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

The case concerns the national authorities ' failure to implement the domestic courts ' order to shut down CARDINAL thermal power plants which pollute the environment in the province of PERSON , in south - west GPE .

The applicants are all lawyers who live and practise in GPE , a city which is QUANTITY from the site of the power plants . Relying on LAW and section CARDINAL(a ) of LAW ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL below ) , the applicants argued that it was their constitutional right to live in a healthy and balanced environment , and their duty to ensure the protection of the environment and to prevent environmental pollution .

The PERSON , PERSON and ORG thermal power plants have been operated for DATE by ORG and the public utility company ORG ( “ TEAŞ ” ) in PERSON , in the LOC region of GPE . In the course of their operation , the poor - quality coal used by the plants to produce energy has caused pollution and harmed the region 's biological diversity .

NORP By petitions of DATE , DATE and DATE , the applicants called on ORG , of the Environment and of ORG , TEAŞ and the PERSON provincial governor to take action to halt the operation of the PERSON , PERSON and PERSON thermal power plants . They claimed that these CARDINAL power plants had failed to obtain the requisite licences and that their operation constituted a danger to public health and to the environment .

The above - mentioned administrative authorities did not reply to the applicants ' request , which , under section ORG ) of LAW ( Law no . CARDINAL ) , amounted to a refusal .

On DATE , DATE and CARDINAL DATE the applicants brought CARDINAL separate actions in ORG concerning the PERSON , PERSON and PERSON power plants respectively , against ORG , of ORG and of the Environment , TEAŞ and the PERSON provincial governor 's office . They requested that the administrative decision refusing to halt the power plants ' operation be set aside . The applicants further asked the court to order an interim measure to suspend the activities of these power plants on the ground that they were causing irreparable harm to nature and to public health . As to their legal capacity to bring the proceedings in question , the applicants relied on LAW and sections CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW ( see paragraphs CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL below ) .

ORG appointed a panel of experts , composed of CARDINAL university professors who were experts in forestry , the environment and chemistry respectively , with a view to determining the effects of the CARDINAL power plants ' operation on the environment .

On DATE the experts submitted their reports to the court . They concluded that the plants emitted considerable amounts of nitrogen dioxide and sulphur dioxide and were not equipped with the mandatory chimney filters . They found that the power plants constituted a danger to a zone measuring QUANTITY in diameter . Accordingly , they recommended that the ORG power plant be immediately shut down , that CARDINAL unit in each of the PERSON and PERSON power plants should cease to operate and that desulphurisation units should be installed in them .

On DATE ORG issued an interlocutory injunction for suspension of the power plants ' operation . It found that TEAŞ had been operating the plants since DATE under the guise of “ test operations ” , without having obtained the requisite permits for construction , gas emissions and the discharge of waste water . On the basis of the experts ' findings , the court noted that the plants had already caused pollution that was harmful to human health and the environment and that their continued operation could cause irreparable harm to the public . Consequently , it ruled that the administrative authorities ' decision refusing to halt the plants ' operation had been unlawful .

On DATE ORG in GPE , an appellate body responsible for examining decisions given by a single judge in the administrative courts , dismissed the defendant authorities ' appeal against the injunction of DATE .

The applicants alleged before ORG that the continued operation of the ORG power plant would lead to environmental disaster . In particular , it would reduce the number of marine fish species , harm forests and agricultural areas and would have an adverse impact on tourism on account of the risk of hazardous emissions . In this connection , they claimed that the authorities had failed to prepare an environmental impact report and to obtain the necessary operating permits .

In its submissions to ORG , ORG disputed the applicants ' legal capacity to bring the action in question , alleging that they did not have a legal interest to bring such an action as required by section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . It further claimed , inter alia , that there was no requirement to obtain an environmental impact report and that the authorities had already applied for the requisite permits . It also noted that the authorities were taking the necessary steps to install a new flue gas desulphurisation system .

NORP In addition to those submissions from ORG , ORG and of the Environment , TEAŞ and the PERSON provincial governor 's office claimed that the case ought to be dismissed because the necessary equipment would be installed in the plant to prevent pollution .

On DATE ORG set aside the defendant authorities ' decision to refuse to halt the operation of the ORG power plant . In its decision , the court first dismissed the objection concerning the applicants ' alleged lack of a legal interest to bring an action to halt the plant 's operation . Referring to section CARDINAL of LAW , the court noted that there was no requirement to claim a violation of a personal interest in cases concerning the protection of the environment or the historical and cultural heritage , or which were closely related to issues of public interest ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . It further found that the thermal power plant was being operated as a “ test operation ” and did not have the requisite permits . In this connection , the court found , inter alia :

“ ... Furthermore , in order to determine whether the thermal power plant caused damage to the environment , a survey of the area was conducted by CARDINAL experts , namely Professor PERSON , Professor PERSON and Professor PERSON . The [ aforementioned experts ' ] report , on which this judgment is based , noted that the PERSON ( PERSON ) thermal power plant consisted of CARDINAL units , each capable of generating QUANTITY of electricity . The plant uses poor - quality lignite coal to generate energy . It has no equipment for filtering sulphur dioxide and nitrogen oxide gases discharged through its chimneys ... Each of the CARDINAL units of the Kemerköy thermal power plant uses QUANTITY of coal . It is not possible to decrease air pollution by reducing the capacity of a thermal power plant which uses poor - quality coal . It appears that QUANTITY of coal are stocked on the thermal power plant 's LOC . Given that the DATE amount of coal to be used by the CARDINAL units is QUANTITY , the thermal power plant would need to operate for DATE to use up all the coal . If even CARDINAL unit of the Kemerköy power plant were to operate , this would have a detrimental effect on the environment . The gas emitted from the chimneys disperses over an area measuring QUANTITY in diameter ... Should CARDINAL units of the GPE and CARDINAL units of the ORG thermal power plants be operated , the NORP and Betçe zones of the PERSON peninsula would be adversely affected by sulphur dioxide . The delivery of coal to the power plant by ship would also cause marine pollution . [ It follows ] that the operation of the Kemerköy power plant has a harmful effect not only on the areas in the vicinity but also on distant areas . [ Accordingly ] , in order to remove the sulphur dioxide from the gas discharged through the chimneys , desulphurisation units must be installed . This would remove PERCENT of the sulphur dioxide .

Our country 's electrical energy needs can never be disregarded . However , the electricity plants in operation , or to be constructed , must meet the requirements of the above - mentioned regulations , so that the public interest is respected . The public interest can not be said to have been respected if irreparable harm is caused to the environment merely in order to generate electricity .

It appears that the requisite measures were not taken prior to the plant 's construction and the start of operations . Despite the possibility of minimising the adverse environmental effects of the power plants , which represent a long - term ORG investment , it is obvious that the necessary steps were not taken or that little was done from the planning stage to the point of commencing operations .

The financial cost of installing a flue gas desulphurisation system must not be a deterrent . Discussion of the financial cost of the benefit that would accrue to the population from the measures to be taken by the administration is incompatible with the aim of a social ORG ... ”

Given that the thermal power plant had caused environmental pollution , that no preventive measure had been taken and that the requisite permits for construction , operation , gas emission and the discharge of waste water had not been obtained , the court concluded that the refusal of the applicants ' request to halt the plant 's operation had been unlawful .

The applicants contended before ORG that the operation of the ORG power plant without the requisite permits and installations would lead to environmental disaster . They therefore asked the court to set aside the administrative authorities ' decision to refuse to halt the plant 's operation .

ORG claimed that the power plant had received the requisite construction permit and that TEAŞ was taking the necessary steps to install flue gas desulphurisation equipment . However , it denied that the power plant was polluting the environment and claimed that closure of the plant would give rise to energy shortages in the NORP region .

ORG submitted that the plaintiffs did not have a legal interest to bring such an action as required by section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . It contended , inter alia , that the relevant authorities were taking the necessary steps to prevent the plant from polluting the environment .

The Ministry of the Environment maintained that it did not have authority to issue an operating permit for power plants but was nonetheless required to submit its opinion on such permits . It noted that it had already sent an opinion to ORG and to TEAŞ . In its view , no environmental impact report was required in respect of the power plant , since it had been constructed prior to the enactment of LAW .

For its part , TEAŞ asserted that the plaintiffs did not have a legal interest in the action and that the case should therefore be dismissed . It alleged , inter alia , that the power plant had received the requisite permits from the authorities and that it had been equipped with electronic chimney filters . The company further claimed that there was no alternative energy supply , and that the power plant 's closure would result in energy shortages in the region .

On DATE ORG delivered a judgment similar to that in the case of the ORG thermal power plant , and set aside the administrative authorities ' decision to refuse to close the ORG thermal power plant . Relying on the experts ' report , the court noted that the ORG plant did not have the necessary operating permits and that it had already polluted the environment . It therefore found that the administrative authorities ' decision had been unlawful .

The applicants argued before ORG that the PERSON power plant had been in operation since DATE and that the damage it caused to the environment had been observed since DATE . They contended that the defendant authorities had failed to obtain the requisite permits for the power plant 's operation . They therefore asked the court to set aside the administrative authorities ' decision to refuse to close the plant .

As they had done in the cases of the ORG and PERSON plants , the defendant administrative authorities challenged the applicants ' legal interest to bring an action in ORG for the purpose of shutting down the PERSON plant . They denied that the plant polluted the environment and claimed that the necessary permits would be obtained and that flue gas desulphurisation equipment would be installed . The administrative authorities also pointed out that there would be a significant energy shortage in the region if the plant 's operation were to be halted . They asked the court to dismiss the action .

On DATE ORG dismissed the defendants ' objection concerning the applicants ' alleged lack of legal interest and set aside the administrative decision to continue the plant 's operation without obtaining the requisite permits . Referring to the experts ' report , the court reasoned that the plant was polluting the environment and therefore concluded that the administrative decision to refuse to halt the plant 's operation had been unlawful .

By decisions of CARDINAL and DATE , ORG upheld the above - mentioned CARDINAL judgments of ORG .

On DATE ORG rejected the defendant authorities ' requests for rectification .

By virtue of LAW of LAW and of LAW , the administrative authorities are obliged to comply with court decisions and to enforce them within DATE following service of the decision ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and DATE below ) .

By a decision of DATE , ORG , composed of the Prime Minister and other cabinet ministers , decided that the CARDINAL thermal power plants should continue to operate , despite the administrative courts ' judgments . ORG reasoned that closure of the plants would give rise to energy shortages and loss of employment and would thus affect the region 's income from tourism . Taking the view that the necessary measures were being taken by the authorities with a view to preventing the plants from polluting the environment , ORG decided that the plants ' operation should not be halted .

In letters of CARDINAL and DATE , the applicants asked the defendant administrative authorities to enforce the judgments of ORG .

On DATE the applicants filed criminal complaints with the offices of ORG and of the public prosecutors in the jurisdictions in which the plants were situated . They asked the prosecutors to institute criminal proceedings against the members of ORG and other relevant administrative authorities for failure to execute the court decisions .

In a letter of CARDINAL DATE , ORG informed the applicants that the operation of the CARDINAL thermal power plants would not be halted . It was noted that the power plants were responsible for PERCENT of the country 's total electricity production and that their contribution to the economy was estimated at MONEY . ORG further argued that CARDINAL people would lose their jobs and the region 's tourist sector would be adversely affected if these plants were to cease to operate . It was further claimed that contracts had already been signed for the installation of new flue gas desulphurisation systems and that the necessary measures were therefore being taken to protect the environment and public health .

On DATE ORG issued a decision not to prosecute the Prime Minister and other ministers , having regard to LAW which stipulated that the prosecution of these authorities would require a parliamentary investigation .

On DATE ORG issued a decision not to prosecute the director of the PERSON thermal power plant , given that ORG judgment had not been served on him , and that ORG 's directors were not responsible for taking action to comply with the court 's judgment .

On DATE the Milas Chief Public Prosecutor issued a decision not to prosecute the directors of the ORG and ORG thermal power plants . ORG stated that the directors of the power plants were merely implementing ORG decision of DATE and that there were no grounds for considering that they were deliberately refusing to comply with the administrative courts ' judgments .

The applicants submitted a copy of CARDINAL judgments given by ORG in civil matters ( sulh hukuk mahkemesi ) . In these cases , brought against TEAŞ , the plaintiffs , who were farmers living in the vicinity of the PERSON thermal power plant , alleged that the quality and quantity of their olive and tobacco production had been adversely affected by the poisonous gas and ash emitted by the power plant and that they had therefore suffered pecuniary damage ( Files nos . CARDINAL , CARDINAL , GPE , GPE , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL/CARDINAL , CARDINAL ; and decisions ORG . CARDINAL , CARDINAL/CARDINAL , CARDINAL/CARDINAL , DATE , GPE , GPE , ORG , ORG , CARDINAL ) .

ORG acceded to the plaintiffs ' claims and awarded each of them compensation . Relying on expert reports on the plaintiffs ' land , the court found that the hazardous gas emitted by the power plant had caused considerable damage to cultivation in the region , in that olive trees and tobacco plants suffered from incomplete leaf growth and were unable to produce a sufficient yield .

ORG upheld all CARDINAL judgments of ORG .

Article CARDINAL of the LAW provides :

“ Everyone has the right to live in a healthy , balanced environment . It shall be the duty of the ORG and the citizens to improve and preserve the environment and to prevent environmental pollution . ... The ORG shall perform this task by utilising and supervising health and social welfare institutions in both the public and private sectors . ... ”

Section CARDINAL of LAW ( Law no . CARDINAL ) , published in ORG on DATE , reads :

“ The general principles governing environmental protection and the prevention of environmental pollution shall be as follows :

( a ) Protecting the environment and preventing environmental pollution are the duty of individuals and legal entities as well as of all citizens , and they are required to comply with the measures to be taken and the principles laid down in reference to these matters . ... ”

Section CARDINAL provides :

“ Establishments and concerns which propose to carry out activities which might cause environmental problems shall draw up an environmental impact report . This report shall concern , inter alia , the measures proposed to reduce the detrimental effects of waste materials and the necessary precautions to this end .

The types of project for which such a report shall be required , its content and the principles governing its approval by the relevant authorities shall be determined by regulations . ”

Section CARDINAL reads :

“ Whether or not negligence has occurred , a person who pollutes and harms the environment shall be responsible for the damage resulting from that pollution or the deterioration of the environment .

This liability is without prejudice to any liability which may arise under general provisions . ”

Section CARDINAL provides :

“ Individuals and legal entities that suffer damage from or have information regarding an activity which pollutes or harms the environment may request that the activity be stopped by applying to the administrative authorities . ”

In DATE ORG , meeting in GPE ( GPE ) , adopted a declaration ( “ LAW ” , A / CONF.CARDINAL/CARDINAL ( vol . I ) ) intended to advance the concept of GPE ' rights and responsibilities with regard to the environment . “ LAW ” of this LAW provides :

“ Environmental issues are best handled with the participation of all concerned citizens , at the relevant level . At the national level , each individual shall have appropriate access to information concerning the environment that is held by public authorities , including information on hazardous materials and activities in their communities , and the opportunity to participate in decision - making processes . States shall facilitate and encourage public awareness and participation by making information widely available . Effective access to judicial and administrative proceedings , including redress and remedy , shall be provided . ”

On DATE ORG of ORG adopted Recommendation DATE ) on environment and human rights . The relevant part of this recommendation states :

“ CARDINAL . The ORG recommends that the ORG of member GPE :

i. NORP ensure appropriate protection of the life , health , family and private life , physical integrity and private property of persons in accordance with ORG , CARDINAL and DATE of LAW and by LAW , by also taking particular account of the need for environmental protection ;

ii . recognise a human right to a healthy , viable and decent environment which includes the objective obligation for GPE to protect the environment , in national laws , preferably at constitutional level ;

iii . safeguard the individual procedural rights to access to information , public participation in decision making and access to justice in environmental matters set out in LAW ;

Section CARDINAL of LAW ( Law no . CARDINAL ) provides that anyone whose personal interests have been violated as a result of an unlawful administrative act can bring an action for annulment of that act . An administrative court suit can also be brought on account of a violation of a personal right by an administrative act or action .

In its judgment of CARDINAL DATE ( ORG no . CARDINAL , decision no . MONEY ) , ORG distinguished a personal interest from a personal right :

“ ... the violation of an interest does not have the same meaning as the violation of a right . It indicates a relation which is serious and reasonable . The interest violated does not necessarily need to be of an economic or pecuniary nature . ... ”

Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of PERSON no . CARDINAL reads :

“ The filing of an action by a common petition by CARDINAL person requires a common right or interest on the part of the plaintiffs and similarity in respect of the facts and legal reasons . ”

Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of PERSON no . CARDINAL provides :

“ [ If the administrative authorities ] do not respond [ to a petition ] within DATE [ after its receipt ] , the request shall be considered to have been rejected . ”

Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL of the LAW provides :

“ The bodies of executive and legislative power and the authorities must comply with court decisions ; they can not in any circumstances modify court decisions or defer enforcement thereof . ”

The relevant parts of LAW of PERSON no . CARDINAL read :

“ ( CARDINAL ) The authorities shall be obliged to adopt a decision without delay or to take action in accordance with the decisions on the merits or a request for a stay of execution issued by ORG , the ordinary or regional administrative courts or the courts dealing with tax disputes . Under no circumstances may the time taken to act exceed DATE following service of the decision on the authorities .

( CARDINAL ) Where the authorities do not adopt a decision or do not act in accordance with a decision by ORG , the ordinary or regional administrative courts or the tax courts , a claim for compensation for pecuniary or non - pecuniary damage may be brought before ORG and the relevant courts against the authorities .

( CARDINAL ) In the event of deliberate failure on the part of civil servants to enforce judicial decisions within DATE [ following the decision ] , compensation proceedings may be brought both against the authorities and against the civil servant who refuses to enforce the decision in question . ”

“ The setting aside of a judgment gives rise ipso facto to a stay of execution of the decision . ”


Violation of Art. 6-1;Not necessary to examine Art. 6-3-c;Not necessary to examine Art. 13;Non-pecuniary damage - financial award;Costs and expenses award - domestic proceedings;Costs and expenses award - Convention proceedings

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

On DATE the police intervened in an incident involving the applicant in a spa establishment in GPE , GPE . The police had to restrain and handcuff him . Subsequently the police notified the Piešťany local office ( Obvodný úrad ) of the incident ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

On DATE the local office found that the applicant had committed a minor offence ( priestupok ) against public order under section CARDINAL ) and ( c ) of the DATE LAW in that he had disturbed boarders in the spa establishment by his noisy behaviour and refused to obey police officers ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . He was fined CARDINAL NORP korunas ( SKK ) pursuant to section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW and ordered to pay SKK CARDINAL in respect of costs .

The applicant filed an appeal against this decision with the LOC district office ( ORG úrad ) . He maintained that his case had not been examined properly and that he was prevented from defending himself since the decision of the local office had been taken in his absence . He also requested that a witness be heard .

On DATE the district office dismissed the appeal and upheld the decision of the local office . The applicant ’s case was examined by the legal department of the district office which rejected his appeal in a decision signed by the head of that department .

On DATE the applicant brought a complaint before ORG ( Ústavný súd ) . On DATE he submitted proof of his indigence to ORG and requested that a lawyer be appointed ex officio in order to assist him in the proceedings before it . On DATE the ORG informed the applicant that LAW did not provide for the ex officio appointment of lawyers and requested him to appoint a lawyer within DATE . The applicant then approached the President of ORG but was nevertheless unable to find a lawyer within the time - limit set by ORG .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s complaint because of his failure to instruct a lawyer to represent him in the proceedings , as required by LAW .

DATE LAW guarantees to everyone who claims to have been denied his rights as a result of a decision made by a public administrative authority the right to appeal to a court of law and have the legality of the decision reviewed , unless otherwise provided by law . The review of decisions on matters of fundamental rights and freedoms may not be excluded from the jurisdiction of courts of law .

Article CARDINAL entitles the Government to grant pardons in matters concerning minor offences .

Pursuant to LAW ORG decides on complaints concerning final decisions made by , inter alia , local government authorities and local self - governing bodies in cases concerning violations of the fundamental rights and freedoms of citizens , unless the protection of such rights falls under the jurisdiction of another court .

At the time of the offence the legislation read as follows .

Section CARDINAL of LAW defines its purpose in the following terms :

“ Administrative authorities of GPE and municipal organs shall encourage citizens to respect legal rules and the rights of other citizens . They shall ensure , in particular , that citizens do not impede the conduct of the administration ... and contravene public order and civic propriety . ”

Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) provides the following definition of a minor offence :

“ A minor offence is a wrongful act which interferes with or causes danger to the public interest and is expressly classified as a minor offence in this LAW or another law , unless such an act represents a separate administrative offence punishable under special legal rules or a criminal offence . ”

Section CARDINAL entitles the competent authorities to impose sanctions ( sankcie ) on the perpetrators of minor offences . It reads as follows :

“ ( CARDINAL ) The following sanctions may be imposed for a minor offence :

( a ) reprimand ,

( b ) fine ,

( c ) prohibition to exercise a certain activity ,

( d ) confiscation of an object .

( CARDINAL ) A sanction can be imposed either separately or in combination with another sanction ; a reprimand can not be combined with a fine .

( CARDINAL ) It is permissible to decide not to impose a sanction if the mere fact that the minor offence was examined is sufficient to reform its perpetrator . ”

Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) , as relevant , provides :

“ When determining the type and amount of the sanction , the seriousness of the minor offence and , in particular , the way and the circumstances in which it was committed , its consequences , the degree of guilt , the motive and the character of the perpetrator including whether or not he or she has already been punished for the same act in ... disciplinary proceedings should be taken into account . ”

Section CARDINAL governs minor offences against public order . Pursuant to section CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(a ) and ( c ) , a person who disobeys a public officer acting in his official capacity or offends public decency commits a minor offence against public order . Under section CARDINAL ) such a minor offence is punishable with a maximum fine of SKK CARDINAL .

According to section CARDINAL the proceedings concerning minor offences are governed , unless otherwise provided , by LAW .

Section CARDINAL provides that the following administrative authorities are entitled to examine minor offences : ( i ) local offices , ( ii ) police authorities if a minor offence was committed in breach of the generally binding legal rules relating to the security of road traffic and ( iii ) other organs of ORG administration if a special law so provides .

Pursuant to section CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(b ) cases involving minor offences against public order are investigated by the police authorities subordinated to ORG .

Section CARDINAL ) provides that minor offences are to be investigated either on the basis of an investigation carried out by the competent police authority or upon a notification submitted by an individual , an organisation or an authority .

Under section CARDINAL ) the police authority should submit to the competent administrative organ a report on the outcome of its investigation of a case . Such a report ought to comprise , inter alia , a description of the relevant facts and specify which minor offence they are alleged to constitute .

Section CARDINAL reads as follows :

“ ( CARDINAL ) A citizen is accused of a minor offence as soon as the administrative authority has taken the first procedural step against him or her . Such a person shall be considered innocent until his or her guilt has been established by a final decision .

( CARDINAL ) A person accused of a minor offence has the right to comment on all facts that are imputed to him or her as well as on the evidence related to these facts , to present facts and evidence in his or her defence , make submissions and have recourse to remedies . He or she can not be forced to make statements or to plead guilty . ”

Section CARDINAL , as relevant , provides :

“ The operative part of a decision by which an accused of a minor offence is found guilty shall comprise also the description of the act including the place and time when the minor offence was committed , the finding of guilt , the type and amount of the sanction or , as the case may be , the decision not to impose a sanction ... ”

According to section CARDINAL ) decisions on minor offences imposing a fine exceeding SKK CARDINAL , prohibiting the exercise of a certain activity for a period exceeding six months or confiscating an object having a value exceeding SKK CARDINAL can be reviewed by the courts . In such cases the provisions of Articles CARDINAL et seq . of ORG on administrative jurisdiction are applied .

Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of PERSON no . PERSON on ORG , as amended , empowers district offices and local offices to carry out local administration falling within the competence of the ORG . The exercise of local administration by the aforesaid authorities is managed and controlled by the government .

Under section DATE ) the head of a local office is appointed and dismissed by the head of a district office .

According to section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) the head of a district office is appointed by the government on the proposal of ORG .

The officers of local and district offices are subordinated to the heads of those offices and their contracts of employment are governed , as in the case of other salaried employees , by the provisions of LAW .

In DATE this PERSON was repealed and replaced by PERSON no . ORG .

Under the terms of LAW are bound , inter alia , by the decisions of the competent authorities that a criminal offence , a minor offence or another administrative offence punishable under special rules has been committed .

Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL of LAW defines a criminal offence as an act which is dangerous to society and whose characteristics are laid down in LAW . However , according to LAW , an act whose dangerousness is negligible is not a criminal offence even if it has its attributes .

According to LAW the degree of dangerousness of an act is determined , in particular , by the importance of the protected interest affected by that act , by the circumstances and the way in which the act was committed and its consequences as well as by the character of its perpetrator , the degree of his guilt and his motives .

Article CARDINAL of the Criminal Code provides that a person who commits in public an act of gross indecency or causes a grave disturbance , in particular by attacking another person , profaning a cultural or historical monument or a grave , or who disturbs in a serious manner a meeting or a ceremony may be either fined or sentenced to a prison sentence not exceeding DATE .

The Criminal Code refers to repressive measures imposed for committing a criminal offence as penalties ( tresty ) .


David Thór Björgvinsson;Giovanni Bonello;Ján Šikuta;Lech Garlicki;Nicolas Bratza;Päivi Hirvelä

The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in Gdańsk . ORG ( “ the Government ” ) were represented by their Agent , Mr PERSON of ORG .

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

DATE and CARDINAL DATE the applicant served CARDINAL terms of imprisonment imposed on him in separate sets of criminal proceedings .

On DATE the ORG charged the applicant with CARDINAL counts of unlawful possession of firearms , unlawful possession of explosives and theft of a driving licence . On DATE the ORG ordered his detention pending trial in view of the reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed the offences with which he had been charged . It further held that the applicant might obstruct the proceedings and had regard to the severity of the penalty likely to be imposed . The court found that imposition of detention pending trial at the time when the applicant was serving a prison term would enable the prosecution to effectively control his contact with the outside world .

On DATE the ORG dismissed an appeal by the applicant against the detention order . It held that keeping him in custody was justified by the severity of the likely penalty and the risk that he might tamper with evidence , given the substantial number of suspects in the case .

The applicant ’s appeal against the detention order , likewise his further appeals against decisions extending his detention and all his subsequent , numerous applications for release and appeals against refusals to release him , were unsuccessful . In his applications and appeals , he argued in particular that his detention had been automatically extended by the courts .

In the course of the investigation , the applicant ’s detention was extended on CARDINAL occasions , namely , on DATE and DATE .

On an unknown date in DATE the ORG refused to allow the applicant a visit from his common - law wife . The applicant filed a complaint . On DATE ORG refused to institute criminal proceedings in respect of the applicant ’s complaint .

On DATE ORG lodged a bill of indictment with ORG . The applicant was charged with CARDINAL counts of unlawful possession of firearms , unlawful possession of explosives and theft of a driving licence . The bill of indictment comprised CARDINAL charges brought against CARDINAL defendants . Other defendants were charged with numerous counts of robbery and armed robbery committed in an organised criminal group . However , the applicant was not charged with acting in such a group .

On DATE the ORG extended the applicant ’s detention until DATE , finding that it was necessary in order to prevent him DATE and his other CARDINAL detained co - defendants – from evading justice or tampering with evidence .

On DATE the ORG again extended the detention of the applicant and that of CARDINAL of his co - defendants , considering that the grounds originally given for remanding him in custody were still valid .

The trial began on DATE . However , as of DATE the prosecution had still not completed the reading - out of the bill of indictment .

During the court proceedings the authorities extended the applicant ’s detention on DATE and DATE , DATE and CARDINAL DATE , and DATE . The courts repeated the grounds previously given for the applicant ’s continued detention . In particular , they referred to the complexity of the case , the volume of evidence and the severity of the likely penalty .

DATE and DATE the applicant was serving a prison sentence imposed in another set of criminal proceedings against him .

On DATE the trial court ordered the applicant ’s release . It noted the charges against the applicant and the fact that the period of his detention had exceeded DATE . The court held that the detention should be lifted .

By DATE the trial court had held CARDINAL hearings and heard evidence from CARDINAL witnesses . However , all the hearings listed after DATE had to be cancelled due to the long - term illness of CARDINAL of the trial court judges . Subsequently , a new panel of judges had to be assigned to the case and the trial had to be restarted .

On DATE ORG considered that the case concerning the charges against the applicant and some of the charges against CARDINAL of his co - accused should be examined separately . The case was subsequently examined by ORG .

On DATE ORG transferred the applicant ’s case to ORG , which had meanwhile become competent to try the case .

It appears that the proceedings against the applicant are pending .

The relevant domestic law and practice concerning the imposition of detention during the judicial proceedings ( aresztowanie tymczasowe ) , the grounds for its extension , release from detention and rules governing other “ preventive measures ” ( środki zapobiegawcze ) are stated in the ORG ’s judgments in the cases of ORG v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , § § DATE , CARDINAL DATE and PERSON v. GPE , no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , § § DATE , CARDINAL DATE .


Giovanni Bonello;Ján Šikuta;Josep Casadevall;Kristaq Traja;Lech Garlicki;Nicolas Bratza;Stanislav Pavlovschi

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

NORP , may be summarised as follows .

On DATE the applicant instituted before ORG ( PERSON ) civil proceedings against PERSON and PERSON PERSON in which he claimed payment for construction work he had carried out . The applicant requested that his claim be considered in a summary procedure ( postępowanie nakazowe ) .

On DATE the court allowed the action and issued a payment order against the defendant . The defendant appealed .

Subsequently , all the judges of ORG asked to be excluded from trying the case as the defendant was married to one of the judges . The case was thus transferred to ORG where it was filed under case no . ORG .

The court held the first hearing on DATE . The next hearings were held on DATE and DATE .

On DATE ORG gave judgment in which it allowed a part of the applicant 's action .

The applicant lodged an appeal against this judgment .

NORP On DATE the applicant lodged a complaint about a breach of the right to have his case heard within a reasonable time . He relied on the Law of DATE on complaints about a breach of the right to a trial within a reasonable time ( LOC o skardze na naruszenie prawa strony do rozpoznania sprawy w postępowaniu sądowym bez nieuzasadnionej zwłoki ) ( “ the CARDINAL Act ” ) .

On DATE ORG ( Sąd Apelacyjny ) held the first hearing .

On DATE ORG dismissed the complaint about the unreasonable length of the proceedings . The court established that ORG had been inactive for DATE which led to the unjustified protraction of the proceedings . However , the inactivity occurred before the entry into force of LAW and thus could not be taken into consideration .

The proceedings on the merits of the applicant 's civil action are pending before the appeal court .

NORP In DATE the applicant lodged civil proceedings for payment with ORG ( Sąd Rejonowy ) against the limited liability company “ Auto Żoliborz ” .

On DATE the court gave a judgment . The applicant appealed .

On DATE ORG quashed the impugned judgment and remitted the case .

On CARDINAL DATE ORG gave a judgment .

The appeal lodged against this judgment was rejected on DATE as it had been lodged out of time .

On DATE the applicant initiated another set of civil proceedings against Mr A.S. and Mr J.C.

On DATE the ORG gave a judgment in which it partly allowed the applicant 's action . The applicant appealed .

On DATE ORG partly allowed the appeal .

NORP The relevant domestic law and practice concerning remedies for the excessive length of judicial proceedings , in particular the applicable provisions of LAW , are described in the ORG 's decisions in the cases of ORG v. GPE no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ( dec . ) , § § DATE , ECHR CARDINAL-V and NORP v. GPE no . CARDINAL ( dec . ) , ORG CARDINAL-VIII and the judgment in the case of GPE v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , § § DATE , ECHR CARDINAL-V.


The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in the town of GPE . He was represented before the ORG by PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE . ORG ( “ the Government ” ) were represented by PERSON , Representative of GPE at ORG .

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

On DATE the applicant was arrested on charges of murder , theft and deliberate destruction of property . From the very outset of the investigation he refused to testify or cooperate with the authorities .

On DATE ORG held its first hearing on this case . The bench was composed of Judge PERSON . and CARDINAL lay assessors , T. and PERSON .

The applicant submitted that at CARDINAL of the hearings his counsel had failed to appear , but the trial court had refused his request to adjourn the hearing . He also submitted that oral evidence given by some prosecution witnesses during the trial had not been properly recorded in TIME and that he unsuccessfully requested ORG to accept his mother as his counsel .

By judgment of DATE the court convicted the applicant of aggravated murder and theft and sentenced him to DATE imprisonment . The applicant submitted that the court had used his refusal to testify to support the findings about his guilt .

The applicant appealed against the judgment to ORG . In his appeal , he complained , among other things , that lay assessor PERSON had not complied with the domestic rules in respect of lay assessors .

On DATE ORG applied an amnesty law as regards some of the charges and reduced the applicant ’s sentence to DATE of imprisonment . It appears that the court did not examine the applicant ’s complaint about the lay assessors and the allegedly unlawful composition of the bench .

The ORG decision was served on the applicant on DATE .

On DATE the applicant requested ORG to provide him with information about the composition of the court that had tried his case , and in particular , the list of lay judges and the record of their participation in the trials at the material time . However , he received no response .

On DATE and CARDINAL DATE the applicant lodged a complaint with ORG . In this complaint he alleged that the court composition in his case had been unlawful .

By decision of DATE ORG rejected the complaint .

On DATE the applicant lodged a request for supervisory review with ORG . He maintained , among other things , that the court composition in his criminal case had been unlawful .

On DATE a judge of ORG of GPE examined the applicant ’s request and took a decision to initiate supervisory review proceedings in the case .

By a decision of CARDINAL DATE the Presidium of ORG examined the arguments of the applicant ’s appeal . It found that the participation of lay assessor T. in the proceedings was unlawful . Accordingly , the court quashed the applicant ’s conviction and remitted the case for a fresh examination in the first instance .

By judgment of DATE ORG , sitting in a new composition , freshly examined the applicant ’s criminal case and convicted him of aggravated murder . The applicant was sentenced to DATE of imprisonment .

For a summary of the relevant domestic law provisions , see PERSON v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , ORG CARDINALIV , and PERSON v. GPE ( dec . ) , no . MONEY , DATE .


The applicants , whose names appear in the appendix , are NORP nationals . They currently live in GPE . They are represented before the ORG by Mr PERSON , Mr LOC and Mr PERSON , lawyers practising in GPE .

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

Until DATE the applicant lived in PERSON , a village of the GPE district in GPE , where she owns property . It is to be noted that another person , FAC , appears to be the owner of the property in question according to the documents submitted to the Court .

On DATE security forces forcibly evacuated ORG on account of disturbances in the region . They also destroyed the applicant ’s property . The applicant and her family then moved to GPE , where they currently live .

On DATE the applicant lodged a petition with ORG office in GPE complaining about the burning down of her house by the security forces on DATE .

On DATE ORG issued a decision of non - jurisdiction and sent the case file to the office of ORG in GPE , in accordance with LAW no . CARDINAL and the PERSON on the Prosecution of Civil Servants ( Memurin Muhakematı GPE ) .

On DATE ORG sent a letter to the applicant stating that no investigation into her allegations would be undertaken as the perpetrators of the alleged acts could not be identified .

On an unknown date the applicant filed petitions with the Governor ’s office in GPE and with the GPE office in GPE requesting permission to return to her village .

On DATE ORG of the GPE office in GPE sent the following reply to the applicant :

“ Your petition requesting permission to return to your village has been received by the District Governor ’s office and will be considered under the ‘ Return to the Village and Rehabilitation Project’ . ”

Until DATE the applicant lived in PERSON , a village of the GPE district in GPE , where she owns property . It is to be noted that another person , PERSON , appears to be the owner of the property in question on the documents submitted to the ORG .

On DATE the applicant lodged a petition with ORG office in GPE complaining about the burning down of her house by security forces on DATE .

On DATE ORG issued a decision of non - jurisdiction and sent the case file to the office of ORG in GPE , in accordance with LAW b ) of Decree no . CARDINAL and the PERSON on the Prosecution of Civil Servants ( Memurin Muhakematı GPE ) .

On DATE ORG sent a letter to the applicant stating that there would not be an investigation into her allegations as the perpetrators of the alleged acts could not be identified .

On DATE the applicant lodged a petition with the District Governor ’s office in GPE requesting permission to return to her village and to use her property .

The applicant received no response to her petition within the CARDINAL-day period prescribed by PERSON no . CARDINAL .

Until DATE the applicant lived in PERSON , a village of GPE district in GPE , where her husband , PERSON owned property . PERSON died in DATE .

The applicant contends that on DATE her husband PERSON filed a petition with the Prime Minister ’s office , the Governor ’s office in GPE and with the GPE office in GPE requesting permission to return to his village . However , the application does not contain the petition in question . ORG of ORG sent a letter , dated DATE , stating that the petition Mr PERSON lodged with the Prime Minister ’s office had been transmitted to ORG for consideration .

On DATE the applicant filed petitions with the Governor ’s office in GPE and with the GPE office in GPE requesting permission to return to her village .

The applicant received no response to her petitions within the CARDINAL-day period prescribed by PERSON no . CARDINAL .

Until DATE the applicant lived in PERSON , a village of the GPE district in GPE , where he owns property . It is to be noted that the applicant did not submit any certificate attesting his ownership of property in Eğrikavak .

On DATE the security forces forcibly evacuated ORG on account of disturbances in the region . They also destroyed the applicant ’s property . The applicant and his family then moved to GPE , where they currently live .

On DATE the applicant lodged a petition with ORG office in GPE complaining about the burning down of his house by security forces on DATE .

On DATE ORG sent a letter to the applicant stating that there would not be an investigation into his allegations as the perpetrators of the alleged acts could not be identified .

On DATE the applicant lodged petitions with the Governor ’s office in GPE and with the GPE office in GPE requesting permission to return to his village .

On DATE ORG of the GPE office in GPE sent the following response to the applicant :

“ Your petition requesting permission to return to your village has been received by the District Governor ’s office and will be considered under the ‘ Return to the Village and Rehabilitation Project’ . ”

Until DATE the applicant lived in PERSON , a village of the GPE district in GPE , where his father owns property . It is to be noted that the applicant did not submit any certificate to the ORG attesting his ownership of property in ORG .

On DATE security forces forcibly evacuated ORG on account of disturbances in the region . They also destroyed the applicant ’s property . The applicant and his family then moved to GPE , where they currently live .

Until DATE the applicant lived in PERSON , a village of the GPE district in GPE , where she owns property . It is to be noted that the applicant did not submit any certificate to the ORG attesting her ownership of property in ORG with her application .

On DATE the applicant lodged a petition with ORG office in GPE complaining about the burning down of her house by security forces on DATE .

On DATE ORG sent a letter to the applicant stating that there would not be an investigation into her allegations as the perpetrators of the alleged acts could not be identified .

On DATE her petitions were received by these offices .

Until DATE the applicant lived in PERSON , a village of the GPE district in GPE , where he owns property . It is to be noted that another person , PERSON , appears to be the owner of the property in question on the documents submitted to the ORG . )

In DATE the applicant lodged a petition with the GPE office in GPE requesting permission to benefit from the pre - fabricated housing units that would be built .

On DATE the District Governor ’s office in GPE sent a reply to the applicant stating :

“ Your petition requesting permission to benefit from the prefabricated housing units has been received . However , the new houses will be used by those who are already residents in prefabricated buildings .

Your petition will be considered under the ‘ Return to the Village and Rehabilitation Project’ . ”

On DATE the applicant filed further petitions with the Governor ’s office in GPE and with the GPE office in GPE requesting permission to return to his village .

On DATE his petitions were received by these offices .

The applicant received no response to his petitions within the CARDINAL-day period prescribed by PERSON no . CARDINAL .

Until DATE the applicant lived in PERSON , a village of the GPE district in GPE , where she owns property .

On DATE the applicant filed petitions with the ORG and with the Governor ’s office in GPE requesting permission to return to her village and to use her property .

On DATE the applicant received the following response from the Governor ’s office in GPE :

“ The petition that you lodged with ORG has been transmitted to the Governor ’s office in GPE and will be considered under the ‘ Return to GPE Project’ . ”

Until DATE the applicant lived in PERSON , a village of the GPE district in GPE . He owns property in ORG and also in the neighbouring village of GPE .

On DATE the applicant lodged a petition with ORG office in GPE complaining about the burning down of his house by security forces on DATE .

On DATE ORG sent a letter to the applicant stating that there would not be an investigation into her allegations as the perpetrators of the alleged acts could not be identified .

On DATE the applicant filed a petition with the District Governor ’s office in GPE requesting permission to return to his village . The applicant also submitted a document to the ORG , a petition to the Governor ’s office in GPE , which does not bear any stamp or sign proving that it was filed with this office .

On DATE ORG of the GPE office in GPE sent the following response to the applicant :

“ Your petition requesting permission to return to your village has been received by the District Governor ’s office and will be considered under the ‘ Return to the Village and Rehabilitation Project’ . ”

Until DATE the applicant lived in PERSON , a village of the GPE district in GPE , where he owns property .

On DATE ORG sent a letter to the applicant stating that there would not be an investigation into his allegations as the perpetrators of the alleged acts could not be identified .

On an unknown date the applicant filed a petition with the Governor ’s office in GPE requesting permission to return to his village .

On DATE ORG of the Governor ’s office in GPE sent the following response to the applicant :

“ Your petition requesting permission to return to your village has been received by the Governor ’s office and will be considered under the ‘ Return to the Village and Rehabilitation Project’ . Besides , returning to your village is at your discretion . ”

The applicant alleges that on DATE he went to the GPE office in GPE in order to inform the authorities that he would return to ORG . In the GPE office he was told to inform ORG instead . The applicant contends that a gendarmes captain from the ORG , whose first name is PERSON , told him that it was not allowed to return to the village for security reasons . The applicant and QUANTITY other persons , namely PERSON and FAC , drafted a note on this refusal . This note is attached to the Mr GPE ’s application to ORG . The applicant did not submit any official document to the ORG certifying the refusal of ORG .

On DATE the applicant filed a further petition with the Governor ’s office in GPE requesting permission to return to his village .

On DATE the Governor ’s office in GPE received his petition .

The applicant received no response to his above petition within the CARDINAL-day period prescribed by PERSON no . CARDINAL .

Until DATE the applicant lived in PERSON , a village of the GPE district in GPE . He owns property in ORG and also in the neighbouring village of GPE .

On DATE the applicant lodged a petition with ORG office in GPE complaining about the burning down of his house by security forces on DATE .

On DATE ORG sent a letter to the applicant stating that that there would not be an investigation into his allegations as the perpetrators of the alleged acts could not be identified .

On an unknown date the applicant lodged a petition with the District Governor ’s office in GPE requesting permission to return to his village . The applicant also submitted a document to the ORG , a petition dated DATE and addressed to the Governor ’s office in GPE , which does not bear any stamp or sign proving that it was filed with this office .

On DATE ORG of the GPE office in GPE sent the following response to the applicant :

“ Your petition requesting permission to return to your village has been received by the District Governor ’s office and will be considered under the ‘ Return to the Village and Rehabilitation Project’ . ”

On DATE the applicant filed a petition with the District Governor ’s office in GPE requesting permission to return to his village .

Until DATE the applicant lived in PERSON , a village of the GPE district in GPE , where he owns property . It is to be noted that ORG and PERSON appear to be the owners of the property in question on the documents submitted to the ORG .

Until DATE the applicant lived in PERSON , a village of the GPE district in GPE , where he owns property . It is to be noted that another person , PERSON , appears to be the owner of the property in question on the documents submitted to the Court .

Until DATE the applicants lived in PERSON , a village of the GPE district in GPE , where they owns property . It is to be noted that their father PERSON appears to be the owner of the property in question on the documents submitted to ORG .

On DATE security forces forcibly evacuated ORG on account of disturbances in the region . They also destroyed the applicants’ property . The applicants and their family then moved to GPE , where they currently live .

On DATE the applicants filed separate petitions with the District Governor ’s office in GPE requesting permission to return to their village .

On DATE ORG of the GPE office in GPE sent the following response to the applicants separately :

On DATE the District Governor ’s office in GPE received his petition .

The applicant received no response to his petition within the CARDINAL-day period prescribed by PERSON no . CARDINAL .

Until DATE the applicant lived in PERSON , a village of the GPE district in GPE , where she owns property . It is to be noted that PERSON and PERSON appear to be the owners of the property in question on the documents submitted to the ORG .

On DATE the applicant lodged a petition with ORG office in GPE complaining about the burning down of her house by security forces on DATE .

On DATE ORG sent a letter to the applicant stating that there would not be an investigation into her allegations as the perpetrators of the alleged acts could not be identified .

In the meantime , in DATE , the applicant filed a petition with the GPE office in GPE requesting financial aid . On DATE she received a reply from this office stating that , following the examination of the situation of GPE inhabitants , the necessary aid would be provided . However , she has not received any aid .

In DATE the applicant filed another petition with the GPE office in GPE requesting authorisation to return to her village .

On DATE the District Governor ’s office in GPE sent the following response to the applicant :

“ Your petition requesting permission to return to your village has been received by the District Governor ’s office and will be considered under the ‘ Return to the Village and Rehabilitation Project’ . ”

On DATE the applicant lodged a further petition with the District Governor ’s office in GPE requesting permission to return to PERSON .

On DATE she a response similar to that of DATE from ORG of the District Governor ’s office in GPE .

Until DATE the applicant lived in PERSON , a village of the GPE district in GPE , where she owns property . It is to be noted that the applicant ’s husband PERSON , appears to be the owner of the property in question on the documents submitted to the ORG .

On DATE security forces forcibly evacuated ORG on account of disturbances in the region . They also destroyed the applicant ’s property . The applicant and her family then moved to ORG , where they currently live .

On DATE the applicant filed a petition with the District Governor ’s office in GPE requesting permission to return to her village and financial aid .

On DATE the GPE office in GPE received her petition .

The applicant received no reply to her petition within the CARDINAL-day period prescribed by PERSON no . CARDINAL .

Until DATE the applicant lived in PERSON , a village of the GPE district in GPE , where she owns property . It is to be noted that Bira Bozoğlu appears to be the owner of the property in question on the documents submitted to the ORG .

On DATE security forces forcibly evacuated ORG on account of disturbances in the region . They also destroyed the applicant ’s property . The applicant and her family moved to PERSON . They then moved to GPE , where they currently live .

On DATE the applicant filed a petition with the Governor ’s office in GPE requesting permission to return to her village and to use her property .

On DATE the Governor ’s office in GPE received her petition .

The applicant received no response to her petition within the CARDINAL-day period prescribed by PERSON no . CARDINAL .

Until DATE the applicant lived in PERSON , a village of the GPE district in GPE , where he owns property . It is to be noted that the applicant ’s father LOC appears to be the owner of the property in question on the documents submitted to the ORG .

On DATE the applicant sent a petition to the Governor ’s office in GPE requesting information on possible compensation for their evacuation from their village and permission to return to his village .

The applicant received no response to his petition within the CARDINAL-day period prescribed by PERSON no . CARDINAL .

Until DATE the applicant lived in PERSON , a village of the GPE district in GPE , where she owns property . It is to be noted that the applicant ’s father PERSON appears to be the owner of the property in question on the documents submitted to the ORG .

On DATE the applicant lodged a petition with ORG office in GPE complaining about the burning down of her house by security forces on DATE .

On DATE the office of ORG office in GPE sent a letter to the applicant stating that there would not be an investigation into her allegations as the perpetrators of the alleged acts could not be identified .

In DATE the applicant lodged a petition with the Governor ’s office in GPE requesting permission to return to her village .

On DATE she received the following response from ORG of the Governor ’s office in GPE :

“ Your petition requesting permission to return to your village has been received by the District Governor ’s office and will be considered under the ‘ Return to the Village and Rehabilitation Project’ . ”

On DATE the applicant filed a further petition with the District Governor ’s office in GPE requesting permission to return to her village .

On DATE the District Governor ’s office in GPE received her petition .

The applicant received no reply to her petition within the CARDINAL-day period prescribed by PERSON no . CARDINAL .

Until DATE the applicant lived in PERSON , a village of the GPE district in GPE , where he owns property .

On DATE security forces forcibly evacuated tKarataş on account of disturbances in the region . They also destroyed the applicant ’s property . The applicant and her family then moved to GPE , where they currently live .

On DATE the applicant lodged a petition with the District Governor ’s office in GPE requesting permission to return to his village .

On DATE the District Governor ’s office in GPE received his petition .

Until DATE the applicant lived in PERSON , a village of the GPE district in GPE , where he owns property . It is to be noted that , on the documents submitted to the ORG , other persons with the family name “ PERSON ” appear to be the owners of the property in question .

On DATE the applicant ’s wife , PERSON lodged a petition with ORG office in GPE complaining about the burning down of their house by the security forces on DATE .

On DATE the office of ORG office in GPE sent a letter to PERSON stating that there would not be an investigation into his allegations as the perpetrators of the alleged acts could not be identified .

On DATE the applicant lodged a petition with the Governor ’s office in GPE to be sent to the Governor ’s office in GPE , requesting permission to return to his village and to use his property .

On DATE ORG of the Governor ’s office in GPE responded the applicant , stating :

On DATE the applicant filed a further petition with the Governor ’s office in GPE requesting permission to return to his village .

The applicant received no response to his above petition within the CARDINAL-day period prescribed by PERSON no . CARDINAL .

Until DATE the applicant lived in PERSON , a village of the GPE district in GPE , where she owns property . It is to be noted that , on the documents submitted to the ORG , other persons with the family name “ PERSON ” appear to be the owners of the property in question .

On DATE the applicant lodged a petition with ORG requesting permission to return to her village .

On DATE she received a response from the District Governor ’s office in GPE stating :

“ ... The struggle against terrorism in our region has been continuing intensively and positive result is being achieved .

Our government has been working on the solutions to the problems you have mentioned in your petition and you will be informed by the District Governor ’s office when it is possible to return to the villages ... ”

On the same date the Governor ’s office in GPE sent a letter to ORG . It stated that the inhabitants ORG had left their village in DATE due to terrorist incidents and that return to these villages would be possible when the security of the region is re - established .

In DATE the applicant lodged another petition with the Governor ’s office in GPE requesting permission to return to her village .

On DATE she received the following response from this office :

“ Your petition requesting permission to return to your village has been received by the District Governor ’s office and will be considered under the ‘ Return to the Village and Rehabilitation Project’ . ”

On DATE the applicant filed a further petition with the Governor ’s office in GPE requesting permission to return to her village .

They received no response to her above petition within the CARDINAL-day period prescribed by PERSON no . CARDINAL .

On DATE the applicant lodged a petition with ORG office in GPE complaining about the burning down of his house by the security forces on DATE .

On DATE the office of ORG office in GPE sent a letter to the applicant stating that there would not be an investigation into his allegations as the perpetrators of the alleged acts could not be identified .

On DATE the applicant filed a further petition with the Governor ’s office in GPE requesting permission to return to his village .

They received no response to his petition within the CARDINAL-day period prescribed by PERSON no . CARDINAL .

On DATE the applicant filed a petition with the Governor ’s office in GPE requesting permission to return to his village and to use his property .

On DATE the Governor ’s office in GPE received his petition .

The applicant received no response to his petition within the CARDINAL-day period prescribed by PERSON no . CARDINAL .

On DATE the applicant lodged a petition with the Governor ’s office in GPE requesting permission to return to his village and to use his property .

Until DATE the applicant lived in PERSON , a village of the GPE district in GPE , where he owns property . It is to be noted that Bira Bozoğlu appears to be the owner of the property in question on the documents submitted to the ORG . )

Until DATE the applicant lived in PERSON , a village of the GPE district in GPE , where he owns property . It is to be noted that other persons with the name “ Kırmızıtaş ” appear to be the owners of the property in question .

On DATE the applicant sent a petition , dated CARDINAL DATE , to the Governor ’s office in GPE requesting permission to return to his village .

He received no response to his petition within the CARDINAL-day period prescribed by PERSON no . CARDINAL .

The applicant is a retired worker who owns property in ORG , a village of the GPE district in GPE . It is to be noted that on the documents submitted to the ORG , other persons with the family name “ Güngör ” appear to be the owners of the property in question .

Although he was not a permanent resident of ORG , the applicant used to spend his holidays in his house in the village , prior to the evacuation of the village .

On DATE security forces forcibly evacuated ORG on account of disturbances in the region . They also destroyed the applicant ’s property .

On DATE the applicant filed a petition with the Presidency of the ORG in GPE requesting compensation for his loss on account of the destruction of his house in PERSON and permission to return to his village .

On DATE the Presidency of the ORG received his petition .

In DATE the applicant filed a petition with the Governor ’s office in GPE requesting permission to return to her village .

On DATE she received the following response from ORG of the Governor ’s office in GPE :

“ Your petition requesting permission to return to your village has been received by the District Governor ’s office and will be considered under the ‘ Return to the Village and Rehabilitation Project’ . ”

On DATE the applicant lodged a further petition with the Governor ’s office in GPE .

The applicant received no response to her above petition within the CARDINAL-day period prescribed by PERSON no . CARDINAL .

Until DATE the applicants lived in PERSON , a village of the GPE district in GPE , where they own property . The applicants also own land in the neighbouring village of Cevizlidere .

On DATE security forces forcibly evacuated ORG on account of disturbances in the region . They also destroyed the applicants’ property . The applicants and their families then moved to GPE , where they currently live .

On DATE the applicants lodged a petition with the Governor ’s office in GPE to be submitted to ORG . In their petition the applicants alleged that their houses had been burned down and their village evacuated on DATE , and that they were denied access to their lands in ORG and Cevizlidere since then . They requested compensation for their loss and permission to return to their villages .

They received no response to their petition within the CARDINAL-day period prescribed by PERSON no . CARDINAL .

Until DATE the applicant lived in PERSON , a village of the GPE district in GPE , where he owns property . It is to be noted that the applicant ’s father PERSON appears to be the owner of the property in question on the documents submitted to the ORG

On DATE the applicant lodged a petition , dated CARDINAL DATE , with the Governor ’s office in GPE requesting permission to return to his village .

He received no reply to his petition within the CARDINAL-day period prescribed by PERSON no . CARDINAL .

On DATE the applicant filed a petition with the Governor ’s office in GPE requesting permission to return to his village and to use his property .

On DATE the Governor ’s office in GPE received his petition .

The applicant received no response to his petition within the CARDINAL-day period prescribed by PERSON no . CARDINAL .

The official records indicated that the inhabitants of ORG and ORG had evacuated their village on account of intense terrorist activities in the region and threats issued by the ORG ( Workers’ ORG ) terrorist organisation against the villagers . The security forces had not forced the applicants to leave their village .

Currently there was no obstacle preventing villagers from returning to their homes and possessions in their villages . Persons who had left their villages as a result of terrorism had already started returning and regaining their activities in their villages . In this connection , in a letter of DATE the NORP Governor of GPE informed the applicants that they could return to their villages and resume their economic activities if they wished . He further noted that all villages were open for re - settlement and that the authorities had been carrying out maintenance work to repair the infrastructure of the villages in the region .

On DATE the Law on Compensation for Losses resulting from Terrorism and the Fight against Terrorism was passed by ORG and entered into force on DATE ( “ Compensation Law ” ) . That PERSON provided for a sufficient remedy capable of redressing the LAW grievances of persons who were denied access to their possessions in their villages .

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

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

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


The applicant [ Mr PERSON ] is a NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in PERSON ( GPE province ) . Before the ORG he was represented by PERSON , of ORG .

The facts , as submitted by the applicant , may be summarised as follows .

On DATE , acting on the basis of statements made by a criminal turned informer , Mr R.P.R. , in the context of criminal investigations into international drug trafficking conducted by the Audiencia Nacional ’s central investigating judge no . CARDINAL , the public prosecutor ’s office lodged a criminal complaint against a number of people , including the applicant , suspected of drug trafficking .

By a decision of CARDINAL DATE central investigating judge no . CARDINAL declared the criminal complaint lodged by the public prosecutor ’s office admissible and ordered a number of investigative measures . However , contrary to LAW , the investigating judge did not inform the applicant that the complaint concerning him had been declared admissible .

By a decision of CARDINAL DATE central investigating judge no . CARDINAL ordered the commencement of ordinary proceedings ( incoación de sumario ordinario ) against several persons , including the applicant .

On DATE the investigating judge ordered that the proceedings be kept secret for DATE , ordered the persons charged , including the applicant , to be detained pending trial in solitary confinement and appointed a lawyer to act for them under the legal aid scheme during the time they were to spend in solitary confinement . By a decision of CARDINAL DATE the judge rescinded the solitary confinement .

By a decision of DATE central investigating judge no . CARDINAL declared the investigation closed and committed the CARDINAL persons charged for trial before ORG the Audiencia Nacional . By a decision of CARDINAL DATE ORG the Audiencia Nacional ordered that counsel for all the accused , including the applicant , be supplied with a complete copy of the investigation file , which ran to more than CARDINAL volumes , so that they could make a provisional classification of the offences .

After the exchange of various pleadings and other procedural steps , the trial began on DATE . It lasted until DATE . The trial followed the following distinct phases : from DATE to CARDINAL DATE all but CARDINAL of the accused gave evidence ; the witnesses gave evidence DATE and DATE ; the expert reports were examined DATE ; the written evidence was examined DATE and DATE ; the oral submissions of the prosecution , the civil parties and the defence lasted from DATE to CARDINAL DATE . The accused spoke last .

In a judgment delivered at a hearing on DATE after proceedings at which all parties were represented the Audiencia Nacional found the applicant guilty of the offence of drug trafficking ( ORG , CARDINAL bis A , § CARDINAL , and CARDINAL bis B of LAW ) , sentenced him to DATE imprisonment and fined him MONEY . The applicant was found guilty of participating with other co - defendants , including CARDINAL P. , in the acquisition of a suitable boat to bring QUANTITY of cocaine into GPE .

The applicant appealed on points of law to ORG , alleging the breach of LAW on account of the fact that he had not been notified of the criminal complaint against him . He argued that the fact that he had not been informed of the proceedings against him had infringed the rights of the defence . He also alleged an infringement of his right to the presumption of innocence .

By a judgment of DATE ORG dismissed the appeal . With regard to the argument relating to the fact that the applicant had not been notified by central investigating judge no . CARDINAL that he had declared the criminal complaint against him admissible , ORG ruled as follows :

“ At the beginning of the proceedings , when the results of the criminal investigations begun in GPE were transmitted to central investigating judge no . CARDINAL , the public prosecutor lodged a complaint against various persons identified by their surnames and forenames . That complaint was declared admissible ( admisible ) in a decision of [ CARDINAL ] DATE , but this decision was not brought to the attention of the persons named as suspects ( querellados ) , so that LAW was clearly contravened , as the appellants maintained and the impugned judgment admitted . There then followed judicial and police investigations consisting in substance in a large number of statements made by the initial complainant , who decided after committing the offences to provide information , and who on a number of occasions accompanied police officers to various locations in GPE in order to obtain accurate information on events , places and persons involved in large - scale hashish and cocaine trafficking operations which had taken place and were continuing .

It can readily be understood that in order to investigate such offences it was important to act without the persons implicated being informed of the investigations . Offences of this type , committed by large - scale organisations with extensive connections , including international links , require investigative work by police and judges to be conducted without the persons implicated being aware of it . If in the present case the persons implicated had been informed in accordance with LAW it is obvious that the investigation would not have been possible .

Quite clearly , as has been observed already , a criminal investigation conducted without the knowledge of the suspected offenders may be particularly necessary in connection with offences committed by organised gangs , as is the case with drug trafficking at the start of the distribution process , and this is authorised by LAW in Article CARDINAL thereof ...

Thus , in the present case , the investigating judge had the power to conduct investigations , without informing the persons under investigation , into the serious offences of drug trafficking which formed the subject of the public prosecutor ’s complaint . But in order to do so he should have ordered the proceedings to be kept secret for DATE , duly justifying any extensions necessary , in accordance with the above - mentioned Article CARDINAL and the case - law of ORG cited . But he did not do so and it is accordingly evident that there was a procedural irregularity in that respect , as the impugned judgment admits .

The ORG now turns to the question what the consequences of such a procedural irregularity should be .

The situation in this case is similar to the CARDINAL considered in ORG recent judgment no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL of DATE , and the solution to the problem must be the same , that is to find that the defence was not materially hindered because those charged were examined as such and were able to consult the file with full knowledge of the investigations conducted well before the close of the investigation , so that they had time to inspect the content of the investigation file and request any investigative measure during that stage of the proceedings , that is before the time - limit for such requests .

... as stated in the ‘ As to the law’ section of the impugned judgment ... , P. ( the criminal turned informer ) , the protagonist throughout the initial inquisitorial stage , was questioned at length with the result of almost wholly invalidating the evidence for the prosecution , which initially consisted of the statements he had made on his own initiative alone , with only the investigating judge and the public prosecutor being present , without anyone else being informed ... Accordingly , those statements are not declared null and void since , as will be seen , no - one ’s interests were harmed by them ... as they were used only to the extent that they benefited the other accused , regard being had to their contradictory and vague nature ...

In conclusion , the failure to comply with LAW had no bearing on the truth and probative value of the incriminating evidence , the evidence which , in the final analysis , secured the convictions , and was considered with all the proper safeguards ... ”

ORG also held that the trial courts had based their finding of the applicant ’s guilt and his conviction on a large body of evidence on which the defence had had the opportunity to comment in court .

The applicant lodged a recurso de amparo against this judgment with ORG , alleging the violation of LAW and CARDINAL of LAW ( right to a fair trial and respect for the presumption of innocence ) . By a decision of DATE , served on the applicant on DATE , ORG dismissed the appeal as being manifestly ill - founded . With regard to the complaint of a breach of LAW of LAW , ORG held that despite the fact that the investigating judge had failed to comply with the provision in question the result of this breach of the law had not been to deprive the applicant for all practical purposes of his right to due process since from the time when he was charged ( imputado ) he had been informed of all the steps taken and had had the opportunity of submitting whatever arguments he thought pertinent in his defence and of requesting whatever investigative measures he thought might be useful to counterbalance the investigations initially carried out without his involvement . With regard to the complaint of an infringement of the presumption of innocence , ORG held that , in accordance with its case - law , the right to be presumed innocent was not infringed where conviction by a court after a criminal trial was based on the incriminating statement of a co - accused , given that the trial courts had expressly found that the statement in question was not prompted by invalid motives , and where the statement was corroborated by other evidence , which the trial courts had described as fundamental , namely the confrontation between PERSON ( the criminal turned informer ) and ORG ( another co - accused ) . The fact that the applicant had not had access to the recording of that confrontation was without any constitutional relevance given that the applicant had not alleged any omissions from the transcript of the recording placed in the investigation file nor specified in what way his knowledge of any such missing elements might have been decisive for the preparation of his defence .

“ Anyone accused of an offence may exercise the rights of the defence by taking part in the proceedings , of whatever type , from the time when he is first informed of their existence , whether he has been detained pending trial , has been the subject of any other preventive measure , or has been charged with an offence , and to that end he shall be informed of this right .

Where a criminal complaint or any procedural step resulting from criminal charges being preferred against CARDINAL or more named suspects is ruled admissible , this decision shall be brought to the attention of the persons concerned immediately . ”

“ The parties to the proceedings may inform themselves what steps have been taken and participate in all procedural steps .

However , notwithstanding what is provided in the previous paragraph , if the offence is against the public interest the investigating judge , on a proposal from the public prosecutor ’s office or any party to the proceedings , or of his own motion , may order that the proceedings be kept wholly or partly secret from all parties for a period not exceeding DATE ... ”


Violation of Art. 6-1 (inadequate reasoning);Not necessary to examine Art. 6-1 (alleged lack of access to court);Violation of Art. 6-1 (length);Violation of Art. 13;Remainder inadmissible;Non-pecuniary damage - financial award

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

NORP In DATE the applicant ’s daughter was seriously injured in a road traffic accident . The driver , who had been originally accused and convicted of having negligently caused bodily harm in that accident , was acquitted by a judgment of DATE . A driver of a different vehicle , who was an employee of ORG , was subsequently accused of an offence in the context of that accident .

The applicant submits that , due to misconduct on the part of the ORG officials , the criminal proceedings lasted an excessively long time and that , until the liability of the drivers involved had been determined , the insurance company refused to compensate her for her daughter ’s injuries . As a result the applicant became heavily indebted and she was in a difficult situation .

On DATE the applicant filed a claim for damages with ORG .

On DATE ORG informed the applicant that her action had been transmitted to the Bratislava I ORG which had jurisdiction to deal with the case . In her action the applicant claimed , with reference to LAW , compensation from ORG for damage resulting from the above facts . The applicant also claimed protection of her personal rights and sought compensation for nonpecuniary damage in this respect .

On DATE ORG allowed the applicant ’s request that ORG be joined as the second defendant in the case .

In a judgment of DATE ORG decided to deal in a separate set of proceedings with the applicant ’s claim for protection of her personal rights . It further dismissed the claim for damages under LAW of DATE . The court established that the defendants , as specified in the action , lacked standing in the case as the action should have been filed against the ORG . The judgment was served on DATE .

On DATE the applicant appealed specifying that her action was aimed against GPE , represented by ORG and ORG .

On DATE ORG quashed the first instance decision to dismiss the claim under LAW of DATE .

In a decision of DATE the Bratislava I ORG accepted the above specification of the defendant by the applicant .

On DATE ORG dismissed the claim under LAW of DATE . It did not find it established that there was a causal link between the actions of the authorities concerned and the alleged damage . In addition , ORG lacked standing to act on behalf of the ORG as the applicant claimed .

On DATE the applicant appealed .

A hearing before ORG was held on DATE .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s request for CARDINAL ORG judges to be excluded from dealing with the case .

On DATE ORG adjourned the case as it had not yet obtained , from a different court , a criminal file relating to the accident in which the applicant ’s daughter had been injured . On DATE ORG admitted , in reply to the applicant ’s complaint , that undue delays had arisen in that context .

On DATE ORG upheld the relevant part of the GPE I ORG judgment of DATE .

The court noted that the applicant claimed that she had suffered damage as a result of erroneous actions of police and public prosecutors who had been involved in the investigation into the accident in which her daughter had been injured in DATE . Due to the misconduct of the authorities concerned , she had been unable to obtain compensation promptly from the insurance company . As a result , she had become indebted and her and her children ’s life had been affected .

NORP In its judgment the court of appeal established that the applicant ’s claim for damages did not fall under LAW of DATE and that the claim had to be examined under the legislation in force at the time of the accident . At that time , however , the law did not permit the applicant to recover . In any event , the documents included in the relevant criminal file did not indicate that the authorities concerned had acted in an incorrect manner thus causing any damage to the applicant . Finally , ORG noted that the decision in the case was important for clarifying the interpretation and application of the relevant law by the courts . It therefore allowed an appeal on points of law to be lodged against its judgment .

On DATE the applicant filed an appeal on points of law . She pointed out that she was indigent and requested that an attorney be appointed to represent her free of charge .

On DATE the Vice - President of the GPE I ORG admitted that there had been undue delays in the proceedings concerning her action and offered an apology to her .

On DATE the Bratislava I ORG , to which the above request of CARDINAL DATE fell to be examined , rejected the applicant ’s motion for free legal representation . It held that the statutory requirements were not met as the applicant ’s claim and the previous judicial proceedings indicated that her claim was devoid of any prospect of success . Thus the applicant did not meet the requirements for exemption from the obligation to pay the court fee and , consequently , the court could not appoint a legal representative to represent her free of charge . Reference was made to LAW . On DATE the applicant appealed .

NORP ORG upheld the first instance decision on DATE . In addition to the reason invoked by ORG , the appellate court held that the applicant received a pension of CARDINAL NORP korunas ( SKK ) DATE , and that the protection of her rights did not require that a lawyer be appointed to represent her free of charge . In particular , the cassation proceedings did not allow for a review of the assessment of the relevant facts . Finally , in the event that practising lawyers refused to represent the applicant , it was open to her to ask ORG to assign a lawyer to represent her in the proceedings .

On DATE the applicant informed ORG of the name of the lawyer representing her in the cassation proceedings . However , the advocate did not accept the applicant ’s appointment of her as she worked for the defendant Ministry .

On DATE the applicant requested the Minister of Justice to assist her in finding a suitable lawyer .

On DATE the applicant was again asked to appoint a lawyer to represent her in the cassation proceedings . On DATE the applicant replied that she had used all remedies available and that she saw no chance of having the matter resolved before the NORP authorities .

On DATE ORG discontinued the proceedings on the appeal on points of law on the ground that the applicant was not represented by an attorney as required by the law . ORG decision was served on the applicant on DATE .

As stated above , the applicant ’s claim relating to the protection of her personal rights and compensation in this respect , which formed a part of her original action of DATE , was dealt with by ORG in a separate set of proceedings as from DATE .

On DATE ORG invited the applicant to substantiate her claim . On DATE the applicant replied that she claimed non - pecuniary damage of SKK CARDINAL,CARDINAL and SKK CARDINAL respectively from ORG and from ORG on the ground that those authorities had acted in an unlawful manner in the context of their examination of the accident in which her daughter had been injured in DATE . She explained that , as a result of the actions of the defendants , her dignity had been diminished , she had found herself in a difficult material situation and she had suffered a trauma .

On DATE ORG invited the applicant to pay a court fee of SKK CARDINAL . That amount was based mainly on the sums which the applicant had claimed as compensation .

On DATE the applicant requested that she be exempted from the obligation to pay the fee as she was indigent . She explained that she was a retired widow and that she was still paying off a debt which she had been obliged to contract with a view to reducing the impact on her life of the accident in question . The applicant stated that her only income was an old - age pension of SKK CARDINAL a month and that she owned no property .

On DATE ORG rejected her request . While accepting that the applicant was indigent , the court found , with reference to LAW , that her action was clearly devoid of any prospect of success . On DATE the applicant appealed .

ORG upheld ORG decision on DATE . The decision stated that a claim is devoid of any prospect of success when allegations contained in a plaintiff ’s action do not permit the establishment of the existence of a justified claim or where a plaintiff contests issues on which a binding decision has been given in a different set of proceedings . Reference was made to Articles CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) and CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of LAW .

On DATE the applicant filed an appeal on points of law . On DATE she requested an attorney to be appointed to represent her free of charge in the cassation proceedings . ORG rejected her request , on DATE , on the ground that the applicant did not meet the statutory requirements . Reference was made to the above decisions given by ORG and ORG . On DATE ORG discontinued the cassation proceedings concerning ORG decision of DATE as the applicant was not represented by an attorney as required by the law .

On DATE the Bratislava I ORG invited the applicant to pay a court fee in respect of her claim for protection of her personal rights . On DATE the applicant again requested that she should be exempted from the obligation to pay the fee . ORG discontinued the proceedings relating to this request , on DATE , on the ground that a final decision on the issue had already been given . On DATE the applicant appealed . On DATE ORG upheld that decision .

On DATE the Vice - President of the GPE I ORG admitted that there had been undue delays in the proceedings concerning her action .

On DATE the GPE I ORG delivered a decision by which it discontinued the proceedings concerning the claim for protection of the applicant ’s personal rights on the ground that the applicant had failed to pay the court fee .

On DATE the applicant appealed . ORG upheld the first instance decision on DATE .

NORP The following provisions of LAW are relevant in the present case .

DATE ( CARDINAL ) provides that courts may appoint a representative to a party to the proceedings , at the latter ’s request , provided that he or she meets the requirements for waiver of court fees and that such an appointment is necessary for the protection of the party ’s interests . Pursuant to paragraph QUANTITY of Article CARDINAL , the president of the court ’s chamber shall appoint an advocate to represent a party in circumstances set out in the first paragraph when the protection of the party ’s interests so requires .

Article CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) provides , inter alia , that courts are bound by decisions of competent authorities that a criminal offence , a minor offence or a different administrative offence has been committed , by decisions concerning the perpetrator of such an offence as well as by decisions determining a person ’s status .

Under LAW ) , the presiding judge may grant a party ’s request for waiver of court fees where it is justified by the situation of such a party and provided that the claim at issue is neither frivolous nor clearly devoid of any prospect of success .

Article CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) provides , inter alia , that the operative part of a judgment which has become final is binding on the parties to the proceedings as well as on all authorities .

Article CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) provides , inter alia , that in proceedings on an appeal on points of law the plaintiff must be represented by an advocate unless he or she has legal qualification .


The applicant , PERSON , is a NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in GPE . She was represented before the ORG by PERSON , a lawyer practising in Kimovsk . ORG ( “ the Government ” ) were represented by PERSON , ORG at ORG .

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

On DATE the applicant lodged an action before ORG against a private insurance company for payment of an index - linked insurance sum and compensation for non - pecuniary damage .

Of the CARDINAL hearings listed DATE and DATE , CARDINAL hearings were adjourned because the applicant did not attend , QUANTITY hearings were postponed because both parties defaulted , and QUANTITY hearings were adjourned because the defendant failed to appear .

From DATE to CARDINAL DATE the proceedings were adjourned because the judge was involved in other proceedings .

On DATE ORG asked the applicant to clarify her claims .

On DATE the applicant submitted the amended claims .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s action .

On DATE ORG upheld the judgment on appeal .