The applicants are all NORP citizens , born respectively in DATE , DATE and DATE . They are resident in ORG . The first applicant is the father of PERSON , who was killed in DATE . The second , third and fourth applicants are respectively the deceased ’s mother , sister and brother . The applicants are represented before the ORG by PERSON Sarsam and Mr PERSON , lawyers practising in GPE .

A.

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

On DATE , PERSON was shot dead by a soldier in the canteen used by his military unit following a dispute about drugs .

The soldier responsible for his death was prosecuted before the ORG . The applicants joined the proceedings as intervenors .

In its judgment of DATE the ORG found the accused soldier guilty of unlawful killing and sentenced him to DATE imprisonment . When fixing sentence the court had regard to mitigating circumstances , namely the fact that the accused had been severely provoked by the deceased at the time of the incident .

On DATE the military Court of Cassation annulled the ORG judgment on the ground that the military court had misdirected itself on the level of provocation to be attributed to the behaviour of the deceased at the material time . The case was remitted to the military court .

In its judgment of DATE , the military court had regard to the fact that the accused soldier had finished his military service and for that reason ruled that it had no jurisdiction to deal with the case . The case was transferred to ORG . The applicants joined the proceedings as intervenors .

On DATE the ORG sentenced the accused to death . The sentence was later commuted to DATE imprisonment .

On DATE the applicants lodged an action for damages before ORG against ORG . The applicants maintained that PERSON was killed by a soldier who , prior to his military service , had been found guilty of wilful homicide . The applicants stated that the rules governing the carrying of firearms had not been respected and that the fault lay with the administration .

In its decision of CARDINAL DATE ORG found that the applicants had made out their case in part . The court ruled that a causal link existed between PERSON death and the act of an agent of the ORG given that the latter had on him at the relevant time a firearm belonging to the ORG . The court also noted that the deceased had by his behaviour provoked the ORG agent . Basing itself on an expert ’s report , the court awarded compensation for pecuniary and non - pecuniary damage to the father and mother of PERSON . The ORG request for rectification of the judgment was rejected by the same court on DATE .

B. Relevant domestic law

LAW provides :

“ ORG shall be the first and last instance for the judicial supervision of disputes arising out of administrative actions involving military personnel or relating to military service , even if such acts and actions have been carried out by civilian authorities . However in disputes arising out of the obligation to perform military service , there shall be no condition that the person concerned be a member of the military body .

Members of ORG who are military judges shall be appointed by the President of the Republic from a list of CARDINAL candidates nominated for each vacant office by the President and members of the court , who are also military judges , by secret ballot and by an absolute majority of the total number of such members , from among military judges of the first category ; members who are not military judges shall be appointed by the President of the Republic from a list of CARDINAL candidates nominated for each vacant office by the Chief of ORG from among the officers holding the rank and qualifications prescribed by law .

The term of office of members who are not military judges shall not exceed DATE .

The President , ORG and ORG of the ORG shall be appointed among military judges according to rank and seniority .

The organisation and functioning of ORG , its procedure , disciplinary affairs and other matters relating to the status of its members shall be regulated by law in accordance with the principles of the independence of courts and the security of tenure of judges and the requirements of military service . ”

The PERSON governing ORG

( Law No . DATE , DATE )

( unofficial translation )

DATE of tenure )

“ The President , ORG , the Members and the Presidents of the Chambers of the Supreme Military Administrative Court , being judges of ORG , are guaranteed security of tenure under LAW . ”


Violation of Art. 6-1;Violation of Art. 13;Remainder inadmissible;Pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage, costs and expenses - financial award

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

In DATE the applicant instituted proceedings against the ORG in ORG of GPE , seeking the recovery of salary arrears .

On DATE the ORG of Odessa ordered the ORG to pay the applicant ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL in compensation . The decision was not appealed and became final on DATE .

On DATE ORG informed the applicant that the judgment in his favour could not be immediately executed due to the ORG ’s lack of funds . In particular , it noted that the ORG ’s debts amounted to ORG , including salary arrears in the amount of ORG CARDINAL . They also stated that they were in the course of selling some of the ORG ’s property and vessels belonging to it .

On DATE ORG informed the applicant that ORG had frozen the ORG ’s bank accounts , however they had been empty since DATE .

On DATE the applicant informed the ORG that the judgment had been executed when , on DATE , he had been paid ORG CARDINAL .

The relevant domestic law is set out in the judgment of DATE in the case of ORG v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL , § § DATE ) .


Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial

Giovanni Bonello;Ján Šikuta;Lech Garlicki;Ledi Bianku;Nicolas Bratza;Päivi Hirvelä

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in PERSON .

NORP In DATE the applicant ’s wife filed a petition for divorce . The divorce was granted shortly afterwards .

On DATE the applicant lodged a claim for the division of matrimonial property with ORG ( FAC ) .

On DATE ORG gave a decision and divided the property .

On an unspecified date the applicant appealed .

On DATE ORG ( PERSON ) remitted the case .

On DATE ORG again gave a decision .

On unspecified dates both parties appealed .

On DATE ORG dismissed both appeals .

On DATE the applicant lodged a cassation appeal with ORG ( Sąd Najwyższy ) .

On DATE ORG refused to hear the applicant ’s cassation appeal .

The applicant submitted that as a consequence of the prolonged proceedings in his case he had been deprived of his property and had to live in a Welfare Home ( PERSON ) .

On an unspecified date the applicant instituted enforcement proceedings against his wife who apparently had failed to comply with the final decision on the division of their property .

On DATE ORG informed the applicant that the enforcement had proved ineffective .

On DATE the applicant lodged a complaint with ORG against the actions taken by the bailiff ( skarga na czynności komornika ) . He submitted that those actions had been incorrect , because the money obtained from the debtor had been distributed wrongly . He also complained about the ineffectiveness of the enforcement .

On DATE ORG dismissed his complaint . It held that the order of distribution had been in accordance with LAW . As regards the ineffectiveness of the enforcement , the court held that no valuable objects had been found in the debtor ’s house which could be sold and used to satisfy the debt .

On DATE ORG dismissed his appeal .

The legal provisions applicable before the entry into force of LAW as well as matters of practice concerning the remedies against unreasonable length of proceedings are set out in paragraphs CARDINAL of the judgment delivered by ORG DATE in the case of PERSON v. GPE no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL .

The relevant domestic law and practice concerning remedies for the excessive length of judicial proceedings , in particular the applicable provisions of LAW , are stated in the ORG ’s decisions in the cases of ORG v. GPE no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ( dec . ) , § § DATE , ECHR CARDINAL-V ; NORP v. GPE no . CARDINAL ( dec . ) , ORG CARDINAL-VIII ; and the judgment in the case of ORG v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , § § DATE , ECHR CARDINAL-V.


The applicant is a NORP citizen of NORP origin , born in DATE and living in GPE . He is represented by PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE .

On DATE the applicant was issued with a penal order ( Strafbefehl ) by ORG ( ORG ) for having entered the territory of GPE illegally , i.e. without a visa . The applicant was fined DATE rates in the amount of CARDINAL ORG each .

Upon the applicant ’s objection ( PERSON ) , trial proceedings were instituted before ORG . In these and the following proceedings , the applicant was represented by his defence counsel , PERSON . At a hearing before FAC on DATE , the applicant 's counsel declared that asylum proceedings were pending . The court decided to adjourn the case sine die .

On DATE , in the resumed proceedings , ORG convicted the applicant of having illegally entered GPE . The applicant was sentenced to a fine of DATE rates in the amount of CARDINAL DM each .

On DATE ORG ( Oberlandesgericht ) , upon the applicant ’s appeal on points of law ( Revision ) , quashed the judgment of CARDINAL DATE and sent the case back for a new trial .

On DATE ORG acquitted the applicant , who had in the meantime been recognised as a refugee , and imposed the costs of the proceedings on the ORG . ORG decided furthermore that it would deal with the applicant ’s claim for compensation under LAW ( PERSON über die PERSON für GPE ) in separate proceedings . The judgment was served on the applicant on DATE .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s compensation claim .

On DATE the ORG rejected the applicant ’s appeal . It found that LAW provided compensation only and exclusively for damages resulting from conviction or other criminal prosecution measures enumerated in LAW . Compensation in respect of an excessive length of criminal proceedings was not comprised . Neither did the ORG provide for such a right . Moreover , the conditions for claiming compensation of the applicant ’s provisional arrest were not met .

The applicant then lodged a constitutional complaint ( ORG ) , which was rejected by a group of CARDINAL judges of ORG on DATE .


András Sajó;David Thór Björgvinsson;Françoise Tulkens;Giorgio Malinverni;Guido Raimondi;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque

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

The applicants , PERSON and PERSON , were born in DATE and DATE respectively and live in ORG .

Both applicants were employed by ORG predionica ORG from ORG ( hereinafter “ the debtor ” ) . On DATE and CARDINAL DATE they were respectively placed on compulsory paid leave until such time when normal production could be resumed and the debtor ’s business performance had improved sufficiently .

Whilst on this leave , in accordance with the relevant domestic legislation , the applicants were entitled to a significantly reduced DATE income , as well as the payment of their pension , disability and other social security contributions .

Since the debtor failed to fulfil these obligations , the applicants brought numerous separate civil claims before ORG ( PERSON ) in ORG ( hereinafter “ the ORG ” ) .

On an unspecified date the debtor ’s mother company ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) proposed ORG rešavanja viška zaposlenih– hereinafter “ the redundancy programme ” ) . The redundancy programme set out the criteria for determining redundant employees and , once declared redundant , provided them with CARDINAL options for benefits : to receive a single redundancy payment from the employer ( otpremnina ) ; or to claim DATE unemployment benefits from the social security of the State ( novčana naknada ) . These benefits were provided for all employees , regardless of whether they had any other outstanding claim towards the company .

On DATE ORG ruled in favour of the applicant . On DATE ORG supplemented this judgment , and ultimately ordered the debtor to pay to the applicant :

i. the DATE paid leave benefits ( minimalna zarada ) due from DATE to DATE ( ORG CARDINAL in all ; ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL at the relevant timeCARDINAL ) , indexed in accordance with the relevant regulations , together with statutory interest ;

ii . RSD CARDINAL,CARDINAL ( EUR CARDINAL ) for her legal costs ; and

iii . the pension and disability insurance contributions ( “ doprinosi za penzijsko i invalidsko osiguranje ” ) due from DATE to DATE .

On DATE this judgment became final .

On DATE the applicant filed a request for its enforcement , in relation to the payment of paid leave benefits and costs , proposing that it be carried out either by means of a bank transfer or through auctioning the debtor ’s specified movable and/or immovable assets .

On DATE ORG accepted the applicant ’s request and issued an enforcement order , at the same time awarding the applicant the additional amount of ORG CARDINAL in respect of enforcement costs ( EUR CARDINAL ) .

On DATE the applicant filed an identical enforcement request , which was accepted on DATE . She was awarded another ORG CARDINAL ( EUR CARDINAL ) in respect of enforcement costs .

On DATE ORG ruled in favour of the applicant and ordered the debtor to pay her :

i. the DATE paid leave benefits due from DATE to DATE ( ORG CARDINAL in all ; ORG ) , indexed in accordance with the relevant regulations , together with statutory interest ;

ii . ORG CARDINAL ( EUR CARDINAL ) for her legal costs ; and

iii . the pension and disability insurance contributions due from DATE to CARDINAL DATE .

The judgment of CARDINAL DATE became final on DATE .

On DATE ORG accepted her enforcement request , also awarding her ORG CARDINAL ( EUR CARDINAL ) in respect of enforcement costs .

i. the DATE paid leave benefits due from DATE to CARDINAL DATE ( ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL,CARDINAL in all ; LAW ) , indexed in accordance with the relevant regulations , together with statutory interest ;

ii . RSD CARDINAL ( EUR CARDINAL ) for her legal costs ; and

On DATE ORG accepted her enforcement request , also awarding her ORG CARDINAL ( ORG CARDINAL ) in respect of enforcement costs .

i. the DATE paid leave benefits due from DATE to DATE ( ORG CARDINAL in all ; EUR CARDINAL ) , indexed in accordance with the relevant regulations , together with statutory interest ;

ii . ORG CARDINAL ( ORG CARDINAL ) for her legal costs ; and

On DATE the applicant made a statement , in accordance with the redundancy programme ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) whereby she opted for the single redundancy payment .

On DATE the mother company issued a decision terminating the applicant ’s employment as of DATE , and stating that as of that date all rights and obligations arising from her employment were terminated .

On DATE the mother company paid the applicant ORG of redundancy pay , in accordance with the statement of CARDINAL DATE and the decision of DATE .

On DATE , the contributions for pension and disability insurance for the entire period due were paid .

i. the guaranteed pay ( “ garantovana zarada ” ) due from DATE to CARDINAL DATE , and the DATE paid leave benefits due from DATE to CARDINAL DATE , indexed in accordance with the relevant regulations ( ORG CARDINAL in all ; ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL ) , together with statutory interest ; and

ii . RSD CARDINAL,CARDINAL ( ORG CARDINAL ) for her legal costs .

On DATE this judgment became final .

On DATE ORG accepted the applicant ’s request and issued an enforcement order , and awarded her ORG CARDINAL ( EUR CARDINAL ) in respect of enforcement costs .

i. the DATE paid leave benefits due from DATE to DATE , indexed in accordance with the relevant regulations ( total amount of ORG CARDINAL ; EUR CARDINAL ) , together with statutory interest ; and

iii . the pension and disability insurance contributions due from DATE to DATE .

On DATE this judgment became final .

On DATE the applicant filed a request for its enforcement , proposing that it be carried out either by means of a bank transfer or through auctioning the debtor ’s specified movable and/or immovable assets .

On DATE ORG accepted the applicant ’s request and issued an enforcement order , additionally awarding her ORG CARDINAL ( EUR CARDINAL ) in respect of the costs of enforcement .

On DATE ORG established that the applicant had withdrawn the part of her enforcement request regarding the payment of contributions for social and pension insurance , and terminated the enforcement of the judgment of DATE in this part .

i. the DATE paid leave benefits due from DATE to DATE ( total of ORG CARDINAL ; ORG CARDINAL ) , together with statutory interest ;

On DATE this judgment became final .

i. the DATE paid leave benefits due from DATE to DATE ( total of ORG CARDINAL ; EUR CARDINAL ) , together with statutory interest ;

On DATE this judgment became final .

DATE . On DATE ORG accepted the applicant ’s request and issued an enforcement order , additionally awarding her ORG CARDINAL ( EUR CARDINAL ) in respect of enforcement costs .

i. the DATE paid leave benefits due from DATE to DATE ( total of ORG CARDINAL , EUR CARDINAL ) , together with statutory interest ;

On DATE this judgment became final .

i. the DATE paid leave benefits due for DATE and DATE ( total of ORG ; EUR CARDINAL ) , together with statutory interest ;

On DATE this judgment became final .

On DATE the applicant made a statement , in accordance with the redundancy programme ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) with which she opted for the single redundancy payment .

On DATE the mother company issued a decision terminating the applicant ’s employment as of CARDINAL DATE , and as of that date all rights and obligations arising from her employment were terminated .

On DATE the mother company paid the applicant ORG CARDINAL of redundancy pay , in accordance with the statement of DATE and the decision of CARDINAL DATE .

On DATE the contributions for pension and disability insurance for the entire period due were paid .

The debtor is a limited liability company owned by the “ Raška Hoding Kompanija ” ( “ the mother company ” ) . As of DATE , the debtor still consisted of predominantly socially - owned and ORG - owned capital .

On DATE the mother company was ordered to undergo restructuring , which is still ongoing . Regardless of the formal status “ under restructuring ” , none of the applicants’ enforcement proceedings was ever formally suspended or terminated on these grounds .

The relevant domestic law is set out in the ORG ’s judgments of PERSON and ORG ( nos . CARDINAL , CARDINAL , DATE , DATE , CARDINAL and CARDINAL , DATE , § § CARDINAL - CARDINAL ) ; PERSON ( no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , § § DATE , DATE ) ; PERSON and Others v. PERSON ( nos . CARDINAL , CARDINAL/CARDINAL , CARDINAL/CARDINAL and CARDINAL , DATE , § § CARDINAL ) ; and ORG GPE ( no . CARDINAL , § § CARDINAL and DATE , CARDINAL DATE ) .

In its decisions of CARDINAL DATE and DATE , ORG ( cases no . Už-CARDINAL/CARDINAL and Už-CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) examined the complaints of persons who had previously been employed with CARDINAL of the companies within the “ Raška ” holding company , and whose employment had been terminated in accordance with the redundancy programme . The appellants had requested ORG to order the company to pay them DATE paid leave benefits . ORG and ORG in ORG had rejected their respective claims because , inter alia , they had already claimed their entitlement under the redundancy programme . ORG found that the employees were entitled to enjoy the rights arising from both the redundancy programme and the outstanding claims from their employment , prior to its termination . Thus , the bare fact that the appellants in those cases had agreed to enjoy benefits from the redundancy programme could not be interpreted to mean that they had waived the right to the DATE paid leave benefits previously due , and the courts had to examine whether those benefits had indeed been paid or not .


CASE OF THE FORTUM CORPORATION v. FINLAND

Violation of Art. 6-1;Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient;Costs and expenses partial award

The applicant is a multinational company specialising , inter alia , in the wholesale of petrochemical products , as was ORG at the time of relevance to the case .

In light of submissions lodged by another company in the field – ORG ( “ GPE ” ) DATE ORG ( kilpailuvirasto , konkurrensverket ) , on DATE , initiated proceedings before ORG ( kilpailuneuvosto , konkurrensrådet ) , requesting that ORG be ordered to cease abusing its dominant position on the NORP market for motor engine fuel . In the view of ORG the reductions in ORG 's wholesale prices discriminated against some of its clients , thereby violating the DATE Act on Competition Restrictions ( laki kilpailunrajoituksista , lag om konkurrensbegränsningar CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) . ORG therefore requested that ORG be ordered to cease and desist from applying certain pricing criteria .

In a further submission of CARDINAL DATE ORG requested that an administrative fine ( seuraamusmaksu , påföljdsavgift ) be imposed . As a new fact ORG referred to ORG unwillingness to concede that it had been violating the relevant provisions and accordingly to change the price of fuel sold to ORG .

On DATE ORG held that ORG had abused its dominant position on the relevant market but found no reason to impose a fine on the company . ORG , ORG and ORG all appealed to ORG ( korkein hallinto - oikeus , högsta förvaltningsdomstolen ) . ORG maintained that it did not hold a dominant position on the market in question and in any case had not been abusing it . ORG appealed in so far as ORG had accepted certain of ORG 's criteria for price differentiation . ORG contended that a fine should have been imposed .

On DATE and DATE ORG forwarded to ORG its interpretation of ORG decision as to the pricing criteria to be applied in light of the latter 's decision . On DATE ORG replied that its interventions were limited to questions of principle . It could therefore not pronounce itself on ORG proposed interpretation regarding the acceptable pricing criteria .

On DATE and DATE ORG again drew ORG attention to its difficulties in interpreting ORG decision .

In a submission to ORG dated DATE ORG demanded equality of arms in the proceedings . Reference was made to a telephone conversation between ORG 's representative and a legal officer of ORG from which it had transpired that a secret memorandum of ORG dated DATE had been filed with ORG . The memorandum discussed ORG 's conduct following ORG decision . The document had been released to ORG itself on DATE in response to the company 's request .

In a further submission to ORG dated DATE ORG challenged the accuracy of ORG memorandum , including the conclusions drawn . PERSON again objected to ORG failure to hear it formally in respect of ORG observations and apparently other memoranda .

By decision of CARDINAL DATE ( reported in its DATE ORG , p. CARDINAL ) ORG , without commenting on ORG 's procedural objections of DATE and DATE , upheld ORG decision in large part . The court found , inter alia , that ORG , being in a dominant position on the relevant market , could in principle have objectively justifiable grounds for treating its clients differently according to certain criteria . In the case under examination ORG had not , however , shown any convincing grounds for differentiating between its clients on any ground other than on the basis of the volume of fuel purchased . By applying other pricing criteria ORG had accordingly abused its dominant position .

Having concluded that a fine should have been imposed on ORG , ORG referred the fixing of its amount to ORG . It further ordered that ORG 's conduct after DATE , in respect of which the court had received “ substantial new information ” , was to be taken into account . The court declined to examine itself what significance should be given to that information .

ORG case - file indicates that it deliberated on DATE May as well as on DATE .

On DATE ORG confirmed to the parties that the sole question which remained to be decided was the size of the fine to be imposed on ORG . In DATE ORG proposed a fine in the amount of CARDINAL NORP Marks ( ORG ) ( MONEY ( ORG ) ) . This proposal was rejected by ORG . ORG then filed a new proposal in which the amount of the fine was maintained but on different grounds .

In DATE ORG 's representative found in ORG case - file a copy of further observations drawn up by ORG and dated DATE . They bore a stamp indicating that they had been received by ORG on DATE . ORG had forwarded a copy to ORG but not to ORG . The observations sought to refute ORG 's arguments by highlighting the salient points of a DATE decision of ORG in the case ORG v. PERSON which ORG argued supported ORG decision of DATE . ORG had not heard Neste in respect of those observations .

Following an oral hearing ORG , by decision of DATE , fixed ORG 's fine at FIM CARDINAL ( about EUR CARDINAL ) . It noted that ORG 's pricing practice from DATE to CARDINAL DATE had clearly discriminated against ORG and had been found to be unlawful under LAW . While the prohibited pricing practice had not been significant in nature , it had not been so insignificant as to justify a waiver of the fine .

As regards ORG 's conduct from DATE to CARDINAL DATE ORG found that it had not deviated to such an extent from its decision of DATE as to justify the imposition of a fine . In addition , ORG 's attempts to obtain approval of its amended pricing practice had been in vain , since ORG had failed in its obligation to direct and supervise the implementation of that decision . Accordingly , no fine was imposed for ORG 's conduct during that period .

On DATE ORG refused , in extraordinary proceedings , the applicant company 's request for an annulment of its decision of DATE in the ordinary proceedings under LAW . The court found that no procedural error had taken place and reasoned , inter alia , that in so far as it had ordered that the fine to be imposed on ORG should take account of its conduct between ORG decision of DATE and the court 's decision of CARDINAL DATE , it had not become evident that the court had based itself on material in respect of which ORG had not been heard . Moreover , the court had expressly declined to draw any conclusion as to whether the supplementary information received by it should be taken into account when considering the amount of the fine to be imposed .

At the time of the proceedings before ORG , domestic law contained no general provisions on the manner in which parties to administrative proceedings were to be heard in writing . Even in the absence of such provisions it was considered an essential feature of fair administrative proceedings that all parties were properly heard . The hearing requirement was considered to include the right of a party to be informed of a matter affecting him or her , of the progress of the proceedings and of any evidence adduced . It entitled a party to submit observations on any evidence adduced by other parties but only if that evidence could affect the outcome of the case . Whenever such evidence had been adduced , the court could not rely on it unless the other party had been heard . A party needed not be heard when a certain claim was not examined on its merits or was rejected immediately .

The Act on ORG ( CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) provided , inter alia , that the court could request an opinion or other observations for the purpose of seeking evidence . The cases were dealt with by respecting “ lawful court procedure ” ( sections DATE ) .

As from DATE ORG ( hallintolainkäyttölaki , förvaltningsprocesslag CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) applies to proceedings before ORG . It contains explicit provisions on the hearing of parties . Provisions on parties ' right to be heard can also be found in section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of LAW ( Suomen Hallitusmuoto , ORG ; section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of the former LAW as amended by LAW ) .

According to section CARDINAL , subsection CARDINAL of the Act on Publicity of Official Documents ( laki yleisten asiakirjojen julkisuudesta , lag om allmänna handlingars offentlighet CARDINAL ) , as in force at the relevant time , any document prepared and issued by an authority as well as any document sent or handed in to an authority and remaining in its possession was to be deemed an official document . Under section CARDINAL , however , a document could be ordered to be kept secret by Decree , for example when this was deemed necessary in order to safeguard business activities .

The Decree on Certain Exceptions to the Publicity of Official Documents ( asetus sisältävä eräitä poikkeuksia yleisten asiakirjain julkisuudesta , förordning innefattande vissa undantag i fråga om allmänna handlingars offentlighet CARDINAL ) stipulated , inter alia , that documents containing information about commercial or industrial activities , the pursuit of a trade or profession or about the financial position of a private person were to be kept secret , unless the concerned company or person consented to disclosure ( section CARDINAL ) .

On the one hand , a party within the meaning of section CARDINAL of the Act on Publicity of Official Documents ( whose interest , right or obligation the matter concerned ) had the right to obtain information even from a document not designated as publicly accessible , if that information could influence , or could have influenced , the consideration of the case . On the other hand , it was possible to withhold from a party information appearing even in an document of the aforementioned nature , if disclosure thereof would have been contrary to a particularly important public or private interest .

The DATE LAW were replaced , on DATE , by a new LAW on LAW ( laki viranomaisten toiminnan julkisuudesta , lag om offentlighet i myndigheternas verksamhet CARDINAL ) which contains comparable provisions on private economic interests and on parties ' right of access to documents .

According to the LAW on ORG ( DATE ) , the ORG shall publish its findings to the extent deemed appropriate . Information regarded as a business or professional secret shall not be disclosed , unless the concerned party has consented thereto ( section CARDINAL ) .


Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Life) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Deprivation of liberty;Liberty of person;Security of person);Violation of Article 13+2 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 2 - Right to life;Article 2-1 - Effective investigation);Violation of Article 38 - Examination of the case-{general} (Article 38 - Examination of the case);Pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)

The applicant , Asmart PERSON , was born in DATE and lives in the village of GPE , ORG district , GPE .

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

The applicant lives in the village of GPE in the ORG district . The applicant 's husband , PERSON , born in DATE , worked in the neighbouring village of LOC ( also referred to sometimes as PERSON ) as a mechanic with a municipal transport company . The applicant had been married to her husband for DATE and had CARDINAL children .

On DATE the applicant 's husband left for work at TIME The road to the village of ORG went through a NORP military checkpoint , at that time known as checkpoint no . CARDINAL , near which a military unit had been stationed .

At TIME the applicant heard sounds of shooting and explosions from the road . She went out and saw a convoy of military cars under attack on the road . She later learned that the convoy of the PERSON ( special police forces ) from the town of ORG , GPE Region , had been under attack . The fighting lasted until TIME It was later reported that the troops had been mistakenly ambushed by other detachments of the NORP forces , and in particular by ORG forces from PERSON and a military unit from GPE . As a result of the fighting , CARDINAL servicemen were killed and CARDINAL wounded . The fighting was followed DATE by a “ sweeping ” operation ( zachistka ) in the village of LOC , from where the attack had come .

During the fighting and for the remainder of DATE until nightfall checkpoint no . CARDINAL remained closed and the road to LOC was blocked . The applicant remained QUANTITY away from the checkpoint until TIME that day , but was not able to get through to ORG . Her husband did not come home that night . The applicant has not seen her husband since .

DATE at TIME she went to the checkpoint and saw the aftermath of the fighting DATE burned cars from the convoy , soldiers ' bodies and blood stains . On DATE and in DATE immediately following it the applicant questioned numerous witnesses trying to find out about her husband . She did not keep records of these conversations , as at that time she could not have imagined that it would be useful .

From the witnesses ' statements the applicant learned that the “ sweeping ” operation in LOC had resulted in a large number of persons DATE over DATE being detained by the NORP military . All of them had been taken to LOC of the Interior ( PERSON ) in PERSON . CARDINAL of the witnesses told the applicant that he had seen her husband , PERSON , being taken away by the NORP servicemen in the village . The witness described the applicant 's husband as being in pain DATE his appearance suggested that he had been beaten .

On DATE the applicant met with several men who had been detained in NORP on DATE and later released . They identified the applicant 's husband from a photograph and confirmed that he had been detained by the soldiers at checkpoint no . CARDINAL and then taken away . They had not seen him at the NORP where they had been taken .

Other witnesses told the applicant that her husband had finished work in LOC and had been returning home , but that the soldiers had not let him through because of the fighting . He had returned to ORG and been detained during the “ sweeping ” operation . Apparently , the applicant 's husband had witnessed the killing by the soldiers of CARDINAL brothers PERSON and had tried to intervene on their behalf . The soldiers had beaten him up , put a sack over his head and driven him away . In DATE the local authorities of NORP village issued a certificate to the applicant confirming that CARDINAL brothers PERSON had been killed on DATE during a “ sweeping ” operation in the village . The applicant submitted that she had later found the ORG ' house in ORG locked and abandoned and had been told by local residents that their father had been killed by an unknown gunman DATE before the killing of the brothers , and their mother had been suffering from a severe mental disorder since the deaths of her family members . The applicant did not find any of the ORG ' relatives .

Further witnesses told the applicant that they had seen her husband at checkpoint no . CARDINAL during the fighting , covered in blood .

The applicant attempted to find out at the checkpoint whether her husband had been detained there , but the soldiers told her that they had been brought in as replacements after the fighting of DATE and were not aware of any detainees .

The Government submitted in their memorial of DATE that it had been established that on DATE in the village of NORP fighting had taken place involving servicemen of the federal forces , which had resulted in the deaths of servicemen of the ORG detachments from ORG . Immediately after the fighting a special operation had been conducted in ORG aimed at identifying members of the illegal armed groups who had participated in the ambush . The detainees had been taken to LOC , but PERSON was not listed among them . Nor was his name on the list of persons who had been detained by other detachments of ORG in LOC .

Starting on DATE , the applicant applied on numerous occasions to the prosecutors at various levels , ORG , the administrative authorities in GPE , GPE the NORP President in GPE and to other authorities and public figures . The applicant submitted CARDINAL copies of her letters stating the facts of her husband 's disappearance and asking for assistance and details on the investigation . She also personally visited the ORG ( to which she often had to walk – QUANTITY CARDINAL way ) , PERSON and the main NORP military base in GPE .

The applicant received very little substantive information from the official bodies about the investigation into her husband 's disappearance . On several occasions the applicant was sent copies of letters forwarding her requests to the relevant prosecutor 's office .

On DATE the applicant went to the PERSON and talked to its head , Mr NORP He called CARDINAL of the officers , who confirmed that he had seen the man on the photograph – the applicant 's husband - but said that he had never been brought to the VOVD . He told the applicant that her husband would be brought to the NORP on DATE at CARDINAL a.m. and released . On DATE the applicant returned to the ORG and waited until TIME , but received no news of her husband . She was then told that officer NORP had left GPE after completion of his mission .

On DATE the applicant addressed the investigator of ORG , PERSON , who had apparently been investigating the killing of the brothers ORG , and asked him to help her find her husband .

On DATE the applicant addressed the head of PERSON and the head of ORG , asking them to help her to find her husband .

On DATE the applicant attempted to gain access to the military prosecutor 's office in GPE , but was not allowed to enter the compound .

On DATE the applicant wrote to ORG , the military commander of GPE , the military prosecutor of GPE and the mayor of PERSON , asking them to take measures to establish her husband 's whereabouts .

On DATE ORG wrote to the head of ORG in GPE , asking the department to organise a search for CARDINAL missing persons at the request of their relatives , CARDINAL of whom was the applicant . The letter asked the department to inform the persons concerned of the results of the investigation . A copy of that letter was forwarded to the applicant .

On DATE the applicant visited the ORG . The investigator talked to her and asked her to come back in DATE . When the applicant returned , the investigator told her that her husband had been detained by servicemen of the PERSON on DATE and taken to their base near ORG DATE . He also told the applicant that a videotape existed proving this information . ORG had opened a criminal case under LAW , part one of LAW ( kidnapping ) . The applicant submitted that the investigator who gave her this information had stopped working there in DATE , and that after he had left the case had not progressed .

On DATE the applicant addressed the Special Representative of the NORP President in GPE and the Prosecutor of GPE , asking them to take measures to find out her husband 's whereabouts and inform her of any results .

Since the applicant did not receive any news of her husband , and knowing the circumstances of his detention , she concluded that he was probably no longer alive . She therefore also started to search for his body in places where persons who had been killed during the conflict were buried .

Before CARDINAL DATE the applicant , together with servicemen of PERSON and ORG ( Emercom ) , travelled on several occasions to a location near checkpoint no . CARDINAL , from where they transported CARDINAL bodies .

The applicant also accompanied the ORG servicemen to another location , where dead bodies , apparently dumped by federal servicemen , had been brought . She also went to other villages , including LOC and GPE . The applicant submitted that she had seen CARDINAL dead bodies , but had not found her husband .

On an unspecified date at DATE , at CARDINAL p.m. , the applicant was walking home . On the road not far from checkpoint no . CARDINAL a white “ GPE ” car stopped near her . A man in the car , wearing military uniform and a balaclava mask , told her in NORP , which he spoke without any accent , to kneel down with her back to the car . When the applicant obeyed , he told her that if she wanted to know who was behind her husband 's disappearance she should bring him MONEY DATE .

The applicant collected the money . On DATE she saw the same car at the same place . This time a different man was inside . He showed her on a small TV set inside the car extracts from a videotape , in which the applicant recognised her husband . In the footage PERSON was shown lying on the ground , being kicked by a soldier , being ordered to stand up and being escorted by the military . The soldiers were talking to him in a harsh and aggressive tone , threatening him and using obscene language . The screen showed the date of his detention DATE . After the applicant had given the unknown man the money , he gave her photographs made from the video . He also gave her a sketch map of CARDINAL burial places , including that of her husband . The applicant asked for the videotape and was told that she would have to pay MONEY for it . She was also told that the tape was known to the prosecutor 's office under registration number DATE .

DATE the applicant travelled to ORG and talked to an investigator . She gave him the map and told him about the videotape on which her husband had been depicted after his “ disappearance ” . The investigator confirmed that he had known about the tape and that a copy of the tape was probably in ORG .

DATE the applicant managed to buy the videotape , having paid MONEY for it . The meeting was organised in the same way – a white “ GPE ” car stopped alongside her on the road and the applicant talked to a man inside . The footage ( a copy and a transcript of which were submitted to ORG ) is TIME long . It shows a group of CARDINAL soldiers wearing camouflage and with guns and ammunition walking across a field . At CARDINAL point they cross a small railroad and a low barrier . Then the camera turns towards the direction where they are walking and shows the only civilian , whom the applicant recognised as her husband . He is at first lying on the ground , then a soldier kicks him and orders him to stand up . The soldiers address him with threatening remarks , using obscene language . He is wearing a dark brown sheepskin coat and a yellow fur hat and his clothes are dirty . He is escorted by the soldiers towards partially destroyed buildings , where more soldiers are gathering , all in full gear . The applicant 's husband appears for CARDINAL , then the camera turns to film the soldiers ( who seem to be returning from a mission ) and CARDINAL bodies in camouflage on stretchers , some covered with blankets , others exposed . The tape also shows military equipment , some of it burnt , and a bus .

On DATE the applicant , together with an investigator from ORG , travelled to the location indicated on the map . The place was within the military compound near checkpoint no . CARDINAL , and the military did not let them into the compound .

On DATE ORG informed the applicant that the persons responsible for the kidnapping of her husband could not be identified , but that investigative measures were being carried out .

On DATE ORG informed the applicant that a preliminary investigation was being conducted by ORG . Her oral statement about the alleged burial place would be verified .

On DATE ORG informed the applicant that on DATE the criminal investigation into the kidnapping of her husband by unknown persons in camouflage had been adjourned owing to a failure to identify those responsible .

On DATE the NORP village authorities issued a certificate to the applicant confirming that she had applied to the authorities on DATE on account of her husband 's detention during a “ sweeping ” operation on DATE following the ambush of the “ GPE OMON ” . The note confirmed that the “ sweeping ” operation in PERSON had taken place on DATE TIME and TIME

On an unspecified date at DATE the applicant , together with investigator PERSON from ORG and a police escort , again went to the presumed burial site . They were allowed into the military compound , but the investigator refused to instigate the search , apparently because the location was inexact and the area too big .

On DATE ORG informed the applicant that her request concerning the search for her husband had been forwarded to ORG .

On DATE and DATE ORG forwarded the applicant 's requests concerning her husband 's unlawful detention to ORG .

On DATE ORG forwarded her request to ORG in GPE .

On DATE the military prosecutor of military unit no . CARDINAL forwarded the applicant 's request concerning the whereabouts of her husband to the head of the ORG district PERSON , on the ground that the issue fell outside the jurisdiction of the military prosecutor .

In DATE the NGO Human Rights Watch issued a report entitled “ The ' Dirty War ' in GPE : Forced Disappearances , Torture and Summary Executions ” , which listed PERSON as CARDINAL of the victims of “ forced disappearances ” following detention by NORP servicemen .

On DATE the ORG provided the applicant with a progress report in criminal investigation no . DATE . The note stated that on DATE the ORG had opened a criminal investigation under LAW , part CARDINAL of LAW . The investigation was based on the detention of LOC [ sic ] NORP by unknown persons in camouflage on DATE at QUANTITY near the village of ORG . The investigative measures had failed to establish the whereabouts of GPE . The investigation was adjourned and later resumed on unspecified dates .

In DATE ORG on GPE , comprised of members of ORG of ORG and members of ORG , reported that the criminal investigation in the case concerning the disappearance of PERSON . PERSON was continuing , but no progress had been reported .

DATE . On DATE the ORG granted the applicant 's request to declare her husband a missing person .

On DATE ORG forwarded a copy of the videotape purchased by the applicant to ORG .

In DATE the applicant again applied to ORG . She requested the prosecutors to resume the investigation in the case concerning her husband 's disappearance , to identify the persons on the videotape and to obtain witness statements from them in relation to her husband 's detention and disappearance .

On DATE the applicant learned in ORG that the criminal case concerning her husband 's disappearance had again been adjourned . On DATE she again applied to ORG , requesting the resumption of the investigation and the inspection of the alleged burial site .

On DATE the applicant , together with investigator PERSON and a crime - scene investigator from ORG , travelled to the location of checkpoint no . CARDINAL . There they found the building to which the soldiers had led PERSON on the videotape . At the building they discovered several pieces of clothing and a human bone . At CARDINAL location near a tree the investigators suggested that the sunken earth indicated a burial place . They started excavations and soon found a piece of brown cloth , resembling a piece of rotten sheepskin coat . The investigators stopped the excavations at that point , collected the items they had found and agreed with the military that they would come back DATE with a video camera . The applicant then returned home using the regular bus service .

On DATE investigators from ORG came to the applicant 's house and asked her to accompany them to the office . The applicant agreed , thinking that she would have to identify the body of her husband . However , on the way to the office she was told that , DATE , the car in which investigator PERSON and the crime - scene investigator had been travelling had been blown up before it had reached ORG . Both had been killed in the explosion . The incident was reported in the NORP press .

Once at ORG , the applicant was brought into a room with CARDINAL officers of the prosecution service , who only gave her their first names – PERSON and PERSON . They suggested that the applicant had been involved in the blowing - up of the prosecutors ' car . They told her not to insist on further investigations and to stop searching for her husband 's body , or risk her own safety and that of her children . The applicant , who perceived the threat to be real , refrained from contacts with the law - enforcement bodies for some time .

NORP In DATE the applicant , acting in person and through her representative the PERSON , tried to obtain information about developments in the case . In response to several requests , ORG wrote to the PERSON on DATE stating that criminal investigation no . DATE had established that , on TIME of DATE , PERSON had been caught in the shooting near the village of ORG , had been wounded and had then been driven away by unknown persons . The investigation had been adjourned for failure to identify those responsible . Attached to the letter was a decision granting victim status to the applicant , dated DATE and countersigned by her .

The applicant submitted that in DATE she had on several occasions met with an employee of ORG on the LOC of FAC . The employee had publicly called her a “ murderer ” and accused her of being involved in the death of the CARDINAL officers of the prosecution service in DATE . This had caused her severe emotional distress .

In DATE the application was communicated to ORG , who were requested at that time to submit a copy of investigation file no . DATE . In DATE the ORG submitted CARDINAL of the file ( judging by the page numbers ) and stated that nothing else has been disclosed to them by the prosecutor 's office . In DATE the ORG declared the application admissible and reiterated its request to be provided with the entire file . It also asked the Government to provide an update of the investigation since DATE . In DATE the Government submitted an additional CARDINAL pages from the file , produced DATE and DATE , and containing the decisions to adjourn and reopen the case . The ORG stated that disclosure of the remaining documents would be in violation of LAW and would lead to a breach of military secrets and disclosure of the names and addresses of third parties .

The Government also stated that in DATE the investigation had collected a number of photographs of servicemen of the ORG units from LOC who had been on mission in GPE in DATE . In DATE CARDINAL servicemen from these units had been questioned and had confirmed that on DATE they had been in the convoy which had come under attack DATE . However they stated that they had not taken part in the subsequent mopping - up operation and that they had not been aware of Mr PERSON 's disappearance . The Government did not submit any documents relating to these interviews .

DATE and DATE the applicant on CARDINAL occasions applied to ORG , ORG and ORG with requests for information about the fate of her husband and for news of the investigation . She submitted that during one of her personal visits to ORG , in DATE , an investigator had yelled at her and told her that he “ had enough of her ” . After that the applicant had on several occasions requested the senior prosecutors to transfer the investigation to another prosecutor 's office , but to no avail . She had received responses from ORG telling her that the investigation had been adjourned or reopened .

On DATE the applicant wrote to the ORG unit in ORG , stating the circumstances of her husband 's disappearance and asking for any information that could help establish his whereabouts .

On DATE the applicant submitted a complaint to ORG alleging negligence on the part of the district prosecutor 's office .

On DATE the applicant requested the district court to declare her husband dead .

It appears that the investigation into PERSON abduction was adjourned and reopened CARDINAL times . The investigation was carried out by ORG , and then by ORG . The investigation did not identify the persons or the detachment responsible for the abduction and no one was charged with the crimes ( see Part B below for a description of the documents in the investigation file ) . The Government submitted in their latest memorial of DATE that the investigation was continuing .

The applicant also submitted that on DATE a prosecutor from ORG had visited her at her home and asked her to sign a statement saying that she had not been subjected to any threats after her application to ORG . The applicant felt that she was being put under pressure and agreed to write a statement with the following content : “ When I lodged the application with the ORG in GPE nobody threatened me ” .

The applicant submitted that she had suffered from a heart condition since the first military campaign of DATE , when her daughter and daughter - in - law had been killed and her son had been wounded by the explosion of a shell . At that time the applicant had suffered her first attack of cardiac neurosis . On DATE she had been wounded in the leg . Since the “ disappearance ” of her husband her health had worsened significantly , and she required regular treatment and injections . On CARDINAL DATE she had had a stroke . She suffered from restlessness , anxiety and insomnia . The applicant did not submit any medical documents .

On CARDINAL occasions the Government submitted to the ORG a part of the investigation file in criminal case no . DATE which comprised CARDINAL volumes . They stated that only these documents had been submitted by ORG . The documents may be summarised as follows :

DATE . On DATE a prosecutor from ORG opened a criminal investigation into the abduction of PERSON on DATE in ORG by unidentified persons wearing camouflage . The decision referred to LAW , part CARDINAL of LAW ( kidnapping ) .

The file contains the applicant 's letter of DATE to ORG stating the known details of her husband 's disappearance and asking for assistance in finding him .

On DATE the applicant was questioned as a witness . She repeated the circumstances of her husband 's detention by the military servicemen of which she was aware and confirmed that she had had no news of him .

On DATE the applicant was questioned once more . She made detailed submissions about her husband 's apprehension , based on the witnesses ' statements . According to her , her husband had been put in an armoured personnel carrier and taken to checkpoint no . CARDINAL , manned by ORG . The applicant gave evidence about her conversation with Mr NORP at LOC . The applicant also stated that she had attempted to get to the checkpoint with another policeman from the PERSON , PERSON . , but that they had been fired upon when they tried to approach . She told the investigators about the videotape depicting her husband 's detention and the map of the alleged place of burial , as well as the circumstances under which she had obtained them . She submitted a request to inspect the site . On DATE the applicant was granted victim status in the proceedings .

On DATE the applicant was again questioned about her husband 's disappearance , about the videotape and the map of his alleged place of burial and about the attempts in DATE to find the site as indicated on the map . On DATE the applicant was again granted victim status .

On DATE the investigators requested ORG to check whether PERSON had been detained in their facilities . In reply , CARDINAL District Departments of the Interior in ORG , ORG of ORG for LOC ( based in LOC ) and ORG for GPE responded that he had never been detained by them and that there was no information about him in their databases .

On DATE the PERSON replied to the investigators and stated that they could not find witnesses to the events surrounding PERSON abduction and that the latter was reported to be a man of good conduct .

It appears that the investigators tried to verify the information about the alleged witnessing by the applicant 's husband of the killing of CARDINAL brothers PERSON on DATE . On DATE ORG stated that there was no criminal case pending with that office concerning the murder of “ brothers PERSON [ the names were similar to the ones indicated by the applicant except for the first letter ] ” , or the discovery in DATE of CARDINAL unidentified male bodies .

On DATE the prosecutor of ORG ordered the investigation to collect the videotape stored at ORG of GPE .

On DATE the videotape was viewed in the presence of the applicant , who recognised the person depicted in it as her husband .

In DATE and DATE investigators questioned CARDINAL residents of the villages of ORG , where the applicant 's husband had been detained , and GPE , where he had lived . The residents stated that on DATE there had been fighting at around TIME , followed by a “ sweeping ” operation in LOC . Most of the villagers questioned did not know or had not seen PERSON , but they stated that several men from ORG had been detained on DATE and later released . They were also aware of the applicant 's search for him , because she had come to the village , asked the residents about him and posted search notices with photographs of her husband . CARDINAL residents of LOC testified to having seen PERSON on DATE in FAC during the sweeping operation , and CARDINAL of PERSON 's colleagues testified that he had left the office together with the rest of the workers after the shooting broke out .

The Government submitted in their memorial that over CARDINAL witnesses had been questioned during the investigation . CARDINAL statements were submitted to the ORG .

On DATE the ORG informed the applicant that a criminal case had been opened by that office into her husband 's abduction .

On DATE ORG wrote to the applicant and stated that the criminal investigation into her husband 's abduction was pending , but that no information about his whereabouts had been obtained .

On DATE ORG wrote a similar letter to the applicant .

On DATE the applicant wrote to ORG asking to be informed of developments in the case .

It appears that the prosecutors informed the applicant on several occasions of the adjournment and resumption of the investigation in criminal case no . DATE once in DATE , twice in DATE , CARDINAL times in DATE and once in DATE .

At different stages of the proceedings several orders were issued by the supervising prosecutors detailing the steps to be taken by the investigators . On DATE the prosecutor ordered that the site indicated by the applicant be examined with search dogs , that the videotape mentioned by the applicant be obtained and viewed , that the officers in GPE who had served at LOC and the servicemen of the PERSON who had manned roadblock no . CARDINAL be questioned and that the custody records of LOC for DATE be examined . On DATE the prosecutor again ordered an investigation of all the circumstances of Mr PERSON 's disappearance . On DATE a prosecutor from ORG ordered criminal case file no . DATE to be reconstructed following its destruction in a terrorist act of DATE .

On DATE the prosecutor of LOC of PERSON ordered the investigators , among other things , to examine the site where PERSON had allegedly been buried , to obtain and view the videotape , to identify and question witnesses among local residents who lived near the scene of the fighting and who had been detained on DATE , to view the videotape together with the senior officers of the ORG detachments in order to identify the servicemen , and to identify the military units involved in apprehending the applicant 's husband . On DATE the investigation was entrusted to an investigative group composed of CARDINAL investigators from LOC .

On DATE the prosecutor of LOC of PERSON noted that the investigation had established that on DATE PERSON had been detained by unidentified armed men in camouflage uniform after the fighting in ORG which had involved federal troops . According to the videotape submitted by the applicant , the unidentified men had escorted the applicant 's husband to the industrial site near the road where the fighting had occurred . The prosecutor ordered that steps be taken to review the materials of the criminal case concerning the attack on the ORG servicemen , to collect information from ORG and ORG about the units that had been stationed at the industrial site where PERSON had been taken , to identify the servicemen depicted on the videotape by viewing it together with the commanders of the relevant units , and to question those servicemen and evaluate their actions .

On DATE the same prosecutor ordered the investigation to gather personal information about the victim and to forward his photograph and a search request to all the district prosecutor 's offices in GPE , to the local agencies of ORG and to hospitals , and to take steps in order to identify those responsible .

On DATE the same prosecutor ordered the investigation to identify and question the servicemen of the ORG unit from PERSON who might have been involved in apprehending PERSON .

On DATE the same prosecutor ordered the investigation to question CARDINAL servicemen of the ORG unit from PERSON , to question the servicemen of the ORG unit from ORG , to identify the persons depicted in the videotape and to carry out an expert examination of the videotape in order to identify the persons who had apprehended the applicant 's husband .

The investigation into the case was adjourned and reopened CARDINAL times . The last document in the case file is dated DATE . It extended the investigation into Mr PERSON 's disappearance until DATE and again ordered that the servicemen of the CARDINAL ORG units be questioned and the persons depicted in the videotape identified .

The Government submitted letters from ORG , ORG , ORG and ORG , dated DATE . The letters stated that there were no criminal or civil cases in the respective regions in which the applicant was involved or which concerned the kidnapping of her husband . ORG wrote a letter on DATE stating that the applicant had not applied to any court in GPE with complaints , but that criminal case no . DATE was pending before ORG in PERSON , and that the investigation had been extended until DATE .

The applicant submitted a number of press reports concerning the trial of CARDINAL senior officers of ORG for criminal negligence entailing grave consequences - CARDINAL deaths and CARDINAL wounded among the policemen of the ORG detachment from ORG , GPE Region . According to these reports , it had been established that the fighting on DATE in NORP occurred when the convoy of the PERSON going into PERSON on mission had been attacked by officers of LOC , staffed by policemen from GPE , and by the ORG detachments from PERSON , GPE Region stationed at the checkpoint in LOC . The fighting was said to have been the result of provocation by the illegal paramilitaries who had managed to feed false information to the troops stationed in LOC about the expected passage of fighters disguised as federal servicemen .

Until DATE criminal - law matters were governed by LAW the NORP Federalist Socialist Republic . Since DATE the old Code has been replaced by LAW ( CCP ) .

Article CARDINAL of the new ORG prohibits the disclosure of information from the preliminary investigation file . Under part CARDINAL of the LAW , information from the investigation file may be divulged only with the permission of a prosecutor or investigator and only in so far as it does not infringe the rights and lawful interests of the participants in the criminal proceedings or prejudice the investigation . Divulging information about the private lives of participants in criminal proceedings without their permission is prohibited .


Violation of Article 6+6-1 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6-3-b - Preparation of defence) (Article 6 - Right to a fair trial;Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing)

Aleš Pejchal;André Potocki;Angelika Nußberger;Mark Villiger;Myroslava Antonovych;Paul Lemmens

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in the village of GPE , GPE .

On DATE , at a hearing in criminal proceedings against the applicant , ORG ( “ the GPE ” ) found the applicant guilty of non - payment of wages to employees of his business DATE . In court the applicant testified that he was the owner , director and main accountant of the business PERSON paid his employees’ wages out of his own pocket ; however , none of the payments went through the books . The applicant ’s employees gave evidence that he had been paying their wages , but this was disregarded by the court since they were still employed by him . The court fined the applicant CARDINAL NORP hryvnias ( ORG ) ( at the material time worth QUANTITY ( ORG ) ) .

According to the applicant , he was not provided with a copy of the judgment . The ORG has been provided with a copy of the judgment . It comprises CARDINAL pages and bears the annotation : “ This judgment was drafted in the deliberation room in CARDINAL copy only ” .

As part of their submissions the Government lodged a copy of the applicant ’s request of DATE seeking permission to read the court transcript , upon which a court clerk had written that “ the applicant received a copy of the judgment on DATE ( CARDINAL pages ) ” .

On DATE and DATE the applicant and his lawyer respectively lodged appeals against the decision of CARDINAL DATE . In these appeals they mainly complained that the court had disregarded the evidence given by the employees .

On DATE ORG informed the applicant and his lawyer that the applicant ’s case would be considered at an appeal hearing on DATE . However , on DATE the hearing was due to take place ORG returned the case file to the first - instance court with a request for the documents to be properly organised .

On DATE ORG upheld the lower court ’s decision of DATE . The court reiterated the first - instance court ’s arguments and noted that the applicant had not submitted any documentary evidence in support of his statement that he had paid his employees’ wages . According to the applicant , only the operative part of the judgment of DATE was read aloud to him .

On DATE the applicant sought permission from ORG to obtain access to the case file . His request was refused , on the basis that the case file had not yet arrived from ORG .

On DATE the applicant requested a copy of the judgment of DATE from ORG but it appears that no response was given .

On DATE the applicant was again informed by ORG that his case file had not arrived from ORG .

On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law in which he stated that he still had not received a copy of the appellate court ’s judgment of DATE .

On DATE he received a copy of the judgment of CARDINAL DATE .

On DATE the applicant lodged an additional appeal on points of law in which he informed the court that he had received a copy of the judgment of CARDINAL DATE but had not yet received a copy of the judgment of CARDINAL DATE .

On DATE ORG of GPE , in the applicant ’s absence , rejected his request for leave to appeal on points of law .

On an unspecified date the applicant received a copy of the judgment of DATE .

Article CARDINAL of the Code of Criminal Procedure , in force at the material time , required that a copy of a judgment be served on a convicted or acquitted person within DATE of judgment being pronounced .

Article CARDINAL provided for a DATE time - limit for lodging an appeal against a judgment . During this time the case file was to remain at the court allowing the parties to consult it upon request .

Article CARDINAL provided that an appeal on points of law could be lodged within DATE of the appellate court ’s judgment being pronounced . During this time the case file was to remain at the court “ [ in charge of ] executing the judgment ” .


The applicants , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , ORG , PERSON , PERSON and PERSON , are NORP nationals . They currently live in GPE . They are represented before the ORG by Mr PERSON , Mr LOC and Mr PERSON , lawyers practising in GPE .

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

The applicants own property in DATE , in the district of ORG , in ORG . The applicants had not used their property for DATE as the CARDINALnd ORG had prohibited access to the area due to security reasons . It is to be noted that the applicants , excluding PERSON PERSON , did not submit any document to the ORG attesting their ownership of property in GPE .

In DATE the applicants brought a declaratory action before ORG ( sulh hukuk mahkemesi ) , requesting the court to determine their damage due to their inability to have access to their property .

On DATE the president of ORG , an expert and CARDINAL of the applicants , Mr PERSON , Mr PERSON , Mr PERSON and PERSON went to PERSON in order to inspect the property of these applicants . They could not gain access to the property of the applicants as they were informed by gendarme officers that there might be land mines in the area . The ORG Director , who had been informed of the enquiry by the CARDINALnd ORG , notified the judge , the expert and the applicants that the area in question appeared to be forestry land on the forestry management plans and the country map . He further stated that the area could not be the subject of private property .

On an unspecified date the expert , PERSON drafted an agricultural expert report , in which he estimated the DATE incomes of the CARDINAL applicants from the lands in questions .

On DATE the ORG Director submitted a report to the ORG regarding the nature of the immovable property in ORG . According to this report the ownership of the property in question was disputed .

On DATE ORG dismissed the request of assessment of damage by the other CARDINAL applicants , PERSON , Mr PERSON and Mr PERSON , holding that these applicants would not benefit from a declaratory judgment since there was a dispute concerning the ownership of the property in question .

The investigation carried out by the authorities indicated that the applicants had left their villages of their own will . The security forces had not forced the applicants to leave their village .

The official records indicated that there was no obstacle preventing villagers from returning to their homes and possessions in their villages .

On DATE the Law on Compensation for Losses resulting from Terrorism and the Fight against Terrorism was passed by ORG and entered into force on DATE ( “ Compensation Law ” ) . That PERSON provided for a sufficient remedy capable of redressing the LAW grievances of persons who were denied access to their possessions in their villages .

In that connection Damage Assessment and Compensation Commissions were set up in QUANTITY provinces . Persons who had suffered damage as a result of terrorism or of measures taken by the authorities to combat terrorism could lodge an application with the relevant compensation commission claiming compensation .

The number of persons applying to these commissions had already attained CARDINAL . CARDINAL persons , whose applications were pending before the ORG , had also applied to the compensation commissions . Many villagers had already been awarded compensation for the damage they had sustained .

A description of the relevant domestic law can be found in the ORG ’s decision of PERSON v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , § § DATE , DATE ) and in its judgment of ORG and Others v. GPE ( nos . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , CARDINAL/CARDINAL and CARDINAL - CARDINAL/CARDINAL , § § DATE , ORG CARDINAL-VI ) .


Violation of Article 11 - Freedom of assembly and association (Article 11-1 - Freedom of peaceful assembly);Violation of Article 13+11 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy) (Article 11 - Freedom of assembly and association;Article 11-1 - Freedom of peaceful assembly);Violation of Article 14+11 - Prohibition of discrimination (Article 14 - Discrimination) (Article 11 - Freedom of assembly and association;Article 11-1 - Freedom of peaceful assembly)

Alvina Gyulumyan;Egbert Myjer;Ineta Ziemele;Ján Šikuta;Josep Casadevall;Kristina Pardalos;Luis López Guerra;Mihai Poalelungi

The applicant , PERSON , is a non - governmental organisation based in GPE whose object is to provide information and to assist the NORP community .

On DATE the applicant association applied to ORG for authorisation to hold a peaceful demonstration in front of the ORG on DATE , to encourage the adoption of laws to protect sexual minorities from discrimination .

On DATE ORG rejected the application on the ground that the applicant association ’s demonstration was baseless , since a law on the protection of national minorities had already been adopted .

On DATE ORG also refused permission for the proposed demonstration , on the grounds that there was a law on the protection of national minorities already in place and that there were legal provisions which dictated which individuals had the power of legislative initiative required to promote laws .

The applicant association contested the decision of the Chişinău Mayor ’s Office of DATE . It argued that the ban on their demonstration was illegal and discriminatory .

On DATE ORG allowed the applicant association ’s action and declared the ORG decision of CARDINAL DATE void . ORG found the following :

“ ... The court considers legally ungrounded the arguments relied on by the defendant to justify its refusal to authorise the assembly , as the law does not provide such grounds for the non - authorisation of an assembly . The decision as to whether to authorise or not to authorise an assembly should not be made conditional either on the nature of the problems the participants intend to bring to society ’s attention , or on the status of those problems .

Under these circumstances the court concludes that the decision of ORG dated DATE was issued contrary to the provisions of LAW regarding administrative complaints , and was thus illegal and void . As to the plaintiff ’s other complaints , including ORG noncompliance with the time - limit of TIME for notification of the refusal of authorisation for the assembly required under section QUANTITY of the PERSON regarding the organisation and conduct of assemblies , the court declares them illfounded . ”

The Chişinău Mayor ’s Office appealed against the decision of ORG of DATE . ORG argued that they had received many requests from individuals and associations which were vehemently against the authorisation of the demonstration , and who opposed the adoption of any law legalising homosexual partnerships . The requests had laid emphasis on various legal provisions that concerned the protection of marriage and the family .

On DATE ORG allowed the appeal lodged by ORG , quashed ORG decision of DATE and decided to send the case to ORG for re - examination .

In their submissions to ORG , ORG argued that the holding of an assembly for the promotion of the rights of sexual minorities would endanger public order and social morality and , moreover , that the organisers had not assumed any responsibility as regards the demonstration ’s good management .

NORP The applicant association argued that the ban was illegal and discriminatory .

On DATE ORG found against the applicant association . The applicant association appealed against this decision .

On DATE ORG upheld the decision of ORG of DATE . It found that the applicant association had failed to give undertakings as regards a number of obligations required by the law in respect of assemblies , such as : to respect the law ; to designate a person or persons in charge of the conduct of the demonstration ; to create together with the police a group of people responsible for the maintenance of public order ; to mark the site of the demonstration with special signs ; to pay ORG any fees related to the arrangement of the site of the demonstration ; to establish the route to and from the site of the demonstration ; to provide the police with unfettered access to the site of the demonstration ; and to forbid the participation of certain persons . Moreover , the court considered that there was a risk that the demonstration would cause a breach of public order .

Law no . CARDINAL of DATE regarding the organisation and conduct of assemblies provides , as relevant , the following :

Assemblies may be held only after the organisers have duly notified the urban mayor ’s ( municipal ) or rural offices .

( CARDINAL ) The organiser of an assembly must lodge a notification with the mayor ’s office DATE before the chosen date , according to the model provided in the appendix which is part of the present law .

( CARDINAL ) The preliminary notification should indicate :

( a ) the name of the organiser , the aim of the assembly ;

( b ) the date and time the assembly is to begin and end ;

( c ) where the assembly will take place and the routes to and from the place ;

( d ) the form the assembly will take ;

( e ) the approximate number of participants ;

( f ) those appointed to ensure the good conduct of the assembly and to be responsible for it ;

( g ) the services the organisers require from the mayor ’s office .

( CARDINAL ) ORG may in justified cases modify , with the organiser ’s consent , elements of the preliminary notification .

After examining the preliminary declaration , the Mayor ’s Office shall issue one of the following decisions and inform the organiser about it :

( a ) grant permission ;

( b ) NORP refuse permission under LAW ( CARDINAL ) .

( CARDINAL ) The organiser can contest the refuse to authorise an assembly .

( CARDINAL ) The relevant judicial body shall decide upon the organiser ’s contestation within DATE from its lodging . ”

Section CARDINAL of Law no . CARDINAL of DATE regarding local public administration provides that :

“ ( CARDINAL ) ... the Mayor undertakes the following functions over ... administered territory :

NORP in the field of legal order :

( f ) ORG legal measures regarding the conduct of public assemblies : ...

( g ) Undertakes measures forbidding or suspending shows , presentations and other public demonstrations which contradict legal order and morals . ”

LAW contains the following relevant provisions :

( CARDINAL ) The exercise of certain rights or freedoms may be restricted only under the law and only as required for : the defence of national security , of public order , health or morals , of ORG rights and freedoms , the carrying out of investigations in criminal cases , the prevention of the consequences of a natural calamity or of a technological disaster .

( CARDINAL ) The restrictions enforced must be in proportion to the situation that caused them , and may not affect the existence of that right or liberty . ”

The Moldovan Civil Code stipulates in LAW

“ An association is a non - commercial organisation established voluntarily by associated individuals and legal entities under provisions of the law on the basis of community of interests , which are consistent with public order and good morals , for the purpose of meeting various non - material needs . ”


Gaukur Jörundsson;Luzius Wildhaber;Nicolas Bratza;Paul Mahoney

The applicant is a police officer ( garda ) . At TIME on DATE , when off - duty , the applicant and CARDINAL passengers , in a private car ( described in subsequent police reports as a “ jeep ” ) towing a van on a trailer , crossed from GPE into GPE at a GPE permanent vehicle checkpoint in GPE . Precisely what occurred that night is disputed between the parties . It is not , however disputed that the applicant accidentally drove his car into the checkpoint barrier . The check - point was manned by armed NORP soldiers , CARDINAL of whom , a corporal in FAC , approached the applicant after the accident . The Government contend that he asked the applicant to stop and was ignored . The applicant alleges that he did stop and that the soldier then waved him on . In any event , it would appear that the soldier moved towards the car and was hit by the vehicle being towed . He was thrown forward on to the tow - bar and dragged for a short distance until he managed to pull himself up into a standing position on the tow - bar . The applicant maintains that he was unaware of the soldier ’s position and continued driving into GPE . According to the report completed by ORG in DATE following their investigation into the incident ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , the soldier fired QUANTITY shots , CARDINAL of which entered the car ’s exhaust pipe , another of which went through the back windscreen and exited through the roof . The Government claim that some , at least , of these shots were fired in GPE . According to the applicant he heard the shots and , fearing a terrorist attack , continued driving until he reached a police station , where he considered he would be safe . He stopped the car QUANTITY from the border , in the village of LOC , in GPE , GPE . According to the police report , at this stage the soldier , described by witnesses as in a state of “ blind panic ” , ordered the applicant and the CARDINAL passengers to get out of the car and stand against the wall with their hands in the air . The applicant alleges that he turned to face the soldier , intending to explain that he was a police officer and that there was no cause for alarm . Again , according to the applicant , the soldier then aimed his gun at him and pulled the trigger twice , although the shots did not fire because the gun jammed .

The NORP police had been notified of the incident at the border and soon arrived at PERSON . The applicant was arrested on suspicion of driving having consumed excess alcohol . He refused to comply with police requests to provide blood and urine samples .

As mentioned above , the NORP Police carried out an inquiry into the incident in the course of which CARDINAL witnesses were interviewed . In his report the investigating officer concluded that the applicant had shown “ a regrettable degree of recklessness ” in leaving the scene of the accident at the check - point . The report continued :

“ This was a most serious incident and one which could have resulted in the serious injury or death of CARDINAL or more persons . First of all the soldier was at great risk , had he fallen off the draw - bar . The CARDINAL occupants of the jeep may well have been shot by [ the soldier ] or his colleagues at the check - point . The safety of the bystanders at PERSON was also put in jeopardy resulting from the presence of the armed and terrified soldier . This matter has been vigorously and thoroughly investigated and the only conceivable reason that I can find that would prompt PERSON to deliberately leave the scene of the accident would be because he was intoxicated ... ” .

The applicant was subsequently prosecuted and convicted in GPE for his refusal to provide blood and urine samples . No disciplinary proceedings were taken against him , but he was transferred to another area .

The applicant alleges that he feared for his life and suffered severe post - traumatic shock as a result of the above incident . On DATE he lodged an action in ORG against the individual soldier and the NORP Secretary of ORG for GPE . He claimed damages , including exemplary and punitive damages , in respect of his allegation that the soldier had wrongfully assaulted him by pointing a loaded gun at him and pulling the trigger .

On DATE ORG solicitors wrote to the applicant ’s solicitors as follows :

“ ... The Secretary of ORG for GPE bears no responsibility for the actions of the first defendant who is a soldier in ORG under the authority of the Secretary of ORG in GPE and accordingly the Secretary of ORG for GPE is not a proper defendant to these proceedings . Even if the Secretary of ORG was the proper defendant , both it and [ the soldier ] contend that they are exempt from the jurisdiction of the NORP courts on the basis of the doctrine of sovereign immunity . If your client considers that he does have a valid claim there is nothing to prevent him from pursuing it in GPE against the proper body . ... ”

The applicant ’s solicitors replied in a letter dated DATE :

“ ... We have also sought advice on the issue of foreign sovereign immunity raised by you and have been advised that , in these circumstances , no such immunity would apply . That being so , our client prefers to seek his redress in the courts of this jurisdiction where the incident in question occurred . ... ”

On DATE the applicant applied for permission to substitute for the second defendant the GPE Secretary of ORG . On DATE the Secretary of ORG for GPE , claiming sovereign immunity , applied for the summons to be set aside .

On DATE a ORG judge granted the Secretary of ORG ’s request , on the ground that the applicant was not entitled to bring an action in the NORP courts against a member of a foreign sovereign government .

The applicant appealed , arguing , first , that the doctrine of sovereign immunity did not apply to claims for damages for personal injury caused by torts taking place within the forum ORG ’s jurisdiction . Secondly , he submitted that the principle of reciprocity should apply to prevent the NORP court granting immunity to GPE in circumstances in which NORP courts , applying LAW DATE , would not grant immunity to GPE . Thirdly , he put forward the argument that , even if the doctrine of state immunity applied , it should yield in his case since he alleged an infringement of the constitutionally protected right to bodily integrity .

ORG gave judgment on DATE , rejecting the applicant ’s appeal . The applicant had relied on ORG judgment in ORG v. ORG ( DATE ) CARDINAL IR CARDINAL , but the court held that that judgment was authority only for the proposition that the doctrine of immunity did not apply in respect of commercial or trading activities carried out by a foreign government . The facts alleged by the applicant did not relate to any commercial activity , and it was not established that , as a principle of public international law , immunity no longer applied in respect of personal injuries caused by the tortious act of a foreign ORG ’s servant or agent acting within the sphere of sovereign activity ( “ de jure imperii ” ) . In his judgment , Chief Justice PERSON , with whom Justices O’Flaherty and ORG agreed , observed :

“ There can be no doubt but that the first defendant [ the soldier ] in carrying out his duties at the said checkpoint was acting within the sphere of governmental or sovereign activity and the acts complained of must be regarded as ‘ jure imperii’ even though alleged to have been committed within this jurisdiction .

It is submitted on behalf of the plaintiff that , as the acts complained of were tortious and caused personal injuries to him , the principle of foreign sovereign immunity should not apply to such acts and that it was a near - universally recognised principle of international law that claims for personal injuries allegedly inflicted in the forum state by or on behalf of a foreign government constitute an exception to the sovereign immunity principle . In support of such submission , counsel for the plaintiff referred in particular to ORG DATE ; the NORP State Immunity Act DATE ; ORG DATE and LAW DATE . ... The plaintiff relies on these statutes as indicative of a recognised principle of public international law . ... Distinction must be drawn between the provisions of legislation in a number of states and the provisions of public international law , and the principles set forth in individual state legislation can not be regarded as establishing principles of public international law . The provisions of statutes can not be used as evidence of what international law is : statutes are evidence of the domestic law in the individual states and not evidence of international law generally . LAW provides that:- ‘ A Contracting Party can not claim immunity from the jurisdiction of a court of another contracting party in proceedings which relate to redress for injury to the person or damage to tangible property , if the facts which occasioned the injury or damage occurred in the territory of ORG , and if the author of the injury or damage was present in that territory at the time when those facts ORG I do not have to decide , in the circumstances of this case , whether the terms of the Convention are part of the domestic law of this State because even if it were , the plaintiff ’s claim herein would fail by virtue of the terms of LAW , which provides that:- ‘ Nothing in this Convention shall affect any immunities or privileges PERSON enjoyed by ORG in respect of anything done or omitted to ORG be done by , or in relation to its armed forces when on the territory of ORG The terms of LAW recognise that , as a matter of international law , immunities and privileges in respect of anything done or omitted to be done by or in relation to armed forces , when on the territory of ORG , exist . ... Despite the ORG efforts of the plaintiff ’s legal advisers in making available to the court copies of all relevant decisions , articles and draft LAW , and the cogent arguments of counsel , I am not satisfied that it is a principle of public international law that the immunity granted to sovereign states should be restricted by making them liable in respect of tortious acts , committed on their behalf by their servant or agent , causing personal injuries to the person affected by such act or omission , when such act or omission is committed jure imperii and I would dismiss the appeal on this point ... ”

The applicant did not pursue his action against the individual soldier who had allegedly assaulted him .

In his judgment in the Government of GPE case ( cited in paragraph CARDINAL above ) , Justice PERSON described the position of sovereign immunity in NORP law as follows :

“ The doctrine of sovereign immunity is one of the generally recognised principles of international law , which , by LAW , s.CARDINAL of the LAW , GPE has accepted as its rule of conduct in its relations with other states .... [ T]he ORG [ ORG ] has never sought to qualify or modify this position ... ” .

The DATE European Convention on State Immunity ( “ the Basle Convention ” ) , entered into force on DATE after its ratification by CARDINAL States . It has now been ratified by MONEY ( GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE , the GPE , GPE and GPE ) and signed by CARDINAL other ORG ( GPE ) , but has not been signed or ratified by GPE . It provides in LAW :

“ A ORG can not claim immunity from the jurisdiction of a court of ORG in proceedings which relate to redress for injury to the person or damage to tangible property , if the facts which occasioned the injury or damage occurred in the territory of the ORG of the forum , and if the author of the injury or damage was present in that territory at the time when those facts occurred . ”

LAW provides :

“ Nothing in this Convention shall affect any immunities or privileges enjoyed by ORG in respect of anything done or omitted to be done by or in relation to its armed forces on the territory of another Contracting State . ”

ORG on ORG and Their Property , submitted to ORG of ORG ( ( DATE ) , PERSON ) PERSON CARDINAL ) , provides at Article CARDINAL that :

“ ... a ORG can not invoke immunity from jurisdiction before a court of another ORG which is otherwise competent in a proceeding which relates to pecuniary compensation for death or injury to the person , or damage to or loss of tangible property , caused by an act or omission which is alleged to be attributable to the ORG , if the act or omission occurred in whole or in part in the territory of that other ORG and if the author of the act or omission was present in that territory at the time of the act or omission . ”

In its commentary on that passage , the PERSON noted that the “ physical injury ... appears to be confined to insurable risks . The areas of damage envisaged in DATE are mainly concerned with accidental death or physical injuries to persons ... involved in traffic accidents ... Essentially , the rule of non - immunity will preclude the possibility of the insurance company hiding behind the cloak of ORG immunity and evading its liability to the injured individuals . ”


The applicant , PERSON , is a NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in the village of GPE , LOC . She was represented before the ORG by PERSON , a lawyer practising in PERSON , LOC . The respondent Government were 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 suffers from cerebral paralysis and has a disability of the second category .

In DATE she sued a local welfare authority in connection with the latter ’s refusal to pay her DATE compensation in respect of her transport expenses .

On DATE ORG of GPE ( “ the ORG ” ) granted the applicant ’s claim and ordered the welfare authority to pay her a compensation . The court did not specify the amount of the compensation . This judgment was not appealed against and entered into force on DATE .

On DATE enforcement proceedings commenced .

On DATE , in reply to the applicant ’s query , the bailiffs informed her that they were unable to enforce the judgment of DATE , since the debtor had insufficient funds .

On DATE the applicant lodged a court complaint against the bailiffs for their failure to enforce the judgment in her favour .

On DATE ORG confirmed the applicant ’s entitlement to the compensation of her transport expenses in the amount of MONEY ( RUR ) per year and ordered the bailiffs to enforce the judgment of DATE within DATE from the date on which the present judgment would become final . It does not appear that any appeal was lodged against the judgment of DATE .

On DATE , upon the applicant ’s request for clarification of the judgment of DATE , ORG ruled that the applicant was eligible for compensation of her transport expenses in the amount of RUR DATE for DATE , and therefore the defendant authority was under obligation to pay her a total sum of RUR CARDINAL,CARDINAL . This decision was upheld on appeal by ORG on DATE .

On DATE the judgment of DATE , as interpreted by decision of DATE , was paid in full .

On an unspecified date the applicant instituted proceedings against the welfare authority , seeking ORG as compensation for inflation losses sustained by her between DATE , when the judgment in her favour had been given , and DATE , when it had been enforced .

By decision of DATE ORG granted the applicant ’s claims in full and awarded her the requested amount as well as RUR CARDINAL in respect of court expenses . The decision was not appealed against and became final DATE .

On DATE the sum of RUR CARDINAL,CARDINAL was transferred to the applicant ’s bank account .

Section CARDINAL of LAW of DATE provides that a bailiff ’s order on the institution of enforcement proceedings must fix a time - limit for the defendant ’s voluntary compliance with a writ of execution . The time - limit may not exceed DATE . The bailiff must also warn the defendant that coercive action will follow , should the defendant fail to comply with the time - limit .

Under LAW of the LAW , the enforcement proceedings should be completed within DATE of the receipt of the writ of enforcement by the bailiff .