Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions);Pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)

András Sajó;Egidijus Kūris;Helen Keller;Jon Fridrik Kjølbro;Nebojša Vučinić;Robert Spano

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in ORG .

In DATE the applicant ’s loss of capacity to work was assessed to be CARDINAL per cent as of DATE , and she was granted a disability pension ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . This assessment was maintained in DATE and DATE .

Pursuant to a modification of the applicable methodology but apparently without any substantial change in her health , the level of the applicant ’s disability was changed to MONEY on DATE . Without envisaging her rehabilitation , the assessment panel scheduled the next check - up of her medical status for DATE .

As a consequence of her MONEY level of disability , her entitlement to the disability pension was withdrawn as of DATE .

The applicant challenged this decision in court , but ORG dismissed her action on DATE , notwithstanding an expert opinion stating that the applicant ’s condition had not improved since DATE . The applicant was obliged to reimburse the amounts received after CARDINAL DATE .

NORP In DATE the applicant requested another assessment of her disability . In DATE the first - instance authority assessed it at MONEY , scheduling the next assessment for DATE . The second - instance authority changed this score to MONEY , with a reassessment due in DATE . Such a level would have entitled her to disability pension , had her rehabilitation not been possible ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . However , this time the assessment envisaged the applicant ’s rehabilitation in a time - frame of DATE , during which time she was to receive rehabilitation allowance .

As of DATE , a new law on disability allowances ( Act no . ORG of DATE ) entered into force . It introduced additional applicability criteria ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . Notably , instead of fulfilling the service period required by the former legislation , the disabled person must have DATE covered by social security in DATE the submission of his or her request . Persons who do not meet this requirement may nevertheless qualify if they had no interruption of social cover for DATE throughout their career , or if they were in receipt of a disability pension on DATE .

In DATE the applicant submitted another request for disability allowance . Her condition was assessed in DATE , leading to the finding of MONEY disability . On DATE her request was dismissed because she did not have the requisite period of social cover . Rehabilitation was not envisaged . The next assessment was scheduled for DATE .

NORP On DATE the applicant submitted a fresh request for disability pension under the new law on disability allowances and underwent another assessment in which the level of her disability was again established at MONEY . Rehabilitation was not envisaged .

In principle , such a level of disability would entitle the applicant to a disability pension under the new system . However , since her disability pension had been terminated in DATE ( that is , she was not in receipt of a disability pension on DATE ) and , moreover , she was not in a position to accumulate the requisite number of DATE covered by social security or to demonstrate an uninterrupted social cover , she was not eligible , under any title , for a disability allowance under the new system . Instead of DATE covered by social security , the applicant had CARDINAL .

Accordingly , the applicant ’s disability pension request was refused both by the competent administrative authorities ( on DATE and CARDINAL DATE ) and by ORG , on DATE .

As of DATE , the impugned legislative criteria have been amended with a view to extending the eligibility for disability allowance to those who have accumulated either CARDINAL days covered by social security in DATE or DATE in DATE . However , the applicant could not meet these criteria either .

It appears that currently the applicant lives on aid .

Since DATE ORG has examined a number of complaints attacking in essence the same new rules on disability entitlements ( decision FAC . DATE , CARDINAL/CARDINAL and CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) . The complainants in those procedures raised their constitutional concerns after the final and binding domestic judgments , without applying to the ORG ) in review proceedings . Although these motions were eventually rejected as inadmissible for other reasons , ORG did not consider that , for their constitutional complaints to be entertained , those complainants were required to have approached the GPE beforehand .


Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Deprivation of property)

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

On DATE the applicant concluded an employment contract with a ORG - owned financial institution .

On DATE the applicant ’s employment was terminated by mutual agreement with effect from DATE . Under this agreement , on CARDINAL DATE the employer paid the applicant , after payroll burdens , a net amount of MONEY ( ORG ) ( CARDINAL ( ORG ) ) , including his salary due until the termination of his employment , payment for unused DATE leave and CARDINAL months’ salary .

Under new legislation ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) the gross amount corresponding to the above payment was subsequently taxed at a PERCENT rate in its part exceeding ORG CARDINAL ; the income tax and social security contributions already paid ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) were deducted from the tax payable . Thus , the applicant had to pay an additional ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL,CARDINAL ( approximately ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL ) as special tax , until DATE .


Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 14+3 - Prohibition of discrimination (Article 14 - Discrimination) (Article 3 - Prohibition of torture;Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment);No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);No violation of Article 14+3 - Prohibition of discrimination (Article 14 - Discrimination) (Article 3 - Prohibition of torture;Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);Violation of Article 14+3 - Prohibition of discrimination (Article 14 - Discrimination) (Article 3 - Prohibition of torture;Effective investigation);No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);No violation of Article 14+3 - Prohibition of discrimination (Article 14 - Discrimination) (Article 3 - Prohibition of torture;Effective investigation);Violation of Article 9 - Freedom of thought conscience and religion (Article 9-1 - Freedom of religion);Violation of Article 14+9 - Prohibition of discrimination (Article 14 - Discrimination) (Article 9 - Freedom of thought conscience and religion;Article 9-1 - Freedom of religion);Non-pecuniary damage - award

George Nicolaou;Ineta Ziemele;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Nona Tsotsoria;Päivi Hirvelä;Paul Mahoney

The applicants are all GPE ’s Witnesses , except for the ninth applicant , PERSON . Their application to the ORG is based on CARDINAL cases of alleged violence and assault to which the applicants were subjected at different times . The applicants lodged CARDINAL complaints with the investigation authorities , including ORG of GPE ( “ the ORG ” ) , with a view to criminal proceedings being brought against the perpetrators . The complaints failed to yield any concrete results .

CARDINAL acts of religiously motivated violence were allegedly carried out with the direct participation of the police and other representatives of the authorities , while CARDINAL other cases indicate their indirect involvement . CARDINAL of the QUANTITY acts of alleged violence described in the application involved assaults on FAC by the group of NORP believers run by Mr PERSON ( “ Father PERSON ) , a priest defrocked by ORG ( see Members of the Gldani Congregation of GPE ’s Witnesses and Others v. GPE , no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , § CARDINAL , CARDINAL DATE ) . Although in all the cases the applicants complained to the investigation authorities , in only a few of the cases did they receive a written response . In CARDINAL of the cases , when the applicants challenged the inactivity and ignorance of the law enforcement authorities , the courts refused to hear their complaints . In the majority of the cases , the victims reported the original investigation authorities’ indifference and failure to act to the ORG , but the latter took no adequate action . In CARDINAL cases were the applicants able to take their complaints right up to ORG of GPE , which then dismissed them .

The Public Defender of GPE , ORG against Racism and Intolerance , the ORG High Commissioner for Human Rights , ORG and national and international media repeatedly reported that ORG had been the target of violence by private and NORP religious individuals , the majority of whom had been led by Father PERSON , and that the relevant authorities had failed to prevent or stop it .

NORP In support of the factual account set out below , the applicants produced the statements of CARDINAL victims and witnesses of the alleged violence , photographs of police officers failing to take action while attacks were taking place , photographs of the injured applicants , as well as video recordings and photographs of GPE ’s PERSON meeting places that had been pillaged and ransacked . To illustrate the situation of GPE ’s Witnesses in GPE at the material time , the ORG representatives also referred to the evidence submitted in CARDINAL other applications made by ORG before the ORG ( Members of the Gldani Congregation of GPE ’s Witnesses and Others , cited above , and ORG and Others v. GPE , no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , pending before ORG ) .

The following account presents the facts as the applicants claim they occurred .

This part of the application concerns applicants PERSON , PERSON , PERSON PERSON , PERSON , ORG , NORP GPE , PERSON , NORP Tskhadaia , ORG , ORG , N. Kantaria , L. Esebua , PERSON , NORP ORG , ORG , S. Kintsurashvili , PERSON , NORP ORG , L. ORG and M. ORG ( listed in the appendix as nos . CARDINAL - CARDINAL ) .

On DATE , ORG , GPE . , ORG , GPE , DATE . and ORG , senior officials at the GPE office of ORG ( Western Georgia ) drew up a “ plan for a protection operation to prevent the meeting of the religious movement of GPE ’s Witnesses ” in the village of PERSON on DATE . The plan stated that “ unofficial demonstrations against the meeting in question are likely to take place , requiring police intervention to prevent religious conflict . ” The aims of the operation were defined as follows : to pick up individuals attending the GPE ’s PERSON meeting , to identify them for operational purposes , to gather information on the identified individuals by infiltrating their ranks ; and to set up permanent and mobile checkpoints on the outskirts of the village of ORG , and on the roads around PERSON and between neighbouring villages .

According to the applicants , the PERSON religious convention was postponed by DATE because of the on - going negotiations between the meeting organisers and local officials on the security measures to be put in place .

On DATE a peaceful meeting of CARDINAL GPE ’s Witnesses was taking place at the property of PERSON and PERSON ( applicants ORG . CARDINAL and CARDINAL ) , when it was suddenly disrupted by the police . According to the applicants , the police opened fire inside their property . Masked police officers entered the house , turned it upside down and removed various items . Around CARDINAL Jehovah ’s Witnesses who were present were beaten , including applicants NORP GPE , PERSON , PERSON and PERSON GPE . PERSON , the aged co - owner of the house , was verbally assaulted and one of the attackers spat in her face . She was also made to watch her house being ransacked and plundered , and the stage set up in the courtyard set on fire . At the same time the police organised around QUANTITY buses to drive the participants of the religious meeting off from the scene .

Elsewhere , police checkpoints were set up on the main roads to impede a further CARDINAL Witnesses – including the applicants B. Kurashvili , PERSON and PERSON – from reaching the meeting . According to applicant NORP ORG , he and PERSON ORG were allegedly attacked and beaten on their way to the assembly , whilst ORG , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , S. Kintsurashvili , ORG , L. Esebua , and ORG escaped physical aggression but were verbally assaulted and humiliated .

The applicants lodged complaints with the ORG regional prosecutor ’s office in DATE , and criminal proceedings were instituted under Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL ( a ) of LAW of GPE ( robbery ) on DATE . The criminal file was sent to the investigation department of the GPE office of ORG and investigator ORG . was put in charge of the investigation . In DATE most of the applicants , along with other participants of DATE religious meeting , were questioned as witnesses ; none of them was granted formal victim status . It appears that no other investigative measures were taken .

On DATE the applicants were informed that the investigator had suspended the investigation on DATE and that the regional prosecutor had upheld that decision on DATE . The reason stated was the failure of the investigation to establish the identity of the perpetrators . The applicants referred the matter to the regional prosecutor ’s office , complaining that their statements , providing , among other things , the names of several police officers involved in the incident and the number plates of the vehicles used , had been disregarded . The investigator ’s decision was set aside on DATE and the case was referred back to the same investigator for further inquiries . However , the investigation was subsequently suspended again without the applicants being informed . They did not learn that their case had been closed until the respondent ORG submitted its observations to the ORG in CARDINAL other applications made by ORG Witnesses against GPE on DATE . Consequently , on DATE , the applicants contacted the regional prosecutor to obtain a copy of the decision . They received no response .

This part of the application concerns applicants NORP GPE , PERSON , NORP GPE , PERSON GPE , PERSON NORP , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON . PERSON and A. PERSON ( listed in the appendix as nos . CARDINAL - CARDINAL ) .

According to the applicants , on DATE a large number of ORG Witnesses departed for a meeting in ORG ) . The police had set up checkpoints along the route , blocking the roads and preventing the Witnesses from arriving at their destination . CARDINAL buses and several cars stopped by the police were obliged to turn back . Meanwhile , the police allowed a bus carrying NORP believers to continue to ORG . Upon arrival , the group of NORP believers burst into the property belonging to PERSON ( applicant no . CARDINAL ) in which the meeting was to be held . They destroyed religious objects and removed items belonging to the owner of the property . The police officers present refused to intervene to protect ORG and at least some of them went as far as to beat members of the meeting . CARDINAL Witnesses were beaten and robbed during the attack . Property belonging to the Witnesses valued at MONEY was destroyed or stolen . In addition , according to an audit report submitted by the applicants , QUANTITY of religious literature worth MONEY was burnt on DATE .

R. PERSON was assaulted and beaten by those who stormed his house , while PERSON . PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , NORP PERSON and PERSON were stopped and beaten by a group of NORP believers on their way to the convention site . PERSON submitted a medical certificate stating that he had sustained concussion as a result of the beatings . PERSON sustained bruises around his right eye and on his right knee . It appears that DATE he was further assaulted by QUANTITY police officers on account of his participation in the events at hand .

PERSON was prevented by the roadblocks from travelling to PERSON and thus escaped the attack unharmed , while PERSON GPE , Z. Baidoshvili and PERSON did not submit any statements with regard to the treatment inflicted on them .

On DATE the applicants filed a criminal complaint with the ORG . They received no information concerning the progress of their complaint . Therefore , on DATE , the ORG representative contacted the ORG requesting a copy of the decision taken with respect to the initial complaint . The ORG did not respond . On DATE , the applicants lodged a complaint against the authorities for their failure to reply . Their complaint was dismissed on DATE by ORG on the ground that they could not file a complaint against a non - existent decision .

NORP This part of the application concerns the applicants PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON and PERSON ( listed in the appendix as nos . CARDINAL - CARDINAL ) .

On DATE , several private individuals , including GPE , GPE , and GPE , armed with guns and knives , burst into the home of ORG in PERSON ( LOC ) where a meeting of FAC was taking place . CARDINAL of the assailants blocked the door , while the others proceeded to attack the applicants . A gun was pointed at the head of PERSON and he was punched in the face until his nose , which had been broken , began to bleed . PERSON was cruelly beaten and a cigarette was stubbed out on his forehead . PERSON was punched in the face and stomach and threatened with a knife , and PERSON jumped out of a window when CARDINAL of the attackers took out his gun and pulled the trigger . She was taken to hospital by ambulance and placed in intensive care . PERSON , the owner of the house , was not at home during the attack , but his wife , PERSON , was present and was also assaulted .

Along with their statements giving details of the incident , the applicants also provided the ORG with a photograph of PERSON , who , after jumping out of the window , sustained an injury to her back and was unable to walk for DATE , a photograph of PERSON with a broken nose , and a photograph of ORG with a cigarette burn on his forehead .

NORP The police officers who arrived at the scene shortly after the incident insulted the victims and refused to record their complaints . On DATE , the applicants lodged a collective complaint with the city prosecutor .

On DATE , several of the applicants were summoned to give a statement . Their representative subsequently lodged a complaint in respect of the pressure and harassment to which the applicants had been subjected during questioning . He also denounced the ORG refusal to organise a medical examination of PERSON and other victims of the attack .

On DATE , the applicants were notified of the decision of DATE to take no further action in relation to their complaints . According to the decision , the investigating authorities had concluded that PERSON GPE ’s injuries had been self - inflicted , while PERSON had jumped out of the window “ of her own free will ” . The decision also stated that the investigative authorities had established that one of the attackers had had a toy gun and had hence concluded that the meeting in question had not been violently disrupted .

Following an objection lodged by the applicants on DATE with the regional prosecutor , the case was sent to the city prosecutor for further investigation . On DATE , the applicants went to the public prosecutor ’s office to seek information on the progress of their case . They learnt that no further action would be taken and were denied a copy of the decision . On DATE , the applicants applied to ORG but the judge refused to register their application . It was only following a complaint filed with ORG that the PERSON court dealt with the applicants’ application on DATE and quashed the decision of the public prosecutor ’s office to take no action in their case . The case was sent back for additional investigation . Since then , the applicants have received no further news from the investigation authorities .

This part of the application concerns the applicants ORG , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON and PERSON ( listed in the appendix as nos . CARDINAL - CARDINAL ) .

On DATE and DATE , a large group of NORP believers led by Father PERSON burst into the courtroom of the ORG of First Instance in GPE , which was dealing with a criminal case against CARDINAL GPE ’s Witnesses . The group attacked the applicants , journalists and foreign observers present in the room . The court bailiffs guarding the courtroom did not move or intervene in the confrontation . The group of believers was equipped with big wooden crosses , which they used as weapons . They took control of the courtroom . The lawyer acting for the accused asked for the hearing to be adjourned , but the judge did not allow his request . The court imposed no penalties on the religious believers who had forcibly occupied the courtroom . The attack was filmed and broadcast on the Rustavi CARDINAL and LOC television channels .

Applicants E. GPE , S. Kvergelidze , L. GPE and ORG managed to escape the aggression unharmed , while PERSON , PERSON , PERSON and PERSON , according to their statements , suffered verbal and physical abuse ; they were all threatened with being beaten by the big crosses .

The applicants lodged various complaints . They were given no information as to the progress of their cases . On DATE their lawyer asked for access to the file and discovered that criminal proceedings had been instituted on CARDINAL DATE and that on that same day , an investigation unit had been set up . The case had since been assigned to CARDINAL successive investigating officers . The first CARDINAL had managed to secure an extension of the investigation period until DATE and CARDINAL DATE respectively . On DATE , the investigator responsible had decided to close the case on the grounds that it had been impossible “ to identify the perpetrators of the attack ” . The applicants pointed out that the video recording of the attack had been broadcast on television and that furthermore , many of the witnesses had recognised Father PERSON ’s religious group .

On DATE , the decision to take no further action was set aside and the file returned for further investigation . On DATE , the investigation period was extended to DATE . Following DATE of investigation , none of the attackers was placed under investigation and no decision was served on the applicants and their lawyer .

This part of the application concerns the applicant PERSON PERSON ( listed in the appendix as no . CARDINAL ) . On DATE , while walking along the road between the villages of PERSON and PERSON ( Eastern Georgia ) , the applicant was picked up by CARDINAL private individuals , who were later identified as GPE , GPE , GPE , and PERSON They took him by car to the place of worship of ORG living in PERSON . They threatened to kill him unless he crossed himself and went around the site carrying an icon . When the applicant refused , they dragged him into a forest and beat him . They stripped him and took his personal belongings , including religious literature , which they then set alight . They threatened to rape him if he did not do as they ordered . They placed the belt of his own trousers around his neck , dragged him by the hair and forced him to crawl to a sacred rock and kiss it . After TIME , and having been warned not to mention the incident to anyone , the applicant was taken back to the attackers’ car . He was thrown out of the car outside the house of a villager . The villager took care of the applicant for DATE until he was able to return home .

On DATE the applicant reported the incident to the police . In support of his version of events he submitted , along with his detailed statement , a statement of the villager , who had taken care of him . When the attackers learnt that he had done so , they threatened him . The police contacted them and obtained a written undertaking that they would stop intimidating the applicant . The applicant was notified of the decision of DATE not to open a criminal case DATE . On DATE and DATE , his lawyer lodged an appeal with the regional prosecutor and the ORG respectively . He received no response . On DATE , the lawyer referred the matter to ORG . The court informed him verbally that the decision not to institute criminal proceedings would be set aside by the regional prosecutor and that the investigation would go ahead . On DATE , the regional prosecutor sent the matter for further investigation . Since that date , the applicant has received no further information as to the progress of his case . His lawyer ’s requests for information have also been to no avail .

This part of the application concerns applicant PERSON ( listed in the appendix as no . DATE ) . On DATE , the applicant was allegedly beaten up by V.A. , in the PERSON region ( LOC ) because he was a FAC . The applicant went to the local hospital , which alerted the police . The medical certificate submitted by the applicant stated that he had sustained bruising on the back of his head and abrasions on his face , right cheek , forehead and the back of his left ear .

On DATE , the applicant filed a complaint with the PERSON police . He was pressurised on many occasions by the attacker and his family to withdraw his complaint . The police investigated , identified Mr V.A. as the attacker and forwarded the case file to FAC . On DATE , before even questioning the applicant and the prosecution witnesses and after having questioned the defence witnesses , the trial judge decided not to institute criminal proceedings for lack of evidence of a crime . The applicant appealed to ORG , which , by a decision of DATE , upheld the decision of the lower court . Both those courts established that V.A. had not beaten up the applicant while he had been touting his literature , but had merely pushed him to get away from him . The applicant had therefore been injured by falling . On DATE , ORG of GPE dismissed an appeal lodged by the applicant .

This part of the application concerns applicant PERSON ( listed in the appendix as no.CARDINAL ) . On DATE the applicant , along with CARDINAL Jehovah ’s Witnesses , was celebrating a religious feast in a private house in the city of LOC ) . Late in the evening some QUANTITY persons approached the house and tried to interrupt the religious gathering . Several of them , who were apparently drunk , including L.Ch . and PERSON , the latter being armed with a wooden stick , burst into the house and verbally assaulted the Witnesses ; the applicant was physically assaulted by PERSON . Police intervention was requested and the head of the city police , GPE , arrived but , according to the applicant , only to assist the attackers . He forced the applicant to go to a police station , where the latter was physically assaulted by ORG , insulted by other people , including an NORP priest , and threatened with further physical violence unless he stopped practising his religion in GPE . He was detained at the police station for TIME .

On DATE the applicant lodged a complaint . By a decision of CARDINAL DATE an investigator from the LOC prosecutor ’s office discontinued the proceedings owing to the absence of evidence of a crime . He concluded , after having questioned several police officers , that there was no evidence substantiating the applicant ’s allegation that ORG had insulted him . The applicant was not informed of the above decision until DATE . He immediately appealed , complaining , inter alia , that his initial complaint had concerned not only the conduct of ORG but also the violent dispersal of the GPE ’s Witnesses meeting of DATE and the physical and verbal assault on him that had ensued . On DATE the refusal to institute criminal proceedings was upheld on appeal and no further investigation was ever conducted . The respective decision was served on the applicant only on DATE .

These parts of the application concern the applicants PERSON , GPE and PERSON ( listed in the appendix as nos . DATE , case no . CARDINAL) ; PERSON and PERSON ( nos . CARDINAL DATE , case no . CARDINAL ) ; PERSON , PERSON , PERSON and M. Tchubabria ( nos . CARDINAL , case no . CARDINAL ) ; ORG , PERSON , PERSON and PERSON ( nos . CARDINAL , case no . CARDINAL ) ; PERSON and A. ORG ( nos . DATE and DATE , case no . CARDINAL ) ; PERSON ( no . CARDINAL , case no . CARDINAL ) ; and PERSON and PERSON ( ORG . CARDINAL and CARDINAL , case no . CARDINAL ) respectively .

On DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE , CARDINAL DATE and DATE respectively the applicants were subjected to various forms of aggressive behaviour because of their faith . A group of Father PERSON followers in GPE , a group of CARDINAL followers of Father PERSON and Father PERSON in GPE , and other groups of laypersons followed the applicants in the streets or close to their homes ; they insulted them ; they attempted to break into their homes by forcing the doors , frightening children who had been left home alone ( case no . CARDINAL ) ; they tried to force CARDINAL of the applicants to kiss the cross ( applicant no . CARDINAL , criminal case no.CARDINAL ) ; and they seized their religious literature ( case no . CARDINAL ) and burned it ( case no . CARDINAL ) . The homes of applicants PERSON and ORG at which ORG held their services were burgled and ransacked , and religious objects were stolen ( cases FAC . CARDINAL and CARDINAL ) .

In certain cases , the police were present at the scene but did not intervene to protect the applicants ( criminal cases nos . CARDINAL and DATE ) .

In all cases , the applicants lodged complaints , but apart from cases nos . CARDINAL and DATE , no response was ever received . The applicants contacted ORG to obtain a written decision as regards their complaints but they never received a reply . In some cases the courts contacted the public prosecutor ’s office themselves requesting written decisions , but received no response .

In criminal case no . CARDINAL , in reply to a complaint filed by applicants ORG , PERSON and PERSON ( CARDINAL . DATE ) , the police informed them that they had issued a warning to Father PERSON to stop attacking GPE ’s Witnesses . The applicants requested several times a copy of the written decision not to institute criminal proceedings , but received no response . On DATE the ORG of First Instance refused to hear an objection lodged by the applicants on the grounds that they could not validly challenge a non - existent decision . The complaints filed by PERSON and PERSON ( criminal case no . CARDINAL ) , ORG , PERSON , PERSON and PERSON ( criminal case no . CARDINAL ) , PERSON ( criminal case no . CARDINAL ) and PERSON and PERSON PERSON ( criminal case no . CARDINAL ) on DATE had the same outcome ; On various dates in DATE the ORG of First Instance refused to examine the applicants’ complaints on the ground that they had failed to submit the decisions of the prosecutor ’s office .

In criminal case no . CARDINAL , the applicants were notified of the prosecutor ’s decision of DATE to take no further action . This decision was set aside by the court authorities and the case was referred back for further investigation . Subsequently , on CARDINAL DATE the ORG prosecutor upheld the initial refusal to institute criminal proceedings . The prosecutor concluded , on the basis of various witness testimonies , that neither of the GPE ’s Witnesses had been subjected to verbal or physical abuse during the alleged incident ; they had been merely prevented by the local priests and population from attending a religious gathering of GPE ’s Witnesses at the home of PERSON ( applicant no . CARDINAL ) in order to avert an escalation of religious conflict in the city .

In criminal case no . CARDINAL , following several written complaints which have been left unanswered , on DATE the head of the local police informed the applicants in person that no investigation had been carried out because they had never received their written complaints .

This part of the application concerns the applicant PERSON . PERSON ( listed in the appendix as no . CARDINAL ) . On DATE , the applicant was travelling to the village of PERSON with various religious books belonging either to him or to the local congregation of Jehovah ’s Witnesses . He was stopped by police officer GPE and taken to LOC police station , where the books were confiscated . His attempts to object resulted in verbal abuse and he was released . The applicant returned to the police station some time later accompanied by CARDINAL other GPE ’s Witnesses , who were the other owners of the confiscated literature . On arrival , they noticed the charred remains of their books . On DATE , they lodged a complaint .

On DATE the applicant was notified of a decision of CARDINAL DATE not to open a criminal case for lack of evidence of a crime .

This part of the application concerns the applicants PERSON GPE and GPE ORG . CARDINAL and CARDINAL ) . On DATE , GPE . , an NORP priest , accompanied by several police officers , including PERSON , approached PERSON GPE , who was sitting on a bus in the city of PERSON , and demanded that he show them his bag . On the instructions of the priest , the police officers confiscated the religious literature and personal documents found in the bag . The applicant filed a complaint at the police station .

DATE . On DATE , both applicants were walking through the central square in the village of PERSON ( Martvili municipality ) when they were stopped by a group of CARDINAL men . The applicants were cruelly beaten because of their faith . The head of the local police , PERSON and QUANTITY police officers , GPE and ORG , were close by and witnessed the act of violence , but failed to intervene to protect the victims . On the contrary , they threatened to arrest the applicants . The applicants filed a complaint . In support of his complaint , PERSON submitted a medical report which stated that he had sustained bruises around his left eye , on his forehead and on both thighs .

NORP The applicants’ complaints were never followed up . On DATE , their lawyer contacted the ORG but received no reply . On DATE , the applicants took legal action in respect of the investigation authorities’ failure to act . On DATE , ORG refused to hear the complaint on the ground that the applicants could not validly challenge a non - existent decision . On DATE , the applicants filed the same complaint with the same court . On DATE , that court responded that the case had been referred back to the prosecutor ’s office for a written decision . In reply to their query of DATE , the responsible investigator informed the applicants that on CARDINAL DATE a decision had been taken to close the case . He based his decision on the statements of the alleged perpetrators . He dismissed the medical evidence and concluded that no crimes had been committed . The decision also stated that the time - limit for initiating a private legal action had expired .

This part of the application concerns the applicant PERSON PERSON ( listed in the appendix as no . CARDINAL ) , a GPE ’s Witness pastor . On DATE the applicant was visiting a congregation of ORG in GPE . Having been stopped in the street by unidentified individuals , he was taken to the police station where he was jeered at and insulted . The police threatened to arrest him if he were ever to be seen practising his religion in PERSON again . The applicant was expelled from the town and the bus driver was ordered not to let him off the bus before the terminus in GPE .

On DATE the applicant lodged a complaint . He received an acknowledgment of receipt but no further information as to the progress of his case . On DATE , he contacted the ORG asking for a decision . No response followed . On DATE , the applicant referred the matter to ORG . On DATE , the first - instance judge informed him that the court ’s attempts to obtain the file and the decision from the public prosecutor ’s office had failed and that he was therefore unable to investigate his complaint . DATE , the court managed to obtain a copy of the prosecutor ’s decision , which it forwarded to the applicant . It appeared from DATE decision that the prosecutor had decided not to initiate criminal proceedings . He concluded , on the basis of the statement of the QUANTITY police officers involved in the incident , that the applicant had been taken to the police station for his own safety in order to prevent any conflict with the local population . The prosecutor also stated that there was no evidence to substantiate the applicant ’s allegations of abuse .

The prosecutor ’s refusal to institute criminal proceedings was upheld by ORG and ORG of GPE on DATE and DATE respectively .

This part of the application concerns the applicant PERSON ( listed in the appendix as no . CARDINAL ) . On DATE , the applicant was stopped in a GPE street by police officer GPE , who asked him what he had in his bag . The religious literature and the Bible in his bag were confiscated . The police officer and CARDINAL passers - by insulted the applicant . On DATE , the applicant went to the police station to request the return of his books and Bible . In response to his request , officer GPE threw a bag he was holding towards the applicant and kicked him out of the police station .

On DATE the applicant filed a complaint but received no response . On DATE , his lawyer contacted the ORG but received no reply . The applicant referred the matter to the Vake - Saburtalo Court of First Instance in GPE . At the hearing of DATE , the applicant obtained a copy of the decision of the public prosecutor ’s office not to institute criminal proceedings dated DATE . The court set aside that decision and referred the case back to the public prosecutor ’s office for further investigation . On DATE , the applicant ’s lawyer tried unsuccessfully to obtain information on the progress of the file .

NORP This part of the application concerns the applicants PERSON , A. GPE and PERSON ( nos . CARDINAL , DATE and DATE ) . On DATE the applicants were returning from a religious meeting . In the village of GPE ( Borjomi district , LOC ) , they were attacked by a group of villagers accompanied by PERSON . , and PERSON , administrative head of the county town of the district and administrative head of the village respectively . CARDINAL of the attackers , a private individual , struck PERSON , who started bleeding and grabbed his bag containing a Bible and other religious literature . The same person then attacked the other CARDINAL applicants , lashing them with the strap of the bag belonging to PERSON . The CARDINAL administrative heads condoned the violence and insulted the applicants . They then ordered the villagers to stop and left the scene with them .

On DATE the applicants filed a complaint . On DATE , they were notified of the decision to close the proceedings . On DATE , the applicants challenged that decision before the regional prosecutor , who dismissed their action on DATE . The applicants complained to the ORG on DATE , but no reply followed .

This part of the application concerns the applicants PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , Kh . GPE , E. GPE , PERSON , PERSON , ORG , PERSON and PERSON ( listed in the appendix as nos . CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL - CARDINAL ) .

On DATE in GPE , followers of Father PERSON stopped a bus that was carrying FAC to a religious meeting in GPE . They punctured the tyres , forced the applicants along with other ORG Witnesses out of the bus and assaulted them , verbally and physically . The men , including NORP , PERSON and PERSON , were particularly severely beaten ; PERSON was also personally targeted because she was video recording the attack . In particular , after forcefully getting of the bus , she was chased by CARDINAL men who assaulted her and then took the camera away from her . They shortly returned to her a broken camera , but the video recording was missing . They also threatened her not to make any recordings in the future .

NORP On DATE GPE ’s Witnesses , including the applicants , filed a complaint . In DATE they in addition submitted individual statements detailing the violent incident . On DATE , their lawyer contacted the ORG asking for a decision to be taken . They received no response . On DATE , the applicants complained to the ORG of First Instance in GPE of the investigation authorities’ failure to take action , which had amounted to a rejection of their complaint . On DATE , the court informed the applicants that in the absence of any written decision , their complaint could not be examined .

On DATE the applicant PERSON ( listed in the appendix as no . CARDINAL ) was walking along a street in the city of GPE , when he was subjected to physical and verbal abuse because of his faith . Notably , he alleged that he had been beaten and insulted by a passer - by while he was distributing religious literature . Accompanied by his attacker , the applicant went to the police station where he was allegedly hit by a police officer , ORG , while other police officers thanked the attacker . In support of his allegations , the applicant submitted the statements of CARDINAL eyewitnesses .

On DATE the applicant lodged a complaint . On DATE , the LOC prosecutor decided not to institute proceedings against the passer - by , identified as LOC , and police officer PERSON Noting that the applicant ’s statement and those of the eyewitnesses supporting his version of the events were controversial , the prosecutor concluded that there was no evidence of a criminal offence committed by either of them . The applicant challenged that decision . After having questioned the parties concerned , the lower court dismissed the case on the ground that the applicant ’s injuries had not been confirmed by a medical report . An appeal by the applicant to ORG of GPE was dismissed on DATE .

This part of the application concerns the applicants PERSON , PERSON , PERSON and PERSON ( listed in the appendix as nos . CARDINAL , case no . CARDINAL ) ; PERSON , PERSON and PERSON ( nos . CARDINAL - CARDINAL , case no . CARDINAL ) ; PERSON ( no . CARDINAL , case no . CARDINAL ) ; and PERSON , I. PERSON , and T. Arabyani ( nos . CARDINAL , CARDINAL , case no . CARDINAL ) respectively .

According to the applicants , because of their faith they were subjected to threats , verbal assault and theft of their religious literature and personal belongings while walking in the streets on DATE , QUANTITY , DATE and DATE respectively . The attacks were carried out in different parts of the country . The perpetrators were followers of Father PERSON or just laypersons hostile to GPE ’s Witnesses . Most of them were identified by the victims .

The applicants in all the cases complained to the police . When filing the complaint , some of them were subjected to verbal abuse by police officers ( case no . CARDINAL ) . In response to their complaints , some of the applicants were informed verbally that the police had already warned the attackers to stop abusing GPE ’s Witnesses . Hence , when PERSON ( case no . CARDINAL ) complained to the police on DATE that she had been repeatedly assaulted by PERSON and his friends , the police limited themselves to contacting PERSON and obtaining a written undertaking that he would stop intimidating the applicant . The latter was informed in this respect verbally by head of police on DATE . According to the case file , she took no further action in response .

The applicants in criminal cases nos . CARDINAL , DATE and DATE were not informed of any decision taken by the relevant national authorities in connection with their complaints . The applicants complained to the courts of the inaction of the investigation authorities , but the courts refused to deal with their cases in the absence of a written decision . The respective court decisions were delivered on DATE ( criminal case no . CARDINAL ) and DATE ( criminal cases nos . CARDINAL - CARDINAL ) .

This part of the application concerns the applicants PERSON and PERSON ( listed in the appendix as nos . CARDINAL and DATE , case no . CARDINAL ) , PERSON ( no.CARDINAL , case no . CARDINAL ) , PERSON and PERSON ( nos . CARDINAL and CARDINAL , case no . CARDINAL ) , NORP PERSON ( no . DATE , case no . CARDINAL ) and PERSON ( case no . CARDINAL ) . According to the applicants , while walking in the street they were subjected to verbal and physical abuse because of their faith . They were beaten up and their personal belongings were stolen on DATE and DATE , DATE and DATE , and DATE respectively . In support of their version of the events the applicants submitted detailed statements as well as medical evidence where available .

DATE . Applicants PERSON and PERSON ( criminal case no . CARDINAL ) , who were allegedly beaten by a group of CARDINAL supporters of Father PERSON in a street during daylight TIME in GPE , had to seek medical assistance in a hospital . DATE after the attack they filed a criminal complaint with the ORG in which they provided a detailed account of the incident , indicated the number plates of the vehicles involved , and identified CARDINAL of the alleged attackers by name . While being questioned as witnesses , the applicants were pressured by the police to withdraw their complaint . In a ruling of DATE the ORG of First Instance concluded , having regard to the relevant case file , that the assault in question , as a result of which the applicants had sustained minor bodily injuries , had clearly had a religious motive and had been committed by followers of Father PERSON . The judge noted , however , that it had been impossible to identify the alleged perpetrators and referred the case file back to the prosecution authorities . As it appears from the materials at hand , the applicants were informed in DATE that their case file was subsequently lost .

In case no . DATE , the applicant was assaulted by a private individual , PERSON filed a complaint with the local police DATE after the attack . He also underwent a medical examination . He resubmitted his criminal complaint to the district prosecutor of ORG DATE , together with the results of the medical examination . He received a reply on DATE stating that criminal proceedings had been instituted . Since then , however , the applicant has not inquired about the progress of the investigation .

Applicant A. Turkia ( criminal case no . CARDINAL ) was assaulted by a layperson , PERSON , in the city of NORP on DATE . The incident was witnessed by applicant PERSON , who apparently escaped the attack unharmed . According to Mr Turkia ’s statement , he suffered serious physical and verbal abuse and was also threatened with a knife . On DATE he filed a complaint with the ORG . Mr NORP claimed that it was not the first attack of this type involving PERSON On DATE the deputy head of the NORP regional police decided not to follow up the complaint . He concluded , on the basis of the alleged attacker ’s statement as well as several GPE depositions , that PERSON had simply asked Mr NORP to stop disseminating religious literature in the city and that Mr Turkia had suffered no physical injuries . The decision was upheld on appeal by a prosecutor on DATE . On DATE the ORG judge set aside the prosecutor ’s decision . He referred to the results of Mr Turkia ’s medical examination , and to a photograph of him taken DATE after the alleged incident . He concluded that there was evidence of an offence and remitted the case for further investigation . Applicant NORP was not informed of the progress of the subsequent investigation .

In case no . CARDINAL the applicant , who was verbally and physically assaulted by a group of private individuals , among them M.T. and PERSON residents of the village LOC ( NORP GPE ) , was informed by police that they had issued a warning to PERSON to stop attacking ORG . A decision was taken not to initiate a criminal investigation . The applicant challenged the refusal . On DATE the ORG remitted the case for further investigation . The trial judge concluded that no identification procedure had taken place and that the investigation had disregarded the accusations voiced with respect to PERSON On DATE a PERSON prosecutor after having questioned the alleged attackers maintained the refusal to open a criminal case owing to the absence of elements of crime .

PERSON ( criminal case no . CARDINAL ) was assaulted while hosting several Witnesses at a dinner in her home on DATE . She complained to police claiming that CARDINAL of the assailants , GPE had been systematically attacking her . Police informed her that they had warned GPE and that no proceedings had been instituted . Subsequently , the applicant requested a copy of the written decision not to institute criminal proceedings , but received no response .


Jon Fridrik Kjølbro;Julia Laffranque;Nebojša Vučinić;Paul Lemmens;Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström;Georges Ravarani

A list of the applicants is set out in the appendix .

On DATE the ORG son and brother respectively , ORG , was killed in a traffic accident when the car he was driving collided with a bulldozer at TIME . The bulldozer was being used for road works by ORG ( PERSON ) . An autopsy performed on the victim ’s body on DATE confirmed that he had died as a result of bodily traumas sustained in the crash .

Shortly after the accident , CARDINAL gendarme officers went to the site of the crash to prepare an incident report . They noted , inter alia , that no signs had been placed on the road to warn drivers about the road works , a fact confirmed by the driver of the bulldozer . According to a map sketched by the gendarme officers , the car driven by ORG had hit the bulldozer on the rear left side , while the bulldozer was parked on an unpaved area on the right side of the main road .

According to witness statements obtained by the gendarmerie on DATE , the rear of the bulldozer had protruded CARDINAL metres onto the main road at the time of the collision . However , it had been moved to the side of the road immediately after the accident , prior to the arrival of the gendarmerie at the site of the crash .

TIME after the accident gendarme officers questioned the driver of the bulldozer , ORG He stated that he had been operating the bulldozer on the unpaved area next to the main road when ORG car had crashed into it . He denied any responsibility for the accident .

On DATE ORG was taken to the PERSON public prosecutor to make a statement . Repeating his earlier words to the gendarmerie , ORG insisted that the bulldozer had been completely off the main road at the time of the accident , and that he had no idea how the collision had occurred . He also stated that there had been some signs QUANTITY from the place of the crash showing road works . He made the same statement before ORG DATE .

On DATE the PERSON public prosecutor interviewed an eyewitness , A.E.H. , who stated that at the time of the incident the bulldozer had occupied CARDINAL the main road and that just before the crash another accident had been avoided when a lorry had managed to steer around the bulldozer at TIME . The witness stated that he had warned an engineer overseeing the road works that someone holding a flag was needed to redirect the traffic .

On DATE the PERSON public prosecutor filed a bill of indictment with ORG ( “ the FAC ” or “ the trial court ” ) against ORG , charging him with causing death through negligence under LAW in force at the material time .

On DATE ORG began hearing the case .

On an unspecified date the first applicant joined the proceedings as a civil party .

On DATE the trial court carried out an on - site inspection of the place of the accident . The inspection included a gendarmerie expert , the defendant and CARDINAL witnesses . The expert carried out measurements on the bulldozer and the unpaved road it had been working on , as well as on the main road . CARDINAL of the witnesses , A.E.H. , who had previously been interviewed by the public prosecutor , had seen the accident happen . The remaining witnesses made contradictory statements about the location of the crash . Some of them stated that the victim ’s car had crashed into the bulldozer on the shoulder between the main road and the unpaved area , while others stated that the collision had occurred in the right lane of the main road .

On DATE the gendarmerie expert issued his report ( “ the first report ” ) . He stated that owing to the contradictory nature of the witness accounts the location of the collision could not be established with any certainty . He continued by saying that if the crash had occurred on the shoulder , then the victim bore CARDINAL responsibility , as he had had no reason for leaving his lane and crossing to the shoulder ; the remaining responsibility fell on ORG ( DATE ) and ORG ( CARDINAL ) for not taking the necessary safety measures around the road construction work . If , however , the collision had occurred in the right lane of the main road , then ORG and ORG were DATE and CARDINAL liable respectively for occupying the main road without taking any safety measures .

On DATE ORG issued a report concerning the accident ( “ the second report ” ) . Relying on all the information in the case file , they found that the collision had occurred on the main road . On the basis of that finding , it declared that ORG was threeeighths responsible for occupying the main road , the victim was threeeighths liable for not reacting effectively and redirecting the car in a timely manner to avoid a collision , and ORG was CARDINAL responsible for not placing warning signs and signals on the road .

On DATE the first applicant objected to ORG report . It appears that ORG ordered a third report owing to the contradictions between the first CARDINAL .

On DATE CARDINAL court - appointed experts issued their own accident report ( “ the third report ” ) , where they reached the same findings as ORG .

On DATE an additional indictment was filed against GPE , the head of the team of workers carrying out the road construction work ( “ the foreman ” ) for causing GPE death through negligence by not placing signs or a man with a flag on the road to warn drivers about the construction work .

At a hearing held on DATE GPE denied all responsibility for the failure to take safety measures , claiming that such measures were the responsibility of his superiors .

At its fifteenth hearing , held on DATE , ORG delivered its judgment . It convicted ORG and GPE as charged on the basis of the second and third reports , and sentenced them to a judicial fine .

The parties appealed against the trial court ’s judgment .

On DATE the public prosecutor ’s office attached to ORG remitted the case to ORG for a reassessment of the sentence in the light of FAC no . DATE ) that had entered into force in DATE .

At a hearing held by ORG on DATE , the defendant ORG argued that the responsibility for taking safety measures on the road fell on ORG , the head of the road construction site .

On DATE the ORG requested that ORG of Highways indicate whether responsibility for taking the necessary safety measures at the road construction site had been that of GPE or ORG The first applicant objected to that request , stating that the trial court had no jurisdiction to collect new evidence at that stage of the proceedings as the case had been remitted to it only for a reassessment of the sentence in the light of the new Criminal Code . The first applicant ’s objection was dismissed , having regard to the authority and duty of a trial court to collect relevant evidence at all stages of the criminal proceedings .

On DATE ORG of Highways informed ORG that the head of the construction site was responsible for placing the necessary warning signs while the foreman was responsible for keeping those signs in place for the duration of the construction work . It added that warning signs had been placed on the road at the time of the accident .

On DATE Ş.Z. was heard as a witness . He stated that his responsibility was limited to placing warning signs around the construction site , which he had duly fulfilled . He added that the inspection of the day - to - day work at the site was the responsibility of the foreman , who was GPE

At a hearing held on DATE the trial court ordered an additional report to determine the liability of GPE and GPE for the accident .

The additional report , issued on DATE ( “ the fourth report ” ) , found that the responsibility to take safety measures fell on ORG and not GPE He was , therefore , CARDINAL liable for the accident , according to the experts .

On DATE ORG again convicted PERSON under the relevant provisions of the former Criminal Code , which were more favourable in the circumstances . However , on the basis of the additional report , it acquitted GPE and decided that a criminal complaint should be filed against ORG with the PERSON public prosecutor ’s office . On DATE the first applicant appealed against that judgment .

On DATE ORG upheld GPE ’s acquittal , but quashed the trial court ’s judgment in so far as it concerned ORG , holding that the trial court had to consider whether the procedure for the suspension of the pronouncement of judgments ( hükmün açıklanmasının geri bırakılması ) , provided for in LAW no . CARDINAL ) , was applicable in the circumstances .

On DATE the first applicant requested that ORG file a criminal complaint against ORG , as per its decision dated DATE .

At a hearing held on DATE ORG issued an order for the PERSON public prosecutor to indicate whether an investigation had been commenced against ORG , and if not , to duly commence the investigation process , having regard to the impending expiry of the limitation period . At the same hearing the criminal court decided to suspend the pronouncement of the judgment against ORG ( hükmün açıklanmasının geri bırakılması ) , pursuant to LAW no . CARDINAL ) .

On DATE the applicant objected to the decision to suspend the pronouncement of the judgment , arguing that the conditions for such a suspension , as set out in LAW , had not been satisfied .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s objection , finding that the requirements of the above - mentioned article of LAW had been complied with .

It appears that in the meantime , on DATE , the registry of ORG filed a criminal complaint against ORG with the PERSON public prosecutor ’s office .

On DATE the PERSON public prosecutor delivered a decision not to prosecute in relation to ORG as prosecution of the offence in question had become time - barred .

On an unspecified date the applicants filed a criminal complaint against the members of the registry of ORG for neglect of duty . They alleged that by delaying the filing of a criminal complaint against ORG , they had caused his prosecution to become timebarred .

On DATE the PERSON public prosecutor filed a bill of indictment with ORG against CARDINAL members of the registry of ORG for neglect of duty .

On DATE the ORG acquitted the defendants on the grounds of an absence of mens rea because the offence of neglect of duty required a specific intent , which had been absent .

The applicants appealed against that judgment .

On DATE ORG upheld the judgment of ORG .

In the meantime , on DATE the applicants brought compensation proceedings against ORG , GPE and ORG before ORG of First Instance ( “ the ORG ” ) . The first applicant claimed CARDINAL Turkish liras ( TRY ) and TRY CARDINAL in respect of pecuniary and non - pecuniary damage , respectively . The second and third applicants claimed TRY CARDINAL and TRY CARDINAL , respectively , in non - pecuniary damages .

On DATE ORG dismissed the claims against GPE on account of his acquittal in the criminal proceedings . It also delivered a decision of non - jurisdiction in respect of the claims against ORG as such claims were to be brought before the administrative courts . Relying on the second and third reports issued during the criminal proceedings , ORG held that ORG held CARDINAL liability for ORG death and ordered him to pay TRY MONEY ( MONEY ( ORG ) ) , plus interest , in respect of pecuniary damage to the first applicant , in proportion to his responsibility for the death . It also ordered ORG to pay compensation in respect of nonpecuniary damage of TRY CARDINAL ( approximately EUR CARDINAL ) to each of the first CARDINAL applicants , and TRY CARDINAL ( approximately ORG CARDINAL ) to the third applicant , together with interest running from the date of the accident .

On DATE the applicants appealed against the judgment of ORG , arguing in particular that the compensation for non - pecuniary damage ordered by that court had been minimal .

On DATE ORG granted the applicants’ request and quashed the judgment of ORG , ordering that court to award a higher level of compensation for non - pecuniary damage to the applicants .

It appears that on DATE ORG ordered ORG to pay compensation in respect of non - pecuniary damage of TRY CARDINAL ( approximately ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL ) to each of the first CARDINAL applicants , and TRY CARDINAL ( approximately FAC ) to the third applicant , together with interest running from the date of the accident .

On DATE ORG quashed the judgment of ORG in so far as it concerned the first CARDINAL applicants , on the grounds that the compensation awards for non - pecuniary damage to those applicants had been excessive . The case was remitted to ORG ( “ the ORG ” ) on account of the closure of ORG .

On DATE ORG ordered ORG to pay TRY CARDINAL ( approximately ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL ) to each of the first CARDINAL applicants in respect of non - pecuniary damage , together with interest running from the date of the accident . ORG appealed against this judgment but the applicants did not submit an appeal .

DATE . On an unspecified date in DATE the applicants brought an action for compensation before ORG against ORG . The first CARDINAL applicants sought TRY CARDINAL each in respect of non - pecuniary damage , and the third applicant requested TRY CARDINAL .

Relying on the second report , submitted by ORG to ORG , on DATE ORG found ORG to be partially responsible for the death of ORG on account of the absence of the necessary warning signs and signals to alert drivers to the ongoing road construction work . Accordingly , it granted the applicants’ request in part and ordered ORG to pay the first CARDINAL applicants TRY CARDINAL ( approximately EUR CARDINAL ) each and the third applicant TRY CARDINAL ( approximately ORG CARDINAL ) in respect of nonpecuniary damage , together with interest running from DATE ( the date on which the first compensation claim had been made before ORG ) .

It appears that on DATE the applicants received TRY CARDINAL ( approximately ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL ) from ORG .

In the meantime , ORG appealed against the judgment of ORG . On CARDINAL DATE ORG upheld the judgment of the first - instance court .

A description of the domestic law regarding the new remedy introduced by PERSON no . DATE to deal with complaints relating to the excessive length of proceedings may be found in GPE and Others v. GPE ( ( dec . ) , no . CARDINAL , DATE ) , PERSON v. GPE ( ( dec . ) , no . CARDINAL , DATE ) and PERSON and GPE v. GPE ( ( dec . ) , no . CARDINAL , CARDINAL DATE ) .


Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions)

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

The applicant ’s husband owned a house with a yard and a garage in GPE .

On DATE , by decision of the GPE mayor , the property was expropriated with a view to constructing a school . The decision , based on section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of the LOC and Urban Planning Act of DATE ( ORG за териториалното и селищно устройство – “ the ORG ” ) , stated that the applicant ’s husband was to be compensated with a CARDINAL - room flat and a garage in a building which the municipality intended to construct .

By a supplementary decision of CARDINAL DATE , based on section CARDINAL of the PERSON , the mayor determined the exact location , size and other details in respect of the future flat to be provided in compensation . No mention was made however of the garage . Even though , after judicial review initiated by the applicant ’s husband , in a final judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG ordered the mayor to supplement the decision and specify the exact garage to be provided to the applicant ’s husband , this was not done .

In DATE the municipal authorities transferred to the applicant ’s husband property to a flat different from the CARDINAL described in the decision of CARDINAL DATE , which however he did not contest .

The applicant ’s husband passed away in DATE . By virtue of his will , all his property was left to the applicant .

In a letter signed by the chief architect of PERSON and dated DATE the applicant was informed that the decision of CARDINAL DATE had not yet been supplemented to specify the garage to be provided to her because no buildings with garages earmarked for the purpose were being built .

In DATE the applicant challenged before the courts the mayor ’s failure to issue a decision specifying the garage to be provided to her . In a final judgment of DATE ORG dismissed her claim , noting that the case at hand did not concern what was defined by statute as “ unlawful failure to act ” , but instead the enforcement of the judgment of CARDINAL DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , which had to be pursued under a different procedure .

NORP In parallel proceedings brought on an unspecified date in DATE , the applicant sought damages from the GPE municipality for wrongful failure to provide her with a garage . In a final decision of DATE ORG declared the claim inadmissible , on the ground that the courts had already established in the judgment of DATE that there had not been any unlawful failure to act on the part of the administrative authorities .


Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for private life);Non-pecuniary damage - award

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

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in PERSON . At the time of the events she was DATE and married . She was a lecturer at ORG .

It appears from the case - file materials that at the time of the events the relationship between the applicant and her superiors at ORG were tense and that there had been a set of employment - related civil proceedings between them .

On an unspecified date in DATE the applicant underwent artificial insemination at a fertility clinic and became pregnant with twins . On DATE she was seen by a doctor from the No . CARDINAL Centre for Family Doctors ( “ the ORG ) ” , an institution belonging to ORG , who ordered her hospitalisation on account of an increased risk of miscarriage . The applicant was hospitalised DATE and was later closely supervised by a doctor from the ORG . It would appear that the applicant ’s absence from work during her hospitalisation was certified by a sick note referring to her pregnancy and an increased risk of miscarriage as the reasons for her absence .

On DATE the President of ORG requested information from the ORG in connection with the applicant ’s medical leave in DATE . In particular , he asked who had ordered her hospitalisation , when she had been hospitalised , what had been the initial and final diagnoses , and what treatment she had received .

In a letter dated DATE the ORG informed the applicant ’s employer that the applicant had been hospitalised DATE on account of an increased risk of miscarriage . The letter also stated that this was the applicant ’s first pregnancy and that she was carrying twins ; that the pregnancy had resulted from artificial insemination and that the applicant had hepatitis B. The letter further mentioned that the applicant had obstetrical complications and that she had a negative blood type . A copy of the applicant ’s medical file from the hospital where she had been hospitalised , containing a detailed description of all the medical procedures she had undergone and of all the medical analyses , was annexed to the letter .

On an unspecified date the applicant suffered a miscarriage . According to the medical report , CARDINAL of the factors which had led to the miscarriage was the stress to which she had been subjected .

NORP In DATE the applicant initiated civil proceedings against the ORG and ORG and claimed compensation for a breach of her right to private life . She argued , inter alia , that her employer had had sufficient information as to the reasons for her medical leave and had not been entitled to seek further details of such a private nature . Moreover , after the information had been obtained it had not been kept confidential but had been disclosed to everybody at ORG . According to the applicant , the disclosure had caused her serious stress and anxiety . Everyone at her workplace , including her students , had learned details about her private life , and different rumours had begun to circulate . DATE after the disclosure , she had suffered a miscarriage due to the stress to which she had been subjected . Her husband , who had also been an employee of ORG , had had to resign from his post and accept a less well - paid job .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s action on the grounds , inter alia , that the disclosure of information by the fertility clinic had been lawful in view of the ongoing investigation being conducted by the applicant ’s employer . As to the contention that the employer had disclosed the information to other employees , the court found it to be ill - founded . The applicant appealed .

On DATE ORG upheld the applicant ’s appeal and quashed the above judgment . The court found the applicant ’s action well - founded and ordered the ORG to pay her CARDINAL NORP lei ( MDL ) ( EUR CARDINAL ) and ORG to pay her MDL CARDINAL ( EUR CARDINAL ) . ORG found that the ORG had disclosed to the applicant ’s employer more information than had actually been requested .

On DATE ORG upheld the appeal on points of law lodged by the ORG and dismissed the applicant ’s claims against it . ORG held that the ORG had acted in accordance with the law when providing the applicant ’s employer with medical information about her . The ORG had been under an obligation to provide ORG with such information in the context of the latter ’s legal relationship with its employee . According to ORG , at the time of the events there were relations of an employment - law and of a criminal - law nature between ORG and the applicant . ORG considered that the provisions of the laws on reproductive health and on the rights and obligations of the patient were not pertinent to the case .


Julia Laffranque;Paul Lemmens;Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström;Georges Ravarani;Ksenija Turković

NORP The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a NORP national , who was born in DATE and is detained in GPE .

At the time of the introduction of this application , the applicant was serving a prison sentence in PERSON .

On DATE the disciplinary board of the PERSON prison decided to impose a disciplinary sanction on the applicant for going on a hunger strike in order to protest against measures taken against prisoners in the FAC F - type prison . Relying on sections CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(g ) , CARDINAL ) and CARDINAL ) of PERSON no . DATE on the enforcement of sentences and preventive measures , the disciplinary board prohibited the applicant from receiving and sending letters , making telephone calls and using other means of communication for a period of DATE .

On CARDINAL DATE ORG dismissed an objection lodged by the applicant .

On DATE ORG dismissed an appeal lodged by the applicant .

The relevant provisions of PERSON no . CARDINAL provide as follows :

( CARDINAL ) The acts punishable by prevention from participating in certain activities are the following :

( g ) Going on a hunger strike . ”

“ ( CARDINAL ) The penalty of deprivation or restriction of access to means of communication consists of completely or partly depriving the convict , for DATE , of receiving and sending letters , fax messages and telegrams , watching television , listening to the radio , making telephone calls and using other means of communication . ”

( CARDINAL ) Each time a convict commits another act punishable by a disciplinary penalty within the period at the end of which a previous finalised disciplinary penalty may be lifted , he or she shall be liable to the next heaviest penalty . ”

Under LAW no . CARDINAL , following the lodging of an objection against a disciplinary sanction , the enforcement judge will deliver his / her decision after hearing the defence submissions of the prisoner concerned and collecting all the evidence . The prisoner can present his / her defence submissions in person or through a lawyer .

Provisional section CARDINAL of Law no . CARDINAL provides a further remedy for all those prisoners who had previously lodged objections with enforcement judges concerning disciplinary sanctions imposed on them before the enactment of this law . Accordingly , those who previously lodged objections with enforcement judges against disciplinary sanctions now have the possibility of lodging a fresh objection with an enforcement judge within DATE of the enactment of this law , and their cases will be examined in accordance with the new procedures .

A full description of the relevant domestic law may be found in LOC and Others v. GPE ( ( dec . ) , nos . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , CARDINAL/CARDINAL , CARDINAL/CARDINAL , GPE , CARDINAL/CARDINAL , and CARDINAL , DATE ) .

The object of PERSON no . DATE is to provide for the settlement , by means of compensation , of applications lodged with the ORG concerning length of judicial proceedings , and non - enforcement or delayed enforcement of judicial decisions . A full description of the relevant domestic law may be found in GPE and Others v. GPE ( ( dec . ) , no . CARDINAL , § § DATE , DATE ) .

NORP The competence ratione materiae of ORG was subsequently extended by a decree which came into force on DATE . The decree extended the competence of ORG to the examination of other complaints such as alleged restriction of the right of detainees to correspondence in a language other than NORP and the prison authorities’ refusal , on different grounds , to hand over periodicals . A full description of the relevant domestic law may be found in GPE and GPE v. GPE ( ( dec . ) , no . CARDINAL , § § DATE , CARDINAL DATE ) .

Furthermore , according to LAW no . DATE , an applicant may apply to ORG within DATE following the official notification of the ORG ’s inadmissibility decision by the Government .

ORG issued a decree which came into force on DATE . The decree extended anew the competence ratione materiae of ORG .

ORG is now entitled to examine the following subjects under LAW decree , which reads as follows :

“ a ) Applications concerning an alleged violation of the right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions on account of the annulment of an applicant ’s title deeds because his or her land was classified as part of the public forest area , or as a result of the application of section CARDINAL/B of PERSON no . PERSON , or because the land was classified as part of the public forest area in cadastral surveys ;

b ) Applications concerning an alleged violation of the right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions on account of the annulment of an applicant ’s title deeds because the impugned land was classified as located within a coastal area ;

c ) Applications concerning an alleged violation of the right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions on account of the allocation of the impugned land for public use in local land development plans ;

d ) Applications concerning an alleged breach of an applicant ’s right to private and family life on account of the respective disciplinary sanctions imposed on detainees and convicted persons by the prison authorities ;

e ) Applications concerning an alleged breach of the right to respect for correspondence on account of the prison administration ’s refusal to receive or send letters or similar correspondence drafted in NORP . ”


Kristina Pardalos;Pauliine Koskelo;Ksenija Turković

The applicant was born in DATE and currently lives in GPE ( GPE ) .

On DATE , while crossing the border between GPE and GPE with his wife , the applicant was caught by the NORP customs authorities carrying the sum of MONEY ( ORG ) which he had failed to declare , contrary to the law . The customs authorities immediately seized the ORG CARDINAL .

On DATE the customs authorities instituted administrativeoffence proceedings ( prekršajni postupak ) against the applicant before ORG of ORG ( ORG financija , GPE inspektorat – “ the Ministry ” ) for failing to declare ORG DATE a sum exceeding EUR DATE an administrative offence defined in CARDINAL ) of LAW and section CARDINAL of ORG .

In his defence , the applicant explained that he and his wife had been visiting her daughter in GPE who had recently had a serious attack of epilepsy , and submitted documentary evidence suggesting that his wife ’s daughter did indeed suffer from epilepsy . The money he had been carrying originated from : ( a ) a company called ORG société civile immobilière ) PERSON registered in GPE , of which he was the director and the only member , from whose account he had withdrawn ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL with a view to starting another business ; and ( b ) the sale of their house in GPE ( the remaining amount ) . The applicant submitted relevant documents as evidence of those transactions . He also explained that he had not wished to deposit the money in a bank account because , in the wake of the global financial crisis of DATE , he had been afraid that his bank would go bankrupt and that he would lose most of that money , given that the NORP ORG only guaranteed up to LAW of bank deposits .

During the proceedings the ORG requested information from the relevant authorities in GPE , GPE and GPE . While the NORP authorities did not reply at all , the NORP authorities informed the ORG that neither the applicant nor his wife had been recorded in their register of suspicious transactions , and the NORP authorities only confirmed the authenticity of the transactions on which the applicant relied to prove the origin of the money he had been carrying .

By a decision of DATE the ORG found the applicant guilty of having committed the administrative offence in question and fined him CARDINAL NORP kunas ( HRK ) . At the same time , the ORG imposed a protective measure ( zaštitna mjera ) confiscating ORG CARDINAL under section CARDINAL ) of LAW .

On the basis of the documentary evidence , the Ministry established that : ( a ) the company ORG had been founded in DATE and recorded in the business and companies register in GPE , and under NORP law its members were liable for its debts in proportion with their share in the company , that is , the applicant in respect of PERCENT and his wife in respect of PERCENT ; ( b ) on DATE the applicant had indeed sold his house in GPE , and ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL from the proceeds of sale had been paid into his bank account on DATE , from which he had first transferred ORG CARDINAL to his company ’s account on DATE and then withdrawn ORG CARDINAL ; and ( c ) on DATE the applicant , acting as the company ’s director , had sold its real estate , and EUR FAC from the proceeds of sale had been paid into the company ’s bank account on DATE , a sum which had been withdrawn by the applicant DATE .

The Ministry held that the origin of the money which the applicant had failed to declare was irrelevant in relation to the commission of the offence of which he had been convicted or the imposition of the fine . However , that consideration was relevant in relation to the imposition of the protective measure of confiscation .

NORP In particular , the Ministry decided not to confiscate LAW of the money which the applicant had not declared , because it found that this sum did indeed originate from the sale of his house in GPE .

As regards the remaining ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL ( of the EUR CARDINAL which had been seized ) , the Ministry held that this sum was part of the funds which the applicant had withdrawn from his company ’s bank account ( ORG ORG ) on DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . The Ministry further held that : ( a ) since there was no evidence that the applicant had borrowed that money from his company , by carrying it across border he had disposed of it as if it had belonged to him , which amounted to misappropriation of the company ’s funds , an offence punishable in every country ; and ( b ) he had failed to pay the relevant taxes in GPE on that amount . It therefore decided to confiscate that sum .

The applicant appealed by arguing that : ( a ) the evidence collected indicated that the NORP authorities had been aware of the transaction from which the confiscated sum originated , but had done nothing about it , which suggested that they considered that it originated from a legitimate source , ( b ) the Ministry correctly assumed that he had not borrowed the confiscated sum from his company , as he had actually lent EUR CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL to his company in DATE and DATE , for which he had submitted documentary evidence ; ( c ) NORP under NORP law , he was fully liable for the debts of his company , the payment of which , including taxes , he therefore could not have avoided by misappropriating the company ’s funds as the ORG implied ; ( d ) the ORG had attempted to interpret foreign ( NORP ) law , and in such a complex area as tax and commercial law , about which it had known very little ; and ( e ) it was peculiar that the Ministry had confiscated for the benefit of the NORP State budget the amount on which he had , in the ORG ’s own view , not paid the relevant taxes in GPE .

By a decision of CARDINAL DATE ORG ( ORG prekršajni sud PERSON ) dismissed the applicant ’s appeal and upheld the ORG ’s decision , endorsing the reasons given therein .

The applicant then , on DATE , lodged a constitutional complaint , alleging , inter alia , a violation of his constitutionally protected right of ownership .

By a decision of CARDINAL DATE ORG ( Ustavni sud PERSON ) declared the applicant ’s constitutional complaint inadmissible and served its decision on his representative on DATE . It found that , even though the applicant had relied on the relevant Articles of the LAW in his constitutional complaint , he had not substantiated his complaint by any constitutional - law arguments , but had merely repeated the arguments raised in the proceedings before ORG and ORG . Therefore , ORG had been unable to examine the merits of his constitutional complaint .


Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Procedural guarantees of review);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-5 - Compensation)

Jon Fridrik Kjølbro;Georges Ravarani;Ksenija Turković

The applicant , who was born in DATE , was detained at the NORP prison when the application was lodged .

On DATE the applicant was taken into police custody on suspicion of membership of a terrorist organisation .

On DATE the investigating judge at ORG , after questioning the applicant , ordered his pre - trial detention having regard to the nature of the offence , the state of the evidence and the strong suspicion of the suspect ’s having committed the offence in issue .

On DATE the GPE public prosecutor filed an indictment with ORG , charging the applicant with membership of an illegal terrorist organisation .

The trial commenced before ORG of ORG and the first hearing was held on DATE .

In the hearings held on DATE and CARDINAL DATE , respectively , the applicant appeared before the court , and the judges ordered his continued detention . The applicant filed objections against these decisions . On DATE and CARDINAL DATE respectively , the CARDINALth ORG dismissed the applicant ’s objections without holding an oral hearing and based on the public prosecutor ’s opinion which had not been communicated to the applicant or his representative .

During DATE hearing held on DATE , the CARDINALth Chamber of ORG ordered the applicant ’s continued detention on remand .


Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court)

Dmitry Dedov;Elisabeth Steiner;Erik Møse;Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Ksenija Turković

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in PERSON .

On DATE ORG ( PERSON ) issued an enforcement order ( hereinafter “ the first enforcement order ” ) against the applicant ’s movable assets for unpaid mobile telephone bills in the period DATE and DATE . This decision was served on a certain GPE on DATE , and subsequently became final .

At the plaintiff ’s request , on DATE ORG ordered the enforcement ( hereinafter “ the second enforcement order ” ) by way of attachment of the applicant ’s earnings . This decision was served on the applicant on DATE .

On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal against both enforcement orders . She argued that she could not have made the said telephone calls , because she had been in prison DATE and DATE and the police seized her mobile telephone . She enclosed a receipt to show that her mobile telephone and ORG cards had been taken from her .

She further argued that the first enforcement order had never been served on her as she was in prison at the time .

Finally , the applicant requested the quashing of the certificate of enforceability ( klauzula ovršnosti ) of the first enforcement order .

The recipient of the applicant ’s submission of DATE was ORG , which forwarded it to ORG PERSON u ORG ) as an appeal against the second enforcement order .

NORP On DATE ORG declared the applicant ’s appeal inadmissible as lodged out of time , finding that DATE for lodging an appeal was DATE , whereas the appeal had been lodged on DATE .

On DATE the applicant asked ORG to rectify its decision , as in fact she had lodged her appeal on DATE .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s request for rectification . The relevant part of that decision reads as follows :

“ ... the ORG can rectify mistakes in names and numbers and other obvious mistakes ... and flaws ... In this case , the complaint was indeed erroneously declared inadmissible as out of time ... Nevertheless , a mistake of this sort is not an obvious mistake ... which can be rectified , but it is an erroneous decision binding the ORG after its service on the parties , notwithstanding its invalidity ...

It should be mentioned , however , that the enforcement debtor did not suffer any disadvantage as a result of such a decision . The enforcement debtor in fact appealed against the enforcement order ... of DATE on the grounds of a serious breach of procedural rules , arguing that the enforcement order was not served on her . Since the enforcement order in question was merely a decision changing the means of enforcement , and a decision of such nature can be appealed against only if it orders enforcement of objects and rights exempted from enforcement ( section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of LAW ) ... the enforcement debtor ’s appeal should have been dismissed .

If the enforcement debtor ’s claim that the initial enforcement order was never served on her were true , that decision could not have become final and the enforcement debtor should , in the view of this ORG , have asked the first - instance court to duly serve the enforcement order on her , so that she could appeal against it ... ”

The applicant subsequently made a constitutional complaint , following which ORG ( Ustavni sud PERSON ) separated that complaint into a complaint against the decision of ORG to declare the applicant ’s appeal inadmissible and a complaint against the refusal of ORG to rectify its previous decision . ORG declared both complaints inadmissible on DATE , on the grounds that they did not concern decisions on the merits of the case and as such were not susceptible to constitutional review .

Meanwhile , on DATE the applicant lodged a complaint with ORG ( PERSON ) about the length of the enforcement proceedings .

On DATE ORG ruled that it lacked jurisdiction , and forwarded the case to ORG ( Županijski sud u ORG ) .

On DATE the ORG found a violation of the applicant ’s right to a hearing within a reasonable time , awarded her CARDINAL NORP kunas ( HRK ) in compensation , and ordered ORG to complete the enforcement proceedings within DATE of service of its decision .

It appears that ORG failed to meet that deadline .


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)

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

The applicants complained of the non - enforcement or delayed enforcement of domestic decisions and of the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law .