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

NORP The case originated in CARDINAL applications ( CARDINAL , CARDINAL , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , CARDINAL , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , CARDINAL and DATE ) against GPE lodged with ORG under LAW ( “ the LAW ) by CARDINAL NORP nationals on DATE .

The applicants were represented by Mr PERSON and Mr T. Alexandridis , CARDINAL lawyers practising in GPE . ORG ( “ the Government ” ) were represented by their Agent , Ms A. Hicka of ORG .

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

The applicants , whose personal details are set out in the appended table , are NORP nationals . They have been grouped according to the family they are part of .

During the communist period , families lived in ORG - owned housing in accordance with lease agreements . Private dwellings which passed into ORG ownership through legislation on nationalisation were given by the communist government to other families , who as a rule worked for ORG institutions at the time . In such cases , the local authorities issued occupancy authorisations , which had the effect of granting the right to a tenancy of a flat ( “ secure tenancy ” ) . A secure tenancy agreement was concluded between tenants and the ORG - owned ORG ( GPE – “ the ORG ” ) .

In DATE , following the end of NORP rule , ORG provided for the privatisation of all NORP housing in favour of occupying families . No provision was made for the privatisation of private dwellings which had been nationalised and were occupied by tenants ( see “ Privatisation of ORG ” below for detailed information ) .

In DATE ORG was enacted . Former owners or their heirs were entitled to claim restitution of expropriated or nationalised properties as well as compensation . The restitution of dwellings occupied by tenants did not affect the secure tenancy agreements concluded in the meantime , which remained controlled by law ( see the “ LAW DATE ” section below for detailed information ) .

In DATE and DATE the legislature introduced a time - limit within which tenants had to vacate the dwellings restored to former owners . The said provisions were struck down by ORG in DATE and DATE , respectively ( see ORG decisions ORG . CARDINAL and CARDINAL below for detailed information ) .

The applicants had been living as tenants for DATE ( CARDINAL ) in housing units that , following the fall of communism , were restored to the former owners . The applicants had been paying ORG - controlled rent in accordance with domestic law ( see “ Relevant domestic law ” below ) .

On DATE the Government introduced a Normative Act ordering tenants to vacate dwellings which had been restored to the former owners ( “ the Normative Act DATE ” ) .

On DATE ORG enacted a law endorsing LAW .

On DATE ORG living in Expropriated Properties ( PERSON në PERSON Pronë Private – “ the Association ” ) challenged the constitutionality of LAW .

On DATE ORG rejected the ORG ’s constitutional complaint and declared the LAW DATE constitutional . The reasoned decision became public on DATE ( see “ Domestic proceedings ” in the “ LAW DATE ” section below for detailed information ) .

Pursuant to LAW , eviction orders as well as enforcement writs were issued against the applicants .

On DATE the ORG and CARDINAL tenants , including all the applicants , addressed a petition to ORG , claiming that LAW did not provide effective measures for provision of housing for them . They further called upon the authorities to postpone their eviction until after DATE . The end of the letter read as follows : “ the appellants , some members of the Association ” ( kërkuesit , disa anëtarë të ORG së PERSON në Banesat Shtetërore Ish Pronë Private ) . No reply was given by ORG .

None of the applicants possessed any real estate or other alternative housing at the time the eviction orders and the enforcement writs were issued against them . The applicants’ economic status is briefly described in DATE hereto .

In DATE and DATE ORG ( “ the ORG ” ) ( see “ LAW DATE ” section below for more information ) concluded agreements for CARDINAL - interest loans with CARDINAL families , namely PERSON ( application no . CARDINAL ) , PERSON ( application no . CARDINAL ) , PERSON ( application no . DATE ) , FAC ( application no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) , GPE ( application no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) , PERSON ( application no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) and PERSON ( application no . PERSON ) , respectively on CARDINAL DATE , DATE , DATE , CARDINAL DATE , DATE , DATE and CARDINAL DATE , disbursing loans in the amounts of MONEY ( ORG ) , ORG CARDINAL ; EUR CARDINAL ; ORG CARDINAL ; EUR CARDINAL ; ORG CARDINAL ; and EUR CARDINAL,CARDINAL , respectively .

The applications for a CARDINAL - interest loan submitted by the PERSON ( application no . CARDINAL ) , PERSON ( application no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) , PERSON ( application no . CARDINAL ) , PERSON ( application no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) and PERSON ( application no . CARDINAL ) families were refused by ORG grounds that they did not meet its requirements to obtain a loan .

The PERSON ( application no . DATE ) and PERSON ( application no . DATE ) families were classified as “ homeless ” ( i pastrehë ) but failed to complete the documentation necessary to obtain a loan . The authorities did not have any other information in respect of the CARDINAL remaining families , namely Meta ( application no . CARDINAL ) , PERSON ( application no . DATE ) and PERSON ( application no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) .

As the file was lacking some information concerning the individual situations of the applicants at the time of the communication of the case to the Government , the ORG asked the applicants to submit factual information as regards : the size of the dwelling , the estimated value of the dwelling , the location of the dwelling , the DATE rent paid , the average DATE rent and their DATE earnings . They were further asked to inform the ORG whether the eviction orders had been enforced . They were also asked to provide information about their housing situation at that time and how they intended to find long - term accommodation .

Only some of the applicants replied in writing , giving some of the information requested by ORG . Detailed information is set out in DATE hereto .

In reply to the ORG ’s question whether the eviction orders had been enforced , only the PERSON ( application no . CARDINAL ) , PERSON ( application no . CARDINAL ) and GPE ( application no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) families submitted bailiff records according to which the first CARDINAL families were evicted on DATE , whereas the NORP family was evicted on CARDINAL DATE . The remaining applicants did not submit bailiff ’s records indicating the exact date of their eviction .

The applicants submitted to the ORG , amongst other information , the following .

The applicants constituting the PERSON family ( application no . DATE ) submitted that a PERCENT loan had been taken by their niece , who was not a member of the family , since they had not met the ORG ’s requirements for obtaining a loan . They had subsequently bought an apartment , where they were living at the time of the submission .

The applicants constituting the Bujar Subashi family ( application no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) submitted that a PERCENT loan had been granted but they had not been able to use it . Instead , some of the members were renting a flat ; the remaining members were accommodated by their relatives .

The applicants constituting the NORP Subashi family ( application no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) had received a PERCENT loan from GPE . Since the loan was not adequate they were obliged to solicit the help of another person to obtain another loan from a bank . It would appear that the applicants bought an apartment , where they were living at the time of the submission .

The applicant Mr PERSON ( application no . CARDINAL ) was renting an apartment as he was unable to take a loan from the ORG for failure to meet the relevant requirements .

The applicant GPE ( application no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) was granted a PERCENT loan . It would appear that she bought an apartment where she was living at the time of the submission .

The applicants constituting the ORG PERSON family ( application no . CARDINAL ) were renting an apartment at the time of the submission as they did not meet the ORG ’s requirements to obtain a loan .

The applicants constituting the PERSON family ( application no . CARDINAL ) were renting an apartment at the time of the submission . Their applications for a PERCENT loan and social housing had been rejected by the authorities for failure to meet the relevant requirements .

The applicants constituting the PERSON family ( application no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) had received a PERCENT loan . They had subsequently bought an apartment , where they were living at the time of the submission .

The remaining applicants informed their legal representatives that they had been accommodated by relatives , often under cramped conditions . They noted that due to their indigence , they did not have any possibilities of securing alternative housing for themselves and their families other than being provided with social housing .

Article CARDINAL of the LAW provides , amongst other things , that the ORG , within its constitutional powers and the means available to it , and with the aim of helping private industry and entrepreneurship , aims to fulfil the housing needs of its citizens . It further provides that the fulfilment of social objectives can not be claimed directly through the courts . It is the law which defines the conditions under which and the extent to which a person may claim the realisation of this objective .

Article CARDINAL of the LAW empowers ORG to introduce Normative Acts in cases of necessity and urgency . Normative Acts contain provisional measures . They have to be endorsed by ORG in order to have the force of law .

Other relevant provisions at the material time read , as follows :

Article CARDINAL

“ CARDINAL . The limitation of the rights and freedoms provided for in this LAW may be established only by law for a public interest or for the protection of the rights of others . A limitation shall be in proportion with the situation that has dictated it .

These limitations may not infringe the essence of the rights and freedoms and in no case may exceed the limitations provided for in LAW . ”

Article CARDINAL

“ CARDINAL . Any international agreement that has been ratified constitutes part of the domestic legal system after it is published in ORG . It is directly applicable , except when it is not self - executing and its application requires the adoption of a law . The amendment and repeal of laws approved by a majority of all members of the ORG is done by the same majority for the purposes of the ratification of an international agreement .

An international agreement ratified by law has priority over the laws of the country that are incompatible with it .

The norms issued by an international organization have priority , in case of conflict , over the law of the country when the direct application of the norms issued by the organization is expressly contemplated in the agreement ratified by GPE for participation therein . ”

Article CARDINAL

“ The Constitutional Court shall decide on :

( a ) the compatibility of a law with the LAW or international agreements as provided for LAW CARDINAL

( c ) the compatibility of Normative Acts introduced by central and local authorities with the LAW or international agreements

( f ) final complaints by individuals alleging a violation of their constitutional rights to a fair hearing , after all legal remedies for the protection of those rights have been exhausted . ”

Article QUANTITY ( f ) and CARDINAL

ORG may initiate proceedings only at the request of :

( f ) political parties and other organisations ;

( g ) individuals .

NORP The entities designated in the first paragraph , letters ... ( f ) and ( g ) , may lodge applications only on issues connected with their interests . ”

Under LAW ORG a debtor may seek before the domestic courts to have an executable decision ( titull ekzekutiv ) declared invalid or to have it declared that the obligation does not exist or that it exists in a smaller amount or that it has later ceased to exist .

Under LAW ORG parties may complain to a court of an act or failure to act by a bailiff within DATE of the said act or omission .

Article CARDINAL of the ORG at the material provided that the appeal before the court against the bailiff ’s acts or omissions had no suspensive effect on the execution . There was a right of appeal against the court decision .

The Act was intended to privatise ORG - owned housing units and to create a free market for housing , thus enabling tenants to become owners . Families living in ORG - owned flats , pursuant to a lease agreement , could purchase those flats and become owners subject to completion of a set of actions , such as payment of the full privatisation price and registration of the property at the relevant land registry office .

Section CARDINAL of the Act provided that homeless citizens were entitled to receive loans from financial institutions to resolve their housing needs . The interest payments would be borne by the State through ORG ( PERSON i Banesave – “ the ORG ” ) .

Section CARDINAL stated that rents for housing units which had previously been private property would be liberalised from DATE .

Section CARDINAL provided that ORG - owned housing units which had previously been private property were not privatised under LAW .

Section CARDINAL stated that the ORG would provide rental housing , which would be constructed in the future , to , inter alia , tenants [ who should vacate the housing unit as a result of its return to the former owner ] living in dwellings belonging to former owners .

NORP In decision no . CARDINAL of DATE ORG held , inter alia , that no discrimination had resulted from the existence of CARDINAL categories of tenants , as provided for under domestic laws . The decision , in so far as relevant , reads :

“ The [ Constitutional ] Court observes that [ the Privatisation of State - Owned Housing Units Act ] and [ ORG ] govern the problems of the privatisation of ORG - owned housing units and of the restitution of properties to former owners or compensation for them .

Under both laws , tenants of ORG - owned housing units have the right to take them into private ownership in compliance with the conditions prescribed by the law . In order to resolve their housing needs , tenants of dwellings that have been restored to former owners have been granted the right to receive loans from financial institutions , the interest payments on which ... are to be borne by the ORG , as expressly provided for in section CARDINAL of the LAW , or , alternatively , are to be accommodated as tenants in housing units to be constructed by the ORG under LAW of the said LAW .

The different solutions to the housing problems that concern these categories of tenants do not arise from any type of discrimination between them , but are a result of the different statuses they enjoy : the first are tenants of ORG - owned housing units , the second are tenants of dwellings that have been restored to former owners . ”

According to LAW the former owners of properties expropriated by the relevant regime and their legal heirs had the right to claim their ownership over the original properties . Upon ownership being determined they were entitled either to have allocated the original immovable property or to be awarded compensation in one of the forms provided for in law .

Other relevant provisions of LAW are set out below .

The relevant provision of LAW DATE provided :

Section CARDINAL

“ The relationship between tenants and former owners who become owners / landlords pursuant to this law shall be governed by [ the Privatisation of State - Owned Housing Units Act ] .

If ... the former owner provides the tenant with housing within the same localgovernment area , consisting of a surface area in accordance with the housing norms in force , ... the tenant shall be obliged to vacate the dwelling .

The ORG is obliged to resolve the housing needs of current tenants in accordance with the current housing norms , by giving priority to families with limited financial means .

At their request former owners may be compensated in one of the forms determined by this law . ”

In so far as relevant , LAW , replacing LAW , provided :

Section CARDINAL

“ CARDINAL . Properties which are the property of former owners shall be vacated by tenant(s ) within DATE . The tenants shall continue to pay the rent set by ORG for DATE after the entry into force of this LAW . ORG shall be responsible for housing homeless tenants by providing a dwelling at a low rent , a low - interest loan or a dwelling whose rent is borne by the ORG . ”

In its decision no . CARDINAL of DATE , ORG struck down section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW . It attached importance to the fact that the relevant provision had worsened the status of tenants compared to the provisions that had existed before LAW had entered into force . It found therefore that the amendment to the legislation had not respected the principle of legal certainty . It concluded that a limitation on tenants’ right to shelter could not be justified by the public interest in upholding former ORG property rights .

Following the above - cited ORG decision , in DATE the legislature amended section CARDINAL of LAW to read as follows :

Section CARDINAL

“ CARDINAL . Properties which are the property of former owners and which were leased to tenants by the ORG before the entry into force of [ ORG ] , which are used for housing needs , shall be transferred to the possession of the former owner(s ) when CARDINAL of the following conditions is met :

a. The housing needs of the tenants have been met in any other lawful way ;

b. The former owner provides the tenants with a dwelling that has a surface area no smaller than the dwelling they already use and which is in an approximately similar condition and within the same local - government area , until such time as the tenants’ housing needs are met in one of the other ways provided by this section .

c. The tenants conclude a loan contract with a financial institution , in accordance with the first and second paragraphs of LAW of [ ORG for ORG ] ;

d. The tenants benefit from housing or a plot of land as provided for by LAW ( CARDINAL ) of [ ORG for ORG ] ”

Homeless persons who are tenants in dwellings which are the property of former owners and who have not concluded a loan contract in accordance with sub - paragraph ( c ) of the first paragraph of this section , or have not yet been provided with housing in accordance with subparagraphs ( a ) , ( c ) and ( d ) of the first paragraph of this section , shall lose their right to possess the dwelling by DATE . They shall be offered social housing programmes , in accordance with CARDINAL of ORG for ORG . The former owner is entitled to take lawful possession of the dwelling under his legal title .

NORP The rent for dwellings occupied by homeless persons as provided for in paragraph CARDINAL of this section is indexed according to INSTAT data on the basis of DATE price and salary increases . Its aim is to cover the expenses of the owner for the maintenance and good administration of the dwelling ... ”

In decision no . CARDINAL of DATE ORG struck down section CARDINAL of LAW . It followed the same line of reasoning as in its decision no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL . It recommended that ORG introduce new legislative measures to fill the legal vacuum .

On DATE the Government introduced LAW for the vacation of former ORG properties which were occupied by tenants . Only those tenants whose names had been transferred to the ORG to obtain a CARDINAL - interest loan for DATE to buy a flat would be evicted . The list of homeless tenants in line to obtain a loan would be drawn up by the ORG and submitted to the ORG by DATE . The deadline to voluntarily vacate the properties was set as CARDINAL DATE .

In the event of a failure to vacate a flat voluntarily within the prescribed time - limit , the ORG , upon written notification of the former owner , would issue an eviction order , which would be considered an executable decision within the meaning of LAW . The ORG would then ask ORG to issue an enforcement writ for the vacation of the flat . Section CARDINAL bars a stay of execution of the enforcement writ .

NORP In addition to a CARDINAL - interest loan for DATE , section CARDINAL of LAW also provides for social rental housing provided by municipal councils and placement of old people who are unable to care for themselves or who do not have the means to pay for social rental housing in retirement homes .

On DATE the ORG issued a public opinion in relation to LAW . He gave the opinion that the legal vacuum resulting from the striking down of LAW should have been filled by ORG instead of by the Government , that there had been no detailed study as regards the status of homeless families , that the time - limits fixed by LAW were extremely short , that no stay of execution was allowed and that no public interest justified a breach of the principle of legal certainty . In the end , he concluded that LAW was incompatible with LAW .

On DATE ORG endorsed LAW . According to the hearing record of DATE , the ruling majority members of parliament ( “ MPs ” ) stated that there were CARDINAL families living as tenants in dwellings returned to former owners , of these CARDINAL had applied for a loan at the ORG , out of whom CARDINAL had already obtained a loan . The programme of granting a CARDINAL - interest loan , meaning that interest payments were to be borne by the ORG , had been in existence since DATE .

According to opposition MPs , the passing of LAW was hasty and required specialised and broader discussions . They requested that the ORG ’s opinion be circulated to MPs .

On DATE the ORG lodged a constitutional complaint with ORG , challenging the constitutionality of LAW and GPE DATE endorsing it . The ORG submitted that the solutions provided for by LAW were incompatible with the principle of legal certainty . They were detrimental to tenants by removing the ORG ’s obligation to provide housing for this category . They were further discriminated against vis - à - vis those tenants who had obtained housing under LAW .

The ORG also averred that the situation should have been governed by an Act of ORG instead of a Normative Act introduced by the Government . It further took issue with the lack of a possibility to challenge the stay of the enforcement and the fact that tenants had to voluntarily vacate the flats within a short time - limit , specifically by DATE .

In their additional submissions of CARDINAL DATE the ORG stated that LAW did not provide effective solutions on the following grounds : local - government units did not possess the necessary funds and means to provide social housing ; the ORG did not possess sufficient funds to provide loans to every homeless family ; the majority of the applicants , owing to their age , insufficient earnings , previous criminal records and the lack of collateral , would never become eligible for a loan .

In their written submissions of DATE to ORG , ORG submitted that since DATE the Government had been implementing a financing scheme of zerointerest loans to homeless families living in housing belonging to former owners . The statistics showed that out of CARDINAL registered homeless families , CARDINAL of them had applied for CARDINAL - interest loans , out of which CARDINAL had concluded contracts for disbursement with the ORG . Even though loans had been approved in respect of the remaining homeless families , they had delayed signing the paperwork for their disbursements . Having regard to the delays by homeless families in applying for CARDINAL - interest loans and in subsequently signing the paperwork for their disbursement , the ORG had introduced LAW as a matter of urgency . LAW had remedied the former ORG property - rights issues in accordance with LAW No . CARDINAL to the Convention and avoided making the ORG liable to payment of high reparation claims . In their view , there had been no breach of the principle of legal certainty , since the problem of homeless families had been the subject of discussions for DATE . Moreover , LAW provided for social rental housing provided by local - government units or for accommodation at retirement homes for old people who did not meet the requirements to obtain a loan .

On DATE the ORG informed the ORG that it had unanimously dismissed its constitutional complaint . The reasoned decision became available on DATE ( decision no . CARDINAL ) .

ORG found that the ORG had legal standing having regard to its statute , act of incorporation , the nature of its activity and the nature of LAW which it had challenged . It found that there was a connection between the aim for which the ORG had been established and the constitutional issue brought for examination before ORG .

In respect of the merits of the case ORG found that , pursuant to LAW , there was a necessity and urgency to introduce LAW . This was dictated by the fact that former owners had been waiting for DATE to have title to the dwellings returned to them . It had also been conditioned by the implementation of ORG pilot judgment in the case of ORG ( cited above ) as regards the enforcement of final decisions recognising former ORG right of restitution of their properties or compensation in lieu . It further referenced ORG findings in the cases of GPE and Others v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , CARDINAL DATE ) , PERSON ( cited above ) and PERSON and Others ( cited above ) and noted the systemic failures of the domestic system to respect former ORG right of peaceful enjoyment of possessions . It therefore considered that LAW had struck the right balance between the tenants’ rights and the former ORG right of property .

As to the proportionality test , ORG held that LAW provided for a DATE loan at PERCENT interest , as the payments would be borne by the ORG . The interest to be paid would exceed the principal to be taken as a loan by a tenant . Furthermore , the Normative Act laid down other positive obligations for the ORG , such as the provision of social housing to such tenants by local - government units , priority to be given to social rental housing , as well as placement of old people who were not capable of taking care of themselves or had no one else to attend to them in retirement homes . In the court ’s view , this showed that the ORG had made sufficient provision for vulnerable groups . Housing these individuals was a shared task between the ORG and the individuals themselves . The proposed measures could not be said to be arbitrary , unfair or based on an unreasonable assessment . Neither could they be considered to be more stringent ; on the contrary , they were more favourable . The obligation for tenants to vacate the dwellings was necessary and the interference was justified by the public interest .

ORG rejected the ORG ’s complaint that the courts could not stay the enforcement on the grounds that its powers of constitutional review did not extend to issues concerning the interpretation , implementation and harmonisation of domestic laws .

On DATE ORG ( ORG ) issued an order ( “ the ORG ’s order ” ) pursuant to which the ORG , before the submission of the request to ORG for the issuing of the enforcement writ , had to check whether the tenants had obtained a loan and/or housing in accordance with domestic law . It was also decided that such a request could not be submitted during DATE . It further provided several safeguards in the event of a family including elderly people , children , disabled persons , or if the housing conditions were outside of normal lifestyle standards . In such a case the family was provided with social rental housing or a housing bonus . The ORG , in implementing section CARDINAL of LAW , had to urgently request that the municipal councils make social rental housing available . It appears that following this order , the ORG suspended the enforcement proceedings in respect of CARDINAL tenant families .

On an unspecified date ORG and PERSON . PERSON , tenants , instituted judicial proceedings under LAW , CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the ORG , challenging the ORG ’s eviction order , ORG enforcement writ and the ensuing bailiff ’s actions carried out following the introduction of LAW DATE . In that case ORG and PERSON . PERSON and the former owners had concluded a lease agreement on the basis of a final court decision which had obliged the tenants to pay a rent , as set out by ORG in favour of the former owners .

F.B. and ORG . PERSON claimed before the domestic courts that they were not obliged to vacate the dwelling as the lease agreement was valid and still in force . Furthermore , the eviction order had been issued by the ORG , which had no jurisdiction to decide on the civil dispute at issue . Subsequently , the bailiff actions had been invalid too . Also the enforcement writ as issued by ORG was invalid as the ORG had not been the creditor . Only former owners should have asked the district court to issue an enforcement writ . The tenants further claimed that LAW did not protect in a proportionate manner the right of tenants to respect for their homes . They were further unable to receive a PERCENT loan due to their lack of financial means ( they were unemployed and did not own any immovable property ) and age . They also submitted that the bailiff actions carried out were in breach of LAW as they had not been proportional in that they had not strike a balance between the former ORG and the tenants’ interests . They finally asked ORG to stay the enforcement proceedings and to send the case for trial before ORG on account of the unconstitutionality of LAW .

On DATE ORG rejected the action reasoning that upon the entry into force of LAW the lease agreement concluded between the tenants and the former owner no longer had any legal binding effect . Subsequently , the eviction had been lawful and the tenants were obliged to vacate the dwelling in favour of the former owners . ORG also noted that the tenants had submitted supporting documents to substantiate their claim that they did not own any immovable property or any other financial mean and they were indeed receiving a retirement and disability pension . However , it reasoned that these were not grounds to challenge an executable decision under LAW of the ORG .

ORG rejected the appellants’ claim against the enforcement writ on the ground that the ORG was eligible under LAW DATE to ask a district court the issuance of an enforcement writ .

ORG also rejected the action under LAW ORG against the bailiff ’s actions on the ground that the execution had already taken place , namely the dwelling had already been vacated in favour of the former owner . Furthermore , it reasoned that since the tenants had challenged the bailiff actions on the ground that the executable decision was invalid , as long as that decision was valid , so were the bailiff actions .

As regards the tenants’ application to send the case for trial before ORG , ORG dismissed it as manifestly illfounded in that ORG had already examined the constitutionality of that LAW in its decision no . CARDINAL .

As regards the stay of the enforcement proceedings ORG in the first hearing had already rejected the request by way of an interlocutory decision on the grounds that in the meantime the tenants had already been evicted . Moreover , the tenants had not provided any evidence to prove the existence of irreparable harm . In its decision of DATE on the merits of the case ORG reasoned that LAW ORG as regards the stay of enforcement proceedings had prevalence over section CARDINAL of LAW , which barred any stay of enforcement .

ORG decision was upheld by ORG on DATE . However , ORG noted that ORG assessment concerning the stay of enforcement had been erroneous since LAW , as lex specialis , had prevalence over the provisions of the ORG . The tenants did not lodge an appeal with ORG on the grounds that the building had in the meantime been demolished .

On CARDINAL other occasions other tenants had instituted judicial proceedings under ORG CARDINAL - CARDINAL of the ORG challenging the ORG ’s eviction order , ORG enforcement writ and the ensuing bailiff ’s actions . The tenants’ representative had lodged complaints with the ORG about the unreasonable length of the judicial proceedings . However , CARDINAL of the cases was discontinued on the ground that the tenants had not been present at the court hearing without any reason whatsoever . On the other case the tenants had not provided the district court with an adequate address . It appears that both decisions had become final .


Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)

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

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

The applicant ’s husband , PERSON , born in DATE , worked as a mechanic in cargo ships . On TIME CARDINAL DATE , while on a work voyage to GPE on the private ship PERSON , he was found dead in his cabin . He was lying on his back in bed , with the blanket drawn up to his chest , his right hand bent and pressing his chest . On DATE , the ship ’s captain assembled a commission to investigate the death . Having inspected GPE ’s cabin , the captain sent a report about the death to his superiors in ORG , the GPE shipping company .

The following day , CARDINAL DATE , a NORP doctor , ORG , gave acute heart attack ( ūmus miokardo infarktas ) as V.B. ’s cause of death . The NORP authorities also issued an authorisation to preserve GPE ’s body ( žmogaus palaikų konservavimo aktas ) . The authorisation noted that there were no indications against preserving the body , and therefore ORG remains were set to be embalmed with the help of chemicals ( phenol , formalin and others ) at TIME DATE . Afterwards , the body of the applicant ’s husband ’s was put in a zinc coffin and shipped to GPE , which it reached on DATE .

On DATE the ship ’s captain and chief engineer were questioned by the NORP police authorities . The police also inspected the cabin where GPE had been found dead . Considering that no crime had taken place and that PERSON had died of a heart attack , the NORP police sent the investigation material to a local court .

The death certificate issued by the NORP authorities on CARDINAL DATE gave heart attack as LOC ’s cause of death .

On DATE a NORP prosecutor opened a criminal investigation on the basis of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , after receiving notification of GPE ’s death from GPE . The prosecutor ordered ORG to conduct the investigation .

On DATE GPE provided the investigators with the following documents : the captain ’s service report ; an extract from the ship ’s logbook of DATE ; a report on the circumstances of GPE ’s death , signed by the captain and CARDINAL assistant captains ; CARDINAL reports ( CARDINAL by the captain and CARDINAL by the chief engineer ) to the NORP authorities ; statements by CARDINAL members of the crew ; the death certificate issued on DATE in GPE ; documents about the work instructions given to GPE ; his qualifications and photographs from his cabin .

On DATE the applicant requested that the prosecutor and ORG ( ORG darbo inspekcija , a ORG body responsible for safety at work , hereinafter DATE “ the ORG ” ) examine her husband ’s body and investigate the cause of his death and his working conditions on the ship . She submitted that conditions on the PERSON were dangerous , and could have led to her husband ’s death .

NORP In the meantime , on DATE the applicant was granted victim status in the criminal proceedings .

On DATE the prosecutor refused to continue the criminal investigation , finding that there had been no signs of a crime or anything to disprove a finding that the victim had died because of a heart illness . In particular , the forensic report from GPE had shown no sign of poisonous chemicals in GPE ’s body fluids ; there had also been no traces of alcohol , and GPE ’s body had been embalmed because there had been no indications against such a procedure . Preservation of the body by chemical means irreparably altered the chemical composition of the blood , and therefore there had been no reason to carry out a further examination of the body . The prosecutor noted that in DATE PERSON had passed medical check , which showed that he had been fit to serve at sea . The PERSON ’s logbook had had no entry about PERSON ever complaining about his health .

After a complaint by the applicant , that decision , however , was quashed by ORG on DATE . The court held that the prosecutor had failed properly to investigate the applicant ’s submission that her husband had died because of dangerous conditions on the PERSON . The pre - trial investigation resumed .

DATE , FAC questioned as witnesses the sailors who had worked on the PERSON with GPE The sailors testified that PERSON , who was a refrigerator mechanic , worked in the machinery section of the ship , where the refrigerators were placed . There had been frequent fires in the machinery section of the ship during the voyage by the PERSON . When fires broke out , there was a strong smell of fumes . When there was a fire in the machinery section , the air conditioning in the ship ’s cabins did not work , and the temperature would rise as high as CARDINAL˚C. In the run up to DATE , the ship had been preparing to have goods loaded . For that reason , PERSON had worked for DATE prior to his death in the machinery section preparing refrigerators for the shipment . The applicant ’s husband was seen working in the machinery section both with and without a gas mask . In DATE before his death , PERSON had worked intensively and rested little . No repairs in the machinery section had been carried out until PERSON ’s death . After the death , the ship had been repaired in a NORP port , after which there had been no smell of gas in the machinery section . The witnesses also stated that PERSON had not complained about his health or stated that he had any heart problems .

The applicant was also questioned . Citing conversations with her late husband , the applicant said that in reality the conditions of work on the PERSON had been very difficult as the ship had been in a bad technical state and its mechanics had had to deal permanently with fires and leaks of gas , without any adequate protection .

The ORG ’s report of DATE , no . SD-CARDINAL , stated that the ORG had examined the possible cause of PERSON ’s death . The ORG held that the reasons for PERSON ’s death were not connected to his work . The ORG discontinued its investigation , on the grounds that GPE ’s death certificate had indicated that he had died of a heart attack , and that the authorisation to preserve his body had read that there had been no indication against such an action . When examining the applicant ’s complaint , the ORG had obtained internal correspondence between ORG and the PERSON , which showed that the working conditions on the ship had been hard – the ship ’s machinery , including the main engine , would often break down , and the engine emitted combustion gases into the ship ; there had also been frequent fires . However , according to the ORG , GPE ’s duties did not include repairs to the main engine or extinguishing fires , and he had not done such jobs . The ORG did not have any other proof that the working conditions on the PERSON had been harmful . The ORG also observed that they had not performed any readings on the ship , because they had not been able to check it when it was at sea .

On DATE PERSON stated that it had been informed about a breakdown of the main engine , which could have led to a worsening of the working conditions on the PERSON . Repairs had taken place in DATE , and the problems had finally been solved in DATE .

On DATE the pre - trial investigation was discontinued by the prosecutor for a second time . The prosecutor held that no crime had taken place and that the applicant ’s husband had died of a heart attack , when ‘ the ship was on a voyage in LOC near the NORP port of Imbituba’ . The prosecutor also relied on the testimony given by an expert , V.A. during the hearing in DATE before ORG ( see paragraph DATE below ) . On the basis of GPE ’s medical record of DATE that expert had testified that PERSON had a partial blockage of the nerve in the heart which makes the heart contract . If the nerve did not work properly , heart arrhythmia could occur , which could in turn cause a heart attack . The position of GPE ’s body was typical of someone who had died of a heart attack . According to that expert , fire could cause a heart attack if a person had been in a smoky environment or a closed space , and there had been a lack of oxygen . However , a heart attack would happen at a slower pace than a person would die of suffocation . Death from a heart attack caused by a fire could not take DATE to happen .

The prosecutor noted that , according to the NORP authorities who had considered that the cause of death was a heart attack , no poisons or other toxic materials had been found in the applicant ’s body fluids . The prosecutor also pointed out that GPE ’s health had been checked on DATE , and it had been concluded that he had been “ fit to work in the fleet ” .

Following a request by the applicant , on DATE she was allowed access to the entire criminal case file , which by then comprised CARDINAL pages .

On DATE the applicant appealed against the prosecutor ’s decision to discontinue the criminal investigation . She argued that there had been many flaws in the investigation and that the conclusions as to her husband ’s death had been unclear . In particular , the applicant submitted that the ORG ’s decision not to treat the death as an accident at work had been hasty . The applicant was also dissatisfied that the ORG had not inspected the PERSON itself , nor had it questioned the crew members , who could have confirmed the unsafe working conditions on board . There had also been no autopsy , nor any test for toxins in her husband ’s skin or hair . The body had been embalmed too quickly , without such examinations . The applicant further submitted that NORP diplomats had not been present when the body had been embalmed . The applicant also pointed out that her husband had been healthy : he had been examined by a ORG commission in DATE and that that conclusion was valid for DATE ; moreover , her husband had not complained about any heart issue . The applicant also maintained that even local journalists in the town in GPE where GPE ’s death had been given as a heart attack had not been able to find contact data for doctor ORG , thus raising doubts about his credentials .

On DATE the ORG granted the applicant ’s appeal . The court observed that on DATE the applicant had asked the prosecutor to order an expert examination to establish whether the constant breathing of combustion gases could cause a heart attack , and to ask the NORP authorities to provide the report on her husband ’s autopsy and the results of blood tests , as those documents had not been present among those brought back with PERSON ’s body . She had also asked for documents confirming whether it had been verified that PERSON could have died of poisoning by combustion gases ; for the questioning of doctor PERSON , who had signed the conclusion of the ORG commission ( of DATE ) as to GPE ’s health ; and for other investigative actions . Given that the applicant had had the status of a victim , the prosecutor had been under an obligation to take a decision on those requests . However , he had ignored the applicant ’s requests for DATE , until he had taken the decision to discontinue the criminal investigation , which had been in breach of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

On DATE ORG upheld the lower court ’s decision . It emphasised that what was at issue was a criminal investigation into charges of a violation of requirements to protect health and safety at work . Having examined the pre - trial investigation material , the regional court concluded that the kind of breaches alleged by the applicant had not been properly examined during the criminal investigation . Furthermore , as could be seen from the ORG ’s report of DATE , the inquiry performed by that body had not been sufficiently comprehensive either ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . Accordingly , it could not be stated that the pre - trial investigation into the circumstances of GPE ’s death had been performed thoroughly . In the opinion of ORG , it was therefore vital to continue the pre - trial investigation and to eliminate the doubts raised by the applicant as to the reliability of the results of the medical examination of PERSON ’s body , and to establish whether PERSON had indeed worked in harmful conditions during the voyage , including whether regulations on hours of work had been observed . Should breaches of working conditions be established , it was also necessary to order a forensic expert to perform an objective investigation and to establish whether such breaches had had any impact on GPE ’s death . Without a comprehensive examination of those aspects , it had not been reasonable or lawful to discontinue the pre - trial investigation .

On DATE the prosecutor ordered ORG to establish the whereabouts of the PERSON and whether it was possible to inspect the ship ; to question everyone who worked on it , including about working conditions , as noted in the applicant ’s complaint ; to obtain documents from GPE related to safety at work ; and to ask the ORG whether they had examined the actual working conditions on the ship . The prosecutor also asked ORG to prepare a request to the NORP authorities for legal assistance .

On DATE ORG asked GPE for documents about the technical state of the ship on DATE , information about the ship ’s whereabouts , and whether it was possible to inspect it .

On DATE the shipping company ORG replied that the ship usually worked in the region of south west LOC ; currently it was near the coast of GPE . The ship had passed its yearly check by authorised certification company ORG on CARDINAL DATE in FAC port in GPE , and the inspector of that company had had no remarks as to the technical state of the ship ’s machinery . That report was given to investigators .

On DATE the prosecutor again asked ORG to “ take active measures ” to question everyone who had been working on the ship at the relevant time . It was also necessary to obtain GPE ’s medical records and question the doctor who on DATE had diagnosed PERSON with a heart problem , and to obtain documents from GPE related to repairs in the machinery section of the ship , to fires on board and to issues of safety at work .

NORP In reply to the NORP inquiry of CARDINAL DATE , on DATE the ORG wrote that its inspectors had not examined the working conditions on the PERSON because , as far as they knew , the ship had not returned to NORP ports after PERSON ’s death . It had not been technically possible to examine the ship in the ports of other countries . The ORG noted that the circumstances of GPE ’s death had been examined on the basis of the documents provided by ORG and on the experts’ conclusions .

On DATE the applicant wrote to the prosecutor , questioning why PERSON had not requested that the NORP authorities perform a test for toxic substances in the body as such an examination could have been performed within DATE . She stated that she had not been asked whether any other reports by experts should have been done , yet GPE ’s body had been taken straight away to a funeral parlour on DATE and embalmed at TIME DATE . The applicant emphasised that the ship at that time had been put up for sale . She asked that the ship ’s documents up to the time of the sale be examined to establish whether there were any toxic gases in the machinery room or other factors that made for unsafe working conditions . She mentioned the records in the logs of the machinery room ; the service reports to GPE by the captain and chief mechanic ; the description of repairs to the main engine ; and the work which her husband performed on the ship . Lastly , the applicant asked the prosecutor to inform her whether and when ORG had been ordered to keep copies of its communications with the ship during its voyage .

DATE and DATE investigators questioned crew from the PERSON , some of them repeatedly .

In addition , on DATE doctor PERSON stated that from DATE he had worked as chief doctor at the ORG health - care centre ( GPE sveikatos priežiūros centras ) in PERSON . On DATE PERSON had passed a medical board exam as being fit to serve at sea . The conclusion of the medical board examination had been signed by doctor PERSON himself , and it meant that the applicant ’s husband was healthy enough to work at sea . The partial blockage of the nerve on the right side of his heart , as seen in the cardiogram , had no effect on PERSON ’s health , nor on his ability to work at sea . In the doctor ’s opinion , inhalation of combustion gases could lead to poisoning , but not to an acute heart attack .

On DATE another witness , PERSON , stated that he had been a chief mechanic on the PERSON in DATE , but had later refused to work on the ship because of poor working conditions . Failures of the main engine meant that fires on the ship had been frequent , happening DATE . All the fires and repairs had been registered in the machinery logbook . ORG had been notified of those facts . The crew had worked in the machinery room wearing respirator masks , but no gas masks had been provided . PERSON would spend TIME ( per day ) in the machinery room .

On DATE ORG transferred the criminal file to the applicant so that she could acquaint herself with it . By then , the file comprised CARDINAL pages .

On DATE , in reply to a request made the same day by the prosecutor , ORG ( NORP saugios laivybos administracija ) noted that the PERSON had been taken off the register of NORP ships , because a foreign company , ORG ( Nevis ) , had bought the ship .

In reply to a question from FAC of DATE , ORG confirmed that it had sold the PERSON to a third party . It noted that the records from the ship ’s machinery room , which the investigators had been seeking , had been destroyed before the ship had been transferred to the new buyers , and thus could not be provided .

On DATE the investigators again provided the case file to the applicant . It by then comprised CARDINAL volumes and CARDINAL pages .

On CARDINAL DATE ORG sent documents to ORG prosecutors concerning a request for legal assistance to be sent to the NORP authorities . The police stated that in order to establish whether ORG death had been caused by dangerous conditions on the PERSON , it was important to establish whether an autopsy of PERSON had been performed and his blood tested ( and , if so , to provide the results of the autopsy and the tests ) , and whether the NORP authorities had inspected the PERSON after the death to examine the working conditions on board .

On DATE FAC submitted a fresh request to the ORG prosecutors for legal assistance from the NORP authorities , this time adding a request that doctor ORG be questioned . The prosecutor then returned the documents , because they had not met the right requirements . On DATE ORG sent a request for legal assistance to the NORP authorities .

On DATE a response to the request for legal assistance was received from the NORP authorities . However , according to the NORP investigators , the documents contained only internal correspondence between the NORP authorities about the fact that PERSON had died . As a result , there had been no new information relevant for the investigation .

On DATE the LOC police asked experts from ORG ( PERSON teismo medicinos tarnyba ) to answer the following questions : CARDINAL ) what is characteristic evidence that a person has died from an acute heart attack and is it possible to conclude that a person has died from a heart attack without an autopsy ; CARDINAL ) could a dangerous working environment in a non - ventilated ship machinery room ( where emission gases were present ) have had an impact on GPE ’s death , that is , could such conditions have caused an acute heart attack ; CARDINAL ) how long must a person work in a harmful working environment , where there is an elevated level of emission gases , before getting a heart attack .

On DATE the forensic experts PERSON and PERSON prepared a report stating that they had not been provided with any medical documents about PERSON ’s autopsy ( if one had ever been performed ) , any blood results or other medical records . Neither were they provided with documents , confirmed by special diagnostic methods , about the exact level of combustion gases on the ship . Therefore , they could rely only on the testimony of the crew who had worked on the ship with GPE

Proceeding on that basis , the experts stated that , in medical practice , death certificates without an autopsy were delivered only when there was documented medical data that the person had been ill with a long - term disease ( sirgo lėtine liga ) , that the circumstances of death were clear , and that there was no evidence that the cause of death could have been due to physical injuries or other external factors .

For the experts , it was known from the criminal case file that GPE had been found dead in a cabin . Without examining the body , and in the absence of any data about GPE ’s state of health , or information about any physical injuries or external factors ( for example , acute gas poisoning ) , which could have caused his death , it was possible only to state ( galima tik teigti ) that the cause of GPE ’s death was that his heart had stopped for unknown reasons . In that case , it was impossible to either confirm or deny that an acute heart attack had been the cause of GPE ’s death . Accordingly , it was not possible to establish a possible link between PERSON ’s working in harmful conditions and his death .

The experts also stated that the main reason for an acute heart attack was a failure of arterial blood vessels . That happened when physical exhaustion or nervous tension caused the heart muscle suddenly to need a lot of oxygen . TIME , in an environment where there were elevated levels of emission gases , was not a risk factor for a heart attack .

The prosecutor then discontinued the investigation on DATE , concluding that no crime had been committed ‘ on the ship , which sailed under a NORP flag’ . According to him , although the existence of harmful working conditions and leaks of gases in the engine room of the ship had been confirmed , they could not have caused the victim ’s heart failure .

That decision was upheld by a higher prosecutor , and then by ORG on DATE . The first instance court noted , inter alia , that the cause of PERSON ’s death had already been established by final decisions in administrative courts .

The applicant appealed against the decision to discontinue the criminal investigation , arguing that the report by the specialist , J. NORP , had not definitely confirmed that her husband had died of a heart attack , given that no autopsy had been carried out . She pointed to shortcomings in the investigation , such as the absence of blood test results and toxicology tests , and the lack of documents concerning safety at work on the ship . The applicant also pointed out that the ship ’s logbooks had not been obtained , and that the ship had not been inspected .

By a final ruling of CARDINAL DATE , ORG dismissed the appeal . The court noted that the cause of death had already been established by the final and binding decision of CARDINAL DATE by ORG in the administrative case ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . In addition , the criminal court held that the investigation had been wide - ranging , that numerous witnesses and experts had been questioned and that the necessary forensic examinations had been carried out . As concerned the applicant ’s argument about the collection of additional evidence , it was considered as serving no purpose given the amount of time which had elapsed . The criminal court also noted that at certain stage the expert , V.A. , had been questioned by the first - instance court of criminal jurisdiction , and had testified that PERSON could have died from his heart condition .

In parallel to the ongoing criminal investigation , the applicant also started administrative court proceedings , asking that her husband ’s death be recognised as a work accident .

By a decision of DATE , ORG acknowledged , on the basis of the ORG report of DATE , that work conditions on PERSON were bad , and the main engine would often break down , causing leaks of dangerous gases . For that reason many mechanics had left the ship . However , the administrative court also took into account the conclusion by a forensic expert V.A. about V.B. ’s earlier heart condition and that fire or smoke on the ship , even if they had been present , could not have caused PERSON ’s heart attack ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . As a result , the applicant ’s claim before the administrative courts for her husband ’s death to be recognised as a work accident was dismissed .


Remainder inadmissible;No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);No violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression -{General} (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression)

András Sajó;Egidijus Kūris;Helen Keller;Jon Fridrik Kjølbro;Nebojša Vučinić;Robert Spano

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

As the facts of the case are in dispute between the parties , they will be set out separately . The facts as presented by the applicant are set out in Section B below ( paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL below ) . The Government ’s submissions concerning the facts are summarised in Section C below ( paragraphs CARDINAL below ) . The documentary evidence submitted by the applicant and the Government is summarised in Section D ( paragraphs CARDINAL below ) .

On DATE the applicant and CARDINAL of her friends were in the city of GPE , distributing leaflets prepared by ORG with ORG ) , in a residential neighbourhood .

A man in plain clothes arrived and attempted to seize the leaflets without showing his identity documents demonstrating that he was a police officer . As the applicant and her friends refused to comply with the man ’s demand , he held CARDINAL of the applicant ’s friends around their necks . Subsequently , around QUANTITY police officers arrived at the scene and arrested the applicant and her friends . In the course of the arrest , the police officers used force and hit the applicant on various parts of her body before putting her in a police vehicle . In the vehicle , a police officer sat on her head and continued to hit her . A number of police officers also touched various parts of her body and made sexually suggestive comments .

The applicant was taken to hospital , where she was examined by a doctor who observed skin erosions , red patches ( erythema ) and sensitive areas on the applicant ’s head , face , shoulders , lower back , abdomen and wrist . He concluded that the injuries were not life - threatening and a simple medical procedure was sufficient to treat them .

The applicant was then taken to a police station , where the beating continued and where she was threatened with rape by CARDINAL of the police officers . The applicant ’s requests for information about the reasons for her arrest and for a lawyer were refused . Each time the applicant repeated her requests the police officers used offensive language .

A lawyer who arrived at the police station the same afternoon secured the applicant ’s release .

On DATE at QUANTITY the police received information according to which ORG members were distributing leaflets in a residential area in GPE . CARDINAL police officers , GPE and GPE , arrived at the scene of the incident at TIME in order to verify whether the content of the leaflets was legal . CARDINAL of the officers , ORG , approached the applicant and her friends , told them that he was a police officer and requested to see the content of the leaflets and their identity cards . As the applicant and her friends refused to comply and began using offensive language and hitting him , a second police officer intervened . They subsequently asked for help from other officers , who also arrived at the scene of the incident . The police arrested the applicant and her friends and tried to put them in a police vehicle . The arrestees , however , resisted arrest . They also continued to hit the officers in the vehicle . During the physical struggle between the arrestees and the police officers , ORG , was injured .

At TIME the applicant was examined by a doctor , who observed minor injuries on her head , shoulders and wrist . At TIME PERSON was also subjected to a medical examination by the same doctor . According to the medical report issued in respect of PERSON , he had pain and sensitivity in his lower back and numbness in his feet . The doctor considered that a simple medical procedure was sufficient to treat both the applicant ’s and ORG ’s injuries .

At TIME the applicant and her friends were taken to the police station upon the instructions of the LOC public prosecutor . The applicant and her friends refused to make statements to the police .

At TIME the applicant and her friends were released from police custody and taken to a hospital for a medical examination . The doctor who examined the applicant observed the same injuries noted in the report issued at TIME on DATE .

The medical reports of TIME and TIME regarding the applicant contain information about the physical injuries sustained by the applicant and the LOC opinions as to the gravity of the injuries in the respective sections of the reports entitled “ findings regarding the lesions ” and the “ conclusion of the examination ” ( see paragraphs CARDINAL , DATE and DATE above ) . The sections of the reports entitled “ conditions of examination ” , “ information regarding the incident ” , “ the complaints of the person examined ” and “ findings of the psychiatric examination ” were not completed .

At TIME on DATE an arrest report was drafted by the police . According to this report , police officers had arrived at the scene of the incident as they had received information that members of ORG were distributing leaflets . When the police asked them to show the leaflets , the applicant and her friends put the leaflets in their bags and refused to present their identity documents . The report further stated that applicant and her friends had to be arrested through the use of force as they resisted the police officers and continued their acts . According to the report , the arrestees attacked the police officers by way of throwing themselves on the ground and chanting slogans . They were then put in the police vehicle by force and injured themselves in the vehicle by hitting their heads on the car glass and the door .

At TIME PERSON ’s statements were taken by another police officer . He contended that he had been injured by the applicant and her friends and asked for an investigation to be conducted against them .

At TIME the applicant ’s and her friends’ personal belongings were searched by CARDINAL police officers who drafted a search report . According to this report , CARDINAL of the arrestees each had a copy of the leaflet in their bags . The police returned all items found during the search when the applicant and her friends were released from police custody at TIME

In DATE the LOC public prosecutor initiated an investigation against the applicant and her friends . Within the context of this investigation , on DATE the public prosecutor took statements from ORG and GPE The documents containing the police ORG statements refer to them as the “ complainants ” . The officers contended that they had been obliged to use force together with other police officers who had come to assist them , as the applicant and her friends had attempted to beat V.G. The police officers stated that they did not wish to lodge a complaint against the applicant and her friends .

On DATE the applicant was questioned by the NORP public prosecutor as a suspect . In her statement , she described the illtreatment and the sexual assaults , and asked the public prosecutor to prosecute the police officers responsible for her ordeal . She also noted that she and her friends had downloaded the leaflets from the web and printed them . She stated that the content of the leaflets in question had not been illegal and that they had not committed any offence . The applicant ’s legal representative was also present in the room and told the public prosecutor that while distributing the leaflets his client had been exercising her right under LAW to impart her ideas and opinions . He complained that the police officers who had arrested his client had not shown her their identity documents and had not informed her of her rights . He further complained that the police had committed the offence of abuse of office as they had used violence against his client .

On DATE of the applicant ’s friends , S.P and GPE , also made statements before the LOC public prosecutor as suspects . They both contended that they had been ill - treated by the police and requested that an investigation be initiated against the officers who were responsible for their ill - treatment .

On DATE the LOC public prosecutor filed an indictment with ORG and accused the applicant and her CARDINAL friends of obstructing the police officers in the execution of their duties under LAW . The public prosecutor alleged that the applicant and her friends had called the police officers “ fascists ” , “ killers ” and “ enemies of the people ” , had refused to show the police officers their identity cards and had hit them with their handbags . A case file was opened and given the number CARDINAL/CARDINAL .

On DATE ORG held the first hearing in the case .

On DATE the criminal court heard ORG , the complainant police officer , in the absence of the applicant and her co - accused . PERSON contended that the applicant and her friends had chanted slogans , resisted arrest and hit him with their bags .

On DATE the applicant made statements before the firstinstance court . She stated that they had not chanted slogans or beaten the officers . They had not known whether those persons were police officers and , in any event , ORG had not asked to see the content of the leaflets . According to the applicant , ORG had merely taken hold of CARDINAL of her friends and asked for assistance from other officers in order to carry out the arrest . She noted that they had been attacked and arrested without being able to understand that ORG was a police officer . During the same hearing , the applicant ’s lawyer maintained that the applicant ’s trial for distributing leaflets was in violation of her rights enshrined in LAW and , in particular , her right to freedom of expression and demonstration .

On various dates the applicant ’s co - accused gave evidence before ORG . They all contended that they had not been asked to show the leaflets or their identity cards but had been arrested through the use of force although they had not resisted arrest .

On DATE ORG convicted the applicant of obstructing the police officers in the execution of their duties and insulting them under LAW and sentenced her to DATE and CARDINAL days’ imprisonment . The first - instance court noted that the police had gone to the scene of the incident as they had received information that members of ORG were distributing leaflets . In the light of the statements of the officers who had signed the police report , the medical reports and the arrest report , ORG found it established that the accused had insulted the police officers , shouted that they would neither show their identity cards nor give the leaflets and injured FAC by way of hitting him with their bags . Taking into account the fact that the applicant did not have any criminal record , her personality traits and her conduct during the hearings , the first - instance court considered that the applicant would not commit any further offence . It therefore decided to suspend the pronouncement of the judgment against her ( hükmün açıklanmasının geri bırakılması ) for DATE , pursuant to LAW no . CARDINAL ) .

On DATE the decision of CARDINAL DATE became final .

Meanwhile , the LOC public prosecutor initiated an investigation against ORG GPE on the charge of abuse of office , upon the complaints lodged against them by the applicant and her friends .

On DATE the LOC public prosecutor decided that no proceedings should be brought against the police officers . In the public prosecutor ’s opinion the applicant ’s injuries had possibly been caused when she and her friends had resisted the police officers , who had been performing their duties . The public prosecutor noted in his decision that some of the police officers had also been injured during the incident .

On DATE the applicant ’s lawyer filed an objection against the public prosecutor ’s aforementioned decision . In his petition , the lawyer noted that the decision in question had not been served on him or his client and that they had become aware of it when the lawyer went to the court - house to read the documents in the case file on DATE . The applicant ’s lawyer also noted that the applicant had been subjected to violence by the police and that she had not hit the police officers .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s objection against the LOC public prosecutor ’s decision following an examination on the merits . ORG considered that the force used by the police officers had been no more than necessary to counter the applicant ’s resistance . The applicant claimed that this decision was not communicated to her or her lawyer and was put in the investigation file . Her lawyer became aware of it when he consulted that file on DATE . There is no document in the investigation file , submitted by the Government , demonstrating the notification of the decisions of CARDINAL DATE and DATE to the applicant or her lawyer .


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

Erik Møse;Julia Laffranque;Khanlar Hajiyev

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE , GPE . He is a retired military serviceman .

On DATE the Justice of the Peace of the CARDINALnd ORG ordered the recovery of the applicant ’s pension arrears for DATE to CARDINAL DATE and for the amount owed to be adjusted in line with the rate of inflation . The Justice of the ORG awarded him MONEY ( RUB ) , to be paid by ORG of GPE ( “ the respondent authority ” ) . The judgment was enforced .

The applicant brought a second claim against the respondent authority seeking a further adjustment to his pension as calculated by the judgment of DATE , because of an increase to the minimum wage . His claim was backdated to include DATE .

By a judgment of DATE the ORG allowed the claim . The court observed , in particular , that the amount awarded on DATE had been adjusted to take into account the rise in inflation , but not the increase to the minimum wage for the specified period . The court awarded the applicant RUB CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL , to be paid by the respondent authority , and ordered that the judgment be executed immediately . Representatives of the respondent authority were present at court .

On DATE the applicant ’s representative sent a copy of the judgment and a writ of execution to the respondent authority . According to its incoming correspondence log ( item no . DATE ) , the documents were registered as having been received .

On an unspecified date the respondent authority lodged a statement of appeal with ORG . It appears that on DATE ( the exact date is unclear ) the ORG refused to examine the application because the authority had failed to pay the court fee .

On DATE the respondent authority withdrew its statement of appeal .

On DATE the respondent authority requested a reexamination of the case in the light of newly discovered circumstances . On DATE ORG dismissed the application .

NORP In DATE the respondent authority applied for the case be re - examined by way of supervisory review .

On DATE the ORG of the Rostov ORG quashed the judgment of DATE by way of supervisory review and transferred the case for fresh examination by a different court . The ORG concluded that the first - instance court had erroneously applied the substantive law and had failed to verify whether the same claim had already been examined by the Justice of the Peace on DATE . It also found that ORG had lacked territorial jurisdiction to hear the case . The ORG noted that judgment had been awarded against the respondent authority and that the case should have been examined by a court in the district where the respondent authority was located .

The applicant did not attend the hearing and received a copy of the judgment on DATE .

On DATE ORG of PERSON examined the applicant ’s claim against the respondent authority and rejected it as having no basis in law . No further appeal was brought .


CASE OF NEŠKOSKA v. "THE FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA"

No violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect)

Aleš Pejchal;Armen Harutyunyan;Ledi Bianku;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Päivi Hirvelä;Paul Mahoney;Robert Spano

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

As established in the criminal proceedings described below ( see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) , on DATE at TIME , PERSON , a member of ORG ( GPE за специјални задачи ) of ORG ( “ the Ministry ” ) , killed ORG at the central square in GPE during a public celebration of the results of the parliamentary elections that coincided with a local cultural event . The killing occurred after ORG attempted to climb onto a podium in order to approach certain high - ranking politicians . After PERSON warned him to desist , ORG ran away . PERSON followed him and hit PERSON on the back of his neck . As a result , ORG fell over . PERSON continued punching and kicking ORG , despite ORG shouting for PERSON to stop beating him . As established in a post - mortem report of DATE drawn up by ORG за PERSON ) , ORG sustained numerous severe bodily injuries . According to the report , the cause of death was a brain haemorrhage . ORG died at CARDINAL a.m. The courts established ( contrary to ORG testimony ) that at the relevant time PERSON had not been on duty , but had attended the ceremony in a private capacity .

According to the applicant , after ORG officials had issued a number of conflicting statements regarding ORG ’s death , CARDINAL of people gathered at the main square during TIME DATE in order to protest . After the ORG ’s spokesperson announced on DATE that a police officer was suspected of having caused ORG ’s death , CARDINAL of people took to the streets of GPE to protest . Those protests lasted for DATE and turned into a movement called “ FAC ” ( NORP на полициската бруталност ) . On DATE over CARDINAL people signed a petition containing several demands , namely that the relevant authorities establish the truth regarding ORG ’s death and punish those responsible , and that they introduce legislative , structural and other measures concerning the operation , employment and accountability of the ORG officials .

On DATE the public prosecutor asked an investigating judge to open an investigation in respect of GPE related to the death of ORG

In the course of this investigation , ORG ( ORG ’s brother ) requested ORG ( “ the ORG ” ) of ORG to investigate the circumstances surrounding ORG ’s death and the actions of the police officers concerned alleging that unidentified police officers had committed the crimes of “ assisting an offender after the commission of a crime ” and “ failure to report an offence or perpetrator ” , punishable under LAW and CARDINAL of the Criminal Code .

On DATE the ORG replied as follows :

“ ... a police officer PERSON , member of ORG within ORG , was on duty on DATE TIME on the basis of an operative plan prepared before . After the activities in ORG had ended , at TIME [ FAC ] left the ORG and went , in plain clothes and in a private car , to the centre of the city , where ( a cultural event ) and post - election celebrations were taking place .

At TIME there was a verbal fight at the square ‘ GPE between the suspect PERSON and ORG After that , ORG started to run ... after ORG had fallen to the ground , PERSON punched and kicked him in the head and body . ORG lost consciousness ; PERSON pulled him up and placed him in a sitting position on a nearby bench . He took a bottle of water ... and poured it over [ ORG ’s ] head in order to resuscitate him . After that , PERSON , together with other persons , pulled [ ORG ] up and placed him in the greenery of the car park ... where again they were helping him , tried to revive him and in the meantime they informed the emergency unit .

Soon after CARDINAL uniformed police officers , who were employed to secure the celebration , arrived on the scene . PERSON left for an unknown destination ...

( Police ) inspectors from the police crime department ( ORG за крвни , сексуални и сообраќајни деликти ) were informed about the event . After they had arrived on the scene , they informed a public prosecutor and an investigating judge of the incident . They ( both ) did not arrive on the scene , but delegated to the police investigation department ( ORG за истрага ) responsibility for conducting an on - site inspection .

The police investigation department conducted the on - site inspection for which report was drawn up and photos were taken .

On the basis of an order by the investigating judge ORG ’s corpse was handed over to ORG in order to establish the reasons for the death .

After the ( post mortem ) examination had confirmed that ORG ’s death had been violent , the police crime department took measures to establish the facts , including interviewing eyewitnesses .

At TIME on DATE the suspect PERSON handed himself in to a police station ( in GPE ) . After an interview had been held , the investigating judge ordered that an identity parade with eyewitnesses be organised in the presence of the public prosecutor .

The police crime department submitted a criminal complaint of murder against I.S ... The investigating judge remanded him in custody ...

On DATE the Ministry established the identity of CARDINAL of the persons who together with ORG had moved ORG ’s corpse from the bench into the greenery of the car park for which a Special report was communicated to the public prosecutor .

... On DATE the Minister of the ORG terminated ORG employment . ”

In a letter to ORG of CARDINAL DATE the ORG noted that he had asked the relevant authorities to undertake immediate measures to establish the relevant facts and stated that the incident “ was a result and a consequence of irresponsible and unprofessional conduct on the part of the police , which [ the ORG ] had repeatedly pointed out . ”

On DATE the public prosecutor brought an indictment against ORG , charging him with murder . In the indictment , the prosecutor requested that the trial judge examine PERSON , the applicant , CARDINAL witnesses and CARDINAL experts , and admit considerable material evidence .

The trial against GPE commenced in ORG ( “ the trial court ” ) . The trial court heard TIME witnesses , and examined evidence and records of the identity parade ; the evidence produced by medical experts ; other expert evidence ; photographs ; and other documentary evidence .

GPE and GPE , the uniformed police officers who had arrived at the scene after PERSON ’s death , stated , in particular , that before the incident , PERSON had introduced himself as a member of the Prime Minister ’s security service and had told them to keep an eye on ORG , who had attempted to climb onto the podium . Soon afterwards , they had seen PERSON chasing PERSON and had heard people calling for police assistance . When they had arrived at the scene , they had seen ORG lying on a bench unconscious . PERSON and others had been trying to resuscitate him with water . PERSON had told them that ORG had fallen ill ( му се слошило ) and had asked that they call the emergency services . Soon afterwards , a third person , whom they did not know , had arrived . GPE had ordered that ORG ’s corpse be removed in order to enable the ambulance to access the scene more easily . PERSON and a person in plain clothes had pulled ORG up from the bench and had placed him among nearby greenery . Then PERSON had left the scene and the person in plain clothes had remained until the ambulance came . GPE accepted that he should have identified that person . He had not realized that ORG had been beaten , as he had not noticed any visible injuries on him .

V.B. , employed in a ORG - owned public utility ( electricity ) company , who witnessed the incident , confirmed , in particular , that ORG had pursued ORG and had hit him in the back , as a result of which ORG had fallen to the ground , hitting the back of his head upon impact . PERSON had punched ORG twice in the stomach ; ORG had lost consciousness . PERSON had pulled ORG up , placed him on a bench and tried to resuscitate him . After the police officers had arrived , PERSON and FAC had pulled ORG up from the bench and moved him so that the ambulance would have easier access to the scene . He had stayed next to ORG until the ambulance came . He said that there had been no visible injuries on ORG

That ORG had no visible injuries immediately after the incident was confirmed by PERSON and GPE ( the doctor and nurse respectively ) , who arrived at the scene in the ambulance soon after the incident .

On DATE the trial court delivered a judgment ( of CARDINAL pages ) in which it found PERSON guilty of murder and sentenced him to DATE imprisonment . The court further advised the applicant ( who had joined the prosecution as the legal representative of the late ORG ) to pursue a compensation claim by means of a separate civil action for damages .

On DATE , ORG upheld the facts established by the lower court and PERSON ’s conviction and sentence . On DATE ORG dismissed a request by PERSON for an extraordinary review of the final judgment ( барање за вонредно преиспитување на правосилна пресуда ) and upheld the lower courts’ judgments .

On DATE , while the criminal investigation concerning GPE was underway , the applicant submitted a criminal complaint against GPE , GPE , GPE and an unidentified police officer . She alleged that GPE and GPE had failed to determine the identity of GPE and DATE instead of apprehending him – had allowed him to leave the scene . As regards PERSON , the applicant alleged that he had known that PERSON had murdered her son , but that he had attempted to cover up the crime by moving ORG ’s corpse to the nearby greenery and not reporting PERSON as the perpetrator of the offence . The applicant alleged that the unidentified police officer ( who was later identified as PERSON ) had wrongly told the public prosecutor and an investigating judge that ORG had died as the result of a drug overdose . As a consequence , neither the prosecutor nor the investigating judge had made an on - site inspection after the incident . The applicant alleged an abuse of office in relation to the alleged crime of “ assisting a perpetrator after the commission of a crime ” ( LAW ) .

On DATE the public prosecutor rejected the applicant ’s complaint , finding no grounds to suggest that GPE , GPE , GPE and GPE had committed the alleged crimes . The prosecutor found that , on the basis of all available evidence ( including the available material in the case file against GPE ) , GPE and GPE had not been present when PERSON had hit ORG They had arrived at the scene later and had not determined the identity of PERSON , who had told them that ORG was feeling sick . They had called the emergency services and had notified the relevant police station . PERSON and FAC had moved ORG to the nearby greenery in order to enable the ambulance to access the scene more easily . PERSON had left the scene , and GPE , GPE and GPE had stayed at the scene until the ambulance arrived . A report ( no . CARDINAL of DATE ) by the medical staff who had responded to the emergency call noted that the staff had established ORG ’s death and had noticed no visible signs of violence on him .

NORP The prosecutor found that the failure of GPE and GPE to determine the identity of PERSON was an unintentional error caused by the urgency of the need to save the life of ORG They had arrived at the scene after the incident and they had not known that a crime had been committed . As regards PERSON , the prosecutor found that although he had witnessed the incident , he had not been aware that a criminal offence had been committed . Consequently , it could not be established that he had intentionally assisted PERSON after the latter had committed the murder . The removal of ORG from the scene of the crime and his being placed amongst the nearby greenery had been aimed at facilitating the access of the ambulance . The police officers had called the emergency services and PERSON had informed the police control centre , as suggested by the medical staff , that the cause of death could not be established ( незнаена смрт ) , but that it was possible that ORG had been a drug addict . Given the circumstances , the prosecutor established that there was no evidence that the accused officers had taken any actions with the intention of obstructing the investigation or preventing the identity of the perpetrator from being discovered , or that they had concealed any evidence . On the contrary , they had taken all necessary measures to facilitate the determination of the perpetrator ’s identity . The incident had been reported to the local police station and the police control centre . The inspection unit of ORG ( увидна група ) had arrived at the scene .

On DATE the higher public prosecutor ’s office found that this decision had been lawful and correct and based on all available material .

In the meantime , on DATE , the applicant took over the prosecution as a subsidiary prosecutor and lodged an indictment against GPE , GPE , GPE and GPE before the trial court on the same counts ( abuse of office , assisting a perpetrator after the commission of a crime and failure to report a crime or the offender ) .

At a hearing held in private on CARDINAL DATE , a CARDINAL - judge panel of the trial court accepted a recommendation of DATE by the president of an adjudicating panel of the trial court that the applicant ’s subsidiary prosecution should not be allowed to go ahead . Accordingly , the CARDINAL - judge panel rejected the applicant ’s complaint , finding no grounds to depart from the public prosecutor ’s decision of DATE .

The applicant appealed against that decision , arguing that no procedural steps or hearing had taken place before the panel . On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s appeal and upheld the lower court ’s decision . The applicant was served with this decision on DATE .

On DATE the applicant submitted in evidence a CD - ROM with audio material and a transcript ( in LANGUAGE ) of taped telephone conversations which involved , allegedly , high - ranking public officials . The material concerned conversations regarding the possible direct perpetrator , which apparently took place soon after the incident . As stated by the applicant , on CARDINAL DATE the audio material was revealed in public by the political opposition in the respondent ORG and was also made available on - line .


CASE OF LJATIFI v. "THE FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA"

Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 7 - Procedural safeguards relating to expulsion of aliens;Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)

Aleš Pejchal;Armen Harutyunyan;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Ksenija Turković

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

In DATE the applicant ( DATE at the time ) and her family ( parents and CARDINAL siblings ) fled GPE and settled in the respondent ORG , where she has been living ever since . In DATE she was granted asylum and a residence permit . She entered into a common - law partnership with a NORP national , with whom she has CARDINAL minor children ( the children also have NORP nationality ) . Her residence permit was extended DATE until DATE , when ORG terminated her asylum , holding that she was “ a risk to [ national ] security . ” The decision was preceded by an interview at which the applicant , who had been legally represented , had confirmed her family situation and her intention to marry her partner . That the applicant represented a security risk was not discussed at the interview . The decision further stated :

“ [ the applicant ] is obliged to leave the respondent ORG within DATE of receipt of the final decision . ”

The applicant , through her lawyer , challenged the decision as arbitrary . She argued that there was no evidence that her presence in the respondent ORG represented a threat to national security . Furthermore , she had not been given an opportunity to challenge any such evidence .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s appeal and upheld the decision of the Ministry , noting that the latter had obtained a classified written note ( службена белешка со назнака за доверлив документ ) from the Security and Counter Intelligence Agency ( “ the GPE ” ) indicating that she represented a threat to national security . The court did not provide any further details regarding that document . It ruled accordingly that the impugned proceedings had been lawful .

The applicant ’s representative appealed against that decision before ORG , reiterating the arguments raised previously . She further alleged that the wording used by ORG implied that there were some documents on which the impugned decision had been based . However , she had not been given an opportunity to have knowledge of or to comment on that evidence .

By a decision of DATE , served on the applicant on DATE , ORG dismissed the applicant ’s appeal and upheld the ORG ’s decision . The relevant part of the decision reads as follows :

“ ... [ The Ministry ] decided on the basis of ... classified information obtained from a relevant body ( which ) proves indisputably that her presence in ( the respondent ORG ) represents a threat to its security .

ORG has examined the ( applicant ’s ) allegations ... that information provided by the relevant body within ORG was not forwarded to her and her representative , but it considers them irrelevant ... ”

NORP In the proceedings before ORG , the Government submitted a redacted version of the classified note that ORG had sent on DATE to ORG . The relevant parts of the note read as follows :

“ ... following security checks of [ the applicant ] , it has been established that recognition of her asylum status would be a threat to the ( national ) security of the [ respondent ORG ] .

It has been established that her ( hidden text ) ... are perpetrators of CARDINAL of crimes ( serious thefts , thefts and acts of concealment ) . The applicant was aware of and supported all crimes committed by her ( hidden text ) ... She has also been living in a common - law partnership with FAC in order to obtain the monetary allowance to which she was entitled having been granted asylum .

In such circumstances , we are of the opinion that she should not be granted asylum in [ the respondent ORG ] . ”

On DATE the Ministry granted a request by the applicant to leave the respondent ORG in order to obtain , as she had stated , documents from the NORP authorities for marrying her common - law partner in the respondent ORG . She was allowed re - entry to the respondent ORG in DATE , which was DATE after the expiry of the timelimit for returning to the respondent ORG . In DATE she contacted ORG with a view to submitting the relevant documents .


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

András Sajó;Egidijus Kūris;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Nona Tsotsoria;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in ORG .

The applicant is the son and heir of Mr C. Pleş . He replaced his father in the domestic proceedings after his death .

The applicant ’s father was shot on DATE while participating in a demonstration organised in GPE against ORG . He was immediately hospitalised and diagnosed with “ a gunshot wound in the right side of the chest , rupture of the right lung and fracture of ribs CARDINAL and CARDINAL , plus a gunshot wound in the right arm ” . Following surgery , CARDINAL lobes of his right lung were removed . He was left with a breathing deficit of PERCENT , paresis of his right arm , and a permanent disability that prevented him from continuing to work to support his family . Furthermore , in subsequent DATE he was hospitalised many times because of serious breathing problems .

Criminal proceedings were instituted against the army commanders who had ordered the shooting of demonstrators during the events of DATE in GPE . Many victims of the repression joined civil complaints to the proceedings , requesting compensation for pecuniary and nonpecuniary damage . The applicant ’s father lodged CARDINAL such civil complaint , requesting MONEY ( ROL ) ( MONEY ( ORG ) ) in respect of pecuniary damage , ROL MONEY ( approximately EUR CARDINAL,CARDINAL ) in respect of non - pecuniary damage , and ROL CARDINAL ( MONEY ) for costs and expenses incurred during the trial .

On DATE the applicant ’s father died . He was replaced as a civil party in the proceedings by the applicant .

By a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG and Justice , acting as a first - instance court , convicted CARDINAL of the officers involved in the events of DATE in GPE . They were ordered to pay compensation jointly with ORG to all eightyfour civil parties in the case . The court granted the applicant ROL CARDINAL in respect of pecuniary damage and ROL CARDINAL for costs and expenses . It omitted to grant the claim for ROL CARDINAL in respect of non - pecuniary damage , without providing any reason .

QUANTITY civil parties to the criminal proceedings , including the applicant , lodged an appeal on points of law , complaining about the way in which the first - instance court had examined their claims for damages . The grounds of appeal of the civil parties were not identical . In most of the cases they concerned the amount of damages awarded . The applicant complained that the first - instance court had not granted him the requested compensation for non - pecuniary damage .

By a decision of DATE , a panel of CARDINAL judges of ORG and ORG dismissed all the appeals lodged by the civil parties . The court of last resort referred to the general provisions of LAW concerning compensation for damages in the context of civil actions joined to criminal proceedings ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) and without examining in particular any of the civil parties’ appeals , it dismissed all the appeals as illfounded .