Violation of Art. 5-3;Remainder inadmissible

Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre;Karel Jungwiert;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Peer Lorenzen;Rait Maruste;Renate Jaeger;Zdravka Kalaydjieva

The applicant was born in DATE . He is currently serving a prison sentence .

On DATE a criminal investigation was started in respect of the murder of a taxi driver whose body had been found DATE in a forest . His car had been set on fire .

On DATE the criminal investigation was suspended as the identity of the perpetrator could not be established .

On DATE the investigation was resumed , PERSON being a suspect . On DATE the applicant was interviewed as a witness . He said that he had not used a taxi to get from GPE to GPE in DATE , had not sold a mobile phone to F. and had heard nothing about the murder of a taxi driver from GPE . The interview lasted for TIME .

On DATE the investigation was again suspended .

On DATE a resumption of the investigation was ordered .

Also on DATE the chairperson of ORG ( halduskohus ) authorised the installation of covert listening devices in T. ’s home and covert audio recording of conversations . The authorisation was for a DATE period and remained valid until DATE . According to a report concerning the surveillance activity , on CARDINAL DATE the applicant and T. talked about the murder of the taxi driver .

On DATE a police investigator drew up a decision by which the offence , initially qualified as manslaughter , was requalified as murder . PERSON and the applicant were identified as suspects . The investigator ordered that they should be taken to the police station the following day .

On DATE the investigator requested that the applicant and PERSON be detained in case they attempted to leave the country .

On DATE the police attempted to arrest the applicant , who was not at home . His neighbour had not seen him for DATE .

On DATE the investigator drew up charges against the applicant . He was charged , together with PERSON , with murder , aggravated robbery and destruction of property . According to the charges the offences had been committed on TIME CARDINAL DATE . As the applicant was evading the criminal investigation , he was declared a fugitive and the investigation was suspended .

Also on CARDINAL DATE ORG ( maakohus ) authorised , at the investigator ’s request , the applicant ’s detention for DATE after his arrest .

On DATE a criminal investigation was started in respect of T. , who was charged with failure to report the murder of the taxi driver .

On DATE the applicant was arrested .

On DATE he was presented with the charges drawn up on DATE .

On DATE ORG ( linnakohus ) authorised his detention for DATE . Subsequently , the court regularly extended his detention ( on DATE and on DATE , DATE , CARDINAL May , CARDINAL DATE and CARDINAL DATE ) .

In the meantime , on DATE , the criminal case concerning the failure by T. to report a crime was joined to the case in which the applicant and PERSON were defendants .

On DATE the bill of indictment was drawn up and the criminal case file was sent to ORG .

By a decision of CARDINAL DATE ORG committed the applicant for trial together with PERSON and GPE applicant and PERSON were charged with murder and destruction of property ; PERSON was charged with failure to report a crime . ORG endorsed the preventive measures previously applied in respect of the defendants : it extended the applicant ’s detention and PERSON ’s prohibition on leaving his place of residence . No preventive measure was applied in respect of T. as he was serving a DATE prison sentence at the time .

Hearings at ORG and ORG , which was dealing with the case after a reorganisation of the court system , were scheduled for DATE both in DATE and DATE . Of these ten hearing days , scheduled hearings were adjourned on QUANTITY occasions , mainly because of the illness of a judge or a lay judge and because of the failure of witnesses to appear in court . In DATE the judge hearing the case died . The court proceedings were recommenced with another judge . On DATE the presiding judge withdrew from hearing the case as he had ordered the applicant ’s detention at an earlier stage of the proceedings . On the same date another judge withdrew for the same reason . The case was then assigned to the fourth judge , who conducted the proceedings until the end .

NORP In DATE and DATE court hearings were scheduled for DATE . In fact , hearings took place on DATE and were adjourned on CARDINAL occasions for reasons such as the illness of the judge , the prosecutor and a lawyer and , on QUANTITY occasions , the failure of witnesses to appear .

On DATE , DATE , CARDINAL DATE , CARDINAL DATE and DATE ORG rejected the applicant ’s request to release him and to apply a signed undertaking not to leave his place of residence as the preventive measure instead of detention . The courts noted that the applicant was charged with a serious offence ; he had been in hiding for a long time ( from DATE to DATE ) , during which time he had been well aware that the police were looking for him . However , he had gone to GPE and had returned , crossing the border illegally , DATE , because his NORP visa had expired . The courts also found that the applicant had no close ties in GPE as he was a stateless person , was not married and had no family . It was considered that in view of the severe punishment the applicant was facing according to the charges , there were grounds to believe that he could again abscond . The courts also considered that it was not excluded that if at liberty the applicant could exert pressure on the victim and witnesses .

On DATE the ORG delivered its judgment . The applicant , together with PERSON , was convicted of murder and destruction of property . He was sentenced to DATE and CARDINAL years’ imprisonment respectively ; the composite sentence for the CARDINAL offences was set at DATE . The time spent in detention was counted towards the sentence already served . The preventive measure applied in respect of the applicant was not amended – he was to remain in custody until the judgment became final .

On DATE ORG decided to terminate the criminal proceedings against T. due to inappropriateness of the penalty , as he had been convicted in another criminal case and a composite sentence of CARDINAL years’ imprisonment had been imposed on him .

The applicant appealed against ORG judgment , referring , inter alia , to a violation of the reasonable time requirement enshrined in LAW . He also pointed out that he had been in detention for DATE and DATE .

By a judgment of DATE ORG ( ringkonnakohus ) quashed ORG judgment in so far as the punishment was concerned . ORG referred to LAW and noted that what was reasonable for the lengthconsidered that failure to conduct criminal proceedings within a reasonable time did not necessarily require the person ’s acquittal ; depending on the circumstances it could also be proportionate to terminate criminal proceedings for reasons of inappropriateness or to take unreasonable length of proceedings into account in the imposition of a punishment . ORG found that the criminal proceedings in the present case had lasted for DATE and DATE . It considered it “ not unimportant ” that the applicant had been kept in detention for DATE . It held that the proceedings had not been conducted within a reasonable time . Considering the above , ORG found it appropriate to reduce the applicant ’s sentence . He was sentenced to DATE imprisonment for murder and DATE imprisonment for destruction of property and the composite sentence was set at DATE .

On DATE ORG ( NORP ) declined to hear the applicant ’s appeal .

Article CARDINAL of the Code of Criminal Procedure ( ORG seadustik ) provides that a ruling whereby a court reviews the well - foundedness of pre - trial detention is not subject to a separate procedural appeal . According to Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL of the Code , such a ruling can be challenged in an appeal against the judgment in the main proceedings .

In a decision of DATE ( case no . CARDINAL - CARDINAL - CARDINAL - CARDINAL - CARDINAL ) , ORG of ORG dealt with a complaint concerning length of criminal proceedings . It rejected the complaint , considering that the complainant could have had recourse to another effective remedy . ORG held :

“ CARDINAL . The Chamber is of the opinion that [ the complainant ’s ] right to proceedings within a reasonable time has been violated and that [ the complainant ] is entitled to submit a relevant complaint as part of the proceedings pending before ORG . The court is under the obligation to adjudicate such a complaint at any stage of proceedings , not only when rendering a judgment . If necessary , the court must proceed from the LAW and the practice of application thereof , which DATE pursuant to LAW constitute a source of criminal procedural law . The LAW is an international agreement ratified by the PERSON , which – proceeding from LAW has priority over NORP laws or other legislation ( see ORG en banc judgment of DATE in case no . CARDINAL - CARDINAL - CARDINAL - CARDINAL - CARDINAL – RT III CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , § DATE ) .

According to the case - law of ORG case - law , in particular the complexity of the case , the applicant ’s conduct and the conduct of the competent authorities ( see , for example , PERSON and PERSON v. GPE [ ORG ] , no . CARDINAL , § CARDINAL , ECHR DATE ) . ORG , too , has pointed out that upon assessing whether a reasonable time has been exceeded a court must take into account the gravity of the criminal offence , the complexity and volume of the criminal case , and other concrete circumstances , including the course of proceedings ( see ORG judgment of DATE in case no . CARDINAL - CARDINAL - CARDINAL - CARDINAL - CARDINAL – RT III CARDINAL , CARDINAL , DATE , § DATE ) .

If the court comes to the conclusion that [ the complainant ’s ] right to proceedings within a reasonable time has been violated , the court can , in the light of all the circumstances and on the basis of LAW , terminate criminal proceedings due to inappropriateness , render a judgment of acquittal or take the fact that reasonable time was exceeded into account upon imposition of punishment .

As regards the referred possibilities ORG has pointed out that the expiry of reasonable length of criminal proceedings need not necessarily and always bring about the acquittal of a person . Depending on the circumstances a proportional result of the expiry of reasonable time of criminal proceedings may be , for example , the termination of criminal proceedings for reasons of inappropriateness or taking the referred fact into account upon imposition of punishment ( see FAC judgment of DATE in case no . CARDINAL - CARDINAL - CARDINAL - CARDINAL - CARDINAL – RT III CARDINAL , CARDINAL , DATE , § CARDINAL ) . With regard to taking into account the unreasonable length of proceedings upon imposition of punishments ORG has pointed out that on the basis of LAW and pursuant to LAW the courts have the right to impose a less onerous punishment than the minimum term or rate provided by law ( see ORG judgment of DATE in case no . DATE not yet published in RT III , § CARDINAL ) .

In the examination of [ the complainant ’s ] request for compensation for the damage caused by the violation of fundamental rights , the ORG agrees with the opinion expressed in the written opinions of the participants in the proceeding that [ the complainant ] can demand compensation for damage in an administrative court on the bases and pursuant to the procedure established in LAW . ”


The application was lodged by CARDINAL applicants , namely Mr PERSON and Mr PERSON , both NORP nationals , PERSON , a NORP national , and PERSON PERSON Dennis Bell , a national of GPE . They were born in DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE respectively . They are represented before the ORG by PERSON Menno T. Kamminga , professor of law .

The facts of the case , as described mainly in the judgments of the national courts , may be summarised as follows .

In DATE ORG conducted , with CARDINAL of its vessels FAC and ORG , registered in the GPE , and fast rubber dinghies stationed on board the ships , a campaign against NORP whaling in the exclusive economic zone south - west of LOC . The first applicant was Director of ORG in the GPE , and formally in charge as campaign leader on board the Solo as from DATE . The other CARDINAL applicants were respectively captain , deckhand and assistantengineer on board that vessel . For a month they followed the movements and catching activities of a whaling ship , the PERSON . According to its captain , the campaign had had as a consequence that the hunt was prolonged by a fortnight . The PERSON was the only vessel pursuing whales in the area in question on DATE , the dates on which the incidents giving rise to the present case occurred .

The Solo arrived in the area where the PERSON was hunting in TIME DATE , just after the ORG had been put under arrest by the ORG ) . TIME a whale was shot from the PERSON . While it was lying on deck being cut up , a new whale was observed . The PERSON then manned the harpoon gun and followed the whale . This was observed by the applicants on board the Solo . Shortly thereafter , a dinghy was launched from the LAW and positioned in front of the bows of the PERSON where it drove in zigzag and otherwise consistently manoeuvred towards the last place where the whale had been seen on the surface .

The Coastguard forced the dinghy away , and the Solo therefore launched another one with the third and fourth applicants on board , together with a camera man from a NORP television company . The ORG seized the second dinghy immediately but the third and fourth applicants were allowed to board the Solo again . They then launched a third dinghy ( this time without the cameraman ) on the other side of the Solo , unhindered by the FAC . The third applicant was navigating and she manoeuvred the dinghy up to the starboard side of the PERSON , then alongside until it was positioned across the bows of the ship . The distance to the PERSON during these manoeuvres varied from CARDINAL - CARDINAL to QUANTITY . The third and fourth applicants kept the dinghy in position in front of the bows and in so doing forced the PERSON to change course . The noise of the dinghy 's engine was such as to frighten the whale away .

On TIME DATE , the second applicant , the Solo 's captain , acting on the instructions given by the first applicant as the responsible campaign leader , manoeuvred the Solo in such a way as to force the ORG to change course when chasing a whale which it had observed . Moreover , the Solo 's water canons were used in a manner impeding visibility from the PERSON and thereby shielding the whale . The intended purpose and effect of these measures was to prevent the ORG from shooting the whale .

Following the above incidents the CARDINAL applicants were arrested and were held in detention on remand for DATE before being released .

After hearings on CARDINAL and DATE , ORG ( herredsrett ) , by judgments of DATE , convicted the applicants , under LAW ( CARDINAL ) ( CARDINAL ) and CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of FAC CARDINAL ( LAW of DATE No . CARDINAL ) and LAW of DATE , for having obstructed lawful whaling . It sentenced the first and second applicants to pay a fine of respectively ORG CARDINAL and CARDINAL , or CARDINAL days’ imprisonment in default . Moreover , under LAW ( CARDINAL ) and CARDINAL C of LAW , it ordered the confiscation of a dinghy belonging to the first applicant . The third and fourth applicants were each sentenced to pay a fine of ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL , or CARDINAL days’ imprisonment in default .

The second applicant then appealed on points of law and sentencing , while the other applicants sought to obtain a new trial before ORG ( lagmannsretten ) , or alternatively to appeal on points of law and sentencing to ORG ( PERSON ) . The first applicant also challenged the confiscation order . ORG ( kjæremålsutvalg ) refused the request for a new trial but allowed a joint appeal on points of law and sentencing , as well as the appeal against confiscation .

By judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG upheld the applicants ' convictions but limited the sentences to the fines imposed . It also upheld the confiscation of the dinghy .

In upholding the applicants ' convictions , ORG observed that it was satisfied that the measures had a legal basis in Sections DATE , as extended by LAW of DATE . This was not prevented by DATE LAW on the Law of the LOC , which did not contain a general prohibition on whaling . Nor was it prevented by the moratorium in DATE for all whaling or the moratorium in DATE to classify minke whale as a threatened species , decided by ORG established under the DATE International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling . In accordance with Article V no . CARDINAL of the Convention , GPE had protested and exempted itself from these decisions by way of reservation , as ORG noted , on the ground that there was no scientific basis for upholding a total ban .

ORG further considered whether the convictions were compatible with Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the Convention . While leaving open whether the acts concerned , in particular those by the first and second applicants , could be regarded as falling within the notions of freedom of expression in LAW in LAW , ORG found that the conditions for restricting these freedoms under the second paragraphs of these provisions had been fulfilled . Firstly , it was satisfied that the requirement of lawfulness had been fulfilled , as the interference not only had a legal basis but the law in question was also accessible and foreseeable . LAW of DATE had in fact been aimed at the specific campaign conducted by ORG ; the matter had attracted media attention and , according to the findings of fact made by ORG , the applicants had been aware of the amendments in question . Even if they had not , one could have expected them to acquaint themselves beforehand with the relevant legislation , under which the proscribed conduct was illegal even before the decree . Moreover , the measure had been necessary in a democratic society in order to protect the rights of others . ORG had demonstrated against whaling over a long period with a large amount of media attention , but its freedom to demonstrate had not been impaired by the disputed measures which related to CARDINAL isolated incidents where attempts had been made to protect the whalers ' lawful exercise of their right to catch whales .

As regards sentencing ORG recalled that , under LAW ( CARDINAL ) of FAC , prison sentences should not apply to offences committed by foreign vessels in the exclusive economic zone , and that , under LAW ) of the DATE United Nations Convention on the Law of the LOC , prison sentences should not be imposed for contraventions of fishery legislation . It further observed that GPE had not ratified this LAW . Nonetheless , having regard to the preparatory work for LAW ( CARDINAL ) of FAC , which referred to the provision of LAW , ORG quashed the sentences in so far as they imposed imprisonment in default of the payment of the fines .

As regards the confiscation of the dinghy belonging to the first applicant , ORG recalled that this had been used by the third and fourth applicants in connection with the acts leading to their arrest . On CARDINAL occasions they had , by the manner in which they had manoeuvred the dinghy in front of the PERSON , hindered the exercise of lawful whaling . Although a special provision on confiscation was contained in LAW , ORG was satisfied that LAW were applicable . The confiscation was also justified in the interests of ensuring the effective enforcement of LAW of FAC .

According to LAW , vessels in a fishing zone must not manoeuvre so as to damage or needlessly endanger catching gear or reduce catching opportunities . This provision applies to all vessels , not only fishing and catching vessels .

Under LAW , LAW , a person who by intent or negligence violates the provisions of the LAW may be liable to fines and , in the event of a previous conviction under the LAW or aggravating circumstances , up to DATE imprisonment . LAW , LAW , authorises the confiscation of , inter alia , vessels used in violating the provisions of the LAW . General provisions on confiscation of objects used in the perpetration of crime are contained , inter alia , in LAW of LAW . Under LAW such confiscation may be effected with regard to the possessions of foreigners who are not resident in GPE if it is deemed reasonable .

Pursuant to LAW of DATE , LAW of ORG should apply to sealing and whaling activities and the provisions in , inter alia , Sections CARDINAL and DATE in LAW of the LAW should , as appropriate , apply to all activities other than fishing .

According to LAW , its provisions do not affect the right of navigation in the exclusive economic zone under LAW DATE , and are subject to the limitations which follow from public international law and agreements with other GPE .

In the proceedings the applicants referred to the following provisions of the Convention on the Law of the Sea , which entered into force in DATE and which were ratified by GPE in DATE :

Article CARDINAL

Rights , jurisdiction and duties of the coastal ORG in the exclusive economic zone

" CARDINAL . In the exclusive economic zone , the coastal ORG has :

( a ) sovereign rights for the purpose of exploring and exploiting , conserving and managing the natural resources , whether living or non - living , of the waters superjacent to the seabed and of the seabed and its subsoil , and with regard to other activities for the economic exploitation and exploration of the zone , such as the production of energy from the water , currents and winds ;

( b ) jurisdiction as provided for in the relevant provisions of this LAW with regard to :

( i ) the establishment and use of artificial islands , installations and structures ;

( ii ) marine scientific research ;

( iii ) the protection and preservation of the marine environment ;

( c ) other rights and duties provided for in this Convention . "

Article CARDINAL

Rights and duties of other GPE in the exclusive economic zone

" CARDINAL . In the exclusive economic zone , all GPE , whether coastal or land - locked , enjoy , subject to the relevant provisions of this LAW , the freedoms referred to in LAW and use of airspace and of the laying of submarine cables and pipelines , and other internationally lawful uses of the sea related to these freedoms , such as those associated with the operation of ships , aircraft and submarine cables and pipelines , and compatible with the other provisions of this Convention . "

Article CARDINAL

NORP mammals

“ Nothing in this Part restricts the right of a coastal ORG or the competence of an international organisation , as appropriate , to prohibit , limit or regulate the exploitation of marine mammals more strictly than provided for in this Part . States shall co - operate with a view to the conservation of marine mammals and in the case of cetaceans shall work in particular through the appropriate international organisations for their conservation , management and study . ”

Article CARDINAL

Enforcement of laws and regulations of the coastal State

“ CARDINAL . The coastal ORG may , in the exercise of its sovereign rights to explore , exploit , conserve and manage the living resources in the exclusive economic zone , take such measures , including boarding , inspection , arrest and judicial proceedings , as may be necessary to ensure compliance with the laws and regulations adopted by it in conformity with this Convention .

Arrested vessels and their crews shall be promptly released upon the posting of a reasonable bond or other security .

ORG penalties for violations of fisheries laws and regulations in the exclusive economic zone may not include imprisonment , in the absence of agreements to the contrary by the GPE concerned , or any other form of corporal punishment .

In cases of arrest or detention of foreign vessels the coastal ORG shall promptly notify ORG , through appropriate channels , of the action taken and of any penalties subsequently imposed . ”

Article CARDINAL

GPE jurisdiction in matters of collision or any other incident of navigation

“ CARDINAL . In the event of a collision or any other incident of navigation concerning a ship on the high seas , involving the penal or disciplinary responsibility of the master or of any other person in the service of the ship , no penal or disciplinary proceedings may be instituted against such person except before the judicial or administrative authorities either of the flag ORG or of the ORG of which such person is a national .

In disciplinary matters , the ORG which has issued a master 's certificate or a certificate of competence or licence shall alone be competent , after due legal process , to pronounce the withdrawal of such certificates , even if the holder is not a national of the ORG which issued them .

No arrest or detention of the ship , even as a measure of investigation , shall be ordered by any authorities other than those of ORG . ”


Violation of Art. 6-1;Violation of Art. 13

Alvina Gyulumyan;Corneliu Bîrsan;David Thór Björgvinsson;Egbert Myjer;Elisabet Fura;Ineta Ziemele

The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a citizen of GPE who was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

On DATE the applicant was involved in a serious car accident in which CARDINAL person died .

Consequently , criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicant and , on DATE , ORG ( PERSON sodišče v GPE ) ordered him to pay a bail of CARDINAL ORG .

During the investigation , the investigating judge acquired forensic expert reports and examined a witness .

On DATE ORG filed an indictment against the applicant for causing the accident by negligent driving . On DATE the ORG dismissed the applicant 's objection against the indictment .

On DATE the applicant assigned a new lawyer to represent him in the proceedings and informed the court about his address in GPE .

On DATE , a hearing was cancelled due to the applicant 's absence . Subsequently , the court examined several witnesses in the presence of the applicant 's representative .

On DATE the applicant 's lawyer proposed that the next hearing be held in the absence of the applicant .

On DATE , further to the court 's request , the applicant 's lawyer informed the court that he had lost contact with the applicant . On DATE the court asked the local police to inquire about the applicant 's address . The police did not reply .

On DATE the ORG entered into force in respect of GPE .

On DATE ORG ( Okrožno sodišče v GPE ) gained jurisdiction in the case due to the reform of the NORP judicial system . The case was assigned to a judge , who did not deal with it .

On DATE the case was assigned to a new judge .

On DATE ORG inquired about the applicant 's address . The lawyer knew that the applicant had moved to GPE but was not aware of his new address . It appears that the applicant notified his lawyer about his address on DATE .

On DATE the applicant was summoned for a hearing through an assistance of ORG . On DATE a hearing was held in the absence of the duly summoned applicant . The only witness examined at the hearing referred to his testimony given in the earlier stages of the proceedings and was not asked any further questions . No other evidence was taken at the hearing . The court subsequently convicted the applicant . A written judgment was served on him on CARDINAL DATE .

On DATE the applicant appealed to ORG ( PERSON sodišče v PERSON ) .

On DATE ORG acquitted the applicant . The judgment was served on the applicant on DATE .

On DATE the applicant asked ORG to reimburse him the bail ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) together with the default interest and sought reimbursement of the costs and expenses he had incurred in the proceedings .

On DATE ORG ordered the reimbursement of the costs and expenses .

On DATE ORG , relying on LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , ordered the reimbursement of the bail , but refused to reimburse the interests .

On DATE the applicant appealed against that decision .

On CARDINAL DATE ORG rejected the appeal . The decision was served on the applicant on DATE .

On DATE the applicant instituted civil proceedings in ORG ( PERSON sodišče v PERSON ) seeking reimbursement of the interests incurred in respect of the bail paid in DATE . The proceedings are currently pending on appeal .

The Act on the Protection of the Right to a Trial without undue Delay ( Zakon o varstvu pravice do sojenja brez nepotrebnega odlašanja , ORG , No . DATE ) became operational on DATE . Under its sections CARDINAL and CARDINAL , the right to a trial within a reasonable time is guaranteed for a party to court proceedings , a participant under the LAW governing non - contentious proceedings and an injured party in criminal proceedings .

Section CARDINAL lays down the following transitional rules in relation to applications already pending before the ORG :

“ ( CARDINAL ) In cases where a violation of the right to a trial without undue delay has already ceased and the party had filed a claim for just satisfaction with the international court before the date of implementation of this LAW , the ORG Attorney 's ORG shall offer the party a settlement on the amount of just satisfaction within DATE after the date of receipt of the case referred by the international court for the settlement procedure . The party shall submit a settlement proposal to the ORG Attorney 's ORG within DATE of receipt of the proposal of the ORG Attorney 's ORG . The State Attorney 's Office shall decide on the proposal as soon as possible and within DATE at the latest . ...

( CARDINAL ) If the proposal for settlement referred to in paragraph CARDINAL of this section is not acceded to or ORG and the party fail to negotiate an agreement within DATE after the date on which the party filed its proposal , the party may bring an action before the competent court under this LAW . The party may bring an action within DATE after receiving the ORG Attorney 's ORG reply that the party 's proposal referred to in the previous paragraph was not acceded to , or after the expiry of the period fixed in the previous paragraph for the ORG Attorney 's ORG to decide to proceed with settlement . Irrespective of the type or amount of the claim , the provisions of LAW concerning small claims shall apply in proceedings before a court . ”

Section CARDINAL of LAW ( Zakon o kazenskem postopku , Official Gazette no . CARDINAL ) provides that the bail should be reimbursed once the criminal proceedings terminate with a final decision or a final judgment .


CASE OF KEMMACHE v. FRANCE (No. 1 and No. 2) (ARTICLE 50)

Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed;Non-pecuniary damage - financial award;Costs and expenses partial award - domestic proceedings;Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings

The case was referred to the ORG by ORG ( " the Commission " ) in CARDINAL stages , first on DATE and then on DATE , on each occasion within the DATE period laid down by Article CARDINAL para . CARDINAL and LAW ( article DATE , article CARDINAL ) of the Convention . It originated in CARDINAL applications ( nos . CARDINAL and CARDINAL ) against GPE lodged with ORG LAW ( article CARDINAL ) by a NORP national , Mr PERSON , on CARDINAL DATE and DATE . ORG ordered the joinder of the CARDINAL applications on DATE .

By judgment of CARDINAL DATE ( " the principal judgment " ) , the ORG found a violation of LAW para . CARDINAL and Article CARDINAL para . CARDINAL ( article CARDINAL , article DATE ) of the LAW on the ground that the length of the applicant ’s detention on remand and of the criminal proceedings instituted against him had exceeded a " reasonable time " ( Series A no . CARDINAL , pp . DATE , paras . CARDINAL - CARDINAL and point CARDINAL of the operative provisions ) .

The only outstanding matter in the present case is the question of the application of LAW ) . As regards the facts , reference should be made to paragraphs CARDINAL of the above - mentioned judgment ( ibid . , pp . CARDINAL ) .

As the issue of the award of just satisfaction was not ready for decision , the criminal proceedings having not yet reached a conclusion , the ORG , in the principal judgment , reserved the whole of this question . It invited the ORG and the applicant to submit to it in writing , within DATE of the conclusion of the relevant criminal proceedings , their observations and in particular to inform it of any agreement reached between them ( p. CARDINAL , para . CARDINAL and point CARDINAL of the operative provisions ) .

The domestic proceedings conducted subsequent to the principal judgment included the following decisions :

( a ) on DATE the judgment of ORG of DATE sentencing Mr Kemmache to CARDINAL years’ imprisonment and fining him MONEY was quashed ;

( b ) on DATE ORG , to which the case had been remitted , adopted a judgment sentencing the accused to DATE imprisonment and fining him MONEY for aiding and abetting the importation and use on NORP territory of counterfeit foreign banknotes and the unlawful circulation of such notes within the customs area ;

( c ) on DATE the applicant ’s appeal on points of law was dismissed by ORG .

Mention should also be made of various letters sent by the Registrar to the participants in the proceedings ( DATE , DATE and DATE ) , as well as letters received by him from a Government lawyer ( DATE , DATE and DATE ) , from the applicant ’s lawyer ( DATE and DATE , DATE and DATE ) and from the Secretary to ORG ( DATE ) .

On DATE the Registrar reminded the participants in the proceedings of the invitation in point CARDINAL ( b ) of the operative provisions of the principal judgment ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

The Government ’s memorial reached him on DATE , the applicant ’s memorial on DATE and the observations of the Delegate of the Commission on DATE .

CARDINAL .


Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Administrative proceedings;Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time);No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)

ORG ( “ the ORG ” ) is a company incorporated under NORP law , whose head office is in GPE . On DATE its capital amounted to MONEY ( ORG ) , divided into CARDINAL shares of a nominal value of GRD CARDINAL each .

On DATE the Governor of ORG , exercising the powers conferred on him by Presidential Decree no . CARDINAL , ratified by PERSON no . CARDINAL , in conjunction with PERSON no . DATE , placed the ORG under the control of a temporary administrator ( ORG ) . The Governor took this decision in the light of the following circumstances : ( CARDINAL ) the result of an inquiry conducted by the competent authorities of ORG , who had concluded that a series of illegal transactions had been carried out by the ORG ’s directors ; ( CARDINAL ) the fact that the ORG ’s directors had attempted to obstruct the inquiry ; and ( CARDINAL ) “ the urgency of the situation , the public interest and that of the ORG , its shareholders and the third parties concerned ” . Pursuant to paragraph CARDINAL of this decision of the Governor of ORG ( decision no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL.CARDINAL.CARDINAL ) , from the time when decision no . CARDINAL was published in ORG ( PERSON ) , the ORG ’s organs lost all their previous powers , which were transferred , together with responsibility for the bank ’s administration , to the temporary administrator . The latter was ordered to submit to the Governor of ORG , within DATE , a detailed report on the ORG ’s finances , accounts and management .

On DATE the temporary administrator ( Mr I. PERSON ) submitted his report and tendered his resignation , with effect from DATE . On that date the Governor of ORG appointed a second temporary administrator ( Mr I. Papakonstantinos ) , who submitted his report on DATE .

On DATE the Governor of ORG invited the ORG to increase its capital within DATE to GRD CARDINAL,CARDINAL,CARDINAL,CARDINAL , by issuing new fully paid - up shares . On DATE the temporary administrator , exercising powers normally conferred at the general meeting of shareholders , decided , by decision no . CARDINAL , to increase the ORG ’s capital to FAC CARDINAL,CARDINAL,CARDINAL,CARDINAL , at the same time amending the relevant provision ( LAW its articles of association . By a notice published in a DATE newspaper , the ORG invited its shareholders to exercise by CARDINAL DATE the option to purchase the new shares which they were guaranteed under the articles of association and to pay CARDINAL of the value of these shares within DATE ( first increase in capital ) .

On DATE the temporary administrator adopted decision no . CARDINAL , modifying decision no . CARDINAL . The only notable change was that those who were interested in purchasing the new shares were invited to pay for them in full by DATE . Considering that this new decision ORG introduced only “ changes of form ” , the temporary administrator expressly provided therein that it was to apply retrospectively from the date of publication of decision no . CARDINAL . As a result , in accordance with the decision ’s express wording , the time - limit for exercising the ORG option was still CARDINAL DATE . The applicants did not exercise that option .

On DATE the Governor of ORG approved decision no . CARDINAL and on DATE the Prefect of GPE approved the necessary amendment to the ORG ’s articles of association . On DATE the temporary administrator decided to allocate the new shares to : ( a ) G. GPE , ( b ) “ Edrassi – X. Psallidas Ate ” , ( c ) PERSON PERSON , ( d ) M. NORP and ( e ) NORP PERSON . However , Mr PERSON GPE became the ORG ’s majority shareholder ( with CARDINAL of the CARDINAL shares ) .

On DATE the Governor of ORG appointed a new temporary administrator ( Mr PERSON ) , on the ground that the previous one had contravened the law in his decision as to how the new shares were to be allocated .

On DATE the new temporary administrator rescinded the decision taken by his predecessor on DATE and decided to allocate the shares previously transferred to PERSON to ORG , a public - sector company , which accordingly became the ORG ’s majority shareholder . However , existing shareholders were not invited to exercise their option .

On DATE the Governor of ORG appointed an administrator to run the ORG , stipulating in the appointment decision that the administrator was to hand over management to an elected board of directors as soon as possible . On DATE a new board of directors was elected by the general meeting of ORG shareholders .

On DATE ORG enacted Law no . DATE , pursuant to which a number of administrative decisions concerning the ORG , including all those mentioned above , acquired the force of law . PERSON no . DATE also amended the articles of association of ORG , which had been laid down by a previous law , so as to enable it to take part in the increases in the share capital of other banks .

On DATE the general meeting of ORG shareholders decided to increase the capital to GRD CARDINAL,CARDINAL,CARDINAL,CARDINAL ( second increase ) .

On DATE ORG enacted Law no . DATE , which applied retrospectively and established an authoritative interpretation of Presidential Decree no . CARDINAL . According to this interpretation , temporary administrators had the power to increase the capital of the banks they had been appointed to run .

On DATE the ORG ’s capital was increased by a further FAC CARDINAL ( third increase ) .

On DATE the general meeting of ORG shareholders decided to apply to have its shares listed on the GPE stock exchange , to increase its capital by GRD CARDINAL,CARDINAL,CARDINAL,CARDINAL , to offer the new shares for sale on the stock market and to amend LAW ORG ’s articles of association accordingly ( fourth increase ) .

On DATE the Monetary and Financial Affairs Committee ( Epitropi nomismaton kai pistotikon thematon ) of ORG approved the above - mentioned amendment of the ORG ’s articles of association . On DATE ORG ( Epitropi kefaleagoras ) authorised the ORG to allocate the new shares by offering them for sale on the stock market .

On DATE and CARDINAL DATE the ORG ’s capital was increased by GRD CARDINAL ( fifth increase ) .

On DATE and CARDINAL DATE the ORG ’s capital was increased by GRD CARDINAL,CARDINAL,CARDINAL,CARDINAL ( sixth increase ) .

On DATE some of the applicants challenged in ORG decisions ORG . GPE and CARDINAL/CARDINAL.CARDINAL.CARDINAL by which the Governor of ORG and ORG had approved the first increase in the ORG ’s capital . In their application for judicial review they alleged that the temporary administrator was not empowered under NORP law to order an increase in capital , which should have been done by a resolution of the general meeting of shareholders .

On DATE the President of ORG decided to hear the case on DATE .

On DATE ORG decided of its own motion to adjourn until DATE consideration of the application for judicial review lodged on DATE . On DATE ORG decided of its own motion to adjourn the case until DATE and later until DATE . According to the Government , the reason for all these adjournments was the importance and complexity of the legal questions which the reporting judge had to consider .

On DATE ORG heard the application for judicial review . On DATE it held , in decision no . CARDINAL , ( a ) that the temporary administrator had not been empowered under NORP law to order the increase in capital of DATE ; ( b ) that PERSON no . GPE could not be taken into account because it had been enacted after the application for judicial review had been made , contrary to the constitutional principle of the separation of powers ; ( c ) that the CARDINAL applicants could not challenge the administrative decisions in question because before DATE they had held PERCENT of the capital ; and ( d ) that because of its importance the case should be referred to the plenary court .

On DATE the President of ORG decided that the application for judicial review would be heard on DATE . On that date ORG decided of its own motion to adjourn the case until DATE and later until DATE . On DATE ORG decided of its own motion to adjourn the case until DATE and later until CARDINAL DATE . According to the ORG , all these adjournments were prompted by the same considerations as those referred to above .

On DATE ORG decided of its own motion to adjourn consideration of the application for judicial review until DATE . According to the applicants , this adjournment was accepted by all the parties . The ORG maintained that it was requested by the applicants and supplied a certificate to that effect from the registry of ORG .

On DATE ORG again decided to adjourn the case , this time until DATE . According to a certificate from the registry of ORG , the court decided of its own motion to adjourn the hearing . According to the Government , record no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL of the plenary court proves that the applicants requested the adjournment concerned pending the judgment of ORG of ORG in a similar case and that the respondents opposed that request . The reporting judge considered that the case should be adjourned .

On DATE ORG decided of its own motion to adjourn consideration of the application for judicial review until DATE . On that date it once again adjourned the case , until CARDINAL DATE . The applicants maintained that all parties had been present at the hearing on CARDINAL DATE and that they had requested that the case be tried . However , as the respondents objected , ORG had adjourned the case of its own motion . According to ORG , the case could not be heard on CARDINAL DATE because of a strike by lawyers , as attested by a certificate issued by ORG . They also submitted in that connection a certificate from the registry of ORG , dated DATE .

On DATE the application for judicial review came before ORG . However , ORG ) , which had intervened in the proceedings , requested an adjournment . ORG allowed this request and adjourned the case until DATE . According to the applicants , the request was supported by the respondents , whereas they themselves had insisted that the hearing should take place . The ORG authorities had themselves requested this adjournment , as was proved by , inter alia , a written request submitted on CARDINAL DATE by the Minister for ORG , who had intervened in the proceedings concerning the application to ORG for judicial review .

On CARDINAL DATE the application lodged on DATE was finally considered . On CARDINAL DATE , in judgment no . DATE , the plenary of ORG dismissed the application . It observed that , pursuant to PERSON no . DATE , a decision taken by the general meeting of shareholders of a company set up in accordance with that PERSON could be challenged only by shareholders who held PERCENT of the capital , had been present at the meeting when the decision was taken and had opposed it . ORG had had good reasons to restrict the right of access to the courts in such a way . The right to challenge decisions of the general meeting should be vested only in shareholders who were closely associated with the company ’s activities , in which small shareholders were usually not interested . In addition , the company ’s competitors could very easily acquire a small number of shares and attempt to harm its interests . The same restrictions applied to the right of access to a court for the purpose of challenging administrative decisions approving those of the general meeting of shareholders . Shareholders who held PERCENT of the capital could challenge an administrative decision of this type only if they could prove that it affected them personally . An increase in the company ’s capital could not in itself harm the interests of a shareholder who held PERCENT of the capital . Moreover , the same rules were applicable where the decision to increase the capital had been taken by a temporary administrator . In the instant case , on DATE the applicants had held PERCENT of the ORG ’s capital ( CARDINAL having PERCENT and the other PERCENT ) and would therefore not have been able to challenge the increase in capital if it had been decided upon by a resolution of the general meeting of shareholders . The applicants could not rely on the fact that they now held a lower proportion of the shares in order to establish that their personal interests had been harmed by the decision to increase the capital . Nor had they pleaded any other fact which could warrant such a conclusion . Accordingly , ORG decided by a majority to dismiss the application for judicial review , on the ground that the applicants did not have locus standi .

On DATE some of the applicants brought action no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL against the ORG and others in ORG , seeking a declaration ( a ) that the first increase in capital was null and void on the ground that the second temporary administrator ( Mr I. Papakonstantinos ) had not been empowered under NORP law to take such a decision , which was the prerogative of the general meeting of shareholders , and ( b ) that the allocation of CARDINAL new shares to the defendant shareholders by the third temporary administrator ( Mr S. GPE ) had been unlawful and was null and void , and that in law it had not conferred on any of these persons the status of shareholder , a right to attend general meetings of ORG ’s shareholders or any other right vested in its shareholders . A hearing was listed for DATE .

However , on DATE of the applicants withdrew from action no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL . In their notice of discontinuation ( no . DATE ) , they declared to the court that they expressly , unreservedly and irrevocably recognised as absolutely legal , valid and unchallengeable all the transactions carried out by the CARDINAL temporary administrators concerned ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

On DATE ORG decided to adjourn consideration of action no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL until DATE . According to the applicants , this adjournment was ordered at the GPE request .

On DATE ORG tried action no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL . In its decision no . CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE , the court decided to stay the proceedings pending delivery of ORG judgment on the related application for judicial review lodged on DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . According to the applicants , the court took this decision at the GPE request . On the other hand , the Government referred to the text of the decision , which stated that it was necessary to adjourn consideration of action no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL because its outcome depended on the validity of the appointment of the third temporary administrator ( Mr S. GPE ) and the legality of the decision taken by the previous temporary administrator ( Mr I. Papakonstantinos ) on the increase in capital , these being matters in issue in another case then pending in ORG ( Article CARDINAL of the Code of Civil Procedure ) .

On DATE some of the applicants brought action no . DATE against the ORG in ORG , seeking a declaration that the second increase in capital had been in breach of NORP law and was null and void . They argued that , because the first increase in capital was not legally valid , the general meeting of shareholders which had passed the resolution authorising the second increase had not been duly and properly constituted . A hearing was listed for DATE .

On DATE ORG decided to adjourn consideration of action no . DATE until DATE . According to the applicants , this adjournment was ordered at the defendant ’s request .

At the hearing on DATE the case was not called because it had not been placed on the court ’s list , as certified by its registrar . According to the Government , this delay was imputable to the applicants , who had not taken the necessary steps to have their action placed on the court ’s list .

On DATE some of the applicants brought action no . DATE against the ORG in ORG , seeking a declaration that the fourth increase in capital ( resolution of the general meeting of shareholders on DATE see paragraph CARDINAL above ) had been in breach of NORP and ORG law and was null and void . Again it was contended that the first increase and the allocation of the CARDINAL new shares to new shareholders – ordered by the then temporary administrator – had been unlawful and were null and void . A hearing was set down for DATE .

On DATE ORG hearing on action no . DATE was adjourned because of a ORG strike on DATE .

On DATE some of the applicants brought action no . CARDINAL against the ORG in ORG , seeking a declaration that the third increase in capital ( resolution of the general meeting of shareholders on DATE ) had been in breach of NORP and ORG law and was null and void . They put forward the same arguments as had been used in the previous civil cases . A hearing was set down for DATE .

On DATE the plaintiffs in actions nos . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ( concerning the first increase in capital ) , DATE ( concerning the second increase ) and DATE ( concerning the fourth increase ) , including some of the applicants , asked ORG to fix a new hearing date for these cases . The court decided to hear the cases on DATE .

On DATE the ORG decided to adjourn consideration of action no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ( concerning the third increase in capital ) until DATE .

On DATE ORG decided to adjourn consideration of actions FAC . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , DATE , DATE and DATE until DATE and on the latter date it ordered a further adjournment until DATE . According to the Government , these adjournments were necessary in view of the fact that ORG had not yet given judgment on the application for judicial review , a precondition that had been laid down in the decision ( no . CARDINAL ) to adjourn consideration of the first action ( no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) .

On DATE some of the applicants intervened in the proceedings concerning action no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , supporting the plaintiffs . A hearing was set down for CARDINAL DATE .

On DATE , although ORG judgment no . DATE had been delivered on CARDINAL DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , the hearing arranged for trial of all the actions was adjourned because of another strike by members of ORG .

On DATE the plaintiffs , including some of the applicants , asked ORG to fix a new hearing date for actions nos . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , DATE , DATE and DATE . The court decided to consider these actions on DATE .

DATE . On DATE , however , the hearing in respect of the CARDINAL pending actions was adjourned on account of the strike by GPE lawyers . On DATE the plaintiffs asked for a new hearing date to be fixed and the court decided to hear these cases on CARDINAL JanuaryCARDINAL . The applicants asserted in their memorial to the ORG that their object in taking out all the above - mentioned summonses ( klissis ) had been to expedite the proceedings in the civil courts ( LAW ) .

On DATE the ORG again decided to adjourn consideration of actions ORG . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , DATE , DATE and DATE until DATE .

In the meantime , on CARDINAL DATE , some of the applicants brought action no . DATE in ORG , in support of the actions brought on DATE ( no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) and CARDINAL DATE ( no . DATE ) . In their third - party action they sought a declaration that the decisions concerning the first and second increases in capital had been taken in breach of Articles CARDINAL § CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the Second Directive of the Council of the European Communities ( Directive CARDINAL/CARDINAL/EEC ) . A hearing was set down for DATE .

On DATE ORG tried cases nos . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE .

On DATE the ORG gave its judgment no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL on the above - mentioned cases . Considering that some of the applicants had not given the lawyers who had appeared in court to represent them valid authority to act , it gave judgment against them . It also decided not to entertain the applicants’ arguments concerning the impossibility in practice of exercising their option , since they had not been raised in time . It likewise dismissed the CARDINAL actions in so far as they concerned the allegation that the decisions concerning the increases in capital had not been taken in accordance with NORP law . However , the court referred to ORG of ORG , for a preliminary ruling , the questions of Community law raised by the cases . It reserved its decision on the GPE objection concerning the GPE abuse of rights ( Article CARDINAL of LAW ) until it had learned how ORG of ORG had applied NORP law . On DATE ORG gave notice that it would give judgment on DATE .

On DATE some of the applicants brought action no . CARDINAL against the ORG and others , asking ORG to refer another question to ORG of ORG for a preliminary ruling , namely whether the objection based on LAW , concerning abuse of rights , could render inapplicable the provisions of Community law , those being , in the instant case , LAW and CARDINAL of Directive CARDINAL/CARDINAL/EEC on companies . The hearing to consider their action was set down for DATE .

On DATE some of the applicants brought action no . CARDINAL in ORG , seeking a declaration that the fifth increase in capital ( resolutions of DATE and DATE ) had been in breach of NORP and ORG law and was null and void . The arguments submitted were the same as in the previous actions . The hearing was likewise set down for DATE .

On DATE ORG intervened in the proceedings concerning action no . CARDINAL . A hearing was set down for CARDINAL DATE .

Although LOC had called on its members to strike , the applicants’ lawyers informed the defendants on DATE that the Bar had authorised them to appear in LOC on DATE to request an adjournment of cases nos . CARDINAL and CARDINAL . On DATE the court did adjourn these cases until LAW DATE . According to the applicants , that decision was taken at the GPE insistent request .

On DATE the applicants asked the court to consider actions nos . CARDINAL and CARDINAL on DATE . Their request was granted .

Although LOC had called on its members to strike , the applicants’ lawyers informed the defendants on DATE that the Bar had authorised them to appear in LOC on DATE . On DATE , however , ORG decided to rescind that authorisation . According to the applicants , this decision was taken at the request of ORG , who had intervened in the proceedings . The hearing listed to take place on DATE in cases nos . CARDINAL and DATE was , in the event , adjourned .

On DATE the union of ORG employees intervened in the proceedings concerning action no . CARDINAL . A hearing was set down for CARDINAL DATE .

On DATE the hearing concerning action no . CARDINAL was cancelled because the plaintiffs had not taken the necessary steps to have the case placed on the court ’s list . According to the applicants , their lawyers were not present at the hearing on DATE because ORG had again called on its members to strike and their opponents had used improper manoeuvres to obtain the cancellation of the hearing concerning action no . CARDINAL and the adjournment of case no . CARDINAL .

On DATE case no . CARDINAL was adjourned until DATE .

On DATE the applicants asked the court to fix a new hearing date in order to expedite the proceedings relating to actions nos . CARDINAL and CARDINAL . The court set down a hearing for DATE . However , the applicants did not appear on DATE and consideration of these actions was adjourned .

On DATE the applicants asked for a new hearing date to be fixed for their third - party action no . CARDINAL and ORG decided to resume consideration of the case on DATE .

On DATE the applicants asked for an earlier date to be fixed for the hearing in their action ( no . CARDINAL ) concerning the fifth increase in the ORG ’s capital . The court decided to hear the case on DATE .

In the meantime , on DATE , some of the applicants brought action no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL against the ORG and others in the GPE ORG seeking a declaration that the sixth increase in capital had been in breach of NORP and ORG law and was null and void . The ORG arguments submitted were the same as in the previous actions . A hearing was likewise set down for DATE .

On DATE , at the GPE request , the court decided to adjourn the hearing concerning action no . CARDINAL until DATE ; it also adjourned to the same date consideration of action no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL . Still on DATE it tried case no . CARDINAL . Its judgment was given on DATE . The court held that it could not rule on that part of the action which concerned the claim submitted by PERSON , on the ground that he had not been one of the applicants who had asked the court , on DATE , to resume consideration of the case . The court decided to dismiss the claims of the other applicants concerned , holding that the action raised no problem regarding the interpretation of Community law and that the NORP courts alone had jurisdiction to rule on the GPE objection concerning the GPE abuse of rights ( Article CARDINAL of LAW ) .

On DATE ORG , at the applicants’ request , decided to resume consideration of actions nos . CARDINAL and CARDINAL/CARDINAL on DATE . According to the Government , it was not legal to bring the trial in the present case forward in this way .

DATE . On DATE and DATE the applicants’ lawyer complained to ORG of the improper manoeuvres allegedly used by the GPE lawyers on CARDINAL DATE .

On DATE the applicants again asked the court to try action no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL on DATE .

On DATE ORG decided to adjourn consideration of the pending actions nos . CARDINAL and CARDINAL/CARDINAL until DATE .

On DATE the GPE ORG heard these CARDINAL cases . In a decision ( no . DATE ) of CARDINAL DATE it ordered a stay of the proceedings concerning actions nos . CARDINAL and CARDINAL/CARDINAL pending the judgment of ORG of ORG on the questions for a preliminary ruling submitted to it on DATE and the court ’s own judgment on the previous actions nos . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE . The court was obliged to order this adjournment because the last CARDINAL actions , nos . CARDINAL and CARDINAL/CARDINAL , challenging the fifth and sixth increases in the ORG ’s capital , had the same factual and legal basis as DATE above - mentioned actions . It was therefore necessary to adjourn the cases until the conclusion of the proceedings on the first CARDINAL actions , which raised exactly the same issues .

On DATE ORG of ORG held a hearing on the questions for a preliminary ruling referred to it by ORG on DATE .

On DATE it gave judgment on the reference for a preliminary ruling , holding that an increase in the capital of a bank constituted in the form of a public limited liability company by administrative measure was contrary to LAW on companies , which guaranteed each shareholder the right to vote on the issue . It also rejected the ORG ’s new board of ORG argument that the applicants’ civil action constituted an abuse of rights , declaring : “ … the uniform application and full effect of ORG law would be undermined if a shareholder relying on LAW were deemed to be abusing his rights merely because he was a minority shareholder of a company subject to reorganization measures or had benefited from the reorganization of the company . Since LAW applies without distinction to all shareholders , regardless of the outcome of any reorganization procedure , to treat an action based on LAW as abusive for such reasons would be tantamount to altering the scope of that provision . ”

On DATE the applicants again asked ORG to fix a hearing date for all their actions . A hearing was listed for DATE . However , this summons to fix an earlier hearing was never served on the defendants .

On DATE the applicants , by CARDINAL further summonses , ( nos . DATE and GPE ) , asked ORG to bring forward the date of the hearing for all their actions , on the ground that ORG of ORG had given an ad hoc interlocutory decision on certain legal aspects of the case . A hearing was set down for CARDINAL DATE .

DATE . On DATE the court decided , in response to a summons ( klissis ) from the defendants , to resume consideration of actions nos . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE on DATE .

On DATE CARDINAL former shareholders lodged an additional third - party application in support of the ORG . ORG decided to hear the case on DATE .

On DATE the court adjourned the cases pending before it until the hearing on DATE , the date already fixed for consideration of the third - party application lodged in support of the ORG . It ruled that this application had not been lodged in order to prolong the proceedings .

In the event , it was not possible to hold the hearing on DATE , as the NORP courts did not sit DATE on account of a general election .

Following CARDINAL summonses ( nos . ORG and CARDINAL ) taken out by the applicants on CARDINAL DATE , ORG tried cases nos . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE and cases nos . CARDINAL and CARDINAL/CARDINAL on DATE . On DATE final decisions nos . DATE and DATE , which dismissed all these actions , were published . The applicants asserted that the court dismissed all their claims “ without taking into account the decisions of ORG of ORG and that this , which was unprecedented in NORP law , constituted a serious breach of Community law . They asserted that the defendants – represented by the Minister for ORG and other parties under his control – had asked ORG in their written submissions to ignore completely ORG ad hoc judgment .

NORP However , the proceedings in the civil courts are still pending on account of an appeal ( anairessi ) to ORG lodged by the applicants .


The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in GPE . He was represented before the Court by Mr E. ORG , a lawyer practising in GPE . The Government did not appoint an agent to represent them .

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

The applicant is the owner of the publishing company “ PERSON İletişim ORG ( PERSON ) ” . In DATE he published the NORP translation of the book entitled “ PERSON Amply Rewarded ” by ORG .

On DATE ORG laid a criminal information regarding the book , alleging that it undermined public morals , in breach of LAW .

On DATE , at the request of ORG , the judge at ORG ordered the seizure of copies of the book , holding that it provoked and exploited feelings and thus undermined public morals . On DATE , the decision of the criminal court was communicated to the security directorates , criminal courts and public ORG offices of the district and it was notified to the applicant .

The seizure protocol drafted by the police and signed by an employee of the publishing company on DATE , recorded that copies of the book were not found in the publishing house , as they had already been distributed to the book shops . According to the applicant the latter , informed of the seizure order , returned the copies of the book to him .

On DATE after taking the applicant ’s statements , ORG issued an advance payment order for CARDINAL NORP Liras ( GPE ) . According to this order , in case of payment of the due amount within DATE from the date of issue , no criminal charges would be brought against the applicant .

On DATE the applicant filed an objection against the seizure order , arguing that there was an unjustified interference with his rights guaranteed by Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the Convention . On DATE ORG dismissed his objection .

The applicant did not pay the amount due . Consequently , on DATE ORG filed an indictment , charging the applicant under LAW , for publishing indecent or obscene material .

On DATE ORG Instance noted that , following an amendment which had come into force on DATE , literary works were excluded from the sphere of application of LAW . It consequently acquitted the applicant and ordered the restitution of the books .

LAW provided that those who published offensive , indecent or obscene materials and thereby tended to corrupt public morals , would be sentenced to a fine .

Following the adoption of law no . DATE , which came into force on DATE , LAW was amended . Accordingly , scientific and artistic works and any work of literary value was excluded from the sphere of application of the Article .


Violation of Art. 6-3-c+6-1;Violation of Art. 6-1;Non-pecuniary damage - award

Alvina Gyulumyan;Antonella Mularoni;Christos Rozakis;Dean Spielmann;Elisabet Fura;Françoise Tulkens;Ineta Ziemele;Ireneu Cabral Barreto;Ján Šikuta;Jean-Paul Costa;Josep Casadevall;Luis López Guerra;Mark Villiger;Mindia Ugrekhelidze;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Nicolas Bratza;Rait Maruste;Renate Jaeger;Stanislav Pavlovschi;Vladimiro Zagrebelsky

The applicant was born on DATE and lives in GPE .

NORP On DATE at TIME , the applicant was taken into custody by police officers from the anti - terrorism branch of ORG on suspicion of having participated in an unlawful demonstration in support of an illegal organisation , namely the ORG ( ORG . The applicant was also accused of hanging an illegal banner from a bridge in LOC on DATE .

At TIME on CARDINAL DATE the applicant was taken to PERSON ORG , where he was examined by a doctor . The medical report stated that there was no trace of ill - treatment on his body .

Subsequently , at TIME , the applicant was interrogated at the anti - terrorism branch in the absence of a lawyer . According to a form explaining arrested ORG rights which the applicant had signed , he had been reminded of the charges against him and of his right to remain silent . In his statement , the applicant admitted his involvement in the youth branch of ORG ) . He gave the names of several persons who worked for the youth branch of ORG . He explained that he was the assistant youth press and publications officer and was also responsible for the Osmangazi neighbourhood . He further stated that it had been part of his job to assign duties to other members of the youth branch . He admitted that he had participated in the demonstration on DATE organised by HADEP in support of the imprisoned leader of the ORG . He said that there had been CARDINAL demonstrators present and that the group had shouted slogans in support of Öcalan and the ORG . He had been arrested on the spot . He also admitted that he had written “ Long live leader PERSON on a banner which had been hung from a bridge on DATE . The police took samples of the applicant ’s handwriting and sent it to the police laboratory for examination .

On DATE ORG issued a report after comparing the applicant ’s handwriting to that on the banner . It concluded that although certain characteristics of the applicant ’s handwriting bore similarities to the handwriting on the banner , it could not be established whether or not the writing on the banner was in fact his .

At TIME on DATE the applicant was again examined by a doctor , who stated that there were no traces of ill - treatment on his body .

On DATE , the applicant was brought before the public prosecutor and subsequently the investigating judge . Before the public prosecutor , he explained that he was not a member of any political party , but had taken part in certain activities of HADEP . He denied fabricating an illegal banner or participating in the demonstration on DATE . He stated that he was in the NORP neighbourhood to visit a friend when he was arrested by the police . The applicant also made a statement to the investigating judge , in which he retracted his statement to the police , alleging that it had been extracted under duress . He claimed that he had been beaten and insulted while in police custody . He again denied engaging in any illegal activity and explained that on DATE he had gone to the NORP neighbourhood to visit a friend and had not been part of the group shouting slogans . After the questioning was over , the investigating judge remanded the applicant in custody , having regard to the nature of the offence of which he was accused and the state of the evidence . The applicant was then allowed to have access to a lawyer .

On DATE the public prosecutor at ORG filed an indictment with that court accusing the applicant and CARDINAL other accused of aiding and abetting the ORG , an offence under LAW and LAW no . ORG ) .

On DATE ORG held a preparatory hearing . It decided that the applicant ’s detention on remand should be continued and that the accused be invited to prepare their defence submissions .

On DATE ORG held its first hearing , in the presence of the applicant and his lawyer . It heard evidence from the applicant in person , who denied the charges against him . The applicant also rejected the police statement , alleging that it had been extracted from him under duress . He explained that while he was in custody , police officers had ordered him to copy the words from a banner . He also stated that he had witnessed the events that had taken place on DATE ; however , he had not taken part in the demonstration as alleged . Instead , he had been in the neighbourhood to visit a friend named ORG . He also denied hanging an illegal banner from a bridge on DATE .

At the next hearing , which was held on DATE , the applicant and his lawyer were both present . The court also heard from other accused persons , all of whom denied having participated in the illegal demonstration on CARDINAL DATE and retracted statements they had made previously . The prosecution then called for the applicant to be sentenced pursuant to LAW and the applicant ’s lawyer requested time to submit the applicant ’s defence submissions .

On DATE the applicant made his defence submissions . He denied the charges against him and requested his release . On DATE , ORG delivered its judgment . It acquitted CARDINAL of the accused and convicted the applicant and CARDINAL other accused as charged . It sentenced the applicant to DATE and CARDINAL months’ imprisonment , which was reduced to DATE as the applicant had been a minor at the time of the offence .

In convicting the applicant , ORG had regard to the applicant ’s statements to the police , the public prosecutor and the investigating judge respectively . It also took into consideration his co - defendants’ evidence before the public prosecutor that the applicant had urged them to participate in the demonstration of CARDINAL DATE . The court noted that the co - defendants had also given evidence that the applicant had been in charge of organising the demonstration . It further took note of the expert report comparing the applicant ’s handwriting to that on the banner and of the fact that , according to the police report on the arrest , the applicant had been among the demonstrators . It concluded :

“ ... in view of these material facts , the court does not accept the applicant ’s denial and finds that his confession to the police is substantiated . ”

On DATE the applicant ’s lawyer appealed against the judgment of ORG . In her notice of appeal , she alleged a breach of ORG CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the LAW , arguing that the proceedings before the first - instance court had been unfair and that the court had failed to assess the evidence properly .

On DATE ORG at ORG lodged a written opinion with ORG in which he submitted that the ORG should uphold the judgment of ORG . This opinion was not served on the applicant or his representative .

On DATE ORG of ORG , upholding ORG reasoning and assessment of the evidence , dismissed the applicant ’s appeal .

The relevant provisions of the former Code of Criminal Procedure ( Law no . DATE ) , namely Articles CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL , provided that anyone suspected or accused of a criminal offence had a right of access to a lawyer from the moment they were taken into police custody . Article CARDINAL clearly stipulated that for juveniles , legal assistance was obligatory .

According to LAW no . CARDINAL of DATE , which amended the legislation on criminal procedure , the above - mentioned provisions were not applicable to persons accused of offences falling within the jurisdiction of ORG .

On DATE , by Law no . DATE , the restriction on an accused ’s right of access to a lawyer in proceedings before ORG was lifted .

On DATE a new Code of Criminal Procedure entered into force . According to the relevant provisions of the new Code ( Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL ) , all detained persons have the right of access to a lawyer from the moment they are taken into police custody . The appointment of a lawyer is obligatory if the person concerned is a minor or if he or she is accused of an offence punishable by a maximum of DATE imprisonment .

Finally , section CARDINAL of LAW ( Law no . ORG ) , as amended on DATE , provides that for terrorist - related offences , the right of access to a lawyer may be delayed for TIME on the order of a public prosecutor . However , the accused can not be interrogated during this period .

The Recommendation of the Committee of Ministers to member ORG concerning new ways of dealing with juvenile delinquency and the role of juvenile justice ( Rec(CARDINAL)CARDINAL ) , adopted on DATE at the ORG meeting of ORG , in so far as relevant , reads as follows :

“ CARDINAL . Where juveniles are detained in police custody , account should be taken of their status as a minor , their age and their vulnerability and level of maturity . They should be promptly informed of their rights and safeguards in a manner that ensures their full understanding . While being questioned by the police they should , in principle , be accompanied by their parent / legal guardian or other appropriate adult . They should also have the right of access to a lawyer and a doctor ... ”

The Recommendation of the Committee of Ministers to member ORG on social reactions to juvenile delinquency ( Recommendation No . R ( CARDINAL ) CARDINAL ) , adopted on CARDINAL DATE at the CARDINALth meeting of ORG , in so far as relevant , reads as follows :

“ Recommends the governments of member GPE to review , if necessary , their legislation and practice with a view :

to reinforcing the legal position of minors throughout the proceedings , including the police interrogation , by recognising , inter alia :

– the right to the assistance of a counsel who may , if necessary , be officially appointed and paid by the ORG . ”

Article CARDINAL of the Convention on the Rights of the Child ( CRC ) , in so far as relevant , reads as follows :

“ GPE Parties shall ensure that : ...

( d ) every child deprived of his or her liberty shall have the right to prompt access to legal and other appropriate assistance , as well as the right to challenge the legality of the deprivation of his or her liberty before a court or other competent , independent and impartial authority , and to a prompt decision on any such action . ”

The relevant part of this text concerning legal assistance to minors in police custody provides as follows :

“ DATE . The child must be guaranteed legal or other appropriate assistance in the preparation and presentation of his / her defence . ORG does require that the child be provided with assistance , which is not necessarily under all circumstances legal but it must be appropriate . It is left to the discretion of the States Parties to determine how this assistance is provided but it should be free of charge ...

The ORG recommends that the GPE Parties set and implement timelimits for the period between the communication of the offence and the completion of the police investigation , the decision of the prosecutor ( or other competent body ) to bring charges against the child , and the final adjudication and decision by the court or other competent judicial body . These time - limits should be much shorter than those set for adults . But at the same time , decisions without delay should be the result of a process in which the human rights of the child and legal safeguards are fully respected . In this decision - making process without delay , the legal or other appropriate assistance must be present . This presence should not be limited to the trial before the court or other judicial body , but also applies to all other stages of the process , beginning with the interviewing ( interrogation ) of the child by the police . ”

The relevant part of this text provides as follows :

“ CARDINAL . The ORG recommends that ORG continue reviewing the law and practices regarding the juvenile justice system in order to bring it into full compliance with the LAW [ on the Rights of the LAW ] , in particular ORG DATE , as well as with other relevant international standards in this area , such as ORG for ORG ( the Beijing Rules ) and LAW for ORG ( ORG ) , with a view to raising the minimum legal age for criminal responsibility , extending the protection guaranteed by ORG to all children up to DATE and enforcing this law effectively by establishing juvenile courts in every province . In particular , it reminds ORG that juvenile offenders should be dealt with without delay , in order to avoid periods of incommunicado detention , and that pre - trial detention should be used only as a measure of last resort , should be as short as possible and should be no longer than the period prescribed by law . Alternative measures to pre - trial detention should be used whenever possible . ”

Rule CARDINAL of the Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners ( Resolution ( CARDINAL ) CARDINAL of ORG ) provides :

“ An untried prisoner shall be entitled , as soon as he is imprisoned , to choose his legal representation ... and to receive visits from his legal adviser with a view to his defence and to prepare and hand to him and to receive , confidential instructions . At his request , he shall be given all necessary facilities for this purpose . ... Interviews between the prisoner and his legal adviser may be within sight but not within hearing , either direct or indirect , of a police or institution official . ”

Furthermore , the Recommendation of the Committee of Ministers to member ORG on ORG ( Rec(CARDINAL)CARDINAL ) , adopted on DATE at the PERSON meeting of ORG , in so far as relevant , reads as follows :

“ Legal advice

CARDINAL All prisoners are entitled to legal advice , and the prison authorities shall provide them with reasonable facilities for gaining access to such advice .

CARDINAL Prisoners may consult on any legal matter with a legal adviser of their own choice and at their own expense .

CARDINAL A judicial authority may in exceptional circumstances authorise restrictions on such confidentiality to prevent serious crime or major breaches of prison safety and security . ”

Following its visit to GPE in DATE , the ORG published its report dated DATE ( CPT / Inf(CARDINAL)CARDINAL ) . It stated :

“ CARDINAL . Despite the many changes to legislation in DATE , certain weaknesses remain as regards formal safeguards against ill - treatment . Perhaps the most important shortcoming is that persons detained on suspicion of collective offences falling under the jurisdiction of ORG are still not entitled to access to a lawyer during DATE of their custody . Further , despite earlier affirmations to the contrary , the NORP authorities made clear in their response to the report on DATE visit that such persons are being denied during DATE of their custody the possibility to inform a relative of their situation . Such incommunicado detention can only facilitate the infliction of ill - treatment .

The ORG must therefore reiterate once again the recommendation that all persons deprived of their liberty by the law enforcement agencies , including persons suspected of offences falling under the jurisdiction of ORG , be granted as from the outset of their custody the right of access to a lawyer . The ORG recognises that in order to protect the legitimate interests of the police investigation , it may exceptionally be necessary to delay for a certain period a detained person ’s access to a lawyer of his choice ; however , in such cases , access to another independent lawyer should be arranged .

The implementation of the above recommendation will require legislative measures . However , in the meantime , immediate steps should be taken to ensure that existing legal provisions are complied with . Indeed , the information gathered during the DATE ad hoc visit clearly indicates that even after DATE of police custody , access to a lawyer for persons suspected of ORG offences is in practice the exception rather than the rule . The ORG recommends that the officials responsible for carrying out checks and inspections under the previously - mentioned compliance monitoring procedure be instructed to pay particular attention to whether persons suspected of collective offences falling under the jurisdiction of ORG are being informed of their right to have access to a lawyer after DATE of their custody and are being placed in a position effectively to exercise that right . ”

NORP The ORG visited GPE again in DATE and in its report dated DATE ( CPT / Inf(CARDINAL)CARDINAL ) stated :

“ CARDINAL . The amendments made to LAW have also introduced an improvement as regards access to a lawyer for persons detained on suspicion of collective offences falling under the jurisdiction of ORG . For such persons , the right of access to a lawyer becomes operative after the prosecutor has issued a written order for the extension of police custody beyond TIME ; in other words , they are now denied access to a lawyer only for DATE as compared to DATE under the previous law .

Whilst welcoming this step forward , the ORG regrets that the opportunity was not taken to guarantee to persons detained for collective ORG offences a right of access to a lawyer as from the very outset of their custody ( and hence align their rights in this respect with those of ordinary criminal suspects ) . The ORG trusts that the NORP authorities will in the near future implement the ORG ’s long - standing recommendation that all persons deprived of their liberty by law enforcement agencies , including persons suspected of offences falling under the jurisdiction of ORG , be granted as from the outset of their custody the right of access to a lawyer .

Reference has been made earlier to recent positive legislative developments concerning the rights of access to a lawyer and to have one ’s custody notified to a relative ( cf . paragraphs CARDINAL to CARDINAL ) . They have further improved an already impressive legal and regulatory framework to combat torture and ill - treatment . Nevertheless , the ORG remains very concerned by the fact that persons detained on suspicion of collective offences falling under the jurisdiction of ORG are still denied access to a lawyer during DATE of their custody ; its position on this point has been made clear in paragraph CARDINAL .

Further , the actual content of the right of access to a lawyer for persons suspected of ORG offences remains less well developed than in the case of ordinary criminal suspects . In particular , as far as the ORG can ascertain , it is still the case that such suspects are not entitled to have the lawyer present when making a statement to the police and that the procedure allowing for the appointment of a lawyer by ORG is not applicable to them . Similarly , the provision making obligatory the appointment of a lawyer for persons DATE still does not apply to juveniles who are detained on suspicion of ORG offences . In this regard , the ORG reiterates the recommendation already made in the report on the DATE visit , that the relevant provisions of ORG CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the Code of Criminal Procedure be rendered applicable to persons suspected of offences falling under the jurisdiction of ORG . ”

Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL ( b ) of LAW provides that everyone charged with a criminal offence is to be entitled “ [ t]o have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence and to communicate with counsel of his own choosing ” .

In its Conclusions and Recommendations on GPE , dated DATE ( CAT / C / CR/CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) , the ORG stated the following :

“ CARDINAL . The ORG expresses concern about

( c ) NORP allegations that persons in police custody have been denied prompt and adequate access to legal and medical assistance and that family members have not been promptly notified of their detention ;

The ORG recommends that ORG

( a ) NORP ensure that detainees , including those held for offences under the jurisdiction of ORG , benefit fully in practice from the available safeguards against ill - treatment and torture , particularly by guaranteeing their right to medical and legal assistance and to contact with their families ;

In its General Comment No . CARDINAL , dated DATE ( CAT / C / GC/CARDINAL ) , the ORG stated :

“ CARDINAL . Certain basic guarantees apply to all persons deprived of liberty . Some of these are specified in the Convention , and the ORG consistently calls upon the GPE Parties to use them . The ORG ’s recommendations concerning effective measures aim to clarify the current baseline and are not exhaustive . Such guarantees include , inter alia , ... the right promptly to receive independent legal assistance ... ”

Article CARDINAL of the Charter of Fundamental Rights states that “ [ r]espect for the rights of the defence of anyone who has been charged shall be guaranteed ” . Article CARDINAL further states that the meaning and scope of the right guaranteed under LAW are the same as the equivalent right laid down by LAW .


The applicant is an NORP national born in DATE and currently residing in GPE .

A.

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

On DATE , pending proceedings for the applicant 's parents ' judicial separation , counsel for the applicant 's father in a letter addressed to counsel for the applicant 's mother stated that the applicant had assaulted and injured his father .

The applicant , who firmly denied these accusations , requested his father and his counsel to rectify the above statement , failing which he would file a complaint for defamation .

On DATE , the applicant filed a criminal complaint against his father and the latter ’s lawyer with ORG attached to ORG , reserving his possibility to lodge a civil party application .

On DATE , ORG , noting that the facts as alleged by the applicant might have raised an issue under LAW ( defamation ) , invited the applicant , his father and the latter ’s lawyer to appear before him on DATE with a view to trying to settle the case pursuant to LAW .

The parties having failed to appear before ORG on the scheduled date , the latter invited them to appear before him on DATE . Once again , the parties did not respond to the invitation .

On DATE , ORG requested the Rome Magistrate to fix a date for the trial .

On DATE the applicant was officially informed that , by an act of DATE , ORG had summoned the applicant ’s father and the latter ’s lawyer to appear before the Rome Magistrate on DATE and requested that they be committed to trial for defamation against the applicant . He was also informed that the date of the hearing had later been changed to DATE .

On DATE the Rome Magistrate ruled that the proceedings be discontinued , the prosecution being time - barred .

B. Relevant domestic law

According to Article CARDINAL of the NORP Civil Code , “ whoever , intentionally or negligently , commits a wrongful act , must compensate for any unjust damage thereby caused ” .

According to Articles DATE of LAW and CARDINAL of LAW , compensation for moral damage can only be sought if the facts which have caused it constitute a criminal offence .

According to the established case - law ( cf . , inter alia , ORG , judgment no . CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE ; ORG , judgment of CARDINAL DATE , ORG v. PERSON . PERSON . PERSON . PERSON ) , when the offence is time - barred , the civil courts are competent to assess and award the moral damage on the basis of the facts of the case .

According to the first paragraph of LAW , the injured party is entitled , at any stage of the proceedings and before any level of jurisdiction , to submit memorials and also , except before ORG , to seek to adduce evidence .

According to LAW , in cases in which the prosecution is conditional upon a relevant request by the injured party , the public prosecutor can summon the latter and the accused to appear before him with a view to enquiring whether the injured party would withdraw the criminal complaint and the accused would accept such withdrawal . The parties can be assisted by a lawyer .


Violation of Art. 6-1 (length of proceedings);Remainder inadmissible;Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed;Non-pecuniary damage - financial award;Costs and expenses (domestic proceedings) - claim dismissed

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

In DATE the applicant lodged an action before ORG of LOC against the head of the local administration , a transport company and a private individual for compensation for damage .

The Severo - Evenkiyskiy District Court disallowed the action because it should have been lodged before ORG which had territorial jurisdiction over it .

On DATE the applicant lodged the action before ORG . She asked the court to examine her claim in her absence , as she lived in GPE .

As the applicant ’s claim had not been examined from DATE , she complained to various officials about the court ’s inactivity .

On DATE the Deputy President of ORG informed the applicant that it was impossible to expedite the proceedings because the judges were overburdened with cases .

On DATE the applicant increased her claim .

A hearing was fixed for DATE and adjourned due to the defendants’ absence .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s action .

On DATE a copy of the judgment was sent to the applicant .

On DATE the applicant appealed against the judgment of DATE .

On DATE ORG stayed the appeal proceedings and requested the applicant to submit by DATE CARDINAL copies of her statement of appeal and to pay RUR CARDINAL in a court fee .

On DATE the judgment of CARDINAL DATE became final because the applicant had not paid the fee .

On DATE ORG returned the statement of appeal .

On DATE the ORG of ORG , by way of supervisory review , quashed the judgment of DATE and remitted the case for a new examination .

On DATE the case - file was sent to the town court .

On DATE the judge PERSON was assigned to the case .

On DATE the case was transferred to the judge D.

Of CARDINAL hearings listed DATE , CARDINAL hearings were adjourned . CARDINAL hearings were adjourned due to the applicant ’s absence . The other hearings were adjourned because the parties did not attend , although the applicant repeatedly asked the court to hold hearings in her absence .

In DATE the applicant moved from GPE to the Primorye Region . She submits that promptly after the move she advised by post ORG of her new address .

On DATE the ORG requested the applicant to submit additional documents . It appears that the instructions were successfully fulfilled by the applicant .

On DATE ORG , in the applicant ’s absence , dismissed her action .

On DATE the registry of ORG sent a copy of the judgment to the applicant ’s old address in GPE .

On DATE the applicant complained to ORG about the town court ’s inactivity in her case .

On DATE the President of ORG replied by a letter that the case had been decided on DATE . The President also acknowledged that , although the applicant had advised the court of her new address , on DATE a copy of the judgment had been mistakenly sent to the applicant ’s previous address .

On DATE the registry of the town court sent a copy of the judgment of DATE to the applicant ’s address in GPE .

On DATE the President of ORG informed the applicant that a copy of the DATE judgment had been twice sent to the applicant ’s address in GPE and that ORG was told to send a copy of the judgment to her current address in GPE .

On DATE ORG sent a copy of the judgment of DATE to the applicant ’s address in GPE . She received it on DATE .

On DATE the applicant requested ORG to extend the time - limit for lodging an appeal against the judgment of DATE . The request enclosed a statement of appeal .

On DATE the ORG extended the time - limit and accepted the applicant ’s statement of appeal .

On DATE ORG , in the applicant ’s absence , upheld the judgment of DATE .

On DATE a copy of the judgment of CARDINAL DATE was sent to the applicant .