The applicant is a NORP national , born in DATE and living in GPE . He is represented before the ORG by Mr J.J.M. GPE , a lawyer practising in GPE .

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

The applicant ’s wife died in DATE . At that time , the applicant was employed in GPE . He did not , at that time , apply for a widower ’s pension under the GPE Widows and LAW ( Algemene Weduwen- en Wezenwet ; “ AWW ” ) . On DATE , the applicant had a traffic accident resulting in his becoming incapacitated for work .

In a decision taken on DATE , ORG ( Centrale PERSON ) determined that also widowers were entitled to benefits under the AWW .

On DATE , the applicant applied for a pension under the AWW and , in its decision of DATE , ORG ( ORG ) awarded him an AWW pension . In accordance with LAW of the AWW , the starting date of the pension was fixed at DATE prior to the first date of DATE in which the applicant had filed his request for AWW benefits . Although LAW of the AWW provided for the possibility to grant a pension with retroactive effect on grounds of special circumstances , ORG held that no such circumstances existed in the applicant ’s case . Consequently , the applicant was entitled to AWW benefits as from DATE .

On DATE , ORG informed the applicant that it was withdrawing his AWW pension and , on DATE , issued a decision terminating the applicant ’s AWW benefits as from DATE under the application of an arrangement according to which his pension would be gradually reduced to nil by reducing it DATE with CARDINAL Netherlands Guilders . In view of his personal circumstances he was further not required to repay any benefits already paid to him until that time . The reason given was that , as the law stood at the time of the death of the applicant ’s wife , no entitlement under the AWW could arise because the applicant was then employed outside the GPE and covered by NORP social insurance . That being so , his wife was ipso facto excluded from the insurance scheme set up under that Act .

On DATE , the applicant lodged an appeal against this decision with ORG ( Arrondissementsrechtbank ) . In its judgment of DATE ORG held that the statutory provision at issue was discriminatory and , therefore , contrary to LAW and LAW . Although that statutory provision excluded the wife of a GPE resident who was employed abroad and covered by foreign social security from the insurance scheme set up under the AWW , it did not so exclude the husband of a GPE resident similarly employed and covered . ORG referred obiter dictum to a directive of ORG of DATE ) , which could not , however , apply directly since it did not cover social insurance payable upon the death of CARDINAL spouse to the survivor .

On DATE , ORG appealed to ORG ( ORG ) , which overturned the judgment of ORG on DATE , holding that according to its case - law married men could not derive any entitlement from the AWW before DATE . Although admittedly this placed men whose wives had died before that date in a disadvantageous position , this was due to the fact that married women simply were not insured under the AWW before then . ORG declined to rule as to whether this “ [ could ] be seen as a form of unequal treatment of men and women , or otherwise ” .

In the light of a judgment handed down on CARDINAL DATE by ORG ( PERSON ) in which it was held that employment abroad did not constitute a ground for excluding a married woman from insurance under the AWW , ORG reconsidered the applicant ’s case and decided on DATE to withdraw its decision of CARDINAL DATE and to award him a AWW pension as from DATE as well as interest for the period DATE and DATE . He was further informed that he could file an objection ( bezwaar ) against this decision within DATE . The applicant did not avail himself of this possibility .

The AWW , which has been replaced on DATE by LAW ( PERSON ) , provided for benefits for the widow and child(ren ) of a deceased person who was insured under LAW . Under the AWW scheme , all persons residing in the GPE and non - residents gainfully employed in the GPE were compulsory insured . Contributions to this scheme were paid by all persons gainfully employed in the GPE .

AWW benefits were , in principle , granted to widows younger than DATE from whom it could not be expected that they would provide for themselves and , in case there were any , their child(ren ) by working . AWW benefits stopped when the widow attained DATE . Benefits for children were in principle stopped when they reached the age of DATE but could be prolonged until DATE where the child was studying .

The AWW did not provide for any benefits for widowers . This situation changed on DATE , when ORG handed down a decision in which it held that also widowers were entitled to benefits under the AWW ( PERSON ) .

Entitlement to an AWW pension was not dependent on the level of contributions paid as , contrary to a social security scheme based on employment ( werknemersverzekering ) , it was a general social security scheme ( volksverzekering ) . The level of benefits was linked to the statutory minimum wage .

On DATE , ORG issued Directive LAW concerning the gradual implementation of equal treatment between men and women in the field of social security based on employment , allowing member states a period of DATE until DATE within which to make any amendments to legislation which might be necessary in order to bring it in conformity with the directive .

LAW provides that provisions of international treaties and decisions of international ( intergovernmental ) organisations which , according to their content , may be binding on anyone shall have binding force after they have been published .

With regard to the prohibition of discrimination , the GPE is a party to , inter alia , the LAW , which was ratified by LAW DATE , and the ORG of DATE which , as regards the GPE , entered into force on DATE . LAW ORG provides as follows :

" All persons are equal before the law and are entitled without discrimination to the equal protection of the law . In this respect , the law shall prohibit any discrimination and guarantee to all persons equal and effective protection against discrimination on any ground such as race , colour , sex , language , religion , political or other opinion , national or social origin , property , birth or other status . "

ORG recognised in its judgment of CARDINAL DATE ( PERSON ( “ GPE ” ) DATE , no . CARDINAL [ corrected in GPE DATE , no . CARDINAL ] ) , that LAW is a provision of an international treaty which , according to its content , may be binding on anyone , and must therefore in principle be applied directly by the GPE courts .


The applicant , a NORP citizen , resides in GPE .

In DATE , the applicant filed an action with the ORG ( Zivilgericht ) against his former lawyer , claiming damages of MONEY ( CHF ) for negligent representation . Subsequently , he filed a request for legal aid .

On DATE , ORG dismissed the applicant ’s request for legal aid as he had not demonstrated his indigence and , after a summary examination of the case , as the action lacked prospects of success .

Against this decision the applicant filed a complaint ( Beschwerde ) with ORG ( ORG ) of the GPE of ORG which the latter declared inadmissible on DATE . In its decision the court stated , inter alia :

“ whereas according to LAW ( hereafter : ORG ) a complaint must be filed within DATE after the contested decision was rendered ...

whereas the contested decision was served on the applicant ’s representative on DATE ; the period for filing the complaint therefore began on DATE and ended on DATE ;

whereas according to PERSON the time - limit will be complied with if the complaint was filed with the court , or transmitted to the NORP postal service , at the latest on DATE ;

whereas if a person abroad files a complaint , it will suffice if the complaint is filed with a NORP diplomatic or consular representation abroad , though it is insufficient if the submission is merely transmitted to the foreign postal service ... ;

whereas the applicant transmitted his complaint to the NORP postal service in GPE on DATE , i.e. , on DATE of the time - limit , and that the complaint arrived only on DATE in the area of the NORP postal service , and was received by ORG on DATE ;

whereas the complaint was , therefore , filed only after the expiry of the time - limit for which reason it can not be admitted on account of the delay ... ”

The applicant filed a public law appeal ( staatsrechtliche Beschwerde ) with ORG ( PERSON ) in which he complained , inter alia , that it was customary ( üblich ) to accept the NORP postal service as the recipient for such submissions , and that as he was a NORP , it was not possible for him to send them to the NORP embassy in GPE .

On DATE ORG partly dismissed and partly rejected the applicant ’s public law appeal . It considered that PERSON ORG corresponded with CARDINAL of LAW ( Bundesgesetz über das internationale GPE ) according to which it sufficed for persons living abroad to submit their documents on DATE of the time - limit to the NORP diplomatic or consular representation . The judgment continued :

“ In this respect there has been no arbitrary interpretation or application of PERSON ORG . Finally , insofar as it has been maintained that the NORP diplomatic or consular representations in GPE would not accept submissions from non - NORP citizens destined for courts , this is a mere assertion , which has not been substantiated and which need not be dealt with any further ... ”

On DATE , upon the applicant ’s request , the NORP embassy in GPE wrote a letter to the applicant as follows :

“ Many thanks for your letters of CARDINAL and DATE .

I can herewith confirm that - based on internal instructions - submissions to cantonal courts may not be transmitted by diplomatic bag ( PERSON ) via a NORP foreign representation .

Furthermore , I must inform you that mail may not be deposited at the embassy which , as you claim in your letter of DATE , the opposing party has suggested . ”

PERSON of the Code of Civil Procedure of the GPE of ORG provides , inter alia , that a time - limit shall be complied with if the submission concerned is transmitted , on DATE of the time - limit , to the NORP postal service , or , if the person is abroad , if it is submitted on DATE to a NORP diplomatic or consular representation . S. CARDINAL provides , inter alia , that a complaint against a decision must be filed in writing within DATE after the decision was rendered .

S. CARDINAL of LAW states that , in order for a person abroad to comply with a time - limit before NORP authorities , it suffices if the submission arrives on DATE of the time - limit at a NORP diplomatic or consular representation .


Violation of P1-1;No violation of Art. 6

Anatoly Kovler;Christos Rozakis;Elisabeth Steiner;George Nicolaou;Giorgio Malinverni;Khanlar Hajiyev

The applicant is the agricultural production co - operative “ Dimskiy ” ( сельскохозяйственный производственный кооператив « Димский DATE ) , a legal entity under the NORP law , established in DATE in the village of ORG in LOC of LOC . The applicant was subsequently re - organised into a joint - stock company “ PERSON ” ( ORG « Димское ORG ) .

NORP In DATE the General Secretary of ORG PERSON presented his “ basic theses ” , which laid the political foundation for economic reform heralding the transition to a market economy . Several laws were enacted which opened up the ORG - dominated planned economy to private enterprise . However , the ORG preferred to keep control over consumer prices rather than leaving them to be determined by the free market .

By DATE Government spending increased sharply as a growing number of unprofitable enterprises required State support , whereas more resources were diverted to subsidise consumer prices . At the same time , the elimination of central control over production decisions , especially in the consumer - goods sector , led to a breakdown in traditional supply - demand relationships . This resulted in pervasive shortages of food and basic consumer goods . The Government reacted by introducing ration stamps for food and certain hygiene articles .

In addition to ration stamps , the Government of the NORP Socialist GPE ( RSFSR ) put into circulation several types of so - called “ commodity bonds ” ( товарные чеки ) which gave their bearers the right to purchase consumer goods , such as refrigerators , washing machines , tape recorders and passenger cars . The Urozhay-CARDINAL ( “ ORG ” ) bonds were CARDINAL of many types of bonds ; they were distributed among agricultural workers and companies which had sold grain and other agricultural produce to the ORG in DATE and DATE . Those bonds were designed to encourage agricultural workers to sell produce to the ORG in exchange for the right to priority purchasing of goods in high demand ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . The ORG paid workers for the produce at fixed prices and also gave them bonds in amounts proportionate to the value of the produce sold .

The ORG bonds were not legal tender , but they had a certain nominal value indicated on their face . That value determined the maximum purchase price of consumer goods which could be sold on production of the bonds . The bonds were not intended for payment but merely for certification of the right to purchase specific goods ; the sale of goods was conditional on payment of the full purchase price by the bond - holder and production of the bonds for the same amount . The bonds were not registered in the person ’s name or otherwise personalised and ORG did not prevent them from being transferred among individuals and legal entities .

On DATE ORG decided to put an end to the regulation of retail prices . Shops began to fill up with merchandise but prices increased at a staggering speed ( the inflation rate in DATE was PERCENT ) . In DATE , the Government established that goods available under the bonds would be sold at the prices fixed before DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

NORP In DATE the Government introduced the possibility of buying out the bonds with a coefficient of CARDINAL . In DATE , the coefficient was raised to CARDINAL ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL below ) . It appears that a significant number of bonds were bought out by the ORG before the buyout operations were stopped in DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

NORP In DATE the status of the commodity bonds was codified in LAW passed by ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . Its text was very laconic , shorter than one page , but it purported to cover every type of commodities bonds issued in DATE . LAW recognised the commodity bonds as part of the internal debt of GPE ; section CARDINAL fixed at DATE the limitation period for the obligations arising out of commodity bonds ( the starting date was not specified ) ; section CARDINAL required the Government to adopt a programme for settlement of the internal debt .

In DATE the Government presented the programme for settlement of the internal debt ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . It covered every type of commodity bond , save for the ORG bonds . DATE before LAW was amended so as to provide that the settlement of the debt under the ORG bonds would be regulated by a special federal law ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

DATE the application of section CARDINAL of LAW was suspended in the part concerning the ORG bonds , in accordance with the laws on the federal budget for DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

NORP In DATE ORG passed a law on the buyout of the ORG bonds and the Government issued implementing regulations which set out a detailed procedure for buyout of the bonds ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL below ) .

The applicant holds ORG bonds with a total nominal value of CARDINAL non - denominated NORP roubles ( ORG ) .

On DATE the applicant brought an action against ORG , seeking to recover MONEY ( RUB ) as compensation for the bonds . The amount was calculated as the nominal value of the bonds multiplied by the official inflation co - efficient .

On DATE ORG of LOC issued a decision to dismiss the applicant ’s claim . It noted that the federal law establishing the procedure for redemption of ORG bonds had not yet been adopted and their maturity date had not been determined . ORG held that the plaintiff had not yet obtained the right to lodge this claim .

On DATE ORG of the LOC quashed the decision of DATE on procedural grounds and remitted the claim for a new examination .

On DATE ORG of the LOC gave judgment . It established that ORG , rather than ORG , should have been the proper defendant in the applicant ’s claim for damages because ORG had not committed any unlawful actions . As the applicant refused to substitute the original defendant or to join ORG as a co - defendant and as the court was not competent to do so of its own motion , it determined to disallow the applicant ’s claim .

On DATE ORG of the Amur Region upheld the judgment of DATE .

Counsel for the applicant , PERSON , submitted a cassation appeal . On DATE ORG of ORG fixed the hearing date for DATE . Mr PERSON had been notified of that decision on DATE by registered mail .

On DATE the ORG heard oral submissions by PERSON and adjourned the hearing until DATE .

On DATE Mr PERSON did not appear at court . In the absence of any valid reason for his absence , ORG proceeded with the hearing and upheld , in the final instance , the judgments of DATE and DATE . It confirmed that the actions of ORG had been lawful and that ORG was responsible for the debts chargeable to the treasury .

On DATE ORG no . CARDINAL on urgent measures for increasing the purchase of agricultural products harvested in DATE and for ensuring their safe keeping . Its relevant parts resolved as follows :

“ CARDINAL . To authorise all manufacturers of agricultural produce to sell the surplus of such produce that remains after delivery under existing agreements ... to procurers or other consumers at negotiated prices ...

To declare inadmissible any restrictions on the sale or shipment of agricultural produce to consumers in autonomous districts or regions of the ORG under paragraph CARDINAL of the present resolution ... Should local councils introduce such restrictions in their territories , ORG may stop issuing ORG bonds or delivering goods on the basis of them in those territories ... ”

“ CARDINAL . To begin issuing , in DATE , ORG bonds to employees of collective and NORP farms , other agro - industrial enterprises and organisations , peasants’ farms and owners of personal subsidiary land plots in respect of agricultural produce sold to the ORG .

To determine that the bonds certify the right to purchase goods in high demand at retail prices in trade outlets . The said bonds are not legal tender .

The RSFSR Ministry of Finance and ORG will , until DATE , print and put into circulation through the branches of ORG Urozhay-CARDINAL bonds for a total amount of MONEY . The bonds are to be used before DATE .

To establish that ORG bonds are issued by the branches of ORG :

- to all producers who sold standard products to the ORG DATE and DATE ... in an amount equivalent to PERCENT of the value of the products sold ...

ORG is to submit to ORG requests for those goods in high demand which are to be sold on production of the ORG bonds , and organise their sale , on advance orders by citizens and organisations , at regional fairs and exhibitions and in specialised trade outlets . ORG is to deliver goods to the consumers on the basis of the ORG bonds no later than DATE [ sic ] . In DATE orders under the said bonds will be executed within DATE . ”

On DATE ORG issued ORG no . CARDINAL , intended to compensate the owners of ORG bonds for an increase in retail prices . It resolved , in particular :

“ CARDINAL . To establish that passenger cars and other consumer goods which are made available to citizens as a reward for the grain and other agricultural produce that was sold to the ORG in DATE and DATE are to be sold at the retail prices that prevailed DATE ...

To extend the period of validity of the ORG bonds until DATE ... ”

On DATE the Government adopted Resolution no . ORG . It required the NORP ministries to allocate substantial amounts for the purchase of goods that were to be sold on production of the ORG bonds . It further provided :

“ CARDINAL . ORG , in cooperation with ORG , shall define , within DATE , the list of goods intended for the implementation of the ORG bonds ...

ORG of ORG shall determine the increase in prices of domestic and imported goods since DATE ... The price difference shall be reimbursed from the NORP budget .

The Ministry of Agriculture shall carry out an inventory of bonds held by agricultural enterprises and organisations and private individuals as on DATE .

ORG and ORG shall , within DATE , lay down the procedure for the buyout of the ORG bonds through the branches of ORG . It is to be taken into account that these bonds may be either used for purchasing goods or bought out by the ORG with a coefficient of CARDINAL . ”

On DATE the Government approved Regulation no . CARDINAL on State commodity bonds , which provided as follows :

“ With a view to redeeming the ORG commodity bonds and preventing accrual of the ORG ’s liability to compensate for price differences , the Government of GPE resolves :

ORG of GPE –

– will buy out ... the ORG bonds at a price equivalent to their nominal value multiplied by CARDINAL and credit that amount into a bank account ... ”

On DATE LAW ( no . CARDINAL-FZ , ФЗ « О государственных долговых товарных обязательствах ORG ) was enacted . It provided that ORG commodity bonds , including ORG bonds , would be recognised as part of the internal ORG debt of GPE ( section CARDINAL ) . The obligations arising out of the commodity bonds would be settled in accordance with the general principles of LAW , the limitation period being set at DATE ( section CARDINAL ) . The original wording of section CARDINAL provided :

“ The Government of the NORP Federation shall draft , in DATE , ORG for settlement of the internal debt of GPE described in CARDINAL , based on the principle of full compensation . The ORG shall provide for redemption terms ... convenient for citizens , including , according to their choice : provision of goods designated in ... the ORG bonds issued to agricultural suppliers ... ; redemption of ORG commodity bonds at consumer prices prevailing at the time of the redemption ... ; conversion of the debt into ORG securities ... ”

On DATE the Government adopted ORG no . CARDINAL , by which it annulled Regulation no . CARDINAL and instructed ORG to redeem the ORG commodity bonds within the amounts allocated for that purpose in the federal budget .

On DATE , section CARDINAL of LAW was amended to provide that the procedure for implementation of the ORG ’s obligations to holders of the ORG bonds would be determined in a special federal law .

On DATE the Government adopted the ORG for settlement of the internal debt of GPE . Paragraph CARDINAL of the ORG provided that the procedure for payments in respect of the ORG bonds would be determined in a special federal law .

In DATE the application of LAW was for the first time suspended in the part concerning the ORG bonds . The suspension clause was maintained in DATE ( Federal Law no . CARDINAL of DATE ; no . CARDINAL of DATE ; no . CARDINAL of DATE ; no . CARDINAL of DATE ; no . CARDINAL of DATE ; and no . CARDINAL of DATE ) .

On DATE a federal law governing the procedure for the buyout of the ORG bonds was adopted ( no . CARDINAL DATE “ the LAW ” ) . It established that holders of the bonds would be paid , in the period DATE and DATE , an amount equivalent to the nominal value of the bonds divided by CARDINAL ( section CARDINAL ) . The law also amended LAW by removing the reference to the ORG bonds from section CARDINAL of that Act .

On DATE the Government issued ORG no . CARDINAL , setting out the detailed procedure for payments in exchange for the production of ORG bonds .

On DATE the ORG gave a decision on an application lodged by ORG ( GPE , which had claimed that the amendments of DATE ( see above ) had indefinitely delayed the implementation of the ORG ’s obligations towards the bearers of the ORG bonds . ORG declared the application inadmissible for the following reasons :

“ In its [ previous decisions ] ORG has already determined that a unilateral change in the scope of the ORG ’s obligations towards individuals , including the obligation to sell goods in exchange for commodity bonds , is impermissible . This does not exclude , however , the possibility of imposing restrictions on the property rights of individuals – in an established form and within the constitutional limits – in the matter of ORG obligations , which is compatible with LAW .

In particular , it follows from the case - law of ORG ... that implementation of the rights and lawful interests of individual citizens or groups of citizens should not excessively and adversely affect the budgetary resources allocated for satisfying the rights and interests of society as a whole . This principle becomes particularly relevant in a situation where budgetary resources are insufficient to resolve many social problems relating to the exercise of the rights to life and personal dignity . It follows that the balance between the rights and lawful interests of the individuals who act as creditors for the ORG in property relationships , on the one hand , and everyone else , on the other hand , may , in principle , be struck only in the form of an act of ORG .

Hence , given that the legislature may restrict individual rights and freedoms ( including property rights ) for the purpose of the protection of the rights and lawful interests of others , a review of the federal law amending section CARDINAL of LAW by ORG would imply an assessment of the financial and economic justification for the legislative decision on the procedure for settlement of ORG commodity bonds , which ... falls outside the jurisdiction of ORG .

When examining claims relating to settlement of the ORG commodity bonds , courts of general jurisdiction have the right and duty to interpret the legislative provisions in the light of the interests of the individual ( Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the LAW ) and be guided , in particular , by LAW , which establishes that ORG commodity bonds are to be settled in an appropriate form and in accordance with LAW of GPE . ”


JAKIMOVSKI v. "THE FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA"

The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a citizen of the former GPE who was born in DATE and lives in GPE . He is represented before the Court by PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE , in the former GPE .

On DATE , the ORG Chief Commander drew up a list of candidates ( army officers ) ( “ the list ” ) eligible to be granted a tenancy of a limited number of army apartments for the purpose of acquiring property . The applicant , an ORG officer , was one of the candidates who applied for an apartment .

On DATE the applicant objected to the results and the list . He complained that according to the criteria , as specified by the relevant Rules ( PERSON за условите и начинот на решавање на станбените прашања на вработените во PERSON за одбрана , воените старешини и граѓанските лица на служба во Армијата на Република Македонија ) ( “ the Rules ” ) , he should have been ranked higher and accordingly been granted a tenancy of an apartment instead of some of the other army officers . His complaint was dismissed by the ORG Chief Commander on DATE . Meanwhile , in DATE other members of the armed forces ( Mr GPE , Mr GPE and Mr GPE ) were granted tenancies by the ORG Chief Commander .

On DATE the applicant brought a civil action against ORG ( “ the Ministry ” ) for the annulment of the list and the ORG Chief Commander ’s decisions granting tenancies to PERSON , PERSON and Mr D.Z. It was followed by a request for an interim order to prohibit the ORG from concluding a sales agreement concerning the apartments granted to his colleagues .

On DATE the then ORG ( PERSON суд GPE ) requested the applicant to clarify his claim . On DATE the applicant submitted to the court the required information ( he inter alia , extended his claim to Mr V.V. , Mr ORG and Mr GPE ) .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s request for an interim order .

On DATE the applicant appealed against the decision .

On DATE the then ORG ( NORP суд GPE ) dismissed the applicant ’s appeal and upheld the lower court ’s decision .

On DATE ORG Instance dismissed the applicant ’s claim on the merits . It established that the applicant had been an army officer since DATE , i.e. a major and that he had applied for an army apartment . The apartments were part of the ORG ’s housing fund scheduled for sale . The court found that there had been no procedural violation of the Rules and that it had not been necessary to announce the provision of the apartments . It held that Mr GPE and Mr D.Z. had been correctly given a priority in respect to the applicant .

On DATE the applicant appealed against this decision .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s appeal and upheld the lower court ’s decision .

On DATE the applicant lodged with ORG an appeal on points of law ( ревизија ) .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s appeal on points of law . It found no grounds to depart from the legal reasoning of the lower courts that domestic law had been correctly implemented and that the apartments had been granted in compliance with the relevant Rules . This decision was served on the applicant on DATE .

In a separate set of proceedings , in DATE the ORG brought criminal charges for forgery against Mr D.Z. , CARDINAL of the successful candidates who had been granted tenancy of an apartment . On DATE the public prosecutor rejected them as the charges did not concern an offence that could be prosecuted ex officio .

On DATE the ORG again brought criminal charges for forgery against Mr D.Z. On DATE the public prosecutor rejected the ORG ’s criminal complaint as time - barred .

On DATE the applicant brought separate criminal charges for forgery against Mr D.Z. On DATE the public prosecutor lodged an indictment against him before ORG .

On DATE ORG Instance dismissed the charges and acquitted the accused . It appears that the applicant did not appeal this decision .


The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in PERSON . The respondent Government were represented by PERSON , their Agent .

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

On DATE criminal proceedings were brought against Š. who was suspected of fraud . On DATE the applicant ’s wife joined the proceedings with a claim for damages .

The main hearing scheduled for DATE had to be adjourned as the accused person had failed to appear .

The accused was remanded in custody on DATE . On DATE he admitted before the Košice II District Court judge that he owed the sum in question to the applicant ’s wife .

Hearings in the criminal case were held on DATE as well as on DATE and DATE . In the meantime , on DATE , the accused was released from detention on remand .

On DATE the case was adjourned as the assessors were absent .

DATE and DATE ORG scheduled CARDINAL hearings . The accused failed to appear at the last QUANTITY hearings . At these hearings the case was not proceeded with for various reasons , mainly due to the absence of an assessor but also because of the absence of witnesses .

In the meantime criminal proceedings were brought against NORP before the ORG for similar offences imputed to him and another person . On DATE ORG decided that all charges against NORP and the other person should be determined by the ORG in a single set of proceedings .

On DATE the case was adjourned .

On DATE the applicant ’s wife died . The heirs concluded an agreement according to which her estate passed to the applicant .

On DATE the case was adjourned as the other accused had not appeared . On DATE the accused was remanded in custody , but ORG ordered his release on DATE .

Neither accused person appeared before the Košice II ORG on DATE . ORG therefore issued warrants which were submitted to the police on DATE respectively .

CARDINAL of the accused persons was brought by the police to a hearing scheduled for DATE . The police was unable to establish the whereabouts of ORG , the other accused , who had earlier admitted that he owed a sum to the applicant ’s wife . ORG decided to deal with the charges against NORP separately . It returned the case concerning the other accused to the public prosecutor .

On DATE the applicant confirmed to ORG that , as heir of his late wife , he maintained the above claim for damages .

On DATE the president of the PERSON I ORG informed ORG that the accused ORG had not yet been remanded . The letter stated that it was for the police to establish the whereabouts of that accused .

The proceedings are pending .

The applicant complained to ORG that the ORG had violated his right under Article CARDINAL ) of the LAW to a hearing without unjustified delay in the criminal proceedings in which the above claim for damages was to be determined .

On DATE the ORG delivered a finding concluding that there had been no violation of Article CARDINAL ) of the LAW .

ORG first held , with reference to the ORG ’s caselaw under LAW , that the guarantees of Article CARDINAL ) of the LAW were applicable as the applicant ’s civil right to compensation was to be determined in the context of criminal proceedings against Š.

As to the merits of the case , ORG held that there had been CARDINAL significant delay of DATE in the proceedings , namely during the period DATE and DATE . It further held that the proceedings had also been unduly delayed as a result of repeated adjournments of the case DATE . As to the period subsequent to CARDINAL DATE , ORG found no delays in the proceedings which could be imputed to ORG . In particular , ORG had been unable to proceed with the case effectively as the accused had not been arrested pursuant to the warrant issued in DATE , and the responsibility for arresting the accused lay with the police . ORG explicitly noted that the applicant himself had not included that period among the unjustified delays for which he held ORG responsible . ORG found that the applicant had not contributed to the length of the proceedings . Despite the above delays imputable to ORG , the overall length of the proceedings was principally due to the complexity of the case .

Pursuant to section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW ( Act CARDINAL/CARDINAL Coll . ) , a petition for proceedings to be brought before the Constitutional Court shall indicate , inter alia , the party against whom it is directed and the decision which the plaintiff seeks to obtain .

With the exception of cases where the LAW otherwise provides , ORG is bound by a petition for proceedings to be brought before it ( paragraph CARDINAL of section CARDINAL ) .


The applicant , PERSON , is a NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in GPE . He was represented before the Court by PERSON N. Ertekin , Mr PERSON and Mr PERSON , lawyers practising in GPE .

On DATE ORG convicted the applicant of drug trafficking and sentenced him to DATE imprisonment . The applicant was placed in FAC .

On DATE the applicant was diagnosed as suffering from lung cancer . He was transferred to the PERSON open - farm prison in order to facilitate his medical treatment .

On DATE the applicant was operated on at ORG , attached to ORG . The top right lobe of his lung was removed ( lobectomy ) . The applicant remained in hospital DATE .

DATE and DATE the applicant received radiotherapy at the hospital of ORG . On DATE the doctors in charge of the applicant recommended house rest for DATE .

DATE and DATE the applicant was transferred CARDINAL times to the prison clinic for a check - up .

On DATE the applicant was examined by CARDINAL doctors at ORG . The doctors noted that he was suffering from chronic obstructive lung disease of a permanent nature .

On DATE the CARDINALrd Section of the Forensic Medicine Institute , referring to the applicant 's health condition , held that his continued incarceration could be life - threatening and recommended the suspension of his sentence for DATE . It further held that at DATE his state of health would be reviewed .

On DATE the PERSON public prosecutor suspended the execution of the applicant 's sentence for DATE , in accordance with LAW , and ordered his release . He was released on DATE .

According to a medical report issued by ORG on DATE , the applicant was placed under medical supervision in case he suffered a relapse .

On DATE the applicant filed a petition with the PERSON public prosecutor . In his petition the applicant submitted that he was still ill and that his sentence should be suspended . He also requested to be pardoned under LAW ( b ) of LAW .

According to a medical report issued by ORG on DATE , the applicant 's illness and treatment were continuing and his condition constituted a handicap and a state of ageing .

On DATE the CARDINALrd Section of the Forensic Medicine Institute , after evaluating the medical reports on the applicant together with his blood analysis and lung images , held that the applicant , who had been suffering from adenocarcinoma of the lung and had been operated on , presented no symptoms of a recurrence . It concluded that , at the time of the report , the applicant no longer fulfilled the requirements of LAW CARDINAL of the LAW . It further stated that , in the event of any change in his medical condition , it would reconsider its decision .

Consequently , on DATE the PERSON public prosecutor informed the applicant that he had DATE in which to apply to the public prosecutor 's office for his incarceration . That decision was served on the applicant on DATE .

According to a medical report issued by ORG on DATE , an analysis of the applicant did not reveal any atypical cells and his illness had not progressed . The report further stated that the applicant was under medical supervision in case of a relapse .

On DATE the applicant applied to the PERSON public prosecutor 's office for the suspension of his prison sentence . He challenged the veracity of the medical report issued by ORG on DATE and claimed that he would face the risk of a relapse if he were returned to prison . He stated that in order to provide for his children he had been trying to reactivate his company and that he needed a further DATE .

On DATE his application was dismissed by the PERSON public prosecutor 's office . On DATE the applicant was incarcerated at PERSON open - farm prison .

On DATE the applicant was transferred to the prison clinic for a check - up .

On DATE the PERSON public prosecutor decided that , in view of the conflicting reports issued by ORG on DATE and by ORG on DATE , the applicant 's case should be examined by ORG . The public prosecutor considered that , since the date of the meeting of ORG was not known , it was appropriate to suspend the execution of the applicant 's sentence for DATE . The applicant was released on DATE .

On DATE ORG of ORG , after examining the medical reports concerning the applicant , concluded that , at the time of its decision , he did not fulfil the requirements of LAW CARDINAL of the LAW . It further stated that in the event of any change in the applicant 's medical condition it would reconsider its decision .

In the meantime , on DATE , the new Criminal Code was adopted by ORG .

On DATE ORG reviewed the applicant 's sentence in the light of the provisions of the new LAW resulting from Law no . CARDINAL and decided to suspend the execution of his sentence pending the entry into force of LAW on DATE .

On DATE ORG submitted to the PERSON public prosecutor a report dated DATE by PERSON , the head of its oncology department . In the report PERSON , referring to the medical reports drafted by the doctors at the hospital of ORG , submitted that the applicant presented certain symptoms resulting from the various treatments he had received , but no symptoms of lung cancer . Accordingly , he concluded that the applicant had recovered from lung cancer . He held , however , that as there was a small risk of recurrence , the applicant should be kept under medical supervision for a further DATE .

In a letter dated CARDINAL DATE the applicant informed the ORG that he was still under medical supervision in ORG . He also submitted that no further decisions had been taken by the national authorities as regards his return to prison . Finally , the applicant stated that , at the request of the public prosecutor , he had submitted the results of his latest medical tests to the authorities .

“ The execution of penalties restricting the liberty of a person suffering from mental disease shall be postponed until the patient has recovered .

The same provision shall apply in the event of any other illness which would constitute a serious danger to the life of the convicted person in the event of the execution of a sentence restricting liberty . ”

“ The President of the Republic is the head of ORG ...

To this end , the duties he or she shall perform , and the powers he or she shall exercise , in accordance with the conditions laid down in the relevant Articles of the LAW , are as follows :

... to remit , on grounds of chronic illness , disability or old age , all or part of the sentences imposed on certain individuals ... ”

Law no . CARDINAL , adopted on DATE , concerns the rules and procedures to be applied during the transitional period pending the entry into force of the new LAW . It provides for a review of the suspension of the execution of sentences in respect of convictions which became final before DATE , if the provisions of the new Criminal Code are more favourable to the convicted person .


Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial

Karel Jungwiert;Mark Villiger;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Peer Lorenzen;Rait Maruste;Stanislav Shevchuk;Zdravka Kalaydjieva

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

In DATE Mr PERSON , the father of the applicant ’s grandson , exchanged his share in the apartment in which he cohabited with his parents , for the apartment of PERSON , his grandmother , who moved in with his parents . This transaction was recorded in a residential premises exchange bureau ( бюро обміну житловими приміщеннями ) , but was not certified by a notary .

In DATE Mr PERSON gave the applicant a power of attorney authorising her to manage all his property .

NORP In DATE the applicant , acting on the basis of this power of attorney , sold the apartment Mr GPE had acquired from PERSON to PERSON Y. S. , the applicant ’s former husband , who in DATE sold it on to Mr V. K.

On DATE Mr I. M. instituted civil proceedings in FAC of Odessa ( “ the FAC ” ) against the applicant , Mr Y. S. and Mr V. K. , seeking to annul the sales of his apartment , which he alleged had been effected in breach of confidence .

On DATE Mrs ORG lodged a claim against Mr I. M. , his parents , the applicant , Mr NORP Mr V. K. , seeking to annul the initial apartment exchange and subsequent sales . These proceedings were joined to the proceedings that had been brought by Mr I.M.

On DATE ORG dismissed PERSON I. M. ’s claim for breach of confidence and upheld PERSON I.S. ’s claim for the annulment of the exchange , considering that the exchange had not been certified by a notary in breach of applicable law . However , having found that PERSON V. ORG had purchased the apartment in good faith , the court declared him the lawful owner of the apartment and ordered the applicant and Mr Y. S. jointly to pay Mrs GPE compensation of CARDINAL NORP hryvnyas for the loss of the apartment . The applicant and PERSON Y. S. appealed in cassation .

On DATE Mrs GPE died .

On DATE the ORG authorised PERSON to join the proceedings as PERSON I.S. ’s successor .

On DATE it quashed the judgment of CARDINAL DATE as regards the amount of compensation awarded against the applicant and Mr PERSON finding that the first - instance court had insufficiently explored the relevant evidence , and remitted the case for a fresh consideration .

On DATE ORG ordered the applicant and PERSON Y. S. to pay PERSON CARDINAL in compensation for the loss of the apartment . The applicant and Mr Y. S. appealed .

On DATE ORG quashed that judgment and remitted the case for fresh consideration . The applicant and PERSON Y. S. appealed in cassation .

On DATE ORG rejected their request for leave to appeal in cassation .

On several occasions the applicant and her husband unsuccessfully challenged the decision to allow PERSON to join the proceedings .

On DATE ORG ordered the applicant and Mr PERSON to pay PERSON CARDINAL in compensation for the loss of the apartment .

On DATE the ORG upheld that judgment . The applicant and PERSON Y. S. appealed in cassation .

On DATE ORG upheld the judgments of the lower courts .

On DATE the applicant instituted civil proceedings in ORG of Odessa , alleging that Mr I. M. had failed to repay her MONEY ( ORG ) he had received as a loan .

On DATE the court heard the case in the defendant ’s absence and allowed the applicant ’s claim . It noted , in particular , that the defendant had systematically ignored its orders summoning him to the hearings . This judgment was not appealed against and became final .

On DATE the Presidium of the ORG quashed that judgment following an objection ( протест ) instituted by the Deputy President and remitted the case for fresh consideration . The ORG confirmed that the defendant had been duly notified of the hearings . However , it considered that the interests of justice required his presence in order to clarify ambiguities as to the nature and terms of the agreement between the parties .

On DATE ORG decided to hear the case in the defendant ’s absence in view of his repeated refusals to accept service of the summons . It dismissed the applicant ’s claim . The applicant appealed .

On DATE ORG quashed that judgment , after finding the evidence that the defendant had been duly notified of the hearings unpersuasive . Subsequently , the proceedings were transferred to LOC ( FAC ) .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s claim after hearing evidence from both parties . It found that the applicant had failed to prove that Mr I. M. owed her the money claimed .

On DATE ORG quashed that judgment and remitted the case for fresh consideration . Mr I. M. appealed in cassation .

On DATE ORG rejected Mr I. M. ’s request for leave to appeal in cassation .

On DATE the first - instance court terminated the proceedings since the parties failed to appear . The applicant appealed .

On DATE ORG quashed the ruling of DATE .

On DATE the first - instance court allowed the applicant ’s claim in part .


CASE OF MOUVEMENT RAËLIEN SUISSE v. SWITZERLAND

Preliminary objection dismissed (Article 35-3 - Manifestly ill-founded);No violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression -{General} (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression)

András Sajó;Ann Power-Forde;Christos Rozakis;Corneliu Bîrsan;Dean Spielmann;Egbert Myjer;Françoise Tulkens;Ganna Yudkivska;George Nicolaou;Giorgio Malinverni;Helen Keller;Josep Casadevall;Khanlar Hajiyev;Kristina Pardalos;Ledi Bianku;Mark Villiger;Mihai Poalelungi;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Nebojša Vučinić;Nicolas Bratza;Päivi Hirvelä;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Sverre Erik Jebens

The applicant association , which was set up in DATE , is a non - profit association registered in PERSON ( GPE of GPE ) . It is the national branch of ORG , an organisation based in GPE and founded in DATE by PERSON , known as “ PERSON ” . According to its constitution , its aim is to make the first contacts and establish good relations with extraterrestrials .

According to the information available on the applicant association ’s website at the time of the adoption of the present judgment , ORG doctrine is based on PERSON ’s alleged contact with the “ Elohim ” , extraterrestrials with “ advanced technology ” , who are said to have created life on earth and a number of world religions , including NORP , ORG and ORG . ORG followers believe that scientific and technical progress is of fundamental importance and that cloning and the “ transfer of conscience ” will enable man to become immortal . In that connection ORG has expressed opinions in favour of human cloning .

NORP Some texts of ORG or works written by PERSON himself advocate a system of government called “ geniocracy ” , a doctrine whereby power should be entrusted only to those individuals who have the highest level of intellect .

In his book Sensual Meditation Raël defines this concept as an “ instruction manual ” given to humans by extraterrestrials , enabling each person “ to discover his / her body and especially to learn how to use it to enjoy sounds , colors , smells , tastes , caresses , and particularly a sexuality felt with all one ’s senses , so as to experience the cosmic orgasm , infinite and absolute , which illuminates the mind by linking the one who reaches it with the universes he / she is composed of and composes ” .

On DATE the applicant association requested authorisation from the police administration for the city of ORG ( the “ police administration ” ) to conduct a poster campaign in the period DATE . The poster in question , measuring QUANTITY by QUANTITY , featured in the upper part the following wording in large yellow characters on a dark blue background : “ The Message from Extraterrestrials ” ; in the lower part of the poster , in characters of the same size but in bolder type , the address of ORG website , together with a telephone number in GPE , could be seen ; at the very bottom was the phrase “ Science at last replaces religion ” . The middle of the poster was taken up by pictures of extraterrestrials’ faces and a pyramid , together with a flying saucer and the LOC .

On DATE the police administration denied authorisation , referring to CARDINAL previous refusals . It had been indicated in a NORP parliamentary report on sects , dating from DATE , and in a judgment of the president of ORG for the district of GPE Sarine ( GPE of GPE ) , that ORG engaged in activities that were contrary to public order ( ordre public ) and immoral .

In a decision of DATE the municipal council of the city of ORG dismissed an appeal from the applicant association , finding that it could not rely on the protection of religious freedom because it was to be regarded as a dangerous sect . The interference with freedom of expression had been based on LAW ( the “ Regulations ” ) ; its purpose was to protect the public interest and it was proportionate , since the organisation advocated , among other things , human cloning , “ geniocracy ” and “ sensual meditation ” .

On DATE the ORG upheld that decision . It noted that , for ORG , life on earth had been created by extraterrestrials , who were also the founders of the various religions and were capable of saving the world , and accepted that this amounted to a religious conviction protected by freedom of conscience and belief . It further accepted that the Regulations constituted a sufficient legal basis in such matters . The ORG observed that there was nothing offensive in the text and picture on the poster , or in the allusion to extraterrestrials . However , it pointed to the fact that ORG advocated “ geniocracy ” ( a political model based on intelligence ) and human cloning . Moreover , in a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG had found that the movement also “ theoretically ” advocated paedophilia and incest , especially in the works of PERSON himself . The practice of “ sensual meditation ” could also easily lead to abuse . In addition , the website of PERSON , to which ORG site contained a link , offered specific services in the area of cloning , and the notion of eugenics was contrary to the principle of non - discrimination . The poster campaign was prejudicial to morals and to the rights of others . In any event , ORG had other means by which to disseminate its ideas .

The applicant association appealed to ORG for ORG . It claimed , among other things , that the mere defence of “ geniocracy ” , cloning and sensual meditation were not offensive opinions . Moreover , it argued that the movement denounced paedophilia through its association GPE . The refusal to authorise its poster thus amounted purely and simply to censorship , especially as the applicant association ’s website was , in any event , accessible through a search engine .

In a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG dismissed the appeal , after acknowledging , however , that the applicant association defended a global vision of the world and was entitled to both freedom of opinion and religious freedom . It found first that the impugned measure was based on ORG , which constituted a law in the substantive sense , and that the poster had to be assessed in relation to the message conveyed by the books and websites that could be accessed from the movement ’s website . The services proposed by PERSON were manifestly contrary to NORP public order . The court further observed that criminal complaints had been filed against ORG alleging the existence of sexual practices that were intended to systematically corrupt young teenagers . The content of the works on “ geniocracy ” and “ sensual meditation ” could lead certain adults to sexually abuse children , the child being described in certain works as a “ privileged sexual object ” . The comments on “ geniocracy ” and the criticisms of contemporary democracies were likely to undermine public order , safety and morality . For those reasons ORG concluded that it was not justifiable to authorise the dissemination of such ideas on the public highway .

NORP The applicant association lodged a public - law appeal against that judgment with ORG , requesting that it be set aside and that the case be referred back to the respondent authority for a new decision .

In a judgment of DATE , served on the applicant association on DATE , ORG dismissed the appeal . The relevant passages read as follows :

“ The ORG , and subsequently ORG , acknowledged that the [ applicant ] association could rely on the right to freedom of religion ( Art . CARDINAL of the LAW , Art . CARDINAL ORG and Art . CARDINAL UN Covenant II ) , in so far as it defended a global vision of the world , especially as regards its creation and the origin of the various religions . ORG disputes this , noting that the aim of the [ applicant ] association as defined in LAW , is not religious in nature . According to a report on ‘ sects’ produced in DATE for ORG , ORG is classified among the movements that present dangers for the individual , especially on account of the excessive financial demands made of its members and practices that cause bodily harm , and also dangers for the community , in particular through an antisocial discourse . Many of the movement ’s publications contain passages described as offensive .

There is no need to ascertain whether a religious movement may , on account of the dangers it represents , be precluded from relying on the right to freedom of religion , or whether the [ applicant ] association presents such dangers . Indeed , the parties agree that the [ applicant ] is entitled to rely on the right to freedom of opinion . As to the conditions in which such freedom may be restricted , as laid down in LAW , it makes little difference whether LAW is relied on ( see also LAW and LAW ) . The [ applicant][applicant ] relies on the principles of proportionality and public interest , without distinction as to the constitutional right invoked .

CARDINAL According to case - law , citizens do not have an unconditional right to an extended use of public space , in particular when a means of advertising on the public highway involves activity of a certain scale and duration , and excludes any similar use by third parties ( ORG judgment CARDINAL I CARDINAL point CARDINALc / aa p. CARDINAL and the judgments cited therein ) . When it wishes to grant authorisation for extended or private use of public space , or when it supervises the conditions under which a licence is used , the ORG must nevertheless take into account , in balancing the interests at stake , the substantive content of the right to freedom of expression ( ORG judgment CARDINAL Ia CARDINAL point CARDINAL p. CARDINAL ) .

CARDINAL In the present case , the grounds given by ORG to confirm the refusal by GPE relate to respect for morality and the NORP legal order . ORG took the view that it was necessary to take into account not only the content of the poster but also the ideas conveyed by ORG , together with the works and websites that could be accessed from the movement ’s website . CARDINAL different criticisms are thus directed against the [ applicant ] association . Firstly , the [ applicant ] association ’s website contains a link to that of PERSON , via which this company offers specific cloning - related services to the general public and announced , in DATE , the birth of cloned babies . Cloning is prohibited under NORP law , pursuant to Art . CARDINAL of the LAW and to ORG ( RS CARDINAL ) . Secondly , ORG referred to a judgment of ORG , which mentioned possible sexual abuse of children . Numerous members of the movement had , moreover , been investigated by the police because of their sexual practices . Thirdly , the promotion of ‘ GPE , a doctrine according to which power should be given to the most intelligent individuals , and the criticism consequently directed at contemporary democracies , was likely to undermine the maintaining of public order , safety and morality .

CARDINAL The [ applicant ] no longer contests , at this stage , the existence of a sufficient legal basis , namely , in this case , LAW . A municipal by - law offers the same guarantees , in terms of democratic legitimacy , as a Cantonal law , and thus constitutes a sufficient legal basis ( judgment MONEY of DATE , point CARDINAL , ORG judgment CARDINAL I xxx ; ORG judgment CARDINAL I CARDINAL , point CARDINAL , p. CARDINAL ; CARDINAL GPE CARDINAL , point CARDINAL , pp . CARDINAL - CARDINAL and the references cited therein ) . The [ applicant ] invokes , however , the principle of public interest and criticises the respondent authorities for going beyond the content of the poster and engaging in an assessment of the [ applicant ] association ’s activities . It argues that if it had generally engaged in conduct that was immoral or in breach of public order , it would have been dissolved by the courts pursuant to Article CARDINAL of LAW . If no decision had been taken to that effect , it would not be possible to prohibit it from publicising its philosophy and world vision .

CARDINAL The poster in itself does not contain anything , either in its text or in its illustrations , that was unlawful or likely to offend the general public . Above the central drawing representing extra - terrestrials appears the text ‘ The Message from Extraterrestrials’ , without any explanation . Below that , the [ applicant ] association ’s website address and a telephone number are printed in bolder type . The phrase ‘ Science at last replaces ORG is admittedly capable of offending the religious beliefs of certain persons , but it is merely the expression of the movement ’s doctrine and can not be described as particularly provocative .

The poster as a whole can thus clearly be seen as an invitation to visit the website of the [ applicant ] association or to contact it by telephone . Faced with such advertising , the authority must examine not only the acceptability of the advertisement ’s message as such , but also that of its content . It is therefore legitimate to ascertain whether the website in question might contain information , data or links capable of offending people or of infringing the law .

Moreover , contrary to the [ applicant ] ’s allegation , an association may be criticised for opinions or activities which , without constituting grounds for dissolution within the meaning of LAW , nevertheless justify a restriction on advertising .

CARDINAL As regards cloning , it was not the opinions expressed by the [ applicant ] association in favour of such practices ( particularly in the book Yes to Human Cloning , published in DATE and available via the [ applicant ] ’s website ) that were penalised , but the link with the company PERSON , set up by the association itself , which offers various practical services in this area for payment . The issue is thus not simply , contrary to what the [ applicant ] has argued , the expression of a favourable opinion of cloning , protected by LAW , but the practice of that activity , in breach of its prohibition under LAW ( a ) of LAW . That provision , accepted in DATE by the majority of the population and of GPE ( in the form of LAW novies ( a ) of the LAW ) , falls in particular within a policy of protection of human dignity , according to the conception thereof that is generally shared in this country ( FF DATE III CARDINAL ; see also the response of ORG to a question from PERSON of DATE ) . The [ applicant ] does not contest the unlawfulness of human cloning , especially if it is carried out for commercial gain ( section CARDINAL Medically Assisted Reproduction Act ; Art . CARDINAL § CARDINAL ( e ) of the LAW ) . Nor can it seriously contest the fact that the link to the PERSON website contributes to the promotion of an unlawful activity , and goes further than the mere expression of an opinion . On that first point , which already justifies the decision under appeal , the [ applicant ] has not put forward any real relevant argument within the meaning of section CARDINAL § CARDINAL ( b ) of LAW .

CARDINAL On DATE the Intercantonal Beliefs Information Centre provided information on ORG . This information shows , among other things , that the movement apparently has a political mission . Virulently attacking democracies , which are referred to as ‘ mediocracies’ , it defends the notion of ‘ GPE , a political model based on ORG level of intelligence . A world government would consist of geniuses , elected by individuals whose intelligence is PERCENT higher than average . Admittedly , ‘ GPE is presented as a utopia and not as a genuine political project ; contrary to the finding of ORG , this doctrine does not appear likely to undermine public order or safety .

However , apart from the fact that the doctrine appears to be largely inspired by eugenics , it is manifestly capable of offending the democratic and anti - discriminatory convictions that underpin the rule of law ( see , in particular , the wording of the preamble to LAW of DATE , together with LAW concerning equality and the prohibition of discrimination ) .

CARDINAL.CARDINAL.CARDINAL Lastly , according to the judgment under appeal , it can not be considered that ORG advocates paedophilia . However , numerous members have apparently been investigated by the police on account of their sexual practices . According to a judgment delivered on DATE by ORG Sarine , concerning a right of reply requested by ORG , the remarks made by PERSON in his works could lead certain adults to commit acts of sexual abuse against children . The judgment quotes extracts from works by PERSON that can be downloaded from the website of the [ applicant ] association , according to which the sexual education of children should not only be theoretical but should consist of a sensual education aimed at showing them how to derive pleasure from it . That judgment further indicates that , notwithstanding the denial subsequently issued on this point , certain articles published in the DATE newsletter Apocalypse described the child as a ‘ privileged sexual object’ . Lastly , it is stated that a friend and a member of ORG were convicted by ORG and sentenced to DATE imprisonment for sexually assaulting a DATE girl . The judgment was confirmed on CARDINAL DATE by ORG . An ordinary appeal and a public - law appeal by ORG were dismissed on DATE by ORG , having regard in particular to the equivocal writings of the movement ’s founder or members ( judgments ORG and PERSON ) .

The case - file , moreover , contains various documents concerning criminal proceedings brought against members of the [ applicant association ] for sexual assault . A judgment of DATE of ORG clearly shows that acts of sexual abuse were committed by leaders of the movement against minors . The movement ’s leaders are thus said to have advocated ‘ a broad sexual freedom strongly encouraging commission of the act’ ; they had thus corrupted young teenagers by supposedly philosophical discourse , by increasingly specific sexual fondling and by inciting them more and more forcefully , in order to satisfy ‘ their sexual needs and fantasies with young girls who had just turned DATE , and who were changing partners very quickly’ .

The fact that the impugned articles date from DATE and that there has been no conviction in GPE does not negate the involvement of members of the [ applicant ] association in acts leading to criminal sanctions . The [ applicant ] does not dispute the fact that certain passages in the books available via its website could lead adults to abuse children . On that point also , the [ applicant ] ’s arguments do not address the grounds set out in the decision under appeal . Since acts of abuse have indeed been recorded on the part of certain members of ORG , the argument that paedophilia is strongly condemned by the movement ’s official doctrine is not decisive .

CARDINAL Having regard to the foregoing , the refusal issued to the [ applicant ] appears to be justified by sufficient public - interest grounds , because it is necessary to prevent the commission of acts constituting criminal offences under NORP law ( reproductive cloning and sexual acts with children ) . Moreover , certain passages in the works available via the [ applicant ] ’s website ( in particular about the ‘ sensual LOC of children , and ‘ GPE ) are likely to be seriously offensive to readers .

CARDINAL The [ applicant ] invokes the principle of proportionality . It points out that the poster itself contains nothing that is contrary to public order , and maintains that the measure is not appropriate to the aim pursued .

CARDINAL In accordance with LAW , any restriction on a fundamental right must be proportionate to the aim pursued . It must be appropriate to the fulfilment of that aim and any damage to private interests must be kept to a minimum ( ORG judgment CARDINAL I CARDINAL , point CARDINAL , p. CARDINAL , and the references cited therein ) .

CARDINAL.CARDINAL.CARDINAL In the present case , the public interest does not only consist in limiting the publicity given to the [ applicant ] association ’s website , in view of the reservations expressed above about public order and morality ; it is even more important to ensure that the ORG does not provide any support for such publicity by making public space available for it , which might suggest that it endorses or tolerates the opinions or conduct in question . From that perspective , the prohibition of the posters is appropriate to the aim pursued . Furthermore , the measure criticised by the [ applicant ] is confined to the display of posters in public spaces . The [ applicant ] association remains free to express its beliefs by many other means of communication at its disposal ( see the PERSON judgment of DATE , ORG CARDINAL-IX , p. CARDINAL , § CARDINAL ) .

CARDINAL.CARDINAL.CARDINAL The [ applicant ] takes the view that the authority should have suggested that it make changes to the poster in order to make the content acceptable . However , even though it was aware of the objections raised against its poster campaign , the [ applicant ] itself never proposed a version of the poster that was likely to be authorised . ORG , for its part , found that the poster should be prohibited even without the reference to the website , but this seems questionable ; there is no doubt , however , that the removal of the address in question would deprive the poster campaign of its object , which , as has been shown , is essentially to advertise the website itself . It is therefore difficult to see what comprehensible meaning the poster could have had without that reference to the website and to the telephone number .

CARDINAL.CARDINAL.CARDINAL The impugned measure therefore respects the principle of proportionality , in all its aspects . It constitutes , for the same reasons , a restriction that is necessary ‘ in a democratic society’ , in particular for the protection of morals , within the meaning of LAW and LAW ORG . ”

Posters of a similar design to that concerned by the present case – also containing ORG website address and a telephone number but a different text , namely “ The true face of God ” – were authorised in DATE in a number of NORP cities such as GPE and GPE . The applicant association was also able to conduct further campaigns with posters of other designs – some of which indicated ORG website address DATE in various NORP towns and cities other than ORG . However , in DATE , the town council of ORG refused to authorise a poster that the applicant association wished to display with the wording “ God does not exist ” .

Article CARDINAL of LAW of DATE concerns reproductive medicine and gene technology involving human beings . That provision reads as follows :

“ Human beings shall be protected against the misuse of reproductive medicine and gene technology .

The ORG shall legislate on the use of human reproductive and genetic material . In doing so , it shall ensure the protection of human dignity , privacy and the family and shall adhere in particular to the following principles :

( a ) All forms of cloning and interference with the genetic material of human reproductive cells and embryos are unlawful .

( b ) Non - human reproductive and genetic material may neither be introduced into nor combined with human reproductive material .

( c ) Methods of medically assisted reproduction may be used only if infertility or the risk of transmitting a serious illness can not otherwise be overcome , but not in order to conceive a child with specific characteristics or for research purposes ; the fertilisation of human egg cells outside a woman ’s body is permitted only under the conditions laid down by the law ; no more human egg cells may be developed into embryos outside a woman ’s body than are capable of being immediately implanted .

( d ) The donation of embryos and all forms of surrogate motherhood are unlawful .

( e ) Trade in human reproductive material and in products obtained from embryos is prohibited .

( f ) The genetic material of a person may be analysed , registered or made public only with the consent of the person concerned or if the law so provides .

( g ) Everyone shall have access to data relating to their ancestry . ”

In a response of CARDINAL DATE to a ORG Member , who had asked whether measures should be taken against ORG under paragraph ( a ) of that LAW , ORG stated :

“ As , in GPE , ORG is merely calling for the social recognition of cloning techniques – or for the lifting of the ban on cloning – its activity falls within the freedom of opinion ... ”

In ORG , as in other NORP municipalities , the management of posters in public areas is entrusted to a private company . The municipal council granted such company a concession for this purpose under LAW of DATE , of which the relevant provisions read as follows :

“ CARDINAL . The installation of billboards and advertising panels in public areas , and in private areas visible from public areas , shall be subject to authorisation .

Such authorisation shall be granted only if the urban - planning and safety conditions are satisfied . ”

“ CARDINAL . The Police may prohibit posters that are unlawful or immoral .

Flyposting shall be prohibited . ”

“ An exclusive right in respect of posters displayed within the area of the municipality may be granted by the municipal council . ”

The Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Dignity of the Human Being with regard to ORG , also known as LAW ” , opened for signature on DATE in GPE ( the “ FAC ” ) , entered into force on DATE . It has applied to GPE since DATE .

The Additional Protocol to LAW , opened for signature on DATE in GPE , entered into force on DATE and has been applicable to GPE since DATE . It prohibits “ any intervention seeking to create a human being genetically identical to another human being , whether living or dead ” .


Violation of Art. 10;Costs and expenses award - domestic proceedings;Costs and expenses award - Convention proceedings

Autronic AG is a limited company incorporated under NORP law and has its head office at GPE ( GPE of GPE ) . It specialises in electronics and in particular sells QUANTITY - diameter dish aerials for home use .

ORG Its application relates to the reception in GPE of uncoded television programmes made and broadcast in GPE . They are transmitted to the NORP satellite ORG ( also called PERSON ) , which sends them back to receiving earth stations on NORP territory , and these in turn distribute them to users . The satellite is a telecommunications satellite and not a direct - broadcasting CARDINAL : it provides a fixed point - to - point radiocommunication service ( number CARDINAL of LAW - see paragraph CARDINAL below ) and uses the frequencies allotted to radiocommunications . It also transmits telephone conversations , telexes or telegrams and data .

ORG In DATE the only television broadcasts by satellite that could be received in GPE by means of a dish aerial were those from ORG .

ORG In DATE applied to ORG of ORG of the national ORG ( PTT ) . It requested permission to give a showing at ORG ( GPE ) from CARDINAL to DATE of the public television programme that it received direct from ORG by means of a private dish aerial , its object being to give a demonstration of the technical capabilities of the equipment in order to promote sales of it .

The ORG wrote to GPE embassy in GPE , which on DATE conveyed the NORP authorities’ consent for the duration of the fair .

ORG On DATE ORG made a similar approach in order to give demonstrations at the ORG exhibition , which was to be held in GPE from DATE to CARDINAL DATE and covered the latest developments in radio , television and electronics .

ORG again applied to the NORP embassy , but did not receive a reply . On CARDINAL and DATE and on DATE it informed ORG that without the express consent of the NORP authorities it could not allow reception of the ORG broadcasts and that ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) required it to prevent such reception .

As Autronic AG was anxious to give further demonstrations , it applied to ORG , on CARDINAL DATE , for a declaratory ruling ( GPE ) that , in particular , reception for private use of uncoded television programmes from satellites such as ORG should not require the consent of the broadcasting ORG ’s authorities .

ORG The applicant company relied on several arguments : the confidentiality of a programme could not depend on the use of particular frequencies ; numbers DATE of ORG gave no indication of which kind of broadcast was to be kept confidential ; reception of radio and television programmes intended for and accessible to the general public could be made subject only to the award of a licence under NORP law , which was available to everybody ; and , lastly , the reception in question did not infringe NORP legislation on intellectual property , because while programmes taken individually could have the status of " works " , the same was not true of a whole schedule .

ORG On DATE ORG rejected the applicant company ’s application , stating that it could not grant a receiving licence without the consent of the broadcasting ORG ’s authorities .

ORG The ORG noted that only duly approved earth stations were entitled to receive signals from telecommunications satellites . In this connection it referred to number CARDINAL of ORG , under which each national authority could assign certain frequencies to point - to - point radiocommunications provided that the broadcasts were not intended for direct reception by the general public .

It also stressed the difference between broadcasting satellites and telecommunications satellites . The former transmitted radio and television programmes to an undefined number of receiving stations within a given area , on frequencies expressly reserved for direct reception , while the latter were covered by the secrecy of broadcasts which all member GPE were obliged to ensure under LAW and numbers DATE of ORG ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL below ) . It added , lastly ( translation from NORP ) :

" As to whether a broadcast is intended for direct reception by the general public , the decisive factor is accordingly not the content of the radiocommunication transmitted ( a television programme , for example ) but the mode of its transmission , in other words its classification as a telecommunication . It follows that radio or television programmes transmitted via a telecommunications satellite can not be received in a country unless the telecommunications authority of the broadcasting ORG ... has given its permission to the telecommunications authority of the receiving ORG . This will ensure compliance with the provisions on the secrecy of telecommunications . There is no apparent reason why telecommunications authorities should not be able to keep certain radiocommunications secret since they are under an obligation to ensure that the provisions of ORG and of ORG are complied with . "

ORG On DATE lodged an appeal ( Beschwerde ) against ORG decision but this was rejected by ORG on DATE .

ORG began by holding that it had jurisdiction and that the company had an interest , worthy of protection , in having the disputed decision set aside under section CARDINAL of LAW .

It went on to set out its reasons for dismissing the appeal . Protection of the material information could not depend on whether the broadcasts were intended for the general public , since as a rule it was not known , at the time of transmission by telecommunications satellites , which broadcasts were intended for general use . Furthermore , LAW secured only the right to receive information from generally accessible sources , which telecommunications satellites were not . Lastly , it was irrelevant that the broadcasts were ultimately intended for general use , as the obligation to keep the transmitted data secret subsisted at the time of broadcasting .

ORG On DATE lodged an administrative - law appeal with ORG against the decision of ORG of the PTT . It applied to have that decision set aside and sought a judgment which would clarify the legal situation for the future ; it asked the court in particular to rule that reception for private use of uncoded broadcasts emanating from telecommunications satellites and intended for the general public should not be subject to the broadcasting ORG ’s consent .

ORG In reply to a request for information made by ORG of ORG of the NORP PTT , ORG GPE said the following in a telex of DATE :

" With reference to your letter of DATE , we should like to inform you that the programmes transmitted by ‘ ORG CARDINAL’ [ ORG ] are not satellite broadcasts intended for foreign countries . The programmes are intended for NORP television viewers and are our internal affair . On the other hand , we have no technical means of preventing them from reaching other countries , particularly GPE . As regards the international use of the signal , only discussion and settlement of the problem at world level will provide a solution . "

ORG On DATE ORG put a number of questions to the parties about the factual and legal position . ORG of the PTT replied on DATE and the applicant company on DATE .

ORG On DATE the rapporteur informed ORG that ORG had not yet been able to consider the appeal and that the company had until DATE to submit any further observations .

ORG On DATE ORG sent the GPE telecommunications authorities the following telex :

In connection with the judgment of a request , we would like to know on which conditions reception of TV programmes via telecommunications satellites is permitted in the GPE . Please let us also know if the NORP communications satellite ORG is received in your country ( by cable operators ) .

The GPE authorities replied on DATE as follows :

" ... The conditions for reception of TV programmes by cable operators in the GPE seem to be quite similar to those in your country .

The GPE PTT issues licences to cable operators , separate for each particular TV program . With such a licence the operator can install his own TVRO antenna , although it is advisable for him to consult with PTT for frequency co - ordination purposes in order to avoid interference from terrestrial microwaves .

DATE some reception of the ORG satellite did indeed take place .

This was considered illegal because of the absence of agreements with the GPE program provider and satellite operator , and the cable operators were so informed .

In response to a similar request for information , the NORP telecommunications authorities stated the following on DATE :

We have permission from ORG of GPE to receive as an experiment the [ ORG ] signal up to CARDINAL . Authorization for distribution has been given in CARDINAL cases so far . "

ORG gave judgment on DATE and served the text on ORG on DATE .

The court held that the appellant company was seeking a review in the abstract of the legal position , whereas in reality it could only complain of the ban on receiving the disputed broadcasts during the PERSON exhibition . There was , however , no point in ruling on the admissibility of the appeal , since at all events the company had failed to show that it had an interest worthy of protection .

Apart from ORG , there was no other satellite over LOC at the time whose broadcasts were receivable by means of a domestic dish aerial . ORG picked up the signals from the NORP satellite because there was no alternative source . As long as this situation continued , there would be practically no market for such equipment and only " eccentrics " ( GPE ) would be inclined to buy it . Although CARDINAL other satellites - CARDINAL NORP and CARDINAL NORP - were to be launched , it remained unclear how they would be used and it was impossible to assess either the interest that direct reception of their broadcasts would arouse or the number of dish aerials that would come into use .

ORG concluded that as it had failed to adduce evidence of any direct economic interest , the applicant company had no interest worthy of protection . It therefore refused to determine the merits of the case .

ORG At the present time , there are still only a handful of direct - broadcasting satellites , whereas there are CARDINAL telecommunications satellites such as ORG , covering all or part of western LOC and broadcasting all kinds of uncoded programmes intended for the general public .

ORG Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL of LAW guarantees " inviolability of the secrecy of letters and telegrams " .

ORG The relevant provisions of LAW of DATE regulating telegraph and telephone communications are as follows :

" ORG shall have the exclusive right to set up and operate transmitting and receiving equipment or equipment of any kind for the electric or radio transmission of signals , images or sounds . "

" The competent authority shall be able to issue licences for setting up and operating equipment for the electric and radio transmission of signals , images and sounds . "

" The provisions required for the implementation of this Act shall be incorporated into the Ordinance on telegraphs and telephones to be enacted by ORG and in the detailed regulations ... "

ORG On DATE ORG enacted Ordinance no . CARDINAL relating to LAW ; among other things the ORG laid down the scope of television licences :

" CARDINAL . ORG I for television - receiving equipment shall entitle the holder to operate equipment for the private reception , by means of radio waves or by electric wire , of NORP and foreign public television broadcasts .

Reception of television broadcasts on LOC which are not accessible to the public shall be deemed to be private .

The licence - holder may himself install his equipment for receiving broadcasts by means of radio waves .

A special licence must be held in order to exercise rights vested in the ORG other than those mentioned in DATE , in particular in order to demonstrate how receiving equipment works , to install receiving equipment in the homes of third parties and to arrange for public reception of broadcasts . "

The revised text of Ordinance no . CARDINAL , which was enacted on CARDINAL DATE , came into force on DATE . Although it does not apply in the instant case , several of its provisions are worth quoting :

" Licences may be refused where there is good reason to suppose that the telecommunications equipment will be used for a purpose that is

( a ) unlawful ;

( b ) contrary to public morals or public policy ; or

( c ) prejudicial to the higher interests of the country , of ORG or of broadcasting . "

" Radio- and television - receiving licences shall authorise their holders to receive NORP and foreign radio broadcasts privately or publicly . "

" A community - antenna licence shall entitle the holder to :

( a ) Operate the local distribution network defined in the licence and rebroadcast by this means radio and television programmes from transmitters which comply with the provisions of LAW of DATE and ORG and with those of the international conventions and agreements concluded within ORG ;

( f ) Transmit programmes and special broadcasting services which , on the authorisation of ORG , which itself requires the ORG ’s consent , are received from telecommunications satellites ;

" The authorisation referred to in LAW ( f ) shall be granted where the appropriate telecommunications authority has given its consent and none of the grounds for refusal provided for in LAW exist . "

ORG On DATE ORG submitted to ORG , by means of a communication , a draft decree of general application on satellite broadcasting . The decree , enacted on DATE and effective from CARDINAL DATE , contained an LAW concerning foreign programmes , which was worded as follows :

" CARDINAL . A licence from the [ appropriate federal ] department shall be required in order to retransmit programmes broadcast by satellite under a foreign licence .

Such a licence shall be granted where this is not contrary to the country ’s higher interests and where

( a ) the PTT finds that the requirements of NORP and international telecommunications law are satisfied ;

The department may refuse to grant a licence where a ORG whose licensing system allows a programme does not accept the retransmission on its territory of programmes broadcast under a NORP licence . "

ORG The International Telecommunication Convention , which was concluded in DATE within ORG and has been revised several times , came into force on DATE and has been ratified by all ORG member GPE . In GPE it has been published in full in the Official Collection of Federal Statutes ( DATE , p. CARDINAL , and DATE , p. CARDINAL ) and in ORG ( CARDINAL ) .

Article CARDINAL , entitled " Secrecy of telecommunications " , provides :

" CARDINAL . Members agree to take all possible measures , compatible with the system of telecommunication used , with a view to ensuring the secrecy of international correspondence .

Nevertheless , they reserve the right to communicate such correspondence to the competent authorities in order to ensure the application of their internal laws or the execution of international conventions to which they are parties . "

Under LAW member GPE are bound to abide by the Convention and the Administrative Regulations in all telecommunications offices and stations established or operated by them which engage in international services or which are capable of causing harmful interference with radio services of other countries .

The Convention is complemented by CARDINAL sets of detailed administrative rules ( as indicated in DATE ) : ORG , LAW and ORG . Only LAW are relevant in the instant case .

ORG date from DATE and were likewise amended in DATE and also on other occasions . They run to CARDINAL pages and - except for numbers CARDINAL and CARDINAL - have not been published in ORG . The latter contains the following reference to them :

" The administrative regulations relating to LAW of DATE are not being published in ORG . They may be consulted at ORG , ORG and ORG , Viktoriastrasse CARDINAL , ORG , or may be obtained from the ORG , ORG , ORG , GPE . "

The following provisions are the ones relevant in the present case :

" ORG : A radiocommunication service between earth stations at specified fixed points when CARDINAL or more satellites are used ; in some cases this service includes satellite - to - satellite links , which may also be effected in the inter - satellite service ; the fixed - satellite service may also include feeder links for other space radiocommunication services . "

" ORG : A radiocommunication service in which signals transmitted or retransmitted by space stations are intended for direct reception by the general public .

In the broadcasting - satellite service , the term ‘ direct reception’ shall encompass both individual reception and community reception . "

" Any administration may assign a frequency in a band allocated to the fixed service or allocated to the fixed - satellite service to a station authorized to transmit , unilaterally , from one specified fixed point to CARDINAL or more specified fixed points provided that such transmissions are not intended to be received directly by the general public . "

" In the application of the appropriate provisions of the ORG , administrations bind themselves to take the necessary measures to prohibit and prevent :

( a ) the unauthorized interception of radiocommunications not intended for the general use of the public ;

( b ) the divulgence of the contents , simple disclosure of the existence , publication or any use whatever , without authorization , of information of any nature whatever obtained by the interception of the radiocommunications mentioned [ in sub - paragraph ( a ) ] "

ORG On DATE the Permanent Mission of Switzerland to the international organisations in GPE put CARDINAL questions to ORG , which replied on DATE , saying inter alia :

" CARDINAL . ORG With regard to this aspect of [ the ] practical pursuance [ of the principle of secrecy of telecommunications ] , it is ... important , indeed essential , to note also that no precise measures concerning practical ways of effectively ensuring such ‘ secrecy of ORG are prescribed by either the LAW or the ORG [ ORG ] , but that the ORG leave the choice of these practical measures to the administrations of the ORG ’s Members .

ORG That is how it is necessary to understand and interpret numbers DATE and DATE of the ORG , which stipulate that it is administrations that bind themselves to take the necessary measures to prohibit and prevent : ( a ) the unauthorised interception of radiocommunications not intended for the general use of the public ( ... that also applies , of course , to number DATE of the ORG ) .

ORG This means that it is for the administration of each of the Union ’s Members itself to take whatever measures it deems necessary to prohibit and prevent on its territory the unauthorised interception of the radiocommunications referred to in number DATE of the ORG . This , incidentally , is in accordance with the first principle laid down in the preamble to the LAW , which is worded as follows : " While fully recognising the sovereign right of each country to regulate its telecommunication ... " . In the case under consideration here ... , it is for ORG to put into effect GPE ’s undertaking to ensure the secrecy of telecommunications by whatever measures it itself considers necessary for the purpose . Such measures may , of course , be different from those regarded as necessary by the administrations of other Members of the ORG which have given the same undertaking .

ORG With regard , lastly , to the authorisation required for the interception of radiocommunications not intended for the general use of the public ... , it should be inferred from the terms of numbers DATE and DATE of the ORG that an administration which has committed itself to taking the necessary measures to prohibit and prevent such unauthorised interception in order to ensure the secrecy of telecommunications is also to be regarded as the CARDINAL empowered to give , where appropriate , the authorisation for such interception on its territory and hence to lay down the terms and conditions on which it grants such authorisation . In the case under consideration here ... it is therefore ORG that , with a view to ensuring the secrecy of telecommunications , should decide whether or not such authorisation is to be granted and lay down the terms and conditions it itself considers necessary for the purposes of that decision . By way of a conclusion and a final legal consequence , it should be borne in mind that what was stated in the preceding paragraph also applies , mutatis mutandis , in respect of the authorisation itself . "

ORG At a session held in GPE from DATE ORG adopted Recommendation T / TCARDINAL , which reads :

" The European Conference of Postal and Telecommunications Administrations , considering

( a ) ...

( b ) that fixed - satellite service signals are intended for reception only by known correspondents duly authorised under LAW appended to LAW ;

( c ) ...

( d ) that there is a risk that the technical development of small earth stations may facilitate the unauthorised reception and use of fixed - satellite service signals , particularly television signals , thus turning the fixed - satellite service into a broadcasting - satellite service , which would be unlawful under LAW and ORG ;

( e ) ...

( f ) ...

( g ) that all ORG Members are under an obligation to apply and enforce the provisions of ORG and ORG appended to the LAW ; ...

Recommends

that reception of these signals should be authorised only with the consent of ORG country in which the station transmitting to the satellite is situated and of that of the country in which the prospective receiving earth station is located ;

... " ( translation by the registry )

ORG LAW , which was drawn up within ORG and signed on CARDINAL DATE by GPE , including GPE , is not yet in force . DATE , entitled " Freedom of reception and of retransmission " , provides :

" The Parties shall ensure freedom of expression and information in accordance with LAW ) of ORG and they shall guarantee freedom of reception and shall not restrict the retransmission on their territories of programme services which comply with the terms of this Convention . "

ORG made a declaration to the effect that the ORG would apply the ORG provisionally , in accordance with LAW .


Giovanni Bonello;Ján Šikuta;Lech Garlicki;Ledi Bianku;Nicolas Bratza;Päivi Hirvelä

The applicant , Mr PERSON , is an NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in GPE . He was represented before the Court by Ms A. GPE , a senior welfare rights officer in GPE . ORG ( “ the Government ” ) were represented by their Agent , PERSON of ORG .

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

The applicant ’s wife died on DATE . On DATE , the applicant made a claim for widows’ benefits . On DATE the applicant was informed that his claim had been disallowed as he was not a woman . The applicant appealed and on DATE his appeal was rejected . The applicant did not appeal further as he considered or was advised that such a remedy would be bound to fail since no such social security benefit was payable to widowers under GPE law .

The domestic law relevant to this application is set out in Runkee and White v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , § § CARDINAL , DATE .