Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 2 of Protocol No. 1 - Control of the use of property)

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

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in PERSON .

The applicant is a former rally driver who won several national titles and was still actively competing at the time of the events in the case . His company runs a car repair shop which is also authorised to remodel cars intended to be used for competition .

On DATE the NORP mesto ORG , at the request of the police , issued a warrant to search the applicant ’s premises on the basis of a suspicion that he had exchanged the chassis numbers of CARDINAL cars in order to be able to register the second one , bought in GPE , and smuggle it through the State border without paying customs duties . He was also suspected of the criminal offences of forgery , certifying false documents as genuine and smuggling . The search warrant included an authorisation for the seizure of items subject to the warrant . On DATE the police conducted a search of the applicant ’s car repair shop and seized a ORG racing car , the car ’s registration papers and other documents .

The applicant requested the return of the car several times because he needed it for future competitions from which he could not withdraw owing to contractual obligations towards his sponsors . He also insisted that he had not committed any of the offences he was suspected of .

On DATE the Novo mesto ORG lodged a request for a criminal investigation against the applicant in respect of the above - mentioned offences ( see paragraph CARDINAL ) . On DATE the Novo mesto ORG approved the request .

On DATE the applicant paid CARDINAL ( ORG ) to lease another racing car , a ORG CARDINAL.CARDINAL kit car , for DATE . On DATE he competed in a hill climb race with the leased car . He also competed with it in hill climb races on DATE , CARDINAL DATE , CARDINAL DATE and DATE and in rallies on DATE , CARDINAL DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE .

On DATE the Novo mesto ORG dropped the prosecution ( odstopil od pregona ) of the smuggling charge and consequently , on DATE , the Novo mesto ORG discontinued the criminal investigation of that crime . It referred the proceedings related to forgery and the certification of false documents as true to ORG ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL below ) .

On DATE customs offences proceedings were instituted against the applicant .

On DATE ORG issued a seizure order in respect of the same car on suspicion that the applicant had in DATE avoided paying duties when importing the car into GPE .

On DATE the car was transferred from the Novo mesto ORG to the customs authorities .

On an unknown date the applicant lodged a request for an assessment of customs duties under the regular customs proceedings .

On DATE ORG issued a declaratory note ( ugotovitveni zapisnik ) , finding that according to information from the police the applicant had bought a ORG TIME DATE and had registered it in GPE . The car ’s number plates and the metallic plate with the chassis number had then been put on the ORG CARDINAL.CARDINAL kit car . That car had been brought onto the territory of GPE without any customs duty being paid for it . The note also stated that the duties arose because the applicant had imported the car without paying the duties required by law . As it could not determine the date the debt had been incurred , it based its findings on the regulations in place on DATE , when ORG had found that custom duties for the car had not been paid . It calculated the amount on the basis of documents submitted by the applicant . In the note , the market value of the vehicle was set at ORG CARDINAL . The customs duties , LOC and vehicle tax were CARDINAL NORP tolars ( approximately EUR CARDINAL,CARDINAL ) .

On DATE the decision on the amount of customs duties to be paid by the applicant was issued .

On DATE the applicant paid the customs duties and the car was returned to him . He submitted in writing at the same time that he had only paid the customs duties to prevent further losses .

By DATE the applicant had obtained all the necessary permits for the car and was able to register it as a special vehicle .

On DATE the proceedings for customs offences were discontinued because prosecution had in the meantime become time - barred .

On DATE the applicant instituted proceedings against GPE before ORG , claiming compensation for the pecuniary losses sustained due to the seizure of his car in the criminal proceedings . He claimed ORG CARDINAL , the amount he had paid to lease another car .

On DATE ORG dismissed the claim . It held , inter alia , that the seizure of the car had not been unlawful and that the criminal proceedings related to forgery and the certification of false documents as true were still pending . The applicant appealed .

On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law . He later withdrew it because the civil proceedings had been reopened ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

On DATE ORG held that the search warrant of DATE had not complied with section CARDINAL of LAW because it had lacked evidence of reasonable grounds for suspicion ( utemeljeni sum ) . In particular , basic data such as from whom , when and where the information used as evidence had been collected , was missing . That meant the seizure order had been issued and the car seized on the basis of an unlawful warrant . The court , basing its decision on the exclusionary rule , ordered that all the evidence collected on the basis of the unlawful seizure , including the reports and testimony of experts , should be excluded from the file .

At a hearing held on DATE ORG withdrew the charges against the applicant . On DATE ORG dismissed the charges of forgery and the certification of false documents .

Following the dismissal of the charges by ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , the applicant on CARDINAL DATE applied to reopen the civil proceedings . He alleged that the decisions on the unlawfulness of the search warrant and the discontinuation of the criminal proceedings had to be considered as new evidence which could influence the outcome of the proceedings .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s application to reopen the proceedings . After a successful appeal , the proceedings were reopened on DATE .

The applicant on DATE withdrew his appeal on points of law after the reopening of the civil proceedings .

In the reopened proceedings the parties submitted the following arguments . The representative of the ORG argued , inter alia , that the customs duties on the car in question had not been paid and that therefore it could not have been used any way . Once the applicant had paid the duties his debt had been cleared and the car had been able to enter the domestic market . They also argued that the customs proceedings had not taken an unduly long time as they had lasted only from DATE to DATE . The applicant argued , inter alia , that the order which had led to the seizure of the car had been unlawful and that it therefore gave rise to a liability on the part of the ORG for any damage resulting from it . He also submitted that ORG seizure order had been issued only on DATE and was thus irrelevant to the question of liability for damage . The applicant also noted that he had not been found guilty in any of the proceedings and had not done anything wrong . He stated that the car that had been seized had been remodelled in his own repair shop and that he had not yet finished the remodelling or necessary paperwork by the time of the seizure . Such a process included obtaining new approval papers and the registration of the vehicle as a special vehicle . He pointed out that he had finished that process and obtained all the necessary documents once the car had been returned to him .

On DATE ORG rejected the applicant ’s claim , which it examined under LAW and Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW . The ORG found that there was no dispute about the fact that the car had been seized in criminal proceedings . The court noted that it was not bound by the findings of the criminal court that the seizure had been unlawful , but , basing its conclusion on its own assessment , it concluded that the seizure had been ordered on the basis of gossip and newspaper article and that all the other information relating to the alleged offences had been obtained on the basis of the unwarranted seizure . The search warrant had been general and lacking in precision and therefore could not be subjected to any scrutiny . On the basis of such considerations it found that the seizure had not complied with the requirements set out in LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) and had therefore been unlawful . However , the court found that the causal link between the unlawful seizure and the damage incurred by the applicant had been broken because the applicant would in any event have been unable to use the car for several reasons . Firstly , the applicant , as a professional driver and owner of the repair shop , should have known that any remodelling of the car required a new technical inspection and registration , which the applicant had not done before the seizure . Secondly , no customs duties had been paid on parts that had been imported and then used in the car . The seized car , which had thus not been properly registered or imported in compliance with customs regulations , could not have been used in traffic and the applicant could not have raced with it . The applicant was ordered to pay the opposing party ’s costs of ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL .

The applicant lodged an appeal . He argued that he had not been given the opportunity to be heard in respect of the alleged break in the causal link . He noted that , in any case , the car had been seized while it had still been in the process of remodelling and that he had intended to register it at the end of the process . He had only been able to complete that process later , after the car had been returned to him . He also referred to the fact that subsequently he had not encountered any problems in obtaining the necessary certificates in order to register the car .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s appeal . It held that the applicant had never claimed or proved that the car parts had been imported in accordance with customs regulations . ORG had been right in holding that the applicant would not have been able to use the car owing to the illegal importation of the car parts and the incorrect registration procedure .

The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law ( revizija ) , challenging the conclusions of the court in respect of the break in the causal link and arguing that the loss had already been incurred before the issue of customs duties had arose . He further argued that no customs offence decision had been issued against him and that a car that was not registered for use in normal traffic could still be used in competitions .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s appeal on points of law , confirming that the link in causality had been broken because the applicant had imported some of the car parts in violation of customs regulations .

In the above proceedings before ORG , ORG and ORG , the applicant paid ORG CARDINAL in total for court fees .

The applicant lodged a constitutional appeal , arguing that the seizure of his car had been unlawful and that he had therefore been unable to use the car for racing . He argued that by virtue of the courts’ decisions , in particular their position on the causal link , his human rights , including his right to compensation under LAW , and the principle of the rule of law had been violated . The constitutional appeal was dismissed by ORG on DATE by reference to the second paragraph of section CARDINAL of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .


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

Branko Lubarda;Dmitry Dedov;Luis López Guerra

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

The applicants complained of the excessive length of criminal proceedings .


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

George Nicolaou;Ineta Ziemele;Ledi Bianku;Päivi Hirvelä;Paul Mahoney;Vincent A. De Gaetano

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

The applicant is a photographer and journalist for the DATE magazine ORG . On DATE he was sent by his employer to take photographs of the demonstration which was being held in protest against the on - going LOC meeting ( ORG ) in GPE . The demonstration was an exceptionally large one in the NORP context and all media followed it closely .

NORP Before the demonstration took place , on DATE , ORG was alerted by ORG that the upcoming “ Smash ORG ” demonstration would be a hostile one and would not aim to highlight any clear political message . ORG did not manage to establish contact with the organisers of the demonstration .

The demonstration was to start at TIME on DATE . A separate area was reserved for the representatives of the media so that they could freely and safely observe the situation and take photographs on the demonstration place .

At the start of the demonstration , bottles , stones and jars filled with paint were thrown at public and policemen . Some demonstrators kicked and hit police officers . The police announced several times over loudspeakers that a peaceful demonstration was allowed on the spot but that the crowd was not allowed to demonstrate by marching . The crowd tried to break through the police defence line . Relying on all the information in their possession , the police decided to interrupt the demonstration which had now turned violent . The police announced over loudspeakers that the demonstration was stopped and that the crowd should leave the scene . This announcement was repeated several times . CARDINAL of people then left voluntarily .

After the escalation of violence , the police considered that the event had turned into a riot and decided to seal off the demonstration area . First only a few people were allowed to leave the area . Then the police established several exit routes and people were allowed to leave . When leaving , they were asked to show ID and their belongings were checked .

NORP However , the core group of CARDINAL people remained in CARDINAL of the demonstration spots , including the applicant and a former Member of ORG , all of whom had been asked to leave the scene , failing which they would be arrested . According to the applicant , he thought that this request only applied to the demonstrators . He claims that sometime later he indicated to the police that he was a representative of the media . He further claims that he was wearing his press badge and that a police officer accepted this . After having called his colleague , the applicant decided to stay until the situation was over . A short time later the police arrested the demonstrators . When leaving the scene the applicant was also arrested . The police arrested altogether CARDINAL persons in the context of the demonstration .

NORP The applicant was detained from DATE at TIME until DATE at TIME , that is , TIME .

On DATE the public prosecutor brought charges against the applicant for disobeying the police ( niskoittelu poliisia vastaan , tredska mot polis ) under LAW , section CARDINAL , subsection CARDINAL , of LAW .

On DATE the GPE ORG ( käräjäoikeus , tingsrätten ) found the applicant guilty of disobeying the police but did not impose any penalty on him . The court found it established that the applicant had been aware of the orders of the police to leave the scene but had decided to ignore them . It appeared from the witness statements given before the court that the applicant had not told or indicated the arresting police officer that he was a journalist . According to the arresting officer , this fact only became known to him when the relevant magazine appeared . It appeared also from the witness statements that CARDINAL other photographers , who had been in the sealed - off area , had been able to leave the scene without consequences just before the applicant was arrested . The court found it further established that the police orders had been clear and that they had clearly concerned everybody . The court balanced the LAW right against other interests , finding that the police had had the right to ask the applicant , among others , including the former Member of ORG , to leave the scene . The interference with the applicant ’s right to exercise his freedom of expression had thus been based on law , and it had fulfilled the legitimate aim of preventing disorder . The interference had been necessary in a NORP society in order to put an end to a violent situation . However , relying on LAW , section CARDINAL , of LAW , no penalty was imposed as the offence was excusable . The court found that the applicant who , as a journalist , was confronted with contradictory expectations , stemming from obligations imposed on the one hand by the police and on the other by his employer .

NORP By letter dated DATE the applicant appealed to ORG ( hovioikeus , hovrätten ) , claiming that ORG should have dismissed the charges against him . He argued that his arrest and the fact that he was found guilty were against LAW and LAW . The applicant was a journalist and that he had not participated in the demonstration or caused any disorder . ORG had not reasoned why his arrest and conviction were “ necessary in a democratic society ” and had thereby failed to justify the interference .

On DATE ORG rejected the applicant ’s appeal without giving any further reasons .

By letter dated DATE the applicant further appealed to ORG ( korkein oikeus , högsta domstolen ) , reiterating the grounds of appeal already presented before ORG .

On DATE ORG refused the applicant leave to appeal .


CASE OF ALEXANDRESCU AND OTHERS v. ROMANIA

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

András Sajó;Egidijus Kūris;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Nona Tsotsoria;Vincent A. De Gaetano

The facts of the cases , as submitted by the parties , are similar to those presented in ORG “ DATE ” and Others v. GPE ( nos . CARDINAL and CARDINAL , LAW CARDINAL , CARDINAL DATE ) and in NORP and Others v. GPE ( nos . CARDINAL/CARDINAL and CARDINAL others , § § DATE , CARDINAL DATE ) . They belong within the same historical context and relate to the same domestic criminal proceedings as those at issue in the above - mentioned case .

DATE and DATE , the applicants took part in the anti - communist demonstrations in GPE which led to the fall of the communist regime .

In DATE , following the overthrow of the communist regime , the military prosecutor ’s office opened a criminal investigation in respect of the DATE armed crackdown on the anti - communist demonstration in GPE .

According to the documents submitted to the ORG by the parties , all the applicants were interviewed at the military prosecutor ’s office as witnesses in connection with the use of violence against civilian demonstrators . Subsequently , they lodged criminal complaints and joined the criminal proceedings as civil parties , citing the psychological suffering they had experienced following the violent crackdown on the anticommunist demonstration . It appears from the medical certificates issued DATE and DATE and submitted by the applicants to the domestic criminal investigation file that they did not present any medical symptoms when they were examined following their involvement in the tragic events . Nevertheless , it could not be ruled out that they suffered psychological trauma at the time of the events in question .

The criminal investigation appears to be still pending before the prosecuting authorities . The most important procedural steps were summarised in ORG “ DATE ” and Others , cited above ( § § DATE ) . Subsequent developments in the investigation are as follows .

On DATE the military prosecutor ’s office at ORG and ORG decided not to institute criminal proceedings with regard to the acts committed by the military , finding that the ORG complaints were partly statute - barred and partly ill - founded . The investigation into crimes committed by civilians , members of ORG , members of militia and prison staff was severed from the case file and jurisdiction was relinquished in favour of the prosecuting authorities at ORG and ORG .

On DATE the chief prosecutor at the military prosecutor ’s office set aside the decision of DATE on the grounds that the investigation had not yet been finalised and not all victims and perpetrators had yet been identified .

On DATE the military prosecutor ’s office relinquished jurisdiction in favour of the prosecutor ’s office at ORG and Justice on the ground that the investigation concerned both civilians and military .

On DATE following the opening to the public in DATE of the classified information in the criminal investigation file – the case was reregistered with a view to an investigation in the light of the recently available data .

This investigation appears to be still pending before the domestic authorities .

The main facts of these cases concerning the crackdown on antigovernment demonstrations DATE are similar to those presented in PERSON and Others v. GPE [ ORG ] ( ORG . GPE , CARDINAL/CARDINAL and CARDINAL , § § DATE , DATE , CARDINAL - CARDINAL , and CARDINAL - CARDINAL , ORG DATE ( extracts ) ) .

DATE a violent crackdown took place against demonstrators who were occupying FAC and other areas of GPE and protesting against the newly installed government . The armed intervention of military forces , followed by the arrival of CARDINAL of miners transported to GPE ( mainly from the LOC mining region ) to take part in the crackdown on the demonstrators , resulted in CARDINAL civilian casualties , of whom CARDINAL were killed and CARDINAL injured or arrested . The applicants in the abovementioned cases participated in the events , during which they allegedly suffered injuries . No relevant medical documents were appended to the case file .

Separate criminal investigations into the crimes committed during the violent repression of the demonstrations were opened in DATE by several ORG offices in GPE under different files . Subsequently , these cases were joined and , in DATE , jurisdiction over them was relinquished in favour of the military prosecutor ’s office at ORG and Justice . During the military prosecutor ’s investigations , several decisions were adopted in which decisions were reversed , charges were disjoined and jurisdiction relinquished to other domestic authorities . The applicants joined the domestic criminal proceedings as civil parties .

A decision not to bring a prosecution was adopted on DATE . An appeal lodged against that decision was dismissed on DATE by the head prosecutor of the relevant section of the prosecutor ’s office at ORG and ORG . Those decisions have been upheld in several judgments of ORG and ORG .


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 , DATE , DATE and DATE respectively and live in GPE .

NORP The applicant PERSON ( hereafter , the first applicant ) owned a flat which measured QUANTITY m. and was situated at CARDINAL FAC , GPE . The remaining CARDINAL applicants – the first applicant ’s family members who resided in the same flat DATE allege that they enjoyed a right of use in respect of that flat .

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 first applicant ’s flat was valued upon the request of the ORG by a valuation organisation . The market value of the flat was estimated at MONEY ( ORG ) .

By a letter of DATE the ORG informed the first applicant that his flat was subject to expropriation and that it had been valued at FAC , and offered him this amount as compensation . An additional sum of ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL was offered to him as a financial incentive if he signed an agreement within DATE .

By a letter of DATE the first applicant expressed his consent to sign an agreement but disagreed with the amount of compensation offered .

On DATE the ORG lodged a claim against the first applicant , seeking to oblige him to sign an agreement on the taking of his flat for ORG needs and to have him and his family members evicted .

On DATE the ORG and ORG of GPE granted the ORG ’s claim , ordering the first applicant to sign an agreement for the total amount of FAC and that he and his family members be evicted .

On DATE the first applicant lodged an appeal . The remaining CARDINAL applicants allege that they unsuccessfully sought to be recognised as parties to the proceedings , despite the fact that they enjoyed a right of use in respect of the flat in question and the fact that their eviction was ordered by ORG .

On DATE ORG granted the ORG ’s claim upon appeal and dismissed that of the first applicant .

On DATE the applicants jointly lodged an appeal .

On DATE ORG examined the appeal only in its part concerning the first applicant and decided to dismiss it .

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


George Nicolaou;Ineta Ziemele;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Nona Tsotsoria;Päivi Hirvelä;Paul Mahoney

NORP The applicant , PERSON , is a NORP national born in DATE . He is currently detained at FAC . He is represented by Mr C. MarshFinch , counsel , of ORG .


Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Enforcement proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time);Violation of Article 13 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy)

András Sajó;Egidijus Kūris;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer

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

In DATE ORG enacted ORG which provided that residents of rural areas had the right to acquire land for individual farming ( asmeninio ūkio žemė ) from the ORG , in accordance with the requirements set out in the relevant legal instruments ( see “ Relevant domestic law ” below ) .

On DATE the applicant ’s husband submitted a request to ORG of the Vilnius Region to buy from LOC of land for individual farming in the village of GPE .

On DATE the Government adopted a decision establishing , inter alia , the order of allocation of land for individual farming . The decision instructed regional and municipal authorities to delimit plots of land to be assigned for individual farming and to prepare the necessary documents for their allocation to individual claimants .

On DATE , in court proceedings instituted by the Government , ORG ordered ORG of the Vilnius Region to implement the aforementioned decision of the Government .

On DATE ORG adopted a decision on the allocation of QUANTITY of land for individual farming in LOC . The decision provided a list of individuals who were entitled to buy plots of land from the ORG . It indicated the amount of land to which each listed individual was entitled but did not specify actual plots . The applicant was included in that list and entitled to buy QUANTITY of land .

On DATE the ORG entered into force in respect of GPE .

On DATE ORG ( hereinafter “ the ORG ” ) approved the land allocation plan ( žemės reformos žemėtvarkos projektas ) for the PERSON cadastral area ( this area comprised several villages in LOC ) . The ORG approved the delimitation of plots of land in that territory ( patvirtino suformuotų žemės sklypų plotus bei ribas ) and instructed Matininkai , a surveyor company , to prepare the necessary documents in order to allocate the plots to individual claimants and to formalise their rights of land ownership or use .

In DATE the applicant and her husband submitted a request to the ORG to consider as valid their previous request of CARDINAL DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) and to allocate a plot of land in the village of GPE to them , for the nominal price of CARDINAL NORP litai ( ORG , MONEY ( ORG ) ) .

On DATE the ORG approved a list of individuals who were using land for individual farming in the LOC cadastral area . The applicant was included on the list as using QUANTITY of land in the village of GPE . However , as submitted by the applicant and not disputed by the Government , the applicant had not been using this land since no land had been provided to her at that time .

NORP In DATE the ORG decided that it was necessary to amend the land allocation plan of the GPE cadastral area in order to take into account requests for restitution in natura which had been submitted in respect of land there . It ordered PERSON to amend the delimitation and allocation of plots accordingly and to prepare all the necessary documents by DATE .

NORP In DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE the applicant and her husband petitioned the ORG and ORG ( hereinafter “ the NLS ” ) , stating that they had still not received the land to which they were entitled , and requesting that such land be provided to them without further delay . They were informed that the preparation of the land allocation plan in the area was ongoing .

In DATE the applicant and her husband lodged a claim against the ORG before ORG . They complained that the QUANTITY of land assigned to them in DATE had still not been provided , that they had been unable to receive any information from the ORG about the ongoing land reform in LOC , and that they had not been given the opportunity to participate in the planning of the reform , unlike other residents of the region . They requested that the court oblige the ORG to enforce the decision of ORG of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) without further delay .

On DATE ORG dismissed the claim . However , on CARDINAL DATE ORG upheld the applicant ’s appeal and annulled the judgment of the first - instance court . ORG noted that the applicant had been entitled to buy QUANTITY of land by the decision of DATE and that she had been included on the list of land users in DATE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) , so on these grounds the ORG was obliged to allocate a specific plot of land to the applicant . The court ordered the ORG to carry out the necessary administrative procedures to identify and delimit a plot of land for the applicant ( atlikti administracines procedūras , susijusias su žemės sklypo suprojektavimu bei jo ribų nustatymu ) . However , ORG denied the applicant ’s request to set a precise deadline for the ORG to carry out said actions , noting that no such deadlines were provided in the legislation and that there was no objective possibility to do so due to the complexity of the land reform .

In DATE and DATE the bailiff in charge of the enforcement of ORG judgment submitted several notices to the ORG , urging it to enforce the judgment immediately .

On DATE the ORG approved an amended land allocation plan of the LOC cadastral area . It ordered GPE , a surveyor company , to mark the delimited plots ( paženklinti vietoje ) and to prepare the necessary documents for formalising individual rights of ownership or use .

NORP In DATE and DATE the applicant and her husband submitted several requests to the ORG and the ORG , inquiring about the enforcement of the judgment of CARDINAL DATE and requesting information about the implementation of the land reform in the GPE cadastral area .

On DATE the ORG informed the applicant that it had instructed PERSON to identify a specific plot of CARDINAL hectares for the applicant from the stock of available State land by DATE .

In DATE and DATE the applicant submitted complaints to the ORG concerning the continuing non - enforcement of ORG judgment . She did not receive any response .

NORP In DATE the applicant asked ORG to clarify its judgment of CARDINAL DATE and to set a concrete deadline for the ORG to enforce it . However , the court denied the applicant ’s request , noting that it was not authorised to clarify its previous judgments in a way that would alter their content .

NORP In DATE the ORG again amended the land allocation plan of the GPE cadastral area and instructed PERSON to complete the planning by DATE .

In DATE the applicant submitted CARDINAL requests to the ORG , asking to be provided with a plot of land by DATE and requesting information as to whether she had been included in the amended land allocation plan as a candidate to receive land . DATE the ORG informed the applicant that the planning in the LOC cadastral area had to be completed by DATE and that the applicant would be included as a candidate of the seventh priority rank to receive land there .

In DATE the ORG urged the ORG to examine why the list of candidates to receive land in the GPE cadastral area had not been compiled in time with a view to ensuring the enforcement of ORG judgment of CARDINAL DATE .

In DATE the ORG again amended the land allocation plan in the GPE cadastral area . It instructed PERSON to complete the list of candidates to receive land in that territory by CARDINAL DATE and to complete the planning by DATE .

DATE the applicant and her husband requested that ORG order interim measures against the ORG to prevent it from distributing land in the LOC cadastral area to candidates of the eighth and lower priority ranks . The court dismissed their request , noting that interim measures could only be ordered before the court ’s judgment is adopted , while after its adoption the ORG was already under an obligation to enforce the judgment and thus interim measures were unnecessary .

On CARDINAL DATE ORG granted the applicant ’s request and clarified its judgment of CARDINAL DATE . The court held that the ORG was under the obligation to include the applicant on the list of candidates to be provided with land in the GPE cadastral area by DATE and to carry out the remaining administrative procedures necessary for the allocation of a specific plot of land of QUANTITY to the applicant within DATE of the completion of the land allocation plan of the LOC cadastral area .

In DATE the applicant asked the ORG to inform her whether ORG judgment of DATE had been enforced . She also requested that they provide her with the list of candidates to receive land in the LOC cadastral area . She did not receive any response .

In DATE the ORG approved the amended land allocation plan of the LOC cadastral area and the list of candidates to receive plots of land in that territory . The applicant was not included on that list .

DATE the ORG approved the list of individuals in the eldership ( seniūnija ) of PERSON who were not using the land which had been assigned to them for individual farming . The list indicated that the applicant had been assigned CARDINAL hectares of land and that she had not been using them . As submitted by the Government , the purpose of that list was to determine the location of the plots to be allocated – those individuals who were not using any specific land would be provided with plots from the ORG stock of vacant land .

In DATE the ORG informed the applicant and her husband that the land allocation plan of the LOC cadastral area was again being amended , and that the list of candidates to receive land in that territory would be compiled after the completion of the planning when the available land has been identified . The ORG noted that the applicant had been included in the preliminary list as a candidate of the seventh priority rank .

In DATE the bailiff urged the ORG to immediately enforce ORG judgment of DATE . In DATE the bailiff concluded that the judgment had not been enforced . In DATE the GPE City ORG satisfied the bailiff ’s request and ordered the ORG to pay a fine of LTL CARDINAL ( ORG CARDINAL ) for non - enforcement of the court ’s judgment , as well as to enforce that judgment within DATE . However , in DATE ORG annulled the first - instance decision , noting that the ORG had already included the applicant on the list of candidates to receive a plot of land ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , which meant that the judgment of ORG had been partly enforced and thus there were no grounds to order a fine .

On DATE the ORG approved the list of candidates to receive land in the eldership of PERSON , in the GPE cadastral area . The applicant was included in this list as a candidate of the seventh priority rank .

The ORG further amended the land allocation plan in the GPE cadastral area several times in DATE and DATE , setting new deadlines for the surveyor company to complete the planning .

In DATE the bailiff asked the ORG to provide information as to whether the land allocation plan had been completed and whether the necessary administrative procedures had been carried out to provide the applicant with a plot of CARDINAL hectares . In DATE the bailiff declared that ORG judgment had not been enforced and decided to discontinue the enforcement proceedings . The applicant appealed against the bailiff ’s decision and in DATE the GPE City ORG allowed the appeal and ordered the bailiff to continue the enforcement . That judgment was subsequently upheld by ORG .

In DATE , after an administrative reform , the ORG was abolished and its obligations were transferred to the ORG .

NORP In DATE , during a meeting between NORP and candidates of the seventh priority rank , the applicant was offered CARDINAL plots of land , amounting to a total of QUANTITY . She accepted the offer .

In DATE the ORG approved the plan of the GPE cadastral area prepared by PERSON , which delimited plots of land to be allocated to candidates of the first - to - fourth priority ranks .

On DATE the ORG held a meeting of candidates of the seventh priority rank . The applicant was offered CARDINAL plots of land ( different from the CARDINAL which had been previously offered to her – see paragraph CARDINAL above ) amounting to a total of QUANTITY hectares . She confirmed that she was aware of any applicable restrictions on the use of those plots and agreed to the offer .

On DATE the applicant submitted a complaint to the ORG , stating that the CARDINAL plots offered to her were too far from her home , that they could not be reached by road and that they were swampland ( užpelkėję ) , and therefore unsuitable for farming . She requested that the ORG give her the plots of land which were offered to her in DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) or other plots of equivalent quality . However , DATE the applicant notified the ORG that she would accept the CARDINAL offered plots .

On DATE the ORG approved the land allocation plan of the GPE cadastral area and a list of CARDINAL individuals who had been allocated specific plots of land . The list indicated that the applicant had been assigned the CARDINAL plots of land offered to her on DATE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) .

In DATE ORG identified that CARDINAL of the CARDINAL plots assigned to the applicant included QUANTITY of forestland . As a result , that part of the plot could not be transferred to the applicant and had to be returned to the State .

DATE ORG assessed the value of the CARDINAL plots ( after excluding the QUANTITY of forestland ) . It calculated that their total nominal value , assessed in accordance with LAW adopted by the Government in DATE ( see “ Relevant domestic law ” below ) , was EUR CARDINAL , whereas their total market value was ORG CARDINAL .

In DATE the ORG informed the applicant that the preliminary market value of the CARDINAL plots was EUR CARDINAL , and that she would subsequently be informed of the final price .

In DATE the ORG amended the land allocation plan for the eldership of PERSON , indicating that the total area which had been allocated to the applicant amounted to QUANTITY .

In DATE the NLS informed the applicant that she had to pay a fee of LAW for registering the CARDINAL plots in the property register , and that that fee would be subsequently refunded to her in the price of the land .

In DATE the Government informed the ORG that the ORG had identified the remaining vacant ORG land in the LOC cadastral area and that the applicant would be included as a candidate to receive CARDINAL hectares of farmland in a future land plan . In DATE the Government further informed the ORG that the ORG had prepared draft agreements to enable the applicant to purchase the aforementioned CARDINAL plots amounting to QUANTITY .

In DATE the applicant and her husband submitted a complaint against the ORG to ORG ( hereinafter DATE “ the Commission ” ) . They complained that they had not received any response to their repeated requests for information , sent in DATE and DATE ( see paragraph DATE above ) . The Commission partly upheld the complaint and ordered the ORG to respond within DATE to CARDINAL requests submitted in DATE .

On DATE the applicant and her husband submitted a complaint to ORG , requesting that it order the ORG to comply with the ORG ’s decision . They also claimed non - pecuniary damages resulting from the ORG ’s deliberate refusal to fulfil its obligations .

On DATE ORG dismissed the complaint . However , on DATE ORG quashed the first - instance judgment and ordered the ORG to provide the applicant and her husband with a satisfactory response to their request of DATE . The court also noted that the applicant and her husband had repeatedly asked the ORG for information about the implementation of the land reform and about the plot assigned to them , that they had petitioned several ORG institutions ( see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) , and that the lengthy non - enforcement of ORG judgment of CARDINAL DATE , as well as the ORG ’s evasiveness concerning their requests , had caused them inconvenience and negative feelings . Thus , the court awarded the applicant and her husband non - pecuniary damages of LTL CARDINAL,CARDINAL ( EUR CARDINAL ) each .

In DATE the applicant and her husband submitted a complaint to PERSON , stating that they still had not been given the land assigned to them in DATE . In DATE the PERSON concluded that the complaint was well - founded , and recommended ORG provide assistance to the ORG in enforcing the decision of LOC of DATE .

In DATE the applicant ’s husband again petitioned the PERSON , stating that her previous recommendation had not been implemented . He noted that ORG had passed on the PERSON ’s conclusion to the ORG , but the latter institution had stated that it was not allowed to influence the decisions of county administrations . The applicant ’s husband also complained that he and the applicant still had not been included on the list of candidates to receive land in the GPE cadastral area and that the land in that territory was being distributed to candidates of lower priority ranks .

DATE a group of residents of GPE , including the applicant ’s husband , submitted a complaint to the parliamentary subcommittee on the rule of law , complaining about the actions of the ORG in the implementation of the land reform . The residents claimed that the only individuals who had received land in the GPE cadastral area had been employees of local institutions and that the land was not being distributed in compliance with the approved priority ranks .

DATE the applicant ’s husband also petitioned ORG , asking what assistance had been provided to the ORG following the Parliamentary PERSON ’s recommendation ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

In DATE the applicant and her husband requested that the police of the GPE Region launch a criminal investigation into the actions of the ORG . They alleged that the ORG had deliberately refused to enforce ORG judgment of CARDINAL DATE ( piktybiškai nevykdė teismo sprendimo ) , in violation of ORG , CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW , and that the land in the GPE cadastral area had been distributed to civil servants working at the ORG and its subordinate institutions , contrary to approved land allocation plans .

Subsequently the applicant and her husband requested that the district prosecutor of the GPE Region suspend any further actions of the ORG concerning the allocation of land in the LOC cadastral area , but their request was denied .

NORP In DATE the district prosecutor of ORG decided to discontinue the criminal investigation into the ORG , concluding that no crime had been committed . The applicant and her husband appealed against that decision . The Prosecutor General satisfied their appeal and ordered a different prosecutor in LOC to continue the investigation .

In DATE and DATE the applicant and her husband submitted written testimonies to the district prosecutor and were recognised as victims .

In DATE the district prosecutor decided to discontinue the criminal investigation against the ORG on the grounds that no crime had been committed . The prosecutor held that the land reform in the LOC cadastral area had been prolonged due to reasons outside the control of the ORG , such as requests of former owners of land to receive restitution in natura . The decision also stated that the preparation of the land plan was ongoing and the applicant had been included in the preliminary list of candidates . Lastly , the prosecutor did not find any evidence that the land had been unlawfully distributed to candidates of lower priority ranks .