The applicant , PERSON , is a NORP national , who was born in DATE . She was represented before the ORG by PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE .

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

The applicant is the step - grandmother of CARDINAL boys , T and L ( born respectively in DATE and DATE ) and is married to their paternal grandfather . Since the PERSON parents separated in DATE , they have been living with their mother C. Until DATE she and the boys only had sporadic contacts with the applicant and their grandfather . Thereafter the boys , mostly PERSON , visited them from time to time during DATE , normally one at the time . During DATE of DATE to CARDINAL March CARDINAL T. visited them by himself . The same night , he , together with his brother , told his mother and her co - habitant about sexual touching committed by the applicant .

On DATE C reported the matter to the police . The next day the police carried out interviews of the boys , which were video recorded . On DATE , the boys underwent forensic examinations at ORG in GPE . The relevant reports are dated DATE but , on an enquiry by the registry , the applicant ’s lawyer stated that the correct year was DATE . As regards T the report concluded in the main that the boy seemed normal and that the observations made neither confirmed nor contradicted the information available . Similar observations were made in the report concerning L , except for certain particular observations made regarding his posterior parts and the somewhat reduced capacity of muscular contraction of his anus . In this respect it was stated that the precise cause could not be established with absolute certainty ; but it could not be excluded that repeated intrusion of an object was a factor , though , according to scientific data , this phenomenon occurred in DATE of the children who had not been subjected to sexual abuse . The report concluded that the observations made neither contradicted nor with absolute certainty confirmed the information available .

On DATE the applicant was interrogated . On DATE the applicant and her defence counsel watched the video recordings at the police station and requested that T be interviewed once more . They did not request that any concrete questions be put to him but asked that he be questioned about his relationship with his brother , mother and father and , also , his attitude to physical contact generally . On DATE T was again interviewed , with a video recording . The interviews of the boys were carried out by a police officer , without the presence of the applicant or her counsel or a psychologist .

According to the applicant ’s lawyer , on DATE the police acknowledged that the questioning had not been carried out by a specially trained police officer and that several leading questions had been put . Therefore , according to his letter of CARDINAL DATE to the registry , on DATE he requested the police to carry out a new investigation , with the participation of an expert in child psychology . The lawyer has not provided any documentary evidence in support of the aforementioned submissions . A memorandum by a police officer dated DATE , supplied to the ORG by the applicant , stated :

“ On the above - mentioned date the CARDINAL video interviews of [ T ] and [ L ] have been shown to [ the applicant ] and her defence counsel , PERSON .

After having seen both video interviews the counsel ... and [ the applicant ] wished that one further interview should be held with [ T ] . They did not indicate any concrete questions that they wished be put to [ T ] . On the other hand , they wished that [ T ] should be questioned about his relations with his brother [ L ] and with his mother [ C ] and with his father [ R ] , as well as about any attitude he might have with regard to physical contact in general .

Another matter of concern to the defence was that [ T ] had stated something during the interview to the effect that he had recounted what had happened to him because he was anxious that someone at school should hear him talk about the incident for himself and ... that someone could hear him and believe that he had done something . ”

The applicant ’s counsel further submitted a summons of DATE to a meeting at the local police station on DATE , at which she was to be notified of the conclusions of the investigation ( LAW , LAW , of the Code on Judicial Procedure ) . The applicant ’s counsel stated to ORG ( in letter of DATE mentioned above ) that at that meeting “ the defence demanded that the prosecutor should complete the investigation with statements from experts . ”

On DATE the relevant local ORG - after hearing the applicant , her husband and her employer , the PERSON mother and her co - habitant , but not the boys themselves ( who were represented by a lawyer ) , and GPE ’s primary school teacher , - convicted the applicant of having committed sexual abuse of T on CARDINAL occasion and of L on CARDINAL occasion , sentenced her to CARDINAL months’ imprisonment and ordered her to pay certain sums in compensation to the boys . The video recorded police interviews of the boys , which constituted the main evidence against the applicant , were shown during the hearing and complete transcripts thereof were included in the written evidence .

As it appears from ORG judgment , a starting point for its examination was its observation that the prosecution case was essentially based on the information provided by children , submitted in the form of video recordings or recounted before the court by other witnesses . There was no evidence that directly support the indictment and no observable physical consequences could be established . Thus , what was decisive for the question of guilt was whether one could rely on the children ’s accounts in the light of what had otherwise emerged in the case . ORG then went on to assess in detail the contents of the video recorded interviews , the credibility of the PERSON statements and their evidentiary value , against the background of other evidence in the case .

On DATE the competent ORG upheld ORG judgment , after taking oral evidence from the same persons and viewing the video recordings and after having rejected ( by a separate decision of CARDINAL DATE , not appealed against ) a request by the applicant for an expert in child psychology to comment on the police interviews of the boys .

On DATE ORG refused leave to appeal .

Subsequently , on DATE , the applicant obtained an opinion by a Psychologist , Dr PERSON , whom her lawyer had requested to make a witness psychological assessment of the evidence gathered in the pre - trial investigation in the case . On the basis of the written case material , the video tapes and ORG and ORG judgments , the expert concluded :

“ In the light of what has been stated above concerning the circumstances in which [ T ] ’s and [ L ] ’s statements to the effect that they had been subjected to sexual abuse by [ the applicant ] had originated , these are deemed to be unreliable , i.e. not based on self - experienced events . ”

Domestic provisions of relevance in the present case are found in LAW ( hereinafter “ the Code ” ) and in the Ordinance on Preliminary Investigations ( ORG , DATE ; hereinafter “ the Ordinance ” ) .

A preliminary investigation takes place whenever there is reason to believe that a crime has been committed . LAW , LAW includes provisions pertaining to the categories of persons allowed to attend an interview during a preliminary investigation . The suspect and his defence counsel are always entitled to attend an interview which takes place following a request made by the suspect himself . This right , however , does not arise until a person has been informed of the suspicions against him in accordance with LAW , LAW , of the LAW . As far as other interviews are concerned , counsel for the defence may attend if his attendance will not harm the investigation . It is for the person who heads the preliminary investigation – a police officer or a public prosecutor – to decide who may attend a specific interview during the preliminary investigation . In cases where the suspect or his defence counsel is present during an interview , questions may only be asked in the order determined by the person in charge of the preliminary investigation ( LAW , LAW , of the Code ) .

When a preliminary investigation has reached the point at which a person can be reasonably suspected of having committed a crime , the person in question must be notified of the suspicions against him , pursuant to LAW , LAW , of the LAW . Under the second paragraph of that provision , an interview or other form of investigation may be undertaken at the request of the suspect or his defence counsel if the measure is deemed to be of importance to the preliminary investigation as such . If a request for such an investigative measure is not granted , the reasons for the decision must be given . If the suspect makes a complaint , the issue is settled by the court ( LAW , Article CARDINAL , of the Code ) .

Interviews with children conducted in the course of a preliminary investigation are subject to special regulations . Thus , according to LAW , LAW , of the LAW , a child ’s custodian should be present whenever a child under DATE is questioned if this can be done without any harmful effects on the investigation .

Further and more detailed provisions concerning the questioning of children are found in the GPE , section CARDINAL of which provides that interviews with , inter alia , an injured party under the age of CARDINAL must be conducted in such a manner that there is no danger that the interviewed person might be harmed . Moreover , particular caution is to be observed when the questioning concerns sexual matters . Particular care should be taken in order to ensure that the interview does not cause distress and does not become more intimate than the circumstances require . Questioning should not occur more often than necessary having regard to the nature of the investigation and the best interests of the child .

Under section CARDINAL interviews with children should ( “ bör ” ) be conducted by a person who is particularly suited to perform the task . In addition , section CARDINAL provides that a person with special expertise in the field of child psychology or interview psychology may assist at the questioning or comment on the value of the child ’s testimony .

Whenever the evidence of a witness below DATE is used in a criminal case , the court must determine , taking account of all relevant circumstances , whether the child should testify ( LAW , DATE , of the Code ) . There is no corresponding provision applicable to children who are in the position of an injured party . In practice , however , such evidence is normally presented to the court in the form of a video recording of the police interview , which is played back during the court ’s main hearing . In allowing this to take place , the court applies LAW , LAW , of the LAW , by which a statement made to the police or to the prosecutor or otherwise made out of court may be used in evidence in a trial only if this is specifically prescribed , if the person who has submitted the statement can not be heard before the court or if there are particular reasons for the statement to be relied on , regard being had to the costs or inconvenience that a hearing before the court may entail on the one hand and , on the other , the advantages of a hearing before the court , the importance of the statement and all other relevant circumstances .


David Thór Björgvinsson;George Nicolaou;Ineta Ziemele;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Ledi Bianku;Paul Mahoney;Zdravka Kalaydjieva

NORP The applicant is a limited liability company with its registered office in GPE . It was represented by Mr PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE . ORG ( “ the Government ” ) were represented by their Agent , first Mr J. ORG and , subsequently , PERSON , both of ORG .

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

NORP In DATE the applicant company acquired the right of perpetual use of a plot of land ( prawo użytkowania wieczystego ) located at QUANTITY in GPE . It appears that it carried out some business activity on the plot .

On DATE the applicant company instituted administrative proceedings with a view to obtaining planning permission for the construction of a block of flats on the plot .

On DATE the Mayor of GPE granted planning permission . The decision was served on ORG ( Gmina Wyznaniowa Żydowska w Warszawie ; “ the Community ” ) which owned an adjacent plot .

On DATE the ORG appealed against the decision of the Mayor . It argued that on DATE it had filed an application with ORG on ORG ( PERSON . PERSON , “ the Commission ” ) to institute so - called regularisation proceedings ( postępowanie regulacyjne ) pursuant to ORG on relations between the ORG and ORG in GPE ( “ the DATE LAW ) . In those proceedings the ORG sought , inter alia , an award of compensation for properties located on FAC , including the property which the applicant company had acquired as a “ perpetual user ” .

The ORG argued that since the regularisation proceedings in respect of the said plot were pending , the administrative proceedings concerning the grant of planning permission should be suspended pursuant to section CARDINAL § CARDINAL of LAW .

The Lublin Governor and GPE were parties to the regularisation proceedings .

The applicant company objected to the ORG ’s appeal , relying on LAW . This provision stipulated that regularisation proceedings could not affect the rights of third parties .

On DATE ORG quashed the PERSON decision of DATE and remitted the case to him . It observed that in accordance with section CARDINAL § CARDINAL of LAW a court or administrative proceedings concerning a property which was subject to regularisation proceedings should be suspended . However , a decision on the suspension fell within the competence of the first - instance authority .

The applicant company lodged an appeal against that decision with ORG . It argued , amongst others , that the ORG had not sought restitution of the plot which the applicant company had acquired as a “ perpetual user ” in DATE . LAW entered into force on DATE and thus could not affect the relations between the ORG and the applicant company . Furthermore , the applicant company submitted that its vested rights to the plot had been violated .

On DATE ORG dismissed the appeal . It found that in accordance with ORG an administrative authority could grant planning permission provided that a number of specific conditions were met . CARDINAL of the conditions was the compliance with other relevant laws and LAW belonged to that category . The court found that the ORG had instituted regularisation proceedings in respect of , among others , the plot subject to the administrative proceedings , and that those regularisation proceedings were still pending . In those circumstances the suspension of the administrative proceedings pursuant to section CARDINAL § CARDINAL of LAW was justified . It noted that it was necessary to quash the decision of the Mayor of GPE granting planning permission since that decision should not have been issued given the statutory obligation to suspend the administrative proceedings on account of the pending regularisation proceedings .

The applicant company lodged a cassation appeal with ORG which was dismissed on DATE . This court upheld the lower court ’s judgment . In addition , it observed that ORG was not competent to review the legality of the Commission ’s acts , such as its allegedly flawed decision to institute the regularisation proceedings .

The case was remitted to the Mayor of GPE . On DATE the Mayor stayed the administrative proceedings concerning the applicant company ’s request for planning permission on the ground that the regularisation proceedings in respect of the same property had been pending . The applicant company did not appeal this decision . Neither did it request to resume the proceedings .

On DATE the applicant company lodged a constitutional complaint with ORG . It alleged that sections CARDINAL § § CARDINAL , CARDINAL and DATE and CARDINAL § DATE of LAW were unconstitutional . It argued that those provisions had violated its right to property , the right to a fair trial and the right to review of administrative decisions . The applicant company referred to ORG judgment of DATE as a final decision in the case .

On DATE the applicant company concluded a contract with company L. and transferred to it the right of perpetual use of the plot of land at issue and the right of ownership of the buildings constructed on the plot .

Company L. instituted administrative proceedings with a view to obtaining planning permission for the construction of a block of flats on the plot .

On DATE ORG on ORG informed the parties to the regularisation proceedings that it did not reach a decision in respect of the property located at QUANTITY . Subsequently , the ORG filed a compensation claim against the ORG with ORG . That claim was dismissed on DATE .

On DATE the Mayor of GPE granted planning permission to company L. Subsequently the right of perpetual use was transferred to company ORG On DATE the Mayor of GPE granted company ORG a building permit for the construction of a block of flats .

On DATE ORG discontinued the proceedings instituted by the applicant company . It emphasised that at the time of the lodging of the constitutional complaint the issue of suspension of the proceedings for planning permission had not been finally determined . It found that ORG judgment of DATE had not constituted a final ruling with regard to the applicant company ’s property rights to the plot in question . A possible interference with the claimant ’s property rights may have occurred as a result of the suspension of the administrative proceedings for planning permission in respect of the property which the claimant used as a “ perpetual user ” on account of the pending regularisation proceedings . ORG found that the applicant company had not exhausted the available domestic remedies as it should have appealed against the decision on the suspension of the administrative proceedings for planning permission . Accordingly , its constitutional complaint was premature .

The Law of DATE on relations between the ORG and ORG in GPE ( “ the DATE LAW ) entered into force on DATE .

Section CARDINAL § CARDINAL of the CARDINAL Act provides that ORG may request the institution of proceedings ( the so - called “ regularisation proceedings ” ) with a view to restitution of their properties which on DATE had been owned by them or other NORP legal persons .

Section CARDINAL § CARDINAL of LAW expressly provides that the regularisation proceedings may not affect the rights acquired by third parties .

Section CARDINAL stipulates that the regularisation may consist of :

CARDINAL ) transfer of the ownership of property ,

CARDINAL ) the grant of suitable alternative property ,

CARDINAL ) the award of compensation if neither of the above solutions is possible .

Section CARDINAL § CARDINAL of the CARDINAL LAW provides that regularisation proceedings are conducted by ORG on ORG ( PERSON ) composed in equal numbers of the representatives nominated by the Minister of ORG and ORG . Applications are decided by adjudicatory panels composed of CARDINAL representatives of the Minister and CARDINAL representatives of the Communities .

The parties to the regularisation proceedings are the claimant and all interested ORG , local government and religious entities ( LAW ) .

Section CARDINAL § CARDINAL states :

“ ORG or administrative proceedings with regard to properties referred to in CARDINAL shall be suspended , ... ” .

Section CARDINAL § CARDINAL provides that no appeal lies against decisions of the adjudicatory panels of ORG .

The right of perpetual use is defined in Articles CARDINAL et seq . of LAW . It is an inheritable and transferable right in rem which , for DATE , gives a person the full benefit and enjoyment of property rights attaching to land owned by ORG or municipality . It has to be registered in the court land register in the same way as ownership . The transfer of that right , like the transfer of ownership , can be effected only in the form of a notarised deed , on pain of it being declared void ab initio . The “ perpetual user ” ( użytkownik wieczysty ) is obliged to pay ORG ( or the municipality , as the case may be ) an DATE fee which corresponds to a certain percentage of the value of the land in question .


NORP The applicant was born in DATE and was detained in the Batman E - Type Prison at the time of his application to the ORG .

On DATE the applicant was taken into police custody on suspicion of membership of an illegal organisation , the ORG ( ORG Party ) .

On DATE ORG ordered his detention on remand .

On DATE the public prosecutor lodged a bill of indictment with ORG against the applicant and CARDINAL other people , charging him with carrying out activities aimed at breaking up the unity of the ORG and removing part of the national territory from the ORG 's control . He requested the court to sentence the applicant in accordance with LAW .

On DATE ORG convicted the applicant under LAW of LAW of membership of the ORG and sentenced him to DATE and DATE imprisonment .

On DATE ORG quashed the judgment of the first - instance court in respect of the applicant and a certain PERSON , holding that the applicant should have been convicted of membership of the ORG and for throwing explosives , under LAW and CARDINAL of LAW . The case against the applicant and PERSON was referred to ORG .

On DATE the first - instance court convicted the applicant under LAW and CARDINAL of LAW . It sentenced the applicant to DATE and DATE imprisonment for membership of the ORG and to DATE , DATE and DATE imprisonment for having thrown explosives .

On DATE ORG once again quashed the judgment of the first - instance court .

On DATE ORG convicted the applicant under LAW of LAW . However , it acquitted the applicant of the charge under LAW .

NORP On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant 's appeal , holding that it had not been submitted within the statutory time - limit .


The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a NORP national , who was born in DATE and lives in PERSON , LOC . He is respresented before the ORG by PERSON and PERSON , lawyers practising in GPE . ORG ( “ the Government ” ) are represented by PERSON , Representative of GPE at ORG .

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

The applicant currently serves a term of imprisonment in penitentiary establishment OM-CARDINAL/CARDINAL in LOC . In DATE several HIV - infected prisoners were accommodated in the prison during DATE .

The applicant considered that his health and life were in danger since he had “ to share barber shop , sauna , dental room , tableware , and clinic ” with the infected persons and on DATE he filed an action against the administration of the prison and other authorities in ORG of FAC . He requested the court to declare the administration ’s actions unlawful and to award him non - pecuniary damages .

On DATE the court informed the applicant about the date of the hearing and his procedural rights . The court noted that it could not summon the applicant to the hearing because LAW did not provide for transporting of prisoners to courts . The court also informed the applicant that he could appoint a representative or waive his right to be present at the hearing .

On DATE the applicant wrote to the court insisting that his personal presence as well as the presence of other prisoners who could confirm his allegation was absolutely necessary . He claimed that it was only in oral proceedings that he could express the anguish of living in constant fear of HIV - infection .

The hearing on the merits of the case took place on DATE .

Representatives of the defendants were present and made written and oral submissions to the court , whilst the applicant was absent .

It appears that the applicant could make written submissions to the court prior to the commencement of the hearing , but it is not clear whether the applicant had any knowledge of the authorities’ written or oral submissions prior to the rendering of the first instance judgment .

By judgment of DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s action . The court considered it possible to hold the hearing in the applicant ’s absence because the applicant had not appointed a representative , because he had been duly notified about the time and place of the hearing , and because “ the documents in the case - file were sufficient for the examination of the case ” .

On the merits , the court noted that the placement of HIV - infected persons had been fully compatible with the domestic legislation and that no special precautions except those relating to catering had been required . The court also established that in addition to special catering arrangements the administration of the prison had supplied HIV - infected persons with separate tableware , medical equipment and that they had not taken baths on DATE as other prisoners . Finally , after their departure the whole facility was thoroughly disinfected .

On DATE the applicant appealed against the judgment on the ground that the hearing had taken place in his absence .

On DATE ORG dismissed the appeal . As regards the applicant ’s argument regarding his inability to take part in the first instance hearing , the court noted that rules of civil and criminal procedure did not provide for transportation of prisoners to hearings in civil cases . As to his absence on appeal , the court found that “ the applicant had been duly notified about the hearing but did not appear ” , that “ his detention could not be regarded as a valid excuse for the failure to attend ” and that , furthermore , the applicant had not appointed a representative .

LAW provides that decisions and actions or lack of action of state bodies , bodies of local self - government , public associations and officials may be appealed against in court .

LAW provides for the right to be reimbursed by the state for the damage caused as a result of unlawful actions ( inaction ) of the state bodies and their officials .

Under LAW of LAW of GPE compensation of non - pecuniary damage is payable only in case physical or moral prejudice has been inflicted on a person through the actions , violating his rights .

Under LAW ( CARDINAL ) of LAW of GPE ( Уголовно-исполнительный кодекс ORG ) the administration of penitentiary institutions may be held liable for non - compliance with established sanitary , hygienic and anti - epidemic norms aimed at the protection of the health of prisoners .

Section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of LAW , as in force at the relevant time , provided that medical penitentiary establishments should be organised for treatment and detention of drug addicts , alcoholics , HIV and tuberculosis infected prisoners .

ORG . CARDINAL-FZ of DATE repealed that provision insofar as it related to HIV - infected prisoners .

By Sections CARDINAL and DATE of LAW persons convicted to a sentence of imprisonment serve it in penitentiary establishments and throughout the detention are transported under convoy .

Section CARDINAL of the Civil Procedure Code of RSFSR of DATE as in force at the relevant time provided that everyone may participate in court proceedings personally or through his representatives .

Under Sections CARDINAL of LAW in case where a party was properly informed of the date of the hearing but failed to appear and excuse himself by reference to a good reason , a court may either adjourn the proceedings , leave the claim without examination ( in case of the plaintiff ’s repeated failure to appear after notification ) or examine the claim in the party ’s absence .


The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in GPE . He is represented before the Court by Mr A. GPE , a lawyer practising in GPE .

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

On DATE the applicant was charged with the offence of trafficking in children and detained on remand . On DATE he was indicted before ORG ( PERSON w PERSON ) on the charges of trafficking in children and inciting third parties to give false testimony .

The proceedings were terminated by the judgment of ORG of DATE , after the entry into force of LAW . On DATE , the date on which the application was lodged with the ORG , they were pending before ORG .

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

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

Section CARDINAL reads , in so far as relevant :

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


The applicant is a NORP national , born in DATE and living in Reading .

She is represented before the ORG by PERSON , a solicitor practising in GPE .

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


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

NORP The case originated in an application ( no . CARDINAL ) against GPE lodged with ORG under LAW ( “ the LAW ) by a NORP national , PERSON ( “ the applicant ” ) , on DATE .

NORP In a judgment delivered on DATE ( “ the principal judgment ” ) , the ORG dismissed the objection on the applicant 's victim status and found continuing violations of LAW by reason of the complete denial of the applicant 's right to respect for her home and of LAW No . CARDINAL by virtue of the fact that the applicant was denied access to and control , use and enjoyment of her property and any compensation for the interference with her property rights . Furthermore , it found that it was not necessary to carry out a separate examination of the applicant 's complaint under LAW in conjunction with the above provisions ( PERSON v. GPE , no . GPE , § § CARDINAL , DATE and DATE and points CARDINAL of the operative provisions ) .

Under LAW , the applicant sought just satisfaction of QUANTITY ( ORG ) by way of pecuniary damage concerning the period DATE , DATE of the acceptance by GPE of the compulsory jurisdiction of the ORG , and DATE . CARDINAL valuation reports , setting out the basis for the calculation of the applicant 's loss , were appended to the applicant 's observations . Furthermore , the applicant claimed ORG CARDINAL in respect of non - pecuniary damage and ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL for costs and expenses incurred before the ORG .

NORP Since the question of the application of LAW was not ready for decision as regards pecuniary and non - pecuniary damage , the ORG reserved it . However , it awarded the applicant MONEY ( ORG ) in respect of costs and expenses .

The ORG had examined the implementation of the preceding compensation law , the “ Law on Compensation for Immovable Properties Located within the Boundaries of GPE ” ( “ Law no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ” ) , in the present case , at the admissibility stage and had ruled that the remedy proposed under the above law did not satisfy the requirements under LAW in that it could not be regarded as an “ effective ” or “ adequate ” means for redressing the applicant 's complaints ( see PERSON v. GPE ( dec . ) , no . CARDINAL , decision of DATE , § CARDINAL ) .

The ORG , in the principal judgment , further held that “ the respondent ORG must introduce a remedy which secures genuinely effective redress for the Convention violations identified in the instant judgment in relation to the present applicant as well as in respect of all similar applications pending before it , in accordance with the principles for the protection of the rights laid down in LAW and in line with its admissibility decision of DATE . Such a remedy should be available within DATE from the date on which the present judgment is delivered and redress should be afforded DATE thereafter ” ( § CARDINAL ) . Furthermore , the parties were invited to submit , within DATE , from the date on which the judgment became final in accordance with LAW , their written observations on the issue of pecuniary and non - pecuniary damage and , in particular , to notify ORG of any agreement they might reach ( ibid . , § MONEY , and point CARDINAL of the operative provisions ) . Pending the implementation of the relevant general measures by the ORG , the ORG adjourned its consideration of all applications deriving from the same general cause ( ibid . , § CARDINAL ) .

The Government filed observations on DATE and , subsequently , the applicant and the Government each filed observations on DATE . The applicant submitted updated claims in respect of just satisfaction .

The Government of GPE , who had made use of their right to intervene under LAW , submitted observations on DATE .

The Government filed additional observations on CARDINAL and DATE .

Subsequent to the adoption of the principal judgment in the instant case , the authorities of the “ GPE ” ( “ GPE ” ) enacted the new compensation law , the “ PERSON for ORG Properties ” ( “ Law no . CARDINAL ” ) which entered into force on DATE and the “ By - Law made under LAW ( CARDINAL ) ( A ) and CARDINAL of the PERSON for the Compensation , Exchange and ORG Properties which are within the scope of sub - paragraph ( b ) of paragraph CARDINAL of LAW ” ( “ Law no . CARDINAL ” ) which entered into force on DATE .

The “ ORG ” ( hereinafter “ the Commission ” ) , which was established under “ Law no . CARDINAL ” for the purpose of examining applications made in respect of properties within the scope of the aforementioned law , is composed of CARDINAL members , CARDINAL of whom are foreign members , Mr PERSON and PERSON PERSON , and has the competence to decide on the restitution , exchange of properties or payment of compensation . A right of appeal lies to the “ TRNC ” High Administrative Court .

The Government submitted that a total of CARDINAL applications had been lodged with the Commission and that the examination of CARDINAL of these had already been concluded . In CARDINAL of these applications the applicants received a payment by way of compensation and , in the remaining applications , the Commission decided on the restitution of the properties in question .


Javier Borrego Borrego;Karel Jungwiert;Mark Villiger;Peer Lorenzen;Rait Maruste;Renate Jaeger;Snejana Botoucharova

The applicant , PERSON , is a NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in PERSON . ORG ( “ the Government ” ) were represented by their Agent , Mr PERSON , from ORG .

On DATE ORG and ORG brought restitution proceedings against the applicant .

The case was dealt with fourth times by ORG ( okresní soud ) , CARDINAL times by ORG ( krajský soud ) and once by ORG ( PERSON ) . ORG last judgment of DATE became final on DATE . The applicant was ordered to surrender CARDINAL of the property to ORG

On DATE she filed an appeal on points of law ( dovolání ) which seems to be still pending before ORG .

On DATE the applicant filed an action for termination and distribution of the joint ownership of the property .

In a judgment of DATE ORG assigned the whole property to the applicant who was ordered to pay CZK CARDINAL ( ORG CARDINAL ) to ORG in compensation for the latter ’s share .

Section PERSON ) as in force until DATE provided that the ORG was liable for damage caused by an irregularity in the conduct of proceedings , including non - compliance with the obligation to perform an act or give a decision within the statutory time - limit . Under section CARDINAL ) a person who had suffered loss on account of such an irregularity was entitled to damages .

On DATE CARDINAL Act no . DATE entered into force amending , inter alia , section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) which newly provides that the ORG is liable for damage caused by an irregularity in the conduct of proceedings , including non - compliance with the obligation to perform an act or give a decision within the statutory time - limit . If the law does not fix a time - limit for these purposes , it is considered that a violation of the duty to perform the act or give the decision within a reasonable time - limit is also considered as an irregularity in the conduct of proceedings . When using the notion of “ reasonable time ” , the LAW refers to ORG and CARDINAL of the Convention .

Act no . DATE also introduced a new section CARDINALa which provides for a reasonable satisfaction for moral prejudice caused by an irregularity in the conduct of proceedings including non - compliance with the obligation to perform an act or to adopt a decision within a reasonable time .


CASE OF HATTON AND OTHERS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

Violation of Art. 8;Violation of Art. 13;Non-pecuniary damage - financial award;Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings

The noise levels experienced by each applicant , and the effect on each of them individually , are as follows :

PERSON was born in DATE and , until DATE , lived in LOC with her husband and CARDINAL children . From DATE , when the level of night noise increased , PERSON found the noise levels to be “ intolerable ” at TIME . The noise levels were greater when aircraft are landing at FAC from the east . When this happened , PERSON was unable to sleep without ear plugs and her children were frequently woken up before TIME , and sometimes before TIME If PERSON did not wear ear plugs , she would be woken by aircraft activity at TIME She was sometimes able to go back to sleep , but found it impossible to go back to sleep once the “ TIME bombardment ” started which , in DATE , was between TIME and TIME When she was woken in this manner , PERSON PERSON tended to suffer from a headache for the rest of DATE . When aircraft were landing from the west the noise levels were lower , and PERSON children slept much better , generally not waking up until after TIME In DATE , PERSON became so run down and depressed by her broken sleep pattern that her doctor prescribed anti - depressants . In DATE , PERSON moved with her family to GPE - upon - GPE in order to get away from the aircraft noise at TIME .

PERSON was born in DATE . DATE , he lived in GPE with his partner . His home in GPE was situated QUANTITY from FAC airport and slightly to the north of the southern flight path . In DATE , the level of disturbance at TIME from aircraft noise increased notably , and Mr PERSON began to be woken or kept awake at TIME by aircraft noise . Mr PERSON found it particularly difficult to sleep in warmer weather , when open windows increased the disturbance from aircraft noise , and closed windows made it too hot to sleep . Mr PERSON found it difficult to go back to sleep after being woken by aircraft noise early in the morning . He was sometimes kept awake by aeroplanes flying until TIME or TIME and then woken TIME Mr PERSON was also sometimes woken by aeroplanes flying at TIME in the middle of the night , for example when diverted from another airport . In DATE , Mr PERSON became aware that he could complain to FAC about aircraft noise if he made a note of the time of the flight . By DATE , Mr PERSON had been sufficiently disturbed to note the time of a flight , and made a complaint to FAC on CARDINAL occasions . Mr PERSON remained in GPE until DATE because his family , friends and place of work were in the FAC area . Mr PERSON moved to ORG , when a suitable job opportunity arose , even though it meant leaving his family and friends , in order to escape from the aircraft noise , which was “ driving [ him ] barmy ” .

PERSON was born in DATE and lives in GPE with his wife . He has lived at his present address since DATE . His house is QUANTITY ( QUANTITY ) from FAC airport , and is situated almost directly under the approach to the airport ’s southern runway . The windows of the house are double - glazed . From DATE , PERSON noticed a “ huge ” increase in the disturbance caused by flights TIME ( or TIME on DATE ) . ORG did not operate a practice of alternation ( using CARDINAL runway for landings for DATE , and then switching landings to the other runway ) during this period as it did during DATE , and the airport regularly had aircraft landing from the east on both runways . When the wind was blowing from the west and aeroplanes were landing from the east , which was PERCENT of the time , aircraft noise would continue until TIME , so that Mr PERSON was unable to go to sleep TIME . He would then find it impossible to sleep after TIME on DATE , and was usually disturbed by aircraft noise at TIME , after which he found he could not go back to sleep . When the aeroplanes were landing from the west , PERSON was able to sleep .

PERSON was born in DATE and lives with her husband and CARDINAL children in GPE . She has lived at her present address since DATE . PERSON house is QUANTITY from the FAC flight path . Before DATE , PERSON was often woken by aircraft noise at TIME From DATE , she tended to be woken at TIME In DATE , PERSON and her husband installed double - glazing in their bedroom to try to reduce the noise . Although the double - glazing reduced the noise , PERSON continued to be woken by aircraft . Ms ORG suffered from ear infections in DATE and DATE as a result of wearing ear plugs at TIME , and although she was advised by a doctor to stop using them , she continued to do so in order to be able to sleep . PERSON was also concerned about the possible long - term effects of using ear plugs , including an increased risk of tinnitus . PERSON children both suffered from disturbance by aircraft noise .

PERSON was born in DATE . DATE , he lived in GPE . Mr Cavalla lives with his wife . PERSON house in GPE was directly under the flight path of the northern runway at FAC airport . In DATE , the noise climate deteriorated markedly , partly as a result of a significant increase in traffic , but mainly as a result of aircraft noise in TIME . PERSON noticed that air traffic increased dramatically TIME as a result of the shortening of the night quota period . Mr Cavalla found that , once woken by an aircraft arriving at FAC airport in TIME , he was unable to go back to sleep . In DATE , PERSON and his wife moved to ORG in order to get away from the aircraft noise . After moving house , PERSON did not live under the approach tracks for landing aircraft , and aircraft used the departure route passing over his new home only very rarely at TIME . Consequently , Mr Cavalla was only very rarely exposed to any TIME - time aircraft noise following his move .

Jeffray Thomas was born in DATE and lives in GPE with his wife and CARDINAL sons , and the wife and son of CARDINAL of those sons . Mr PERSON has lived at his present address since DATE . His house lies between the north and south FAC flight paths . Aircraft pass overhead on DATE out of every CARDINAL , when the prevailing wind is from the west . Mr PERSON noticed a sudden increase in night disturbance in DATE . PERSON would find that he was awoken at TIME , when CARDINAL large aircraft tended to arrive within TIME of each other . Once he was awake , CARDINAL large aeroplane arriving TIME was sufficient to keep him awake until TIME , when the aeroplanes started arriving at frequencies of CARDINAL a minute until TIME

PERSON was born in DATE and lived in GPE DATE until he retired in DATE . His house in GPE was directly under the westerly flight path to FAC airport . In DATE , and particularly from DATE , he and his wife suffered from intrusive aircraft noise at TIME . Although PERSON observed that both take - offs and landings continued TIME into the evenings , the main problem was caused by the noise of TIME landings . He stated that on very many occasions he was woken at TIME and TIME by incoming aircraft , and was then unable to get back to sleep , and felt extremely tired TIME . PERSON retired in DATE , and he and his wife moved to PERSON , in GPE , specifically to get away from the aircraft noise which was “ really getting on [ his ] nerves ” .

PERSON was born in DATE and lives in ORG , which is under the approach to runway CARDINALL at FAC airport , and CARDINAL QUANTITY from the runway . Mr PERSON has lived in ORG since DATE . By DATE , Mr PERSON began to find that his sleep was being disturbed by aircraft noise at TIME , and that he was being woken at TIME or even earlier by aircraft coming in from the west to land at FAC airport .

FAC airport is the busiest airport in LOC , and the busiest international airport in the world . It is used by CARDINAL airlines , serving over CARDINAL destinations world - wide . It is GPE leading port in terms of visible trade .

Restrictions on night flights at FAC airport were introduced in DATE and have been reviewed periodically , most recently in DATE , DATE and DATE .

DATE , a number of reports into aircraft noise and sleep disturbance were published by or on behalf of ORG .

A Consultation Paper was published by ORG in DATE in the context of a review of the night restrictions policy at FAC . The Consultation Paper stated that research into the relationship between aircraft noise and sleep suggested that the number of movements at night could be increased by perhaps PERCENT without worsening disturbance , provided PERSON were not increased ( dBA Leq metric is a measurement of noise exposure ) .

It indicated that there were CARDINAL reasons for not considering a ban on night flights : first , that a ban on night flights would deny airlines the ability to plan some scheduled flights in TIME , and to cope with disruptions and delays ; secondly , that a ban on TIME flights would damage the status of FAC airport as a CARDINAL-hour international airport ( with implications for safety and maintenance and the needs of passengers ) and its competitive position in relation to a number of other NORP airports .

DATE , night flying was regulated solely by means of a limitation upon the number of take - offs and landings permitted at night . TIME of restriction were as follows :

Summer TIME to TIME DATE

TIME to TIME DATE landings

TIME to TIME DATE take - offs

Winter CARDINAL.CARDINAL p.m. to TIME DATE

TIME to TIME DATE take - offs and landings

NORP In DATE , ORG commenced an internal review of the restrictions on TIME flights . A new classification of aircraft and the development of a quota count system were the major focus of the review . As part of the review , ORG asked ORG to undertake further objective study of aircraft noise and sleep disturbance .

The fieldwork for the study was carried out during DATE . Measurements of disturbance were obtained from CARDINAL subjects living in the vicinity of FAC , GPE , GPE and GPE airports . The findings were published in DATE as the “ Report of ORG and Sleep Disturbance ” ( “ the DATE sleep study ” ) . It found that , once asleep , very few people living near airports were at risk of any substantial sleep disturbance due to aircraft noise and that , compared with the overall average of CARDINAL DATE awakenings without any aircraft noise , even large numbers of noisy TIME - time aircraft noise movements would cause very little increase in the average person ’s DATE awakenings . It concluded that the results of the field study provided no evidence to suggest that aircraft noise was likely to cause harmful after effects . It also emphasised , however , that its conclusions were based on average effects , and that some of the subjects of the study ( PERCENT ) were PERCENT more sensitive than average .

In DATE , the Government published a ORG regarding a proposed new scheme for regulating TIME flights at the CARDINAL main airports serving GPE : FAC , GPE and GPE . In considering the demand for night flights , the ORG made reference to the fact that if restrictions on TIME flights were imposed in GPE , certain flights would not be as convenient or their costs would be higher than competitors abroad could offer , and that passengers would choose alternatives that better suited their requirements .

It also stated that various foreign operators were based at airports with no night restrictions , which meant that they could keep prices down by achieving a high utilisation of aircraft , and that this was a crucial factor in attracting business in what was a highly competitive and price sensitive market .

Further , the Consultation Paper stated that both scheduled and charter airlines believed that their operations could be substantially improved by being allowed more movements during TIME , especially landings .

It also indicated that charter companies required the ability to operate in TIME , as they operated in a highly competitive , price sensitive market and needed to contain costs as much as possible . The commercial viability of their business depended upon high utilisation of their aircraft , which typically required CARDINAL rotations a day to nearer destinations , and which could only be fitted in using movements at TIME .

Finally , in reference to the demand for night flights , the Consultation Paper referred to the continuing demand for some all - cargo flights at TIME carrying mail and other time - sensitive freight such as newspapers and perishable goods , and referred to the fact that all - cargo movements are banned , whether arriving or departing , for much of DATE at FAC airport .

The Consultation Paper referred to the DATE sleep study stating that the DATE sleep study found that the number of disturbances caused by aircraft noise was so small that it had a negligible effect on overall normal disturbance rates , and that disturbance rates from all causes were not at a level likely to affect people ’s health or well - being .

The Consultation Paper further stated that , in keeping with the undertaking given in DATE not to allow a worsening of noise at TIME , and ideally to improve it , it was proposed that the quota for DATE based on the new system should be set at a level so as to keep overall noise levels below those in DATE .

A considerable number of responses to the Consultation Paper were received from trade and industry associations with an interest in air travel ( including ORG [ “ ORG ” ] , ORG and the GPE and ORG ) and from airlines , all of which emphasised the economic importance of TIME flights . Detailed information and figures were provided by the associations and the airlines to support their responses .

On DATE the Secretary of ORG announced his intention to introduce , with effect from DATE , a quota system of night flying restrictions , the stated aim of which was to reduce noise at the CARDINAL main GPE airports , which included FAC ( “ the DATE Scheme ” ) .

The DATE Scheme introduced a noise quota scheme for the night quota period . Under the noise quota scheme each aircraft type was assigned a “ quota count ” between QUANTITY ( for the quietest ) and QUANTITY ( for the noisiest ) . FAC airport was then allotted a certain number of quota points , and aircraft movements had to be kept within the permitted points total . The effect of this was that , under the DATE Scheme , rather than a maximum number of individual aircraft movements being specified , aircraft operators could choose within the noise quota whether to operate a greater number of quieter aeroplanes or a lesser number of noisier aeroplanes . The system was designed , according to the DATE ORG , to encourage the use of quieter aircraft by making noisier types use more of the quota for each movement .

The DATE Scheme defined “ TIME ” as the period TIME , and further defined a “ night quota period ” from TIME to TIME , DATE a week , throughout DATE , when the controls were strict . During TIME , operators were not permitted to schedule the noisier types of aircraft to take off ( CARDINAL FAC – quota count DATE or QUANTITY ) or to land ( QUANTITY ) . During the night quota period , aircraft movements were restricted by a movements limit and a noise quota , which were set for DATE ( DATE and DATE ) .

The DATE Consultation Paper had proposed a rating of QUANTITY FAC for the quietest aircraft . This would have allowed an unlimited number of these aircraft to fly at TIME , and the Government took account of objections to this proposal in deciding to rate the quietest aircraft at QUANTITY . Otherwise , the DATE Scheme was broadly in accordance with the proposals set out in the DATE Consultation Paper .

The local authorities for the areas around the CARDINAL main GPE airports sought judicial review of the Secretary of ORG ’s decision to introduce the DATE Scheme , making CARDINAL consecutive applications for judicial review and appealing twice to ORG ( see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) In consequence of the various judgments delivered by ORG and ORG , the ORG consulted on revised proposals in DATE and DATE ; commissioned a study by ORG ( ORG of ORG and the Regions [ formerly ORG ; “ the DETR ” ] ) in DATE into ground noise at TIME at FAC , GPE and GPE airports ; added to the quota count system an overall maximum number of aircraft movements ; issued a further ORG in DATE , and issued a supplement to ORG in DATE .

The DATE supplement stated that the Secretary of ORG ’s policies and the proposals based on them allowed more noise than was experienced from actual aircraft movements in DATE , and acknowledged that this was contrary to Government policy , as expressed in the DATE Consultation Paper . As part of the DATE review of the DATE Scheme , the Government reviewed ORG reports on aircraft noise and sleep disturbance , including the DATE sleep study . The DETR prepared a series of papers on TIME arrival and departure statistics at FAC , GPE and GPE airports , scheduling and curfews in relation to night movements , runway capacity TIME , FAC night arrivals for DATE in DATE , and TIME departures for DATE in DATE . The ORG also considered a paper prepared by FAC on the implications of a prohibition on night flights TIME

On DATE , the Secretary of ORG announced that the noise quotas and all other aspects of the night restrictions regime would remain as previously announced . In DATE , ORG decided that the Secretary of ORG had given adequate reasons and sufficient justification for his conclusion that it was reasonable , on balance , to run the risk of diminishing to some degree local people ’s ability to sleep at TIME because of the other countervailing considerations to which he was , in DATE , willing to give greater weight , and that by DATE errors in the consultation papers had been corrected and the new policy could not be said to be irrational . On DATE , ORG dismissed a petition by the local authorities for leave to appeal against the decision of ORG .

NORP The movement limits for FAC under the DATE Scheme , introduced as a consequence of the legal challenges in the domestic courts , were set at CARDINAL per DATE from DATE , and CARDINAL per DATE from DATE to DATE ( DATE being deemed to change when the clocks change from ORG to ORG ) . The noise quotas for FAC up to DATE were set at CARDINAL for DATE and CARDINAL for DATE . Flights involving emergencies were excluded from the restrictions . The number of movements permitted during TIME period ( i.e. from TIME to TIME ) remained at about the same level as DATE . At the same time , the number of movements permitted during TIME ( i.e. from TIME ) increased under the DATE Scheme due to the reduction in the length of the night quota period .

In DATE , a trial was initiated at FAC airport of modified procedures for TIME landings ( those TIME ) . The aim of the trial , which was conducted by ORG on behalf of the DETR , was to help alleviate noise over parts of central GPE in TIME . An interim report , entitled “ Assessment of Revised Heathrow Early Mornings Approach Procedures Trial ” , was published in DATE .

In DATE , a study , commissioned by the DETR and carried out by ORG gave rise to a report , “ Night noise contours : a feasibility study ” , which was published in DATE . The report contained a detailed examination of the causes and consequences of night noise , and identified possible areas of further research . It concluded that there was not enough research evidence to produce “ scientifically robust night contours that depict levels of TIME - time annoyance ” .

In DATE , the Government conducted a CARDINAL - stage consultation exercise on night restrictions at FAC , GPE and GPE airports . In DATE , a preliminary ORG on night restrictions at FAC , GPE and GPE was published . The Preliminary Consultation Paper stated that most night movements catered primarily for different needs from those that took place during the daytime , and set out reasons for allowing night flights . These were essentially the same as those given in the DATE Consultation Paper .

In addition , the Preliminary Consultation Paper referred to the fact that air transport was CARDINAL of the fastest growing sectors of the world economy and contained some of GPE most successful firms . Air transport facilitated economic growth , world trade , international investment and tourism , and was of particular importance to GPE because of its open economy and geographical position . The Consultation Paper went on to say that permitting night flights , albeit subject to restrictions , at major airports in GPE had contributed to this success .

The Government set movement limits and noise quotas for DATE at the same level as for DATE , in order to allow adequate time for consultation .

ORG ( “ ORG ” ) commissioned a report from ORG into the economic costs of maintaining the restrictions on night flights . The report was published in DATE and was entitled “ The economic costs of TIME flying restrictions at the GPE airports ” . The report concluded that the economic cost of the then current restrictions being maintained during DATE was MONEY . ORG submitted the report to the Government when it responded to ORG .

On DATE , the Government announced that the movement limits and noise quotas for DATE would be the same as for DATE .

In DATE , the Government published the second stage ORG on night restrictions at FAC , GPE and GPE . The Consultation Paper stated that it had been the view of successive Governments that the policy on night noise should be firmly based on research into the relationship between aircraft noise and interference with sleep and that , in order to preserve the balance between the different interests , this should continue to be the basis for decisions . The Consultation Paper indicated that ‘ interference with ORG was intended to cover both sleep disturbance ( an awakening from sleep , however short ) and sleep prevention ( a delay in first getting to sleep at TIME , and awakening and then not being able to get back to sleep in TIME ) . The Consultation Paper stated that further research into the effect of aircraft noise on sleep had been commissioned , which would include a review of existing research in GPE and abroad , and a trial to assess methodology and analytical techniques to determine whether to proceed to a full scale study of either sleep prevention or total sleep loss .

The Consultation Paper repeated the finding of the DATE sleep study that for noise events in the range of CARDINAL dBA ORG ( CARDINAL - CARDINAL dBA Lmax ) , the likelihood of the average person being awakened by an aircraft noise event was CARDINAL in DATE . It acknowledged that the CARDINAL in CARDINAL related to sleep disturbance , and not to sleep prevention , and that while there was a substantial body of research on sleep disturbance , less was known about sleep prevention or total sleep loss .

The Consultation Paper stated that the objectives of the current review were , in relation to FAC , to strike a balance between the need to protect local communities from excessive aircraft noise levels at TIME and to provide for air services to operate at TIME where they are of benefit to the local , regional and national economy ; to ensure that the competitive factors affecting GPE airports and airlines and the wider employment and economic implications were taken into account ; to take account of the research into the relationship between aircraft noise and interference with sleep and any health effects ; to encourage the use of quieter aircraft at night ; to put in place at FAC , for the night quota period ( TIME ) , arrangements which would bring about further improvements in the TIME noise climate around the airport over time and to update the arrangements as appropriate .

The Consultation Paper stated that since the introduction of the DATE Scheme , there had been an improvement in the noise climate around FAC during the night quota period , based on the total of the quota count ratings of aircraft counted against the noise quota , but that there had probably been a deterioration over TIME period between TIME as a result of the growth in traffic TIME

The Consultation Paper found a strong customer preference for TIME long - haul services from LOC .

The Consultation Paper indicated that the Government had not attempted to quantify the aviation and economic benefits of night flights in monetary terms . This was because of the difficulties in obtaining reliable and impartial data on passenger and economic benefits ( some of which was commercially sensitive ) and modelling these complex interactions . ORG had submitted a copy of the ORG DATE report with its response to the Preliminary Consultation Paper , and the Consultation Paper noted that the report estimated the value of an additional daily long haul scheduled night flight at FAC to be MONEY per year , CARDINAL of which was made up of airline profits . The Consultation Paper stated that the financial effects on airlines were understood to derive from estimates made by a leading GPE airline . Other parts of the calculation reflected assumptions about the effects on passengers and knock - on effects on other services , expressed in terms of an assumed percentage of the assumed revenue earned by these services . The ORG stated that the cost of restricting existing TIME flights more severely might be different , and that ORG ’s figures took no account of the wider economic effects which were not captured in the estimated airline and passenger impacts .

The Consultation Paper stated that , in formulating their proposals , the ORG had taken into account both ORG ’s figures and the fact that it was not possible for the Government to test the estimates or the assumptions made by ORG . Any value attached to a “ marginal ” night flight had to be weighed against the environmental disadvantages . These could not be estimated in monetary terms , but it was possible , drawing on the DATE sleep study , to estimate the numbers of people likely to be awakened . The Consultation Paper concluded that in forming its proposals , the Government must take into account , on the one hand , the important aviation interests involved and the wider economic considerations . It seemed clear that GPE airlines and airports would stand to lose business , including in the DATE , if prevented by unduly severe restrictions from offering limited services at TIME ; that users could also suffer , and that the services offered by GPE airports and airlines would diminish , and with them the appeal of GPE and GPE more generally . On the other hand , these considerations had to be weighed against the noise disturbance caused by TIME flights . The proposals made in the Consultation Paper aimed to strike a balance between the different interests and , in the Government ’s view , would protect local people from excessive aircraft noise at TIME .

The main proposals in relation to FAC were : not to introduce a ban on night flights , or a curfew period ; to retain the seasonal noise quotas and movement limits ; to review the FAC classifications of individual aircraft and , if this produced significant reclassifications , to reconsider the quota limits ; to retain the FAC system ; to review the FAC system before DATE ( when fleet compositions would have changed following completion of the compulsory phase - out in LOC of LAW civil aircraft , with the exception of Concorde , which began in DATE ) , in accordance with the policy of encouraging the use of quieter aircraft ; to reduce the DATE and DATE noise quotas ; to maintain TIME period as TIME and the night quota period as TIME to TIME ; to extend the restrictions on aircraft classified as QCCARDINAL on arrival or departure to match those for GPE and to ban QCCARDINAL aircraft from being scheduled to land or take off during the night quota period from DATE ( i.e. after completion of the compulsory LAW phase out ) .

The Consultation Paper stated that since the introduction of the DATE scheme , headroom had developed in the quotas , reducing the incentive for operators to use quieter aircraft . The reduction in DATE and DATE noise quotas to nearer the level of current usage was intended as a first step to restoring the incentive . The DATE noise quota level under the DATE scheme was CARDINAL ORG points , and the average usage in DATE had been CARDINAL ORG points . A reduction to CARDINAL was proposed . The summer noise quota level had been CARDINAL points , and the average usage in DATE was provisionally calculated at CARDINAL . A reduction to CARDINAL was proposed . The new levels would remain in place until DATE , subject to the outcome of the ORG review .

Part CARDINAL of the Consultation Paper invited comments as to whether runway alternation should be introduced at FAC at TIME , and on the preferential use of FAC ’s runways at TIME .

On DATE , the Government announced that the proposals in the DATE Consultation Paper would be implemented with effect from DATE , with limited modifications . With respect to FAC , the only modification was that there was to be a smaller reduction in the noise quotas than proposed . The quotas were set at CARDINAL ORG points for the DATE , and CARDINAL ORG points for DATE . The effect of this was to set the DATE quota at a level below actual usage in DATE .

The DATE Scheme came into effect on DATE .

On DATE , a report was published on “ The Contribution of the Aviation Industry to the GPE Economy ” . The report was prepared by ORG and was sponsored by a number of airlines , airport operators and ORG , as well as the Government .

On DATE , the Government announced that runway alternation at FAC would be extended into TIME at the earliest practicable opportunity ” , and issued a further consultation paper concerning proposals for changes to the preferential use of FAC ’s runways at TIME .

In DATE , the DETR and ORG published the final report of ORG on “ Noise from Arriving Aircraft ” . The purpose of the report was to describe objectively the sources of operational noise for arriving aircraft , to consider possible means of noise amelioration , and to make recommendations to the DETR .

In DATE , ORG published a report , prepared on behalf of the DETR , entitled “ Adverse effects of TIME - time aircraft noise ” . The report identified a number of issues for possible further research , and was intended to form the background to any future GPE studies of night - time aircraft noise . The report stated that gaps in knowledge had been identified , and indicated that the DETR was considering whether there was a case for a further full - scale study on the adverse effects of night - time aircraft noise , and had decided to commission CARDINAL further short research studies to investigate the options . These studies were commissioned in DATE , before the publication of the ORG report . CARDINAL is a trial study to assess research methodology . The other is a social survey the aims of which included an exploration of the difference between objectively measured and publicly received disturbance due to aircraft noise at TIME . Both studies are being conducted by university researchers .

A series of noise mitigation and abatement measures is in place at FAC airport , in addition to restrictions on night flights . These include the following : aircraft noise certification to reduce noise at source ; the compulsory phasing out of older , noisier jet aircraft ; noise preferential routes and minimum climb gradients for aircraft taking off ; noise abatement approach procedures ( continuous descent and low power / low drag procedures ) ; limitation of air transport movements ; noise related airport charges ; noise insulation grant schemes and compensation for noise nuisance under LAW DATE .

The DETR and the management of FAC airport conduct continuous and detailed monitoring of the restrictions on night flights . Reports are provided DATE to members of ORG , on which local government bodies responsible for areas within the vicinity of FAC airport , and local ORG associations are represented .

Section DATE ( CARDINAL ) of the DATE LAW provides , so far as relevant :

Air Navigation Orders made under LAW provide for ORG to be made for the regulation of aviation . Orders in ORG have been made to deal with , amongst other matters , engine emissions , noise certification and compensation for noise nuisance .

DATE . Section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of LAW provides , so far as relevant :

“ If the Secretary of ORG considers it appropriate for the purpose of avoiding , limiting or mitigating the effect of noise and vibration connected with the taking - off or landing of aircraft at a designated aerodrome , to prohibit aircraft from taking off or landing , or limit the number of occasions on which they may take off or land , at the aerodrome during certain periods , he may by a notice published in the prescribed manner do all or any of the following , that is to say–

( a ) prohibit aircraft of descriptions specified in the notice from taking off or landing at the aerodrome ( otherwise than in an emergency of a description so specified ) during periods so specified ;

( b ) specify the maximum number of occasions on which aircraft of descriptions so specified may be permitted to take off or land at the aerodrome ... during the periods so specified ; .... ”

Restrictions on night flights at FAC airport are imposed by means of notices published by the Secretary of ORG under section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of LAW .

The local authorities for the areas around the CARDINAL main GPE airports sought judicial review of the Secretary of ORG ’s decision to introduce the DATE Scheme . They made CARDINAL consecutive applications for judicial review , and appealed twice to ORG . ORG declared that the DATE Scheme was contrary to the terms of section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) ( b ) of LAW , and therefore invalid , because it did not “ specify the maximum number of occasions on which aircraft of descriptions so specified may be permitted to take off or land ” but , instead , imposed controls by reference to levels of exposure to noise energy ( NORP v. Secretary of ORG , ex parte GPE upon ORG and Others [ DATE ] CARDINAL Weekly Law Reports , p. CARDINAL ) .

NORP The Secretary of ORG decided to retain the quota count system , but with the addition of an overall maximum number of aircraft movements . This decision was held by ORG to be in accordance with section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) ( b ) of LAW . However , the DATE Consultation Paper was held to have been “ materially misleading ” in failing to make clear that the implementation of the proposals for FAC airport would permit an increase in noise levels over those experienced in DATE ( NORP v. Secretary of ORG , ex parte GPE upon ORG and Others [ DATE ] ORG , p. CARDINAL ) .

Following the publication of a further consultation paper in DATE , and of a supplement to the DATE consultation paper in DATE , the local authorities brought a further application for judicial review . In DATE , ORG decided that the Secretary of ORG had given adequate reasons and sufficient justification for his conclusion that it was reasonable , on balance , to run the risk of diminishing to some degree local people ’s ability to sleep at TIME because of the other countervailing considerations to which he was , in DATE , willing to give greater weight , and that by DATE errors in the consultation papers had been corrected and the new policy could not be said to be irrational ( NORP v. Secretary of ORG , ex parte GPE LBC [ DATE ] CARDINAL Weekly Law Reports , p. CARDINAL ) .

On DATE , ORG dismissed a petition by the local authorities for leave to appeal against the decision of ORG .


The applicant is a NORP national , born in DATE . He currently serves a prison sentence in GPE prison .

A.

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

a ) On DATE ORG convicted the applicant of assault against his brother - in - law and sentenced him to CARDINAL months’ imprisonment . When taking the evidence , the court interviewed the applicant and heard CARDINAL other witnesses : his wife , the victim , and the victim ’s wife . The court had further regard to a forensic medical opinion .

The applicant filed an appeal with ORG , submitting that the evidence on the case - file did not allow for a conclusion that he was guilty of any criminal offence , and requesting to be acquitted . He submitted in particular that he had been acting in self - defence . On DATE the ORG

By a letter of CARDINAL DATE the applicant ’s officially appointed counsel informed him that his competence to act on the applicant ’s behalf had expired on the date on which the appellate court gave its judgment . If the applicant wished to lodge a cassation appeal , it was open to him to hire a lawyer who should draft the appeal and submit it to ORG within DATE from the service of the second - instance judgment with its written grounds on the applicant . He also informed the applicant that he was not intending to lodge a cassation appeal with ORG as his case - load made it impossible for him .

On DATE the applicant requested ORG to appoint a counsel under the legal aid scheme , who would prepare a cassation appeal on his behalf .

On DATE the same counsel refused to accept the applicant ’s power of attorney for the purposes of lodging the cassation appeal . He informed the applicant that it was open to him to submit to the court a request to have another lawyer assigned to the case .

On DATE the court granted the applicant ’s request . Subsequently , on DATE ORG , acting at the request of ORG , assigned ORG as an officially appointed counsel to represent the applicant in the cassation proceedings .

By a letter of DATE ORG informed the applicant that she did not intend to draft a cassation appeal in his case , as she was of the view that no statutory grounds for so doing were available . She considered that the second - instance judgment was not flawed with shortcomings such as to justify lodging a cassation appeal under the applicable provisions of LAW . The analysis of the case - file had not shown that any flagrant breach of law had been committed in the case .

The applicant received this letter on CARDINAL DATE . On DATE he renewed his request to have a lawyer assigned in order to represent him further in the proceedings . He also requested to be granted a retrospective leave to appeal out of time .

On DATE the ORG refused to appoint legal counsel under the legal aid scheme and to grant the applicant a retrospective leave to appeal out of time . The court considered that the objective of appointing a legal counsel was to guarantee to the accused person a right to have effective legal representation in the criminal proceedings . If a lawyer , having analysed the case - file , stated that there were no grounds on which a cassation appeal should be lodged , there was no legal basis on which the court could oblige the lawyer to act further . Moreover , there was no legal basis on which to appoint a new legal counsel to the case . ORG had filed her letter of CARDINAL DATE with the applicant ’s case file . It transpired therefrom that she had analysed the case - file with a view to lodging a cassation appeal , but that she had not found any grounds which would justify it . The court concluded that , in view thereof , there was no legal basis on which another lawyer could be appointed to the case .

Subsequently the applicant complained to ORG of the Toruń Bar . In reply , in a letter of CARDINAL DATE , the ORG informed him that ORG had been requested to explain the grounds on which she had refused to draft the cassation appeal . She had stated that she had examined the applicant ’s case - file and had not found any grounds for filing the cassation appeal . The applicant ’s attention was drawn to the fact that as the cassation

Subsequently , the applicant requested the Minister of ORG to lodge a cassation appeal on his behalf . On DATE the Minister of ORG refused to do so , considering that the examination of the case - file had shown that there were no legal grounds for lodging a cassation appeal .

b ) On DATE the ORG convicted the applicant of attempted theft and sentenced him to DATE imprisonment and a fine . The applicant had committed the offence when being temporarily released from prison .

On DATE ORG partly amended the contested judgment in that it quashed the part of the sentence by which the applicant had been ordered to pay a fine , partly amended the legal basis of the conviction and dismissed the remainder of the applicant ’s appeal .

B. Relevant domestic law

Assistance of an officially appointed lawyer

On DATE the new Code of Criminal Procedure entered into force . Pursuant to LAW , an officially appointed counsel is entitled to act on behalf of the accused throughout the entire proceedings . A counsel appointed to represent an accused in cassation proceedings should draft and sign the cassation appeal , or inform the second - instance court in writing that he has not found grounds for lodging such an appeal against the second - instance judgment .

According to LAW , the accused who does not have a privately hired lawyer to represent him in the proceedings , may require that a counsel be assigned to the case under the legal aid scheme , if he proves that he can not afford to pay the costs of his defence without entailing a substantial reduction in his and his family ’s standard of living . Under LAW , the accused person must have an officially appointed counsel if he is minor , or deaf , mute or blind , or if there are justified doubts whether he could be held criminally responsible , or if he does not speak LANGUAGE .

Further , pursuant to the same provision , a lawyer shall be assigned to represent the accused when the court finds it justified due to circumstances which may render the defence particularly difficult .

The accused must have an officially appointed lawyer in the case in which a regional court acts as the first - instance court , if he is accused of a crime within the meaning of LAW , or is detained on remand .

Cassation appeal

According to LAW , a cassation appeal may be lodged with ORG against any final decision of an appellate court , which has terminated the criminal proceedings . Pursuant to Article CARDINAL , such an appeal can be lodged only on grounds specified in DATE , which include serious procedural errors , or on the ground of another flagrant breach of law , if the contested judicial decision was affected by such breach . A cassation appeal can not be lodged only against the sentence .

Under LAW the cassation appeal must be drafted and signed by a counsel .


Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial

András Sajó;Françoise Tulkens;Ireneu Cabral Barreto;Nona Tsotsoria;Vladimiro Zagrebelsky

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE , GPE .

On DATE some of his relatives brought an action against the applicant seeking termination of their common ownership of a house . The applicant brought counterclaims which he subsequently modified several times .

In the course of the first - instance proceedings , the applicant challenged , in vain , LAW for bias , arguing that the President of the court DATE who was not sitting on the bench hearing the case – and the GPE lawyer were sisters - in - law .

At the hearings on DATE and DATE Judge PERSON , who was in charge of the case , instructed the plaintiffs to complete their action in a comprehensive form . Subsequently , the case was assigned to Judge PERSON

After having held several hearings and obtained the opinions of CARDINAL experts , on CARDINAL DATE ORG ordered the auction of the property at issue and determined the parties’ respective shares of the sale price .

The applicant appealed to ORG . In the course of the second - instance proceedings , his CARDINAL further motions for bias – submitted against ORG bench hearing the case DATE were unsuccessful .

After having obtained a further expert opinion , on DATE ORG upheld in essence ORG judgment . It finally set the minimum price for the house in question at MONEY ( ORG ) .

On DATE execution was ordered . The house in question was auctioned for ORG CARDINAL on DATE .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s petition for review . The decision was served on the applicant in DATE .


The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE ( GPE ) .

In DATE and DATE the applicant acquired ownership of a plot of land in GPE , on which a storage facility had been built , and the utile dominium of another plot of land . The applicant alleged that his lands are located far from inhabited areas and that it would have been impossible to cultivate them without having a storage facility for the necessary agricultural equipment and machinery .

In a summons of DATE , the police charged the applicant with having carried out construction works on his land without having obtained the necessary permits . He was therefore arraigned before ORG . The prosecution requested that the punishment established by law be applied and the applicant ordered to demolish the storage facility .

In a judgment of DATE , ORG acquitted the applicant . No penalty was imposed on him , nor was he ordered to demolish the storage facility in question .

On DATE the police issued another summons against the applicant for having carried out unauthorised building works .

NORP In a judgment of DATE , ORG found the applicant guilty of the charge brought against him and ordered him to pay a fine of CARDINAL NORP Liri ( Lm ) . It also gave the applicant a month within which to comply with the law , a penalty of Lm CARDINAL being imposed for DATE of default . Under this judgment , the applicant was obliged to demolish the storage facility .

The applicant appealed against this decision , pleading that he had been judged twice for the same facts and proclaiming his innocence .

In a judgment of DATE , ORG allowed the applicant ’s plea of ne bis in idem and revoked the judgment of DATE . However , the court observed that the evidence before it demonstrated that the applicant ’s building had been constructed without the required permit . Therefore , it ordered that the building be demolished by the police at its expense . This decision was adopted on the basis of LAW ) of LAW of LAW ( Code of Police Laws ) , a provision according to which an order to demolish may be imposed “ even where the person charged is acquitted of the charge and the court is satisfied that the building to which the charge refers has been erected in contravention of this section ” . ORG observed that the aim of the said article was “ to do away with the existing state of illegality even if the accused [ was ] acquitted ” .

Invoking LAW No . CARDINAL , the applicant introduced a constitutional application before ORG ( FAC ) . He observed that his property had to be demolished even though he had been found not guilty of the accusations brought against him , and underlined that this became possible only after DATE , when LAW ) of LAW of LAW had been amended . Before that date , no order for demolition could have been imposed on an acquitted person . As the criminal offence had allegedly been committed before that date , the punishment imposed could not be considered foreseeable .

In a judgment of CARDINAL DATE , ORG rejected the applicant ’s claim .

It observed that the applicant had not been deprived of his property , the measure complained of being aimed rather at regulating and controlling the use of property . The applicant had not contested the right of the ORG to control the building development of the country and to submit building works to a system of permits and authorisations . His allegations were confined to arguing that imposing a demolition order on an owner who had been found not guilty had breached the fair balance which should exist between the general interest of the community and the protection of the rights of the individual . However , ORG could not subscribe to this argument . It noted that if the ORG had a legitimate interest in not having any constructions on a plot of land , the demolition of an unlawful structure only restored the status quo ante and was therefore a measure proportionate to the aim sought to be achieved . The criminal liability of the owner of the land could not be considered a pre - requisite for adopting such measure .

As far as LAW was concerned , ORG observed that in a judgment of DATE , given in the case of the ORG v. PERSON , ORG had examined the nature of a demolition order and concluded that it constituted a punishment . However , ORG could not share this opinion . In fact , a “ punishment ” was not intended , as a civil remedy , to restore the status quo ante , but to place the author of the offence , by means of a fine or a term of imprisonment , in a worse position than the one he was in when he committed the criminal act . As the demolition order was intended only to prevent the author of the offence from gaining an unlawful advantage , it was not dependent on a finding of guilt and could not be considered a penalty within the meaning of LAW .

The applicant appealed to ORG .

In a judgment of DATE , ORG , considering that ORG had correctly enunciated the principles applicable in the case at issue , rejected the applicant ’s appeal . It recalled that it was not contested that the building in question had been constructed without a permit and that it was still not covered by the required permit . It was therefore abusive and illegal and the ORG had clearly a right to remove it . ORG also noted that ORG had found that a criminal act had been committed , even if it could not attribute that act to the applicant . Independently of who was guilty and who had breached the law , the judicial organs should have intervened in order to re - establish the rule of law . The only way to do this was to order the demolition of the unlawfully constructed building .

NORP Before the adoption of the amendments which entered into force on DATE , Article PERSON ) and ( CARDINAL ) of LAW of LAW ( Code of Police Laws ) read as follows :

“ ( CARDINAL ) Any person , who does or causes or allows to be done anything for the doing of which a permit is required ... when there is not such permit ... shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction to a fine ( multa ) of not less than MONEY and not more than one hundred liri .

( CARDINAL ) The court , besides awarding the punishment referred to in the last preceding subsection , shall order the offender to remove the causes of the offence and to undo anything which was done without a permit ... ” .

Article CARDINAL ) of Act X of DATE amended this provision by adding a subsection ( CARDINAL ) , which reads as follows :

“ ( CARDINAL ) The provisions of subsections ( CARDINAL ) , ( CARDINAL ) , ( CARDINAL ) , ( CARDINAL ) and ( CARDINAL) of section CARDINAL of this code shall apply in the case of any offence under subsection ( CARDINAL ) of this section even where the person charged is acquitted of the charge and the court is satisfied that the building to which the charge refers has been erected in contravention of this section ” .

Section CARDINAL of the Code of Police Laws concerns the domestic court ’s power to order the offender “ to abate the nuisance arising from the contravention ” .