Violation of Art. 6-1;Violation of P1-1;Just satisfaction reserved

Giovanni Bonello;Ján Šikuta;Lech Garlicki;Nicolas Bratza;Päivi Hirvelä;Stanislav Pavlovschi

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

In DATE the Government of GPE submitted to ORG a bill “ On the Privatisation Programme for DATE ” . ORG adopted the LAW in DATE . The annex to the LAW listed the ORG property to be privatised , which included the CARDINAL - star “ FAC ” hotel . The Act established that ORG ( “ the GPE ” ) would organise the privatisation of the property listed in the annex .

The ORG created ORG . In DATE ORG published an advertisement for privatisation of the hotel and set a reserve price of CARDINAL NORP lei ( MDL ) ( MONEY ( ORG ) ) . In order to be allowed to participate in the auction , each participant was required to deposit MDL CARDINAL million in the ORG ’s account .

The applicant company ’s predecessor , “ QUANTITY ” ( “ S. ” ) , participated in the auction and on DATE was announced as the winner , having offered MDL CARDINAL . In order to be able to pay that amount , PERSON concluded a contract with an NORP company , “ ORG ” , for a loan of ORG CARDINAL . According to the terms of the contract , PERSON was to repay the loan within DATE and to pay PERCENT interest during that time . Failure to repay the loan would result in a penalty of PERCENT of the outstanding debt for DATE of delay ( subject to any eventual prolongation of the period of repayment ) , while a failure to pay the interest would result in a penalty of PERCENT of the outstanding debt for DATE of delay .

At S. ’s request , on DATE ORG decided to extend the period for the payment of the auction price until DATE .

On DATE S. obtained a certificate from ORG confirming the credit agreement with “ ORG ” . It transferred ORG CARDINAL to the ORG budget within the new deadline established by ORG . On DATE it concluded a contract with ORG for the purchase of the hotel .

NORP In DATE S. was re - registered as “ GPE S.R.L. ” ( the applicant company ) . On CARDINAL DATE the applicant company purchased from the PERSON municipality the QUANTITY of land on which the hotel was situated , for MDL CARDINAL ( ORG CARDINAL ) .

According to the applicant company , in DATE following the purchase of the hotel large sums of money were spent on its renovation and the purchase of new furnishings and equipment .

In DATE ORG initiated a criminal investigation into the alleged unlawfulness of the hotel ’s privatisation . It established that no criminal act had been committed and closed the investigation on DATE .

On DATE “ ORG ” assigned its credit rights in respect of the loan to the applicant company to the NORP company “ GPE ” ( PERSON ) . On DATE the applicant company pledged the hotel and the land as a guarantee for the loan from ORG In view of the applicant company ’s failure to repay the loan , ORG claimed in court the right to become the hotel ’s owner .

On DATE ORG in PERSON accepted that claim and ordered the transfer of the hotel to ORG requested the annulment of that order . On DATE the ORG annulled the order of DATE in light of the judgments of ORG of DATE and ORG of DATE ( in the annulment proceedings described below ) .

On DATE ORG initiated court proceedings in the interest of the ORG ( namely , the State Chancellery , a subdivision of the ORG which was the former administrator of the hotel ) against PERSON and the ORG , seeking the annulment of the hotel ’s privatisation and repayment to the applicant company of the price paid .

On an unspecified date the Prosecutor General requested the court to designate the applicant company as respondent in the case , since the respondent it had previously designated in its claim ( S. ) had ceased to exist . On DATE ORG accepted that request and ordered that the applicant company be summoned to its next hearing .

The Prosecutor General did not pay any court fees to initiate those proceedings , by virtue of an exemption provided for by law for court actions initiated by him in the interests of the ORG . In respect of the limitation period , he referred to LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

On DATE ORG accepted ORG request and annulled ORG decision of DATE and the contract of CARDINAL DATE for the sale of the hotel . The applicant company was ordered to return the hotel to ORG and ORG was ordered to repay to the applicant company MDL CARDINAL ( EUR CARDINAL at the time ) .

The reasons given by ORG for finding that the privatisation had been unlawful were : ( a ) the State Chancellery , as the former administrator of the hotel , had not given its agreement to the sale ; ( b ) PERSON ( the applicant company ’s predecessor ) had failed to pay the entire amount within DATE of winning the auction , as required by the auction regulation ; and ( c ) the price paid was some MDL CARDINAL ( EUR CARDINAL ) lower than the hotel ’s real value . The court found that ORG decision to extend the period during which S. could pay for the hotel had been taken ultra vires . However , the court did not annul the decision to extend the time - limit or the decision setting the reserve price at MDL CARDINAL , nor did any other authority . The court also noted that S. had been the only participant in the privatisation auction , but did not indicate whether this was contrary to any law .

The court ordered the ORG to return to the applicant company the price paid for the hotel in DATE ( MDL CARDINAL ) .

NORP The court finally ordered that each of the parties pay CARDINAL of the court fees , that is , MDL CARDINAL ( ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL ) , finding that both the authorities and the applicant company had acted in bad faith because of the above - mentioned failure to follow the auction procedure correctly . In particular , the applicant company was accused of contributing to reducing the hotel ’s privatisation price .

The applicant company appealed to ORG , arguing that it had been a good faith buyer and had complied with all the requirements set by the ORG authorities during the privatisation , and that the court action brought against it by ORG was out of time since it had been lodged DATE after the relevant events .

On DATE ORG noted that the applicant company had paid MDL CARDINAL ( ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL ) in court fees out of the MDL CARDINAL ( EUR CARDINAL,CARDINAL ) required . The court requested payment of the full amount of fees . The applicant company asked for permission to pay in instalments over a DATE period , but was granted DATE . It submitted documents confirming its inability to pay and relied on the fact that all of its assets had been seized by the authorities . On DATE the court refused to examine the appeal because of the failure to pay the entire amount of the court fees . That decision was final .

The Prosecutor General initiated new proceedings “ in the interests of the ORG ” requesting the annulment of the contract concluded between the applicant company and the municipality for the purchase of the land on which the hotel was situated .

On DATE ORG accepted that claim and annulled the contract for the purchase of the land because the land could not be separated from the hotel itself .

On DATE ORG upheld that judgment .

On DATE ORG of “ FAC ” S.R.L. to the ORG began its activity in order to enforce the judgment of DATE . By DATE the hotel was transferred to its new owner , ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

On DATE the applicant company sent the warrant for the enforcement of the judgment of DATE to ORG . It continued to write to various authorities about the non - enforcement of the judgment .

ORG requested an interpretation of the text of the judgment of DATE . The applicant company also requested an interpretation and a re - evaluation of the amount it had been awarded by that judgment , in order to take account of the effects of inflation on the value of the award .

On DATE ORG gave an explanatory decision in which it identified ORG as responsible for repaying the applicant company the price of the hotel . It also rejected the applicant company ’s claim for re - evaluation of the award since the hotel had been bought in GPE lei and not in any foreign currency and the law did not provide for compensation for the effects of inflation in cases such as that under consideration . The court informed the applicant company of its right to lodge a separate claim for any investments made for the repair and furnishing of the hotel .

On DATE ORG upheld that judgment . However , it annulled , as exceeding the powers of interpretation of judgments , the lower court ’s explanation that part of the judgment of DATE could be enforced even if the applicant company had not been repaid any of the hotel ’s price . The hotel remained in the possession of the ORG .

On DATE , in view of the apparent lack of resources in the ORG budget which was preventing enforcement of the judgment in its favour , the applicant company requested that ORG enforce the judgment by selling the “ LOC ” hotel and the underlying land .

On DATE the warrant for the enforcement of the interpretative judgment of DATE was sent to ORG .

The judgment of DATE was fully enforced in instalments in the period DATE and DATE .

The applicant company initiated court proceedings against the Government ( including ORG and ORG ) claiming compensation for damage caused to it as a good faith buyer of the hotel . The damages sought MDL CARDINAL ( equivalent to ORG CARDINAL ) included the value of repairs and new equipment , the penalties for the delay in repaying the loan to ORG , sums of money taken from the hotel when it was transferred to the ORG and interest for the use of MDL CARDINAL over DATE , as well as compensation for the effects of inflation on that amount . The above amount included a deduction of amounts corresponding to the applicant company ’s profits from the hotel during the relevant period . It submitted that the ORG had committed the errors referred to in the judgment of DATE and that the ORG should therefore bear the consequences of those mistakes .

On DATE ORG rejected these claims . The court found that the applicant company could not claim to have been a good faith buyer , since it had failed to pay for the hotel within DATE as prescribed by the auction regulations . The court also found that the judgment of DATE had established the applicant company ’s complicity in “ contributing to reducing the hotel ’s price ” ( without giving any details ) , thus excluding the applicant company ’s good faith as a basis for claiming compensation , and that this also applied in respect of the claim for interest on its money in the ORG ’s possession .

The court rejected the argument that the ORG had obtained unjust enrichment since there was a legal basis for the increase in its assets – the contract with the applicant company for the purchase of the hotel . The argument that the ORG had offered for sale an object affected by hidden legal impediments was also rejected as unfounded , despite the authorities’ failure to observe certain rules during the privatisation of the hotel ( such as obtaining ORG agreement ) . Since the applicant company had known from the hotel ’s by - laws that the Chancellery was its founder and since the latter had not given its approval for the privatisation , the applicant company could not claim that it had not known of the legal impediment at issue .

The applicant company appealed but was unable to pay the court fees MDL CARDINAL ( approximately EUR CARDINAL,CARDINAL ) . It requested a court fee waiver until after the judgment , in view of the fact that it had transferred to its creditor all the money received from ORG after the judgment of DATE and that it had no alternative sources of income , as confirmed by relevant bank statements .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant company ’s request for a court fee waiver . It informed the applicant company that the appeal could not be examined on account of the failure to pay the court fees . The new time - limit for paying the court fees was DATE ; the applicant company did not meet this deadline .

NORP The relevant provisions of LAW , in force at the relevant time , provide :

“ Article CARDINAL

The general limitation period for protection through a court action of the rights of a [ natural ] person is DATE ; it is DATE for lawsuits between ORG organisations , collective farms and any other social organisations .

The competent court ... shall apply the limitation period whether or not the parties request such application .

Expiry of the limitation period prior to the initiation of the court proceedings constitutes a ground for rejecting the claim .

If the competent court ... finds that the action was not commenced within the limitation period for well - founded reasons , the right in question shall be protected .

The limitation period does not apply :

( CARDINAL ) to claims by ORG organisations regarding the restitution of ORG property found in the unlawful possession of ... other organisations ... and of citizens ; ” .


Anatoly Kovler;Christos Rozakis;Elisabeth Steiner;George Nicolaou;Giorgio Malinverni;Khanlar Hajiyev

The applicant , PERSON , who is of dual NORP and NORP nationality , was born in DATE and lives in GPE . ORG ( “ the Government ” ) were represented by their Agent , PERSON . ORG of GPE , having been informed of their right to intervene ( LAW CARDINAL § CARDINAL ( a ) of ORG ) , did not avail themselves of this right .

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

The applicant had been working for the joint - stock company ORG – Industrija nafte d.d . ( hereinafter “ ORG ” or “ the company ” ) from DATE until DATE , when she was dismissed . ORG was founded in DATE and is the national oil company of GPE . Until DATE the ORG was its sole stockholder . At present PERCENT of ORG 's stocks are owned by the NORP oil and gas company ORG , PERCENT by GPE ( represented by ORG ) and PERCENT by various institutional and private investors .

On DATE the applicant was promoted and assigned to the job of project manager in the office of GPE , a member of ORG 's management board and its executive director for oil refining and trade .

In the course of her work the applicant analysed issues relating to losses of petrol during transport from refineries to petrol stations . She came to the conclusion that in DATE the value of petrol lost during transport was CARDINAL,CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL NORP kunas ( HRK ) , of which only HRK CARDINAL,CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL had been compensated by the hauliers . Her findings suggested that the relevant persons in ORG had shown considerable laxity as regards claiming compensation for the remaining losses . On the basis of her findings , the applicant prepared a report entitled “ ORG during DATE in the Logistics Sector ” ( Reklamacije u magistralnom transportu u toku DATE . godine u LOC logistike ) .

On DATE the applicant informed her immediate superior GPE of her findings and gave him a copy of the above - mentioned report .

On DATE ORG issued a public call for tenders for haulage services by publishing in DATE newspapers an “ Invitation for Bids for selection of the most competitive Bidders for DATE road transport of petroleum derivates by tank trucks . ”

On DATE the applicant sent a letter to ORG 's general director , ORG , and asked for a meeting . She indicated that she would like to discuss issues relating to petrol losses during transport and attached a copy of her above - mentioned report . According to the ORG , ORG had prepared a report for the supervisory board on the losses incurred during transport and as early as DATE the supervisory board had decided that all unjustified losses should be covered by a unilateral set - off . The set - off had taken place and the losses had been covered by DATE .

Since the applicant received no reply to her letter of DATE , on DATE she sent a letter to the chairman of ORG 's supervisory board , ORG met him on DATE and discussed the issues raised in her letter to ORG The applicant also asked ORG to revoke the public call for tenders of DATE for external haulage services . She suggested that , instead of outsourcing haulage services , ORG should have developed its own . Given that , according to the company 's balance sheet in DATE , ORG had paid HRK CARDINAL to various hauliers , the applicant calculated that the company could take out a loan and buy or lease CARDINAL new vehicles – a number equal to the number of vehicles used by the outside hauliers DATE and repay the loan in DATE . According to the applicant , PERSON considered her findings regarding the petrol losses valid but refused to do anything to revoke the above - mentioned public call for tenders . According to the Government , PERSON copied the documents received from the applicant and gave them to internal control to investigate .

On DATE the applicant again wrote to PERSON She sent him a copy of her report concerning the petrol lost during transport and again asked him to revoke the public call for tenders of DATE .

On DATE the applicant wrote another letter to the general director PERSON the same reasons as in her letter to ORG , she invited him to revoke the above - mentioned public call for tenders of DATE for external haulage services . The applicant also referred to her previous letter of DATE , which had remained unanswered , and the issues raised therein . She again asked for a meeting .

On DATE the applicant submitted her own bid in response to the public call for tenders for external haulage services . In so doing she asked ORG to change the business strategy of hiring external haulage companies and to accept her idea of developing ORG 's own vehicle fleet .

On DATE the DATE newspaper ORG PERSON published an article entitled “ [ ORG ] covers up a crime within ORG worth CARDINAL [ NORP ] marks ” ( [ ORG ] prešućuje kriminal u Ini težak CARDINAL milijuna maraka ) . The article suggested that ORG should build up its own vehicle fleet instead of engaging outside hauliers . It was submitted that , according to the company 's balance sheet , in CARDINAL ORG had paid HRK CARDINAL to various haulage companies and argued that instead of doing so it could have taken out a loan and bought or leased CARDINAL road tankers . After repaying the loan in DATE , over the following DATE ORG would , by using its own vehicle fleet , have been earning MONEY ( ORG ) per year . In addition , this would have created CARDINAL new jobs and resolved the problem of ORG 's redundant employees . The article also relied on the applicant 's findings concerning the petrol lost during transport between refineries and petrol stations . It mentioned that the value of the lost petrol was HRK CARDINAL,CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL , of which only HRK CARDINAL,CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL had been reclaimed from the hauliers , and stated that ORG 's management had done nothing or very little in order to obtain compensation for the remaining losses . The article also stated that ORG and PERSON had turned a deaf ear to the warning by the applicant about the company 's detrimental business policy . Finally , the article stated that there would be further articles on the subject .

On the same page an article entitled “ The problems started when I discovered manipulations ” ( GPE su počeli ORG sam otkrila manipulacije ) was published , containing an interview with the applicant in which she raised her concerns about ORG 's business policy . The relevant part of the article reads as follows :

“ The problems started when I discovered manipulations ...

I was amazed and surprised when I found out that , in spite of the information on accumulated losses , ORG had published a new call for tenders for hiring external hauliers ...

... PERSON spent DATE systematically compiling data on haulage costs within ORG . What she discovered seemed to her of such enormity and significance that she attempted to discuss it with the leading figure of the national oil company , [ ORG ] . When she realised that within ORG nobody understood what she was saying , she sought the assistance of the Deputy Prime Minister and chairman of ORG 's supervisory board , [ ORG ] She also turned to [ I.D. ] , adviser to the President of the Republic , who said that her discovery was chilling . Her colleagues in the tenders commission for the selection of external companies for road haulage said that she had discovered some amazing things , but they would have to proceed as ordered by the bosses . Thus , PERSON found herself transferred from an area about which she knew a great deal , or even everything , to a fine - sounding job in another sector , in which she had no experience .

Why did you decide to go public with the details of the ORG 's call for tenders for hiring external haulage companies ?

I have been working in ORG 's transport sector for DATE and understand all the problems in that part of the company . During DATE , I have been monitoring and analysing business results in the field of transport . I felt terrible when I realised that ORG had the production and the market , but no haulage to link these CARDINAL sectors . Since all analyses show a trend of generating loss , while , at the same time , some simulations of potential business activities show that it would be much better to run business in a different way , that is , with our own vehicle fleet , I tried to demonstrate this to the company 's management . Since those people did not show the slightest interest in what I was saying , and even started ignoring or marginalising me , I decided to make the only move possible which would ensure that what I was advocating would not remain at the bottom of someone 's drawer .

The best option

What was the exact reaction of your superiors when you tried to acquaint them with the results of your analyses and ideas ?

I showed the first indicators to [ GPE ] , a member of the management board and Executive Director for ORG . As long as my communications were verbal , reactions were positive . I would even say I was encouraged to carry on with what I had started . That was in DATE . [ GPE ] then said that he would not allow another call for tenders for hiring external haulage contractors to be issued , but would rather advocate development of [ ORG 's ] own fleet . Everything I told him , I visually illustrated to him as well . That means I showed him how many road tankers ORG could buy for the sum paid DATE to haulage contractors . It was CARDINAL completely new road tankers , fitted out to the most stringent ecological standards . Unfortunately , all this remained at the verbal level , and the idea of purchasing our own fleet was not developed further . Instead of issuing a call for tenders for the purchase of road tankers , on DATE another call for tenders was published for hiring external haulage contractors for road haulage .

What did you do when you saw that the call for tenders which [ GPE ] had said would not be published was in fact published ?

I was amazed and surprised . I had at least expected that someone would invite me for a discussion , so that we could again examine together which option would be the best and the most economical for the company .

Why did they change from being enthusiastic to ignoring you ?

My proposals were obviously sound and indicated that normal costs had mostly been exceeded during the time of the former management . The problems began when I insisted that my ideas should also be implemented in the areas for which the present management bears the responsibility . I showed them clearly that we had practically commenced tilting at windmills , since in some sectors we were analysing excessive costs in the past , which were still being generated DATE to a greater extent .

Purchase of road tankers

Is it not unusual for an employee of ORG to submit a bid in response to a public call for tenders for hiring external haulage contractors , especially because you do not have the required road tankers available ?

Of course I did not have that number of road tankers . I submitted the bid solely to demonstrate that ORG could itself acquire the required number of vehicles . The deadline for repayment of loans to business banks would not have been DATE . Since it was stated in the call for tenders that vehicles up to DATE were required , it was clear that in the subsequent DATE , after repayment of the loan , the road tankers would only earn money . We are talking about CARDINAL tankers . If you parked them one behind the other , the line would be QUANTITY long . I waited for TIME , until the call for tenders closed , and then , seeing that it was not going to be revoked , as I had asked the chairman of ORG 's management board [ ORG ] and the chairman of the supervisory board and the Deputy Prime Minister of GPE , ORG , to do , I decided to submit a bid which would indicate the detrimental effects of hiring external haulage contractors for road haulage .

How did the Deputy Prime Minister of GPE , ORG , react when you showed him your analyses ?

He said that it seemed that I had collected the data very meticulously and that they were frightening . Then I asked him what he intended to do about the public call for tenders , and he answered that it would have to go ahead . What he thought about the work I had done , the results of which I had shown him , is best illustrated by the fact that he drew my attention to a job advertisement which the ORG had published for , as was written there , ' educated , capable and ambitious people ' . He emphasised that my business reports were a good example of how economic crimes could be detected . ”

On DATE Slobodna PERSON published another article , entitled “ ORG : CARDINAL kunas evaporated between refineries and petrol stations ” ( ORG : PERSON rafinerije do benzinskih crpki isparilo MONEY ) . Alongside it a smaller article was published entitled : “ CARDINAL new jobs lost – What PERSON proposed in her analysis , but ORG did not accept ” ( ORG CARDINAL novih radnih mjesta – PERSON u svojoj analizi predložila PERSON , a ORG prihvatila ) . Both articles presented , inter alia , the contents of the letters the applicant had sent to ORG and ORG about the need and justification for developing ORG 's own vehicle fleet .

On CARDINAL and DATE ORG PERSON continued to write about ORG 's business policy in articles entitled “ ORG loses CARDINAL kunas daily ” ( ORG dnevno gubi CARDINAL tisuća kuna ) and “ ORG loses money on hauliers ” ( ORG gubi novac na prijevoznicima ) . On DATE the reaction of the management of ORG was also published under the headline : “ Lower costs with others ' road tankers ” ( ORG troškovi s tuđim cisternama ) , which stated that the use of external hauliers was the usual practice in the oil industry , and that an independent auditing company , ORG , had established that this option was cheaper for ORG .

In an article entitled : “ Private hauliers are earning CARDINAL ( NORP ) marks per month – PERSON presents new evidence of fraud within ORG ” ( GPE prijevoznici zarađuju mjesečno CARDINAL tisuća maraka – PERSON iznijela nove dokaze o malverzacijama u ORG ) , published in ORG PERSON on DATE , the applicant openly accused ORG 's management for the first time of corruption and nepotism . In particular , she submitted that members of the management had had a personal interest in maintaining the current state of affairs , in which haulage services were being outsourced to the detriment of the company , because they were either receiving a commission from the hauliers or were personally involved in providing haulage services through their relatives . The article reads as follows :

“ PERSON BALENOVIĆ PRESENTS NEW EVIDENCE OF FRAUD WITHIN ORG

Private hauliers are earning CARDINAL [ NORP ] marks per month

Individuals in ORG 's management structure are involved in a private business of transporting oil , and so are some high - ranking ORG officials . ORG has already lost CARDINAL kunas through various machinations

' Private hauliers providing services to transport oil derivatives for ORG are in collusion with ORG 's management , and therefore it suits all of them that this kind of public call for tenders , which has now been issued , goes ahead and is implemented ' , PERSON , ORG 's expert for economic affairs , told journalists on DATE . PERSON 's claims concerning ORG 's economically unsound decision to hire private hauliers instead of acquiring their own road tankers to transport fuel have been published during DATE in a series of articles in this newspaper .

Balenović remains firmly of the opinion that private hauliers are paying the management hefty fees for their part in transporting derivatives for ORG , claiming that a single public call for tenders ' brings in MONEY in such fees ' .

Balenović goes even further in her accusations , claiming that some individuals in ORG 's management structure are involved in a private business of transporting oil , and she has even gone so far as to state that some high - ranking ORG officials were also involved .

' This does not come as a surprise if I tell you that a private haulier , in order to cover the complete costs of transporting derivatives , which include all road tankers ' maintenance costs , the driver 's salary and other expenses , spends CARDINAL kunas , while his net profit is CARDINAL a DATE ' , claims Balenović , backing up her claims with a large number of documents .

' A private haulier working for a large global oil company like ORG will make enough money to purchase a new road tanker in DATE , while our private hauliers transporting oil for ORG manage to do the same in DATE . From this it is quite clear that ORG is paying its hauliers too much , and that large amounts of money are flowing ' , said PERSON , backing up her words by documents from which it can clearly be seen that during DATE ORG paid private hauliers CARDINAL kunas .

Balenović suggests that if ORG decided to transport derivatives using its own road tankers , along with keeping part of the profit which private hauliers are now putting in their pockets , the company would be able to use loans to purchase CARDINAL completely new , high - quality road tankers , and pay them off within DATE .

She claims that a notorious theft of fuel is also going on within ORG . The managers and transport organisers , in collusion with private hauliers , are holding back [ the enforcement of ] claims for losses during transport , so that after DATE , when the statutory limitation period elapses , hauliers can not longer be liable for them .

' Through such machinations , ORG has already permanently lost CARDINAL QUANTITY kunas ' , said Balenović . She then produced a series of documents which , according to her words , prove that fuel theft is also being carried out during transport by ORG 's own road tankers . ”

Lastly , on DATE Slobodna PERSON published an article entitled : “ Private hauliers damaged ORG to the tune of CARDINAL kunas ” ( GPE prijevoznici oštetili PERSON dvadeset milijuna kuna ) in which the business policy of ORG was again called into question , as was the objectivity of the findings of the auditing company ORG .

On DATE ORG summarily dismissed ( izvanredni otkaz ugovora o radu ) the applicant from her job on account of her statements in the press . The relevant part of the decision reads as follows :

“ [ It has been ] established that PERSON harmed the business reputation of ORG by her unauthorised statements in the DATE newspaper ORG PERSON on DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE in which she came up with a series of inexpert analyses of the company 's business policy and accusations against ORG 's ... management , and presented the manner in which ORG runs its business in an extremely negative light .

Apart from the above , ... she made available to the public information on the course and content of preliminary negotiations on business cooperation , calculations of costs related to transactions involving [ certain ] goods and procurement of [ certain ] services through a public call for tenders , data on financial transactions and financial indicators , and data whose disclosure ... may be detrimental to the business interests of ORG .

It was further established that PERSON did not obtain authorisation to take the documents out of ORG 's business premises or to convey them to other persons or present them in the media as she did .

It follows from the foregoing that PERSON , by acting in the manner described above , did not observe ORG 's [ internal regulations ] on business correspondence of CARDINAL DATE or the [ internal regulations ] on business secrets of DATE , and thereby committed particularly serious breaches of the employment - related duties laid down in Rule CARDINAL of [ ORG 's internal employment regulations ] ( PERSON ) :

- non - performance of employment - related duties ;

- non - observance of instructions , decisions and other acts of the employer ;

- non - observance of the law , other regulations and the collective agreement ;

- disclosure of a business secret .

Given that because of the [ above- ] mentioned particularly serious breach of employment - related duties , the continuation of the employment relationship is no longer possible , a decision has been made as stated in the operative provisions . ”

On DATE the applicant lodged a request for the protection of her employment - related rights ( zahtjev za zaštitu prava ) in respect of the decision to dismiss her . On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant 's request .

On DATE the applicant brought a civil action against ORG in ORG ( PERSON ) challenging her dismissal . She sought reinstatement and salary arrears .

On DATE the court delivered a judgment dismissing the applicant 's action . The relevant part of that judgment reads as follows :

“ ... [ T]he plaintiff considers that the dismissal was unlawful [ inter alia ] because :

- [ she did not make the statements in the media ] as the respondent 's representative but as a citizen employed in a ORG - owned commercial company exercising her civil right and [ discharging her civic ] duty to protect , by appropriate statements in public , ORG property for the benefit of all the employees of the respondent and all NORP citizens ...

In the opinion of this court , irrespective of whether the plaintiff disclosed a business secret or financial or other information which does not represent a business secret , she acted contrary to the interests of the employer ... , regardless of the employer 's ownership structure and the accuracy of the published information , in that she made extremely negative statements in the media , as a result of which she primarily harmed the reputation of the employer .

By making public statements in this way , the plaintiff acted contrary to the [ internal regulations ] on business correspondence in ORG ... , Rule CARDINAL of which provides that the authority to conduct business communications and correspondence and provide information to the media lies exclusively with the general director and the director of the sector of promotional activities ... , and Rule CARDINAL of which provides that non - observance constitutes a breach of the employee 's duty , with the resultant consequences . Each of the above - mentioned breaches is , in the opinion of this court , [ in itself ] a sufficient reason allowing the respondent to lawfully dismiss the plaintiff ... because [ she ] committed particularly serious breaches of employment - related duties , as a result of which , taking into account all the circumstances and the interests of both parties , the continuation of the employment relationship is no longer possible .

It is to be noted that this court can not find a ' civic duty ' in , or deriving from , any existing legal provision , apart from LAW , which provides that the plaintiff , as a citizen , must file a criminal complaint against the perpetrator if she considers that a criminal offence has been committed . The civic duty is thereby discharged and the competent ORG authorities then proceed with the investigation of the criminal offence and identification of the perpetrators . It is also to be noted that LAW , in particular LAW , provides that revealing a business secret ... in a criminal complaint or when reporting an administrative offence to the competent authority or to the supervisory authority in the exercise of one 's own employment - related rights DATE but not to the public – is not to be treated as disclosure of a business secret . ”

On DATE ORG ( Županijski sud u GPE ) dismissed an appeal by the applicant and upheld the judgment delivered at first instance . In particular , ORG held that the relevant provisions of LAW protected employees from dismissal only in cases where they turned to the ORG authorities with a view to enforcing their rights or reporting a suspicion of corruption , but not in cases where they sought to do so through the media . The relevant part of ORG judgment reads as follows :

“ [ The first - instance court ] established that the plaintiff , in her public statements in the DATE newspaper ORG PERSON on DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE , expressed a whole series of negative comments and serious but flippantly made allegations about the business activities and management of the respondent , and in doing so acted contrary to the interests of her employer , and jeopardised and harmed the business reputation of the respondent .

Here it has to be mentioned that the first - instance court did not examine whether the plaintiff 's comments were made competently [ i.e. expertly ] , because that is outside the scope of this labour dispute .

Those are questions relating to how a company runs its business , a matter within the exclusive competence of the management board , whereas the supervisory role is exercised by the supervisory board , and not an individual employee .

In this connection it has to be noted that under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW , recourse by an employee to the [ competent ] executive authorities does not constitute a justified reason for [ his or her ] dismissal .

... [ U]nder section CARDINAL ) , recourse by an employee to the competent ORG authorities on account of a reasonable suspicion of corruption , or the filing by an employee of a criminal complaint in good faith on the grounds of that suspicion , does not constitute a justified reason for dismissal .

... [ I]t follows that the law protects an employee only when applying to the competent ORG authorities , and not in respect of the media ...

Hence , if the plaintiff wanted to inform the public of the existence of possible irregularities and illegalities in the respondent 's operations , she could have done so by applying to the competent ORG authorities , which would then , pursuant to section CARDINAL of LAW , be bound to make that information available to journalists ...

Therefore , the first - instance court correctly established that the plaintiff 's unauthorised statements in the press constituted ... an important fact justifying [ her dismissal ] .

Lastly , the plaintiff also made publicly available various financial data , data concerning the course and content of preliminary negotiations on business cooperation etc . , which are mentioned in the published articles , which she was not authorised to do , and in doing so seriously breached her employment - related duties within the meaning of Rule CARDINAL of the respondent 's [ internal employment regulations ] . ”

On DATE ORG ( PERSON ) dismissed a subsequent appeal by the applicant on points of law ( revizija ) . The relevant part of ORG judgment reads as follows :

“ In the contested decision on summary dismissal of the plaintiff , ... , the respondent , as the employer , refers , as the justified reason for dismissal , to the statements by the plaintiff in the DATE newspaper ORG PERSON on DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE .

It was established in the proceedings that in these statements the plaintiff made :

- extremely negative comments about the respondent 's business activities and the management of resources ,

- allegations of conduct such as manipulations and machinations in the respondent 's business affairs , as well as the covering up of crime on the part of the respondent 's administration and management .

The lower - instance courts found that this kind of behaviour on the part of the plaintiff constituted a justified reason for dismissal within the meaning of LAW , paragraph CARDINAL , of LAW .

In this case , answering the following question of principle is of decisive importance : What are the repercussions of the public statements of an employee , in which extremely negative comments about the business activities and management of resources of an employer were made , both for the employment contract and for the employment relationship between the employee and the employer ? And also : What is the significance of the plaintiff 's public statements in the present case ?

It should be noted that , in principle , public statements of this kind by an employee may have repercussions for the employment relationship , as a particularly important fact , as a result of which , while taking into account all the circumstances and interests of both parties , the continuation of employment is not possible .

In this particular case , the aforementioned statements by the plaintiff evidently damaged the reputation of the respondent , since an employer whose leadership structures tolerate and encourage criminal activities certainly can not have a good reputation and be trusted in the business world . Therefore , this kind of behaviour on the part of the plaintiff has significant repercussions for the employment relationship between the parties and gives the employer a justified reason for termination of the employment contract , within the meaning of section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW . This precisely , having regard to the given circumstances , constitutes a particularly important fact , as a result of which the continuation of employment is not possible .

... In the present case , the depiction of the employer 's business activities in an extremely negative light in the media by the employee constitutes a particularly important fact of this kind , which gives the employer a justified reason for termination of the employment contract .

The plaintiff 's reliance on her ' civic duty ' is unfounded . In this regard the assessment of the second - instance court to the effect that the plaintiff could realise her ' intention to prevent damage and protect the property of the respondent ' only by turning to , and lodging a complaint with , the competent ORG authorities , which would have resulted in that information being available to the press and other media DATE and could not have served as a reason for dismissal – is correct . ”

The applicant then lodged a constitutional complaint against ORG judgment , alleging infringements of her constitutional rights to equality , equality before the law , work and freedom of expression .

On DATE ORG ( Ustavni sud PERSON ) dismissed the applicant 's constitutional complaint . It served its decision on her representative on DATE . Replying to the applicant 's argument that she had been dismissed despite the fact that she had merely been discharging her statutory duty to report criminal offences , the court noted that the applicant had filed her criminal complaint ( see below ) only after she had made the statements in question to the media . It further held :

“ As regards the complainant 's criticism directed against the part of the first - instance judgment referring to the notion of a ' civic duty ' , the Constitutional Court points out that the part of the reasoning in which the first - instance court notes that ' this court can not find a civic duty in , or deriving from , any existing legal provision , apart from LAW ... ' is [ rather ] unfortunately worded . This does not , however , affect the validity of that court 's legal view regarding the ' civic duty ' of the complainant as an employee , according to which the complainant – if she considered that her employer had committed a criminal offence – should , as a citizen , have filed a criminal complaint against the perpetrator , whereupon the competent ORG authorities would have proceeded to investigate the criminal offence and identify the perpetrators .

ORG notes that the complainant justifies her conduct towards the employer ( that is , her statements in the media ) , for which the employer dismissed her , by claiming that ' she expressed her personal opinions primarily as a citizen ' , and as an employee in the part where she objected to the ' appropriation of ORG property ' .

ORG notes in this connection that a breach of an employee 's duties towards an employer can not be justified by the right to express a personal opinion in the manner presented by the complainant in her constitutional complaint . ”

The applicant submitted that , before making her statements in the media , in the period DATE she had reported the irregularities she had noticed to the GPE police authorities , in particular to a certain Inspector PERSON

On DATE the applicant filed a criminal complaint with ORG Attorney 's Office ( Općinsko državno odvjetništvo u GPE ) against several ORG executives . In particular , the applicant accused the chairman of the supervisory board , ORG , the chairman of the management board ( that is , the company 's general director ) , PERSON , members of the management board GPE and ORG , the director of wholesale trade and logistics , PERSON , and the director and assistant director of retail trade , PERSON and PERSON , of several criminal offences such as business misfeasance , abuse of authority in business operations and conclusion of a prejudicial contract . In doing so she repeated , in substance , her criticism concerning ORG 's business policy in the field of haulage raised in her previous statements to the press .

On DATE the ORG Attorney 's ORG dismissed the applicant 's criminal complaint . As to the applicant 's accusations that outsourcing haulage services instead of developing its own vehicle fleet was detrimental to the company and amounted to a criminal offence , the ORG Attorney replied that it was for ORG 's management to decide which business policy to adopt and found no elements of criminal liability in the existing policy , adding that the applicant 's allegations simply represented her own views concerning ORG 's business strategy . As regards the applicant 's claims concerning losses of petrol during transport from refineries to petrol stations and the alleged negligence in claiming compensation for those losses from the hauliers , the ORG Attorney found that they had occurred in DATE , when the director of wholesale trade and logistics had been Mr GPE After the accused PERSON had become the director of that sector the situation had improved significantly . The relevant part of the ORG Attorney 's decision reads as follows :

“ ... as regards the reported individual [ M.B. ] , who became Director of ORG on DATE , it was established that during his term of office , ORG 's claims against hauliers for losses [ in transport ] had been settled through a set - off with freight , that is to say that the majority of claims from the previous period were successfully settled by a mutual set - off , while the amounts which were not settled in that way were subject to default interest rates . This is confirmed by the report of ORG , and by other documentation collected , from which it follows that the problems concerning recovery of claims for losses [ during transport ] had been identified DATE , although these in fact dated back to DATE , and that the problems culminated in DATE and DATE , and at the same time , it has been established that from DATE onwards these problems started to be resolved .

On the basis of all the above , it is indisputable that the actions of ... [ M.B. ] , or the actions of any other responsible persons within ORG , ... , do not correspond to the [ statutory ] description of a criminal offence [ defined in ] LAW , or of any other criminal offence prosecutable automatically .

As regards the remainder of the criminal complaint by PERSON , relating to the above - mentioned actions of ... the entire management of ORG , it has been established that these allegations were unfounded .

PERSON , who filed the criminal complaint , does not provide evidence or facts giving rise to a reasonable suspicion that criminal offences had been committed , but rather submits arguments for , and explains her concept of , the strategic development and business policy of ORG . It is to be noted that a business policy of a commercial company can not give rise to criminal liability in respect of its management , under LAW .

Therefore , the allegations in the criminal complaint – that ORG hired external hauliers instead of investing in its own vehicle fleet – represent the complainant 's vision of the development strategy of ORG , rather than a description of the actions of the reported individuals , which [ might amount to criminal offences ] . In this connection , it is to be noted that from the document enclosed with the file outlining the development strategy of ORG , which was prepared by the auditing company ORG , it follows that , ... , ORG should hire reputable hauliers for transporting derivatives , rationalise the network in order to support the wholesale and retail sectors , etc . Therefore , [ hiring external hauliers ] was a business decision which did not [ amount to ] any criminal offence .

Having regard to all the above , I consider that :

- as regards the reported criminal offence provided for in LAW ( misfeasance in business operations ) , it has been established , as mentioned above , that the problems of unpaid claims for losses in transport dated back to DATE ( according to the Report of ORG ) . Therefore , the reported individuals can not in any way be responsible for that [ situation ] because they joined ORG in DATE . [ What is more , ] it has been established in this connection that from that time on they had taken numerous measures with a view to improving the situation in the transport [ sector ] , and made the further engagement of hauliers conditional upon the set - off of earlier debts and thereby managed to settle CARDINAL of earlier unpaid claims .

- as regards the alleged commission of criminal offences provided for in Articles ORG and CARDINAL of LAW , it should be emphasised that it has not been established that any legal entity had obtained an unlawful pecuniary gain at ORG 's expense , which is a statutory element of the criminal offence defined in Article MONEY ( abuse of authority in business operations ) . Nor has it been established that contracts DATE which the reported individuals had [ allegedly ] concluded and which they had [ allegedly ] known to be detrimental to ORG – existed , which is a statutory element of the criminal offence defined in LAW ( concluding a prejudicial contract ) .

Having regard to all the above , the criminal complaint should be dismissed , ... and [ this ] decision delivered to the supervisory board of ORG , given the fact that the criminal complaint was filed against members of ORG 's management board , so that the injured party may exercise the statutory right to take over the prosecution should it still consider that the actions of the reported individuals amount to the above - mentioned criminal offences . ”

The applicant then attempted to take over the prosecution as the injured party ( oštećenik kao tužitelj ) and on DATE lodged a request with the investigating judge of ORG , asking him to open an investigation in respect of the persons designated as the accused in her criminal complaint . On DATE the investigating judge declared her request inadmissible , finding that she was not authorised to lodge such a request because it was ORG and not her who was the injured party .

On DATE the applicant appealed against that decision to a panel of ORG .

On DATE the panel of ORG dismissed the applicant 's appeal and upheld the first - instance decision of CARDINAL DATE .

On DATE the applicant lodged her application with the ORG .

By letter of CARDINAL DATE the applicant was informed that on DATE the President of ORG had decided to communicate the complaint concerning freedom of expression to the Government , who were invited to submit written observations on the admissibility and merits of the case . Enclosed was an information note in NORP containing instructions to applicants on the proceedings after communication of an application to the Government . The relevant part of the information note reads as follows :

“ CARDINAL . Friendly settlements : The Government are also requested to indicate their position regarding a friendly settlement of your case and to submit any proposals they may wish to make in this regard ( Rule CARDINAL ) . The same request will be made of you when you receive their observations . There is a requirement of strict confidentiality in respect of friendly settlement negotiations under LAW , and any proposals or submissions in this respect should be set out in a separate document , the contents of which must not be referred to in any submissions made in the context of the main proceedings . ”

By letter dated CARDINAL DATE the Government informed the ORG that they were interested in reaching a friendly settlement with the applicant in the present case .

By letter dated DATE the Government informed ORG of their specific proposal with a view to securing a friendly settlement , and asked the ORG to forward their proposal to the applicant .

By letter of DATE the applicant was notified of the ORG 's proposal and invited to reply to it by DATE .

In their letter , dated DATE , the Government submitted that the applicant had not respected the confidentiality of friendly - settlement negotiations because on DATE she had disclosed to the media the contents of the ORG 's friendly - settlement proposal . In support of their allegations , the Government enclosed a DVD containing the applicant 's statements to ORG and ORG on CARDINAL DATE , as well as copies of articles published in the DATE newspapers ORG list , GPE list , ORG PERSON and ORG list on DATE containing the applicant 's statements to the press .

By letter of CARDINAL DATE the ORG 's letter of CARDINAL DATE was forwarded to the applicant , who was also requested to comment on it and submit an explanation for the alleged breach of the confidentiality of friendly - settlement proceedings .

By letter dated DATE the applicant refused the ORG 's proposal for a friendly settlement . At the same time she rejected the ORG 's allegations that she had breached the confidentiality of friendly - settlement negotiations .

LAW ( Zakon o kaznenom postupku , ORG nos . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , DATE ( corrigendum ) , CARDINAL and CARDINAL ) , as in force at the material time , read , in its relevant part , as follows :

Section CARDINAL

“ ( CARDINAL ) ORG shall report criminal offences subject to public prosecution .

( CARDINAL ) Cases in which failure to report a criminal offence constitutes a criminal offence shall be prescribed by law . ”

LAW ( PERSON , ORG nos . GPE and PERSON ( corrigendum ) ) , as in force at the material time , read , in its relevant part , as follows :

“ An officer of a legal entity in which he or she does not hold a majority share who , by knowingly violating the law or other regulations on business operations , manifestly conducts business recklessly and thereby causes considerable pecuniary damage to that legal entity shall be punished by a fine or by imprisonment not exceeding DATE . ”

“ ( CARDINAL ) An officer of a legal entity who , with the aim of acquiring unlawful pecuniary gain for his or her own legal entity or any other legal entity :

( i ) creates or keeps illegal funds within the country or in a foreign ORG ,

( ii ) by drawing up false deeds , balance sheets , assessments or inventories or by other false presentation or concealment of facts misrepresents the state and flow of funds and success in business operations ,

( iii ) places the legal entity in a more favourable position by obtaining funds or other benefits which would not be granted to it under the existing regulations ,

( iv ) in discharging its obligations in respect of budgets or funds , withholds the levies due ,

( v ) uses the earmarked funds at his or her disposal contrary to their purpose ,

( vi ) in some other way seriously breaches the law or business rules concerning the use and management of assets ,

shall be punished by a term of imprisonment of DATE .

( CARDINAL ) If a considerable pecuniary gain is acquired as a result of the criminal offence referred to in paragraph CARDINAL of this LAW and the perpetrator acted with intent to acquire such gain , he or she shall be punished by a term of imprisonment of DATE . ”

“ ( CARDINAL ) Anyone who , as a representative or agent of a legal entity in which he or she does not hold a majority share , concludes a contract which he or she knows to be prejudicial to the legal entity or concludes a contract in breach of authority , thereby causing damage to that legal entity , shall be punished by a term of imprisonment of DATE .

( CARDINAL ) If the perpetrator of the criminal offence referred to in paragraph CARDINAL of this LAW has accepted a bribe for so acting , he or she shall be punished by a term of imprisonment of DATE . ”

LAW ( Zakon o radu , ORG nos . CARDINAL , CARDINAL/CARDINAL ( corrigendum ) , CARDINAL/CARDINAL ( corrigendum ) , CARDINAL , CARDINAL/CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , PERSON ( corrigendum ) , ORG and ORG ( consolidated text ) ) , reads , in its relevant part , as follows :

“ The person who employs ( hereinafter ' the employer ' ) shall give a job to the employee and pay him or her for the work carried out , whereas the employee shall , pursuant to the employer 's instructions given in accordance with the nature and the type of work , personally perform the job taken . ”

“ In the employment relationship the employer and the employee shall comply with the provisions of this LAW and other statutes , international agreements concluded and ratified in accordance with the LAW and published , other legislation , collective agreements and internal employment regulations . ”

“ An employer or an employee may give notice terminating the employment contract . ”

“ An employer may give notice terminating an employment contract , subject to a prescribed or agreed notice period ( ' regular notice ' ) , if he or she has a justified reason for doing so , in the following cases :

( i ) if the need for performing a certain job ceases for economic , technological or organisational reasons ( ' notice due to business reasons ' ) ,

( ii ) if the employee is not capable of duly performing his or her employment - related duties because of some permanent characteristics or abilities ( ' notice due to personal reasons ' ) , or

( iii ) if the employee breaches his or her employment - related duties ( ' notice due to the employee 's misconduct ' ) . ”

“ ( CARDINAL ) An employer or an employee has a justified reason to give notice terminating ... an employment contract , without an obligation to comply with the prescribed or agreed notice period ( ' summary notice ' ) if , because of a particularly serious breach of an employment - related duty or because of some other particularly important fact , taking into account all the circumstances and the interests of both contracting parties , continuation of the employment relationship is not possible .

( CARDINAL ) An employment contract may be terminated on summary notice only within DATE from the date when the person concerned found out about the fact on which the summary notice is based . ”

“ ( CARDINAL ) ...

( CARDINAL ) Where an employee lodges an appeal or brings an action or takes part in proceedings against the employer for breach of statute , other legislation , a collective agreement or an internal regulation , and addresses the competent executive authorities , this shall not constitute a justified reason for dismissal .

( CARDINAL ) Where an employee addresses a bona fide complaint to the person in charge [ of the relevant department ] or files CARDINAL with the competent ORG authorities on grounds of a reasonable suspicion of corruption , this shall not constitute a justified reason for dismissal . ”


Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial;Violation of Article 13 - Right to an effective remedy

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

The applicants were born in DATE , DATE and DATE respectively and live in GPE . They are relatives .

On DATE the first applicant lodged an action before the ORG of GPE against a private company and its owner , PERSON , claiming execution of a contract and compensation for damage . According to the ORG , the action was lodged on DATE .

The Nevskiy District Court fixed a hearing for DATE and ordered the first applicant to provide a detailed calculation of the damages claimed . The first applicant submitted the calculation and amended his claims .

On DATE the ORG adjourned the examination of the action because the first applicant had not followed the pre - trial procedure for settling the dispute .

DATE the first applicant appealed against the decision of DATE to GPE . On DATE he lodged another action before the ORG against PERSON seeking compensation for damage and execution of a contract . The action was based on the same set of facts as the action of CARDINAL DATE .

On DATE GPE upheld the decision of DATE .

On DATE ORG partly granted the action of DATE . The judgment was quashed on appeal on DATE and a re - examination of the case was ordered .

Having received the case file , on DATE the ORG joined the CARDINAL sets of the proceedings pertaining to the applicant ’s actions and listed a hearing for DATE . DATE ORG fixed CARDINAL hearings , of which , according to the ORG , CARDINAL hearings in DATE , CARDINAL hearing in DATE and CARDINAL hearings in DATE were adjourned due to the parties’ failure to attend . The first applicant , relying on a letter of DATE from a deputy president of ORG , disputed the ORG ’s assertion , arguing that CARDINAL hearing in DATE had been postponed due to the parties’ absence , CARDINAL had been adjourned because the presiding judge had been involved in other unrelated proceedings or had been ill and the remaining CARDINAL hearings had been adjourned because the respondent had defaulted .

In the meantime , on CARDINAL DATE the first applicant , who at that time lived in the town of PERSON , asked ORG to examine the action in his absence and to serve him with a copy of the judgment . The first applicant provided the ORG with copies of summonses for the hearings , neither of which contained a notification that his presence before ORG was mandatory .

On DATE the ORG partly accepted the action . The first applicant appealed . On DATE ORG adjourned the appeal proceedings and asked the first applicant to pay a court fee .

On DATE , following a complaint by the first applicant , GPE quashed the decision of DATE and accepted the appeal . On DATE ORG quashed the judgment of DATE in part and sent the case for a fresh examination .

On DATE the first applicant once again asked ORG to consider the case in his absence .

As it appears from the parties’ submissions , after ORG had received the case file from GPE , it fixed the first hearing for DATE .

On DATE ORG postponed the hearing . According to the Government , ORG held that the first applicant ’s presence was mandatory . They further submitted that summonses had been served on the parties , including the first applicant , with a note stating that their presence was required .

Hearings scheduled for DATE and DATE were also adjourned due to the first applicant ’s absence . According to the Government , summonses containing an order for the first applicant ’s presence had been served on him in due time . Copies of the summonses presented by the first applicant , including those for the hearings scheduled for DATE , CARDINAL DATE and DATE , did not contain notification that his presence was mandatory .

On DATE the ORG discontinued the examination of the action because the first applicant had defaulted at the hearings on DATE , DATE and DATE and had apparently lost interest in his case .

The first applicant was not notified of the decision of DATE . Accordingly , he complained to various domestic officials and ORG of GPE about the excessive length of the proceedings in his case .

On DATE GPE , in reply to numerous complaints by the first applicant , sent a letter informing him that on DATE the proceedings in his case had been discontinued due to his failure to attend hearings . ORG , explained in detail to the first applicant the various judicial avenues he could follow if he wanted to challenge the decision of DATE . A copy of the decision of DATE was not enclosed .

The first applicant asked the President of ORG to serve him with the decision of DATE . He also argued that he had requested ORG to examine his action in his absence and that therefore his absence from the hearings should not have been interpreted as proof that he had lost interest in the case .

On DATE the ORG President informed the first applicant that his requests for the examination of his action in his absence had been included in the case file and that ORG had taken them into consideration . However , ORG had considered that the first applicant ’s presence at the hearings had been absolutely necessary and thus , following unsuccessful attempts to obtain his attendance , on DATE it had decided to discontinue the examination of the case . The President of ORG enclosed a copy of the decision of DATE .

On DATE GPE office , in response to complaints by the applicant about the discontinuation of the proceedings , once again informed the first applicant of the procedure for challenging the decision of DATE .

The RSFSR Code on Civil Procedure of DATE ( in force at the material time ) provided that civil cases were to be prepared for a hearing DATE after the action had been lodged with the court . Civil cases were to be examined DATE after the preparation for the hearing had been completed ( LAW )

Summonses were to be served on the parties and their representatives in a way that allowed them enough time to attend the hearing on time and prepare their case . If necessary , the parties could be summoned by a phone call or a telegram ( Article CARDINAL ) .

NORP Parties could ask a court to examine a case in their absence and to serve them with a copy of a judgment . A court could decide that the presence of a party was mandatory on the basis of the particular circumstances of a case ( LAW .

Article CARDINAL set out a list of grounds for issuing an interim decision on discontinuation of the proceedings ( определение об оставлении заявления без рассмотрения ) , that is , if parties failed to make use of a preliminary non - judicial avenue of solving a dispute ; if an action was lodged by an incapacitated person or by a person lacking the authority to act ; if the parties , who had not asked for the examination of a case in their absence , without valid reasons , failed to attend CARDINAL hearings and the court considered it impossible to decide the case on the basis of case file materials ; if a claimant , who had not asked for the examination of a case in his / her absence , failed to attend CARDINAL hearings and a respondent did not insist on the examination of the merits of the case ; and if the same dispute between the same parties was pending before a court .

A copy of a decision on discontinuation of the proceedings was to be sent to the absent party DATE after its delivery ( LAW ) .


The applicants are NORP nationals , both born in DATE . They are a married couple living in GPE , GPE . The first applicant is a ORG judge and the second applicant is a university teacher . Before the ORG they are represented by PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE .

A.

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

In DATE criminal proceedings were brought in ORG ( kihlakunnanoikeus , häradsrätt ) of Piikkiö . The applicants ' neighbours ( GPE , ORG and their daughter PS ) were charged with defamation , infringement of domestic peace and slander , among other offences . The first applicant was charged with minor theft . There was an order of a joinder of the CARDINAL cases . On DATE GPE was found guilty of slander and fines were imposed . He was ordered to pay the second applicant ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL in compensation . The other charges were rejected as inadmissible or unfounded .

The applicants appealed to ORG ( hovioikeus , hovrätt ) of GPE claiming compensation and requesting their neighbours to be convicted . The judges of the third chamber of ORG , which dealt with the case , were ORG and N. As the appeal concerned the evaluation of a particular statement by a witness and this witness 's observations of the LOC , ORG decided to conduct an inspection on the site , i.e. the backyard of the applicants ' house . The inspection took place on DATE in the presence of judges ORG and N.

On DATE ORG found the charge against ORG to be unfounded rather than inadmissible but otherwise upheld ORG judgment .

On DATE criminal proceedings were instituted by the public prosecutor in ORG ( raastuvanoikeus , rådstuvurätt ) of GPE against ORG and TS , who had been witnesses in the above - mentioned trial , and against GPE , ORG and ORG . JE and TS were charged with giving false statements as a witness under oath . PS was charged with giving false statements as a witness . GPE and ORG were charged with inciting the above - mentioned offences . ORG was also charged with slander as she was accused of claiming that the applicants had done something which might endanger their good reputation ( the actual content of the slander is not mentioned in the file ) . Each of the applicants claimed ORG CARDINAL in compensation for moral damage .

On DATE the applicants brought additional private prosecution proceedings against GPE , ORG and ORG , charging ORG with attempted fraud and malicious accusation and GPE and ORG with incitement to those offences . The public prosecutor did not support these charges . There was an order of a joinder of the CARDINAL cases ( with the proceedings instituted on DATE ) .

On DATE ORG found ORG guilty of slander and rejected the rest of the charges . ORG was ordered to pay the applicants ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL each in compensation .

The applicants , the public prosecutor and ORG appealed to ORG of GPE . The appeals were examined by the third chamber of the court which had also conducted the inspection in the previous case in DATE . ORG were still sitting in this chamber . A chamber of ORG consists of CARDINAL judges .

On DATE ORG acquitted ORG and upheld the rest of ORG judgment . In its reasoning ORG made an explicit reference to its findings based on the inspection conducted during the earlier proceedings .

The applicants were refused leave to appeal by ORG ( korkein oikeus , högsta domstolen ) on DATE .

B. Relevant domestic law

According to LAW , LAW , of the LAW of the Judicial Procedure ( oikeudenkäymiskaari , rättegångsbalken ) , as in force at the relevant time , a judge is disqualified when he has acted as a judge in another court in respect of the same case or when he has on a court order earlier decided on a question related to that case .


Preliminary objection rejected;Violation of Art. 6-1;Not necessary to examine Art. 14+6;Violation of P1-1;Pecuniary damage - financial award;Non-pecuniary damage - financial award;Costs and expenses award - domestic proceedings;Costs and expenses award - Convention proceedings

On DATE , by decision no . CARDINAL of the Ministers of Culture and Finance , ORG expropriated CARDINAL sq . m. of land belonging to the applicant , and a CARDINAL - storey building standing on it , in order to house ORG .

By decision no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL of DATE , ORG assessed provisional compensation in the sum of MONEY ( GRD ) . At the hearing , ORG maintained that the building was in very poor condition and described it as a “ ruin ” . The applicant had sought GRD CARDINAL,CARDINAL,CARDINAL [ Note by the Registry : Before the ORG , the applicant produced an expert report dated DATE from ORG describing her building as “ a typical example of turn - of - the - century bourgeois architecture ” and certifying it to be in very good condition . She also produced a report by a valuer dated DATE in which the property ( the land and the building ) was valued at ORG and a certificate from ORG , which in DATE had decided to purchase the building with a view to installing part of its services there . The mayor noted that “ despite its high cost , the building in question had been chosen because of its central location and its special architectural and aesthetic interest ” . That purchase did not take place as the expropriation was ordered shortly afterwards . The final document produced by the applicant was a valuer 's report dated DATE in which the valuer certified under oath before ORG that the then current value of the property was GRD CARDINAL,CARDINAL,CARDINAL . ] .

On DATE the applicant applied to ORG for an order assessing the final unit amount for compensation . She continued to maintain that the true value of her property was ORG CARDINAL . Her application was lodged with the registry of ORG on DATE . The case was set down for hearing on DATE .

On DATE ORG , a court bailiff ( δικαστικός επιμελητής ) at ORG was instructed by the applicant 's lawyer to serve the application on the applicant 's opponents , namely ORG and ORG και Απαλλoτριώσεωv ) . Although the time - limit for serving the application expired DATE after the date of the decision of ORG ( that is to say on DATE ) , NORP did not serve it until DATE , as he mistook it for a notice of appeal requiring service DATE before the date of the hearing .

Meanwhile , the applicant 's opponents had also applied to ORG for an order assessing the final unit amount for compensation . Their application , dated DATE , was lodged with the registry of ORG on DATE and served on the applicant on DATE . The hearing was fixed for DATE .

On DATE the applicant 's opponents appeared before ORG and applied for an adjournment of the applicant 's application so that both applications could be heard together on DATE .

On DATE , by judgment no . CARDINAL , ORG declared both applications inadmissible as being out of time . As regards ORG application , however , it observed that for the purposes of DATE limitation period time did not run during the judicial vacation , that is to say from DATE to DATE .

On DATE the applicant sought an order from ORG “ restoring matters to their previous position ” ( αίτηση επαvαφoράς τωv πραγμάτωv στηv πρoηγoύμεvη κατάσταση ) . She argued in particular that the mistake by the court bailiff that had caused him to serve her application out of time constituted an act of force majeure for which she was not responsible .

On DATE the applicant applied to ORG for an order restoring matters to their previous position and an order quashing ORG judgment no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL . She argued , inter alia , that the error of the bailiff , who thought he was dealing with an appeal , was clear from the wording of the affidavits of service , which stated that the document served was a notice of appeal against ORG First Instance 's decision no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL .

On DATE the applicant applied to ORG for a review ( αvαψηλάφηση ) of its decision no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL . In support of her application , she referred to a document dated DATE from ORG which indicated that the building was in very good condition . The applicant said that her opponents had been aware of the existence of the document before the hearing but had concealed it from the court . By decision no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL of DATE , the application for a review was declared inadmissible on the ground that no appeal lay from a decision assessing the provisional amount for compensation . On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal against decision no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , but it was dismissed by ORG on DATE ( judgment no . CARDINAL ) . The applicant did not appeal to ORG against that judgment .

On DATE ORG stayed the application for an order restoring matters to their previous position until ORG had decided the applicant 's appeal .

On DATE the applicant lodged written submissions with ORG . She produced , inter alia , a sworn affidavit ( έvoρκη βεβαίωση ) dated DATE by ORG admitting that he had made a mistake regarding the nature of the document he had been asked to serve . The applicant also contended that the rule applied by ORG in the instant case that time ceased to run against the ORG during the period of the judicial vacation had contravened the principle of equality of arms . She said that , had that rule been applied to her application , it would not have been deemed to have been lodged outside the statutory time - limit . In that connection , the applicant relied on Articles CARDINAL § CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the Convention .

NORP In its judgment no . CARDINAL of DATE ORG said that the application for restoration of matters to the previous position had to be declared inadmissible , since the applicant had omitted to state in her notice of appeal the evidence on which she relied in support of her allegation that the bailiff , NORP , had made a mistake . It added that as the application made by the applicant 's opponents had also been declared inadmissible as being out of time , the applicant had not been prejudiced by the application of the rule that time ceased to run during the judicial vacation . It therefore dismissed her appeal on points of law . However , it made no mention in the operative provisions of the judgment to the application appended to the applicant 's appeal for the restoration of matters to the previous position .

After her appeal to ORG had been dismissed , the applicant resumed the proceedings she had commenced on DATE in ORG . The hearing was fixed for DATE .

On DATE , in judgment no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , ORG dismissed the applicant 's application for an order restoring matters to the previous position on the ground that that application had already been dismissed in substance by judgment no . PERSON of ORG . The applicant did not appeal to ORG against that judgment .

The relevant Article of LAW provides :

“ CARDINAL . Property shall be protected by the ORG ; rights deriving therefrom , however , may not be exercised contrary to the public interest .

No one may be deprived of his property unless it is for the public benefit , which must be duly proved , in the circumstances and manner laid down by law and only after full compensation corresponding to the value of the expropriated property at the time of the court hearing on the provisional assessment of compensation . In cases in which an application is made for immediate final assessment of compensation , regard shall be had to the value of the expropriated property at the time of the court hearing of the application . ...

Compensation shall in all cases be assessed by the civil courts . A court may even make a provisional assessment of compensation after the person entitled has been heard or his attendance requested and , at its discretion , require such person to furnish an appropriate guarantee before receiving the compensation , in accordance with law .

Until either final or provisional compensation has been paid , all the rights of the owner shall remain intact , occupation of the property being prohibited . ”

The assessed compensation must be paid within DATE of publication of the provisional assessment order . If immediate final assessment is sought , the final compensation must be paid within DATE of publication of the final assessment by the court .

A party to proceedings may apply for an order restoring matters to the previous position if it has been unable to comply with a time - limit as a result of an act of force majeure ( LAW ) . LAW lays down that applications for orders restoring matters to the previous position are made to the court before which the main proceedings are pending and , if there is CARDINAL set of proceedings , to the court which has jurisdiction to determine whether the procedural step for which the time - limit was imposed has been taken in time .

The Code of Civil Procedure ( Articles CARDINAL to CARDINAL and LAW ) lays down that that notices of appeal on points of law must state the court to which the appeal is made , the names and addresses of the parties , the purpose of the appeal , the judgment appealed against , the grounds of appeal and whether the appeal is against all or part of the impugned decision . The notice of appeal must also be duly dated and signed . Applications for an order restoring matters to the previous position must state the reasons why the applicant has failed to comply with the time - limit and the evidence on which it intends to rely in support of its allegations ( LAW ) .

LAW no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL of DATE provides that time shall not run against the ORG during the judicial vacation , that is to say from DATE to DATE .

Section CARDINAL of Law no . DATE lays down that court bailiffs are civil servants ( δημόσιoι λειτoυργoί ή υπάλληλoι ) who act as ORG representatives in the performance of their duties .

Under LAW no . DATE , no appeal lies against a decision assessing the provisional unit amount of compensation .


David Thór Björgvinsson;Ján Šikuta;Ledi Bianku;Nebojša Vučinić;Nicolas Bratza;Päivi Hirvelä;Vincent A. De Gaetano

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

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

In DATE and DATE the local tax authorities carried out a tax inspection concerning DATE in CARDINAL limited liability companies . According to the trade registry , the applicant was the managing director of CARDINAL of the companies between DATE and CARDINAL DATE but had no formal position in the other company . Nor did he own any shares in either of the companies .

On the basis of the tax inspection , the tax authorities found on DATE and DATE that the applicant had evaded taxes for DATE as he had been the real actor and authority in both of the companies and had received benefits from them which had not been declared . These benefits were to be considered as disguised dividends given to the applicant by the companies . An additional tax and a tax surcharge ( veronkorotus , skatteförhöjning ) , amounting in total to MONEY , were imposed on the applicant .

The applicant sought rectification from ORG ( verotuksen oikaisulautakunta , prövningsnämnden i beskattningsärenden ) . On DATE the ORG rejected the applicant ’s applications .

The applicant appealed to ORG ( hallinto - oikeus , förvaltningsdomstolen ) , claiming that the taxation decisions should be quashed as he could not be held responsible for tax evasion .

On DATE ORG quashed the previous taxation decisions . It found that no additional tax or tax surcharge could be imposed on the applicant as he had not owned any shares in either of the companies . No tax could be levied on the disguised dividends solely on the ground that a person had been a real actor and authority in a company . This decision became final and the taxation for DATE was rectified accordingly on DATE .

On DATE , while the taxation proceedings were still pending , the public prosecutor brought charges against the applicant for , inter alia , aggravated tax fraud . The applicant was accused of having failed to supply complete information in his tax returns for DATE with the intent of evading the tax due , amounting in total to MONEY . The public prosecutor considered that the applicant had sought considerable financial benefit , that the offence was committed in a particularly methodical manner and that the tax fraud was also aggravated when assessed as a whole . The tax authorities concurred with the charges brought by the public prosecutor and pursued also a compensation claim , which was joined to the criminal charges .

On DATE the Helsinki ORG ( käräjäoikeus , tingsrätten ) found the applicant guilty of aggravated tax fraud and sentenced him to a DATE prison sentence . He was also banned from business operations for DATE and was ordered to pay compensation to the tax authorities in the amount of the evaded taxes , that is , MONEY plus interest , together with costs and expenses . The court found that the applicant had not contested his failure to supply complete information in his tax returns . As the applicant had sought considerable financial benefit , the offence had been committed in a methodical manner over DATE and the tax fraud had also been aggravated when assessed as a whole , the applicant was found guilty of aggravated tax fraud .

The applicant appealed to ORG ( hovioikeus , hovrätten ) , requesting that his conviction be quashed . He referred to the decision of DATE by ORG , in which the court had quashed the previous taxation decisions . He claimed that there had been no obligation to declare the benefits allegedly received , as such benefits had not existed . In any event , the element of intent was missing .

On DATE the ORG upheld , after having held an oral hearing and having voted ( DATE ) , ORG judgment in this respect . It found that , according to LAW , the general courts , when judging criminal cases , were not bound by the interpretation given by the administrative bodies . Criminal and taxation proceedings were different in nature . In the present case , the decision of ORG , which had been solely based on tax inspection reports , was not binding on ORG but the case was to be judged only on the basis of the evidence gathered during the oral hearing . On the basis of this evidence the court found that the applicant had evaded taxes in the amount of CARDINAL euros when failing to declare the received benefits . By this tax evasion the applicant had sought considerable financial benefit , the offence had been committed in a particularly methodical manner and the tax fraud had also been aggravated when assessed as a whole . No reduction of the sentence was made on the basis of ORG decision of CARDINAL DATE .

The dissenting judge considered that the evidence presented in ORG was based in most parts on the tax inspection reports which had been confirmed by a witness . The evidence was therefore mainly the same as that relied on by ORG . Moreover , ORG ( korkein hallinto - oikeus , högsta förvaltnings - domstolen ) had confirmed in its case - law ( PERSON CARDINAL-B-CARDINAL ) that no tax could be levied on a person for disguised dividends if the person had not owned any shares in the company in question . According to the practice of ORG ( korkein oikeus , högsta domstolen ) , a conviction for tax fraud would require that a tax be levied in the administrative procedure ( see PERSON CARDINAL:CARDINAL ) . In these circumstances the dissenting judge considered that the applicant should have been acquitted on the basis of the principle of in dubio pro reo .

By a letter dated DATE the applicant appealed to ORG . He claimed that he could not be convicted for tax fraud as he had not been ordered to pay any taxes for the same acts of which he had been accused . There was no duty to pay compensation to the tax authorities as , according to ORG , there was not even any taxable income .

On DATE ORG refused leave to appeal .

Section CARDINAL of LAW ( laki verotusmenettelystä , lagen om beskattningsförfarande , Act no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) provides that if a person has failed to make the required tax returns or has given false information to taxation authorities and tax has therefore been incompletely or partially levied , the tax payer shall be ordered to pay unpaid taxes together with an additional tax and a tax surcharge .

According to LAW , sections CARDINAL and CARDINAL , of LAW ( rikoslaki , strafflagen ; as amended by Act no . DATE ) , a person who ( CARDINAL ) gives a taxation authority false information on a fact that influences the assessment of tax , ( CARDINAL ) files a tax return concealing a fact that influences the assessment of tax , ( CARDINAL ) for the purpose of avoiding tax , fails to observe a duty pertaining to taxation , influencing the assessment of tax , or ( CARDINAL ) acts otherwise fraudulently and thereby causes or attempts to cause a tax not to be assessed , or too low a tax to be assessed or a tax to be unduly refunded , shall be sentenced for tax fraud to a fine or to imprisonment for a period of DATE . If by the tax fraud ( CARDINAL ) considerable financial benefit is sought or ( CARDINAL ) the offence is committed in a particularly methodical manner and the tax fraud is aggravated when assessed as a whole , the offender shall be sentenced for aggravated tax fraud to imprisonment for a period DATE .

In the case ORG CARDINAL-B-CARDINAL ORG found that no tax could be levied on a person for disguised dividends if the person did not own any shares in the company in question .

In the case ORG CARDINAL:CARDINAL ORG found that a conviction for tax fraud would require that , in any event , a tax be levied . It stated the following :

“ According to [ LAW , LAW , subparagraph CARDINAL of LAW ] , a conviction for tax fraud requires that the offender has caused or attempted to cause that , in general , a tax shall not be levied . It does not require that the amount of the said tax would have to be confirmed finally by a tax decision or otherwise . In its decision , a general court is also not bound by decisions rendered in taxation or administrative law proceedings although it is natural that the said kind of decision has cogent significance in the discretion . Ultimately , a court shall consider itself the amount of tax at issue . Therefore , the fact that a dispute exists regarding the fiscal sanction does not mean that the essential elements of tax fraud could not be considered to have been fulfilled . The requirement is , however , that a tax shall be ordered in the matter . In such a situation , a taxpayer can not , either , hinder or try to hinder a tax to be levied without the threat of a sanction by not filing an appropriate notification only on the grounds that the question of determination of tax is in his or her opinion not clear . ”

ORG has taken a stand on the ne bis in idem principle in its recent precedent case ORG which concerned tax surcharges and aggravated tax fraud . In that case it found , inter alia , that , in addition to res judicata force , traditionally pending criminal charges already prevent in GPE the bringing of another set of criminal proceedings brought in the same matter ( lis pendens ) . Both principles apply only within the limits of criminal proceedings , not in cases crossing from administrative proceedings to criminal proceedings or vice versa . It is the duty of the public prosecutor to make sure ex officio before pressing charges that there are no other pending criminal cases on the same matter against the accused . Such a duty does not exist in relation to cases which cross over the limits of criminal proceedings .


The applicant was born in DATE and lives in ORG .

On DATE ORG ( skattemyndigheten ) of GPE sent a preliminary consideration ( övervägande ) to the applicant informing him that it was considering disallowing the deduction he had made for the interest he had paid on debts in the amount of MONEY ( SEK ) , as well as his declared capital gains for the sale of stocks in the amount of SEK CARDINAL,CARDINAL , that he had made in his tax return for DATE . Further , it was considering imposing tax surcharges ( skattetillägg ) amounting to SEK CARDINAL,CARDINAL ( MONEY [ ORG ] ) , i.e. PERCENT of the increased tax liability on the sum of SEK CARDINAL,CARDINAL,CARDINAL .

The preliminary consideration was based on an investigation of a company which had done business with a substantial number of private persons . As concerned the applicant , it appeared that he had borrowed SEK CARDINAL from the company and commissioned it to buy stocks for the same amount on his behalf . The applicant then sold the stocks back to the company at a fixed date , upon which he had made a capital gain . At the same time , he repaid the loan together with interest to the company . As the capital gain corresponded to the interest , they were set off against each other . In ORG view , the transactions had in reality never taken place and the applicant had simply received CARDINAL statements of account and a promissory note in order to use them to obtain tax advantages .

The applicant was requested to submit any comments he might have to ORG by DATE , which he did . He claimed that the transactions had taken place and that his tax return should be approved .

On DATE ORG decided to follow its preliminary consideration . With regard to the imposition of tax surcharges , it found that the applicant had submitted incorrect information about the purported transactions .

On DATE the applicant appealed against the decision , disputing ORG findings . He maintained that there were no grounds for disallowing the deductions or imposing tax surcharges on him .

On DATE ORG made its obligatory re - assessment of its decision of DATE but upheld it . It then forwarded the appeal to ORG ( länsrätten ) of GPE .

On DATE ORG rejected the applicant ’s appeal after having held an oral hearing . It agreed with ORG conclusion that no transactions had in reality taken place between the applicant and the company , for which reason they could not be included in his tax return . Moreover , the court found that the applicant had submitted incorrect information to ORG and that there were no grounds on which to remit the tax surcharges .

On DATE the applicant appealed to ORG ( kammarrätten ) in GPE , maintaining his claims . On DATE he made further submissions to the court , stating inter alia that his rights under LAW had been violated as he had not had access to the same material as ORG , and since the tax surcharges had been incorrectly imposed on him .

By judgment of DATE ORG upheld the lower court ’s judgment in full , without giving any new reasons of its own .

On DATE the applicant appealed to ORG ( Regeringsrätten ) , relying on the same grounds as before the lower courts and expanding them further .

On DATE ORG refused leave to appeal .

On DATE the applicant sued ORG , through the Chancellor of ORG , before ORG ( tingsrätten ) in GPE . He sought SEK CARDINAL,CARDINAL,CARDINAL ( approximately EUR CARDINAL,CARDINAL ) in damages on the grounds that ORG and the administrative courts had not afforded him a fair procedure , having withheld certain information from him , and that the proceedings had been of excessive length . He invoked national legislation as well as the LAW and its case - law .

The State contested the suit , claiming that it had not caused the applicant any injury , either by fault or neglect , for which he could claim damages .

In a judgment of DATE , ORG rejected the applicant ’s claims . As concerned the length of the proceedings , the court considered that the administrative courts’ examination of his tax case had not taken so long as to incur the ORG ’s liability for damages .

On DATE the applicant appealed to ORG ( hovrätten ) , maintaining his claims .

On DATE ORG upheld the lower court ’s judgment in full . With regard to the complaint about the length of the proceedings , the court , without giving any reasons , found that the tax proceedings could not be considered to have been of excessive duration .

On DATE the applicant appealed to ORG ( ORG domstolen ) where the case is still pending , awaiting a decision on leave to appeal .