Carlo Ranzoni;Egidijus Kūris;Ganna Yudkivska;Iulia Motoc;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Georges Ravarani

NORP The applicant , PERSON , is a NORP national , who was born in DATE and lives in GPE . She was represented before the Court by PERSON , her mother , a lawyer by profession .

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

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

NORP In DATE the applicant ’s grandmother , PERSON , asked the authorities to transfer ownership of a plot of land of QUANTITY located under a private residential building to her .

On DATE a purchase agreement was signed between PERSON and a representative of the management board of GPE , in which it was stated that PERSON was purchasing the plot of land of QUANTITY for MONEY ( RUR ) . PERSON paid the money on DATE , and a note about payment appeared in the purchase agreement . PERSON also paid RUR CARDINAL and RUR CARDINAL.CARDINAL respectively for the land documents to be prepared and for the land to be redemarcated . The procedure that had to be followed in order to finalise the purchase agreement was laid down in the domestic law ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

On DATE PERSON died and , following her written will , the applicant became entitled to inherit her property . The notary requested that the applicant submit documentary evidence confirming the property rights in respect of PERSON ’s estate , in order to prepare documents relating to the inheritance .

NORP In DATE the applicant asked ORG to prepare PERSON ’s ownership documents in respect of the plot of land . She stated that she had already delivered to ORG the receipt confirming that PERSON had paid for the land .

NORP In DATE ORG replied to the applicant , saying that she had delivered only a copy of the payment notice , which had not been confirmed by the bank , and that the document confirming the payment for the land would be issued when she delivered the original receipt . The applicant was further informed that the plot of land in question belonged to the ORG , and that if she wanted to purchase the plot of land which she had been using then she had to provide the authorities with a plan of the land and a document confirming the legal registration of the buildings on that land .

In DATE the applicant wrote a letter to ORG and stated that she had not asked to be issued with a document confirming the payment for the land ; she had asked the authorities to issue her with the documents confirming PERSON ’s ownership of the land . The applicant also wrote that she was not willing to purchase the land because her grandmother had already purchased it . ORG replied that PERSON had not concluded the purchase agreement in respect of the plot of land of QUANTITY , and the only document that ORG could issue was the document for the notary confirming that PERSON had paid for the land . After the notary issued the document of inheritance in respect of the payments and the buildings on the land , the land purchase agreement could be concluded with the applicant , and the process of privatising the land , started by PERSON , could be finished .

NORP In DATE the applicant started court proceedings and asked ORG to establish as a legal fact that PERSON had owned a house , a storehouse with buildings around a courtyard , and a plot of land in GPE measuring CARDINAL ares ( equivalent to QUANTITY ) .

On DATE the ORG established that on DATE PERSON had asked the national authorities to give her permission to buy the plot of land of QUANTITY . The court also held that there were CARDINAL receipts dated DATE and DATE confirming that PERSON had paid RUR CARDINAL for redemarcation of the land and ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL for the plot of land of QUANTITY . The court also observed that on DATE PERSON had signed a purchase agreement in respect of the plot of land of QUANTITY . The court held that , in accordance with the provisions of domestic law , it was entitled to establish legal facts only when applicants could not obtain documents confirming such facts in any other manner . The court held that a representative of ORG had confirmed that when the applicant provided all the necessary documents regarding the payments for the land , the plot of land would be measured and documents relating to it would be drawn up , and then it would be registered and the ownership documents would be issued . The court concluded that when the applicant provided the authorities with the receipts of the payments PERSON had made , the obstacles to her receiving the ownership documents would be removed .

NORP The applicant lodged an appeal , but on DATE ORG upheld the decision of the first - instance court .

In DATE the applicant ’s representative asked ORG to issue her with the ownership documents in respect of PERSON ’s land . She referred to the decision of ORG of DATE , where it had been established that the applicant would receive documents confirming PERSON ’s ownership of the plot of land of CARDINAL hectares when she presented the authorities with the original receipts ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . The applicant ’s representative also stated that the notary would not issue her with the inheritance document with regard to the RUR CARDINAL paid , because the notary could only issue inheritance documents with regard to deposits in banks . In DATE ORG reiterated that the applicant had to provide the authorities with an original receipt for the payments PERSON had made . It further stated that the applicant had not submitted a request to purchase the plot of land in question , registration documents for the buildings situated on the land , a copy of her identity document , or a plan of the plot . If a plan of the plot had not been provided because the plot of land had not been measured and the documents relating to the plot had not been drawn up , the person asking to purchase the land had to be informed about the necessity to prepare the territorial planning document and the plan of the plot . ORG stated that it had never been obliged by the domestic courts to issue the applicant with the documents confirming PERSON ’s property rights to the land .

It appears that the applicant wrote a letter to ORG . She received a response in DATE , where it was indicated that the document of inheritance could only be issued with regard to property and property rights , and it could not be issued with regard to the money the deceased had paid . ORG invited the applicant to address ORG with regard to the privatisation of the land .

In DATE ORG examined the applicant ’s complaint regarding the plot of land . It stated that the house , the garage , the storehouse and the buildings around a courtyard had been registered in ORG in DATE . It was indicated that these buildings had been used by PERSON However , the rights to the property in question had not been registered . ORG further stated that there was a document confirming that PERSON had paid RUR CARDINAL for the preparation of documents , but there was no evidence that she had paid ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL for the land . ORG also explained what the valid procedure for acquiring ownership rights over land had been in DATE . A person had to ask to purchase a plot of land and provide a document confirming the grounds on which he or she had been using that plot and a plan of the plot . The relevant land service then had to estimate the price of the land and prepare a draft purchase agreement , and the person had to be presented with that agreement . The person then had to confirm that he or she agreed with the price and other conditions set out in the purchase agreement , by signing it . After that , the person had to pay the price indicated in the draft purchase agreement and come and sign the agreement , presenting the authorities with a receipt confirming payment . The purchase agreement had to be approved by a notary and registered with the municipal ( regional ) land service within DATE . It was only possible to inherit such land after the purchase agreement had been confirmed by the notary . The purchase agreement could be signed and registered at the same time . ORG thus decided that the purchase agreement which PERSON had signed was merely a draft agreement . Because the purchase agreement regarding the QUANTITY of land had not been concluded , the privatisation documents regarding that plot had to be prepared in accordance with the legal acts in force at the time . ORG stated that because the applicant had inherited PERSON ’s buildings , she could , but was not obliged to , buy the plot of land in question under and around the buildings . The price of the land would be calculated in accordance with the prices valid at the material time , and the amount which PERSON had paid could be deducted from the total price of the land .

The applicant started court proceedings , asking ORG to : annul the decisions of the national authorities not to issue her with a document confirming her grandmother ’s property rights in respect of the plot of land of QUANTITY ; oblige the national authorities to issue her with that document within DATE ; and award her CARDINAL NORP litai ( LTL – approximately CARDINAL,CARDINAL euros ( ORG ) ) in respect of pecuniary damage , and LAW in respect of non - pecuniary damage . The applicant claimed that the domestic authorities were refusing to issue her with the document confirming her property rights in respect of the plot of land of QUANTITY , and that they were stating that PERSON had not paid for the land . The applicant also claimed that the national authorities were asking her to pay LAW for the land , when the land had already been paid for .

On DATE ORG rejected the applicant ’s claim . The court held that PERSON had submitted a request to buy the plot of land of QUANTITY . After that , the national authorities had issued her with a document specifying that the price of the land was ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL and she had to pay an additional RUR CARDINAL for the preparation and official registration of the relevant documents . The court also held that the draft purchase agreement had been prepared , but permission to purchase the land , which was obligatory under domestic law , had never been issued . It also observed that the purchase agreement had to be approved by a notary and registered in the relevant register , and this had not been done . The court therefore concluded that , although the procedure to purchase the plot of land of CARDINAL ha had been started , the national authorities had not expressed their willingness to sell the land , and thus the purchase agreement had not been concluded . As ORG had not acted unlawfully , compensation in respect of pecuniary and non - pecuniary damage could not be awarded to the applicant .

The applicant lodged an appeal , and on DATE ORG upheld the decision of the first - instance court . The court reiterated what the privatisation procedure in force in DATE had been ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . The court observed that , although the land purchase agreement between PERSON and the national authorities had not been marked as a draft agreement , it was actually no more than that . The mere fact that the applicant ’s grandmother had signed and paid for the land only represented her willingness to conclude the agreement , and did not prove that the land purchase agreement had actually been concluded . The draft had been prepared on DATE , and this draft also contained additional information from DATE confirming that PERSON had paid ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL for the land . This information had been included in the draft agreement after it had been prepared . The court held that that information had to be assessed as proof that , after PERSON had paid for the land , she had presented the authorities with the receipt which had been included in the draft . The fact that the agreement was merely a draft was supported by the circumstance that it had not met the requirements of domestic law that purchase agreements had to be approved by a notary and registered by the municipal ( regional ) land service . Moreover , certain lines in the draft had not been filled in . Lastly , DATE and DATE PERSON had not asked the authorities to conclude a purchase agreement based on the provisions of the draft purchase agreement which she had signed , thus it could not be concluded that the purchase of the land had not been concluded due to unlawful actions of the authorities .

On DATE the notary issued the applicant with a document of inheritance regarding PERSON ’s house , the buildings around the courtyard , the garage and the storehouse .

The applicant asked ORG to reopen the proceedings , and on DATE it rejected her application . The court held that reopening proceedings was only possible in the event that a gross violation of the provisions of domestic law had been made . The court observed that no such violation had been made , and thus the applicant ’s application was rejected as unfounded .

NORP In DATE ORG sent a document to the notary confirming that PERSON had paid ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL for QUANTITY of land on DATE .

The applicant lodged a civil claim , asking to be awarded ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL in respect of pecuniary damage and EUR CARDINAL,CARDINAL in respect of non - pecuniary damage for illegal actions committed by the domestic courts in their refusing to establish as a legal fact that PERSON had owned some buildings and QUANTITY of land . On DATE ORG rejected the applicant ’s claim because she had not provided any evidence about unlawful actions of the domestic courts , nor had she justified the amount of damages claimed .

The applicant lodged an appeal . On DATE ORG upheld the decision of ORG of DATE .

On DATE an appeal on points of law by the applicant was rejected because it had been submitted by email and she had not proved her legal qualifications , and on DATE that appeal was rejected because it had not been submitted by a lawyer and had other procedural shortcomings . Lastly , on DATE ORG rejected the applicant ’s appeal on points of law as not raising important legal issues .

On DATE ORG approved the list of candidates who were to receive plots of land . The applicant was included on that list .

In DATE the applicant was asked to pay LTL MONEY ( approximately ORG CARDINAL ) for the plot of land of QUANTITY to be measured and for documents relating to it to be drawn up . The applicant paid the money on DATE .

In DATE ORG informed the applicant that in DATE she had signed the agreement regarding the payment which was necessary in order for a plot of land to be measured and for documents relating to it to be drawn up . ORG also stated that after the applicant had paid the money , she would have to address relevant institutions to make cadastral measurements . Moreover , the applicant had to provide the authorities with a document of inheritance issued by the notary , proving that PERSON had paid for the plot of land of QUANTITY . A purchase agreement would then be prepared , deducting the money which PERSON had paid from the final price of the land . The remaining amount to be paid by the applicant would be determined in accordance with the rules set by the Government .

The applicant started administrative proceedings against the national authorities for ORG CARDINAL in respect of non - pecuniary damage and for recognition of her right to compensation for pecuniary damage . She complained that , although during the proceedings to establish a legal fact , officials had claimed that she would be issued with the property documents when she provided the original receipts , they had kept refusing her requests . The applicant also claimed that the national authorities were falsely stating that her grandmother had not paid for the land .

On DATE ORG established that PERSON had paid ORG CARDINAL for the plot of land of CARDINAL hectares and RUR CARDINAL for redemarcation of the land . The court also held that it had already been established in the other proceedings that the mere fact that the money had been paid did not constitute sufficient grounds to establish that PERSON and the national authorities had concluded the land purchase agreement . The court observed that , even though the officials’ statements had been irresponsible during the proceedings to establish a legal fact ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , there was no evidence confirming that the land purchase procedure had not been finalised as a result of unlawful actions by the national authorities . Consequently , the examination of the part of the applicant ’s claim concerning the acknowledgement of her right to compensation for pecuniary damage was terminated , and the other part of the application was dismissed .

The applicant lodged an appeal , and on DATE ORG upheld the decision of ORG of DATE .

The applicant started administrative proceedings against the national authorities for ORG CARDINAL in respect of pecuniary damage . The applicant claimed that , although her grandmother had paid for the plot of land of QUANTITY , the authorities were requiring her to purchase the same land again and ordering her to pay ORG CARDINAL for a plan of the land . Although the applicant had paid the money , she thought that such a requirement was unlawful .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s complaint . The court held that it had already been established that PERSON had not completed the purchase agreement , thus ORG could not issue the applicant with the land ownership documents . The purchase documents had to be prepared in accordance with the domestic law applicable at the present time . The court observed that the purchase of plots of land was regulated by the rules approved by ORG ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL below ) . ORG was not obliged to pay for the plans of land reform projects prepared in order to transfer land into private ownership . There were no exceptions to this rule . It was also impossible to deduct from the price of the land the payments of ORG CARDINAL and RUR CARDINAL.CARDINAL which PERSON had made for the preparation of documents and redemarcation of the land in DATE . These payments had not resulted in any legal consequences , because the purchase agreement had not been concluded . Documents relating to the plot of land in question had just been drawn up as part of the land reform project , and the applicant had to pay ORG CARDINAL for the measurements . The applicant was indicating that this specific amount was pecuniary damage . However , she had failed to prove the unlawful actions of the authorities .

The applicant appealed . On CARDINAL DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s appeal . The court held that the amount of ORG CARDINAL could only be returned to the applicant if she refused to purchase or rent the land indicated in the land reform project . The applicant had agreed in writing to pay the money , and she had not refused to purchase or rent the land . The applicant also claimed that PERSON had already paid for the preparation of documents in DATE . The court referred to the domestic legislation and observed that if a person was an owner of a building sited on ORG land , and the person had paid for the land but the purchase agreement had not been concluded , the payments made could be deducted from the final price of the land if a right to deduct these payments was also transferred together with a property right to the buildings ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . If a person had acquired property rights to a building situated on State land before DATE , and a person had paid for the land but the purchase agreement had not been concluded , the payments made could be deducted from the final price of the land if such a right was transferred to a buyer by a document approved by the notary . The applicant thus had to follow these rules .

Article CARDINAL CARDINAL of the Law on Land provides that if a building that is transferred into private ownership is sited on a plot of State land for which a person has paid , but where the purchase agreement in respect of that land has not been concluded , such a person acquires a right to purchase the land necessary to use the buildings . The person transferring an ownership right to a building can also transfer the right to deduct payments for the land that have already been made .

Government Resolution No . CARDINAL of DATE “ On the sale and rent of plots of land for non - agricultural purposes and community gardens ” ( PERSON žemės sklypų ne žemės ūkio veiklai bei sodininkų bendrijų narių sodų sklypų pardavimo ir nuomos tvarkos – hereinafter “ the Order ” ) , in force at the material time , provided that a person who had the right to and was willing to purchase a plot of land for his or her individual use had to ask the municipal ( regional ) land service if he or she could purchase that plot , and provide a plan of the plot and other documents ( Point CARDINAL ) . The LAW also provided that the municipal ( regional ) land service had to prepare a legal document determining the price of the land and a draft purchase agreement within DATE of receiving a person ’s request . The signature of a person willing to purchase the land meant that he or she had accepted the conditions established in the draft purchase agreement and legal document determining the price of the land ( Point CARDINAL ) . After that , the municipal ( regional ) land service had to submit the signed documents to the municipal ( regional ) authority , which had to publish a decree allowing the person to purchase the land ( LOC CARDINAL) . The Order further provided that after the city ( regional ) administration had published a decree allowing the person to purchase the land , it had to send a notice to the buyer indicating the amount he or she had to pay for the land , and had to instruct an engineer to give orders to the relevant authorities to mark out the land and clarify the cartographic and cadastral documents . These actions had to be performed before the signing of the purchase agreement . The period between the issuing of the decree and the signing of the land purchase agreement could not be longer than DATE ( Point CARDINAL ) . The Order also provided that when a buyer received the notice from the authorities , he or she had to pay for the land before signing the land purchase agreement and come to the authorities to sign the purchase agreement , bringing a document confirming the payment . In the absence of important reasons , if a person had not paid the money or had not come to sign the purchase agreement , the land purchase agreement was not concluded . The land purchase agreement had to be approved by a notary and registered by the municipal ( regional ) land service . If those actions were not performed , the land purchase agreement would be null and void . Once the purchase agreement was approved by the notary , there was a right to inherit the land . The purchase agreement could be signed and registered at the same time ( Point CARDINAL ) . Once the purchase agreement was registered , the city ( regional ) administration issued the buyer with the ownership act , which was a document confirming a right to use the plot of land in accordance with the law ( Point CARDINAL ) .

At the material time , ORG . CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE “ On the sale and rent of plots of ORG land for other purposes ” ( PERSON naudojamų kitos paskirties valstybinės žemės sklypų ir nuomos ) provided that if a person who acquired the ownership right to a building situated on a plot of ORG land had paid for that plot , but the purchase agreement regarding that plot of land had not been concluded , the amounts paid for the land had to be deducted from the final price of the land ( Point CARDINAL.CARDINAL ) .

At the material time , ORG . CARDINAL of DATE , by which rules “ On the sale and rent of plots of ORG land for other purposes ” ( ORG kitos paskirties valstybinės žemės sklypų ir nuomos taisyklės ) were approved , provided that a person who wanted to purchase a plot of ORG land which he or she had been using had to provide the authorities with a request to purchase the land ; an approved copy of his or her identity document ; and a copy of a plan of the land , with the buildings marked ( Point CARDINAL ) . If the plan of the land was not included because it had not been measured and documents relating to it had not been drawn up , a person had to be informed about the necessity to prepare a territorial planning document and a plan of the land ( Point CARDINAL ) .


CASE OF ATAKISHIYEVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing;Equality of arms)

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

The applicants complained of the domestic courts’ failure to ensure their participation in hearings in the civil proceedings to which they were parties .


Violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression-{general} (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression)

Alena Poláčková;Helen Keller;Pere Pastor Vilanova

The applicant was born in DATE and lived in GPE , GPE , before his conviction of an unrelated criminal offence .

On DATE the applicant notified the executive committee of PERSON of his intention to hold a public event in the form of a hunger strike in front of the local prosecutor ’s office beginning from DATE . On DATE the applicant was informed that his notice did not comply with the requirements of the law .

On DATE the applicant lodged an addendum to his notice in which he indicated the place , the timing and the goal of the planned event as well as the information about its organiser . He also asked to ensure the protection of a tent ( to be positioned near the prosecutor ’s office ) from TIME DATE and the twenty - four - hour presence of an ambulance at the venue of the event .

On DATE the head of the public relations department of the local executive committee informed the applicant that his planned public event amounted to a “ picket ” within the meaning of LAW ( hereinafter “ PEA ” ) . In breach of the ORG the notice about the event did not contain information about the number of participants or arrangements to be made for preventing disorder and providing medical aid during the event . The applicant was required to align his notice with the ORG in that connection but , according to the Government , he failed to do so .

According to the applicant , on DATE he started to hold a solo demonstration at TIME and continued it until TIME , when he was arrested by the police .

According to the Government , on DATE at TIME the applicant set up on the lawn in front of the prosecutor ’s office a tent and a poster reading “ Hunger strike . Call for signatures ” . He gathered passers - by and voiced his claims to them . At TIME a police officer drew up a record of an administrative offence allegedly committed by the applicant . He was accused of the breach of the procedure for the organisation of public events , an offence under LAW ( hereinafter “ LAW ” ) . The case file was then submitted to a justice of the peace , who adjourned the hearing so that the applicant could retain a counsel . It is unclear whether the applicant was arrested by the police or otherwise deprived of his liberty at any moment prior to appearing before the justice of the peace .

At TIME on DATE the applicant returned to the site near the prosecutor ’s office and resumed his demonstration . The police ordered him to terminate this allegedly unlawful public event , but he refused . They compiled an administrative offence record , stating that the applicant had committed an offence under LAW of the ORG ; they also compiled an administrative arrest record ( протокол административного задержания ) . The applicant was then taken to the central police station of PERSON where he was detained until DATE in the afternoon .

On DATE the justice of the peace of the CARDINALth ORG of PERSON found the applicant guilty under LAW of the ORG and imposed a fine of MONEY ( ( RUB ) , equivalent to MONEY ( ORG ) at the time ) . The court noted that the applicant had intended to hold a non - stop hunger - strike making use of posters for an indefinite period of time ; on DATE he had held an unlawful picket by way of setting up a tent and a poster reading “ Hunger strike . Call for signatures ” as well as by gathering passers - by and “ campaigning ” among them . In breach of the ORG he had failed to specify his arrangements for preventing disorder or providing medical aid during the event . Moreover , the applicant had intended to hold a twenty - four - hour picket in breach of the ORG ’s ban on public events TIME The court concluded that the applicant breached the procedure for the organisation of his public event .

NORP The applicant appealed to ORG . By a decision of DATE ORG upheld the judgment of the justice of the peace .

In separate proceedings , on DATE the justice of the peace of ORG of PERSON found the applicant guilty under LAW of the ORG . The justice of the peace found it established , on the basis of testimony of CARDINAL eyewitnesses and police officers , that at TIME on DATE the applicant being aware of the administrative offence proceedings pending against him LAW of the ORG , had nevertheless disobeyed the lawful police order to stop the picket being held in breach of the ORG . The court sentenced him to DATE of administrative detention . The applicant ’s detention from TIME on CARDINAL April to QUANTITY on DATE counted towards his sentence of administrative detention .

The applicant appealed against the judgment to ORG . On DATE ORG upheld the judgment in a summary manner .

On DATE the applicant lodged a supervisory - review appeal against the judgment of DATE . On DATE the Deputy President of ORG of GPE dismissed it , fully endorsing the findings of the lower courts .


No violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8 - Expulsion) (Conditional) (Pakistan)

Aleš Pejchal;André Potocki;Angelika Nußberger;Ganna Yudkivska;Helena Jäderblom;Mark Villiger

The applicant was born in DATE in GPE and currently lives in sheltered accommodation ( betreutes PERSON ) in PERSON ( Land of GPE , GPE ) .

In DATE the applicant married in GPE and converted to her husband ’s faith , that of the NORP .

The applicant and her husband moved to GPE in DATE . The husband was granted refugee status but the applicant ’s own application for asylum was refused . As the spouse of a refugee , she received a temporary residence permit on DATE .

On DATE the applicant gave birth to her son . In DATE the applicant and her husband separated . The son stayed with the applicant . From then on the applicant worked as a cleaner in different companies . On DATE she was awarded a permanent residence permit .

In DATE the applicant became unemployed due to behavioural issues that appeared to be caused by psychological problems . In DATE she and her spouse divorced . In DATE the domestic family court transferred custody rights over her son to her husband and her son was living with him from then on .

On DATE the applicant killed a neighbour by strangling her and pushing her down a staircase . Subsequently , she was detained and held in pre - trial detention . Following an attempt to harm herself , a domestic court ordered her committal to a psychiatric hospital .

On DATE the ORG established that the applicant had committed manslaughter in a state of mental incapacity . At the time of the act she had been in a state of acute psychosis . A medical expert noted that she suffered from symptoms of schizophrenia and had diminished intelligence . She did not acknowledge her own psychological condition . The domestic court therefore concluded that she remained a danger for the general public and a continuous stay in a psychiatric hospital had to be ordered . The applicant was also appointed a legal guardian .

On DATE the administrative authority PERSON ordered the applicant ’s expulsion . Relying on LAW of the LAW on the Residence , Economic Activity and Integration of Foreigners in the Federal Territory ( hereafter “ the Residence Act ” , Aufenthaltsgesetz , see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , the authority referred to the offence which had led to the applicant ’s committal to the psychiatric hospital and her mental condition in general . The authority concluded that she posed a danger to public safety . In such a case her personal circumstances , namely her long stay in GPE and her residence status , were secondary . She was neither economically integrated nor sufficiently able to communicate in NORP , which was an obstacle to her therapy . She only had limited contacts with her former husband and her son and she was still familiar with the NORP culture . Adequate medical care was available in GPE and the applicant ’s family there could assist her .

In DATE the applicant was granted privileges in the hospital , for example she was granted DATE of leave , which had not led to any complaints . She also started working DATE in the laundry department of the clinic . This was possible due to her improved mental health . In proceedings concerning a provisional stay on the expulsion , the authorities committed themselves not to execute the expulsion decision before a court ruling on the merits .

On DATE ORG refused the applicant ’s action against the expulsion order . It upheld the decision that the applicant could be deported , on the grounds of the serious offence committed by her , lack of awareness of her own condition and given that a high probability of reoffending therefore existed . Moreover , she was not integrated into NORP society , especially due to her lack of NORP language skills . LAW was not applicable as the applicant had no significant family relationships . The domestic court noted that , in principle , in GPE basic medical care for psychiatric patients existed in big cities like GPE and that the applicant could afford treatment , including medication , as she would be receiving a small pension in the amount of QUANTITY ( ORG ) . The domestic court recognised that family members in GPE had explicitly ruled out that they would take her in , when asked by ORG . However , the domestic court thought it conceivable that the applicant ’s relatives would help her with organising the required treatment if she were to provide them with small sums in CARDINAL in return . Furthermore , the applicant did not hold a visible position within the NORP religion , so there would be no specific danger for her in that regard .

On DATE ORG dismissed the application for leave to appeal . It noted that the administrative court had taken into account all relevant facts of the case .

The applicant complained in vain of the breach of her right to be heard ( FAC ) . She argued that her submissions on her improved state of health , the death of her sister in GPE and the expected living conditions there had not been given proper consideration . Moreover , she claimed that she had close contact with her son who visited her on a regular basis .

On DATE ORG lifted the hospital treatment order on the recommendation of a medical report and released the applicant on probation , ordering a DATE probation period . It ordered the applicant to remain in regular contact with the medical personnel of the clinic and to continue to take the prescribed medication . The domestic court held that , due to the treatment , the danger of the applicant ’s re - offending had diminished to such an extent that a residual risk had to be tolerated .

The medical report in question further indicated that , after having overcome some initial difficulties , she was reachable , while deficits in her cognitive performance remained . The language barrier caused problems during some therapy sessions and due to cognitive deficiencies difficulties remained , even with the assistance of an interpreter . She continued to work in the laundry , took her medication regularly and ultimately showed balanced behaviour . Her son visited her on a regular basis and wished to be more involved in her care . Such involvement , however , would have to be limited due to his situation as a young adult beginning his studies . She was compliant with all requirements and embraced the stable environment in which she was settled . Her prognosis could be considered positive .

The applicant was transferred to sheltered accommodation close to the clinic , where the required structure would be ensured .

On DATE the applicant ’s constitutional complaint against the deportation order was not admitted for review by ORG .

NORP The applicant was notified on DATE that a petition to the parliament of ORG in this matter had not been successful .

So far , no date for the applicant ’s removal to GPE has been set .


Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Length of pre-trial detention);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Speediness of review);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-5 - Compensation)

Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Helena Jäderblom

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

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


CASE OF PISAROGLU v. THE REPUBLIC OF MOLDOVA

Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect)

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

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in PERSON .

The applicant was arrested on DATE on charges of trafficking in human beings and held in detention on remand in Prison No . CARDINAL in GPE until DATE . According to her , the conditions of detention were very poor . In particular , the applicant alleged that the cells were overcrowded , dirty and cold , with no access to daylight or fresh air , no bedding , very poor quality food , showers DATE , only cold water , and clothes had to be washed and dried in the cell .


CASE OF FELDMAN AND SLOVYANSKYY BANK v. UKRAINE

Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil 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)

André Potocki;Angelika Nußberger;Carlo Ranzoni;Sergiy Goncharenko;Yonko Grozev

The first applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE , GPE . The applicant bank was a commercial joint - stock bank based in GPE with its registered office in GPE . Its banking licence was revoked on DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . Subsequently , the applicant bank was liquidated ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

The first applicant was the vice - president , founder and majority shareholder of the applicant bank .

NORP In DATE the domestic authorities instituted CARDINAL sets of criminal proceedings for tax evasion and abuse of office by the management of the applicant bank .

In DATE the first applicant was arrested as part of the criminal proceedings ( for more details see PERSON v. GPE , nos . CARDINAL/CARDINAL and CARDINAL , DATE ) . In DATE the NORP news agency UNIAN reported on a session of ORG . The relevant extract reads :

“ ‘ It is a matter of honour for ORG and ORG to bring the story of ORG to its logical PERSON said the President of GPE during his speech at the session ... He stated that the chairs of the bank had turned it into a source of uncontrolled personal income . ‘ Such moneymakers have powerful patrons , and there is great pressure on the PERSON stated the President . ”

On DATE ORG ( “ the NBU ” ) suspended the applicant bank ’s licence for some of its operations , considering that its financial position had deteriorated sharply and that it had been performing risky operations which threatened its solvency .

In DATE an investigator from the tax police of ORG , acting in the course of the criminal proceedings , ordered an attachment of the applicant bank ’s securities .

On DATE the ORG put the applicant bank under temporary administration , which involved suspending the functions of some of the bank ’s managers .

On DATE the ORG issued a resolution “ On the Liquidation of Slovyanskyy Commercial Joint - Stock Bank ” by which , among other things , ( CARDINAL ) the applicant bank ’s operating licence was revoked in full ; ( CARDINAL ) the powers of the board , the council and the general ORG meetings were terminated ; and ( CARDINAL ) the applicant bank was ordered to be liquidated . By the same resolution the ORG approved the composition of a liquidation commission for the bank , consisting of CARDINAL officials from the regional departments of the ORG and CARDINAL members of staff from the local tax office .

On DATE the first applicant , who was in detention at the time , brought a claim under the rules of LAW of the Code of Civil Procedure of DATE with ORG of GPE , challenging the ORG ’s decision . He maintained that the impugned resolution was unlawful and that the ORG had decided to liquidate the applicant bank owing to its failure to fulfil its financial obligations , whereas that failure had been caused by the ORG itself and the tax authorities . The first applicant emphasised that after the resolution had been adopted , the applicant bank had not been able to protect its rights and interests on its own . He added that the resolution had been detrimental to the interests of the applicant bank ’s shareholders , including himself .

On DATE the court found that the first applicant could bring a claim , however , it had to be dismissed . The court held that the ORG had been competent to adopt the impugned resolution , that the measures taken had been lawful and that they had been made necessary by gross violations of banking legislation by the applicant bank and its difficult financial position .

The first applicant appealed against that decision .

On DATE ORG upheld the decision of DATE in part , but changed its reasoning . It held that the ORG ’s resolution of DATE had not concerned the first applicant and it had not been established during the determination of the claim that his rights and freedoms had been violated . For those reasons the court of appeal dismissed the claim .

The first applicant appealed on points of law .

On DATE ORG of GPE quashed the decisions of DATE and DATE and terminated the proceedings , considering that the claim was inadmissible . It found as follows :

“ ... The first and second - instance courts have established that PERSON PERSON PERSON brought a claim as a shareholder of ORG , however he did not request the protection of his own rights and freedoms but , in fact , acted in the interests of ORG , without being duly authorised [ bold text in the original ] .

According to ORG CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the Code of Commercial Proceedings , disputes between a subject of entrepreneurial activities and enterprises , institutions and organisations concerning the protection of their rights and freedoms , and their disputes concerning the declaration of legal acts as invalid , should be examined by the commercial courts .

Given that a shareholder is not entitled to apply to a court for the examination of such a dispute and that this case is not to be examined in accordance with civil procedure , the decisions adopted in this case should be quashed and the proceedings should be terminated , in accordance with LAW ( CARDINAL ) and LAW ... ”

The liquidation process of the applicant bank was completed on DATE . The bank was removed from the legal entities official database on DATE .


Branko Lubarda;Ján Šikuta;Josep Casadevall;Kristina Pardalos;Luis López Guerra

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

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

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

On DATE the applicant married GPE On DATE their daughter was born .

On DATE the couple separated and their daughter remained with the mother . The applicant tried to maintain contact with his daughter , but his wife systematically hindered his attempts .

On DATE the applicant brought proceedings in order to obtain rights of access to his daughter and on DATE the ORG allowed the request .

On DATE the ORG decision was amended by ORG which established a detailed visiting schedule for the applicant . The county court ’s decision became final on DATE when the appeals on points of law lodged by the parties were dismissed by ORG .

On DATE the couple divorced and the mother was granted custody of the child . The divorce court made no new arrangement for the applicant ’s contact rights .

According to the applicant , GPE claimed that their daughter did not want to go with her father and thus systematically refused to open the door when the applicant came to collect the child .

On DATE the police informed ORG ( Direcţia Generală de Asistenţă Socială şi PERSON ) about the applicant ’s situation . The police became aware of the case as the applicant had lodged a criminal complaint against his wife for failure to respect the visiting schedule . ORG proceeded to assess the situation .

On DATE the applicant also lodged a complaint with ORG , stating that his wife refused to give him access to the child and was manipulating the child into rejecting him , under threat of punishment . GPE forbade the child from communicating with her father , sitting close to him , holding hands with him , kissing him or going into his car . The child was to run immediately inside to warn her mother when her father came to see her playing in the yard .

ORG started investigating the case . It visited GPE ’s home and appraised the situation . On DATE it interviewed GPE and from DATE both parents benefitted from psychological counselling . The ORG advised the mother to help her daughter maintain personal relations with the father . It also organised counselling sessions with the child . On several occasions GPE refused to bring the child for a psychological evaluation .

On DATE and DATE the applicant reiterated his request with ORG and complained that the mother hindered his visiting rights . The Agency counselled the mother regarding respect for the applicant ’s visiting rights and advised the applicant to address his complaints with the courts .

At the prosecutor ’s request , the child underwent a psychological evaluation by ORG . On DATE the psychologist rendered her report . She concluded that the child was normally developed but showed signs of having been manipulated by her mother into not expressing any positive feelings towards her father . She advised the mother to encourage the child to maintain her relations with the applicant .

On DATE and DATE the parents and child attended CARDINAL sessions of psychological counselling with ORG where the tense relations between the adults were confirmed .

In a new report which was drafted on DATE , the ORG ’s psychologist recommended that both adults undergo parental counselling to help them overcome the conflictual situation , that the mother encourage the child to maintain personal relations with the father and that both parents offer adequate emotional support to their child .

On DATE the applicant sent his wife a notification through the offices of a bailiff asking her to comply with the court order establishing the visiting rights . He informed GPE that in case she refused , he would start enforcement proceedings against her .

On DATE the applicant started proceedings to have ORG decision of CARDINAL DATE enforced . On DATE the Galaţi ORG dismissed an objection lodged by GPE , and found that she refused to comply with the court order .

On DATE the bailiff , representative of ORG and the applicant met the child at her home .

On an unspecified date in DATE , the applicant lodged a request with the Galaţi ORG seeking to compel GPE to bring their daughter to counselling . He argued that she was manipulating the child against him which rendered the exercise of his contact rights difficult .

ORG rendered its decision on DATE . The court observed that , indeed , GPE had failed to take her daughter to counselling . It reiterated that it was in the child ’s best interest to maintain harmonious relations with both her parents . The court ordered GPE to establish , together with ORG , a DATE counselling schedule for her daughter and to comply with it .

GPE ’s appeal against ORG decision was dismissed by ORG on DATE . The court observed that most of the applicant ’s attempts to see his daughter according to the schedule set by court order had failed because of the mother ’s opposition or because of the conflicts between the parents , and that the child exhibited signs of being manipulated by her mother against her father .

On DATE the applicant asked ORG to comply with the above court order of DATE and set a timetable for the counselling sessions . On DATE E.R. informed the ORG that she had enrolled the child in a counselling programme with the school psychologist and deplored the ORG ’s attitude of blaming on her the conflictual situation between the adults . On DATE GPE went to the ORG ’s headquarters and invited a team of experts to her home to see that the applicant was there with the child exercising his visiting rights . DATE she informed the ORG that she accepted counselling for her child .

NORP Some counselling sessions were organised between CARDINAL April and CARDINAL DATE , for both the child and the adults . As the counselling failed to improve the child ’s attitude towards her father , it was stopped . In the final report it was noted that the adults manifested hostility , lack of tolerance and respect towards each other and lacked any communication . Counselling for the child was considered futile so long as the parents remained in a conflictual situation . The psychologist recommended family and couple therapy , parental counselling and psychological counselling for the child .

In a letter addressed to the ORG on CARDINAL DATE the applicant reacted to the conclusions of the report and asked GPE ’s parental rights to be withdrawn . The ORG expressed the view that there was no reason to withdraw GPE ’s parental rights .

The applicant lodged a request with the courts to obtain full custody of the child . The proceedings are currently pending .

The ORG organised the child ’s psychological evaluation with its experts . After CARDINAL sessions , the psychologist rendered the report . She concluded that the child ’s exposure to court proceedings and repeated hearings and evaluations were detrimental to her and could cause emotional suffering . The expert also noted that the child detached herself emotionally from the PERSON problems and through her attitude tried to make them sort out on their own their conflicts .

The Agency presented its point of view in the proceedings . It reiterated its earlier assessment that there were no grounds to seek to deprive GPE of her parental responsibility . It further noted that the child refused to cooperate with the psychologist which rendered the counselling futile .

The applicant lodged CARDINAL criminal complaints against GPE for noncompliance with a court order . They were both dismissed by the prosecutor ’s office attached to LOC ( “ the prosecutor ” ) on DATE and DATE respectively . After hearing the CARDINAL spouses , the prosecutor observed that the applicant managed to see his daughter occasionally , that on other times the child refused to see her father , or GPE refused to give him the child , and that starting from DATE he had no longer exercised his visiting rights .

The applicant continued his attempts to see his child , lodged new criminal complaints against the mother , sought ORG assistance , and the mother was fined by the court on DATE for failure to respect the court order establishing the visiting schedule .

After the fine imposed on the mother on DATE , she allowed the applicant to see the child , but the latter refused to leave with her father .

Several other civil court proceedings have been engaged by the applicant against his former spouse and ORG in order to have the custody arrangements reassessed . The child underwent more psychological evaluations in the process , and the experts considered that the tense situation between the adults led the child to refuse contact with her father , but that she would not oppose seeing him at her home .

Consequently , the counselling efforts through experts of ORG continued throughout DATE .

The relevant articles from LAW and LAW , applicable at the time of the facts of the present case , are presented in GPE v. GPE , no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , § § DATE , DATE .


George Nicolaou;Guido Raimondi;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Ledi Bianku;Nona Tsotsoria;Zdravka Kalaydjieva

The applicants are NORP nationals . A list of their names and DATE of birth is set out in the appendix . All of the applicants lived in GPE , except Mr PERSON , who lives in GPE . The applicants were represented before the ORG by Mr PERSON , PERSON and PERSON , lawyers practising in GPE . Some of the initial applicants died or transferred their properties in the course of the proceedings before the ORG and their heirs or successors expressed the wish to continue the application in their stead . They also authorised Mr PERSON , PERSON and PERSON to represent them .

ORG ( “ the Government ” ) were represented by their Agents , PERSON and PERSON , then by PERSON and PERSON , from ORG .

The application concerns CARDINAL sets of domestic proceedings to which the applicants were parties , relating to the restitution of forestry land in the area of GPE . The facts , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .

Following the enactment of LAW in DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , the applicants ( or , in some cases , their predecessors ) applied for the restitution of forestry land in the area of GPE .

The applicants claimed that the documents establishing their former titles had been destroyed , so they could not present them . The claims were therefore examined under the special procedure provided for under section CARDINAL of the Forests Restitution Act ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL below ) . For the region of GPE , the commission provided for in section DATE ( “ the regional commission ” ) was created in DATE by an order of the Minister of Agriculture . It was headed by a judge of ORG and included representatives of the municipalities in the region , the NORP Regional Governor ’s office , ORG and the local forest authorities . The order specified that the regional commission was to be assisted by representatives of the local land commissions .

NORP The regional commission carried out an inquiry to verify the restitution claims for the area of GPE . The NORP forest authority made submissions to it , pointing out that as there had never been privately owned forests in the area , there was no need for restitution . Nevertheless , on DATE the regional commission adopted a decision recognising the rights of numerous persons , including the applicants , to different plots of forestry land .

NORP The representative of ORG signed the decision , but joined a separate opinion whereby he too stated that there had been no privately owned forests in the area prior to the process of nationalisation . He considered that if , on the other hand , the land claimed had been agricultural before nationalisation , that fact had to be expressly established by showing that the forests on the land were DATE .

On the basis of the regional commission ’s decision of CARDINAL DATE , in a series of decisions dated DATE the GPE land commission restored the applicants’ property rights to the land at issue , and the applicants took possession and started using it shortly thereafter .

In DATE the NORP forest authority complained to the NORP regional public prosecutor ’s office about the restitution process in the GPE region . The complaint concerned CARDINAL beneficiaries of the restitution process , including the applicants , and QUANTITY of forestry land . Non - governmental organisations also complained to the prosecution authorities that the GPE forests had been “ plundered ” .

NORP The NORP regional public prosecutor ’s office commissioned an expert report , which established that before nationalisation the land given to the applicants had been yaylak ( a NORP term designating a high - mountain pasture ) . Under the law of GPE to which the territory had belonged until DATE , the ORG remained the owner of all yaylak land and private individuals could only receive the right to use it . That situation was preserved in NORP law after the area had been included in NORP territory . There were no documents in the public archives indicating that there had ever been privately owned forests in the area . In particular , in the tax registers for the period DATE , there were no data indicating that private individuals had paid land tax ; there were no documents for the expropriation of forestry land in the area after the enactment of the relevant legislation in DATE ; and there was no indication that at the time of expropriation anyone in the area had received compensation , which in accordance with the law had to be in the form of ORG bonds . Lastly , the expert pointed out that there had been no cases of restitution of forests or forestry land in the GPE region under section CARDINAL of the Forests Restitution Act , namely with documents establishing rights to property prior to nationalisation ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

NORP In DATE the NORP regional public prosecutor ’s office proposed that the administrative proceedings be re - opened and the decisions of the land commission of CARDINAL DATE be quashed .

NORP In a series of decisions dated CARDINAL and DATE , in all but CARDINAL of the present cases ORG ( the former land commission ) quashed the decisions of DATE . It considered that those decisions had been adopted “ in material breach of the law ” , because the documents submitted by the prosecution had shown that as there had never been privately owned forests and forestry land in the area of GPE , the preconditions for restitution had not been met .

The applicants challenged those new decisions . In judicial proceedings which all ended DATE and DATE , ORG and ORG quashed the decisions . Giving largely identical reasoning , they found that ORG reasons for re - opening the proceedings had not been valid and quashed its earlier decisions because the relevant time - limits for doing so , as provided for by the general rules on administrative procedure , had expired . They did not discuss the merits of the applicants’ restitution claims .

NORP In DATE the NORP forest authority , acting on behalf of the ORG , brought rei vindicatio claims against the applicants , arguing that the ORG was the lawful owner of the restored land and that the restitution had been unlawful . Following requests by the forest authority , in many of the cases the courts issued interim injunctions against the applicants , barring them from transferring their titles .

The different sets of rei vindicatio proceedings ended DATE and DATE . In all of them , using largely identical reasoning and relying on the legislation as in force in DATE and DATE and documents from different periods , the courts found that the land at issue had been yaylak , which meant that it could not have been privately owned at the time of nationalisation of forests in GPE in DATE . Moreover , given the age of the forests – in some cases DATE it could not be accepted that at the time of nationalisation the land at issue had been agricultural and that it had subsequently been afforested . In some of the cases the courts pointed out that the applicants had not even claimed that they or their predecessors had been owners , but merely relied on the land commission ’s respective decisions of DATE . In some cases the courts noted in addition that the regional commission ’s decision of CARDINAL DATE had not been signed on the part of the NORP forest authority by the member indicated in the order of ORG , but by another person .

On the basis of the above findings the courts concluded that the land at issue had not been owned by the ORG predecessors and could not therefore have been taken from them in DATE ; on the contrary , the land had always been ORG - owned . Accordingly , the restitution legislation had not given rise to any rights for the applicants . Furthermore , the courts considered that both the regional commission ’s decision of CARDINAL DATE and the GPE land commission ’s decisions of DATE had been given in breach of the law .

In addition , the courts found that the ORG , as represented by the NORP forest authority , was not bound by the land commission ’s decisions on restitution . For instance , in its judgment of DATE in the case of Mr PERSON and Mr PERSON , ORG held :

“ The court , in examining a rei vindicatio action , must scrutinise independently whether the right to property has arisen on valid grounds and is not bound by the administrative decision relied on DATE the decision of the land commission – the validity of which is to be verified through indirect judicial review where the plaintiff has not participated in the administrative proceedings .

It can not be accepted that the participation of a representative of the NORP forest authority in the administrative proceedings which resulted in the adoption of the land commission ’s decision is sufficient to render the conclusions of those proceedings binding on the NORP forest authority . ”

Similarly , in a judgment of DATE , in the case of ORG , ORG held :

“ The claimant in the rei vindicatio proceedings has not participated in the administrative proceedings concerning restitution of property and is not bound by the land commission ’s decision . It can therefore challenge that decision in civil proceedings concerning its property rights . ”

After the entry into force of the new Code of Civil Procedure on DATE Mr PERSON and Mr Feti PERSON lodged an appeal on points of law , which was examined in accordance with the rules provided for in the new Code .

As required under ORG CARDINAL and FAC of the Code , the appeal was served on the NORP forest authority , which lodged written submissions in reply . The submissions were not communicated to the applicants . Having considered the case file on the papers , in a final decision of DATE a CARDINAL - member panel of ORG refused to admit the appeal for examination . It held that the appeal did not meet the requirements of LAW .

On unspecified dates the prosecution authorities instituted criminal proceedings against some of the beneficiaries of restitution in the GPE region for document forgery and fraud . In CARDINAL of the cases under examination , which were not specified by the parties , the applicants were indicted . In CARDINAL of those cases the courts convicted the applicants .

Specific information has been provided on the case of Mr PERSON PERSON , PERSON , Ms Nayle PERSON and Mr PERSON . On DATE Mr PERSON PERSON was convicted by ORG for having forged a request for restitution submitted on behalf of the remaining applicants . This was taken into account by the courts examining the rei vindicatio action against those applicants and served as grounds to allow the action and conclude that the applicants had not become the owners of the land claimed .

After the completion of the rei vindicatio proceedings the NORP forest authority brought proceedings for unlawful enrichment against some of the applicants , seeking to recover the monetary equivalent of the timber produced from the respective plots of land DATE .

The Restitution of Title to ORG and Forestry Land Act ( ORG за възстановяване на собствеността върху горите и земите от горския фонд , “ the ORG LAW ” ) was enacted in DATE . It set out the conditions for restitution of forestry land which had been expropriated in DATE and DATE . Under LAW of the LAW , the bodies competent to take decisions on restitution were the respective land commissions , replaced in DATE by ORG ( after DATE renamed ORG ) . Those are ORG bodies , whose members are appointed by ORG . Forest authorities are also ORG bodies .

NORP Former owners of forestry land wishing to have their property rights restored had to support their claims by documents establishing their title before nationalisation ( section CARDINAL of the Forests Restitution Act ) . Where the relevant documents had been “ lost or destroyed through no fault of their own ” , such claimants might still apply for restitution and their requests were to be examined under a special procedure provided for in section CARDINAL of the Act .

Section CARDINAL provides for the creation of regional commissions , composed of representatives of the local judicial and administrative authorities , with the task of carrying out inquiries to verify restitution claims . Where , following an inquiry , the regional commission was satisfied that the claims in question were well founded , it would take a decision to restore the former ORG property rights . Such a decision was binding on the respective land commission / ORG , which was obliged , within DATE of its receipt , to issue a formal decision on restitution . The decisions taken by the land commissions / ORG were not amenable to judicial review , and any disputes with third parties over property rights were to be determined in separate proceedings .

On DATE the Plenary of ORG of ORG delivered interpretative decision no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ( ORG № CARDINAL/CARDINAL г. , GPE съд на Република България , CARDINAL събрание на ORG колегия ) . It found , in the first place , that court judgments ordering restitution under LAW had binding effect on the ORG and its bodies , which could not seek the re - examination of the matter in new judicial proceedings .

ORG found , on the other hand , that it remained open for the State , through its bodies , to challenge administrative decisions of the land commissions / ORG allowing restitution claims . In particular , it held :

“ The restitution of ... forests is carried out through administrative means . ... The procedure unfolds between the administrative body and the person who has sought restitution , and that is why it is ex parte . No disputes concerning rights to property are examined in these proceedings , and ORG decides on the request for restitution . ...

The ORG is not a party to the proceedings before ORG . Pursuant to [ the relevant provisions of LAW ] , the parties to proceedings concerning the issuance of an individual administrative decision are the claimant and other interested parties who were summoned or have joined the procedure . ORG is not a party to the administrative procedure , but the body before which the procedure unfolds . ...

Where the decision given in the restitution procedure affects rights in rem of the ORG , it is entitled to defend them under the general civil law , by bringing an action to establish the rights claimed by it . Where an action has been brought against it , it can seek to establish that it has the right to ownership of the disputed plot . For the ORG this is the only means of defence against an unlawful administrative decision . ”

The rules under LAW , as in force since DATE , have been summarised in the ORG ’s decision in the case of PERSON and Others v. GPE ( ( dec . ) , nos . CARDINAL , ORG and CARDINAL , DATE ) .


Violation of Article 6+6-3-c - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing) (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial;Article 6-3-c - Defence through legal assistance);Violation of Article 6+6-3-e - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing) (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial;Article 6-3-e - Free assistance of interpreter);Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal 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;Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time)

Jon Fridrik Kjølbro;Ledi Bianku;Nebojša Vučinić

The applicants , Mr PERSON ( first applicant ) , Mr Mustafa PERSON ( second applicant ) , and Mr PERSON ( third applicant ) were born in DATE , DATE and DATE respectively .

On DATE the applicants were arrested in the course of a military operation in Şırnak . They were subsequently interrogated by the gendarmes in the absence of a lawyer . In their statements , the applicants accepted the charges against them and gave a detailed account of their involvement in the ORG ( ORG of Kurdistan , an illegal organisation ) .

On DATE the applicants were brought before ORG and subsequently before the investigating judge . The first and second applicants were provided with an interpreter during their interrogation . Before the public prosecutor and the judge , the applicants denied the charges against them . They further stated that they had signed their gendarmerie statements without reading them . Following the questioning , the investigating judge remanded the applicants in custody .

On DATE ORG at ORG filed an indictment with that court and accused the applicants of carrying out activities for the purpose of bringing about the secession of part of the national territory , under LAW .

The proceedings resumed before ORG and the first and second applicants were authorised to have the assistance of an interpreter . In their defence submissions before the trial court , the applicants retracted the statements they had allegedly made during the preliminary investigation stage . They submitted that the gendarmes had made them sign their statements without reading them .

On DATE ORG found the applicants guilty as charged and convicted them under LAW with carrying out activities with the aim of bringing about the secession of part of the national territory . It further sentenced the applicants to life imprisonment . In convicting them , the court had regard to the ORG statements taken by the gendarmes .

On DATE ORG quashed the judgment of the first - instance court on the ground that during the trial certain witness statements , which had been taken on commission before other courts , had not been read out to the applicants for comment during the trial . The case was accordingly remitted to ORG .

In the meantime , ORG were abolished by PERSON no . CARDINAL of DATE , and therefore , the case against the applicants was transferred to ORG .

On DATE ORG complied with the decision of ORG and witness statements that had been taken on commission were read out to the applicants for their comments . At the end of the trial , ORG found the applicants guilty as charged and sentenced them to life imprisonment .

On DATE ORG at ORG decided that the case file should be remitted to ORG for examination of whether the new LAW which had entered into force on DATE ( Law no . CARDINAL ) provided more favourable provisions for the applicants . The case was thus once again examined by ORG in view of the recent legislative changes .

On DATE ORG once again convicted the applicants under LAW , finding that this provision was more favourable to them than the corresponding provision of the new criminal code .

On CARDINAL DATE ORG quashed the judgment on procedural grounds , holding in particular that certain documents which had been relied on by the first - instance court in its judgment were not of an official nature .

On DATE ORG , after obtaining official copies of all the documents in the case file , convicted the applicants under LAW and sentenced them to life imprisonment .

On DATE ORG upheld the judgment of the first - instance court .


Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing;Equality of arms)

Ineta Ziemele;Ledi Bianku;Nona Tsotsoria;Päivi Hirvelä;Paul Mahoney;Zdravka Kalaydjieva

The applicant was born in DATE .

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

On DATE ORG ( GPE rajona tiesa ) found the applicant guilty of aggravated theft . The judgment of ORG did not indicate that the applicant had a lawyer .

The applicant was given a prison sentence of DATE . Having taken into account the applicant ’s CARDINAL prior convictions ORG imposed a final prison sentence of DATE .

On DATE ORG ( PERSON apgabaltiesa ) partially upheld the applicant ’s appeal against the above - mentioned first - instance judgment . The judgment of ORG indicated that the applicant ’s lawyer , PERSON , had participated .

ORG reclassified the charge as theft of a small amount and reduced the prison sentence to DATE , reducing the final prison sentence to DATE accordingly .

On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law against the appeal judgment with ORG of the ORG of ORG . On DATE he supplemented his appeal .

The Government submitted , and the applicant did not argue otherwise , that in his appeal on points of law the applicant had not expressed a wish to participate in the cassation hearing .

At its preparatory session on DATE the ORG of ORG decided to accept the appeal for review on points of law and scheduled the hearing for DATE .

On DATE the ORG of ORG wrote to the applicant informing him that the cassation hearing had been scheduled for DATE . The notification was also addressed to the lawyer , PERSON

NORP The letter also stated that the applicant had the right to participate in the cassation hearing . However , in the event of non - appearance by the parties the hearing could be held in their absence .

On DATE the applicant made a request to participate in the cassation hearing “ in order to provide the necessary explanations ” .

As submitted by the Government , on DATE the applicant ’s request was received at the registry of the ORG of ORG .

On DATE V.E. , a judge of the ORG of ORG , wrote to the director of ORG , where the applicant was held at the time , in the following terms :

“ Concerning [ the applicant ’s ] request about the possibility of participating in the court hearing of DATE , please inform [ him ] that it is impossible to ensure [ his participation ] .

He made no such request in his appeal on points of law . His request to participate in the hearing of DATE was received at ORG only on DATE . [ ORG escorts from FAC to GPE depart only on CARDINAL and CARDINAL [ DATE ] , it is no longer possible to organise his transport to the hearing of DATE . ”

On DATE the hearing took place before the ORG of ORG .

The only party present was the public prosecutor . Neither the applicant nor his lawyer participated .

The decision of the ORG of ORG dated DATE indicated , inter alia , that the ORG had heard the prosecutor ’s opinion that the lower court ’s judgment should be left unmodified .

The ORG of ORG upheld the appeal judgment and dismissed the applicant ’s appeal on points of law . That decision was final .

On DATE ORG , in view of the amendments to LAW ( PERSON ) , which were applicable retroactively , decided that the applicant should be released from prison as he had already served his sentence .


Ján Šikuta;Josep Casadevall;Kristina Pardalos;Luis López Guerra

NORP The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in PERSON , GPE administrative district . His application was lodged on DATE . The applicant ’s request for selfrepresentation was granted .

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

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

On DATE the applicant lodged a complaint against ORG ( the “ ORG ” ) , complaining about the way in which his pension had been calculated with effect from DATE . He stated that it had been calculated by multiplying the DATE average point level ( punctajul mediu anual ) determined for each retired person by the pension point ( punct de pensie ) which had been set by governmental decision . He relied on the following CARDINAL arguments : firstly that the average point level used for calculating his pension with effect from DATE had been progressively lowered since it had first been determined on DATE , and secondly that there had been errors in the calculation of his pension , meaning that the sums which had actually been paid in the periods from DATE , DATE and DATE to DATE had been lower than the sums obtained by multiplying the CARDINAL relevant figures together , even taking the value set by ORG . He also contended that the lowering of the DATE average point level was discriminatory as it only affected people who had retired DATE and DATE .

In a first - instance judgment of CARDINAL DATE the ORG ( “ the ORG ” ) dismissed his complaint , holding that even though the average point level had been lowered in DATE , this had caused no difference in the actual pension paid DATE and DATE , and that his claims were therefore ill - founded .

The applicant lodged an appeal , arguing that his claims had not been properly examined . He claimed that ORG had not considered his allegation that the lowering of the average point level had been discriminatory and had failed to address his allegation that the pension that he had actually been paid for some periods had not corresponded to the sums produced by multiplying the CARDINAL relevant figures together , even taking the value set by ORG .

In a final decision of CARDINAL DATE ORG , sitting as a panel of CARDINAL judges , namely GPE , ORG and ORG , dismissed the applicant ’s appeal as ill - founded . It held that the applicant ’s pension had been calculated by reference to the pension to which he had been entitled on DATE and deducting from it his compulsory contribution to the health insurance fund .

The applicant lodged an extraordinary appeal , contending that the appellate court had failed to examine all his arguments . In a final decision of CARDINAL DATE , ORG , sitting as a panel of CARDINAL judges including ORG , allowed the extraordinary appeal . It held that CARDINAL of the applicant ’s arguments concerning the way in which his pension rights had been calculated had not been properly examined .

ORG kept the case for a fresh determination of the ordinary appeal and set the date for the first hearing at DATE .

The re - examination of the ordinary appeal lasted from DATE to DATE . The court held several hearings sitting as a panel of CARDINAL judges , including ORG and ORG The applicant attended all the hearings .

In a final decision delivered on DATE and served on the applicant on CARDINAL August CARDINAL , the appellate court dismissed the applicant ’s appeal as ill - founded . It held that the applicant ’s pension had been correctly calculated in accordance with the applicable law . It stated that the applicant ’s pension rights had not been affected after the recalculation of the DATE average point level . The appellate court also noted that the applicant had brought parallel proceedings for the calculation of his pension rights and the amount of his pension had therefore already been established by a final decision of ORG delivered on DATE .

NORP The applicant lodged another extraordinary appeal , arguing that CARDINAL of the judges considering his appeal had lacked impartiality , as they had ruled on the case on a previous occasion , and that the new decision of DATE had contradicted the final decision of DATE , which had found that there was in fact a discrepancy between the pension which was actually paid to him and the one that would have resulted from a proper calculation . He also complained that the appellate court had dismissed the financial expert report without addressing the contradictions between that report and the new pension decision .

In a final decision of CARDINAL DATE the appellate court dismissed the extraordinary appeal , holding that all of the applicant ’s grounds of appeal had been duly examined .

Article CARDINAL of LAW ( ORG ) , as in force at the material time , provided that a judge who had already ruled on a case could not sit on the panel deciding the same case in any new set of proceedings following the quashing of a previous decision .

Under LAW ORG , parties to civil proceedings are obliged to inform the court immediately of any facts disqualifying a judge from dealing with their case .

The rules concerning a change of trial venue were laid down in ORG DATE of the ORG .

Article CARDINAL of the ORG provided that an extraordinary appeal on points of law against final decisions of a court of appeal in cases where the appeal had been decided by a disqualified judge , or the court ’s composition had been incorrect , was available only if the parties could not have invoked these grounds in an ordinary appeal .


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