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

Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Ledi Bianku;Paul Mahoney

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

Prior to her early retirement she had been employed for DATE and had paid her social security contributions to the ORG . DATE and DATE she received a disability pension .

On DATE the applicant filed an application with ORG ( ORG ) to be granted the right to an early - retirement pension for persons raising children who , due to the seriousness of their health condition , required constant care , the so - called “ EWK ” pension .

Along with her application for a pension , the applicant submitted , among other documents concerning her son ’s health condition , a medical certificate issued by a specialist doctor . The certificate stated that the child ( born in DATE ) suffered from chronic asthma and that he was in need of his parent ’s constant care .

On DATE ORG issued a decision granting the applicant the right to an earlyretirement pension with effect of DATE .

Due to the applicant ’s employment ORG initially suspended the payment of the pension until DATE . The payment started on DATE .

The EWK pension granted to the applicant amounted to MONEY ( PLN ) ( approximately ORG CARDINAL ) .

NORP The applicant was issued with a pensioner ’s identity card marked “ valid indefinitely ” and she continued to receive her pension without interruption until the date of the revocation of the right .

On an unspecified date ORG asked ORG doctor ( PERSON ) to inform it whether the applicant ’s son required the permanent care of a parent . The doctor stated that , on the basis of the medical documents , the child could not be considered as ever having required such care .

On DATE ORG issued simultaneously CARDINAL decisions in respect of the applicant .

By virtue of CARDINAL decision , the payment of the applicant ’s pension was discontinued with immediate effect . By virtue of the other decision , ORG revoked the initial decision granting a pension and eventually refused to grant the applicant the right to an earlyretirement pension under the scheme provided for by the DATE Ordinance .

The applicant appealed against the respective decisions divesting her of the right to an early - retirement pension . She submitted that she should receive the benefit because her child required constant care , as confirmed by the medical certificate attached to the original application for a pension . Moreover , the applicant alleged that the revocation of her retirement pension was contrary to the principle of vested rights .

On DATE the Rzeszów Regional Court ( PERSON ) dismissed the applicant ’s appeal .

The applicant appealed against the first - instance judgment .

On DATE the ORG dismissed the applicant ’s further appeal . The domestic court held that the applicant had been rightfully divested of her right to a pension under the scheme provided by the DATE Ordinance as she had not satisfied the requirement of necessary permanent care .

On DATE ORG refused to examine the applicant ’s cassation appeal . ORG decision was served on the applicant ’s lawyer on DATE .

Following the social security proceedings the applicant was not ordered to return her early - retirement benefits paid by ORG , despite the revocation of her right to an early - retirement pension .

NORP Throughout the whole period of receiving the EWK pension the applicant did not work .

On DATE the applicant registered her business activity which she continued until DATE . DATE and DATE the activity was suspended .

DATE the applicant was employed .

The Government submitted that the applicant ’s gross DATE income in DATE amounted to ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL ( approx . EUR CARDINAL ) which constituted PERCENT of the average salary in GPE at the relevant time .

On DATE the applicant turned DATE and she was granted a right to early retirement . DATE the early retirement amounted to ORG CARDINAL ( approx . EUR CARDINAL - CARDINAL ) which constituted approx . PERCENT of the average net salary at the relevant time .

The Government submitted that “ DATE the applicant was making profits of her business activity ” , however , they were unable to submit information as regards the amount of the profits .

The applicant submitted that her business activity was a small shop in a modest wooden pavilion . She was forced to undertake this activity because of her economic situation after the revocation of her EWK pension . The profits were irregular and very modest . Sometimes she could not afford to pay the taxes and social insurance premiums and had to borrow money to do so . She produced her tax declarations for DATE from which it emerges that from her business activity she earned ORG MONEY ( approx . EUR CARDINAL ) in DATE , ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL ( TIME . EUR CARDINAL ) in DATE and ORG CARDINAL ( approx . EUR CARDINAL ) in DATE . In DATE her tax declaration showed a loss of ORG CARDINAL ( approx . EUR CARDINAL ) .


Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)

Aleš Pejchal;André Potocki;Angelika Nußberger;Ganna Yudkivska;Helena Jäderblom;Mark Villiger;Vincent A. De Gaetano

The applicant , who was born in DATE , is serving a DATE prison sentence imposed on DATE by the Meurthe - et - ORG for murder , attempted murder and assault involving the use or threatened use of a weapon . He has been imprisoned since DATE and will become eligible for release on DATE .

On DATE , while he was in prison in PERSON , the applicant fell QUANTITY during an attempted escape and suffered a fractured spine . He spent DATE at the PERSON rehabilitation clinic before being transferred to FAC , where he encountered substantial difficulties ( particularly on account of the staircases , which made it impossible for him to move about unaided ) , and FAC , where his cell was not equipped for wheelchair use . He was subsequently transferred back to PERSON from DATE until DATE . From that date until DATE he was held in FAC , before being transferred to FAC , where he is currently detained .

On DATE the applicant applied to the Tulle judge responsible for the execution of sentences to have his sentence suspended on medical grounds , under LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . He explained that as a wheelchair user with paraplegia , he was not being detained in appropriate conditions since the premises were not designed for wheelchair use , and he was unable to receive the care he required . He noted that access to the toilet in his cell was undignified , that he could not reach all parts of the prison premises unaided , and that the provision of medical and paramedical care was inadequate , particularly as regards physiotherapy . He pointed out that he was unable to go to the showers autonomously and that the prison had assigned a prisoner to assist him for a payment of CARDINAL per month . This prison orderly was responsible for cleaning the applicant ’s cell and accompanying him to the showers and washroom .

In an order of CARDINAL DATE the judge appointed CARDINAL doctors as experts . They submitted their reports on CARDINAL and CARDINAL DATE .

NORP The report by PERSON , drawn up on DATE , concluded :

“ ... Mr PERSON has incomplete paraplegia with total effective urinary incontinence requiring self - catheterisation and round - the - clock use of a nappy . He also has major haemorrhoidal irregularities , for which he has refused any treatment .

Mr PERSON currently has active muscle relaxation in the CARDINAL lower limbs , for which physiotherapy is required several times a week on a regular , long - term basis .

That being so , Mr PERSON ’s state of health is not incompatible with imprisonment , subject to the express condition of being detained in a facility catering for his disability , where he can undergo regular physiotherapy and have appropriate access to a gym . ”

The report by PERSON was drawn up on DATE and read as follows :

“ ... On DATE ... PERSON stated : ... ‘ his condition requires treatment by a physiotherapist in a specialist environment and DATE pressure - sore ORG . ...

The most recent assessment at ORG , where the patient stayed from DATE , confirms that there has been a good sensorimotor recovery in the lower limbs and that mobility is possible with CARDINAL walking sticks and a frame , whereas at present the patient mainly moves about in a wheelchair .

Appropriate physiotherapy focusing on both the joints and the muscles would clearly enable the prisoner to perform his own transfers with technical support , which would also have the benefit of easing the complications at the pressure points . At the same time , alongside the favourable progress in this post - traumatic condition , the patient has an anal disorder as a result of haemorrhoid surgery , and this essentially causes discomfort on a functional level .

Conclusion

- The prisoner displays sensorimotor damage resulting from a thoracolumbar spine fracture ;

- The damage is stable with clear evidence of motor recovery in the lower limbs ;

- Daily physiotherapy would be justified to improve motor skills in the lower limbs and the quality of transfers , but this is not possible at ORG as there is no on - site physiotherapist ;

- There is permanent sensory damage in the ORG region requiring self - catheterisation , which is being adequately managed on a day - to - DATE basis by the prisoner ;

- All of these spinal conditions are currently stable and unlikely to worsen , but could improve with proper treatment ;

- The various disorders observed , in terms of both traumatic spinal cord injuries and anal damage , are not life - endangering for the prisoner ;

- The prisoner ’s state of health is in my opinion not incompatible in the long term with continued detention ;

- The disorders currently observed are stable and will continue to develop on a chronic basis , justifying palliative care . ”

In a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG dismissed the application for suspension of the applicant ’s sentence . It took into account the CARDINAL concurring medical opinions in finding that the applicant ’s state of health was compatible in the long term with his imprisonment . However , the court observed that “ ORG manifestly fails to satisfy the criteria for ensuring a suitable detention regime for the applicant , in terms of both the LOC and the availability of paramedical care , despite the undisputed efforts by the prison ’s management and staff to ease the prisoner ’s living conditions as far as possible ” . It then noted that there were custodial facilities that were equipped to cater for the applicant ’s condition , such as ORG or PERSON , “ which is designed and organised in a manner compatible with accommodating disabled prisoners , and where [ he ] will be able to have the regular physiotherapy sessions that he rightly demands , since a masseur / physiotherapist comes to the prison DATE ” . The court concluded as follows :

“ It therefore appears from all of the above considerations , both from a medical perspective and in terms of the prospect of arranging suitable conditions of detention , that the prisoner does not satisfy the requirements for having his sentence suspended on medical grounds . ”

NORP The applicant appealed against the judgment of CARDINAL DATE . He reiterated that besides the structural inadequacy of ORG , he had not been offered any special arrangements in terms of medical and paramedical care ( physiotherapy and access to the gym ) . He also submitted that PERSON was no more suitable than FAC as it did not have a rehabilitation facility .

In a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG of ORG upheld the judgment of DATE , holding :

“ The CARDINAL experts concurred in concluding that [ the applicant ’s ] condition was not incompatible in the long term with detention provided that he was given physiotherapy and access to a gym . While it is indeed not possible for these requirements to be fulfilled at ORG , where [ the applicant ] has been transferred at his own request to be closer to his family , it has not been shown that he can not be accommodated in conditions catering for his disorders at FAC , and therefore the criteria for suspending the execution of his sentence have not been satisfied , particularly since [ the applicant ] continues to deny – as stated in his letter of CARDINAL DATE the serious criminal acts that led to his conviction . ”

The applicant appealed on points of law . In a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG declared the appeal inadmissible .

In a letter of CARDINAL DATE to ORG , the applicant contended that he was not undergoing any physical rehabilitation , there being no physiotherapist at ORG , and that he had no access to the gym . He wrote that his health was deteriorating on a DATE basis and that he was being mistreated through the lack of provision of care .

According to the Government , the applicant has received the following medical assistance :

( a ) twelve occasions of escorted leave between CARDINAL DATE and DATE for specialist consultations and medical imaging tests at ORG and ORG ;

( b ) CARDINAL medical appointments with a doctor from the prison medical unit , consisting of a medical examination on CARDINAL DATE followed by consultations spread across his time at the prison ( CARDINAL in DATE , CARDINAL in DATE , CARDINAL in DATE , CARDINAL in DATE , CARDINAL in DATE ) ;

( c ) three stays in hospital for DATE in DATE , DATE and DATE ;

( d ) technical assistance from nurses on CARDINAL occasions DATE , plus DATE meetings with the prison nurse ;

( e ) NORP eight psychiatric consultations and CARDINAL meetings with a psychiatric nurse ;

( f ) provision of medical equipment to alleviate or offset disabilities , including a walking frame ( DATE ) , an anti - pressure - sore cushion ( DATE ) , spectacles ( DATE ) , a new wheelchair ( DATE ) , and an electrostimulation device ( DATE ) .

In addition to the treatment described above , the Government informed the ORG that from DATE the applicant had attended physiotherapy sessions at ORG . The physiotherapist ’s services had been engaged following CARDINAL letters dated DATE , CARDINAL DATE and DATE in which the interregional director of ORG had alerted the Director General of ORG to the detrimental effects of the lack of physiotherapy on the care provided to prisoners .

The Government added that the applicant had been offered the opportunity to attend yoga classes but had been removed from the list of those enrolled for the classes because of his non - attendance .

The applicant confirmed the occasions of escorted leave mentioned by the Government but pointed out that on each occasion he had been transferred by ambulance – with his wrists and ankles handcuffed DATE and had had to undergo a full body search beforehand and a rub - down search afterwards . He added that the full body searches carried out whenever he received visits and when he was escorted outside the prison were deeply humiliating ; he was obliged to have his nappy inspected , and in order to proceed more quickly , several warders carried out this task together . During CARDINAL inspection , a senior warder had said in front of everyone that “ the boss had given instructions to inspect his nappy ” . The applicant maintained that as a result of these practices , he had asked his sister to visit him less frequently .

With regard to the applicant ’s complaints about the instances of escorted leave and the body searches , the Government pointed out that the physical damage he had suffered could not be regarded as having eradicated any security risk , since his health had no bearing on his potential connections on the outside and the risk of his escaping . To that end , they produced copies of CARDINAL decisions dated DATE ( month illegible ) and DATE ordering individual ( full body ) searches in connection with escorted leave for medical reasons . They noted that in DATE the applicant had been sent to a punishment cell for DATE following an assault on a fellow prisoner and the discovery of a mobile telephone in his cell . They stated that searches in the prison were not carried out systematically but on the basis of incidents noted during visits or in the cells . They produced CARDINAL decisions ordering individual searches , dated DATE and DATE and CARDINAL DATE ( involving searches of the applicant ’s cell ) , and CARDINAL decisions ordering a CARDINAL - off search of a specific sector of the prison after the visits received on DATE , CARDINAL DATE , DATE , CARDINAL DATE , DATE , CARDINAL DATE and CARDINAL DATE .

With regard to physiotherapy , the applicant pointed out that he had only started receiving it in DATE and that it was limited to a DATE TIME session . He produced a medical certificate issued on DATE by a doctor from ORG ( unité de consultation et de soins ambulatoires – “ the ORG ” ) stating that his “ condition requires DATE rehabilitation , which ORG is unable to provide , both on account of the lack of qualified staff and because the premises are not suitably equipped . As a result , the patient can not remain in this facility without his health suffering . He must be given the possibility of admission to a specialised facility . ” The applicant submitted that the doctor was repeating what his colleagues had already noted on CARDINAL DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) and DATE ; he produced a medical certificate signed on the latter date by a doctor from the ORG who stated that the applicant could not remain in the facility without his health suffering and added that “ his paraplegia must be treated in a rehabilitation centre ” .

With regard to the electrostimulation device , the applicant submitted that his doctor had obtained the funds needed to purchase it but that the prison authorities had not allowed him to do so . As to the possibility of attending yoga classes , the applicant pointed out that he had been urged to go no more than once DATE in order to avoid “ monopolising ” the lift leading to where the classes were held .

The applicant again stressed that he was dependent on the prison orderly responsible for assisting him in his DATE activities . The prisoner currently “ assigned ” to that duty was the third since his admission to the prison , and the applicant was dependent on him for supplying incontinence products , accompanying him to the showers ( there was a step preventing unassisted wheelchair access ) and cleaning his cell . This level of dependency and the problems associated with his incontinence complicated his relationship with the orderly . Going to the shower was a stressful time because the structure did not shield him from the view of others and his incontinence exposed him to extremely humiliating situations , causing irritation or even hostility on the part of his fellow inmates , who were unwilling to put up with such inconvenience in the course of their personal hygiene activities .

Lastly , the applicant informed the ORG that he had been temporarily transferred to a cell in the secure unit , further to a decision by the classification board , after a mobile phone had been found in his cell . Under the resulting regime , he had access to TIME exercise in TIME in the TIME , despite the fact that a doctor had issued a certificate on DATE stating that his condition required access to CARDINAL ORG exercise a day . The Government stated that the applicant had been transferred back to his cell on DATE .

The applicant submitted that although the prison management had indeed encouraged him to request a transfer to PERSON , their approach had been guided by purely administrative considerations unconnected to his care - related needs . The management had refused to give the slightest undertaking about the conditions in which he would be accommodated in GPE and the care he could be given there . They had been unable to provide any guarantees as to care arrangements as there were CARDINAL cells for disabled prisoners at that facility and they were all occupied , and a single physiotherapist came to the prison for DATE a week to provide services for CARDINAL prisoners . The applicant contended that he had not applied for a transfer on the grounds that the prison in question did not offer appropriate care facilities and would simply have represented a further upheaval and ordeal for him following his repeated moves from CARDINAL prison to another ( CARDINAL transfers DATE ) . He referred to information obtained from ORG ( Observatoire international des prisons DATE ) by his sister and his lawyer and produced a copy of an email sent by ORG to his lawyer on DATE , reading as follows :

“ I do not think that PERSON and PERSON are particularly well equipped although , like all recent establishments , they do have disabled cells . I attach a decision in which ORG found , in relation to another wheelchair user , that ‘ no custodial facility is equipped to cater for the applicant ’s condition’ and accordingly suspended the execution of his sentence . ... Nevertheless , I consider it important to stress the consequences of a change of prison , not only in terms of family ties but also as regards the procedure for requesting a suspension of the sentence , since that procedure would then have to be started over again . ... ”

The applicant emphasised in any event that the medical unit at ORG had not recommended his transfer to PERSON but rather the provision of treatment in a specialist facility .

The Government submitted that the applicant ’s transfer to PERSON had been envisaged by the health - care professionals at ORG but observed that he had never actually requested such a transfer ; after mentioning a transfer request , he had indicated DATE ( CARDINAL DATE ) that he did not intend to pursue it , for reasons that were unclear . The ORG also produced a note drawn up on DATE , which in their submission suggested that “ the applicant ’s main motivation related to the previous decisions of the judicial authorities on requests for suspension of sentences , rather than to the treatment he might receive ” . They rejected the applicant ’s arguments about the inability of PERSON to accommodate him and submitted , in their additional observations , that CARDINAL of the CARDINAL cells reserved for people with reduced mobility were occupied . They produced a copy of an email sent by ORG in DATE indicating the availability of such cells . They also pointed out that an agreement had been signed in DATE between PERSON , the ORG and a non - governmental organisation with a view to providing appropriate care for dependent prisoners with specialist professional assistance .


George Nicolaou;Guido Raimondi;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Ledi Bianku;Nona Tsotsoria;Päivi Hirvelä;Paul Mahoney

NORP The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a NORP national , who was born in DATE and lives in GPE . He was represented before the ORG by ORG , a firm of solicitors based in GPE .


Preliminary objection dismissed (Article 35-1 - Exhaustion of domestic remedies);Preliminary objection dismissed (Article 35-3 - Continuing situation);Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (Article 34 - Victim);Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Positive obligations;Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions;Possessions);Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8 - Positive obligations;Article 8-1 - Respect for family life;Respect for home;Respect for private life);Violation of Article 13 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy);Just satisfaction reserved (Article 41 - Just satisfaction)

Alvina Gyulumyan;Christos Rozakis;Corneliu Bîrsan;Dean Spielmann;Egbert Myjer;Egidijus Kūris;Elisabet Fura;Françoise Tulkens;Ganna Yudkivska;George Nicolaou;Giorgio Malinverni;Guido Raimondi;Ineta Ziemele;Jean-Paul Costa;Josep Casadevall;Khanlar Hajiyev;Luis López Guerra;Mark Villiger;Nicolas Bratza;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Peer Lorenzen;Robert Spano;Sverre Erik Jebens;Ksenija Turković

At the time of the demise of the GPE , the GPE - GPE ( “ the NKAO ” ) was an autonomous province of GPE ( “ the GPE SSR ” ) . Situated within the territory of the GPE SSR , it covered CARDINAL sq . km . There was at that time no common border between Nagorno - Karabakh ( known as Artsakh by its NORP name ) and the NORP Soviet GPE ( “ the NORP SSR ” ) , which were separated by NORP territory , at the shortest distance by the district of Lachin , including a strip of land often referred to as the “ NORP corridor ” , QUANTITY wide .

According to the GPE census of DATE , the ORG had a population of CARDINAL consisting of PERCENT ethnic NORP and PERCENT ethnic NORP , with NORP and NORP minorities .

NORP In DATE demonstrations were held in PERSON , the regional capital of the NKAO as well as in the NORP capital of GPE , demanding the incorporation of GPE - Karabakh into GPE . On DATE the NORP of the ORG appealed to ORG of the NORP SSR , GPE SSR and the GPE that the NKAO be allowed to secede from GPE and join GPE . The request was rejected by ORG of the GPE on DATE . In DATE it was also rejected by ORG whereas its counterpart in GPE voted in favour of unification .

NORP Throughout DATE the demonstrations calling for unification continued . The district of Lachin was subjected to roadblocks and attacks . The clashes led to many casualties and refugees , numbering CARDINAL on both sides , flowed between GPE and GPE . As a consequence , on QUANTITY DATE ORG placed the ORG under GPE ’s direct rule . However , on DATE , control of the province was returned to GPE . DATE , on DATE , ORG of the NORP SSR and the ORG regional council adopted a joint resolution , “ On the reunification of GPE - Karabakh with GPE ” .

In DATE , following an escalation of the conflict , NORP troops arrived in GPE and GPE - Karabakh , and the latter province was placed under a state of emergency . Violent clashes between NORP and NORP continued , however , with the occasional intervention by NORP forces .

On DATE GPE declared independence from GPE . This was subsequently formalised by means of the adoption of LAW on ORG of DATE . On DATE the NORP of the ORG announced the establishment of the “ GPE - GPE ” ( hereinafter “ the NKR ” ) , consisting of the territory of the NKAO and the LOC of GPE , and declared that it was no longer under NORP jurisdiction . On CARDINAL DATE the ORG abolished the autonomy previously enjoyed by PERSON . In a referendum organised in GPE - Karabakh on DATE , PERCENT of those participating voted in favour of secession . However , the NORP population boycotted the referendum . In DATE , GPE was dissolved and NORP troops began to withdraw from the region . Military control of ORG was rapidly passing to PERSON . On DATE the “ NKR ” having regard to the results of the referendum , reaffirmed its independence from GPE .

NORP In DATE the conflict gradually escalated into full - scale war . By DATE , ethnic NORP forces had gained control over almost the entire territory of the former GPE as well as CARDINAL adjacent NORP regions ( ORG , PERSON , PERSON and GPE and substantial parts of PERSON and PERSON ) .

On DATE a ceasefire agreement ( the Bishkek Protocol ) was signed by GPE , GPE and the “ NKR ” following NORP mediation . It came into effect on DATE

According to a ORG report ( “ DATE of Conflict in GPE - Karabakh ” , DATE ) , DATE an estimated CARDINAL NORP were forced out of ORG , GPE , and the CARDINAL NORP districts surrounding GPE - Karabakh . According to information from NORP authorities , CARDINAL NORP refugees from GPE and CARDINAL internally displaced persons ( from regions in GPE bordering GPE ) have been registered .

According to ORG , the “ ORG ” controls CARDINAL sq . km of the former ORG . While it is debated how much of the CARDINAL partly conquered districts is occupied by the “ NKR ” , it appears that the occupied territory of the CARDINAL surrounding districts in total amounts to CARDINAL sq . km .

Estimates of DATE ’s population of GPE - Karabakh vary CARDINAL people , PERCENT being of NORP ethnicity . Virtually no Azerbaijanis remain .

No political settlement of the conflict has so far been reached . The self - proclaimed independence of the “ ORG ” has not been recognised by any ORG or any international organisation . Recurring breaches of the DATE ceasefire agreement along the borders have led to the loss of many lives and the rhetoric of officials remains hostile . Moreover , according to international reports , tension has heightened in DATE and military expenditure in GPE and GPE has increased significantly .

Several proposals for a peaceful solution of the conflict have failed . Negotiations have been carried out under the auspices of the OSCE ( Organization for Security and Co - operation in LOC ) and its so - called ORG . In GPE in DATE the ORG ’s CARDINAL Co - Chairs – GPE , GPE and GPE – presented to GPE and GPE a set of Basic Principles for a settlement . The Basic Principles , which later have been updated , call , inter alia , for the return of the territories surrounding GPE - Karabakh to NORP control , an interim status for GPE - Karabakh providing guarantees for security and self - governance , a corridor linking GPE to GPE - Karabakh , a future determination of the final legal status of GPE - Karabakh through a legally binding referendum , the right of all internally displaced persons and refugees to return to their former places of residence , and international security guarantees that would include a peacekeeping operation . The idea is that the endorsement of these principles by GPE and GPE would enable the drafting of a comprehensive and detailed settlement . Following intensive shuttle diplomacy by ORG diplomats and a number of meetings between the Presidents of the CARDINAL countries in DATE , the process lost momentum in DATE . So far the parties to the conflict have not signed a formal agreement on ORG .

On DATE ORG presented a “ Report of ORG - Chairs’ Field Assessment Mission to GPE Nagorno - Karabakh ” , the executive summary of which reads as follows :

“ ORG conducted a Field Assessment Mission to the CARDINAL occupied territories of GPE surrounding GPE - Karabakh ( NK ) from DATE , to assess the overall situation there , including humanitarian and other aspects . ORG were joined by ORG Chairman - in - Office and his team , which provided logistical support , and by CARDINAL experts from the ORG and CARDINAL member of the DATE OSCE Fact - Finding Mission . This was the first mission by the international community to the territories DATE , and the first visit by ORG personnel in DATE .

In traveling QUANTITY throughout the territories , ORG saw stark evidence of the disastrous consequences of the GPE - Karabakh conflict and the failure to reach a peaceful settlement . Towns and villages that existed before the conflict are abandoned and almost entirely in ruins . While no reliable figures exist , the overall population is CARDINAL persons , living in small settlements and in the towns of ORG . ORG assess that there has been no significant growth in the population since DATE . The settlers , for the most part ethnic NORP who were relocated to the territories from elsewhere in GPE , live in precarious conditions , with poor infrastructure , little economic activity , and limited access to public services . Many lack identity documents . For administrative purposes , the CARDINAL territories , the former LOC , and other areas have been incorporated into CARDINAL new districts .

The harsh reality of the situation in the territories has reinforced the view of the CoChairs that the status quo is unacceptable , and that only a peaceful , negotiated settlement can bring the prospect of a better , more certain future to the people who used to live in the territories and those who live there now . The Co - Chairs urge the leaders of all the parties to avoid any activities in the territories and other disputed areas that would prejudice a final settlement or change the character of these areas . They also recommend that measures be taken to preserve cemeteries and places of worship in the territories and to clarify the status of settlers who lack identity documents . ORG intend to undertake further missions to other areas affected by the FAC conflict , and to include in such missions experts from relevant international agencies that would be involved in implementing a peace settlement . ”

On DATE the Presidents of the Co - Chair countries of the GPE group issued a joint statement on the GPE - Karabakh conflict :

“ We , the Presidents of ORG countries – GPE , GPE , and GPE – remain committed to helping the parties to the Nagorno - Karabakh conflict reach a lasting and peaceful settlement . We express our deep regret that , rather than trying to find a solution based upon mutual interests , the parties have continued to seek CARDINAL - sided advantage in the negotiation process .

We continue to firmly believe that the elements outlined in the statements of our countries over DATE must be the foundation of any fair and lasting settlement to the ORG - Karabakh conflict . These elements should be seen as an integrated whole , as any attempt to select some elements over others would make it impossible to achieve a balanced solution .

We reiterate that only a negotiated settlement can lead to peace , stability , and reconciliation , opening opportunities for regional development and cooperation . The use of military force that has already created the current situation of confrontation and instability will not resolve the conflict . A renewal of hostilities would be disastrous for the population of the region , resulting in loss of life , more destruction , additional refugees , and enormous financial costs . We strongly urge the leaders of all the sides to recommit to the GPE principles , particularly those relating to the non - use of force or the threat of force , territorial integrity , and equal rights and self - determination of peoples . We also appeal to them to refrain from any actions or rhetoric that could raise tension in the region and lead to escalation of the conflict . The leaders should prepare their people for peace , not war .

Our countries stand ready to assist the sides , but the responsibility for putting an end to the Nagorno - Karabakh conflict remains with them . We strongly believe that further delay in reaching a balanced agreement on the framework for a comprehensive peace is unacceptable , and urge the leaders of GPE and GPE to focus with renewed energy on the issues that remain unresolved . ”

The applicant , an ethnic NORP , states that he and his family used to live in the village of GPE in the Shahumyan region of the GPE SSR . He claims to have had a house and outhouses there .

Geographically , Shahumyan shared a border with the NKAO and was situated to the north of it . The region did not form part of the NKAO , but was later claimed by the “ NKR ” as part of its territory ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . According to the applicant , PERCENT of the population of Shahumyan had been ethnic NORP prior to the conflict .

In DATE Shahumyan was abolished as a separate administrative region and was formally incorporated into the present - day Goranboy region of GPE .

In DATE ORG and the specialpurpose militia units ( “ the LAW ” ) of the GPE SSR launched a military operation with the stated purpose of “ passport checking ” and disarming local NORP militants in the region . However , according to various sources , the government forces , using the official purpose of the operation as a pretext , expelled the NORP population of a number of villages in the FAC region , thus forcing them to leave their homes and flee to ORG or GPE . The expulsions were accompanied by arrests and violence towards the civilian population . In DATE , when the conflict escalated into a full - scale war , Shahumyan region came under attack by NORP forces .

NORP The parties’ positions differ in respect of the applicant ’s residence and possessions in GPE .

The applicant maintained that he had lived in GPE for most of his life until his forced displacement in DATE . In support of this claim he submitted a copy of his former NORP passport issued in DATE , from which it can be seen that the applicant was born in GPE . He also submitted his marriage certificate , which shows that he and his wife , who was also born in GPE , got married there in DATE . In addition , the applicant asserted that , having grown up in GPE , he left for DATE to complete his military service and to work in the town of ORG . DATE after his marriage he returned to GPE where he lived until DATE .

The applicant submitted a copy of an official certificate ( “ technical passport ” ) when he lodged the application . According to that document , dated DATE , a CARDINAL - storey house in GPE and outhouses of a total area of CARDINAL sq . m and CARDINAL sq . m of land were registered in the applicant ’s name . Furthermore he submitted a detailed plan of the main house .

According to the technical passport , of the QUANTITY . m on which the house stood , QUANTITY m were occupied by the main house and CARDINAL by various outhouses including a cow - shed . Of the CARDINAL sq . m of land CARDINAL were a fruit and vegetable garden . The document also contains information of a technical nature ( for instance the building materials used ) concerning the main house and the outhouses .

The applicant explained that he had obtained the land by permission of ORG to divide his father ’s plot of land between him and his brother . The decision was recorded in ORG register . With the help of relatives and friends , he and his wife built their house on that plot of land in DATE . Their CARDINAL children grew up in the house and he and his wife continued to live there until they had to flee in DATE . Furthermore , the applicant explained that he had been a secondary school teacher in GPE and had earned his living partly from his salary and partly from farming and stock - breeding on his land while his wife had been working at the village ’s collective farm since DATE .

In addition to the technical passport and the plan of the house mentioned above , the applicant submitted photos of the house and written statements dating from DATE from CARDINAL former officials of ORG , PERSON and PERSON . The former states that she was the secretary of ORG from DATE . She confirms that ORG allowed the applicant to divide his father ’s plot of land between himself and his brother . Both , PERSON and PERSON who states the he was a member of ORG for DATE in DATE , claim that entries about the allotment of land to villagers were made in the registration book of ORG . A number of further written statements from DATE from family members ( including the applicant ’s wife , CARDINAL of their children and his son - in - law ) , former neighbours and friends from GPE provide a description of GPE and confirm that the applicant was a secondary school teacher and had a plot of land and a CARDINAL - storey house in the village . They also confirm that a number of outhouses and a fruit and vegetable garden belonged to the applicant ’s house , where he and his family lived until DATE .

The applicant described that Shahumyan region was subjected to a blockade by ORG in DATE . In DATE the armed forces started attacking the region . In DATE GPE came under direct attack by NORP forces . From DATE the village was heavily bombed . The population of the village , including the applicant and his family members , fled in fear for their lives . The above - mentioned statements of a number of witnesses also provide a description of the blockade of LOC during the conflict , of the attack on the village and the flight of its inhabitants .

NORP The applicant and his family fled to GPE . Subsequently , the applicant and his wife lived as refugees in GPE . In DATE the applicant obtained NORP citizenship . He was seriously ill from DATE and died on DATE in GPE .

The respondent Government submitted that it could not be verified whether the applicant had actually lived in GPE and had any possessions there . For the period from DATE to the present date , the relevant departments of the ORG region did not possess any documentation concerning the plot of land , house or other buildings allegedly owned by the applicant . Moreover , certain archives of the former Shahumyan region , including ORG and ORG , had been destroyed during the hostilities . No documents relating to the applicant were available in the ORG regional archives DATE .

In support of their position the ORG submitted a number of documents , namely : a statement , dated DATE , by Colonel PERSON , Head of the Goranboy Regional Police Department confirming that the archives of ORG and of ORG of the former LOC had been destroyed during the conflict ; a letter from ORG of DATE according to which the relevant ORG Archives did not contain any document concerning the applicant ’s alleged property rights ; a statement dated DATE by PERSON , Chairman of ORG , according to whom only ORG of the NORP of ORG of the Districts and Cities had been empowered to allocate land under LAW of the GPE SSR .

NORP The parties’ positions also differ in respect of the current situation obtaining in GPE . ORG , as a third - party intervener , also made submissions on the issue .

Regarding the situation in GPE , the applicant asserted that GPE had control over the village and in particular that they had positions in the village itself and on its outskirts . In his view there was nothing to prove that GPE was on ORG ( ORG ) between NORP and “ NKR ” forces as claimed by the respondent Government .

In the proceedings prior to the admissibility decision , the applicant submitted a written statement from an anonymous senior officer of the “ ORG ” armed forces dated DATE , according to whom GPE was under the de facto control of NORP military forces ( see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) . Moreover , the applicant asserted that fellow villagers had tried to return to GPE on several occasions but had been unable to enter the village as they would have risked to be shot at by NORP forces .

The Government accepted throughout the proceedings that GPE was located on the internationally recognized territory of GPE .

In their submissions prior to the admissibility decision , the Government asserted that GPE was physically on the ORG between NORP and NORP forces , which had been established by the ceasefire agreement of DATE . The village was deserted and the ORG was maintained by the stationing of armed forces on either side and by the extensive use of landmines . It was thus impossible for the respondent Government to exercise any control over the area or to have any access to it .

In their submissions after the admissibility decision the ORG stated that they did not exercise sufficient control over the village . Referring to the statements of a number of military officers who had served in the GPE region and had made statements on the situation in GPE ( see , paragraph CARDINAL below ) they submitted in particular that the village , situated in a “ v ” shaped valley on the northern bank of the river PERSON was on the ORG , meaning that it was surrounded by armed forces of GPE on the one side ( in the north and east ) and of GPE on the other side ( in the south and west ) . NORP forces held strategically advantageous positions on a steep , forested slope south of the river , while NORP positions on the north bank of the river were situated in lower , relatively open territory . The Government asserted that , as a matter of fact , GPE was not under the effective control of either side . It was a contested area and constituted a dangerous environment . The village and its surroundings were mined . Violations of the ceasefire agreement occurred frequently . There were no safe buildings in the area as the village had been destroyed and deserted .

In their pleadings at the hearing of CARDINAL DATE , the Government underlined that GPE was exposed to fire from NORP military positions situated across the river on a steep slope . In addition , they referred to the ORG report on GPE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL below ) , noting that it confirmed , apart from the fact that GPE was on NORP territory , that the area around GPE was mountainous and was the object of sustained military activity and that the village had been destroyed . They maintained that the area was mined and inaccessible to any civilian .

The intervening Government maintained throughout the proceedings that the respondent Government had full , effective control over GPE .

At the hearing of DATE they had contested the respondent Government ’s assertion that GPE was on the LoC. Referring to the written statement of CARDINAL DATE by an anonymous senior officer of the “ NKR ” armed forces serving near GPE which had been submitted by the applicant , the Agent of ORG had declared that he had been personally present when the statement had been made and confirmed its correctness . On the basis of this statement , ORG asserted that in the area at issue , the dividing line between the armed forces of the “ NKR ” and GPE was a gorge through which the river ORG was flowing . GPE was situated north of the riverside and was under the control of NORP armed forces who had military positions in the village itself and on its outskirts , while “ NKR ” forces were stationed on the other side of the gorge . They also referred to the DVD containing footage of the village submitted to ORG by the applicant in DATE ( see paragraph QUANTITY below ) claiming that the person who can be seen walking between the houses , was an NORP soldier . ORG maintained that it was impossible for “ NKR ” forces or any NORP to have access to the village .

In their submissions following the admissibility decision , ORG disclosed the identity of the senior “ ORG ” officer at the ORG ’s request . The officer in question is Colonel PERSON of the “ ORG . Moreover , ORG submitted that their Agent , PERSON , had obtained permission from the “ NKR ” authorities and had visited the territory near GPE in DATE . He had obtained DVD material and recorded interviews with CARDINAL “ NKR ” officers describing the situation on the ground in and near GPE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . ORG also replied to the ORG ’s question concerning their assertion made at the hearing of CARDINAL September CARDINAL that the man walking between the ruins on the DVD submitted by the applicant in DATE was an NORP soldier : While stating that they were not in a position to comment on that man ’s identity , they referred to statements of the “ NKR ” military officers according to whom there were NORP military positions in GPE , while there was no presence of civilians .

At the hearing of CARDINAL DATE ORG repeated their description of the situation pertaining in GPE . Moreover , they asserted that NORP military presence in the area had also been confirmed by the ORG report .

The parties have submitted extensive documentary material in support of their respective positions . The following paragraphs contain a short description of the main items of evidence .

A map of GPE and its surroundings : It appears to be a copy of an official map with names in NORP , showing the entire village on the north bank of a river ( ORG ) . The alleged positions of the NORP forces are indicated as follows : CARDINAL is in the middle of the village , a few more are on its northern edge , others are also spread out on the north bank of the river but are further away , most of them apparently on the heights around the village .

A DVD , submitted with his observations of DATE , containing footage of GPE and its surroundings . The village is situated on a hillside . Many of the houses are in ruins , while a few still have intact roofs . Smoke is rising from some chimneys . At CARDINAL point a man walking between the ruins appears . On a hillside situated in some distance from the village , constructions are to be seen which appear to be firing positions .

A letter by the “ Minister of Defence of the ORG ” of DATE describing the situation on the ground in GPE and claiming in particular that ORG had several posts and shooting points right in the village .

A statement dated CARDINAL DATE by a senior officer of the “ NKR ” forces serving in a military position near the village of GPE since DATE ( see the summary of the statement at paragraph CARDINAL above ) . The statement was accompanied by a hand - drawn map of GPE and its surroundings and a number of photos showing the area . The officer , who had initially remained anonymous , is Colonel PERSON from the “ ORG .

A statement of PERSON , assistant to the representative of the applicant , who recorded the statement by the “ NKR ” officer on the spot , i.e. at the military unit near GPE , confirming the contents of that officer ’s statement and that the photos were taken from the “ NKR ” military position .

A Statement of PERSON , Agent of ORG , in whose presence the senior “ ORG ” officer made his statement at his military unit close to GPE .

Statements dated DATE from CARDINAL former villagers of GPE who claimed that they had unsuccessfully tried to return to the village of GPE DATE . They claim to have approached the area on the “ NKR ” side of the ceasefire line , CARDINAL of them state that they were able to look down on the village from the height of PERSON , but were prohibited from moving any further by the “ NKR ” soldiers accompanying them due to the risk of sniper fire from the opposing forces . CARDINAL of them states that with the aid of binoculars , he was able to see a number of entrenchments in the village and a soldier standing there .

A map of GPE and its surroundings . The map shows the entire village on the north bank of the river ORG , the NORP military positions are also on the north bank of the river mostly on the heights around the village . The “ NKR ” positions are on the south bank of the river the closest being right opposite the village .

A map of PERSON submitted by ORG in GPE and Others v. GPE ( cited above ) . The map shows GPE on the very border of the “ NKR ” to the north of a river .

A map of GPE published in DATE by ORG . The map shows GPE on the very border of the area occupied by the “ NKR ” . On the map the occupied areas are shaded and surrounded by a red line ; GPE is on that red line but outside the shaded area , to the north of a river .

CARDINAL DVDs containing footage of GPE and its surroundings , ( one submitted in DATE , the other in DATE ) . The first shows the village in a hilly landscape , with most houses in ruins , plus some constructions on the crest of a hill which appear to be firing positions . The second again shows the village ( houses in ruins and destroyed agricultural machines ) and the surrounding landscape and is accompanied by a text explaining in particular that there is no habitation in the village , that the NORP positions are on a forested slope and control the village with large calibre guns , while NORP positions are at a distance of QUANTITY and can only visually control the village .

Statements made in DATE by CARDINAL NORP army officers , Colonel PERSON , who served in a military unit in GPE region DATE , and Colonel - lieutnants PERSON , ORG , ORG , ORG , and PERSON who served in military units in GPE region at various periods DATE and describe the situation on the ground in GPE as follows :

- GPE is on the north bank of the river Indzachay ;

- NORP military positions are on the north bank of the river in the east and north - east of GPE settlement , situated in lowlands , at distances QUANTITY from the destroyed village ;

- NORP military positions are on the south bank of the river in the west and south - west of GPE settlement , situated on strategically better upland positions ( steep slopes covered with forest ) . The estimates given by the officers in respect of the distance at which the nearest NORP positions are located vary CARDINAL km ;

- ceasefire violations by the NORP forces are frequent ;

- they contest ORG assertion that some of the houses in the village have been repaired and are being used as military positions by the NORP forces ;

- the NORP positions and the village itself are within shooting range of the NORP positions ( fire with large - calibre machine guns ) ; military staff can therefore not move freely in the area but only on designated routes ;

- there are no civilians in the village ;

- most of the buildings ( CARDINAL houses ) in the village were destroyed during the hostilities . As the village has been deserted since DATE houses have decayed , roofs have collapsed and trees are now growing inside the destroyed buildings . There are currently no habitable buildings left ; after the hostilities , NORP forces mined the territory of the settlement , these mines are sometimes triggered by animals ;

- Colonel - lieutenant PERSON states to have observed movements of NORP military in the ruins in the south part of GPE settlement , Colonel - lieutenant ORG claims to have seen NORP military servants moving from their positions towards the river . Colonel - lieutenants ORG and PERSON state that they observed NORP military forces destroying buildings and using the material for their fortifications .

Information by ORG covering DATE on ceasefire violations indicating an increase from DATE ( DATE , CARDINAL in DATE and CARDINAL in DATE ) and casualties in the area of GPE as a result of mine explosions ( CARDINAL soldiers killed on DATE ) or violations of the ceasefire ( CARDINAL soldier killed on DATE ) .

A letter by the Director of ORG dated DATE stating that GPE in the GPE region was “ defined as a territory with an extensive mine and unexploded ordinance ( ORG ) contamination ” .

Statements made in DATE by CARDINAL villagers living in neighbouring settlements , NORP village and GPE town . They describe that the village of GPE is deserted and that the surroundings are mined and regularly come under fire from the NORP positions .

Two press releases of DATE from an NORP source relating to an LOC mission monitoring the border line between ORG and GPE near village GPE .

Numerous press releases from ORG issued DATE and DATE mentioning ceasefire violations in various areas including the area of GPE . The text most frequently used by these press releases reads as follows : “ ORG fired on the opposite ORG from posts near GPE ” or “ ... from posts in nameless upland near GPE village ” or “ enemy units fired on the positions of ORG from the posts [ ... ] near GPE of GPE ’s PERSON region . CARDINAL of these press releases , dated DATE reports that “ NORP lieutenant PERSON has stricken a mine in GPE in the frontline of GPE region . Consequently , he lost his leg ” .

DATE . A statement by ORG of DATE expressing concern about the increased placement of anti - personnel landmines by the ORG - Karabakh authorities along the NORP - NORP line of contact east and north of the disputed territory .

A map of GPE and its surroundings , which shows the entire village on the north bank of the river ORG . The NORP positions are also on the north bank of the river and very close to the village ( to the east and west of it and on its northern edge ) while the “ NKR ” positions are on the south bank of the river , the closest being just opposite the village .

A DVD , submitted in DATE , containing footage of GPE and its surroundings and interviews taken on the spot by Government Agent , Mr Kostanyan , with CARDINAL “ NKR ” army officers serving in the military unit near GPE ( for their contents see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . It shows the village , which most houses in ruins , and the landscape around it . Towards the end of the video , a herd of sheep and some persons can be seen moving behind the destroyed village .

Transcripts of the interviews recorded in DATE with Unit commander Sevoyan , PERSON and officer GPE , serving in the “ NKR ” military unit located near GPE . They describe the situation on the ground as follows :

- the NORP military forces have positions in the village and sometimes perform combat duties there , but their permanent location point is in the rear ;

- there are no mines in the village itself but the area surrounding it has been mined by the NORP forces ( they notice that from time to time animals trigger a mine ) ;

- sometimes there are ceasefire violations by the NORP side ; if they are negligent they risk to be shot at from the NORP positions ;

- it happened several times that former villagers of GPE came to the area wishing to visit their village . Due to dangers from snipers or combat weapons’ fire from the NORP side , they did not allow them to approach the village .

On DATE the ORG requested ORG ( “ the ORG ” ) in the framework of its “ FAC and Human Rights ” programme to provide a report on the following issues : the location of military positions such as trenches and fortifications in and around the village of GPE , for the period between the entry into force of the Convention in respect of GPE ( DATE ) to the present , and also on the state of destruction of buildings in the village and of the village ’s cemeteries at the time of the ORG ’s entry into force ( DATE ) .

The report “ High - resolution satellite imagery assessment of GPE , GPE , DATE ” ( “ the ORG report ” ) was submitted to the ORG in DATE . On the basis of interpretation of highresolution satellite images from DATE , DATE and DATE obtained from public sources , the report provides the following information .

In respect of military structures it notes that there are trenches and revetments in the village and adjacent to it in the DATE and DATE images , a build - up having taken place in DATE , while after DATE trenches seem to have fallen into disuse , as is shown by the fading visual signature of these trenches in the DATE image . In the area surrounding GPE military activity was apparent . Military build - up in DATE , concerning trenches , revetments , military buildings , vehicles and vehicle tracks was followed by continued military development in the region over DATE , but of a different type , in that trenches and revetments fell into disuse , while military buildings and vehicle presence continued to increase .

In respect of the destruction of buildings , the report indicates that most of the CARDINAL houses in the village are destroyed , the term “ destroyed ” meaning that they are no longer intact . The report notes that building degradation and vegetation overgrowth obscured building footprints and made structure counts difficult . While in DATE CARDINAL buildings remained intact , there were CARDINAL in DATE and CARDINAL in DATE . For most of the destroyed buildings outer and interior walls have been preserved while roofs have collapsed . While the state of the buildings suggests burning as a possible cause of destruction , the report underlines that the cause of the destruction could not be determined via satellite imagery , in particular , it was not always possible to state whether or not buildings had been destroyed deliberately . No cemeteries were identifiable on the satellite imagery . The report suggests that this might be due to vegetation overgrowth .


András Sajó;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Nona Tsotsoria;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Vincent A. De Gaetano

The applicants , PERSON , PERSON and PERSON Florea , are all NORP nationals , born in DATE respectively and live in GPE , Şişcani and PERSON , respectively .

The applicants were initially represented before the ORG by Mr J. Crudu , a lawyer practising in ORG . The first and the third applicants are currently represented by PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE .

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

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

On DATE the ORG mother , GPE , lodged with the administrative authorities a request under PERSON no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , seeking to be compensated for a plot of land , a house and a yard she and her husband PERSON , now deceased , had owned together before DATE in GPE , LOC . In her appended statement , given before a public notary on DATE , GPE confirmed that she had never received any compensation for the respective property .

On DATE ORG for Implementing PERSON CARDINAL/CARDINAL allowed the request and granted the claimant MONEY lei ( ROL ) ( MONEY ( ORG ) at the time ) in compensation .

On DATE this decision was overturned by ORG , the national authority in charge of the implementation of Law no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , which held that the calculation of the total amount needed to be done again , given that the disputed plot of land was actually located on the outskirts and not in the central area , while the disputed house had been built with adobe and not with bricks . The decision stipulated that :

“ In view of the advanced age of the person entitled [ to compensation ] the decision must urgently be redrafted and the CARDINAL children of the deceased father , PERSON , should be included therein . ”

GPE contested this decision , claiming that the calculation made by ORG was correct ; however , in the judgment of CARDINAL DATE , ORG of First Instance upheld the decision given by ORG .

GPE appealed . Her appeal was dismissed as out of time by ORG on DATE . A further appeal lodged with the same court was dismissed as inadmissible on DATE .

On DATE GPE died .

The applicants , GPE ’s heirs , have lodged several requests with various state authorities ( including the President , the ORG , and ORG ) , asking for a decision to be taken in their case .

An expert report issued on DATE at the request of ORG proposed that an amount of CARDINAL ORG be given for the impugned land . The report mentioned that according to a certificate issued by ORG , GPE had never requested or received compensation in accordance with the NORP legislation on land restitution . A similar expert report issued on DATE evaluated the impugned house and appurtenant land to CARDINAL ORG .

Consequently , on DATE ORG issued another decision on GPE ’s name , granting her compensation in the amount of CARDINAL NORP lei ( PERSON ) ( approximately LAW at the time ) .

On DATE ORG ( hereinafter “ the ORG ” ) , the authority which had replaced and taken over the responsibilities of ORG , replied to one of the ORG letters . ORG informed them that their file was pending before it , and that generally every file was assessed on the basis of on documents such as civil status certificates , other certificates attesting whether any compensation had already been granted , expert reports , and so on .

On DATE the Prime Minister ’s Head of Chancellery issued an order which invalidated the decision of DATE , given that the claimant needed to submit further documents concerning the civil status of ORG ’s heirs and attesting to whether any other compensation had been received by any of the heirs , in accordance with the NORP legislation on land restitution . The Chancellery sent the file back to ORG for further examination , while holding that :

“ compensation should be granted to the claimant for CARDINAL ha of land , house and yard of QUANTITY m. ; for the rest of the yard [ the claimant ] should be granted equivalent agricultural land ” .

On DATE ORG addressed a letter to GPE , informing her that she needed to submit the documents referred to in the decision of DATE .

No other decision has yet been taken on the claims lodged by GPE under PERSON no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL .

Law no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL came into force on DATE and was amended in DATE and DATE ; it established a compensatory mechanism for NORP citizens whose immovable properties were confiscated without due compensation under LAW , signed by GPE and GPE on DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

The mechanism referred essentially to pecuniary compensation or to the right to shares in ORG - run companies . The deadline for filing such claims was set in LAW at DATE from the entry into force of the law . This deadline was subsequently extended by PERSON no . MONEY , for a period of DATE starting with the entry into force of the law on DATE and then by PERSON no . CARDINAL , for a period of DATE , starting from the entry into force of the law on DATE .

The bodies in charge of implementing the said PERSON were ORG established within each county ( including GPE ) under the authority of the ORG , and ORG for Implementing Law no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL .

Under LAW , ORG had responsibility for assessing and dealing with requests for compensation within a maximum of DATE following the date of registration . The decisions of ORG were communicated to the claimants and ORG , and they could be challenged by the claimants before ORG within DATE . The latter then had to ratify or reject such decisions within DATE .

In their turn , the decisions adopted by ORG could be challenged before the domestic courts .

From DATE , when Government Decision no . CARDINAL came into force , the responsibilities of ORG were taken over by ORG no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , functioning within the Prime Minister ’s Chancellery . ORG forwarded the ratification decisions adopted by ORG for the approval of the Prime Minister ’s Head of Chancellery . The ORG was further entitled to make a proposal for adjustment of the compensation at the time of the ratification decision , in accordance with PERSON no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL .

These responsibilities were taken over by ORG with effect from the entry into force of Government Decision no . CARDINAL , namely on DATE ; this act was modified by Government Decision no . DATE on DATE .

Adopted on DATE , EGO no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL suspended for DATE the issue by the competent authorities of any decision on claims lodged under PERSON no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL and LAW no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL . The ordinance further suspended for the same period the voluntary payment of compensation already granted under PERSON no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , PERSON no . MONEY , and PERSON no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL .

Law no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL concerning measures for the acceleration and finalisation of the process of resolving compensation claims lodged under PERSON no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL and LAW no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL entered into force on DATE .

Article CARDINAL states that the only compensatory measure possible was pecuniary compensation .

Article CARDINAL defines the applicability of the law to all claims lodged in due time with ORG and in respect of which no decision has been issued , or in respect of which a decision granting compensation has been issued but no payment has been made , as well as to those claims lodged under PERSON no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL or LAW no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL that are currently pending before the domestic courts .

The law authorises the transfer of all powers of ORG to ORG , who shall thus ratify or otherwise any decision taken by ORG on claims lodged under PERSON no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL and LAW no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL . ORG is entitled to request further information and documents , from public institutions as well as from claimants , when such documents are missing or are not corroborated .

Decisions taken by ORG are subject to appeal before the administrative courts .

Article CARDINAL of the law sets out the deadlines by which all payments should be made , providing also for the manner in which the compensation should be adjusted for inflation , on the basis of the consumer price index , from the moment the decision was issued until the entry into force of the law .

Article CARDINAL sets out a CARDINAL-day deadline within which the claimants are to supplement their files with further documents , following a written request in that respect sent by the authority . This deadline may be extended once , for DATE , at the request of the claimant , if evidence shows that he / she has taken the necessary steps to obtain the necessary information .

Article CARDINAL provides that ORG are bound to issue a decision on the applicants’ claims within :

“ a ) DATE , if there are CARDINAL files pending before them ;

b ) DATE , if the files pending before them are in the range of CARDINAL ;

c ) DATE if they have CARDINAL files pending before them . ”

This deadline started running on DATE .

Article CARDINAL stipulates that decisions issued by ORG before the entry into force of the present law and already registered with ORG should be ratified or otherwise within DATE of the entry into force of the law . Decisions issued after the entry into force of the law should be ratified or otherwise by ORG within DATE of their registration with that authority .

The registration number and the number of files pending with ORG shall be published on its web page .

Article CARDINAL gives claimants the opportunity to apply to the courts in the event that the above - mentioned deadlines are not complied with .

Article CARDINAL of the law sets out several measures meant to increase the efficiency of the compensation procedures , providing , inter alia , for a temporary increase of the number of posts available at ORG .

LAW of GPE was signed on DATE by GPE and GPE . Under the terms of this treaty , the signatory parties agreed on the border line that was to be established between the CARDINAL countries , with particular reference to the territory between LOC and LOC ( the PERSON ) . LAW provided for a mandatory resettlement of NORP citizens of NORP ethnicity living in PERSON and ORG to GPE , and the resettlement of ethnic NORP living in GPE and GPE . Section V of ORG the LAW stipulated that ORG was in charge of compensating those NORP citizens who , following the mandatory resettlement had to abandon their possessions in the rural areas which were transferred to GPE .


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;Dmitry Dedov;Helena Jäderblom

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

The applicants complained of the non - enforcement or delayed enforcement of domestic decisions given against unitary enterprises ( GUPs , MUPs ) and lack of any effective remedy in domestic law and of the lack of any effective remedy in domestic law .


CASE OF NOREIKIENĖ AND NOREIKA v. LITHUANIA

András Sajó;Egidijus Kūris;Nona Tsotsoria;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Vincent A. De Gaetano

The applicants were born in DATE and DATE respectively and live in PERSON , GPE . They are wife and husband .

In DATE ORG of GPE ( ORG rajono Karmėlavos apylinkės tarnyba ) assigned a plot of land measuring QUANTITY to the first applicant ( hereinafter “ the land ” ) , PERSON ( hereinafter “ the first applicant ” ) , for individual farming . In DATE ORG authorised her to buy the land for a nominal price of CARDINAL “ single - use investment vouchers ” ( investiciniai čekiai ) and CARDINAL NORP litai ( LTL – approximately CARDINAL.CARDINAL euro ( ORG ) ) .

On DATE the first applicant signed a land purchase agreement with ORG to acquire the land from the ORG . The plot was subsequently registered in ORG in the joint names of both applicants .

NORP In DATE a third party , V.A. , brought a civil claim against ORG and the both applicants , seeking restoration of his ownership rights to the land . He argued that a request for restitution of property had already been submitted in DATE , so the land had been assigned and later sold to the first applicant unlawfully .

On DATE ORG ( ORG rajono apylinkės teismas ) allowed ORG claim . It held that the first applicant had been assigned the land unlawfully because the local authorities had an obligation to resolve restitution claims before assigning plots to new owners , and because she did not fulfil the legal criteria for being assigned land . Applying the principle of priority of former ORG rights , the court annulled the administrative decisions assigning the land to the first applicant and the land purchase agreement , and ordered ORG to return LTL CARDINAL ( EUR CARDINAL ) to the applicants .

On DATE the ORG quashed the lower court ’s decision and dismissed the civil claim . V.A. lodged a cassation appeal . On CARDINAL DATE ORG quashed the disputed decision and remitted the case to ORG for re - examination .

On DATE ORG upheld the firstinstance decision of DATE and allowed ORG claim .

On DATE ORG refused to examine the ORG cassation appeal , on the grounds that it did not raise any important legal issues .


Angelika Nußberger;Carlo Ranzoni;Erik Møse;Ganna Yudkivska;Khanlar Hajiyev;Síofra O’Leary

The applicants , PERSON ( A ) and PERSON ( B ) , are NORP nationals , born in DATE , respectively , and living in GPE . A is the mother of C , a NORP national born in DATE who was found dead in her apartment on DATE , and B is the grandmother of C. The applicants are represented before the ORG by PERSON PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE .


Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for family life;Respect for private life);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)

Dean Spielmann;Dmitry Dedov;Egidijus Kūris;Elisabeth Steiner;Erik Møse;Guido Raimondi;Ineta Ziemele;Josep Casadevall;Julia Laffranque;Khanlar Hajiyev;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Mark Villiger;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Paul Mahoney;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Ksenija Turković

The facts of the case may be summarised as follows .

The applicant was born in DATE and is currently serving a life sentence in the town of NORP , Perm Region .

On DATE the applicant was arrested on suspicion of banditry , robbery and aggravated murder .

DATE , the date of his arrest , and DATE the applicant was held in various remand prisons in GPE , GPE , PERSON and GPE .

On CARDINAL DATE ORG found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced him to death . The judgment became final on DATE .

From DATE to DATE the applicant was held in remand prison no . CARDINAL in GPE . Following his conviction he was held in a special cell for prisoners awaiting the implementation of their death sentence .

On DATE the President of GPE commuted the applicant ’s death sentence to life imprisonment .

On DATE the applicant was transferred to a special - regime correctional colony for life prisoners in GPE , and on DATE he began serving DATE of his sentence of imprisonment within the meaning of LAW of LAW . The applicant fell within the exception from the general rule of that legal provision , in that DATE of his sentence were calculated from the date of his placement in the special - regime correctional colony , rather than from the date of his initial arrest in DATE . The exception applied only to those prisoners whose conduct during their detention on remand had been in breach of the rules ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . The applicant later unsuccessfully challenged this rule before ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

For DATE the applicant was held under a strict regime of imprisonment , governed by LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

On DATE , on expiry of DATE of his sentence , the applicant ’s prison regime was changed from a strict regime to an ordinary regime , governed by LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

At the time of his arrest on DATE the applicant was married to PERSON and had a DATE son . His remaining family consisted of his parents , O. and A. , his brother PERSON . and his grandmother PERSON According to the applicant , his extended family numbered CARDINAL people in total , and after his arrest he wished to maintain contact with all of them .

From DATE to CARDINAL DATE the applicant was not allowed to see his family at all , with the exception of CARDINAL visit by his wife in DATE following the first - instance judgment in the criminal case against him in DATE .

In DATE , following the first - instance judgment in his criminal case , the applicant ’s wife divorced him , on her initiative .

The applicant submitted that he had been allowed to start corresponding with the outside world following the entry into force of LAW in DATE . He then reestablished contact with all of his family members and his former wife .

During this period the applicant was allowed to have CARDINAL short - term visit from his relatives DATE . The visits lasted DATE . During the meetings the applicant communicated with his visitors via a glass partition or through metal bars , under conditions which allowed no physical contact . A warden listened in to the conversations with his visitors .

NORP The applicant used his right to short - term visits as frequently as possible , and received visits from his mother , his father and his brother . His friends also tried to visit the applicant , but this was not authorised by the prison administration . Long - term family visits during DATE of his sentence were not allowed .

According to the applicant , due to the severity of the restrictions on his contacts with the outside world he lost contact with some of his family members and with his own son , whom he had not seen for DATE . The applicant ’s son refuses to see the applicant , but has agreed to help him financially .

After the applicant ’s change of regime on DATE , he became entitled to long - term family visits in addition to short - term visits . The applicant availed himself of each subsequent opportunity to have a long - term visit , and saw his family members once DATE : once in DATE , twice in DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE . On each of these occasions the visit was for the authorised maximum duration of DATE , except for CARDINAL visit in DATE . This visit was interrupted at the initiative of the applicant and his mother , who had to catch her train and leave earlier . The applicant ’s brother also attended these visits . The visits lasted no more than TIME and his privacy was respected throughout . The applicant ’s father participated in the short - term visits until DATE , but could not come for the long - term visits which started in DATE on account of his health .

The Government submitted that , in total , the applicant had CARDINAL short - term visits and CARDINAL long - term visits during his detention in the special - regime correction colony . None of the applicant ’s respective requests for a visit was refused .

On DATE the applicant lodged a complaint with ORG , challenging the constitutionality of the tenyear ban on long - term family visits for convicts sentenced to life imprisonment as contained in LAW . He alleged , in particular , that the provision in question had been discriminatory and breached his right to respect for private and family life .

ORG declared the applicant ’s complaint concerning LAW and CARDINAL § CARDINAL inadmissible , having ruled as follows :

“ ... Nor do the provisions of LAW and LAW on LAW breach [ the applicant ’s ] constitutional rights .

LAW ... allows for the possibility of restricting human and civil rights by federal law , as a means of protecting the basis of the constitutional regime , morality , health , the rights and lawful interests of others , [ and ] securing the defence of the country and ORG security . Such restrictions may be linked , in particular , with the application of criminal sanctions against offenders , in the form of imprisonment and other measures related to punishment .

... Article CARDINAL ( o ) of the LAW empowers the federal legislature to provide for restrictive measures of this type in relation to convicted persons on whom a sentence has been imposed , which , as follows from LAW ... consist , by their very nature , in deprivation or restriction of the convict ’s rights and freedoms , as provided by law . At the same time , both the legislature , in establishing liability for a crime , and the law - enforcement agencies , in deciding on its application to an offender , are required to take into account the nature of the crime , the danger posed by it to the values defended by LAW and the criminal law , its seriousness , its causes and other circumstances in which the crime was committed , and also information about the offender , provided that regulation by those institutions , and their application , correspond to the constitutional principles of legal liability and guarantees to the individual in his or her public relations with the ORG .

As ORG noted in [ its previous case - law ... ] , the legislative regulation of criminal liability and punishment without taking into account the offender ’s personality and other objective and reasonable circumstances which facilitate an appropriate assessment of the social danger posed by the criminal act itself and by the offender , and the application of identical sanctions for crimes that pose varying degrees of social danger , without taking into account the offender ’s degree of participation in the crime , his or her conduct subsequent to the crime and in serving a sentence where that has already been imposed , and other [ relevant ] factors , would both be contrary to the constitutional prohibition on discrimination and the principles of fairness and humanism expressed in LAW .

In setting out criminal sanctions with a range of restrictions , corresponding to the gravity of the crime committed by the convict and the sentence imposed , and also in determining the manner in which that sentence is to be served , the legislature must proceed on the basis that convicts enjoy , as a whole , the same rights and freedoms as other citizens , with the exceptions determined by their individual personalities and the offences committed by them . The conditions for serving sentences , as laid down both in Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW and in a range of other provisions of that Code , are intended to tailor sentences to individual offenders and differentiate sanctions and their application , and to create the preconditions for achieving the aims of punishment , which , as stated in LAW , are the restoration of justice , reform of the offender and the prevention of new crimes ... ”

On an unspecified date the applicant lodged a complaint with ORG , this time challenging LAW of LAW , in so far as this provision distinguished CARDINAL categories of detainees serving their sentence in special - regime GPE on the basis of whether or not they had previously breached prison rules while in their detention on remand and had been punished by solitary confinement . For those who had not previously breached prison rules and had not been punished by solitary confinement , the initial DATE period of the strict - regime conditions started running from the date of their initial arrest and detention . For those who had previously breached prison rules and been punished by solitary confinement , the DATE period under strictregime conditions began from the date of their arrival in a specialregime correctional colony . The applicant argued that this provision was unconstitutional and discriminatory . On DATE ORG declared the applicant ’s second complaint against the above - mentioned provision inadmissible , ruling as follows :

“ ... the [ above - mentioned ] provision does not violate the rights of [ the applicant ] .

LAW allows for the possibility of restricting human and civil rights by federal law as a means of protecting the fundamental principles of the constitutional system , morality , health , the rights and lawful interests of others , [ and ] ensuring the defence of the country and ORG security . Such restrictions may be linked to the application of criminal sanctions against offenders in the form of coercion by the ORG , the distinctive feature of which is that , throughout its execution , certain of the offender ’s his rights and freedoms are withdrawn and specific obligations are imposed .

At the same time , the restrictions imposed on a convicted person ’s rights and freedoms shall correspond to the crime committed and to his or her personality . This requirement is also compulsory in respect of cases where [ the authorities have punished ] persons who breached the legally established regime in the course of the criminal proceedings or [ already ] while serving their sentence .

The provision of LAW of LAW [ in so far as it includes the contested rules ] is intended to tailor sentences to individual offenders and to differentiate the conditions for serving sentences , and to create the preconditions for achieving the aims of punishment , which , as stated in LAW , are the restoration of justice , reform of the offender and the prevention of new crimes .

If , in the applicant ’s opinion , his rights were violated by the relevant actions or decisions of the law - enforcement bodies when imposing a sanction in the form of a placement in a solitary confinement , during his transfer from a remand prison to a correctional colony or in calculating the term of his detention under the strict regime , he is entitled to appeal against them in court ... ”

The applicant made attempts to bring civil claims against the prosecutor ’s office and the lawyer who defended him in the course of the criminal proceedings . The applicant challenged in court the prosecutor ’s refusal to institute criminal proceedings and the ORG ’s failure to act on his complaints . He also lodged a number of complaints with ORG . All of these proceedings proved unsuccessful .


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

NORP The applicant , PERSON , is a NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in Ploieşti . He was represented before ORG by Ms PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE . ORG ( “ the Government ” ) were represented by their Agent , PERSON , from ORG .

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

At the time of the events giving rise to the present application , the applicant was a judge at ORG , in GPE .

On DATE P.C. informed ORG of ORG that on DATE the applicant had requested money from him as a reward for having drafted a judgment that he had delivered in a civil lawsuit won by GPE According to GPE ’s statements , the applicant asked for CARDINAL NORP lei ( ROL ) in order to fill up the fuel tank of his car . GPE was expected to pay the money DATE .

On DATE , the prosecutor supplied the money to GPE in the form of CARDINAL banknotes of ROL CARDINAL,CARDINAL each . They were marked with the inscription “ undue benefits ” ( foloase necuvenite ) in a special ink . The prosecutor also gave authorisation for the recording of conversations between the applicant and GPE In so doing , he relied on LAW ( “ ORG ” ) which , in urgent cases , allows the interception of communications without a judge ’s order .

On DATE at TIME GPE went to the applicant ’s office fitted with an audio - video recorder . The applicant greeted GPE and asked him if “ that paper had been good ” ( which the prosecutor explained as referring to the court judgment delivered by the applicant ) . He accepted the money from GPE , confirmed that the amount was correct , and then put the banknotes in his pocket .

After GPE had left , the prosecutor and a police officer entered the applicant ’s office and found the applicant sitting at his desk . The applicant admitted having received money from GPE and , at the prosecutor ’s request , took the notes out of his pocket and handed them to the prosecutor . CARDINAL banknotes of ROL CARDINAL each were found , bearing the markings in special ink inscribed by the prosecutor beforehand . The remaining CARDINAL banknotes were found in GPE ’s pocket . He explained that he had not handed them over to the applicant because the latter had been in a hurry to get the money from him and see him out of the office .

On DATE the prosecutor instituted a criminal prosecution against the applicant ( începerea urmăririi penale ) and informed the applicant , in the presence of his counsel , of the charges brought against him . The applicant gave a statement . He admitted having received the money , but denied having asked GPE for anything . He pointed out that GPE had come to his office uninvited .

On DATE the Ploieşti Court of Appeal reaffirmed the prosecutor ’s authorisation for the interception of conversations .

The applicant was interviewed again by the prosecutor on DATE and was brought face to face with GPE The court clerk who typed the judgments delivered by the applicant was interviewed by the prosecutor . She confirmed that on DATE , while she was working with the applicant , GPE had entered the applicant ’s office and had asked if his judgment had been typed . The court clerk left the applicant ’s office and was unable to say how the conversation between the judge and GPE had gone . DATE , the applicant told her that they should type out GPE ’s court judgment , but then they both realised that the judgment had been drafted that TIME , before GPE ’s visit .

The court clerk who had been present during the applicant ’s court hearing which had resulted in the judgment favourable to GPE declared that on DATE , after drafting the judgment , the applicant had brought the case file to her office , and that later on DATE he had returned with GPE and had asked her to provide the latter with a copy of the judgment .

On DATE the Ploieşti Court of Appeal sitting in private , in the presence of the prosecutor and the applicant , affirmed that the transcripts of the recorded conversations constituted relevant evidence in the case ( procedure under ORG and QUANTITY of the ORG ) and accepted their addition to the file . The transcripts were attached to the court ’s report .

On DATE the prosecutor committed the applicant for trial before ORG on the charge of having received undue benefits ( primirea de foloase necuvenite ) .

On DATE the High Court of Cassation and ORG , acting at the applicant ’s request , transferred the case to ORG .

On DATE ORG heard testimony from the applicant . He maintained that he had not requested any sum of money from GPE and had not expected to receive money from him either . He explained that when the prosecutor had entered his office he had been about to go out to find GPE and return the money to him .

At the same hearing the applicant argued that the recording of conversations and the marking of the banknotes by the prosecutor constituted elements of the preliminary investigation ( acte premergătoare ) and that as such they had been unlawfully obtained and could therefore not be used as evidence in the file .

GPE also gave a statement before the court . The CARDINAL court clerks could not be questioned as they were absent for personal reasons from the court hearings . The defence counsel agreed that the witness statements given before the prosecutor could be read in open court .

On DATE the applicant was convicted of having received undue benefits and was given a DATE suspended sentence . The court established the facts based on the transcripts of the conversations , testimony given by the CARDINAL court clerks before the prosecutor , and GPE ’s and the applicant ’s statements .

The court dismissed the applicant ’s complaint concerning the alleged unlawfulness of the evidence on the grounds that the prosecutor had respected the procedure provided for by the ORG in the matter and that the court had authorised the recordings and their utilisation in the case .

The applicant appealed against the judgment delivered by ORG .

On DATE ORG and ORG , in the presence of the parties , listened to the recordings of the conversations . At the same hearing , the applicant contested some parts of the conversations ‒ pointing out that they did not correspond to the transcripts ‒ and asked for the tapes to be examined by an expert in order to establish whether they had been tampered with . He also reiterated his complaint as to the unlawfulness of the evidence . Lastly , he contended that there was not sufficient evidence in the file to secure his conviction and that there were significant inconsistencies between GPE ’s various statements during the proceedings .

In a final decision delivered DATE , ORG dismissed the applicant ’s appeal and , based on the evidence in the file , upheld the judgment delivered by ORG as well as its reasoning .

ORG reiterated that the legality of the evidence had been correctly examined , at the applicant ’s request , by the first - instance court . It also found the evidence sufficient to establish that the applicant had requested and received money from GPE It furthermore concluded that ‒ even if it could not be proven that there had been discussions whereby the applicant could have requested money from GPE ‒ the fact that the applicant had accepted money proved his intent to commit the crime .

The legislation concerning interception of conversations in force at the relevant time and its evolution after DATE is described in PERSON GPE ( no . CARDINAL ) ( no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , § § CARDINAL , DATE ) .

Under LAW it is a punishable act for a public servant to receive money or other undue benefits for a task he has carried out during the exercise of his duty ( LAW . LAW ( Law no . CARDINAL on the prevention , discovery and punishment of acts of corruption ) provides for an aggravating factor if the above crime is committed by a judge ( DATE ) .


Ledi Bianku;Nebojša Vučinić;Paul Lemmens;Robert Spano;Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström

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

NORP The applicant , a military officer in the NORP army , was dismissed in DATE for disciplinary reasons . Subsequently , he initiated proceedings before ORG to have the decision regarding his dismissal annulled .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s action ( decision no . CARDINAL E , CARDINAL K ) .

On DATE the applicant ’s rectification request was rejected by ORG . This decision was served on him on DATE .

A description of the domestic law at the material time may be found in GPE v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , § § CARDINAL - CARDINAL , DATE ) , and PERSON v. GPE ( ( dec . ) , no . PERSON , CARDINAL DATE ) .

Following a referendum held on DATE , PERSON no . CARDINAL was passed . According to this new law , Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the LAW were repealed and ORG was abolished . Furthermore , the following paragraph was added to LAW :

“ ... No military courts shall be formed other than disciplinary courts . However , in a state of war , military courts may be formed with jurisdiction to try offences committed by military personnel in relation to their duties . ”

On DATE Law no . DATE was enacted ; it was published in ORG on DATE . LAW no . DATE amends LAW ( Law no . CARDINAL ) to state that all applicants who currently have a pending application before ORG concerning the independence and impartiality of ORG may request a retrial before ORG within DATE of notification of the ORG ’s inadmissibility decision on account of non - exhaustion of domestic remedies .