CASE OF MATOS E SILVA, LDA., AND OTHERS v. PORTUGAL

Preliminary objection joined to merits (non-exhaustion of domestic remedies);Preliminary objection joined to merits (ratione materiae);Preliminary objection rejected (non-exhaustion of domestic remedies);Preliminary objection rejected (ratione materiae);No violation of Art. 13 (access);No violation of Art. 6-1 (access);Violation of Art. 6-1 (length);Violation of P1-1;Not necessary to examine Art. 14+P1-1;Pecuniary damage - financial award;Non-pecuniary damage - financial award;Costs and expenses partial award - domestic proceedings;Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings

ORG The first applicant , PERSON , PERSON . ( " PERSON " ) , is a private limited company entered in the ORG register at ORG ) . It , alone among the applicants , was a party to the domestic proceedings ( see paragraphs CARDINAL to CARDINAL below ) . The second and third applicants , PERSON and PERSON dos PERSON , GPE . , another company , are the only shareholders in and owners of PERSON . The second applicant manages both companies .

PERSON works land in the municipality of ORG . It cultivates the land , extracts salt and breeds fish .

ORG It owns part of this land , having bought the parcels in question on different occasions .

The remainder was worked under a concession granted under a royal decree of DATE to PERSON . LAW decree provided that the parcels of land over which the concession had been granted could be expropriated without any right to compensation for the grantees . In DATE PERSON assigned the concession to ORG do PERSON . When that company was wound up , some of its former shareholders purchased the concession . They formed the PERSON company whose object was in particular to purchase and work part of the salt marshes which were the subject matter of the concession . On CARDINAL DATE that company executed a sale and purchase agreement before a notary in respect of those parcels of land . On DATE it had the agreement recorded in the ORG land register in the following terms : " DATE ... The transfer of the usable area of the third glebe of the ORG parcel [ ORG ] ... together with the parcels of land known as ORG and PERSON ... is registered in favour of the PERSON company ... , which purchased them ... for a total price of MONEY [ sic ] ... " Since then , PERSON has acted in respect of that land uti dominus , paying the taxes and duties provided for by NORP legislation on land ownership .

ORG On DATE , by Decree no . CARDINAL , ORG created a nature reserve for animals ( ORG ) on the LOC coast ( municipalities of GPE , PERSON and PERSON ) , including the parcels of PERSON land known as " Herdade do ORG , or " Quinta do Ludo " or again " PERSON do PERSON " . The Government took various measures in connection with this scheme , including the CARDINAL contested by the applicants .

ORG By Legislative Decree no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE the Government declared that CARDINAL of PERSON land was needed for public purposes . This public - interest declaration was a preliminary to expropriating the land with a view to building an aquacultural research station on it .

ORG On DATE PERSON challenged this administrative decision in ORG of ORG . The appeal - lodged with the Prime Minister ’s office in accordance with LAW no . CARDINAL-A/CARDINAL , which was applicable at the time ( see paragraph DATE below ) - was forwarded to ORG on DATE

ORG On DATE , after an exchange of pleadings , PERSON , relying on Article CARDINAL para . CARDINAL of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , made an application to discontinue the proceedings on the ground that they had become devoid of purpose in view of the fact that the public - interest declaration in Legislative Decree no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL was no longer valid .

It renewed this application on DATE , DATE and DATE .

ORG On DATE ORG decided not to rule on the validity of the declaration before examining the application which had in the meantime been lodged by PERSON against Legislative Decree no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL and was under consideration in the Prime Minister ’s office ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

Accordingly , ORG requested the Prime Minister to send it the application instituting the proceedings ( petição do recurso ) . No reply was forthcoming to its reminders of CARDINAL DATE , DATE and CARDINAL DATE .

ORG On DATE ORG applied for a stay of the proceedings until the application for an order quashing Legislative Decree no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL had been determined . PERSON opposed the application for a stay and renewed its application to discontinue the proceedings .

ORG In a decision of CARDINAL DATE ORG decided to stay the proceedings and dismissed the company ’s application . It held that Article CARDINAL para . CARDINAL of LAW was not applicable to the case before it because LAW no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL had suspended the effect of the public - interest declaration contained in LAW no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL . A measure which had no existence in the legal order could not lapse . Moreover , it was necessary to await the outcome of the application against LAW no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL . In any event , the public - interest declaration contained in LAW no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL could be revived if Legislative Decree no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL were to be quashed .

ORG On DATE PERSON appealed against that decision to a full court of ORG of ORG . That appeal was dismissed in a judgment of CARDINAL DATE . On DATE , arguing that there had been conflicting decisions on the same point of law , the company appealed against ORG ruling . However , on DATE the reporting judge declared the appeal inadmissible . The company filed an objection to that decision , but to no avail .

ORG The proceedings are still pending .

ORG In a joint order of the Prime Minister and ORG and for ORG ) of CARDINAL DATE , the ORG made a public - interest declaration with a view to the expropriation of the other CARDINAL of PERSON land in order to set up a single nature reserve for the protection of migrant birds and other important species . The order authorised " the immediate taking of possession " of the land by the ORG .

ORG On DATE PERSON appealed against that order . ORG registered the appeal on DATE , the Prime Minister ’s office having forwarded it on DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

ORG On DATE PERSON made an application to discontinue the proceedings identical to the one it had lodged in the earlier proceedings ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . It renewed its request on DATE and DATE , but without success .

ORG again held that it could not rule on the appeal before examining the application which had in the meantime been lodged against Legislative Decree no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ( see paragraph CARDINAL above and paragraph CARDINAL below ) and was under consideration in the Prime Minister ’s office .

With a view to obtaining the application instituting those proceedings , the court issued CARDINAL orders to the Prime Minister between DATE and CARDINAL DATE , but they were not complied with .

On DATE the Prime Minister responded to a ninth order issued on DATE . He informed the court that the original of the application instituting the proceedings had disappeared and that he had only a copy . No documents were enclosed with his letter .

ORG On DATE PERSON itself produced to ORG a copy of the application in question .

ORG On DATE ORG asked the court to stay the proceedings on the same grounds as those given in his application in relation to the previous appeal ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

ORG On DATE the court delivered a judgment staying the proceedings for reasons identical to those set out in its judgment of CARDINAL DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

On DATE PERSON appealed against that decision to a full court of ORG of ORG , which dismissed the appeal by a decision of DATE .

ORG The proceedings are still pending .

ORG By Legislative Decree no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE and " with a view to carrying out works in the public interest , and more particularly to creating a single reserve ... " , the Government " withdrew the concession to work all the parcels of land referred to in LAW [ of the decree of DATE ] " . The withdrawal " [ was ] to be effected in the manner in which expropriation [ was permitted ] by the [ DATE decree ] " ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . Under Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL of Legislative Decree no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , the ORG was to take immediate possession of the land without any formalities or compensation except that payable for necessary and useful improvements made to the property .

PERSON then made an application to the ORG on DATE requesting them to reconsider their decision ; the outcome of that application is not known .

ORG At the same time , the company applied to ORG of ORG for the effects ( eficacia ) of Decree no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL to be suspended . By a decision of DATE , which was upheld by a full court , the court granted the application and decided to suspend the effects of the decree in question pending a decision on the merits .

ORG On DATE PERSON applied to the same court for an order quashing the decree . This application was submitted to the Prime Minister ’s office ( see paragraph DATE below ) .

The company relied on the following grounds , among others :

( a ) there had still been no compensation for the CARDINAL earlier expropriations ;

( b ) the reasons given by the Government on each occasion to justify the expropriations were different and inconsistent , a bird sanctuary and an aquacultural research station being incompatible with each other ; and Legislative Decree no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL purported to create a single reserve on the land ;

( c ) the expropriation order was discriminatory in that it concerned almost exclusively PERSON land and not other land in the same area and with the same conditions and characteristics belonging to other persons or companies .

ORG The Prime Minister ’s office decided to send the file to ORG . The new Minister issued an order dated CARDINAL DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) setting up a committee entrusted with the task of making , within DATE , a proposal for , among other things , repealing Legislative Decree no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL .

ORG However , in DATE , a new Government was formed and the proposed repeal came to nothing .

ORG Having seen the Prime Minister ’s letter of CARDINAL DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) and forwarded a copy of its application ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , PERSON , in accordance with Articles CARDINAL et seq . of LAW , requested reconstitution ( reforma ) of the administrative file . In an interlocutory decision of DATE the reporting judge stated that the copy of the application instituting the proceedings had been communicated by the Government . When the company sought rectification of this statement , he accepted in a decision of CARDINAL DATE that the application had in fact been submitted by the company . However , the administrative file was not reconstituted .

ORG On DATE PERSON applied to discontinue the proceedings on the same grounds as those it had invoked in the proceedings concerning Legislative Decree no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

ORG On DATE ORG decided that it would not proceed until it had been sent the file relating to the administrative application ( processo gracioso ) . To this end , on DATE and DATE , it ordered the Government to send it the file in question .

The Government did so on DATE . However , the application instituting the proceedings was not on the file .

ORG At DATE PERSON filed a memorial and an opinion . On DATE ORG made his final submissions in favour of quashing the contested measure . In an order of CARDINAL DATE the reporting judge expressed the view that all the issues raised in the appeal were essentially dependent on whether the company was the owner of the land . In these circumstances ORG should stay the proceedings until the relevant civil court had ruled on ownership in separate proceedings . Consequently , pursuant to LAW no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL governing the administrative and tax courts ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , it was ordered that the proceedings be stayed .

On an appeal by the company , ORG quashed that order on DATE on the ground that the reporting judge did not have jurisdiction to make it . After itself considering the issue , the court stayed the proceedings to enable the company to commence proceedings in the civil courts , given that if the parties took no action for DATE , the issue would be decided on the evidence in the file ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

The company has appealed against that decision to a full court of ORG which has not , at the date of adoption of the present judgment , yet decided the appeal .

ORG By Legislative Decree no . CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE the ORG created ORG on the ORG and adopted rules for the protection of the area ’s ecosystem . Among other things , these rules prohibited , in addition to all building , any change in the use of the land and the starting up of any new agricultural and fish - farming activities without permission .

ORG On DATE PERSON challenged this decree in ORG of ORG . It claimed that the rules governing the exercise of its right of property over its land that were contained in the decree were more restrictive than the restrictions affecting adjoining land . It pointed out in addition that the offending measure amounted to an expropriation in view of the number of restrictions imposed .

ORG On DATE the court decided to stay the proceedings pending a determination of the merits of the application for an order quashing Legislative Decree no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL . The proceedings are therefore still pending .

ORG By " regulatory " Decree no . CARDINAL of DATE the ORG approved a " Plan for the organisation and regulation of ORG " ( ORG do ORG ) .

ORG On DATE CARDINAL PERSON challenged this decree in ORG of ORG . It alleged a violation of the principles of equality and proportionality and argued that the decree constituted a further expropriation measure .

ORG Following an exchange of pleadings the court sought information on DATE concerning the course of the proceedings in connection with Legislative Decree no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL .

ORG On DATE the court stayed the proceedings on the grounds given above .

ORG Article CARDINAL of the LAW provides :

" CARDINAL . The right to private property and the right to transfer property inter vivos or by succession shall be guaranteed to everyone , in accordance with the LAW .

ORG and expropriation in the public interest may be effected only in accordance with law and subject to payment of fair compensation . "

ORG LAW , as it applied at the material time , contained the following provisions :

" Real property and the rights relating to it may be expropriated on public - interest grounds in so far as such grounds fall within the competence of the expropriating authority , subject to payment of fair compensation . "

" A public - interest declaration shall lapse if the property has not been acquired within DATE or if no arbitration board has been set up within DATE . "

" Expropriation of a property or right on public - interest grounds shall confer on the expropriated person the right to receive fair compensation . "

ORG Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL para . CARDINAL of the DATE LAW , which is currently applicable , provide as follows :

" Real property and the rights relating to it may be expropriated on public - interest grounds in so far as such grounds fall within the competence of the expropriating authority , subject to immediate payment of fair compensation . "

" Expropriation of any property or right on public - interest grounds shall entitle the expropriated person to immediate payment of fair compensation . "

ORG LAW no . CARDINAL of DATE provided as follows :

" CARDINAL . Administrative decisions which are final and enforceable may be challenged by means of an application for judicial review , which shall be made to the competent court and lodged with the authority that took the decision in question .

The administrative authority may , within DATE , revoke or confirm the impugned decision in whole or in part .

In any event , the administrative authority shall , within the same period , forward the administrative file containing the relevant documents to the appropriate court or tribunal .

If there is no production , the applicant may ask the court to take possession of the file and documents concerning the applicant so that the proceedings may continue .

ORG This provision was amended by LAW no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL of DATE , which contains the following relevant Articles :

" Where either party fails , for DATE , to make , or diligently pursue an application on a preliminary issue then the main proceedings shall continue and the preliminary issue shall be decided on the basis of such evidence as is admissible in those proceedings . The effects of such a decision shall be confined solely to the proceedings in question . "

" CARDINAL . Where , without good cause , evidence relevant to the determination of the case is not produced , the court may order any appropriate measures , including the CARDINAL provided for in LAW no . CARDINAL of DATE , and shall issue an injunction to the administrative authority in question , in accordance with LAW .

Where the administrative authority again fails to comply , the court may draw such inferences from that conduct as it thinks fit . "

" CARDINAL . In its decision the court shall stipulate the time within which the injunction is to be obeyed .

Refusal to comply with the injunction shall give rise to civil , disciplinary and criminal liability in accordance with LAW no . CARDINAL of DATE . "

Article CARDINAL para . CARDINAL of Legislative Decree no . CARDINAL of DATE governing administrative and tax courts is worded as follows :

" Where a decision on the merits of the action or appeal turns on the determination of an issue within the jurisdiction of other courts , the tribunal may defer judgment until the relevant court has given its ruling ; the consequences of a failure by the interested parties to make or diligently pursue the proceedings concerning the preliminary issue shall be laid down in procedural provisions . "

ORG LAW no . CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE provides :

" CARDINAL . Where , without justification , the case file relating to an administrative application [ processo gracioso ] , or any other evidence requested by a court in order to assist its examination of an appeal , is not produced within DATE the reporting judge shall forward the appeal to ORG office , in order that the latter may make its submissions within DATE , failing which the penalties set out in the following paragraph shall apply .

Where a period of DATE has elapsed following submission of the opinion of ORG office , as provided for in paragraph CARDINAL , and the documents requested have , without good cause , not been produced , the proceedings shall resume and the court may draw such inferences from the conduct of the authority in question as it sees fit . "

ORG Order no . CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE issued by ORG is worded as follows :

" CARDINAL . Taking note of Legislative Decree no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL of CARDINAL May , which concerns all the land that is the subject of a royal concession granted by Government Decree no . CARDINAL of DATE , without any restriction or discrimination in respect of such land ;

Observing that much of this land , amounting to QUANTITY , is now private property which has nothing to do with the aims of protecting the environment and natural resources which it is said will be achieved by withdrawing the concession , thereby entailing a flood of potential lawsuits and payment by the ORG of huge amounts of compensation ;

Observing that the statutory provision refers expressly to ORG do PERSON " or , in other words , " Herdade do Muro do PERSON " , which represents only a small part of the land covered by the royal concession of DATE ;

Observing likewise that even the " Herdade do Muro do Ludo " is only partly of special interest from the point of view of protecting bird life ;

Decides to set up a committee ... to make a proposal concerning :

( i ) the repeal of Legislative Decree no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL and any other legislation on this subject ;

( ii ) the tabling of a draft of a new legislative decree intended to transfer to the ORG as part of the national heritage all the land which , being part of the estate designated as " PERSON do PERSON " or outside it , is of value for the bird life which it is sought to protect by means of establishing a sanctuary ;

( iii ) compensation or a fair method for calculating such compensation based on the improvements [ benfeitorias ] made to the land to be transferred to the ORG ;

( iv ) the final regularisation of the land in private hands [ dominio particular ] which is of no value for the sanctuary and was covered by the royal concession of DATE .

The committee thus appointed is to carry out its task before DATE ; however , the proposal for the repeal of Legislative Decree no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , duly reasoned , shall be submitted to ORG by DATE so as to be put on the agenda of the next meeting of the ORG and shall contain any provisions that may be necessary to make clear that the ORG remains interested in the sanctuary and is determined to transfer as part of the national heritage the land to be incorporated in it . "


Preliminary objections dismissed (ratione temporis, ratione loci, victim, non-exhaustion of domestic remedies);Violation of Art. 8;Violation of P1-1;Not necessary to examine Art. 13;Just satisfaction reserved;Costs and expenses award - Convention proceedings

The applicant is a NORP national of NORP - Cypriot origin , born in DATE and living in GPE .

The applicant states that he is the registered owner of a plot of land ( Registration number : CARDINAL , ORG : CARDINAL E , ORG ) situated on the sea front in the district of GPE in northern GPE . He also maintains that he is the owner of a QUANTITY house , which he built on the above - mentioned plot of land . He submits that the house was fully furnished and equipped and that it was used by him and his family on a regular basis not only for DATE and holiday purposes but also as a home .

NORP The applicant states that since DATE he has been prevented by the NORP armed forces from having access to his property , using and enjoying possession of it as well as developing it . In addition , he claims that according to evidence his home is currently occupied by officers and/or other members of the NORP armed forces .

On DATE the “ ORG of GPE ” enacted LAW within ORG ” , which entered into force on DATE .


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

The respondent Government were represented by their Agent , Ms M. Karadjova , of ORG .

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

On an unspecified date , the applicant was registered as a sole trader with the trade name “ PERSON GPE and obtained a value - added tax ( GPE ) registration also on an unspecified date .

On DATE the applicant ’s wife was registered as a sole trader with ORG with the trade name “ Rita-CARDINAL-Margarita Poryazova ” ( the “ sole trader ” ) .

On DATE the applicant was authorised to represent the sole trader under a power of attorney , which granted him , inter alia , the following powers :

“ ... to represent [ the sole trader ] before all bodies , organisations , firms , companies , traders , juridical and private persons in connection with all legal relationships of my [ sole trader ] , as well as to negotiate , send and receive offers , draft and sign contracts on my behalf , whereby for the purposes of the present power of attorney he has the power to sign on my behalf [ whatever ] is necessary ... ”

On DATE the sole trader obtained a VAT registration .

On DATE the applicant filed the sole trader ’s ORG return for DATE with the tax authorities . At the time of making the filing he was verbally informed that the ORG return was incomplete , that following an amendment of LAW the sole trader ’s VAT registration was subject to termination and that he had to make additional filings in order to complete that procedure . The applicant did not make an additional filing or a correction of the tax return .

On an unspecified date he was invited by the tax authorities to present the additional documents and to make the necessary filings in order to terminate the VAT registration of the sole trader .

The applicant made those filings on CARDINAL DATE and the VAT registration of the sole trader was terminated on DATE . At the same time , the tax authorities made a preliminary finding of a tax filing violation in respect of the applicant ’s failure to comply with the ORG filing requirements in respect of the sole trader .

On the basis of the preliminary finding of CARDINAL DATE , ORG issued a penal decree of CARDINAL DATE against the applicant in the capacity of “ manager of the sole trader ” . It found that , in respect of the sole trader , he had failed ( CARDINAL ) to inform the tax authorities that as a result of its activities and turnover during DATE the sole trader no longer met the prerequisites for having a VAT registration , ( CARDINAL ) to make an accurate NORP filing for the tax period ending on DATE and ( CARDINAL ) to return the VAT registration certificate of the sole trader . A fine of CARDINAL old NORP levs [ ORG : MONEY ( ORG ) ] was imposed on the applicant . He was served with a copy of the penal decree on DATE .

The applicant , using the title of “ manager of the sole trader ” , appealed against the penal decree on DATE . He claimed that the sole trader ’s business activities had been in decline for some time and that they had ceased after DATE . Nevertheless , the applicant noted that he had continued to file , on behalf of the sole trader , the required DATE ORG statements with the tax authorities for DATE . Considering that he had made adequate attempts to comply with the sole trader ’s VAT filing requirements and arguing that no losses had resulted for the ORG budget from his alleged filing infraction , the applicant claimed that the fine imposed was excessive . He also considered that it was imposed in reference to the wrong provision of LAW , namely that it referred to paragraph CARDINAL of LAW , while it should have referred to LAW .

A hearing was conducted before ORG on DATE . The applicant was represented by counsel who stated that he maintained the grounds of the appeal as filed on DATE . In disputing the grounds and merits of imposing the fine on the applicant his counsel referred to him as the “ manager of the sole trader ” .

In a judgment of DATE , DATE , ORG dismissed the applicant ’s appeal . It found the actions of the applicant , as “ manager of the sole trader ” , to have violated the provisions of LAW and the regulations for its implementations by having failed to file all the required documents and statements in order to terminate the VAT registration , that ORG had correctly classified the offence of the applicant . It also considered that the size of the fine was properly set , insofar as the relevant provisions did not provide for an adjustment of the amount .

The applicant appealed against the judgment on DATE , referring to himself as the “ manager ” of the sole trader . He argued that he was wrongly fined BGL CARDINAL when for the offence in question the applicable fine was allegedly BGL CARDINAL ( approximately ORG CARDINAL ) . He also claimed that ORG had allegedly been confused between the provisions of LAW and the regulations for its interpretation , that it had wrongly examined the grounds for his appeal and had therefore come to the wrong conclusions .

At a hearing on DATE , at which a prosecutor took part , the applicant reiterated his previous arguments and claimed that LAW envisaged that the registered entities should be fined but not their representatives . The applicant did not claim nor argue that he was not a legal representative of the sole trader .

By final judgment of DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s appeal and upheld the lower court ’s judgment . It found that the applicant , in his capacity of “ manager of the sole trader ” , had not complied with the tax filings requirements under LAW and had not presented all the required documents for the termination of the VAT registration of the trader . It also found that the fine was correctly determined because its size was in reference to an offence committed in respect of the tax period ending on DATE .

By amendment of DATE the prerequisites for maintaining a registration under LAW were amended . Accordingly , special provisions were introduced for those persons and entities which no longer met the new requirements ( § § DATE of the Final Provisions of the Act ) detailing the procedure , deadlines and filing requirements for terminating their registrations and for returning their VAT registration certificates . For non - compliance with these requirements , LAW of FAC envisaged a fixed fine of BGL CARDINAL ( approximately ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL ) for the offenders .

The imposing of fines under LAW by way of penal decree and the appeals against them followed the procedure under LAW ( section CARDINAL ) .

LAW ( DATE ) was abolished with the entry into force , as of DATE , of FAC ( DATE ) .

Section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) , as in force at DATE , envisaged a sanction applied directly on the sole trader or entity for failing to register or de - register under the LAW or to inform the tax authorities of any changes affecting such registration . The sanction was in the range from CARDINAL new NORP levs ( approximately from ORG CARDINAL to ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL ) .

Section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of the LAW provides that for offences perpetrated in the course of commercial activities the persons liable to be penalised under LAW are the employees or officers who perpetrated them or the managers who ordered them or allowed the offences to be committed .


Violation of Art. 6-1;Violation of P1-1;Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed;Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

Pursuant to a decision of ORG of CARDINAL DATE the applicant began receiving a DATE single mother allowance in respect of her daughter who was born on DATE .

In DATE , from DATE , the applicant received no payments .

On DATE the applicant brought proceedings before ORG of GPE районный суд города PERSON ) requesting the payment of outstanding sums .

By a judgment of CARDINAL DATE the court allowed the applicant ’s claim and ordered ORG of ORG ( Волгоградское облфинуправление ) to pay the applicant MONEY ( RUR ) .

Following the entry into force of the judgment , the court ’s bailiff instituted enforcement proceedings for recovery of the sum awarded to the applicant . However , the applicant was informed that in DATE the court judgment could not be enforced , because the defendant lacked sufficient funds .

The applicant complained about the non - enforcement of the judgment to ORG of ORG ( ORG юстиции администрации PERSON области ) , which on DATE forwarded her complaint to the bailiff ’s service of the first instance court for reply and necessary measures .

In an undated letter of DATE , the bailiff ’s service informed the applicant that it had issued a writ of execution , but had not yet received from the defendant the sum due to the applicant .

According to the ORG submissions , which were not contested by the applicant , the sum of ORG was paid to her twice – on DATE and on DATE .

Section CARDINAL of LAW of DATE provides that a bailiff ’s order on the institution of enforcement proceedings must fix a time - limit for the defendant ’s voluntary compliance with a writ of execution . The time - limit may not exceed DATE . The bailiff must also warn the defendant that coercive action will follow , should the defendant fail to comply with the time - limit .

Under LAW of the LAW , the enforcement proceedings should be completed within DATE of the receipt of the writ of enforcement by the bailiff .


CASE OF SVINTITSKIY AND GONCHAROV v. UKRAINE

Violation of Art. 6-1;Not necessary to examine under Art. 13;Violation of P1-1;Pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage -  financial awards (global);Costs and expenses (domestic proceedings) - claim dismissed;Costs and expenses (Convention proceedings) - partial awards

The applicants were born in DATE , respectively , and live in the city of GPE , GPE .

Until DATE the applicants served as career officers in military unit A-CARDINAL . In DATE , the applicants retired .

Upon retirement , the applicants were entitled to different types of compensation and payments . As these entitlements went unpaid , they instituted proceedings in ORG against military unit A-CARDINAL for their recovery .

On DATE the court found for PERSON and awarded him ORG CARDINAL .

On DATE the court found for Mr PERSON and awarded him UAH CARDINAL .

NORP These court decisions were not appealed and came into force . The execution writs were sent to ORG for enforcement .

DATE the applicants lodged numerous complaints with the local departments of justice and defence and with the local prosecutor 's office about the non - enforcement of the judgments in their favour .

NORP By letter of DATE , the head of the economic department of ORG informed the applicants that the judgments in their favour remained unenforced due to the lack of sufficient funding from ORG .

NORP By letter of CARDINAL January CARDINAL , ORG informed the Mr Svintitskiy that the judgment in his favour could not be enforced due to the lack of funds of the debtor , and the impossibility of attaching the debtor 's property since it belonged to the ORG .

On DATE the judgment in favour of Mr PERSON was enforced in full .

On DATE the judgment in favour of Mr Svintitskiy was enforced in full .

The relevant domestic law is summarised in the judgment of PERSON v. GPE ( no CARDINAL , § § CARDINAL , DATE ) .


The applicant is a NORP national , born in DATE and living in PERSON .

A.

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

The applicant rents a flat in PERSON . The lease contains a “ negotiation clause ” ( förhandlingsklausul ) , according to which the rent is fixed following negotiations between the landlord and the local tenants’ union ( hyresgästföreningen ) .

On DATE the applicant applied , under the CARDINAL LAW ( hyresförhandlingslagen ) , at ORG ( hyresnämnden ) in GPE for a rent review concerning the rent for DATE agreed between his landlord ( a company ) and the local tenants’ union . The applicant claimed that the agreement was based on erroneous information and that , as a consequence , his rent was excessive and should be adjusted .

Preparatory meetings were held on DATE and on CARDINAL May and DATE .

On DATE a hearing was held before ORG . On DATE an on - site investigation and a further hearing was held . On DATE a final hearing was held .

On DATE ORG rejected the application for a rent review . On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal against the decision . However , on CARDINAL DATE ORG ) rejected the appeal . The court ’s decision was not open to further appeal .

In the meantime , on DATE , the applicant had instituted proceedings before ORG ( tingsrätten ) of ORG against his landlord , claiming that the negotiated agreement fixing the rent for DATE for his flat in PERSON should be declared null and void , or modified , in accordance with certain provisions of LAW ( avtalslagen ) . Furthermore , he claimed damages to compensate him for the work he had undertaken in order to obtain information about the negotiated agreement . Some parts of the summons application were left unspecified .

On DATE ORG requested the applicant to complete the summons application . He submitted the requested information on DATE . He then also applied for and was granted legal aid . On DATE the court requested the landlord to submit observations within DATE .

On DATE the applicant submitted further information regarding his legal aid . On DATE the court made a decision regarding the applicant ’s fee for legal aid . On DATE the applicant appealed against this decision to ORG ( PERSON hovrätt ) and claimed compensation for the work he had undertaken due to the decision .

On DATE the landlord submitted observations to the applicant ’s summons application , which on DATE were communicated to the applicant for his observations before DATE . On DATE the applicant requested , and was granted , an extension of this time - limit to CARDINAL DATE . On DATE the landlord submitted further observations and requested to be compensated for its litigation costs . The observations were submitted to the applicant for his opinion no later than DATE .

On DATE ORG reduced the applicant ’s maximum amount of legal aid and rejected his claim for compensation .

On DATE counsel for the applicant appeared before ORG and requested to be appointed as the applicant ’s official legal aid counsel . The applicant further clarified his claim under LAW . On DATE the request to have legal aid counsel appointed was granted by ORG .

On DATE the applicant submitted further grounds for his claim under LAW and his counsel requested to be compensated for litigation costs under LAW ( rättshjälpslagen ) . The request was returned for supplementary information . This information was submitted on DATE .

On DATE ORG dismissed , as a whole , the action instituted by the applicant , finding that the proceedings before ORG ( cf . above ) constituted litis pendens . The court also ordered the applicant to pay the landlord ’s litigation costs .

On DATE the applicant appealed against the decision to ORG . On DATE counsel for the applicant submitted further observations . On DATE the applicant himself submitted observations in addition to those submitted on DATE .

On DATE ORG quashed ORG decision of DATE and referred the case back to the latter for a re - examination . On DATE , noting that ORG had not dealt with the question of litigation costs , the applicant lodged an appeal with ORG ( ORG domstolen ) .

On DATE ORG granted leave to appeal and having obtained the parties’ observations it decided , on DATE , to modify the decision of ORG and quash ORG decision of DATE as regards litigation costs . The case was accordingly referred back to the latter court for a re - examination in that respect as well .

On DATE ORG accordingly requested the landlord to submit observations . On DATE the applicant requested to have his officially appointed legal aid counsel replaced . The request was communicated to counsel for an opinion no later than DATE .

On DATE the landlord submitted observations and requested that the case be dismissed .

On DATE the applicant informed the court that due to holidays , he would not be available until DATE . Furthermore , he requested the court to dismiss counsel for the landlord , on grounds of incompetence . On DATE counsel for the applicant submitted observations supporting the request that he himself be relieved from his duties as requested by the applicant .

On DATE the applicant was requested to inform the court , no later than CARDINAL DATE , of the name of the person he wanted as new counsel . On DATE the applicant replied that he would accept the choice of legal aid counsel made by the court . The court then made a proposal to him in that respect .

On DATE the applicant requested ORG to examine CARDINAL ) whether the landlord ’s counsel was unsuitable to serve as such before the court ; CARDINAL ) the question of litigation costs related to the first set of proceedings before ORG and ORG ; and CARDINAL ) whether the judge that handled the first case before ORG had correctly evaluated the evidence in that case .

On DATE ORG decided on the issues raised by the applicant DATE . The court rejected his complaints against counsel for the landlord . Furthermore , the court noted that it was not within its competence to examine how an individual judge had evaluated evidence . Finally , the court noted that it was not possible to examine the question of litigation costs in the superior courts at that stage of the proceedings since the issue was to be decided in connection with the determination of the case .

On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal against the decision concerning the request for dismissal of counsel for the landlord . ORG decided to stay the handling of the case in its principal issue , pending the outcome of the appeal . On CARDINAL DATE ORG rejected the appeal . On DATE the applicant appealed against this decision . On DATE ORG refused leave to appeal .

On DATE the applicant applied to ORG for a re - opening of the case concerning the request for dismissal of counsel for the landlord .

On DATE he requested to have a particular lawyer appointed as his new legal aid counsel . On DATE ORG granted his request to have his officially appointed legal aid counsel replaced by new counsel . On DATE the applicant ’s new counsel submitted documents stating , inter alia , claims and legal grounds . The landlord was requested to submit observations in reply before DATE . On DATE the landlord , represented by new counsel , requested an extension of the time - limit until DATE . The request was granted .

On DATE ORG rejected the applicant ’s request for a reopening of the case concerning the dismissal of counsel for the landlord .

On DATE the landlord ’s counsel requested , and was granted , a further extension of the time - limit until DATE . In its decision ORG notified the landlord that further extensions could not be expected . On DATE the landlord submitted observations . On DATE the parties were summoned to a preparatory meeting scheduled for DATE .

On DATE the applicant submitted further observations , which were immediately communicated to the landlord . On DATE the preparatory meeting took place . The applicant requested that the landlord be ordered to produce certain documents .

On DATE the court granted the applicant ’s request and decided that the landlord should produce certain documents by DATE . On CARDINAL DATE the landlord appealed against the decision . On DATE ORG decided to stay the handling of the case pending the outcome of the appeal . On DATE ORG rejected the appeal and extended the time - limit for the production of the documents until DATE .

On DATE the landlord produced the documents which were communicated to the applicant . On DATE the applicant requested that the landlord be ordered to produce further documents on penalty of a fine ( vitesföreläggande ) .

On DATE ORG rejected the applicant ’s request and ordered him , inter alia , to submit his final statement of evidence no later than DATE . On DATE the applicant appealed against the decision . On DATE ORG informed him that an appeal against the decision could not be made separately . The applicant requested an extension of the time - limit until DATE . The court granted an extension until DATE . On DATE the applicant requested a further extension until DATE . Emphasising that no further extensions could be expected , the court granted the request .

On DATE the applicant submitted further observations . He also submitted a statement of evidence and requested that a second preparatory meeting be held . On DATE the ORG summoned the parties to such a meeting scheduled for DATE . On DATE the court sent a written summary of the case to the parties , containing their positions , as the court understood them . The court directed the parties to finally determine their respective action and defence and to state what evidence they invoked .

On DATE the second preparatory meeting took place . The court then ordered the landlord to state , no DATE , the evidence to be invoked . On DATE the landlord submitted a list of evidence . On DATE the applicant was directed to submit his observations before DATE . On DATE counsel for the applicant requested an extension of the time - limit until DATE . The request was granted . On DATE counsel for the applicant requested an additional extension until DATE . Also this request was granted .

On DATE the applicant submitted his observations in which he made certain adjustments to his existing claims and introduced a new claim for damages . He also submitted a list of evidence . On DATE the applicant was ordered to clarify his position in certain respects no later than CARDINAL DATE . On DATE the applicant submitted the requested information . On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s new claim for damages and directed him to determine finally his action and to state the evidence he invoked no later than DATE . In view of how the applicant had previously presented his action , the court notified him that after the expiry of the said timelimit he could not invoke any new circumstances or any new evidence , unless he had a valid excuse for not having done so earlier .

On DATE the applicant submitted observations . On DATE the landlord was directed to reply to the applicant ’s latest submission no later than DATE . On DATE the landlord requested an extension of the time - limit until DATE . The applicant was requested to state his opinion on the landlord ’s request within DATE . On DATE counsel for the applicant stated that he had no objection to the landlord ’s request . This was then granted by the court . On DATE the landlord requested a further extension until DATE . Also this request was granted .

On DATE the landlord submitted the observations and requested that certain claim adjustments made by the applicant should not be allowed . On DATE the landlord ’s request was rejected .

On DATE the parties , their respective counsel and several witnesses were summoned to a main hearing scheduled for CARDINAL , DATE and DATE .

On DATE the court sent a summary of the parties’ positions , such as the court understood them . They were given until DATE to express their views on the summary .

On DATE the hearing commenced in ORG . The applicant presented a new claim for damages based on the allegation that the court had violated his rights and freedoms . On DATE the hearing continued . The applicant ’s new claim was dismissed since it was not directed against the landlord . On DATE the main hearing came to an end and the parties were informed that the court ’s judgment would be delivered on DATE .

On DATE the applicant revoked his counsel ’s power of attorney with immediate effect . On DATE he appealed against ORG decision of CARDINAL DATE . On DATE he submitted a document claiming that the records from the main hearing were insufficient . On DATE the applicant ’s former counsel requested to be dismissed as official legal aid counsel . On DATE the court granted the request .

On DATE ORG pronounced judgment , in which the applicant ’s action as a whole was rejected . He was ordered to pay the landlord ’s litigation costs . On DATE the applicant appealed against the judgment to ORG .

On DATE the applicant applied to ORG for a restoration of the expired time - limit for an appeal against ORG decision of CARDINAL DATE to dismiss his , at that stage in the proceedings , new claim for damages .

On DATE he requested that ORG give his appeal suspensive effect , inasmuch as it concerned his obligation to compensate the landlord for litigation costs , pending the court ’s examination . On DATE ORG rejected the request .

On DATE the applicant requested ORG to refer the case back to ORG for a re - examination . On DATE the applicant raised the question of disqualification of all the judges on the division of ORG , to which the case had been assigned , and asked the court to remove the case from that division . On DATE the president of ORG decided not to remove the case .

On DATE the applicant requested that the landlord ’s counsel be dismissed from the case . On DATE he lodged an appeal with ORG against the decision of CARDINAL DATE , alleging that a grave procedural error had occurred . On DATE and DATE he submitted further observations .

On DATE ORG rejected the appeal against the decision made by ORG on DATE .

On DATE ORG rejected the applicant ’s appeal of CARDINAL DATE . The same day the court also rejected the application of DATE .

On DATE ORG directed the applicant to cure the defects of his appeal petition , no later than DATE , by providing information concerning the sought amendment of ORG judgment , the grounds for the appeal , the evidence invoked and the proof provided by each item of evidence .

On DATE the applicant appealed against ORG decision of CARDINAL DATE concerning the restoration of the expired time - limit . He also requested an extension of the time - limit .

On DATE the applicant appealed against ORG decision of CARDINAL DATE concerning damages for the alleged violation of his rights and freedoms .

The applicant ’s request of DATE for an extension of the time - limit was granted on DATE .

On DATE the applicant requested a further extension of the time - limit until DATE .

On DATE ORG decided not to disqualify the judges handling the applicant ’s case . On DATE the applicant lodged with ORG a notice of his intention to appeal against the decision . On DATE ORG decided that an appeal against the decision of CARDINAL DATE could be lodged separately , no later than DATE . The court also decided to stay the case pending the outcome of the appeal .

On DATE the applicant was granted the requested extension of the timelimit until DATE . On DATE he lodged an appeal against the decision of ORG of CARDINAL DATE .

On DATE ORG refused the applicant leave to appeal as regards his appeal of DATE against the appellate court ’s decision of CARDINAL DATE concerning damages for the alleged violation of his rights and freedoms .

On DATE the applicant submitted supplementary observations in respect of the directions given by ORG on DATE .

On DATE ORG refused leave to appeal against the decision of ORG of CARDINAL DATE .

B. Relevant domestic law

According to LAW negotiations regarding conditions for the renting of a flat are conducted between a landlord or a landlord and an organisation of apartment building owners on the CARDINAL side and an organisation of tenants on the other . If a lease contains a so - called negotiation clause , this means that the tenant has accepted the dispositions concerning the rent and other conditions that may follow from an agreement negotiated by the just - mentioned parties . This does not , however , entail any restrictions on the right of the tenant to request an assessment of the tenancy conditions by ORG . The size of the rent , when disputed , shall then be established at a reasonable amount . For this purpose the rent is not to be deemed fair if it is obviously higher than the rent for flats of equivalent utility value . A decision whereby tenancy conditions are amended by a tribunal supersedes the negotiated agreement in that respect .

According to the DATE ORG and Regional Rent Tribunals Act ( lagen om arrendenämnder och hyresnämnder ) the tribunals shall examine disputes concerning , inter alia , rents under LAW . Proceedings before the tribunals are in principle oral . Before DATE the decisions of the tribunals were appealed against to ORG . The court ’s decisions were not subject to further appeal .

LAW deals , inter alia , with the invalidity of certain legal acts . Section CARDINAL concerns the invalidity as a result of fraudulent deception . LAW deals with the situation where a person ’s distressed circumstances , lack of mental capacity , etc . , have been exploited by means of fraudulent practices . From such practices follow that the legal act is not binding on the exploited person . According to LAW the terms of a contract may be modified or set aside if the term is unconscionable with regard to the contents of the contract , the circumstances prevailing at the time the contract was entered into , etc .

According to LAW , LAW ( rättegångsbalken ) , which is applicable in the general courts , a party who is of the opinion that the proceedings in a case have been delayed without cause by a district court order , e.g. an order to stay the proceedings pending the outcome of an appeal , may appeal against that order separately through a limited appeal .


ITC (Isle of Man), P.S.W.H. AND A.G.S. v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

The first applicant , ORG , is an Isle of Man registered company . The second applicant was until DATE the managing director of the first applicant . The third applicant was at all material times the director of the first applicant . The second and third applicants are NORP citizens , born in DATE and DATE respectively . The second applicant lives in GPE , GPE , and the third applicant lives in GPE , GPE .

The applicants are all represented before the ORG by Mr PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE , GPE .

A number of companies and partnerships collectively known as “ PERSON ” had been engaged in the operation of investment schemes since DATE . However , it was only in DATE that ORG ( “ ORG ” ) , the responsible regulatory authority for the investment and other sectors , issued PERSON with a first licence . The ORG renewed the licence in DATE and in DATE .

PERSON collapsed in DATE with substantial losses to investors .

From DATE there was substantial and compelling evidence that PERSON investment schemes were fraudulent . In the applicants ' submission , the ORG had been advised of the dangers to investors posed by PERSON investment activities . The sources included ORG and the ORG . Of particular importance to the applicants is the fact that in DATE and DATE ORG drew the ORG 's attention to the existence of a relationship between PERSON and GPE incorporated company , ORG . The first applicant provided ORG with a professional administration service . None of the applicants was ever contacted by the ORG at that stage about their association with ORG .

No action was taken by the ORG on receipt of the negative reports on PERSON and , as stated above , the company 's licence was renewed in DATE and in DATE .

The ORG 's decision to grant and then renew the PERSON licence in the face of the evidence against the company was severely criticised in a report of ORG ( “ PCA ” ) published on DATE . The ORG found that PERSON would not have continued in business beyond DATE if it had been properly regulated by the ORG . The ORG 's conclusion was that the ORG was guilty of “ significant maladministration ” .

The ORG 's handling of PERSON was also criticised in a report submitted in DATE to the Secretary of ORG by ORG appointed under LAW DATE . In the ORG ' conclusion , the ORG “ did not demonstrate in relation to PERSON the characteristics of a competent regulatory authority . ” Although there was some criticism of the applicants in this report , there was no finding that they had been dishonest as regards knowledge of the origins of investors ' funds .

DATE and DATE the main associate of PERSON ( GPE ) stood trial on and was convicted of various charges relating to the conduct of the investment scheme .

Following a recommendation in the ORG 's report to the effect that investors in PERSON be compensated , the ORG set up a scheme under which investors who agreed to assign to the ORG their rights in relation to their investments with PERSON would receive compensation . MONEY of investors accepted this offer with the result that the ORG became the principal beneficiary of any litigation aimed at recovering their investment funds .

ORG ( “ BCI ” ) , a company registered in GPE , belonged to the PERSON group and held investors ' monies in funds identified as Portfolios DATE , CARDINAL and DATE . On DATE ORG ordered ORG 's liquidation and appointed PERSON and NORP as joint liquidators . On DATE as joint liquidator and , on the same date , both PERSON and J. were also appointed as joint receivers and managers of the portfolios cited , as well as of any other such funds promoted by ORG .

The applicants insist that ORG was never placed in receivership and that the powers of PERSON and J. to act as Receivers were limited to the scope stated in the court 's Order , which was restated by ORG as including powers to :

“ ... issue and prosecute ... in the name of [ BCI ] and / or in their own names in their capacity as Receivers ( whether on behalf of all or any of the investors or otherwise ) any proceedings in any jurisdiction which the ORG may think expedient or desirable in relation to the collection , recovery and management of any of the assets comprised in the receivership or otherwise in relation to the receivership ... . ”

The representatives of ORG , the ORG , made enquiries with the second and third applicants about the affairs of ORG soon after their appointment . According to the applicants , they co - operated fully with these enquiries . However , ORG asserted in the press that the money belonging to PERSON had been improperly transferred to LOC and named the applicants in this connection . Subsequent press reporting on the subject had a damaging effect on the applicants ' business , as well as their professional and personal reputations . The first applicant ceased to trade by DATE as a result of persistent adverse publicity .

On DATE the ORG petitioned ORG of GPE ( “ the NORP High Court ” ) for an ex parte order against inter alia ORG and the first applicant on the basis that the sum of GBP CARDINAL belonging to BCI investors had been misappropriated . ORG was joined as a party for the purpose of obtaining documents and no substantive relief was sought against it .

On DATE the ORG made an interim order restraining ORG from removing any of its assets from outside its jurisdiction or otherwise disposing of its assets . The Order applied to the second and third applicants since they were deemed to be agents of ORG on account of the fact that they were joint authorised security signatories on ORG 's bank accounts in LOC . The court also ordered that the first applicant 's solicitors permit the Receivers or their representatives to enter their offices and to search for and remove any documents relating to ORG . Under the terms of the Order the Receivers were authorised to use any such documents for the purposes of their intended action against , inter alia , ORG and the first applicant , and for investigating , tracing or making proprietary claims in other jurisdictions .

By summons issued on DATE , the ORG commenced an action ( CH ORG ) against ORG , the first applicant and its solicitors and CARDINAL banks . The only claim against ORG was for discovery of documents .

On DATE the ORG granted the Receiver 's ex parte request for an interim order against a certain C. who had been closely connected with the running of PERSON . It was alleged by the Receivers that C. owned and controlled ORG and must have appreciated that the funds which he received either directly or through ORG were the proceeds of the misapplication of ORG 's investors ' funds . The ORG further alleged that a sum of money belonging to BCI investors had been transferred on DATE from the first applicant 's account to ORG account on the instructions of the second and third applicants .

Also on DATE a copy of ORG Order of DATE was served on the first applicant 's solicitors . Pursuant to the terms of the LAW the first applicant 's solicitors delivered up documents relating to ORG and the applicants . The applicants maintain that they did not receive copies of any documents either seized or handed over voluntarily until DATE , and that the final copies were not returned until DATE .

On DATE the ORG made an Order in favour of the Receivers and on an ex parte application by them . The LAW empowered the Receivers to provide ORG with documents obtained from the first applicant 's solicitors . On DATE the court amended its Order of DATE so as to stipulate that any information disclosed under that Order be only used against the first applicant or its solicitors with the leave of the court . According to the applicants the terms of the amended Order indicated that CARDINAL of the purposes for which the Receivers obtained the Order of DATE was to obtain documents for use against the first applicant .

On DATE the ORG made CARDINAL Orders on the application of the Receivers . Both Orders permitted the Receivers to disclose the documents which they had obtained from the first applicant 's solicitors to ORG officials , provided the latter gave an undertaking as to the purposes for which the documents would be used . The Orders were later replaced by a new Order dated DATE which committed a ORG official to undertake that any information lawfully disclosed by the ORG would not be used in any proceedings against , inter alia , the first applicant without the leave of the court , and that no such information would be communicated to any other ORG official unless the latter gave a similar written undertaking .

On DATE the first applicant and its solicitors applied for an Order striking out action ORG for want of prosecution . On DATE the ORG , with the consent of the parties , ordered that the proceedings be stayed , subject to respect by the Receivers of the above - mentioned undertaking .

Between DATE neither the Receivers nor the ORG took any further steps in action ORG or in other proceedings against the applicants .

On DATE the ORG issued a summons against the first applicant in the Manx High Court in which they claimed damages for breach of constructive trust on the part of the first applicant in relation to the sum of GBP CARDINAL which it had received and transferred on the instructions of the second and third applicants to the account of ORG on CARDINAL DATE . This action was listed as Action CLA CARDINAL/CARDINAL .

On DATE the Receivers commenced another action ( Action CLA CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) in the Manx High Court against the first applicant in which they claimed damages for breach of constructive trust in relation to the sum of GBP CARDINAL received by ORG on CARDINAL DATE .

On DATE the ORG granted the Receiver 's ex parte application to join the second and third applicants to the proceedings against the first applicant .

Summonses were eventually served without prior notice on the first and second applicants on DATE , DATE after the impugned transactions of DATE and CARDINAL DATE and CARDINAL half years after the Receivers first commenced proceedings against the first applicant . The Receivers were granted leave to serve a summons on the third applicant out of the jurisdiction of ORG since the third applicant , on account of the adverse publicity to which he had been subjected as a result of the ORG ' investigation , had taken up residence in GPE . The summons was served on the third applicant in DATE .

On DATE the ORG served a consolidated statement of case following the decision of the Manx High Court to join Actions CLA CARDINAL/CARDINAL and ORG . The consolidated statement of case contained allegations dating back to events which had occurred in DATE .

On DATE the first and second applicants applied for the consolidated action to be struck out on grounds of abuse of process and want of prosecution . They also requested that the Order of CARDINAL DATE adding the second and third applicants to the action be set aside since the DATE limitation period contained in section DATE ( CARDINAL ) of LAW DATE had expired .

On DATE the ORG heard argument on the applicants ' striking out application . On CARDINAL DATE His Honour PERSON ruled that the application was refused . Nevertheless , the judge stated that he was sympathetic to the plight of the applicants given that the subject matter of the DATE proceedings could well have been initiated against them in DATE . However , he expressed the view that :

“ ... the plain fact is that the DATE proceedings have never been adjudicated upon and the DATE proceedings specify , for the first time , the substantive claims against [ the applicants ] . This court therefore , in its discretion , is not prepared to strike out the DATE proceedings . ... ” .

In the judge 's opinion the period of inaction by the ORG , DATE and DATE , amounted to a period of inordinate and inexcusable delay . However , with reference to the rules of court , the judge concluded that he had no option but to hold that a plaintiff was permitted to wait for DATE after commencing an action before serving a summons or even informing the latter that the summons had been issued . Furthermore , he observed that it was likely that there had been a breach of undertakings as to the use to be made of the documents obtained from the first applicant 's solicitors , since they may well have been used to prepare the consolidated statement of claim . However , the judge did not regard the breaches in a serious light .

On DATE the ORG heard CARDINAL applications arising out of the fact that the ORG had incorrectly described themselves as ORG in the summonses initiating Actions CLA CARDINAL/CARDINAL and ORG , since ORG had never in fact been placed in receivership . Although resisted by the applicants , His Honour PERSON granted the Receivers leave on DATE to amend the consolidated statement of claim in order to correct the errors in the summonses .

On DATE His Honour PERSON dismissed the applicants ' application to set aside the Order of DATE , on the grounds that section ORG ) of LAW DATE did not apply to the claims against the second and third applicants .

On DATE the applicants appealed to ORG against the judge 's ruling on the striking - out application and , on DATE , against the rulings handed down on CARDINAL and DATE .

Over DATE , DATE and DATE , ORG heard argument on the merits of the applicants ' appeals including a new contention that the consolidated action could not be maintained unless the ORG , the principal beneficiary of the action , was a party to it .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicants ' appeals . It found that His Honour PERSON had jurisdiction to rectify the error in the description of the FAC in the initial summonses and that he had properly exercised his discretion to correct a bona fide misdescription of which the applicants were well aware and which had caused them no prejudice . On the limitation point , ORG reviewed the relevant domestic and ORG authorities , as well as legal literature in this area , including that on constructive trusts and fraud on pre - existing trusts , and concluded that the action against the second and third applicants was not statute - barred as alleged .

As to the applicants ' argument that the delay in bringing the proceedings justified dismissal of the action for want of prosecution , ORG noted that the applicants conceded that the only period of delay to be considered was that DATE and DATE , that this delay related only to the first applicant and that the second and third applicants did not contend that there was any inordinate or inexcusable delay in serving summonses on them . ORG stated :

“ It seems to us plain that [ the first applicant ] was not served with all convenient speed . Such summonses should have been served promptly and manifestly they were not . We think it beyond any doubt that the delay relied on by the [ applicants ] was both inordinate and inexcusable . PERSON found that the ' the period of inaction by the [ Receivers ] DATE and DATE amounted to a period of inordinate and inexcusable delay ' . We agree with him save only that ( a ) in respect of the second summons against the [ first applicant ] the period could only begin on DATE when it was issued and ( b ) in respect of both summonses the period of such delay should be reduced to reflect a relatively short time during which the summonses could have been served with all convenient speed . ”

ORG next considered whether in the case of the first applicant such delay could prejudice its right to a fair hearing . ORG took note of the applicants ' submissions that the recollection of the second and third applicants as to the events in DATE would be impaired with the result that the value of their oral testimony at the hearing would be diminished . In addition , the person responsible for the affairs of ORG and who was at the centre of CARDINAL of the impugned transactions had died in DATE . In consequence a vital witness had been lost through the delay . ORG rejected these submissions . It considered inter alia that on the facts of the case the issues would largely turn on documentary evidence and that recollections as to whether the transactions , which were substantial , were regarded as proper were most unlikely to be diminished . Accordingly , ORG , agreeing with the conclusion of His Honour PERSON on this issue , was satisfied that a fair hearing was possible .

ORG also rejected the applicants ' argument that the DATE action should be struck out on the ground that it could have been brought within the DATE action . In ORG view the High Court judge was correct to rule that , with respect to the first applicant , the DATE action only related to the production of documents and that the second and third applicants were never parties to that action .

ORG further ruled that the delay , even if inexcusable , could not be considered an abuse of process . In addition , the court found that while there had been a breach of the undertakings entered into by the Receivers in that the documents obtained from the first applicant had been used to formulate the statement of case in the proceedings , the breach was not of a serious nature and that no significant prejudice would be caused to the applicants since they would in any event be obliged to disclose all their documents on discovery . Finally , ORG rejected the applicants ' submission that the ORG was the assignee of the litigation and , given their absence from the proceedings , the action was improperly constituted . In the court 's opinion , and with reference to the LAW made by ORG , the ORG had properly brought the proceedings in a representative capacity on behalf of all investors , not just those who had assigned their rights to the ORG , and the ORG operated with the authority to compromise the action , again on behalf of all investors .

On DATE ORG , without giving reasons , refused the applicants ' application for leave to appeal .

The second and third applicants renewed their application for leave to appeal to ORG on the strength of an ORG judgment delivered on DATE wherein it was stated that ORG appeared to have misunderstood one of the decided cases on which it relied in interpreting the limitation point under section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of LAW DATE .

On DATE ORG , without giving reasons , refused the second and third applicants ' renewed application .


CASE OF UNIÓN ALIMENTARIA SANDERS S.A. v. SPAIN

Violation of Art. 6-1;Pecuniary damage - financial award;Costs and expenses award - Convention proceedings

ORG Unión PERSON is a limited company in the food industry and has its registered office in GPE .

ORG In DATE , it concluded a contract whereby it would finance the rearing of pigs belonging to it on a farm owned by another company , ORG . In return , ORG was to pay the price of the animals and the administrative costs . Owing to its insolvency , however , it was unable to honour its commitments ; and in the meantime it had sold the pigs .

Criminal proceedings were brought against ORG and its directors but were subsequently discontinued following a general amnesty .

ORG On DATE , ORG brought an action in ORG ( juzgado de primera instancia ) for payment of the sum it considered was owed to it by ORG and CARDINAL of its directors , PERSON Since it thought the company and PERSON to be insolvent , it also brought CARDINAL actions based on the principle of subrogation against them and CARDINAL other persons , for the enforcement of contracts for the purchase of land and a farm by the first CARDINAL defendants and the registration of the purchase in the land register .

ORG The case was assigned to ORG no . CARDINAL , which summoned the defendants to appear before it . CARDINAL of these , PERSON , appeared , however ; the others could not be found . PERSON raised preliminary objections and submitted observations on the merits .

On DATE , the court requested the parties to produce their evidence , and this they did from CARDINAL DATE to CARDINAL DATE . Once that was done , it asked them to make their submissions , since they were not seeking a hearing . The applicant company did so on DATE , and PERSON on DATE .

ORG In an order ( providencia ) of CARDINAL DATE , the court declared the case ready for decision ( declaró los autos conclusos para sentencia ) . By LAW , judgment had to be given within DATE , or within DATE if the file contained CARDINAL items .

ORG On DATE , ORG wrote to the court to complain of a breach of Article CARDINAL para . CARDINAL of the LAW , which guarantees " the right to a public trial without undue delay ( sin dilaciones indebidas ) and with all safeguards " .

On DATE , the company applied to ORG for a declaration that there had been undue delay in the proceedings in question , an order requiring the trial court to give judgment and a declaration that the applicant company was entitled to compensation for the damage ensuing from the delay . ORG dismissed the appeal ( recurso de amparo ) on DATE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) .

ORG On DATE , ORG no . CARDINAL found partly in favour of the applicant company . It ordered ORG and PERSON jointly and severally to pay the plaintiff the sum of CARDINAL,CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL pesetas with statutory interest , and CARDINAL of the defendants who were sued on the principle of subrogation to perform the contract for the sale of certain land and have it entered in the land register . On the other hand , the court dismissed the applicant company ’s claims against PERSON

In CARDINAL of the recitals of fact , it acknowledged the delay in giving judgment but gave no reason for it .

ORG On DATE , ORG appealed against the judgment . The file was sent to ORG ( Audiencia Territorial ) on DATE , and in DATE the case was allocated to ORG of that court .

On DATE , the applicant company stated that it was ready for the trial ; on DATE , ORG held that the defendants had forfeited their right to submit written observations as they had not appeared .

On DATE , after the file had been studied by the reporting judge , the court declared the case to be ready for trial , without however setting any date for the hearing .

ORG A third civil chamber had been established in the meantime , and the case was transferred to it on DATE , pursuant to a decision of DATE . On DATE , it appointed a new reporting judge and set the case down for trial on DATE

On DATE , ORG partly allowed the applicant company ’s appeal and ordered PERSON to repay ORG a specified sum paid for the purchase of the land ; it upheld the remainder of the judgment of the court below . The appeal court ’s judgment was notified to the applicant company by ORG on DATE .

ORG During the proceedings in ORG , ORG was considering the application brought by ORG on DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

It declared the application admissible on DATE and subsequently received observations from ORG ( ministerio fiscal ) , the applicant company and counsel representing ORG ) .

ORG recognised that there had been undue delay , which was not explained by ORG , but considered that once the normal course of the trial had been resumed and judgment given , the constitutional appeal no longer had any purpose except to obtain compensation . Counsel for the Government submitted that the case had become devoid of purpose .

ORG In its judgment of DATE dismissing the appeal , ORG first rejected these submissions by ORG and counsel for the Government and then concluded as follows on the merits :

" ... Having reviewed the criteria relating to the complexity of the case and to the conduct of the judicial authorities and the parties , the ORG must examine the consequences of the trial for the rights and interests at stake . This is one of the factors to be considered , as has often been pointed out by ORG ( PERSON judgment ) . In its claim for compensation , the appellant company has given no indication of any consequences of the delay other than the precautionary entry which , in order to cover itself against the outcome of the trial , it had made [ in the land register ] against security at the time of the civil proceedings , so as to provide for possible compensation of the defendants if they should succeed at trial . Nothing was said about the practical consequences of the length of the trial for the rights and interests of the plaintiff . The latter confined itself in its submissions to noting the aforementioned effect of the precautionary step provided for in LAW of LAW and ‘ non - pecuniary damage’ , about which it remained vague . It thus appears that the time factor was not of primary importance in the instant case . Seeing that only court costs and the amount of the security were involved , it does not seem that this case before the GPE court merited any priority . If other , more urgent cases were pending , nothing precluded giving them priority and provisionally postponing the decision which is the subject of the present appeal .

Consideration must also be given to what is regarded as the norm in respect of a court ’s level of activity and output in the light of the number of cases to be dealt with . This was the factor to which counsel for the Government referred when he set out the position not only of the court which had to deal with the case under appeal but also of the other GPE courts dealing with ordinary - and other - cases within their jurisdiction . He stressed the temporary backlog of cases and saw that as CARDINAL of the reasons for the length of the trial in issue . ORG must consider that factor , just as ORG has done , which has given judgment , under Article CARDINAL para . CARDINAL ( article CARDINAL ) of the LAW , on delays found to have occurred in different types of trial . The PERSON judgment may be cited as an example .

The length of an ordinary trial of a case which is complex and much disputed but does not merit any priority must be assessed on the basis of all these factors and in the light of the total time taken up by the trial . Inasmuch as the right to a trial without undue delay is not the same thing as strict compliance with court deadlines and does not necessarily mean that there is no abnormal situation , the delays during the civil proceedings in issue are not sufficient to warrant the conclusion that there has been a breach of LAW para . CARDINAL of the LAW ... " ( PERSON Constitucional no . DATE , DATE , p. CARDINAL ) .

One of the judges , however , dissented :

In the absence of any justification duly advanced by the trial court , we must ascertain whether or not the dilatoriness of which it is accused amounts to ‘ delay’ within the meaning of LAW . Even accepting the relevance of the criteria adopted in the judgment of this Court , the signatory of this separate opinion does not approve the manner in which they have been applied . The action was brought on DATE and judgment given on DATE . A total duration of CARDINAL and a half years is in principle excessive if we take into account ... the ‘ total time taken up by the ORG and particularly if we remember that the trial court did not indicate to us any special feature of the case justifying such dilatoriness . In the absence of any detailed justification , it is likewise not possible ... to consider ‘ what is regarded as the norm in respect of a court ’s level of activity and ORG . Since normality is what corresponds to the norm and not what departs from it , even if the norm is more often honoured in the breach than in the observance , the traditional slowness of the system of justice can not be regarded as ‘ normal’ . Furthermore , if the length of trials were to continue to grow longer , if the failure to comply with the norms of ‘ output of the system of justice’ were to become widespread and if such ‘ abnormal’ , but commonplace , circumstances always had to be taken as a basis for assessing whether or not the right to a trial without undue delay had been respected , the protection of this fundamental right would by that very fact be reduced to nought ... " ( ibid . , p. CARDINAL ) .

ORG On DATE , ORG applied to ORG no . CARDINAL for enforcement of ORG judgment and seizure of the GPE assets , which it listed . That application is still pending .

ORG In its report for DATE ORG noted that each of the GPE courts of first instance had had to deal with an average of CARDINAL cases .

The same courts continued to lack judges for periods that recurred more and more often , despite the use of substitutes for urgent matters . This was the case with ORG no . CARDINAL : the judge had to be replaced on several occasions in CARDINAL for health reasons . He retired on DATE and his successor was not installed until DATE . DATE , however , the new appointee left the post , which again remained vacant . Until DATE , when the new incumbent took up his duties , the judge of ORG no . CARDINAL , acting as a substitute , dealt with the cases assigned to ORG no . CARDINAL , and he it was who gave the judgment in the instant case ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

Similar difficulties prevailed in ORG , to the point that the ORG ( ORG ) devoted a chapter of his report for DATE to them . He stressed the large number of complaints about the length of proceedings in ORG civil chambers and mentioned the inquiry into them which had been instituted ( ORG , DATE , p. CARDINAL ) .

DATE the volume of cases to be dealt with by the CARDINAL chambers had increased by PERCENT . CARDINAL new judgeships were created in DATE ; but as this measure proved inadequate , a new chamber was established in DATE and cases pending before the other CARDINAL chambers were transferred to it - CARDINAL from ORG and CARDINAL from ORG . The parties had to be informed , new reporting judges appointed and a new timetable prepared in order to deal with the backlog of cases , priority being given to the most urgent .

ORG In DATE , ORG ) of ORG launched a campaign to secure an improvement in the system of justice in the city with a manifesto which by DATE had already been signed by CARDINAL lawyers .

ORG More generally , in his reports for DATE and DATE the ORG drew the attention of ORG ( Congreso de Diputados ) to the frequency of complaints about the law ’s delays and the difficulty of obtaining enforcement of judgments . In DATE he described the situation as alarming . In his view , the main reasons for it were the shortage of staff and the continual changing of judges .

ORG The NORP State indeed took several relevant steps at national level . An institutional LAW DATE , for example , established ORG , and LAW of DATE reorganised the system . Between the CARDINAL , a royal decree of DATE set up CARDINAL new courts of first instance in GPE , which have been in operation since DATE ; and an LAW DATE established new judicial districts there .

Lastly , an LAW of DATE completely reorganised the administration of justice . DATE the number of judges is planned to rise from CARDINAL to CARDINAL . In GPE CARDINAL additional courts are to be set up by converting district courts ( tribunales de distrito ) into courts of first instance , which will increase the number of the latter to CARDINAL by DATE ; and ORG should have CARDINAL judges .


The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

NORP She brought civil proceedings against her local authority requesting arrears of child benefits due to her .

On DATE ORG of GPE granted her claims and awarded her the arrears in the amount of roubles CARDINAL ( ORG ) . The judgment was not appealed against and became final on DATE .

On DATE a writ of execution was issued .

As the judgment remained unexecuted , on an unspecified date the applicant forwarded the writ to the debtor 's bank and requested it to debit the sum due from the debtor 's account , but the bank refused .

She then brought proceedings against the bank claiming damages for its refusal to enforce the judgment of CARDINAL DATE .

On DATE the Justice of the Peace of ORG of GPE dismissed the applicant 's claims on the ground that the bank had not been at fault in refusing to enforce the judgment of DATE . On appeal , the judgment was upheld by ORG of GPE on DATE .

On DATE the applicant received RUR CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL in execution of the judgment of ORG of GPE of DATE .

On DATE the applicant received PERSON , and on DATE the outstanding balance of ORG thus completing full execution of the judgment .


Anatoly Kovler;Christos Rozakis;Dean Spielmann;Elisabeth Steiner;George Nicolaou;Giorgio Malinverni;Sverre Erik Jebens

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

On DATE the NORP ORG convicted the applicant of abduction , robbery , aggravated robbery and extortion , and sentenced him to DATE imprisonment .

The conviction and sentence were upheld on appeal on DATE .

By a decision of DATE the ORG of the LOC released the applicant on parole .

The applicant was apprehended on DATE and was placed in a temporary confinement ward of the police department of Gatchina ( изолятор временного содержания отдела внутренних дел г. PERSON ) . On DATE he was transferred to remand centre IZ-CARDINAL/CARDINAL of GPE ( следственный изолятор ИЗ-CARDINAL/CARDINAL г. ORG ) where he was detained until DATE .

The parties ' descriptions of the conditions of his detention differ on a number of counts .

The applicant submitted that his cell in the temporary confinement ward of the police department of LOC ( “ the temporary confinement ward ” ) had measured QUANTITY , had been equipped with CARDINAL sleeping places and had been shared by QUANTITY people at the time . Inmates had received no bedding . The only window had been blocked with an iron blind that had allowed almost no ventilation .

As regards his detention in the remand centre , he had been held in CARDINAL cells that had measured QUANTITY and had had CARDINAL sleeping places . CARDINAL of them , used for transfer purposes , had been shared by CARDINAL people . The others had accommodated from CARDINAL to CARDINAL people . Inmates had received no individual bedding .

Ventilation had hardly been existent . The cells had been stuffy and damp . Iron blinds attached to cell windows had become extremely hot in DATE . During DATE , inefficient heating had resulted in icing up of the exterior wall . The average inside temperature in DATE had risen MONEY CARDINALo C and had fallen to -CARDINALo C in DATE .

The lighting had been insufficient and had been turned on round the clock .

A TIME walk in a small yard had been allowed only occasionally .

He had never witnessed any disinfection measures .

Hygiene conditions had been inadequate . A lavatory pan in the cells had not been partitioned from the living room and had allowed no privacy . It had not worked properly for a lack of pressure . Hot water had not been provided in the cells . Detainees had been allowed to shower in a common room for TIME once in DATE .

The nutrition and medical assistance had been poor .

The Government submitted no information as regards the conditions of the applicant 's detention in the temporary confinement ward .

As to his detention in the remand centre , during the relevant period of time the applicant had been held in CARDINAL cells . The size of the cells had been QUANTITY . The exact number of inmates could not be established owing to a destruction of the facility 's relevant records .

All cells had been equipped with CARDINAL sleeping places and a dining table . A sink and a lavatory pan installed in the cells had been separated from the living area by a partition .

Each cell had had a window measured QUANTITY and had been equipped with ventilating shafts .

The cells had been lit with artificial lighting . The natural light coming through the windows had been sufficient to allow reading .

The applicant had been provided with an individual sleeping place and bedding .

Sanitary inspections , with regard to the monitoring of the average inside temperature and of the overall sanitary state of the cells , had been carried out on a regular basis .

Meals had been served CARDINAL times a day . The nourishment had met official standards . The quality of the food had been controlled by a medical unit of the facility .

The applicant had received parcels . His state of health had regularly been monitored and he had been provided with medical assistance when that had been necessary .

He had never complained about conditions of his detention while in the remand centre

Article CARDINAL of the Law on Detention on Remand ( Federal Law no . CARDINAL-FZ of DATE ) provides that persons detained in accordance with a court order should be held in remand centres .

According to LAW detention pending trial has not yet been ordered by the competent court should be held in temporary confinement wards . In exceptional circumstances , persons detained in remand centres can be transferred to and detained in temporary confinement wards for a period of no longer than DATE during DATE ( LAW ) .

Article CARDINAL provides that detainees should be kept in conditions which satisfy health and hygiene requirements . They should be provided with an individual sleeping place and be given bedding , tableware and toiletries . Each inmate should have QUANTITY of personal space in his or her cell . Detainees should be given free of charge sufficient food for maintaining them in good health in line with the standards established by ORG of GPE ( Article CARDINAL ) .

ORG for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment ( ORG ) visited GPE from DATE . The section of its ORG to ORG ( ORG ( DATE ) CARDINAL ) dealing with the conditions of detention in remand establishments and the complaints procedure read as follows :

It should be stressed at the outset that the ORG was pleased to note the progress being made on an issue of great concern for the NORP penitentiary system : overcrowding .

When the ORG first visited GPE in DATE , overcrowding was identified as the most important and urgent challenge facing the prison system . At DATE visit , the delegation was informed that the remand prison population had decreased by CARDINAL since DATE . An example of that trend was GPE No CARDINAL in GPE , which had registered a PERCENT decrease in the remand prison population over DATE .

The ORG welcomes the measures taken in DATE by the NORP authorities to address the problem of overcrowding , including instructions issued by ORG , aimed at a more selective use of the preventive measure of remand in custody . Nevertheless , the information gathered by the ORG 's delegation shows that much remains to be done . In particular , overcrowding is still rampant and regime activities are underdeveloped . In this respect , the ORG reiterates the recommendations made in its previous reports ( cf . paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the report on the DATE visit , ORG ( CARDINAL ) CARDINAL ; paragraphs CARDINAL of the report on the DATE visit , ORG ( DATE ) CARDINAL ; paragraph CARDINAL of the report on the DATE visit , ORG ( DATE ) CARDINAL ) .

As during previous visits , many prisoners expressed scepticism about the operation of the complaints procedure . In particular , the view was expressed that it was not possible to complain in a confidential manner to an outside authority . In fact , all complaints , regardless of the addressee , were registered by staff in a special book which also contained references to the nature of the complaint . At Colony No CARDINAL , the supervising prosecutor indicated that , during his inspections , he was usually accompanied by senior staff members and prisoners would normally not request to meet him in private ' because they know that all complaints usually pass through the colony 's administration ' .

In the light of the above , the ORG reiterates its recommendation that the NORP authorities review the application of complaints procedures , with a view to ensuring that they are operating effectively . If necessary , the existing arrangements should be modified in order to guarantee that prisoners can make complaints to outside bodies on a truly confidential basis . ”


Violation of Art. 6;Violation of P1-1;Pecuniary damage - financial award;Non-pecuniary damage - financial award

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in PERSON , the GPE region .

On DATE ORG ( Краснолуцький міський суд PERSON області ) gave CARDINAL judgments in favour of the applicant against ORG ( ДВАТ Шахта „ Краснолуцька ” ДП ДХК LOC ” ) . By these judgments the court awarded the applicant ORG CARDINAL in salary arrears and QUANTITY of coal , respectively . The judgments became final and the enforcement writs were transferred to ORG ( ORG виконавчої служби ORG міського управління юстиції ) for enforcement .

On DATE the judgment awarding the applicant salary arrears was enforced in full . The judgment awarding the applicant coal has been partly enforced . To present day the applicant has received QUANTITY of coal . In accordance to the Government , the enforcement is impeded by the debtor 's economic hardships .

A description of the relevant domestic law can be found in ORG v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , § CARDINAL , DATE ) .