Violation of P1-1;Just satisfaction reserved

From the establishment of GPE in DATE and up to his dismissal from ORG , the applicant worked as Governor of ORG - operative ORG in GPE . On DATE ORG instituted disciplinary proceedings against him and decided to dismiss him retrospectively due to the fact that on DATE he was found guilty by ORG of GPE of stealing , breach of trust and abuse of authority . He was sentenced to CARDINAL months’ imprisonment . The applicant ’s appeal against both conviction and sentence was dismissed by ORG on DATE .

ORG held that the applicant had managed the resources of the above - mentioned ORG as if it were his private property and spent them for purposes other than those of the ORG . The disciplinary sentence of dismissal also resulted in the forfeiture of the applicant ’s retirement benefits including his pension , according to section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of ORG . CARDINAL , as from the date of his conviction by ORG .

On DATE the applicant filed an application with ORG requesting that the decision to dismiss him from the public service be declared null and void . The applicant ’s main argument was that the decision had been taken in excess or abuse of power in that the sanction of dismissal , with the consequent forfeiture of retirement benefits , was disproportionate to the gravity of the offence . He also contended that the forfeiture was contrary to Article CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the LAW , which guarantees the right not to be tried or punished twice . He alleged that the forfeiture of his pension rights and the sentence of imprisonment amounted to a double punishment for the same act .

On DATE ( according to the Government ) or CARDINAL DATE ( according to the applicant ) , the ORG filed their objections . On DATE ( according to the Government ) or DATE ( according to the applicant ) , the applicant filed his observations , to which the ORG replied on DATE ( according to them ) or DATE ( according to the applicant ) . From then on , the hearing of the case was repeatedly adjourned and was only completed on DATE . ORG was delivered on DATE , by which ORG rejected the applicant ’s application and confirmed ORG decision .

ORG stated that it could neither control the severity of the sentence imposed by a disciplinary organ , except if the latter exceeded the limits of its margin of appreciation , nor the manner in which the organ assessed the facts of the case . It held that the discretion of ORG only concerned the nature of the sanction , the loss of the retirement benefits being the normal consequence of the particular sanction imposed by the Commission . As for the right not to be punished twice for the same act , ORG held that “ criminal and disciplinary proceedings may be pursued simultaneously or in succession in respect of the same conduct , in recognition of the fact that the CARDINAL proceedings are designed to serve separate and distinct purposes ” and that “ the same act may constitute both a criminal and a disciplinary offence ; that this is so , is no obstacle to the institution of disciplinary proceedings , nor a conviction upon a disciplinary charge similar in nature to an offence created by LAW ... ” .

On DATE the applicant appealed on points of law to ORG sitting as an appeal court . CARDINAL grounds were included in the notice of appeal . The fifth ground challenged the finding of ORG , sitting as a first instance court , that the loss of retirement benefits was not contrary to Articles PERSON ) and CARDINAL ) of the LAW .

The hearing was adjourned several times . It was fixed for DATE , but as the applicant appointed a new lawyer , a total of CARDINAL adjournments were granted from DATE until DATE , at the request of counsel for both sides .

On DATE the applicant ’s lawyer informed ORG that negotiations for a settlement of the applicant ’s claims concerning his retirement benefits were in progress and invited the court to adjourn the case pending their outcome . The hearing was thus fixed for DATE .

NORP However , on DATE , the applicant filed an application for amendment of his grounds of appeal . ORG granted the application on DATE and directed for the amended notice of appeal to be filed within DATE .

From DATE to CARDINAL DATE the applicant requested and obtained CARDINAL further adjournments pending the above - mentioned negotiations : on DATE , DATE , DATE , CARDINAL DATE , DATE and DATE .

On DATE in his opening address , the applicant ’s lawyer stated that he would only deal with grounds CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the appeal , which also covered ground CARDINAL . In those grounds the applicant had challenged the findings that his dismissal and consequent forfeiture of his pension rights were not disproportionate to the gravity of the offence , and that ORG had acted lawfully , within the limits of its discretion , in imposing these sanctions . He conceded the withdrawal of the other grounds of appeal . Subsequently , the lawyer declared that “ he did not raise any other issue on this point ( forfeiture of pension rights ) as a separate and autonomous right because it was a very big issue ” . However , it transpires from the pleadings that the applicant ’s lawyer expressly stated that he would deal with grounds CARDINAL and DATE , which also implied ground CARDINAL . Ground CARDINAL read as follows : “ The finding of ORG that the loss of the applicant ’s retirement benefits is not contrary to Articles CARDINAL ) and ( CARDINAL ) of the LAW is erroneous . ” Judgment was reserved .

In the meantime , CARDINAL of the members of the bench hearing the case was appointed Minister of Defence , and ORG decided to reopen the proceedings . On DATE the hearing was adjourned until DATE due to a change in the composition of the court and then until DATE because CARDINAL of the judges was absent on sick - leave . On DATE the applicant ’s lawyer applied for a further adjournment due to another engagement . The hearing was fixed for CARDINAL DATE but was adjourned again until DATE , owing to the absence of CARDINAL member of the bench , and then until DATE at the request of the applicant . Thus the appeal was heard for a second time on DATE and judgment delivered on DATE , dismissing the appeal .

According to the ORG , ORG invited the applicant ’s lawyer to re - confirm his position , recorded during the first hearing , that all grounds of appeal , except ground CARDINAL and CARDINAL had been withdrawn , which he did . It was also confirmed that no issue as to the constitutionality of the provisions of LAW regarding the loss of retirement benefits was raised , but rather that this point was raised only in support of the applicant ’s main allegation that , although ORG had considered a number of mitigating factors , the impostion of the ultimate disciplinary sanction of dismissal upon the applicant was in flagrant violation of the principle of proportionality and an abuse of the limits of their discretion .

At the material time , section CARDINAL of Public Service Law No . CARDINAL read as follows :

“ CARDINAL . In accordance with the present law , the following disciplinary penalties may be imposed : ...

CARDINAL reprimand

CARDINAL severe reprimand

CARDINAL disciplinary transfer

CARDINAL interruption of DATE salary increase

CARDINAL suspension of DATE salary increase

CARDINAL pecuniary penalty which can not exceed CARDINAL months’ salary

CARDINAL reduction in the salary scales

CARDINAL reduction to the ranks

CARDINAL compulsory retirement

CARDINAL dismissal . ...

Dismissal entails the loss of all retirement benefits . ”

A revised version of section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the PERSON is DATE in force in GPE and provides as follows :

“ Dismissal entails the loss of all retirement benefits . It is understood that a pension is paid to the wife or dependent children , if any , of a public servant who was dismissed as though he had died on DATE of his dismissal and which will be calculated on the basis of his actual DATE of service . ”

Under the provisions of LAW , the duties and responsibilities of posts in the public service are stipulated in the relevant “ ORG ” , approved by ORG . According to ORG for the post of the Governor of ORG - operative Development held by the applicant , the duties and responsibilities were as follows :

“ Management of ORG - operative Development and responsibility for the promotion , development and orderly operation of the co - opertative movement in the island . Exercise of the power and duties provided by the relevant laws and regulations . Advisor to ORG on co - operative matters . Represents the Co - operative ORG in various committees and bodies . Performance of any other duties which may be assigned to him . ”

A public servant ’s entitlement to a pension is governed by GPE , PERSON . CARDINAL . LAW , which was in force at the time of the applicant ’s dismissal , provided that no pension , gratuity or other allowance shall be granted except upon retirement from the public service in CARDINAL of the cases specifically enumerated . Section CARDINAL ( f ) referred to “ the case of termination of employment in the public interest as provided in this Law ” , that is section CARDINAL of the PERSON , which in turn provided as follows :

Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL of the LAW reads as follows :

“ There shall be charged on ORG , in addition to any grant , remuneration or other moneys charged by any other provision of this LAW or law

( a ) all pensions and gratuities for which the Republic is liable ... ”


CASE OF TOIVE LEHTINEN v. FINLAND (NO. 2)

Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial

David Thór Björgvinsson;Giovanni Bonello;Ján Šikuta;Ledi Bianku;Nebojša Vučinić;Nicolas Bratza;Päivi Hirvelä

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE . He was the principal partner in a construction company , GPE ( limited partnership ) , which was wound - up in DATE .

On DATE ORG ( hereinafter “ SSP ” ) initiated civil proceedings to enforce various debts against the applicant . The applicant was summoned on CARDINAL DATE . Subsequently the applicant filed a counter - claim , which was eventually joined to the original claim on CARDINAL DATE .

DATE and CARDINAL DATE a total of CARDINAL preparatory hearings and CARDINAL main hearings were organised .

During the same period ORG issued CARDINAL partial decisions . The decisions concerned requests to grant the applicant free legal aid , to dismiss the opposing legal counsel , to declare the trial material classified , to declare one claim inadmissible , to relieve the applicant ’s counsel of his tasks and to order the claimant to provide certain documents as evidence .

On DATE the ORG gave its judgment , ordering the applicant to pay CARDINAL ( ORG ) with interest to ORG and dismissing all of the applicant ’s counter - claims .

In his appeal the applicant challenged the judgment in its entirety as well as the earlier decisions of ORG not to dismiss the opposing counsel and the refusal to order the claimant to produce certain documents as evidence . He requested that the case be remitted to ORG and that an oral hearing be held before ORG ( hovioikeus , hovrätten ) with regard to the missing documents or DATE if the case was not remitted – with regard to the entire case . He further requested that he be exempted from paying ORG ’s legal fees or at least the value - added tax ( VAT ) on the fees . He also requested reimbursement of his own legal fees .

On DATE ORG remitted the case to ORG , ordering ORG to provide CARDINAL specified documents ( TIME from various board meetings ) at the hearing before ORG and allowing the applicant to provide some additional evidence which had previously been refused by ORG .

NORP The proceedings became pending before ORG on DATE . DATE and DATE a total of CARDINAL preparatory hearings and CARDINAL main hearings were organised .

On DATE ORG ordered ORG to provide various additional documents , including the above - mentioned ones . All but CARDINAL of the requested documents were provided on DATE . The missing documents were no longer in the possession of ORG or they had not been found .

On DATE ORG decided on the case for the second time , finding that the examination of the previously presented evidence , the new evidence and the new hearing of all the witnesses did not give rise to any new conclusions . The judgment was essentially the same as the CARDINAL given in the first set of proceedings .

In his appeal the applicant requested that the judgment be quashed , that an oral hearing be held , and that he be exempted from paying ORG ’s legal fees or at least the VAT thereon . He also requested reimbursement of his own legal fees . In the addendum to his appeal he requested ORG to order the missing documents to be provided and to remit the case again to ORG since the judgment did not specify the new evidence nor address the issue of changed witness statements . He also claimed that the judge had been biased .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s request to have the case remitted again to ORG and held that it was plausible that the missing documents were not in the possession of ORG . It further found that the judge in question had not been biased and that there was no indication that the new evidence had not been taken into consideration . In regard to the latter , ORG added that , in any event , the relevant witnesses would be heard again .

After having held an oral hearing over DATE ORG upheld the decision of ORG on DATE . The applicant was exempted from paying ORG on the legal fees incurred before ORG , but the court held that since he had not requested an exemption before ORG , the exemption did not apply to legal fees incurred at that stage .

On DATE ORG ( korkein oikeus , högsta domstolen ) granted leave to appeal with regard to the issue of exemption from the payment of GPE on the legal fees incurred before ORG . Leave to appeal was refused as regards the remainder of the case .

On DATE ORG gave its judgment on the VAT exemption .


KALINIC AND BILBIJA v. BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA

David Thór Björgvinsson;Giovanni Bonello;Lech Garlicki;Ledi Bianku;Mihai Poalelungi;Nicolas Bratza

The applicants , Mr PERSON and ORG , are citizens of GPE and GPE . They were represented before the Court by PERSON PERSON , a lawyer practising in PERSON .

s , may be summarised as follows .

On DATE the High Representative removed Mr GPE from his positions as Speaker of ORG and as president of a political party ( NORP demokratska stranka ; “ ORG ” ) . Mr GPE was also barred , until further notice , from holding any public or political - party positions and from running for election . The decision had immediate effect and did not require any further procedural steps . The main reasons given for the decision are reproduced here :

“ CARDINAL . Despite its constitutionally mandated duty to fully co - operate with ORG [ that is , ORG for the Former GPE ] – which duty was impressed upon the Republika Srpska further by ORG referenced DATE indicted individuals remain at large within PERSON and have been and are presently assisted in evading justice by individuals in positions of authority and by institutions of a state and political character . That this state of affairs has continued for DATE following the end of the war without a single war criminal being arrested in the territory of ORG by the authorities of ORG , is a source of deep and abiding concern not only for the people of GPE and GPE but for the international community as a whole .

For over DATE and throughout the war , ORG has held the reins of political power in ORG . The ORG ’s failure to apprehend those indicted individuals in flagrant disregard of GPE and GPE ’s obligations under international law is , therefore , a damning indictment of ORG ’s commitment to proper governance . Given its dubious legacy as the political party founded by and initially presided over by the chief ORG indictee at large , PERSON , it was doubly incumbent upon ORG to effect expiation and rehabilitation by proactively pursuing and bringing to book the erstwhile architects of its odious policies which so disfigured the polity . That it has not done so is a testament , at best , to its negligent abdication of governmental responsibility or , at worst , to its concerted will to obstruct peace implementation by clinging to vestiges ( and figures ) of its bankrupt past .

As the leading member of the ORG occupying the highest position of responsibility within the party and upon solid information and belief , Mr. PERSON is culpable for the ORG ’s failure to purge the political landscape of conditions conducive to the sustenance to individuals indicted under LAW [ of the Statute of the ORG ] , as aforesaid .

Persons holding office as President of a political party are placed in a position of trust and confidence not only vis - à - vis the members of that particular party but also vis - à - vis the taxpayers insofar as political parties are funded , inter alia , from the budgets of the various level of ORG in GPE . As such , they are under an obligation to ensure that the financing of the parties is fully transparent and orderly and to take such step as are necessary to ensure that the party observes and adheres to both domestic law and international obligations and that funds from the ORG , whether private or public , are neither used for the sustenance of criminals or indicted war criminals or their support structures nor to help those evade capture .

The Report of the Special Auditor for the Republika Srpska shows substantial discrepancies between ORG of DATE and the financial records of ORG offices across ORG . In particular , the Report of the Special Auditor highlights the lack of property lists , poor invoices supporting payments , incomplete payments of required social benefit and employment tax costs for ORG employees , unreported cash income , poorly documented and frequent withdrawals from petty cash , all of which constitute breaches of the PERSON .

More importantly , the ORG shows a total failure of the central bodies of the ORG to assume their supervisory duties under LAW and to guarantee that the minimum necessary measures are in place for ensuring the effective and proper management and control of the party and its assets . The result of such failures of control amount to a delinquency of duty to ensure that these funds are secure from being used to sustain or assist indicted war criminals , and especially PERSON , the founder of the ORG , who , inter alia , has admitted in a letter that he is in contact with and has received assistance from ORG , a fact which is also supported by certain other evidence .

For reasons mentioned above , PERSON had a special responsibility to sever the links of the party with the past by ensuring that no material assistance could be or was provided to such an individual . The findings of said Report compel the conclusion that , in the absence of control mechanisms , the ORG and its President are not in sufficient control of the funds of the ORG to preclude party bodies from providing any assistance or succour to its former President .

On these grounds , the peace implementation is undermined as long as Mr GPE remains in office . Accordingly , he must be removed from office forthwith . ”

On DATE the High Representative removed PERSON from his position in the ORG of GPE and from all his other public and political - party positions . Mr PERSON was also barred , until further notice , from holding any such positions and from running for election . The decision had immediate effect and did not require any further procedural steps . The following are the main reasons given for the decision :

“ GPE has singularly failed to discharge its international obligation to bring closure to arguably the most lamentable chapter of its history . It has failed especially and egregiously in the territory of ORG to apprehend and deliver to just prosecution a number of persons indicted under LAW of the Statute of the ORG .

PERSON failure could not have occurred without the active assistance of individuals and entities , or indeed without the general culture of both overt and secret complicity and of silence prevalent in the CARDINAL Entity of GPE where such individuals are believed to have found sanctuary , that is , [ in the ] PERSON .

Despite its constitutionally mandated duty to fully co - operate with the ICTY – which duty was impressed upon the Republika Srpska further by ORG referenced DATE indicted individuals remain at large within ORG and have been and are presently assisted in evading justice by individuals in positions of authority and by institutions of a state and political character . That this state of affairs has continued for DATE following the end of the war is a source of deep and abiding concern not only for the people of GPE and GPE but for the international community as a whole .

It now falls on the international community to redress this intolerable situation by initiating direct and sweeping action against those public - office holders of ORG who obstruct international law in the Entity . By dint of their nefarious conduct or failure to carry out their functional responsibilities while associated in differing capacities with public institutions , these individuals have demonstrated that they are not worthy of entrustment with public responsibility .

Based on the foregoing and upon solid information and belief , it is deemed necessary to remove from public office ORG . ORG holds the office of Deputy Head ORG in GPE . PERSON is , whether through his actions or his failures to act an integral part of the common scheme within ORG to foster a culture of silence and deceit wherein war crime indictees are protected from justice .

As a constituent of the current political culture within ORG , ORG is derivatively culpable for contributing to the failure to purge from the political landscape of conditions conducive to the provision of material support and sustenance to individuals indicted under LAW [ of the Statute of the ORG ] , as aforesaid . Such failings are inimical to stability and the rule of law . ORG , therefore , obstructs the process of peace implementation and must be removed from public office . The principles of proper governance and transparency , protection of the integrity and reputation of the institutions of GPE , and active support for the rule of law and for the international obligations of GPE – so essential to the peace implementation process – mandate this outcome . ”

Following appeals of the applicants , on DATE and on CARDINAL DATE ORG and ORG of the Republika Srpska , respectively , decided that they lacked jurisdiction to examine the High Representative ’s decisions mentioned above .

The applicants then appealed to ORG On DATE ORG found that the domestic authorities had failed to secure an effective domestic remedy against the decisions of ORG in the ORG cases , as required by LAW and the equivalent provision of LAW . The domestic authorities were ordered to secure such a remedy . This decision ( no . AP CARDINAL ) was published in ORG no . CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE . It led to a vigorous response from the High Representative : on DATE he issued a decision removing any practical effect from ORG decision of DATE . The relevant part of the High Representative ’s decision reads as follows :

In order to implement the Decision of the [ Constitutional ] Court [ no . ORG CARDINAL of DATE ] , the Presidency of GPE and GPE shall address to ORG , as ORG of the [ ORG ] , all matters raised in said Decision that ought to be considered by the international authorities referenced in the said Decision .

Any step taken by any institution or authority in GPE in order to establish any domestic mechanism to review ORG issued pursuant to his international mandate shall be considered by ORG as an attempt to undermine the implementation of the civilian aspects of the [ Peace Agreement ] and shall be treated in itself as conduct undermining such implementation .

Notwithstanding any contrary provision in any legislation in GPE , any proceeding instituted before any court in GPE , which challenges or takes issue in any way whatsoever with CARDINAL or more decisions of the High Representative , shall be declared inadmissible unless the High Representative expressly gives his prior consent .

Any proceeding referred to in LAW shall be effectively and formally notified to the High Representative by the concerned court without delay .

For the avoidance of any doubt or ambiguity , and taking into account the totality of the matters aforesaid , it is hereby specifically ordered and determined , in the exercise of the said international mandate of the High Representative and pursuant to its interpretation hereinunder and by virtue of the said LAW [ to FAC ] , that no liability is capable of being incurred on the part of ORG , and/or any of its subdivisions and/or any other authority in GPE , in respect of any loss or damage allegedly flowing , either directly or indirectly , from such LAW made pursuant to his or her international mandate , or at all .

For the avoidance of doubt , it is hereby specifically declared and provided that the provisions of the Order contained herein are , as to each and every one of them , laid down by the High Representative pursuant to his international mandate and are not , therefore , justiciable by ORG or elsewhere , and no proceedings may be brought in respect of duties in respect thereof before any court whatsoever at any time hereafter .

This Order shall enter into force immediately and shall be published without delay ... ”

The relevant law and practice were outlined in GPE and Others v. GPE ( ( dec . ) , nos . CARDINAL , ORG , ORG , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , DATE , DATE , DATE , CARDINAL/CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , ORG , ORG , CARDINAL , CARDINAL/CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL , ORG DATE ... ) .


The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

NORP In or about DATE the applicant and his wife brought an action against several respondents before ORG , seeking ownership of a real estate and protection against trespass .

ORG held numerous hearings DATE and DATE .

On DATE ORG delivered a partial judgment , dismissing the plaintiffs’ claim for protection against trespass . This decision was upheld on appeal by ORG on DATE .

On DATE ORG appointed an expert who filed an opinion on DATE .

The final first - instance judgment was delivered on DATE . On appeal , ORG decided the case on DATE .

The applicant lodged a petition for review with ORG . It quashed the previous judgments and remitted the case to the first - instance on DATE .

In the resumed proceedings the applicant notified the domestic courts that CARDINAL of the respondents had died on DATE . On DATE ORG thus established that the review proceedings had been discontinued on this account , and annulled its previous judgment of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . DATE , ORG remitted the case to the first - instance .

DATE the proceedings were stalled because the applicant did not cooperate with a court - appointed expert .

On DATE the case was transferred to ORG , due to bias of the judges at ORG .

On DATE the latter court delivered a partial judgment . On CARDINAL DATE ORG held a hearing on appeal . It appears from the documents available in the case file that the case is still pending before ORG .


The applicants , Mr PERSON , Mr PERSON and PERSON PERSON , are NORP nationals , who were born in DATE , DATE and DATE respectively and live in GPE . They are represented before the ORG by Mr PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE .

On DATE , the applicant Mr PERSON died and on DATE , his heirs expressed interest in continuing his present applicant .

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

On DATE an armed clash took place between the security forces and ORG militants in the applicants’ village of GPE , in district of GPE , ORG . During the clash , some of the applicants’ property was destroyed . In particular , PERSON LOC of CARDINAL dönüm ( QUANTITY ) and fruit trees , PERSON home , dairy barn and livestock , PERSON dairy barn and livestock were damaged as a result of a fire that broke out . The village guards did not allow the applicants to save their livestock during the fire .

On DATE CARDINAL gendarme officers drew up a scene of incident report . According to the report , a fire started as a result of the clash which then spread to the barns of PERSON and PERSON . The report further stated that a number of livestock belonging to these applicants were killed because of the fire .

On DATE officers from ORG took statements from PERSON and PERSON . Their statements confirmed the scene of the incident report of DATE .

PERSON and PERSON lodged petitions with the GPE Governor ’s ORG on DATE and CARDINAL DATE respectively . They requested the authorities to establish their damage but they received no response to their petitions .

PERSON and PERSON brought declaratory actions before ORG on DATE and CARDINAL DATE respectively . They requested the court to assess the damage they had sustained .

On DATE ORG decided not to hold an on - site visit in GPE as it had been informed by the district gendarme command that the area was not safe and that there was not sufficient staff or equipment to provide security for the visit .

On DATE PERSON brought a declaratory action before ORG ( ORG ) for an assessment of the damage he had suffered .

On DATE the court decided not to hold an inspection citing the same reasoning as ORG .

The investigation carried out by the authorities indicated that subsequent to their requests for compensation , PERSON and PERSON had received MONEY ( ORG ) and CARDINAL ORG respectively . The investigation further revealed that PERSON had not suffered any loss or damage upon the incidents .

The Government also pointed to ORG resulting from Terrorism and the Fight against Terrorism that was passed by ORG on DATE and entered into force on DATE ( “ Compensation Law ” ) . The Compensation Law provided for a sufficient remedy capable of redressing the ORG grievances of persons who suffered damages resulting from the fight against terrorism in the region .

In that connection , “ Damage Assessment and Compensation Commissions ” were set up in QUANTITY provinces . Persons who had suffered damage as a result of terrorism or of measures taken by the authorities to combat terrorism could lodge an application with the relevant compensation commission claiming compensation .

The number of persons applying to these commissions had already attained CARDINAL . CARDINAL persons , whose applications were pending before the ORG , had also applied to the compensation commissions . Many villagers had already been awarded compensation for the damage they had sustained .

A description of the relevant domestic law can be found in the ORG ’s decision of PERSON v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , § § DATE , DATE ) and in its judgment of ORG and Others v. GPE ( nos . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , CARDINAL/CARDINAL and CARDINAL - CARDINAL/CARDINAL , § § DATE , ORG CARDINAL-VI )


Violation of Art. 6-1;Non-pecuniary damage - financial award;Costs and expenses - claim dismissed

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

On DATE he sued the municipality of PERSON before ORG ( Sąd Wojewódzki ) . The applicant sought payment for construction works which his company had carried out for the municipality on the basis of a contract dated DATE and pecuniary penalties resulting from the defendant ’s breach of the terms of the contract . On DATE ORG delivered a judgment in which it declared certain clauses of the contract null and void since they violated civil law .

The applicant appealed and on DATE ORG ( FAC ) quashed the judgment of DATE and ordered the case to be reconsidered . Subsequently , on DATE ORG allowed the applicant ’s claim for payment but declared null and void a clause of the contract imposing penalties for delay in compliance with its provisions . On DATE ORG dismissed both the applicant ’s and the defendant ’s appeals against the judgment of ORG .

On DATE the ORG filed with ORG ( Sąd Najwyższy ) an extraordinary appeal on behalf of the applicant , submitting that ORG judgment of DATE had been in flagrant violation of substantive civil law and had unduly restricted the parties’ freedom of contract .

On DATE ORG dismissed the extraordinary appeal . It agreed that , contrary to the previous jurisprudence developed against the background of a planned economy , LAW allowed the parties to agree to clauses providing for the payment of pecuniary penalties for delay in compliance with contractual obligations . However , ORG found that in the present case the lower courts were justified in declaring the relevant contract clauses null and void as the penalties at issue were excessive and disproportionate to the value of the contract .

On DATE ORG agreed to the applicant ’s request to reopen the proceedings relating to the extraordinary appeal . It amended its judgment of DATE and quashed in part both impugned judgments of CARDINAL DATE and DATE . ORG ordered that all the applicant ’s claims , save for the payment awarded to the applicant by the judgment of ORG of DATE , be reconsidered by the latter court . ORG was of the opinion that the previous judgments amounted to a violation of substantive civil law . It assessed from a legal point of view the issues of the pecuniary penalties resulting from the defendant ’s breach of the contract and the possible compensation for damage sustained in consequence by the applicant ’s company . Furthermore , ORG explained why and how the relevant provisions of substantive civil law should be applied in the case . It also gave guidelines as to the further course of the proceedings , holding that the court of first instance should establish the value of the claims .

DATE and DATE , ORG and ORG examined the applicant ’s requests for an exemption from the court fees .

NORP In a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG held that the defendant was obliged to pay pecuniary penalties to the applicant , but reduced their amount to CARDINAL old zlotys as it considered that the penalties fixed in the contract were excessive . Furthermore , it dismissed the applicant ’s claim for compensation for damage caused by the defendant ’s delay in payment because the applicant did not show that his company had suffered damage exceeding the amount awarded to him .

On DATE the applicant appealed against the judgment of DATE , claiming that the court had failed to make certain findings of fact which were relevant to the outcome of the case and had made procedural errors .

DATE and DATE the courts of first and second instance examined the applicant ’s request for an exemption from the court fees for lodging the appeal .

On DATE ORG quashed the judgment of DATE in so far as it had dismissed the applicant ’s claim for compensation for damage resulting from the defendant ’s delay in payment . It ordered that this claim be reconsidered since the trial court had failed to comply with ORG legal opinion and guidelines on that matter and also criticised the manner in which the trial court had taken expert evidence .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s claim for compensation . On DATE the applicant filed with ORG an appeal to ORG and requested an exemption from court fees .

On DATE ORG exempted the applicant ’s company from all court fees save for the first MONEY ( ORG ) and dismissed the remainder of the applicant ’s request . The applicant appealed against this decision . On DATE ORG dismissed his appeal , considering that his company had sufficient financial resources to pay the court fees .

On DATE the applicant again requested ORG to grant him a further exemption from the court fees , arguing that in the course of the prolonged litigation the financial situation of his company had worsened . On DATE the court exempted him from court fees exceeding PLN CARDINAL . On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s appeal against the decision of DATE .

On DATE ORG rejected the applicant ’s renewed request to be exempted from payment of the court fees . The applicant appealed against that decision , but on DATE ORG rejected his appeal .

On DATE ORG rejected the applicant ’s appeal against the judgment of DATE since he had failed to pay the required court fees . DATE and DATE both ORG and ORG considered the applicant ’s requests for exemption from the court fees . On CARDINAL DATE ORG rejected the applicant ’s complaint against the decision of DATE .

On DATE the applicant lodged with ORG an appeal on points of law . These proceedings are still pending .


The applicant , Mr PERSON , is an NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in Gföhl . He was represented before the ORG by PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE . The respondent Government were represented by their Agent , Ambassador PERSON , Head of the International PERSON at ORG .

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

On DATE the mayor of Gföhl granted the applicant ’s neighbours a building permit for a house and a garage , whereby the latter was to be situated on the border of the applicant ’s property . The applicant ’s appeals were to no avail and the proceedings were terminated by ORG decision of CARDINAL DATE .

Further proceedings in which the applicant had contested his obligation to allow his neighbours to enter upon his land in order to enable them to construct the garage remained unsuccessful and were terminated by ORG decision of DATE . Subsequently , proceedings to enforce the applicant ’s obligation were conducted .

On DATE the applicant requested the Gföhl municipality to issue a demolition order for his ORG garage . He submitted , in particular , that the garage had not been constructed in accordance with the requirements of the building permit as regards fire protection measures .

On DATE the mayor of Gföhl dismissed the applicant ’s request .

On DATE the applicant ’s appeal was dismissed by ORG .

On DATE ORG , upon the applicant ’s objection , quashed ORG decision and referred the case back to it , finding that it had failed to establish the relevant facts as regards the question whether deviations from the building permit impeded the fire resistance of the garage at issue .

On DATE the applicant lodged a complaint against ORG decision , alleging in particular that the reasons given indicated that his request was unfounded .

On DATE ORG , without holding a hearing , dismissed the applicant ’s complaint against ORG decision . It noted that , in any case , the reasons given for a decision were not binding .

On DATE ORG carried out an inspection of the garage in presence of an expert for building matters but in absence of the applicant . A report was drawn up by the expert , finding that the garage ’s outer wall was fire resistant . Subsequently , on DATE , ORG again dismissed the applicant ’s appeal against the decision of CARDINAL DATE .

On DATE ORG , upon the applicant ’s objection , quashed ORG decision and referred the case back to it , finding that it had failed to give the applicant an opportunity to comment on the report of the inspection carried out on DATE .

On DATE the applicant ’s counsel , on whom ORG had served the report of DATE , submitted written observations . He submitted in particular that the expert ’s submissions contained in the report did not meet the basic requirements of an expert opinion .

On DATE the applicant lodged a complaint with ORG , claiming that the decision of CARDINAL DATE was arbitrary and that the reasons given for it showed that ORG considered his request to be unfounded .

On DATE ORG refused to deal with the applicant ’s complaint for lack of prospects of success and transferred the case to ORG .

On DATE ORG , without holding a hearing , dismissed the applicant ’s complaint against ORG decision of DATE .

On DATE ORG again dismissed the applicant ’s appeal against the decision of CARDINAL DATE .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s objection . It found in essence that the outer wall of the garage was fire - resistant . As it had not been constructed in contravention of the building permit , there was no basis for issuing a demolition order .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s complaint for lack of prospects of success and transferred the case to ORG .

On DATE the applicant supplemented his complaint to ORG and requested that an oral hearing be held . He complained about the duration of the proceedings . As to their merits , he maintained that his ORG garage did not comply with the relevant provisions on fire - resistance . Further , he complained that he had not been present at the inspection of the garage on DATE and that the expert opinion was not conclusive . Moreover , he challenged all members of the competent chamber of ORG for bias .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s motion for bias .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s complaint as being unfounded . Furthermore , ORG refused the applicant ’s request for an oral hearing , relying on section CARDINAL § CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of LAW which allows it to forego a hearing if it is not likely to contribute to the clarification of the case .

The court noted that the applicant ’s neighbours had a final building permit , which he could no longer challenge . As regards the applicant ’s complaint about the duration of the proceedings it noted that the proceedings concerning the issuing of the building permit and the proceedings concerning his request for a demolition order were to be regarded separately . The latter proceedings had not yet lasted unreasonably long .

As to the applicant ’s request for a demolition order , the court noted that the report of the inspection of DATE had been duly served on the applicant who had commented thereon . Consequently , the fact that he had not been summoned to participate in the inspection did not constitute a procedural defect . Furthermore , the authority ’s finding that the garage ’s outer wall was fire - resistant was based on a conclusive expert opinion . Consequently , ORG confirmed ORG view that the garage complied with the building permit . ORG decision was served on DATE .

In connection with the above proceedings , the applicant conducted CARDINAL sets of proceedings under LAW .

On DATE the applicant filed an action with ORG , claiming that the NORP municipality had acted unlawfully in that it had failed to summon him to the inspection of DATE and requesting lawyer ’s costs incurred for the appeal against the ensuing decision . The court held a hearing on DATE . A further hearing was postponed once on the defendant ’s request and once on the applicant ’s request and was finally held on DATE . On DATE ORG granted the applicant ’s action on the merits but reduced the amount claimed by MONEY . The decision was served on DATE .

In a further set of proceedings started on DATE the applicant claimed costs incurred on account of the allegedly unlawful decisions of ORG . On DATE ORG found that it did not have jurisdiction to deal with the case and transferred it to ORG . The latter , after having received submissions from both parties , held a hearing on DATE . On DATE the ORG dismissed the applicant ’s claim . On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s appeal . The decision was served on DATE .

In DATE , proceedings concerning the possible appointment of a guardian for the applicant were instituted by ORG . They were discontinued on DATE after the court had established that the applicant did not need the assistance of a guardian .


Violation of Art. 6-1;Violation of Art. 6-3-b;Non-pecuniary damage - financial award

In the course of a judicial investigation concerning the applicant , his wife , his former brother - in - law and CARDINAL of his nephews , the applicant was remanded in custody on DATE and charged with rape of a child under CARDINAL ( his niece ) , sexual assaults on children DATE ( his nephews ) and a number of further counts of sexual assault .

On DATE the investigating judge at the GPE tribunal de grande instance ordered medico - psychological examinations of the applicant ’s niece and all the persons under investigation . He appointed CARDINAL doctors , named PERSON and PERSON , for that purpose .

The CARDINAL doctors were informed of the applicant ’s criminal record . In addition to a number of prison sentences , this included an investigation opened in DATE into charges against the applicant of sexual interference with the daughter of his brother - in - law ’s sister .

On DATE the experts filed their report on the applicant . They stated , among other things , that although the applicant , by his own admission , did have fantasist and even mythomaniac tendencies , these were not obviously pathological in nature , as had been shown DATE previously by his statements regarding the relations between PERSON and GPE , CARDINAL of the victims .

The doctors concluded as follows :

“ CARDINAL . Our examination of PERSON has revealed psychopathic traits and signs of sexual perversion for which objective evidence is provided by his statements regarding PERSON and GPE

The offence of which he stands accused with respect to GPE and PERSON is linked to a state of sexual perversion . It is difficult to assess the extent or the nature of this state in so far as the accused presents the facts as isolated incidents . He denies raping PERSON and so it is not possible to address that issue from a clinical viewpoint .

The subject is not in a dangerous state in the psychiatric sense .

It would not be inappropriate to impose a criminal penalty on him .

Rehabilitation will not pose a problem , but a cure will depend on clearer identification of the subject ’s underlying sexual problem .

The subject was not insane within the meaning of ( former ) LAW when committing the offences of which he stands accused .

His state is not such as to require confinement or psychotherapeutic assistance . ”

NORP In DATE the experts’ conclusions were served on the applicant . The applicant ’s detention pending trial was extended several times during the investigation of the case .

On DATE the applicant and his co - defendants ( ORG , GPE and GPE , the applicant ’s wife ) were committed for trial at ORG by a judgment delivered by ORG of ORG . ORG pointed out , in particular , that the applicant had initially denied any sexual abuse of his niece and nephews and then admitted to the conduct of which he was accused only to retract that admission . It related what had been said during the examination of the applicant ’s niece on the one hand and his nephews on the other , the latter having also been accused of rape and sexual abuse by the niece . ORG also mentioned the previous convictions on the applicant ’s criminal record , namely driving under the influence of alcohol , insulting a member of the police force in the performance of his duties , a hit - and - run offence and a further conviction for driving under the influence of alcohol .

The applicant appealed on points of law against the decision to commit him for trial , drawing attention to the vagueness of the terms used in the operative provisions of that decision . In a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG rejected that appeal .

The trial at ORG began on DATE . The registrar read out the decision of ORG committing the applicant for trial . At that point the advocate - general stated that he wished to file certain documents regarding the personality of the defendants , including the applicant , and relating primarily to offences reported in DATE .

The documents in question were records of evidence taken from witnesses , a procedural report by a police superintendent , a psychiatric report on the applicant at DATE and a judgment relating to educational assistance . They comprised mainly a description of the applicant ’s sexual conduct when he was a minor and information about his family background . They related firstly to a charge of indecent assault on a girl under CARDINAL brought against him in DATE in proceedings during which the applicant had said that he had done the same thing “ CARDINAL times both with little girls and with little boys aged DATE CARDINAL ” and , secondly , to several counts of indecent assault without violence on CARDINAL children DATE . The proceedings concerning these offences , brought in DATE , and those mentioned above were discontinued .

The applicant ’s lawyer objected to the filing of those documents and requested an adjournment to prepare a pleading to that effect . The hearing was adjourned for TIME . The applicant ’s lawyer lodged an application for all the documents to be rejected on the ground that they related to offences that were subject to limitation and had occurred prior to various amnesty laws which could apply to them . According to the defence , the documents were so old that they contravened the principle that a defendant ’s antecedents were inadmissible in evidence against him .

In an interlocutory judgment delivered on DATE ORG rejected that application on the following grounds :

“ ... The prosecution , like every other party to a criminal trial , is entitled to produce at the hearing any documents that appear to be helpful in establishing the truth provided that they relate to the offences of which the defendants stand accused and shed light on their personality .

Provided that they are communicated to all the parties and can thus be examined adversarially , the production of such documents can not have any adverse effect on the rights of the defence . ... ”

Copies of the documents filed by the prosecution were distributed to each of the civil parties’ lawyers and the defence lawyers but the case was not adjourned .

When the examination of the defendants began as to their backgrounds , the applicant ’s hearing was deliberately put back until TIME . Exercising his discretionary powers , the President of ORG called a teacher of children with special needs as a witness to be heard for information purposes only . Following that hearing , the respective lawyers of GPE , who stood accused along with the applicant , and of PERSON declared that they were bringing civil - party proceedings on their GPE behalf and made a written application .

The trial was adjourned .

At DATE afternoon the lawyer representing the applicant ’s wife in turn applied for the investigation to be reopened to take account of the documents relating to her that had been filed by the prosecution . Those documents included a judgment delivered by the GPE tribunal de grande instance in DATE , records of the hearing by that court ’s registrar and written statements by GPE The applicant ’s wife ’s lawyer requested that in the course of the reopened investigation the statements on the proceedings made by PERSON and PERSON in the documents filed by the prosecution be added to the file . Failing that , the trial would have to be adjourned to a subsequent session . In support of his requests , the lawyer relied on the requirement of a fair trial .

In an interlocutory judgment ORG deferred its decision on the above application pending completion of the hearing of evidence . The President continued his examination of the defendants until TIME with CARDINAL short adjournment of TIME . At TIME the examination of the defendants resumed and thereafter a witness was heard .

Lastly , on TIME of the trial , that is on DATE , the ORG heard one of the experts who had been appointed to prepare an opinion during the pre - trial investigation . He made an oral presentation of the report he had submitted on DATE during the investigation proceedings ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

NORP The President then adjourned the proceedings for TIME during which the expert studied the new documents produced by the prosecution .

As soon as the hearing of the expert resumed , the latter allegedly changed his opinion , stating , among other things , that the applicant was a “ paedophile ” and that “ psychotherapy [ was ] necessary , but would be ineffective for the time being ” .

The examination of the expert lasted TIME , at the end of which the President authorised him to withdraw permanently , a decision on which he had consulted the parties and to which none of them had raised any objection .

On DATE , DATE , the applicant ’s lawyer disputed the expert ’s oral submissions and applied for a second opinion , on the following grounds :

“ After ... CARDINAL of the CARDINAL experts appointed by the investigating judge had made his statement before ORG , he was informed of the CARDINAL discontinued sets of proceedings that had been brought against PERSON , who is now DATE , when he was DATE . The depositions made by PERSON at that time were read out to the expert . Immediately after being informed of those facts , of which he had been unaware when preparing his expert opinion , the expert radically altered his submissions , stating that :

– in his view PERSON is unquestionably a paedophile ;

– psychotherapeutic treatment is necessary , but , given PERSON ’s current state of mind , would be totally ineffective because he has no feelings of guilt ;

– the length of a prison sentence has no effect on an individual of that type as the potential to be cured depends solely on a feeling of guilt , which PERSON lacks ;

– in the absence of a feeling of guilt , there is a major risk that ORG will reoffend even after a long sentence , meaning that imprisonment can only serve as a means of protecting society . ...

PERSON formally disputes the expert ’s oral submissions . A second opinion is indispensable . If it had considered it necessary , it was during the investigation that the prosecution should have filed the documents it produced at the beginning of the trial relating to proceedings brought over DATE . In that case the expert would have drawn up his report in the light of the evidence contained therein and PERSON would undoubtedly have requested a second opinion , prepared by CARDINAL experts .

ORG therefore heard an oral report that differed radically from the written report by the CARDINAL experts .

Respect for the rights of the defence requires that a new expert opinion be ordered in the context of an application for the investigation to be reopened . Everyone has the right to a fair trial . ”

The lawyer also applied for the applicant ’s release on the ground that his client should not have to suffer the consequences of the prosecution ’s having taken DATE and DATE to file documents that it considered indispensable .

In an interlocutory judgment of DATE ORG deferred its decision on the application for further investigative measures pending completion of the hearing of evidence and rejected the application for release on the ground that detention was “ necessary to ensure that the defendant remain[ed ] at the disposal of the judicial authorities ” .

The President continued to examine the defendants and obtained their statements . After that he took evidence from the applicant ’s mother , from a person sentenced for a serious crime and from CARDINAL witnesses .

The applicant ’s lawyer then reiterated his previous submissions while his wife ’s lawyer withdrew the interlocutory application he had lodged with ORG .

On DATE ORG took formal note of the withdrawal by GPE ’s lawyer . On DATE , after a procedural defect vitiating the interlocutory application made by the applicant ’s lawyer had in the meantime been cured , ORG nevertheless refused it . It made the following points regarding the complaint of an infringement of the rights of the defence :

“ Firstly , the new documents produced by the prosecution and duly communicated to each of the parties to the proceedings could have been contested , particularly by PERSON , whether directly or through the intermediary of his counsel .

Secondly , once the above documents had been brought to the notice of the expert ... and he had completed the presentation of his report , PERSON and his counsel were in a position to request any further information or explanations from him that they required .

Thus it can not legitimately be argued that the production of new documents and their consideration by the psychiatric expert were capable of infringing the rights of the defence .

At all events , in view of the outcome of the oral examination at the hearing , it does not seem essential for the establishment of the truth to seek a second psychiatric opinion .

Consequently , there is no cause for the proceedings to be adjourned ... ”

ORG also rejected the applicant ’s application for release .

On DATE ORG sentenced the applicant to DATE imprisonment for a number of counts of raping his niece , a child under CARDINAL , sexually assaulting a girl under QUANTITY and sexually assaulting his nephews . The sentences imposed on the CARDINAL other co - defendants were less severe ( CARDINAL years’ imprisonment , a fully suspended DATE prison sentence with probation , and a DATE prison sentence , DATE of which was suspended with probation ) .

The applicant appealed on points of law . In his first ground of appeal he argued that ORG consenting to file the documents produced by the prosecution amounted to a violation of his right to a fair trial , particularly the principle of equality of arms , since his lawyer had only had CARDINAL a day to study the documents in issue whereas the prosecution had had them for some time . Relying also on LAW , the applicant submitted another plea regarding ORG refusal to order a second opinion . He argued that the examination by the expert of the new documents that had been produced at the hearing , which had made him radically change his initial submissions , required an effective second opinion for the sentence imposed to satisfy the legal requirement that it must be suited to the personality of the defendant .

In a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG rejected the appeal in its entirety . Regarding the grounds of appeal based on an infringement of the right to a fair trial , ORG stated as follows :

“ When , after the decision committing the defendant for trial had been read out , the advocate - general produced various documents including the records of a number of discontinued proceedings relating to the defendant , the defence objected and requested that those documents should not be filed .

As justification for its rejection of that request , ORG stated that the prosecution , like every other party to criminal proceedings , is entitled to produce at the trial any documents that appear to afford assistance in establishing the truth in so far as they relate to the offences of which the defendants stand accused and shed light on their personality . If they have been communicated to all the parties so that there has been an opportunity for adversarial argument about them , the production of such documents can not legitimately be said to have any adverse effect on the rights of the defence .

In ruling to that effect , ORG provided a legal basis for its decision without laying itself open to the objection raised in the ground of appeal because , the adversarial principle having been respected , no statutory or treaty provision prevented documents relating to offences subject to limitation but not covered by an amnesty being filed in that way . ...

As justification for its refusal to order the second expert opinion sought by the defence , the ORG , having deferred its decision on the examination of that application , held , after taking evidence , that the requested measure was not indispensable for the establishment of the truth .

In ruling to that effect , ORG , which was not obliged to respond to mere arguments in submissions , determined a matter over which it alone had jurisdiction , deciding that there was no reason to allow the application . ”

The relevant provisions of LAW on hearings before assize courts provide as follows :

“ If the investigation appears to him to be incomplete or if new evidence has emerged since its closure , the president may order any further inquiries he deems necessary . ... ”

“ The president may , of his own motion or on an application by the public prosecutor , order cases which do not seem to him to be ready to be tried during the session in which they have been listed for hearing to be adjourned to a subsequent session . ”

“ The president shall be responsible for the proper management of the trial and shall direct the proceedings .

He shall reject anything that is calculated to undermine their dignity or prolong them without creating the hope of more certain results . ”

“ The president is vested with a discretionary power under which he may , on his honour and according to his conscience , take any steps that he believes may assist in establishing the truth . He may , if he deems it appropriate , place the matter before the court , which shall rule in accordance with the conditions set out in LAW .

During the trial he may summon any person , where necessary by means of a warrant , and examine him , or demand to see any new evidence which he considers likely , in the light of argument at the trial , to assist in establishing the truth . Witnesses called in this way shall not be required to take an oath and their statements shall be regarded as being solely for information purposes . ”

“ All interlocutory issues shall be decided by the court , after the prosecution , the parties or their lawyers have been heard .

ORG judgments may not prejudge the merits .

They may be challenged by means of an appeal on points of law , but only at the same time as the judgment on the merits . ”

“ Once the evidence has been heard , civil parties or their lawyers shall be heard . The prosecution shall make its submissions .

The defendant and his lawyer shall submit their defence pleadings .

Civil parties and the prosecution have the right to reply but the defendant or his lawyer shall always speak last . ”

According to the established case - law of ORG ( PERSON . crim . ) ( see , in particular , PERSON . crim . CARDINAL DATE , Bulletin criminel ( Bull . crim . ) no . CARDINAL , and PERSON . crim . CARDINAL DATE , ORG . crim . no . CARDINAL ) :

“ The prosecution shall be free to decide the content of its submissions . It shall be entitled to produce any documents and provide any explanations that it considers necessary , subject to the right of the parties concerned to reply . ”

According to other established precedents of ORG ( see , in particular , PERSON . crim . DATE , ORG . crim . no . CARDINAL , and PERSON . crim . CARDINAL DATE , ORG . crim . no . CARDINAL ) :

“ Under LAW , defendants are not entitled before the opening of the trial to file an application for the case relating to them to be adjourned to a subsequent session . ”

Evidence given by experts is governed by the following provisions of LAW :

“ Experts shall , if necessary , give evidence in court on the results of their technical investigations , after swearing to assist the court on their honour and according to their conscience . When giving evidence , they may consult their report and its annexes .

The president may , of his own motion or at the request of the prosecution , the parties or their counsel , ask experts any questions falling within the sphere of the task assigned to them .

Following their statement , experts shall attend the hearing unless the president authorises them to withdraw . ”

“ If at the hearing of a trial court a person heard as a witness or for information purposes contradicts the conclusions of an expert report or provides new technical insights , the president shall ask the experts , the prosecution , the defence and , if the case arises , the civil party , to submit their observations . The court shall declare in a reasoned decision either that the contradiction shall be disregarded or that the case shall be adjourned to a subsequent date . In the latter case , the court may order any measure it deems necessary with regard to the expert opinion . ”

The provisions of LAW relating to such records provide as follows :

“ To ensure that the required formalities have been carried out , the registrar shall draw up a record which shall be signed by the president and the registrar .

The record shall be drawn up and signed within DATE at the latest of the delivery of judgment . ”

“ Unless the president orders otherwise , of his own motion or at the request of the prosecution or the parties , the record shall include neither the defendants’ replies nor the content of depositions , subject nonetheless to the implementation of Article CARDINAL regarding additions , changes or variations in ORG statements . ”


The applicant , PERSON , is an NORP national , who was born in DATE and lives in GPE . He was represented before the Court by PERSON , PERSON , ORG and PERSON , a company of lawyers practising in PERSON . The respondent Government were represented by their Agent , Ambassador PERSON , Head of ORG at ORG .

On criminal information laid by ORG ) on DATE , ORG ) decided to open preliminary inquiries ( Vorerhebungen ) against the applicant on suspicion of fraud in the context of investment management .

DATE and DATE ORG ( PERSON ) carried out the preliminary inquiries . On DATE the applicant 's premises were searched . ORG also heard witnesses in GPE , GPE and GPE by way of letters rogatory ( PERSON ) and obtained an expert opinion on book keeping .

ORG repeatedly transmitted the file back to ORG for consultation and eventual further requests . It did so on DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE , and on DATE , DATE and DATE and on DATE . ORG remitted the file on DATE , DATE , CARDINAL May , DATE and DATE , and on DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE and on DATE respectively . On DATE , ORG requested ORG to institute preliminary investigations ( PERSON ) against the applicant .

Having taken further evidence , ORG transmitted the file to ORG in DATE , following which ORG , on DATE , filed a bill of indictment ( PERSON ) , charging the applicant with negligent bankruptcy ( fahrlässige PERSON ) under LAW ) .

Subsequently , on DATE , the President ( Vorsteher ) of ORG assigned the case to another judge as the judge in charge had declared himself biased . On DATE the case was again assigned to another judge due to the fact that the judge in charge had been assigned to other duties .

On DATE ORG transmitted the file to ORG as , in the meantime , LAW been amended . On DATE ORG declared that it would maintain the indictment .

On DATE ORG urged ORG to hold an oral hearing .

On DATE ORG scheduled a hearing for DATE . On DATE it held a hearing and postponed the proceedings for an indefinite time .

On DATE the President of ORG assigned another judge to deal with the case as the judge in charge had moved to ORG .

Having held a further hearing on DATE , ORG acquitted the applicant . The written transcript of the judgment was served on the applicant 's counsel on DATE .

ORG . CARDINAL to CARDINAL of LAW Strafprozeβordnung ) concern the conduct of preliminary inquiries ( Vorerhebungen ) and preliminary investigations ( PERSON ) .

In order to procure the necessary evidence for the institution of criminal proceedings or for the closing of the file ( GPE ) on a criminal information , ORG may first have preliminary inquiries carried out by the investigating judge , ORG or the police authorities ( S. CARDINAL § CARDINAL ) .

Where ORG is satisfied that there are sufficient grounds for bringing a criminal prosecution , he or she shall either request the institution of preliminary investigations or file a formal accusation ( PERSON , PERSON ; PERSON ) . According to LAW the preliminary investigations pursue the aim of provisionally examining the criminal charges laid against a person and of establishing the facts to the extent necessary to decide whether to discontinue the criminal proceedings or to commit for trial and prepare the taking of evidence at the trial .

According to S. CARDINAL § CARDINAL the preliminary investigations are in principle conducted by the investigating judge personally and directly .

Section CARDINAL of LAW ( PERSON ) , which has been in force since DATE , provides as follows .

" ( CARDINAL ) If a court is dilatory in taking any procedural step , such as announcing or holding a hearing , obtaining an expert 's report , or preparing a decision , any party may submit a request to this court for the superior court to impose an appropriate time - limit for the taking of the particular procedural step ; unless sub - section ( CARDINAL ) of this section applies , the court is required to submit the request to the superior court , together with its comments , forthwith .

( CARDINAL ) If the court takes all the procedural steps specified in the request within DATE after receipt , and so informs the party concerned , the request is deemed withdrawn unless the party declares within DATE after service of the notification that it wishes to maintain its request .

( CARDINAL ) The request referred to in sub - section ( CARDINAL ) shall be determined with special expedition by a chamber of the superior court consisting of CARDINAL professional judges , CARDINAL of whom shall preside ; if the court has not been dilatory , the request shall be dismissed . This decision is not subject to appeal . "


CASE OF GJONBOCARI AND OTHERS v. ALBANIA

Violation of Art. 6-1 (failure to enforce a final judgment);Violation of Art. 6-1 (length of the third set of proceedings);Not necessary to examine Art. 13+6-1 (failure to enforce a final judgment);Violation of Art. 13+6-1 (length of the third set of proceedings);Remainder inadmissible;Damage - Government to secure the enforcement of the domestic court's final judgment;Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed;Non-pecuniary damage - financial award;Costs and expenses (Convention and domestic proceedings) - claim dismissed

The applicants , who are all siblings , were born in DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE , respectively . They live in GPE and PERSON .

A. Proceedings pursuant to LAW

During the communist regime several plots of land owned by the applicants’ parents had been confiscated by the authorities without compensation . The property measuring in total CARDINAL hectares was situated in the LOC region on the southern NORP coast .

On DATE , pursuant to LAW , the applicants lodged a request with ORG on ORG and Compensation of Properties ( GPE i GPE dhe PERSON , “ the Vlora Commission ” ) seeking the allocation of the original property to them .

On DATE ORG assigned to the applicants jointly , as co - owners , QUANTITY ( QUANTITY per person ) of the property ( “ relevant property ” ) . The decision was signed by CARDINAL out of the CARDINAL members of ORG .

Notwithstanding this , and based on the ORG ’s decision , on an unspecified date the applicants registered the relevant property with ORG .

On DATE they applied to ORG requesting the issuance of a new document complying with formal legal requirements , namely , a document duly signed by all of the ORG ’s members .

On DATE , by document no . DATE , the President of ORG replied to the applicants , informing them that the Commission had already confirmed their title in its decision of CARDINAL DATE . In any event , pursuant to the laws in force at the material time , competence for any formal correction of the ORG ’s documents lay with the courts .

B. Proceedings with ORG as a party

On DATE ORG , by decree no CARDINAL , ( “ the decree ” ) , leased a plot of land ( part of the applicants’ property ) to ORG , for tourism purposes .

On DATE the applicants brought an action before ORG to quash the decree .

On DATE ORG annulled the decree on the ground that the transaction concerned private property .

On DATE ORG quashed ORG decision and upheld the validity of the decree , stating that the ORG ’s decision of CARDINAL DATE had been invalid in that it had not complied with formal requirements . Consequently , the applicants could not claim title to the relevant property .

On DATE , following an appeal by the applicants , ORG quashed ORG judgment of DATE on the ground that it had been illogical and sent the case back to ORG for re - hearing .

On DATE ORG , following a re - hearing , rejected the applicants’ action on the ground that it had been lodged with ORG after the DATE time - limit stipulated by law had expired .

On DATE ORG upheld ORG judgment .

C. Proceedings on the restitution of the property to ORG

Meanwhile , on DATE ORG allocated to PERSON mother - as compensation , the same plot of land that ORG had previously leased to her son .

On an unspecified date GPE donated the land to her son .

Following a request by ORG , by order no . CARDINAL dated DATE , ORG cancelled the ORG title to this plot of land and registered PERSON as the owner .

D. Proceedings with ORG as a party

On DATE , following a civil action brought by PERSON , GPE declared null and void ORG decision of CARDINAL DATE which had allocated the ownership of the plot of land to the applicants on the ground that it had not been issued in compliance with formal requirements ( see the findings of ORG of Appeal decision of DATE ) .

On DATE ORG upheld ORG decision and reasoning , adding that ORG had exceeded its jurisdiction in taking decisions about properties which the ORG had assigned for tourism purposes .

On DATE ORG confirmed that ORG decision was null and void , on the ground that it had not been issued in compliance with formal requirements . It was consequently of no effect as regards the applicants or other third parties . Notwithstanding this , it quashed the judgments given at first and second instance and discontinued the proceedings .

PERSON with ORG as a party

Ordinary proceedings

On DATE the applicants initiated proceedings with the ORG seeking the annulment of the decision of ORG in GPE ’s favour . On DATE the ORG dismissed the ORG request on the ground that ORG decision in their favour had been declared null and void by LOC decision of DATE .

On CARDINAL DATE ORG , having examined the NORP appeal , rejected the ORG argument as to the nullity of the ORG ’s decision allocating the land to ORG on the ground that it was unsubstantiated . It also rejected their second request , holding that an irregular act , even if not considered formally invalid , as in this case , should not have any legal effect .

On DATE ORG quashed the first and second instance decisions in part . It dismissed the applicants’ request for a declaration that ORG decision allocating the plot of land to ORG was null and void , on the ground that its nullity could only be determined once a valid decision determining the applicants’ rights over the land had been taken . It accordingly ordered ORG to issue a decision vis - a - vis the applicants in compliance with the formal requirements .

NORP Enforcement proceedings

On DATE the ORG , upon a request by the applicants , issued an enforcement order instructing ORG to comply with ORG judgment of DATE .

On DATE and DATE the Commission informed ORG that they had not issued the decision ordered in ORG judgment due to the fact that the applicants had failed to submit the documents necessary to enable a legally correct decision to be taken .

On DATE ORG once again brought to ORG attention the enforcement order issued on DATE .

On DATE and DATE ORG invited the applicants to comply with the ORG ’s requests and to submit the documents relating to their property claims .

The applicants then informed ORG and ORG that they had already submitted the necessary documents at the time the Commission had decided in DATE . Moreover , they were reluctant to submit the requested documents since they disagreed with any suggestion that their case had to be decided ex novo . In their opinion , ORG judgment only required the formalisation of the decision of DATE .

On DATE ORG decided not to consider the case for apparent insufficiency of documentation and on DATE it sent the case for further consideration to ORG of properties .

On DATE ORG , now known as the ORG for the ORG and Compensation of properties ( “ the NORP ” ) informed the applicants that , notwithstanding that the ORG file was in fact complete , it had decided to stay the proceedings until the ORG had issued the appropriate plans for the GPE valuation .

LAW , in so far as relevant , reads as follows :

“ CARDINAL . The right of private property is protected by law CARDINAL . Property may be acquired by gift , inheritance , purchase , or any other ordinary means provided by LAW . CARDINAL . The law may provide for expropriations or limitations in the exercise of a property right only in the public interest . CARDINAL . The expropriations or limitations of a property right that are equivalent to expropriation are permitted only against fair compensation . CARDINAL . A complaint may be filed in court to resolve disputes regarding the amount / extent of compensation due . ”

“ In the protection of his constitutional and legal rights , freedoms and interests , and in defence of a criminal charge , everyone has the right to a fair and public hearing , within a reasonable time , by an independent and impartial court established by law . ”

“ State bodies shall comply with judicial decisions . ”

“ The Constitutional Court shall decide : ... ( f ) Final complaints by individuals alleging a violation of their constitutional rights to a fair hearing , after all legal remedies for the protection of those rights have been exhausted . ”

“ CARDINAL . Within DATE from the date when this LAW enters into force , The ORG , guided by the criteria of article CARDINAL , shall issue laws for the just resolution of different issues related to expropriations and confiscations done before the approval of this LAW , .

Laws and other normative acts that relate to the expropriations and confiscations , adopted before the entry into force of this LAW , shall be applied provided they are compatible with the latter . ”

ORG ( GPE për kthimin dhe kompensimin e pronës ) underwent several amendments during DATE . The main changes to LAW of DATE came about as a result of CARDINAL laws which entered into force respectively in DATE and DATE . Thus , hereinafter they will be referred to as the “ LAW DATE ” , the “ Property Act DATE ” and the “ Property Act CARDINAL ” , respectively .

The relevant provisions of each of these laws are abridged as follows :

According to the Act of DATE the former owners of properties expropriated by the relevant regime and their legal heirs had the right to claim the ownership over the original properties . Upon ownership being determined they were entitled either to have allocated the original immovable property or to be awarded compensation in kind ( in a maximum of QUANTITY . m ) or in value if CARDINAL of the following conditions was met : the alleged property ( CARDINAL ) was pasture , meadow , forestry land , or agricultural or non - agricultural land ; ( CARDINAL ) was not subject to PERSON no . CARDINAL of DATE ; ( CARDINAL ) was currently ORG - owned ; ( CARDINAL ) had been designated as suitable for construction and is situated within the boundaries of a city .

Section CARDINAL of the Act provided for the following forms of compensation in respect of property which could not be restituted : ( a ) State bonds , equivalent to the compensation owed , and with a first option of acquiring shares in ORG enterprises being privatised by the ORG or in other activities carried out through the granting of loans ; ( b ) an equivalent plot of land or building site near to an urban area , in accordance with the general urban - development regulations ; and ( c ) an equivalent plot of land in a tourist zone , in accordance with the general urban - development regulations .

ORG had the authority to define detailed rules for determining the methods and time - limits for such compensation to take place .

Moreover , the DATE Act instituted the Commission on Restitution and Compensation of Properties ( GPE i GPE dhe PERSON ) as the competent administrative body to deal with former ORG restitution and compensation of property claims . However , it omitted to provide a time - limit within which a decision could be appealed , thus preventing it from even becoming binding .

LAW enacted in DATE , repealing the previous one , provided for CARDINAL forms of restitution of immovable properties , namely the return , under certain circumstances , of the original property and compensation in the event of the impossibility for the authorities to return the original property . The restitution was not limited in size . The LAW provided for CARDINAL forms of compensation : ( a ) property of the same kind ; ( b ) property of any other kind ; ( c ) shares in ORG - owned companies ; ( d ) the value of a ORG - owned property in the privatisation process , and ( e ) a sum of money corresponding to the value attributed to the property at the time of the decision ( section CARDINAL ) . The Act instituted ORG ( PERSON per GPE dhe GPE e Pronave ) , composed of CARDINAL members elected by ORG . Its role was to decide on the lawfulness of district GPE decisions on restitution and compensation claims ( sections DATE ) . ORG was to establish the rules and the criteria of these ( sections CARDINAL ) .

Section CARDINAL provided for the enforcement of the decisions awarding compensation within DATE of DATE . On its entry into force , persons entitled to claim restitution or compensation had to lodge applications with ORG by DATE . The LAW granted the ORG discretion to decide which form of compensation should be granted , but applicants could express in writing their preferred type of compensation . ORG decision could be appealed to ORG ( section CARDINAL ) and to the district courts within DATE of the date of issue of the ORG ’s decision .

On DATE ORG adopted an LAW , setting down the method by which immovable property would be valued for compensation purposes . Its implementation was left to ORG for the Compensation and ORG , which was to issue the appropriate maps for the GPE valuation .

In order to comply with the GPE decisions awarding pecuniary compensation , section CARDINAL of the CARDINAL Act provided for the establishment of a DATE ORG , whose aim was to provide financial support for such awards . LAW was examined by both the LAW and ORG .

On DATE ORG , concluded that LAW had no retroactive effect and that its provisions , could therefore , not have any impact on property rights recognised by administrative or court decisions given before its entry into force .

On DATE Property Act of DATE was amended by means of LAW which entered into force on DATE . It provided , inter alia , for the establishment of the Agency for ORG , a new body competent to decide restitution and compensation claims ( section CARDINAL ) . The new law repealed sections CARDINAL § CARDINAL ; DATE and DATE of the previous law which , inter alia , provided for the procedure for the enforcement of decisions that awarded compensation .


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

The applicant ’s clients were suspected of , inter alia , alleged dishonesty as debtors in respect of a company that was in the process of being wound - up . However , on DATE the public prosecutor decided not to bring charges against them . Meanwhile in DATE , the company and the tax authorities brought a compensation claim against the applicant ’s clients before ORG ( käräjäoikeus , tingsrätten ) of GPE .

In DATE before the court , the applicant in his capacity as counsel presented a document according to which he had , acting for his clients , made a report to ORG ( keskusrikospoliisi , centralkriminalpolisen ) on the official receiver of the above company and CARDINAL tax officials , X and Y , accusing the CARDINAL last - mentioned of having committed aggravated abuse of office relating to the company ’s taxation .

On DATE ORG rejected the compensation claim . The judgment was upheld by the higher courts .

Subsequently , the official receiver and X and Y reported the applicant to the police alleging libel .

On DATE the public prosecutor charged the applicant with CARDINAL counts of libel .

On DATE ORG , having held an oral hearing , convicted him as charged and sentenced him to pay a fine and ordered him to pay damages and legal costs .

The applicant appealed to ORG ( hovioikeus , hovrätten ) . On CARDINAL and DATE the court held an oral hearing .

On DATE the court rejected the charges concerning the alleged libel of the wound - up company ’s official receiver , reduced the sentence to a fine amounting to ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL ( EUR CARDINAL ) and reduced the damages to LAW ( EUR CARDINAL,CARDINAL ) . The applicant was ordered to pay the legal costs of X and Y amounting to ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL ( ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL ) .

The court thus upheld the conviction insofar as ORG had found the applicant guilty of having libelled the tax officials by accusing X of having brought considerable pressure on the tax inspection unit with a view to obtaining an unlawful tax assessment and to furthering the commission by the official receiver of certain unlawful acts , for instance , as regards the obtaining of an unreasonably large fee from the company . The applicant was found to have libelled Y by accusing him of having furthered the commission by the official receiver and X of some unlawful acts . As to the alleged libel of the official receiver , the court found that the applicant had had well - founded reasons to make the allegations in question .

The court noted that the public interest required that there be a wide freedom to express criticism in judicial proceedings . It had been the applicant ’s fundamental right to express criticism on behalf of his clients in the above proceedings . As to the tax officials in question , the court considered that in their capacity as civil servants they were expected to tolerate criticism directed at their exercise of powers . Nonetheless , the case should be assessed in a different manner when it was alleged that a civil servant had committed an aggravated offence , which was a particularly contemptible offence and one which could lead to a severe sentence and dismissal . The court also noted that the more serious an allegation , the more care must be exercised to ensure the accuracy of it . In the present case , the applicant had not put forward any grounds for his allegations against X and Y.

On DATE ORG refused the applicant leave to appeal .

A person who spreads false information or a false insinuation about another person conducive to causing damage or suffering to that person , or subjecting that person to contempt , or who makes a derogatory comment about another otherwise than in a manner referred to above shall be sentenced for defamation to a fine or to imprisonment for a maximum period of DATE . Criticism that is directed at a person ’s activities in politics , business , public office , public position , science , art or in a comparable public position and that does not obviously overstep the limits of propriety does not constitute defamation referred to above ( section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of LAW ) .


Violation of Art. 6-1 with regard to the right to a court;Violation of Art. 6-1 with regard to the length of proceedings;No violation of Art. 8;Non-pecuniary damage - financial award;Costs and expenses partial award - domestic proceedings

The applicants were born in DATE and DATE respectively and live in GPE . The first applicant is the second applicant ’s mother .

The applicants own real property in the south - eastern part of the NORP island of GPE , where they spend part of their time . The first applicant is the co - owner of a house and a plot of land on the GPE ORG peninsula , which is adjacent to a swamp by the coast of PERSON .

On DATE the prefect ( νομάρχης ) of Cyclades redrew the boundaries of the settlement ( οικισμός ) of PERSON in the municipality of PERSON and of the settlements of GPE PERSON , PERSON and NORP in the municipality of PERSON ( decision no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) . On DATE the prefect again redrew the boundaries of the settlements of PERSON and PERSON ( decision no . DATE ) .

On DATE the town - planning authority of GPE issued building permit no . CARDINAL on the basis of the prefect ’s decision no . CARDINAL . Another permit ( no . CARDINAL ) had been issued on the same basis by the same authority in DATE .

On DATE the applicants and ORG lodged an application for judicial review of the prefect ’s decisions ORG . CARDINAL and DATE and of building permit no . CARDINAL with ORG . On DATE second application was lodged by the same persons for judicial review of the prefect ’s CARDINAL decisions and of building permit no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL . The basic argument of the applicants before ORG was that the prefect ’s decisions , and consequently the building permits , were illegal because in the area concerned there was a swamp and LAW , which protects the environment , provided that no settlement should be built in such a place .

On DATE ORG considered that the applicants had locus standi because they owned property in the area concerned . The court held that it could not review the prefect ’s decision no . DATE directly because the application had not been lodged within the time - limit prescribed by law . However , it could review the CARDINAL building permits issued on the basis of that decision and , in the context of this review , the court was obliged to examine the constitutionality of the prefect ’s decision . The decision was found to have violated LAW , which protects the environment , because the redrawing of the boundaries of the settlements put in jeopardy the swamp in PERSON , an important natural habitat for various protected species ( such as birds , fishes and sea - turtles ) . It followed that the building permits were also unlawful and had to be quashed . Moreover , the court quashed the prefect ’s decision no . DATE because it had not been published in ORG in the manner prescribed by law ( decisions ORG . ORG and DATE ) .

In DATE the prefect issued CARDINAL decisions ( nos . GPE and ORG ) which excluded the contested buildings from demolition .

On DATE a special committee of ORG found that the authorities had failed to comply with the above decisions . They had not demolished the CARDINAL buildings constructed on the basis of permits FAC . CARDINAL and CARDINAL/CARDINAL and had continued issuing building permits in respect of the area that had been included in the settlements further to the unlawful redrawing of the boundaries ( minutes no . MONEY ) .

On DATE the first applicant and others instituted civil proceedings against a neighbour , PERSON , in ORG ( PERSON ) . They claimed that he had unlawfully taken over part of their land in PERSON . On DATE the court found in favour of the plaintiffs .

On DATE M. entered a caveat against this judgment ( ανακοπή ερημοδικίας ) , which had been given in his absence . His application was rejected on DATE ( decision no . DATE ) . On DATE PERSON appealed against that decision . ORG ( NORP ) reversed decision no . DATE and sent the case back to the first - instance court ( decision no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) .

A hearing took place on DATE . In a preliminary decision of DATE , the first - instance court ordered investigative measures . Witnesses were heard on DATE , CARDINAL DATE , DATE , CARDINAL DATE , CARDINAL DATE and DATE .

Following an application by the first applicant on DATE , a hearing was set down for DATE . The hearing was finally held on CARDINAL DATE . On DATE the first - instance court found in favour of the first applicant ( decision no . CARDINAL ) .

On DATE M. appealed against that decision . The proceedings are currently pending before ORG . The parties have not yet applied for a hearing to be fixed .

On DATE the applicants received a notice to the effect that their house in GPE ORG had been built without authorisation and should be demolished . The applicants appealed to the competent administrative board . Their appeal was rejected on DATE .

On DATE they applied to ORG for judicial review of the decision of the administrative board . On a request by the applicants , ORG decided to suspend the demolition of the applicants’ house ( decision no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) .

At first , the hearing was set down for DATE but it was repeatedly postponed .

In DATE a new law ( no . CARDINAL ) changed the rules of jurisdiction and the case was referred to ORG , which heard the case on DATE . The proceedings are still pending .

Article CARDINAL of the Code of Civil Procedure reads as follows :

“ The parties shall be responsible for taking procedural steps on their own initiative unless the law provides otherwise ” .

Sections CARDINAL and CARDINAL of Law no . DATE provide that the demolition of a building constructed on the basis of a building permit which has subsequently been revoked for any reason is to be suspended if the owner of the building acted in good faith .


The applicant is a NORP citizen , born in DATE and living in GPE , GPE .

This is the applicant 's second application . The previous one ( number CARDINAL ) was declared inadmissible by the ORG in DATE .

On DATE , the applicant was charged with aggravated assault before ORG ( PERSON ) . On DATE , ORG stayed the proceedings against the applicant due to the expiry of the time - limit for prosecution and stated that the ORG would issue a separate decision on the costs of the proceedings .

On DATE , the ORG dismissed the applicant 's request for reimbursement of the costs of the proceedings , as the applicant did not submit relevant evidence in support of his claim . ORG instructed the applicant that he could lodge an appeal against that decision with ORG PERSON u GPE ) .

On DATE , ORG , upon the applicant 's appeal , remitted the case to ORG stating that ORG had both the trial and appellate jurisdiction on that issue . ORG instructed ORG to deliver a decision upon the applicant 's appeal .

On DATE ORG again dismissed the applicant 's request for the costs of the proceedings , again stating that the applicant did not submit the relevant evidence . Again , ORG instructed the applicant that he could lodge an appeal with ORG .

On DATE , ORG dismissed the applicant 's appeal as inadmissible . The ORG stated that ORG wrongly instructed the applicant that the appeal was to be lodged with ORG as the appellate court , while ORG for the applicant 's case was both the first instance and the appellate court . However , ORG held that , although ORG had not mentioned the applicant 's appeal in its decision , it was evident that ORG actually ruled on the applicant 's appeal , because the first decision by ORG had been delivered by a single judge , while the second decision of ORG was delivered by a special panel of CARDINAL judges . According to LAW that panel was to act as an appellate body within ORG for certain type of decisions of those courts . Furthermore , ORG held that there was no right to appeal against ORG CARDINAL - member panel decision on the costs of criminal proceedings .

On DATE , the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint with ORG ( Ustavni sud PERSON ) , claiming , in substance , that his rights to fair trial and to an effective remedy have been violated . The complaint is still pending .