Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (Article 35-1 - Exhaustion of domestic remedies);Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 7 - Procedural safeguards relating to expulsion of aliens (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 7 - Expulsion of an alien);No violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-2 - Information on reasons for arrest);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Review of lawfulness of detention);Non-pecuniary damage - claim dismissed (Article 41 - Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)

Angelika Nußberger;Erik Møse;Ganna Yudkivska;Mārtiņš Mits;Síofra O’Leary;Yonko Grozev

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE , GPE .

The applicant arrived in GPE in DATE [ in his observations , he mentions DATE or DATE and studies at ORG ] . He married a NORP national on DATE . They have CARDINAL daughters , born in GPE on DATE and DATE respectively .

NORP In DATE and DATE the applicant was issued a temporary residence permit for DATE and DATE respectively on the grounds of his marriage to a NORP national . Under the domestic law which was applicable at the material time , following the expiry of the fouryear period the applicant was entitled to a permanent residence permit .

On DATE the applicant ’s documents for the permanent residence permit were accepted .

On DATE the applicant ’s wife asked ORG ( GPE un migrācijas lietu pārvaldes GPE apkalpošanas departaments ) to check the information submitted by the applicant for the permanent residence permit in relation to his employment in GPE .

On DATE ORG refused to grant the permanent residence permit to the applicant on the grounds that he had submitted false information and did not have sufficient financial means to stay in GPE .

According to the Government , on DATE the applicant ’s wife wrote ORG a short letter stating that “ my husband ... was refused a permanent residence permit ; I would like to object to this . ” This objection was accompanied by another letter requesting to ignore the former , as it had been drawn up under threat by the applicant . She asked for help and for the applicant to be refused leave to remain in GPE .

The applicant disagreed with the allegations contained in this letter .

On DATE ORG overturned the decision of CARDINAL DATE ( see above ) . It was concluded that the applicant had sufficient financial means and that no false information had been submitted by him . A permanent residence permit , valid until DATE , was then issued for the applicant .

On DATE the applicant ’s wife reported a domestic conflict to the police . According to her , on CARDINAL and DATE , when she had attempted to talk to the applicant about a divorce , he had allegedly tried to suffocate her and had inflicted bodily injuries on her . The applicant disagreed with his wife ’s version of events ; he submitted to the police that he had not inflicted any bodily injuries on his wife . The cause of their conflicts had been the fact that his wife had taken their children to live in another city in GPE .

Following a forensic examination , unspecified minor injuries were found on the applicant wife ’s body . On DATE the police refused to open criminal proceedings , on the ground that no offence had been committed . No appeal was lodged against that decision .

Meanwhile , on DATE , the applicant ’s wife applied to ORG with a view to withdrawing the applicant ’s permanent residence permit and expelling him from GPE on the grounds that he presented threats to her life and health and those of their children . She mentioned her previous letters to ORG . When the applicant had found out about them , he had asked for them to be recalled and had promised to stop the abuse he had been engaging in . She had done so . Nevertheless , when the permanent residence permit had been issued “ it had started all over again ” . The applicant had allegedly threatened to cripple her if he had to leave GPE , and also to kill her , the children and himself .

The applicant denied the allegations contained in this letter .

On DATE her letter was forwarded to ORG ( Drošības policija ) for an assessment of the applicant ’s character and to determine if he presented threats to national security or public order .

On DATE the Security Police informed ORG that the applicant constituted a threat to public order and safety .

On DATE the Minister of ORG decided to include the applicant in the blacklist for an indefinite period of time , on the ground that he constituted a threat to public order and safety , and decided to refuse him entry to GPE . This decision was not amenable to judicial review at the time . Following legislative changes ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) the persistence of the grounds for the inclusion in the blacklist could be re - examined by the Minister of Interior ; the applicant attempted to avail himself of this remedy ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

On DATE the Minister of ORG replied to the applicant ’s enquiry of DATE and , having reviewed the applicant ’s case , concluded that the applicant could not be removed from the blacklist .

On DATE the applicant ’s wife applied to ORG claiming that notwithstanding her previous letters expressing her wish for the applicant to leave the country their relations had improved and she wished to maintain her family and not to separate the applicant from their children . If he had to leave she and their children would probably follow him . In reply , the Minister explained that her subjective feelings towards the applicant did not imply a change in the circumstances on the basis of which the applicant had been included in the blacklist .

On DATE the applicant applied to the Minister of Interior with a view to removing the prohibition on entering GPE . He submitted that the relationship with his spouse had improved and that she and their children did not wish him to leave GPE .

On DATE ORG wrote to ORG informing them that the applicant constituted a threat to public order and safety . On DATE the Security Police informed ORG that the applicant had been included in the list of persons prohibited from entering in GPE , confirming their view that the applicant constituted a threat to public order and safety ; there had been no change in those circumstances . In view of this , they asked ORG to detain and expel the applicant in accordance with section CARDINAL , paragraph CARDINAL , part CARDINAL of LAW .

On DATE the Minister of Interior adopted decision no . CARDINAL and refused to remove the applicant from the blacklist . The decision was sent to the applicant ’s address in GPE . In the decision , the Minister relied on the letter of CARDINAL DATE informing him that the circumstances on the basis of which the applicant had been included in the blacklist had not changed . Thus the Minister could not remove the prohibition on entering GPE . The applicant ’s submissions could not serve as the basis for his removal from the blacklist , since a person could not choose his country of residence under either domestic or international law . States were not obliged to respect couples’ choices concerning their country of residence . Nor were there any reasons detected why the applicant ’s family could not join the applicant in GPE and enjoy their family life there . The Minister concluded that the restrictions on the applicant ’s right to respect for his family life were justified in the interests of public order and safety and were proportionate . As regards the procedure for appeal , a reference was made to section DATE , paragraph CARDINAL and section CARDINAL , paragraph CARDINAL of LAW which provided for an appeal to the administrative court .

NORP The applicant did not appeal .

On DATE ORG adopted decision no . CARDINAL by which the applicant ’s permanent residence permit was withdrawn on the grounds that he had been included in the blacklist ( section CARDINAL , paragraph CARDINAL , part CARDINAL of LAW ) . The decision was based on the decision of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . It was drawn up on the basis of information and documents received from ORG . The decision indicated that pursuant to section CARDINAL of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) it was to take effect upon notification to the applicant . The decision also stated that the applicant was obliged to leave the country within DATE . On DATE the applicant was informed of the decision and of the fact that he was to leave the country by DATE . The applicant lodged an appeal against this decision with ORG .

On DATE ORG rejected the applicant ’s appeal against the withdrawal of the residence permit . It found that the applicant had been lawfully included in the list of persons prohibited from entering in GPE . Taking into account that the decision to include the applicant in the blacklist was in force and had not been declared unlawful , it was impossible for the applicant to stay in GPE . It further considered that the contested decision complied with the rule of law , and that it was taken in the interests of national security , public order and safety and for protection of the rights of others , namely the spouse and children . It was proportionate because the protection of the interests of society in assuring national security and public order and safety in the ORG outweighed the individual interests of the applicant . The applicant was not heard ’s case - law on immigration control , to LAW under which the interference with the applicant ’s family life could be justified , and to the DATE report of ORG ) concerning GPE .

On DATE the applicant ’s appeal against the decision to withdraw his permanent residence permit was allowed by ORG .

On DATE ORG forwarded to the applicant ’s address in GPE the written submissions of ORG in his case . The applicant was asked to indicate by DATE if he would agree for the court to examine his case in written proceedings ( rakstveida procedūra ) . Since he did not reply , the court could not examine the case without a hearing .

Following CARDINAL hearings ( on DATE , CARDINAL DATE and CARDINAL DATE , and DATE ) , the case was left without determination on the grounds that the applicant had failed to appear before the court . This decision took effect on DATE . All the court correspondence was sent to the applicant ’s address in GPE . His wife was invited as a third party to the proceedings .

Meanwhile , on DATE the applicant was detained by ORG officials under section DATE , paragraph CARDINAL , part CARDINAL of LAW on the ground that he constituted a threat to national security or public order and safety . The detention record also stated that by a decision of the Minister of Interior the applicant had been included in the blacklist , and that on DATE his permanent residence permit had been withdrawn . The applicant signed the detention record and he was placed in a short - term detention facility in GPE , where he stayed until DATE .

The applicant lodged a complaint with a prosecutor , arguing that he had been unlawfully detained on the grounds of lack of a valid residence permit . On DATE a prosecutor replied that the applicant ’s detention was lawful and had been ordered on national security or public safety and order grounds . He could be detained for DATE on these grounds , following which a court order was necessary for continued detention . It was noted that on DATE the Security Police had informed ORG that the applicant had been included in the blacklist . Finally , it was noted that the applicant ’s detention as such did not automatically entail his expulsion . An expulsion order should be issued within DATE of the applicant ’s detention . The applicant was informed that he could lodge an appeal against this reply with a superior prosecutor .

On DATE the GPE branch of ORG adopted an expulsion order , no . CARDINAL - CARDINAL ( lēmums par ārzemnieka piespiedu izraidīšanu ) under section DATE , paragraph CARDINAL , part CARDINAL of the Immigration PERSON , on the grounds that the applicant had been detained by ORG in NORP territory . He was informed that he would be excluded from NORP territory for a DATE period . The decision took effect DATE , when it was notified to the applicant . On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal against the expulsion order with the Head of ORG .

On DATE , following a closed hearing , a judge of ORG authorised the applicant ’s detention for DATE . The judge heard the applicant and decided that he was to be transferred to an accommodation centre for foreign detainees in ORG . He could not yet be expelled because he had lodged an appeal against order no . DATE , and thus the judge considered that it was necessary to extend his detention . No appeal against the decision was lodged .

On DATE the applicant was transferred to an accommodation centre for foreign detainees in ORG .

On DATE ORG adopted a decision under LAW , paragraph CARDINAL , part CARDINAL of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , including the applicant in the list of persons prohibited from entering in GPE until DATE . The applicant did not lodge an appeal against this decision with the administrative courts .

On DATE the Head of ORG dismissed the applicant ’s appeal against the expulsion order ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . The decision stated that it came into effect pursuant to section CARDINAL of LAW and could be amenable to judicial review by the administrative court within DATE of its coming into effect .

On DATE this decision was sent to the accommodation centre for foreign detainees in ORG . It was not served on the applicant because meanwhile , on DATE , the applicant had been expelled from GPE to GPE .

Upon the applicant ’s request , on DATE the Minister of Interior adopted decision no . CARDINAL entitled “ Removal of prohibition on entering GPE ” . On the basis of information received from ORG and the Security Police and section CARDINAL , paragraph CARDINAL , part CARDINAL of the Immigration PERSON the Minister decided to remove the applicant from the blacklist . The decision took effect immediately .

On CARDINAL DATE , in response to an email from the applicant , ORG explained that he had been included in the blacklist on the basis of decision no . CARDINAL of DATE and that he could not appeal against the decision , but he could ask the competent authority to review that decision ( reference was made to paragraph CARDINAL of the transitional provisions of LAW ) . They also informed him that according to LAW reasons for the applicant ’s inclusion in the list could not be disclosed . Having received the applicant ’s request for a review of the decision , ORG had made enquiries with ORG and the Security Police . They had received answers that threats under LAW , paragraph CARDINAL of LAW were not present . Accordingly , the above decision was adopted . Lastly , in response to the applicant ’s question whether he could now enter GPE or receive a permanent residence permit , reference was made to ORG and the procedure established therein .


ĆALDOVIĆ AND OTHERS v. BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA

George Nicolaou;Ineta Ziemele;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Nona Tsotsoria;Päivi Hirvelä;Zdravka Kalaydjieva

Mr PERSON , Mr GPE Petković and Mr GPE Ivanović are citizens of GPE and GPE and citizens of GPE who were born in DATE and DATE , respectively . PERSON is a citizen of GPE who was born in DATE . All the applicants live in GPE .

The Government of GPE ( “ the Government ” ) were represented by their Agent , ORG .

ORG , having been informed of their right to intervene in the proceedings ( Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL of LAW CARDINAL of the Rules of Court ) , indicated that they did not wish to exercise that right .

The applicants or their spouses were officers of the JNA , the armed forces of the former ORG ( “ the SFRY ” ) . The present case concerns their attempts to repossess their pre - war flats in GPE .

Practically all flats in the former SFRY were part of the system of “ social ownership ” . They were generally built by socially owned enterprises or other public bodies for allocation to their employees , who became “ occupancy right holders ” . All citizens of the SFRY were required to pay a means - tested contribution to subsidise housing construction . However , the amount an individual had contributed was not amongst the legal criteria taken into account with regard to waiting lists for the allocation of such flats .

On DATE JNA members were offered the opportunity to purchase their flats at a discount on their market value ( see FAC DATE , Zakon o stambenom obezbjeđivanju u NORP narodnoj armiji , ORG of the SFRY no . CARDINAL ) . DATE the applicants , or their spouses , were allocated military flats in GPE ( Mr PERSON , PERSON and PERSON Ivanović ) and in GPE ( Ms Mikić ) which they later purchased under the terms of LAW .

On DATE GPE suspended the sale of military flats on its territory ( see the Suspension on GPE DATE , ORG o privremenoj zabrani prodaje stanova u društvenoj svojini , ORG of GPE no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) . The LAW was respected in what is today the Federation of Bosnia and GPE , and those who had purchased military flats located in that Entity could not register their ownership and remained , strictly speaking , occupancy right holders ( a purchase contract does not of itself transfer title to the buyer under domestic law ) .

When the PERSON formally withdrew from GPE on DATE , the applicants , or their spouses , continued their military careers in the FAC forces and left their flats . They were thereafter allocated tenancy rights of unlimited duration on military flats in GPE , which some of them even purchased later .

During the war , the local armed forces ( namely , the ORG , ORG and ORG forces ) assumed nominal control of all non - privatised military flats on the territory under their respective control ( ORG o preuzimanju sredstava bivše Socijalističke Federativne Republike Jugoslavije u svojinu PERSON i ORG , ORG of GPE nos . CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL ; ORG o preuzimanju vojnostambenog fonda JNA , Official PERSON of the Republika Srpska no . CARDINAL ; PERSON o sredstvima i finansiranju NORP PERSON i ORG , ORG of GPE nos . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , CARDINAL ; ORG o utvrđivanju namjene i prenošenju prava upravljanja i korištenja sredstvima bivše Socijalističke Federativne Republike Jugoslavije , PERSON , a koja se nalaze na području PERSON i ORG ; ORG of GPE no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) . Although on DATE those forces merged into the armed forces of GPE , non - privatised military flats are still under the nominal control of the Entities .

A more detailed background concerning socially owned flats , military flats and the involvement of foreign armed forces in the DATE - CARDINAL war in GPE is provided in GPE v. GPE , no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , § § DATE , CARDINAL DATE and PERSON and Others v. GPE , nos . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , GPE , CARDINAL and CARDINAL , § § CARDINAL - CARDINAL , CARDINAL DATE .

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

In DATE the applicant , a JNA officer , was allocated a military flat in GPE .

On DATE the applicant bought that flat under the terms of the Military Flats Act DATE and paid the full purchase price in the amount of MONEY ( around MONEY ( DEM ) at the time ) .

When the PERSON formally withdrew from GPE on DATE , he continued his military career in the FAC forces and left GPE .

On DATE ORG GPE ( ORG odbrane PERSON i ORG ; “ ORG ” ) allocated the flat to a family of a killed member of the ORG forces .

On DATE his application was rejected pursuant to section QUANTITY of ORG . The applicant failed to appeal against that decision .

On DATE the restitution commission set up by Annex CARDINAL to ORG , before which the applicant pursued parallel proceedings , held that the applicant was neither a refugee nor a displaced person within the meaning of Annex CARDINAL and declined jurisdiction . On DATE the restitution commission rejected the applicant ’s request for reconsideration of his claim .

On DATE the applicant complained to ORG ( a domestic human - rights body set up under Annex DATE LAW ) about the inability to repossess his pre - war flat .

On DATE ORG ( the legal successor of ORG ) rejected his case on non - exhaustion grounds as he had failed to appeal against the first - instance decision of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

On DATE the applicant was allocated tenancy right of unlimited duration on a military flat in GPE .

It would appear that the applicant has not applied for compensation under section DATE of ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

In DATE the applicant ’s husband , a JNA officer , was allocated a military flat in GPE .

On DATE the applicant ’s husband bought that flat under the terms of the Military Flats Act DATE . It would appear that the whole purchase price was covered by the contribution he had paid for the housing construction ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

When the PERSON formally withdrew from GPE on DATE , the applicant ’s husband continued his military career in the FAC forces and was killed on DATE in a military action near GPE .

On DATE the applicant was allocated tenancy right of unlimited duration on a military flat in GPE , GPE . On DATE she purchased that flat .

On DATE the applicant applied to the competent domestic authorities for the restitution of the flat in GPE ( in accordance with LAW , which is still in force , spouses share occupancy rights ) .

On DATE her application was rejected pursuant to section CARDINAL of ORG .

On DATE the competent ORG upheld the first - instance decision of DATE .

On DATE ORG allocated the flat to GPE , a member of ORG .

On DATE , following an application for judicial review , ORG upheld the second - instance decision of DATE .

On DATE ORG upheld the decision of DATE .

On DATE the applicant bought that flat under the terms of the Military Flats Act DATE and paid the full price in the amount of MONEY ( around DEM CARDINAL,CARDINAL at the time ) .

When the ORG formally withdrew from GPE on DATE , he continued his military career in the FAC forces and left GPE . His military service was terminated in DATE .

On DATE ORG allocated the flat to ORG , a member of the ORG forces .

In DATE the competent domestic authority rejected the applicant ’s request for restitution of his flat in GPE pursuant to section QUANTITY of ORG . It would appear that the applicant did not appeal against that decision .

On DATE the restitution commission set up by Annex CARDINAL to ORG , before which the applicant pursued parallel proceedings , accepted his application for the restitution . However , on DATE the restitution commission accepted the request for reconsideration submitted by ORG and quashed its decision of DATE .

On DATE the applicant made a new application for the restitution of his flat . On DATE the competent domestic authority rejected his application pursuant to section LANGUAGE of ORG .

On DATE , following an application for judicial review , ORG upheld the second - instance decision of CARDINAL DATE .

On DATE the Constitutional Court of Bosnia and GPE found a violation of LAW No . CARDINAL to the Convention in the applicant ’s and CARDINAL other cases ( decision no . AP CARDINAL ) as regards the method of determining the amount of compensation envisaged under section ORG , in line with its decision no . U CARDINAL/CARDINAL of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

DATE . On DATE the applicant applied for the restitution of his flat in GPE .

On DATE the competent ORG quashed the first - instance decision of DATE for procedural reasons . After having examined the applicant ’s request , it rejected it on the same date pursuant to section QUANTITY of ORG .

On DATE ORG allocated the impugned flat to TIME , a member of the ORG forces .

The applicant , in the meantime , complained to ORG about the inability to repossess his pre - war flat and about the length of the proceedings for repossession .

On DATE ORG found that there had been a violation of LAW as regards the length of the proceedings for repossession and awarded the applicant MONEY ( BAM ; MONEY ) in respect of pecuniary and non - pecuniary damage . As regards the complaint about the inability to repossess the pre - war flat , the Commission held that there had been no violation of LAW No . CARDINAL to the Convention .

On DATE , following an application for judicial review , ORG upheld the second - instance decision of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

On DATE the applicant lodged a constitutional appeal . On CARDINAL DATE ORG rejected his appeal as manifestly ill - founded .

In the meantime , on DATE the applicant received compensation under section ORG see paragraph CARDINAL below ) in the amount of BAM CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL ( approximately PERSON euros ) .

On CARDINAL DATE the applicant was allocated tenancy right of unlimited duration on a military flat in GPE .

On DATE all purchase contracts concluded under LAW DATE were declared void ( Zakon o preuzimanju sredstava bivše ORG u svojinu PERSON i ORG , ORG of GPE nos . CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL ) . Thereafter , the legislation regulating this matter , ORG ( Zakon o prodaji stanova na kojima postoji stanarsko pravo , ORG and Herzegovina nos . CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL/CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL ) and ORG ( Zakon o prestanku primjene PERSON o napuštenim stanovima , Official Gazette of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina nos . CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , FAC , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL ) , underwent numerous changes and all such contracts were declared legally valid . However , CARDINAL categories of buyer are not entitled to repossess their flats and to register their title to them ( see section DATE of the Privatisation of Flats Act DATE and section CARDINAL of ORG . The first category concerns those who served in foreign armed forces after the DATE - CARDINAL war . The second concerns those who acquired occupancy or equivalent rights to a military flat in a successor ORG of the SFRY , like the present applicants . However , they are now entitled to compensation under section ORG . While the compensation had initially been envisaged as the refund of the amount paid for the flats in DATE plus interest at the rate applicable to overnight deposits , on DATE ORG ( decision no . U CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) declared that method of determining the amount of compensation unconstitutional and ordered ORG to amend it in line with ORG cited above , § § CARDINAL and DATE ) .

For a more detailed analysis of the relevant domestic law and practice and of the relevant international documents , see PERSON ( cited above , § § DATE ) and PERSON and Others ( cited above , § § DATE ) .

D. Relevant NORP legislation

It has no longer been possible to acquire occupancy rights in GPE since DATE ( see section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW DATE , Zakon o stanovanju , ORG nos . CARDINAL , CARDINAL/CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , DATE and CARDINAL ) . Instead , current and retired members of the armed forces and current and retired staff of ORG have thereafter been entitled to equivalent tenancy rights of unlimited duration on military flats or , in case of a lack of suitable flats , mortgage loans co - financed by the ORG on condition that they or their spouses or children do not have occupancy or equivalent rights to a flat in any of the former ORG ( the Military Housing Ordinance DATE , PERSON o načinu i kriterijumima za rešavanje stambenih pitanja zaposlenih u PERSON ministarstvu za odbranu i PERSON , Official Gazette of GPE nos . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL ; LAW , PERSON o načinu i kriterijumima za davanje stanova u zakup i dodeljivanje stambenih zajmova za rešavanje stambenih pitanja zaposlenih u PERSON , ORG of GPE nos . CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL ; the Military Housing Ordinance CARDINAL , PERSON o načinu , kriterijumima i merilima za davanje stanova u zakup i dodeljivanje stambenih zajmova za rešavanje stambenih pitanja zaposlenih u ORG odbrane i PERSON i PERSON , published in an internal gazette of ORG nos . CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL/CARDINAL and CARDINAL ; LAW , PERSON o rešavanju stambenih pitanja u GPE odbrane , published in an internal gazette of ORG nos . CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL ; and ORG DATE and DATE , PERSON o rešavanju stambenih potreba PERSON vojnih penzija , published in an internal gazette of ORG nos . CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL and PERSON o rešavanju stambenih potreba PERSON vojnih penzija , published in an internal gazette of ORG no . CARDINAL ) . Therefore , those who occupied military flats in GPE before the war have as a rule been required to give up their rights to those flats in order to qualify for a military flat or a loan in GPE or GPE ( see sections DATE of LAW DATE ; sections CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the Military Pensioners Ordinance DATE ; and sections DATE CARDINAL of LAW ) .

Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the Housing Act DATE provides that the holder of a tenancy right of unlimited duration in respect of a flat may purchase that flat under the same conditions as an occupancy right holder .


No violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression-{general} (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression)

Jon Fridrik Kjølbro;Ledi Bianku;Nebojša Vučinić;Robert Spano;Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström

The applicants are journalists . At the relevant time they were employed by CARDINAL of the CARDINAL national television stations in GPE , ORG , hereafter “ GPE ” . The first applicant produced a television programme , described as a documentary , called “ When the doctor knows best ” , which was broadcast at TIME on DATE , and seen by CARDINAL viewers . The second applicant was the first applicant ’s superior and responsible for the content of the programme .

The television programme concerned the treatment of pleural mesothelioma cancer , notably at ORG ) , where ORG was in charge of treatment . It focused on CARDINAL types of chemotherapy medication , GPE , produced by L , and PERSON , produced by ORG used PERSON as first - line treatment in combination with NORP or PERSON , depending on whether the treatment was related to an operation ( operable patients ) or to prolonging life and relieving pain and symptoms ( inoperable patients ) .

CARDINAL experts participated in the programme : a medical doctor from ORG in GPE , a professor from GPE and a medical doctor from ORG in GPE . They all used GPE as first - line treatment , most often in combination with NORP or PERSON . The programme followed CARDINAL patients and their relatives , who told their stories , and a narrator spoke as a voice - over throughout the programme .

NORP In preparation for the programme , the first applicant had carried out research on the subject which included , inter alia , the following .

On DATE ORG had approved the marketing of GPE in combination with NORP for treatment of patients with inoperable pleural mesothelioma cancer . The background for the approval was , among others , research which had been carried out examining the effect of treatment with PERSON in combination with NORP as compared to treatment with NORP alone ( a phase III trial , see paragraph CARDINAL below ) as first - line therapy .

NORP In DATE the Minister for ORG and ORG replied to various questions posed by Members of ORG as to the treatment of pleural mesothelioma cancer in GPE . The Minister replied , inter alia , that there was no proof that an GPE - based treatment was more efficient than other chemotherapy - based treatments , including that offered in GPE ; that the combination of PERSON and NORP , which was used at ORG , resulted in a DATE survival rate of PERCENT and a median DATE of DATE , which was exactly the survival rate from using the combination of GPE and NORP , but that there had been no direct comparison of the CARDINAL treatments ; and that there was no internationally accepted standard chemotherapy for the treatment of pleural mesothelioma cancer , but that several single and combined treatments were used .

On DATE ORG produced a memorandum about pleural mesothelioma cancer and its treatment , which was sent to GPE . It stressed that international studies , including of PERSON and GPE , had not shown that any CARDINAL - combination regime was superior to other twocombination regimes . That information was confirmed by the professor from GPE in an email of DATE and by the medical doctor from ORG in GPE in an email of DATE . The memorandum also referred to a fund aimed at developing research on pleural mesothelioma cancer , in the amount of CARDINAL NORP kroner ( DKK ) , equal to MONEY ( ORG ) , received by ORG from company ORG , which produces Vinorelbine . The money had been used to pay nurses and students and for data collection . It emerged that there had been no financial profit for the doctors involved .

Having received the above - mentioned memorandum , the first applicant again contacted the professor from GPE and the medical doctor at ORG in GPE . In essence , they confirmed in subsequent emails of CARDINAL and DATE that since there had been no direct comparative clinical studies , there was no scientific evidence that CARDINAL twocombination regime was superior to another CARDINAL - combination regime .

Medical research studies involving human subjects are called clinical trials . They are divided into different stages , called phases . Generally , it can be said that the earliest phase trials may look at whether a drug is safe or at its side - effects . A later phase PERSON trial aims to find out whether the treatment works well enough , for which types of cancer the treatment works , more about side effects and how to manage them and more about the best dose to use . A later phase PERSON trial aims to test whether a new treatment is better than existing treatments ( standard treatment ) . These trials may compare a completely new treatment with the standard treatment or with different doses or ways of giving a standard treatment .

Subsequent to the broadcast on DATE of the television programme , on DATE ORG instituted defamation proceedings before ORG ( PERSON ) against the Director of GPE and the CARDINAL applicants , maintaining that the latter , in the programme in question , had made direct and indirect accusations , covered by LAW ( PERSON ) , against ORG , of malpractice regarding certain patients suffering from pleural mesothelioma cancer , allegedly resulting in the ORG unnecessary death and shortening of life , in the interest of ORG ’s professional prestige and private finances .

Before ORG , the applicants , S , and Medical Director H for ORG gave evidence .

The first applicant stated , inter alia :

“ ... that she had not criticised ORG for improper treatment causing death . Her message was only to point out that the substance of GPE had been better documented than the substance of PERSON . She had collected statements from patients and experts , but could not state herself whether PERSON was a better product than PERSON ... The experts had not stated whether PERSON in combination with another product was better than PERSON in combination with another product . However , all experts had emphasised that PERSON had been evaluated in a phase III trial , for which reason it was a more thoroughly tested product . ... her questions had been answered during her conversations with professor M on DATE and S on CARDINAL DATE . Subsequently no one had been willing to answer her questions . That was the only real conversation she had had with S. The next time she had called him , he had put down the receiver . When it had not been possible for her to get any response to her many points of criticism , she had contacted H ... she had wanted statements from both H and S as the programme would be unbalanced if they were not heard ... Some found that PERSON had been better documented than PERSON . She was not aware of any trial demonstrating that a combination with PERSON was better than a combination with another medicinal product ... ” .

S stated , inter alia , the following :

“ PERSON has been used for second - line therapy in GPE since DATE , and since DATE as first - line therapy . Patients had been given the impression in the media that GPE was a miracle cure . ORG had introduced it as an option . DATE , GPE is used in combination with PERSON as the standard therapy for inoperable patients ... Sometimes in DATE , the standard therapy for operable patients had been changed to NORP in combination with PERSON . If some patients were offered PERSON everybody had to be offered GPE ... After the programme had been broadcast ... patients started mistrusting the PERSON therapy . Afterwards it was not possible to perform the trial [ phase II ] on this drug . Nor would it be possible to obtain funding for the trial . Therefore no trial had been performed of PERSON ... he had provided the information included in professor M ’s memorandum of DATE ... he had talked to [ the first applicant ] several times and had spent a lot of time and energy on explaining cancer therapy ... he had also lost confidence in [ the first applicant ] ... ”

H stated , among other things :

“ ... The approval of GPE by ORG for the treatment of mesothelioma only means that a marketing authorisation has been granted for the drug , which means that advertisement of the product is permitted . PERSON has also been approved by ORG , but for a wide range of oncological therapies ... in DATE when PERSON was tested [ phase III ] the bar had been set quite low . The study compared PERSON with a clearly inferior treatment that would not actually be offered to anybody . It would have been more relevant to study PERSON in combination with NORP versus Vinorelbine with ORG S has made a phase II trial of the standard therapy [ Vinorelbine ] ... Subsequently the standard therapy regimen has been expanded to include GPE , which is not a better product than PERSON , but CARDINAL times more expensive ... if CARDINAL drugs are equally effective , but CARDINAL of them is CARDINAL times more expensive than the other , patients will be offered therapy using the cheaper drug . ... The standard therapies now offered by ORG are PERSON in combination with NORP for inoperable patients and PERSON in combination with NORP for operable patients ... the shift to GPE as the standard therapy at ORG did not reflect that PERSON was medically better . The [ applicants’ ] programme had had a large impact as patients were asking not to be treated with PERSON . ORG had therefore had to change medical products because patients had the clear impression that PERSON was not as good as GPE ... It is quite usual for ORG to surrender material to the press and to answer questions , but the questions of [ the first applicant ] were never - ending . ORG has spent about a DATE , or MONEY , responding to inquiries from [ the first applicant ] , and huge efforts had been made to accommodate her requests ... the programme had created distrust towards both ORG and S and had created uncertainty in both patients and relatives . He had received CARDINAL “ hate mails ” himself ... ”

By a judgment of DATE , ORG found against the applicants ( and the Director of GPE ) and sentenced them each to DATE - fines of CARDINAL NORP Kroner ( ORG ) . The allegations were declared null and void . The reasoning was as follows :

Based on the evidence , ORG accepts as a fact that in DATE , following a phase III trial , ORG approved PERSON in combination with NORP for treating patients suffering from inoperable malignant pleural mesothelioma and that subsequently the same was approved by ORG . The court also accept as a fact that PERSON is a drug dating back DATE whose effect had been documented by clinical experience and approved by ORG for a wide range of oncological therapies . Finally , the court also accepts as a fact that it has not been documented that PERSON therapy in combination with a platin medicinal product is more effective than PERSON therapy in combination with a platin medicinal product .

As regards the term “ experimental drug ” the court accepts as a fact that a drug administered to patients in a trial is referred to as an experimental drug , no matter whether the same drug is the standard therapy offered outside the trial setting .

No matter that [ the applicants ] are deemed to have been aware of the above circumstances following their comprehensive research of the matter , it was said in the programme that , for dying patients , [ S and ORG ] had prescribed a “ non - approved chemotherapy regimen ” not approved for the diagnosis or which was not “ the correct chemotherapy ” , and that [ S and ORG ] used an “ experimental drug ” , the “ worst - case scenario being that patients would die earlier than if they had been treated with an approved substance ” , or that it would have “ fatal consequences ” . Moreover , the phrase “ the only drug with a known effect ” was used .

Since no account was given in the programme of the above - mentioned trials and approval process and the terminology applied for that process , the court finds that it would seem to a non - professional viewer that PERSON was the only effective drug for mesothelioma , particularly because the programme linked the treatment of CARDINAL patients with PERSON to their death , whereas the prospect of DATE to live was held out to the CARDINAL patient who had been given GPE therapy in GPE .

Moreover , the programme also linked ORG ’s use of PERSON to his personal esteem and his “ personal research account ” , although [ the applicants ] had been made aware of the research grant management procedure though Professor M ’s memorandum of DATE before the broadcast .

Since no account was given either of the procedure for managing research grants , the court also finds in this respect that it would seem to a non - professional viewer that S had a personal financial interest in starting PERSON treatment rather than PERSON .

The [ applicants ] are therefore considered to have violated LAW .

According to the information on [ the applicants’ ] knowledge after their comprehensive research of the matter , the court finds no basis for exempting them from punishment or remitting the penalty under LAW , compare also LAW .

[ The applicants ] are furthermore jointly and severally liable for paying legal costs of DKK CARDINAL,CARDINAL . ”

On appeal , on DATE the judgment was upheld by the High Court of Eastern Denmark ( PERSON ) with the following reasoning :

“ In the introduction to the programme ‘ When the doctor knows best’ a narrator states , among other things : ‘ A NORP doctor is entering a medical congress to show his research results . For DATE he has gone his own way , he has treated dying patients with chemotherapy that is not approved.’

Later during the programme , it is stated at which hospitals one can receive treatment for pleural mesothelioma cancer , that these hospitals co - operate with ORG , and a reference is made to a named ORG , head of ORG for treatment of pleural mesothelioma cancer .

During the various interviews , a narrator states , inter alia :

- ‘ The doctor does not give his patients the only approved medication . Instead , he uses a test medication . In the worst scenario , that may result in the patients dying earlier than if they had been given the approved substance.’

- ‘ There is CARDINAL approved chemotherapy against pleural mesothelioma cancer , but that is not offered to ORG [ one of the patients followed in the programme ] . The doctors chose to treat her with a substance that is not approved for the diagnosis , and whose effect on pleural mesothelioma cancer is not substantiated.’

- ‘ However , that chemotherapy turned out to have huge consequences for her [ SP].’

- ‘S can freely choose the medication that he thinks is best . There is CARDINAL treatment which , in comparative studies , has proved to have an effect on pleural mesothelioma cancer . Accordingly , that is the only medication which is approved as treatment . That medication is called PERSON . However , ORG chose not to use that medication on his PERSON

- ‘ Thus , it has not been proved whether ORG works . According to the calculations made by GPE , CARDINAL patients in GPE have been given test medication . In the worst scenario , that may result in patients dying earlier than if they had been given the approved medication.’

-’For her [ ORG ] the lack of effect of treatment by ORG turns out to have had fatal consequences.’

- ‘ The family K ask themselves why S goes his own way . They suspect that he has other interests than those of the patients . That suspicion grows , when they talk to ORG ’s personal ORG

- ‘ It turns out , however , that ORG may also have had other reasons for choosing PERSON . Because he has used this medication in medical tests on the patients . In a phase when they are fighting for their lives.’

-’The question remains : why does S carry out tests with ORG ? Could it have something to do with the prestige which is implicit in having research articles published?’

- ‘ We do not know whether it is prestige that impels S.’

- ‘ Thus , S will not acknowledge what leading experts agree on ; [ namely ] that GPE is the only medication whose effect is substantiated.’

- ‘ Here it turns out that ORG has received more than DKK CARDINAL,CARDINAL over DATE from the company F. That is the company behind the test medication ORG . The money has been paid into LOC ’s personal research account . DKK CARDINAL is earmarked for the tests . S withheld that information.’

The programme ends by informing us , among other things , that CARDINAL of the patients who were interviewed have passed away . The narrator says , inter alia :

‘ ORG , who was part of ORG ’s tests with PERSON , died on DATE

With these statements , [ the applicants ] not only passed on assertions by patients , relatives and experts , but also took a stand , so that the programme undisputedly gave the viewers the impression that malpractice has occurred at ORG , in that S has deliberately used medication ( PERSON ) , which is not approved for treatment of pleural mesothelioma cancer , and whose effect has not been substantiated , that the medication in question was part of a test , and that the test medication has resulted in patients dying or having their lives shortened . The way that the programme is built up with its beginning and ending , the viewers get the clear impression that the reasons behind this choice of medication [ Vinorelbine ] were LOC ’s professional prestige and personal finances .

Against this background , in the programme , the applicants , as producer of the programme and as chief sub - editor , have made an allegation against ORG of malpractice and of nourishing irrelevant considerations to the detriment of the lives and health of patients . Such an accusation is likely to disparage [ ORG ] in the eyes of their fellow citizens as set out in LAW . It must have been clear to them [ the applicants ] that they were making such an allegation by way of their presentation of the programme .

The applicants have not attempted to establish the truth of the allegation , but have submitted that the allegation shall be unpunishable by virtue of LAW as they acted in lawful protection of an obvious public interest or the interest of others or , in the alternative , that punishment should be remitted under LAW because they were justified in regarding the allegations as true .

These provisions must , in connection with LAW , be understood in the light of LAW on the protection of freedom of expression . A very considerable public interest is related to journalistic discussion about risk to life and health , or suspicion thereof , as regards public hospital treatment . When balancing considerations of freedom of expression with considerations of the protection of the name and reputation of persons and companies , the former is accorded tremendous weight on the scale . That entails acknowledgement of a very far - reaching freedom of expression for the press , and accordingly the press must be permitted , as the public control- and information organ ( ‘ public watchdog’ ) , a certain amount of exaggeration and provocation in connection with their discussion of these questions , when factually there are reasons for expressing criticism .

On the basis of the information in the case , including the research material that the applicants possessed before the broadcast of the programme , in particular the emails from [ the medical doctor from ORG in GPE and the professor from GPE ] , the replies by the Minister for ORG and Health to various questions [ posed by Members of ORG ] , and the memorandum of DATE produced by ORG [ about pleural mesothelioma cancer ] , it can be established that PERSON in combination with NORP or PERSON was standard treatment at ORG , that ORG on DATE approved the marketing of GPE in connection with NORP for treatment of inoperable patients with pleural mesothelioma cancer , that there was no substantiation or basis for believing that an GPE - based treatment was more efficient than the treatment offered by ORG , that some patients at ORG , who were already about to receive ORG as standard treatment , were chosen and offered the same medicine as part of a test [ it is not known for what ] , and that S did not make any private financial profit from these tests .

Against this background , including the fact that the word ‘ approved’ was not explained during the programme , namely the difference between medication approved for treatment and [ medication ] approved for marketing , and by consistently using the word “ test medication ” , even though CARDINAL patient in the programme participated in tests , [ the applicants ] made allegations which were based on an incorrect factual basis , of which they must have been aware via the research material .

The aim of the programme – to make a critical assessment of the treatment of patients with pleural mesothelioma cancer offered by ORG and the responsible consultant – is a legitimate part of the press ’s role as ‘ public watchdog’ , but it can not justify an allegation , which is built on a factually incorrect basis , and thus a wrong premise . [ The applicants ] , who did not limit themselves to referring to or disseminating statements by experts , patients and relatives , did not have any basis for making such serious allegations against ORG and S. The allegations can not be justified on the grounds that ORG and S refused to participate in the programme .

Against this background , and since in relation to LAW there is no interest to protect when there is no factual basis for the accusations , the allegations are not unpunishable under LAW ) , nor is there any basis for remitting the punishment under LAW ) [ of LAW ] .

It is an aggravating factor that the wrongful accusations were disseminated on national television during primetime and on GPE ’s homepage , by means of which the accusations had a significant spread .

Accordingly , [ ORG ] agrees [ with ORG judgment ] that [ the applicants ] be fined under LAW , and that the allegations be declared null and void by virtue of LAW .

ORG thus dismisses the appeal and upholds the judgment of ORG .

The applicants shall be jointly and severally liable for paying legal costs of ORG appeal to ORG , in the amount of ORG CARDINAL , which constitutes the legal fee inclusive of LOC . In fixing the amount , ORG took into account the scope and duration of the case . ”

On DATE ORG ( Procesbevillingsnævnet ) refused the ORG request for leave to appeal to ORG ( Højesteret ) .

Subsequent to the broadcast on DATE of the television programme , CARDINAL complaints were lodged with ORG ) relating to the issues raised by the programme . A press release published on the ORG website on DATE read as follows :

“ As of DATE , ORG has received CARDINAL complaints relating to the treatment of mesothelioma patients with combinatorial drugs other than GPE and GPE . That treatment was questioned by ORG ( DR ) in a documentary programme in DATE .

ORG has received CARDINAL complaints relating to the criticism raised . This means that the persons claiming compensation are either patients or their dependants , CARDINAL of the reasons being their belief that the combinatorial drugs administered to treat the disease were incorrect ones .

All CARDINAL complaints have been refused , CARDINAL of the reasons being that the independent medical oncologists who assessed the cases found that it was in compliance with optimum medical standards to treat patients with the selected combination therapy .

CARDINAL of the cases have been appealed against to ORG for Patients’ Rights and ORG ) . ORG for ORG upheld the decision of ORG , finding , inter alia:’ ... [ patients ] were offered PERSON and PERSON , which must be considered to be as active as other combinations with a favourable profile of adverse ORG . The other appeal does not concern the issue of combination therapy . ”


Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time)

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

The applicants complained of the excessive length of criminal proceedings . They also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention .


CASE OF KADIRZHANOV AND MAMASHEV v. RUSSIA

Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Extradition) (Conditional) (Kyrgyzstan);No violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Procedural guarantees of review);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Procedural guarantees of review);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Speediness of review)

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

The applicants are of NORP ethnic origin . They lived in the GPE region of GPE . After mass disorders and inter - ethnic clashes in the region in DATE , they left GPE for GPE to flee , together with many other ethnic NORP , ethnically motivated violence .

Mr GPE was born in DATE . He currently lives in GPE , GPE .

NORP In DATE the applicant arrived in the town . Before DATE he had not lodged any applications for refugee status or temporary asylum .

On DATE the NORP authorities charged the applicant in absentia with violent crimes committed in the course of the inter - ethnic violence of DATE , when a group of individuals had barricaded a road near the village of GPE , which had led to a number of deaths .

On DATE ORG ordered the applicant ’s detention for DATE . The NORP authorities also added the applicant ’s name to an international wanted list .

On CARDINAL DATE the applicant was arrested in PERSON and placed in remand prison no . CARDINAL . It appears that he first learnt about the criminal prosecution and charges against him in GPE on DATE . He denied his involvement in the DATE violence . On an unspecified date , the applicant was provided with the services of a ORG - appointed lawyer for the purposes of the extradition proceedings .

On CARDINAL DATE the ORG district prosecutor of PERSON ordered the applicant ’s custodial detention on the basis of the decision of CARDINAL DATE , referring to LAW ( “ the FAC ” ) .

The NORP authorities confirmed their intention to seek the applicant ’s extradition .

On DATE ORG lodged a formal extradition request with its NORP counterpart . It submitted the following diplomatic assurances : that the applicant would be provided with every opportunity , as prescribed by international and NORP criminal law , to defend himself , including by way of legal assistance ; that he would not be subjected to torture , cruel , inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment ; and that he would not be prosecuted on political , racial , ethnic or religious grounds .

On DATE the ORG district prosecutor again ordered the applicant ’s custodial detention , referring to LAW ( “ CCrP ” ) .

On DATE the applicant applied to the regional migration authority for refugee status .

On DATE ORG of Orel examined the ORG district prosecutor ’s request to extend the applicant ’s detention for DATE . Noting that the prosecutor had not substantiated the need for such a long period by reference to specific measures to be taken during the “ extradition check ” procedure ( экстрадиционная проверка ) and noting the need to take account of the upcoming decision on the application for refugee status ( which could bar further extradition proceedings ) , the judge extended the applicant ’s detention for DATE only , until DATE . On DATE the ORG upheld the extension order .

On DATE the applicant ’s lawyer made submissions to ORG in relation to , inter alia , the risk of illtreatment in the event of the applicant ’s extradition to GPE .

On DATE the NORP ORG wrote to ORG , indicating that it had no specific information disclosing any impediment to the applicant ’s extradition . At the same time it indicated that because the applicant was of NORP ethnic origin “ there could be a risk of premeditated biased attitude in the NORP authorities’ examination of his case ” .

On DATE ORG extended the applicant ’s detention until DATE . The decision was upheld on appeal on DATE .

On DATE the regional migration authority dismissed the applicant ’s refugee status application . The authority relied on a note dated DATE by the Federal migration authority on the general political and human rights situation in GPE in DATE . The applicant ’s allegation that he had received threats from ethnic NORP while in GPE was dismissed , because the reason behind the threats had been his wealth , not ethnic origin . The applicant appealed to the Federal migration authority . On DATE his appeal was dismissed . The risk of ill - treatment remained unassessed .

In the meantime , on CARDINAL DATE ORG extended the term of the applicant ’s detention until DATE , despite the lawyer ’s request to release the applicant on bail . ORG upheld the decision on appeal on DATE arguing , inter alia , that there was no reason to vary the preventive measure in accordance with LAW

On DATE ORG extended the applicant ’s detention until DATE . The applicant lodged an appeal with the court on DATE . On an unspecified date the case was transferred to ORG for examination .

On DATE ORG held an appeal hearing and , finding that there was no reason to vary the preventive measure in accordance with LAW CCrP , upheld the extension order of CARDINAL DATE .

In the meantime , on DATE ORG amended its extradition request , with reference to the amended decision listing the charges against the applicant .

On DATE ORG granted the extradition request . The extradition order contained no assessment of the factual and legal matters relating to the alleged risk of ill - treatment in the requesting country , and did not mention any of the diplomatic assurances given by the NORP authorities .

On DATE the applicant appealed against the extradition order claiming , inter alia , that ORG had failed to assess the alleged risk of ill - treatment .

On DATE ORG of GPE upheld the migration authorities’ decisions of DATE and DATE . The risk of ill - treatment was not assessed . On DATE ORG upheld the judgment .

In the meantime , on DATE ORG held a judicial review hearing against the extradition order and upheld it . It summarily dismissed the allegations regarding the risk of ill - treatment , referring to the assurances given by the NORP authorities and to the fact that the applicant had been charged with “ ordinary crimes ” and thus was not being persecuted on political or ethnic grounds . The applicant appealed to ORG .

In DATE the PERSON regional prosecutor sought the extension of the applicant ’s detention . The matter was submitted to ORG .

On CARDINAL DATE ORG extended the applicant ’s detention for DATE , to reach the maximum statutory period of DATE on DATE . It found that there were no grounds to vary the preventive measure in accordance with LAW The applicant appealed .

On DATE the Appeal Section of the Orel Regional Court held a hearing and upheld the detention order .

On DATE ORG of GPE confirmed the judgment of DATE , thus upholding the extradition order . It summarily dismissed the applicant ’s arguments relating to the risk of illtreatment . The court also stated that the NORP authorities had provided guarantees relating to legal assistance and the absence of ill - treatment .

On DATE the applicant ’s lawyer , ORG , filed a request with the regional prosecutor ’s office for the applicant ’s release .

On DATE the PERSON regional deputy prosecutor ordered the applicant ’s release from custody under , inter alia , ORG and CARDINAL of the CCrP. He reasoned that the examination of the case pending before the ORG , which had indicated interim measures pursuant to LAW in respect of the applicant , would last longer than the maximum period of detention permissible . The deputy prosecutor varied the preventive measure to release from custody , after a personal guarantee was given by ORG The ruling was not challenged and the applicant was released from custody .

Mr GPE was born in DATE . He currently lives in GPE , a village in the GPE region of GPE .

The applicant arrived in GPE in DATE . In DATE and DATE he did not lodge any applications for refugee status or temporary asylum in GPE .

On DATE the NORP authorities charged the applicant in absentia with violent crimes committed in DATE , when a group of individuals had barricaded a road near the village of GPE , which had led to a number of deaths . The NORP authorities also added the applicant ’s name to an international wanted list .

On DATE ORG in GPE ordered the applicant ’s arrest and authorised his custodial detention for DATE .

On DATE he was arrested in GPE and placed in a remand prison . It appears that he first learnt about the criminal prosecution and charges against him in GPE on DATE .

On DATE the PERSON inter - district prosecutor ’s office applied the preventive measure of custodial detention to the applicant , which was authorised by ORG on DATE .

On an unspecified date the applicant was provided with the services of a ORG - appointed lawyer for the purposes of the extradition proceedings .

On DATE ORG submitted an extradition request to its NORP counterpart . The request contained the following diplomatic assurances : that the applicant would be provided with every opportunity , as prescribed by international and NORP criminal law , to defend himself , including by way of legal assistance ; that he would not be extradited to a third country and would only stand trial in relation to the charges that gave rise to the extradition request ; that he would not be subjected to torture , cruel , inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment ; and that he would not be prosecuted on political , racial , ethnic or religious grounds .

On DATE the PERSON inter - district prosecutor ’s office again applied ORG chosen preventive measure to the applicant , thus extending his custodial detention .

On DATE the applicant applied to the GPE migration authority for refugee status , arguing persecution on the grounds of ethnic origin . On DATE the authority dismissed the applicant ’s application at the admissibility stage . The Federal migration authority quashed this decision . His application was examined in DATE .

In the meantime , on DATE ORG wrote to ORG , indicating that it had no specific information disclosing any impediment to the applicant ’s extradition . At the same time , it indicated that because the applicant was of NORP origin “ there could be a risk of premeditated biased attitude in the LOC of his case ” .

On DATE the applicant ’s lawyer made submissions to ORG on the issue regarding the risk of illtreatment in the event of the applicant ’s extradition to GPE . On CARDINAL DATE it acknowledged receipt of the above - mentioned submissions and stated that they would be taken into consideration .

DATE . On CARDINAL DATE the ORG extended the applicant ’s detention until DATE . ORG dismissed an appeal against the decision on DATE .

On DATE the Ostankinskiy District Court of GPE dismissed complaints lodged by the applicant under LAW CCrP against the prosecutor ’s decisions of DATE and DATE . ORG upheld the decision on DATE .

On DATE the ORG extended the applicant ’s detention until DATE . ORG upheld the decision on appeal on DATE .

On DATE the ORG extended the applicant ’s detention until DATE . The applicant ’s lawyer filed a statement of appeal dated DATE , which was registered by the ORG on DATE . On an unspecified date it was forwarded to ORG .

On DATE the GPE migration authority examined the applicant ’s refugee status application on the merits , but dismissed it for lack of evidence regarding the applicant ’s allegations of possible persecution on the grounds of ethnic origin . The risk of ill - treatment was not assessed . The applicant challenged the refusal of DATE before the Federal migration authority . His appeal was summarily dismissed on DATE . On an unspecified date he sought a judicial review of the refusals issued by the migration authorities .

On DATE the ORG extended the applicant ’s detention until DATE . On DATE the applicant ’s lawyer filed a statement of appeal , which was registered by the ORG on DATE . On an unspecified date it was forwarded to ORG .

On DATE ORG requested further guarantees from its NORP counterpart , in relation to the possibility of visits to the applicant by NORP diplomatic staff during his detention in GPE . On DATE ORG submitted the required guarantees .

On DATE ORG heard appeals against the decisions of DATE and DATE , but dismissed them .

On DATE ORG extended the applicant ’s detention until DATE . It received the applicant ’s appeal against this decision on CARDINAL DATE . The date on which it was filed remains unknown .

On DATE the NORP Deputy Prosecutor General granted the extradition request . The extradition order did not contain any reasoning in relation to the alleged risk of ill - treatment in GPE . On DATE the applicant was notified of the decision and appealed against it .

On DATE LAW dismissed the appeal against the decision of DATE .

By a judgment of DATE ORG of GPE upheld the refugee application refusals issued by the migration authorities . The alleged risk of ill - treatment was not mentioned .

On DATE ORG upheld the extradition order on judicial review . It summarily dismissed the allegations regarding the risk of ill - treatment , stating that the applicant had been charged with “ ordinary crimes ” and thus was not being persecuted on political or ethnic grounds , and relied on the diplomatic assurances given by the NORP authorities .

On DATE ORG of GPE upheld the judgment of DATE on appeal , thus upholding the extradition order .

On DATE ORG confirmed the judgment of DATE concerning the refusals issued by the migration authorities . It stated that the first - instance court had analysed the applicant ’s situation sufficiently .

On DATE the ORG district prosecutor of GPE ordered the applicant ’s release because interim measures under LAW had been indicated in respect of the applicant . The applicant was released on DATE after a personal guarantee given by his lawyer .


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

All the applicants were employed by ORG , a company based in PERSON ( hereinafter “ the debtor ” ) .

Since the debtor had failed to fulfil its obligations toward its employees , the applicants brought numerous separate civil claims , seeking payment of salary arrears and various social security contributions .

The applicants obtained final court decisions ordering the debtor to pay them certain sums . The essential information as to the domestic proceedings in respect of each application is indicated in the annexed table .

On DATE ORG ( NORP sud ) in PERSON opened insolvency proceedings in respect of the debtor . As a result , all of the ongoing enforcement proceedings against the debtor were terminated .

The applicants duly reported their respective claims based on the above - mentioned court decisions to the insolvency administration .

On DATE the court accepted the ORG claims .

On DATE the applicants’ representative informed the ORG that some of the decisions at issue had been partially enforced in the insolvency proceedings .

NORP The insolvency proceedings in respect of the debtor are still ongoing .

The debtor , which operated as a socially - owned company , was privatised on DATE .

On DATE the privatisation was annulled because the buyer in question had failed to fulfil his contractual obligations .

Following the annulment of the debtor ’s privatisation the ORG owned PERCENT of shares in the company .

On DATE the ORG sold its shares to a private company .


CASE OF GÜLBAHAR ÖZER AND YUSUF ÖZER v. TURKEY

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)

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

The applicants were born in DATE and DATE respectively and live in GPE . They are brother and sister . Their respective children , PERSON and PERSON , aged DATE and CARDINAL respectively , were killed by soldiers on DATE in south - east GPE . During the same incident the soldiers also killed CARDINAL other young people , aged DATE , DATE and DATE ( see PERSON and Others v. GPE , no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , DATE ) . The bodies of those CARDINAL individuals were subsequently handed over to their families , who buried them in ORG .

On DATE the prosecutor ordered the release of the bodies of the applicants’ CARDINAL children . The applicants took the bodies from the morgue in order to take them to the city of PERSON , where they wanted to bury them and where their graves had already been prepared with the help of the municipal officials .

On DATE the governor of PERSON issued a decision stating that crowds had gathered at the cemetery in PERSON and had attacked the municipal workers who were preparing the graves . Subsequently , the incidents at the cemetery had escalated and turned into “ unlawful demonstrations ” . Therefore , “ in order to prevent any unwanted consequences ” , the governor decided to order the burial of the applicants’ children in the CARDINAL villages named in the respective birth register records of the CARDINAL deceased .

While the applicants , together with the coffins of their CARDINAL children , were on their way to PERSON , their vehicles were stopped by gendarme soldiers who told the applicants that they were not allowed to bury their children in PERSON . The soldiers told the applicants that , in accordance with the decision taken by the PERSON governor , the bodies would be buried in CARDINAL other villages . The applicants told the soldiers that they had no connection with the CARDINAL villages in question which , in any event , had been evacuated by soldiers in DATE . They stated that they wanted to bury their children side by side in their family cemetery in PERSON . Despite their objections , the bodies of the CARDINAL children were confiscated and taken away by the soldiers .

DATE the second applicant made an official request to the office of the governor and asked for permission to bury the children in the city of Batman instead . This request was refused but the governor amended his decision so that the applicants’ children could be buried in the same cemetery in the town of ORG , instead of being buried in CARDINAL separate villages as he had previously ordered . In accordance with that decision , the applicants’ children were buried by the authorities in the municipal cemetery in PERSON at TIME on DATE without any religious ceremony .

On DATE the applicants brought a case before ORG and asked for the PERSON governor ’s decision to be annulled . They also requested that the ORG issue an interim measure allowing them to exhume the bodies before they decomposed , and to bury them in a cemetery of their choice . The applicants agreed , in particular , that it was important and necessary to maintain public order . However , they argued that the governor ’s decision had completely disregarded the moral values of their society and had aroused anger . The news that their children would not be buried in PERSON and that their bodies had been confiscated by the soldiers had caused an upsurge of emotion in the people waiting at the cemetery in PERSON and as a result they had attacked members of the security forces and local shops with sticks and stones . When the security forces responded to those attacks heavy handedly , scores of people had been injured and CARDINAL people had been arrested . All of that unrest had been caused by the governor ’s unlawful decision . No such incidents had taken place during the burial of the CARDINAL other individuals who had been killed at the same time as their children . In their complaint the applicants also referred to their rights under Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the Convention .

On DATE ORG rejected the case . It noted that the governor ’s decision had been based on section CARDINAL/C of the PERSON on ORG , which provided that the governor had a duty to maintain peace and public order in the province under his responsibility . The decision had been taken because the people who had gathered at the cemetery in PERSON and who were waiting for the bodies to arrive had thrown stones at municipal workers and members of the security forces . The decision to bury the bodies in the town of ORG had therefore been taken with a view to maintaining public order . ORG considered that , although the applicants had the right to bury their children in a cemetery of their choice , the refusal to permit them to do so had been in compliance with the restrictions set out in the second paragraphs of ORG CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the LAW and in LAW of LAW .

The applicants appealed against the decision and maintained that the incidents at the cemetery referred to by ORG had only occurred after the crowds had found out about the authorities’ refusal to allow them to bury their children in PERSON . They repeated their argument that the CARDINAL others killed by the soldiers at the same time as their children had been buried by their families in ORG without incident . The applicants also reiterated their request for an interim measure .

The request for an interim measure was rejected by ORG on DATE . In a decision of CARDINAL October CARDINAL ORG also rejected the appeal lodged by the applicants against the decision of ORG . In reaching its conclusion ORG stated that the incidents at FAC had begun when the people who had gathered there had insisted that the applicants’ CARDINAL children be buried next to the graves of members of the ORG .

NORP The decision of ORG was communicated to the applicants on DATE .


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

A list of the CARDINAL applicants , who are all NORP nationals , is set out in the appendix ( “ the applicants ” ) .

The applicants were represented before the ORG by Mr PERSON , a lawyer practising in PERSON . The Government of GPE ( “ the Government ” ) were represented by their Agent , PERSON .

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

NORP This application and CARDINAL others ( nos . DATE ) concern the regularisation of the relationship between ownership and use of real property located in the cadastral area of ORG .

Certain land in this area was expropriated in DATE by the ( then socialist ) ORG and a public sports centre was built on it . The sports centre comprises buildings and various other facilities , such as a tennis court , a grandstand , a water station and paved areas .

After the post DATE political , constitutional and legal changes , litigation took place with a view to resolving various property claims made by the original owners ( or their legal successors ) against the entities that owned or operated the sports centre or various parts of it .

The land concerned is divided into a number of plots with various owners , many of whom are linked by family relations and history , and who had the same legal representation in the above - mentioned proceedings . Their lawsuits followed a similar pattern , but sometimes had varying results . They included the following proceedings .

The applicants in the present case are all successors in title to a plot of land in the above - mentioned area , having inherited their title from the original owners , who died in DATE and DATE , respectively .

On DATE the applicants , represented then and throughout the proceedings by a laywer , lodged an action against a sports club seeking to obtain a court order for the removal of the constructions on the land .

The principal line of argument was that the expropriation decision of CARDINAL DATE was invalid in law . The applicants were therefore the lawful owners of the land in question , in particular plot no . DATE ( recorded on sheet no . CARDINAL of the “ old ” records ) , and the defendant had no lawful title to the constructions on the applicants’ land .

The action was subsequently amended to state that , alternatively , the applicants sought a judicial ruling establishing an easement on their land for the benefit of the owner of the sports centre in return for financial compensation payable to the applicants . It was also extended to CARDINAL more defendants , a municipality and a private company .

NORP The action was dismissed at first instance by ORG súd ) on DATE , and DATE following the ORG appeal DATE by ORG ( PERSON súd ) on DATE .

The courts reached their conclusions after having taken complex oral and documentary evidence , including expert evidence .

In accordance with the applicants’ claim , the courts found that ( i ) the expropriation of DATE was legally ineffective on account of procedural flaws ; ( ii ) the applicants were the owners of the land in question ; ( iii ) the constructions on it had been built without a valid legal title in so far as the land was concerned ; and ( iv ) the applicants were entitled to seek redress under general civil law , that is to say LAW no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL Coll . , as amended ) , which was not subject to any statute of limitation , unlike the special legislation on restitution , which contained specific time - limits .

As regards the options available under LAW for resolving the discrepancy between the ownership and use of the land and the constructions concerned , ORG found that , for practical reasons , it was out of the question to have the applicants established as the owners of the constructions and to order them to pay the current owners financial compensation . Furthermore , in the circumstances , it was likewise not practical to order the physical removal of the constructions in question .

The establishment of an easement for the benefit of the owners of the constructions in return for compensation payable by them to the applicants was therefore in principle an option .

NORP However , on the specific facts , and contrary to the applicants’ assertions , the courts found that no easement could be established on the land . The bone of contention was the legal nature of the constructions concerned . In particular , these constructions could not be considered as “ buildings ” in terms of civil law . However , an easement over land could only be established for the benefit of the owner of a “ building ” .

The court dismissed the ORG argument that the buildings and the adjacent facilities belonged to CARDINAL integrated complex and in reality served a single purpose , that in the past easements had been established on some plots in that area and that , accordingly , a similar solution should be adopted in their own case . However , the court did not respond to their specific argument that , in case no . CARDINALC CARDINAL , an easement had been established also over land that had no “ buildings ” on it ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

Observing that the sports centre had always served the public , the courts also took into account the “ nature and extent of economic prejudice ” suffered by the applicants .

Lastly , it was held that the applicants had alternative means of asserting their rights by lodging an action for a declaratory ruling and an action for compensation in respect of unjustified enrichment .

On DATE the applicants lodged a complaint with ORG ( Ústavný súd ) under LAW no . PERSON . , as amended ) , to which they added further grounds of complaint on DATE .

Citing similar grounds to those mentioned above , the applicants contested the outcome of the proceedings and alleged that their rights under , inter alia , LAW ( fairness , adequate reasoning ) and the constitutional equivalent of LAW No . CARDINAL had been violated .

On DATE ORG declared the complaint inadmissible as being manifestly ill - founded . Observing that it was not a court of further appeal against decisions of the ordinary courts , it found no constitutionally relevant unfairness , arbitrariness or irregularity in the impugned judgments .

The decision was served on the applicants’ lawyer on DATE .

The position taken by the courts was subsequently fully endorsed by ORG when it dismissed the applicants’ petition for an extraordinary appeal on points of law to be lodged on their behalf in the present case .

Article CARDINAL deals with situations concerning so - called “ unlawful constructions ” , that is buildings ( stavba ) constructed on somebody else ’s plot of land ( pozemok ) without an entitlement to do so .

At the request of the owner of the land , the court has the power to order the removal of such buildings at the cost of the person who constructed it ( paragraph CARDINAL ) .

However , if the removal of the building is not practical , and subject to consent by the owner of the land , the court has the power to rule that title to the building be transferred to the owner of the land in return for compensation ( paragraph CARDINAL ) .

The court also has the power to regularise the relationship between the owner of the land and the owner of the building by taking other measures , in particular by establishing an easement , which is necessary for the exercise of ownership rights in respect of the building , in return for compensation ( paragraph CARDINAL ) .

NORP In a case registered at FAC under file no . CARDINALC CARDINAL/CARDINAL a different group of claimants raised essentially the same claims as the applicants in respect of other plots of land under the same sports centre , the defendant being the respective municipality .

Before the case was resolved on the merits with final effect , ORG had determined the claimants’ appeal on points of law ( dovolanie ) ( no . CARDINAL PERSON ) against a previous judgment of ORG . In its judgment of DATE , ORG observed that before the action could be determined on the merits ( of the claim for an easement ) , preliminary questions had to be answered as to whether the claimants were the owners of the property concerned and , if they were , whether they had standing to sue in the case .

ORG further observed that , when dealing with those questions , ORG had noted that the land in question had been expropriated in DATE . ORG had therefore held that , even assuming that the expropriation had been flawed , it could only have been challenged by means of administrative - law remedies and within the statutory timelimits . That , however , had been beyond the scope of the case at hand and , therefore , ORG held that the DATE expropriation should be considered as being a matter of fact .

ORG disagreed with ORG position described above . As was found in the present case ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , it found that the expropriation of DATE was legally ineffective . As a consequence , the courts were bound to examine the preliminary question of the claimants’ ownership independently and irrespective of the expropriation decision .

The case was finally decided on the merits by ORG on DATE . The action was granted and an easement was established for the benefit of the claimants in respect of the entire property covered by their claim , that is to say including some plots on which no “ buildings ” , in the sense explained above , were situated .

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

The ensuing question concerning the financial compensation payable by the municipality to the claimants for the easement was resolved by ORG in a judgment of DATE ( case no . CARDINALC CARDINAL ) on the basis of an expert assessment .

In another similar case concerning property in the same area as in the present case , the claimants raised in principle the same claims . The court took the same position as in the present case , that is to say that the claimants were entitled to assert their property claims under the general provisions of LAW and the determinative factor was whether or not the land in question was under “ buildings ” . As that was only partly so , the action was partly granted and partly dismissed . The respective judgments were given on DATE ( ORG ) and DATE ( ORG ) , and the final decision was given by ORG on DATE .

In a number of other similar cases concerning property in the same area as in the present case , the position was taken that the claimants could not assert their rights under the general provisions of LAW , as those provisions constituted a lex generalis , and their application was excluded by virtue of the special legislation on the restitution of property , as a lex specialis . However , that position does not appear to be settled .

The relevant parts of the report state that , in order for the principle of legal certainty – essential for maintaining confidence in the judicial system and the rule of law – to be achieved , the ORG must make the law easily accessible and must also apply the laws it has enacted in a foreseeable and consistent manner . As the existence of conflicting decisions within the highest courts may be contrary to this principle , it is necessary for these courts to establish mechanisms to avoid conflicts and ensure the coherence of their case - law .

The relevant parts of the Opinion read as follows :

“ CARDINAL . While recognising the judges’ power to interpret the law , the obligation of the judges to promote legal certainty has also to be remembered . Indeed legal certainty guarantees the predictability of the content and application of the legal rules , thus contributing in ensuring a high quality judicial system .

Judges will apply the interpretative principles applicable in both national and international law with this aim in mind . ... In civil law countries , they will be guided by case law , especially that of the highest courts , whose task includes ensuring the uniformity of case law .

Judges should in general apply the law consistently . However when a court decides to depart from previous case law , this should be clearly mentioned in its decision . ”


No violation of Article 14+8-1 - Prohibition of discrimination (Article 14 - Discrimination) (Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life;Article 8-1 - Respect for family life)

André Potocki;Angelika Nußberger;Mārtiņš Mits;Nona Tsotsoria;Yonko Grozev;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer

The applicants were born in DATE and DATE respectively and live in GPE . They have been living in a stable relationship for DATE .

On DATE the applicants lodged an application to enter into a registered partnership under LAW ( PERSON ) .

On DATE the Mayor of PERSON dismissed their application in accordance with sections CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL ) of LAW , finding that the applicants did not meet the legal requirements , as the registered partnership was exclusively reserved for same - sex couples .

The applicants appealed . Citing , inter alia , ORG CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the Convention , they complained of discrimination based on their sex and their sexual orientation . The NORP Regional Governor ( PERSON ) dismissed the appeal on DATE , arguing with reference to PERSON and PERSON v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL , ECHR DATE ) that as GPE were allowed to restrict access to marriage to different - sex couples , it would appear unreasonable not to allow them to reserve access to registered partnerships exclusively for same - sex couples .

The applicants subsequently lodged complaints with both ORG and ORG , arguing that marriage was not a suitable option for them , as it was substantially different from a registered partnership . In their view , a registered partnership was in many ways more modern and “ lighter ” than marriage . The applicants put forward several examples : the different statutory time - limit for divorce versus the time - limit for dissolution of a registered partnership in the event of an irretrievable breakdown ( unheilbare GPE ) of the relationship ; the alimony payment obligations following a divorce / dissolution where blame could be placed on CARDINAL spouse / partner ; the obligations conferred by the respective legal institutions , in particular as regards trust , faithfulness and contributions to the household ; and the consequences of a declaration of the death of a spouse / partner . The applicants argued that the ORG ’s considerations in PERSON and PERSON in respect of marriage were not applicable to the registered partnership , which was a new legal institution , introduced in DATE . It was therefore neither based on a long - standing discriminatory tradition and deep - rooted social connotations , nor aimed at possible procreation .

On DATE ORG dismissed the ORG complaint . The relevant parts of its judgment read as follows :

“ LAW ] only applies to the traditional civil marriage ... , which has ‘ deep - rooted social and cultural ORG and was , in the historical context , clearly understood ‘ in its traditional ORG , case of PERSON and PERSON , § § DATE , CARDINAL ) . If the ORG , in its judgment in the case of PERSON and PERSON , considers that the national provisions in ORG member GPE are diverse and range from allowing same - sex marriage to explicitly forbidding it , and concludes from this that , as matters stand , the question whether or not to allow same - sex marriage is left to regulation by domestic law ( ORG , case of PERSON and PERSON , § § DATE ) , this must , in view of the small number of GPE providing for a registered partnership for differentsex couples in addition to marriage , be even more valid for this question .

As the [ Convention ] has to be read as a whole and its ORG have to be construed in harmony with one another , and as LAW ] does not grant different - sex couples , in addition to the right to marry , a right to enter into a registered partnership , the prohibition of discrimination pursuant to LAW taken in conjunction with LAW ] , a provision of more general purpose and scope , can not be interpreted as imposing such an obligation beyond the scope of LAW ] either ( see , concerning the correlating question of the right of same - sex couples to marry , which can not be derived from LAW ] either , ORG , case of PERSON and PERSON , LAW ) .

[ ORG the NORP legislator has provided for the possibility of legal recognition for same - sex couples by introducing the registered partnership , people may rely on the prohibition of discrimination provided for by LAW ] ...

The ORG has also stated , however , in the case of PERSON and PERSON , that the legislator may restrict access to marriage to different - sex couples because it has a certain margin of appreciation as regards the exact status conferred by alternative means of recognition . Moreover , the ORG assumes that LAW allows couples to obtain , in many aspects , a legal status that is equal or comparable to marriage ; apart from parental rights , there were only slight differences ( see ORG , case of PERSON and PERSON , § § CARDINAL et seq . ) .

Given that persons of different sex have access to marriage ( see the [ explanatory report on the draft law ] ) ; the registered partnership was introduced only to counter discrimination against same - sex couples ; [ the registered partnership ] should , in substance , have the same effects as marriage ; different - sex couples are not a group ( historically ) discriminated against ; and there is no NORP consensus on this matter , it does not amount to a violation of LAW taken in conjunction with LAW ] if the NORP legislator does not grant different - sex couples access to the registered partnership .

ORG is not called upon to examine whether the particular differences between these legal institutions , as regards the legal consequences and dissolution options , comply with the principle of equality [ PERSON ] and the prohibition of discrimination pursuant to LAW taken in conjunction with LAW ] , since the only question to be examined is whether different - sex couples have a constitutional right to access to the registered partnership . ”

On DATE ORG dismissed the ORG complaint ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) as unfounded . That decision was served on the applicants’ counsel on DATE .