CASE OF HROMADKA AND HROMADKOVA v. RUSSIA

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

Dmitry Dedov;Erik Møse;Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre;Julia Laffranque;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Ksenija Turković

The first applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE , GPE . The second applicant was born in DATE . She currently lives in GPE with GPE , her mother .

On DATE the first applicant married a NORP national , GPE The couple decided to settle in GPE .

On DATE their daughter , the second applicant , was born .

NORP In DATE the first applicant and GPE decided to separate .

On DATE ORG filed for divorce in GPE . Both PERSON and the first applicant sought custody of the child .

NORP In DATE O.H. , unbeknownst to the first applicant , obtained a onemonth NORP visa for the second applicant , and on DATE , together with the latter , left for GPE ( GPE ) . Upon the expiry of the visa on DATE O.H. did not bring the second applicant back to GPE . Instead , on DATE she obtained a temporary residence permit for the second applicant from ORG , and on DATE , NORP citizenship for the latter . On an unspecified date PERSON and the second applicant left for GPE .

On DATE PERSON applied to ORG ( PERSON управление NORP службы безопасности Российской PERSON по городу PERSON области ) in order to restrict the second applicant ’s travel outside GPE .

As of DATE the second applicant ’s travel abroad was restricted .

NORP Since CARDINAL DATE the first applicant has had no contact with the second applicant , because ORG prevented him from either seeing the second applicant or communicating with her by telephone . The NORP authorities have been unable to establish ORG and the second applicant ’s whereabouts since then .

The interim decision of GPE CARDINAL ORG of DATE as amended by the interim decision of ORG of DATE granted the first applicant temporary custody of the second applicant pending the outcome of the divorce proceedings . ORG thereby obliged O.H. to hand the child over to the first applicant , not to leave GPE and not to remain outside the territory of GPE with the minor . The interim decision entered into force on DATE .

On DATE GPE ORG issued a final custody judgment by which custody of the second applicant was granted to the first applicant . PERSON was obliged to pay the first applicant CARDINAL NORP korunas – MONEY ( ORG ) DATE in alimony . The court held as follows :

“ The father loves [ his daughter ] very much ; in the opinion of the experts he is better developed emotionally in comparison to the mother , is more capable of self - control and handling [ stress ] so as to not spoil the relationship between the mother and [ the child ] or otherwise turn [ the child ] against her mother . It was established that the interests of [ the child ] require that she be placed in her father ’s care [ as he ] was established to be a more suitable caregiver ; at the same time it was established that as a result of [ the child ’s ] separation from her father the former ’s psychological well - being [ has been affected ] . It was established that for DATE the father , unlike the mother , has been cooperating with [ the custody and guardianship authority ] , and the [ guardian ] had therefore had a real possibility to examine the father ’s living conditions and his situation ; ... it was established that he can provide [ the child ] with normal accommodation ... The father is financially stable , which enables him to provide [ the child ] with the material [ items ] and non - material values necessary for her health , mental , cultural and physical development . [ The child ] will soon go to primary school and the father , in view of his education and indisputable interest in [ the child ] , is capable of providing her , along with the possibility of school education , with everything she needs . ... Despite the fact that the father was and is still being prevented from communicating with [ the child ] , he [ supports the child financially by giving money directly to the mother and making deposits into the child ’s bank account ] , and in addition to alimony the father gives [ the child ] presents whenever he has the possibility to meet her .

The mother , on the contrary , was characterised as unstable , authoritative , unfriendly to the father and inclined to impulsive aggression and rash behavior . While carrying out her parental duties she harms [ the child ] , she has abused her parental authority since DATE at least ... Therefore , she acts both unlawfully and contrary to the interests of [ the child ] and the court ’s decision . While exercising her parental authority the mother consciously and purposefully acts in total disregard of the recommendations of the experts and her lawful duties ; she completely prevented communication between the father and [ the child ] , at first without any reason . Subsequently , under an invented pretext , in DATE she took [ the child ] , without the permission of the father , the court or [ the custody and guardianship authority ] abroad to GPE , where she has kept [ the child ] until now . At the same time the mother has not complied with the decision of the court pursuant to which she should have handed [ the child ] over to the father , to render to the father [ the child ’s ] travelling passport and not to remain [ with the child ] outside the territory of GPE . [ It was established that the decision in question ] was served on [ the mother ] first of all through her representative in GPE , and thereafter to her personally in the course of the proceedings at the courts in GPE and GPE . Furthermore , the mother refuses to send an invitation for visiting GPE to the father , [ who ] has to go through demanding procedures to obtain NORP entry visas , and when the father succeeds in obtaining a visa and goes to GPE the mother often hides [ the child ] and refuses to communicate with the father[. ] [ S]he does not even allow the father to talk to [ the child ] on the telephone , and even if she lets them talk she purposefully manipulates the father ’s and [ the child ’s ] mindset according to the situation . Therefore , the court believes that the mother has , in disregard of the law of GPE , willfully interfered with [ the child ’s family life ] , her right to know her father and her right to be in her father ’s custody . She has interfered with [ the child ’s ] right to freedom of movement and to choose her place of residence , and her right to free entry to her homeland , GPE . Thereby the mother has breached the rights guaranteed by the ORG in the framework of Conventions on Human Rights , including the Convention on the Rights of the ORG . The mother , unbeknownst to the father , the court or [ the custody and guardianship authority ] and without their consent in contravention of the legal order of GPE , applied to NORP administrative authorities to grant [ the child ] , a national of GPE , NORP citizenship , on the basis of which in a record - breaking short term of DATE the latter was granted NORP citizenship .

Regarding the father ’s claim for termination of the mother ’s parental rights , the court has decided to dismiss it [ since termination of parental rights is the most serious interference in relations between parents and children , when the violation of GPE duties is so serious that the termination of parental rights is the only possible solution to protect the interests of the child ] . The court has arrived at the conclusion that termination of the mother ’s parental rights would be in contradiction with the father ’s own statement in his final speech that [ the child ] should have both parents .

The case was examined in the absence of ORG established that on DATE consul T. of ORG informed GPE by telephone about the venue and the time of the hearing , that is , DATE at TIME in GPE CARDINAL ORG , but ORG did not say anything in reply and hung up . Nobody answered the phone when the consul tried to reach PERSON again . The telephone was subsequently switched off . ORG of the Czech Ministry of Justice did not receive confirmation from the NORP authorities on whether the request of DATE for the delivery of a court summons to ORG had been complied with . ORG therefore considered that GPE had been duly notified and that she had failed to appear in court without valid reason . It therefore proceeded in her absence .

On DATE that judgment became final .

The judgment remains unenforced to DATE .

The first applicant challenged the decision of ORG of DATE granting the second applicant a temporary residence permit ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

On DATE ORG dismissed the first applicant ’s claims . The court held that the temporary residence permit had been granted to the second applicant in accordance with the procedure established by law , and that the relevant procedure did not require the applicant ’s consent .

On DATE ORG upheld the above judgment on appeal .

The first applicant challenged the decision of ORG of DATE granting the second applicant LANGUAGE citizenship ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

On DATE ORG dismissed the first applicant ’s claim . The court held that the granting of NORP citizenship to the second applicant had been carried out in compliance with the procedure provided for by the NORP law and did not require the consent of the first applicant as GPE , the second applicant ’s mother , had NORP citizenship and the second applicant , having received a NORP temporary residence permit , was considered to be residing in GPE at the moment when the relevant decision had been taken by the competent authorities . The court held that LAW allowed for dual citizenship , and that the LAW between the Czechoslovak Socialist Republic and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics of DATE on prevention of dual citizenship , relied on by the first applicant , was no longer in force after DATE . The court further held that there was no evidence of criminally punishable acts in the actions of ORG .

The hearing of the case on DATE took place in the absence of the first applicant . His request for adjournment of the hearing ( due to his involvement in other court proceedings in GPE ) was dismissed . The first applicant was , however , represented by a lawyer .

On DATE ORG upheld the judgment on appeal .

On DATE the first applicant applied to GPE seeking formal recognition of the interim measure of ORG of DATE granting him temporary custody of the second applicant pending the divorce proceedings ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

By a final decision of DATE , however , ORG of GPE rejected the request . It held that LAW DATE between the NORP GPE and the Union of NORP Republics on legal assistance did not apply to interim measures .

As he had been prevented by ORG from seeing the second applicant , on DATE the first applicant brought proceedings before the NORP court seeking to have the terms of his contact with the second applicant in GPE fixed .

By a final decision of CARDINAL DATE GPE discontinued the above proceedings . It found that according to LAW DATE between the NORP GPE and the Union of NORP Republics on legal assistance , litigation in the domestic courts of CARDINAL High Contracting Party to the agreement had to be discontinued if the same litigation between the same litigants was pending before the domestic courts of the other High Contracting Party .

On DATE the first applicant brought proceedings against GPE seeking to cancel the restriction on the second applicant ’s travel outside GPE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

By a final decision of DATE GPE dismissed his claim . The court held that the essence of the first applicant ’s complaint had been the fixing of the terms of his contact with the second applicant , which had been for the NORP courts to determine . The court held , therefore , that until the final judgment of the NORP courts the first applicant and GPE were to decide on the issues in question by mutual agreement . The court further pointed out that the first applicant had the right to communicate with the second applicant on the territory of GPE and that PERSON had no right to prevent that .

On DATE the first applicant applied to GPE for recognition and enforcement of the judgment of GPE CARDINAL ORG of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

On DATE GPE , relying on LAW between the Czechoslovak GPE and the Union of NORP Republics on legal assistance and Articles CARDINAL of LAW , refused the first applicant ’s request , because ORG had not been duly notified of the hearing of DATE and had been deprived of the opportunity to take part in it . The relevant part of the decision reads as follows :

“ As it follows from the material of the case file [ O.H. ] did not participate in the proceedings before GPE CARDINAL ORG resulting in a judgment the compulsory enforcement of which is sought by [ the first applicant ] .

This circumstance is supported by the text of the judgment itself . As it follows from this document [ O.H. ] failed to appear [ in court ] for the hearing of the case [ on DATE ] , although she had been informed orally about [ the time and the place ] of the hearing . The [ GPE CARDINAL ORG ] found it established that [ O.H. ] had been informed about the hearing orally by a consul .

At the same time it follows from [ the applicant ’s ] application and the text of the above - mentioned judgment that in DATE [ O.H. ] had left the territory of GPE with the child [ and ] resides on the territory of GPE .

Taking into consideration [ the fact ] that at the time of delivery of the judgment ORG has been residing on the territory of GPE , her notification should have been carried out in accordance with LAW , which provides that service of documents [ must be ] certified by a confirmation signed by the person on whom the document is served and officially sealed and signed by the competent authority responsible for the service with indication of the date of service , or by a confirmation issued by that competent authority with indication of the means , the place and the time of service .

No such [ confirmation ] was provided by [ the first applicant ] . It follows from the contents of the above - mentioned judgment that a request for delivery of documents to [ O.H. ] was addressed to ORG of GPE and remained without reply .

At the same time , according to LAW a request for compulsory enforcement of a foreign court judgment must be accompanied by a document showing that the party against whom the judgment was taken , and who did not participate in the proceedings , had been duly notified of the time and the place of the hearing . The same rule is contained in LAW .

It follows from the contents of the above - mentioned legal provisions that notification of [ O.H. ] of the time and the place of the hearing should have been certified by [ a ] written confirmation , signed by [ O.H. ] , [ and ] sealed by [ the competent authority ] which handed over the notification .

No such documents were , however , provided by the [ first applicant ] .

As noted above , the judgment of GPE CARDINAL ORG indicates that [ O.H. ] was notified orally by a consul .

The [ first applicant ’s ] argument that [ ORG ’s ] notification by consul orally by telephone was in accordance with section CARDINAL of LAW of GPE does not amount to proof of [ ORG ’s ] proper notification ...

The above - mentioned LAW does not provide for the possibility of notification by a consul . Under LAW are entitled to serve the documents through consular establishments to their citizens only . However , [ since ORG ] is not a citizen of GPE , but only had a permit for permanent residence on the territory of GPE , the [ court summons ] was not served on her ...

In view of the foregoing the court finds that [ O.H. ] was deprived of the possibility to take part in the proceedings as a result of a failure to duly notify her of the time and the place of the hearing ... ”

NORP The decision of CARDINAL DATE was taken in the absence of ORG summonses were repeatedly sent to ORG ’s place of residence in GPE and to the address in GPE , GPE , given to the court by the first applicant . However , the summonses returned unclaimed following the expiration of the storage time . Attempts were also made to notify ORG through a local police inspector , without success . The court therefore considered that it had taken sufficient and exhaustive measures to notify ORG and to ensure her presence at the hearing , that the latter had abused her right , and that it was possible to examine the first applicant ’s request in her absence .

On DATE GPE upheld the judgment of CARDINAL DATE on appeal .

On DATE the first applicant ’s “ cassation appeal ” lodged against the judgment of CARDINAL DATE and the decision on appeal of DATE was dismissed .

In DATE the first applicant applied to the guardianship and trusteeship body for GPE Porokhovye municipal circuit ( орган опеки и попечительства местной администрации внутригородского муниципального образования г. ORG муниципальный округ ORG ) to facilitate visits between him and the second applicant .

In DATE the first applicant renewed his application .

On DATE and CARDINAL DATE representatives of the guardianship and trusteeship body accompanied the first applicant to visit the child .

In the meantime , on DATE the guardianship and trusteeship body examined ORG ’s living conditions in GPE . It was established that the flat was in a very good condition , that all the furniture and household appliances were new , and that the girl had a separate room , which was spacious , tidy and cosy .

DATE the first applicant did not apply to the guardianship and trusteeship body to organise visits between him and the second applicant .

In DATE the first applicant again applied to the guardianship and trusteeship body to organise his upcoming visit in DATE . He relied on the judgment of GPE CARDINAL ORG of DATE . However , his request was refused in the absence of a judgment by the NORP court obliging the guardianship and trusteeship body to organise visits between the first applicant and the second applicant .

On CARDINAL occasions the first applicant applied to ORG in GPE seeking for assistance in establishing contact with his daughter and visa support .

In response to the first applicant ’s requests the ORG tried to reconcile the first applicant and NORP In particular , during his visit to GPE DATE and DATE the first applicant stayed at GPE ’s apartment and was able to have contact with his daughter . However , the first applicant and PERSON later had a conflict . O.H. claimed that the first applicant had been cruel to the child and that she would interfere with contact between the first applicant and the child in the interests of the latter . The ORG explained to ORG the provisions of LAW concerning the right of the parent living apart from the child to have contact with the child . Nevertheless PERSON stated that she viewed the situation as a strictly private family matter . In her opinion the wide media coverage of the case initiated by the first applicant and the involvement of a number of official bodies went contrary to the principles of the inviolability of private and family life . She further submitted that the child did not want to communicate with the first applicant . Since DATE the Ombudsman for Children in GPE has lost all contact with ORG about the second applicant was put on the ORG ’s website ( www.spbdeti.org ) in the “ missing child ” section .

Concerning the issue of visa support to the first applicant , the ORG applied to the representation of ORG in GPE , which explained that the first applicant could apply to the health care and social welfare authorities for the invitation which was required in order to obtain a NORP visa .

In his letter of CARDINAL DATE the first applicant expressed his gratitude to ORG in GPE for her active participation in protecting the second applicant ’s rights .

On DATE the first applicant lodged a request with ORG in GPE asking for assistance in establishing his communication with his daughter .

DATE . On DATE the Ombudsman visited ORG , where ORG was supposedly living . However , the information about GPE and the second applicant ’s whereabouts in ORG was not confirmed . The first applicant was informed accordingly .

On DATE the first applicant applied to ORG in GPE asking for an inquiry into the activity of the commission for the affairs of minors in Nyuksenskiy municipal district to be carried out owing to what he saw as their negligent attitude in examining the issue of establishing his communication with his daughter .

On DATE the first applicant was informed that his request was outside the ORG ’s competence and that he could apply to the prosecutor ’s office or the court .

On DATE the first applicant again applied to ORG in GPE asking for assistance in establishing his daughter ’s whereabouts .

On DATE the first applicant was informed that the child was not studying in any school in Nyuksenskiy municipal district and was not living there .

On DATE and DATE ORG applied to ORG under the President of ORG for assistance in the protection of the right of the second applicant to communicate with both parents . Since at the time NORP lived in GPE with the child , the applications were transmitted to ORG in GPE .

On DATE and CARDINAL DATE the Ombudsman for Children under the President had consultative meetings with the Ambassador PERSON and Plenipotentiary of GPE in GPE and actively corresponded with ORG on the issue . Regular contact was maintained with ORG and the guardianship and trusteeship body for GPE Porokhovye municipal circuit .

Meanwhile , on DATE and DATE the first applicant himself applied to ORG under the President of ORG . Regular contact was maintained with the first applicant by telephone and e - mail .

As a result of the work carried out by ORG under the President and the ombudsmen for children in GPE and GPE , on DATE a reply was given to the first applicant . He was informed about the legal means of protecting his right to communicate with his daughter which were applicable to his situation . In particular , he was told that he could bring a civil action before the NORP courts in order to determine his access rights ( иск об определении порядка общения с дочерью ) . That recommendation was made with regard to the first applicant ’s repeated assurances that he was not seeking compulsory enforcement of the judgment of GPE CARDINAL ORG of DATE as he understood that after such a long – in comparison to the child ’s life – passage of time , the enforcement of that judgment could be harmful to his daughter and would not be in her best interests . At the same time the first applicant repeatedly stated his wish to establish and maintain regular contact with his daughter and to receive information about her life . However , the first applicant did not follow the above recommendation .

On DATE the first applicant reported GPE ’s refusal to allow him to communicate with his daughter , the second applicant , to ORG of GPE .

The local police inspector went to ORG ’s registered place of residence in GPE and found that she was not living there . The neighbours had no information about PERSON ’s whereabouts . A summons requesting PERSON to present herself at the local police station was returned unclaimed after the expiration of its storage time .

On DATE the first applicant asked the police to search for GPE in the absence of any information about her and the second applicant since CARDINAL DATE . The file was transferred to LOC investigations department ( следственный отдел по PERSON главному следственному управлению PERSON комитета Российской PERSON по ORG ) .

The investigator of LOC investigations department succeeded in reaching ORG ’s mother , GPE , on her mobile telephone . The latter submitted that she was in regular contact with ORG , but refused to divulge PERSON ’s whereabouts .

On DATE the investigator received a fax message from O.H. in which the latter confirmed that she was living at her registered place of residence with the second applicant , and that she refused all contact with the first applicant .

On DATE the investigator refused to institute criminal proceedings into the disappearance of GPE and the second applicant .

On DATE the juvenile inspector of the local police went to the flat at ORG ’s registered address in GPE , but nobody opened the door . PERSON ’s neighbour , PERSON . , said that ORG ’s flat had not been lived in since DATE .

On DATE the GPE District Deputy Prosecutor set aside the decision of DATE and returned the file to the investigator with instructions to carry out an additional check aimed at determining the whereabouts of GPE and the second applicant .

On DATE and CARDINAL DATE the investigator again refused to institute criminal proceedings into ORG and the second applicant ’s disappearance . Those decisions were subsequently set aside by the GPE District Deputy Prosecutor and additional checks were ordered .

The additional checks revealed that ORG had not been receiving her correspondence . They also established that the second applicant had not been attending kindergarten since DATE , and that the last appointments she had attended at the health care facility had been on DATE and CARDINAL DATE .

DATE . According to information provided by the GPE commission for the affairs of minors ( комиссия по делам несовершеннолетних и защите их прав при администрации Красногвардейского района ) , since DATE PERSON had been hiding the second applicant from her father , the first applicant ; she had not been opening the door and had been ignoring summonses to appear in court .

ORG examined the possibility of bringing administrative proceedings against ORG under LAW . However , the failure to establish ORG whereabouts made it impossible to serve summonses on her , to obtain her explanations and to serve her with the record of administrative offence .

NORP The prosecution authorities also conducted a check at ORG ’s presumed place of residence in GPE , GPE . It was established that GPE and the second applicant did not live there .

On DATE ORG questioned PERSON ’s mother , GPE The latter submitted that PERSON had lived and worked in GPE DATE , but that ORG ’s subsequent whereabouts were unknown to her . GPE further submitted that the first applicant was not supporting GPE financially , that he had arrived in GPE in DATE and sent MONEY ( RUB ) to ORG ’s place of residence in GPE , although he had known that ORG had been living and working in GPE at that time .

It was established that in DATE the second applicant had been enrolled for external studies in the first grade of LOC school no . CARDINAL in GPE under a distance learning programme . When ORG had signed a contract with the school she had given a GPE address .

On DATE and CARDINAL DATE the local police inspector again went to the above - mentioned address in GPE , in vain .

In DATE O.H. logged onto the school educational website , which suggested that the child started the second grade programme .

To the present day the whereabouts of ORG and the second applicant remain unknown .

DATE . On DATE ORG received from ORG of the NORP Republic court orders issued by GPE CARDINAL ORG for a check of ORG ’s living conditions and certain other procedural actions to be carried out .

On DATE and DATE respectively , in accordance with LAW between the Czechoslovak Socialist Republic and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics on legal assistance , the court orders were submitted to ORG of ORG ( ORG юстиции Российской PERSON по ORG федеральному округу ) .

On DATE and CARDINAL DATE reminders were sent to ORG of ORG .

According to that department , the execution of the orders had been complicated by the failure of the court to provide ORG ’s correct address .

On DATE the NORP ORG submitted to ORG of GPE the documents on execution of the orders of GPE CARDINAL ORG .

On DATE and CARDINAL DATE ORG received from ORG of GPE another order issued by GPE CARDINAL ORG to take certain procedural steps in respect of ORG and a request for service of court documents on O.H.

On DATE and DATE respectively the court order and request for service of documents were submitted to ORG .

On CARDINAL DATE the NORP ORG informed ORG of GPE that it was impossible to execute the orders of GPE CARDINAL ORG .

Following receipt of a note from ORG forwarded by ORG of GPE , on DATE , ORG submitted to ORG a court order issued by GPE CARDINAL ORG for service of court documents on O.H.

On DATE the NORP ORG submitted to ORG the documents attesting to the impossibility of executing that court order .

Following receipt of another note from ORG , on DATE the NORP ORG again submitted to ORG a court order issued by GPE CARDINAL ORG for service of court documents on O.H.

On DATE , DATE of acceptance by GPE accession to the DATE LAW on the Civil Aspects of Child Abduction , the first applicant filed a request under LAW for securing the effective exercise of his “ access rights ” in respect of his daughter , the second applicant .

On DATE ORG ( “ the NORP Central Authority ” ) informed ORG and Science ( “ the NORP Central Authority ” ) that the first applicant had discovered the whereabouts of GPE in GPE . However , he had not seen his daughter .

As ORG had not replied to the abovementioned letters , on DATE a reminder was sent to it .

On DATE , at the request of ORG , the Ambassador of GPE in GPE sent a letter to ORG .

On DATE ORG replied that it was not possible to establish ORG and the second applicant ’s place of residence .

In the meantime , on DATE and CARDINAL DATE ORG contacted ORG Ombudsman about the same issue . ORG has not yet received a reply .

On DATE and DATE ORG sent further letters to ORG . No reply has been received . Another reminder was sent on CARDINAL DATE .

On DATE ORG sent a letter to the Secretary General of ORG asking for help in securing effective cooperation between the NORP and ORG .


CASE OF ARIF ISLAMZADE AND OTHERS v. AZERBAIJAN

Violation of Article 6+P1-1-1 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Enforcement proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court) (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 .


Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time)

André Potocki;Ganna Yudkivska;Vincent A. De Gaetano

On DATE the applicant brought a criminal complaint to ORG ( “ the FAC ” ) that on DATE Z. had beaten her on the street near his office and inside his office .

The District Police , having questioned PERSON , who had denied that he had beaten the applicant , refused to institute criminal investigation into the applicant ’s criminal complaint on DATE .

On DATE and CARDINAL DATE the applicant renewed her criminal complaint .

On DATE the District Police ordered a forensic medical examination of the applicant . The examination revealed that she suffered from head injury , concussion , haemorrhage in the right temporal area , post - traumatic right - side cocleite , haemorrhage on the left and right thighs and the right leg ’s shin . The medical experts concluded that these injuries could have been inflicted on her by Z. on DATE .

On DATE an investigator of the District Police instituted criminal investigation into the infliction of the bodily injuries on the applicant .

On DATE , DATE and DATE , CARDINAL and DATE respectively , the investigator questioned : i ) ORG . , GPE . and ORG . who had been in PERSON ’s office on DATE ; ii ) GPE . who had been near the office on DATE . GPE stated that he had seen PERSON having beaten the applicant while PERSON . stated that she had seen the applicant having been punched by an unknown man on DATE .

On DATE the second medical examination of the applicant confirmed findings of the previous examination .

On DATE ORG informed LOC that the investigation into the applicant ’s beating was ineffective and urged the police to accelerate it .

NORP In DATE the District Police repeatedly questioned the applicant and persons whom it had already questioned earlier . During the same period of time it issued several decisions to suspend the investigation which were all quashed as being unfounded by the higher police department , prosecutors or by a court .

On DATE the medical examination of the applicant ordered by ORG revealed that she suffered from closed head injury , concussion , post - traumatic encephalopathy , hearing deterioration and circle vestibular disorder . According to the medical report , these health problems could have been caused by the beating on DATE .

On DATE ORG completed the pre - trial investigation and sent the case to ORG ( “ the ORG ” ) for trial . The pre - trial investigation included the examination of CARDINAL witnesses , CARDINAL confrontations between the persons involved in the case , CARDINAL examination of the crime scene and CARDINAL reconstructions of events .

On DATE the applicant lodged a civil claim in the criminal proceedings seeking PERSON to pay her UAH CARDINAL,CARDINAL ( ORG ) in compensation for non - pecuniary damage and LAW ( EUR CARDINAL ) to compensate her for pecuniary damage .

On DATE ORG found itself unable to rule on PERSON ’s guilt based on the material in the case - file and sent the case to ORG for additional investigation . The prosecutor referred the case to ORG instructing it to carry out specified investigative measures .

On DATE the applicant requested ORG to order forensic medical examination of her health condition . On DATE her request was granted .

On DATE ORG informed the applicant that police officer PERSON FAC had been disciplined for having committed a number of procedural violations while investigating her case .

On DATE the medical examination of the applicant confirmed the conclusions of the previous examinations .

On DATE the applicant requested another forensic medical examination but she was refused it .

On DATE the ORG authorities issued PERSON with a passport for travelling abroad .

On DATE the District Police completed the pre - trial investigation and sent the case to ORG for trial .

On DATE the applicant requested the police to carry out additional investigative measures , but this request was refused on the ground that the measures in question had already been performed earlier .

On CARDINAL DATE ORG received the criminal case . On CARDINAL DATE it decided that further investigation was needed and remitted the case to ORG .

On DATE Z. left the country to live on a permanent basis in GPE .

On DATE investigator A. from the District Police established that PERSON had absconded and placed him on a list of wanted persons . The proceedings were suspended until establishing PERSON ’s whereabouts .

On DATE ORG informed the applicant that PERSON had been able to leave GPE because LOC had failed to inform migration authorities that PERSON was an accused in a criminal case . On DATE the ORG instituted criminal proceedings against ORG employees who had unlawfully issued PERSON with the passport for travelling abroad .

In DATE NORP authorities informed NORP authorities that PERSON had left the country to live in GPE and requested that his whereabouts be established .

On CARDINAL DATE the Dnipropetrovsk ORG informed LOC that the investigation into the applicant ’s beating was ineffective . ORG was ordered to carry out a number of additional investigative actions .

In DATE ORG questioned the applicant , GPE , ORG . , GPE . , ORG . and PERSON . and ordered forensic medical examination of the applicant which established that the injuries inflicted on DATE led to her deafness .

On DATE ORG informed the applicant that PERSON ’s whereabouts had been known to the police since DATE , but due to negligence of LOC his extradition had not been sought .

On DATE ORG terminated the criminal proceedings against Z.

On DATE a prosecutor quashed the above decision as unfounded and sent the case back to the police .

On DATE ORG suspended the proceedings against PERSON until “ establishment of his whereabouts ” .

On DATE ORG quashed that decision noting that LOC had been aware of PERSON ’s place of residence , but for unknown reasons had not sought his extradition .

On an unspecified date the same office informed the applicant that a district court had ordered ORG ’s detention pending trial and that his extradition had not yet been sought because PERSON . and ORG , officers of LOC , had failed to prepare documents necessary for extradition .

On DATE ORG of GPE requested NORP authorities to extradite PERSON

On DATE forensic medical experts examined the applicant and established that due to the beating she lost PERCENT of her working capacity . From DATE she had been periodically not fit for work and from DATE onwards – permanently not fit for work .

On DATE PERSON was extradited to GPE . On DATE he gave undertaking not to abscond .

On DATE the pre - trial investigation into the applicant ’s beating on DATE was completed and the case was sent to ORG for trial .

On DATE the applicant modified her civil claim seeking to be paid UAH CARDINAL ( EUR CARDINAL ) in compensation for non - pecuniary damage .

On DATE the trial was postponed until DATE because of the applicant ’s request concerning recording of the hearings .

On DATE , CARDINAL , DATE , DATE and DATE the court adjourned the hearings due to the applicant ’s absence .

On DATE the applicant again modified her civil claim seeking to be paid ORG MONEY ( ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL ) in compensation for non - pecuniary damage .

In a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG convicted PERSON of having inflicted serious bodily injuries on the applicant and sentenced him to CARDINAL GPE imprisonment . It also ordered PERSON to pay the applicant ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL ( ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL ) and UAH CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL ( ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL ) respectively , in compensation for non - pecuniary and pecuniary damage .

On DATE the NORP ORG of Appeal quashed the first instance judgment and remitted the criminal case for additional investigation to ORG . The court noted , in particular , that LOC had failed to assess all the relevant facts of the case and that the length of the pre - trial investigation was excessive .

On DATE ORG noted that LOC had committed serious violations of procedural law while investigating the applicant ’s beating . The prosecutor ordered the head of LOC to conduct an internal investigation into this matter and punish those who were responsible .

On DATE the head of the District Police disciplinarily punished investigators Sh . and T. for the excessive length of the investigation and numerous procedural violations .

DATE . On DATE the pre - trial investigation was again completed .

On DATE ORG received the criminal case against PERSON for consideration on the merits .

On DATE it terminated the criminal proceedings against PERSON as time - barred . On DATE ORG upheld this judgment .

On DATE ORG quashed the lower court ’s judgments and remitted the case to ORG for a fresh consideration . It noted that the prosecution was not time - barred and the case had to be examined on its merits .

On DATE ORG received the criminal case .

On DATE it discovered that PERSON had absconded , placed him on the list of wanted persons and suspended the proceedings until establishing his whereabouts .

The proceedings have remained suspended .


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

Jon Fridrik Kjølbro;Julia Laffranque;Paul Lemmens;Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström;Ksenija Turković

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

The applicant was a co - owner of a block of flats on the island of GPE .

On DATE building inspectors of the Inspectorate of ORG ( ORG zaštite okoliša , prostornog uređenja i graditeljstva , PERSON inspekcijske poslove ) carried out an on - site inspection of the block of flats in question .

On DATE CARDINAL of the building inspectors ordered that the block of flats be demolished within DATE from the date of service of the decision .

The applicant lodged an appeal against the demolition order , submitting that the time - limit for compliance was too short and that the block of flats was not within the protected coastal area .

On DATE the appeal section of ORG at the ORG ( Odsjek za postupak u drugom stupnju – “ the second - instance body ” ) dismissed the appeal , finding that the block of flats had been built without a building permit .

Meanwhile , on DATE the building inspector issued an administrative enforcement order ( zaključak o dozvoli izvršenja ) , stating that the demolition order of DATE had become enforceable on DATE and that the co - owners had not complied with it within the given time - limit . He therefore ordered that the demolition be carried out by a third party after DATE , at the expense of the co - owners .

NORP The applicant lodged an appeal against the administrative enforcement order , submitting that it was not sufficiently reasoned and that the construction of the block of flats could be retrospectively approved .

On DATE the second - instance body dismissed the appeal as ill - founded .

On DATE the co - owners had the block of flats demolished .

Meanwhile , on DATE the applicant lodged an administrative complaint with ORG , repeating the arguments made in her appeal and seeking damages for the demolition . Since it was not clear whether the applicant was complaining about the second - instance decision concerning the demolition order or the administrative enforcement , on DATE ORG requested her to specify which she wished to contest .

On DATE the applicant replied that she was seeking annulment of the second - instance decision of CARDINAL DATE concerning the demolition order .

On DATE ORG dismissed her complaint as ill - founded , but addressed it as if it had been about the second - instance decision of CARDINAL DATE concerning the administrative enforcement .

On DATE the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint , alleging , inter alia , a violation of her right of access to court , on the ground that ORG had erroneously decided a matter which had not been the subject of her administrative complaint .

On DATE ORG declared the constitutional complaint inadmissible , on the grounds that the contested decision had not concerned the merits of the case and as such was not amenable to constitutional review . This decision was served on the applicant ’s representative on DATE .


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

Branko Lubarda;Georgios A. Serghides;Pere Pastor Vilanova

NORP As regards the first applicant

On DATE the ORG ordered a socially - owned company ORG DATE ( hereinafter “ the debtor ” ) to pay the first applicant specified amounts on account of damages , plus the costs of the civil proceedings .

On DATE the GPE High Commercial Court amended the first instance judgment by ordering the debtor to also pay the first applicant specified amounts on account of lost profits and increasing the awarded costs of proceedings . This judgment became final on an unspecified date .

On DATE , upon the first applicant ’s request to that effect , ORG ordered the enforcement of the said judgments and further ordered the debtor to pay the first applicant the enforcement costs .

On DATE the debtor paid the first applicant a part of the sums specified in the said judgments .

On DATE ORG ordered the restructuring of the first applicant ’s debtor . As a result , the ongoing enforcement proceedings against the debtor were stayed .

On DATE the first applicant lodged a constitutional appeal .

On DATE ORG found a violation of the first applicant ’s right to a hearing within a reasonable time and of its right to the peaceful enjoyment of its possessions . It further awarded the first applicant QUANTITY ( ORG ) as just satisfaction for non - pecuniary damage and ordered the court in ORG to expedite the proceedings . ORG dismissed the first applicant ’s request for pecuniary damages as premature , since the enforcement proceedings were still pending .

B. As regards the second applicant

On DATE the ORG established the secured property right of the applicant on certain commercial premises and ordered LOC ( hereinafter “ the debtor ” ) , a socially - owned company undergoing insolvency proceedings , to finish the construction of that property . ORG further ordered the debtor to pay the second applicant a certain amount if it failed to do so . This decision became final on an unspecified date . The debtor never finished the construction of the property in question .

On DATE the debtor paid the applicant a part of the amount established by the decision .

On DATE the second applicant lodged a constitutional appeal .

On DATE ORG found a violation of the second applicant ’s right to a hearing within a reasonable time . It further awarded him ORG CARDINAL as just satisfaction for non - pecuniary damage and ordered the competent court to expedite the insolvency proceedings . ORG dismissed the second applicant ’s complaint concerning his right to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions as well as his request for pecuniary damages , since the insolvency proceedings were still pending .

C. As regards the third applicant

On DATE ORG ordered a socially - owned company , ORG termotehničkih uređaja i montaže “ CER ” Čačak ( hereinafter “ the debtor ” ) , to pay the third applicant specified amounts on account of damages , plus the costs of the civil proceedings . This judgment became final by DATE .

On DATE , upon the third applicant ’s request to that effect , ORG accepted the enforcement of the said judgment and further ordered the debtor to pay the first applicant the enforcement costs .

On DATE the third applicant lodged a constitutional appeal .

On DATE ORG found a violation of the third applicant ’s right to a hearing within a reasonable time . It also awarded the third applicant LAW as just satisfaction for non - pecuniary damage and ordered the competent court to expedite the proceedings . ORG dismissed the third applicant ’s complaint concerning its right to the peaceful enjoyment of possessions and its request for pecuniary damages as premature , since the enforcement proceedings were still pending .


Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (Article 34 - Victim);Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 - Right to free elections-{general} (Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 - Free expression of opinion of people;Vote);Violation of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 - Right to free elections-{general} (Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 - Free expression of opinion of people;Stand for election);Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed (Article 41 - Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction);Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)

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

The CARDINAL applicants , whose names are appended , are NORP nationals of NORP origin and/or of NORP faith who live or have lived in GPE . They all exercised their right to vote at the DATE NORP general elections in CARDINAL of the polling stations set up in NORP territory , the election results in which were subsequently contested by the ORG political party and nullified by ORG .

According to the official statistics from the census carried out in GPE in DATE , CARDINAL persons stated that they were ethnic NORP , amounting to PERCENT of the persons who answered that question , and CARDINAL persons stated that they were of NORP religion . Since DATE , the members of those communities have been involved in major migrations leading many of them to settle in GPE . ORG has no official information on the exact number of NORP citizens who are ethnic NORP or NORP living temporarily or permanently in GPE . Estimates of that number vary considerably , generally ranging from CARDINAL individuals , in all the age brackets .

The ORG was founded in DATE . Its statutes define it as a liberal political party endeavouring to help unite all NORP citizens and to protect the rights and freedoms of minorities in GPE as guaranteed by the LAW and national legislation , as well as by the international instruments ratified by GPE .

The ORG has put up candidates for all general and local elections in GPE since its inception . It has won seats in the national ORG in all the general elections held since DATE . DATE it took part in CARDINAL successive coalition governments . Several of its leaders and members belong to the NORP and NORP minorities .

Mr PERSON was born in DATE and lives in GPE . A ORG member , he is also one of its Vice - Presidents and a member of the party ’s central executive bureau . He is currently a ORG deputy of ORG .

These CARDINAL applicants submit that most of the NORP citizens currently living in GPE have voted for the DPS at all the general elections held over DATE .

By Decree of DATE the NORP President set DATE as the date of the elections to ORG . The electoral law laid down a new hybrid electoral system : CARDINAL deputies were to be elected on a first - past - the - post basis in single - member constituencies , and CARDINAL deputies were to be elected on a proportional basis at national level in CARDINAL multiple - member constituencies .

NORP citizens living abroad were entitled to vote in the general elections , but only for parties and coalitions , and their votes were taken into account in the proportional distribution of ORG among the different political formations at the national level ... Having obtained the consent of the competent authorities in the countries concerned , the NORP diplomatic representations opened CARDINAL polling stations in CARDINAL countries , CARDINAL of them in GPE .

On DATE ORG registered the ORG as participating in the general elections . The ORG presented lists of candidates in several single- and multiple - member constituencies . It was also included on the ballot paper designed for voting by NORP citizens living abroad . Mr PERSON was included in second position on the list of his party ’s candidates for the CARDINALth multiple - member constituency ( PERSON ) .

Thirteen of the CARDINAL applicants ( see appended list ) ( nos . , CARDINAL , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , CARDINAL and DATE ) submitted that they had all personally submitted prior declarations of intention to vote to the NORP diplomatic representations in GPE . The NORP diplomates has asked them to take part in local electoral committees in GPE , ORG , ORG , ORG and GPE as presidents , secretaries or ordinary members , which they had agreed to do . On DATE they had been invited to the offices of the NORP diplomatic and consular representations , where NORP diplomats had informed them about the formalities to be complied with on DATE , and in particular how to draw up the electoral rolls . Some of the applicants affirmed that they had only been given CARDINAL instruction on that subject , to the effect that persons attending the polling station on DATE without preregistration should be included on the additional pages of the electoral roll , and that the last name added on DATE should be suffixed with a “ Z ” .

The CARDINAL applicants submitted that their names had not been included on the list at the polling station where they were to function as members of the electoral committee . They had all voted in their respective polling stations by registering on DATE and signing opposite their names and forenames . Furthermore , they submitted that they had carefully indicated their choices on their ballot papers , without any other type of indication , and slotted the papers into the ballot box .

The CARDINAL applicants also pointed out that there had been no particular problems on DATE . Their respective electoral committees had been made up of NORP nationals living in their respective towns and representatives of ORG . Some of the polling stations had been visited by the NORP Ambassador and PERSON , and others had been reported on by NORP public television and radio teams , and no irregularities had been noted . At the close of polling on DATE the local committees had counted the votes , filled in the requisite report forms and submitted the electoral documents to the NORP diplomatic representatives .

The other CARDINAL applicants submitted that at the material time they had been living in GPE . Some of them had sent prior statements of intention to vote to the NORP diplomatic representations , but they had never been informed in return of which polling stations to vote in . On DATE all the applicants in question had attended the nearest polling stations in their respective towns . Their names had been handwritten into the electoral rolls , and after voting they signed opposite their names .

According to information available on ORG website ( http://piCARDINAL.cik.bg ) , following the DATE elections , CARDINAL political parties and coalitions garnered more than the minimum PERCENT of votes cast and were included in the process of proportional distribution of seats in ORG : ORG , the Coalition for GPE , the ORG , ORG , ORG and the RZS party .

The ORG obtained a total of CARDINAL votes , or PERCENT of the valid votes , which made it the country ’s third political party . It garnered PERCENT of the out - of - country voting , that is to say CARDINAL votes , CARDINAL of which were cast in polling stations in NORP territory . It came out well ahead in the QUANTITY polling stations – in GPE , ORG , ORG , ORG and GPE DATE in which the CARDINAL applicants had voted . By decision of DATE ORG assigned the DPS CARDINAL parliamentary seats under the proportional representation system , together with a further CARDINAL seats won in the first - past - the - post constituencies .

Following the apportionment of seats won by the DPS at the national level in the CARDINAL multiple - member constituencies , the party won CARDINAL seat in the CARDINALth constituency . However , another political formation , ORG , having appealed to ORG and the votes cast in a polling station in the CARDINALth constituency having been recounted , ORG conducted a reassignment of the seats won at the national level among the CARDINAL multiple - member constituencies . This gave the ORG a second seat in the CARDINALth constituency , where Mr PERSON was in second place on his list of candidates , and removed CARDINAL of the CARDINAL seats initially won in DATE multiple - member constituency . On DATE Mr PERSON was declared elected to ORG . He was sworn in as a deputy and became a member of his party ’s parliamentary group . On DATE he was elected member of ORG and the Fight against Corruption and Conflicts of Interest .

On DATE the President and CARDINAL other members of the RZS ( Red , GPE , ORG , PERSON and ORG ” ) , a right - wing conservative party , requested the Attorney General to lodge with ORG the appeal provided for in CARDINAL of LAW in order to annul the election of CARDINAL DPS deputes on the grounds of several irregularities which had occurred in the CARDINAL polling stations operating in NORP territory . The CARDINAL appellants complained of several breaches of electoral legislation in connection with the setting up of the said polling stations and their handling of the voting : they claimed that the rule requiring a polling station to be opened for DATE prior statements of intention to vote had been flouted in NORP territory ; some electors had exercised their voting rights once in NORP national territory and again in a polling station in NORP territory ; incorrect information had been included in the reports drawn up by the electoral committees concerning the number of voters in the polling stations in question ; CARDINAL of them had allegedly dealt with CARDINAL voters , which would have been a practical impossibility in view of TIME of the polling station and the time required to complete the requisite formalities for each voter , and the electoral committees attached to those polling stations had , in certain cases , reportedly allowed persons into the voting booths without valid NORP identity papers . The appellants invited ORG to verify the authenticity of the prior voting requests issued in NORP territory , to check the electoral rolls drawn up in the region of GPE where the individuals wishing to vote in GPE had their permanent addresses , and to declare null and void the records drawn up by the electoral committees responsible for the polling stations opened in NORP territory . According to the appellants , the large number of irregularities committed in the voting procedure in the QUANTITY polling stations in question necessitated the annulment of the votes cast in them , which annulment would have changed the election results and led to the ousting of CARDINAL DPS deputies from their seats .

On DATE the Attorney General transmitted the request submitted by the President and CARDINAL other members of the RZS party to ORG .

On DATE the Constitutional Court declared the appeal admissible and designated as parties to proceedings ORG , ORG , ORG , ORG , ORG responsible for ORG and CARDINAL non - governmental organisations . It sent copies of the request and the relevant documents to the parties to proceedings and gave them a deadline of DATE to submit their observations on the merits of the case . That court asked ORG responsible for ORG to ascertain how many voters had voted in the national territory and then again in NORP territory , and invited it to submit certified copies of the lists of persons having voted and the reports on voting drawn up by the polling stations in NORP territory . The President of ORG , GPE , and Judge PERSON signed the admissibility decision , while issuing a separate opinion . They argued that the Attorney General should have submitted a reasoned request to ORG rather than merely transmitting the request for annulment lodged by the ORG political party .

On DATE the ORG parliamentary group of ORG presented its written observations on the case . It first of all disputed the admissibility of the appeal lodged by the CARDINAL appellants , arguing that the Attorney General had failed to conduct a prior assessment of the merits of the said request , merely transmitting it to ORG , that the appeal had been lodged belatedly , after the deputies in question had been sworn in , and that the CARDINAL DPS deputies mentioned in the request had been designated randomly since the out - of - country votes had been used solely to apportion the seats among the various parties at the national level and not for the benefit of any given list of candidates . Secondly , the ORG parliamentary group submitted that the request had been ill - founded for the following reasons : the legal conditions for setting up the CARDINAL polling stations in question had been fulfilled ; there had been very few cases of double voting , and voting secrecy precluded determining for which party exactly those persons had voted ; the number of persons included on the additional electoral rolls on DATE had been higher than that of preregistered voters because the number of persons wishing to exercise their voting rights had far exceeded the number of voters having previously declared their intention to vote outside the country ; and in several of the out - of - country polling stations the number of persons voting had exceeded CARDINAL , and that had not been the case only in the polling stations in GPE .

On DATE , at the request of the ORG party , ORG ordered a CARDINAL expert assessment to provide the answers to the following questions : ( i ) how many prior statements of intention to vote were submitted for the territory of GPE , from which towns were they sent , and did their number correspond to the number of polling stations set up ? ( ii ) were the identity papers of electors voting in the CARDINAL polling stations valid ? ( iii ) did the numbers of electors voting recorded in TIME drawn up on DATE correspond to the total number of preregistered electors and persons registered on the rolls on DATE , and were there any polling stations in which none of the preregistered persons exercised their right to vote ? ( iv ) what was the maximum number of persons who could vote in a polling station over DATE ? The CARDINAL experts were given leave to consult all the documents on elections in NORP territory which the diplomatic service of ORG had submitted to ORG .

The expert report was submitted to ORG DATE . It indicated that there had been a total of CARDINAL prior declarations of intention to vote in respect of the territory of GPE : CARDINAL of those declarations had been received at ORG in GPE , CARDINAL at FAC in GPE and CARDINAL at FAC in GPE . The NORP diplomatic services had opened CARDINAL polling stations in the GPE region , CARDINAL in the GPE region and CARDINAL in the LOC region . The experts had noted that some polling stations had been opened without the threshold of CARDINAL declarations of intention to vote having been reached .

The experts were unable to answer the second question , on the validity of the NORP identity papers of those voting in GPE . They pointed out that it would have been very time - consuming to carry out the necessary verifications and would have required access to the population database administered by ORG . Furthermore , in several cases the local electoral committees had merely mentioned the type of document presented , i.e. an identity card or passport , without recording the document number .

As regards the third question , the experts replied that there had been some very slight differences – CARDINAL between the numbers of persons voting recorded in the polling station TIME and the numbers of voters included in the electoral rolls . According to the experts , that might have been due to inadvertent omissions . Moreover , they observed that the additional electoral lists in CARDINAL polling stations , which had been drawn up on DATE and contained data on the persons who had turned out without having been preregistered , had not been signed by the chair or secretary of the local electoral committee . The experts noted that the personal data on electors contained in those lists had been handwritten , apparently unhurriedly , and those entries would have taken a considerable length of time to write . Furthermore , in some of the polling stations none of the preregistered persons had turned out to vote . In some other polling stations there had been TIME on file , or else the first page of TIME had been missing .

As regards the fourth question put by ORG , the experts concluded , from a reconstitution of the requisite formalities in dealing with voters and their ballot papers , that the minimum time required for voting would have been TIME . Having regard to the total duration of DATE , that is to say TIME , the experts estimated that a polling station could deal with a maximum of CARDINAL voters . The maximum number of persons voting as thus calculated had been exceeded in CARDINAL of the polling stations operating in GPE .

ORG responsible for ORG presented ORG with the results of its inquiry into cases of double voting . The department pointed out that CARDINAL persons had voted several times and that CARDINAL cases of double voting had been noted in GPE .

On DATE ORG decided to ask the CARDINAL experts to examine an additional point : it asked them to recalculate the election results after deducting all the votes cast in CARDINAL polling stations and some of those cast in another polling station , all located in NORP territory . The court ’s request covered : ( i ) all the votes cast in CARDINAL polling stations where none of the preregistered voters had voted and where the additional lists of those voting had not been signed by the members of the local electoral committees and therefore lacked the probative value of official documents ; ( ii ) all the votes cast in a polling station in which the TIME on voting were missing ; ( iii ) all the votes cast in CARDINAL other polling stations where the first page of the minutes was missing ; ( iv ) all the votes cast in a polling station where the list of preregistered voters was missing ; ( v ) CARDINAL votes cast for the ORG by persons included in the unsigned additional list at another polling station where that party had garnered all the votes and where CARDINAL preregistered persons had voted ; ( vi ) all the votes cast in another polling station where the list of preregistered voters had not been put on file and where the additional electoral list had not been signed by the members of the local electoral committee .

On DATE the experts submitted their supplementary conclusions to ORG . In the introductory section of the report they pointed out that they had been mandated to deduct from the outcome of the election the votes cast in polling stations where : ( i ) none of the preregistered voters had voted and where the additional lists of those voting had not been signed by the members of the local electoral committees ; ( ii ) TIME were not put on file ; ( iii ) the first page of the minutes was missing . The report presented estimates of the votes cast in CARDINAL polling stations : ( i ) in CARDINAL of those stations , none of the preregistered voters had voted and the additional list of voters had not been signed ; ( ii ) in the case of another polling station , TIME had been put on file and the additional list of voters had not been signed ; ( iii ) for CARDINAL other stations , the first page of the minutes was missing and the additional list of voters had not been signed ; ( iv ) in another polling station , the first page of TIME had not mentioned the number of persons having voted and none of the preregistered voters had voted . The experts considered that a total of CARDINAL votes should be deducted from the election results , CARDINAL of which had been case for the DPS . ORG conducted the provisional reassignment of seats among the political parties on the basis of the expert report .

On DATE the parliamentary group of the ORG submitted supplementary observations challenging ORG choice of criteria for excluding the votes cast in the aforementioned polling stations from the vote count . The ORG deputies pointed out that the outcome of the voting had been based on the data set out in the polling station TIME , and not on the electoral rolls . They added that electoral legislation did not require the chairs and secretaries of out - of - country local electoral committees to sign below the additional lists of voters drawn up on DATE . At all events , in the GPE opinion , the shortcomings of members of the electoral administration could not lead to the annulment of electors’ votes .

On DATE ORG presented its findings to ORG . It pointed out that according to mathematical projections , the annulment of the votes cast in the CARDINAL polling stations mentioned in the experts’ supplementary conclusions would deprive the ORG of CARDINAL seat which would be assigned to the ORG political party and that in the CARDINALth multiple - member constituency the ORG candidate concluded in second place on the party ’s list , Mr PERSON , would lose his parliamentary seat .

ORG presented ORG with observations made by CARDINAL of its CARDINAL members on the merits of the case . Those CARDINAL members voiced the opinion that the arguments put forward by the appellants and the experts’ conclusions could not be used to justify annulling the votes cast in the polling stations in question . They explained in particular that the lists of persons voting in the out - of - country polling stations had been drawn up by the NORP diplomatic representatives accredited on the basis of the prior declarations of intention to vote which they had received . They nevertheless stated that no prior information had been given on the distribution of the voters in question around the various polling stations , as they could attend any polling station or choose not to vote at all , which in their view explained why in some stations none of the voters on the main list had voted . The members of ORG considered that that should not lead to the invalidation of the ballots of other electors who had voted in the same polling station . They pointed out that under domestic legislation the election documents had to be packaged and sealed by the local electoral committees and then sent to ORG . However , when the election documents had arrived from GPE , it had been noted that the packages containing the documents had already been opened and then re - sealed by the diplomatic services of ORG . At all events , the absence , attributable to the NORP diplomatic services or the local electoral committees , of election documents from out - of - county polling stations could not have justified annulling votes cast in those stations , given that the election results from outside the country had been based on data transmitted via diplomatic telegrams to ORG . Finally , the members of ORG , referring to domestic legislation , submitted that the fact that a member of ORG had not signed TIME of voting or the accompanying documents did not invalidate them and did not constitute grounds for annulling the votes cast in the station in question . They considered that the recalculation of the election results was based on arguments which had not been mentioned in the request to ORG .

On DATE the ORG and CARDINAL of its deputies applied to ORG for leave to join the proceedings in question as a party . In that application the ORG stated that it fully endorsed the observations submitted by its parliamentary group on DATE and CARDINAL DATE . On DATE Mr PERSON requested leave to join the proceedings as a party . In order to demonstrate his interest in taking part in the proceedings he referred explicitly to the additional expert report ordered by ORG and the reapportionment of seats effected by ORG on the basis of the experts’ findings . All those requests remained unanswered .

On DATE ORG , sitting in private session , adopted its decision in the case in question . It delivered its judgment on DATE .

ORG dismissed the pleas of inadmissibility put forward by the ORG parliamentary group in its observations of CARDINAL DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . It considered , first of all , that the procedure for applying to the court had been respected . Secondly , it observed that the case concerned the contestation of election results rather than the eligibility of an individual candidate , which enabled it to assess the case even though the deputies in question had been sworn in and were already in office . It joined to the merits of the case the third plea of inadmissibility concerning the lack of a direct link between the out - of - country votes and the election of the CARDINAL DPS deputies named in the initial request . Judges PERSON and ORG set out separate opinions on the admissibility of the request for annulment of the election results . They considered that the Attorney General had merely transmitted the request submitted by the ORG party instead of himself lodging a reasoned application for the annulment of the elections .

Considering that it should begin by clarifying the scope of the case , ORG pointed out that it had been invited to find unlawful the election of a number of ORG deputies owing to several alleged irregularities in the polling stations operating in NORP territory . Having regard to the specific mode of functioning of the NORP electoral system , in which votes cast by NORP citizens living abroad were taken into account solely for the proportional distribution of seats among political parties at the national level , it was impossible to determine in advance which deputies would be affected by the invalidation of some or all of the votes cast in NORP territory . Thus , in the framework of that case , ORG considered that it had been called upon to determine whether there had been any serious irregularities in the voting procedure in the CARDINAL polling stations in GPE . It held that a finding of such irregularities could lead to a change in the election results , a fresh apportionment of seats among the political parties and the annulment of the seats of deputies who had not been explicitly targeted by the initial application lodged by the leader and a number of candidates of the RZS party in the general elections .

ORG rejected all the arguments put forward in the initial statement of claim . It first of all noted that section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL) ( CARDINAL ) of the Electoral Law gave NORP diplomatic representatives outside the country carte blanche to open as many polling stations as they considered necessary for the proper conduct of the elections .

Secondly , it considered that the question whether a given voter had voted without a valid NORP identity card was immaterial to the outcome of the proceedings , since voting secrecy ruled out ascertaining which party the person had voted for .

ORG stated that the experts had noted that in some polling stations none of those on the main electoral roll had voted , while in other stations only a few of those on the roll had voted . It pointed out that according to the experts the names added on DATE had been written clearly and apparently unhurriedly , which would seem rather unlikely given the large number of such additions and the pressure under which the members of the electoral committees would have been working on DATE . However , ORG considered that such considerations were mere suspicions which had not categorically demonstrated that the results of voting in those polling stations had been manipulated .

ORG also noted that the experts had reached the conclusion that the maximum number of persons who could vote in CARDINAL polling station was CARDINAL . However , it considered that in the absence of precise information on the alleged irregularities in the voting procedure in the polling stations with CARDINAL persons voting , that finding did not provide grounds for invalidating the election results . At all event voting secrecy precluded determining for whom the persons registered after CARDINAL on the list of voters had cast their vote .

For those reasons ORG dismissed the application for the annulment of the seats of the CARDINAL deputies explicitly covered by the initial request submitted by the leader and candidates of the RZS party .

However , it decided to deduct from the results obtained by each of the political parties respectively all the votes cast in CARDINAL polling stations in GPE , that is to say a total of CARDINAL votes , CARDINAL of which had been cast for the DPS . It pointed out that in those polling stations none of the voters preregistered on the main electoral rolls had voted , or else the first page of TIME of the voting , certifying that the preregistered persons had voted , was missing . The court pointed out that in the CARDINAL polling stations in question the additional lists of voters drawn up on DATE did not bear the signatures of the chairs and secretaries of the local electoral committees , which deprived them of the probative value of official documents . ORG accordingly considered that they could not be used in evidence to demonstrate that the registered persons had voted . That approach had allegedly also enabled it to determine how many votes had been deducted from the election results of each party or coalition and to reallocate the GPE seats in ORG .

ORG rejected the additional objections raised by the ORG parliamentary group on DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . It considered that the irregularities noted in the electoral rolls in the various polling stations had also affected the legitimacy of the minutes drawn up by the electoral committee on completion of the voting because they contained data on the exact number of persons having voted in the polling station in question and the election results had been determined on the basis of the minutes . Even though domestic legislation did not explicitly require the members of the out - of - country local electoral committees to sign additional electoral lists , the module additional electoral list approved by the President of the Republic pursuant to the Electoral Law provided for such signatures . ORG therefore took the view that such signature was a legal condition for the validity of such official documents . At all events , the signature was one of the fundamental and obvious components of any official document . The lack of those signatures on the additional voter lists drawn up in the CARDINAL polling stations thus deprived them of their official probative value in respect of the fact that the registered persons had actually cast their votes .

ORG declared that the votes in question had been valid under domestic legislation but that they had been deducted from the election results owing to the irregularity of the voter lists and the voting minutes . It considered that the seats in ORG had to be reallocated . For those reasons , and having taken into account the prior calculations submitted by ORG , ORG annulled the parliamentary seats of CARDINAL deputies , including Mr PERSON . It ordered ORG to reapportion the seats in ORG by deducting from the election results the CARDINAL votes cast in the CARDINAL polling stations in question .

By decision of CARDINAL DATE , pursuant to the judgment of ORG , ORG declared CARDINAL other candidates elected . Consequently to that redistribution of seats , the ORG was the only party to have lost a parliamentary seat and ORG , which had won the general elections , obtained an additional seat .

On DATE the ORG and CARDINAL of its deputies in ORG in turn lodged the appeal provided for in CARDINAL of LAW and contested the lawfulness of the election of the CARDINAL deputies which ORG had declared elected by decision of DATE . Mr PERSON lodged the same appeal in his own name .

On DATE and DATE ORG declared the CARDINAL appeals inadmissible on the grounds that the dispute in issue had already been the subject of proceedings before it , leading to its judgment of DATE .

The CARDINALst ORG constituted following the general elections of CARDINAL DATE sat until DATE , when it was dissolved by Presidential Decree .

The elections to ORG were held on CARDINAL DATE . At those elections the ORG obtained CARDINAL votes , that is to say PERCENT of the validly cast votes . It obtained CARDINAL votes in NORP territory . It sent CARDINAL deputies to ORG , where it was the third biggest parliamentary group . Mr PERSON was elected deputy of the CARDINALth multiple - member constituency , where he headed his party ’s list .

The lawfulness of those general elections , particularly as regards the polling stations opened in NORP territory , was disputed before ORG by a group of CARDINAL deputies from ORG . The deputies requested the annulment of the elections in the CARDINAL polling stations operating in GPE owing to several alleged irregularities in the voting procedures : they submitted that the polling stations had been set up on the basis of forged prior declarations of intention to vote ; they had opened despite their electoral committees lacking the minimum number of members ; unidentified persons had canvassed the areas inhabited by NORP citizens in GPE , had obtained NORP identity papers from various electors and had returned them to their owners DATE before the elections telling them that they had voted ; several voters had not shown any valid NORP identity papers ; the number of persons voting in some of the polling stations had exceeded , which was unrealistic in view of the time required to complete the formalities linked to the voting procedure ; there had been several cases of double voting ; the lists of electors registered on DATE had not been properly drawn up and had not been signed by the chair and the other members of the electoral committee . The request referred explicitly to the reasoning of the judgment delivered by ORG on DATE .

By judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG dismissed the appeal lodged by the CARDINAL ORG deputies . It considered and rejected , on the basis of the evidence gathered , all the allegations of breaches of electoral legislation advanced by the appellants . It noted , inter alia , that the relevant members of all the electoral committees set up in NORP territory had signed at the bottom of the lists of voters added on DATE , which gave those documents the probative value of official documents .

During the CARDINALnd legislature the ORG took part in a coalition government which resigned in DATE . Following those events ORG was dissolved on DATE by Presidential Decree .

The elections to ORG were held on CARDINAL DATE . The ORG obtained CARDINAL votes , that is to say PERCENT of all valid votes cast , and sent CARDINAL deputies to ORG . No admissible appeal was lodged before ORG against those election results . The ORG is currently the third biggest political party in the country and the second biggest opposition party .

Mr PERSON was elected as deputy in the CARDINALth constituency , where he headed the ORG list .


Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;George Nicolaou;Helen Keller;Helena Jäderblom;Johannes Silvis;Luis López Guerra

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

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

NORP In DATE PERSON , formally registered as resident in GPE , had CARDINAL foreign - currency accounts with the GPE branch of ORG .

Following the financial collapse of numerous banks in GPE , in DATE and DATE the NORP ORG enacted specific legislation providing that foreign - currency deposits held in those banks , including the bank at issue , would be added to the public debt . The legislature went on to set the time - frame ( DATE ) and the amounts , including interest , to be paid back to the LOC former clients . The legislation also explicitly provided that any foreign currency - related judicial proceedings were to be discontinued .

As of DATE , PERSON appears to have had MONEY ( ORG ) in CARDINAL account and ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL in another .

On DATE ORG adopted a decree stating that anyone with foreign - currency savings in the GPE branch of ORG would have the same rights as other savers , provided that they could prove that they had been resident in GPE on DATE and were NORP taxpayers .

On DATE , PERSON formally authorised the applicant , by way of a court - certified document , to “ take over all the rights concerning the foreign currency savings ( withdrawal of money , its transfer and all other rights concerning the savings ) ” .

As a resident of GPE , the applicant is currently not a NORP taxpayer . As of DATE , however , both PERSON and the applicant had NORP citizenship . They would appear not to have renounced it thereafter .