Preliminary objection joined to merits (non-exhaustion of domestic remedies);Preliminary objection rejected (non-exhaustion of domestic remedies);Violation of Art. 6-1;Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed;Costs and expenses partial award - domestic proceedings;Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings;Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient

Mr PERSON , an NORP national born in DATE , lives in GPE .

On CARDINAL DATE the police arrested a PERSON and PERSON ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , who were suspected of fraudulently using a credit card which did not belong to them when making purchases in various shops in GPE to the value of CARDINAL NORP schillings ( ORG ) . On CARDINAL May they were detained pending trial .

On DATE the police also arrested the applicant , who was suspected of having aided and abetted Mr and PERSON by forging the signature on the credit card . On DATE he was detained pending trial .

On DATE Mr and PERSON were released , and on DATE the applicant was released .

On DATE the investigating judge at ORG ( PERSON ) decided to discontinue the proceedings in the light of a graphologist ’s finding that it was unlikely that the signatures on the payment slips for the purchases made with the stolen credit card were in PERSON PERSON ’s hand and of the fact that the witnesses called by the public prosecutor did not have sufficiently clear memories .

In the meantime , on DATE , the public prosecutor ’s office ( ORG ) had asked ORG to declare that the applicant and PERSON and PERSON Hauser were not entitled to compensation for their detention under section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) ( b ) of ORG DATE ( ORG , “ the DATE Act ” – see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , on the ground that the suspicion concerning them had not been dispelled .

On DATE the investigating judge interviewed the applicant and Mr and PERSON and told them of the application made by the public prosecutor ’s office .

The applicant and PERSON and PERSON Hauser sought compensation from the ORG for the pecuniary damage sustained on account of their detention .

On DATE ORG ( Ratskammer ) of ORG , sitting in private , refused their compensation claims on the ground that , contrary to the requirements of section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) ( b ) of the DATE Act , the suspicion concerning them had not been dispelled . No representative of the public prosecutor ’s office attended the deliberations .

On DATE Mr PERSON and PERSON and PERSON appealed against that decision to ORG ( Oberlandesgericht ) . They asked ORG to take further evidence and , in particular , to hear witnesses .

On DATE the principal public prosecutor ’s office ( PERSON ) submitted written observations . It asked ORG to dismiss the appeal and not to take further evidence as the ORG statements were not capable of exculpating the appellants . These observations were not communicated to the applicant or to PERSON and PERSON Hauser .

On DATE ORG , sitting in private , dismissed the appeal .

It ruled as follows :

“ In the first place , the appellants’ argument that suspicion does not have to be wholly dispelled for compensation to be payable under section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) ( b ) of ORG is contradicted by the settled case - law of the NORP courts . It has been consistently held that suspicion must be dispelled sufficiently to establish that the detained person is not punishable , and can not be prosecuted , on account of the conduct in respect of which his detention was ordered . Where that remains only doubtful , suspicion is not dispelled within the meaning of section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) ( b ) of the LAW . The appellants’ assertion that this case - law reverses the burden of proof is incorrect , since cogent evidence must be adduced before it can be accepted that suspicion has been dispelled .

In this connection , there is no justification for giving the appellants , as they demanded , the opportunity to prove their innocence by taking further evidence , since the evidence they propose to adduce can not be considered likely to lead to such a result . Seeing that the suspicion concerning the appellants is based mainly on the witness statements of CARDINAL DATE and that , in addition , it is not possible to determine when the other offences were committed , conclusive results can not be expected if fresh evidence is taken in the form of the appellant PERSON time - sheets and itineraries for CARDINAL and DATE , together with his tachograph discs , because the offences could have been committed during the rest stops on those journeys , or before or after them , especially as there are gaps in the time - sheets submitted by PERSON PERSON . The witnesses it was proposed to call have already been interviewed by the police and have already been confronted with the appellants . The main reason why the prosecution was abandoned was that with the passing of time those witnesses’ memories had begun to falter . However , if their memories were so defective that they could no longer be considered adequate to establish guilt , neither can they in the present proceedings form an adequate basis for awarding compensation .

The appellants did not dispute that the police inquiries had given rise to real suspicion concerning them . That suspicion was not subsequently dispelled , but on account of some remaining doubt was simply not sufficient to support a finding of guilt . The conditions which must be met under section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) ( b ) of ORG in order to be able to claim compensation have accordingly not been satisfied and the appellants’ claims must therefore fail . ”

No representative of the principal public prosecutor ’s office attended the deliberations .

Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL of LAW provides :

“ Hearings by trial courts in civil and criminal cases shall be oral and public . Exceptions may be prescribed by law . ”

The relevant provisions of the DATE Act read as follows :

“ ( CARDINAL ) A right to compensation arises :

( a ) NORP …

( b ) where the injured party has been placed in detention or remanded in custody by a domestic court on suspicion of having committed an offence making him liable to criminal prosecution in GPE … and is subsequently acquitted of the alleged offence or otherwise freed from prosecution and the suspicion that he committed the offence has been dispelled or prosecution is excluded on other grounds , in so far as these grounds existed when he was arrested ;

“ ( CARDINAL ) ...

( CARDINAL ) A court which acquits a person or otherwise frees him from prosecution … ( section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) ( b ) or ( c ) ) must decide either of its own motion or at the request of the individual in question or the public prosecutor ’s office whether the conditions of compensation under section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) ( b ) or ( c ) , ( CARDINAL ) and ( CARDINAL ) have been satisfied or whether there is a ground for refusal under section CARDINAL ... If the investigating judge decides to discontinue the proceedings , ORG concerned shall rule .

( CARDINAL ) NORP Before ruling , the court shall hear the detained or convicted person and gather the evidence necessary for its decision where this has not already been adduced in the criminal proceedings ...

( CARDINAL ) Once the judgment rendered in the criminal proceedings has become final , the decision , which need not be made public , must , as part of the proceedings provided for in paragraph CARDINAL , be served on the detained or convicted person personally and on the public prosecutor ...

( CARDINAL ) The detained or convicted person and the public prosecutor may appeal against the decision to a higher court within DATE .

( CARDINAL ) The court with jurisdiction to rule on the appeal shall order the criminal court of first instance to carry out further investigations if that is necessary for a decision . If the court which has to rule is the court of first instance , the investigations shall be carried out by the investigating judge .

( CARDINAL ) Once the decision has become final , it is binding on the courts in subsequent proceedings . ”

If the courts consider that the conditions in sections CARDINAL have been satisfied , the applicant must apply to ORG ( GPE ) for his claim to be allowed . If no decision has been taken on his claim within DATE or if it has been refused in whole or in part , the claimant may bring a civil action against GPE ( sections CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the Act ) .

As a general rule , there is no public hearing before ORG of ORG or in ORG in appeal proceedings ( Beschwerden ) against a decision of ORG . The CARDINAL courts rule after sitting in private and after hearing the representative of the public prosecutor ’s office and the principal public prosecutor ’s office respectively ( Articles CARDINAL § CARDINAL and CARDINAL § CARDINAL of the Code of Criminal Procedure – GPE ) .

At the material time LAW provided :

“ [ Public prosecutors ] may attend the deliberations of the court , provided that these do not concern a decision to be delivered at the trial [ ORG ] , or on the sitting day [ PERSON ] appointed for ruling on an ordinary appeal or an appeal on points of law ; they shall not , however , be entitled to be present during the vote and the taking of the decision [ Beschlußfassung ] . ”

Since DATE that Article has been worded as follows :

“ Where the public prosecutor at an appellate court makes observations concerning an appeal on points of law or an ordinary appeal against a judgment or any other judicial decision , the appellate court must communicate those observations to the accused ( person concerned ) and indicate to him that he is entitled to comment on them within a specified period that must be reasonable . Such communication is not necessary where the prosecutor does no more than submit , without argument , that the appeal should be dismissed or merely submits that it should be allowed or if the appellate court allows the accused ’s appeal . ”

Article CARDINAL of LAW provides :

“ The courts shall have discretion to decide whether a party or his duly appointed representative may , in cases other than those expressly provided for in LAW , be given leave to inspect documents in the file or whether copies may be given to them , provided that the persons concerned can convincingly show that they need such copies in order to be able to claim compensation or to support an application for a retrial or for some other reason . ”

It is the practice of the registries of ORG to make their respective court ’s judgments available on request . The courts also publish a selection of their decisions DATE . Since an amendment to LAW in DATE , the judgments of ORG ( Oberster Gerichtshof ) have likewise been available to the public on request . ORG also publishes a selection of its judgments DATE .


No violation of Art. 6-1;Violation of Art. 10;Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed;Costs and expenses award - Convention proceedings

Mr PERSON is an NORP citizen . He is a writer and resides in GPE , GPE .

DATE a number of incidents occurred in GPE involving allegations of police brutality , CARDINAL of which were reported to the police . The last such complaint was made in DATE by a journalist , Mr PERSON , and it led to the prosecution of CARDINAL members of the GPE police , of whom CARDINAL were acquitted and CARDINAL convicted . His case received extensive coverage by the press and gave rise to considerable discussion on the relations between the public and the police . This caused the applicant to publish CARDINAL articles on police brutality in the DATE newspaper PERSON on DATE and DATE respectively .

The first article read as follows ( translation ) :

" LET GPE CONSIDER NOW !

An open letter to the Minister of ORG Jón Helgason

Honourable Minister of Justice :

( CARDINAL ) Recently a problem which has been bothering - if not obsessing - me for DATE has suddenly been highlighted by the press . CARDINAL of the journalists of your very own progressive party - newspaper - Tíminn [ The ORG ] - had a painful experience and returned with some injuries from the GPE TIME - life jungle . Often the perils of the jungle and other such inhospitable regions can help us to visualise the hardships that missionaries such as PERSON and PERSON had to endure , even if they were preaching the worth of PERSON ’s own GPE rather than the co - operative Utopia .

( CARDINAL ) In this case trouble befell CARDINAL of your political missionaries , the journalist PERSON , in the town ’s night - life . The photographs of his facial injuries , spread across CARDINAL newspaper columns , have , of course , shocked us .

( CARDINAL ) We do not want to accept that our policemen have damaged this journalist ’s handsome face in this way . All he was doing , he tells us , was innocently looking for his overcoat when the beasts in uniform in the aforementioned jungle attacked him .

( CARDINAL ) In my opinion ORG case is of little importance . But as it has received a lot of attention and been widely discussed , I would like to use the opportunity to point out to you that the real problem is in fact bigger and much more horrifying .

( CARDINAL ) Skafti ’s case , brought to our attention by the press , is but the tip of the iceberg . Beneath it , in the dark sea of silence , lurks a problem CARDINAL times bigger .

( CARDINAL ) That is the part I would like to bring to your attention , because you are the Minister of ORG and thus in command of those wild beasts in uniform that creep around , silently or not , in the jungle of our town ’s TIME - life .

( CARDINAL ) I am certainly not underestimating the pain and hardship that this young man has unnecessarily had to endure . However , ORG is obviously going to recover . The blue spots on his face will turn violet , then brown and in time they will eventually disappear . He will go back to working for [ The ORG ] and his case will be buried under the mounds of DATE to day scandals which will pile up like snow after a heavy snowstorm .

That is if we do not use this opportunity to look at the problem in its entirety .

( CARDINAL) DATE I had to spend DATE on a ward in our local hospital . In a room leading off the same corridor was a man in DATE lying in his bed . He was a promising and charming young person , but he was paralysed to the extent that he could not move any part of his body , other than his eyes . He was able to read with the aid of special machinery and a helping hand to turn the pages for him .

I was told that his chance of recovery was minimal .

( CARDINAL ) The young man ’s room - mates told me that his injuries had been inflicted by bouncers of a restaurant and some policemen . At first I could not believe this , so I enquired among the hospital staff and - Yes , they were right ; we had there a victim of the GPE TIME - squad .

( CARDINAL ) The image of this paralysed youngster somehow followed me out of the hospital and I could n’t help talking about his case . I then found out that most people had various stories of persons who had had a similar or even worse experiences with the beasts in uniform . Individuals reduced to a mental age of a new - born child as a result of strangle - holds that policemen and bouncers learn and use with brutal spontaneity instead of handling people with prudence and care . There are so many such stories , identical in substance , that you can hardly dismiss them merely as lies any more . Another thing that goes with those stories as inevitably as brutality follows stupidity is the statement that suing a policeman in such a case would be hopeless . The investigation would be undertaken by another department of the police and there be carried out by an élite group who see it as their duty to wash all policemen clean of any accusations made against them .

( CARDINAL ) The victims of the police brutes remain forgotten , without hope , as DATE pass without their causes ever being seriously discussed .

( CARDINAL ) Now this might be CARDINAL of those rare occasions . It is the reason for this letter of mine .

( CARDINAL ) I have little doubt that there is something essentially wrong in a system where the people in charge seem to disregard all sense of justice and misinterpret their duties by allowing brutes and sadists to act out their perversions - no matter who is the victim . In my opinion the GPE Chief of Police is being stubborn in refusing to relieve the accused policemen from their duties while the ‘ Jónsson case’ is being investigated . Moreover , he seems to lose little of his self - confidence , even though he is up against one of your own partisans in this case . But we shall see .

( CARDINAL ) Even if PERSON wins his case this will be an exception and will change nothing . Other victims of this brutality will continue to pile up in silence as before .

( CARDINAL ) My opinion is that the real problem lies with a system where policemen investigate other policemen ’s violations of correct professional conduct . This opinion I share with other much more competent persons - who are obviously hesitant in pronouncing their opinion on this matter fearing the reprisals and beatings that might follow .

The matter is as serious as that .

( CARDINAL ) CARDINAL of your predecessors in the office of Minister of ORG have received letters from me regarding these problems . Neither of them had the courtesy to answer .

( CARDINAL ) Recently I have been looking at pictures of you in the paper and I was struck by your facial appearance of fairness and youthfulness mixed with confidence . This indeed is the very kind of facial expression that could at any time easily seep into your character even if it was originally only meant for the photographer .

Therefore I am writing to you as well .

My proposal is the same as it was before :

( CARDINAL ) Stop putting these cases of police brutality into this perfunctory , useless automatic washing - machine . As long as policemen are allowed to clean one another you will never even have the possibility to consider the urgent things such as giving IQ and character tests which must be passed before they are taught how to exercise fatal tricks on people , to make them responsible in cases where they have momentarily lost control of their temper - all of which is needed in order to have a competent police force worthy of the power given to them .

But how can we get rid of the old system ?

( CARDINAL ) You have to form a committee of trustworthy people to investigate the rumours , gradually becoming public opinion , that there is more and more brutality within the GPE police force and being hushed up in an unnatural manner . Such a committee could ask victims of police brutality to come forward with their statements for eventual verification . Hopefully the committee will find that it is only a tiny minority of policemen who are responsible . Those individuals should be advised to look for other jobs .

( CARDINAL ) I have the gut feeling that our Police Problem could be compared with the so - called ORG in the sense that comparatively few individuals are responsible for this negative public opinion of them . Furthermore , those individuals could not be said to be typical of either group - nor the most intelligent .

( CARDINAL ) I have seen the policemen in this town perform many a good deed and therein I have met many an exemplary fellow . We can not do without them . But I feel I owe it to the young man I met at the local hospital to muster my courage and put forward this proposal : let us try cleaning up this mess so that those who , ready to risk their lives , embark on the adventure of the jungle of the GPE TIME - life in the future can at least be assured that a policeman in uniform is not among the perils therein .

There are enough other wild beasts .

( CARDINAL ) In court you sometimes put forward an alternative claim in case your main request is not accepted . Should you , PERSON , fail to ensure that this neutral investigation is carried out , I call upon able journalists ( Skafti for example ) to start this investigation and to publish the results in a book that would very probably become a bestseller . I would at any time be prepared to participate in this .

With all my respect and best wishes ,

Yours sincerely ,

PERSON "

Extracts from the second article read as follows :

" STRIKE WHILE THE FLY IS SITTING ON MY NOSE ...

( CARDINAL ) PERSON statement on the policeman PERSON behaviour in a television programme on DATE , in TIME .

( CARDINAL ) DATE , DATE , there was a programme about the police problem on television . Among the participants were QUANTITY police intellectuals who were given free rein , according to the opinion of many spectators . The only spectator whom I heard excusing PERSON and PERSON argued that there had only been CARDINAL of them and the third one was regrettably missing from their camp , that is to say the supervisor .

This might well be true .

( CARDINAL ) Towards the end of the programme PERSON , who happens to be the Chairman of ORG , organised an amusing occasion : after having consulted PERSON with much paper crackling and whispering , he started reading from a typed document containing filth about me , the undersigned , a liar and unreliable person ( according to this document which the police somehow had managed to have signed by a person who had nothing to do with it ) .

( CARDINAL ) PERSON could easily have got his message across without breaking the law on radio - broadcasting and thus risking both his honour and his job . Many spectators were astounded by the man ’s behaviour .

Not surprisingly .

( CARDINAL ) This venture can hardly be explained merely by loss of control , so I feel forced to add another article to what I had thought to be my final word about the matter DATE ( this is written DATE the CARDINALth of DATE and will be delivered to the newspaper on DATE ) .

I have to mention my experience over DATE .

( CARDINAL ) DATE , i.e. DATE , PERSON published my letter to the highest official in the NORP judicial world . My request was that he immediately order a neutral investigation of the police problem instead of allowing the problem to control itself forever . Naturally I did not expect my text to be well received at the local police stations .

( CARDINAL ) A certain misunderstanding is always inevitable . Misconception surrounding this matter has bloomed ; my ideas of a writer ’s duty are that he should , at least sometimes , be the local conscience , but our police officers seem to be of a totally different opinion , as is only to be expected .

No harm in that .

( CARDINAL) The TIME my letter to Minister PERSON appeared in the newspaper , astonishingly many people phoned me . Among them was PERSON who introduced himself as the Chief Police Constable ( yfirlögreglubjónn ) of GPE . He wanted to know what case I had been writing about in my article . I told him that the subject had been the situation in general ; not an isolated case . There were at least CARDINAL cases concerned . PERSON then asked what the paralysed youngster at the local hospital was called , the one I had mentioned . I told him , which was true , that I had probably never heard the boy ’s name . Then I asked PERSON if the police were currently investigating the matter . His answer was yes . I then pointed out to him that it would be a very bold thing to do in the circumstances : if the police were once again policing themselves . At the same time I refused to say anything else on the telephone , except I told him the date of my hospitalisation . We bade farewell .

( CARDINAL ) ORG passed until DATE . The newspapers were full of sobbing statements made by policemen . DATE ’s PERSON published an article by a policeman , PERSON , who referred to DATE the CARDINALth ’s news item which meant that his manuscript would have reached the editorial office on DATE . This seemed strange to me , knowing that the normal waiting time to have an article published in PERSON is something like DATE from DATE when the manuscript is handed in to the date of publication . That is when ordinary citizens like us are involved . In his article the policeman also reiterated the ‘ police - truth’ that the case PERSON ‘ meant to refer to’ was to be found in a news item on page CARDINAL of DATE ’s PERSON .

( CARDINAL ) Since then something has occurred , and now I must ask PERSON to keep his promise and publish this statement of mine . Even though PERSON ’s blow towards the end of the television programme DATE proved to be so much askew that it missed and I am not the CARDINAL hurt by it , I must point out how very typical of the police his behaviour has been .

( CARDINAL ) What is at the root of this so - called Police Problem ? Well - many people think that our policemen have already attacked too many a citizen , guilty or innocent . They have been lashing out far too frequently .

( CARDINAL ) The police reactions which have recently appeared in the press show that they are quite familiar with PERSON novels - the person who gossips and spreads rumours appears frequently therein . They might also have been reading the Saga of Grettir the Strong whose principle was : you cure ills by pointing to worse .

Anyway that seems to be the line they have taken .

( CARDINAL ) This principle is far too pathetic for a whole police force to follow if we really want people to appreciate their services .

( CARDINAL ) Since DATE many people have telephoned me and expressed the opinion that the policemen ’s show on television was a disastrous exhibition of national characteristics for our children to see .

( CARDINAL ) - They should have been in uniform , someone said . Their behaviour was so typical of what is gradually becoming the public image of our police force defending itself : bullying , forgery , unlawful actions , superstitions , rashness and ineptitude .

In just those words .

( CARDINAL ) The title of this article is taken from the folk tale that everyone should know , about the couple hunting the fly . I thought of it as I was observing the detective sergeant fighting the bee in his bonnet during the television programme . Should our Minister of ORG not have had time to see the programme , I would like to suggest that he borrow the tape which can still be found at the television station - that is if he wants to see a near - perfect illustration of what the general public are more and more referring to as FAC .

( CARDINAL ) The programme should be an example to us of the necessity of an impartial examination of the problem to prevent the police from repeatedly hurting themselves while " investigating " matters which touch their self- esteem and childish pride .

( CARDINAL ) Let us stop these fights and consider the proposal I put forward in my letter to the Minister of ORG . We could even consider an idea suggested by a witty friend of mine :

( CARDINAL ) - PERSON , he said . Would n’t it be an idea to get a really good child psychologist to study these police fights ?

Hopefully the matter is not all that complicated .

With thanks for the publication .

PERSON "

In response to these articles , ORG sent the applicant a letter dated DATE . It informed him that the problems raised in the articles were being reviewed at various levels and that the matter was on the agenda of ORG ) so that PERSON could report to it in the near future on the studies and proposals which had been made in this field .

By letter of DATE , ORG had asked the public prosecutor to investigate the aforementioned allegations . Accordingly , he sent the case to ORG ( " SCIP " ) on CARDINAL DATE to examine whether the publications constituted defamation within the meaning of LAW of DATE ( Law no . CARDINAL - " LAW " ) . On DATE the SCIP interrogated the applicant , who was assisted by his lawyer .

As a result , on CARDINAL DATE the public prosecutor issued a bill of indictment charging the applicant with defamation of unspecified members of the GPE police , contrary to LAW .

The following passages of the first article were considered to be defamatory :

" beasts in uniform " ( paragraph CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) above ) ;

" of those wild beasts in uniform " ( paragraph ORG ) above ) ;

" The young man ’s room - mates told me that his injuries had been inflicted by bouncers of a restaurant and some policemen . At first I could not believe this , so I enquired among the hospital staff and - Yes , they were right ; we had there a victim of the GPE night- squad " ( paragraph CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) above ) ;

" I then found out that most people had various stories of persons who had had a similar or even worse experiences with the beasts in uniform . Individuals reduced to a mental age of a new - born child as a result of strangle - holds that policemen and bouncers learn and use with brutal spontaneity instead of handling people with prudence and care . There are so many such stories , identical in substance , that you can hardly dismiss them merely as lies any more " ( paragraph CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) above ) ;

" victims of the police brutes " ( paragraph PERSON ) above ) ;

" allowing brutes and sadists to act out their perversions " ( paragraph CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) above ) .

The second article was also considered to contain a defamatory statement :

" Their behaviour was so typical of what is gradually becoming the public image of our police force defending itself : bullying , forgery , unlawful actions , superstitions , rashness and ineptitude " ( paragraph CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) above ) .

On DATE the indictment was served on the applicant ; it summoned him to appear at a sitting on the following day of a chamber of ORG , of which Judge PERSON was the only member . At the applicant ’s request , the arraignment was adjourned until DATE . On DATE the court held a sitting at which he appeared , accompanied by Mr Tómas Gunnarsson , a ORG lawyer ; the public prosecutor was not present . The sitting proceeded as follows :

( a ) As required by the second paragraph of LAW no . DATE ) , the judge informed the defendant that he was being questioned as he was suspected of having committed an offence .

( b ) Mr PERSON was appointed as the applicant ’s defence counsel . All the case documents were handed to them .

( c ) The applicant was asked by the judge whether he had written the CARDINAL newspaper articles . He replied that he had , but pointed out that the passages quoted in the indictment , while correct , had been removed from their context .

( d ) The judge confronted the applicant with a record of his statement to the SCIP on DATE and with his letter to them of DATE . The applicant confirmed the accuracy of the record and that he had written the letter .

( e ) When asked by the judge whether he could substantiate the relevant passages in his articles , the applicant maintained that , in their context in the indictment - on which he had already commented - , he was neither able nor obliged to do so ; this was not his literary product , but the product of the accuser .

( f ) The applicant asked to be given time in which to acquaint himself with the case documents and to prepare his comments . Another sitting was scheduled for DATE .

On DATE the applicant and his counsel appeared before the court , again in the absence of the prosecution . Counsel submitted a motion that Judge PERSON should withdraw , on the ground that , in addition to acting as judge , he had represented the prosecution because of its absence at this and the previous sittings .

On DATE the judge decided as follows :

" This case does not warrant [ an adversarial procedure ] according to LAW .... [ The applicant ’s ] motion that the judge yield his seat is unsupported by any valid arguments and totally unfounded . The judge is neither obliged nor allowed to yield his seat . "

On DATE the prosecution , pursuant to LAW , refused the applicant ’s request for leave to file an appeal by way of a summary procedure against that decision with ORG . He subsequently asked ORG to appoint an ad hoc prosecutor to consider whether leave should be granted , but this request was refused on DATE .

During the period from DATE until DATE , ORG held CARDINAL more sittings at which the applicant and his counsel were present . Documents were submitted , oral statements made and witnesses heard . The public prosecutor appeared at each of these sittings , except that on CARDINAL DATE , when a video - taped television programme was shown to the court .

At a sitting held on DATE , Judge PERSON showed the applicant photographs of a person and asked him whether this was the young man at the local hospital , described in the first article ( see paragraph CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) above ) . The applicant replied as follows :

" ... it is astounding for an experienced adult to hear another experienced adult ask a question like that . I see and study between CARDINAL and CARDINAL persons DATE . This would correspond to the entire population of GPE in DATE . Therefore an individual whom I see CARDINAL times does not stick in my mind unless there are some special reasons to the contrary . Therefore it is outright absurd and against the nature of the human mind , to ask a person whether he recognises an individual whom he might conceivably have seen DATE . I can , however , answer that this is not the young man I had in mind when I wrote the article ‘ Let Us Consider Now!’ ... "

During a sitting held on DATE the parties agreed that further investigation by the court was not required . Accordingly , counsel was given until DATE to submit the applicant ’s written defence ; the prosecutor declared that he would make no further observations .

In his defence , which was filed on DATE , the applicant resuscitated the claim ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above ) that the case should be dismissed or the defendant acquitted on account of the prosecutor ’s absence at certain sittings of the trial . With regard to the merits of the case , he claimed , inter alia , the following :

" It is of course the general public that is assaulted by policemen ... . Such an experience is quite memorable and , in the normal course of things , CARDINAL person tells another . In the process descriptions frequently become exaggerated . As the instances increase in number a public opinion is formed , which naturally is even rougher at the edges than the problem itself . To a significant extent , I used this public opinion as a main feature of my article ‘ Let Us Consider Now!’ . Public opinion is , of course , in itself a fact and its origins are generally less important and less open to dispute ...

If public opinion turns sour , confidence in policemen is lost , also in policemen who have never as much as hurt a fly . In DATE this loss of confidence had assumed proportions outright dangerous to public welfare . So , when the case of PERSON emerged , I became aware of this danger . And my ... article published in PERSON on DATE was my reaction to this dangerous situation . By writing the article I consider that I was performing the duty of an honourable writer who studies the spirit of the nation and reports his findings without hiding the truth . This is clear to any person who is willing to read the article in its entirety and puts his mind to really understanding what is written there .

But the main purpose of the article , and its conclusion , was to request the Minister to have an investigation carried out as to whether public opinion was correct or incorrect . The article was intended to raise a lawful , urgent question .

Even though my intention was to write an article completely within the limits of the law , I shall not hide the fact that I also tried to phrase the text in such a way as to elicit answers from the parties concerned . The question , of course , was about the truthfulness of the menacing public opinion . If this was incorrect , the police authorities ( which alone may possess comprehensive knowledge of these matters ) could be expected to react in the composed , confident and calm manner of respectable , honest souls . ORG and the Chief of Police would simply have recommended to the Minister that he initiate at the earliest opportunity an impartial investigation of the matter asked for . Such a reaction would also have calmed the public considerably , as it would have borne witness to good faith . "

On DATE , at a sitting attended by the applicant , judgment was delivered by Judge PERSON who rejected the claim based on the prosecutor ’s absence at certain sittings . As to the merits he stated inter alia :

" According to the evidence submitted , the defendant underwent treatment at ORG from DATE to DATE . At the same time a patient named PERSON ... was staying there , [ completely ] paralysed following a physical assault by an acquaintance of his ... . The defendant has been shown photographs of PERSON taken at FAC DATE after the assault . The defendant has stated that PERSON is not the man he describes in his ... article in the PERSON ; ...

A video - tape recording of the television programme ‘ Varied Opinions’ , broadcast on DATE , has been submitted in evidence .

Matters relating to law enforcement , the relations between the public and the police , as well as the ‘ Skafti case’ ... were discussed . At the end of the programme Mr PERSON , ORG and Chairman of ORG , pointed out that ... the defendant ’s article could be shown to be unfounded , as he had ... a statement from the young man of whom the defendant had written in the PERSON . The sergeant read out [ the statement ] . [ It ] reads , inter alia ‘ What PERSON says about my case in his article is wrong from beginning to end.’ Having investigated the matter , [ Mr PERSON ] and Police PERSON considered that the statement had been made by the person about whom the defendant had written .

As requested by the defendant ’s counsel ... , [ Mr ] PERSON was called to testify . He said that the statement had been made by a young disabled man , called PERSON , ... that he had obtained information as to the time when the defendant and PERSON were in hospital , and that it had been assumed that the defendant had been referring to PERSON in his article . That was how they had obtained his statement . Furthermore , the witness stated that , to his knowledge , no GPE policeman had ever caused anyone injuries while on duty such as those described by the defendant in his article of DATE .

The defence ... submitted that in writing the CARDINAL articles the defendant was performing a writer ’s duty to society by drawing attention to people ’s physical injuries that have been caused by the police , bringing such matters to light and requesting official action to prevent this . [ This alone would get ] little attention unless published in the media , and even then it would frequently go unnoticed . Harsh words and stylistic artifices also seemed necessary , as writers so well know . The defendant had been earning his living as a writer for DATE , and public authorities had recognised his work , inter alia , by paying him a salary . His work fell within the scope of protection offered by LAW , which forbids censorship and other limitations on the freedom of the press .

However the said constitutional rule goes on to provide that a person may be held responsible for printed statements , a principle which has never been disputed in NORP law . There are various statutory provisions making it a punishable offence to express certain thoughts or statements in public , such as in print . In addition to LAW ... LAW , reference may be made in this regard to Articles CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , and CARDINAL of the same Code . The defendant can not be deemed to enjoy any privileges or greater freedom of expression than others owing to the fact that he is a writer .

The defendant ’s newspaper articles were published in his name , and he has acknowledged having been their author . The defendant was resident in GPE when the articles were published in the GPE . Pursuant to LAW ... he thus incurs both criminal liability and liability for damages on account of the contents ... thereof .

The statements founding the charges in the indictment were said to be directed against unspecified members of the GPE police force .

Notwithstanding that the wording of LAW covers offences against specific ... civil servants , [ this provision ] also covers offences against a defined group of civil servants ( see the judgment in ORG , volume ORG , p. CARDINAL ) .

The words ‘ beasts in uniform’ and ‘ of those wild beasts in uniform’ are , in the context in which they were published , held to amount to vituperation against and insults to unspecified members of the GPE police force . These statements are punishable according to LAW .

In the indictment these statements are considered to be defamatory allegations . Having regard to the third paragraph of LAW ... , the defendant can nevertheless be held responsible for their publication ; his actions have been correctly reported and he can not be held to have been prejudiced in the preparation of his defence case .

The passages ‘ The young man ’s room - mates ... GPE DATE and ‘ Then I found out ... lies any ORG and the words ‘ victims of the police brutes’ are , both in themselves and in the context of the ... newspaper article ... , deemed to constitute allegations against unspecified members of the GPE police force of committing many serious acts of physical assault on people who have become disabled as a result . This falls under LAW ... of the ... LAW , a violation of which may carry the punishment of many GPE imprisonment .

The defendant ’s allegations have not been justified , and [ due to their ] publication ... he is liable to punishment according to LAW .

The expressions ‘ beasts in uniform’ and ‘ police brutes’ must also be deemed to constitute insults to and vituperation against unspecified members of the GPE police force .

These statements are in the indictment said to be defamatory , but ... the defendant can nevertheless be held responsible for them under LAW .

The words ‘ allowing brutes and sadists to act out their ORG are , in the context of the said article , held to constitute vituperations against and insults to unspecified members of the GPE police force .

The indictment states that these are defamatory , but ... the defendant can nevertheless be held responsible for them under LAW ...

The passage ‘ Their behaviour was so typical of what is gradually becoming the public image of our police force defending itself : bullying , forgery , unlawful actions , superstitions , rashness and PERSON has not been justified . With the exception of the words ‘ superstitions , rashness and PERSON the passage accuses unspecified members of the GPE police of forgery and other ... criminal offences . This falls under the provisions of Chapters LAW and ORG of the ... Penal Code , a violation of which may entail a heavy prison sentence .

By making these statements the defendant has become liable to punishment according to LAW

The words ‘ superstitions , rashness and PERSON are , on the other hand , deemed to fall within the limits of permissible criticism , and the defendant is therefore not liable for them ... "

The applicant was sentenced to pay a fine of CARDINAL NORP crowns to ORG or , in default of payment within DATE from service of the judgment , to CARDINAL days’ imprisonment . He was also ordered to pay all the costs of the case , including his counsel ’s fees .

Both the applicant and the prosecutor appealed to ORG , which heard the case on DATE . Counsel for the applicant requested that not only ORG judgment but also the entire proceedings , starting with the issue of the indictment , be annulled and that the case be referred back to ORG for adjudication . In the alternative , he sought his client ’s acquittal on all charges . The prosecutor asked for aggravation of the penalty .

In its judgment of CARDINAL DATE , ORG held inter alia :

" ... the request to annul the proceedings is based on the same arguments as those presented to ORG on DATE , when the defendant ’s lawyer made the following statement :

‘ ... no representative of the prosecution was present at ... any former sittings in this case ... In view of Articles CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) and CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(CARDINAL ) [ of LAW ] , the defendant considers the fact that CARDINAL person performed both the role of judge and prosecutor in the same case to be unlawful . Having regard to the judge ’s lack of initiative in rectifying this state of affairs , [ his ] replacement ... is ORG

ORG judge dismissed this request and the public prosecutor refused to authorise an appeal therefrom by way of a summary procedure to ORG ... . No evidence has been produced during the proceedings in this non - prosecuted case , so classified in accordance with LAW aforementioned code , to justify a disqualification of the judge or quashing the [ conviction ] ...

ORG finding of the defendant ’s guilt and its application of the penal law ... are upheld as well as the punishment imposed ... . ORG decision on the costs of the case shall remain unaltered . "

In a dissenting opinion CARDINAL member of ORG held as follows :

" In a criminal action in respect of defamatory statements it is necessary to clearly define those to whom the statements are considered damaging . This is required both for the defence case and in order to resolve the difficult question of necessary limitations on discussion of matters of public concern .

The indictment states ... that the action is brought ‘ on account of defamatory allegations against policemen’ and ... that the allegations in question are directed ‘ against unspecified members of the GPE police force’ . The indictment must thus be understood as relating to an offence directed against policemen in GPE generally . While agreeing that the statements quoted in the indictment are harsh and have , as such , not been justified , I consider , by reference to the above - mentioned way in which the case has been set out in the indictment , that the conditions for punishment by reason of a violation of LAW ... , which is to be construed in the light of the fundamental principle of NORP constitutional law relating to freedom of expression in speech and writing , have not been fulfilled .

In view of the above I consider that the defendant should be acquitted and that all costs of the proceedings in the [ Criminal ] Court as well as in ORG should be paid by ORG ; these are to include the fees of the defendant ’s appointed counsel before ORG . "

LAW of DATE of GPE reads :

" Every person has the right to express his thoughts in print . However , he may be held responsible for them in court . Censorship or other limitations on the freedom of the press may never be imposed . "

The responsibility referred to in this provision is further defined by statute .

An author may , according to LAW no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) , be held both criminally and civilly liable for publications made in his own name , if he is domiciled in GPE at the time of publication or if he is within the jurisdiction of the NORP courts when an action is brought against him . If the publication is not made in his name , it is the publisher , editor , seller , distributor or printer who may incur such liability .

A defamatory publication constitutes a criminal offence under LAW . LAW deals specifically with the defamation of civil servants , in the following terms :

" Whoever vituperates or otherwise insults a civil servant in words or actions or makes defamatory allegations against or about him when he is discharging his duty , or on account of the discharge of his duty , shall be fined , detained or imprisoned for DATE . An allegation , even if proven , may warrant a fine if made in an impudent manner . "

In the applicant ’s case both ORG and a majority of ORG interpreted Article CARDINAL as including defamatory statements directed not only against specific civil servants , but also against a limited group of unspecified civil servants . Precedents to support this interpretation may be found in CARDINAL ORG judgments : The Public Prosecutor v. PERSON , DATE , and ORG v. PERSON , DATE .

LAW vests authority to prosecute in ORG , who is assisted by ORG as well as several prosecutors and deputies . He decides how the investigation in criminal cases is to be conducted and supervises it ( Article CARDINAL ) .

Under LAW , ORG may initiate criminal proceedings by issuing an indictment against the accused . This must clearly specify , inter alia , the court in which the case is to be filed , the name of the defendant , the alleged offence and the potential penalty . The indictment is then transmitted , together with the case - file , to the appropriate court . The judge to whom the case is assigned notes on the indictment , which is subsequently served on the defendant , the time when the case will be formally opened .

The case is , according to LAW , formally opened at a court sitting during which ORG makes the indictment and other documents available to the defendant . If the defendant makes a clear confession at this stage , the case will be adjudicated there and then . Otherwise , he must be given the opportunity to adduce evidence and present a defence , in writing or orally , with the assistance of counsel if appointed .

It is for ORG to determine whether the case warrants an adversarial procedure as set out in Articles CARDINAL to CARDINAL . If so , the prosecution will appear before ORG judge . According to LAW such a procedure is to be followed if :

( a ) the offence is punishable by a term of imprisonment of DATE ;

( b ) the offence is punishable by a term of imprisonment of DATE and the issues of law or of fact involved require such a procedure ; or

( c ) the case concerns matters of special significance or the outcome of the case is otherwise of great public importance .

If the adversarial procedure is not followed , the conduct of the case is governed by Articles CARDINAL to CARDINAL . The defendant presents his case before the judge in the absence of the prosecution , unless ORG decides otherwise .

When the prosecution does not appear the judge must , in accordane with the general rule contained in LAW , investigate ex officio and independently , all the facts of and issues in the case , even if the prosecution has already investigated them and prepared reports thereon . The judge must also consider all factors relevant to the guilt or innocence of the accused and all mitigating or aggravating circumstances . Once the investigation is completed and the defendant , or his counsel , has submitted his evidence and written observations , the judge determines the case on the basis of all the evidence .

An appeal against a conviction by ORG lies to ORG . ORG must appear on an appeal , even if he did not do so before ORG .

ORG is empowered to review questions of both fact and law . According to LAW , it may annul the entire proceedings or , alternatively , the judgment of ORG if it finds that serious errors occurred in the conduct of the case at first instance . In that event , the case may be referred back , in whole or in part , to the lower court for fresh proceedings .

Under Article CARDINAL , a defendant may , with leave of ORG , file a summary appeal with ORG against a refusal by a ORG judge to withdraw . In the absence of such leave , it is possible for the defendant , in an ordinary appeal to ORG , to ask for the ORG proceedings to be annulled on the ground that the judge should have withdrawn .

Article CARDINAL of LAW ( Law no . CARDINAL ) which , according to LAW , applies also to criminal cases , provides that a judge shall withdraw in the following circumstances :

( a ) if he is a party or representative of or related to a party to the litigation ;

( b ) if he has testified to the facts of the case or served as a surveyor or appraiser in connection with the case ;

( c ) if he has argued the case or given advice to a party ;

( d ) if he is hostile to a party ;

( e ) if the case is of financial or moral concern to himself or his relatives ;

( f ) if there is otherwise a risk that he will not be able to consider the case impartially .

If a judge is disqualified for any of the above - mentioned reasons , the Minister of ORG must appoint another judge to hear the case .

A revised Code of Criminal Procedure is expected to enter into force on DATE . Article CARDINAL of the PERSON provides that if the prosecutor does not appear at a court sitting , the case must be adjourned .


Preliminary objection rejected (non-exhaustion);Preliminary objection rejected (victim);No violation of Art. 6-1+6-3-d

Mr PERSON was born at GPE . When the ORG last received information concerning his whereabouts , he was in detention at the prison of ORG ( GPE ) .

On DATE the Monza public prosecutor ’s office ordered Mr PERSON ’s arrest together with that of a number of other persons . They were suspected of involvement in the kidnapping and death of a young man , PERSON , who had been kidnapped on DATE and who , on DATE , had been found dead from an overdose of chloroform . The public prosecutor ’s decision was based on the statements of a certain Mr D. , who had been asked by the organisers of the kidnapping to assist them by keeping watch over the victim , but had decided to co - operate with the carabinieri .

When interviewed by the carabinieri on CARDINAL , DATE and DATE and by the public prosecutor on DATE , Mr NORP provided information on the preparation of the kidnapping and on the contacts which he claimed to have had at the time with Mr GPE and CARDINAL PERSON also alleged that he had been threatened because he had not wanted to participate in the crime .

On DATE , in the course of an examination by the public prosecutor , the applicant admitted knowing Mr NORP , but denied having asked him to take part in the offence . He also rejected the suggestion that there was any enmity between them .

Before the investigating judge , who questioned him on DATE , he referred to disputes with Mr NORP ; he added that the latter had asked him to take part in a kidnapping , but that he had refused to do so .

On DATE the same judge interviewed Mr NORP , who confirmed his earlier statements and gave various details concerning his conversations with Mr GPE and PERSON , including a meeting on DATE with Mr PERSON .

Again on DATE the investigating judge confronted Mr NORP with the applicant who , in accordance with the provisions in force at the time ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , was not assisted by his lawyer . Each of them repeated his own version of events . The record of the confrontation reads as follows ( translation from the NORP ) :

" ... NORP to GPE ... : I confirm the statements made to the carabinieri and to the investigating judge . I confirm in particular that at the beginning of DATE you asked me to take part in a kidnapping . Before , DATE , you had talked generally about the possibility of earning a bit of money .

Isgrò ... to NORP : You ’re not telling the truth , it ’s not true that I proposed to you to take part in a kidnapping . It was exactly the opposite which happened . You came to my place - I do n’t remember exactly when - and you proposed that I guard a kidnap victim . I did n’t even want to listen to you and I threw you out .

NORP to GPE ... : That ’s all lies , what I said before is true .

Isgrò ... to NORP : You ’re saying what you ’ve just said because you ’ve been angry with me ever since , when your aunt PERSON asked me , I stopped a fight between you and a certain N.

NORP to GPE ... : I also confirm that I met you , the day of the kidnapping , in the ... bar of Malnate . On that occasion you explained to me what I would have to do during the detention of the kidnap victim and in particular how I should get him to write the messages to his family . You also told me that I should be seen out and about as usual .

Isgrò ... to NORP : In DATE before my arrest , I did go once to the ... bar in Malnate with my family and an aunt whom I had taken to GPE for a trip . If I remember correctly it was in fact on DATE , I do n’t remember the time . I had accompanied my aunt who was to telephone to GPE , but I do n’t remember at all having seen you and even less having spoken to you .

NORP to GPE ... : I repeat what I stated before , I saw you shortly before twelve o’clock .

Isgrò ... to NORP : It ’s not true , I was not in the bar at that time , I do n’t remember exactly where I was , but I remember that I only went to the bar in the afternoon .

NORP to GPE ... : I confirm that you know the PERSON brothers and in particular that I saw PERSON go to your house .

Isgrò ... to NORP : It ’s absolutely untrue that I knew the PERSON [ brothers ] . You ’re lying .

NORP to GPE ... : I repeat that you yourself told me that DATE you used to go to the Pizzeria ... in Malnate with the PERSON [ brothers ] .

Isgrò ... to NORP : That ’s all lies . You want to destroy me because you ’ve never forgiven me for not helping you in your crooked deals .

NORP to GPE ... : I myself have seen you in the company of the PERSON [ brothers ] at the Pizzeria ... in Malnate .

Isgrò ... to NORP : I repeat that that ’s not true . I ’ve never seen the PERSON [ brothers ] .

ORG ... "

On DATE the investigating judge organised a confrontation between Mr D. and another accused , namely CARDINAL of the PERSON brothers .

On DATE the investigating judge questioned for CARDINAL last time Mr NORP , who maintained his allegations .

On DATE the judge committed Mr GPE and CARDINAL co - accused for trial in the Monza ORG .

At the public prosecutor ’s request , the President of ORG ordered Mr NORP to be called as a witness at the hearing on DATE . On being informed , on DATE , that it had been impossible to trace the person concerned for DATE , he ordered that inquiries be made immediately . These inquiries were conducted in CARDINAL separate places , but they were unsuccessful although Mr NORP telephoned the carabinieri on DATE and the investigating judge on DATE .

The trial was spread over CARDINAL hearings from DATE . The court heard , among others , the applicant , his wife and a number of witnesses . However , it refused to call a person who had already been questioned by the investigating judge : counsel for Mr PERSON sought to have this witness called in connection with evidence concerning PERSON conduct on DATE of the kidnapping , of which the person in question had informed PERSON according to the latter ’s statements before the court ; but in the court ’s view the evidence available to it deprived this testimony of any importance .

As Mr NORP remained impossible to trace , the records of each of his interviews and of the confrontation of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) were read out on DATE . This had been ordered by the court in pursuance of LAW , first paragraph , sub - paragraph CARDINAL , of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , notwithstanding the objections of the lawyers of CARDINAL of the applicant ’s co - accused .

On DATE and DATE , the applicant ’s lawyer indicated that his client ’s wife had seen Mr NORP in the street at ORG , where he had been staying for DATE at his mother ’s house . The President of ORG ordered that the police be informed of this immediately .

On DATE the ORG sentenced Mr GPE to DATE imprisonment . In the grounds of its judgment , it relied on PERSON statements rather than the applicant ’s denials .

The applicant appealed and sought to have Mr NORP called as a witness . ORG directed that the latter appear on DATE after its first hearing - , but further searches effected in CARDINAL places , CARDINAL of which had been indicated , once again , by PERSON , were to no avail .

On DATE the court upheld the verdict of guilty but reduced the sentence to DATE . It based its decision in particular on the earlier statements by Mr NORP In its view , he was in hiding for fear of reprisals , a fear which it considered to be fully justified .

Mr PERSON appealed on points of law . He complained that he had been convicted on the basis of testimony obtained during the investigation , without his lawyer having had the opportunity to examine the witness in question on his statements , and challenged the use of such evidence in the trial proceedings .

ORG dismissed the appeal on DATE on the ground that it was intended to contest the assessment of evidence made by the lower courts , which assessment was not open to appeal .

Article CARDINAL bis of LAW in force at the time enumerated the steps in the investigation at which an accused ’s lawyer could be present ; it did not mention confrontations between the accused and a witness .

Article CARDINAL provided a list of the statements which the trial courts were authorised , subject to certain conditions , to have read out at the trial ; they included statements obtained by an investigating judge during a confrontation between a witness and an accused .

Under sub - paragraph CARDINAL of the first paragraph , such statements might be read out where , inter alia , a witness could no longer be traced .


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

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

The first applicant is the publisher of a book entitled “ The writings of DATE ” ( “ DATE LOC ) , written by the second applicant .

On DATE , at the request of the public prosecutor , the judge at ORG issued an injunction prohibiting the distribution of the book . It held that it praised and promoted the activities of illegal leftist organisations . Police officers from ORG seized copies of the book from the publishing house and submitted them to the public prosecutor ’s office .

On DATE the public prosecutor filed an indictment with ORG , charging the applicants under LAW and CARDINAL of LAW , as well as LAW . The indictment relied on the following extracts from the book :

“ It should not be forgotten that all our evaluations concerning DATE were for the purpose of our revolutionary struggle . An evaluation of the past that does not shed light on our present and future would be futile . It would be nothing but an inadequate critique of the past ...

In the future , we should be thinking more seriously about establishing a political party . Our efforts concerning the establishment of the party should evolve on CARDINAL different grounds which are connected to each other . First of all , this political party should be based on an armed struggle in order to take control of the government . It should be a militant and dynamic organisation that is ready to fight in different areas ...

We are making a big step on our way to pursuing our revolutionary duty . For the time being , with the participation of CARDINAL groups ( FAC ( “ FAC ” ) , the ORG ( ORG ) , the Emekçi ( ORG ) , the ORG ( ORG ) , the TKEP ( ORG ) , the PERSON ( ORG ) , ORG ( Revolutionary War ) , and ORG ( ORG of GPE – Workers’ voice ) , the ORG ( ORG ) has been founded . In the near future , the organisation which was formed by only a few groups should be extended by assembling all socialist forces , and should be transformed into a real authority ...

We are aware that the armed struggle is the only way to initiate a revolution in GPE . Therefore , our primary duty is to create and organise this armed struggle . Accordingly , in the near future , both the political party and the front should be established in order to accomplish this armed struggle ...

Despite the extremely difficult conditions in which we find ourselves , CARDINAL of revolutionary road militants are in an honourable fight for existence . This struggle is worthy of our FAC ...

As a revolutionary road militant , what you should do is to recapture the spirit of being part of a key political movement ... ”

In his written petition submitted to ORG , the first applicant argued that the banning of books was unacceptable in a NORP society .

ORG , acting under powers delegated to it by ORG , summoned the second applicant , who was serving a sentence in GPE prison , to submit his defence . The applicant contended that he had merely collected in the book all the articles , pamphlets , indictments and defence petitions which had already been published DATE . Moreover , in his written submissions to ORG , the second applicant maintained that the book was of a documentary nature and that he was making an evaluation of the events and political movements which had occurred DATE .

On DATE ORG acquitted the applicants as it considered that the constituent elements of the offence were missing . It held that , since the book was seized prior to distribution , the ideas therein never became public . Thus , the propaganda of the illegal organisations was never made . The court ordered the confiscation of the copies already published and banned the book from further publication .

On DATE the applicants appealed against the decision of ORG , contending that critical essays of this kind , which made an evaluation of the political past , should not be banned . Moreover , they invoked Articles CARDINAL to CARDINAL of the LAW which guarantee freedom of the media , freedom of expression and the right to receive and impart information .

On DATE ORG upheld the decision of ORG . On DATE the decision of ORG was deposited with the registry of the first instance court .

Before DATE , section CARDINAL of ORG , PERSON no . CARDINAL , provided that CARDINAL of the CARDINAL members of the bench sitting in ORG had to be a military judge . Following the entry into force of Law no . CARDINAL , on the abovementioned date , military judges were no longer allowed to sit in such courts , which were eventually abolished by PERSON no . CARDINAL of DATE .


The applicant is a NORP citizen . He was born in DATE and lives in GPE , GPE , in GPE . He is represented before the ORG by ORG , solicitors , and Mr PERSON , counsel , practising in GPE , GPE , and GPE respectively .

On DATE an enforcement notice was issued and served on PERSON under LAW of ORG DATE ( “ TCPA DATE ” ) . The notice recited that there appeared to ORG ( “ the ORG ” ) to be a breach of planning control in that a CARDINAL - storey building had been erected to the rear of CARDINAL and CARDINAL FAC , GPE , and of CARDINAL and FAC , GPE , without the necessary planning permission . The notice required the applicant to remove all parts of the building which were QUANTITY above the original ground level , within DATE of DATE . The notice complied on its face with the provisions of the TCPA DATE .

On DATE ORG DATE ( “ TCPA DATE ” ) entered into force , consolidating the previous legislation including the TCPA DATE .

The applicant appealed to the Secretary of ORG for the Environment under section CARDINAL of the TCPA DATE . Section CARDINAL lists CARDINAL grounds upon which appeals may be brought . The applicant appealed on CARDINAL grounds :

“ ( a ) that planning permission ought to be granted for the development to which the notice relates ....

( b ) that the matters alleged in the notice do not constitute a breach of planning control ;

( c ) that the breach of planning control alleged in the notice has not taken place ;

( g ) that the steps required by the notice to be taken exceed what is necessary to ... achieve a purpose specified in section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) ... ”

In accordance with the TCPA DATE , an inspector was appointed to determine the appeal against the enforcement notice . Neither the applicant nor the ORG requested a formal public hearing or public inquiry . The inspector made her decision after inspecting the building and considering written representations from both parties . In her decision letter dated DATE , the inspector rejected the appeal under all CARDINAL grounds .

The applicant did not appeal against the decision of the inspector , and on DATE , the enforcement notice came into effect . The applicant remained the owner of the LOC , and did not reduce the structure to a height of QUANTITY as required by the notice .

On DATE , a summons was issued alleging that the applicant had committed a criminal offence under LAW , by failing to remove parts of the building QUANTITY . The applicant was granted legal aid for his representation in criminal proceedings by solicitors and counsel .

The applicant ’s legal advisers sought and obtained disclosure of documents from the ORG . On the basis of these documents , the legal advisers wished to argue that there had been bad faith , including bias and improper motives , on the part of a Councillor in connection with the decision to issue the enforcement notice . The applicant ’s counsel advised him that an application for leave to move for judicial review , and thereby directly challenge in separate proceedings the decision to issue the enforcement notice , would have no reasonable prospect of success , being DATE out of time .

The criminal trial took place on CARDINAL and DATE at ORG , before His Honour Judge PERSON and a jury . The judge ruled that the applicant was not entitled to contend , as a defence in the criminal proceedings , that the decision to issue the enforcement notice had been influenced by bias and bad faith , as a challenge to the enforcement notice could only be brought by way of proceedings for judicial review . Consequently , the applicant changed his plea from “ not guilty ” to “ guilty ” .

The applicant appealed against the conviction on the basis that the ruling of His Honour Judge PERSON had been wrong . On DATE , ORG ) dismissed the appeal . On DATE , ORG granted leave to appeal .

A hearing took place before ORG on CARDINAL and DATE and , on CARDINAL DATE , ORG dismissed the applicant ’s appeal ( [ DATE ] Appeal Cases CARDINAL ) . ORG held that “ enforcement notice ” in section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the TCPA DATE meant a notice issued by a planning authority which , on its face , complied with the requirements of the LAW and had not been quashed on appeal or by judicial review . The effect of this was that , to constitute a defence in the criminal proceedings , the validity of an enforcement notice would have to be challenged within the time limits for a statutory appeal under the TCPA DATE or for an application for judicial review . It noted that the statutory grounds of appeal against an enforcement notice were wide enough to include every aspect of the merits of the decision to serve an enforcement notice . An application for judicial review would in practice be needed only for the rare case in which enforcement was objectively justifiable but the decision that service of the notice was “ expedient ” ( section CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(b ) ) was vitiated by some impropriety .


Violation of Art. 6-1;Violation of Art. 13;Non-pecuniary damage - financial award;Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in Velenje .

On DATE the applicant was injured in an accident at work . The applicant ’s employer had taken out insurance with the insurance company A.

On DATE the applicant instituted civil proceedings against A in ORG ( Okrožno sodišče v PERSON ) seeking damages in the amount of CARDINAL tolars ( MONEY ) for the injuries sustained .

DATE and DATE the applicant lodged CARDINAL preliminary written submissions and/or adduced evidence .

DATE and DATE he made CARDINAL requests that a date be set for a hearing .

Of the CARDINAL hearings held DATE and DATE , none was adjourned at the request of the applicant .

During the proceedings , the court appointed CARDINAL medical experts .

At the last hearing the court decided to deliver a written judgment . The judgment , upholding the applicant ’s claim in part , was served on the applicant on DATE .

On DATE the applicant appealed to ORG ( PERSON v PERSON ) . A cross - appealed .

On DATE the court rejected the applicant ’s appeal and partly upheld the ORG ’s appeal , and accordingly decreased the damages awarded .

The judgment was served on the applicant on DATE .

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

On DATE the court upheld the applicant ’s appeal in part .

The judgement was served on the applicant on DATE .


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

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in PERSON .

On DATE the applicant sought an increase of the maintenance payments from her ex - husband before the ORG . On DATE she complained to the President of the ORG about undue delays in the proceedings .

On DATE she was informed that her complaint had been transmitted to the ORG where the case file had been transferred by a decision of CARDINAL DATE .

On DATE the President of the ORG informed the applicant that her complaint would be dealt with after an expert had returned the case file .

On DATE the President of the ORG informed the applicant that the case file concerning the maintenance dispute had been erroneously attached to the file in separate proceedings concerning her ex - husband 's contact with their son . The latter proceedings had also been initiated before ORG and the case file had been transferred to PERSON , for reasons of local jurisdiction , by a decision of DATE . The President of the ORG noted that the maintenance dispute had not been duly transferred to his court and instructed the judge dealing with the case “ to take immediate measures ” .

In view of the statements of the Presidents of the PERSON I and ORG , on DATE the applicant complained of undue delays before ORG . The applicant directed her constitutional complaint against the ORG where , according to the information from the President of ORG , the case file had been transferred in DATE . The applicant did not indicate the file number under which the proceedings had been pending before LAW as no number had been assigned to the case at that time .

On DATE ORG invited the applicant to indicate the file number of the proceedings before GPE . On DATE the applicant 's representative obtained the requested information and forwarded it by telephone to ORG .

On DATE ORG declared the applicant 's complaint concerning delays in the proceedings before the ORG admissible .

On DATE the President of the ORG informed ORG in writing that the case file concerning the proceedings complained of had been returned ( as erroneously attached to another file ) to ORG on DATE . The letter further stated that on DATE the ORG had formally re - transferred the case file to ORG .

At the same time , the applicant unsuccessfully attempted to amend her constitutional complaint as formally directed also against the Košice I District Court .

On DATE ORG found that the applicant 's right to a hearing without undue delays had not been violated by the Košice II District Court . ORG stated that it was bound by the formulation of the complaint and by its decision on admissibility and could examine the length of proceedings complaint only in respect of the proceedings before LAW where the case file had been duly transferred on DATE . Although the conduct of the ORG fell outside the scope of the complaint examined by ORG , the latter noted that the maintenance proceedings had lasted an unreasonably long time and that undue delay had occurred before the PERSON I ORG .

On CARDINAL DATE the ORG delivered a judgment which became final on DATE .


David Thór Björgvinsson;Giovanni Bonello;Ján Šikuta;Nicolas Bratza;Päivi Hirvelä;Stanislav Pavlovschi

NORP The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in GPE . He was represented before the Court by Mr LOC and PERSON , lawyers practising in GPE . ORG ( “ the Government ” ) were represented by their Agent .

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

At the time of the events giving rise to the present application the applicant was working as a health officer in Batman .

On DATE he was shot at and seriously injured in an attack by CARDINAL men in his house in Batman . The CARDINAL bullets fired by CARDINAL of the assailants entered the applicant ’s stomach and seriously injured him .

The applicant was immediately taken to a hospital by his neighbours and their guest , ORG , who was a police officer . The operation to remove the bullets from the applicant ’s body was performed in the intensive care unit of ORG since his injuries were life - threatening . He spent DATE in the hospital .

On DATE the police officers prepared a sketch - map of the scene of the incident which described the interior of the house and location of the spent cartridges . They also prepared an incident report in which they noted their findings at the scene of the incident as well as a protocol stating that they had recovered CARDINAL cartridges and CARDINAL bullets found at the scene . The police officers took statements from the persons who had taken the applicant to the hospital . The witnesses GPE , GPE and PERSON stated that they had heard gunfire and had gone to the applicant ’s flat and had found him injured . They then took him to the hospital . Another witness , ORG stated that the applicant had described the perpetrators and had told him that they were members of an illegal terrorist organisation , the ORG . The witness GPE stated he had gone to help the applicant following the assault . He had not seen the assailants .

On DATE police officers took statements from the applicant at the hospital . The applicant described the assailants and course of events leading to his injuries and asked the officers to bring them to justice . He noted that he had no problem with any person .

On DATE the bullets as well as their outer casing were examined in ORG . The experts concluded that the bullets had been fired from a CARDINAL PERSON pistol ; however they had not matched with bullets fired from any other weapon which had been used in previous criminal incidents . The experts thus decided that the incident should be classified as attack by an unknown perpetrator and that the bullets and cartridges should be kept in the laboratory .

On DATE the police superintendent ( Başkomiser ) sent an investigation report on the incident to ORG ( Bölge Asayiş Şube Müdürlüğü ) for transmission to ORG . He noted in the report that the applicant had suffered lifethreatening injuries and that the perpetrators of the attack had not yet been found .

On DATE the Batman Public Prosecutor received the investigation report on the incident . However he did not initiate a criminal investigation into the incident but merely sent a reply to the Batman Security Directorate noting that the investigation documents should be sent after the identification of the perpetrators .

On DATE the applicant ’s representative filed a petition with ORG office and requested information about the ongoing investigation into the incident .

On DATE ORG sent letters to the Batman Antiterrorist Branch and ORG attached to ORG ( Cinayet Büro Amirliği ) and requested information on the investigation which had been carried out until that date .

On DATE a police superintendent sent the investigation documents and a report in which he noted that the perpetrators had not yet been found .

The Batman public prosecutor received the documents and sent a further letter to ORG ( Batman Emniyet Müdürlüğü ) attached to the Batman Governor ’s office requesting information on the investigation which had been carried out until DATE .

On DATE the Batman Security Directorate sent a reply noting that there were no documents in their archives concerning the incident in question . They further noted that the incident had been registered in their records as CARDINAL of infliction of bodily harm rather than a terrorist act . The investigation into the incident had been followed by ORG attached to ORG .

On DATE the Batman Security Directorate sent a reply to ORG and noted that the investigations were still pending .

On DATE ORG sent a letter to ORG attached to ORG and requested their office to carry out an investigation into the perpetrators of the attack and to inform him of their findings .

On DATE , ORG sent a letter to the applicant ’s representative and informed him that the investigation was still pending and that the perpetrators could not be identified .

On DATE police officers from the ORG - terrorist branch of ORG arrested a person , PERSON , on suspicion of membership of an illegal organisation , the ORG . In his statements to the police , PERSON gave a detailed account of the activities he had carried out in the ORG and stated , among other things , that he had perpetrated the attack on the applicant together with a certain GPE and that he had shot the applicant in his flat in Batman .

On DATE , police officers took PERSON to the applicant ’s flat in Batman . PERSON told them the details of the attack on the applicant .

NORP In a letter of DATE ORG at ORG informed the Batman Chief Public Prosecutor that the GPE police had caught a member of the ORG and that this person had admitted having been involved in the attack on the applicant .

On DATE ORG sent an investigation report ( fezleke ) to ORG office at ORG noting PERSON as an accused who had perpetrated the attack on the applicant .

On DATE the Batman Public Prosecutor filed a bill of indictment against PERSON charging him under LAW , with attempting to undermine the constitutional order . In the bill of indictment the public prosecutor noted that PERSON had perpetrated the armed assault on the applicant on the instructions of another ORG member PERSON The applicant was named as CARDINAL of the complainants .

NORP In its assessment report ( tensip zaptı ) dated DATE ORG stated that the applicant should be heard as a complainant .

On DATE ORG heard oral evidence from PERSON When asked about his involvement in the attack on the applicant , PERSON claimed that he did not know him and he had not been involved in the attack .

In a letter of DATE ORG asked ORG to take statements from the applicant .

On DATE the ORG heard the applicant who stated that he did not know who had shot him . He asked the court to bring the perpetrators of the attack to justice .

On DATE the case file concerning the prosecution of PERSON was joined to the main investigation file ( no . CARDINAL ) concerning the ORG .

As a result of dispute over jurisdiction between ORG and ORG , case file no . CARDINAL was sent to ORG .

On DATE ORG decided that all cases concerning the prosecution of members of the ORG should be joined to the main file no . CARDINAL pending before ORG .

On DATE the case concerning the trial of PERSON was joined to the main file before ORG .

According to the ORG ’s submissions dated DATE , it appears that the criminal proceedings against PERSON and other ORG members are still pending before ORG .

The relevant domestic law and practice are set out in the Yaşa v. GPE judgment of DATE ( Reports of Judgments and Decisions CARDINALVI , § § DATE )


CASE OF ACADEMY TRADING LTD AND OTHERS v. GREECE

No violation of Art. 6-1 with regard to impartiality;Violation of Art. 6-1 with regard to the length of the proceedings;Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient;Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings

In DATE ORG , a major provider of loan capital to the NORP shipping community , granted a MONEY loan to a group of companies under the ownership of ORG , a NORP shipowner . The applicants , also under the ownership of ORG , were among the guarantors of the loan .

On DATE the applicants brought an action for damages against ORG and CARDINAL NORP members of its senior management before ORG ( PERSON ) . The applicants argued that because of a shipping crisis they had been unable to meet repayment instalments on the loan and that in DATE they had been obliged to sell CARDINAL ships at below their insured and actual value to another client of the bank , who had been given generous financing terms in order to take over the vessels . Eventually other vessels in the fleet were put under the same management prior to their being sold to the management company . The applicants alleged therefore that ORG had acted contrary to business morality under LAW .

On DATE , by decision no . CARDINAL , ORG ordered the parties to submit further evidence .

On DATE , by decision no . GPE , ORG dismissed the applicants ' action as being ill - founded .

On DATE the applicants lodged an appeal with ORG PERSON ) .

On DATE DATE ORG declared the appeal admissible without prejudging the merits and ordered a new hearing in order to submit further questions to the parties . The new hearing was held on DATE .

By decision no . DATE , ORG unanimously overturned the decision of ORG and granted the applicants ' claim . In particular , ORG established that ORG , at a time of shipping crisis , had rejected a request by ORG for an extension of time to pay off his debt and for a small amount of capital which would have enabled him to tackle urgent cash problems , despite the fact that he had already repaid PERCENT of the loan granted to him and that he had never been late in making payments . As a result , ORG 's business went bankrupt and the bank took over the management of his ships . The vessels were subsequently sold and the bank provided the new owner with the credit facilities it had previously refused to ORG

Therefore , the ORG considered that it was “ against morality for a bank to exploit its dominant position vis - à - vis its counterpart during a period of financial crisis by cruelly prosecuting it instead of extending financial facilities which are customary in banking transactions during such periods ” . The ORG awarded the applicants MONEY plus interest at PERCENT per year back - dated from DATE .

The above judgment created a stir in the local shipping community . Several publications appeared in the local and international shipping press , stressing the impact that the judgment would have on future ship credits . A number of cases started to be prepared against banks . ORG , which had already appealed in cassation ( αvαίρεση ) on DATE , threatened to withdraw from the NORP market altogether if ORG ) upheld the judgment of ORG .

On CARDINAL DATE , by decision no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , ORG overturned the judgment of ORG on the ground that the bank had not acted contrary to business morality and that the impugned judgment did not give sufficient reasons . The case was then referred to ORG for further examination .

Following deliberations on DATE , ORG , by decision no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , ordered the parties to appear in person before it and to give further explanations about the case . The hearing was held on DATE . With the exception of CARDINAL judge who had also participated in the deliberations of CARDINAL DATE and was the rapporteur in the case , ORG sat in a different composition .

On DATE , i.e. DATE after the hearing of CARDINAL DATE , CARDINAL of the judges participating in that hearing retired . Under NORP law this meant that if the ORG had not reached a decision by that date it could no longer deliberate but should hear the case again in a different composition . However , no actions were taken at that stage , which led the applicants to believe that the decision had already been taken before the retirement of the judge and that they had to await the delivery of the judgment .

CARDINAL cases were heard after the hearing on the applicants ' case and before the retirement of the judge on DATE . In CARDINAL of these cases the judgments were delivered before DATE . In the course of the judicial vacations ( i.e. from CARDINAL July to DATE ) , the President of the ORG delivered CARDINAL more judgments . The judgments in the remaining CARDINAL cases were delivered in the course of DATE .

On DATE the applicants inserted an open letter in a NORP newspaper . In their publication , entitled “ Open letter to ORG ” , the applicants questioned the reasons for the delay taken by ORG in delivering its judgment . Having received no answer , the applicants sent a similar letter on DATE to the Minister of ORG and the President and Public Prosecutor of ORG . They again received no answer .

On DATE , the President of ORG ( who had until DATE been President of ORG ) returned the file of the case to the ORG of ORG , accompanied by a hand - written note which read as follows : “ To be further discussed , in accordance with LAW ( since it was ascertained , after the last report , that there is a need for further deliberation , which is not feasible due to the retirement of CARDINAL of the members of ORG ) . ”

On DATE the new hearing was held . ORG was composed of CARDINAL judges . The first had participated in the deliberations of DATE and the second in both previous compositions as rapporteur . The other CARDINAL members heard the case for the first time . CARDINAL of them , a junior judge , was designated as the new rapporteur .

On DATE , by decision No . DATE , ORG dismissed the appeal , lodged by the applicants against decision no . GPE of ORG , on the ground that it was ill - founded . In his dissenting opinion , the judge who was initially the rapporteur in the case expressed the view that ORG had not acted in good faith and that the applicants ' appeal should therefore be upheld .

Under LAW of LAW a decision is taken by the same judges who participated in the hearing of the case .

Under LAW of LAW if , after the hearing of a case , a decision can not be taken for any reason ( namely the death , resignation or removal from office of a judge who has participated in the hearing ) the case must be reheard .


The CARDINAL applicants , S.Ö , PERSON and Ar . PERSON are NORP citizens of NORP origin , resident in GPE They are members of PERSON Pırgıç NORP PERSON ( the ORG ) , a hospital founded by NORP in GPE . Before the ORG , the applicants are represented by Mr PERSON and Mr Setrak NORP , lawyers practising in GPE .

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

ORG , who had been a patient at the ORG , made her will in DATE and bequeathed her real estate to the ORG . On DATE ORG of ORG held that the ORG was a “ community foundation ” whose charter had been definitively established in DATE . They also recalled that such foundations were only entitled to enter into transactions prescribed in their founding charter . Accordingly , ORG held that the foundation in question could not acquire property bequeathed to it by will given that the founding charter did not specify such a right .

Consequently , shortly before her death in DATE , ORG sold her CARDINAL shops in GPE to the first CARDINAL applicants PERSON , PERSON and GPE . K , who are members of the ORG and donated the proceeds of this transaction to the ORG .

On DATE , the ORG instituted civil proceedings against the applicants in ORG . The ORG declared to be sole beneficiary of ORG estate under LAW of LAW , which provides that the estate of a deceased person shall pass to the ORG if the person dies intestate and has no relatives . The ORG also maintained that the sales contract between the first CARDINAL applicants and PERSON had been signed under false pretences . It alleged that ORG intention in entering into the contract was to donate her real estate to the foundation during her lifetime through the sale of her property to GPE , PERSON and GPE . K , who are members of the foundation . Accordingly , it requested the court to order that the shops , which had been transferred under the sales contract , be restored and that the donation to the ORG be revoked .

On DATE ORG rejected the ORG ’s request on the ground that the ORG ’s claim of being the sole beneficiary of the PERSON estate required clarification . On DATE ORG quashed this judgment on the ground that the first - instance court should have adjourned the case for the ORG to prove that it had a legal right over ORG estate . On DATE ORG dismissed the applicants’ request for rectification of this decision .

On DATE ORG applied the decision of DATE and decided to adjourn the case for the ORG to prove that it was entitled to pursue it .

Later , the ORG submitted to the court a certificate of inheritance issued by ORG dated DATE to the effect that the ORG was the true beneficiary of the estate as ORG sister had predeceased her and that PERSON had no other living relatives . Accordingly , ORG decided to examine the merits of the case . After examining the expert report , the court stated that although there was a difference between the real value of the estate and the amount stated in the sales contract , this was not in itself sufficient to conclude that the applicants had acted under false pretences . Consequently , on DATE , the court dismissed the case on the ground that the ORG had failed to provide sufficient evidence in support of its claims .

On DATE ORG quashed this judgment . Referring to the will signed on DATE and the expert report , which stated that there was a significant difference between the real value of the estates and the amount paid to ORG , ORG found that the first instance court had sufficient evidence before it to give a decision .

On DATE the ORG request for rectification of this decision was rejected by ORG .

On DATE ORG applied the decision of ORG . The court found that the sales contract had been signed under false pretences and accordingly annulled it . Consequently it decided that the shops in issue be included in ORG estate . The court dismissed the remainder of the case .

On DATE ORG once again quashed the decision of the first - instance court . It held that ORG should have accepted the ORG ’s claims as a whole .

On DATE ORG applied the decision of ORG . It decided that the will signed on DATE and the donation made to the foundation should be annulled .

On DATE ORG upheld the judgment of the first - instance court .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicants’ request for rectification .