The applicants are a mother ( the first applicant ) and her son ( the second applicant ) . They are both NORP nationals , born in DATE and DATE respectively . They are represented before ORG of ORG ( Perheen Suojelun Keskusliitto ) .

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

PERSON is the child of PERSON marriage to a citizen of GPE . The marriage ended in DATE . She had sole custody of PERSON In DATE the applicants moved from GPE to GPE . PERSON apparently started to gain more weight than was average for a child of his age . In DATE the applicant mother took him to ORG in GPE for examinations . It appears that a psychologist there reported PERSON ’s overweight condition to the social authorities , which appointed a support person for the family .

On DATE PERSON brought PERSON in for further examinations at ORG . PERSON was voluntarily placed in the department for child psychiatry ( although it is alleged that this was contrary to PERSON wishes ) . PERSON reacted strongly to his placement . PERSON allegedly found out at a later stage that the staff was severely punishing children at the hospital . In DATE she repeatedly requested that PERSON be discharged , but the staff underlined the importance of his continued hospital care . After the hospital treatment had lasted for DATE , the applicant mother demanded that PERSON be returned home in DATE .

On DATE and DATE PERSON was informed of a proposal to place PERSON in public care . According to a written notice , this proposal was to be considered by the local ORG ( sosiaali- ja terveyslautakunta , social- och hälsovårdsnämnden ; hereinafter “ the ORG ” ) on DATE .

On DATE the Board placed PERSON in public care , finding that the applicant mother lacked the resources to set the necessary boundaries for PERSON and that the applicants had “ too close a relationship ” . ORG estimated that PERSON ’s public care was likely to last a long time . PERSON was to be placed in the special children ’s home . PERSON appealed to ORG ( lääninoikeus , länsrätten ) , complaining that the written notice had referred to DATE and not DATE ) . She did not appeal against the public care decision as such .

In DATE PERSON allegedly discovered that PERSON had been severely punished by hospital staff as bruises were found on his body . It was PERSON ’s firm wish to go home . The applicant mother ’s wish that PERSON be discharged immediately was refused .

On DATE PERSON was placed in the special unit of the children ’s home . On DATE the police decided , in the absence of sufficient evidence , to discontinue the investigation initiated as a result of a report made by the applicant mother about the suspected assault on PERSON at ORG .

On DATE the director of ORG approved the proposal to modify the substitute care as from DATE ( PERSON was transferred from ORG to the children ’s home ) . The applicant mother appealed against this decision , firstly to the ORG and then to ORG . She did not appeal to ORG against the ORG ’s later decision of DATE upholding the director ’s decision .

On DATE ORG , without holding an oral hearing , rejected the applicant mother ’s appeal against the decision of DATE to place PERSON in public care . The court found that PERSON and her representative had both been informed orally before the ORG ’s meeting that the written notice had been incorrect and that ORG would consider the matter on DATE . The court upheld the ORG ’s decision , stating , inter alia , the following :

“ The shortcomings in the care of PERSON , especially taking into account his illness , are seriously threatening his health and further development . The mother is not able to take care of his upbringing at the present time . The open care measures have proved to be insufficient . The public care is found to be in the interest of the child . ORG has , thus , been obliged to take PERSON into public care and to organise his substitute care . ”

The applicant appealed to ORG ( korkein hallinto - oikeus , högsta förvaltningsdomstolen ) .

PERSON sister and brother - in - law then informed the social workers in charge of the case that they could care for PERSON in their home so as to avoid his placement in a children ’s home . They were well - off and had a big house with a separate flat which could be used by the applicants . The request was apparently rejected . In proceedings instituted before ORG ( käräjäoikeus , tingsrätt ) , PERSON sister , PERSON , and brother - in - law , ORG , requested shared custody of PERSON together with PERSON

On DATE the ORG decided to uphold the decision concerning the change of substitute care made by the director on DATE . As noted earlier , the applicant mother did not appeal to ORG against the decision of DATE .

According to a social worker ’s notes from a meeting which she and apparently other social workers had with PERSON on DATE , PERSON had requested to be allowed to visit PERSON every day at the children ’s home . It had nevertheless been agreed at the meeting that PERSON would visit his mother at home DATE and that the applicant mother would visit him at the children ’s home for TIME on CARDINAL different weekdays and telephone him DATE at TIME .

The first applicant later alleged that no such agreement had been reached . In a letter of CARDINAL DATE she pointed out that the care order had not restricted her access to PERSON and that she intended to visit him every day .

On DATE the ORG restricted PERSON access to PERSON until DATE . She was allowed to receive PERSON in her home DATE , visit him for TIME on CARDINAL different weekdays and telephone him DATE at TIME .

On DATE the ORG prolonged the restriction until DATE , after having heard the applicant and her legal counsel at its meeting . According to the ORG ’s decision , PERSON had a serious overweight condition and eating disorder . It appeared that his mother could not set any boundaries for him as PERSON had managed to gain QUANTITY during a TIME visit to his mother ’s home . The applicant appealed against the prolonged restriction , requesting an oral hearing . On DATE ORG rejected the appeal without holding an oral hearing . There is no right of appeal from a ORG decision concerning the restriction of access rights .

On DATE ORG did not consider the merits of the applicant mother ’s appeal concerning the changes made to the substitute care as no appeal is allowed against such decisions .

On DATE the director of the ORG prohibited on a short - term emergency basis the right of access of the applicant mother to PERSON , including telephone contact , until DATE as the mother - son relationship was found to be too symbiotic and dependant . Moreover , PERSON had started to become very aggressive and stressed in anticipation of the visits and phone calls . He had thrown tantrums and acted in a threatening way towards other children and adults . According to the decision , PERSON had been hospitalised on DATE because of his disorderly behaviour . It was considered that PERSON had to be “ removed from his mother ’s sphere of influence ” and be given “ the peace required by his treatment ” . PERSON had to integrate into the children ’s home .

A further access prohibition was issued on DATE and lasted until DATE as PERSON had again acted so aggressively at the children ’s home that a psychiatrist had to be called to visit him . The decision was taken by the director of ORG . This was a short - term emergency decision which also prohibited the access of GPE and ORG to the child .

On DATE ORG granted the request for the shared custody of PERSON after having heard , inter alia , ORG . ORG had expressed a negative opinion on the request .

On DATE PERSON requested ORG to revoke PERSON ’s public care . She submitted , inter alia , that PERSON had not received proper care in the children ’s home and that she would move to the house of her sister and brother - in - law in order to provide him with optimal care .

During negotiations with the social workers in charge of the case PERSON requested that she be allowed to take PERSON with her to ORG of ORG in order to obtain support and therapy . This was allegedly refused . Allegedly , the social authorities also prevented PERSON from taking PERSON to be examined by a private therapist specialising in the upbringing of children .

On DATE ORG rejected PERSON appeal against the confirmation of the care order . It had obtained written submissions from ORG and a written opinion from ORG . This opinion relied on a written opinion submitted by PERSON , a child and youth psychiatrist of ORG in the Social Welfare and ORG ( sosiaali- ja terveysalan tutkimus- ja kehittämiskeskus ) . PERSON submitted a rejoinder , pointing out , inter alia , that PERSON opinion had been exclusively based on the documents at her disposal and on her own speculations .

In DATE PERSON was moved from the children ’s home to the home of his joint custodians , GPE and ORG , and PERSON , but his public care was maintained . PERSON withdrew her request that PERSON ’s public care be revoked .

On DATE the head social welfare officer of ORG approved the changes to the substitute care as from DATE according to the care plan .

On DATE the director of ORG decided to terminate PERSON ’s public care .

The relevant legislation is outlined in the ORG ’s judgment of CARDINAL DATE in the case of PERSON and GPE ( no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , § § CARDINAL , to be published in the ORG ’s official reports ) . Those provisions of particular relevance to the present case are described below .

When the need for child welfare is caused primarily by inadequate income , deficient living conditions or lack of housing , or when these factors constitute a serious obstacle to the rehabilitation of a child and family , local authorities must provide adequate financial support without delay , and improve the family ’s housing conditions . Open - care assistance includes both general support measures in accordance with LAW ( sosiaalihuoltolaki , socialvårdslagen , Act no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) and specific assistance , inter alia by appointing a lay helper or a support family , by providing adequate therapy and by assisting the child in his or her personal needs through financial and other support . The assistance must be provided in co - operation with the child and its parents or other carers ( section CARDINAL of LAW ) .

According to section CARDINAL of LAW , ORG must take a child into care and provide substitute care for him or her if ( a ) the child ’s health or development is seriously endangered by lack of care or other conditions at home , or if the child seriously endangers his or her health and development by abuse of intoxicants , by committing an illegal act other than a minor offence , or by any other comparable behaviour , ( b ) the measures of assistance in open care are not appropriate or have proved to be inadequate ; and ( c ) foster care is considered to be in the best interests of the child . PERSON care shall be provided without delay where it is needed and is in the best interests of the child ( section CARDINAL , subsection CARDINAL ) . The public care ceases when the child turns CARDINAL ( the age of majority ) or marries ( section CARDINAL ) . Care orders may be appealed to the administrative courts .

The child ’s custodians , biological parents and de facto carers must be heard in respect of a proposal to issue or revoke a public care order or to place a child outside his or her original home . They must further be notified of the decision taken ( section CARDINAL , subsection CARDINAL , of LAW , as amended by Act no . GPE ) . The hearing procedure is governed by LAW ( hallintomenettelylaki , lagen om förvaltningsförfarande , Act no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) . Under LAW of LAW , a party must be afforded an opportunity to reply to any claims put forward by others as well as to any evidence that may affect a decision to be taken .

A child who has attained DATE is entitled to state his or her opinion in child welfare matters . A child who has attained DATE is entitled to be heard as stipulated in CARDINAL of LAW ; he or she is also entitled to demand the social services and other support measures ( section CARDINAL , subsection CARDINAL , of LAW ) .

According to section CARDINAL of LAW , a child who is being cared for outside his or her original home shall be ensured those important , continuous and secure human relations which are important for his or her development . The child is entitled to meet his or her parents and other close persons and to keep in touch with them ( subsection CARDINAL ) . ORG must support and facilitate the child ’s contacts with his or her parents and other close persons ( subsection CARDINAL ) .

According to section CARDINAL of LAW and section CARDINAL of LAW ( lastensuojeluasetus , barnskyddsförordningen , Degree no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) , ORG or the director of a ORG home may restrict the right of access of a child in foster care to its parents or other persons close to him or her if ( a ) such access clearly endangers the development or safety of the child ; or if ( b ) such a restriction is necessary for the safety or security of the parents , or the children or staff in the residential home . The restriction must be limited in time . It must mention the persons whose rights are being restricted , the kind of contacts concerned by the restriction and the extent of the restriction .

Any decision concerning public care , the transfer of a child into foster or other care outside his or her home , access restrictions and isolation of the child must be drawn up on a form approved by ORG ( section CARDINAL of LAW ) .

The care plan to be drawn up in respect of a child in public care must mention ( a ) the purpose and objectives of the placement ; ( b ) what kind of special support will be organised for the child , for the persons in charge of the child ’s care and upbringing and for the child ’s parents ; ( c ) how the child ’s right of access to its parents and other persons close to the child will be organised ; and ( d ) how after - care is going to be organised . According to section CARDINAL of LAW , the care plan must be elaborated in co - operation with those involved .

A ORG decision in respect of a public care order , the transfer of a child into foster care or the termination of public care may be appealed further to ORG . Other decisions of a county administrative court relating to child welfare measures can not be so appealed ( section CARDINAL of LAW ) .

If , in the course of his or her activities , an employee or elected official in health care , social welfare , education , the police or a parish finds out that a child is in evident need of family - oriented or individual child welfare , he or she must notify ORG without delay . Any other person may also contact ORG to this end ( section CARDINAL of LAW ) .


Elisabeth Steiner;Erik Møse;Julia Laffranque;Khanlar Hajiyev;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska

The applicant , Mr Heiresh PERSON , is an NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in LOC . He was represented before the ORG by Mr H. Frihagen , a lawyer practising in GPE . ORG ( “ the Government ” ) were represented by PERSON , Attorney , Attorney - ORG ) , as their Agent .

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

The applicant stated that he arrived in GPE on DATE . On DATE he applied for asylum under the name ORG . During the asylum interview he informed that his surname was PERSON and that PERSON was the name of his home town . He further stated that upon registration of his asylum application he did not know what a surname was . He presented no passport or other recognised travel document which could confirm his identity .

According to the applicant he was of NORP origin because his mother was NORP . In GPE he had been registered as NORP because of his father ’s NORP origin . The applicant affirmed that he came from GPE . As a ground for applying for asylum , he referred to the generally unsatisfactory situation in GPE and to his health problems related to a kidney disease .

On DATE ORG refused the applicant ’s asylum request for the following reasons :

“ ORG considers that in his home country [ the applicant ] has not been subject to reactions by the authorities , individuals or groups that can be characterised as persecution within the meaning of the LAW and LAW .

General conditions in GPE do not indicate that [ the applicant ] fulfils the requirements for asylum .

The upheavals resulting from the war , occupation and transition to NORP sovereignty have led to unrest in various parts of the country .

In spite of the general unrest , the ORG considers that the situation is not so geographically widespread that NORP asylum seekers are in general need of protection .

[ The applicant ] comes from a village in the disputed area in GPE . The ORG is aware that there is considerable tension in this area between NORP on the one hand and NORP and PERSON on the other . The ORG is closely following the security situation in the area . Although the security situation is difficult , the ORG does not consider that the current situation is of such a nature that all the inhabitants of the area are in considerable danger of losing their lives or being made to suffer inhuman treatment . ”

Represented by the same lawyer as before ORG , the applicant appealed to ORG . It rejected his appeal on DATE , stating inter alia :

“ Furthermore , [ the applicant ] may not be sent back to an area where , for reasons similar to those given in the definition of a refugee , he is in considerable danger of losing his life or of suffering inhuman treatment , cf . section CARDINAL ) , second sentence , of LAW . The provision must be interpreted in accordance with GPE ’s international commitments under LAW ... , cf . section CARDINAL of LAW . Under this provision the requirements as to the nature of the danger and the probability that it will occur are somewhat stricter than those under LAW .

In ORG of NORP outside GPE dated DATE and ORG of NORP Asylum - Seekers of DATE , cf . DATE , ORG advises against all return to ORG , and states that NORP asylum - seekers from these regions should be recognised as refugees . ORG recommends furthermore that protection should be afforded to asylum - seekers who are not recognised as refugees . ORG refers to the general violence , the large numbers of internal refugees , the inability and unwillingness of the authorities to provide protection , high unemployment , inadequate supplies of fuel , electricity and water , and the inadequacy of health care , education and other services .

ORG considers that the ORG recommendations are relevant and should be given weight since they provide important information about the situation in GPE and make a valuable contribution to decisions on which persons have a right to protection under LAW . However , the case can not be decided on the basis of the recommendations alone . ORG also must take other information into account and arrive at a decision in keeping with the provisions of LAW and other existing legislation .

[ The applicant ] has stated that he comes from GPE . ORG is aware that the situation in this area is characterised by violence and unrest , and that the security situation is unstable and difficult . GPE is in the disputed area , the area surrounding the border between GPE and the rest of GPE . Most of the inhabitants of the region are NORP , and the largest minority groups are PERSON , NORP and NORP . GPE is mainly under NORP political and military control , but the minority groups are also represented in government bodies .

The level of violence has at times been high over DATE , partly because of the presence of a number of militant groups . The violence in GPE has mainly taken the form of shooting attacks , road bombs , suicide bombs and car bombs , which are primarily directed at the security forces and the police , but local politicians and their families and the civilian population have also been attacked .

However , ORG considers that in spite of this , the current situation is not of such a nature that all the inhabitants of the region are in considerable danger of losing their lives or being made to suffer inhuman treatment . The latest reports from the region , including those compiled by ORG , ORG , ORG and ORG , indicate that the security situation is improving . The violence is currently more limited in scope and seems to be targeted more often at particular groups than is the case in other central and southern parts of GPE . The ORG ’s established practice also indicates that in GPE the general security situation alone does not justify protection of NORP . In this connection the ORG comments that since [ the applicant ] ’s father is a NORP and since [ the applicant ] is registered in GPE as a NORP , he must be considered to be a NORP .

Under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW , a work or residence permit may be granted on grounds of strong humanitarian considerations or when a foreign national has a particular connection with GPE . The provision is not intended to cover circumstances that are common to most appellants . Examples of factors that may be taken into account in an overall assessment are that return to the home country is inadvisable for [ the applicant ] or that the decision would involve immigration policy considerations .

As regards the available information concerning [ the applicant ] ’s state of health , the ORG comments that health - related circumstances do not as a rule constitute grounds for a stay in GPE . The claim that treatment in GPE is in general better than in [ the applicant ] ’s home country is not being given weight since it is noted that [ the applicant ] is able to receive necessary and adequate treatment in his home country . [ The applicant ] has himself stated that treatment for kidney stones is available in GPE .

If the claim based on [ the applicant ] ’s state of health is to be given weight in the overall assessment , this must in principle be documented in writing in the form of an up - to - date medical certificate issued in GPE . Normally less weight is given to certificates that are not in accordance with chapter CARDINAL of Circular IS-CARDINAL/CARDINAL , “ Certificates / medical certificates etc . for use in cases relating to foreign nationals ” , published by ORG . Importance is not normally attached to undocumented or insufficiently documented information concerning health . It is noted that ORG has not received any information concerning [ the applicant ] ’s state of health .

If a permit is to be granted on the basis of physical health problems alone , the problem must be sufficiently serious for [ the applicant ] ’s return to his home country to be considered unjustifiable . In practice , this means that the illness must be acute and life - threatening . In exceptional cases , a permit may be granted in the event of a serious chronic illness that would threaten the patient ’s life if left untreated .

ORG considers that [ the applicant ] ’s health problems are not serious enough to constitute the sole basis for a permit . Kidney stones can not be considered a serious chronic life - threatening illness . There are therefore no strong humanitarian considerations that would constitute grounds for granting a permit under section CARDINAL , second paragraph , of LAW .

According to the information provided by [ the applicant ] , he lived in GPE until DATE , while he has only lived in GPE for DATE . Furthermore , his family is in GPE . His connection with his home country is strong , and he has no particular connection with GPE . His stay in connection with his application for asylum can not be given weight .

ORG considers that [ the applicant ] does not have a sufficiently strong connection with GPE to justify the granting of a work or residence permit .

On the basis of an overall assessment , ORG considers that the conditions set out in section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW have not been fulfilled . Thus , there are no grounds for granting a work permit under this provision . ”

On DATE ORG gave the applicant until DATE to contact the police regarding his departure from GPE .

On DATE the applicant filed a request to the ORG to stop his deportation to GPE .

On DATE the President of ORG decided in the interest of the proper conduct of the proceedings before the ORG to indicate to ORG , under LAW , that the applicant should not be expelled to GPE until further notice . On DATE ORG accordingly decided to suspend the enforcement of its decision .

On DATE the President decided to give notice of the application , inviting the parties to address the following CARDINAL questions :

“ CARDINAL . Has the applicant exhausted domestic remedies with regard to his submissions to the effect that his expulsion to GPE would be contrary to the Convention ?

Bearing in mind , amongst other considerations , the position of the ORG High Commissioner for Refugees’ with regard to forcible return to LOC and their assessment of the general situation in that part of the country , including in GPE ( the applicant ’s former place of residence ) , would his expulsion to GPE be compatible with Articles QUANTITY or CARDINAL of the Convention ? ”

In the meantime , on DATE , the applicant provided certain documents , including medical statements according to which he had suffered from a kidney stone disease at a young age and had undergone an operation . Whilst CARDINAL kidney had a defect , the other functioned normally . He also suffered from chronic muscular- and bone infection , resulting in reduced functional ability and affecting him DATE . Arrangements had been made for him to receive physiotherapy .

ORG interpreted this new information as a request for reconsideration of its rejection of DATE and rejected the request on DATE , giving the following reasons :

“ There is no basis for altering the ORG ’s previous decision . The case is essentially in the same position as that previously determined and reference is made to the reasoning in that decision .

What is of central importance for an application for asylum is the alleged need for protection according to LAW and/or section CARDINAL of LAW . By its earlier decision ORG rejected the application for asylum . No new information has emerged suggesting that [ the applicant ] nonetheless has a need for protection . In the ORG ’s assessment , there were no such circumstances as mentioned in section CARDINAL ) of LAW .

If justified by strong humanitarian considerations and if the foreign national has particular links to GPE , a residence permit may be granted under section CARDINAL ) of LAW . Making a concrete assessment of the request for reconsideration and other information in the case , the ORG does not find that this condition has been fulfilled .

The request for reconsideration is in the main based on the [ the applicant ’s ] state of health . The ORG observes that a consideration of a claim to stay in GPE on grounds of a claimant ’s health condition must be based on the causes of the health problems , their level of seriousness , the need for treatment and the availability of treatment in the person ’s country of origin . It is not decisive whether the treatment offered in GPE is in general better than in the person ’s home country , or whether the quality of life is generally better in GPE . It is more a question of whether it is inadvisable to return to the home country . According to the ORG ’s practice , in cases of physical illnesses there ought , as a starting point , to be an acute and life - threatening suffering . Exceptionally , a permit to stay may be granted if the appellant suffers from a serious and chronic illness that by its nature may be life - threatening if it is not treated .

The ORG can not see that the submitted information concerning [ the applicant ] ’s state of health is of such a seriousness , has been caused by such factors , or that there is a future need for medical treatment , as to warrant a residence permit on this ground . ”

On DATE the applicant , with the assistance of a lawyer , applied to the County Governor of GPE and Akershus for a grant of free legal aid ( fri sakførsel ) under LAW ( CARDINAL ) of ORG , in order to have his case reviewed by the courts . He referred to LAW CARDINAL indication of CARDINAL DATE mentioned above and to its decision to give notice of the application to ORG . The applicant pointed out that he held no residence- or work permit , but his stay in GPE was lawful because the authorities had suspended the enforcement of his expulsion following the ORG ’s Rule CARDINAL indication . In this situation he had no right to pursue gainful employment or to receive social security benefits and therefore had no means of obtaining an income . The condition of indigence applying to grants of legal aid had therefore been fulfilled .

The applicant further emphasised that the case affected him particularly . He feared being killed or exposed to torture , inhuman or degrading treatment upon return to his home country . He stressed that it was only in a small proportion of cases that the ORG applied Rule DATE and gave notice of the application to the respondent ORG .

As a starting point the national remedies ought to be exhausted before lodging an application with the ORG . The applicant did not have the necessary financial means for obtaining judicial review . The case raised so many complex issues of fact and of law that the applicant could not be expected to represent himself . He did not master NORP . Without free legal aid it would not be possible for him to have his case reviewed by the national courts .

In this case , where the ORG had applied Rule CARDINAL and given notice of the application to the respondent ORG , it was obvious that the case had reasonable prospects of success . In cases involving allegations of violations of the LAW that were not manifestly ill - founded and were made by litigants who did not have any lawful means of receiving an income , legal aid should be granted liberally . In any event , in this case legal aid should be granted in view of the real and immediate risk the applicant was facing of treatment contrary to LAW upon return .

On DATE , the County Governor , making a global assessment on the basis of Circular G-CARDINAL/CARDINAL and observing that an exemption from the duty to pay court fees was to be dealt with under the same rules as free legal aid ( section CARDINAL of ORG ) refused the request on the ground that he did not consider the conditions in section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of Act to have been fulfilled :

" GPE does not find that there are special reasons to depart from the restrictive practice that applies in respect of a grant of legal aid before the courts in non - prioritized areas such as that of the present case . The [ applicant ] ’s fundamental legal guarantees must be deemed to have been safeguarded through the administrative proceedings in this case .

Furthermore , the County Governor has taken into account the argument that ORG has taken the measure to invite ORG to submit observations in the case and further that this is done in a very small proportion of the cases , but can not see that this is a sufficient reason for departing from the very strict practice applied in immigration cases not falling under LAW ( CARDINAL ) no . CARDINAL , cf . Circular G-CARDINAL/CARDINAL , paragraph CARDINAL . ”

The applicant appealed but on DATE ORG upheld the County Governor ’s decision . Albeit satisfied that the applicant fulfilled the financial conditions for free legal aid , it dismissed his appeal notably with reference to section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of ORG , giving inter alia the following reasons :

section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) no . CARDINAL of ORG , cf . ORG Circular G-CARDINAL/CARDINAL , section CARDINAL . In immigration cases that are not prioritised , free legal representation is granted only exceptionally , if there are entirely special reasons , for example where the case raises questions of particular interest that have not previously been examined by the courts .

ORG finds against the background of the documents presented that the case does not have sufficient common traits with the subject matters mentioned in LAW ( CARDINAL ) and ( CARDINAL ) . Nor do we find it shown that the case raises questions of principle of particular interest that have not been previously examined by the courts .

In practice it is considered that , as a main rule , the public authorities should not grant legal aid in cases concerning judicial review in respect of decisions by ORG . The reason for this is that the claimant already has had his or her case reviewed administratively by both ORG and by ORG . These instances possess special competence within immigration law . The present case has been examined by the immigration authorities CARDINAL times , without success . ... In this connection it is noted that the [ applicant ] has been assisted by a lawyer both in connection with his administrative appeal and his request for reconsideration . Therefore , his fundamental need for legal security must be considered to have been safeguarded through the administrative examination of the case .

In the assessment regard has also been had to [ the applicant ’s ] allegation that NORP authorities by their practice with regard to work - permits and free legal aid put an effective barrier against foreigners to have their cases reviewed by the courts . In this connection ORG point to that fact that ORG is a social support arrangement aimed at ensuring legal assistance to persons who do not themselves have the financial conditions for taking care of needs for legal assistance of great importance from an individual point of view and with a view to their personal welfare , cf . section CARDINAL of the Act . The principal aim of ORG is to provide assistance to those who do not have financial capacity to cover expenses for legal assistance . Even if the financial conditions for free legal aid are fulfilled free legal aid is not always granted in all types of cases . The LAW distinguishes between priority cases without means testing , priority case with means testing and non - prioritised cases . In the present case the [ applicant ] fulfils the financial criteria , but the case is by nature non - prioritised according to LAW . In such cases a restrictive practise is generally applied .

Regard is further had to the argument that ORG by a letter of CARDINAL DATE indicated to the NORP authorities not to deport the applicant . ORG does not consider that this indication has been based on a thorough examination of the validity of ORG decision . It is observed that it does not appear from the case documents on what ground the ORG has based its decision .

By letter of CARDINAL DATE the ORG stated that the NORP office of ORG ) had informed NORP immigration authorities that the applicant had on DATE applied , via ORG , for voluntary return to his country of origin .

On DATE the applicant ’s lawyer informed the ORG that the application to ORG would be withdrawn DATE .

Under LAW ( tvisteloven ) , a decision by ORG could form the subject of an appeal to the competent city court or district court ( tingrett ) ( ORG CARDINAL , CARDINAL - CARDINAL , CARDINAL - CARDINAL ) , from there to ORG ( lagmannsrett ) ( ORG CARDINAL - CARDINAL and CARDINAL - CARDINAL ) and ultimately to ORG ( Article CARDINAL - CARDINAL ) . The domestic courts had full jurisdiction to review the lawfulness of the ORG ’s decision and were empowered to quash the decision should they find that it was unlawful .

Pursuant to section CARDINAL of LAW DATE , the provisions of the LAW were to be applied in accordance with GPE ’s international legal obligations intended to strengthen the legal position of a foreign national . In the event of conflict between the national legal provision and GPE ’s obligations under the Convention , the latter was to take precedence ( sections QUANTITY and CARDINAL of LAW DATE ) .

Under Chapters DATE of the Code , a person whose expulsion had been ordered by the immigration authorities could apply to the courts for an interlocutory injunction to stay the implementation of the expulsion order .

Further conditions regarding judicial review of ORG decision were set out inter alia in the following provisions and guidelines .

At the material time , the fee for filing a lawsuit before ORG or ORG ( tingrett ) was MONEY ( “ ORG ” ) , corresponding to MONEY ( “ NORP ” ) , if the hearing lasted for DATE and ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL ( FAC ) if the hearing lasted for DATE .

Pursuant to section CARDINAL of LAW DATE , fees should be paid in advance . In the event that a sufficient amount had not been paid when a request for a judicial order had been made , the court was to fix a brief time - limit for payment . In the event that payment is not effected within the time - limit fixed , the court shall dismiss the case , unless the provisions in section CARDINAL apply . The latter provided :

“ If a party has applied for free legal aid or for exemption from the payment of court fees under LAW DATE , a respite should be granted until the application has been decided . In this event no security can be required for the payment of the fee .

If a party who has requested a procedural step [ rettergangsskritt ] has obtained respite in accordance with the foregoing , the court shall grant the measure . In other cases the court may grant a measure if the party who has requested it is unable to pay immediately and it would entail a damage or significant inconvenience for that party if the measure is not taken . If the measure requires payments , an advance payment may be made by the public authorities .

If a measure has been taken with a respite , the court shall fix a time - limit for payment . Until payment has been made or the time - limit has expired , the court shall only take such measures as it deems necessary . If payment is not made within the time - limit , the court gives a ruling in absentia according to ORG DATE and CARDINAL of LAW . ”

An exception from the condition to pay court fees could be granted as part of a grant to free legal representation according to the same rules as those that applied to the latter ( section CARDINAL of ORG ) . A person who was not entitled to free legal representation could be granted an exemption from the duty to pay court fees provided that the financial conditions in section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) or ( CARDINAL ) had been fulfilled ( see below ) .

According to LAW be represented by counsel ( LAW ) , but was not obliged to be so represented , save if the party was unable to present the case in a comprehensible manner and the court has ordered the party to appear with counsel ( LAW ) .

Section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) to ( CARDINAL ) of ORG DATE included the following provisions of relevance to the present case :

“ Free legal representation shall be granted without means testing in ... the following instances :

to a foreign national in such instances as mentioned in LAW , second sentence , and ( CARDINAL ) of LAW [ DATE ] ....

In such cases as mentioned in CARDINAL ) nos . CARDINAL - CARDINAL [ not applicable in the instant case ] , an application for free legal representation may be granted to a person whose income and assets do not exceed certain levels set by ORG .

In other cases , free legal representation may be granted exceptionally , provided that the financial conditions pursuant to the second sub - section are fulfilled and that the case affects the claimant especially from an objective point of view . In the assessment , weight should be attached to whether the case has similarities with the litigation areas mentioned in the first and second sub - sections .

In such cases as mentioned in the second and third sub - sections , free legal representation may be granted even if the claimant does not fulfil the financial conditions prescribed in the second sub - section , provided that the expenses for legal assistance will be substantial compared to the claimant ’s financial situation .

Free legal representation shall not be granted pursuant to the second through fourth sub - sections where it would be unreasonable that such assistance be paid out of public funds . ”

In ORG G-CARDINAL/CARDINAL ORG and ORG stated at paragraph CARDINAL :

“ In immigration cases not covered by LAW ( CARDINAL ) nr CARDINAL , the practice should be very restrictive . The general legal security of the foreigner is considered to be sufficiently secured through the administrative processing of the case . Legal aid to take the case before court should only be granted in exceptional cases , i.e. if there are very specific reasons , for instance if the case presents questions of a particular principal interest that has not previously been tried by the courts . ”

Section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of ORG Act DATE ( domstolloven ) provided :

“ In the event that a person , who does not know NORP , is to take part in the proceedings , an interpreter appointed and approved by the court shall be used . Recordings are to be made in NORP . If required by the importance of the case , the court may decide that recording shall take place in a foreign language , either in the court records or in separate annexes , to be submitted for approval . ”

The Government referred in particular to the following provisions of LAW :

Section CARDINAL - CARDINAL Conduct of the proceedings . Plan for further proceedings

“ ( CARDINAL ) The court shall actively and systematically conduct the preparation of the case to ensure that it is heard in a swift , cost effective and sound manner . ”

Section CARDINAL - CARDINAL The court ’s position with regard to

the procedural steps taken by the parties

“ ( CARDINAL ) ....

( CARDINAL ) The parties have the primary responsibility for presenting evidence . The court can take care of the presentation of evidence if the parties do not object . The court is not bound by the parties’ arguments with regard to questions of evidence . ”

Section CARDINAL - CARDINAL The court ’s responsibility to apply the law

“ The court shall on its own motion apply current law within the scope of LAW ) . In accordance with LAW CARDINAL - CARDINAL , the court shall ensure that there is a satisfactory basis upon which to apply the law . If the application of law can not otherwise be clarified in a fully satisfactory manner , the court may decide that evidence of the law shall be presented , or it may allow the parties to present such evidence . The court shall determine the scope of the presentation of evidence and the manner in which it shall be carried out . Statements on the law occasioned by the case may only be submitted as evidence with the consent of all parties . ”

Section CARDINAL - CARDINAL The court ’s duty to give guidance

“ ( CARDINAL ) The court shall give the parties such guidance on procedural rules and routines and other formalities as is necessary to enable them to safeguard their interests in the case . The court shall seek to prevent errors and shall give such guidance as is necessary to enable errors to be rectified . ...

( CARDINAL ) The court shall , in accordance with subsections ( CARDINAL ) to ( CARDINAL ) , give guidance that contributes to a correct ruling in the case based on the facts and the applicable rules .

( CARDINAL ) The court shall endeavour to clarify disputed issues and ensure that the parties’ statements of claim and their positions regarding factual and legal issues be clarified .

( CARDINAL ) The court may encourage a party to take a position on factual and legal issues that appear to be important to the case .

( CARDINAL ) The court may encourage a party to offer evidence .

( CARDINAL ) The court shall during the proceedings show particular consideration for the need for guidance of parties not represented by counsel .

( CARDINAL ) The court shall provide its guidance in a manner that is not liable to impair confidence in its impartiality . The court shall not advise the parties on the position they should take on disputed issues in the case or on procedural steps they should take . ”

Section CARDINAL - CARDINAL Duty of the court to take an active part

in the conduct of the proceedings

“ ( CARDINAL ) The court shall prepare a plan for dealing with the case and follow it up in order to bring the case to a conclusion in an efficient and sound manner .

( CARDINAL ) ....

( CARDINAL ) In each case , a preparatory judge shall be responsible for the conduct of the proceedings .

According to a report of DATE by the ORG High Commissioner for Refugees ( UNHCR Return Advisory and ORG of NORP Outside GPE ) , no forcible return of NORP from NORP or Central GPE should take place until there was a substantial improvement in the security and human rights situation in the country .

In a follow - up report of DATE ( ORG ’s ORG of ORG ) , the ORG encouraged the adoption of a prima facie approach for NORP asylum - seekers from LOC and stated that they should be considered as refugees based on the DATE Convention relating to LAW in signatory countries . In its more recent LAW of DATE , the ORG observed that in view of the serious human rights violations and ongoing security incidents which were continuing in the country , most predominantly in the CARDINAL LOC of GPE , NORP , GPE , GPE and ORG , the ORG continued to consider all NORP asylum seekers from these CARDINAL LOC to be in need of international protection and stated that , in signatory countries , they should be considered as refugees based on the DATE Convention criteria ( see paragraph CARDINAL of the Guidelines ) . The Guidelines observed inter alia :

“ CARDINAL . In the context of LOC of GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE and PERSON where , even though the security situation has improved in parts , there is still a prevalence of instability , violence and human rights violations by various actors , and the overall situation is such that there is a likelihood of serious harm . Armed groups remain lethal , and suicide attacks and car bombs directed against the ORG - I / ISF [ ORG in GPE / Iraqi Security Forces ] , Awakening Movements and civilians , in addition to targeted assassinations and kidnappings , continue to occur on a regular basis , claiming the lives of civilians and causing new displacement . These methods of violence are usually targeted at chosen areas where civilians of specific religious or ethnic groups gather , including places of worship , market places , bus stations , and neighbourhoods . Violence appears often to be politically motivated and linked to ongoing struggles over territory and power among various actors . As clarified above , even where an individual may not have personally experienced threats or risks of harm , events surrounding his or her areas of residence or relating to others , may nonetheless give rise to a well - founded fear . There is also more specific targeting of individuals by extremist elements of CARDINAL religious or political group against specific individuals of another , through kidnappings and execution - style killings . ”

As regards GPE , the LAW included the following observations ( footnotes omitted ) :

“ CARDINAL . Most violence in the GPE is linked to the yet unresolved administrative status of GPE and related power struggles between the various NORP , NORP and NORP actors . Security conditions in GPE Governorate , and in particular in GPE , tend to worsen during political events related to the status of GPE as armed groups aim at influencing political decisions . For example , during intense negotiations over a provincial elections law in DATE , a suicide attack on demonstrating NORP resulted in an outbreak of inter - communal violence , in which CARDINAL people were killed and CARDINAL injured . Conversely , tensions and sporadic violence can complicate future status negotiations . With the postponing of provincial elections in GPE , the security situation has somewhat stabilized . However , simmering inter - communal tensions are prone to erupt into new violence ahead of decisions to be taken in relation to GPE ’s unresolved status . Some observers note that tensions among ethnic groups over the unresolved status of GPE could turn into another civil war . NORP groups such as ORG [ ORG in GPE ] also aim at stirring inter - communal violence by attacking proponents of ethnic / religious groups . Furthermore , it has been reported that community groups in GPE are arming themselves in preparation for future clashes .

GPE ’s NORP and NORP communities complain of harassment , intimidation , arbitrary arrests and demographic manipulation at the hands of the NORP , who dominate the Governorate ’s political and security institutions . NORP law enforcement personnel and political leaders are in turn popular targets for assassination . ORG and ORG offices are also a regular target of attacks . Recently , CARDINAL members of ORG have been killed in their homes in GPE . The brother of a high - ranking member of the same party was also killed . Religious and ethnic minorities often find themselves caught up in the middle of struggles for power and territory .

In GPE Governorate , there are regular roadside bombings , shootings , and occasional car bombs and suicide attacks . On DATE , a suicide bomber killed CARDINAL people and wounded CARDINAL when he detonated his explosive vest in a restaurant packed with government officials , women and children during lunch near GPE . There are also targeted kidnappings and assassinations , including of security officials , tribal leaders / SoI [ Sons of GPE ] , government officials and employees , ( mostly NORP ) party officials , members of minority groups [ referring notably to CARDINAL incidents of attacks against NORP ] , journalists and other professionals . Dead bodies continue to be found occasionally in GPE Governorate . ”

In DATE the ORG issued a Note on FAC of the DATE ORG of ORG . It contained the following information on security developments ( footnotes omitted ) :

“ Under the Status - of - Forces Agreement ( ORG ) of DATE , the NORP authorities have taken over full responsibility for the security of the country . The former ORG ( former ORG ) have withdrawn from NORP cities , towns and villages and operate from their military bases at the request of ORG . Currently , the GPE is drawing down all combat forces and is expected to complete this process by DATE . ORG ( ISF ) have almost reached their intended end strength of CARDINAL members . Since DATE ORG has been fully responsible for managing and integrating the largely Sunni Awakening Councils or Sons of Iraq ( NORP ) groups into the ORG and NORP government employment . This process is still ongoing and by DATE , of the CARDINAL NORP , CARDINAL had transitioned into the ORG and CARDINAL into other government employment .

ORG ) , a project which maintains data on civilian deaths , reported that in DATE the DATE civilian death toll was CARDINAL . Reports for DATE indicate that CARDINAL NORP were killed and CARDINAL others were injured during DATE . An upsurge in violence was noted since DATE elections and casualty statistics for DATE and DATE reflect an increase in the numbers of NORP killed and wounded in violence . Reports show that in DATE and DATE , insurgents carried out several mass - casualty attacks , including on high - profile , highly guarded targets such as NORP government institutions , prominent hotels and foreign embassies . The assaults resulted in CARDINAL of civilians killed or injured in the attacks . ORG in GPE claimed responsibility for the attacks against embassies in GPE and residential targets in mainly Shi’a districts of the capital in DATE . The reported incidents mostly took place in the central governorates of GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE and PERSON as well as in GPE , which has seen an increase in violence since DATE . The relatively stable security situation in the NORP governorates is reportedly occasionally disrupted by mass - casualty attacks and low level violence mainly in areas close to GPE . GPE remains relatively stable , though there have been reported assaults on journalists and political opponents .

Among other security related developments worth noting is the start of the implementation of an interim joint security plan for GPE and other internally disputed areas by the USF - I. The plan is based on joint action and coordination by ORG and Police as well as ORG ( ORG . Thus far , the joint security plan has resulted in the establishment of a network of checkpoints and joint patrols around major cities , and the training of security personnel . Addressing the overall issue of the status of the “ disputed areas ” is among the challenges that await the new ORG . ORG matters to be resolved in this area include administrative boundaries , the control of oil resources , minority rights and other matters .

Since DATE , the ORG , with the help of the USF - I , have arrested or killed a large number of senior insurgent leaders , in particular members of ORG in GPE . Ongoing attacks illustrate that the groups are still intent on , and capable of , attacks .

Reports indicate that the targeting of Government of GPE officials , members of the NORP security forces , ORG members and prominent citizens continue unabated . Among the frequently targeted are NORP civilians and pilgrims as well as religious sites in different areas , religious and ethnic minority groups mainly in GPE and GPE Governorates ( GPE , NORP , GPE and Kaka’i ) , and the NORP minority , mainly in ORG , which includes CARDINAL NORP displaced from GPE in DATE . Compared to DATE , there has been a significant increase in the use of magnetic and adhesive bombs attached to vehicles as a weapon to assassinate particular individuals . Profiles targeted include , in particular , government officials and employees , party officials , members of ORG ( NORP ) , members of the ORG ( including off - duty members ) , religious and ethnic minorities [ referring to several incidents of attacks against NORP and a suicide truck bomber in , a Shi’ite NORP town QUANTITY south of GPE destroying homes and damaging another CARDINAL homes , affecting CARDINAL people ] , NORP and Shi’ite clerics , journalists , academics , doctors , judges and lawyers , human rights activists and NORP working for NGOs or the USF - I and foreign companies , alcohol vendors ( which are commonly NORP or PERSON ) , women and NORP individuals .

III . Conclusion

The situation in GPE is still evolving . ORG will continue to monitor developments in the country and will update the DATE ORG once it judges that the situation is sufficiently changed . In the interim , ORG advises those involved in the adjudication of international protection claims lodged by asylum - seekers from GPE and those responsible for establishing government policy in relation to this population continue to rely on the DATE ORG . Accordingly , the current ORG position on returns to GPE also remains unchanged . ”

ORG ) , an independent human rights research body set up to provide the NORP immigration authorities with relevant information , has in a report of DATE stated the following about the security situation in GPE city , and the situation for the NORP population there ( footnotes and references omitted ) :

“ CARDINAL . GPE

CARDINAL SECURITY SITUATION

It is generally recognized that the level of violence in GPE is by far lower than that in GPE and GPE .

The majority of the security incidents in the city appear to be attacks against police and military . Most frequent are attacks against road patrols , and against checkpoints and personnel . These attacks both take place on the roads between GPE and surrounding areas and inside the city . Occasional civilian casualties result from such attacks ... .

There are also occasional indiscriminate attacks aimed directly at civilians , such as suicide attacks at crowded places inside the city .

Additional types of targets have been recorded by ORG since DATE . These targets are very diverse . There have been attacks on local NORP political leaders and their families , on engineers and building contractors , oil business executives , private security guards , gas station workers , churches , NORP mosques , polling stations , and at a NORP political party office . In DATE an NORP journalist was killed .

The intensity of attacks against all target groups seems to have remained quite stable over DATE . DATE , DATE reported incidents were recorded ... . During DATE , a total of CARDINAL individuals were reported killed in violent incidents ( PERSON DATE ) .

In DATE , it was reported that violence had gone up since DATE , and that security remained highly unstable ... . According to the GPE military commander in GPE , by DATE violence had dropped by CARDINAL as compared to DATE ... . Figures indicate that since DATE , violence remains stable through DATE ... .

We do not have figures for DATE , nor do we know for how long period of time ‘ summer’ refers to . What the sources indicate , however , is that violence went up by DATE , then down again by DATE , and that it seems to have stabilized somewhat afterwards . With the reservation that we do n’t have exact figures to substantiate this trend , we do see , however , that the occurrence of violence is unstable through a fairly short period of time .

The factors accounting for the security problems continue to be present for the foreseeable future . Accordingly , an unstable level of violence may be expected to continue .

CARDINAL THE SITUATION FOR NORP IN GPE

It is commonly assumed that NORP currently make up a majority of the population in GPE city . However , no exact figures are available ... . A planned census has so far not been held . The city is run by a city council at which the main ethnic groups are proportionally represented . Accordingly , the NORP parties are in a majority . The city is said to be effectively run by the ORG [ ORG of GPE ] ... , which also governs the neighbouring governorate of GPE , The PERSON [ ORG ] is reportedly directly financing the teaching of the NORP language in GPE ’s schools ... .

The security in the city is handled by the ORG [ ORG ] , ORG , the NORP dominated police and NORP intelligence ( NORP ) together . NORP armed forces are posted inside the city . ORG deploys CARDINAL mainly NORP battalions there , which are supported by NORP Peshmerga forces not integrated in the ORG . The NORP have reportedly become the main component of the GPE police . The ORG runs a separate NORP branch in GPE ( NORP GPE ) which reports directly to ORG . ORG reportedly employs possibly CARDINAL personnel working undercover ... .

There are strong indications that the NORP plays a crucial role in providing the police and the ORG with vital intelligence about the plans and activities of armed groups operating in and around the city ... .

The NORP population is protected by forces and agencies run or dominated by the regional NORP political leadership , and who are partly or wholly loyal to it .

Taking these factors into consideration the NORP , as members of the majority population in the city , could be regarded as finding themselves in a favourable position compared to members of other ethnic groups .

A ORG by PERSON on the Security Situation in GPE and GPE ( Temanotat IRAK : Sikkerhetssituasjonen i GPE by og områdene rundt ) , dated DATE , summarised the situation as follows :

“ During DATE , the security situation in GPE has shown a decreasing level of activity on the part of armed groups , in spite of a persistent high level of political tension connected to the disputed political status of the city . Still , both GPE city and GPE province continue to be plagued by persistent political violence . There are no clear signs of open conflict between the NORP , NORP and NORP population groups , but widespread mutual mistrust seems to prevail along with a possibly increasing physical segregation between them . In this environment , militants continue to carry out attacks .

The armed groups operating in GPE , GPE and PERSON are all NORP . They appear as periodically connected to each other logistically , and to be coalescing over time . ”

In LAW it was observed inter alia that the conflict related violence in GPE had continuously decreased since DATE and had in DATE reached its lowest level since DATE . Nonetheless , politically motivated violence still occurred on a DATE basis . There were otherwise no new patterns of acts of violence . It was still the situation that such acts were primarily targeting authorities , the army and the political milieu . However , the casualties among the civilian population were considerably higher than those of the target groups .

The level of political violence appeared relatively low in view of the continuous political tensions related to the unclear political status of the city . At the same time , the political violence was directly linked to unresolved political questions . Both NORP regional authorities and the national central authorities claimed a right to governance in the city .

There was little information available which systematically presented the situation in the province for each of the CARDINAL ethnic groups – NORP , NORP and PERSON . According to the newspaper DATE ’s PERSON of DATE , the local police was composed of PERCENT NORP , PERCENT NORP and PERCENT Turkmens . In the NORP areas of the city there were both NORP and NORP officers . In the GPE district west of GPE , the officers were NORP .

Even though the different groupings were reasonably well represented within public administration and education , distrust between them had frequently been reported since DATE .

ORG ( ORG Country of ORG of CARDINAL DATE provided the following information ( footnotes omitted ) :

“ GPE

CARDINAL The ORG [ ORG ] Report DATE , dated DATE , covering events since DATE noted that : ‘ GPE has been generally stable since the previous reporting period . On DATE [ DATE ] , shots were fired at a USF - I / United Nations convoy travelling in GPE , resulting in CARDINAL ORG - I soldier being wounded . No UNAMI staff members were injured and the convoy immediately returned to Forward Operating Base Warrior.’

However the subsequent UNSC Report DATE , published CARDINAL DATE , observed that : ‘ [ CARDINAL withdrawal of ORG in GPE is likely to have a short- to medium - term effect on the security situation’ .

CARDINAL ORG on ORG conducted DATE , published DATE citing a reliable source in GPE stated : ‘ ... that GPE , with its unique status , is a completely different matter . The situation is fragile and ORG ( ISF ) and GPE forces have a strong presence in the area . AQIs [ ORG in GPE ] and insurgent groups’ presence contribute to making the situation particularly volatile , and there are reports that ORG is using children as suicide bombers or combatants in GPE

See also the section heading on LOC which highlighted that in DATE NORP Peshmerga troops entered GPE governorate in violation of agreed security procedures in place between NORP and NORP forces . ”

The third report of the ORG Secretary - General to the UNSC , pursuant to paragraph CARDINAL of resolution DATE ( DATE ) , included inter alia the following observations :

“ II . Summary of key political developments pertaining to GPE

A. Political developments

In GPE , NORP parties holding the CARDINAL most senior political posts , Governor and Chairman of ORG , agreed to give up the latter , as a gesture of goodwill in order to move the political process forward and to accommodate a long - standing demand by NORP and NORP components . PERSON ( NORP ) was elected to the post of Chairman , PERSON ( NORP ) was appointed as the new Governor and PERSON ( NORP ) remained Deputy Governor .

On DATE , NORP Peshmerga troops that had been deployed around the city of GPE since DATE withdrew and returned to the GPE region . The incident served as a reminder of the challenges that remain as ORG in GPE draw down and the combined security mechanism comes to an end . The combined security mechanism was established to encourage NORP security forces and NORP Peshmerga troops to coordinate their operations , set up joint patrols and checkpoints and exchange information under the auspices of ORG . ORG GPE and ORG have yet to agree on the future of the combined security mechanism or any successor arrangements that could be put into place after the departure of ORG .

ORG in GPE have continued their planned withdrawal from the country with the intention of completing their departure by DATE , as envisaged under the status - of - forces agreement signed between ORG and GPE . Discussions have been ongoing regarding the possibility of some GPE forces remaining beyond DATE to provide training and support . The Prime Minister has stated that the issue would be decided on a consensus basis through dialogue among the political blocs , as formal agreement would require approval by ORG .

III . Activities of ORG

A. Political activities

The standing consultative mechanism met several times during the reporting period . This initiative , which was launched in DATE under the auspices of ORG , brings together representatives of key political blocs to discuss outstanding issues related to disputed internal territories , including GPE . The participants include representatives of the CARDINAL main political blocs : Deputy Prime Minister PERSON ( ORG ) , Member of ORG PERSON ( ORG ) and ORG Minister PERSON ( Iraqiya ) . The participants agreed to focus on the following issues : ( a ) GPE , including powersharing issues and conducting provincial council elections ; ( b ) GPE , the current political stalemate , power - sharing and security issues ; ( c ) the future of the combined security mechanism ; and ( d ) the census . On DATE , participants agreed that subsequent meetings would be expanded to include local stakeholders from the GPE and GPE governorates . On DATE , a meeting was held that brought together for the first time all members of ORG from GPE in order to discuss issues related to power - sharing and the prospects of holding provincial council elections in GPE .

E. Human rights activities

The reporting period witnessed a significant rise in assassinations of political leaders , government officials and security personnel . ... Assassination attempts were carried out against a NORP Member of ORG from GPE ... on DATE May ....

Honour crimes committed against women are a continuing source of concern . UNAMI recorded the deaths in suspicious circumstances of CARDINAL women DATE in GPE . Police informed UNAMI that CARDINAL of the deaths were listed as suicides and CARDINAL as murders carried out by unknown persons , while the causes of death of the other QUANTITY women were unconfirmed but regarded as suspicious . ...

There continue to be sporadic reports of children experiencing acts of indiscriminate violence and abductions . ... On DATE , in GPE , criminal gangs abducted a DATE girl who was later released after a ransom was paid . On DATE , a CARDINAL-year - old boy was abducted in GPE ; his fate remains unknown .

During the reporting period , a number of public demonstrations were held , most of them peaceful . ...

PERSON , operational and logistical issues

During the reporting period , ORG continued to operate in a challenging security environment . On DATE , a car bomb targeted the NORP police headquarters in GPE , killing CARDINAL policemen . In another incident on DATE , a complex attack on ORG left CARDINAL people dead and CARDINAL injured , including NORP police and civil defence members . This particular attack is believed to have been in response to the recent successful efforts by NORP security forces to locate weapons caches and key personnel wanted for terrorist attacks . ...

DATE . During the reporting period , ORG has been working on the transition of security support from ORG to the NORP security forces . On DATE , ORG requested that ORG of ORG , in coordination with ORG and ORG , support UNAMI protection requirements .

During the reporting period , ORG also took steps to put in place the necessary logistical arrangements to substitute the support of ORG . ORG is also continuing preparations to ensure that it is able to sustain its presence in GPE and GPE .

With support from ORG standing police capacity , a start - up team of CARDINAL UNAMI police liaison personnel have been deployed to GPE , GPE and GPE to engage and coordinate ORG operations with ORG and NORP police .

IV . Observations

Although the status of GPE and other disputed internal territories remain divisive issues , I am encouraged by recent efforts by key NORP stakeholders to find common ground . Through the standing consultative mechanism under ORG auspices , political leaders , members of parliament and local representatives of GPE have engaged in a dialogue on critical issues that will affect the future of GPE and other disputed areas , including future security arrangements . I encourage ORG and ORG to continue to use this important forum to find mutually acceptable solutions that ultimately serve the interests of national reconciliation and long - term stability . ORG stands ready to assist in this process upon the request of the Government . ”


The applicants , whose names appear in the appendix , are siblings . They are NORP nationals . The respondent Government were represented by Mr P. Kresák , their Agent .

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

On DATE the applicants lodged an action for restitution of property under LAW of DATE with the Bratislava - vidiek ORG súd ) . They relied on Sections CARDINAL § CARDINAL and CARDINAL § CARDINAL of this LAW and claimed that real property which formed a part of their late GPE estate and which was in the possession of CARDINAL individuals should be restored to them .

On DATE the ORG delivered a copy of the action to the defendants .

On DATE the applicants authorised an advocate to represent them in the proceedings .

On DATE the applicants filed a motion to ORG to secure evidence by hearing CARDINAL witnesses . They drew the court ’s attention to the fact that the CARDINAL witnesses were aged and in a poor state of health which did not permit them to appear in court . At the same time , they informed the court of the appointment of their lawyer and submitted additional documentary evidence .

On DATE the defendants requested an extension of the timelimit for filing their observations in reply to the action .

On DATE the defendants authorised a lawyer to represent them in the proceedings and , on CARDINAL DATE , they submitted their observations .

By a letter of CARDINAL DATE the defendants requested that a hearing scheduled for DATE be adjourned as their lawyer was unable to attend on that date .

On DATE the applicants’ lawyer requested that a hearing scheduled for DATE be adjourned at least until DATE due to health problems of CARDINAL of the applicants .

In consequence of a certificate issued by a doctor on DATE , the participation of CARDINAL of the defendants in the lawsuit was judged inappropriate as it could bring about deterioration in her health .

On CARDINAL DATE ORG held a hearing . CARDINAL applicants and CARDINAL defendant were not present . Their lawyers however excused their absence and took part in the hearing . The GPE lawyer proposed that , having regard to the medical condition of his absent client , it might be appropriate to hear her at her home .

On DATE CARDINAL of the applicants requested that ORG hear CARDINAL witnesses . She pointed out that CARDINAL of the witnesses were aged and were in poor health .

On DATE ORG held the second hearing . CARDINAL applicant and CARDINAL defendant were not present but they excused their absence through their lawyers who took part in the hearing .

On DATE ORG held the third hearing . CARDINAL applicants were not present but their lawyer , who was present , apologised for their absence .

At an unspecified time the legal representative of the applicants requested that ORG hear no witnesses before DATE .

On DATE the legal representative of the defendants requested that ORG hear witnesses only after DATE .

ORG , acting through another judge ( the second judge ) , had to adjourn the hearing scheduled for DATE as none of the invited witnesses appeared , CARDINAL of them having died in the meantime and CARDINAL being seriously ill .

On DATE and on DATE the applicants amended their action and submitted supplementary evidence in support of it .

On DATE the defendants submitted their observations in reply to the amended action .

On DATE the applicants complained about delays in the proceedings to the President of ORG . On DATE they sent a similar complaint to the Minister of ORG .

On DATE the President of ORG informed the applicants that the judge dealing with the case had a heavy workload and that there was a shortage of judges at that court . He further informed them that the progress of case would be under supervision in order to avoid further delays .

In DATE and DATE the applicants requested that ORG promptly hear PERSON , another witness . They pointed out that PERSON was elderly and in a poor state of health which prevented him from appearing in court . On DATE a trainee judge ( právna čakateľka ) of the ORG heard S. at his home . The witness maintained that he could only take part in a court hearing after the completion of medical treatment that was to commence on DATE . No party to the proceedings took part in that hearing . On DATE ORG sent a copy of the record of the hearing to the parties .

On DATE the defendants challenged the truthfulness of the testimony of S. and requested that he be reheard in a courtroom .

At DATE , the case was assigned to another judge ( the third judge ) in accordance with the general DATE reallocation of cases for the judicial DATE .

On DATE ORG held the fourth hearing . CARDINAL applicants and CARDINAL defendant did not appear . Their representatives took part in the hearing and excused them .

On DATE the applicants requested that ORG hear several witnesses . They drew the court ’s attention to the fact that the witnesses were aged and that several witnesses whom they had previously proposed to hear had died .

On DATE ORG held the fifth hearing .

On DATE the applicants requested that ORG hear CARDINAL of the defendants .

On DATE ORG scheduled that defendant ’s hearing for DATE . However , the hearing could not take place and had to be postponed as , by that time , the postal service had not provided a report showing that the invitations had been served on the parties in time . The hearing took place at the defendant ’s home on DATE .

On DATE CARDINAL of the applicants requested ORG not to schedule a hearing before DATE as she would be on a business trip until DATE .

The hearing called for DATE was adjourned and ORG ordered the applicants to submit further documentary evidence . The applicants complied on DATE .

On DATE a ORG Judge heard another witness .

In a submission of CARDINAL DATE the applicants restated their action in that they sought a judicial ruling declaring them to be the owners of the property in question .

On DATE the defendants submitted their observations in reply to the restated action .

At the sixth hearing held before FAC on DATE , the applicants , through their lawyer , confirmed that they wished to modify the original subjectmatter of their action . They undertook to submit a newly reformulated version of their action within DATE .

On DATE the applicants submitted the amended action in which they sought a judicial ruling declaring void a donation agreement and ordering the defendants to restore the real property in issue to them .

On DATE the defendants filed their observations in reply to the redrafted action .

At the seventh hearing held on DATE ORG decided not to grant the applicants leave to change the subjectmatter of their action .

On DATE the applicants filed their final submission .

On DATE , following the eighth hearing , ORG dismissed the action . It found , inter alia , that the applicants had failed to prove that their legal predecessors had formally owned the property in question . It further found that it had not been established that the ORG had taken over the property and that the defendants had acquired the property from the ORG contrary to the rules then in force which were the prerequisites for granting the claim . The decision was served on the legal representatives of the parties on DATE .

On DATE the applicants appealed . They argued inter alia that their title to the property was based on hereditary succession and that , in the past , the ORG has actually prevented them from using the property at issue .

On DATE the defendants filed their comments on the appeal .

On DATE , following a hearing , ORG upheld the first instance judgment . It found that the evidence available indicated that the property in question had never been formally transferred to the ORG . The fact that the ORG had actually disposed of the property had no bearing on this conclusion . The defendants had acquired the property by succession and by donation inter vivos within their family . ORG therefore concluded that the requirements for the restitution of the property were not met .

On DATE the applicants filed an appeal on points of law to ORG . The latter declared it inadmissible on DATE having found no shortcomings in the proceedings which would justify quashing ORG judgment .


Ján Šikuta;Lech Garlicki;Mihai Poalelungi;Nebojša Vučinić;Nicolas Bratza;Vincent A. De Gaetano

The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a NORP national who was born in DATE and is currently serving his sentence in ORG . He was represented before the ORG by PERSON - GPE , a lawyer practising in PERSON . ORG ( “ the Government ” ) were represented by their Agent , Mr PERSON of ORG .

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

The applicant has been detained in ORG continuously since DATE .

The applicant submitted that on an unspecified date he had been detained together with CARDINAL other prisoners in a cell which measured CARDINAL m² . The cell in question was not ventilated and the furniture inside was shabby . The cell was overcrowded to the point that the applicant had to lie in his bed almost all day . He had TIME of outdoor exercise per day and a shower once a week . The applicant also maintained that the quality of food served in prison was very bad , the bed linen was washed only infrequently and water cuts occurred frequently .

In his recent letters to the ORG , the applicant made general statements that living conditions and medical care in ORG were bad . He claimed that his cell was overcrowded and that he had no choice but to lie in bed all day long .

The Government furnished the ORG with a detailed record of the applicant ’s detention in ORG . They submitted that the space per person in the applicant ’s cells ranged from CARDINAL to CARDINAL.CARDINAL m² over a total period of DATE , whereas for the remaining time , the applicant had CARDINAL m² of space . More recently , the Government submitted that on an unspecified date , presumably in DATE , the applicant had been placed in a cell in which the statutory minimum standard of CARDINAL m² per person was respected .

DATE the applicant lodged several complaints with the penitentiary authorities regarding various aspects of his detention . He did not complain to the penitentiary authorities in connection with the living conditions as regards the more recent period of his detention in ORG . The applicant did not bring a civil action in tort to seek compensation for the infringement of his personal rights .


The applicant is a NORP national , born in DATE , and resides in GPE .

summarised as follows .

On DATE , an article appeared in the NORP regional newspaper " PERSON " concerning a protest action against the planned housing of asylum seekers from GPE in an empty school building in GPE . In response to this article the local ORG ( Anti Discriminatie Raad ) sent a letter to this newspaper in which it criticised the apparently underlying motives for the protest action , i.e. intolerance and discrimination .

In reaction to this letter , the applicant addressed a letter to ORG which read , inter alia :

< Translation >

" A privileged top with slaves at the bottom . And , which includes your group , with an absolute control apparatus to take judicial proceedings against anyone who does not remain in line . The name ORG is not unfitting for you ... "

On DATE , ORG filed a criminal complaint against the applicant for insult and criminal proceedings were subsequently instituted against the applicant .

By judgment of DATE , the Magistrate ( politierechter ) of ORG ( Arrondissementsrechtbank ) of PERSON convicted the applicant of having insulted ORG and imposed a fine of ORG . CARDINAL . The applicant filed an appeal with ORG ( Gerechtshof ) of GPE .

On DATE , the applicant noticed his conviction being discussed in a local television programme . He contacted the television station , went there and gave an interview , which was broadcast on DATE . In this interview , the applicant in fact repeated the statements , which had formed the basis of his conviction of DATE . He stated , inter alia :

< Translation >

" The Anti - Discrimination Council Dordrecht , for instance , makes door - to - door visits and makes people afraid , at registering for elections threats follow , I have experienced myself in my house that the SA troops , I say it again on purpose , were standing in front of my house , masked , armed , carrying weapons , I was arrested , the police did nothing about these persons and it is a system which belongs to it , not all members of the ORG ( former ORG ) , not a single one I think , have killed NORP in the last World War , but they belonged to a system which enabled it and this is how I see ORG PERSON , very clearly ... if CARDINAL wishes to fight NORP with NORP - symptoms uh , methods , that has been often enough in the newspaper , they act in the same manner and also use that name ... "

On DATE ORG filed a criminal complaint with the police in relation to this interview and the applicant was subsequently charged with slander .

On DATE , the Magistrate of ORG of GPE convicted the applicant of slander and sentenced him to DATE imprisonment , suspended pending a probation period of DATE , and payment of a fine of ORG . CARDINAL , to be replaced by DATE imprisonment in case of non - payment . The applicant filed an appeal with ORG .

In its judgment of DATE , ORG noted that ORG aim was to fight racism and fascism . After having examined the case , it quashed the judgment of DATE , convicted the applicant of insult and imposed a fine of ORG . CARDINAL , to be replaced by DATE imprisonment in case of non - payment . This sentence was suspended pending a probation period of DATE .

In a separate judgment of DATE , ORG quashed the judgment of DATE , convicted the applicant of slander and imposed a fine of ORG . CARDINAL , to be replaced by DATE imprisonment in case of non - payment .

The applicant 's subsequent appeals in cassation were both rejected by ORG ( PERSON ) on DATE . As regards the applicant 's complaint in both appeals that ORG had violated his rights under LAW , ORG held that ORG , by finding the applicant guilty of , respectively , insult within the meaning of Article CARDINAL of LAW ( GPE ) and slander within the meaning of LAW , had not acted contrary to LAW as paragraph CARDINAL of this provision allows sanctions foreseen by law and insofar as this is necessary in a NORP society for the protection of the reputation or rights of others . ORG further held that , as no explicit complaint relating to the right to freedom of expression had been raised before the trial courts in the respective proceedings , ORG was not obliged to give any explicit reasons in this respect .


The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in GPE . He was represented before the Court by Mr E. Cinmen , a lawyer practising in GPE . ORG ( “ the Government ” ) did not designate an Agent for the purposes of the proceedings before the ORG .

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

On DATE the applicant and PERSON were arrested and taken to ORG in GPE on suspicion of embezzlement . During his police custody , the applicant was allegedly subjected to illtreatment .

On DATE the applicant was examined by a medical expert , PERSON , at the FAC branch of ORG . The medical expert noted that there was no sign of ill - treatment on the applicant 's body .

The applicant was released on DATE . Without submitting any medical reports , the applicant states that , following his release , he went to ORG .

On DATE the applicant filed a petition with the ORG public prosecutor 's office , stating that he had been subjected to ill - treatment during his police custody at ORG , and requested to be referred to ORG for an examination . In his petition , he maintained that he had been subjected to falaka ( beating of the soles of the feet ) , that he had been hung from his arms , and that electric shocks had been administered to his body through his right toe , feet and his sexual organ . The applicant further maintained that he had also been forced to jump up and down and clean the floors in FAC .

On DATE , ORG sent the applicant to the FAC branch of ORG . The applicant was examined once again by PERSON , who noted the following :

“ ... A CARDINAL x QUANTITY old scabbed wound on the proximal phalanx of the right toe , a QUANTITY old scabbed wound on the inner side of the malleolus on the left foot , DATE CARDINAL x QUANTITY hyperaemia on the right armpit and an old QUANTITY hyperaemia on the left armpit were observed . ”

The doctor concluded that the applicant was unfit for work for DATE .

Again on DATE , the applicant applied to the GPE branch of ORG of GPE and he was examined by another doctor . The applicant maintained before the doctor that he had been beaten , subjected to falaka , hung from his arms and that electric shocks had been administered to his body through his right toe , feet and his sexual organs . He further stated that his testicles had been squeezed and a truncheon or an unknown object had been inserted into his anus . Subsequently , he alleged that he had been forced to jump up and down . According to the doctor 's report , the applicant was anxious . In his report , the doctor noted the following : a scabbed skin lesion of QUANTITY in diameter on the proximal phalanx of the right toe , a CARDINAL x QUANTITY hyperaemic skin lesion on the left shoulder , a purple coloured CARDINAL x QUANTITY ecchymosed skin lesion on the left armpit , CARDINAL parallel ecchymosed skin lesions of CARDINAL x QUANTITY and QUANTITY on the right armpit , a hyperaemic skin lesion of QUANTITY in diameter on the left ankle , an oedema under the left foot , a dark coloured hyperaemia on the metatarsal bone and a QUANTITY purple coloured ecchymosed skin lesion under the right foot .

Following further examinations , the medical expert concluded that the applicant suffered from plexopathy ( nerve damage ) in his left arm , anal fissure and anxiety .

On DATE the applicant gave a statement before the GPE public prosecutor . He alleged that during his custody he had been stripped naked , blindfolded , and subjected to falaka . He also stated that he had been hung from his arms and electric shocks had been administrated on his body . The applicant further maintained that he had not been examined by a doctor on DATE and that he had not filed a complaint on DATE as the police officers had threatened him . He explained that he had gone to ORG following his release from custody . He finally maintained that he would not be able to identify the officers who had tortured him as he had been blindfolded during the administration of ill - treatment .

On DATE the GPE public prosecutor took statements from GPE and GPE , who had taken the applicant 's statement on DATE . The police officers denied that they had ill - treated the applicant .

On DATE the GPE public prosecutor filed an indictment with ORG against GPE and ORG The charges were brought under LAW and the police officers were accused of having ill - treated the applicant .

On DATE ORG held the first hearing . The applicant joined the proceedings as a civil party ( müdahil ) and reiterated his statements that he had made before the public prosecutor . The court also heard the accused police officers , who once again denied the charges against them .

On DATE ORG held the second hearing in the case and heard the applicant 's father and PERSON as witnesses . The applicant 's father maintained that after his son was released from custody he had marks on his body which indicated that he had been severely beaten . PERSON also contended that , when he had seen the applicant after his interrogation at ORG , he had injuries on his body which indicated that he had been beaten .

During the hearing , the public prosecutor requested that an expert report be obtained from ORG in order to eliminate the discrepancy between the reports of CARDINAL and DATE . His request was dismissed by the first - instance court .

On DATE , ORG acquitted the accused police officers , finding that there was insufficient evidence to convict them .

On DATE ORG quashed the judgment of the first - instance court , holding that the latter should have heard the medical expert , PERSON , as a witness in order to eliminate the inconsistency between the CARDINAL medical reports that he had drafted .

On DATE ORG issued a summons requiring PERSON to give evidence on DATE .

On DATE PERSON attended at the court and informed it that she would not be in GPE on DATE . The first - instance court proceeded to hear her in the absence of the applicant and his representative . Before the court , the doctor maintained , inter alia , that there was no inconsistency between the CARDINAL reports and that the applicant 's injuries were sustained after his release on DATE .

In the next hearing held on DATE , the statement of Dr PERSON was read out to the applicant 's representative and he was requested to submit his replies . The applicant 's lawyer stated that he objected to the statement of the doctor and requested time to prepare his written submissions .

On an unspecified date , the applicant submitted to the first - instance court an expert report dated DATE , drawn up by CARDINAL forensic medicine experts from ORG . The doctors opined that the report of DATE was inadequate and concluded that the applicant might have sustained the injuries DATE prior to CARDINAL DATE .

On DATE ORG requested ORG to submit its opinion as to the date on which the applicant had possibly sustained the injuries in question .

On DATE CARDINAL experts from ORG submitted that it was not possible to identify the exact timing of the injuries on the applicant 's right toe and on his left foot ; however , it was stated that they might have occurred DATE . As regards the hyperaemic skin lesions described in the report of DATE , the experts opined that as such lesions would disappear within TIME ; it was not medically possible that they had been sustained before DATE . Furthermore , referring to the injuries to the applicant 's armpit , the doctors concluded that it was not possible to assess when they had occurred .

On DATE , having regard to the witness statements and the medical reports , ORG acquitted the accused police officers . It held , inter alia , that in view of the report of ORG , it was not possible to determine when the applicant had sustained the injuries in question and that there was therefore insufficient evidence to conclude that GPE and ORG had actually committed the offence that they were charged with .

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


The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

In DATE the applicant , at the material time an employee of ORG ( the “ Institute ” ; PERSON гідрофізичний інститут Національної ORG ) , provided services of a typist and a linen - keeper on board the ORG 's ship , which was chartered by the private company “ ORG ” ( the “ Company ” ; Мале приватне підприємство “ Сата ” ) for international sea voyages . Pursuant the contract between ORG , the latter was responsible for the payment of trip allowances ( іноземна валюта взамін добових ) to the crew .

On DATE the applicant instituted civil proceedings in the NORP ORG of Sevastopil ( the “ ORG ” ; ORG районний суд PERSON ) against the Institute , seeking salary and trip allowance arrears in the amounts of CARDINAL NORP hryvnyas ( ORG ) and MONEY ( ORG ) respectively . The ORG was summoned to participate in the proceedings on the defendant 's side .

On DATE ORG , having heard the case in the ORG 's absence , allowed the applicant 's claims in full , having awarded her the salary arrears from the ORG and the trip allowance arrears from the Company . This decision became final .

On DATE the Presidium of ORG ( the “ ORG ” ; Севастопольський міський суд ) , following a “ protest ” lodged by its President , quashed the judgment of DATE in respect of the trip allowance award by way of supervisory review procedure and remitted the case for a fresh consideration in that respect . Particularly , the ORG found that ORG had insufficiently explored the contractual relationship between the parties and their payment obligations towards the applicant in the light of the applicable law .

On DATE ORG , having held one hearing for which only the applicant appeared , ordered the ORG , as her employer , to pay her the full amount claimed . The Company had not been summoned to participate in the proceedings .

On DATE ORG quashed this judgment on the ORG 's appeal in cassation and remitted the case for a fresh consideration . It found that ORG again had insufficiently explored the contractual relationship between the parties and that it should have summoned the Company to participate in the proceedings . The court further considered that it was not necessary for it to assume first - instance jurisdiction over the case , as the matter was not complex .

On DATE ORG returned the case - file to ORG . ORG summoned the Company to participate in the proceedings as a co - defendant and DATE scheduled CARDINAL hearings , CARDINAL of them being adjourned on account of a co - defendant 's absence .

On DATE the ORG heard the case in the ORG 's absence and found the Company liable to pay the applicant ORG CARDINAL in trip allowance arrears converted into the national currency . In its reasoning the court referred to the provisions of the freight contract and partial payments made by the Company to this end . The Company appealed , but its appeal was returned as “ not lodged ” on account of its failures to comply with procedural formalities . The judgment became final .

On an unspecified date the Company paid the applicant ORG CARDINAL of the award due .

On DATE ORG quashed the judgment of CARDINAL DATE by way of supervisory review procedure , following a “ protest ” lodged by its President , and remitted the case for a fresh consideration to ORG . In particular , the ORG noted that ORG had not given due regard to the fact that the applicable law allowed the applicant to claim trip allowance from either her employer or the ship charterer , irrespective of the fact that the freight contract vested the payment obligation in the latter .

DATE the court held QUANTITY hearings , CARDINAL of them adjourned on account of the applicant 's absence . On DATE ORG , having heard the testimonies of the parties and the ship captain , dismissed the applicant 's claims . In particular , it found that the documentary evidence necessary to establish the existence and amount of the debt was not in accordance with applicable accounting rules and therefore insufficient .

On DATE ORG found that the applicant 's appeal against the judgment of DATE did not comply with the requirements of procedural law and gave her a time - limit to rectify its shortcomings . On DATE ORG found that the applicant had insufficiently followed its instructions and returned the appeal to the applicant as “ not lodged ” . On DATE ORG upheld this decision on the applicant 's appeal .

On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal in cassation against the decisions to return her appeal against the judgment of DATE as “ not lodged ” . On DATE ORG rejected the applicant 's request for leave to appeal in cassation .