Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Life) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2 - Positive obligations;Article 2-1 - Life) (Procedural aspect);Pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)

The applicant , who is a NORP national , was born in DATE and is now living in GPE ( GPE , GPE ) . At the material time he and the CARDINAL members of his family were living in DATE ( gecekondu mahallesi ) of PERSON in GPE ( GPE ) .

Since DATE a household - refuse tip had been in operation in PERSON , a slum area adjoining PERSON . On DATE an easement had been created de facto over the site in question , which belonged to ORG ( and therefore to the ORG ) , in favour of ORG ( “ the city council ” ) for a term of DATE . Situated on a slope overlooking a valley , the site spread out over a surface area of QUANTITY and was used as a rubbish tip by the districts of ORG , Kadıköy and PERSON under the authority and responsibility of the city council and , ultimately , the ministerial authorities .

When the rubbish tip started being used , the area was uninhabited and the closest built - up area was QUANTITY away . However , DATE passed , rudimentary dwellings were illegally built in the zone surrounding the rubbish tip , which ultimately developed into the slums of LOC .

Following the local elections of CARDINAL DATE and from DATE ORG began dumping heaps of earth and rubbish onto the land surrounding the LOC slums in order to redevelop the site of the rubbish tip .

However , on DATE GPE and GPE – CARDINAL inhabitants of the LOC area DATE brought proceedings against the district council in ORG to establish title to land . They complained of damage to their plantations and requested the works to be halted . In support of their request , they produced documents showing that GPE and GPE had been liable for council tax and property tax since DATE under tax no . DATE . In DATE the authorities had asked them to fill in a standard form for the declaration of illegal buildings so that their title to the property and land could be validated ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . Following their request , on DATE , the city council water and mains authority had ordered a water meter to be installed in their house . Furthermore , copies of electricity bills show that GPE and GPE , as consumers , regularly paid for the water they had used on the basis of the readings taken from QUANTITY installed for that purpose .

In ORG the defendant district council based its defence on the fact that the land claimed by GPE and GPE was situated on the waste - collection site ; that residence there was contrary to the health regulations ; and that their application for validation of their title to the property conferred no rights on them .

In a judgment delivered on CARDINAL DATE under case no . DATE , ORG found for GPE and GPE , holding that there had been interference with the exercise of their right over the land in question .

However , ORG set the judgment aside on DATE . On CARDINAL DATE ORG followed ORG judgment and dismissed PERSON and GPE 's claims .

NORP On DATE ORG applied to ORG of ORG for experts to be instructed to determine whether the rubbish tip complied with the relevant regulations , in particular Regulation no . CARDINAL of DATE on solid - waste control . A committee was set up for that purpose , composed of a professor of environmental engineering , a land - registry official and a forensic doctor .

According to their report , drawn up on DATE , the rubbish tip in question did not conform to the technical requirements set forth in Articles DATE , CARDINAL and CARDINAL of Regulation no . DATE and , accordingly , presented a certain number of dangers liable to give rise to a major health risk for the inhabitants of the valley , particularly those living in the slum areas : no wall or fencing separated the tip from the dwellings situated QUANTITY from the mountain of refuse , and the tip was not equipped with collection , composting , recycling or combustion systems ; nor had drainage or drainage - water purification systems been installed . The experts concluded from this that the LOC tip “ exposed humans and animals and the environment to every form of danger ” . In that connection the report , drawing attention first to the fact that some CARDINAL contagious diseases might spread , underlined the following :

“ ... In any waste - collection site methane , carbon - dioxide and hydrogen - sulphide gases , among others , form . These substances must be collected under supervision and ... burnt . The tip in question is not equipped with such a system , however . If methane is mixed with air in a particular proportion , it can explode . This installation contains no means of preventing an explosion of methane occurring as a result of the decomposition [ of the waste ] . May God preserve us , as the damage could be very substantial given the neighbouring dwellings . ... ”

On DATE the city council was made aware of that report and on DATE the governor was informed of it and asked to brief ORG and the Prime Minister 's ORG ( “ the ORG ” ) .

On DATE PERSON , the mayor of GPE , requested the report to be ruled inadmissible on the ground that it had been ordered and prepared without his knowing about it .

NORP However , ORG , which had been advised of the same report on DATE , made a recommendation ( no . DATE ) urging the GPE ORG , the city council and ORG to remedy the problems identified in the present case :

“ ... The report prepared by the committee of experts indicates that the waste - collection site in question breaches LAW and the Regulation on Solid - Waste Control and consequently poses a health hazard to men and animals . The measures provided for in DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE and CARDINAL of the Regulation on Solid - Waste Control must be implemented at the site of the tip ... I therefore ask for the necessary measures to be implemented ... and for our council to be informed of the outcome . ”

On DATE PERSON , the mayor of PERSON , applied to ORG for the implementation of temporary measures to prevent the city council and the neighbouring district councils from using the waste - collection site . He requested , inter alia , that no further waste be dumped , that the tip be closed and the damage repaired .

On DATE the mayors of GPE and GPE opposed that request . To that end Mr PERSON submitted , in particular , that a plan to redevelop the site of the tip had been put out to tender and would be implemented during DATE .

While those proceedings were still pending before ORG of ORG , ORG informed the mayor of GPE that from DATE no dumping of waste would be authorised .

Prior to that date , however , at TIME on DATE a methane explosion occurred at the site . Following a landslide caused by mounting pressure , the refuse erupted from the mountain of waste and buried some CARDINAL slum dwellings situated below it , including the CARDINAL belonging to the applicant . CARDINAL people died , including CARDINAL members of the PERSON family .

Immediately after the accident CARDINAL members of the municipal police force attempted to establish the facts . After taking evidence from the victims , including the applicant , who explained that he had built his house in DATE , they reported that CARDINAL huts had been engulfed .

On DATE a crisis committee , set up by ORG , also went to the site and found that the landslide had indeed been caused by a methane - gas explosion .

DATE , on DATE , ORG ( “ the Ministry ” ) ordered the circumstances in which the catastrophe had occurred to be examined by the administrative investigation department ( “ the investigation department ” ) in order to determine whether proceedings should be instituted against the CARDINAL mayors , PERSON and PERSON .

While those administrative proceedings were under way , on DATE the ORG public prosecutor ( “ the public prosecutor ” ) went to the scene of the accident , accompanied by a committee of experts composed of CARDINAL civil - engineering professors from CARDINAL different universities . In the light of his preliminary observations , he instructed the committee to determine the share of responsibility for the accident attributable to the public authorities and that attributable to the victims .

On DATE the applicant lodged a complaint with the local police station . He stated that “ if it was the authorities that , through their negligence , caused my house to be engulfed and caused my wives ' and children 's death , I hereby lodge a criminal complaint against the authority or authorities concerned ” . The applicant 's complaint was added to the investigation file ( no . CARDINAL ) which had already been opened by the public prosecutor of his own motion .

On DATE the public prosecutor heard evidence from a number of witnesses and victims of the accident in question . On DATE the committee of experts submitted the report ordered by the public prosecutor . The experts confirmed that the landslide – affecting land which had been unstable as it was DATE could be explained both by the mounting pressure of the gas inside the tip and by the explosion of the tip . Reiterating the obligations and duties on the public authorities under the relevant regulations , the experts concluded that liability for the accident should be attributed as follows :

( i ) CARDINAL/CARDINAL to ORG , which failed to act sufficiently early to prevent the technical problems which already existed when the tip was first created in DATE and had continued to deteriorate since then , or to indicate to the district councils concerned an alternative waste - collection site , as it was obliged to do under PERSON no . FAC ;

( ii ) CARDINAL/CARDINAL to ORG for implementing a development plan for the area while omitting , contrary to Regulation no . DATE , to provide for a QUANTITY - wide buffer zone to remain uninhabited , and for attracting illegal dwellings to the region and taking no steps to prevent them from being built , despite the experts ' report of CARDINAL DATE ;

( iii ) CARDINAL/CARDINAL to the inhabitants of the slum for endangering the members of their families by settling near a mountain of waste ;

( iv ) CARDINAL to ORG for failing to monitor the tip effectively in accordance with Regulation no . DATE on solid - waste control ;

( v ) CARDINAL/CARDINAL to the Government for encouraging the spread of this type of illegal dwelling by granting an amnesty on a number of occasions and property titles to the occupants .

On DATE the public prosecutor declined jurisdiction ratione personae and referred the case to the Governor of GPE , considering that it fell within ORG , the application of which was a matter for the administrative council of the province of GPE ( “ the administrative council ” ) . The public prosecutor stated , in his order , that in respect of ORG and ORG , the applicable provisions were Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL § CARDINAL of LAW .

On DATE , when the investigative department had completed the preliminary inquiry , the public prosecutor 's file was transmitted to the Ministry .

On DATE , having regard to the conclusions of its own inquiry , the investigative department sought authorisation from the Ministry to commence a criminal investigation in respect of the CARDINAL mayors implicated in the case .

DATE after that request was made ORG made the following announcement to the press :

“ The sole waste - collection site on the NORP side stood in the middle of our district of LOC like an object of silent horror . It has broken its silence and caused death . We knew it and were expecting it . As a district council , we had been hammering at all possible doors for DATE to have this waste - collection site removed . We were met with indifference by ORG . It abandoned the decontamination works ... after laying CARDINAL spades of concrete at the inauguration . The ministries and the Government were aware of the facts , but failed to take much notice . We had submitted the matter to the courts and they had found in our favour , but the judicial machinery could not be put into action . ... We are now faced with a responsibility and will all account for this to the inhabitants of GPE ... ”

The authorisation sought by the investigative department was granted on DATE and a chief inspector from ORG ( “ the chief inspector ” ) was accordingly put in charge of the case .

In the light of the investigation file compiled in the present case , the chief inspector took down Mr PERSON and PERSON defence . The latter stated , among other things , that in DATE his district council had begun decontamination works in the LOC , but that these had been suspended at the request of CARDINAL inhabitants of the area ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

ORG The chief inspector finalised his report on DATE . It confirmed the conclusions reached by all the experts instructed hitherto and took account of all the evidence gathered by the public prosecutor . It also mentioned CARDINAL other scientific opinions sent to ORG in DATE , CARDINAL by ORG and the other by a professor of civil engineering at ORG . These CARDINAL opinions confirmed that the fatal landslide had been caused by the methane explosion . The report also indicated that on DATE the inspection department had requested the city council to inform it of the measures actually taken in the light of the expert report of CARDINAL DATE , and it reproduced Mr PERSON 's reply :

“ Our city council has both taken the measures necessary to ensure that the old sites can be used in the least harmful way possible until DATE and completed all the preparatory steps for the construction of CARDINAL of the biggest and most modern installations ... ever undertaken in our country . We are also installing a temporary waste - collection site satisfying the requisite conditions . Alongside that , rehabilitation works are continuing at former sites [ which have run their course ] . In short , over DATE our city council has been studying the problem of waste very seriously ... [ and ] , currently , the works are continuing ... ”

NORP The chief inspector concluded , lastly , that the death of CARDINAL people and the injuries to CARDINAL others ( figures available at the material time ) on DATE had been caused by the CARDINAL mayors ' failure to take appropriate steps in the exercise of their duties and that they should account for their negligence under LAW . In spite of , inter alia , the expert report and the recommendation of ORG , they had knowingly breached their respective duties : Mr PERSON because he had failed to comply with his obligation to order the destruction of the illegal huts situated around the rubbish tip , as he was empowered to do under section CARDINAL of PERSON no . CARDINAL , and PERSON because he had refused to comply with the above - mentioned recommendation , had failed to rehabilitate the rubbish tip or order its closure , and had not complied with any of the provisions of LAW no . CARDINAL , which required him to order the destruction of the slum dwellings in question , if necessary by his own means .

In the meantime , ORG asked the applicant to attend its offices , informing him that , by an order ( no . DATE ) of CARDINAL DATE , the city council had allocated him a flat in the subsidised housing complex of ORG ) . On DATE the applicant signed for possession of flat no . CARDINAL in building C-CARDINAL of that complex . That transaction was officialised by an order ( no . CARDINAL ) of CARDINAL DATE of the city council . On DATE the applicant signed a notarised declaration in lieu of a contract stipulating that the flat in question had been “ sold ” to him for MONEY ( TRL ) , CARDINAL of which was payable immediately and the remainder in DATE instalments of GPE CARDINAL . The applicant paid the first DATE instalment on DATE . Since then he has been living in the flat in question .

In an order of DATE , the administrative council decided , by a majority , on the basis of the chief inspector 's report , to institute proceedings against Mr PERSON and PERSON for breach of LAW .

PERSON and PERSON appealed against that decision to ORG , which dismissed their appeal on DATE . The case file was consequently sent back to the public prosecutor , who , on DATE , committed both mayors for trial in ORG of ORG ( “ the ORG ” ) .

The proceedings began before the ORG on CARDINAL DATE . At the hearing PERSON stated , among other things , that he could not be expected to have complied with duties which were not incumbent on him or be held solely responsible for a situation which had endured since DATE . Nor could he be blamed for not having rehabilitated the PERSON tip when none of the CARDINAL sites in GPE had been rehabilitated ; in that connection , relying on a number of measures which had nonetheless been taken by the city council , he argued that the tip could not have been fully redeveloped as long as waste continued to be dumped on it . Lastly , he submitted : “ the elements of the offence of negligence in the exercise of duties have not been made out because I did not act with the intention of showing myself to be negligent ( sic ) and because no causal link can be established ” between the incident and any negligence on his part .

PERSON submitted that the groups of dwellings which had been buried dated back to before his election on DATE and that since then he had never allowed slum areas to develop . Accusing ORG and Governor 's Office of indifference to the problems , PERSON alleged that responsibility for preventing the construction of illegal dwellings lay with the forestry officials and that , in any event , his district council lacked the staff necessary to undertake the destruction of these huts .

In a judgment of DATE , the ORG found the CARDINAL mayors guilty as charged , considering their defence to be unfounded .

In reaching that conclusion , the judges held as follows :

“ ... although they were aware of the [ experts ' ] report , the CARDINAL defendants took no proper preventive measures . Just as a person who shoots into a crowd should know that people will die and , accordingly , can not then claim to have acted without intending to kill , the defendants can not allege in the present case that they did not intend to neglect their duties . They do not bear the entire responsibility , however . ... They were negligent , as were others . In the instant case the main error consists in building dwellings beneath a refuse tip situated on a hillside and it is the inhabitants of these slum dwellings who are responsible . They should have had regard to the risk that the mountain of rubbish would CARDINAL day collapse on their heads and that they would suffer damage . They should not have built dwellings QUANTITY from the tip . They have paid for that lack of foresight with their lives ... ”

The ORG sentenced Mr PERSON and PERSON to the minimum prison sentence provided for in LAW , namely DATE , and to fines of GPE CARDINAL . Under section CARDINAL ) of PERSON no . CARDINAL , the ORG commuted the prison sentences to fines , so the penalties ultimately imposed were fines of ORG CARDINAL . Satisfied that the defendants would not reoffend , the ORG also decided to suspend enforcement of the penalties in accordance with section CARDINAL of the same PERSON .

Both mayors appealed on points of law . They submitted , inter alia , that the ORG had exceeded the scope of LAW in assessing the facts , and had treated the case as one of unintentional homicide within the meaning of LAW .

In a judgment of DATE ORG upheld the ORG 's judgment .

The applicant has apparently never been informed of those proceedings or given evidence to any of the administrative bodies of investigation or the criminal courts ; nor does any court decision appear to have been served on him .

On DATE the applicant sued the mayors of GPE and GPE and ORG and the Environment for both pecuniary and non - pecuniary damages . The amount claimed by the applicant was broken down as follows : TRL CARDINAL,CARDINAL,CARDINAL in damages for the loss of his dwelling and household goods ; ORG , CARDINAL , CARDINAL in compensation for the loss of financial support incurred by himself and his CARDINAL surviving sons , PERSON , ORG and ORG respectively ; and TRL CARDINAL in non - pecuniary damages for himself and TRL CARDINAL for each of his CARDINAL sons .

In letters of DATE and DATE respectively , the mayor of PERSON and the Minister for the Environment rejected the applicant 's claims . The other authorities did not reply .

The applicant then sued the CARDINAL authorities for damages in his own name and on behalf of his CARDINAL children in ORG ( “ the court ” ) . He complained that their negligent omissions had resulted in the death of his relatives and the destruction of his house and household goods , and claimed the aforementioned amounts again .

On DATE the applicant was granted legal aid .

The court gave judgment on DATE . Basing its decision on the experts ' report of CARDINAL DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , it found a direct causal link between the accident of DATE and the contributory negligence of the CARDINAL authorities in question . Accordingly , it ordered them to pay the applicant and his children GPE CARDINAL in non - pecuniary damages and TRL CARDINAL in pecuniary damages ( at the material time those sums amounted to CARDINAL and CARDINAL respectively ) .

The latter amount , determined on an equitable basis , was limited to the destruction of household goods , save the domestic electrical appliances , which the applicant was not supposed to own . On that point the court appears to have confined its assessment to the authorities ' submissions that “ these dwellings had neither water nor electricity ” . The court dismissed the remainder of the claim ; in its view , the applicant could not claim to have been deprived of financial support because he had been partly responsible for the damage incurred and the victims had been young children or housewives who had not been in paid employment such as to contribute to the family 's living expenses . The court held that it also ill befitted the applicant to claim compensation for the destruction of his slum dwelling given that , following the accident , he had been allocated a subsidised flat and that , even if ORG had not exercised its power to destroy the dwelling , nothing could have prevented it from doing so at any time .

The court decided , lastly , not to apply default interest to the damages awarded for non - pecuniary damage .

NORP The parties appealed against that judgment to ORG , which dismissed their appeal in a judgment of CARDINAL DATE .

An application for rectification of the judgment , lodged by ORG , was not successful either , whereupon the judgment became final and was served on the applicant on DATE .

The damages in question have still not been paid to date .

The PERSON tip no longer exists DATE . The local council had it covered with earth and installed air ducts on it . Furthermore , land - use plans are currently being prepared for the areas of PERSON and PERSON . The city council has planted trees on a large area of the former site of the tip and has had sports grounds laid . CARDINAL monuments have also been erected there in memory of the victims of the accident of CARDINAL DATE .

The relevant provisions of LAW read as follows :

“ Any agent of the ORG who , in the exercise of his public duties ... acts negligently and delays or who , for no valid reason , refuses to comply with the lawful orders ... of his superiors shall be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of DATE and to a fine of CARDINAL and MONEY . ...

In every ... case , if third parties have suffered any damage on account of the negligence or delay by the civil servant in question , the latter shall also be required to compensate for such damage . ”

“ Anyone who , through carelessness , negligence or inexperience in his profession or craft , or through non - compliance with laws , orders or instructions , causes the death of another shall be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of DATE and to a fine of CARDINAL .

If the act has caused the death of CARDINAL person or has been the cause of the death of CARDINAL person and the injuries of CARDINAL or more others ... the perpetrator shall be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of CARDINAL and to a heavy fine of a minimum of MONEY . ”

“ The judge has full discretion to determine the principal sentence , which can vary between a minimum and maximum , taking account of factors such as the circumstances in which the offence was committed , the means used to commit it , the importance and seriousness of the offence , the time and place at which it was committed , the various special features of the offence , the seriousness of the damage caused and the risk [ incurred ] , the degree of [ criminal ] intent ... the reasons and motives for the offence , the aim , the criminal record , the personal and social status of the perpetrator and his conduct following the act [ committed ] . Even where the minimum penalty is imposed , the reasons for the choice of sentence must be mentioned in the judgment . ”

“ If the court considers that , other than the statutory mitigating circumstances , there are other circumstances favourable to reducing the penalty [ imposed ] on the perpetrator , capital punishment shall be commuted to life imprisonment and life imprisonment to a term of imprisonment of DATE .

Other penalties shall be reduced by a maximum of CARDINAL . ”

Sections CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) and ( CARDINAL ) of PERSON no . CARDINAL on the Execution of Sentences read as follows :

“ Apart from imprisonment , short custodial sentences may , having regard to the personality and state of the defendant and to the circumstances in which the offence was committed , be commuted by the court :

( CARDINAL ) to a heavy fine ... of MONEY per day ; ... ”

“ Anyone who has never been sentenced ... to a penalty other than a fine and is sentenced to ... a fine ... and/or a [ maximum ] term of DATE imprisonment may have his sentence suspended if the court is satisfied that [ the offender ] , having regard to his criminal record and criminal tendencies , will not reoffend if his sentence is thus suspended ... ”

Under LAW a public prosecutor who – in any way whatsoever – is informed of a situation which gives rise to a suspicion that an offence has been committed must investigate the facts with a view to deciding whether or not criminal proceedings should be brought ( LAW ) . However , if the suspected offender is a civil servant and if the offence was committed during the performance of his duties , the preliminary investigation of the case is governed by LAW of DATE , which restricts the public prosecutor 's jurisdiction ratione personae with regard to that stage of the proceedings . In such cases it is for the relevant local administrative council ( for the district or province , depending on the suspect 's status ) to conduct the preliminary investigation and , consequently , decide whether to prosecute .

An appeal to ORG lies against a decision of the council . If a decision not to prosecute is taken , the case is automatically referred to that court .

With regard to civil and administrative liability arising out of criminal offences , section CARDINAL of Law no . CARDINAL on administrative procedure provides that anyone who has suffered damage as a result of an act committed by the administrative authorities may claim compensation from the authorities within DATE of the alleged act . If this claim is rejected in whole or in part or if no reply is received within DATE , the victim may bring administrative proceedings .

With regard to the status and organisation of the administrative courts , the status of the court judges and the organisation of the courts are governed by PERSON no . CARDINAL of DATE on the powers and constitution of the administrative courts and by PERSON no . CARDINAL on ORG . Under these Laws , it is in theory the law faculties which recruit judges to the administrative - court benches . Civil servants who are not trained lawyers but have graduated from a law faculty can be recruited on the basis of relevant experience .

Under LAW all administrative judges enjoy , while in service , constitutional safeguards identical to those of civilian judges ( LAW ) ; they may not be removed from office or made to retire early without their consent ( LAW ) ; they sit as individuals ( LAW ) ; and their independence is enshrined in LAW , which prohibits any public authority from giving them instructions concerning their judicial activities or influencing them in the performance of their duties ( LAW ) .

Under LAW , anyone who suffers damage as a result of an illegal act , be it a crime or a tort , may bring an action for damages for pecuniary loss ( Articles CARDINAL - CARDINAL ) and non - pecuniary loss ( Article CARDINAL ) . The civil courts are not bound by either the findings or the verdict of the criminal courts as to a defendant 's guilt ( Article CARDINAL ) .

However , under LAW no . CARDINAL on ORG employees , anyone who has sustained loss as a result of an act done in the performance of duties governed by public law may , in theory , only bring an action against the public authority by whom the civil servant concerned is employed and not directly against the civil servant ( see LAW ) . That is not , however , an absolute rule . Where an act is found to be tortious or criminal and , consequently , is no longer an “ administrative ” act or deed , the civil courts may allow a claim for damages to be made against the official concerned , without prejudice to the victim 's right to bring an action against the authority on the basis of its joint liability as the official 's employer ( LAW ) .

Article CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of the LAW of DATE provides :

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

LAW provides :

“ CARDINAL . Decisions determining appeals on matters of both law and fact and concerning a specific amount shall be enforced ... in accordance with the provisions of the ordinary law . ”

Under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of Law no . DATE on enforcement and bankruptcies , ORG property and property which , according to the appropriate law , is not subject to seizure can not be seized . Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of PERSON no . CARDINAL of DATE on municipalities provides that municipal property can be seized only if it is not being used for a public service .

According to NORP legal theory in this field , the effect of the above provisions is that if the authorities do not themselves comply with a final and enforceable court decision ordering compensation , the interested party can bring enforcement proceedings under the ordinary law . In that event the appropriate authority has power to impose on the administration the measures provided for by PERSON no . CARDINAL , although seizure remains exceptional .

The information and documents in the ORG 's possession show that , since DATE , when inhabitants of underprivileged areas started migrating in their masses to the larger rich provinces , GPE has been confronted with the problem of slums , consisting in most cases of permanent structures to which further floors were soon added . It would appear that currently CARDINAL of the population live in such dwellings . Researchers who have looked into the problem maintain that these built - up areas have not sprung up merely as a result of deficiencies in urban planning or shortcomings on the part of the municipal police . They point to the existence of CARDINAL amnesty laws which have been passed over DATE in order to regularise the slum areas and , they believe , satisfy potential voters living in these dwellings .

Regarding the fight against slum development , the following are the main provisions of NORP law :

Section CARDINAL of Law no . CARDINAL of DATE provides that , after the PERSON enters into force , any illegal building , whether it is in the process of being built or is inhabited , must be immediately destroyed without any prior decision being necessary . Implementation of these measures is the responsibility of the administrative authorities , which may have recourse to the security forces and other means available to the ORG . With regard to dwellings built before the PERSON entered into force , section QUANTITY provides that , under certain conditions , slum inhabitants can purchase the land they occupy and take out low - interest loans in order to finance the construction of buildings which conform to the regulations and urban - development plans . The built - up areas to which the provisions of section CARDINAL apply are declared to be “ slum rehabilitation and clearance zones ” and are treated in accordance with a plan of action .

Under PERSON no . DATE of CARDINAL DATE , amending PERSON no . CARDINAL , illegal constructions built before DATE were also considered to be covered by the above - mentioned section CARDINAL . Law no . CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE concerning buildings which do not conform to the slum and town - planning legislation also provided for measures to be taken for the conservation , regularisation , rehabilitation and destruction of illegal buildings erected prior to that date .

Lastly , PERSON no . DATE was passed on DATE . This PERSON , which is designed to strengthen the NORP economy , lays down the terms and conditions of sale to third parties of real estate belonging to the ORG .

Pursuant to section CARDINAL-E , paragraph ( j ) of PERSON no . CARDINAL and LAW of ORG implementing that PERSON , the city councils have a duty to designate waste sites for the deposit of household and industrial waste and to install or have installed systems for recycling and destroying the waste from such sites . Pursuant to Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL of Regulation no . CARDINAL of DATE on solid - waste control , district councils are responsible for organising the use of waste - collection sites and implementing all measures necessary to prevent rubbish tips from damaging the environment and the health of man and animals . Accordingly , no dwelling can be built at a distance of QUANTITY from a rubbish tip . LAW empowers city councils to issue permits for the operation of district waste - collection sites .

The general information which the ORG has been able to procure as to the risk of a methane explosion at such sites can be summarised as follows : methane ( CHCARDINAL ) and carbon dioxide ( COCARDINAL ) are the CARDINAL main products of methanogenesis , which is the final and longest stage of the anaerobic process . These substances are generated , inter alia , by the biological and chemical decomposition of waste . The risks of explosion and fire are mainly due to the large proportion of methane in the bio - gas . The risk of an explosion occurs when there is PERCENT of CHCARDINAL in the air . Above PERCENT methane will catch fire , but not explode .

Concerning the various texts adopted by ORG in the field of the environment and the industrial activities of the public authorities , mention should be made , among the work of ORG , of ORG CARDINAL ( DATE ) on problems connected with the disposal of urban and industrial waste , Resolution CARDINAL ( DATE ) on the consequences of the GPE disaster , and LAW ( DATE ) on the management , treatment , recycling and marketing of waste and , among the work of ORG , Recommendation R ( CARDINAL ) CARDINAL on the distribution of powers and responsibilities between central authorities and local and regional authorities with regard to the environment .

Mention should also be made of ORG to the Environment ( ETS no . CARDINAL – GPE , DATE ) and ORG no . CARDINAL GPE , CARDINAL DATE ) , which have to date been signed by PERCENT respectively .

It can be seen from these documents that primary responsibility for the treatment of urban waste falls on local authorities , which the ORG are obliged to provide with financial and technical assistance . The operation by the public authorities of a site for the storage of waste is described as a “ dangerous activity ” and a “ death ” resulting from the deposit of waste on a site for the permanent deposit of waste is considered to be “ damage ” incurring the liability of the public authorities ( see , inter alia , ORG , Articles QUANTITY ( c)-(d ) and CARDINAL ( a)-(b ) ) .

In that connection the Strasbourg Convention calls on the Parties to adopt such appropriate measures as may be necessary to establish as criminal offences the unlawful storage of hazardous waste which causes or is likely to cause death or serious injury to any person , specifying that this offence can also be committed with “ negligence ” ( ORG CARDINAL to CARDINAL ) . Article CARDINAL of that Convention requires further that such appropriate measures as may be necessary also be taken to make those offences punishable by criminal sanctions which take into account the serious nature of those offences and include imprisonment of the perpetrators .

With regard to such hazardous activities , public access to clear and full information is deemed to be a basic human right , it being the case that under , inter alia , Resolution CARDINAL ( DATE ) cited above , that right must not be deemed to be limited to the risks associated with the use of nuclear energy in the civil sector .


Violation of P1-1;Violation of Art. 6-1;Non-pecuniary damage - financial award;Costs and expenses partial award - domestic proceedings;Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

M.G. was the owner of a flat in GPE , which he had let to U.A.

In a registered letter of CARDINAL DATE , the owner informed the tenant that he intended to terminate the lease on expiry of the term on DATE and asked him to vacate the LOC by DATE .

In a writ served on the tenant on DATE , the owner reiterated his intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before the LOC Magistrate .

By a decision of CARDINAL DATE , which was made enforceable on DATE , ORG upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the LOC be vacated by DATE .

On DATE , the applicant became the owner of the flat and pursued the enforcement proceedings .

On DATE , the applicant served notice on the tenant requiring him to vacate the premises .

On DATE , the applicant made a statutory declaration that she urgently required the premises as accommodation for herself .

On DATE , she served notice on the tenant informing him that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on DATE .

On DATE , the bailiff made CARDINAL attempt to recover possession , which proved unsuccessful , as the applicant was not granted the assistance of the police in enforcing the order for possession .

Thereafter , the applicant decided to suspend the bailiff 's attempts in order to avoid any additional costs and because she would not be granted the assistance of the police .

In the meanwhile , the tenant died and on DATE , his wife asked the Salerno Magistrate to suspend the enforcement proceedings .

The Salerno Magistrate suspended the enforcement proceedings until CARDINAL DATE .

The tenant 's wife informed the applicant that she would not leave the LOC .

On DATE , the applicant served notice on the tenant 's wife informing her that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on DATE .

On DATE , the bailiff made CARDINAL attempt to recover possession , which proved unsuccessful , but the tenant 's son informed the bailiff that he and his mother would leave the LOC on DATE .

On DATE , the applicant recovered possession of the flat .

Since DATE the public authorities in GPE have frequently intervened in residential tenancy legislation with the aim of controlling rents . This has been achieved by rent freezes ( occasionally relaxed when the Government decreed statutory increases ) , by the statutory extension of all current leases and by the postponement , suspension or staggering of the enforcement of orders for possession . The relevant domestic law concerning the extension of tenancies , the suspension of enforcement and the staggering of evictions is described in the ORG 's judgment in the case of ORG GPE [ ORG ] , no . CARDINAL , § § DATE , ORG CARDINAL-V.

As regards the control of the rents , the evolution of the NORP legislation may be summarised as follows .

The first relevant measure was the PERSON no . CARDINAL of DATE which provided machinery for “ fair rents ” ( the so - called equo canone ) on the basis of a number of criteria such as the surface of the flat and its costs of realisation .

The second step of the NORP authorities dated DATE . It was taken in the view of progressive liberalisation of the market of tenancies . Accordingly , a legislation relaxing on rent levels restrictions ( the so - called patti in deroga ) entered into force . Owners and tenants were in principle given the opportunity to derogate from the rent imposed by law and to agree on a different price .

Lastly , PERSON no . CARDINAL of DATE reformed the tenancies and liberalised the rents .

The tenant is under a general obligation to refund the owner any damages caused in the case of late restitution of the flat . In this regard , Article CARDINAL of the NORP Civil Code provides :

“ The tenant who fails to vacate the immovable property is under an obligation to pay the owner the agreed amount until DATE when he leaves , together with other remaining damages . ”

NORP However , PERSON no . CARDINAL of DATE set out , inter alia , a limit to the compensation claimable by the owner entitling him to a sum equal to the rent paid by the tenant at the time of the expiration of the lease , proportionally increased according to the cost of living ( LAW no . CARDINAL of DATE ) plus PERCENT , along the period of inability to dispose of the possession of the flat .

In the judgment no . CARDINAL of DATE , ORG was called upon to decide whether such a limitation complied with LAW . ORG held that it was compatible with the LAW with regard to periods of time during which the suspension of the evictions was determined by law . ORG explained that the introduction of that limitation was intended to settle the tenancies of the time of the emergency legislation , when the housing shortage made the suspension of the enforcement necessary . While evictions were suspended ex lege , the law predetermined the quantum of the reimbursement chargeable to the tenant , both measures being temporary and exceptional . Besides , the interests of the owner were counterbalanced by the exemption for him from the burden to prove the damages .

ORG declared the limitation to the compensation claimable by the owner unconstitutional with regard to cases where the impossibility for the owner to repossess the flat depended on the conduct of the tenant and was not due to a legislative intervention . Accordingly , it opened the way to owners for the institution of civil proceedings in order to obtain full reparation of the damages caused by the tenant .


The applicant is a NORP citizen born in DATE and currently serving a life sentence in FAC . He is represented by PERSON and PERSON , solicitors practising in GPE . ORG ( “ the Government ” ) were represented by their Agent , Mr PERSON of ORG , GPE .

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

On DATE the applicant was convicted of murder , committed on DATE . He received a mandatory life sentence . The trial judge made no indication as to the length of sentence to be served .

In DATE , ORG of the NORP Executive informed prisoners such as the applicant of proposed changes in the law affecting life prisoners LAW ) PERSON ) .

On DATE , certain provisions of LAW ) ( GPE ) Act DATE ( “ the DATE LAW ) came into force bringing the law governing the release of adult mandatory life prisoners into line with discretionary life prisoners and those convicted of murder under DATE . LAW required the punishment part of life sentences to be fixed by a court and hearings to be held in respect of existing life prisoners .

On DATE , ORG referred the applicant ’s case to ORG of Justiciary for a hearing under paragraph CARDINAL of the Schedule to the CARDINAL Act .

On DATE , the preliminary review committee ( GPE ) indicated , by means of a recommendation to ORG , that he would receive his first formal review by ORG after he had served DATE . While noting the savageness of the offence and numerous misconduct reports , the GPE also took into account his recent improvement in response in prison .

On DATE , the applicant applied for an extension of time to lodge a note of appeal against sentence , claiming that the judge ought to have backdated his sentence to the date when he was fully committed .

On DATE , ORG of Justiciary held a punishment part hearing in respect of the applicant . Lord PERSON ordered that DATE be served before release on licence . At that time it was the opinion of ORG that no account could be taken of circumstances following the conviction of an existing life prisoner , such as good conduct in prison or the existence of a date previously intimated as a date for first formal review of his case by ORG .

The applicant appealed this decision , inter alia , claiming that he had been told in prison that his case would be reviewed from the DATE point .

On DATE and CARDINAL DATE the court granted the applicant an extension of the time - limit for lodging a note of appeal .

On DATE , the applicant lodged his note of appeal .

On DATE the case of PERSON v. HMA DATE JC CARDINAL was decided in ORG of Justiciary . On DATE , the court granted leave to appeal to ORG in that case , which inter alia raised issues as to length of proceedings under LAW where a punishment part hearing was held some time after the original trial proceedings .

On DATE , ORG held a hearing on the applicant ’s sentence . It upheld his appeal and backdated his sentence to DATE .

On DATE , the applicant lodged an extension of time request to lodge a note of appeal against the setting of the punishment part of his sentence on DATE . On DATE , the court granted the extension .

On DATE , the applicant lodged his appeal against the punishment part , with grounds of appeal .

On DATE , the applicant lodged a devolution minute , raising various issues of legislative competence and Convention rights .

In DATE , Lord PERSON issued his report to the appellate court .

On DATE , at first sift , the court refused leave to appeal .

On DATE , at second sift , the court granted leave .

On DATE , ORG delivered judgment in PERSON v. ORG ( CARDINAL PERSON ( PC)CARDINAL and remitted it for decision by ORG , finding that the provisions of the DATE Act were compatible with Convention rights and that events after DATE of the original conviction and sentence could be taken into account in a punishment part hearing of an existing life prisoner . In dismissing the appellants’ Convention complaints , Lord PERSON of PERSON rejected the argument that the appellants’ rights to a fair trial within a reasonable time had been violated due to the opening up of the case and the amendment of sentence DATE . He stated :

“ This is a highly artificial argument since the original proceedings were completed within a reasonable time for the purposes of Article CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) . Since then , in Convention rights’ terms , the appellants’ position has been governed by LAW ) . In any event it is now accepted that in terms of Article CARDINAL ) the determination of the period to be served by the appellants as a punishment should have been made by the judge as part of the trial and not by ORG . The legislation and the punishment part hearings under paragraph CARDINAL are designed to cure this violation . Since the punishment part proceedings themselves have not violated the reasonable time guarantee in Article CARDINAL ) , there is no basis for holding that , overall , that guarantee had been breached in these cases . ”

By letters dated DATE and DATE and DATE , the applicant ’s solicitor wrote to the court inquiring about the hearing date for the appeal .

In DATE , the NORP Executive lodged its report about the applicant ’s conduct in prison and any expectations under previous release arrangements .

By decision of DATE , ORG noted the horrific nature of the crime ( his victim was stabbed CARDINAL times ) and his record in prison of CARDINAL misconduct reports ( including CARDINAL positive drugs tests ) . It concluded that he was not a person appropriately directing himself in relation to arrangements for his release and that there was no basis for making any discount on the CARDINAL-year period .

On DATE , the applicant ’s punishment part of his sentence will expire .


BERIĆ AND OTHERS v. BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA

The applicants , Messrs. PERSON , PERSON , FAC , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , Mirko Delić , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , ORG , ORG , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON and PERSON , are citizens of GPE and GPE . They were represented before the ORG by PERSON and Mr PERSON , law professors at ORG . The respondent Government were represented by ORG , Agent , and by PERSON GPE , Deputy Agent .

DATE and DATE the High Representative removed the applicants from all their public and political - party positions and indefinitely barred them from holding any such positions and from running for election . The decision in each individual case had immediate effect and did not require any further procedural steps . The main reasons given for those decisions are reproduced here :

“ GPE has singularly failed to discharge its international obligation to bring closure to arguably the most lamentable chapter of its history . It has failed especially and egregiously in the territory of ORG to apprehend and deliver to just prosecution a number of persons indicted under LAW of the Statute of the ORG [ that is , ORG for the Former GPE ] .

PERSON failure could not have occurred without the active assistance of individuals and entities , or indeed without the general culture of both overt and secret complicity and of silence prevalent in the CARDINAL Entity of GPE where such individuals are believed to have found sanctuary , that is , [ in the ] PERSON .

Despite its constitutionally mandated duty to fully co - operate with the ICTY – which duty was impressed upon the Republika Srpska further by ORG referenced DATE indicted individuals remain at large within ORG and have been and are presently assisted in evading justice by individuals in positions of authority and by institutions of a state and political character . That this state of affairs has continued for DATE following the end of the war is a source of deep and abiding concern not only for the people of GPE and GPE but for the international community as a whole .

It now falls on the international community to redress this intolerable situation by initiating direct and sweeping action against those public - office holders of ORG who obstruct international law in the Entity . By dint of their nefarious conduct or failure to carry out their functional responsibilities while associated in differing capacities with public institutions , these individuals have demonstrated that they are not worthy of entrustment with public responsibility . ”

The applicants were held “ derivatively culpable [ of ] contributing to the institutional failure to purge ... the political landscape of conditions conducive to the provision of material support and sustenance to individuals indicted under LAW [ of the Statute of ORG for the Former GPE ] . ”

On DATE the High Representative lifted the DATE ban imposed on the applicants PERSON , PERSON , GPE , NORP , GPE and PERSON , following an oath taken by them to respect LAW . The CARDINAL applicants were not automatically restored to the offices from which they had earlier been removed and were not entitled to any compensation .

Chapter I outlines the purposes and principles of ORG ( “ ORG ” ) . Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL provide :

The Purposes of the [ ORG ] are :

To maintain international peace and security , and to that end : to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace , and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace , and to bring about by peaceful means , and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law , adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace ;

To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self - determination of peoples , and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace ;

To achieve international co - operation in solving international problems of an economic , social , cultural , or humanitarian character , and in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race , sex , language , or religion ; and

To be a centre for harmonizing the actions of nations in the attainment of these common ends .

The ORG and its Members , in pursuit of the Purposes stated in DATE , shall act in accordance with the following Principles .

The ORG is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members .

All Members , in order to ensure to all of them the rights and benefits resulting from membership , shall fulfil in good faith the obligations assumed by them in accordance with the present LAW .

All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security , and justice , are not endangered .

All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state , or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the [ ORG ] .

All Members shall give the [ ORG ] every assistance in any action it takes in accordance with the present LAW , and shall refrain from giving assistance to any state against which the [ ORG ] is taking preventive or enforcement action .

The Organization shall ensure that states which are not Members of the [ ORG ] act in accordance with these Principles so far as may be necessary for the maintenance of international peace and security .

Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the [ ORG ] to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter ; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under LAW . ”

Chapter V deals with ORG ( “ UNSC ” ) . Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL provide :

NORP In order to ensure prompt and effective action by the [ ORG ] , its Members confer on the [ UNSC ] primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security , and agree that in carrying out its duties under this responsibility the [ UNSC ] acts on their behalf .

NORP In discharging these duties the [ UNSC ] shall act in accordance with the Purposes and Principles of the [ ORG ] . The specific powers granted to the [ UNSC ] for the discharge of these duties are laid down in Chapters VI , VII , ORG , and ORG .

The [ UNSC ] shall submit DATE and , when necessary , special reports to ORG for its consideration .

The Members of the [ ORG ] agree to accept and carry out the decisions of the [ UNSC ] in accordance with the present Charter . ”

Chapter VII is entitled “ Action with Respect to Threats to the Peace , Breaches of the Peace and Acts of Aggression ” . The relevant ORG ( ORG CARDINAL , CARDINAL and DATE ) provide :

The [ UNSC ] shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace , breach of the peace , or act of aggression and shall make recommendations , or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with ORG CARDINAL and DATE , to maintain or restore international peace and security .

The [ UNSC ] may decide what measures not involving the use of armed force are to be employed to give effect to its decisions , and it may call upon the Members of the [ ORG ] to apply such measures . These may include complete or partial interruption of economic relations and of rail , sea , air , postal , telegraphic , radio , and other means of communication , and the severance of diplomatic relations .

NORP The action required to carry out the decisions of the [ UNSC ] for the maintenance of international peace and security shall be taken by all the Members of the [ ORG ] or by some of them , as the [ UNSC ] may determine .

Such decisions shall be carried out by the Members of the [ ORG ] directly and through their action in the appropriate international agencies of which they are members . ”

Chapter ORG contains miscellaneous provisions , including LAW which provides :

“ In the event of a conflict between the obligations of the Members of the [ ORG ] under the present LAW and their obligations under any other international agreement , their obligations under the present LAW shall prevail . ”

ORG considers LAW to mean that the LAW obligations of ORG member GPE prevail over conflicting obligations from another international treaty , regardless of whether the latter treaty was concluded before or after the UN Charter or was only a regional arrangement ( see GPE v. GPE , ICJ Reports , DATE , p. CARDINAL , § CARDINAL ) .

NORP In DATE ORG ( “ ILC ” ) adopted draft article CARDINAL ( see the Report of the CARDINAL session of the ILC ( DATE ) , ORG ) . It is entitled “ General principles ” and provides :

“ CARDINAL . Every internationally wrongful act of an international organization entails the international responsibility of the international organization .

NORP There is an internationally wrongful act of an international organization when conduct consisting of an action or omission :

a. Is attributable to the international organization under international law ; and

b. Constitutes a breach of an international obligation of that international organization . ”

In DATE the ILC adopted draft article CARDINAL ( see the Report of the CARDINAL session of the ILC ( DATE ) , A/CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) . It is entitled “ Conduct of organs or agents placed at the disposal of an international organization by a ORG or another international organization ” and reads as follows :

“ The conduct of an organ of a ORG or an organ or agent of an international organization that is placed at the disposal of another international organization shall be considered under international law an act of the latter organization if the organization exercises effective control over that conduct . ”

The General Framework Agreement for Peace in GPE , initialled at ORG near GPE in GPE , ( “ the Peace Agreement ” ) was the culmination of DATE of intermittent negotiations under the auspices of ORG on the former GPE and ORG . It contains CARDINAL ORG which mainly set out the obligations for GPE ( the then GPE , GPE and the then GPE ) to “ welcome and endorse ” and to “ fully respect and promote fulfilment of the commitments ” made in the LOC thereto . The substance of the commitments is contained in CARDINAL LOC .

Annex DATE to FAC , named LAW , sets out the mandate of ORG . The relevant provisions read as follows :

The Parties agree that the implementation of the civilian aspects of the peace settlement will entail a wide range of activities including continuation of the humanitarian aid effort for as long as necessary ; rehabilitation of infrastructure and economic reconstruction ; the establishment of political and constitutional institutions in GPE ; promotion of respect for human rights and the return of displaced persons and refugees ; and the holding of free and fair elections according to the timetable in FAC to the [ Peace Agreement ] . A considerable number of international organizations and agencies will be called upon to assist .

NORP In view of the complexities facing them , the Parties request the designation of a High Representative , to be appointed consistent with relevant [ UNSC ] resolutions , to facilitate the Parties ' own efforts and to mobilize and , as appropriate , coordinate the activities of the organizations and agencies involved in the civilian aspects of the peace settlement by carrying out , as entrusted by a [ UNSC ] resolution , the tasks set out below .

The High Representative shall :

a. Monitor the implementation of the peace settlement ;

b. Maintain close contact with the Parties to promote their full compliance with all civilian aspects of the peace settlement and a high level of cooperation between them and the organizations and agencies participating in those aspects ;

c. Coordinate the activities of the civilian organizations and agencies in GPE to ensure the efficient implementation of the civilian aspects of the peace settlement . The High Representative shall respect their autonomy within their spheres of operation while as necessary giving general guidance to them about the impact of their activities on the implementation of the peace settlement . The civilian organizations and agencies are requested to assist ORG in the execution of his or her responsibilities by providing all information relevant to their operations in GPE ;

d. Facilitate , as the High Representative judges necessary , the resolution of any difficulties arising in connection with civilian implementation ;

e. Participate in meetings of donor organizations , particularly on issues of rehabilitation and reconstruction ;

f. Report periodically on progress in implementation of the peace agreement concerning the tasks set forth in this Agreement to the [ ORG ] , ORG , GPE , ORG , and other interested governments , parties , and organizations ;

g. Provide guidance to , and receive reports from , the Commissioner of ORG established in LAW to the [ Peace Agreement ] .

The High Representative shall have no authority over the ORG [ that is , a multinational implementation force established as an enforcement measure under Chapter VII of the UN Charter ] and shall not in any way interfere in the conduct of military operations or the ORG chain of command .

Privileges and immunities shall be accorded as follows :

a. The Parties shall accord the office of the High Representative and its LOC , archives , and other property the same privileges and immunities as are enjoyed by a diplomatic mission and its LOC , archives , and other property under LAW .

b. The Parties shall accord the High Representative and professional members of his or her staff and their families the same privileges and immunities as are enjoyed by diplomatic agents and their families under LAW .

c. The Parties shall accord other members of the High Representative staff and their families the same privileges and immunities as are enjoyed by members of the administrative and technical staff and their families under LAW .

The Parties shall fully cooperate with the High Representative ...

The High Representative is the final authority in theatre regarding interpretation of this Agreement on the civilian implementation of the peace settlement . ”

Following the initialling of LAW , LAW was held in GPE on CARDINAL and DATE . It resulted in the establishment of ORG ( “ PIC ” ) , its ORG and a High Representative as ORG . While the PIC is composed of all the GPE , international organisations and agencies which attended the Conference , ORG members are GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE , the Presidency of ORG , ORG and GPE ( on behalf of ORG ) . The Conference invited the ORG to endorse the establishment of ORG ( see the Conclusions of FAC , ORG document no . S/CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) .

On DATE , DATE after the entry into force of ORG , the UNSC adopted Resolution CARDINAL which , in so far as relevant , provides :

“ ORG ,

Recalling all its previous relevant resolutions concerning the conflicts in the former GPE ,

Welcoming the signing on DATE at FAC for Peace in GPE and the LOC thereto ( collectively LAW , S/CARDINAL/CARDINAL , annex ) by GPE , GPE and GPE and the other parties thereto ,

Welcoming further the conclusions of LAW held in GPE on CARDINAL and DATE ( the London Conference ) ( S/CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) , and in particular its decision to establish ORG and its ORG as referred to in those conclusions ,

Determining that the situation in the region continues to constitute a threat to international peace and security ,

Determined to promote the peaceful resolution of the conflicts in accordance with the purposes and principles of the [ ORG ] Charter ,

Acting under LAW of the [ ORG ] Charter ,

Endorses the establishment of a High Representative , following the request of the parties , who , in accordance with LAW on the civilian implementation of FAC , will monitor the implementation of LAW and mobilize and , as appropriate , give guidance to , and coordinate the activities of , the civilian organizations and agencies involved , and agrees the designation of Mr. PERSON as High Representative ;

Confirms that the High Representative is the final authority in theatre regarding interpretation of LAW on the civilian implementation of LAW ;

Decides that all GPE concerned , and in particular those where the High Representative establishes offices , shall ensure that the High Representative enjoys such legal capacity as may be necessary for the exercise of his functions ... ;

Requests the Secretary - General to submit to the [ UNSC ] reports from ORG , in accordance with LAW of FAC and the conclusions of ORG , on the implementation of FAC ;

Recognizes the unique , extraordinary and complex character of the present situation in GPE , requiring an exceptional response ;

Decides to remain seized of the matter . ”

Since the London Conference , the PIC has come together at ministerial level a further CARDINAL times in order to review progress and define the goals of peace implementation for the coming period : it met in DATE in GPE , DATE for a second time in GPE , DATE in GPE , DATE in GPE and DATE in GPE .

The relevant part of the Conclusions of the Bonn Peace Implementation Conference ( see ORG document no . S/CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) states :

“ ... The [ PIC ] welcomes ORG intention to use his final authority in theatre regarding interpretation of ORG [ Peace Agreement ] in order to facilitate the resolution of difficulties by making binding decisions , as he judges necessary , on the following issues :

a. Timing , location and chairmanship of meetings of the common institutions ;

b. Interim measures to take effect when parties are unable to reach agreement , which will remain in force until the Presidency or Council of Ministers has adopted a decision consistent with the [ Peace Agreement ] on the issue concerned ;

c. Other measures to ensure implementation of the [ Peace Agreement ] throughout GPE and its Entities , as well as the smooth running of the common institutions . Such measures may include actions against persons holding public office or officials who are absent from meetings without good cause or who are found by ORG to be in violation of legal commitments made under the [ Peace Agreement ] or the terms for its implementation . ”

The powers of the High Representative resulting from the Conclusions of the Bonn Peace Implementation Conference are commonly referred to as the “ GPE powers ” . On DATE the ORG endorsed those Conclusions ( UNSC Resolution CARDINAL ) .

The ORG has regularly expressed its support for the PIC and the High Representative . ORG of DATE is a recent example and , in so far as relevant , reads :

“ ORG ,

Determining that the situation in the region continues to constitute a threat to international peace and security ,

Emphasizes its full support for the continued role of the High Representative in monitoring the implementation of LAW and giving guidance to and coordinating the activities of the civilian organizations and agencies involved in assisting the parties to implement LAW , and reaffirms that under LAW of FAC the High Representative is the final authority in theatre regarding the interpretation of civilian implementation of LAW and that in case of dispute he may give his interpretation and make recommendations , and make binding decisions as he judges necessary on issues as elaborated by ORG in GPE on DATE ;

While acknowledging that “ the use of the GPE powers by the High Representative was beneficial for GPE and its citizens and a necessity following a bloody war ” , ORG ) has recently called for a “ progressive phasing out of these powers and for the establishment of an advisory panel of independent lawyers for the decisions directly affecting the rights of individuals pending the end of the practice ” ( see the Opinion on the constitutional situation in GPE and the powers of ORG , adopted at the DATE session of ORG , ORG ( DATE ) CARDINAL ) . The relevant part of this Opinion states :

“ CARDINAL . The termination of the employment of a public official is a serious interference with the rights of the person concerned . In order to meet democratic standards , it should follow a fair hearing , be based on serious grounds with sufficient proof and the possibility of a legal appeal . The sanction has to be proportionate to the alleged offence . In cases of dismissal of elected representatives , the rights of their voters are also concerned and particularly serious justification for such interference is required .

In this context the ORG is certainly not called upon to enter into a quasi - judicial scrutiny of the individual decision of the High Representative . It can only provide a broad general assessment of the compatibility of these decisions with international standards . The removals by the High Representative certainly pursue a legitimate aim and are based on serious grounds . Non - co - operation with ORG is a serious violation of the international obligations of the country , and corrupt practices as well as the establishment of parallel institutions to the legitimate state institutions also justify tough sanctions . Subject to a detailed case - by - case analysis , the sanction of dismissal does not seem disproportionate to the alleged offences .

The main concern is however that the High Representative does not act as an independent court and that there is no possibility of appeal . The High Representative is not an independent judge and he has no democratic legitimacy deriving from the people of [ GPE ( “ BiH ” ) ] . He pursues a political agenda , agreed by the international community , which serves the best interests of the country and contributes to the realisation of ORG . As a matter of principle , it seems unacceptable that decisions directly affecting the rights of individuals taken by a political body are not subject to a fair hearing or at least the minimum of due process and scrutiny by an independent court .

It would have been unrealistic to have insisted on immediate full compliance with all international standards governing a stable and full - fledged democracy in a post - conflict situation such as existed in ORG following the adoption of the [ Peace ] Agreement . The addressees of the decisions of ORG were often powerful individuals and the actions taken by them were generally actions taken in the perceived interest of their political party or ethnic community . It would furthermore have been unrealistic to expect that the ORG judicial system should have been capable of effectively dealing with such actions in the early post - conflict period . It is therefore understandable that the decisions were not made subject to control by the courts of GPE This situation can however not last forever but , also taking into account the important reforms of the judiciary carried out at the request of or imposed by ORG , DATE must come when such decisions are made subject to full judicial control and made the responsibility of the proper national institutions .

It is not up to the ORG to indicate a precise date when such a transfer should take place although it should not be in the too distant future . But even pending such transfer , the present practice will have to be substantially modified to make it acceptable as an interim solution . The continuation of such power being exercised by a non - elected political authority without any possibility of appeal and any input by an independent body is not acceptable . As an urgent step the ORG recommends setting up an independent panel of legal experts which would have to give its consent to any such decision of the High Representative . Having regard to the confidential nature of many elements of the file , this might be a body composed of international experts .

In order for such a body to work effectively , it will be necessary to define the possible measures to be taken by ORG and the offences justifying such measures clearly and precisely . The conclusions of the GPE conference are not precise enough to enable a legal panel to determine the justification of individual removals . Furthermore , the issue of the duration of the ban on the holding of future public office and of possible rehabilitations will also have to be addressed . In this respect , the ORG welcomes as a first step the recent decision of ORG to initiate a process of rehabilitation of some of the persons dismissed earlier . If the office of High Representative were to be terminated in the near future , there would no longer be a political body enforcing respect for the previous decisions of the High Representative but their legal validity would not automatically cease . ”

Subject to ORG consent , ORG ( “ LAW ” ) exercises judicial review of the constitutionality of the content of legislation enacted by ORG , in the same way as it does for legislation adopted by the domestic authorities . However , it does not examine whether ORG was justified in enacting the legislation in the place of the domestic authorities ( see ORG decision no . U CARDINAL/CARDINAL of DATE ) .

Indeed , ORG has not consented to the review of his other acts by any domestic authorities . ORG decision no . ORG CARDINAL of DATE , ordering the domestic authorities to secure an effective remedy in respect of removals from office by ORG , led to a vigorous response from ORG . ORG order of DATE , which removed any practical effect from ORG impugned decision , reads :

In order to implement the Decision of the [ Constitutional ] Court [ no . ORG CARDINAL of DATE ] , the Presidency of GPE and GPE shall address to ORG , as ORG of the [ PIC ] , all matters raised in said Decision that ought to be considered by the international authorities referenced in the said Decision .

Any step taken by any institution or authority in GPE in order to establish any domestic mechanism to review ORG issued pursuant to his international mandate shall be considered by ORG as an attempt to undermine the implementation of the civilian aspects of the [ Peace Agreement ] and shall be treated in itself as conduct undermining such implementation .

Notwithstanding any contrary provision in any legislation in GPE , any proceeding instituted before any court in GPE , which challenges or takes issue in any way whatsoever with CARDINAL or more decisions of the High Representative , shall be declared inadmissible unless the High Representative expressly gives his prior consent .

Any proceeding referred to in LAW shall be effectively and formally notified to the High Representative by the concerned court without delay .

For the avoidance of any doubt or ambiguity , and taking into account the totality of the matters aforesaid , it is hereby specifically ordered and determined , in the exercise of the said international mandate of the High Representative and pursuant to its interpretation hereinunder and by virtue of the said LAW [ to FAC ] , that no liability is capable of being incurred on the part of ORG , and/or any of its subdivisions and/or any other authority in GPE , in respect of any loss or damage allegedly flowing , either directly or indirectly , from such LAW made pursuant to his or her international mandate , or at all .

For the avoidance of doubt , it is hereby specifically declared and provided that the provisions of the Order contained herein are , as to each and every one of them , laid down by the High Representative pursuant to his international mandate and are not , therefore , justiciable by ORG or elsewhere , and no proceedings may be brought in respect of duties in respect thereof before any court whatsoever at any time hereafter . ”


Anatoly Kovler;Christos Rozakis;Dean Spielmann;Elisabeth Steiner;George Nicolaou;Giorgio Malinverni;Sverre Erik Jebens

The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a NORP national , who was born in DATE and lives in GPE . He was represented by PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE . The respondent Government were represented by PERSON , the former Representative of GPE at ORG .

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

On DATE the applicant was arrested on suspicion of murder of a police officer and attempted murder of several other persons . Later the police started suspecting him of theft .

On DATE the Zavolzhsk ORG ordered that the applicant be remanded in custody in pre - trial detention centre no . CARDINAL in GPE . On DATE the applicant was charged with aggravated theft under LAW “ b ” of LAW .

On DATE ORG extended the applicant 's detention until DATE . On DATE the prison administration informed the applicant that his detention had been extended until DATE .

On an unspecified date the applicant filed an application for release with the court alleging , inter alia , that he had been seriously ill . On DATE his application was dismissed by ORG by reference to LAW . The court found that the gravity of the offences alleged against him was a sufficient ground for his detention . On DATE ORG upheld that decision , adding that the applicant had been arrested DATE after he had been released after having served a previous sentence . ORG also noted that at that stage of the proceedings it was not called upon to examine the validity of proof of the applicant 's guilt .

On DATE ORG extended the applicant 's detention until DATE . The applicant was informed about that decision on DATE . The letter from ORG did not contain any reasons for extending his detention . On DATE the Deputy Prosecutor of GPE , in response to a letter from the applicant , informed him that his detention had been extended on the basis of the strength of the evidence in the case - file , his personality , and age . The prosecutor also relied on LAW ) , which enabled the prosecution to place the suspect in custody on the sole ground of the gravity of the charges against him ( see the “ Relevant domestic law ” part below ) .

On an unspecified date the applicant challenged the prosecutor 's letter of DATE before a court . On CARDINAL DATE the ORG established that LAW , referred to by the prosecutor , had been abrogated on DATE . However , the court did not order the applicant 's release .

The applicant submitted a new application for release . On DATE the ORG dismissed it , relying on the gravity of charges against the applicant and his previous convictions . That decision was upheld by ORG on DATE . The applicant submits that those decisions were taken in his absence .

On DATE ORG extended the applicant 's detention until DATE . On DATE the applicant was informed about that decision . The letter from ORG did not contain any reason for taking the decision .

According to the Government , on DATE the applicant was released under an obligation not to leave the city without permission from the prosecution .

On DATE the applicant was fully acquitted by the jury of ORG . On DATE that decision was upheld by ORG of GPE .

On DATE the newspaper “ ORG ” published an article describing the circumstances of the applicant 's arrest and detention . The applicant was mentioned in this article as an accomplice to a serious crime . The article contained an interview with an anonymous officer of ORG of ORG . It remains unclear whether the applicant has ever applied to the domestic courts for redress and what the outcome of the proceedings was , if any .

LAW of GPE provides as follows :

“ CARDINAL . Damage caused to a citizen as a result of unlawful conviction , unlawful criminal prosecution , ... unlawful detention on remand ... shall be compensated at the expense of the ORG of GPE , and in the instances provided for by law , at the expense of the ORG of the subject of GPE ... in full , irrespective of the fault of the officials of the agencies ... ”

“ Compensation for non - pecuniary damage shall be made irrespective of the fault of the person causing the damage when :

... the damage is caused to a citizen as a result of his unlawful conviction , unlawful criminal prosecution , unlawful detention on remand .... ”

The Civil Code provides that the damage caused by an unlawful criminal prosecution should be compensated irrespective of the fault of the tortfeaser . However , the notions of “ unlawful ” prosecution or detention ( see LAW ) are not developed in the relevant provisions of LAW . Certain guidelines on this subject may be obtained from Decree No . CARDINAL-X of ORG DATE , which concerns compensation for damage caused by the unlawful acts of law - enforcement agencies . CARDINAL of that LAW provides that an acquitted person has the right to obtain damages from the ORG ; the only exception concerns cases when the person was charged after making a false confession . Furthermore , in the case of PERSON ( published in the Bulletin of ORG , DATE г. , ORG , page CARDINAL ) , ORG of GPE used the following wording : “ ... unlawful attribution of criminal liability , namely when an acquittal judgment was given ... ” . These words , as well as the subsequent judicial practice , suggest that the domestic courts regard criminal proceedings which ended with an acquittal to be “ unlawful ” at the outset . Therefore , if there was an acquittal , pre - trial detention would be “ unlawful ” even if all the substantive and procedural rules were complied with when it was imposed .

Under LAW Code of Criminal Proceedings ( CCrP ) , in force as from DATE , the acquitted person has the right to compensation for pecuniary ( LAW ) and non - pecuniary damage ( LAW ) caused by prosecution ( LAW ) and unlawful application of measures of restraint , including pre - trial detention ( LAW ) . Under LAW of the CCrP , if information about the arrest or prosecution of a person was made public in the media , the acquitted person , his relatives , or a public prosecutor may request the publication of a retraction by the same medium .


CASE OF GADZHIKHANOV AND SAUKOV v. RUSSIA

No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Enforcement proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time);No violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions)

Anatoly Kovler;Elisabeth Steiner;Julia Laffranque;Khanlar Hajiyev;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Peer Lorenzen

The first applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE . The second applicant was born inCARDINAL and lives in GPE , PERSON .

By a judgment of DATE the ORG of GPE granted in part the applicant ’s claim against the town administration , recognized that the ORG had unlawfully confiscated the house owned by his father and awarded him compensation in the amount of MONEY ( RUB ) .

On DATE ORG upheld that judgment on appeal , and on DATE the trial court forwarded the applicant a writ of execution . The trial court specified in the writ of execution that the debtor was ORG at the town administration .

The applicant did not take any further steps to recover the judicial award . As a result , the judgment of DATE remains unenforced .

By a judgment of DATE ORG convicted the applicant of various crimes and sentenced him to imprisonment . That judgment was quashed by way of supervisory review on DATE by the Presidium of ORG ( “ the ORG ” ) . Having found that the lower courts had incorrectly assessed evidence in the case , the ORG decided to discontinue the criminal proceedings against the applicant .

The applicant sued the ORG for damages . By a judgment of DATE the NORP Town Court of LOC awarded the applicant compensation for unlawful detention in the amount of RUB CARDINAL . On DATE the trial court issued a writ of execution and sent it to the applicant . The above judgment was upheld on appeal by ORG on DATE . By a letter of DATE ORG informed the applicant of the domestic procedure to follow in order to recover the judicial award in his favour .

NORP Despite that information the applicant did not take any further steps to recover the judicial award . As a result , the judgment of DATE remains unenforced .

Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL of LAW of GPE provides that enforcement of judicial decisions recovering funds from the budgetary system of GPE is held on the basis of the enforcement documents ( writ of execution , court order ) .

Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL of the same LAW provides that along with the writ of execution the creditor or the court acting on his or her behalf should submit a duly certified copy of the judicial decision and a written request containing the creditor ’s bank account details .


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

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

“ Where a public officer embezzles or converts to his own use money or documents or bills valued as money or other property instructed to him or under his custody , control or responsibility by virtue of his office , he shall be punished by heavy imprisonment of DATE ...

If the amount is paid in full by the offender before the commencement of the trial , the punishment stated in the previous paragraphs shall be reduced by CARDINAL ; if the amount is paid in full before the judgment is given , the punishment shall be reduced by CARDINAL .

“ Whoever , being a public officer , abuses his office in any manner other than described in the LAW , shall be punished by imprisonment for DATE , depending on the degree of the offence . Where matters of mitigating circumstances exist , the offender shall be punished by imprisonment of DATE and in both cases the offender shall be fined ... The offender shall be disqualified from holding public office temporarily or for life ” .


The applicant , PERSON , is a NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in PERSON . She was represented before the Court by Mrs I. Rajtáková , a lawyer practising in PERSON . The Government of GPE ( “ the Government ” ) were represented by their Agent , PERSON .

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

On DATE the applicant and another person filed an action under LAW of DATE .

On DATE ORG in PERSON ordered the defendant to pay a sum of money to the plaintiffs . It decided to deal in a separate set of proceedings with the claims concerning compensation for movable property and compulsory lease of the land in issue . Finally , ORG rejected the remainder of the action .

ORG in GPE and ORG in PERSON determined the claims for compensation on DATE and DATE . The claims related to the lease of the property were to be determined separately .

In the meantime , on DATE , bankruptcy proceedings were brought against the first defendant . The proceedings in respect of that defendant were therefore stayed pending the outcome of the bankruptcy proceedings . The applicant registered her claims against that person in the context of the bankruptcy proceedings on DATE .

On DATE the applicant filed a complaint with ORG . She complained about delays in the proceedings before ORG .

On DATE ORG found that ORG had violated the applicant ’s right under LAW to a hearing within a reasonable time . ORG noted that the case fell within its competence ratione temporis as from DATE only . It nevertheless had regard also to the period during which the proceedings had been pending prior to that date . After having analysed the proceedings in the light of the criteria which the ORG applies under LAW , the Constitutional Court reached the conclusion that the overall period of DATE was clearly excessive and that the way in which ORG had acted was , as a whole , contrary to the applicant ’s right to a hearing within a reasonable time .

ORG ordered ORG in PERSON to proceed with the case without any further delay . It also ordered that ORG should pay MONEY ( SKK ) to the applicant within DATE .

On DATE ORG asked the plaintiffs to complete their submission of DATE .

The parties made several submissions to ORG DATE and DATE .

ORG held a hearing on DATE . It decided to obtain an expert opinion with a view to determining the rent payable in respect of the land in issue .

DATE and CARDINAL DATE the file was put at the disposal of ORG in PERSON .

On DATE ORG asked the parties to pay an advance on an expert ’s fees . On DATE it appointed an expert who was requested to submit an opinion within DATE . The decision was served on the expert on DATE .

On DATE the expert asked for further documents .

DATE ORG obtained documentary evidence from several co - operatives and an administrative authority . It submitted the evidence thus obtained to the expert on DATE . The expert was asked to obtain information in respect of co - operatives which had not replied to the court ’s request .

On DATE ORG heard a witness . CARDINAL other witnesses representing the co - operatives concerned failed to appear .

At the expert ’s requests ORG obtained further documentary evidence on DATE , DATE and DATE .

The expert submitted his opinion on DATE . The parties submitted their comments on it on CARDINAL and DATE .

ORG held a hearing on DATE . It delivered a judgment in which it partly granted the applicant ’s claims related to compulsory lease of the property by the second defendant . It decided to deal in a separate set of proceedings with the relevant claim related to the first defendant in respect of whom bankruptcy proceedings were still pending .

On CARDINAL and CARDINAL DATE the second defendant and the plaintiffs appealed . After the court fee had been paid , ORG submitted the case to the court of appeal on DATE .

On DATE ORG in PERSON quashed a part of the first - instance judgment on the ground that ORG had proceeded and decided erroneously in several respects . The decision of the court of appeal was transmitted to ORG on DATE .

On DATE the applicant specified her claim . She submitted further documents in DATE and DATE .

On DATE ORG gave a new judgment on the point in issue .

On DATE the second defendant appealed . The file was submitted to the court of appeal on DATE .

ORG in GPE upheld the relevant part of the first - instance judgment on DATE . The decision on the point in issue became final on DATE .


Preliminary objection dismissed (non-exhaustion of domestic remedies);Violation of Art. 6-1;Violation of Art. 13+6;Remainder inadmissible;Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed;Non-pecuniary damage - award

Antonella Mularoni;Françoise Tulkens;Ireneu Cabral Barreto;Nona Tsotsoria

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

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

On DATE the applicant , a labour inspector ( inspektor rada ) , was declared redundant by ORG , which decision entered into force on DATE .

On CARDINAL DATE the applicant therefore filed a claim with ORG ( PERSON ) in PERSON , seeking reinstatement or severance pay as provided for in the relevant domestic legislation .

Following a remittal , on DATE this court relinquished jurisdiction in favour of ORG ( PERSON ) in ORG .

DATE and DATE a total of CARDINAL separate decisions were adopted by ORG , at first instance , ORG ( Okružni sud ) in ORG , on appeal , and ORG ( PERSON ) at third instance .

Following a remittal , on DATE ORG again ruled in favour of the applicant .

On DATE ORG upheld this judgment on appeal and it thereby became final .

On DATE ORG issued a separate decision , ordering the enforcement of this judgment .

On DATE , however , the same court accepted the respondent ’s request for the re - opening of the labour dispute .

On DATE and DATE ORG and ORG , respectively , upheld this decision .

On DATE ORG therefore re - opened the proceedings in question .

The hearing scheduled for DATE was adjourned because of the presiding judge ’s illness .

On DATE the President of ORG appointed another presiding judge to deal with the case , the reason being that the applicant had , in the meantime , filed a criminal complaint against the former .

On DATE and CARDINAL DATE CARDINAL separate hearing were held .

On DATE ORG appointed a financial expert and ordered him to calculate the amount of salary arrears sought by the applicant .

On DATE ORG appointed another financial expert to carry out this order .

On DATE ORG ruled partly in favour of the applicant . It awarded him most of the salary arrears and severance pay requested , but refused his claim for reinstatement since he had reached retirement age in the meantime .

On DATE ORG quashed this judgment on appeal and remitted the case to ORG .

On DATE ORG again ruled partly in favour of the applicant .

On DATE , however , ORG rejected the applicant ’s claims in their entirety .

On an unspecified date thereafter the applicant filed an appeal on points of law . According to the information made available to the ORG by the parties to date , the case is apparently still pending before ORG .

It would appear that throughout the above proceedings the applicant had represented himself .

The relevant provisions of the LAW read as follows :

“ Everyone shall have the right to ... [ a hearing before a ] ... tribunal ... within a reasonable time ... [ in the determination ] ... of his [ or her ] rights and obligations ... ”

“ A constitutional appeal may be lodged against individual decisions or actions of ORG bodies or organisations exercising delegated public powers which violate or deny human or minority rights and freedoms guaranteed by LAW , if other legal remedies for their protection have already been exhausted or have not been prescribed . ”

“ The Constitutional Court shall have CARDINAL judges who shall be elected or appointed for DATE .

CARDINAL judges of the Constitutional Court shall be elected by ORG , another CARDINAL shall be appointed by the President of the Republic , and another CARDINAL shall be appointed at the general session of ORG ...

ORG shall elect CARDINAL judges of ORG from among CARDINAL candidates proposed by the President of the Republic , the President of the Republic shall appoint CARDINAL judges of ORG from among CARDINAL candidates proposed by ORG , and the general session of ORG shall appoint CARDINAL judges from among CARDINAL candidates proposed at the general session by ORG and ORG . ”

“ The Constitutional Court shall adjudicate by the majority of votes cast by all judges of ORG . ”

In accordance with LAW the LAW shall be deemed constituted when CARDINAL of the total number of judges have been elected or appointed .

The relevant provision of this LAW read as follows :

“ The decisions of the Constitutional Court shall be final , enforceable and binding . ”

“ The Constitutional Court shall have its Rules of Procedure ... which shall regulate , in greater detail , the organisation ... [ and the functioning of ORG ] ... as well as the proceedings ... [ before it ] ... ”

“ ... [ T]he ORG shall have a Registry .

The organisation , the tasks , and the functioning of the Registry shall be regulated , in greater detail , by ... ORG . ”

“ A constitutional appeal may be lodged against an individual decision or an action of a ORG body or an organisation exercising delegated public powers which violates or denies human or minority rights and freedoms guaranteed by the LAW , if other legal remedies have already been exhausted or have not been prescribed or where the right to their judicial protection has been excluded by law .

A constitutional appeal may be lodged even if all available remedies have not been exhausted in the event of a breach of an applicant ’s right to a trial within a reasonable time . ”

“ A constitutional appeal may be lodged by any individual who believes that any of his or her human or minority rights or freedoms guaranteed by the LAW has been violated or denied by an individual decision or an action of a ORG body or an organisation exercising delegated public powers . ”

“ A constitutional appeal may be lodged within DATE of receipt of the individual decision or the date of commission of the actions ... [ in question ] ... ”

“ When ORG finds that an ... individual decision or action has violated or denied a human or minority right or a freedom guaranteed by LAW , it shall annul the ... decision in question or ban the continuation of such action or order the implementation of other specific measures as well as the removal of all adverse consequences within a specified period of time .

The decision of ORG accepting a constitutional appeal shall constitute a legal basis for requesting compensation or the removal of other adverse consequences before a competent body , in accordance with the law . ”

“ ... [ An applicant who has obtained a ORG decision in his or her favour ] .. , may lodge a compensation claim with ORG in order to reach an agreement in respect of the amount ... [ of compensation to be awarded ] ...

If ORG does not rule favourably in respect of a compensation claim or fails to issue a decision within DATE from the date of its submission , the applicant may file a civil claim for damages before the competent court . If only partial agreement has been achieved , a civil claim may be filed in respect of the remainder of the amount sought .

The composition and operation of ORG shall be regulated by the Minister of Justice . ”

“ The Constitutional Court shall , within DATE as of the date of entry into force of this Act , adopt its Rules of Procedure and ... [ further regulate the organisation and functioning of its Registry ] ... ”

The Minister of ORG shall , within DATE as of the date of entry into force of this Act ... [ regulate the composition and the operation of ORG ] ... ”

Articles DATE and CARDINAL provide additional details as regards the processing of the appeals lodged with ORG .

LAW , as well as LAW on its implementation , entered into force in DATE .

LAW entered into force in DATE .

The Rules of Procedure of ORG entered into force in DATE .