Preliminary objection dismissed (Article 35-1 - Effective domestic remedy);Violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression -{General} (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression);Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction);Damage - award (Article 41 - Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)

András Sajó;Angelika Nußberger;Branko Lubarda;Egidijus Kūris;Erik Møse;Guido Raimondi;Helena Jäderblom;Ján Šikuta;Johannes Silvis;Jon Fridrik Kjølbro;Khanlar Hajiyev;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Luis López Guerra;Mark Villiger;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Nebojša Vučinić;Robert Spano;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Yonko Grozev;Ksenija Turković

The applicants , PERSON , PERSON , Mr PERSON and PERSON , were born in DATE , DATE and DATE respectively and live in GPE .

At the material time the applicants were members of parliament and of the opposition party ORG for GPE ) . PERSON was also one of the notaries to ORG .

At a plenary session on DATE , during a pre - agenda speech , an opposition member of parliament from ORG criticised the ORG and accused it of corruption with regard to , inter alia , the reorganisation of the tobacco market . Mr PERSON , the Secretary of ORG for ORG , was replying on behalf of the Government when the applicants PERSON and PERSON carried into the centre of the ORG a large placard displaying the words “ GPE [ the party in Government ] You steal , you cheat , and you lie . ” Subsequently , they placed it next to the Secretary of ORG ’s seat .

The minutes of the session read as follows :

“ Dr PERSON , the Secretary of ORG for ORG ...

Tell them that the increase of commodity wages particularly affects those with a minimum income , since the minimum income has been increased by PERCENT , which is impossible to keep up with inflation lower than PERCENT . And tell them also ... ( PERSON and PERSON show a placard displaying the words “ GPE You steal , you cheat , and you lie . " . – Interventions from the government MPs : - Rules of procedure ! Doctor ! The Speaker rings the bell . )

Speaker : Honourable ORG ! ( Constant interventions from the government MPs . PERSON and PERSON place the placard next to the speaker ’s pulpit . ) I request Mr PERSON to remove the placard in the same way as they brought it in . ( PERSON and PERSON leave the placard next to the speaker ’s pulpit . – Constant interventions from the government MPs . – The Speaker rings the bell . ) I request the ushers to remove the placard . ( Interventions from the government MPs , amongst others : That ’s all you can do . ) . I request the ushers to remove the placard . ( The placard is removed . )

Thank you very much . Please continue PERSON Secretary of ORG ! ( Interventions from the government MPs : How could they get that in ? – [ The Speaker ] rings the bell . ) ”

On DATE the Speaker presented a proposal to fine Mr Karácsony MONEY ( ( ORG ) ; equivalent to ORG CARDINAL ) and PERSON DATE ( EUR CARDINAL ) for their conduct , as recorded in the minutes and considered to be gravely offensive to parliamentary order , in application of sections CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) and CARDINAL ) of LAW . The Speaker proposed that as regards PERSON the maximum fine ( CARDINAL of his DATE remuneration ) be applied , since he had been elected an official of ORG and was not just an ordinary MP . No other reasons were given in the proposal . A decision approving the Speaker ’s proposal was adopted by the plenary on CARDINAL DATE , without debate .

On DATE during the final vote on PERSON . PERSON amending certain tobacco - related Acts the applicants PERSON and PERSON carried into the centre of the Chamber and displayed there a large banner displaying the words “ Here Operates the National Tobacco Mafia ” .

“ Speaker : ... I ask ORG whether it adopts PERSON in accordance with the consolidated proposal as amended just now . Please vote ! ( Voting )

I proclaim the decision : ORG has ( Mr PERSON and PERSON display a banner with the words “ Here Operates the National Tobacco Mafia ” ) adopted the PERSON with CARDINAL votes in favour , CARDINAL against and CARDINAL abstention . ( Applause from GPE MPs ) .

I call the attention of the CARDINAL Members of ORG to the fact that their conduct constitutes a grave disruption of the plenary proceedings . I inform you accordingly that LAW and section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW ( continuous applause from members of ORG ) sanction such conduct . ( Dr István Józsa . – We want legislation against the ORG ! ) I ask my colleagues to untie and remove the banner . ( PERSON and PERSON do not hand over the banner to the usher . – Short break . – Loud noise from the opposition MPs . ) Please help the lady and gentleman , Members of ORG , to remove the draperies . ( PERSON and PERSON leave the session ) . Thank you very much . ”

On DATE the Speaker submitted a proposal to fine Mr PERSON and PERSON HUF CARDINAL,CARDINAL ( FAC ) each for their conduct , as recorded in TIME and considered to be gravely offensive to parliamentary order , in application of sections CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) and CARDINAL ) of LAW . The proposal stated that an increased fine was necessary since similar seriously disruptive conduct had occurred before . No other reasons were specified in the proposal . The plenary adopted the proposal on CARDINAL DATE without debate .

The applicants , PERSON , Ms PERSON and PERSON , were born in DATE , DATE and DATE and live in GPE , GPE and ORG respectively .

At the material time the applicants were members of parliament and of the opposition party LMP ( Politics Can Be Different ) .

On DATE ORG held a final vote on a new law , PERSON . T/CARDINAL on ORG . The legislative proposal was quite controversial and generated heated reactions among opposition members . In protest during the final vote on the bill , Ms PERSON placed a small , golden wheelbarrow filled with soil on the table in front of the Prime Minister , while PERSON and PERSON unfurled a banner displaying the words “ Land distribution instead of land robbery ! ” in front of the Speaker ’s pulpit ; meanwhile , PERSON used a megaphone to speak . She had previously delivered CARDINAL speeches during the detailed debate and CARDINAL speech during the final debate on the bill , filing CARDINAL amending motions , and introduced CARDINAL amending proposals just before the final vote .

“ Speaker : The next point on the agenda is the vote on the amendments submitted prior to the final vote on ORG and the final vote . Members of ORG have received the LAW under number T/CARDINAL and the consolidated text of the PERSON under number ORG .

First we shall vote on the amendments . Their adoption requires a qualified majority .

( continuous disruption of the session ) ...

Speaker : Because the members of ORG [ opposition party ] do not allow me to take my position at the Speaker ’s pulpit , I will continue presiding over the session from here . ( Strong applause from the ruling parliamentary group ) . Because members of ORG are not allowing the left - wing , opposition party member and notary to sit at [ the Speaker ’s pulpit ] during the vote by roll call and conduct the vote and proclaim the results ( Continuous noise ) . I request Members of ORG to take their seats and listen to me ! I request ORG to confirm that since the members of ORG are not allowing the vote by roll call to take place , we shall cast our vote electronically . ( Strong applause from the ruling parliamentary group . Interventions from the same side : Hurray ! ) .

Honourable Members of ORG ! I request all of you who agree , given the unusual circumstances , to cast your votes by electronic voting instead of vote by roll call . ( Members of the parliamentary group ORG occupy the Speaker ’s seat , chanting “ Traitors , traitors ” for TIME . PERSON places a small golden wheelbarrow filled with soil on the table in front of the Prime Minister . Dr PERSON and PERSON [ the applicants ] unfurl a banner containing the words ‘ Land distribution instead of land robbery!’ in front of the Speaker ’s pulpit ) .

I request technical assistance to enable the vote to take place . ( Short break . Members of the ORG group keep chanting : ‘ Traitors’ . PERSON uses a megaphone to speak . Dr. PERSON applauds . Intervention from the GPE group : - Where are the parliamentary guards ? Laughter . )

Ms Member of ORG ! I have to warn you as well that your methods are unacceptable under the rules of procedure . I therefore request you to terminate your speech using the megaphone . Again , I request technical assistance to overcome this problem so that the Members of ORG can exercise their right to vote , since I am hindered in accessing my own voting card . ... ”

On DATE the Speaker presented a proposal to fine PERSON and PERSON DATE ( EUR CARDINAL ) each and Ms Osztolykán HUF CARDINAL ( EUR CARDINAL ) for their conduct , as recorded in the TIME and considered to be gravely offensive to parliamentary order , in application of sections FAC ) and CARDINAL ) of LAW .

The Speaker proposed that the maximum fine be applied , given the extraordinary situation that had developed during the voting process and that the MPs had engaged in conduct gravely offensive to parliamentary order by displaying their banner and using a megaphone . A decision approving the proposal of the Speaker was adopted by the plenary on DATE , without debate .


Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Enforcement proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court);Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions)

Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Luis López Guerra

All the applicants were party to civil proceedings in which the firstinstance and appeal courts found in their favour . These judgments became binding and enforceable but were subsequently quashed by the supervisory review courts on the ground of incorrect application of substantive law or incorrect assessment of evidence by lower courts ( for more details see the Appendix ) .


Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time)

Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Päivi Hirvelä;Zdravka Kalaydjieva

The applicant was born in DATE and is currently detained in FAC .

On DATE ORG ( Sąd Rejonowy ) ordered the applicant ’s detention on remand for DATE . He was charged with a number of offences committed with an armed organised criminal group . At the time , the applicant was serving a prison sentence imposed in another set of criminal proceedings against him . The end of that sentence fell on DATE .

In its decision , ORG relied on a reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed the offences in question . The court further emphasised the gravity of the offences in question , the applicant ’s active role in the criminal group and the likelihood of a heavy prison sentence being imposed on him after conviction . In the domestic court ’s view the fact that the applicant was at the time detained in reference to other criminal proceedings against him did not guarantee the proper course of the proceedings since the applicant could had been released at any time from the pre - trial detention without the relevant authorities , responsible for the impugned proceedings , being notified . Moreover , the necessity to obtain further evidence justified remanding the applicant in custody .

The applicant ’s appeal against the decision of DATE was dismissed by ORG ( PERSON ) on DATE .

On DATE and DATE ORG extended the applicant ’s pre - trial detention . Subsequently , ORG ( Sąd Apelacyjny ) extended the applicant ’s detention on DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , CARDINAL DATE and on DATE .

The applicant ’s appeals against the decisions to extend his pre - trial detention were dismissed by ORG on DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE .

In the period from DATE until DATE the applicant served a prison sentence imposed by ORG in separate set of criminal proceedings against him ( case no . ORG ) .

During this period the Łódź Court of Appeal extended the applicant ’s the applicant ’s detention on remand by the decisions of CARDINAL DATE ( detention extended until DATE ) , of CARDINAL DATE ( detention extended until DATE ) , of CARDINAL DATE ( detention extended until DATE ) and of CARDINAL DATE ( detention extended until DATE ) . The applicant lodged a number of motions to be released as well as appeals against the decisions extending his pre - trial detention , all in vain .

In their decisions the courts repeated the grounds previously given for the applicant ’s detention .

Meanwhile , on DATE ORG ( Prokurator PERSON ) lodged a bill of indictment against the applicant with ORG . The applicant was charged with several counts of extortion and drug - trafficking committed in an organised and armed criminal group . The bill of indictment comprised CARDINAL charges brought against CARDINAL defendants . The prosecution authorities requested that CARDINAL witnesses be heard before the court .

The court scheduled QUANTITY hearings for DATE . Due to sick - leaves of the presiding judge and of some of the accused those hearings did not take place .

The trial was eventually opened on DATE . Subsequent scheduled hearings were adjourned due to absences of some of the coaccused and due to problems with sound system in the court room .

In DATE ORG gave a severance order and decided to determine charges against CARDINAL co - accused separately .

The bill of indictment was finally read out to the defendants at the hearing held on DATE .

At the hearing of CARDINAL DATE ORG started taking evidence from the accused . It subsequently held CARDINAL hearings until DATE , during which some of the accused gave evidence . CARDINAL of the scheduled hearings were adjourned due to sick - leaves of the accused . CARDINAL hearing was adjourned because of the motion for disqualification of the judge lodged by CARDINAL of the co - accused .

NORP In DATE ORG continued taking evidence from the defendants . Of the CARDINAL hearings scheduled for DATE , CARDINAL took place . The trial court adjourned DATE hearings due to justified absences of the parties , QUANTITY hearings were cancelled due to sick - leaves of the presiding judge and the lay judges .

Meanwhile , on CARDINAL DATE ORG decided to continue pre - trial detention unless the applicant would post bail of MONEY ( ORG ) within DATE from the date of the decision .

The applicant was released on bail and police supervision on DATE . He was also prohibited from leaving the country .

ORG scheduled CARDINAL hearings for DATE , of which CARDINAL hearings were eventually held . At the hearing of DATE the trial court started taking evidence from witnesses .

Of the CARDINAL hearings cancelled DATE , CARDINAL were adjourned because of a sick - leave of the presiding judge , CARDINAL because of absences of witnesses , and the remaining QUANTITY hearings – because of absences of the parties

Until DATE ORG scheduled CARDINAL hearings for DATE , of which CARDINAL were adjourned due to justified absences of the defendants .

The criminal proceedings against the applicant are still pending before the first - instance court .

On DATE ORG ( PERSON ) dismissed the applicant ’s motion to take part in a funeral of his grandfather , who had been also his godfather . The applicant did not lodge an appeal against this decision .

The funeral took place on DATE .

On DATE the applicant lodged a complaint with ORG under LAW on complaints about a breach of the right to a trial within a reasonable time ( ustawa o skardze na naruszenie prawa strony do rozpoznania sprawy w postępowaniu przygotowawczym prowadzonym lub nadzorowanym przez prokuratora i postępowaniu sądowym bez nieuzasadnionej zwłoki DATE “ the CARDINAL Act ” ) . He sought a finding that the length of the criminal proceedings against him had been excessive and CARDINAL ORG in compensation .

On DATE the ORG dismissed the applicant ’s complaint . The court found that , considering the complexity of the case and the number of co - accused who had actively tried to obstruct the proceedings , ORG had conducted the proceedings in a correct and timely manner . Consequently , the appellate court refused to award the applicant compensation .


Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Length of pre-trial detention);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect)

NORP The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table .

The applicants complained of the excessive length of their pre - trial detention . Some applicants also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention .


CASE OF CUNHA MARTINS DA SILVA COUTO v. PORTUGAL

Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time);Violation of Article 13 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy)

Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE . The relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table .

The applicant complained of the excessive length of civil proceedings and the lack of an effective remedy in this respect .


Egidijus Kūris;Ganna Yudkivska;Iulia Motoc;Marko Bošnjak;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Vincent A. De Gaetano

The applicants , Mr PERSON and FAC , are NORP nationals who were born in DATE and DATE respectively and live in PERSON . They were represented before the Court by PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE .

The applicants owned a piece of land in GPE , GPE , consisting of a rural building and an adjoining piece of land . No building permit existed at the relevant time in regard to this land .

NORP In DATE or thereabouts works were being carried out in the valley situated below the applicants’ land . At the same time part of the applicants’ land was being used as a road in order to provide temporary access , for large vehicles and machinery , to the valley where the works were being carried out . At the time the applicants tolerated this situation .

In DATE the road was tarmacked by the authorities . It appeared that ORG ( hereinafter “ the ORG ” ) considered that this temporary access road , as well as an adjoining piece of land ( also owned by the applicants , which had been used by ORG to build a football ground in DATE or thereabouts , despite a lack of authorisation ) , were government property .

At the time the applicants permitted the use of their land by third parties , and raised no objections to ORG actions , because they had no pressing need of the property .

NORP In DATE ORG claimed that the land ( both the road and the land used for the football ground ) was public property .

NORP In DATE the applicants instituted civil proceedings ( before ORG ( FAC ) in its ordinary jurisdiction ) for eviction , on the grounds that ORG was occupying the part of the land used as a football ground without title . Employees from the then ORG testified that the land in question had never been public property and had never been the subject of a declaration of expropriation in the public interest .

During those proceedings a constitutional complaint was also raised .

A decision in the case appears to have been delivered on DATE . The applicants made no reference to the outcome of this case in their application .

On DATE the applicants built walls around the land owned by them , with the result that access to the road was no longer possible . On DATE ORG instituted civil proceedings against the applicants , arguing that they were blocking the road , that there had been spoliation of the road , and that they were preventing ORG from exercising its duty to administer and maintain the road .

During the proceedings , although the applicants’ legal counsel appeared at the relevant hearing and made submissions , the applicants themselves failed to participate in the proceedings .

By a decision of CARDINAL DATE ORG ( FAC ) , in its ordinary civil jurisdiction , found against the applicants . The court noted their absence and the lack of any evidence put forward by them , despite the repeated attempts of their legal counsel . Moreover , the case being an actio spolii – which had to limit itself to the question of possession and not to the actual ownership of the land – the court found that the plaintiffs ( ORG ) had satisfied the CARDINAL conditions for the success of such an action by proving , inter alia , that they had possession of the land in question at the time the walls were built .

The applicants appealed that decision .

On DATE ORG confirmed the first - instance judgment , to the effect that ORG had possession of the land at issue , since it was ORG which maintained the road and traffic regularly used it .

Pending the conclusion of the above proceedings , in DATE the applicants submitted an application ( no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) to ORG ( hereinafter “ the ORG ” ) for a permit to develop their land ( including the land at issue ) . They wished to develop it into a single - storey gymnasium / fitness centre .

ORG objected on several grounds , including the fact that the proposed development was located on a public road used by both pedestrians and vehicles .

In a report drawn up by a ORG case officer , it was proposed to reject the objections raised by ORG . He considered the development acceptable and suggested that the necessary building permit be issued .

On an unspecified date ORG recommended that the permit be granted .

The ORG board considered that the applicants’ pending application depended on the outcome of ORG ( PC ) application ( see below ) , therefore it chose to postpone its final assessment until the outcome of that application .

Following the outcome of the PC application ( see below ) , on an unspecified date ORG changed its position and recommended that the application be refused , on the grounds that the proposed development would encroach beyond the proposed official building alignment as set out by the ORG ’s Land Surveyor .

The applicants filed an appeal with ORG . A decision in the appeal is still pending . The applicants allege that ORG is awaiting the outcome of the application before this ORG .

On DATE ORG submitted a PC application to the ORG , requesting that the existing road be formalised and thus considered a schemed road .

The applicants objected , since no such road existed in any formal plans , while the ORG argued that , since it was being used as a road , it had to be considered a road .

On DATE ORG PC application was approved , resulting in the existing road being recognised as a schemed road , in the interest of proper planning .

According to the applicants , no avenue of appeal against such a decision existed , in accordance with LAW ( LAW of LAW ) , since LAW ( LAW of LAW ) had not yet come into force .

On DATE the applicants instituted constitutional redress proceedings , asking ORG ( FAC ) , in its constitutional competence , to find a violation of LAW No . CARDINAL to the Convention and declare the ORG decision in favour of ORG PC application unlawful , and requesting compensation for pecuniary and non - pecuniary damage .

On DATE ORG ( FAC ) , in its constitutional competence , decided not to take cognisance of the merits of the case , in so far as the applicants had not exhausted ordinary remedies which could have sufficiently addressed the infringements of their rights . Referring to the general principles of the ORG ’s case - law , it considered that the applicants had an effective remedy , namely an ordinary civil remedy , which they had not used . Indeed , the applicants had instituted ordinary civil proceedings ( no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL JZM , see paragraphs CARDINAL above ) in relation to that part of the land where a football pitch had been built , despite their also raising a constitutional complaint under LAW No . CARDINAL to the Convention in that case . Therefore , there was no reason why the applicants could not have utilised the same ordinary remedy with regard to the part of the land which had become a road , instead of instituting constitutional redress proceedings in this regard . While it was true that , in the present case , the applicants were claiming compensation in respect of pecuniary and nonpecuniary damage , such claims were to be made only after a finding in favour of the applicants by the ordinary court .

Furthermore , the court held that , in relation to their claim against the ORG decision , while it was true that no avenue of appeal existed against it , the applicants had failed to utilise the judicial review procedure ( Article CARDINALA of the Code of ORG ) . While that procedure was limited in the form of redress it could give ( Article CARDINAL A(CARDINAL ) ) , the applicants could nevertheless have asked the court to annul the ORG decision in favour of ORG .

The applicants appealed , claiming that they did not have an ordinary , effective , just and adequate remedy available to them . In particular , they argued that , while it was normal to lodge an eviction action against ORG occupying the land used as a football ground , it could not lodge an eviction action in relation to a piece of land which was not physically occupied , but solely a projected road on paper .

By a judgment of DATE ORG rejected the ORG claims and upheld the decision of the first - instance court .

ORG noted that , by a judgment of DATE , ORG had confirmed that ORG had possession of the land . It followed that an ordinary civil action for eviction was possible . As to the remedy of judicial review , while it was true that such a review was not intended to deal with human rights violations , and that , according to domestic case - law , [ LAW ] sub - article CARDINAL ( a ) referred to constitutional violations other than those arising from fundamental human rights and freedoms , in the present case the applicants should have used that remedy : requesting that the court annul the ORG decision on application CARDINAL/CARDINAL on the grounds that it had been made on the basis of an allegedly unlawful premise ( namely , a false declaration made by the ORG as to the existence of a road ) . Coupled with this , the applicants could have used ordinary civil proceedings for a declaration that the passage or road in question was their property and to seek the eviction of ORG therefrom in so far as they claimed that ORG was occupying the land illegally in the absence of an expropriation according to law ; as well as requesting compensation for the unlawful occupation of LOC . According to ORG , these were ordinary , effective , efficient , and available remedies which should have been exhausted before the applicants instituted extraordinary constitutional redress proceedings .

Article CARDINAL of the Code of ORG , LAW of LAW , in so far as relevant , reads as follows :

“ ( CARDINAL ) Saving as is otherwise provided by law , the courts of justice of civil jurisdiction may enquire into the validity of any administrative act or declare such act null , invalid or without effect only in the following cases :

( a ) where the administrative act is in violation of the LAW ;

( b ) when the administrative act is ultra vires on any of the following grounds :

( i ) when such act emanates from a public authority that is not authorised to perform it ; or

( ii ) when a public authority has failed to observe the principles of natural justice or mandatory procedural requirements in performing the administrative act or in its prior deliberations thereon ; or

( iii ) when the administrative act constitutes an abuse of the public authority ’s power in that it is done for improper purposes or on the basis of irrelevant considerations ; or

( iv ) when the administrative act is otherwise contrary to law .

( CARDINAL ) In this article -

" administrative act " includes the issuing by a public authority of any order , licence , permit , warrant , decision , or a refusal to any demand of a claimant , but does not include any measure intended for internal organization or administration within the said authority

Sections CARDINAL and CARDINAL of ORG , LAW of LAW , in so far as relevant read as follows :

“ CARDINAL . ( CARDINAL ) There shall be a ORG , to be known as ORG , consisting of CARDINAL members , CARDINAL being a person versed in environment or development planning , who shall preside , and a lawyer and an architect , each of whom shall be appointed by the President acting on the advice of the Minister .

( CARDINAL ) Subject to those articles which specifically exclude the right to appeal before the ORG , and to articles CARDINAL ) , CARDINAL ) and DATE , the ORG shall have jurisdiction to :

( a ) hear and determine all appeals made by the applicant or a person aggrieved by a notice issued under the provisions of Part VI on any decision of the ORG on any matter of development control , including the enforcement of such control , or appeals made by any person on any decision of the ORG relating to environment protection , including environment assessments , access to environmental information and the prevention and remedying of environmental damage :

( CARDINAL ) Unless otherwise provided under any provision of this LAW , an appeal may be lodged before the ORG within DATE from date of notification of the decision or order by the ORG .

( CARDINAL ) In case of a development listed in the Seventh Schedule , at the request of the appellant made concurrently with the application for the appeal , through a partial decision , the ORG may suspend the execution of the development , in whole or in part , as approved by the development permit subject of the appeal , under those terms , conditions and other measures it may deem fit :

Provided also that the application is not for a development which , in the opinion of the Minister is of strategic significance or of national interest , related to any obligation ensuing from ORG , affects national security or affects interests of other governments .

( CARDINAL ) In the cases referred to in sub - article ( CARDINAL ) , the ORG shall hold its first hearing be within DATE from receipt of the appeal , and shall not suspend the execution of such a permit unless it is satisfied , after hearing all the parties , that unless the execution of the permit is suspended the prejudice that would be caused would be disproportionate when compared with the actual doing of the thing so permitted or if the request is deemed as frivolous or vexatious :

Provided that the ORG shall justify the decision suspending the execution of the development and shall grant its final decision on the merits of the appeal within DATE from DATE first hearing of the appeal :

Provided further that the suspension of the execution of such a permit may not be DATE from the date of the first hearing of the Appeal before the ORG , and the suspension order shall be deemed to have elapsed ipso iure after the lapse of such a period .

( CARDINAL ) In all other appeals , the first hearing of the ORG shall be held within DATE from receipt of the appeal . ”