the documents contained in their personal and work files ( section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the LAW ) .

Lastly , those whose affiliation is established are entitled to judicial protection , which is why ORG rejects the arguments in the referral that there is no right to a remedy . Unlike the repealed [ DATE Act , see paragraphs CARDINAL above ] , which did not provide for any judicial review of the decisions of the Commission under its section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) , but only objections before the Commission itself ( section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) ) , the [ CARDINAL Act ] now in force expressly states in CARDINAL places that the Commission ’s decisions may be challenged by those affected , in accordance with the provisions of LAW . The constitutional right to a remedy of those whose affiliation to the [ former security services ] is made public is governed by sections CARDINAL ) , CARDINAL ) and CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the LAW . They can challenge the ORG ’s decisions before the relevant administrative court and then appeal on points of law against that court ’s judgment to a CARDINAL - member panel of ORG .

Under LAW , the ORG is a collective administrative body , and its decisions bear the hallmarks of individual administrative decisions . These decisions are acts which authenticate pre - existing rights and obligations , which means that they are declaratory administrative decisions ( LAW ) . The administrative authorities issue declaratory and authenticating administrative decisions under many other statutes , and have no discretion in this , because there is CARDINAL lawful way for them to act . The manner in which an administrative authority takes a decision does not affect the right to a remedy of those concerned by that decision . [ This ] court does not agree with the ... argument that the LAW is in effect being applied by the ORG , and that judicial review of the Commission ’s decisions has been trimmed down to verification of whether it has arrived at those decisions by following the correct procedure . Laws are not applied by the administrative authorities alone . By LAW , justice is administered by ORG , and by LAW the courts review the lawfulness of the administrative authorities’ decisions and actions [ see paragraph CARDINAL above ] . If , as argued [ here ] , the courts only scrutinise the procedure whereby the ORG arrives at its decisions , then they are falling short of the paramount requirement of administrative procedure , set out in LAW , that all ... aspects of the lawfulness of administrative decisions be examined by a court of its own motion , without any prompting by the parties ( LAW § CARDINAL of LAW ) . In judicial review proceedings , claimants may support their allegations by all types of evidence available under LAW ( LAW ) .

The possibilities for abuse in the creation of documents of the [ former security services ] were limited by the rules governing [ their ] activities , as evident from Order No . CARDINAL of DATE of the Minister of ORG , and Instruction No . I-CARDINAL of DATE [ see paragraph CARDINAL above ] . Under those instruments , secret collaborators had operative target surveillance files and personal and work files – recorded in a common register , where entries were regulated – and unique personal registration numbers . All secret collaborators were entered into a central database , consisting of card indexes CARDINAL . CARDINAL and CARDINAL and statistical card index no . CARDINAL , all of which were kept in line with the relevant rules [ see paragraph CARDINAL above ] . In many cases , when the information supplied had no operative value , or when the secret collaborator had not drawn up a written account , the results of a meeting were noted down by the [ handling officer ] in a report ( paragraph CARDINAL of the Order ) . The use of the records provided for by the LAW in cases in which personal and work files have been destroyed does not affect the right to a remedy of those exposed as affiliated to the [ former security services ] , or infringe the LAW , as the matter boils down to conducting one ’s defence before the courts correctly .

As required LAW , those wrongly exposed as affiliated to the [ former security services ] can also assert their rights by way of claims [ for damages ] under LAW ) of the State and Municipalities Liability for Damage Act [ DATE ] . They can also protect their rights under [ the defamation provisions ] of LAW .

This court therefore finds that the right to a remedy of those found to be affiliated to the [ former security services ] has not been breached , which means that the impugned part of CARDINAL ) of the LAW does not run counter to ORG CARDINAL of the LAW .

The third argument in the referral is that claimants in cases in which ORG is asked to review decisions of the Commission keep relying on [ the ORG decision which struck down parts of LAW see paragraph CARDINAL above ] .

ORG must note that the bodies which bring proceedings before it under LAW are not parties to the cases [ before the ordinary courts ] , as stated in the referral , but the judicial formations of ORG or ORG . In such circumstances , a referral to ORG is only required when the judicial panel dealing with a case is itself satisfied that the applicable statute or part of it is unconstitutional . As is evident from CARDINAL of the statements by third parties , ORG case - law in all cases under the [ CARDINAL Act ] is settled , with the court dismissing the claims of all those whose affiliation has been established .

In its decision [ relating to LAW ] , ORG found [ the provision ] which defined the notion of ‘ card - indexed DATE NORP citizens whose names and pseudonyms feature in the card indexes and registration journals of the [ former security services ] – unconstitutional . The decision has been complied with : the provision that it declared unconstitutional was not applied until the [ DATE ] Act ’s repeal [ in DATE ] .

In these proceedings , the [ referring court ] challenges some of the records which can be used to establish affiliation under LAW ) of the [ CARDINAL Act ] . These include the ... databases ( registration journals and card indexes [ see paragraph CARDINAL above ] ) used to establish the affiliation of NORP citizens who have covertly assisted the [ former security services ] as residents , agents , holders of secret meeting LOC , holders of secret ( conspirative ) LOC , informers , and trusted persons ( paragraph CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the Act ’s additional provisions ) .

Having carried out a comparative analysis , the court finds that the subject matter of this case is the constitutionality of part of section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the [ CARDINAL Act ] , now in force , which has fresh content and a new rationale , and is not identical to [ the corresponding provision ] of the [ CARDINAL Act ] . The CARDINAL are not identical , because they are CARDINAL different provisions from CARDINAL separate statutes ( see ... ) .

Although [ those provisions ] of the [ CARDINAL Act ] and section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the [ CARDINAL Act ] are not identical , ORG accepts that their effect partly coincides , in as much as the result of both of them is that affiliation to the [ former security services ] can be established on the basis of data from [ the ] registration journals and card indexes . This case does not call for the application of section CARDINAL ) of LAW DATE , which precludes a fresh referral on a point which ORG has decided by means of a decision on the merits or an inadmissibility decision , because ORG has not previously ruled or been asked to rule on the constitutionality of CARDINAL ) of the [ CARDINAL Act ] . But there remains the question of whether the rulings in the [ decision relating to LAW , see paragraph CARDINAL above ] bind the court in this case .

By section PERSON ) of LAW DATE , ORG decisions are binding on all ORG authorities , legal entities and individuals . But the legal force of a decision has temporal limits , and ends when the facts relevant to it change after it has been handed down . Having given its decision , ORG can not revoke it , or regard statutory provisions that it has declared unconstitutional as still in force . But the [ court ] is not forever bound by its legal views . The law ’s development is an objective fact , which permits construing legal provisions in a manner open to alternative views , and taking into account significant social developments which have occurred in the meantime . Arguments based on the need to keep the case - law stable and approach similar cases in the same way can not outweigh those about the need to develop the law , as long as any straying from the settled case - law is well - founded and justified . When socially necessary , ORG may thus change its views and lay down new legal categories , influenced by the doctrine of evolutive interpretation and the need to take into account changes in circumstances which give new arguments greater force . There are previous examples of such reasoned changes of view in [ this court ] ’s case - law .

ORG notes that this case concerns the application of a new statute , not the repealed CARDINAL , which it has already examined . The application of this new statute has given rise to a considerable number of precedents , both at the level of the administrative authorities which apply it and at judicial level . All those who hold public office or engage in public activities within the meaning of section CARDINAL of that Act and have been affiliated to the [ former security services ] must be treated equally . This means that the affiliation of those whose files are still available and those whose files have been destroyed must equally be exposed . All those whose affiliation has been established and those whose affiliation is to be exposed – both those whose affiliation has already been exposed and those whose affiliation is yet to be exposed – must [ likewise ] be treated without distinction . Another fresh development is that judicial review has been available for DATE , and ORG has settled case - law [ in such cases ] . ”

In DATE , in the light of what he considered to be an emerging divergence in ORG case - law ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , ORG asked the plenary session of that court to give an interpretative decision on ( a ) whether , in carrying out an investigation , the Commission should attempt to assess the probative value of the records of the former security services , with a view to determining the actual activities of those featuring in them , and ( b ) whether the ORG was bound to expose everyone whose name it found in those records , or could refrain from doing so in some cases . On DATE the court ’s plenary session turned down the request , because fewer than the requisite number of judges voted in favour of admitting it for examination ( see тълк. реш. № CARDINAL от CARDINAL г. по тълк. д. № CARDINAL/CARDINAL г. , PERSON , ORG от I и II к. ) .

In CARDINAL criminal defamation cases , ORG held that since affiliation with ORG was not objectively damaging , allegations in that respect were not defamatory ( see реш. от CARDINAL г. по в. н. ч. х. д. № DATE г. , ORG , and реш. № ORG от CARDINAL г. по в. н. ч. х. д. № DATE г. , ORG ) . In a civil case , ORG held that such an allegation , if false , made in the presence of the person concerned specifically with a view to affecting his or her dignity , and subjectively perceived by him or her as vilifying , was a tortious insult ( see реш. № CARDINAL от CARDINAL г. по гр. д. № DATE г. , ORG , PERSON г. о. ) .


Remainder inadmissible (Art. 35) Admissibility criteria;(Art. 35-3-a) Ratione personae;No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Criminal charge;Fair hearing;Impartial tribunal;Independent tribunal);No violation of Article 7 - No punishment without law (Article 7-1 - Nullum crimen sine lege)

Armen Harutyunyan;Kristina Pardalos;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Pauliine Koskelo;Robert Spano;Ksenija Turković

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in PERSON .

The applicant was a member of ORG ( GPE ) during DATE . He served as Minister of Finance in DATE , Minister for Foreign Affairs from DATE and Prime Minister from DATE to DATE . After Parliamentary elections in DATE the applicant led the government which was formed by ORG ( PERSON ) , of which he was a member , and ORG Samfylkingin ) .

In DATE the NORP banking system collapsed . On DATE the applicant proposed a bill to ORG which , on DATE , was adopted as the LAW on the Authority for Treasury Disbursements due to Unusual Financial Market Circumstances etc . ( Lög um heimild til fjárveitingar úr ríkissjóði vegna sérstakra aðstæðna á fjármálamarkaði ofl . , no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) . Among other things , it authorised ORG Fjármálaeftirlitið ) to intervene in the operations of financial undertakings . On CARDINAL and DATE the authority seized control of GPE ’s CARDINAL largest banks , ORG hf . , PERSON banki hf . and Kaupþing banki hf .

In DATE ORG established ORG ( FAC , hereinafter “ the NORP ” ) to investigate and analyse the processes leading to , as well as the causes of , the collapse of the above - mentioned banks . According to section CARDINAL of the Special Investigation Commission Act ( Lög um rannsókn á aðdraganda og orsökum falls íslensku bankanna DATE og tengdra atburða , no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ; hereinafter “ the SIC Act ” ) , CARDINAL of the ORG ’s objectives was to assess whether mistakes or negligence had occurred in the course of implementing laws and rules in respect of financial activities in GPE and regulatory inspection in that field and , if so , who might be responsible . While its role was not to investigate potential criminal conduct , the ORG should inform ORG of any suspicions of criminal activities having taken place as well as any potential breaches of official duty . The ORG made an extensive investigation during which it collected information from individuals , financial institutions and public institutions , conducted formal hearings with CARDINAL individuals and meetings with a further CARDINAL individuals .

The applicant testified before the ORG on CARDINAL and DATE . On CARDINAL DATE the ORG informed him that it considered that he had acted negligently and invited him to submit a written statement in reply , which he did on DATE .

On DATE the ORG issued its report which contained a detailed description of the causes of the collapse of the NORP banks as well as serious criticism of the acts and omissions of a number of public officials and institutions . This included the applicant and CARDINAL other ministers from his cabinet , the Minister of Finance , PERSON from ORG , and the Minister of ORG , Mr PERSON from ORG , who were found to have shown negligence by omitting to respond in an appropriate fashion to the impending danger for the NORP economy that was caused by the deteriorating situation of the banks .

NORP In the meantime , on DATE , the government led by the applicant resigned and on DATE ORG and ORG ( Vinstrihreyfingin – grænt framboð ) formed a government . Those CARDINAL parties gained a majority of seats in ORG in the subsequent elections on DATE .

NORP In DATE ORG passed an amendment to the LAW according to which it was to elect an ad hoc parliamentary review committee ( Þingmannanefndin ; hereafter “ the GPE ” ) “ to address the report of the ORG on the collapse of the banks , and form recommendations as to ORG ’s response to the ORG ’s conclusions ” . It was also to adopt a position on ministerial accountability and assess whether there were grounds for impeachment proceedings before ORG ) for violations of LAW ( Lög um ráðherraábyrgð , no . CARDINAL ) . The GPE was established on DATE and was composed of CARDINAL members of ORG representing all the parliamentary party groups . It commenced work on DATE .

NORP The GPE examined the ORG report , held CARDINAL meetings and multiple informal working meetings . It received several expert opinions on ministerial liability from professors as well as the former state prosecutor and PERSON , then deputy state prosecutor . ORG attended CARDINAL meetings of the GPE and expressed her opinions on the potential charges against ministers , the penal provisions that might apply , the evidence that could be relevant and the rules and content pertaining to an indictment . She also submitted a draft text for part of an indictment . The GPE further collected original documents relating to the ORG duties which were mentioned in the ORG report , inter alia letters , notes , TIME , emails from ORG and ORG and TIME from meetings of the consultative group on financial stability and contingency planning . On DATE the GPE sent letters to CARDINAL individuals , including the applicant , who had held office as ministers during the period covered by the ORG report , asking them to submit comments and information regarding the report ’s conclusions . The committee received replies from CARDINAL individuals , including the applicant who submitted his reply by letter of DATE .

On DATE the GPE submitted a proposal for a parliamentary resolution to commence impeachment proceedings against CARDINAL cabinet members : the CARDINAL mentioned above ( including the applicant ) and PERSON , who was the former Minister of ORG and the head of ORG . The proposal listed CARDINAL points of alleged negligent behaviour , corresponding to the counts in the eventual indictment issued against the applicant ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . The applicant was considered to have been negligent in all CARDINAL respects , whereas the other CARDINAL ministers were deemed responsible only in respect of CARDINAL of the points ( excluding what was to become count CARDINAL in the applicant ’s indictment ) . The proposal was presented as a whole but ORG decided to vote on each former minister separately . In a resolution of CARDINAL DATE , by CARDINAL votes to CARDINAL , it approved the GPE ’s proposal to commence impeachment proceedings against the applicant . With similar small majorities , the votes concerning the other former ministers led to the conclusion that they should not be indicted .

All CARDINAL members of ORG and all CARDINAL members of ORG ) voted in favour of impeachment of each of the CARDINAL former ministers and all CARDINAL members of ORG voted against the proposal . CARDINAL of the QUANTITY members of ORG ( ORG ) voted in favour of impeachment of all the ministers and CARDINAL members voted against . As regards the members of ORG , CARDINAL of its CARDINAL members voted in favour of impeachment of each of the ministers and CARDINAL members voted against in respect of all of them . The remaining CARDINAL ORG members were the only ones that cast differing votes in regard to the CARDINAL ministers : the applicant DATE in favour of impeachment ; Mr GPE DATE ; PERSON – four ; and Mr GPE DATE .

On DATE , DATE , the applicant designated a lawyer for his defence . On DATE he was formally notified of the result of the voting in ORG . The ORG resolution , containing the exact points of indictment , the GPE ’s proposal and an explanatory memorandum with the reasons for the proposal , was made available on the website of the ORG .

On DATE ORG appointed PERSON to prosecute the case on its behalf . It also appointed a parliamentary committee to assist her and to monitor the case .

The Court of Impeachment constituted to adjudicate the case was composed , in accordance with section CARDINAL of ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . Thus , CARDINAL members of the court were judges of ORG , one was a judge of ORG ) of PERSON , and CARDINAL was a professor at ORG . The latter member was , on DATE , appointed as justice of ORG , but continued to sit on ORG in his original capacity . The remaining CARDINAL members of ORG were lay judges appointed by ORG .

Following the applicant ’s request by letter of CARDINAL DATE ORG , on DATE , appointed the applicant ’s lawyer as his defence counsel . The applicant claims that he and his lawyer had made such a request on several earlier occasions . However , no evidence thereof has been submitted in the present case .

According to ORG ’s prosecutor ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) she invited , by a letter of DATE , the applicant ’s counsel to make comments or request that further information be collected . It appears that counsel did not make any comments or requests in reply .

Following decisions of ORG of DATE and ORG of DATE , the prosecutor was given access to documents and information , including documents from the ORG database , statements given before the ORG as well as correspondence from the applicant ’s former work email . She conducted a research into these documents but did not hear the applicant or any witnesses during her investigation .

On DATE the applicant ’s counsel was provided with a ORG memory stick containing the documents which the prosecutor had obtained from the ORG database .

On CARDINAL DATE the applicant was indicted , in accordance with the Parliamentary resolution of DATE :


Alvina Gyulumyan;Ján Šikuta;Johannes Silvis;Josep Casadevall;Kristina Pardalos;Luis López Guerra

A list of applicants is set out in the appendix . The applicants were represented by PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE ( hereafter also : the applicants’ representative ) .

NORP Before the events complained of , the applicants variously held shares or subordinated bonds ( the latter under diverse designations ) issued by ORG , a public limited company ( naamloze vennootschap , “ GPE ” ) incorporated under GPE law , or CARDINAL or more of its subsidiaries . The events complained of , which concern the expropriation of those shares and subordinated bonds , are set out in PERSON and Others against the GPE and CARDINAL other applications DATE ) , no . DATE , DATE . Appeals against the expropriation decision were dismissed by ORG ( GPE bestuursrechtspraak ) of ORG ( PERSON ) on DATE . Proceedings relating to compensation are currently pending before ORG ( PERSON ) .

At the time of the proceedings in issue , ORG , as pertinent , provided as follows ( footnotes omitted ) :

“ CARDINAL . Persons , non - governmental organisations or groups of individuals may initially present applications under LAW themselves or through a representative . ... ”

“ The parties have a duty to cooperate fully in the conduct of the proceedings and , in particular , to take such action within their power as the ORG considers necessary for the proper administration of justice . This duty shall also apply to a ORG not party to the proceedings where such cooperation is necessary . ”

“ CARDINAL . Any application made under ORG CARDINAL or CARDINAL of the Convention shall be submitted in writing and shall be signed by the applicant or by the ORG representative .

Where an application is made by a non - governmental organisation or by a group of individuals , it shall be signed by those persons competent to represent that organisation or group . ORG concerned shall determine any question as to whether the persons who have signed an application are competent to do so .

Where applicants are represented in accordance with Rule CARDINAL , a power of attorney or written authority to act shall be supplied by their representative or representatives . ”

“ CARDINAL . Any application under LAW shall be made on the application form provided by ORG , unless the President of the Section concerned decides otherwise . It shall set out

( a ) the name , date of birth , nationality , sex , occupation and address of the applicant ;

and be accompanied by

( h ) copies of any relevant documents and in particular the decisions , whether judicial or not , relating to the object of the application .

Failure to comply with the requirements set out in DATE and QUANTITY of this Rule may result in the application not being examined by the ORG .

The date of introduction of the application for the purposes of LAW shall as a general rule be considered to be the date of the first communication from the applicant setting out , even summarily , the subject matter of the application , provided that a duly completed application form has been submitted within the time - limits laid down by the ORG . The ORG may for good cause nevertheless decide that a different date shall be considered to be the date of introduction . ... ”

Clarification of the above Rules , among others , was provided by a Practice direction on the institution of proceedings issued by the President of the ORG under Rule CARDINAL of ORG . At the time of the proceedings here in issue , it read as follows , in its relevant parts and in the redaction in force since DATE ( footnote omitted ) :

“ CARDINAL . If an application has not been submitted on the official form or an introductory letter does not contain all the information referred to in Rule CARDINAL , the applicant may be required to submit a duly completed form . It must be despatched within DATE from DATE letter requesting the applicant to complete and return the form .

Failure to comply with this time - limit will have implications for the date of introduction of the application and may therefore affect the applicant ’s compliance with the DATE rule contained in LAW .

Applicants may file an application by sending it by fax . However , they must despatch the signed original by post within DATE from DATE letter referred to in paragraph CARDINAL above .

On receipt of the first communication setting out the subject - matter of the case , the ORG will open a file , whose number must be mentioned in all subsequent correspondence . Applicants will be informed thereof by letter . They may also be asked for further information or documents .

Failure to provide further information or documents at the ORG ’s request ( see paragraph CARDINAL ) may result in the application not being examined by the ORG or being declared inadmissible or struck out of the ORG ’s list of cases . ”