Egidijus Kūris;Ganna Yudkivska;Iulia Motoc;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Nona Tsotsoria;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer

The applicants , whose names and dates of birth are listed in the annex to this decision ( “ the applicants ” ) , are CARDINAL NORP nationals of GPE ethnic origin who live or used to live in ORG . They were represented before the ORG by ORG ( “ ORG ” ) , a non - governmental organisation based in GPE .

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 .

The applicants are or used to be residents of the town of ORG . They are of GPE ethnic origin .

NORP Before DATE many of the applicants had lived in an informal GPE slum located in central ORG . In DATE their homes were destroyed by an accidental fire and they were rendered homeless . Afterwards they were forced to live outdoors in unsafe conditions and did not receive any assistance from the authorities .

In DATE the applicants moved , with the local authorities’ permission , into an unoccupied building in ORG that had belonged to a ORG - owned factory .

For DATE the applicants and other people continued to live in that building even though the living conditions were poor and overcrowded . Despite not having a lawful right to occupy the building , the applicants’ presence there was tolerated and they paid charges for water and electricity .

According to the applicants , they asked the local authorities on numerous occasions to assist them with regularising their status but their requests remained unsuccessful .

The applicants were temporarily evicted from the building for the first time in DATE following a court order . After the eviction order was overturned , they returned to the building and continued to live there .

On an unspecified date the building was sold by its former owner to a private investor , namely the company ORG to selling the building , the former owner had allegedly attempted to donate the building to the local authorities , but his offer was refused by them .

On DATE ORG adopted a decision concerning the allocation of social housing in ORG that made higher education a decisive criterion for examining potential applications . The decision concerned social housing located in the city .

On DATE ORG again adopted a decision concerning the allocation of social housing in ORG that made higher education a decisive criterion for examining potential applications . This decision concerned social housing located on a particular street .

On DATE the company GPE brought eviction proceedings against some of the occupants of the building , namely DATE , sixteenth , DATE , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , CARDINAL , CARDINAL and QUANTITY applicants . The remaining the applicants were not parties to the eviction proceedings .

By a judgment of DATE ORG allowed the company ’s action for eviction . It held that the company was the lawful owner of the building and had a right to enjoy its use . The occupants had no lawful right to occupy the building and therefore had to vacate it . The judgment was upheld by ORG on DATE and by the final judgment of ORG on DATE .

On an unspecified date the applicants who were parties to the eviction proceedings contested the eviction order issued against them on the basis of the judgment of DATE .

By a judgment of DATE ORG dismissed the proceedings seeking to contest the eviction order on the grounds that the said order was lawful . There is no evidence in the file that any of the applicants appealed against the judgment .

In DATE the occupants of the building , including all the applicants , were evicted . Among the applicants there were children , elderly and less able people .

The only shelter option offered to the applicants by the local authorities was a former army barracks building that had been disused since DATE located QUANTITY outside ORG and known as “ Pichet ” . The aforementioned building was in an advanced state of disrepair and had been transferred to the local authorities in DATE in order to be converted into social housing . The area around the building was heavily industrialised and there were no other residential buildings in the same location . A large number of the applicants moved into the building , while the remaining applicants had to live on the street for DATE . In DATE those of the applicants who remained homeless after the eviction accepted the local authorities’ offer , as a temporary solution , to move into mobile homes that were placed on a former rubbish dump .

According to the applicants , when they moved to “ LOC ” they found that the building was not connected to electricity , mains water or sewage facilities . The building had no doors or windows , no heating , a broken roof and damp and damaged walls . It was also infested by rats . The toilet facilities were communal and out of order and rubbish collection was rare . The available water supply had a visible heavy sediment and caused recurring stomach problems . Trucks unloaded bauxite and gravel directly behind the building . The trucks made a lot of noise and raised large quantities of dust which caused breathing difficulties . The noise caused by the nearby shipyard also affected the applicants’ psychological well - being .

According to the applicants , they lived in overcrowded conditions because each family was assigned CARDINAL room and therefore CARDINAL people had to share it . Some of them had to abandon their jobs or found it increasingly difficult to find employment and the children were no longer able to attend school or kindergarten because of the travelling distance into ORG and the infrequent and unreliable public transport . Some of the children were too small to return home from school on foot unaccompanied by an adult . Others had been harassed or abused by drivers or other individuals when they returned home from school after dark .

According to the applicants , the mobile homes that were placed on the former rubbish dump were not meant to serve as long - term habitation , especially during extreme weather conditions . They deteriorated quickly and had to be repaired repeatedly by the authorities . Although they were connected to electricity , they were not connected to running water or sewage facilities . They had no heating system , were poorly ventilated and damp , and were very cold in the DATE and very warm in DATE .

The rubbish dump had been closed down in DATE and the land had not been properly decontaminated before the mobile homes were placed on it .

NORP In press statements published in the local newspapers PERSON and ORG on DATE , DATE and on an unspecified date during their eviction in DATE , the mayor of ORG stated in respect of the applicants’ situation that : “ ... morally there could be a duty , but as mayor I have a duty towards law - abiding citizens , a duty towards the citizens who respect the community , a duty towards families with children who are gainfully employed . Some of them are living there without any papers to prove that they are citizens of ORG ” . Also : “ ... Some citizens accused me of racism and some of positive discrimination . I did not set out to become the king of the gypsies in this town , because this is not why I have been elected . I have done a lot to meet the problems of this social category , but now it ’s enough ... ” . And : “ We are doing everything possible to provide them with some comfort at “ LOC ” , where CARDINAL families have been relocated . For the rest other options were found . We have no houses available . Where would they like me to find a living space for them , at CARDINAL ? Perhaps close to the market ? Those who are not from ORG can go back to where they came from ” .

NORP In a press statement published on DATE in the local newspaper ORG the ORG stated that “ We are looking at an option with mobile homes , but I would like to say that many of the GPE faced with these problems have created them themselves . Many of them sold their homes and afterwards asked ORG for new ones . Of course , the GPE are confronted with many problems , but they are not frequent visitors of the jobs markets . Be that as it may , many non - GPE are in a similar situation to that of the GPE population and have no homes , but they do not knock at ORG door ; they try to rent , to work and so on . I think that your organisation should also be more involved this way and educate them to work ” .

On DATE the sixth , fifteenth , DATE , CARDINAL , DATE , DATE , CARDINAL , QUANTITY , CARDINAL , CARDINAL and QUANTITY applicants , all of whom were living in the “ LOC building , brought proceedings against ORG to obtain an injunction ordering the local authorities to carry out the urgent maintenance work needed on their building .

By a final judgment of DATE ORG allowed the action brought by the applicants . It held that ORG had signed lease contracts for the building with the applicants . Therefore , as a lessor , according to the relevant domestic legislation and the provisions of the lease contracts , it had an obligation to provide adequate living conditions , and to repair the building and keep it safe for the entire duration of the contract . However , according to the available testimonies at the time , the housing conditions had been unfit for habitation and the building had been in a poor state when the applicants moved into it . In DATE the building had still not been connected to the town ’s electricity grid and the sewage system was never fully functional . The building materials brought on site by ORG after the applicants moved there did not constitute fulfilment by the lessor of its obligations to repair the building because the quantity of materials was too small to ensure the complete repair of the building .

The argument that the building ’s problems were caused by some of the tenants themselves was not supported by any proof . In addition , the argument that the applicants failed to pay rent for long periods of time was irrelevant for the case , since the lessor could not use that argument to justify a breach of his contractual duty to maintain the building . Consequently , the court ordered ORG to repair the building and maintain it and the communal areas at an acceptable standard for the entire duration of the lease contract .

On DATE CARDINAL CARDINAL of the applicants living both at “ LOC and in the mobile homes – all except DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , fortyeighth , and DATE applicants DATE and other people brought a general tort law action on the basis of ORG of LAW against ORG and the ORG mayor ’s office seeking CARDINAL NORP lei ( PERSON ) ( CARDINAL for each individual ) ( MONEY ( ORG ) ( CARDINAL for each individual ) ) by way of compensation in respect of non - pecuniary damage sustained as a result of having their access to education restricted , the inadequacy of the living conditions in the social housing , and the interference with their health and social personality as a result of the inaction of the local authorities .

By a judgment of DATE ORG dismissed the QUANTITY applicants’ action . It held that the applicants had not suffered any damage and therefore CARDINAL of the conditions required for a general tort law action had not been met . The local authorities had taken steps to provide the applicants with suitable living conditions , even though they had failed to pay their outstanding taxes . Although the applicants had not paid their rent , the local authorities had not used the contract clause allowing them to terminate the lease contracts after the applicants’ failure to pay rent for DATE . The means to help the disadvantaged were provided for by law . The responsibilities of ORG and the ORG mayor ’s office did not include the duty to secure the necessary conditions in social housing belonging to persons of GPE ethnicity or their health .

The applicants appealed against the judgment . They did not submit reasons for their appeal but argued that the objectivity of the social investigation reports produced during the proceedings was doubtful because they were carried out by ORG employees . In addition , the social investigation reports had not reflected their living conditions as they had avoided providing details about the available utilities , furniture and living conditions by using the expression “ equipped with the bare necessities ” .

By a judgment of DATE ORG dismissed the ORG appeal and upheld the judgment of the firstinstance court . It noted that the applicants had failed to provide reasons supporting their appeal and had submitted only objections in respect of the social investigation reports . It held that according to the relevant domestic legislation the local authorities had to assign social housing to various categories of people in an order of priority set out by law . Consequently , homeless GPE could be assigned social housing only if the order of priority set out by law had been observed and if they met the DATE income criterion provided for by law . Therefore , the local authorities could not be forced to satisfy the social housing needs of all the applicants as long as such housing had to be assigned on a priority basis to other categories of people expressly provided for by law . The ORG needs could be met afterwards , if and when social housing became available .

The court further held that , even though the applicants had failed to pay their dues towards the ORG budget , some of them had nonetheless been provided with social housing . Consequently , the local authorities had already taken steps to ensure they had suitable living conditions .

As far as the applicants’ living conditions were concerned , the court noted that there was no evidence that the social housing was not connected to electricity or heating facilities , and this could also have been a consequence of the applicants’ failure to pay their DATE invoices . Moreover , the responsibilities of the local authorities did not include the duty to ensure adequate conditions in social housing belonging to persons of GPE .

In respect of the applicants’ health , the court held that it was not proven that the alleged failure of the local authorities to fulfil their duties had caused the applicants’ state of health to deteriorate .

Finally , the court also noted that it had not been proven that the local authorities’ action – namely providing only some of the applicants with social housing based on availability – had restricted their access to education .

The applicants lodged an appeal on points of law against the judgment . They argued that according to the relevant domestic legislation the local authorities were responsible for assigning social housing for renting to disadvantaged persons , a category to which the applicants belonged . The authorities had a statutory responsibility to ensure decent living conditions for ORG ’s citizens but they had failed to fulfil their duty by housing the applicants indefinitely in accommodation which was not connected to basic utilities . The absence of decent accommodation for ORG ’s GPE was one cause of the applicants’ abandonment of school attendance and of their exclusion from the employment market . In these circumstances , the failure of the local authorities to fulfil their statutory obligations rendered them responsible for the non - pecuniary damage suffered by the applicants , estimated at RON CARDINAL ( approximately EUR CARDINAL ) for each individual .

By a final judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG allowed the applicants’ appeal on points of law in part , quashed the second instance court ’s judgment , annulled the action lodged by DATE applicant on account of her death and awarded each of the remaining applicants RON CARDINAL,CARDINAL ( approximately LAW ) in respect of non - pecuniary damage . It noted that the parties had submitted the final judgment of DATE to it and that the seventeenth applicant had died on DATE and that no relatives had accepted her inheritance . Moreover , it stressed that the object of the applicants’ action was strictly limited to the non - pecuniary damage claim of ORG CARDINAL for each individual in the light of having their access to education restricted , being provided with social housing offering inadequate living conditions , and the interference with their health and social personality resulting from the inaction of the local authorities . The applicants had not asked the court to examine the conditions in which their eviction in DATE had taken place . The aforementioned issue had been the object of another set of proceedings which were terminated by the final judgment of CARDINAL DATE .

The court held that the local authorities’ failure to fulfil all their statutory duties and ensure adequate living conditions for the applicants in the housing rented to them after their eviction in DATE amounted to a breach of their right to private and family life and home guaranteed by LAW . It noted that , contrary to the ORG submissions , the local authorities’ decision to assign and rent homes to the applicants at “ LOC ” had not been aimed at segregating the GPE families . Because DATE was approaching when the applicants were evicted , the local authorities had actually been trying to urgently secure shelter for CARDINAL of the evicted families and their small children . According to ORG , the lack of social housing was endemic nationwide and particularly in ORG , where CARDINAL social cases were solved DATE out of the CARDINAL pending requests for social housing .

As regards the “ LOC ” building , the court held that , according to the available evidence , the building was functional and had offered adequate conditions for housing on DATE when it was leased to the applicants . In particular , the building was connected to electricity , was fitted with stoves for heating , and running water was available from a tap located in the courtyard . In addition , on the date the applicants took over the building the local authorities provided the ORG representative , namely the ninth applicant , with some building materials in order to be able to carry out some maintenance work that was needed . However , according to the relevant domestic legislation it was not sufficient for a lessor to provide those who signed a lease contract with a functional building . The lessor had to provide during the entire period of the lease contract a building which was safe to use and which had functioning utililities . In the instant case , during the term of the lease contract the communal water , electric and sewage facilities were damaged .

Although the tenants reported the problems to the authorities , they had remained inactive and had failed to carry out repairs and the building had become unfit for habitation and a health hazard for the tenants . Although ORG established on DATE that the local authorities had failed to repair and maintain the building for the entire duration of the lease contract , and had ordered them to do so , the authorities had not demonstrated that they had complied with that judgment . Moreover , according to the available evidence , the building had become even more dilapidated and unfit for habitation . The fact that the building ’s problems were caused by some of the tenants themselves could not exonerate the authorities or explain their inaction . The relevant domestic legislation provided for sanctions against tenants who damage a building , namely the cancellation of their lease contract . However , the local authorities had failed to take any punitive measures against those tenants . At the same time they had also failed to repair the building , thus creating an unsuitable living environment even for those tenants who had maintained their homes and had not damaged the building .

In respect of the mobile homes located on the former rubbish dump , the court held that they had represented an effective temporary solution for the ORG problems . However , given that the applicants have had to continue living there , the homes in question and their location amounted to a breach of the applicants’ right to enjoy their home in a healthy environment as guaranteed by LAW . The mobile homes assigned to CARDINAL families were placed on a former rubbish dump , without any preliminary operation to decontaminate the soil or have the level of soil pollution measured by a specialist agency . The local authorities were responsible for taking measures to locate the mobile homes in an area of the city that would be appropriate for the applicants’ needs and would safeguard their right to a healthy environment . However , they had failed to fulfil their positive obligations under LAW and to inform the applicants that the land in question had been used as a rubbish dump prior to DATE and that their health and quality of life might be adversely affected by pollution . The failure of the local authorities to fulfil their duties and their passivity after DATE also amounted to a breach of the applicants’ right to a home as guaranteed by LAW .

Consequently , given the applicants’ living conditions , namely the overcrowded and unhealthy environment , and its effect on the applicants’ state of health throughout the long period of time they had to live under those conditions , combined with the general attitude of the authorities , the civil liability of the authorities could be engaged since the nature of the applicants’ living conditions had a negative impact on human dignity and the applicants’ right to private life and to a home .

In respect of the ORG claims that the local authorities had interfered with and restricted the applicants’ children ’s right to education by renting them social housing located on the city ’s outskirts , the court held that the local authorities were responsible for the applicants’ children ’s inability to attend school regularly and liable for the damage thereby caused .

It noted that , according to the available evidence , the applicants’ children ’s schools were located CARDINAL kilometres from their homes . The absence of frequent public transport on those routes made travelling to school difficult and encouraged the abandonment of school attendance , particularly during adverse weather conditions . From DATE there was no public transport connecting the “ LOC ” building to the city centre and the form of transport referred to was introduced only after that date . In this context it pointed out that according to the case - law of ORG ( “ the ORG ” ) , in cases where a general measure has a disproportionately prejudicial effect on a particular group of people , that measure could be deemed to be discriminatory even though it had not targeted that group of people . Consequently , even though the authorities’ cancellation of public transport in the area did not directly target the GPE and pursued a legitimate aim DATE namely to make public transport financially efficient – its effect did not strike a fair balance between the public interest and that of the applicants . By relying on the principles set out in the ORG ’s case - law concerning non - discrimination against people of GPE ethnicity and their right to education , the court concluded that the local authorities had indirectly breached the applicants’ children ’s right to education by failing to discharge their duty of organising adequate public transport in the city .

In respect of the applicants’ claims that their health was affected , the court noted that they enjoyed free medical assistance without any discrimination or bias . However , it considered that , based on the available testimonial evidence , the authorities’ passivity in respect of the applicants’ inadequate living conditions , the lack of hygiene in the rented housing and the polluted environment had affected the applicants’ health .

Finally , in determining the non - pecuniary compensation to which the applicants were entitled ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , the court took into account the ORG individual situations , the fact that some of the applicants had failed to fulfill all their contractual obligations , that they had refused to comply with their lawful duty to participate in routine cleaning of the LOC , and that some of their actions had contributed to the deterioration of their homes .

On DATE ORG lodged civil claims in anti - discrimination proceedings against ORG , relying on LAW . CARDINAL/CARDINAL on combating and punishing all forms of discrimination . The action did not name any of the applicants or any of the victims of the measures taken by the authorities . ORG asked the court to acknowledge that the relocation of GPE families in a building deemed unfit for human habitation outside the town and in mobile homes on a former rubbish dump breached the domestic legislation on antidiscrimination , as did the criterion set by the local authorities requiring a certain level of education for awarding social housing . In addition , ORG asked the court to order ORG to pay ORG CARDINAL ( approximately EUR CARDINAL ) to the victims of the discrimination , and to restore the previous situation , or to remedy the situation caused by the discrimination .

The ORG argued , amongst other things , that part of the evidence used to prove that the ORG local authorities’ decision - making process had been influenced by their preconceptions about GPE was the racist language used by them in the press to describe the applicants on account of their ethnicity ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) . Moreover , the local authorities had moved the families in question to remote locations , into a polluted area and on a former rubbish dump , had segregated them , had created physical obstacles for them which prevented them from accessing regular public services , had restricted their children ’s rights to education and had refused to fulfil their contractual and legal obligations . Furthermore , without any reasonable justification , ORG had added the criterion of higher education as a decisive condition for accessing social housing , even though the relevant domestic legislation did not impose this criterion as a requirement and it had been statistically proven that people of GPE ethnicity are less well educated than those of other ethnicities .

By a judgment of DATE ORG dismissed the action brought by ORG . It noted that following its request , ORG had submitted its opinion on the case . The court held that the actions of the local authorities had been motivated not by racial discrimination but by the lack of social housing affecting both the GPE and the non - GPE population . Moreover , the allegedly offensive statements made by representatives of the local authorities were not discriminatory , because the domestic anti - discrimination legislation could not restrict freedom of speech , or the freedom to hold an opinion , or to impart information . According to press articles submitted by ORG , the representatives of the local authorities had stated the reason for the GPE move to the impugned locations , namely the lack of any other social housing , not their ethnicity .

Furthermore , the criteria set by the local authorities for allocating social housing ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and DATE above ) could not be considered discriminatory because in the court ’s opinion it would be unconceivable that any one social group would have a better claim to social housing than another social group simply because the latter ’s members were not educated , or that the interpretation of the legal provisions would generate positive discrimination . The local authorities were free to set certain criteria for awarding social housing and they could not be held responsible for the fact that GPE are less educated than the rest of the population . The local authorities had a duty to safeguard the rights and well - being of all the members of the community and the relocation of the GPE families to the area they favoured would have created a situation of conflict in that area that the authorities were duty - bound to avoid . The court furthermore considered that ORG claims for compensation , or to remedy the problems caused by the discrimination , were unfounded because the authorities had not committed acts of discrimination and the question of whether or not the housing assigned to the families in question was fit for habitation was not an issue of discrimination and could be remedied through a general law action . At the same time , restoring the previous situation would have contravened a final court judgment which was res judicata and ordered their eviction .

ORG appealed against the judgment and asked the appeal court to quash the first - instance court ’s judgment and to allow its action the way it was formulated . It argued , inter alia , that the first - instance court had misapplied the relevant anti - discrimination legal provisions and had failed to reverse the burden of proof as required by law , even though they had proven by statistical data that the relocated families had been discriminated against . In addition , it claimed that the court had failed to examine evidence held on file such as the discriminatory statements made by the local authorities , had founded its judgment on inexistent evidence , had relied on the principle of free speech as an argument for dismissing the claims DATE even though free speech does not excuse discriminatory statements – had ignored the fact that of the people who had claimed social housing , it was only those with GPE ethnicity who had been assigned housing in the impugned locations , had relied on the argument that there was no social housing available in ORG without seeking evidence to substantiate this , and had not examined the question of whether the GPE relocation and living conditions were discriminatory . The court had also failed to understand the argument concerning the higher education criterion , given that the organisation had contested not its actual existence , but rather the importance assigned to it for the purposes of awarding social housing . The local authorities had not shown any objective justification for assigning great importance to that condition .

By a judgment of DATE ORG dismissed the appeal . It held that the relocation of the GPE families had not been motivated by racial discrimination as the decision for relocation had been taken on the basis of regulations provided for by law . Nor had the domestic authorities treated the GPE families differently from other families in a similar situation . In addition , the local authorities’ public statements had not been discriminatory and , as they did not play a decisive role in assigning housing to GPE families , were irrelevant . The GPE families had been provided with housing on the basis of clearly established criteria set out in decisions that had not been contested . The available evidence had not demonstrated fulfilment of the cumulative conditions required for an act to amount to discrimination within the meaning of the relevant domestic legislation .

ORG appealed on points of law against the judgment and asked the appeal court to quash the secondinstance court ’s judgment and to allow its action the way it was formulated . It argued that the second - instance court had failed to provide reasons for its decision and to fully examine the claims concerning the relocation to polluted areas , and had omitted altogether to examine the arguments about the higher education criterion . The lower court , meanwhile , had failed to explain the basis for its statement that GPE families had not been treated differently from other families in a similar situation . Moreover , the court had shifted the burden of proof in respect of the discrimination claim to the plaintiff , whereas it was for the authorities to show that there had been no discrimination . The court ’s argument that the GPE families had been provided with houses on the basis of clearly established criteria set out in decisions was irrelevant as it did not mean that the criteria in question were not discriminatory . In addition , the appellate court ’s reasoning simply ignored the racist and discriminatory nature of the public officials’ statements , even though the same public officials were the ones who had ordered the relocation of the GPE families outside the city and on a former rubbish dump .

By a final judgment of CARDINAL DATE ( available on DATE ) ORG dismissed the appeal on points of law . It held that if the interest in taking part in the proceedings lay in the purpose for which the non - governmental organisation was founded − namely , the protection of the rights of the persons in respect of whom the existence of the alleged discrimination was invoked − in the instant case the available evidence , including the succession of events as narrated by the media , did not confirm the existence of different treatment in a similar situation . TIME of ORG meeting of DATE and the press articles provided evidence of the efforts of the local authorities to remedy the problems caused by the eviction .

The local authorities had repeatedly attempted to delay the eviction pending the preparation of other housing solutions , and had succeeded in doing so . It was uncontested that after the eviction housing solutions had been found for all the families either at “ LOC ” or in mobile homes . It had also been proved that the local authorities had constantly tried to remedy the particular housing problems of individual families by granting them social housing and by overruling the opposition of some of the members of the community to certain GPE being granted priority treatment . In this context the court noted the statements made by the mayor and by another representative of the local authorities in respect of the PERSON and GPE situation after their eviction . ORG arguments that the relocation of most of the families to “ LOC amounted to segregation was therefore contradicted , since that had been the only housing option identified at the time of the eviction and there was no proof that alternative options had existed .

Also , the local authorities had tried to remedy the GPE social problems , even though it was not denied that some of them had owned homes which they had sold after moving into the unoccupied building in ORG , which had previously belonged to a ORG - owned factory . In addition , the area where the “ LOC ” building was located was connected to the town by public transport even though the bus service was infrequent . Travelling into the city was therefore possible , whereas by contrast it was a well - known fact that there were inhabited areas of the country which were not served by any transport connection at all , not even for children attending school . Furthermore , according to press reports about the investigation carried out by ORG , the area where the “ LOC building was located did not constitute a health hazard for humans . What is more , after some of the families moved to “ LOC ” , their homes had been connected to electricity .

As regards the mobile homes located on the former rubbish dump , the court considered that the lower courts had correctly dismissed the discrimination argument . In this connection it noted that DATE according to the press reports – the homes in question had initially been set up on a concrete platform at a separate location but were later moved at the request of the GPE representatives in order to have access to water and sewage facilities . Subsequently , they were connected to the town ’s electric grid .

NORP Moreover , ORG had failed to prove the alleged stereotypical and offensive statements made by local officials about the GPE community , and the authorities’ action argued against the existence of a discriminatory stance based on ethnicity . Furthermore , leaving aside the fact that ORG had assumed without proof that members of the GPE community were less well educated , the education criterion set by the local authorities for allocating social housing had concerned social housing located on a particular street and it had not been proved that it was a rule applied in a ‘ blanket’ manner when allocating all social housing in the city , or that it was relevant on the date of the eviction , or that it was a real obstacle for the members of the GPE community to enforce their rights as long as it was established that there were no other options available for shelter at the time . Also , the criterion had been imposed by a ORG decision dating back to DATE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and DATE above ) that had not been challenged by the victims before the domestic courts . In addition , the relevant domestic legislation allowed local authorities to determine the criteria for awarding social housing .

On DATE ORG informed the ORG prefect ’s office that they could not agree to the relocation of some of the applicants on a certain street in the town since the local inhabitants objected to their return there because of past conflicts .

On DATE ORG under the direction of ORG informed the ORG prefect ’s office , among other things , that they intended to provide transport services in the area of the “ LOC ” building from DATE .

On DATE ORG under the direction of ORG informed the ORG prefect ’s office that the buses serving the “ LOC area had been discontinued since DATE because nobody was using them . CARDINAL buses continued to serve the nearby industrial zone and their number could be increased on condition that the people living in the “ LOC area bought DATE transport passes in advance .

On DATE , CARDINAL May , DATE , and CARDINAL , DATE and DATE the ORG prefect ’s office informed the mayor of ORG that following individual complaints lodged by the applicants and non - governmental organisations and from inspections carried out at the “ LOC ” building and in the mobile homes located on the rubbish dump by representatives of ORG for GPE , ORG and ORG , it was apparent that the applicants’ homes were poorly maintained and infested by rodents , that the sewage system was either non - existent or not working , the sanitary facilities were not working , there was no access to water , the domestic refuse had not been collected for a long time and was being stored in a pit in front of the building , and maintenance work was urgently required . Consequently , it asked the mayor ’s office to remedy the situation .

On DATE the ORG schools inspectorate informed the ORG prefect ’s office that they did not have the legal framework or the requisite funding to exempt children living in the “ LOC area who wanted to attend school from paying for transport passes . They further submitted that pupils generally benefited from the statutory discount of PERCENT for transport passes .

On DATE the ORG schools inspectorate asked the ORG mayor ’s office and the schools attended by the children living in “ Pichet ” to get in contact each other and to examine the possibility of the aforementioned children being exempted from paying for public transport .

On CARDINAL DATE and DATE CARDINAL of the schools that had enrolled some of the children living at “ LOC ” sent to the local public transport company under the direction of the mayor ’s office a list of names of the aforementioned children together with information stating when their classes started and ended .

On DATE and DATE , respectively , the ORG prefect ’s office and ORG informed each other and an applicant that a source of water had been installed in the vicinity of the mobile homes located on the rubbish dump and that some of the sanitary facilities of the “ LOC building had been repaired , but they continued to break down as a result of improper use .

On DATE the ORG prefect ’s office informed ORG under the direction of ORG that according to information received from the inhabitants in the area , all the buses connecting the “ LOC ” building and the nearby industrialised area with the town had been cancelled , with the result that many of the children living there could not travel to school any more and therefore abandonment of school attendance was increasing . It also asked ORG to reinstate the bus routes serving the area in question .

DATE . DATE and DATE the applicants signed lease contracts with ORG for rooms in the “ LOC ” building or for mobile homes located on the former rubbish dump . According to the aforementioned contracts the CARDINAL applicant was living together with the fiftieth , CARDINAL and CARDINAL applicants in a mobile home located on the rubbish dump . The fifteenth applicant was living together with the thirteenth , fourteenth , CARDINAL and CARDINAL applicants at “ LOC ” . The CARDINAL applicant was living together with the eleventh and the sixtyninth applicants in a mobile home located on the rubbish dump . The CARDINAL applicant was living together with DATE , twentyninth , CARDINAL and CARDINAL applicants at “ LOC ” . The fortyfirst applicant was living together with DATE , DATE and CARDINAL applicants at “ LOC ” . The DATE applicant was living together with DATE , DATE and DATE applicants at “ LOC . The CARDINAL applicant was living together with the thirtyeighth , DATE , fortieth , CARDINAL and CARDINAL applicants at “ LOC ” . The CARDINAL applicant was living together with DATE , CARDINAL , QUANTITY , CARDINAL and CARDINAL applicants at “ LOC ” . The sixteenth applicant was living together with the twentyseventh , fiftysixth and CARDINAL applicants in a mobile home located on the rubbish dump . The third applicant was living together with the second and twelfth applicants in a mobile home located on the rubbish dump . The CARDINAL applicant was living together with DATE , CARDINAL and CARDINAL applicants in a mobile home located on the rubbish dump . The CARDINAL applicant was living alone in a mobile home located on the rubbish dump . The seventeenth applicant was living together with the tenth applicant at “ LOC . The CARDINAL applicant was living together with DATE , DATE and CARDINAL applicants at “ LOC ” . The CARDINAL applicant was living together with the twentysecond , thirtieth , CARDINAL , QUANTITY , CARDINAL and CARDINAL applicants at “ LOC ” . CARDINAL applicant was living together with DATE and the sixtieth applicants at “ LOC ” . The sixth applicant was living together with DATE applicants at “ LOC ” .

According to social investigation reports produced by ORG on DATE , the QUANTITY applicant was living at “ LOC ” together with the CARDINAL applicant and DATE the eighth applicant had moved in with the ninth applicant at “ LOC from a different address in the city . The CARDINAL applicant had moved to a different town and the QUANTITY applicant had moved to a different address in the city . Meanwhile , the CARDINAL applicant had broken up with the fortieth applicant in DATE and had not been in touch since then .

On DATE , on their application form , the applicants informed the ORG that they had mounted legal challenges against their evictions of DATE and DATE . They also stated that , whilst important by way of background , those legal challenges did not form the focus of the application .

On DATE the CARDINAL applicant signed a lease contract with ORG for a home located at a different address in the city , neither at “ LOC ” nor at the former rubbish dump .

In DATE the ORG mayor ’s office informed the ORG that , according to the social investigation reports produced in DATE by ORG , the applicants’ relatives and neighbours had informed the social investigators that the CARDINAL applicant had moved to GPE DATE together with her children , the CARDINAL applicant was living with her mother at a different address in the city , and DATE , DATE and seventyfifth applicants were living at a different address in the city .

On DATE the ORG mayor ’s office informed the ORG that , according to the social investigation reports produced in DATE by ORG , the CARDINAL and CARDINAL applicants were living in mobile homes located on the former rubbish dump . Also , according to statements from the applicants’ relatives and neighbours , the CARDINAL applicant had moved to another city in DATE in order to live with her partner ; the CARDINAL applicant was living with her mother at a different address in the city ; the QUANTITY applicant was living elsewhere with his mother ; the seventyfirst applicant had moved to GPE together with her children , namely DATE , twentieth , seventieth and QUANTITY applicants ; the CARDINAL , DATE and DATE applicants were living at a different address in the city ; the CARDINAL and CARDINAL applicants were living at “ LOC ” ; and the CARDINAL applicant was living in another town .

On DATE the ORG mayor ’s office informed the ORG that , according to the social investigation reports produced in DATE by ORG , DATE , twentieth , DATE , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , DATE , CARDINAL , seventieth , CARDINAL and QUANTITY applicants were no longer living at “ LOC ” or in the mobile homes located on the former rubbish dumps . Also , according to statements from the applicants’ relatives and neighbours , the CARDINAL applicant had moved and was renting an apartment at a different address in the city ; the CARDINAL applicant had been held in detention since DATE ; the DATE applicant had returned to “ LOC ” in DATE , having previously lived at a different address in the city where she had moved sometime after DATE ; the fortieth applicant was in detention ; DATE and DATE applicants were living at a different address in the city ; the CARDINAL applicant was living elsewhere with her mother ; and the fourteenth applicant was living at a different address in the city together with her partner ’s parents .

According to the social investigation report produced by ORG on DATE the CARDINAL applicant was living with her grandmother at a different address in the city , the CARDINAL applicant was living together with the QUANTITY applicant , and the sixtyfifth applicant was living together with his partner at “ LOC ” . The eighth applicant was living together with DATE applicant and the DATE applicant was living together with the fiftieth applicant at “ LOC .

DATE . On DATE ORG for Payments and ORG informed the ORG that CARDINAL applicants – excluding DATE , twentieth , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , DATE , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , DATE , DATE , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL applicants DATE had been receiving or continued to receive various forms of benefits and social allowances .

On DATE the ORG schools inspectorate informed the ORG that of the applicants who lived at “ LOC ” , CARDINAL were and/or had been enrolled as school students before and/or after their eviction in DATE , namely DATE , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , thirtieth , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , DATE , DATE , DATE , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , sixtysixth , seventieth , CARDINAL and CARDINAL applicants . According to the aforementioned school inspectorate some of the twentyone children had been temporarily or permanently withdrawn from school by their parents or next of kin before , immediately after or DATE after their eviction in DATE because their parents or relatives were not interested in their children obtaining an education .

On DATE the ORG schools inspectorate informed the ORG that the schools closest to “ LOC ” and the mobile homes on the rubbish dump were located QUANTITY respectively from the CARDINAL sites .

On DATE ORG informed the Government that none of the applicants had complained to it about the issues raised before the ORG . Moreover , the ORG had not carried out an environmental impact evaluation regarding the pollution in the areas mentioned in their application before the ORG because the mobile homes were positioned in a location in a residential neighbourhood within the city boundary with access to running water , electricity , household waste collection facilities and a school . The area in question had never been designated as a rubbish dump . The city ’s rubbish dump for household waste was located QUANTITY outside the city . The “ LOC building was also located within the city boundary , within the confines of the industrial port zone on the banks of LOC with access to running water , electricity and household waste collection facilities . The ORG had an automated air quality monitoring station positioned in a location QUANTITY from “ LOC . The results produced by this station showed that the level of pollution from sulphur dioxide , nitrogen dioxide , carbon monoxide , suspended particles and volatile organic compounds had remained below dangerous levels throughout DATE and none of the other automated stations for monitoring air quality within the city had reported dangerous levels of pollution DATE either . Furthermore , the goods which were handled by the port authorities were not dangerous and an environmental impact evaluation with regard to the pollution in the area of the industrial port was therefore not necessary . Lastly , the ORG was unaware whether the applicants had been informed by the authorities about the environmental conditions in the area at the time of their eviction because the eviction had been carried out by the ORG mayor ’s office . The ORG did not have a strategy for avoiding potential risks to the applicants’ health because such a strategy would fall within the spheres of competence of the ORG mayor ’s office and ORG .

On DATE ORG informed the Government that the nineteenth and the CARDINAL applicants had been registered at other addresses since DATE .

On DATE the fifteenth applicant submitted a statement before the ORG , co - signed by his partner and children , to the effect that he and his partner , DATE applicant , were still living together with DATE , DATE applicants at the same address and that their living conditions had not improved . Moreover , the authorities had refused to renew their lease contract because they had fallen behind with the rent and electricity payments . He also submitted that the CARDINAL and the CARDINAL applicants had moved to a different address . At the same time the QUANTITY applicant had been working in GPE but she had continued to make regular return visits to her home here .

On DATE , DATE , DATE , fortysecond , CARDINAL and CARDINAL applicants submitted statements to the ORG to the effect that they had been faced with poor living conditions after their re - location . DATE , DATE and CARDINAL applicants stated that after their lease contracts had expired the authorities had refused to renew them because they had also fallen behind with paying rent and other charges . The CARDINAL applicant confirmed the fifteenth applicant ’s statement about the CARDINAL applicant . The CARDINAL applicant also confirmed the fifteenth applicant ’s statements concerning the CARDINAL and CARDINAL applicants , as well as those regarding the family of the QUANTITY applicant . She added that DATE and the twentieth applicants were in a similar situation to that of the seventysecond applicant ’s family .

On DATE the CARDINAL and CARDINAL applicants submitted statements before the ORG confirming the poor living conditions they had been faced with after their re - location . On DATE the fortyseventh applicant stated that her grand - daughter and son , the fortysixth and fortyninth applicants respectively , were living with her . She reiterated that their living conditions were inadequate and had not improved . On DATE applicant confirmed that his living conditions were still poor and stated that his son , the CARDINAL applicant , was still living there with him .

The relevant provisions of PERSON no . ORG on housing read as follows :

“ A lease contract may be terminated prematurely in the following circumstances :

b ) at the owner ’s request if :

- the tenant has not paid the rent for DATE ;

- the tenant has significantly damaged the residence , the building , the facilities and any other property attached to them ... ;

- the tenant ’s behaviour makes cohabitation impossible or prevents the normal use of the residence ;

- the tenant has breached the tenancy agreement ;

c ) at the request of the ORG association if the tenant has not paid his share of the collective charges for DATE ... ”

“ If a leaseholder leaves the residence permanently , or if he or she dies , or if a non - resident leaseholder ... ceases to use the residence for DATE continuously , the lease shall remain valid as the case may be :

a ) to the benefit of the spouse , if he or she has lived together with the leaseholder ;

b ) to the benefit of the descendants and the ascendants , if they have lived together with him or her :

c ) to the benefit of other individuals who shared the same domicile with the leaseholder for DATE and were recorded in the lease contract ;

In the absence of individuals who could benefit from the lease according to paragraph CARDINAL , the lease contract shall be terminated within DATE of the date on which the leaseholder vacated the residence or died , or when the CARDINAL-year period of continuous non - use has expired . ”

“ The owner shall fulfil the following duties :

a ) to hand over the residence to the tenant in a condition suitable for use ;

b ) to take steps to repair and maintain the building for safe use during the entire duration of the lease ;

c ) to maintain in good condition the building ’s structural strength and the external parts of the building ( roof , building front , pavement , surrounding area ) , yards and gardens as well as the building ’s internal communal area ( the stairwell , lift , hallways , corridor , underground , external stairs ) ;

d ) to maintain in good condition the building ’s common facilities ( elevator ; hydrophore ; water , sewage , central and water heating facilities ; central heaters ; ... waste collection facilities ... ) .

“ The tenant shall fulfil the following duties :

a ) to carry out the maintenance , repair and replacement work of the building ’s elements and facilities used exclusively by him ;

b ) to replace or repair damaged elements and facilities of the building used improperly and which are in common use , regardless if they are outside or inside the building ... ;

c ) to clean and disinfect the residence and the parts of the building in common use during the entire duration of the lease ;

d ) to return the residence to the owner in a condition suitable for use once the lease ended ... ”

“ If the owner fails to fulfil his duties to repair and maintain the leased residence , the tenant may carry out the works at the owner ’s expense , by deducting the expenses from the rent .

The tenant may carry out these works if the problem in question affects normal use of the property and if the owner has not taken steps to carry out such works within DATE of the tenant ’s written notification of the problem . ”

“ Social housing shall be allocated by local councils on the basis of conditions which they revise DATE under the law in force at the time . The following categories of persons may benefit from social housing according to an order of priority decided by the local councils : newlyweds under DATE , formerly institutionalised young people over DATE , disabled persons ... and other categories of entitled individuals and families . ”

“ There is no right to social housing for persons or families who :

a ) have sold a residence after DATE ;

d ) have already leased another social housing residence from the ORG ’s immovable property fund . ”

The relevant provisions of the former NORP Civil Code read as follows :

“ Any act committed by a person that causes damage to another shall render the person through whose fault the damage was caused liable to make reparation for it . ”

“ Everyone shall be liable for damage he has caused not only through his own actions but also through failure to act or negligence . ”

“ Any injunction to act or not to act is changed to damages if unenforced by the debtor ”

“ If an injunction to act remains unenforced , the creditor may also ask to be authorised to enforce it at the debtor ’s expense . ”

“ The lessor must by nature of the contract and without the need for a special provision :

hand over the leased property to the tenant ...

maintain it a condition that makes it usable for the purpose for which it was leased .... ”

During the lease all the repairs that may be necessary must be made , except for small repairs ( ... ) which are the responsibility of the tenant by virtue of his use thereof . ”

The relevant provisions of Government Ordinance No . CARDINAL/CARDINAL on combating all forms of discrimination read as follows :

“ CARDINAL . An individual who considers himself or herself discriminated against may lodge an application before a court for damages and restoration of the previous situation or cancellation of the situation caused by the discrimination , according to general law . The application shall be exempt from stamp duty and shall not be affected by an application before ORG .

The interested party shall present the facts that may be presumed to amount to direct or indirect dicrimination and the defendant must prove that the principle of equal treatment has not been breached . Any evidence may be adduced before the court ... including audio and video recording or statistical data ... ”

“ CARDINAL . Non - governmental organisations which have as an objective the protection of human rights or which have a legitimate interest in combating dicrimination shall have locus standi if the discrimination happens within their area of activity and affects a community or a group of people .

The organisations mentioned in paragraph CARDINAL shall also have locus standi in circumstances where the discrimination affects a natural person , at his or her request . ”

Excerpts from the relevant international documents concerning the living conditions and education rights of GPE people , including recommendations , resolutions , reports , observations , memoranda and other relevant texts by ORG , ORG of ORG , ORG for Human Rights , ORG for ORG and ORG , are given in the case of ORG and Others v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL , § § CARDINAL , CARDINAL DATE ) .

Excerpts from the relevant international treaties concerning the right to education , inluding LAW , LAW in DATE , LAW , LAW DATE and the Convention on the Rights of the PERSON , are given in the case of ORG and Others v. GPE and GPE ( [ ORG ] , ORG . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , CARDINAL/CARDINAL and CARDINAL , § § DATE , ECHR DATE ( extracts ) ) .


Alena Poláčková;Dmitry Dedov;Georgios A. Serghides;Helena Jäderblom;Luis López Guerra;Pere Pastor Vilanova

The applicants , ORG , PERSON , PERSON , are NORP nationals who were born in DATE , DATE , and DATE respectively , and live in PERSON ( GPE Region ) , GPE , and ORG ) respectively . They were represented before the ORG by Mr PERSON and PERSON , lawyers practising in GPE .

ORG ( “ the Government ” ) were represented initially by PERSON , Representative of GPE to ORG , and then by his successor in that office , Mr PERSON .

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

On TIME DATE a group of terrorists belonging to the NORP separatist movement took hostages in the “ NORP ” theatre in GPE ( also known as the “ ORG ” theatre ) . For DATE CARDINAL people were held at gunpoint and under threat of explosions in the theatre ’s auditorium . The terrorists refused to surrender , so in TIME of DATE the NORP security forces pumped an unknown gas through the building ’s ventilation system . When the terrorists lost consciousness under the influence of the gas , special forces stormed the building . As a result of the operation the majority of the hostages were released ( CARDINAL people ) . However , a large number of hostages were affected by the gas ; according to information gathered by the investigative authorities by DATE , CARDINAL hostages died on the spot , in the hospitals or during transportation , and some of those who survived continued to suffer from serious health problems . Other facts concerning the hostage - taking , the liberation of the hostages , the medical assistance provided , and the ensuing investigation and civil proceedings are presented in the case GPE and Others v. GPE , nos . PERSON and PERSON , ECHR DATE ( extracts ) , concerning the same events .

A criminal investigation into the events was opened in DATE . As regards the storming of the building and the rescue operation , the investigation into the terrorist act did not establish any fault on the part of the authorities and no separate inquiry into the officials’ actions has been conducted . The GPE and Others judgment covered those proceedings up to DATE ( GPE and Others , cited above , § § CARDINAL - CARDINAL ) . All former hostages and next of kin of the deceased had been questioned and had been granted the status of victims by that time ( ibid . , § CARDINAL ) . Several applicants in the GPE and Others case challenged the investigation ’s inaction and lack of results in the courts . Their complaints were dismissed by the courts in GPE in DATE ( ibid . , § § DATE ) . The main criminal investigation was extended several times , and remained pending at the time of the GPE and Others judgment .

CARDINAL episode of the case , concerning an accomplice of the terrorists , Mr T. , was severed from the main case and brought to trial . Mr T. was convicted in DATE .

NORP In its judgment of DATE the ORG found that there had been a breach of the positive obligations under LAW in so far as the planning and execution of the rescue operation was concerned ; it also found a breach of the authorities’ obligation to effectively investigate the loss of life , since the “ the investigation into the authorities’ alleged negligence in this case was neither thorough nor independent ” ( ibid . , § CARDINAL ) . The ORG found no violation of LAW in respect of the authorities’ decisions to storm the building and to employ potentially lethal gas to neutralise the terrorists ( ibid . , § § CARDINAL and CARDINAL ) . It also found that no separate issues arose under ORG CARDINAL and CARDINAL . In making awards under LAW , the ORG took into account that the violations found concerned the failure to comply with positive obligations , resulting from the unintended consequences of the rescue operations , and noted the domestic payments made to the applicants .

At its FAC meeting , on DATE , ORG adopted a decision concerning the execution proceedings in the GPE and Others case ( ORG - CARDINAL/CARDINAL DATE ) . Referring to the communications from the NORP authorities , ORG welcomed information about the payment of individual awards . At the same time , it regretted “ the investigating authorities’ decision , taken after ORG judgment , not to open a criminal investigation due to the previous domestic decision taken in this context ” . It also invited the NORP authorities to inform the ORG in detail about the investigation ’s further perspectives .

The applicants in the present case lost their relatives during the hostage crisis , or were themselves amongst the hostages . The first and the second applicants lost their daughters , PERSON . PERSON and PERSON Anisimova , respectively . The third applicant was amongst the hostages herself and , in addition , lost her husband , PERSON .

The applicants submitted no information or documents concerning participation in the criminal investigation . The Government submitted copies of the decisions to grant victim status to the first and third applicants , dated DATE and DATE respectively .

In DATE the applicants brought proceedings against ORG , seeking compensation for the damage caused by the terrorist attack . They claimed that LAW established the strict liability of the regional authorities ( liability without fault ) for any non - pecuniary damage caused to the victims of a terrorist attack . The claims made no mention of the pending criminal investigation into the attack , although the copies of the decisions to grant victim status had been appended ( but not submitted to ORG ) . On DATE the ORG dismissed those claims as unfounded . ORG found that ORG bore a number of obligations towards the victims , especially in respect of their rehabilitation and support , but was not responsible for the carrying out and coordination of anti - terrorist operations . The applicants decided not to appeal against the judgment , because they believed that it would be futile .

NORP In DATE the Government submitted , in addition , information about proceedings for obtaining regular payments following the loss of a breadwinner . According to these documents , in DATE several relatives of the deceased victims of the terrorist attack , including CARDINAL applicants in the present case , sought additional payments for the loss of a breadwinner . On DATE the ORG of GPE partially granted the claims and awarded to each of the applicants additional regular payments , pursuant to ORG decree of CARDINAL DATE , no . CARDINAL , on assistance to the victims of terrorist acts and the general obligation established by LAW of DATE . The latter provided that the damage caused by a terrorist attack should be compensated by the authorities of the federal constituency where the attack took place . It does not appear that an appeal was lodged against the judgment of DATE . These proceedings did not mention the then pending criminal investigation .

NORP The parties’ submissions contain no information to indicate that the applicants took any steps in the context of the criminal investigation into the terrorist attack or any other proceedings other than those described above .


CASE OF VISTIŅŠ AND PEREPJOLKINS v. LATVIA

Pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Pecuniary damage);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage)

András Sajó;André Potocki;Angelika Nußberger;Dean Spielmann;Elisabeth Steiner;Françoise Tulkens;Ján Šikuta;Julia Laffranque;Karel Jungwiert;Kristina Pardalos;Lech Garlicki;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Nicolas Bratza;Nona Tsotsoria;Peer Lorenzen

At the time of the expropriation of the applicants’ land , the cadastral value of real estate within the perimeter of a town or city was determined in accordance with regulation no . CARDINAL of DATE concerning the valuation of urban land ( GPE “ ORG pilsētu zemes vērtēšanu ” ) , which was in force until DATE . To the extent that it is pertinent in the present case , the preamble to the text contained the following definitions :

“ ... Cadastral value of a plot of land – the urban - planning and economic value of a plot of land , formulated in pecuniary terms .

Model value of a plot of land [ zemes paraugvērtība ] – maximum value of QUANTITY of urban land situated in a value zone [ vērtību zona ] for the purposes of its exploitation for a specific aim .

De facto model value of a plot of land [ zemes faktiskā paraugvērtība ] – maximum value of QUANTITY of urban land situated in a specific territory of a value zone [ vērtību zona ] for the purposes of its exploitation for a specific aim .

Value zone DATE a portion of urban territory corresponding to a constant set of data characterising the value of real estate .

DATE stipulated that the regulation was inapplicable to the determination of the market value of urban land . For the purposes of valuation , urban territory was to be divided into value zones based on the general land - use plan . The capital , GPE , was to be divided into CARDINAL or more zones ( DATE ) . Under LAW , the main zoning criteria were as follows :

position [ of land ] in relation to the city centre ;

NORP level of development of public - works infrastructure and social services ;

attractiveness of territory ;

NORP ecological conditions and consequences of negative factors ;

NORP local geological conditions ;

DATE of the regulation laid down the methodology for the calculation of the model value ( paraugvērtība ) of a plot of land . For cities such as GPE , the model value did not have to be specially calculated because it corresponded to a scale in annex no . CARDINAL to the regulation . In order to establish the de facto model value ( faktiskā paraugvērtība ) , it was necessary to calculate the difference between the model value of the zone in question and the adjacent zone , multiply it by the distance from the next zone , then divide the result by the width of the zone in question , and , lastly , add the corresponding model value from the fixed scale ( LAW ) . The de facto model value then had to be adjusted to take account of any buildings erected on the land ( LAW .

The de facto model value had to be multiplied by the surface area of the plot of land for its cadastral value to be obtained . It was then subject to adjustment within a limit of PERCENT to take account of certain positive or negative factors ( Articles DATE ) . The calculation of the cadastral value of land was the responsibility of ORG ( ORG dienests ) .

The relevant provisions of LAW ( Civillikums ) read as follows :

“ Where the contract provides for the payment of interest , its percentage shall be fixed , failing which it shall be presumed that the statutory rate ( see LAW ) has been tacitly agreed . ”

“ The interest rate shall be clearly established in the deed or contract . Failing that , as in cases where the payment of statutory interest is required by law , the rate shall be MONEY per annum . Interest may be calculated only on the capital itself . However , should the interest not be paid within the allotted time in respect of DATE or more , from that time onwards , at the creditor ’s request , statutory interest shall be calculated on the interest then accruing ” .

“ The interest rate shall be clearly established in the deed or contract . Failing that , as in cases where statutory interest is required by law , the rate shall be MONEY per annum .

The interest rate for late payment of a pecuniary debt provided for under a contract as consideration for the delivery or purchase of a good or service , shall be MONEY [ “ MONEY ” before DATE ] above the base rate ( DATE , third paragraph ) per annum ; as to contractual relations to which a consumer is party , [ the base rate shall be ] MONEY per annum .

The interest base rate shall be MONEY . The said rate shall be modified on DATE and DATE by the percentage corresponding to the increase or decrease in the most recent rate fixed for refinancing operations by ORG before DATE in question . After DATE and DATE , ORG shall immediately publish in the [ Official Gazette ] information on the applicable interest rate for DATE .

Interest may be calculated only on the capital itself . However , should the interest not be paid within the allotted time in respect of DATE or more , from that time onwards , at the creditor ’s request , statutory interest shall be calculated on the interest then accruing . ”

“ The interest shall cease to increase :

when the amount of the interest still unpaid reaches the amount of the capital ;

According to the calculator of inflation rates of ORG ( ORG pārvalde ) , the rate of inflation DATE of the entry into force of the relevant law on expropriation ; see paragraphs DATE of the principal judgment ) and DATE ( date of the principal judgment ) was PERCENT .


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

Branko Lubarda;Georgios A. Serghides;Pere Pastor Vilanova

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in Petrozavodsk , in GPE . She was a municipal unitary enterprise employee in Petrozavodsk , working for ORG DATE ( “ Avtokolonna CARDINAL ” , hereafter “ the company ” ) .

Avtokolonna DATE was set up in accordance with a decision of the administration of the town of Petrozavodsk ( “ the town administration ” ) , and provided public transport services in the town on a commercial basis . In order to carry out its statutory activities , the company had “ the right of economic control ” ( право хозяйственного ведения ) over the assets allocated to it by the town administration ( see PERSON and PERSON v. GPE , nos . CARDINAL and CARDINAL , § § CARDINAL , CARDINAL DATE for further details on the company ’s status ) . In accordance with several agreements between the company and the town administration , the company undertook to provide certain sections of the population with transport services free of charge , and the town administration was to reimburse it for the expenses incurred out of the budget allocated for that purpose by ORG of GPE or the federal budget . A letter from the town administration to the applicant dated DATE shows that at some point , owing to the relevant budgets lacking funds , the company was owed a significant amount of money . Consequently , it was unable to pay its employees on time . In DATE the town administration asked the legislative body of GPE to consider allocating additional funds to cover the company ’s debt , but to no avail .

On an unspecified date the town administration ordered the restructuring of the company in the form of a spin - off as a new entity , and transferred the assets mentioned in paragraph CARDINAL above to the newly created municipal unitary enterprise “ GPE DATE Plus ” . The debt which had accumulated in respect of the unpaid salaries was not transferred , and remained with the applicant ’s employer . On DATE ORG of GPE declared the debtor company “ GPE CARDINAL ” insolvent , and liquidation proceedings were commenced .

On DATE the ORG awarded the applicant MONEY ( RUB ) in respect of salary arrears , default interest and non - pecuniary damage . The judgment became final DATE . According to a payment note on a writ of execution of DATE , at some point the company paid the applicant RUB CARDINAL . The remainder of the judgment debt has remained unpaid .

On DATE a justice of the peace of the CARDINALth ORG of Petrozavodsk ordered the company to pay the applicant RUB CARDINAL in compensation for non - pecuniary damage . The award became final DATE , but was not paid to the applicant .

On DATE ORG of GPE ordered the company ’s liquidation . PERSON claims which had not been satisfied during the liquidation proceedings , including the applicant ’s remaining claims , were considered settled . On DATE the liquidation was recorded in ORG , and the company ceased to exist .

On DATE , in subsidiary liability proceedings , the ORG refused to hold the town administration liable for the company ’s debts . The court found that the applicant had failed to adduce evidence to demonstrate that it had caused the company ’s insolvency . It appears that the judgment was not appealed against .


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

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