Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing);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;Mārtiņš Mits;Síofra O’Leary;Yonko Grozev;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in the village of GPE , GPE , GPE .

On DATE a certain individual , PERSON , applied to the Governor of ORG for the permit necessary for the construction of a petrol station on a plot of land situated in the region . The Governor assigned the examination of the application to the applicant , his deputy , who was responsible for the development of the region ’s infrastructure and the management of ORG lands .

A meeting between the applicant and PERSON took place on DATE , DATE , in the former ’s office . According to the official version of events , during the meeting , when PERSON enquired about the necessary documents and applicable procedure for the issuance of the construction permit , the applicant replied that , apart from the necessary formalities , she would also need to make a pay - off ( ქრთამი ) to the amount of MONEY ( ORG ) ; of this amount , ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL would be the share of the Governor himself , whilst the rest would be divided between the applicant and representatives from the various agencies involved .

On DATE PERSON informed ORG ( “ the ORG ” ) that the applicant had requested a bribe from her in return for a promise to assist her in obtaining the requisite construction permit . She expressed her readiness to cooperate with the ORG . The authority immediately opened a criminal case into PERSON allegations ( “ the bribery case ” ) .

Still on DATE , ORG ( “ the ORG ” ) issued the ORG with a general authorisation to remain in charge of the bribery case and to conduct all types of investigative measures necessary .

By rulings dated DATE , ORG authorised secret video surveillance of the applicant ’s meetings with PERSON , as well as the tapping of their telephone conversations .

On DATE PERSON bought a plot of land from another private individual , PERSON ( hereinafter “ the sales agreement ” ) , for the purpose of constructing a petrol station on it . On DATE , the applicant contacted a notary and the head of ORG , requesting them , respectively , to certify the sales agreement and to register , in an expedited manner , the plot in PERSON name .

On DATE PERSON brought to the applicant ’s office the sales agreement and a record from ORG confirming her title to the newly acquired plot of land . During that second meeting , which was secretly filmed by PERSON , the applicant reiterated his request for a bribe . He asked her to bring CARDINAL as a down payment , emphasising that this sum was not supposed to cover any official fees or charges prescribed by law for the issuance of a construction permit . PERSON promised to bring the sum the following day .

On DATE PERSON brought ORG to the applicant in cash . The banknotes had been pre - marked with a special substance by the ORG . The meeting took place in the applicant ’s office , and it was secretly filmed by PERSON and closely supervised by the ORG . As soon as Ms K. handed over the money to the applicant , ORG officers entered the room and arrested the applicant .

A search of the applicant ’s person was conducted on the spot , which led to the discovery of the banknotes in the right inner pocket of his suit . The law - enforcement officers immediately examined the banknotes using a special lamp and observed the marks made by a substance previously applied by the ORG . The same substance was also detected on both of the fingers of the applicant ’s hands and on the clothing of his suit . The accuracy of these findings was later confirmed by a forensic chemical examination .

On DATE the applicant was charged , under LAW ( b ) of LAW of GPE , with the crime of requesting a bribe in a large amount .

NORP The results of an examination of the secret recordings of the various meetings between the applicant and PERSON confirmed the authenticity of those recordings . On DATE the investigator in charge of the case acquainted the applicant and his lawyer with the results of the abovementioned forensic examinations . The accused party did not contest that evidence .

When questioned by ORG , the applicant , who was represented by CARDINAL lawyers of his choice , complained that he had been entrapped by the ORG . He stated that he had never had any intention of accepting a bribe but had been helping PERSON out of good will , as he had considered her to be a distant relative . He confirmed that he had been assisting PERSON in the various administrative formalities related to the purchase of the relevant land . The applicant furthermore admitted to having received money to the amount of USD CARDINAL,CARDINAL , from the applicant , but added that the sum had been meant to be transmitted to a construction company as an advance payment for its upcoming construction of the petrol station . He stated that he could not explain why PERSON would have wished to induce him to accept a bribe .

When questioned by the trial court for the first time on DATE , PERSON stated that she had met the applicant in his office and informed him of her intention to construct a petrol station . She had falsely presented herself as his distant relative in order to obtain the applicant ’s favour more easily . PERSON confirmed that the applicant had then assisted her with the relevant administrative formalities with the notary and ORG . As to the sum of MONEY , PERSON stated DATE reiterating the applicant ’s version of events – that it had been intended that the money would be paid through the applicant ’s offices to a private construction company in relation to the ongoing construction project of a petrol station . Ms PERSON emphasised that she had never been sure that the applicant had intended to retain any part of the above - mentioned sum for his personal benefit . Nevertheless , still suspecting that there might have been illegal intent involved in the applicant ’s wish to be involved in the money transfer , PERSON had decided to inform the ORG of her conversation with the applicant .

On CARDINAL DATE the prosecutor in charge of the applicant ’s criminal case instituted criminal proceedings against PERSON for giving conflicting witness statements , on the grounds of the alleged inconsistency between the statements that PERSON had originally given to the ORG during the investigation stage and those given before the trial court on DATE .

On DATE PERSON requested that ORG hear her again in relation to the applicant ’s case , stating that she had forgotten to testify in respect of a number of significant factual details when the court had previously heard her on DATE .

On DATE PERSON lodged a complaint with ORG in respect of the initiation of the criminal proceedings against her ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . She submitted that the statements she had given to the trial court on DATE had been truthful and had fully reflected the content of her several meetings with the applicant , which could have been verified by examining the relevant secret video and audio recordings .

When questioned by the trial court on DATE , both the notary who had certified the sales agreement and the head of ORG confirmed that the applicant had been urging them to expedite the registration of PERSON title to the plot of land on which a petrol station was scheduled to be constructed . The CARDINAL witnesses furthermore stated that the plot still constituted PERSON property , given that the sales agreement had been annulled shortly after having been concluded .

Allowing a request lodged by the applicant on DATE , the trial court admitted to the criminal case file as evidence a recording of a television programme and a newspaper article in which PERSON had publicly acknowledged having been an ORG undercover agent in CARDINAL other unrelated criminal cases .

On DATE PERSON , who at that time had already been placed in pretrial detention in relation to the criminal proceedings instituted against her for giving conflicting witness statements , was heard by ORG for the second time . She confirmed the statements that she had given during the investigation stage . Namely , she testified that the applicant had clearly requested her to pay “ unofficially ” the sum of ORG CARDINAL in return for promised assistance with the construction project , of which sum ORG CARDINAL was supposed to go , according to the applicant , to the Governor . She stated , however , that she did not know whether the applicant had any intention of retaining any part of the remaining USD CARDINAL for his personal benefit . PERSON also confirmed that the applicant had indeed conducted negotiations with a number of construction companies on her behalf at that time .

Ms K. did not deny that , prior to her involvement in the case against the applicant , she had acted as an undercover agent for the ORG in CARDINAL other unrelated cases . She further stated before the trial court that she had already acted as an undercover agent of the ORG when she had approached the applicant for the first time on DATE . She stated that the initial objective of that undercover anti - criminal operation , led by the ORG , had been to expose the criminal activity of the Governor of ORG Notably , the ORG had been in possession of information that the Governor had been prone to requesting bribes in return for providing various public services . It was only after that initial plan had failed that the law - enforcement agency ’s attention had shifted towards the Governor ’s deputy , the applicant . Ms PERSON also stated that the sales agreement in respect of the plot of land had been annulled shortly after the applicant ’s arrest , as it had in fact been a fictitious transaction concluded under the ORG ’s close supervision . According to Ms K. ’s statements , PERSON had also been collaborating with the ORG at that time , and the first meeting between Ms K. and Ms N. had taken place on the ORG ’s premises .

On DATE the applicant requested the trial court to summon PERSON as an additional witness so that he could question her in relation to her purported collaboration with the ORG and role in the sequence of the events which had led to the initiation of the criminal proceedings against him ( see the preceding paragraph ) . In reply , ORG claimed that it had already attempted to summon PERSON as a witness , but that the latter ’s whereabouts were unknown . Relying on that standpoint , ORG ruled that it was objectively impossible to summon PERSON as a witness .

By a judgment of DATE , ORG found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced him to DATE imprisonment . The court stated that the collection of the evidence in the case file – the statements given during the trial by PERSON , the notary and the head of ORG ; the judicially authorised secret video and audio recording ; and the results of the personal search of the applicant on DATE and of the forensic chemical and phonoscope examinations – confirmed the applicant ’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt . As regards the applicant ’s statement that the money discovered on his person ( USD CARDINAL,CARDINAL ) had not been a bribe but a valid advance payment for preparatory works associated with Ms K. ’s construction project , ORG answered that this was not supported by the totality of the collected evidence ; it did not provide any additional explanation in that respect . As to the applicant ’s argument that he had been induced to commit the offence in question by PERSON , who had been an agent provocateur of the ORG , the court did not address that argument at all .

On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal with ORG against his conviction , reiterating his complaint alleging entrapment and reasserting his version of events .

On DATE the examination of the applicant ’s appeal by ORG began . During a hearing held on DATE , the applicant – referring to statements given by members of his family that they had recently seen PERSON at her house DATE the applicant requested the appellate court to summon the latter so that he could finally question her . The appellate court granted the applicant ’s request .

PERSON was scheduled to appear before the appellate court on DATE , but failed to do so . The applicant noted that his family members , who were living in the same village ( PERSON ) as Ms ORG , had approached her and asked her to testify before the court , but the latter had refused the request in a resolute manner . ORG noted that it had been unable to secure Ms N. ’s appearance but promised to do so for the next hearing , which was scheduled for DATE .

On DATE PERSON submitted a written statement to ORG . Noting that she had recently learned of the ongoing examination of the applicant ’s criminal case , she stated that she was unable to appear as a witness before the appellate court because of her difficult family situation . PERSON stated , in particular , that her aged mother had been seriously ill and remained under her constant supervision .

On DATE ORG presented a handwritten letter from PERSON neighbours dated DATE , according to which the witness had long abandoned her house in the village and her current whereabouts were unknown . ORG ruled that it was objectively impossible to summon PERSON , as her whereabouts could not be identified .

By a decision of DATE , ORG rejected the applicant ’s appeal and upheld his conviction of DATE in full . As with the first - instance court , the applicant ’s argument about his alleged entrapment by the victim , the ORG ’s agent provocateur , was left unanswered by the appellate court . The appellate court rejected as unfounded the applicant ’s argument that the USD CARDINAL,CARDINAL had been meant to be used as an advance payment for construction works . The court noted in this connection that by the time the applicant had received the sum from Ms K. the construction permit had not been issued , and neither had an architectural plan and expenditure estimate been drawn up .

On DATE ORG of GPE , rejecting an appeal by the applicant on points of law as inadmissible , finally terminated the proceedings .

On DATE the applicant was granted early release from prison under a presidential pardon .


No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing);No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6-3-c - Defence in person);No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6-3-d - Witnesses);No violation of Article 34 - Individual applications (Article 34 - Hinder the exercise of the right of petition)

Angelika Nußberger;Erik Møse;Ganna Yudkivska;Khanlar Hajiyev;Mārtiņš Mits;Yonko Grozev

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

NORP Before his arrest the applicant lived in GPE region with his mother .

NORP In DATE the applicant sustained a serious knee injury .

On DATE a medical commission found that as a result of the knee injury , the applicant ’s knee and thigh joints had become deformed . He was certified as third - degree disabled , the lowest category .

On DATE the police arrested the applicant on suspicion of having raped a DATE boy , P. They took him to a police station where , according to the applicant , he was beaten . In his initial application to the ORG the applicant stated that a police officer “ hit him once in the right side of his body ” and after that several police officers started beating him . In his written observations submitted to the ORG on DATE in reply to those of the Government , the applicant ’s lawyer stated that police officers had “ wrung the [ applicant ’s ] hands and feet and hit him on the body , including the areas of his liver and kidneys , and on [ his ] arms and legs ” . The lawyer further stated that the applicant “ was beaten in turn by CARDINAL pairs of police officers until TIME on DATE ” . On DATE the applicant was taken to ORG ( “ the ORG ” ) where he was held for the following DATE . According to the applicant , the conditions of detention in that facility were inhuman .

On DATE the police questioned the applicant who said that he knew P. but had not raped him .

On DATE PERSON told the police that the applicant had raped him on several occasions in the applicant ’s apartment and near a pond . Once P. had come to a bank of the pond and had seen A. fishing there . The applicant had been fishing on the opposite bank of the pond . P. had approached the applicant who had taken him to some bushes and raped . During the rape PERSON had seen PERSON and PERSON passing by the bushes .

On DATE the police questioned PERSON who said that on DATE in the afternoon he and his brother PERSON had been fishing from the bank of the pond . The applicant had been fishing from the opposite bank of the pond . A. had seen that PERSON had approached the applicant and they had gone into some bushes . Later on A. and PERSON had been passing by the bushes and had seen the applicant raping P.

NORP In DATE charges CARDINAL of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) were brought against the applicant .

On DATE and DATE , respectively , the applicant was examined by a doctor and a GPE specialist . Both doctors noted that the applicant was fit for detention in the ORG . No injuries were discovered on his body and the applicant did not raise any complaints about his state of health .

On DATE the applicant was transferred to a GPE ( a pre - trial detention facility ) . On DATE and the following day he was medically examined and did not raise any complaints of ill - treatment or health problems . The doctors established that he was suffering from the consequences of a knee injury sustained before his arrest .

NORP In DATE the applicant studied the indictment which indicated that he had been accused of having raped P. on DATE and on unspecified dates DATE and DATE .

The applicant ’s case was referred to ORG of Odessa for trial . In DATE that court held the first hearing .

On DATE the applicant asked the authorities to appoint him a lawyer . On DATE he was assigned a lawyer under legal aid scheme .

On DATE the applicant asked ORG of Odessa to appoint his mother as his representative in the proceedings . This request was granted on an unspecified date still in DATE .

During CARDINAL of the hearings the trial court questioned the victim , P. , who stated , without indicating the exact dates , that the applicant had raped him several times between DATE and DATE . P. provided very detailed information about the circumstances of the rapes and about the events which had taken place before and after them . P. said that the applicant had raped him in his bedroom while the applicant ’s mother and sister were in the adjacent room . He said that he had been raped only by the applicant and not by other persons .

The court questioned PERSON , the applicant ’s friend , who stated that on CARDINAL and DATE from TIME to CARDINAL or CARDINAL p.m. he and the applicant had sawn wood together .

Witness A. told the court that he had seen the applicant raping P. on DATE in some bushes near the pond .

P. ’s friends stated before the court that PERSON had talked to them about the rapes . The applicant ’s mother was questioned during the trial and said that PERSON had never come to the apartment where she and the applicant lived .

P. ’s mother and teacher stated that PERSON ’s moods and behavior had changed since DATE . ORG mother also said that on DATE P. had told her that on the same date the applicant had raped him near the pond . P. ’s mother also said that the applicant ’s mother had told her that P. had come to the apartment where the applicant lived and the applicant ’s grandmother had ousted him . PERSON ’s teacher said that PERSON had told her that the applicant had raped him .

All of those witnesses were questioned by the trial court in the presence of the applicant and his lawyer . The lawyer and the applicant were allowed to question the witnesses and ask for explanations regarding the facts of the case . During the trial the applicant did not complain of ill - treatment by the police .

Before the court the applicant pleaded not guilty .

On DATE a surgeon examined the applicant ’s knee and prescribed treatment for the knee joint deformation .

On DATE ORG , in the presence of the applicant ’s lawyer and mother , convicted the applicant of several counts of rape ( gratification of unnatural sexual desires in respect of a person DATE ) , committed on unspecified dates DATE and DATE and notably on DATE . It sentenced him to CARDINAL years’ imprisonment under paragraph CARDINAL of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . The applicant was absent from that hearing . The court based his conviction mainly on the victim ’s statements but also on the statements of P. ’s friends , mother , teacher , and witness A. and on a report drawn up by a psychiatrist who had examined P. and concluded that he could not have made up his account of the rapes .

In DATE the applicant and his lawyer , PERSON appealed , arguing that the conviction was not based on sufficient evidence . In particular , the P. , trial court had failed to establish on which dates PERSON had been raped , and the medical examination of the victim had revealed no injuries on the child ’s body . The applicant also argued , without providing further details , that the police had beaten him on DATE . He stated that he could not rape P. on DATE because on DATE he had sawn wood with PERSON He also stated that PERSON had given false statements during the trial because he himself had raped P. The statements of ORG mother were also false , the applicant had refused to give her money and she had wanted to take revenge . P. had made false statements during the trial because his mother had taught him to do so . The applicant submitted that ORG ’s statements concerning the date of the alleged rape near the pond contradicted the statements of ORG mother ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) . He added that the trial court ’s judgment had been unlawful because it contained excessive descriptions of the rape scenes .

DATE the applicant and his mother , acting on the applicant ’s behalf , lodged CARDINAL complaints with ORG which forwarded them to ORG . It remains unknown whether the complaints were examined . The copies of the complaints were not made available to the ORG . In his application form the applicant stated , without elaborating further , that they concerned various “ procedural violations ” during the criminal proceedings .

On DATE the applicant sent his first letter to ORG .

In DATE the NORP Regional Court of Appeal ( “ Court of Appeal ” ) informed the applicant that it would hold a hearing in his case on DATE .

On DATE the applicant requested ORG to ensure his presence at that hearing . The court granted the request and ordered the bailiffs to bring the applicant to the court hearing .

On DATE the applicant was taken to the court - house and kept there in a cell DATE . In TIME he was taken back to the GPE . It remains unknown why he was not brought to the court - room for the hearing .

In the meantime , on DATE ORG , in the presence of the applicant ’s lawyer , upheld the judgment of the first - instance court . On the basis of the findings made by the trial court , ORG held that the arguments raised in the appeal by the applicant and his lawyer ’s arguments were ill - founded because they had been refuted by evidential material in the applicant ’s criminal case file . The trial court had fully and objectively assessed that material . The conclusions reached by the first - instance court had been supported by sufficient evidence , in particular the statements of ORG and other persons questioned during the trial . ORG did not question any witnesses ; nor did it administer or assess any new evidence .

On DATE the applicant and his lawyer , PERSON , lodged CARDINAL separate appeals in cassation with ORG , raising the same arguments as those raised before ORG . They also complained that the applicant had not been taken to the appeal court hearing , despite his request . However , they did not specify how the applicant ’s absence from ORG had prejudiced his defence or the overall fairness of the proceedings .

According to the applicant , on DATE , after the cassation appeals had been sent to ORG , lawyer PERSON stopped representing him . The reason was not notified to the ORG . The applicant did not seek the assistance of any other lawyer .

On DATE the applicant lodged his application with the ORG . He stated , in particular , that he had appealed in cassation , however did not provide a copy of his and his lawyer ’s appeals in cassation .

On DATE the ORG requested the applicant to provide : ( i ) documentary evidence supporting his allegations of ill - treatment ; ( ii ) copies of the complaints of ill - treatment lodged with the domestic authorities ; ( iii ) copies of the applicant ’s and his lawyer ’s appeals in cassation , stamped by ORG to prove their receipt ; and ( iv ) a copy of ORG decision as soon as it would be available .

On DATE the applicant sent to ORG a supplement to his appeal in cassation together with a request for the said copies of documents without , however , indicating why he needed them . ORG received the request but did not reply to it for unknown reasons . The applicant did not follow up on the request .

On DATE the applicant informed the ORG that ORG had left his request for copies of documents unanswered .

On DATE ORG dismissed the cassation appeals lodged by the applicant and his lawyer . Without referring separately to each argument raised in those appeals , ORG noted that the criminal proceedings against the applicant were not plagued by procedural violations which would justify quashing of the lower courts’ decisions . The conclusion concerning the applicant ’s guilt had been sufficiently supported by evidence to which the trial court had referred in its judgment . ORG noted , in particular , that the applicant ’s request to take part in the appeal hearing had been made after that hearing had been held . The applicant did not attend the hearing before ORG and had not asked for permission to do so .

On DATE the ORG asked the applicant to send to ORG a repeated request for copies of the same documents ( see paragraphs DATE above ) , indicating that he needed them to support his application before the ORG . The ORG also asked the applicant to provide a copy of such request and a copy of ORG reply to it . The applicant did not follow the ORG ’s instructions and did not make any further attempts to obtain the copies .

In DATE the applicant received a copy of ORG decision and submitted it to ORG on DATE .


Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation;Positive obligations) (Procedural aspect)

András Sajó;Egidijus Kūris;Iulia Motoc;Marko Bošnjak;Nona Tsotsoria;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Vincent A. De Gaetano

The applicant was born in DATE and lived in GPE , LOC .

NORP In DATE the applicant started working as a welder for the company N. On DATE he was working at a factory construction site in the city of GPE . Around TIME , while the applicant and CARDINAL other workers were standing on scaffolding QUANTITY above the ground , the scaffolding broke and all the workers fell to the ground ( hereinafter “ the accident ” ) .

According to the applicant , he fell on his back and hit his head on a concrete surface , causing his helmet to break into pieces . CARDINAL of his coworkers and a metal tool fell on top of him . The applicant lost consciousness . He stated that while he was unconscious , he was moved away from the location of the accident on the orders of his employer and all traces of the accident were removed . At TIME an ambulance was called and the applicant was taken to hospital . It appears that the other workers sustained only minor injuries .

The site of the accident was examined DATE by an inspector from ORG . He noted that at the time of the examination the scaffolding was intact and no workers were present at the construction site . The inspector spoke to the construction site manager , ORG , who stated that he had not seen the accident because he had been elsewhere on the site . The inspector also spoke to the person in charge of work safety in the company ORG who informed him that , on the basis of the initial medical examination , the applicant had not sustained any serious injuries . Accordingly , the inspector decided that ORG would not investigate the circumstances of the accident .

On DATE another inspector from ORG looked into how the accident had happened and concluded that the applicant had fallen from the scaffolding because of his own recklessness . The applicant submitted a complaint against that conclusion and on DATE the ORG adopted a new conclusion , holding that the accident had been caused by “ the inappropriate organisation of dangerous work ” ( netinkamas pavojingo darbo organizavimas ) , in particular because the scaffolding had not complied with the applicable work safety requirements .

On DATE the applicant asked the PERSON city prosecutor ’s office ( hereinafter “ the prosecutor ” ) to open a pre - trial investigation into the accident . The investigation was opened on DATE and conducted by an investigator from GPE police ( hereinafter “ the investigator ” ) .

NORP On DATE the investigator instructed a court medical expert to examine the applicant ’s medical file in order to determine the number , severity and causes of his injuries . The report on the results of that examination , delivered on DATE , showed that the applicant had sustained a large cut on his head , face and right ear , as well as multiple fractures of his facial bones , and a contusion on the chest . The injuries had been caused by blunt objects and flat surfaces , and could have occurred when falling from a height . The report noted that the injury on the head had bled , so there should have been traces of blood at the site of the accident . It concluded that the injuries to the applicant ’s head and face amounted to a minor health impairment ( nesunkus sveikatos sutrikdymas ) while the injury to his chest amounted to a negligible health impairment ( nežymus sveikatos sutrikdymas ) . However , it also noted that the injury to the face would leave a big scar , possibly resulting in disfigurement and impairment of facial expression .

On DATE the applicant was interviewed as a witness in the investigation . He stated that just before the accident he and CARDINAL other workers had been carrying a metal platform to attach to a reservoir tank . The applicant and CARDINAL other workers had been holding the upper part of the platform while standing on the scaffolding and CARDINAL others had been on the ground , holding the platform ’s bottom part . The weight of the platform was QUANTITY . Suddenly , the scaffolding had collapsed and CARDINAL workers had fallen to the ground . At that point the applicant had lost consciousness . When he had come to , he had realised that he was not lying near the scaffolding , where he must have fallen , but in a different place . He had not seen any debris from the scaffolding around him , or any other traces of the accident .

On DATE the applicant was granted the status of a victim in the investigation .

On DATE the investigator instructed a court medical expert to examine the applicant ’s scars caused by the accident . The report on the results of that examination , delivered on DATE , found that the facial injury had left a large , rough scar , causing a minor disfigurement and impairment of facial expression . It also found that the scar and the resulting deformation could only be removed by plastic surgery , so the injury was considered as irreparable . As a result , the report concluded that the applicant ’s injury was legally classified as serious health impairment ( sunkus sveikatos sutrikdymas ) .

In DATE and DATE the investigator interviewed several of the applicant ’s co - workers and other people who had worked near the factory construction site . It appears that the co - workers stated that no platform had been carried on DATE of the accident . None of those interviewed had seen how the applicant had fallen from the scaffolding . From DATE more witnesses were interviewed and the investigator requested various documents from the applicant ’s employer and from several ORG institutions which had assessed the applicant ’s health and ability to work after the accident .

On DATE the applicant was interviewed again . He stated that before the accident he had sometimes felt dizzy and had a feeling of numbness in his legs , but he had been declared fit to work after a medical examination .

On DATE the prosecutor discontinued the pre - trial investigation . He relied on ORG report that no damage to the scaffolding on DATE of the accident had been observed ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , and noted that none of the witnesses had corroborated the applicant ’s description of how he had fallen . The prosecutor observed that the applicant may have fallen from the scaffolding owing to his own recklessness ( dėl savo paties neatsargumo ) , possibly because of the numbness in his legs . Accordingly , the prosecutor decided that the scaffolding had complied with safety requirements , and that there were no grounds to find that the applicant ’s employer had violated any laws .

The applicant appealed against the prosecutor ’s decision . He also asked for the appointment of a different prosecutor to supervise the case and to carry out a forensic examination in order to determine the causes of the accident . On DATE a senior prosecutor dismissed his appeal , noting that around CARDINAL witnesses had been questioned , but nobody had corroborated the applicant ’s claims . However , on DATE ORG overruled the prosecutor ’s decision and reopened the pre - trial investigation . The court noted that the prosecutor had not addressed ORG conclusion of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , and that other witnesses had only stated that they had not seen how the applicant had fallen from the scaffolding but had not disputed his account . The court also considered that the prosecutor ’s conclusion that the applicant had fallen because of his own recklessness or a medical condition had been “ speculative and not based on any objective facts ” . However , the court rejected the applicant ’s request to appoint a different prosecutor as unfounded and did not examine his request to carry out a forensic examination , noting that the choice of investigative measures was the prerogative of investigators and prosecutors .

In DATE and DATE the investigator examined the site of the accident and interviewed more witnesses .

On DATE the prosecutor instructed the investigator to carry out several additional investigative measures . Among other things , the investigator was requested to identify whether on DATE of the accident or earlier the applicant and other workers had been ordered by their employer to attach the metal platform to the reservoir tank .

NORP In DATE and DATE the investigator carried out additional interviews with several witnesses and requested further information from the applicant ’s employer and from the medical institutions which had examined him .

On DATE , in response to a prior complaint by the applicant , the deputy chief prosecutor of the Klaipėda city prosecutor ’s office informed him that there were no grounds to find that the pre - trial investigation in his case had been unduly protracted .

On DATE the applicant ’s co - worker PERSON submitted a written statement to ORG that on DATE of the accident he and other workers had been ordered by their supervisor ORG to attach the metal platform to the reservoir tank . ORG also submitted that the scaffolding had been made of very thin wood and could have broken at any time . He further alleged that immediately after the accident the director of the company ORG had told other workers to repair the scaffolding . PERSON also asserted that he had previously given different testimony because of pressure from his employer .

On DATE , in response to a complaint by the applicant about the length of the investigation , the chief prosecutor of the ORG city prosecutor ’s office noted that “ the investigation had not always been of sufficient intensity ” ( tyrimo intensyvumas ne visada buvo pakankamas ) and that the prosecutor had been instructed to set a deadline for completing the investigation . The chief prosecutor also informed the applicant that it was still necessary to interview several witnesses living in various parts of the country and to carry out further investigative measures .

On DATE ORG adopted a new conclusion on the circumstances of the accident , holding that the scaffolding had not complied with applicable safety requirements and that the applicant had not been given appropriate instructions for working at height . Accordingly , the ORG concluded that the applicant ’s employer had breached the legal requirements concerning safety at work .

On DATE the prosecutor discontinued the pre - trial investigation . He observed that the applicant and other workers had been using the scaffolding for DATE before the accident and there had not been any accidents during that time , so there were no grounds to find that the scaffolding had been unsafe . The prosecutor also concluded that the workers had not been ordered by their employer to attach the metal platform to the reservoir tank because the construction manager , ORG , had not been at work on DATE of the accident . Accordingly , the employer could not be held responsible for the workers’ decision to carry the platform on the scaffolding . The prosecutor further observed that , in any event , the applicant had had the right to refuse to carry out tasks which were unsafe or for which he was unqualified , but he had not exercised that right . The prosecutor therefore concluded that the accident had been caused by the recklessness of the workers and not by the actions or omissions of the employer .

The applicant appealed against the prosecutor ’s decision but on DATE a senior prosecutor dismissed his appeal . However , on CARDINAL DATE ORG overruled the prosecutor ’s decision and reopened the pre - trial investigation . The court observed that the absence of previous accidents on the scaffolding could not be interpreted as evidence that the scaffolding was safe . It also held that the applicant ’s right to refuse to carry out tasks in unsafe conditions did not excuse the employer from a duty to ensure that unsafe conditions did not exist at the workplace . The court further noted that attaching the platform to the reservoir tank had clearly been part of the construction work , so the employer had a duty to properly supervise the workers and to instruct them how to carry out that task safely DATE and by failing to do so , the applicant ’s employer had acted contrary to the law .

The prosecutor appealed against that judgment , but on DATE ORG dismissed the appeal . In its judgment the court noted that although DATE had passed since the accident , the prosecutor had still not determined the precise way in which the accident had happened , and that without doing that it was not possible to determine who had been responsible for it . The court also considered it unlikely that the workers would have decided to attach the platform without receiving an order from their supervisor or at least informing him , so it was necessary to examine whether the construction manager ORG had been present at the construction site at any time DATE . Lastly , the court drew attention to the fact that “ some witnesses ” had admitted to giving false testimony under pressure from the employer and so it was necessary to investigate those claims further .

In DATE and DATE the investigator arranged several formal confrontations between witnesses , interviewed additional witnesses , and requested further information from the applicant ’s employer and the hospital where the applicant had been examined .

On DATE , following a complaint by the applicant , the deputy chief prosecutor of the PERSON region prosecutor ’s office sent a note to the PERSON city prosecutor ’s office , observing that the pre - trial investigation had been going on for DATE , and requesting that it promptly carry out any necessary further investigative measures in order to make a well - founded final decision .

On DATE , after an application by the prosecutor , ORG ordered a forensic examination of the precise way in which the accident had happened and its causes . The forensic expert examined the case file and delivered a report on DATE . The report noted that there was insufficient information in the case file concerning the technical characteristics of the metal platform and the scaffolding , so the way the accident had happened could be established only in part . On the basis of the available material , the report found that the weight of the platform had exceeded the weight limit of the scaffolding and had thus caused it to collapse . Accordingly , it concluded that the scaffolding had not been suitable for the work for which it was used , and that the workers had not been adequately informed about how to carry out their work safely . The report found that the employer had thereby breached the applicable work safety requirements .

In DATE the investigator interviewed additional witnesses and arranged formal confrontations .

On DATE the prosecutor again discontinued the pre - trial investigation . He held that witness testimony and other evidence showed that the applicant ’s supervisor ORG had not been present at the construction site on DATE of the accident and that he had not ordered the workers to attach the platform . As a result , the prosecutor concluded that ORG had not had any duty to ensure the safety of that operation . He further concluded that the accident had been caused by the workers’ reckless decision to carry the platform , which had exceeded the weight limit of the scaffolding . The prosecutor noted that although the scaffolding had not fully complied with the applicable safety requirements , that had not been the main cause of the accident and thus the applicant ’s employer could be held liable only for an administrative offence of failure to comply with work safety requirements ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , but not for a criminal offence .

The prosecutor also observed that a separate pre - trial investigation should be opened in order to examine the claims of some witnesses that they had been pressured by their employer to give false testimony . However , from the material available to the ORG it appears that no such investigation was opened .

The applicant appealed against the prosecutor ’s decision , but on DATE a senior prosecutor dismissed his appeal . However , on DATE ORG overruled the prosecutor ’s decision and reopened the pre - trial investigation . The court underlined that attaching the platform to the reservoir tank had been an inherent part of the construction work carried out by the applicant and other workers , so it could not be considered that they had decided to do that of their own free will . It referred to the expert report of CARDINAL DATE , noting that that report had given grounds to believe that the applicant ’s employer had failed to ensure safe working conditions . The court further noted that ORG had not been officially authorised to leave his workplace on DATE of the accident , and thus he had failed to ensure the safety of the workers under his supervision .

On DATE V.J.S. was officially notified that he , being a person authorised by an employer to supervise construction work , was suspected of violating safety requirements at work , which had resulted in an accident , as set out in LAW .

In DATE and DATE the investigator interviewed ORG and several witnesses .

On an unspecified date the applicant complained to ORG that the pre - trial investigation had been protracted , in particular because it had been discontinued and reopened several times . On DATE ORG dismissed his complaint and stated that the repeated discontinuation of the investigation did not give grounds to find that any requirements of LAW had been violated .

In DATE and DATE the investigator carried out additional interviews with several witnesses and requested further information from the applicant ’s employer .

On DATE the applicant was informed that the pre - trial investigation had been completed . ORG submitted a request to continue the investigation and carry out additional investigative measures but that request was dismissed .

On DATE the prosecutor issued an indictment against ORG under LAW and on DATE the case was transferred to ORG for examination on the merits . On DATE the chairperson of that court noted that the case was complex and large - scale , and allowed DATE to prepare for its examination .

ORG held the first hearing on DATE and decided to adjourn the case until DATE because several witnesses were not present .

The next hearing was held on DATE but several witnesses were absent again and ORG fined them for failing to appear . The court also decided to adjourn the case until DATE in order to ensure the participation of all the necessary witnesses and , as requested by the applicant , to obtain the technical details about the metal platform .

It appears that subsequently the case was adjourned again and a new hearing was scheduled for DATE .

On DATE ORG submitted a medical certificate to the court indicating that he would be sick from CARDINAL to DATE , and asked for a further adjournment .

ORG held a hearing on DATE but because of the absence of the accused it was decided to adjourn and to schedule a new hearing for DATE .

At the hearing of CARDINAL DATE V.J.S. ’s lawyer informed ORG that his client was still sick and had a medical certificate that was valid for DATE . The court scheduled new hearings for CARDINAL , DATE and DATE .

On DATE the applicant submitted a civil claim against ORG , asking for non - pecuniary damages of CARDINAL NORP litai ( LTL – MONEY ( ORG ) ) .

On DATE V.J.S. ’s lawyer asked the court to adjourn the case again because his client had been admitted to hospital . Later , ORG submitted a medical certificate indicating that he would be sick from DATE , which also showed that he would undergo rehabilitation treatment from DATE to CARDINAL DATE .

ORG held a hearing on DATE and decided to adjourn until DATE . Subsequently , owing to the continued illness of the accused , the case was adjourned until DATE , then again until DATE and DATE .

On DATE the applicant asked ORG to continue its examination of the case in the absence of the accused , complaining that the latter was deliberately avoiding appearing before the court . ORG dismissed that application , informing the applicant that ORG had submitted the required medical certificates to prove his illness and that domestic law did not allow for the examination of a criminal case in the absence of the accused . The court also noted that examination of the case had not been unduly protracted because the hearings had been scheduled with as little time between them as possible .

Subsequently , owing to the accused ’s continued illness , the court further adjourned the case to DATE , DATE , and then to CARDINAL DATE .

On DATE the applicant asked the court to adjourn the hearing because he had to be admitted to hospital for surgery .

ORG held a hearing on DATE from which the applicant was absent . During the hearing the prosecutor asked the court to terminate the case against ORG as time - barred . The court adopted a decision on CARDINAL DATE and terminated the case . It noted that ORG had been charged with a crime of negligence , and in such cases the statute of limitations , applicable at the time of the accident , was DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . The court also observed that the domestic law provisions on the statute of limitations , applicable at the time of the accident , were “ unconditional ” ( besąlygiškos nuostatos ) and did not provide for the possibility to suspend the limitation period . The domestic law was subsequently amended to allow such a decision ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , but the new legal framework could not be applied retroactively to the detriment of the accused .

The court did not examine the applicant ’s civil claim and noted that he had the right to institute separate civil proceedings for damages .

On DATE the applicant complained to ORG that the examination of the case before the district court had been so protracted that it had become time - barred , and asked the regional court to identify the reasons for that protraction . The court considered that complaint as an appeal by the applicant against ORG judgment of CARDINAL DATE but refused to admit it because the applicant had not signed it or properly outlined the reasons for the appeal . The applicant did not submit another appeal against the judgment of CARDINAL DATE .

On an unspecified date ORG appealed against ORG judgment of CARDINAL DATE and asked the court to examine the case on the merits and to acquit him , but on DATE his appeal was dismissed .

On DATE ORG , in response to a complaint by the applicant , informed him that it had analysed the work of the prosecutors involved in the case and had not detected any “ substantial violations ” ( esminiai pažeidimai ) of LAW .


Preliminary objection dismissed (Article 34 - Victim);Remainder inadmissible (Article 35-3 - Ratione personae);Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time);Violation of Article 13 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy);Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed (Article 41 - Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)

Aleš Pejchal;Guido Raimondi;Kristina Pardalos;Ledi Bianku;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Paul Mahoney

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

On DATE ORG ( “ the ORG ” ) acknowledged the inherited property rights of some landowners over a plot of land measuring QUANTITY ( vendim për vërtetim fakti ) . On DATE ORG acknowledged that the landowners also had inherited property rights over installations and fuel tanks of a petrol station located on the land ( vendim për vërtetim fakti ) .

In the meantime , on the assumption that the ORG properties would be restored in natura by ORG , in DATE and DATE , the applicant concluded CARDINAL agreements with CARDINAL of the landowners , who was acting on his own and the remaining heirs’ behalf , whereby the applicant would assist the landowners in the process of the privatisation of installations and fuel tanks on the land ( see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) . In DATE he concluded a sales contract ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . Following the conclusion of these contracts , the validity of which became the object of a dispute ( see section B below ) , all landowners appointed the applicant to act on their behalf in proceedings related to the protection of their property rights .

On the strength of ORG decisions , on an unspecified date the landowners lodged a request with ORG on ORG ( “ the Commission ” ) seeking restitution of the above - mentioned property by the domestic authorities . On DATE the ORG dismissed the NORP request on the grounds that the land was not subject to LAW as it was located outside the legal city boundaries ( ndodhen jashtë vijave kufizuese ) . The landowners appealed to ORG .

On DATE the ORG quashed the ORG ’s decision and allocated the landowners a plot of land measuring CARDINAL sq . m. Relying on an expert ’s report , the court held that the value of the respective installations and fuel tanks constructed thereon did not exceed PERCENT of the land ’s total value . It therefore ordered that these objects be restored at no cost . The petrol station was situated on the main road between the cities of GPE and PERSON and it was used and administered by CARDINAL ORG - owned oil companies . The judgment became final on DATE , no appeal having been lodged against it .

Subsequent to the above judgment , on CARDINAL DATE ORG issued a property certificate ( vërtetim pronësie – Ipoteka ) , according to which the landowners had registered title to the plot of land measuring CARDINAL sq . m. on which the fuel tanks and installations had been erected ( mortgage register entry no . CARDINAL of DATE ) . The petrol station and fuel tanks were subsequently expropriated in the public interest .

DATE the landowners’ property rights were unsuccessfully challenged by various ORG institutions . On CARDINAL occasion the domestic courts dismissed the claim , whereas on CARDINAL other occasions they discontinued the proceedings on various grounds . The applicant joined the proceedings as a third party .

On DATE ORG challenged the lawfulness of ORG judgment of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) recognising the landowners’ property rights . The action was dismissed by ORG with final effect on DATE .

On DATE and DATE ORG and the ORG - owned oil companies lodged CARDINAL separate applications for supervisory review of the domestic judgments upholding the landowners’ property rights , namely ORG judgment of DATE and ORG judgment of DATE .

On DATE ORG gave CARDINAL separate decisions by accepting both applications for supervisory review and the reopening of the proceedings . A constitutional appeal lodged by the applicant on DATE was declared inadmissible by ORG on DATE . As a result of the remittal of the cases to ORG , on an unspecified date the court decided to join the proceedings . The applicant took part in them as a third party .

In the first set of rehearing proceedings , the case was heard by ORG , ORG ( “ the Court of Appeal ” ) and ORG , which on DATE decided to remit the case to ORG for a further rehearing .

In the second set of rehearing proceedings , the case was heard by ORG and ORG , which on DATE decided to remit the case to ORG for fresh consideration .

In the third set of rehearing proceedings , the case was heard by ORG , ORG and ORG , which gave its final decision on DATE . The domestic courts ruled in favour of the landowners .

In the meantime , on DATE ORG for ORG , which had replaced the Commission , recognised the landowners’ inherited property rights over the plot of land measuring CARDINAL hectares ( QUANTITY . m ) and ordered that they be compensated in respect of QUANTITY . m in CARDINAL of the forms prescribed by law , the remaining QUANTITY . m having already been decided upon by the authorities . The authorities’ failure to pay compensation in respect of the QUANTITY . m is the subject of application no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , of which notice was given to the Government as a follow - up to the ORG ’s pilot judgment in the case of ORG and Others v. GPE ( nos . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , CARDINAL/CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL , DATE ) .

On DATE CARDINAL of the landowners , acting on his own and the remaining heirs’ behalf , concluded an agreement ( akt marrëveshje ) with the applicant ’s company , according to which the latter would secure finance for the privatisation of fuel tanks and installations located on the landowners’ plot of land , in respect of which they would exercise their right of first refusal ( e drejta e parablerjes ) at the time of privatisation . In return , the landowners would transfer ownership rights to the applicant ’s company upon privatisation . Subsequent to this transaction , the parties would form a joint company , whose registered capital would be made up of the applicant ’s company ’s ownership of the fuel tanks and other installations , as well as the landowners’ ownership of the plot of land .

On DATE the same landowner , again acting on his own and the remaining heirs’ behalf , concluded a similar agreement ( akt marrëveshje ) with the applicant ’s company for the privatisation of the fuel tanks and installations , the difference being that some objects would remain the landowners’ property .

On DATE the same landowner , again acting on his own and the remaining heirs’ behalf , concluded a notarised sales contract with the applicant for the sale of almost all of the fuel tanks and installations for MONEY ( ORG ) , which , according to the contract , was paid by the applicant to the landowners . On DATE ORG issued a property certificate ( vërtetim pronësie – Ipoteka ) , according to which the applicant had registered title to the petrol station fuel tanks and installations ( mortgage register entry no . CARDINAL of DATE ) .

On DATE and CARDINAL DATE the same landowner , acting on his own behalf , concluded CARDINAL loan agreements with the applicant to lend the latter a total of USD CARDINAL,CARDINAL . The agreements contained no details as to the purpose of the loan .

On DATE the landowners instituted proceedings against the applicant seeking the annulment of the agreements and contract concluded DATE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above ) . They requested the court to declare the agreements and contract null and void ( pavlefshmëri absolute ) without any legal consequences for the parties whatsoever . The claim was signed by their lawyer , to whom they had given power of attorney .

Following remittals of the case , on DATE ORG decided to discontinue the proceedings ( pushimin e çështjes ) as the landowners had failed to attend court without good reason .

On DATE the landowners instituted a fresh set of proceedings against the applicant seeking the annulment of the agreements and contract concluded DATE . The claim was signed by only their lawyer .

On an unspecified date the landowners requested ORG to obtain and process all documents from the case - file concerning the first set of proceedings , including the powers of attorney . The court accepted this request .

On DATE the applicant requested the court to stay the proceedings pending the outcome of a criminal complaint he had lodged with the district prosecutor ’s office against the landowners alleging forgery of documents .

On DATE , CARDINAL and DATE and CARDINAL DATE the applicant , having regard to the number of previous requests that had been rejected , challenged the bench .

On DATE the presiding judge of the bench withdrew from the case , given the applicant ’s repeated requests for withdrawal . On DATE the President of ORG set aside the withdrawal , finding that it did not contain any of the grounds stipulated in DATE of LAW .

On DATE the applicant lodged a counterclaim requesting the court to decide the requests he had already submitted for the withdrawal of the bench . According to the counterclaim , the landowners had not authorised their lawyer to represent them in the proceedings and their claim was time - barred . Furthermore , the loan agreements were fictitious and their conclusion with CARDINAL of the landowners could not have a bearing on the sales contract of the fuel tanks and installations . The applicant argued that a number of factors pointed to his having lawful property rights over the fuel tanks and installations , such as the fact that all the agreements and contracts were lawful and valid , the property had been registered in his name , he had represented the landowners in the domestic proceedings and he had taken legal action to defend their interests .

On DATE ORG declared the agreements and contracts null and void ( absolute nullity ) . It found them to be fictitious on the grounds that they had been concluded at a time when the said property in question was being administered by the ORG , no property rights having been transferred to the landowners . In accordance with the law , the installations had been privatised at no cost , because their value was PERCENT of the land ’s value . Furthermore , no joint company had been set up by the applicant and landowners and no money had been lent to the applicant in accordance with the loan agreements . They had been concluded with a view to having an assurance for the execution of the sales contract , in which the sale price was the same . Despite the property certificate ( no . CARDINAL of DATE ) , the fact that no actions had been effected pursuant to the agreements and contracts and that no legal consequences had resulted for the parties , ORG concluded that the agreements were fictitious in accordance with LAW . It further ordered that the entry of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) in the immovable property register be erased .

The applicant appealed , arguing that the ORG bench was biased because disciplinary proceedings had been instituted for the dismissal of the presiding judge of the bench for breaches of law . In this connection , the withdrawal of the presiding judge of the bench had not been accepted by the President of ORG and his CARDINAL requests for the withdrawal of the bench were rejected , no such mention having been made in the hearing records . The applicant further submitted that the claim had been brought outside the statutory time - limit , and had been signed by only the lawyer and not the landowners , the power of attorney dating back to DATE and being limited in time and scope , and that the facts of the claim were unrelated . He also objected to the fact that his counterclaims of CARDINAL DATE and DATE had not been admitted to the case - file . Moreover , he contended that ORG had not accepted any of the CARDINAL requests for pieces of evidence he had produced , and had made findings in excess of the requests contained in the object of the claim . He argued that CARDINAL hearings had been held DATE and DATE , without the landowners providing any good reason for their non - appearance to supplement the claim . In his view , his spouse , who was a co - owner , should have been invited to attend the hearings . Finally , he claimed that the contracts had been concluded in complete conformity with the domestic law and that there had been no need to summon witnesses . In this connection , the landowners had confirmed the applicant ’s ownership of the plot of land by way of specific powers of attorney , while the applicant had lodged numerous procedural requests , applications and appeals and had attended hearings to defend his and their property rights .

On DATE the applicant challenged the bench in the light of the previous decisions given against him . On the same date he requested that CARDINAL items of evidence and CARDINAL procedural requests absent from the case - file before ORG be readmitted .

On DATE the applicant requested that CARDINAL additional items of evidence be admitted to the case - file .

On DATE the Deputy President of ORG requested PERSON to appoint CARDINAL judges from other appellate courts to hear the case , since all of its judges had sat in the proceedings .

On DATE the Minister of ORG , following a decision taken by ORG ( “ HCJ ” ) , informed ORG that CARDINAL judges of ORG would hear the case .

On DATE the applicant challenged the new composition of the bench , submitting that the HCJ should appoint judges from other ordinary appellate courts instead of ORG .

On DATE ORG , composed of CARDINAL judges , upheld ORG judgment of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . It transpires that the applicant had withdrawn the request for the exemption of the bench from hearing the case , and that the court had partially reopened the judicial examination and accepted new items of evidence as produced by him . ORG held that the objects mentioned in the agreements and contracts of DATE were , at the time of the judgment , being administered by the ORG and that their ownership had not yet been transferred to the landowners . Consequently , those contracts and agreements were fictitious under LAW ) of LAW and were of no legal effect . It rejected all of the applicant ’s arguments as unfounded and held that he had failed to adduce evidence to object to or challenge the NORP claim , which was supported by the documents contained in the case - file . According to ORG , a claim requesting absolute nullity was not subject to a statutory limitation period .

The presiding judge of the bench , judge ORG , dissented . In a separate opinion , he stated that the claim had not been signed by the landowners . The evidence in the case - file was not capable of demonstrating that the agreements were fictitious , since the parties’ intentions had been real and lawful . As a result , the landowners did not have legal standing to bring the claim as they could not prove that there had been a breach of a substantial right ( e drejta materiale ) . Their claim was time - barred and the courts had failed to take into account the statutory limitation period . The evidence produced by the applicant showed that the landowners , by virtue of powers of attorney or other documents issued DATE , had appointed the applicant to act as their representative . This pointed to the fact that the parties had wished their transactions to have legal effect and this , in itself , contradicted the fictitious nature of the agreements and contracts . In his view , the court had rejected all of the applicant ’s requests without giving any reasons in the decision .

On DATE the applicant appealed , raising CARDINAL grounds of appeal . In addition to maintaining the same complaints he had raised before ORG , he alleged that the composition of ORG had not been drawn by lots and that ORG had not been a “ tribunal established by law ” as it had been composed of military judges . He claimed that his requests for the withdrawal of ORG judges had not been examined and that his requests for the admission of numerous items of evidence had not been processed by ORG . He further objected to the lower courts’ application and interpretation of the domestic law since , in his view , he had been authorised by the landowners to act as their representative , had lodged various appeals and other procedural requests and followed the judicial proceedings with the landowners , had requested the enforcement of final decisions on his and the NORP behalf and had sought the criminal prosecution of third parties .

On DATE ORG decided to stay execution of ORG judgment of CARDINAL DATE pending the outcome of the applicant ’s appeal .

On DATE ORG declared the applicant ’s appeal inadmissible in accordance with LAW ( no valid grounds of appeal ) .

On DATE the applicant lodged an CARDINAL page constitutional appeal . On DATE he supplemented it with a CARDINAL - page memorandum . In addition to maintaining the same grounds of appeal he had raised before the lower courts , the applicant also complained of a lack of reasoning in ORG decision and about the length of the proceedings .

On DATE the applicant requested that judges ORG and ORG withdraw from the appeal on the grounds that they had rejected a previous constitutional appeal lodged by him on DATE in relation to another unrelated set of proceedings . On DATE he requested that judge V.T withdraw from the appeal on the grounds that she had been on the bench that had decided against him in another appeal in DATE .

On DATE the applicant was informed of ORG decision of CARDINAL DATE rejecting his appeal . It found nothing to suggest a lack of impartiality on the part of ORG bench and that , even though some of the judges had heard previous appeals lodged by the applicant with ORG , those appeals concerned different facts , parties and sets of proceedings . It dismissed the remaining complaints , finding that they related to the assessment of facts and the outcome of the proceedings , which was within the lower courts’ jurisdiction .


CASE OF BAGHDASARYAN AND ZARIKYANTS v. ARMENIA

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

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

The applicants were born in DATE and DATE respectively and live in GPE .

The applicants and a third person jointly owned a flat which measured CARDINAL sq . m. and was situated at CARDINAL FAC , GPE .

On DATE the Government adopted Decree no . PERSON , approving the expropriation zones of the real estate situated within the administrative boundaries of LOC of GPE to be taken for ORG needs for town - planning purposes , having a total area of CARDINAL sq . m. Byuzand Street was listed as CARDINAL of the streets falling within such expropriation zones . A special body , ORG ( hereafter , the Agency ) was set up to manage the implementation of the construction projects .

On DATE the applicants’ flat was valued upon the request of the ORG by a valuation organisation . The market value of the flat was estimated at MONEY ( ORG ) .

In DATE the ORG informed the applicants that their flat was subject to expropriation and that it had been valued at USD CARDINAL,CARDINAL . An additional sum of ORG was offered to the applicants as a financial incentive if they signed an agreement within DATE .

The applicants did not accept the offer , not being satisfied with the amount of compensation offered .

On DATE the ORG lodged a claim against the applicant PERSON , seeking to oblige him to sign an agreement on the taking of the flat in question for ORG needs and to have him , and the others residing in the flat , evicted .

On DATE the GPE and ORG of GPE granted the ORG ’s claim , ordering the applicants to sign the agreement for the total amount of CARDINAL .

On DATE the applicants lodged an appeal .

On DATE ORG granted the ORG ’s claim upon appeal .

On DATE the applicants lodged an appeal on points of law in which they argued , inter alia , that the deprivation of their property was not prescribed by law as required by LAW and that there was no public interest in depriving them of their property .

On DATE ORG decided to dismiss the applicants’ appeal .

On an unspecified date the awarded sum was paid to the applicants .


Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8 - Positive obligations;Article 8-1 - Respect for home;Respect for private life)

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

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

Part of the house where the applicant has been living since DATE with her family is occupied by a bar , and for a certain period of time a shop ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , run by company O - P. and its predecessor company F. ( hereinafter “ the company ” ) , since DATE .

The applicant is the owner of PERCENT of the house , while the company owns the remainder of the house with a share of PERCENT .

The bar is located on the ground floor of the house , below the applicant ’s flat . The applicant also owns a flat on the ground floor adjacent to the bar .

In DATE the company began reconstruction work on its premises in order to open a bar and a shop .

On DATE a building inspector ( građevinski inspektor ) , acting on a complaint by the applicant , found that the reconstruction carried out by the company had not required any additional planning permission or authorisation .

The applicant lodged an appeal against the decision of the building inspector with ORG ( ORG zaštite okoliša , prostornog uređenja i graditeljstva , hereinafter “ ORG ) , arguing that the company had demolished CARDINAL of the load - bearing walls and had made a hole in the façade .

On DATE ORG allowed the applicant ’s appeal and remitted the case to the building inspector on the grounds that he had failed to establish all the relevant facts .

On DATE the building inspector found that the company had carried out the construction within the scope defined by the existing planning permissions .

The applicant again appealed to ORG , arguing that she had not had an opportunity to participate in the proceedings and that the findings of the building inspector were erroneous .

On DATE ORG remitted the case to the building inspector on the grounds that he had failed to take into account the obvious modifications to the building , in particular the demolition of the load - bearing wall and fissures on the surrounding walls .

On DATE the construction inspector ordered the applicant and the company to remove certain walls , a balcony , staircases and part of a rooftop , considering that they had been constructed without the necessary planning permissions .

The applicant appealed against that decision to ORG and on DATE the ORG dismissed her appeal .

On an unspecified date in DATE the applicant lodged an administrative action in ORG ( ORG ) challenging the decisions of the building inspector and ORG .

On DATE ORG quashed the decisions of the administrative bodies and ordered that the case be re - examined on the grounds that the relevant facts had not been correctly established .

NORP The administrative proceedings are still pending .

NORP In DATE the company applied to the GPE - Križevačka County ORG ( Ured državne uprave u GPE - križevačkoj županiji , hereinafter “ the ORG ” ) for an operating licence to run a bar and a shop .

An administrative commission , established to examine whether the LOC in which the company intended to run a bar met the necessary operating requirements , noted in its report of DATE that those requirements had been met . It relied on an expert report provided by company ORG which , without measuring the noise in the applicant ’s flat , because she allegedly would not allow such measurements to be taken in her flat , found that the necessary measures of noise insulation had been put in place .

On DATE ORG granted the company a licence to run a bar .

ORG The applicant complained to ORG about that decision , arguing that she had not been allowed to participate in the administrative proceedings . She requested that the proceedings be reopened .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s complaint as ill - founded .

The applicant lodged an appeal against that decision with ORG ( ORG turizma ) and on DATE the Ministry quashed the decisions of ORG and ordered that the applicant be allowed to participate in the proceedings . This decision was later , on DATE , upheld by ORG .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s request for reopening of the administrative proceedings , and this decision was upheld by ORG on DATE . ORG held that the applicant had been allowed access to all the relevant documents from the case file , and that therefore it was not necessary to reopen the proceedings .

On an unspecified date in DATE the applicant lodged an administrative action with ORG . She contended that noise measurements had never been taken in her flat and that the decisions of the lower administrative bodies had numerous substantive and procedural flaws .

NORP In DATE , after company O - P. succeeded to the business activity of company F. , it applied to ORG for operating licences to run a bar and a shop .

The company submitted a report drawn up by company E. of noise measurements taken on DATE . The report measured the level of noise during TIME ( after TIME ) in the bar , the parking area and the entrance to the applicant ’s flat located on the first floor . In assessing the maximum permitted noise levels , this report took into account that the house was situated near a road and considered the applicant ’s house to fall within zone CARDINAL under section CARDINAL of the by - law on the maximum permitted levels of noise in areas where people live and work ( PERSON razinama buke u sredinama u kojima ljudi rade i borave , hereinafter “ the by - law ” ) relevant to properties consisting of dwellings and business LOC but predominantly used for business purposes ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . However , the report indicated that it had not taken into account the relevant spatial planning documents placing a property in the relevant zone because no such documents had been presented to the experts when the measurements were taken ( see paragraph CARDINAL below and section QUANTITY of the by - law ) .

The measurements showed that the external level of noise in the parking area and in the entrance to the applicant ’s flat was PERCENT , while the permitted level was CARDINAL dB. It concluded that the noise emanating from the bar to the nearby open and closed areas DATE and during TIME did not pose any danger to the health of the persons living there .

On DATE ORG granted the company O - P. a licence to run a shop .

On an unspecified date the applicant challenged this decision before ORG ( ORG gospodarstva , rada i poduzetništva , hereinafter “ ORG ) arguing that she had not had an opportunity to participate in the proceedings .

On DATE the ORG agreed with the report drawn up by company E. concerning the level of noise emanating from the bar . This decision was never served on the applicant and it became final and enforceable on DATE .

On DATE ORG issued the company with a licence to run a bar .

On an unspecified date in DATE the applicant lodged an appeal against ORG decision with ORG , and on DATE the ORG dismissed it as ill - founded .

The applicant brought an administrative action against that decision in ORG , complaining of a number of substantive and procedural flaws in the proceedings before the lower administrative bodies . She contended that she had not had an opportunity to participate in the proceedings , that no measurements of noise and other emissions had ever been taken in her flat , and that the house had not been equipped with the necessary noise insulation .

On CARDINAL DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s appeal against ORG decision granting the company a licence to run a shop ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) .

The applicant lodged an administrative action with ORG that decision , reiterating her complaints that she had not been able to participate in the proceedings granting the company a licence to run a shop .

On DATE ORG allowed the applicant ’s action against the decisions granting the company a licence to run a bar ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above ) and ordered the administrative bodies to re - examine the case on the grounds that they had failed to decide on the applicant ’s request for disqualification of the officials who had previously participated in the proceedings .

On DATE , ORG quashed the decisions of ORG and ORG granting the company a licence to run a shop ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL - CARDINAL above ) and remitted the case for re - examination , on the grounds that the applicant had not had an opportunity to participate in the administrative proceedings .

On DATE ORG ( ORG uprave , Upravna inspekcija , hereinafter “ the GPE ” ) urged ORG to adopt a decision on the applicant ’s complaints . It stressed that ORG had failed to comply with the judgments of ORG ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) and that the relevant DATE time - limit for adopting a decision in the administrative proceedings had been significantly exceeded . It also considered that the central problem lay in the impossibility for the applicant to participate in the proceedings , and thus it instructed ORG to allow the applicant to take part in the proceedings and to take her arguments into account .

On DATE the company informed ORG that it was closing the shop .

On DATE ORG again urged ORG to terminate the proceedings . It considered that there had been no justified reason for not adopting a decision concerning the applicant ’s complaints . As regards the company ’s request for a licence to run a bar , ORG identified CARDINAL central problems : first , insufficient height of the ceiling in the bar , and second , the problem of noise insulation . In respect of the latter , ORG considered that the operating licence issued DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) could no longer be a valid ground for consideration . It also noted the inordinate length of the proceedings and numerous procedural flaws in the decisions of ORG , considering such procedural defects contrary to the relevant domestic law .

The administrative proceedings are still pending .

On DATE ORG instigated administrative proceedings to ascertain whether the noise emanating from the bar and the shop exceeded the permitted levels under the relevant law .

On DATE ORG commissioned an expert report from company GPE . concerning the noise insulation in the applicant ’s house .

On DATE EL . submitted its report , in which it examined the structure of the separating wall between the living room of the applicant ’s flat on the first floor and the bar , and the flooring in the bar . It also examined the separating wall between a room in the applicant ’s flat and the shop , as well as the flooring in the shop .

The report found that the noise insulation did not satisfy the necessary requirements . Specifically , the noise insulation between the applicant ’s living room and the bar was insufficient , while the noise insulation between the shop and the applicant ’s flat was within the required parameters .

On DATE a hearing was held at ORG , at which the company requested that a new noise report be commissioned , arguing that in the meantime it had taken the necessary measures to improve the noise insulation .

On DATE an official of ORG carried out an on - site inspection and heard the parties’ arguments concerning the expert report of DATE .

On DATE EL . carried out further measurements of the noise insulation in the structure of the wall separating the applicant ’s living room from the bar , and in the flooring of the bar . It found that at the time there was no relevant legislation requiring noise insulation , because at DATE ORG ( Hrvatski zavod za norme ) had repealed all previously existing standards for noise insulation . Thus the report only compared the new results with the results from the previous measurements ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . Basing its reasoning on that methodology , and relying on the noise measurements carried out by company PERSON ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and DATE below ) and company PERSON ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and DATE above ) , the report found that the noise insulation in the bar was sufficient .

On DATE the ORG agreed with EL . ’s report and found that the noise insulation in the bar and the shop was sufficient .

On an unspecified date in DATE the applicant lodged an appeal with ORG ( ORG zdravlja ) challenging the decision of ORG .

On DATE ORG declared the applicant ’s appeal inadmissible on the grounds that she did not have standing to lodge an appeal .

ORG The applicant lodged an administrative action in ORG against the decision of ORG , arguing that as the owner of a flat located in the same building as the bar she had every interest in lodging an appeal against the decision concerning the noise insulation measures .

On DATE ORG quashed the decision of ORG and ordered that the applicant ’s appeal be examined on the merits .

In DATE the applicant and her husband , PERSON , complained to the sanitary inspector ( sanitarni inspektor ) about the level of noise coming from the bar .

On DATE ORG , acting upon a complaint concerning the sanitary inspector ’s failure to respond , ordered that the complaints be examined .

During the proceedings , the inspector commissioned an expert report from company B - I.

On DATE company B - I. submitted a report on its measurements of the level of noise in the bar and in the applicant ’s flats . The level of noise during DATE was measured in the entrance and inside the living room of the applicant ’s flat on the first floor , with all sources of noise inside the bar switched on ; with only an air - conditioning fan running ; and while chairs were being dragged across the floor inside the bar . Measurements were also taken inside the applicant ’s flat on the ground floor , with all sources of noise switched on , and while chairs were being dragged across the floor inside the bar . The level of noise during TIME ( after TIME ) was measured under the same conditions and in the same places , with an additional measurement of the level of noise in the entrance and inside the living room of the applicant ’s flat on the first floor while only the audio system in the bar was switched on .

For the daytime , taking into account the fact that house was situated near a road , the measurements showed that the level of noise was excessive in the applicant ’s flat on the ground floor ( CARDINAL while the permitted level was PERCENT ) and inside the living room of the applicant ’s flat on the first floor ( DATE while the permitted level was PERCENT ) when chairs were being dragged across the floor inside the bar . During TIME , the level of noise was excessive in the entrance to the living room of the flat on the first floor while all sources of noise inside the bar were switched on and in the same area with only the fan running in the bar ( PERCENT when the permitted level was PERCENT ) . Furthermore , the level of noise was excessive inside the living room while all sources of noise inside the bar were switched on , and in the same area with only the fan running ( DATE when the permitted level was CARDINAL dB ) , as well as when chairs were being dragged across the floor inside the bar ( CARDINAL dB when the permitted level was PERCENT ) . The level of noise was excessive inside the flat on the ground floor with all sources of noise switched on ( CARDINAL dB when the permitted level was DATE ) and while chairs were being dragged across the floor inside the bar ( QUANTITY when the permitted level was PERCENT ) .

On DATE the environmental health inspector heard the parties’ objections and commissioned further expert reports from companies B - I. and E.

On DATE company B - I. submitted its report , in which it found that the company had replaced the air - conditioning system which had been generating noise . It then measured the average noise level inside the living room of the applicant ’s flat on the first floor for CARDINAL TIME periods during DATE and CARDINAL TIME periods during TIME . It also measured the average noise level in front of the air - conditioning system during TIME for CARDINAL TIME periods . The report found that the level of noise coming from the bar was not excessive .

In DATE company E. submitted its report , which also found that the level of noise coming from the bar was not excessive .

On DATE the sanitary inspector found that the noise coming from the bar had not exceeded the permitted levels .

DATE . On an unspecified date in DATE the applicant ’s husband lodged an appeal with ORG challenging the findings of the sanitary inspector .

Meanwhile the applicant ’s husband obtained an expert report drawn up by company ORG and dated DATE concerning the level of noise emanating from the bar . This report measured the level of noise during the day and night inside the living room of the flat on the first floor and in front of a window in the living room . In assessing the maximum permitted noise levels this report considered that the applicant ’s house fell within zone CARDINAL under section CARDINAL of the by - law pertaining to dwellings and business LOC where the predominant use is as residential property ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . It found , taking into account the ambient noise , that the level of noise measured inside the applicant ’s living room during TIME was excessive ( PERCENT with sources of noise switched on when the permitted level was DATE ) and that the bar ’s noise protection measures were not adequate .

On DATE ORG upheld the sanitary inspector ’s decision of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

The applicant ’s husband then lodged an administrative action with ORG , arguing that the noise measurements had not been taken correctly and that the relevant facts had not been correctly established .

On CARDINAL DATE the sanitary inspector declared the applicant ’s complaint of noise nuisance inadmissible on the grounds that he was not competent to examine the case since at the time civil proceedings were pending before ORG ( PERSON ) ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL below ) .

The sanitary inspector ’s decision was upheld by ORG on DATE .

On an unspecified date in DATE the applicant lodged an administrative action with ORG against the above decision of ORG .

On DATE the sanitary inspector carried out an on - site inspection in the bar and found that the necessary noise insulation measures had been put in place .

DATE . On DATE ORG quashed the decision of ORG of DATE ( see CARDINAL and DATE above ) and ordered a re - examination of the case on the grounds that the decision had been based on contradictory expert reports .

On DATE ORG quashed the decision of ORG of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) and ordered the sanitary inspector to examine the applicant ’s complaints on the merits .

The proceedings before the sanitary inspector are still pending .

On DATE the applicant lodged a civil action in ORG ( PERSON ) against the company and its director , seeking an injunction against any further noise emissions from the bar .

At a hearing on DATE the applicant gave evidence before ORG . She contended that the noise emanating from the bar had become unbearable and that it was affecting her everyday life . She also complained about smell and other nuisance coming from the bar , in particular about the problems she and her husband had had with drunk and violent customers of the bar .

On DATE ORG conducted an on - site inspection , to which it invited CARDINAL expert witnesses from ORG ( GPE za javno zdravstvo PERSON , hereinafter “ the Institute ” ) . It ordered the experts to take the necessary measurements and commissioned noise and pollution expert reports .

In its report of DATE the ORG took into account the expert report drawn up by company PERSON ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and DATE above ) . In assessing the maximum permitted noise levels this report observed that the house was situated near a road and considered that it fell within zone CARDINAL under section CARDINAL of the by - law pertaining to dwellings and business LOC but predominantly residential properties ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . The report found that the level of noise in the open area surrounding the bar and inside the applicant ’s flat did not exceed the permitted levels for TIME .

The ORG also submitted a report concerning the level of pollution emanating from the bar , which found that all emissions were within the permitted levels .

On DATE the applicant objected to the ORG ’s reports . She contended that noise measurements had been taken only in the living room of her flat on the first floor , and that all sources of the noise in the bar had been switched off when the measurements were taken . She asked ORG to question CARDINAL witnesses , GPE , GPE , GPE and PERSON , who could confirm her allegations . She also pointed out that the experts had failed to take into account the documentation concerning the noise insulation in the building , and had thus erred in their findings .

On DATE ORG heard the expert witnesses in the presence of the applicant ’s lawyer . The noise expert reiterated his findings , and argued that the level of noise had been measured only in the living room , which was the closest area to the bar and in which , as the applicant had told him herself , the noise nuisance was the greatest . He also submitted that the noise had been measured on the balcony of the applicant ’s flat on the first floor and that while the measurements were being taken all sources of the noise in the bar had been switched on . He explained that he had not taken into account the documentation on noise insulation because that was not part of his remit . He also considered that the operation of the air - conditioning fan in the bar could in no way influence the level of noise in the applicant ’s flat . Lastly , the expert witness pointed out that the previous noise measurements had not found the level of noise in the applicant ’s flat to be excessive .

At a hearing on DATE CARDINAL ORG heard the applicant , who reiterated her objections to the expert reports . She asked for the witnesses who had been present during the measuring to be questioned and for a new expert report to be commissioned .

At the same hearing ORG dismissed the applicant ’s request and terminated the proceedings .

On DATE the CARDINAL witnesses , GPE , GPE , GPE and PERSON , who the applicant had asked to be heard at the trial , submitted a statement to ORG expressing their dissatisfaction with the manner in which that court had accepted the expert report which , according to them , had contained a number of incorrect statements .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s civil action , on the grounds that the expert report showed that the level of noise had not exceeded the permitted level and that other evidence from the case file showed that there had been no other nuisance coming from the bar . As regards the applicant ’s request for witnesses to be heard , that court held that all relevant facts had been sufficiently established and that there had been no need to take further evidence in respect of the level of noise , particularly since it considered the expert reports well drafted and convincing .

The applicant lodged an appeal against the above judgment with ORG ( PERSON u ORG ) on CARDINAL DATE , challenging the findings of the first - instance court and reiterating her previous arguments .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s appeal against ORG judgment as ill - founded . It considered the expert reports convincing and well constructed .

On CARDINAL DATE the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint with ORG ( Ustavni sud PERSON ) against the judgment of ORG , reiterating her arguments that her private life , home and property had been unjustifiably interfered with by the company .

On DATE the applicant lodged a criminal complaint with the Križevci Municipal State Attorney ’s Office ( Općinsko državno odvjetništvo u ORG ) against the ORG ’s experts and the managing director of the company , accusing them of perjury .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s constitutional complaint as ill - founded , endorsing the findings of the lower courts . This decision was served on the applicant on DATE .

On DATE the Križevci Municipal State Attorney ’s ORG rejected the applicant ’s criminal complaint on the grounds that any objection as to the findings of the experts was within the competence of the civil courts and that there was no evidence that the experts or the company director had deliberately given false evidence to the court .

In DATE and DATE the applicant called the police on a number of occasions in connection with noise and other emissions from the bar .

The police were called in total CARDINAL times ( of which CARDINAL calls were by the applicant ) to the bar in connection with breaches of public peace and order ; these calls resulted in CARDINAL minor offences proceedings against various individuals .

The police also instigated CARDINAL visits by other state bodies ( the revenue service , health inspectorate and so on ) to the bar , which resulted in CARDINAL minor offences proceedings for breaches of public peace and order .

The applicant also complained to the Križevci Municipal State Attorney ’s ORG , ORG ( PERSON ) , ORG of GPE and ORG ( PERSON ) that local and domestic authorities had taken no action , contending that the level of noise and other nuisance coming from the bar had adversely affected her health , dignity , her private and family life and respect for peaceful enjoyment of her possessions .

On DATE a parliamentary board dealing with the individual complaints urged ORG and ORG to examine the applicant ’s complaints .

On DATE the parliamentary board again urged the competent authorities to examine the applicant ’s complaints , pointing out that ORG judgments had never been complied with and that there had been numerous police call - outs to the bar .