Preliminary objection rejected (non-exhaustion);No violation of Art. 8;No violation of Art. 14+8

The applicant is a NORP national who lives in GPE .

She was born in the fourteenth administrative district of GPE on DATE . Her mother requested that the birth be kept secret and completed a form at ORG abandoning her after signing the following letter :

“ I abandon my child PERSON . I certify that I have been informed that after DATE the abandonment of my child will become irreversible and that the authorities reserve the right to have her adopted .

I decline the assistance that has been offered to me .

I request that this birth be kept secret .

I certify that I have received the form setting out information on abandonment .

GPE , CARDINAL.CARDINAL.[deleted ] Berthe ”

The applicant was placed with ORG at ORG ( Direction de l'action sanitaire et sociale DATE “ the DASS ” ) and registered on DATE under no . CARDINAL as being in the care of the département of Seine . Subsequently , a full adoption order was made on DATE in favour of PERSON and PERSON , under whose name she is now known . The operative provisions of the GPE tribunal de grande instance 's judgment ordering her adoption read as follows :

“ ... The operative provisions of the judgment to be delivered shall be entered in the prescribed manner and time ... in the register of births , deaths and marriages held at the town hall of the fourteenth administrative district of GPE ;

This entry shall serve as the child 's birth certificate ;

The original birth certificate and the birth certificate drawn up pursuant to LAW shall at the public prosecutor 's behest be endorsed with the word ' adoption ' and shall be deemed to be null and void . ”

NORP In DATE the applicant consulted her file as a person formerly in the care of ORG of the département of Seine and managed to obtain non - identifying information about her natural family :

“ Record of information on a child admitted to the Saint - Vincent - de - Paul Hospital and Nursing Home provided by : CONFIDENTIAL

Date of admission [ date deleted ]

Detailed explanation of the reasons for the child 's admission ( if the child has been or may be abandoned , provide full information on such matters as the mother 's , and if possible the father 's , physical appearance , mental outlook , health , social background and occupation in order to enable the authorities to find the best possible placement )

Abandonment : The parents have been cohabiting for DATE . CARDINAL children have been born of their relationship : an elder child , who is DATE , and PERSON , whom the mother has DATE abandoned and placed in our care . The couple have been put up by a woman for DATE , but she now faces eviction . The father is a NORP national and works as a painter and decorator . His DATE wage is CARDINAL [ NORP ] francs . He is married and has a legitimate daughter , who is being brought up by her mother . According to PERSON 's mother , her partner refuses to have anything to do with PERSON and says that he can not take on this new burden . She ( Ms Berthe ) appears to have no will of her own and is content to go along with her partner 's wishes . She has not visited her daughter at the clinic , saying that she does not wish to become attached . She did not see her daughter until DATE and greeted their separation with total indifference . PERSON does not work and looks after her son and her landlady 's child .

A request has been made for the birth to remain secret .

Description of the mother : QUANTITY tall , slim , regular features , clear - skinned , heavily made - up brown eyes , long , thick brown hair , in good health , ambivalent attitude , very limited intellect .

Description of the father : average height , blond hair , brown eyes , in good health , sober .

PERSON was born DATE premature and weighed QUANTITY . She now weighs QUANTITY . Her stay in the incubator room at ... was trouble - free . She has now reached term and presents no neurological or organic anomalies . Information noted on the medical certificate supplied to the nursery department .

CARDINAL May ... Birth certificate requested

DATE ... Certificate appended

DATE ... Proposal for category A registration . ”

On DATE the applicant applied to the GPE tribunal de grande instance for an order for the “ release of information about her birth and permission to obtain copies of any documents , birth , death and marriage certificates , civil - status documents and full copies of long - form birth certificates ” . She explained to the court that she had learned that her natural parents had had a son in DATE and CARDINAL other sons after DATE , that the PERSON had refused to give her information concerning the civil status of her siblings on the ground that disclosure would be a breach of confidence , and that , now that she knew of her siblings ' existence , she was entitled to seek an order for the release of information about her own birth .

On DATE the court registrar returned the case file to the applicant 's lawyer with the following letter of explanation :

“ Following examination of your file by PERSON , Vice - President of ORG , it appears that the applicant should consider applying to the administrative court to obtain , if possible , an order requiring the authorities to disclose the information , although such an order would in any event contravene the law of DATE . ”

The mater semper certa est rule has not found acceptance in NORP law . There is an ancient tradition in GPE that enables newborn babies to be abandoned in accordance with a set procedure . The practice can be traced back to the time of FAC , who introduced the use of the tour , a sort of revolving crib housed in the wall a charitable institution . The mother would place the child in the crib and ring a bell . On that signal someone on the other side of the wall would cause the tour to pivot and collect the infant . The aim of FAC in setting up ORG trouvés ) in DATE was to prevent infanticide , abortion and babies being exposed .

The Revolution introduced a reform making medical care available to expectant mothers who wished to abandon their children anonymously . In DATE the Convention passed the following provision :

“ The Nation shall bear all the costs of the mother 's labour and provide for all her needs during her stay , which will continue until she has fully recovered from her confinement . All information about her shall be treated in the strictest confidence . ”

The system of abandonment in the tour was abolished by a law of DATE which introduced the “ open office ” ( bureau ouvert ) system ( the office was DATE and night so that the mother could leave her child there secretly , without disclosing her identity ; at the same time she could be given information about the consequences of abandoning the child and offered assistance ) . The tradition of assisting anonymous births led the Vichy government to adopt LAW DATE on the protection of births . The legislative decree allowed the mother to give birth anonymously and to receive free medical care during DATE following the birth in any public hospital able to provide her with the care her condition required . That provision was repealed and subsequently reintroduced by decrees of CARDINAL DATE and DATE , before being amended in DATE and becoming first LAW and then the current LAW CARDINAL of ORG Code :

“ The costs of accommodation and confinement of women who , on being admitted to a public institution or approved private institution , request that their identity remain secret shall be borne by ORG in the département in which the institution 's head office is located .

At their request or with their agreement the women referred to in the first sub - paragraph shall receive psychological support and practical advice from ORG .

The first sub - paragraph shall apply without any means of identification being required or inquiry conducted .

If the name of the child 's father or mother has been recorded in a birth certificate issued within the period prescribed by Articles CARDINAL et seq . of LAW , there shall be no legal entitlement to have the costs of accommodation and confinement paid for by the ORG . ”

The system of anonymous births was embodied in PERSON no . CARDINAL of DATE “ amending LAW as regards civil status , the family and the rights of the child and instituting the office of family judge ” , which introduced new provisions concerning the secret abandonment of children . For the first time , choosing to give birth in secret had an effect on the determination of filiation , as ORG CARDINAL and CARDINAL - CARDINAL of the Civil Code created an estoppel defence to proceedings to establish maternity : there was no mother in the legal sense of the word :

“ An action to establish maternity may be brought subject to the application of LAW . The child bringing the action shall be required to prove that he or she is the child to whom the alleged mother gave birth . The case may be proved only by strong presumptions or circumstantial evidence .

On giving birth , the mother may request that her admission to hospital and identity shall remain secret . ”

In addition to Article L. CARDINAL - CARDINAL of ORG Code setting out the procedure for anonymous and secret DATE which are generally known as “ births by an unidentified person ” ( accouchement sous X ) and are related for filiation purposes to the aforementioned ORG CARDINAL and CARDINAL - CARDINAL of the Civil Code – information about a child 's origins may also be confidential under another provision . Provided the child is DATE , its parents may entrust it to ORG and request that their identity be kept secret ( former LAW , which later became LAW ( CARDINAL ) of ORG ) . The filiation stated in the civil - status documents is annulled and a fictitious birth certificate , known as a provisional civil - status certificate , issued in lieu .

Since the adoption of the law of DATE , several official reports have suggested that a reform of the system of anonymous births would be desirable .

As far back as DATE a report by the PERSON d'Etat , entitled “ Status and protection of the child ” , proposed the setting up of a mediatory body , “ ORG ” , to allow information to be communicated and contact to be established between the persons concerned , provided the interested parties consented . The PERSON d'Etat thus emphasised the need for a prior consensual basis before secret information about a child 's origins could be disclosed . In that connection , it noted the difficulties inherent in searching for a parent ( “ this task is rendered all the more difficult by the fact that the administrative authorities currently follow a wide variety of practices with regard to the secrecy of origins . No method for tracing relatives can be established in these conditions . Nonetheless , CARDINAL consistently finds in practice that a certain amount of information is collected and preserved and , in theory , it could be used . However , it will only become usable if a uniform , clear and simple procedure for collecting and preserving the confidential information relied on is established beforehand ” ) ; it also observed that professional secrecy obligations constituted a serious impediment to tracing . For that reason it proposed a compromise that would enable professionals to disregard their confidentiality obligations if they considered it appropriate for the purposes of enabling family origins to be established . In short , the PERSON d'Etat proposed that children should be given a limited right of access to information regarding the identity of their progenitors through the intermediary of a specially created structure that would be responsible for ascertaining the wishes of the parents and facilitating a psychological rapprochement of the parties .

In DATE a report by Mr PERSON entitled “ Children from here , children from elsewhere – Adoption without borders ” proposed preserving the system of secret births , but suggested that it might be possible for non - identifying information to be gathered .

The report of the parliamentary inquiry committee presided over by PERSON entitled “ Rights of the child , uncharted territory ” , which was made public on CARDINAL DATE , proposed reforming the system of anonymous births in these terms :

“ It is possible to envisage information on the child 's biological filiation being kept with a public institution . Confidential information could be disclosed during the child 's minority on a joint application by the mother and child . The right to make such an application could be made subject to conditions concerning the child 's capacity or as to minimum age . The right would only be exercisable by the child in person , not its legal representative . Once the child has reached DATE , the information would automatically cease to be confidential at the child 's request , subject to the mother being informed . In any event , disclosure of the confidential information would be incapable of having any effect on the parental ties the child already enjoyed . ...

A system of this type could initially be established for cases of anonymous births and secret abandonment and subsequently extended , once the legislature considered it appropriate , to births following medically assisted procreation . ”

A report by PERSON entitled “ Couples , filiation and parenthood DATE – The challenges posed to the law by changes in family and private life ” , which was submitted to the Minister of ORG and the Minister for Employment and ORG on DATE , made the following proposal :

“ In view of the extremely serious consequences of anonymous births , which deprive the child of both its paternal and maternal filiation , we propose repealing Article CARDINAL - CARDINAL of LAW . Putting the child up for adoption voluntarily and responsibly appears to be a more balanced and less painful course for the child . ”

A report by Professor PERSON entitled “ GPE family law : proposals for a law adapted to the realities and aspirations of our times ” , which was submitted to the Minister of Justice on DATE , provides a résumé of the lively debate on the legitimacy of secrecy . It proposes retaining the system of anonymous births , repealing Article CARDINAL of ORG and encouraging a reversible implementation of a right for mothers to give birth “ discreetly ” by , for instance , the creation of a body or the appointment of referents who would be responsible for keeping confidential the mother 's identity if she has so requested and would also act as mediators .

This statute is the final stage in the process of reform described above . It does not call into question the right to give birth anonymously but allows arrangements to be made for disclosure of identity subject to the mother 's and the child 's express consent being obtained . It does , however , abolish the parents ' right to request confidentiality under LAW . The main provisions of the statute provide as follows :

“ A Chapter VII worded as follows shall be added to Part IV of Book I of the Social Action and Families Code :

ORG

Article L. CARDINAL - CARDINAL – A ORG , established under the auspices of the Minister for ORG , shall be responsible for facilitating , in liaison with the départements and overseas authorities , access to information about personal origins in accordance with the conditions set out in this chapter .

It shall inform the départements , the overseas authorities and approved adoption agencies about the procedure for the collection , communication and preservation of the information referred to in LAW , and about the arrangements for attending to and assisting persons who wish to trace their origins , the natural parents and adoptive families concerned by their search , and about arrangements for attending to and assisting women who wish to benefit from the provisions of LAW . ...

It shall be composed of a judicial member of the national legal service , a member of the administrative courts , representatives of the ministers concerned , a representative of the authorities from the départements , CARDINAL representatives of women 's rights associations , a representative of adoptive families associations , a representative of associations of children in ORG care , a representative of associations that campaign for the right to know one 's origins , and CARDINAL public figures who are particularly qualified to hold office as a member of the ORG as a result of their professional experience and skills obtained in the medical , paramedical or welfare spheres .

Article L. CARDINAL - CARDINAL – ORG about Personal Origins shall receive :

( CARDINAL ) Requests for information about the child 's origins from :

– the child itself if the child has attained its majority ;

– the child 's legal representatives or , with their agreement , the child itself , if the child is a minor ;

– the child 's guardian if the child has attained its majority but has a guardian ;

– the child 's direct adult descendants if the child is deceased ;

( CARDINAL ) Declarations by the natural mother authorising disclosure of her identity , or , as the case may be , by the natural father authorising disclosure of his identity ;

( CARDINAL ) Declarations of identity by their ascendants , descendants and siblings ;

( CARDINAL ) Requests by the natural father or natural mother to be informed whether the child has sought to trace them .

Article L. CARDINAL - CARDINAL – Requests for access to information about one 's origins shall be made in writing to ORG or the president of the council for the département ; such requests may be withdrawn at any time in like manner .

A natural father or natural mother who makes an express declaration that he or she waives confidentiality and an ascendant , descendant or sibling of the natural father or natural mother who declares his or her identity shall be informed that the declaration will not be communicated to the person concerned unless that person makes a request for access to information about his or her origins .

Article L. CARDINAL - CARDINAL – The ORG shall communicate to the president of the council for the département copies of all requests and declarations received pursuant to LAW L. CARDINAL - CARDINAL .

Article L. CARDINAL - CARDINAL – In order to be able to deal with requests made to it , the ORG shall collect copies of evidence relating to the identity of :

( CARDINAL ) The woman who has requested that her identity and the fact of her admission to a health institution to give birth remain secret and , if applicable , the person named by her at that time as the father of the child ;

( CARDINAL ) NORP person or persons who have requested that their identity remain secret when their child was taken into State care or was put up for adoption with an approved adoption agency ;

( CARDINAL ) The parents of any child whose name was not disclosed to the registrar of births , deaths and marriages when the birth certificate was issued .

Health institutions , the département services and approved adoption agencies shall furnish ORG on request with copies of evidence relating to the identity of the persons referred to in the preceding sub - paragraphs and any information that does not breach confidence regarding such identity concerning the natural mother 's or natural father 's health , the child 's origins and the reasons for which and circumstances in which the child was placed with ORG or an approved adoption agency .

In order to be able to process requests made to it , the ORG shall also collect from ORG , ORG or approved adoption agencies any information which they are able to obtain from the authorities of the child 's country of origin in addition to the information initially received .

Article L. CARDINAL - CARDINAL – After ensuring that the request remains valid , the ORG shall communicate to the persons referred to in LAW ( CARDINAL ) the natural mother 's identity :

– if it already has in its possession an express declaration waiving confidentiality in respect of the mother 's identity ;

– if the mother 's wishes have been verified and she has not expressly stated that she wishes to keep her identity secret ;

– if one of its members or a person appointed by it has been able to obtain the mother 's express consent without interfering with her private life ;

– if the mother has died , provided that she has not expressed a contrary intent following a request for access to information about the child 's origins . In such cases , one of the members of the ORG or a person appointed by it shall advise the mother 's family and offer it assistance .

If the natural mother has expressly consented to disclosure of her identity or has died without refusing to allow her identity to be disclosed after her death , the ORG shall disclose to the child who has made a request for access to information about its personal origins the identity of the persons referred to in LAW L. CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) .

... [ a like provision follows with respect to the natural father ]

The ORG shall furnish the persons referred to in LAW ( CARDINAL ) with any information , other than information revealing the identity of the natural father or natural mother , it shall have received from the health institution , the département services and the bodies referred to in the fifth sub - paragraph of LAW or obtained from the natural father or natural mother , without interfering with their private lives , by a member of the ORG or a person appointed by it .

Article L. CARDINAL - CARDINAL – Access by a person to information about his or her origins shall have no effect on that person 's civil status and filiation . It shall not create any right in favour of or impose any obligation on anyone whomsoever .

Article L. CARDINAL - CARDINAL – The public prosecutor shall furnish ORG on request with the information contained in the original birth certificates when such certificates are deemed to be null and void pursuant to LAW .

“ I. The following sub - paragraph shall be inserted at DATE L. CARDINAL of ORG Code :

' Any woman who , when giving birth , asks a health institution to keep the fact of her admission and her identity secret shall be informed of the legal consequences of her request and of the importance of knowing one 's origins and history . She shall therefore be invited to leave , if she so agrees , information about her and the father 's health , the child 's origins and circumstances of the birth , and , in a sealed envelope , her identity . She shall be informed that she may at any time waive confidentiality regarding her identity and that otherwise her identity may only be disclosed in the circumstances set out in LAW . She shall also be informed that she may at any time state her identity in a sealed envelope or add to the information given at the birth . The child 's first names and , if applicable , a note that they were given by the mother , and the child 's sex as also the date , place and time of birth shall be noted on the outside of the envelope . These formalities shall be attended to by the persons referred to in LAW , whose names shall be furnished by the director of the health institution . In default , the director shall be responsible for attending to the formalities . ' ”

II . Article L. CARDINAL - CARDINAL of that Code shall be reintroduced as follows :

' Article L. CARDINAL - CARDINAL – For the purposes of the application of Article L. CARDINAL - CARDINAL , in each département , the president of the council of the département shall appoint CARDINAL members from his or her staff with responsibility for liaising with ORG , making arrangements without delay for the provision of the psychological counselling and practical advice to which women are entitled , receiving at the birth the sealed envelope referred to in the first sub - paragraph of Article PERSON , providing the mother with the information prescribed in Article L. CARDINAL - CARDINAL and collecting the information on the health of the natural father and natural mother , the origins of the child and the reasons for which and circumstances in which the child was placed with ORG or an approved adoption agency . They shall also ensure that arrangements are made for psychological counselling to be provided to the child .

These members of staff shall attend an initial training programme and refresher courses to enable them to perform their duties . The training shall be organised by ORG which , in accordance with arrangements to be set out by decree , will provide them with regular back up . ' ”

Civil Code

“ Within DATE of the date on which it becomes final , the full adoption order shall , at the request of the public prosecutor , be entered in the register of births , deaths and marriages held in the locality where the adopted child was born .

The entry shall state the date , time and place of birth , the child 's sex and first names as set out in the adoption order , and the first names , surnames , date and place of birth , occupation and home address of the person or persons adopting the child . The entry shall contain no details of the child 's real filiation .

The entry shall take the place of the adopted child 's birth certificate .

The original birth certificate and , where applicable , the birth certificate delivered pursuant to LAW shall , at the behest of the public prosecutor , be endorsed with the word ' adoption ' and deemed to be null and void . ”

“ Adoption shall confer on the child a filiation that shall replace its original filiation , since the adopted child ceases to be a member of its blood family ... ”

It is relatively rare for mothers to be entitled to give birth anonymously under NORP domestic legislation , as GPE and GPE stand alone in not imposing a statutory obligation on the natural parents to register a newborn child or to state their identity when registering it . Conversely , many countries make it obligatory to provide the names , not only of the mother , to whom the child is automatically linked , but also of the father . The countries concerned are GPE , the GPE , GPE , GPE and GPE ( where section QUANTITY of the PERSON on civil status , which allowed mothers to have the words “ mother unknown ” entered in the register of births , deaths and marriages , was held to be unconstitutional in a decision of ORG in DATE ) , GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE and GPE .

The current trend in certain countries is towards the acceptance , if not of a right to give birth anonymously , then at least of a right to give birth “ discreetly ” . An example of this is provided by GPE , where a debate has begun , largely as a result of the large number of women crossing the border to give birth anonymously in GPE . In an opinion delivered on DATE ORG set out the CARDINAL lines of argument that were defensible from an ethical standpoint : the first considered it unacceptable for children to be brought into the world without parents ; for that reason its proponents proposed that facilities for “ giving birth discreetly ” should be provided , without completely closing the door on all attempts to trace the parents . Proponents of the second line of argument considered that the ethical dilemma posed by the right to give birth anonymously did not result from the need to resolve the conflict arising out of the clash between the respective rights of “ the child to filiation ” and “ the mother in distress ” , but from the more fundamental confrontation of CARDINAL values : the life of the child on the one hand and the right of everyone to know his or her natural mother on the other . They contended that in the face of that dilemma , the primary concern had to be the protection of the life and of the development of the child . For that reason , they considered that giving birth anonymously was perfectly legitimate and acceptable from an ethical standpoint . Likewise , in GPE , in view of the rising number of abandoned newborn infants , the first “ baby box ” ( Babyklappe ) – a system that allows the mother to leave her child , ring a bell and leave without giving her identity DATE was installed in GPE DATE . Since then , other “ baby boxes ” have been installed in other towns . In DATE a bill on anonymous births was rejected by the GPE . On DATE the Land of Baden - Württemberg introduced a further bill in the NORP which was submitted to the relevant committees for presentation to the GPE . Yet another example is provided by GPE , where mothers may decide to remain anonymous by abandoning their newborn child in a special , unsupervised room in the hospital .


Preliminary objections dismissed;Violation of Art. 14+P1-1;Violation of Art. 6-1;Pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage - award

Alvina Gyulumyan;Christos Rozakis;Corneliu Bîrsan;David Thór Björgvinsson;Dean Spielmann;Egbert Myjer;Françoise Tulkens;Ineta Ziemele;Ireneu Cabral Barreto;Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre;Ján Šikuta;Jean-Paul Costa;Josep Casadevall;Mark Villiger;Nicolas Bratza;Peer Lorenzen;Vladimiro Zagrebelsky;Zdravka Kalaydjieva

The applicant was born in GPE and came to GPE in DATE , at DATE , when it was one of the CARDINAL NORP ( SSRs ) of GPE . She has been permanently resident there ever since . In DATE , after finishing her studies at ORG , she obtained a job at the chemical complex in GPE ( GPE ) , working in a laboratory at a recycling plant .

NORP In DATE the applicant was assigned to the regional division of ORG , which was part of ORG . Until DATE she worked for a ORG enterprise attached to the ORG , with its head office in GPE ( GPE ) . She was subsequently placed under the authority of a subdivision of the same enterprise , which was based in GPE ( present - day GPE ) and was itself subordinate to a division with its head office in GPE ( in LOC , GPE ) . The enterprise in question was an all - Union enterprise ( предприятие всесоюзного значения ) and was thus governed by federal law and under the authority of the GPE central government . The applicant ’s salary was paid by DATE post - office giro transfer , from GPE and GPE . Notwithstanding her successive reassignments , the applicant continued to work at the recycling plant in ORG . Furthermore , throughout this period she remained affiliated to the same local unit of the centralised NORP trade union for workers in the chemical industry .

On DATE ORG ( the legislative assembly at the time ) adopted the Declaration on the Restoration of the Independence of the Republic of Latvia . On DATE ORG was abolished . As the enterprise had become autonomous , the applicant came under the direct authority of the plant ’s management .

In DATE GPE ’s independence was fully restored . Subsequently , in DATE GPE , the State of which the applicant had hitherto been a national , ceased to exist . The applicant therefore became stateless . Following the enactment on DATE of the Act on the status of former GPE citizens without NORP or other citizenship , the applicant was granted the status of “ permanently resident non - citizen ” ( nepilsone ) .

In DATE the applicant was made redundant as a result of staff cutbacks . She immediately signed a contract with another employer , based in GPE , for which she worked until her retirement in DATE .

NORP In DATE , after reaching DATE , the applicant retired and asked ORG for ORG ( PERSON rajona PERSON apdrošināšanas pārvalde ) to calculate the amount of her retirement pension ( vecuma pensija ) . In a letter of DATE , the ORG notified her that , in accordance with paragraph CARDINAL of the transitional provisions of LAW , only periods of work in GPE could be taken into account in calculating the pensions of foreign nationals or stateless persons who had been resident in GPE on DATE . It appeared from the applicant ’s employment record ( darba grāmatiņa ) that from DATE to CARDINAL DATE she had been employed by entities based in GPE and GPE . ORG therefore calculated the applicant ’s pension solely in respect of her years of service before and after that period . As a result , the applicant was awarded a DATE pension of CARDINAL NORP lati ( ORG MONEY ( ORG ) ) .

The applicant lodged an administrative appeal against that decision with ORG ( NORP sociālās apdrošināšanas fonds ) , which dismissed the appeal in a letter of DATE . The ORG noted firstly that there was no evidence in the recycling plant ’s archives that the applicant had been employed there . Furthermore , according to the ORG ’s administration :

“ Since you had an employment relationship with an employer based outside NORP territory – although you carried out your work in NORP territory – this period can not be taken into account [ in the calculation of your pension ] as the employer did not pay our GPE ’s taxes . ”

In DATE ORG ( NORP sociālās apdrošināšanas aģentūra ) , which had replaced ORG , asked ORG of ORG ( Labklājības ministrijas PERSON apdrošināšanas departaments ) for an explanation as to the application of paragraph CARDINAL of the transitional provisions of LAW in the applicant ’s case . In a letter of DATE , the ORG explained that , since the applicant belonged to the category of persons concerned by the provision , only the periods in which she had been employed by entities based in GPE could be taken into account in calculating her pension . The ORG added that the only effective means of resolving the issue would be through agreements between GPE , GPE and GPE on mutual recognition of periods of employment .

The applicant subsequently brought an action against ORG in GPE . In a judgment of DATE , the court dismissed her application . The applicant appealed to ORG , which in a judgment of CARDINAL DATE likewise found against her . It held that , since the applicant ’s salary had been paid to her by an employer based outside GPE , her employment within NORP territory was to be treated as an extended business trip and could not give rise to any entitlement to a State pension for the period in question . On an application by the applicant ’s lawyer , the public prosecutor attached to ORG appealed on points of law to the ORG of ORG .

In a letter of CARDINAL DATE , ORG informed the applicant that the case had been included on the agenda of a public hearing on DATE and told her the precise time at which the examination of the appeal was due to start . However , as the hearing had opened before the time indicated , the ORG decided to consider the case before the parties had even arrived . After hearing the submissions of the representative of ORG in favour of allowing the appeal , and after deliberating , the ORG , sitting as an extended bench of CARDINAL judges , dismissed the appeal , holding as follows :

“ ... On the basis of the documents at its disposal , the appellate court observed that from DATE to CARDINAL DATE PERSON had been employed by enterprises based outside GPE .

The appellate court was therefore correct in finding that the period during which Ms Natālija Andrejeva had been employed by enterprises based in GPE and GPE could not be taken into account in calculating her pension .

In accordance with paragraph CARDINAL of the transitional provisions of LAW , pensions of foreign nationals or stateless persons who were resident in GPE on DATE are calculated in respect of periods of employment ... in GPE ...

A period of employment within NORP and NORP enterprises can not be treated as a period of employment in GPE within the meaning of the above - mentioned Act .

Section CARDINAL of LAW defines socially insured persons as [ persons ] who have paid , or whose employer has paid on their behalf , social - insurance contributions towards a State pension , in accordance with ORG .

By virtue of ... ORG , all employees of entities subject to tax in GPE are covered by the compulsory social - insurance scheme .

PERSON ’s employers , being based in GPE and GPE , did not pay contributions in GPE . Accordingly , there is no reason to conclude that , having worked for enterprises situated outside GPE , PERSON was covered by the NORP social - insurance scheme .

The ORG considers that the cooperation agreement on social security between GPE and GPE , which was signed in GPE on DATE and came into force on DATE after the date of the judgment appealed against – is not a sufficient basis for a court to find that the public authorities acted unlawfully ... ”

Since she had been unable to take part in the hearing , the applicant requested the ORG to re - examine the case . In a letter of CARDINAL DATE , the President of the ORG ’s ORG informed her that LAW did not provide for the possibility of reviewing a judgment after its delivery in such circumstances . However , he apologised to the applicant that the hearing had started early and assured her that all the arguments of the parties had been properly examined .

NORP In a letter of CARDINAL DATE , the NORP embassy in GPE informed the applicant that , by virtue of the agreement between the two GPE which had entered into force on DATE , she was entitled to have her pension recalculated to take account of her work for the NORP enterprise . The embassy therefore invited the applicant to apply to the relevant social - insurance department to recalculate her pension . However , the embassy informed her that the pension “ in respect of the NORP period of employment ” would not be paid “ until the conclusion of inter - State negotiations on the arrangements for payment of pensions ” .

In a letter of CARDINAL DATE , ORG informed the applicant that with effect from DATE , on the basis of the above - mentioned agreement , her pension had been recalculated ex nunc to take account of her DATE of service for employers based in GPE . As a result , the DATE amount of her pension , adjusted in accordance with the applicable scales , was ORG ( approximately LAW ) .

In DATE the DATE pension received by the applicant amounted to ORG ( QUANTITY ) , consisting of the principal sum ( approximately LAW ) – corresponding to the minimum subsistence level guaranteed by the State – and a supplement ( approximately EUR CARDINAL ) . These amounts are index - linked and adjusted DATE to take account of inflation and the increase in the guaranteed minimum wage .

On DATE respectively the NORP ORG and the lower house of ORG approved the cooperation agreement on social security , signed on DATE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL below ) . According to the calculations supplied by the applicant , if the agreement were in force and her DATE of service “ in GPE ” were taken into account DATE , her basic pension would be increased by PERCENT and the supplement by PERCENT . The ORG stated that the total DATE amount received by the applicant would be ORG ( approximately ORG CARDINAL ) in that event .

Before DATE , persons resident in NORP territory were covered by the same social security scheme as the rest of the population of the GPE . In particular , the pension system at the time was based not on the contribution principle but on the solidarity principle . All pensions were paid from ORG funds , a portion of the ORG ’s revenue being set aside for pensions . More specifically , employees themselves were not subject to social tax , which was paid by their employers . The social - insurance contributions paid by the various employers were transferred via trade unions to ORG , managed by ORG . Those funds were then redistributed among the SSRs for very different purposes , including the payment of retirement pensions , and the amount of a pension did not depend directly on the amount of tax previously paid to the tax authorities . There was also a personal income tax , part of which was paid to the GPE central tax authorities and the rest to the local tax authorities of the relevant SSR . However , personal income - tax revenues were practically never used for pension payments .

The Government provided the following description of the NORP social security system , taken from an encyclopaedic dictionary published in DATE :

“ Contributions by enterprises , institutions and organisations for the purposes of social insurance are calculated on the basis of a set percentage of the wage fund and distributed among the various trade unions according to the nature and importance of work in the sector concerned . These contributions form the social - insurance budget , which is part of the GPE State budget . The ORG social - insurance budget is approved by [ ORG ] and is managed by trade unions . ... Retirement pensions for pensioners who continue to work are likewise paid from the social - insurance budget ( those who no longer work receive their pensions from the ORG social - insurance budget constituted through funds allocated by the ORG and kolkhozes ) . ... ”

The rules governing social security mainly fell within the general sphere of labour law . The main legislative instrument in this area was the Act of DATE , which established the basis for labour legislation in the GPE and the SSRs ( NORP законодательства ORG ССР и союзных республик о труде ) . The LAW was incorporated into the SSRs’ labour codes almost in its entirety , with the exception of the special provisions devolving powers to local legislatures .

Section CARDINAL of the Act , incorporated in section CARDINAL of the NORP SSR ’s LAW ( Latvijas PSR Darba likumu kodekss ) , provided :

“ All workers and civil servants shall be covered by compulsory ORG social insurance .

Compulsory social insurance ... for workers and civil servants shall be provided at the ORG ’s expense . Social - insurance contributions shall be paid by enterprises , institutions and organisations without any deductions from the salaries of workers and civil servants . Failure by an enterprise , institution or organisation to pay social - insurance contributions shall not deprive workers and civil servants of their entitlement to ORG social insurance . ”

The relevant provisions of LAW of DATE ( ORG « О государственных пенсиях ORG ) read as follows :

“ Pensions shall be paid by the ORG from the means allocated DATE from the GPE State budget , including the means from the ORG social - insurance budget deriving from the contributions of enterprises , institutions and organisations , without any deduction from salaries . ”

“ Pensions shall be calculated on the basis of the average DATE wage ... This includes all types of wages in respect of which insurance contributions are paid , except remuneration for overtime , for discharging additional functions , and any other types of occasional payment .

The average DATE wage shall be calculated in respect of DATE of employment , or , where the person claiming the pension so requests , for DATE in DATE the pension claim .

The relevant provisions of the Rules on the Payment of State Social - Insurance Contributions ( Правила уплаты взносов на государственное социальное страхование ) , adopted by joint Decree no . CARDINAL of ORG and ORG of CARDINAL DATE , read as follows :

“ Enterprises , institutions and organisations employing workers , civil servants and other categories of employees subject to compulsory ORG social insurance shall pay social - insurance contributions ... ”

“ Enterprises , institutions and organisations shall pay insurance contributions in accordance with the rates approved by ORG ... ”

“ Enterprises , institutions and organisations shall transfer insurance contributions ( after deduction of the expenditure they have incurred for social - insurance purposes ) to the social - insurance current accounts [ opened by ] the appropriate trade unions . ”

“ The sums allocated for the purpose of ORG social insurance shall be deposited in the current accounts of the institutions of ORG GPE . ”

Allocations of tax revenues to the social security budget were not recorded in any specific documents , with the exception of the “ employment record ” containing details of the professional career of the person concerned . Despite the formal budgetary autonomy of the SSRs , such as GPE at the time , there were no documents from which it could be ascertained exactly what proportion of the taxes deducted from an employee ’s income was used to fund his or her retirement pension .

Lastly , pursuant to section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the Property in LAW of DATE ( ORG « О собственности в ORG ORG ) , “ [ a]ll property created or acquired from the budgetary or other funds of the Union ... or from other funds of subordinate enterprises , organisations and institutions [ was ] ... part of the property of the Union ... ” .

The relevant provisions of LAW ( PERSON ) , as inserted by LAW of DATE , are worded as follows :

“ All persons in GPE shall be equal before the law and the courts . Human rights shall be exercised without discrimination of any kind . ”

“ Everyone has the right to social assistance in the event of old age , incapacity to work , unemployment and in other cases provided for by law . ”

The main instrument governing pensions is LAW of DATE ( NORP « ORG valsts pensijām ORG ) , which came into force on DATE , repealing the previous Act passed in DATE . Section CARDINAL ) of the LAW provides that persons who have been covered by the compulsory insurance scheme are entitled to a ORG social - insurance pension . As a rule , the amount of the pension in each particular case depends on the period during which the entitled person , the employer or both paid , or are presumed to have paid , insurance contributions in respect of ORG pensions ( section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) and ( CARDINAL ) ) . Evidence of this period is provided by data at the disposal of ORG ( section CARDINAL ) .

Matters relating to the reckoning of DATE of employment under the NORP regime ( prior to DATE ) are governed by the transitional provisions of the LAW . Before DATE the relevant parts of the transitional provisions read as follows :

“ In the case of NORP citizens , repatriated persons , their family members and their descendants , the period to be taken into account in the calculation ... of the ORG pension shall consist of DATE of employment ... up to DATE , both within and outside GPE , regardless of prior payment of social - insurance contributions . In the case of foreign nationals and stateless persons who were resident in GPE on DATE , aggregate periods of employment and periods treated as such in GPE shall be taken into account , as well as aggregate periods treated as such outside GPE in the cases specified in sub - paragraphs ( CARDINAL ) , ( CARDINAL ) and ( CARDINAL ) of this paragraph . Up to DATE ... the following periods treated as equivalent to employment shall be taken into account in calculating the pension :

( CARDINAL ) periods of study at higher - education institutions , and at other training institutions at post - secondary level ;

( CARDINAL ) periods of doctoral studies ... postgraduate education or ongoing vocational training ;

( CARDINAL ) time spent in places of detention by victims of political persecution ... in exile , and time spent escaping from such places , those periods to be multiplied by CARDINAL , or by CARDINAL in the case of time spent in the [ NORP ] LOC and regions treated as equivalent . ... ”

“ The procedures for calculating , certifying and classifying the periods referred to in DATE and CARDINAL of these transitional provisions shall be determined by the ORG . ”

“ Expenses incurred in connection with the reckoning of the periods referred to in [ paragraph CARDINAL of ] these transitional provisions in the calculation of ORG pensions shall be covered by the special ORG pension budget . ”

“ The following shall be deemed to constitute evidence of periods of employment during the transitional period :

( CARDINAL ) an employment record [ darba grāmatiņa ] ;

( CARDINAL ) a record of employment contracts [ darba līgumu grāmatiņa ] ;

( CARDINAL ) a document certifying payment of social - insurance contributions ;

( CARDINAL ) any other evidence of periods of employment ( such as certificates , contracts of employment or documents certifying performance of work ) . ”

In order to clarify the application of the provisions cited above , on DATE the ORG adopted a set of rules ( no . CARDINAL ) on the procedure for certifying , calculating and monitoring insurance periods ( PERSON periodu pierādīšanas , aprēķināšanas un uzskaites kārtība ) . Rule CARDINAL of the rules states that any work carried out for entities situated in NORP territory is to be treated as “ employment in GPE ” .

On DATE CARDINAL members of parliament applied to ORG ( PERSON tiesa ) , seeking a ruling that paragraph CARDINAL of the transitional provisions of LAW , which made a distinction on the ground of nationality , was incompatible with Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the LAW and LAW , taken together with LAW No . CARDINAL . In a judgment of DATE ( case no . DATE - CARDINAL - CARDINAL ) , ORG held that there had been no breach of the provisions cited . It made the following observations , in particular :

“ ... [ T]he applicants’ authorised representative ... argues that , in view of their legal status , non - citizens are not connected to any ORG other than GPE ; accordingly , they are not able to exercise individually their right to social security ... The representative ... further submits that the distinction established in the provision in issue is not based on any economic or social factors ; that , furthermore , the distinction is not founded on the legal status of citizens and non - citizens , as defined in NORP legislation ; and that the above argument is corroborated in particular by the fact that , once they are granted citizenship by means of naturalisation , non - citizens automatically become entitled to social security in respect of DATE of employment outside GPE .

( CARDINAL ) On DATE ORG ... adopted the Declaration on the Restoration of the Independence of the Republic of Latvia ( ‘ the Declaration’ ) . Paragraph CARDINAL of the LAW contains an undertaking ‘ to guarantee social , economic and cultural rights , as well as political freedoms corresponding to the universally recognised provisions of international human rights instruments , to citizens of GPE and citizens of other GPE permanently residing in GPE . This shall fully apply to citizens of the GPE who wish to live in GPE without acquiring NORP nationality’ .

On DATE , DATE after adopting the LAW , ORG ... passed LAW . Entitlement to a State pension was granted to all persons residing in GPE whose place of residence at the time of the LAW ’s entry into force on DATE was in GPE . The Act provided for the right to social cover in old age . It referred to QUANTITY types of State pension : employment pensions ( [ including ] retirement pensions ... ) and social welfare pensions . Anyone covered by the social - insurance scheme of GPE was entitled to an employment pension . Anyone not entitled to an employment pension was guaranteed the right to a social welfare pension under LAW . Accordingly , for the purposes of the LAW , the terms ‘ State pension’ and ‘ social cover in old age’ were identical . By DATE of the LAW , ... stateless persons who had arrived in GPE from another country and had not been employed by enterprises or institutions of GPE received their pensions in accordance with agreements signed with the ORG concerned ; in the absence of such an agreement , they were to be granted a social welfare pension . Thus , pensions were calculated according to the same rules for both of the above - mentioned categories ...

The pension system established by the LAW was based on ... the principle of redistribution ( solidarity ) , which did not encourage any interest on the workers’ part in ensuring their own old - age cover . As GPE strengthened its independence as a ORG , it soon became necessary to develop a new pension system complying with the principles of ORG .

Having assessed the country ’s economic and demographic situation , the available resources and other circumstances , on DATE ORG passed a new LAW with the same title ... which came into force on DATE . Paragraph CARDINAL of the transitional provisions of the LAW provides that the period to be taken into account in calculating the ORG pensions of foreign nationals and stateless persons who were resident in GPE on DATE comprises their aggregate periods of employment in GPE or periods treated as such . Periods of employment outside GPE before DATE and periods treated as such are not taken into account in determining the relevant period for pension calculations ...

The pension scheme introduced in GPE has been favourably received at international level . There has been a positive assessment of the radical change in relation to the traditional principle of solidarity between generations : money earned by the working generation is paid to current pensioners , but at the same time the insurance principle is applied , whereby people build up their own funds towards their pension . ... International experts acknowledge that it is not possible to resolve all social issues by means of the pension system , as any effort to do so will only create problems endangering the system ’s long - term stability ...

In passing LAW , GPE has adopted principles based on insurance premium payments in respect of ... State pensions , including the rule that the amount of the pension depends on the period of employment ... [ This ] consists of periods of employment as defined by the LAW and periods treated as such , irrespective of the person ’s nationality .

( CARDINAL ) ... In its case - law ORG determines the compatibility of any claim with [ LAW ] , defining new criteria in each case . Not all claims automatically come under the concept of a ‘ LOC within the meaning of the LAW . To determine this issue , it is necessary to assess the correlation between the entitlement to the pension or benefit in question and the obligation to pay taxes and other contributions . [ The existence of a ] right or legitimate expectation must be duly demonstrated . A person complaining of interference with the exercise of the right of property must show that he or she has such a right .

In addition , ORG makes a distinction between a system involving individual contributions to a [ pension ] fund , where the amount to be paid [ from the fund ] can also be determined in each particular case , and a system in which there is only an indirect link between the contributions paid and the amount received . The latter system can not be regarded as sufficiently tangible ; yet the right of property , as such , must be tangible ...

To establish whether the legislative provision in issue concerns the right of property , the nature of the pension system should be examined . The new pension scheme is a system that creates a ‘ ORG . It is based on the principle that a person belonging to it has paid contributions into specific [ pension ] funds and that the contributions form a share of the funds’ overall capital . Furthermore , the amount [ of this share of the capital ] can be determined at any time . In such circumstances , the person acquires a ‘ ORG within the meaning of the LAW . In the PERSON v. GPE case , cited by the applicants , ORG found a link between the type of benefit in question , to which the applicant was not entitled under NORP law , and the payment of contributions to the unemployment insurance fund . The ORG therefore found that the claim fell within the scope of LAW No . CARDINAL ...

However , the pension system which existed in GPE until DATE was based on the solidarity principle , entailing the responsibility of the community as a whole and not creating a direct link between contributions and the amount of the pension . Where the solidarity principle is applied , it is impossible to determine what share of the fund belongs to each of the participants . Accordingly , the right of property protected by LAW ... does not arise in this case . This system does not confer on each individual any entitlement to an identifiable share of the fund , but rather the expectation of receiving material assistance according to the circumstances prevailing at the time the pension is to be paid . Pensions under this system are based on the so - called principle of collective security and can not be granted on the basis of [ each person ’s ] individual contribution . It is true that an entitlement to the payment of a certain amount of benefit arises where the system remains continuously in force and the individual satisfies the relevant conditions . However , even in those circumstances there is no entitlement to a specific amount , since the amount is subject to fluctuations and to legal regulation ...

Accordingly , the provision in issue does not concern the right of property and is not at variance with LAW No . CARDINAL ... The applicants’ submission that the provision in issue infringes LAW is therefore likewise unfounded .

( CARDINAL ) ... Welfare legislation , to which the impugned provision relates , is a specific field of human rights and , in constitutional laws of GPE and international human - rights instruments , is regarded as a general obligation of the ORG . The regulatory mechanism is left to the discretion of each ORG ’s legislature . The exercise of social rights depends on the country ’s economic situation and the resources available .

Since the entry into force of LAW , all persons residing in GPE , regardless of nationality , are entitled to a State pension [ in respect of ] social insurance , provided that they are socially insured and have paid insurance contributions for the requisite number of DATE . LAW of the transitional provisions of LAW in its current wording was introduced in order to settle the issue of the reckoning ... of periods of employment prior to DATE and periods treated as such in the new pension system . It should also be borne in mind that the impugned provision concerns only the category of persons who became entitled to a State pension from DATE .

With regard to foreign nationals and stateless persons who were resident in GPE on DATE , periods of employment within the territory of GPE prior to that date are taken into account in calculating their pension , in the same way as for NORP citizens . Accordingly , ORG is responsible for the periods of employment in NORP territory of all permanent residents of GPE , regardless of nationality .

The distinction made by the provision in issue is objectively justified by the nature and principles of the NORP pension system . It can not therefore be regarded as constituting discrimination within the meaning of the LAW .

ORG considers that the question of aggregate periods of employment of foreign nationals and stateless persons outside GPE before DATE must be resolved by means of international agreements , and with due regard to the principles of fairness , proportionality , reciprocity and other general rules of law .

The opinion of [ the representative of ] ORG that GPE should not assume the obligations of another ORG as regards the guarantee of a retirement pension for a period of employment in the territory of another ORG is well - founded . ... ”

In Laws of DATE and DATE , which came into force on DATE and DATE respectively , ORG amended a considerable number of the provisions of LAW . The relevant paragraphs of the transitional provisions now read as follows :

“ In the case of NORP citizens , periods of employment and periods treated as such in the territory of GPE and of the former GPE up to DATE , as well as the aggregate period spent outside GPE in the case specified in sub - paragraph ( CARDINAL ) of this paragraph , shall be counted towards the period of payment of social - insurance contributions for the purpose of calculating their pension . In the case of foreign nationals , stateless persons and non - citizens of GPE [ Latvijas nepilsoņi ] , periods of employment and periods treated as such in the territory of GPE , periods treated as such in the territory of the former GPE , in the cases specified in sub - paragraphs ( CARDINAL ) and ( CARDINAL ) of this paragraph , and the aggregate period spent outside GPE in the case specified in sub - paragraph ( CARDINAL ) , shall be counted towards the contribution period . Up to DATE ... the following periods treated as equivalent to employment shall be taken into account in calculating the pension :

( CARDINAL ) periods of study at higher - education institutions , and at other training institutions at post - secondary level , subject to a limit of DATE in the case of qualifications requiring DATE of study at the relevant time , and a limit of DATE in the case of qualifications requiring DATE of study at the relevant time ;

( CARDINAL ) periods of ... doctoral studies , up to a maximum of DATE , postgraduate education or ongoing vocational training ;

“ The amendments to the introductory part of paragraph CARDINAL of these transitional provisions , concerning the reckoning of periods of employment and periods treated as such for the purpose of calculating pensions , shall take effect on DATE . ”

Paragraphs DATE , CARDINAL and DATE of the transitional provisions ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) were not amended .

At the material time , administrative procedure was governed by LAW of the former Code of Civil Procedure ( Latvijas Civilprocesa kodekss ) , which temporarily remained in force following the replacement of the LAW by the new LAW ( ORG likums ) . The relevant provision of the former Code read as follows :

“ Applications challenging conduct by the central or local administrative authorities that has adversely affected the rights of a natural person or other legal entity shall be compulsorily examined by a court in the presence of the public prosecutor . ”

NORP The relevant provisions of the new LAW , which came into force on DATE , are worded as follows :

“ ( CARDINAL ) ORG prosecutors shall be entitled to participate in the examination of a case where they have brought an action or application or where their participation is compulsory .

( CARDINAL ) The participation of the public prosecutor in the examination of a case shall be compulsory where it is prescribed by law or deemed necessary by the court .

( CARDINAL ) A public prosecutor who participates in the examination of a case shall be entitled to inspect material in the case file , to challenge judges , to adduce evidence and take part in examining it , to make [ procedural ] applications [ to the court ] , to submit observations on issues arising in the course of the examination of the case and on the merits of the case in general , to appeal against court decisions , judgments and orders , to receive copies of the court ’s decision or of documents in the file , and to perform other procedural steps as determined by law .

( CARDINAL ) The withdrawal by a public prosecutor of an action or application he or she has brought before a court shall not deprive the person in whose interests the prosecutor was acting of the right to request the court to examine the case on the merits . ”

“ ( CARDINAL ) After hearing the report by the senator [ judge of the ORG ] , the court shall hear the observations of the parties or their representatives . It may set a limited time for making submissions ; however , both parties shall be allotted equal time .

( CARDINAL ) NORP The person who lodged the appeal on points of law , or the public prosecutor where it was the latter who lodged the appeal , shall address the court first . ...

( CARDINAL ) Senators may put questions to the parties .

( CARDINAL ) Each party shall have the right to CARDINAL reply .

( CARDINAL ) If the public prosecutor takes part in the examination of a case where the appeal on points of law was not lodged by him or her , he or she shall give an opinion after the parties have presented their observations and their replies . ”

The relevant provisions of ORG likums ) of CARDINAL DATE are worded as follows :

“ The public prosecutor ’s office is an institution belonging to the legal service which shall independently supervise compliance with the law , within the limits of the powers defined in this LAW . ”

“ The public prosecutor ’s office

( CARDINAL ) NORP shall protect the legitimate rights and interests of individuals and the State in accordance with procedures established by law ;

( CARDINAL ) shall bring applications or actions before the courts in accordance with procedures established by law ;

( CARDINAL) shall take part in the examination of cases by a court , in the circumstances provided for by law . ”

Mutual recognition of periods of employment to be taken into account in calculating ORG pensions is provided for in the cooperation agreements on social security which GPE has concluded with GPE ( in force since DATE ) , GPE ( in force since DATE ) , GPE ( in force since DATE ) , GPE ( in force since DATE ) and GPE ( in force since DATE ) . A similar agreement with the GPE ( in force since DATE ) prohibits any discrimination on the ground of place of residence . Lastly , on DATE the NORP ORG approved the first reading of a bill concerning a similar agreement with GPE .

The agreement with GPE provides in principle for mutual recognition of aggregate periods of employment in accordance with the relevant legislation of both parties ( LAW of the agreement ) . With regard to the period before DATE , DATE of service in the territory of CARDINAL or both parties are taken into account in the calculation of pensions by either party , and it is immaterial whether or not contributions have been paid in the territory in question ( see LAW ) .

The cooperation agreement on social security between GPE and GPE was signed on DATE . ORG approved it in a PERSON of DATE . On DATE , CARDINAL DATE , it was approved by ORG ( the lower house of ORG ) , and on DATE by ORG ( the upper house ) . LAW agreement expressly extends its scope to “ permanently resident non - citizens ” of GPE . LAW provides that , in calculating a retirement pension , each of the parties is to take into account the aggregate period of employment of the person concerned in both countries . LAW provides for an exception to the effect that the principle of equality between nationals and residents of both GPE does not apply to the specific arrangements for the calculation of NORP ORG periods of employment prior to DATE .

Article CARDINAL of the agreement shares the financial burden of retirement pensions between GPE where the person concerned has become entitled to such a pension after the agreement ’s entry into force . The pension in respect of employment prior to DATE is paid by the ORG in which the beneficiary is resident at the time of claiming the pension . However , in respect of the period after that date , each ORG has undertaken to cover the periods of employment in its own territory . Article CARDINAL states that a pension that has already been granted before the entry into force of the agreement may also be recalculated on that basis at the express request of the beneficiary ; however , the recalculation can not be applied until after the agreement has come into force .


The applicant , Mr Jan Jączek , is a NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in GPE , GPE .

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

On DATE the applicant 's wife lodged a petition for divorce with ORG ( Sąd Wojewódzki ) .

The proceedings , following the applicant 's appeal , are pending before ORG ( Sąd Apelacyjny ) .

On DATE the Law of CARDINAL DATE on complaints about a breach of the right to a trial within a reasonable time ( LOC o skardze na naruszenie prawa strony do rozpoznania sprawy w postępowaniu sądowym bez nieuzasadnionej zwłoki ) ( “ the CARDINAL Act ” ) entered into force . It lays down various legal means designed to counteract and/or redress the undue length of judicial proceedings .

Section CARDINAL of the CARDINAL Act reads , in so far as relevant :

Section CARDINAL reads , in so far as relevant :

“ CARDINAL . A complaint about the unreasonable length of proceedings shall be lodged while the proceedings are pending . ... ”

Section CARDINAL provides for measures that may be applied by the court dealing with the complaint . It reads , in so far as relevant :

“ CARDINAL . The court shall dismiss a complaint which is unjustified .

NORP If the court considers that the complaint is justified , it shall find that there was an unreasonable delay in the impugned proceedings .

At the request of the complainant , the court may instruct the court examining the merits of the case to take certain measures within a fixed time - limit . Such instructions shall not concern the factual and legal assessment of the case .

NORP If the complaint is justified the court may , at the request of the complainant , grant ... just satisfaction in an amount not exceeding PLN CARDINAL,CARDINAL to be paid by ORG . If such just satisfaction is granted it shall be paid out of the budget of the court which conducted the delayed proceedings . ”

Section CARDINAL lays down transitional rules in relation to the applications already pending before the ORG . It reads , in so far as relevant :

“ CARDINAL . Within DATE after the date of entry into force of this law persons who , before that date , had lodged a complaint with ORG ... complaining of a breach of the right to a trial within a reasonable time guaranteed by LAW ... , may lodge a complaint about the unreasonable length of the proceedings on the basis of the provisions of this law if their complaint to ORG had been lodged in the course of the impugned proceedings and if the ORG has not adopted a decision concerning the admissibility of their case .

On DATE ORG ( PERSON ) adopted a resolution ( no . III SPP CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) in which it ruled that while LAW produced legal effects as from the date of its date of entry into force ( DATE ) , its provisions applied retroactively to all proceedings in which delays had occurred before that date and had not yet been remedied .


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

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE . He is a former employee of ORG of ORG of GPE ( the “ ORG ” ) .

DATE the applicant , who was already a tenant of studio No . CARDINAL/CARDINAL in a communal apartment , petitioned various NORP authorities seeking the right to reside in studio No . CARDINAL , which had become vacant in DATE . By a decree of DATE , ORG of Kyiv ( the “ LDC ” ) granted PERSON ( a private person ) the right to use that studio .

On DATE the applicant lodged complaints with ORG of GPE ( the “ ORG ” ) , seeking PERSON eviction from the studio . He also requested the court to issue him with a certificate granting him the right to occupy it .

On DATE ORG rejected the applicant ’s claims as being unsubstantiated . On DATE ORG quashed this judgment and remitted the case for fresh consideration .

In DATE the applicant lodged his complaints with ORG against the ORG and the LDC , seeking to quash the decree of CARDINAL DATE and to be allocated studio No . CARDINAL . By a judgment of DATE , the court quashed the decree of CARDINAL DATE and recognized the applicant ’s right to use the studio . The court ordered the respondents to take all necessary measures for the applicant ’s enjoyment of his residential LOC and the enforcement of the judgment of DATE . The judgment became final on DATE .

NORP In DATE the applicant lodged the writ of execution with ORG of GPE . As a result , the certificate of PERSON granting her the use of studio No . PERSON was annulled .

On DATE the applicant lodged the writ of execution with ORG of Kyiv ( the “ ORG ” ) to oblige the ORG , CARDINAL of the owners of the apartment , to certify that he could use studio No . CARDINAL . The execution proceedings were instituted on DATE .

DATE , the applicant lodged several complaints with ORG , ORG of Kyiv ( the “ ORG ” ) , ORG , ORG and ORG of ORG , complaining about the failure of ORG to enforce the judgment of DATE .

On DATE ORG initiated administrative proceedings against the Logistics Director of the ORG who had failed to execute the judgment given in the applicant ’s favour .

On DATE ORG of the ORG informed the applicant and ORG that the applicant had received the keys and free access to studio No . CARDINAL in DATE .

On DATE ORG fined the Logistics Director of the ORG for failure to comply with the judgment of DATE .

NORP The Director appealed against this decision as he did not have the power to issue a certificate for the use of the apartment , which power lay with the LDC . ORG allowed the Director ’s appeal on DATE . On DATE ORG dismissed the petition of ORG of DATE by which it had initiated administrative proceedings against the Logistics Director of the ORG .

On DATE the applicant was dismissed from his position at the ORG for alleged failure to appear at work for a lengthy period of time .

On DATE the ORG issued resolution No . CARDINAL granting the applicant the use of studios Nos . CARDINAL and CARDINAL . They also petitioned the LDC to issue a certificate ( ордер ) for the applicant ’s use of those studios .

On DATE the LDC issued decree No . CARDINAL authorising the applicant to use apartments Nos . CARDINAL and CARDINAL situated at CARDINAL , FAC in GPE .

On DATE ORG informed the applicant about the execution of the judgment of DATE .

On DATE the LDC issued a certificate ( ордер на квартиру ) to the applicant recognising his right to use the aforementioned apartments .

On DATE the applicant informed the ORG that the certificate for the use of the appartment was invalid as it concerned apartments No . CARDINAL and DATE , but not studios ORG . CARDINAL and CARDINAL , specified in the judgment of ORG .

In DATE the ownership title of appartment No . CARDINAL belonging to the ORG was transferred to the LDC .

In DATE the applicant was informed by ORG of the LDC that he would be provided with a certificate for his residential LOC .

On DATE the LDC issued decree No . DATE acknowledging the applicant ’s right to use studio No . CARDINAL and issued him with a certificate of use on DATE .

The relevant provisions of the domestic law and practice are cited in the judgment of ORG v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL , § § DATE , DATE ) and the admissibility decision in the present case ( PERSON v. GPE , no . MONEY , CARDINAL DATE ) .


Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Art. 6-1;Violation of Art. 13;Non-pecuniary damage - award

Alvina Gyulumyan;Egbert Myjer;Elisabet Fura;Josep Casadevall;Luis López Guerra

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

The Act on the Protection of the Right to a Trial without undue Delay was enacted 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 has lodged 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 of the date on which the party made its proposal , the party may bring an action before the competent court under this LAW . The party may bring an action within DATE of receiving the ORG Attorney ’s ORG reply that the party ’s proposal referred to in the previous paragraph has not been acceded to , or after the expiry of the period fixed in the previous paragraph for 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 . ”

Article CARDINAL

“ In GPE everyone shall be guaranteed equal human rights and fundamental freedoms irrespective of national origin , race , sex , language , religion , political or other conviction , material standing , birth , education , social status or any other personal circumstance .

All are equal before the law . ”

Section CARDINAL

“ Close family members under LAW are the spouse of an owner or a person with whom the owner lives in a long - lasting life community , their children or adopted children , parents and adoptive parents and persons whom they are obliged by law to support .

The provisions of the previous paragraph shall also be used mutatis mutandis for the determination of close family members of a tenant . ”

Section CARDINAL

“ If the tenant dies , the owner of the apartment is obliged to conclude a contract of lease with the tenant ’s spouse or with a person who lived with the tenant in a long - lasting life community or with one of the close family members stated in the contract of lease ... ”

On DATE the new Housing Act ( PERSON ( DATE ) , Official Journal CARDINAL ) entered into force and replaced the DATE LAW . In its LAW , among other changes , the words “ a person who lived with the tenant in a long - lasting life community ” were replaced by “ a person who lived with the tenant in an extramarital relationship ” .

Section CARDINAL

“ A long - lasting life community of a man and a woman , who have not entered into a marriage , shall have for them the same legal consequences enshrined in this LAW as if they had entered into [ a marriage ] if no such reason existed which would render the marriage between them void ; and it shall have effect in other areas if the law so provides .

If a decision concerning rights or obligations depends on the existence of a life community referred to in the previous paragraph , this existence shall be established in the proceedings concerning these rights or obligations . The decision on this question will only have legal effect in the matter in which it was resolved . ”

In DATE GPE adopted the Registration of Same - Sex Civil Partnership Act , which regulates in entirety partnerships of same - sex couples .

Section CARDINAL

“ If the partners can not agree after the cessation or annulment of the partnership on who will remain in housing to which CARDINAL or both have leasing rights , a court shall decide the claim of the other partner , at his request

If a partner who is a tenant of the housing dies or is declared deceased , the other partner who is stated in the contract of lease and actually lives in the property has the right to claim the conclusion of a contract of lease from the lessor . ”


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

On DATE the applicant ’s husband was killed in a road - traffic accident when a car and a lorry collided .

A criminal investigation ( diligencias previas – no . CARDINAL ) was started before ORG investigating judge no . CARDINAL . It appeared at first that a Mr P. was the driver of the car involved in the accident .

On DATE PERSON insurers paid the applicant MONEY ( ESP ) in compensation for her husband ’s death , independently of the criminal investigation that was under way . In her letter of acceptance dated DATE , the applicant waived for herself and her CARDINAL minor children the right to make any claim in civil or criminal proceedings in connection with the pending criminal investigation . She confirmed that waiver before ORG investigating judge no . CARDINAL on CARDINAL DATE .

In a decision ( auto ) of DATE ORG investigating judge no . CARDINAL declared that there was no longer any need to pursue the pending investigation with regard to establishing any criminal liability .

By a decision ( auto ) of CARDINAL DATE of ORG investigating judge no . CARDINAL , PERSON widow and children ( who were minors ) were awarded compensation to be paid by the insurers of the lorry that had collided with the car . PERSON had also been killed in the accident and was believed to have been the driver of the car .

PERSON , the widow of the presumed driver of the car , considered the sum she had received inadequate and that it was not her husband who had been driving the car involved in the collision , but the applicant ’s . On DATE she lodged a written application for damages on behalf of herself and her CARDINAL minor children with ORG district judge no . CARDINAL . Her action , which had to be conducted in accordance with the rules for oral proceedings ( juicio verbal ) , was brought jointly against the heirs of the applicant ’s husband , the heirs of the owner of the car who was also killed in the accident and the insurers of the vehicle .

On DATE the applicant , who was acting in her own name and on behalf of her minor children and was represented by a lawyer who accepted her instructions “ on the basis that he was acting as if he had been appointed by the court ” , orally contested the claim against her by reference to the “ facts and reasons contained in the annexed PERSON ] ” . In those documents , the applicant replied in writing to the claimant ’s arguments and applied for legal aid . She referred to her domestic situation , disclosed her personal income , which consisted solely of her widow ’s pension and the income of her children who were now without a father , and stated that she owned a home that she had purchased with the compensation received as a result of her husband ’s death . The documents were referred to in the record of the hearing of DATE in the following terms : “ the documents annexed to [ the applicant ’s ] memorial in reply to the claim are considered to have been produced ” . The insurers of the car also contested the claim and lodged written documents containing detailed submissions .

In a judgment of DATE ORG district judge no . CARDINAL found that the driver of the car involved in the collision had been the applicant ’s husband , not the claimant ’s , and ordered the former ’s heirs and the vehicle insurers jointly and severally , or , in the alternative , the heirs of the owner of the vehicle , to pay PERSON and her CARDINAL children the sum of ESP CARDINAL .

All the parties appealed against that decision . In a decision ( providencia ) of DATE , ORG district judge no . CARDINAL gave the applicant permission to appeal on condition that she deposited the amount awarded in the judgment at first instance , in accordance with supplemental section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of Basic Law no . DATE of DATE updating LAW .

On DATE the applicant lodged an application with ORG district judge no . CARDINAL to have that decision set aside ( reposición ) on the ground that it was impossible for her to deposit the sum requested by FAC . On DATE the application was declared admissible in accordance with ORG case - law on the subject ( judgment no . CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE ) , and the applicant was exempted from the obligation to deposit the amount concerned prior to lodging the appeal . The district judge took into account the applicant ’s domestic and financial circumstances “ as set out in the court file ” in reaching his decision .

In a judgment of DATE the ORG declared the appeal lodged by the applicant ’s opponent partly admissible , upheld the judgment of the district judge and declared the applicant ’s appeal inadmissible on the ground that she had not deposited the requisite sum or shown that she had tried to find other means – such as a bank guarantee as suggested by ORG in its judgment no . CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE of complying with that obligation . As regards the district judge ’s ruling that the appeal was admissible and his decision to exempt the applicant from the obligation to deposit the monies , ORG explained that , since the appeal had been examined even though it should have been declared inadmissible , the grounds for a finding of inadmissibility had become grounds for dismissing the appeal .

On DATE the applicant lodged an amparo appeal with ORG . She relied on her right to a fair hearing and on the non - discrimination principle arguing that no deposit had been demanded from her opponent despite her cross - appeal . The applicant added that she had applied for legal aid at first instance and that her financial and domestic circumstances had prevented her from depositing the amount required to lodge her appeal .

Meanwhile , in connection with the enforcement of ORG judgment , the FAC district judge had , by a decision ( providencia ) of DATE , ordered the seizure of the assets of the applicant and the vehicle insurers as security for the payment of the compensation awarded to PERSON

On DATE the applicant wrote to ORG district judge no . CARDINAL to request that her application for legal aid made on DATE in her memorial in reply to PERSON claim before the district judge be examined and a stay of execution pending delivery of the decision of ORG in the amparo appeal lodged on DATE . On DATE the district judge decided to examine the application for legal aid .

In a decision of DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s amparo appeal on the ground that it had no constitutional basis . It held that the decision declaring the applicant ’s appeal inadmissible had been properly reasoned , that it answered the applicant ’s legal arguments reasonably and had been delivered after adversarial proceedings with full procedural guarantees . With regard to the alleged violation of the non - discrimination principle , ORG held that the position of a person held liable civilly and the position of the party who had won the action were not comparable .

The applicant was granted legal aid by a decision of ORG district judge no . CARDINAL of DATE . No appeal was lodged against that decision .

The provisions of LAW relating to legal aid ( before the entry into force of Law no . CARDINAL of DATE ) read as follows :

“ Application for recognition of the right to take part in proceedings free of charge shall be made to the judge or court that has or will have jurisdiction over the proceedings or the voluntary judicial act in respect of which the application is made ... ”

“ The application shall be deemed ancillary to the main proceedings and shall be examined separately under the rules specific to oral proceedings ; the other parties and ORG shall be heard . ”

“ The application and related procedure shall not entail a stay of the main proceedings , unless all parties so request ... ”

“ Anyone granted legal aid under a statutory provision or by a court order shall be entitled to :

( CARDINAL ) NORP exemption from the obligation to deposit the sums required on lodging an appeal or application for judicial review . ... ”

“ A grant of legal aid for specific proceedings shall cover all steps and appeals related to those proceedings , but shall not be used in any other proceedings . ”

“ Anyone entitled to free legal representation may be represented by a barrister or solicitor of his own choice if the barrister or solicitor agrees to act , failing which counsel shall be appointed by the court . ”

“ The hearing shall take place on DATE before the judge and the registrar .

The parties shall set out their claims and anything they consider relevant to their case in turn . Thereafter , relevant evidence may be produced and the documentary evidence shall be placed in the court file .

The parties may choose a representative , who must be a practising barrister or a practising solicitor , to speak on their behalf . The representative may attend the hearing .

Transitional provision no . CARDINAL of Law no . CARDINAL of DATE provides :

“ Applications for legal aid made before PERSON no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL enters into force shall be made in accordance with the legislation in force when the application is made . ”

Subsection ( CARDINAL ) of supplemental section CARDINAL of Basic Law no . CARDINAL of DATE provides :

“ Anyone who is ordered to pay compensation and wishes to lodge an appeal against a decision concluding proceedings to which this provision relates must show that the amount that he or she has been ordered to pay together with accrued interest and expenses has been deposited ... ”

In its judgment no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE , ORG noted that while appellants should be given an opportunity to remedy an omission , the payment of the deposit before the appeal was lodged was not a mere condition of form , but an essential prerequisite for the lodging of an appeal . However , the statutory requirement to deposit the monies could , in certain cases , infringe litigants’ rights to effective protection by the courts of first instance and appeal thereby creating situations in which the person ordered to make payment was prevented from appealing and would thus be defenceless . ORG referred to the need for the financial circumstances of the person against whom the order had been made to be taken into account , the judge being required to examine each case and if necessary to decline to apply a statutory provision which in another case would be mandatory .

In its judgment no . CARDINAL of DATE in a case on labour law , ORG said that an appeal would be inadmissible unless the obligation to deposit monies was complied with “ ... except where the applicant was in receipt of legal aid , in which case he or she could satisfy the obligation with a bank guarantee instead ... ” .

In its judgment no . CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE , delivered in answer to a constitutionality question raised by ORG , ORG likewise referred to situations in which a non legally aided applicant was subject to bankruptcy proceedings or was insolvent .


Karel Jungwiert;Mark Villiger;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Peer Lorenzen;Rait Maruste;Renate Jaeger;Zdravka Kalaydjieva

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

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

On DATE the applicant brought an action against his brother before ORG . He contended that he and his brother were co - owners of a plot of land and a house in GPE . As his brother possessed the land and the house , the applicant sought the division of the property and compensation .

On DATE Judge PERSON of ORG instructed the applicant to indicate the manner in which he had acquired ownership of the property at issue and to present a plan of it and a tax valuation report .

On DATE ORG issued a certificate authorising the applicant to receive a certified copy of the plan of the property from the local municipality .

In reply to Judge PERSON ’s instructions of CARDINAL DATE , on DATE the applicant explained in writing that he and his brother had inherited the property from their parents . His father had died in DATE . In DATE his mother had transferred the title of the property to his brother but in the applicant ’s view this contract had been null and void because his mother had not been the sole owner . In DATE the applicant ’s brother had conveyed the title of the property to his son , the applicant ’s nephew .

In addition to his initial claims for division and for compensation , the applicant requested that the DATE contract whereby the property at issue had been acquired by his nephew be declared null and void .

The applicant enclosed with the statement of DATE a photocopy of a plan of the property issued on DATE , and a photocopy of a tax valuation report .

In another statement , also dated DATE , the applicant requested ORG to provide him with a certificate authorising him to obtain a certified copy of the plan and the original tax valuation report of the property from the local municipality .

On DATE Judge PERSON issued new instructions to the applicant to further clarify his claims . She decided not to issue any decision in respect of the applicant ’s request for a court certificate until those clarifications were provided .

In written statements of CARDINAL and DATE the applicant made the necessary clarifications in respect of his claims . In an additional statement of DATE he requested that the ORG examine solely his claim concerning the nullity of the DATE donation contract and withdrew the remaining claims . He urged the court to examine that claim , pointing out that the documents he had submitted contained all the relevant information .

On DATE Judge PERSON made a handwritten note on the applicant ’s statement of DATE with instructions to ORG registry to issue a certificate in respect of the plan of the property . At the same time , she instructed the applicant to provide a certified original copy of the plan and an original tax valuation report .

The applicant failed to comply with those instructions .

On DATE Judge PERSON adopted a decision whereby the proceedings were discontinued since the applicant ’s statement of claim had not been completed with the necessary documents .

The applicant appealed . He argued that he had been unable to obtain a certified copy of the plan and an original tax valuation report of the property .

On DATE the ORG upheld the decision to discontinue the proceedings . Following a further appeal by the applicant , in a final decision of CARDINAL DATE ORG upheld the lower courts’ decisions . It pointed out that the plan had been necessary in order to identify the property exactly , and the tax valuation report in order to calculate the court fee due . Since the applicant had failed to provide these documents , the proceedings had rightly been discontinued .

Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW , in force at the relevant time , set out the procedural requirements for the validity of statements of claim . In particular , LAW specified that all relevant written evidence had to be submitted with the statement of claim .

LAW provided that where a statement of claim did not comply with the said requirements , the plaintiff was to be instructed to rectify the deficiencies , including to submit any relevant documents . In the event of failure to do so , by a decision of the respective court the statement of claim and the documents submitted were to be returned to the plaintiff and the proceedings discontinued . That decision was subject to appeal .

By Article CARDINAL of the Code , the courts could issue certificates to be used by the parties to obtain documents from other state institutions .

For certain types of civil claims , such as claims for division of property or claims for the nullification of contracts concerning real property , court fees are determined as a percentage of the value of the property at issue , calculated on the basis of its tax valuation .

Property plans and tax valuation reports are official documents issued by local municipalities .

There is no statutory limitation in time for seeking that a contract be declared null and void .


CASE OF KONENKOVA and other "Privileged pensioners" v. RUSSIA

Anatoly Kovler;Elisabeth Steiner;George Nicolaou

The applicants are pensioners who live in LOC . Before retirement , they used to work in hazardous industries . They had a dispute with a pension authority about the scope of their privileged pensions and appealed to the GPE ’s town courts .

In DATE the courts held for the applicants and ordered the pension authority to recalculate the pensions . The courts based their findings on ORG . These judgments became binding and were executed .

On the pension authority ’s request , in DATE the town courts quashed their judgments due to discovery of new circumstances . The courts found , in particular , that the judgments had ignored the interpretation of ORG given by ORG in DATE and DATE .

NORP The applicants’ cases were remitted for a rehearing and eventually dismissed .


The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in PERSON . He was not represented before the ORG . ORG ( “ the Government ” ) were represented by their Agent , Mr PERSON , ORG Attorney - General .

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

On DATE , in the context of a real estate dispute , the applicant brought an action before ORG ( PERSON sodišče v PERSON ) against J.L.

On DATE the renamed ORG ( Okrožno sodišče v PERSON ) delivered a judgment rejecting the applicant ’s claim . The applicant appealed against this judgment .

On DATE ORG ( PERSON v PERSON ) dismissed his appeal .

On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law . On DATE the appeal on points of law was partly dismissed on procedural grounds and partly rejected by ORG sodišče ) .

The applicant subsequently lodged a constitutional appeal which was dismissed by ORG ( GPE sodišče ) on DATE .

ORG decision was served on the applicant on DATE .