Remainder inadmissible (Article 35-3 - Manifestly ill-founded);Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8 - Positive obligations;Article 8-1 - Respect for private life);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)

András Sajó;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Nona Tsotsoria;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer

The applicant , who is of GPE origin , was born in DATE and lives in GPE , a village of CARDINAL people , CARDINAL of whom are of GPE origin .

On DATE the Movement for a Better GPE ( PERSON ) , a right - wing political party , held a demonstration in GPE . CARDINAL DATE , in connection with the demonstration , ORG for a ORG ) and CARDINAL right - wing paramilitary groups ( Betyársereg and Véderő ) organised marches in the GPE neighbourhood of the village .

On DATE , CARDINAL , and DATE , during the demonstration and the marches , there was a considerable police presence in GPE .

At TIME , the president of the local GPE minority self - governing body , informed the police that he and the mayor of the municipality had been threatened by people they did not know . The mayor reported on the same events to the police , explaining that DATE some CARDINAL members of the NORP minority had confronted DATE members of ORG , who were joined by CARDINAL unknown persons , CARDINAL of whom had an axe and another a whip .

As it appears from the case file , at around the same time CARDINAL men passed by the applicant ’s house , yelling “ Go inside , you damned dirty gypsies ! ” At this time the applicant was outside the house in her garden together with her daughter and some acquaintances . In response to the CARDINAL men , the applicant and her acquaintances told them to leave , saying that it was their village . CARDINAL of the men continued threatening them by yelling that he would build a house in the GPE neighbourhood “ out of their blood ” . He stepped towards the fence swinging an axe towards the applicant , but was held back by one of his companions .

At TIME on the same day police officers PERSON and PERSON stopped and searched CARDINAL individuals , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON . PERSON , and Mr PERSON The mayor of PERSON identified CARDINAL of them , PERSON and Mr PERSON , as having participated in the incident that TIME . The men were members of LOC . PERSON informed the police that he was the leader of CARDINAL of the “ clans ” within the organisation . He said that because some members of his group , CARDINAL people , intended to come to LOC “ to put the GPE situation in order ” , he was there to “ scout ” the village . DATE , PERSON , who by then was extremely drunk , was again spotted by the police being dragged away from the GPE settlement by a female acquaintance . When questioned by the police , he said he only wanted to play football with the GPE children .

On DATE the applicant lodged a criminal complaint against “ unknown perpetrators ” with ORG , alleging offences of violence against a member of an ethnic group , harassment and attempted grievous bodily assault . The police opened an investigation on charges of violent harassment under section CARDINAL/A ( CARDINAL ) of LAW .

In parallel , LOC opened an investigation on suspicion of harassment based on the report of a third person , PERSON GPE , the president of the local NORP minority self - governing body .

On DATE the applicant was heard as a witness concerning the events . She testified that CARDINAL men and a woman had passed by her house and CARDINAL of them , brandishing a whip , had threatened to build a house out of her blood .

At the request of her lawyer , ORG informed the applicant that criminal proceedings had been instituted on charges of harassment on the basis of the criminal complaint lodged by PERSON J.F. Subsequently , the applicant was informed that her complaint had been joined to that of Mr J.F.

On DATE ORG discontinued these proceedings on the grounds that harassment was punishable only if directed against a well - defined person , and that criminal liability could not be established on the basis of threats uttered “ in general ” .

The police also instituted minor offence proceedings on the ground that the impugned conduct was “ antisocial ” .

On DATE a hearing was held in the ensuing minor offence proceedings in which Mr S.T. and CARDINAL other persons , Mr C.S.F. , Mr F.W. , PERSON , PERSON , and Mr ORG appeared before LOC on charges of disorderly conduct .

All CARDINAL persons subject to the proceedings denied having threatened any members of the GPE community .

PERSON , questioned as a witness , maintained that CARDINAL of the persons subject to the proceedings had been wielding an axe and a whip and had threatened the inhabitants of the GPE settlement that they would kill them and paint the houses with their blood .

PERSON , the mayor of PERSON , identified CARDINAL of the persons as having been present in GPE on DATE , but could not confirm that the threats had been directed at the GPE .

Another witness , ORG , identified CARDINAL of the persons as having participated in the incident and maintained that it was PERSON who had threatened the inhabitants of the GPE settlement .

The applicant , who was also heard as a witness , identified Mr S.T. and Mr F.W. as having been armed and PERSON as having said that he would “ paint the houses with [ the applicant ’s ] blood . ”

On an unspecified date the applicant attached to the criminal file extracts from comments posted on a right - wing Internet portal in which Mr ORG had been referred to as the man who had “ enforced order among the Roma of Gyöngyöspata with a single whip ” .

At a further court hearing on DATE the applicant ’s legal representative requested that the minor offence proceedings be stayed because criminal proceedings against unknown perpetrators were pending .

On DATE , following a complaint that procedural errors had been committed by ORG in the investigation of PERSON complaint , LOC informed the applicant that it had opened a separate investigation into the allegations of harassment on the basis of the applicant ’s complaint .

On DATE , in the criminal proceedings on charges of harassment , the applicant ’s lawyer requested ORG to open an investigation into “ violence against a member of an ethnic group ” under article CARDINAL/B ( CARDINAL ) of LAW . He maintained that the motive of the threats uttered against the applicant was her GPE origin . His allegation was supported by the fact that at the material time various paramilitary groups were “ inspecting ” the GPE settlement with the aim of “ hindering Gypsy criminality ” .

On DATE the prosecutor ’s office refused the request , finding that the use of force , the objective element of the criminal offence of “ violence against a member of a group ” under article CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of LAW as in force at the material time could not be established at that stage of the proceedings .

On DATE the applicant reiterated her request , apparently without success .

NORP The identities of the persons who had passed by the applicant ’s house and that of the alleged perpetrator , PERSON , were established by the investigating authorities . Moreover , ORG questioned a number of witnesses , including the applicant ’s acquaintances present during the incident , but CARDINAL of them provided statements relevant for the case . Mr ORG refused to testify .

On DATE ORG discontinued the investigation into harassment on the grounds that none of the witnesses heard had substantiated the applicant ’s allegation that she had been threatened . ORG noted that Mr S.T. had refused to testify and the witness testimony of PERSON had confirmed only that threats had been made , but not that they had been directed against a certain person .

The applicant challenged that decision , arguing that the witness testimonies had clearly stated that Mr S.T. had uttered degrading threats her . She also submitted that the investigating authorities had failed to hear Mr GPE and CARDINAL other individuals suspected of the offences .

On DATE LOC upheld the first - instance decision . ORG found that it could not be established on the basis of the witness testimonies whether Mr ORG had been armed and whether the threats and insults he had uttered had been directed at the applicant . Thus neither the criminal offence of harassment , nor “ violence against a member of a group ” could be established .

This decision was served on the applicant on DATE , informing the applicant of the possibility to pursue substitute private prosecution proceedings .

On DATE the applicant , acting as substitute private prosecutor , lodged an application with ORG , which was declared admissible on DATE .

On DATE the criminal proceedings were discontinued since the applicant had withdrawn the charges , in her submission , because of for fear of reprisals .


András Sajó;Egidijus Kūris;Guido Raimondi;Jon Fridrik Kjølbro;Nebojša Vučinić;Robert Spano

The applicants , Mr PERSON , Mr Ettore Giovanni Torno and Mr PERSON , are NORP nationals . They were born in DATE , DATE and DATE respectively and live in GPE . They were represented before the Court by Mr PERSON , Mr PERSON and Mr PERSON , lawyers practising in GPE .

NORP On DATE ORG brought an action before ORG against the applicants’ father and his siblings , claiming that several archaeological relics – dating from GPE , NORP and NORP times and held in the defendants’ family house DATE fell within the definition of ORG - owned public property ( patrimonio indisponibile dello Stato ) .

By a judgment delivered on DATE ORG dismissed the action . The court considered that , as the principle of public ownership of items of archaeological heritage had been established for the first time by PERSON no . CARDINAL of DATE , the claimant should have proved that the defendants’ possession was illegitimate , namely that the archaeological material in question came from excavations carried out after the above - mentioned law had entered into force .

The Ministry challenged the decision , contending that the application of the general principle “ possideo quia possideo ” in the realm of items of archaeological heritage ( that is to say , the recognition that the GPE factual possession sufficed to prove their property right ) amounted to a probatio diabolica [ impossible proof ] for the ORG , whereas for the defendants – who must have been aware of the origin of their property – the burden of adducing the proof of the lawfulness of their possession , namely that the goods in question came from excavations carried out prior to the enactment of the abovementioned law , was perfectly feasible . In any event the ORG objected that it had produced such proof since the expert technical evidence examined at the trial had proved the unlawfulness of the applicants’ possession of CARDINAL archaeological pieces and it was undisputed that the GPE father had assembled his collection between the DATE and DATE , well after PERSON no . CARDINAL of DATE had entered into force .

On DATE ORG dismissed the Ministry ’s appeal , except for the CARDINAL above - mentioned pieces that had undisputedly been discovered after DATE and were thus declared to constitute public property .

On DATE ORG quashed the decision and remitted the case to ORG for retrial . The former found that the applicable legislation ( PERSON no . CARDINAL of DATE , PERSON no . CARDINAL of DATE , and LAW and LAW ) confirmed a principle that already existed in the judicial system , namely the assumption that , in general , items of archaeological heritage fell within the realm of public property . Hence – the defendants’ private property being the exception rather than the rule DATE pursuant to LAW it was up to them and not to the claimant ministry to prove their lawful possession of the goods in question , in particular their discovery and acquisition prior to the enactment of PERSON no . CARDINAL of DATE . Such principle was followed in subsequent judgments on the matter ( see PERSON and Practice below , paragraph CARDINAL ) .

On DATE the applicants’ father passed away and the applicants declared their intention of continuing the proceedings as heirs .

On DATE ORG declared that the relics were public property and ordered the defendants to hand the archaeological goods back to the claimant .

The applicants lodged an appeal on points of law against the aforementioned decision , which was dismissed by ORG on DATE . The ORG observed in particular that the interpretation of the rules governing the burden of proof in the applicants’ case was neither disproportionate nor unreasonable , especially in the light of public interest in the maintenance of artistic , historical and archaeological material . Moreover , contrary to the ORG assertion , the above - mentioned interpretation did not constitute de facto expropriation without compensation since it did not breach the right of access to a court or the right of defence in proceedings concerning the goods in question .

NORP In response to a request from the Court , on DATE , the applicants stated that , notwithstanding a formal notice issued on DATE followed by an inventory of the relics in question , ORG judgment of CARDINAL DATE had not yet been enforced .

This law regulates the status of items of historical , archaeological , paleontological or artistic interest , stating the general principle of their inalienability if they can be classified as public property .

It also sets out a number of restrictions on the free use of such items when they belong to private owners in order to ensure their preservation and avoid their exportation out of the country .

As a general principle , this law provides that items of archaeological heritage , whether discovered by mere chance or through excavation , do not belong to the owner of the land or to the finder but to the ORG .

This law reinforces the above - mentioned principle of the public ownership of archaeological material , imposes a series of restrictions on its free use , circulation and exportation , and declares all items of archaeological heritage discovered on NORP territory to be public property .

The appropriation of such items , and the failure to report the finding thereof , amount to criminal offences .

NORP Moreover , any alienation or legal act executed in violation of the binding provisions of the above - mentioned law must be deemed null and void .

Under these provisions , any item of historical , archaeological , paleontological or artistic relevance found in the subsoil by anybody whatsoever and by any means whatsoever , constitutes “ a non - disposable public asset ” ( patrimonio indisponibile dello Stato ) and can not be prevented from being designated as public property except in the cases prescribed by law .

These provisions DATE which make reference to the special laws concerning items of archaeological and artistic value – provide for exceptions , with specific regard to items of archaeological heritage , to the general principle of the extension of private ownership to any items discovered in the subsoil , and to the general rule governing rewards in the event of discovery of a treasure .

NORP Under this provision the burden of proof concerning the existence of a civil law right falls on the claimant , whereas the person disputing such existence must prove the facts on which his or her objection is based .

Pursuant to this judgment , since private ownership of archaeological goods is the exception rather than the general rule , the burden of proving their lawful ownership falls on the defendant and not on the claimant ministry . In particular , the former must prove that the goods in question were discovered before PERSON no . CARDINAL of DATE entered into force ( the same principle is expressed in ORG judgment no . CARDINAL of DATE ) .


Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Length of pre-trial detention)

Dmitry Dedov;Elisabeth Steiner;Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre;Julia Laffranque;Khanlar Hajiyev;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Ksenija Turković

The applicant was born in DATE and before his conviction lived in LOC .

On DATE ORG ( “ the ORG ” ) convicted the applicant of theft and robbery . The applicant was given a suspended sentence of CARDINAL years’ imprisonment , conditional upon CARDINAL years’ probation .

On DATE the applicant was arrested on suspicion of robbery and manslaughter .

On DATE ORG held that the applicant should be detained on remand . The court held as follows :

“ The applicant is charged with CARDINAL crimes , CARDINAL of which is a grave crime representing a high risk of public danger . [ He ] had previously been convicted of a grave crime , and had not completed his sentence . All these crimes were committed by [ the applicant ] in a state of alcoholic intoxication . [ The applicant ] has no family , does not work , and abuses alcohol . [ He ] has no means of subsistence , which may result in his committing other crimes .

and the [ applicant ’s ] personality , the court has grounds to believe that if not detained [ the applicant ] may continue his criminal activity , and abscond from the investigation and the court ... ”

On DATE the pre - trial investigation was completed and charges were brought against the applicant under Articles CARDINAL § CARDINAL and CARDINAL § CARDINAL of LAW .

On DATE ORG ( “ the District Prosecutor ” ) approved the bill of indictment .

On DATE the applicant applied to ORG seeking to have the custodial measure replaced by an undertaking not to leave his place of residence .

On DATE ORG , having repeated the reasoning applied on DATE and having noted the absence of any grounds for altering the preventive measure , dismissed the applicant ’s request . On DATE ORG ( “ the Regional Court ” ) upheld the decision of DATE on appeal .

On DATE the applicant ’s criminal case was sent to ORG for trial .

On DATE ORG scheduled the opening date of the trial and ordered that the preventive measure should remain unchanged .

On DATE ORG referred the case to ORG in order to enable the applicant , his co - accused and the victims to study the case file . The court further held that the preventive measure in respect of the applicant should remain unchanged .

On DATE ORG resubmitted the case to ORG for trial .

On DATE ORG scheduled the opening date of the trial and held that the preventive measure in respect of the applicant should remain unchanged .

On DATE the applicant submitted a written waiver of his right to legal representation .

On DATE ORG convicted the applicant of robbery and manslaughter and , having taken into account the applicant ’s previous sentence of DATE , sentenced him to DATE and CARDINAL months’ imprisonment . The applicant appealed .

On DATE ORG quashed the judgment of CARDINAL August CARDINAL in so far as the charges of robbery were concerned , upheld the rest of the judgment on appeal and reduced the sentence to DATE and DATE imprisonment .

Later the applicant brought proceedings seeking to have his conviction of CARDINAL DATE reviewed in the light of newly - discovered circumstances . However , on DATE ORG in the final instance dismissed his request .

On DATE ORG convicted the applicant of robbery and illegal possession of firearms and sentenced him to CARDINAL years’ imprisonment , conditional upon CARDINAL years’ probation .

The applicant appealed , but later withdrew his appeal . His subsequent attempt to have the judgment reviewed by way of supervisory review was unsuccessful .

Following a request from the applicant , on DATE ORG recognised the applicant ’s right to inherit after his mother ’s death .


Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Deprivation of liberty;Procedure prescribed by law);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)

András Sajó;Egidijus Kūris;Iulia Motoc;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Marko Bošnjak;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE . He has been a lawyer since DATE .

On DATE ORG instituted criminal proceedings against the applicant and a police officer for traffic of influence ( trafic de influenţă ) . The applicant was accused , as a lawyer , of having requested and received money from a client in return for persuading certain judges , other than in the context of the judicial proceedings , to adopt a favourable judgment in his client ’s case .

On DATE the case prosecutor authorised several police officers to enforce a warrant to appear ( mandat de aducere ) issued in the applicant ’s name on the basis of Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the Criminal Procedure Code . According to the warrant , the applicant ’s presence was required in order to be heard as a suspect ( învinuit ) in the criminal investigation instituted in File no . CARDINAL/P/CARDINAL . No other reasons or conditions were stated on the authorisation or the warrant itself .

On DATE at TIME a police officer went to the applicant ’s office in the city of GPE to enforce the warrant to appear . According to the police officer ’s report , the applicant was shown the warrant to appear and was escorted to the police station in the nearby town of PERSON . At CARDINAL a.m. the applicant was handed over to CARDINAL other police officers who escorted him to the GPE office of ORG ) . According to the escorting police ORG report , which was signed also by the applicant , he was handed over to the prosecutor at TIME

According to the record of the statements the applicant made before the prosecutor , he was heard as a suspect by the prosecutor at the ORG from TIME After the questioning the applicant was charged with the crime of traffic of influence .

According to the applicant , his phone , wallet and watch had been confiscated by the police officers and were held during this entire time . Moreover , he had been constantly guarded by the police .

By an order issued on DATE the applicant was placed in police custody for TIME commencing at TIME

On DATE the prosecutor ’s request for the placement of the applicant in pre - trial detention for DATE was allowed by ORG . The applicant complained before the court that he had been unlawfully deprived of his liberty from TIME to TIME on DATE . He requested that the above - mentioned period be deducted from his time in custody . The court considered that it was not competent to decide on this complaint and suggested that the applicant should have used the procedure provided by LAW .

The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law ( recurs ) against that judgment , reiterating that he had been unlawfully deprived of his liberty . On DATE ORG and ORG rejected the applicant ’s appeal on points of law as ill - founded without addressing his complaint regarding the lawfulness of his detention prior to his placement in police custody .

On DATE the applicant was found guilty with final effect and given a suspended sentence of CARDINAL years’ imprisonment for traffic of influence .


KOČEVSKI v. "THE FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA"

Armen Harutyunyan;Kristina Pardalos;Ledi Bianku;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Pauliine Koskelo;Robert Spano

NORP The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a NORP national , who was born in DATE and lives in GPE . He was represented before the ORG by Mr Ž. Hadži - GPE , a lawyer practising in GPE .

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

The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .

On DATE bankruptcy proceedings were opened against a formerly socially - owned company ( “ S. ” ) .

On DATE , while the bankruptcy proceedings were still pending , the applicant was appointed acting manager of S.

By a decision which became final on DATE ORG upheld a claim ( утврдува пријавено побарување ) against S. in favour of a certain Mr D.T. ( a former employee of S. ) in the amount of MONEY ( MKD ) .

On DATE the bankruptcy proceedings against S. were stayed and consent ( согласност ) was given for proceedings to be instituted for the restructuring of S. under LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

According to a document ( аналитичка картица ) issued on DATE by PERSON , Mr D.T. owed S. MKD CARDINAL,CARDINAL,CARDINAL .

On DATE an investigating judge questioned the applicant and opened an investigation against him and CARDINAL other people suspected of abuse of office ( злоупотреба на службената положба и овластување ) .

At a hearing held on DATE , the trial court dismissed an application lodged by CARDINAL former employees of S. to be represented as victims ( оштетени ) at the trial . It is not evident from the case file whether Mr D.T. was among those employees .

On DATE the applicant was remanded in custody . Subsequently , he submitted several requests to be released on bail which were to no avail . In those requests he made no reference to his state of health .

NORP On DATE FAC ( “ the prison authorities ” ) requested that ORG ( “ the trial court ” ) allow the applicant to be medically examined as his health had deteriorated . The request referred to a note of DATE in which the prison doctor diagnosed the applicant as suffering from sindroma psihoorganicum incipiens ( presumably early - stage psycho - organic syndrome ) . On DATE Judge PERSON granted that request . No information was submitted as to whether the applicant was examined or the results of the examination .

On DATE the prison authorities requested that the trial court allow the applicant to undergo a psychological examination . They referred to a note dated CARDINAL DATE , in which the prison doctor had made the same diagnosis ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

At a hearing held on DATE , the applicant , who was represented by CARDINAL lawyers , lodged his own request for his psychological examination . The trial court dismissed both requests on the grounds that they were not sufficiently detailed . At that hearing the court examined CARDINAL witnesses . PERSON applicant questioned one of them .

On DATE a CARDINAL - judge panel of the trial court presided by Judge PERSON convicted the applicant and sentenced him to CARDINAL years’ imprisonment . The court found that in DATE the applicant had ordered the CARDINAL co - accused to acknowledge false claims made by another company , PERSON ( also undergoing bankruptcy proceedings ) against PERSON and to transfer those claims to a third company , B. , which had been owned by the applicant . The false claims had later been transformed into PERCENT of S. ’s capital , on the basis of which B. ( subsequently renamed to company FAC ) became PERSON ’s main shareholder . The court found that a programme for the financial transformation of PERSON ( “ the programme ” ) had been prepared at the applicant ’s request . On DATE appendices to the programme had been prepared , but they had not been presented to the creditors in the bankruptcy proceedings or to ORG . The court concluded that the competent institutions had taken a positive stance ( позитивно се произнеле ) concerning PERSON ’s transformation , but that they had been unaware of the circumstances concerning the acknowledgment of the debt towards PERSON and concerning the transformation of the debt into a share in PERSON The judgment further stated that , as a result of the alleged debt , PERSON had been brought to insolvency ( негативна состојба ) and that without that debt , the deficit of S. would have been significantly smaller and could have been consolidated by selling some of S. ’s immovable property .

On DATE S. complained to ORG that Judge PERSON had been biased , since Mr D.T. was the unmarried partner of Judge PERSON and a former employee of S. He had rented business LOC from LOC for which he owed PERSON approximately MKD CARDINAL,CARDINAL,CARDINAL in unpaid rent . He allegedly owed S. a further MKD CARDINAL,CARDINAL . A claim against S. had been established by a court decision ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

The DATE newspaper ORG ( according to the applicant , in its edition of CARDINAL DATE ) published an article about the criminal proceedings against the applicant . The article stated that Mr D.T. had both a claim against and a debt ( which he had never paid ) to S. and that he was Judge PERSON ’s unmarried partner . It included a statement by the applicant ’s brother according to which the applicant and his family had learnt about those facts DATE the trial court ’s judgment had been pronounced .

The applicant ’s CARDINAL representatives lodged CARDINAL separate appeals against the judgment of DATE . A fourth appeal was lodged by the applicant ’s son . In the appeals it was argued , inter alia , that the trial court had not been impartial given that Mr D.T. , the unmarried partner of Judge PERSON , owed S. money and had a claim against it . On CARDINAL DATE details concerning Mr D.T. ’s alleged financial relations with PERSON had been published in a DATE newspaper . It was further argued that the trial court had failed to obtain an expert opinion about the applicant ’s poor state of health , which had affected his ability to follow the trial .

On DATE a psychiatrist ( V.V. ) examined the applicant in the detention department of GPE hospital . According to a handwritten note issued by GPE on DATE , it was necessary to transfer the applicant to a psychiatric hospital . In view of his psychological state , he could not attend the trial , nor could his statements be considered valid until a definitive diagnosis was established .

The applicant stayed in the psychiatric hospital from DATE to CARDINAL DATE .

On DATE a psychologist drew up a report on the applicant ’s psychological state , at his own request . The report stated , inter alia , that the applicant ’s thinking process was slow and that he was unable to respond to complex tasks requiring an increased level of abstraction and generalisation . A memory deficit was noted . The report concluded as follows :

“ The results of the psychological examination confirm affective and thought distortions of a depressive and paranoid character , as well as psycho - organic syndrome ( психоорганицитет ) , which are deeply disrupting the mental state of the examinee resulting in profound psychological deviation . The examinee lacks insight and criticality for the condition in which he has been placed following the indictment ” .

On DATE ORG ( “ the appellate court ” ) held a public session , which the applicant and his CARDINAL representatives attended . The applicant notified the second - instance court of the deterioration in his health . The applicant ’s lawyers argued that the applicant ’s defence rights had been infringed at the hearing of DATE because witnesses had been heard despite the fact that the applicant had requested a psychological examination in order to assess his capacity to follow the trial . They did not submit copies of the note of CARDINAL DATE or of the report of CARDINAL DATE . The lawyers also repeated the arguments as to the alleged impartiality of Judge PERSON given that her partner had both a debt to and a claim against S.

On DATE , the appellate court dismissed the applicant ’s appeal and upheld the first - instance judgment . The relevant parts of the judgment read as follows :

“ The court assessed the complaint concerning an [ alleged ] substantial violation of procedural law of section PERSON ) of [ LAW ] ... that the unmarried partner of [ Judge PERSON ] had a direct interest in the outcome of these criminal proceedings ... but dismissed the complaint as groundless .

Namely , under the provision of section CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(CARDINAL ) of [ LAW ] , there is an absolute substantial violation of procedural law only if a judge or a lay judge who needed to be excluded ( section CARDINAL ) ) participated at the trial . It is obvious from the complaints in this respect that they are based on an alleged existence of a reason for exclusion under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the LAW , that is to say outside the reasons for mandatory exclusion under the provision of section CARDINAL ) of the Act ...

Subsequently , the court assessed the complaint concerning an [ alleged ] substantial violation of procedural law of section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) in conjunction with section CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(CARDINAL ) of [ LAW ] with the same content , but did not accept it as grounded , because on the basis of the established facts of the case it can not be found that there existed a direct link between the pecuniary interests of the unmarried partner of [ Judge PERSON ] and the object of these criminal proceedings , which would be of such a nature as to put into doubt the impartiality of the Judge in the performing of her adjudicating function in the criminal proceedings .

The court assessed the complaint concerning an [ alleged ] substantial violation of procedural law ... that the trial court , contrary to law , had examined witnesses ... on DATE outside the trial , ... [ notwithstanding that there had been a ] previous request for a psychiatric examination of the [ applicant ] in order to assess his mental capacity to follow the trial , but dismissed the complaint as groundless .

Namely , it is evident from the record from the witnesses’ ... questioning ... [ that ] all of the accused who were present at the hearing had the right to put questions to the witnesses , [ and ] this right was exercised by some of the accused , including [ the applicant ] , which clearly points to the conclusion that [ the applicant ] was not only capable of following the trial , but he could also actively participate by putting questions to the witnesses as one of the corpus of minimum rights guaranteed to each accused by LAW ... , LAW and LAW as a basic international document on the matter . ”

NORP The court further found that the bankruptcy proceedings against S. had been opened on DATE and stayed on DATE . On DATE , consent ( согласност ) had been given for the institution of proceedings for the transformation of S. on the basis of the programme for financial and ownership transformation , which had been approved by ORG .

The applicant challenged that judgment by means of a request for extraordinary review of a final judgment ( барање за вонредно преиспитување на правосилна пресуда ) . He reiterated his complaints concerning the alleged lack of impartiality of Judge PERSON and concerning his request for a psychological examination . He did not submit a copy of the report of CARDINAL DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s request and upheld the lower courts’ judgments . It referred to section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) ( CARDINAL ) of LAW and found as follows :

“ In the present case ... it does not transpire ( никаде не произлегува ) that the unmarried partner of [ Judge PERSON ] submitted a compensation or [ other ] pecuniary claim ... in these proceedings . ... neither in the preliminary proceedings nor at the trial did the unmarried partner of [ Judge PERSON ] lodge a compensation claim and he does not have the status of a victim in the proceedings , within the meaning of the provisions of LAW . In such circumstances ... the impartiality of [ Judge PERSON ] in the performance of her judicial function in the criminal proceedings can not be put into doubt .

... all those convicted who attended the examination ( of the witnesses ) had the right to question them , [ and ] this right was exercised by some of the accused , including [ the applicant ] , which leads to a conclusion that [ the applicant ] was not only capable of following the trial , but he was also able to participate actively by putting questions to the witnesses ... ”

On DATE , the applicant , who was transferred in the meantime to ORG , lodged a request for extraordinary mitigation of his sentence ( барање за вонредно ублажување на казната ) . The prison authorities immediately communicated the request to ORG . The request was accompanied by a medical report drawn up by the prison doctor on DATE regarding the applicant ’s health since DATE .

On DATE ORG upheld the applicant ’s request and reduced his sentence to DATE and CARDINAL months’ imprisonment . It took into account as new relevant circumstances the deterioration of his health and that of members of his family , as well as the positive opinion of the prison authorities .

The relevant provisions of LAW in force at the material time provided as follows :

( CARDINAL ) Every accused person has the following minimum rights :

- to have sufficient time and possibilities ( можности ) to prepare his or her defence ...

( CARDINAL ) A judge or a lay - judge can not perform his or her judicial function if :

( CARDINAL ) he or she has suffered damages as a result of the criminal offence ;

( CARDINAL ) the accused , his or her defence lawyer , the claimant ( тужителот ) , the damaged party or their legal or other representative is a married or unmarried partner or a relative ... ;

( CARDINAL ) he or she is a custodian , an adoptive parent , an adoptive child ... of the accused , his or her defence lawyer , the claimant or the damaged party ;

( CARDINAL ) he or she has undertaken investigative measures in the same criminal proceedings or has participated in assessing the indictment before the trial , or has participated in the proceedings as a claimant , defence lawyer , legal or other representative of the damaged party or the claimant , or has been heard as a witness or as an expert ; and

( CARDINAL ) in the same proceedings , he or she has participated in the rendering of the decision by a lower court or , in the same court , he or she has participated in the rendering of the decision challenged with the appeal .

( CARDINAL ) A judge or a lay - judge can be excluded from performing the judicial function , apart from the cases listed under subsection ( CARDINAL ) of this section , if evidence is submitted casting doubts as to his or her impartiality .

When he or she learns that a reason for exclusion of section CARDINAL subsection ( CARDINAL ) of the LAW exists , a judge or a lay - judge is obliged to stop his or her work on the case and to inform the president of the court , who will name a replacement . ...

( CARDINAL ) Exclusion can be also sought by the parties .

( CARDINAL ) The parties can seek exclusion until the commencement of the main hearing , and if they found out later about the reason for exclusion , immediately after finding out .

( CARDINAL ) Apart from the cases explicitly provided for by this LAW , the main hearing will be adjourned with a decision of the panel if it is necessary to obtain new evidence , or if during the main hearing it is established that , after the offence had been committed , the accused started suffering from a temporary psychological illness or temporary mental disorder or if there are other obstacles to the trial being conducted successfully .

( CARDINAL ) There is a substantial violation of procedural law if :

( CARDINAL ) a judge or lay - judge who had to be excluded ( section CARDINAL ) ) participated at the trial ...

( CARDINAL ) There is also a substantial violation of procedural law if the court , while preparing the trial or at the trial , or in adopting its decision did not apply or wrongfully applied a provision of this LAW , or violated the right to defence at the trial , which affected or could have affected the lawful and correct adjudication .

Mitigation of a finally imposed sentence is allowed when , after the judgment became final , circumstances come to light which did not exist when the judgment was pronounced , or the court was not aware of their existence , and which would obviously lead to a more lenient conviction ( поблага осуда ) . ”

The relevant provisions read as follows :

The creditors can apply to the bankruptcy panel for a temporary stay of the bankruptcy proceedings and for the company to be allowed to continue to operate .

Within DATE the executive board adopts a programme for financial and ownership transformation , which encompasses the measures , actions and activities for long - term consolidation of the company , and in particular ...

- conversion of the debt into a permanent share ( конверзијата на долгот во траен влог ) ;

After the recovery ( санирањето ) and reorganisation of the debtor company , the executive board adopts a decision to transform ownership to a joint stock company ( акционерско друштво ) or a limited liability company ( друштво со ограничена одговорност ) .

On the basis of an opinion of the [ ORG ] on the decision mentioned in ... [ the paragraph above ] , the bankruptcy panel adopts a decision giving consent ( согласност ) to the institution of transformation proceedings , which stays the bankruptcy proceedings .

If the recovery and reorganisation of the debtor company do not provide the expected results , the executive board proposes that the bankruptcy panel continue the bankruptcy proceedings .

The bankruptcy proceedings are also continued if the bankruptcy panel does not give the consent mentioned in ... this section . ”


Violation of Article 14+P1-3 - Prohibition of discrimination (Article 14 - Discrimination) (Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 - Stand for election;Right to free elections-{general});Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 12 - General prohibition of discrimination;Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 12 - General prohibition of discrimination

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

The applicant belongs to ORG ’s NORP ethnic minority . He actively participates in the social and political life of the country .

On DATE the applicant obtained written confirmation by ORG that in accordance with LAW members of ethnic minorities were ineligible to stand for election to the Presidency and ORG of ORG of GPE .


Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time);Violation of Article 13+6-1 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial;Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)

András Sajó;Egidijus Kūris;Helen Keller;Jon Fridrik Kjølbro;Nebojša Vučinić;Paul Lemmens

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in PERSON .

DATE and DATE , litigation was in progress between the applicant and his former employer . The latter was eventually obliged to re - employ the applicant .

The applicant did not accept the position that was offered to him in pursuit of the re - employment order . New litigation started on DATE .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s action .

On appeal , on DATE ORG reversed this decision and found for the applicant .

The respondent pursued a petition for review before the LOC . On CARDINAL DATE this court reversed the appeal judgment and found for the respondent .


ZAMET - BUDOWA MASZYN SPÓŁKA AKCYJNA v. POLAND

George Nicolaou;Guido Raimondi;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Ledi Bianku;Nona Tsotsoria;Paul Mahoney;Yonko Grozev

NORP The applicant , PERSON - Budowa Maszyn PERSON , is a NORP joint stock company with its registered seat in GPE . It was represented before the ORG by Mr PERSON , a lawyer practising in PERSON .


George Nicolaou;Guido Raimondi;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Nona Tsotsoria;Päivi Hirvelä;Zdravka Kalaydjieva

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

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

The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .

NORP The applicant owns all the shares in CARDINAL limited liability companies . Apparently , in spite of their being limited liability companies , he was the only person running them .

In DATE the tax authorities carried out a tax inspection in the first company and concluded that it had failed to declare and pay a considerable amount of tax and that it had , inter alia , paid salaries off the books and undertaken other fraudulent activities . It appeared that the company had been operating entirely on the black market .

The tax authorities carried out a tax inspection in the second company after the police investigation concerning the applicant ’s activities had been concluded in DATE .

On DATE the tax authorities imposed additional tax and tax surcharges ( veronkorotus , skatteförhöjning ) on the applicant for DATE as they found that the applicant had withdrawn cash from the second company which the tax authorities considered as disguised dividends .

On DATE the tax authorities imposed additional taxes and tax surcharges on the applicant for DATE as they found that the applicant had also withdrawn cash from the first company which was considered as disguised dividends .

The applicant apparently did not appeal against those decisions . The period set for appeal in tax matters is DATE counted from the beginning of the calendar year following DATE when the initial taxation decision was made . Therefore , the taxation concerning DATE became final on DATE and DATE respectively .

On DATE the local tax office requested the police to investigate the applicant ’s activities in relation to the first company . On DATE the applicant was arrested . On DATE a police investigation into the applicant ’s actions in the second company was initiated .

On DATE the prosecutor brought charges against the applicant for , inter alia , aggravated accounting offence ( törkeä kirjanpitorikos , grovt bokföringsbrott ) and aggravated tax fraud ( törkeä veropetos , grovt skattebedrägeri ) concerning his activities as the owner of the CARDINAL companies .

On DATE ORG ( käräjäoikeus , tingsrätten ) delivered its judgment . The applicant appealed against this judgment to ORG ( hovioikeus , hovrätten ) , alleging that CARDINAL of the lay judges sitting in the case had been partial . On DATE ORG rejected the applicant ’s appeal . However , on DATE ORG ( korkein oikeus , högsta domstolen ) accepted the applicant ’s appeal and quashed the lower courts’ judgments . The case was referred back to ORG for a new examination .

On DATE the prosecutor repeated the charges . CARDINAL counts concerned the applicant ’s activity in the first company from DATE and CARDINAL counts concerned the applicant ’s activity in the second company from DATE . According to the charges , the applicant was accused of aggravated tax fraud as he had failed to submit a tax declaration for both companies and , consequently , no income tax had been paid or imposed on the companies . On another count of aggravated tax fraud the applicant was accused of not declaring the salaries paid and , consequently , the taxes and social security payments had been too low . The tax authorities joined the charges and presented a compensation claim totalling approximately the amount of avoided taxes .

On DATE ORG convicted the applicant , inter alia , of CARDINAL counts of aggravated tax fraud for having failed to submit a tax declaration for the CARDINAL companies in question for DATE . He was sentenced to imprisonment for DATE and DATE and ordered , together with another convicted person , to pay the tax authorities CARDINAL ( ORG ) plus interest in compensation . The court also ordered an extended forfeiture of the proceeds of crime . In addition , the applicant was banned from undertaking business activities for DATE .

NORP By letter dated DATE the applicant appealed to ORG , requesting that ORG judgment be partly quashed and that a part of the charges be dismissed . He admitted some of the charges . The applicant relied also on the principle of ne bis in idem and the ORG ’s case - law in that respect with regard to the aggravated tax fraud and the tax surcharges imposed on him in the meantime .

On DATE , after having held an oral hearing , ORG upheld ORG judgment . It considered that , as the prosecutor had pressed charges for the first time on DATE and the tax surcharges were imposed only after that date , the ne bis in idem principle could not prevent the examination of charges .

By letter dated CARDINAL DATE the applicant appealed to ORG , reiterating the grounds of appeal already presented before ORG .

On DATE ORG , after having examined the question of extended forfeiture of the proceeds of crime and quashed a part of it , upheld ORG judgment otherwise .

Section CARDINAL , subsection CARDINAL , of LAW ( laki verotusmenettelystä , lagen om beskattningsförfarande , Act no . DATE , as amended by Act no . DATE ) provides that if a person has failed to make the required tax returns or has given incomplete , misleading or false information to the tax authorities and tax has therefore been incompletely or partially levied , the taxpayer shall be ordered to pay unpaid taxes together with additional tax and a tax surcharge .

According to LAW , sections CARDINAL and CARDINAL , of LAW ( rikoslaki , strafflagen , as amended by Acts no . DATE and no . DATE ) , a person who ( CARDINAL ) gives a tax authority false information on a fact that influences the assessment of tax , ( CARDINAL ) files a tax return concealing a fact that influences the assessment of tax , ( CARDINAL ) for the purpose of avoiding tax , fails to observe a duty pertaining to taxation , influencing the assessment of tax , or ( CARDINAL ) acts otherwise fraudulently and thereby causes or attempts to cause a tax not to be assessed , or too low a tax to be assessed or a tax to be unduly refunded , shall be sentenced for tax fraud to a fine or to imprisonment for a period of DATE . If by the tax fraud ( CARDINAL ) considerable financial benefit is sought or ( CARDINAL ) the offence is committed in a particularly methodical manner and the tax fraud is aggravated when assessed as a whole , the offender shall be sentenced for aggravated tax fraud to imprisonment for a period DATE .

ORG has taken a stand on the ne bis in idem principle in its precedent case ORG which concerned tax surcharges and aggravated tax fraud . In that case it found , inter alia , that even though a final judgment in a taxation case , in which tax surcharges had been imposed , prevented criminal charges being brought about the same matter , such preventive effect could not be applied to pending cases ( lis pendens ) crossing from administrative proceedings to criminal proceedings or vice versa . However , in DATE ORG reversed its line of interpretation , finding that charges for tax fraud could no longer be brought if there was already a decision to order or not to order tax surcharges in the same matter ( PERSON CARDINAL:CARDINAL ) .

The Act on Tax Surcharges and Customs Duty Surcharges Imposed by a Separate Decision ( laki erillisellä päätöksellä määrättävästä veron- tai tullinkorotuksesta , lagen om skatteförhöjning och tullhöjning som påförs genom ett särskilt beslut , Act no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) entered into force on DATE . According to the LAW , the tax authorities can , when making a tax decision , assess whether to impose a tax surcharge or to report the matter to the police . The tax authorities can decide not to impose a tax surcharge . If they have not reported the matter to the police , a tax surcharge can be imposed by a separate decision by the end of the calendar year following the actual tax decision . If the tax authorities have imposed tax surcharges , they can no longer report the same matter to the police unless , after imposing the tax surcharges , they have received evidence of new or recently revealed facts . If the tax authorities have reported the matter to the police , tax surcharges can , as a rule , no longer be imposed . The purpose of the LAW is thus to ensure that a tax or a customs duty matter is processed and possibly punished in CARDINAL set of proceedings . The LAW does not , however , contain any transitional provisions extending its scope retroactively .


Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-2 - Information on charge;Information on reasons for arrest);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Review of lawfulness of detention);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-5 - Compensation);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 13+3 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 3 - Prohibition of torture;Degrading treatment)

Egidijus Kūris;Guido Raimondi;Helen Keller;Nebojša Vučinić;Paul Lemmens;Robert Spano

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

On DATE the applicants arrived in GPE from GPE . They were planning to fly to GPE ( GPE ) from GPE FAC on DATE .

At TIME on DATE the applicants were about to board the plane for GPE , but were prevented from doing so by officers from the private airport security company . It was alleged that the second applicant ’s passport photograph did not resemble him and could belong to someone else . Both applicants were taken to the “ problematic passenger room ” at the office of the passport police for an examination of the second applicant ’s passport .

At TIME on DATE the applicants signed documents entitled “ Report of apprehension and custody / rights of suspects and accused persons ” , which set out their rights within the context of their arrest . According to the report which the first applicant signed , she had been apprehended on account of “ being an accomplice to false identity ” . The reports stated that a public prosecutor had been informed of the apprehension . However , the prosecutor did not order that the applicants be taken into police custody . The reports signed by the applicants do not bear the signature of an interpreter .

According to a report drafted by QUANTITY police officers at TIME , the police asked CARDINAL of the public prosecutors at the PERSON public prosecutor ’s office for instructions on how to proceed . The public prosecutor ordered that the photographs , fingerprints and statements of the first applicant , ORG , be taken ; that the second applicant , PERSON , be transferred to the PERSON police station juvenile department and that the passport in question be seized for an examination of its authenticity .

The second applicant was kept at the office of the passport police at FAC until TIME on DATE . He was then transferred to the PERSON police station juvenile department following the instructions of the public prosecutor , before being sent to the police criminal laboratory in order to establish his identity .

On DATE the ORG decided to confiscate the second applicant ’s passport .

On DATE the second applicant was taken to the PERSON public prosecutor ’s office . His statements were taken by the public prosecutor , who decided to impose an administrative sanction under LAW and to release him .

Later on DATE the police criminal laboratory issued a report establishing the authenticity of the second applicant ’s passport .

Subsequently , the police received instructions from CARDINAL of the prosecutors from the PERSON public prosecutor ’s office to either hand the second applicant over to a family member or transfer him to social services .

At TIME on CARDINAL DATE the second applicant was handed over to CARDINAL of his relatives , Mr. PERSON , who was also the first applicant ’s husband . At the same time his passport was given back to him as its authenticity had been proved .

Meanwhile , following the arrest of the first applicant at the airport on DATE , her photograph and fingerprints were taken . At TIME on the same day she was questioned by CARDINAL police officers at GPE FAC with the help of another police officer , who acted as an interpreter . The first applicant was informed that she had been brought to the office of the passport police on suspicion that she had helped the second applicant to travel abroad with a passport which had not belonged to him . In her statements , the applicant maintained that the second applicant was a relative of her husband and that his mother was a NORP citizen . She denied the veracity of the allegations against her .

The first applicant continued to be detained at the airport detention facility until DATE .

At TIME on DATE the first applicant was transferred from the airport detention facility to the NORP Foreigners’ Removal Centre .

At TIME on DATE the first applicant was deported to GPE .

On DATE the applicants’ lawyer lodged a criminal complaint with the PERSON public prosecutor ’s office against PERSON , GPE and GPE , officers on duty at the time of the applicants’ detention at GPE FAC . He requested that an investigation be initiated against the aforementioned officers who had abused their power and unlawfully deprived his client of her liberty . The lawyer submitted that the authenticity of the second applicant ’s passport had been established and that the first applicant had been detained at the airport without a legal basis . He stressed that if his client had been suspected of having committed an offence , the police should have kept her for TIME . He requested that his client be brought before a public prosecutor or be released . In his petition , the lawyer also complained of overcrowding and the material conditions of the airport detention room where his client had been held .

On DATE the PERSON public prosecutor took statements from CARDINAL police officers who had been on duty at the time of the first applicant ’s detention . Both officers maintained that the first applicant had been kept in detention pending her transfer to the ORG Foreigners’ Removal Centre attached to the GPE security directorate .

On DATE the PERSON public prosecutor decided not to bring criminal proceedings against those police officers . In his decision , the public prosecutor noted that the first applicant had been subject to a criminal investigation following the instructions of the public prosecutor on duty and that she had been held at the ORG detention centre ( misafirhane - guesthouse ) at the airport . The public prosecutor considered that the delay in the first applicant ’s release had occurred on account of the administrative procedure regarding her deportation and that the police officers had not acted with the intention of committing the offence of abuse of power .

On DATE the applicants’ lawyer objected to the decision of CARDINAL DATE . In his petition he brought to the attention of ORG the issues of the alleged unlawfulness of the first applicant ’s detention , the absence of information given to the first applicant about her arrest , the unlawfulness of her deportation without being notified by a deportation order and the alleged poor conditions of detention .

On DATE ORG dismissed the first applicant ’s objection , holding that the decision of CARDINAL DATE had been in accordance with the law .

In the meantime , following the criminal complaint lodged by the first applicant , a disciplinary inquiry was initiated into GPE , GPE and GPE by the GPE security directorate . On DATE the GPE security directorate decided not to bring disciplinary proceedings against the officers in view of the PERSON public prosecutor ’s decision of CARDINAL DATE . In the decision , it was noted that the applicants had been subject to misdemeanour proceedings and that the first applicant had not been in police custody but had been held in the ORG detention centre ( misafirhane - guesthouse ) at the airport .

On DATE the applicants’ lawyer objected to the decision of CARDINAL DATE . In his petition , he submitted the same arguments as those he had submitted to ORG on DATE .

On DATE ORG held that it did not have jurisdiction to render a judgment on the merits of the first applicant ’s objection , given that the decision of CARDINAL DATE had not refused authorisation to bring criminal proceedings against the police officers . The court noted that in order to annul the administrative decision in question , the applicant should have lodged an action with the administrative courts .

The first applicant claimed that the detention room at GPE FAC had been overcrowded at the time of her detention , which had lasted TIME . She submitted that she had been kept in a room measuring approximately QUANTITY . m , which had been divided into CARDINAL sections by a partition . CARDINAL of the sections had a window but the other one received no natural light . The applicant claimed that she had been kept in the latter section with CARDINAL other people at a time . There was no fresh air and the overcrowding of the room led to problems of hygiene . The applicant also claimed that there had been no furniture in the room suitable for sleeping on , and that in any case it had been impossible to lie down due to the overcrowding . She also claimed that she had had no access to fresh air throughout her detention at the airport and that she had been unable to go to the toilets unless she had been accompanied by officers .

The Government maintained that the applicant had been detained in a waiting room located in the legal services department of the airport security directorate . The room in question measured QUANTITY m. It received direct sunlight through windows and had a ventilation system . They noted that the room had a padded sitting area for rest and sleep , and was cleaned DATE . The Government contended that detainees used the toilet of the security directorate . According to the Government ’s submissions , in total CARDINAL persons were detained in that room DATE .

The Government submitted a black - and - white photograph of the room where the first applicant had been detained . The photograph shows CARDINAL separate areas divided by a partition . The area on the right side of the photograph has CARDINAL windows , CARDINAL divans and CARDINAL chairs . This part of the room appears to be well lit . The left side of the photograph shows a dark area without a window in which there are CARDINAL chairs and a divan . Both areas appear to be clean .

The Government further submitted CARDINAL lists to the ORG containing the names of the detainees kept in police custody at the GPE Atatürk airport detention facility on CARDINAL and DATE , the reasons for their detention , the nationality of the detainees , and the date and time of their arrest . According to those lists , at TIME on DATE a total of CARDINAL persons were detained at FAC ( CARDINAL men and CARDINAL women ) , whereas at TIME on DATE , there were QUANTITY detainees in custody ( CARDINAL men and QUANTITY women ) . The first applicant ’s name appears on the list of CARDINAL DATE but not on the list dated DATE .


Erik Møse;Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre;Julia Laffranque;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Ksenija Turković

NORP The applicant , PERSON , is a NORP and NORP national , who was born in DATE and lives in GPE . He was represented before the ORG by PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE .

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

The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .

In DATE a flat , measuring a total of QUANTITY and located in GPE city centre ( hereinafter : “ the flat ” ) , was nationalised from its previous owners PERSON and ORG

M.M. , who was subsequently granted a specially protected tenancy of the flat , lived there with her heir PERSON The latter , however , left to study in GPE but stayed in the flat during her visits to GPE .

In an unspecified period in DATE , PERSON was treated in the ORG ( Klinički bolnički centar ORG milosrdnice ) where the applicant worked as a trainee physician and his wife , GPE , worked as a nurse . In these circumstances they came to meet PERSON

On an unspecified date in DATE PERSON died .

After the breakout of the armed conflict in GPE in DATE , ORG ’s family ( her mother ORG , her brother PERSON . PERSON and sister GPE ) came to live in GPE as displaced persons coming from an occupied territory of GPE . It appears that upon their arrival in GPE they were provided with accommodation by the local refugee agencies . When the conflict ended , ORG and her children submitted a request for reconstruction of their family home in the former occupied territory which had been damaged in the conflict . The request was granted and the house was renovated in DATE , after which they lost their right to accommodation as provided for in section CARDINAL of LAW ( Zakon o privremenom korištenju stanova ) ( see paragraph DATE below ) .

On DATE the applicant , who was living at the time with ORG in a city near GPE that was not in a part of the country affected by the armed conflict , entered the flat by breaking a window and the front door . The neighbours immediately informed the police , who attended at the scene on DATE where they found the applicant , GPE and her mother ORG , as well as the tenant of the flat PERSON ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) and another person accompanying her . The applicant argued that the late PERSON had promised to leave the flat to him and the police left without taking any further action at the scene .

DATE , the police informed ORG ( Grad GPE ) that the applicant and his family had forcefully entered the flat . A council official who came to the scene found that the applicant and his family had entered the flat without having any legal right to be there and therefore ordered him to vacate the flat . The applicant ignored these orders , requesting a written decision on the matter . The eviction was disrupted after the civil defence siren signalled an attack on GPE .

On DATE ORG ordered the applicant and his family ( his wife GPE , and her relatives GPE , GPE and PERSON . P. ) to vacate the flat within DATE . This decision was made enforceable on DATE , which was later confirmed on appeal on DATE .

An attempt to evict the applicant from the flat was made on DATE . ORG offered the applicant the opportunity to move to another flat where he could live with his family free of charge but he refused that accommodation , stating that he would only move out of the flat if the council provided him with accommodation in one of the most expensive hotels in GPE .

A further attempt to evict the applicant from the flat was made on DATE but again to no avail , because the applicant refused to move and his wife was now pregnant .

On an unspecified date the police lodged a criminal complaint against the applicant and his wife with ORG Attorney ’s Office . ORG Attorney ’s Office rejected the criminal complaint on DATE , finding that while it had been undoubtedly established that the applicant had broken into the flat unlawfully , given his personal circumstances and particularly the fact that he had a pregnant wife and a small child , a criminal prosecution was not necessary since the eviction proceedings would in any event settle the issue .

Parallel to the administrative eviction proceedings , on DATE PERSON lodged a civil action in ORG ( PERSON ) seeking the applicant ’s eviction from the flat . The claim was granted on DATE and this decision became final on DATE .

On DATE ORG issued a writ of execution ordering the applicant and his family to vacate the flat .

This decision of ORG was never enforced because for a while the applicant could not be reached , and on DATE the eviction was postponed after it was determined that no alternative accommodation had been found for the applicant ’s CARDINAL small children . In this regard an attempt was made on DATE to find accommodation for the applicant and his family , but the only possibility which existed at the time was to accommodate them outside GPE . A further attempt was made by PERSON to settle the dispute , but the applicant also refused her offer . Eventually , on DATE the enforcement proceedings were discontinued after ORG withdrew her enforcement request .

On DATE the applicant , his wife GPE and her relatives lodged a request with ORG asking that they be granted temporary accommodation in the flat under LAW , which was enacted on DATE and came into force on DATE with a view to solving the problem of accommodation of refugees DATE internally displaced persons by providing them with accommodation in publicly - owned lodgings ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

On DATE ORG housing department granted the applicant ’s wife , GPE , and her family ( mother ORG , brother PERSON . P. and sisters PERSON . P. ) temporary accommodation in the flat after having found that they could be considered refugees – internally displaced persons within the meaning of LAW . The applicant was not granted temporary accommodation .

NORP The decision stated that the accommodation was granted for DATE and that upon the expiry of that period the occupants were obliged to vacate the flat . It also stated that by being provided with temporary accommodation the occupants did not obtain , nor could they obtain , a specially protected tenancy of the flat .

In the period DATE and DATE the applicant requested several times that he and his family be given the opportunity to purchase the flat , relying on his personal situation and the status of his family .

In a letter of DATE ORG indicated that temporary accommodation in the flat had been granted to the applicant ’s family even though they had omitted to reveal in their application that they had unlawfully entered the flat . Therefore , they had no legal right to stay in the flat . In CARDINAL letters of DATE and CARDINAL DATE ORG stressed that if the applicant ’s application for housing was given priority it would be acting contrary to the domestic law establishing priority lists for housing allocation . It also emphasised that the only reason why the eviction had never been carried out was the fact that the applicant ’s family were not able to return to their home .

On DATE the applicant applied to ORG for the right to purchase the flat on favourable terms . He relied on the decision to grant temporary accommodation and his status as a disabled war veteran , since he had in the meantime served the NORP army and obtained the status of disabled war veteran .

On DATE ORG granted the applicant ’s request and sold him the flat . On DATE a copy of the purchase contract was submitted to ORG , which gave its approval . The applicant paid the price of CARDINAL NORP kunas ( HRK ) and registered his ownership with the land registry .

In DATE ORG discovered that the applicant was in fact not on the list granting disabled war veterans , who had been allocated flats for temporary accommodation , the right to purchase flats owned by ORG on favourable terms , and that the applicant had therefore had no legal right to be granted the right to purchase the flat on such terms .

On DATE ORG invited the applicant to settle the existing situation amicably by agreeing to the voluntary annulment of the contract and repayment of the purchase price . After the applicant ignored that offer , ORG referred the case to ORG Attorney ’s Office .

On DATE the ORG Attorney ’s ORG , on behalf of ORG , lodged a civil action in ORG seeking to have the purchase contract between the applicant and ORG declared null and void on the grounds that the applicant had had no legal right to buy the flat on favourable terms . It pointed out that the applicant himself had never been granted temporary accommodation in the flat and that he had not been on ORG list of disabled war veterans who had the right to purchase a flat on favourable terms .

The applicant defended the civil action and lodged a counterclaim seeking damages in the amount of HRK CARDINAL,CARDINAL . His counterclaim was severed into a separate case , and those proceedings were discontinued on CARDINAL DATE due to the applicant ’s procedural inactivity .

During the proceedings concerning the annulment of the purchase contract the applicant contended that his wife had been granted temporary accommodation in the flat , which had given her the right to buy the flat under LAW to LAW . He also considered that the civil action had been lodged outside the relevant statutory time - limit of DATE after the contract had been concluded , as provided under ORG to LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

On DATE ORG declared the purchase contract for the flat null and void . It explained that the applicant had not been granted temporary accommodation in the flat and that therefore he had never satisfied the requirements of applicable domestic law for the purchase of the flat on favourable terms . The relevant part of the judgment reads :

“ Section CARDINAL of ORG to LAW provides that disabled Homeland War [ veterans ] , as well as the spouses , parents and children , adopted children , father ’s or mother ’s spouses and adoptive parents of a deceased , incarcerated or missing Homeland War veteran have the right , on the terms provided in this LAW , to purchase a flat in which they were temporarily accommodated under LAW and LAW [ Zakon o pravima hrvatskih branitelja iz domovinskog rata ] ...

Bearing in mind the above provision , this court notes that temporary accommodation in the flat in question was granted to N.[Z. ] as a refugee , while the defendant is not one of the individuals who was provided with temporary accommodation under LAW .

This court finds that the purchase contract was concluded contrary to section CARDINAL of ORG to LAW , since the defendant had not been granted temporary accommodation under LAW or the Homeland War Veterans Act and therefore , under LAW , the claim should be accepted and the contract declared null and void .

Furthermore , the argument that the civil action was lodged outside of the relevant statutory time - limit is unfounded given that , under section CARDINAL of LAW , the right to claim nullity [ of a contract ] can not be extinguished . ... ”

The applicant lodged an appeal against the first - instance judgment before ORG ( Županijski sud u GPE ) on DATE in which he reiterated his previous arguments .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s appeal as without merit and upheld the first - instance judgment .

On DATE the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint before ORG ( ORG PERSON ) , reiterating his arguments before the lower courts .

ORG dismissed the applicant ’s constitutional complaint on DATE , endorsing the reasoning of the lower courts . In particular , it noted :

“ The reasoning of the impugned judgments is based on a correct interpretation of the relevant law and can be accepted from the perspective of constitutional rights . The Constitutional Court finds that the lower courts , based on the established facts , provided sufficient reasons in their judgments and that their reasoning does not disclose any arbitrariness in the application of the law . ”

On DATE the applicant ’s wife lodged a civil action against ORG in ORG , seeking the right to purchase the flat . This civil action was dismissed on DATE on the grounds that the process of privatisation of the flat had been started in the meantime ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) and therefore that the flat was no longer able to be sold by ORG but rather belonged to a special privatisation fund . This judgment was appealed against , but it was upheld by ORG on DATE .

Meanwhile , on DATE , ORG repaid the applicant the purchase price of HRK CARDINAL,CARDINAL together with statutory default interest in the amount of HRK CARDINAL .

On CARDINAL DATE the applicant opened a private medical practice in gynecology and obstetrics in the flat , while in DATE his family moved to another flat which he had bought in GPE .

On DATE , as part of the privatisation process , the ownership of CARDINAL of the flat was returned to ORG , a successor of the original owners .

On DATE ORG sold his ownership in the flat to the applicant .

NORP Throughout the period to date , the applicant has been running his private medical practice in the flat .

The relevant provisions of LAW ORG , ORG nos . DATE , CARDINAL , CARDINAL/CARDINAL ( consolidated text ) , CARDINAL , DATE ( consolidated text ) , CARDINAL and DATE ( consolidated text ) , PERSON ( corrigendum ) , CARDINAL , DATE ) read as follows :

“ The home is inviolable ... ”

“ Everyone has a right to respect for and legal protection of his private and family life , dignity , reputation and honour . ”

“ The right of ownership shall be guaranteed ... “

The relevant provisions of LAW ( Zakon o privremenom korištenju stanova , ORG no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) read :

“ This LAW provides for the terms and the manner of [ the provision of ] temporary accommodation in publicly - owned flats ... which are empty or abandoned , with a view to allocating refugees DATE internally displaced persons , and defenders of GPE and their families . ”

“ Individuals who have been granted temporary accommodation and their family members are not [ thereby ] granted a specially protected tenancy nor can they obtain a specially protected tenancy of the flat in question . ”

The Specially Protected Tenancies ( Sale to LAW ( Zakon o prodaji stanova na kojima postoji stanarsko pravo , ORG nos . DATE , DATE , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL/CARDINAL , DATE and CARDINAL ) regulates the conditions of sale of flats let under specially protected tenancies . The relevant part of this PERSON reads :

“ Disabled Homeland War [ veterans ] , as well as the spouses , parents and children , adopted children , father ’s or mother ’s spouses and adoptive parents of deceased , incarcerated or missing Homeland War veterans have the right , on the terms provided in this LAW , to purchase a flat in which they have been temporarily accommodated under LAW and LAW , if no other person has a specially protected tenancy of the flat in question . ”

“ The seller shall submit the sale contract for approval to the competent ORG Attorney within DATE .

If the ORG Attorney finds that the statutory conditions for entering into such a contract have not been met or that the price stipulated in it is lower than that established by this LAW , he or she shall disapprove of the sale .

If the ORG Attorney finds after a sale contract has been concluded that the statutory conditions for entering such contract had not been met , he or she shall seek the annulment of that contract within DATE after the contract has been concluded . ”

The relevant provisions of LAW ( Zakon o obveznim odnosima , ORG , ORG . CARDINAL , CARDINAL , DATE , DATE and CARDINAL ) , as then in force , provided :

“ ( CARDINAL ) Each contractual obligation shall have a permissible [ legal ] basis [ causa ] .

( CARDINAL ) A basis is not permissible if it contravenes the LAW , fundamental principles of law , or morals .

“ Where there is no [ legal ] basis [ for a contract ] or where its [ basis ] is not permissible , the contract is null and void . ”

“ A contract which is contrary to the LAW , fundamental principles of law , or morals is null and void , unless there is some other [ applicable ] sanction or the law provides differently in a particular case . ”

“ The right to plead nullity shall be inextinguishable . ”

The relevant provisions of LAW ( Ovršni zakon , ORG nos . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , ORG , CARDINAL , GPE , DATE and CARDINAL ) provide :

“ A court shall order enforcement only on the basis of a final and enforceable instrument , unless otherwise provided under LAW . ”

“ A decision by which a court has ordered the fulfilment of a claim through payment or performance shall be enforceable when it is final and if the period for voluntary compliance with that decision has elapsed . ... “

“ An enforcement instrument may be [ used as a basis for ] execution only if the creditor and debtor , and the nature , type , scope and time of the obligation are set out [ in the relevant decision ] . ... “


No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Expulsion) (Conditional) (Greece)

Dmitry Dedov;Elisabeth Steiner;Erik Møse;Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre;Khanlar Hajiyev;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Ksenija Turković

The applicant was born in DATE . His address is unknown .

The applicant and his wife came to GPE in DATE and applied for asylum on DATE . They had travelled from GPE via GPE to GPE . When the applicant and his wife first arrived in GPE they lived in a camp . They subsequently lived with people traffickers for DATE , and then in public parks . The applicant claimed that he had queued to apply for asylum in GPE , but had been beaten by the police and driven away . He and his wife had no access to financial support and had had to live in the parks after their money had run out . After CARDINAL failed attempts , the traffickers managed to take the applicant and his wife to GPE .

NORP In his request for asylum in GPE the applicant claimed in substance to have had problems with the ORG in GPE . He submitted inter alia that DATE the ORG had kidnapped CARDINAL of his brothers .

On DATE , ORG PERSON ) rejected the applicant ’s asylum application on the grounds that GPE was responsible for examining it , pursuant to section TIME DATE LAW ( DATE ) in connection with LAW ( ORG ) No . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ( “ Dublin II Regulation ” , hereinafter “ LAW ” ) , and ordered his expulsion to GPE . It found that the applicant was not facing any real risk of illtreatment within the meaning of LAW upon his return to GPE . The authority referred to a number of country reports , in particular those of the ORG of DATE and of ORG . It acknowledged the ongoing criticism with regard to proceedings and treatment of asylum - seekers in GPE , but did not consider the applicant ’s story of his experiences in GPE credible . ORG noted the ORG ’s concern about the difficulties with which many asylum - seekers in GPE were confronted . This applied particularly to the facilities for asylum - seekers , access to asylum proceedings and the quality of the proceedings . On the other hand , ORG noted that GPE was the only country to have declared that it would no longer transfer asylum - seekers to GPE under LAW . ORG also mentioned a recent decision by ORG , according to which there was no reason to suspend further transfers to GPE . ORG quoted the ORG position paper , which welcomed GPE ’s reform attempts aimed at strengthening its asylum system . It further noted that a working group had been established , including members of the NORP authorities and the ORG , to tackle the “ most burning ” problems with the asylum system . Furthermore , ORG held that the relevant NORP directives were binding for GPE . Lastly , ORG referred to a fact - finding mission conducted by ORG in DATE reacting to the harsh criticism voiced by various NGOs . The final report of that mission had concluded that there were no humanitarian or other reasons to refrain from returning asylum - seekers to GPE under LAW . In view of the fact that the asylum authorities of the other ORG countries had not stopped transferring asylum - seekers back to GPE , ORG concluded that it was not necessary to make use of the sovereignty clause in the present case . It further noted that people who had never before lodged an asylum application in GPE and had been transferred to GPE under LAW had full access to asylum proceedings .

The applicant lodged a complaint against that decision , referring again to the deficiencies of the NORP asylum system , the danger of refoulement to GPE and the lack of subsistence for asylum - seekers .

On DATE , ORG ( Asylgerichtshof ) dismissed the applicant ’s complaint as unfounded . It found that an accumulation of proceedings under the sovereignty clause would endanger the “ effet utile ” principle of Community law . Furthermore , LAW was based on the assumption that all member GPE were safe countries and that a deportation to CARDINAL of them could not constitute a human - rights violation . Therefore , arguments against such a deportation would need to be especially substantiated . Referring to the report of a mission of ORG to GPE in DATE that showed that all DATE monitored cases had had access to NORP asylum proceedings , it found that there were no deficiencies in the conditions of access to asylum proceedings in GPE . With regard to the present case , the NORP authorities had already stated that the applicant would have access to asylum proceedings once he returned to GPE . Again referring to the mission report of ORG , it found that the support of asylum - seekers in GPE was acceptable . Asylum - seekers were allowed to work in GPE . Lastly , there would be no risk of refoulement . In conclusion , the applicant would not be at real risk of treatment contrary to LAW on being returned to GPE .

On DATE , ORG refused to deal with the applicant ’s complaint for lack of prospects of success .

NORP That decision was served on the applicant ’s counsel on CARDINAL DATE .

The applicant ’s wife was expelled to GPE on DATE .

The applicant was expelled to GPE on DATE .

At the ORG ’s request , on CARDINAL DATE the applicant ’s representative informed ORG exact date of the applicant ’s transfer to GPE , namely DATE . He stated that despite being his counsel , he had not received any further information about his client since then . In later submissions he stated that he could establish contact with the applicant , if necessary , via trustworthy persons the applicant still knew in GPE . He did not , however , provide the applicant ’s current address to the ORG .


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 of domestic decisions and of the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law .


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

Dmitry Dedov;Julia Laffranque;Khanlar Hajiyev

The applicant is a NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .

On DATE the applicant brought a court action against ORG of GPE ( PERSON социального страхования Российской PERSON ) for compensation of health damage .

On DATE her claim was dismissed by ORG . The decision was quashed on appeal and the case was remitted for a fresh examination to the same court .

On DATE ORG granted the applicant ’s claim and ordered ORG ( i ) to calculate the amount of the lump - sum compensation for the period from DATE to DATE and of the DATE compensation which should be paid from DATE , ( ii ) to pay these amounts to the applicant , and ( iii ) to index - link the DATE payments in future in accordance with national law .

The judgment was not appealed against and became final on DATE .

The applicant states that no lump - sum compensation was paid to her .

On DATE ORG calculated the DATE payments due to the applicant as of DATE .

On DATE the President of ORG lodged with the ORG of that court an application for supervisory review of the judgment of DATE . He also suspended the execution of the judgment pending the supervisory review proceedings .

On DATE ORG informed the applicant that the ORG would examine her case on DATE .

On DATE the ORG quashed the judgment of DATE stating that the first instance court had incorrectly applied domestic law : the lump - sum compensation should have been calculated from DATE and not DATE . The case was remitted for a fresh examination to the first instance court .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s claim .

On DATE ORG upheld the judgment .


Violation of Article 13 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy);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)

Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Ledi Bianku;Paul Mahoney

On DATE and DATE ORG on ORG ( “ the Commission ” ) recognised the ORG inherited title to a plot of land measuring QUANTITY Since the plot of land was occupied by QUANTITY buildings which housed foreign embassies , the applicants would be compensated in CARDINAL of the ways provided for by law .

The Commission decision remains unenforced .

On DATE ORG recognised the applicant ’s title to a plot of land measuring QUANTITY . m , of which QUANTITY . m were restored . Since QUANTITY . m were occupied , the applicant would be compensated in ORG bonds .

On DATE the then ORG dismissed an appeal by the applicant against the lower ORG refusal to rule in favour of his property claim in respect of a different plot of land measuring CARDINAL sq . m.

On DATE ORG recognised the applicant ’s inherited title to a plot of land measuring QUANTITY m. Since a stadium had been constructed on the plot of land , the applicant would be compensated in CARDINAL of the ways provided for by law .

On DATE ORG recognised the applicant ’s inherited title to a plot of land measuring QUANTITY m , of which QUANTITY . m were to be restored . Since QUANTITY . m were occupied , the applicant would be compensated in kind in accordance with the law .

NORP However , the plot of land measuring QUANTITY . m was occupied by buildings belonging to ORG ( “ ORG ” ) pursuant to a sale contract of DATE concluded between the ORG and ORG . ORG indicated that , pursuant to the law , the ORG was obliged to pay rent to the applicant on the basis of a contract to be concluded between the CARDINAL parties .

On DATE the ORG sold the buildings and the plot of land to a third party , which was subsequently placed under compulsory administration . Following judicial proceedings instituted by the administrators against the Commission decision that had restored the applicant the plot of QUANTITY . m , the domestic courts annulled that part of the Commission decision and decided that the applicant would be compensated in CARDINAL of the forms provided for by law . The applicant ’s appeals were rejected by ORG on DATE and DATE .

Meanwhile , DATE the applicant sold CARDINAL plots of land , all measuring QUANTITY . m , to third parties .

On DATE the applicant informed the Registry that the authorities had allowed construction to begin on CARDINAL buildings on his plot of land .

The Commission decision , as amended by the later court decisions , remains unenforced as regards a plot of land measuring QUANTITY m.

On DATE ORG recognised the applicants’ inherited title to a plot of land measuring QUANTITY m , of which CARDINAL warehouses and CARDINAL plots of land , both measuring QUANTITY . m , were restored . Since QUANTITY . m were occupied by buildings , the applicants would be compensated in CARDINAL of the ways provided for by law .

On DATE the ORG recognised the applicants’ inherited title to a plot of land measuring QUANTITY . m of which QUANTITY . m were restored . Since the remaining QUANTITY . m were occupied , the applicant would be compensated in ORG bonds .

On DATE ORG recognised the applicants’ inherited title to a plot of land measuring QUANTITY m. Since the plot of land was occupied by a national park , the applicants would be compensated in CARDINAL of the ways provided for by law .

On DATE ORG recognised the applicants’ and inherited title to a plot of land measuring QUANTITY m. It decided that the applicants would be compensated in ORG bonds in respect of CARDINAL sq . m and in - kind in respect of QUANTITY . m. No other decision was taken as regards the remaining QUANTITY m. In fact , QUANTITY . m were restored to the applicants .

The Commission decision as regards compensation in respect of QUANTITY . m remains unenforced .

On DATE ORG recognised the applicant ’s and other relatives’ inherited title to a plot of land measuring QUANTITY . m , of which QUANTITY m were restored . Since QUANTITY . m were occupied , the applicant would be compensated in CARDINAL of the ways provided for by law . It would appear that , despite the latter aspect of the decision about the CARDINAL sq . m , a building permit was granted to a third party by GPE on DATE for the construction of a CARDINAL building . The applicant ’s requests of DATE and DATE to GPE for a copy of the relevant file remain unanswered .

The applicant has not yet received any compensation in respect of that plot of land .

On an unspecified date in DATE the applicant lodged a compensation claim with the ORG .

On DATE the ORG dismissed his claim owing to the lack of funds .

The Government submitted that in DATE the applicant and his relatives applied for and received compensation in the amount of ALL CARDINAL in respect of another plot of land from ORG .

On DATE ORG restored the applicants’ inherited title to CARDINAL plots of land measuring QUANTITY m , CARDINAL sq . m and QUANTITY . m , respectively , totalling CARDINAL sq . m. It further decided that the applicants would be compensated in CARDINAL of the ways provided for by law in respect of another plot of land measuring CARDINAL sq . m. Finally , it recognised the applicants’ right to first refusal of a further plot of land measuring QUANTITY m.

NORP The applicants’ title to the plots of land measuring QUANTITY m were recorded in the mortgage office . Using their right to first refusal , the applicants bought a number of parcels of land and buildings , totalling CARDINAL sq . m , which were also recorded in the mortgage office . It would appear that the applicants had been unable to enjoy possession of their properties , because they had been occupied by third parties .

On an unspecified date in DATE the third parties challenged the applicants’ property title as awarded by the Commission decision of DATE . In the meantime , on DATE , following the ORG request , ORG delivered an injunction against the third parties requiring them to stay the construction works on the applicants’ properties ( masa e sigurimit për pezullimin e punimeve të ndryshme ) . On DATE the bailiff drew up a report by which the third parties were informed of the injunction order against the continuation of the construction works ( nga ana jonë ju komunikua që sot e tutje të mos bëjë ndërtime të ndryshme në këtë objekt ku në të kundërt do mbajë përgjegjësi ligjore ) . On DATE the third parties’ action was finally dismissed by ORG .

To date , the applicants have not benefited from any amount of compensation in respect of the plot measuring QUANTITY . m. Furthermore , their plots of land as well as buildings remain occupied by the third parties’ unlawful actions .