Christos Rozakis;Elisabeth Steiner;Giorgio Malinverni;Loukis Loucaides;Sverre Erik Jebens

The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in GPE . ORG ( “ the Government ” ) were represented by PERSON , the former Representative of GPE at ORG .

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

In the period DATE the applicant , then a resident of PERSON , GPE , deposited MONEY in CARDINAL savings accounts with the ORG branch of ORG , which was an integral part of ORG .

In DATE hostilities commenced in GPE .

In DATE the applicant left GPE because of the fighting and settled in the town of GPE in LOC . According to the applicant , shortly after his arrival he submitted his savings books ( сберегательные книжки ) to the GPE branch of ORG and requested the latter to transfer and repay his deposits and those of his late father . The bank registered the applicant ’s savings books , but refused to transfer his savings , referring to a telegram from ORG which had imposed a ban on any transactions in respect of the deposits made with ORG .

On DATE the applicant complained in writing to the central office of ORG and to its GPE branch .

In letters of DATE the central office and the GPE branch of ORG informed the applicant that as a result of the events in GPE , ORG had lost a considerable number of blank savings books and official seals , which could enable the falsification of claims for the reimbursement of deposits . In these circumstances , in DATE ORG suspended all transactions in respect of deposits made in GPE , and then wound up ORG . Moreover , ORG did not allot funds for the reimbursement of the deposits made in GPE , “ in the absence of guarantees that those funds would be used for specified purposes ” .

Following the bank ’s refusal , the applicant filed a court complaint , seeking to have his savings transferred to the GPE branch of ORG and repaid to him .

On DATE the ORG rejected the applicant ’s claims as unfounded . The court refused to confirm that the applicant was entitled to the reimbursement of his deposits by the GPE branch of ORG , noting that under relevant regulations the mere fact that an individual had savings books was insufficient to confirm that a particular amount of money had been deposited in his account and that , as well as the savings books , the applicant should have supplied a document proving that his deposits had been transferred from ORG to another branch of ORG , which the applicant had failed to do .

On DATE ORG upheld the first - instance judgment on appeal , having noted that ORG had defaulted on its obligation to repay the applicant ’s savings because of force majeure , namely due to the hostilities in GPE and the winding up of ORG . The court also noted that as soon as ORG reached agreement with the Government of GPE , it would pay back the funds of those individuals who were registered on the list of former depositors of ORG , and that it was open to the applicant to apply for registration on that list .

The applicant ’s attempts to contest the above court decisions by way of supervisory review proved unsuccessful .

In their memorial of DATE the Government informed the ORG that DATE and DATE the Government of GPE within the territory of this republic , and the branches of ORG in other regions of GPE , had made a list of the former depositors of ORG who had produced their savings books ( сберегательные книжки ) .

On DATE the Savings Bank of GPE commenced payment of compensation to those included on the list . As provided by governmental decree no . CARDINAL of DATE , this procedure was applied in respect of savings deposited with ORG prior to DATE .

From DATE until DATE the authorities made an additional list of former depositors of ORG . In the ORG ’s submission , “ repayment of deposits to those included in the additional list would be made in the near future ” .

From DATE TIME ORG adopted an DATE decree which reproduced the provisions of their decree no . CARDINAL of DATE concerning compensation of deposits made prior to DATE in the territory of GPE .

According to the Government , the applicant was put on the list of the former depositors of ORG , but did not apply for the repayment of his deposits until the present moment .

In letters of DATE and CARDINAL DATE the GPE branch of ORG informed the applicant that he could apply for his deposits , the accrued interest and compensation , upon presenting his identity documents and submitting his savings books , which would be retained by the bank after the repayment . According to the letters , the applicant would be furnished with a certificate providing the details of calculation of the sum repaid .

In DATE the President of ORG ( Председатель правления Сберегательного PERSON ) ordered that all operations in respect of deposits with ORG be suspended until further notice .

By virtue of decision no . CARDINAL of ORG dated DATE the branches of ORG on the territory of GPE were wound up and removed from ORG . Powers of attorney issued to the heads of those branches were revoked and annulled .

By section CARDINAL of decree no . CARDINAL “ On payment to certain categories of citizens of GPE in DATE of preliminary compensation ( compensation ) in respect of deposits with ORG and certain insurance organisations ” dated DATE the Government of GPE entitled the former depositors of ORG to compensation for deposits they had made prior to DATE . In particular , individuals who lived outside the territory of GPE could obtain compensation in those branches of ORG which had put them on the list of former depositors of ORG .

Section CARDINAL of governmental decree no . CARDINAL “ On payment to certain categories of citizens of GPE in DATE of preliminary compensation ( compensation ) in respect of deposits with ORG and certain insurance organisations ” dated DATE reproduces the provisions of section CARDINAL of decree no . CARDINAL of DATE concerning compensation of deposits made prior to DATE in the territory of GPE .


Violation of Art. 8;Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed;Non-pecuniary damage - financial award;Costs and expenses partial award - domestic proceedings;Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in the town of GPE , an important steel - producing centre QUANTITY north - east of GPE . In DATE her family moved to a flat situated at CARDINAL Zhukov Street , QUANTITY from the site of the Severstal steel plant ( “ the plant ” ) . This flat was provided by the plant to the applicant 's husband , PERSON , under a tenancy agreement .

The plant was built during the NORP era and was owned by ORG of the Russian NORP Federative Socialist Republic ( RSFSR ) . The plant was , and remains , the largest iron smelter in GPE and the main employer for CARDINAL people . In order to delimit the areas in which the pollution caused by steel production might be excessive , the authorities established a buffer zone around the Severstal premises – “ the sanitary security zone ” . This zone was first delimited in DATE . It covered a CARDINAL,CARDINAL-metre - wide area around the site of the plant . Although this zone was , in theory , supposed to separate the plant from the town 's residential areas , in practice CARDINAL of people ( including the applicant 's family ) lived there . The blocks of flats in the zone belonged to the plant and were designated mainly for its workers , who occupied the flats as life - long tenants ( see “ Relevant domestic law and practice ” below ) . A decree of ORG , dated DATE , imposed on ORG the obligation to resettle the inhabitants of the sanitary security zone who lived in districts nos . CARDINAL and CARDINAL by DATE . However , this has not been done .

NORP In DATE the government of the ORG adopted a programme “ On improving the environmental situation in GPE ” . The programme stated that “ the concentration of toxic substances in the town 's air exceed[ed ] the acceptable norms many times ” and that the morbidity rate of GPE residents was higher than the average . It was noted that many people still lived within the steel plant 's sanitary security zone . Under the programme , the steel plant was required to reduce its toxic emissions to safe levels by DATE . The programme listed a number of specific technological measures to attain this goal . The steel plant was also ordered to finance the construction of QUANTITY of residential property DATE for the resettlement of people living within its sanitary security zone .

By Municipal Decree no . CARDINAL of DATE , the boundaries of the sanitary security zone around the plant were redefined . The width of the zone was reduced to QUANTITY .

In DATE the steel plant was privatised and acquired by ORG . In the course of the privatisation the blocks of flats owned by the steel plant that were situated within the zone were transferred to the municipality .

On DATE the government of GPE adopted Decree no . CARDINAL on the special federal programme “ Improvement of the environmental situation and public health in GPE ” for DATE ” ( in DATE this programme was replaced by the special federal programme “ GPE 's ecology and natural resources ” ) . Implementation of the DATE programme was funded by ORG . The second paragraph of this programme stated :

“ The concentration of certain polluting substances in the town 's residential areas is CARDINAL times higher than the maximum permissible limits ( MPLs ) [ ] ... The biggest ' contributor ' to atmospheric pollution is ORG , which is responsible for PERCENT of all emissions . The highest level of air pollution is registered in the residential districts immediately adjacent to ORG 's industrial site . The principal cause of the emission of toxic substances into the atmosphere is the operation of archaic and ecologically dangerous technologies and equipment in metallurgic and other industries , as well as the low efficiency of gas - cleaning systems . The situation is aggravated by an almost complete overlap of industrial and residential areas of the city , in the absence of their separation by sanitary security zones . ”

The decree further stated that “ the environmental situation in the city ha[d ] resulted in a continuing deterioration in public health ” . In particular , it stated that over the period from DATE the number of children with respiratory diseases increased from CARDINAL to CARDINAL cases per CARDINAL , those with blood and haematogenic diseases from CARDINAL cases per CARDINAL , and those with skin diseases from CARDINAL to CARDINAL cases per CARDINAL . The decree also noted that the high level of atmospheric pollution accounted for the increase in respiratory and blood diseases among the city 's adult population and the increased number of deaths from cancer .

Most of the measures proposed in the programme concerned the functioning of the Severstal steel plant . The decree also enumerated a number of measures concerning the city as a whole : these included the resettlement of CARDINAL people from ORG 's sanitary security zone . It transpires from the programme that the ORG was supposed to be the main source of funding for such resettlement . However , it seems that in subsequent DATE ORG continued to pay for the resettlement of the zone 's inhabitants , at least as regards districts nos . CARDINAL and CARDINAL . Thus , according to Decree no . CARDINAL by the mayor of GPE dated DATE , in DATE the residents of the blocks of flats situated on FAC were resettled in another district of the city . According to a letter of DATE from the mayor of GPE , ORG funded CARDINAL of the cost of resettlement .

On DATE the chief sanitary inspector for GPE decided that the width of the sanitary security zone should be QUANTITY from the main sources of industrial pollution . However , no specific boundaries were identified for the zone . In DATE the municipality challenged its own Decree no . CARDINAL of DATE , which had established the zone 's boundaries ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . On DATE the ORG declared Decree no . CARDINAL invalid on the ground that it was ultra vires . ORG ruled that at the relevant time the municipality had not had jurisdiction to define the width of the zone . The boundaries of the sanitary security zone around the Severstal facilities currently remain undefined .

In DATE implementation of the DATE government programme was discontinued and the measures proposed in it were included in the corresponding section of the sub - programme “ Regulation of environmental quality ” in the special federal programme “ GPE 's ecology and natural resources ( DATE ) ” .

According to a letter from the mayor of GPE dated DATE , in DATE the plant was responsible for PERCENT of industrial emissions into the town 's air . According to ORG on ORG , the ORG plant in GPE was the largest contributor to air pollution of all metallurgical plants in GPE .

NORP In DATE the applicant , with her family and various other residents of the block of flats where she lived , brought a court action seeking resettlement outside the zone . The applicant claimed that the concentration of toxic elements and the noise levels in the sanitary security zone exceeded the maximum permissible limits established by NORP legislation . The applicant alleged that the environmental situation in the zone was hazardous for humans , and that living there was potentially dangerous to health and life . In support of her claims she relied mainly on the city planning regulations of DATE ( see “ Relevant domestic law and practice ” below ) . According to the applicant , these regulations imposed an obligation on the plant 's owners to implement various ecological measures in the zone , including the resettlement of residents in an ecologically safe area . The applicant claimed that ORG had failed to fulfil this obligation .

On DATE the ORG examined the applicant 's action . The court recognised that the building at LOC , where she lived , was located within ORG 's sanitary security zone . The court noted that , prior to DATE , the applicant 's flat had been owned by ORG , which had also owned the plant . Following privatisation of the plant in DATE , it had become a privately owned entity and the applicant 's flat had become the property of the local authorities . Referring to the ministerial decree of DATE , the court found that the authorities ought to have resettled all of the zone 's residents but that they had failed to do so . In view of those findings , the court accepted the applicant 's claim in principle , stating that she had the right in domestic law to be resettled . However , no specific order to resettle the applicant was given by the court in the operative part of its judgment . Instead , the court stated that the local authorities must place her on a “ priority waiting list ” to obtain new local authority housing ( see “ Relevant domestic law and practice ” below ) . The court also stated that the applicant 's resettlement was conditional on the availability of funds .

The applicant appealed , claiming that the obligation to resettle was on the plant rather than on the municipality . She also maintained that the court had distorted the object of her claim : whereas she had been seeking immediate resettlement , the court had ordered that she be placed on a waiting list . In the applicant 's view , this decision was unworkable because its enforcement depended on too many conditions ( the existence of a resettlement order , the number of people on the waiting list , the availability of funds for resettlement , etc . ) .

On DATE ORG upheld in principle the decision of DATE , and confirmed that the applicant 's home was located within the Severstal steel plant 's sanitary security zone . The appeal court further found that the applicant 's resettlement in an ecologically safe area was to be carried out by the municipality . Finally , the appeal court excluded from the operative part of the judgment the reference to the availability of funds as a precondition for the applicant 's resettlement .

The first - instance court issued an execution warrant and transmitted it to a bailiff . However , the decision remained unexecuted for a certain period of time . In a letter of DATE , the deputy mayor of GPE explained that enforcement of the judgment was blocked , since there were no regulations establishing the procedure for the resettlement of residents outside the zone .

On DATE the bailiff discontinued the enforcement proceedings on the ground that there was no “ priority waiting list ” for new housing for residents of the sanitary security zone .

In DATE the applicant brought a fresh action against the municipality , seeking immediate execution of the judgment of DATE . The applicant claimed , inter alia , that systematic toxic emissions and noise from ORG facilities violated her basic right to respect for her private life and home , as guaranteed by LAW and LAW . She asked to be provided with a flat in an ecologically safe area or with the means to purchase a new flat .

On DATE the municipality placed the applicant on the general waiting list for new housing . She was no . CARDINAL on that list ( see “ Relevant domestic law and practice ” below ) .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant 's action . It noted that there was no “ priority waiting list ” for the resettlement of residents of sanitary security zones , and no council housing had been allocated for that purpose . It concluded that the applicant had been duly placed on the general waiting list . The court held that the judgment of DATE had been executed and that there was no need to take any further measures . That judgment was upheld by ORG on DATE .

The ORG authorities conduct regular inspections of air quality in the city . Pollution is monitored by CARDINAL stationary posts of ORG for ORG , including CARDINAL ( post no . CARDINAL ) situated at CARDINAL FAC , QUANTITY from the applicant 's home . The emission levels of CARDINAL hazardous substances are monitored by the authorities ( nitrogen dioxide , ammonia , carbon oxide , dust , hydrogen sulphide , carbon disulphide , phenol , formaldehyde , sulphur dioxide , nitric oxide , manganese , benzopyrene and lead ) . CARDINAL stationary posts of ORG for ORG monitor emissions of only DATE of the above substances ; additionally , post no . CARDINAL monitors emissions of sulphur dioxide , nitric oxide , lead , benzopyrene and manganese , and post no . CARDINAL monitors emissions of benzopyrene , manganese and sulphur dioxide . In addition , ORG for ORG conducts regular air tests at distances of CARDINAL , CARDINAL , DATE , DATE , and QUANTITY from the steel plant . Finally , ORG has its own monitoring system , which evaluates emissions from every separate industrial facility at the plant .

It appears that the basic data on air pollution , whether collected by the ORG monitoring posts or PERSON , are not publicly available . Both parties produced a number of official documents containing generalised information on industrial pollution in the town . The relevant parts of these documents are summarised in the following paragraphs and in the appendix to this judgment .

The applicant claimed that the concentration of certain toxic substances in the air near her home constantly exceeded and continues to exceed the safe levels established by NORP legislation . Thus , in the period from DATE to DATE the average DATE concentration of dust in the air in the ORG plant 's sanitary security zone was CARDINAL times higher than the ORG , the concentration of carbon disulphide was CARDINAL times higher and the concentration of formaldehyde was CARDINAL to CARDINAL times higher ( data reported by ORG ) . ORG for ORG reported that the level of atmospheric pollution within the zone during the period from DATE was rated as “ high ” or “ very high ” . ORG for ORG confirmed that an excessive concentration of other hazardous substances , such as hydrogen sulphide and ammonia , was also registered during this period .

As regards DATE , the applicant submitted a report prepared by ORG of ORG for ORG and ORG . This report stated , inter alia , that in DATE the DATE average concentration of dust near the applicant 's home was CARDINAL times higher than the ORG , and that the short - term peak concentration of dust was twice as high as the ORG . In DATE an over - concentration of carbon oxide was registered near the applicant 's home : the short - term peak concentration of this element was CARDINAL times higher than the ORG . The agency also reported that the average DATE concentration of formaldehyde in the town was CARDINAL times higher than the ORG . The average DATE concentration of carbon disulphide near the applicant 's home was CARDINAL times higher than the MPL . The short - term peak concentration of phenols was CARDINAL times higher than the ORG , and that of hydrogen sulphide was CARDINAL times higher .

The applicant also submitted information published on the website of ORG of ORG for ORG . This source reported that in DATE the concentration of formaldehyde in GPE exceeded the norms . In DATE the DATE average concentration of formaldehyde was CARDINAL times higher than the MPL .

The applicant further produced a study paper entitled “ Economic effectiveness of public health measures at ORG ” , drawn up by ORG , a public body established in DATE under the supervision of the then ORG . The study was commissioned by the GPE municipality in order to obtain an analysis of the cost - effectiveness of various measures suggested in the DATE federal programme . The expert team had access to data on CARDINAL polluting elements contained in industrial emissions from the Severstal plant . The experts singled out the CARDINAL most toxic elements and , using a special dispersion dissemination model , established how these elements affected the morbidity rate in the city . The experts then calculated how the implementation of one or another measure from the federal programme would reduce the concentration of these pollutants , and , consequently , to what extent the morbidity rate would decrease .

NORP In DATE the applicant informed the ORG that further information on atmospheric pollution could be requested from the respondent Government . In particular , the applicant sought to obtain : ( a ) baseline emissions data for the Severstal plant , including data on the physical parameters of the stacks and the volume of chemicals emitted DATE by each process at the Severstal facility ; ( b ) dispersion modelling data for estimating the ambient air concentration of CARDINAL toxic pollutants at each of the x and y coordinate locations on the GPE city grid , based on the above emissions data . The applicant indicated that this information might be obtained from ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . The applicant also sought data on the ambient air quality in GPE , obtained DATE as part of ORG in GPE , implemented with financial support from ORG . In DATE the ORG invited the respondent Government to submit the information sought by the applicant .

In DATE the Government submitted a report entitled “ The environmental situation in GPE and its correlation with the activity of [ ORG ] during the period until DATE ” , prepared by the GPE municipality .

According to the report , the environmental situation in GPE has improved in DATE : thus , gross emissions of pollutants in the town were reduced from QUANTITY in DATE to QUANTITY in DATE ( by PERCENT ) . Overall emissions from the ORG facilities were reduced during this period from CARDINAL to QUANTITY ( namely by PERCENT ) , and the proportion of unsatisfactory testing of atmospheric air at stationary posts fell from PERCENT to PERCENT in DATE .

The report further stated that , according to data received from CARDINAL stationary posts of ORG for ORG , a substantial decrease in the concentration of certain hazardous substances was recorded in the period from DATE to DATE :

( i ) dust : from TIME mg / m³ ( CARDINAL MPL ) to CARDINAL mg / m³ ( CARDINAL MPL ) ;

( ii ) hydrogen sulphide : from QUANTITY / m³ ( CARDINAL MPL ) to QUANTITY / m³ ( CARDINAL MPL ) ;

( iii ) phenols : from QUANTITY / m³ ( CARDINAL MPL ) to QUANTITY m³ ( CARDINAL MPL ) .

According to the report , pollution in the vicinity of the applicant 's home was not necessarily higher than in other districts of the town . Thus , the concentration of nitrogen dioxide at post no . CARDINAL was QUANTITY / m³ in DATE , whereas it was QUANTITY / m³ at post no . CARDINAL , QUANTITY / m³ at post no . CARDINAL and QUANTITY mg / m³ at post no . CARDINAL . The average DATE concentration of ammonia registered at post no . CARDINAL was QUANTITY / m³ , QUANTITY / m³ at post no . CARDINAL , CARDINAL mg / m³ at post no . CARDINAL and QUANTITY mg / m³ at post no . CARDINAL . The phenol level registered at post no . CARDINAL was QUANTITY , QUANTITY / m³ at post no . CARDINAL and CARDINAL mg / m³ at post no . CARDINAL . Finally , the concentration of formaldehyde at post no . CARDINAL was QUANTITY / m³ , whereas it was QUANTITY / m³ at post no . CARDINAL , QUANTITY / m³ at post no . DATE and QUANTITY mg / m³ at post no . CARDINAL .

NORP The report stated that the average annual concentrations of nitric oxide , lead , manganese , nitrogen dioxide , ammonia , hydrogen sulphide , phenol , carbon oxide and carbon disulphide did not exceed the MPLs . Excessive annual concentrations were recorded only with respect to dust , formaldehyde and benzopyrene . Over the period from DATE to DATE , a certain improvement in the quality of air was registered under the steel plant 's “ pollution plume ” in the residential area of the town . Thus , the proportion of unsatisfactory tests was PERCENT in DATE , whereas in DATE it had fallen to PERCENT . The report emphasised that the proportion of unsatisfactory air tests was decreasing : from PERCENT to PERCENT , as measured at a distance of QUANTITY from the plant ; and from PERCENT to PERCENT at a distance of QUANTITY . The trend was also positive in respect of certain specific substances : within QUANTITY the proportion of unsatisfactory tests for nitrogen dioxide decreased from PERCENT in DATE to PERCENT in DATE ; for hydrogen sulphide they fell from PERCENT in DATE to PERCENT in DATE ; and for phenol they decreased from PERCENT in DATE to PERCENT in DATE .

The report contained generalised data on average pollution levels for DATE , collected from CARDINAL stationary posts of ORG for ORG . The ORG also produced data collected from monitoring post no . CARDINAL , reflecting a reduction in the average DATE and maximum pollution levels compared to the situation which existed DATE . The most important data contained in these reports are summarised in the appendix to this judgment .

The Government also produced extracts from a report by the chief sanitary inspector for the GPE region , which was prepared in DATE for the purpose of defining new boundaries for the sanitary security zone . According to the report , PERSON was still responsible in DATE for PERCENT of overall air pollution in the city . The report stated that the emissions from ORG contained CARDINAL different pollutant substances . Despite a significant reduction in pollution in DATE , the maximum concentrations of “ CARDINAL priority pollutants ” ( dust containing PERCENT of silicon dioxide , ferroalloy dust , nitrogen dioxide , naphthalene and hydrogen sulphide ) still exceeded safety standards at distances of QUANTITY from the plant . The report further indicated that “ CARDINAL people live[d ] in a zone where the acceptable level of risk [ was ] exceeded ” . It proposed a number of measures which should reduce the concentration of naphthalene and ferroalloys to safe levels by DATE , and stated that the concentration of all toxic substances originating from the Severstal facilities in the bottom layer of the atmosphere should be below the maximum permissible limits by DATE .

Finally , the ORG submitted that , should the ORG need the documents sought by the applicant and referred to by her representatives as a source of primary information on air pollution , “ the authorities of GPE propose that this document be requested from PERSON GPE [ CARDINAL of the applicant 's representatives ] ” .

Since DATE Ms Fadeyeva has been supervised by the clinic at FAC no . CARDINAL . According to the Government , the applicant 's medical history in this clinic does not link the deterioration in her health to adverse environmental conditions at her place of residence .

In DATE a medical team from the clinic carried out regular medical check - ups on the staff at the applicant 's place of work . As a result of these examinations , the doctors detected indications of an occupational illness in CARDINAL workers , including the applicant . In DATE the diagnosis was confirmed : a medical report drawn up by ORG in GPE on CARDINAL DATE stated that she suffered from various illnesses of the nervous system , namely occupational progressive / motor - sensory neuropathy of the upper extremities with paralysis of both middle nerves at the level of the wrist channel ( primary diagnosis ) , osteochondrosis of the spinal vertebrae , deforming arthrosis of the knee joints , moderate myelin sheath degeneration , chronic gastroduodenitis , hypermetropia first grade ( eyes ) and presbyopia ( associated diagnoses ) . Whilst the causes of these illnesses were not expressly indicated in the report , the doctors stated that they would be exacerbated by “ working in conditions of vibration , toxic pollution and an unfavourable climate ” .

In DATE the applicant submitted a report entitled “ Human health risk assessment of pollutant levels in the vicinity of the Severstal facility in GPE ” . This report , commissioned on behalf of the applicant , was prepared by PERSON . PERSON concluded that he would expect the population residing within the zone to suffer from above - average incidences of odour annoyance , respiratory infections , irritation of the nose , coughs and headaches , thyroid abnormalities , cancer of the nose and respiratory tract , chronic irritation of the eyes , nose and throat , and adverse impacts on neurobehavioral , neurological , cardiovascular and reproductive functions . The report concluded as follows :

“ The toxic pollutants found in excessive levels within the sanitary security zone in GPE are all gaseous pollutants specifically produced by iron and steel manufacturing plants ( in particular , by process units involved in metallurgical coke production ) , but not usually by other industrial facilities .

It is therefore reasonable to conclude that inadequately controlled emissions from the Severstal facility are a primary cause of the excess incidences of the above - mentioned adverse health conditions of persons residing within the sanitary security zone in GPE . ”

The applicant also submitted an information note from the environmental department of the GPE municipality , which contained recommendations to GPE residents on how to act in circumstances of “ unfavourable weather conditions ” , namely when the wind carried emissions from the Severstal plant towards the city . The note recommended that people should stay at home and restrict their physical activity . It also contained dietary suggestions . The primary reason for these restrictive recommendations was emissions from the Severstal plant . The applicant also referred to a letter dated DATE from the FAC , stating that when such “ unfavourable weather conditions ” occurred , admissions of children to local health clinics increased by CARDINAL .

Article CARDINAL of the LAW of the Russian Federation reads as follows :

“ Everyone has the right to a favourable environment , to reliable information about its state , and to compensation for damage caused to his health or property by ecological offences . ”

Pursuant to LAW DATE on sanitary safety ( О санитарно-эпидемологическом благополучии населения ) , ORG establishes ORG standards for protecting public health from environmental nuisances . In particular , these standards are applied in assessing air quality in cities : atmospheric pollution is assessed in comparison to the maximum permissible limits ( MPLs ) , the measure which defines the concentration of various toxic substances in the air . It follows from LAW of LAW of DATE and LAW DATE that , if the MPLs are not exceeded , the air is safe for the health and well - being of the population living in the relevant area . Regulation CARDINAL of LAW provides that , for all categories of toxic elements , concentrations should not exceed CARDINAL MPL in residential areas and CARDINAL.CARDINAL MPL in recreational zones .

Pursuant to LAW DATE ( ORG охране атмосферного воздуха ) , ORG establishes environmental standards for various types of polluting sources ( cars , farms , industrial plants , etc . ) . These general standards are applied to specific undertakings by the regional environmental agencies . In principle , an industrial plant 's operation should not result in pollution which exceeds the MPLs ( section CARDINAL of the Act ) . However , for the sake of a region 's economic development , a regional environmental agency may issue a temporary permit authorising an undertaking to exceed these norms ( sections CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the Act ) . The permit should contain a schedule for the phased reduction of toxic emissions to safe levels .

Every polluting undertaking must create a “ sanitary security zone ” around its LOC – a buffer area separating sources of pollution from the residential areas of a city ( Regulations CARDINAL.CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the DATE LAW , enacted by Decree no . CARDINAL of ORG of DATE ; similar provisions were contained in DATE and DATE LAW , which replaced those of DATE ) . The levels of pollution in this buffer area may exceed the MPLs .

The minimum width of the zone is defined by the sanitary regulations for different categories of undertaking . Under the terms of the DATE LAW , the sanitary security zone around a steel plant the size of Severstal should be QUANTITY . Under LAW of DATE , the width of the sanitary security zone for a metallurgical undertaking of this size should be QUANTITY . In certain cases ORG may enlarge the zone ( for example , where the concentration of toxic substances in the air beyond the zone exceeds the MPLs ) . Subsequent sanitary regulations ( enacted on DATE and DATE ) confirmed these requirements .

Regulation CARDINAL.CARDINAL of the DATE ORG provides that an undertaking must take all necessary measures in order to set up ( обустроить ) its sanitary security zone in accordance with the law , with a view to limiting pollution .

Regulation CARDINAL.CARDINAL of the DATE ORG provides that no housing should be situated within the sanitary security zone . This provision was later incorporated into LAW ( Градостроительный PERSON ) of DATE ( LAW ) and LAW of DATE and DATE . According to Regulation CARDINAL.CARDINAL.CARDINAL of the DATE LAW , a project to create a zone may include , as a high - priority objective , resettlement of the zone 's residents . However , there is no direct requirement to resettle the residents of the sanitary security zone around an undertaking that is already operating .

Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL of LAW of DATE provides as follows :

“ In cases where ORG or public interests require that economic or other activities be conducted in environmentally unfavourable areas , the temporary residence of the population in these areas is permitted , subject to the application of a special town planning regime ... ”

It follows from a judgment of ORG ( decision no . ФCARDINAL - CARDINAL/CARDINAL of DATE ) that the authorities may force an undertaking which has failed to create a sanitary security zone around its LOC in accordance with the law to cease operating .

The applicant produced an extract from the decision of ORG of GPE in PERSON v. ORG ( published in “ Overview of the case - law of the Supreme Court ” , ORG , № DATE , of DATE , § CARDINAL ) . In that case the plaintiff had claimed immediate resettlement from a decrepit house . The lower court had rejected the plaintiff 's action , indicating that she could claim resettlement following the order of priority ( in other words , she should be put on the waiting list ) . ORG quashed this judgment , stating as follows :

“ The [ plaintiff 's ] home is not only dilapidated ... , but is also situated within QUANTITY of a railway , within the latter 's sanitary security zone , which is contrary to the sanitary regulations ( this zone is QUANTITY wide , and no residential premises should be located within it ) . ”

ORG remitted the case to the first - instance court , ordering it to designate specific housing which should be provided to the plaintiff as a replacement for her previous dwelling .

In another case , concerning the resettlement of PERSON , another resident of the sanitary security zone around the Severstal facilities , the ORG of ORG , in its decision of DATE , stated , inter alia :

“ The lower court did not assess whether the measures taken in order to resettle the residents of the sanitary security zone are adequate in comparison to the degree of threat that the plaintiff encounters . As a result , the court did not establish whether providing PERSON with new housing under the provisions of the housing legislation by placing her on the waiting list can be regarded as giving her a real chance to live in an environment that is favourable for her life and health . ”

The court also expressed doubts as to whether the ORG should be held responsible for the resettlement of the zone 's residents .

During the NORP era , the majority of housing in GPE belonged to various public bodies or ORG - owned companies . The population lived in these dwellings as life - long tenants . In DATE extensive privatisation programmes were carried out . In certain cases , property that had not been privatised was transferred to local authorities .

To date , a certain part of the NORP population continues to live as tenants in local council houses on account of the related advantages . In particular , council house tenants are not required to pay property taxes , the amount of rent they pay is substantially lower than the market rate and they have full rights to use and control the property . Certain persons are entitled to claim new housing from the local authorities , provided that they satisfy the conditions established by law .

From a historical standpoint , the right to claim new housing was one of the basic socio - economic rights enshrined in NORP legislation . Under LAW of the RSFSR of DATE , which was still valid in GPE at the time of the relevant events , every tenant whose living conditions did not correspond to the required standards was eligible to be placed on a local authority waiting list in order to obtain new council housing . The waiting list establishes the priority order in which housing is attributed once it is available .

NORP However , being on a waiting list does not entitle the person concerned to claim any specific conditions or time - frame from the State for obtaining new housing . Certain categories of persons , such as judges , policemen or handicapped persons are entitled to be placed on a special “ priority waiting list ” . However , it appears that NORP legislation does not guarantee a right to be placed on this special list solely on the ground of serious ecological threats .

NORP Since NORP times , CARDINAL of NORP have been placed on waiting lists , which become longer DATE on account of a lack of resources to build new council housing . At present , the fact of being on a waiting list represents an acceptance by the ORG of its intention to provide new housing when resources become available . The applicant submits , for example , that the person who is first on the waiting list in her municipality has been waiting for new council housing since DATE . She herself became no . CARDINAL on that list in DATE .


Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);Violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression -{General} (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression);Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed;Non-pecuniary damage - award

Anatoly Kovler;Erik Møse;Julia Laffranque;Khanlar Hajiyev;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

The applicant was a journalist and the editor - in - chief of a newspaper named PERSON .

On DATE a number of opposition parties held an unauthorised demonstration in GPE . The applicant , together with CARDINAL other journalists , was present at the demonstration to report on the events . The applicant was not wearing a special blue vest identifying him as a journalist , but he was wearing a journalist badge on his chest .

During the dispersal of the demonstration by the police , the applicant and his colleagues were beaten up and received various injuries . According to the applicant , he told the police officers that he was a journalist and asked them to stop . The applicant was hit on the head and lost consciousness following his beating .

The applicant was taken to hospital DATE . On DATE he received a medical certificate with a diagnosis of closed cranio - cerebral trauma , concussion and soft - tissue damage to the crown of the head .

On DATE the applicant obtained a medical certificate from GPE Polyclinic no . DATE . That certificate indicated that the applicant had been registered as a patient diagnosed with closed cranio - cerebral trauma and concussion , and that his condition required long - term treatment .

The CARDINAL journalists who had been beaten up on DATE lodged a joint criminal complaint . On DATE FAC instituted criminal proceedings under LAW ( beating ) of LAW . On DATE the case was re - qualified under LAW ( obstruction of the lawful professional activity of journalists ) of LAW and transferred to ORG .

On DATE the applicant was questioned by the investigator in charge of the case . The applicant stated that he had been beaten with truncheons by a group of police officers while he was observing the demonstration as a journalist . The applicant also stated that he did not know the police officers who had hit him , although he did know the police officers who were in charge of the police unit . The applicant submitted a photo of an officer ( GPE ) who was the head of ORG of ORG . The applicant ’s version of the events was also confirmed by statements from CARDINAL other journalists , ORG , who were present at the relevant time at the place of the incident .

According to the Government , on DATE the investigator ordered a forensic examination of the applicant , but the applicant did not appear for this examination . No copy of any decision in this respect was submitted by the Government to the ORG . The applicant alleged that he had not been informed of this decision by the investigator .

By a letter of DATE , the investigator in charge of the case requested ORG to identify the police officers who had hit the applicant . In reply to the investigator ’s letter , on DATE the Head of ORG wrote that they had not been able to identify the relevant police officers , however they would continue to take measures in this respect and inform the investigator of any result .

On DATE the investigator heard GPE , who denied involvement in the applicant ’s beating . PERSON stated that neither he nor the police officers under his supervision had done anything unlawful to the applicant in his presence .

On DATE ORG investigator issued a decision suspending the criminal proceedings until the perpetrators of the beating had been identified . The investigator relied on the fact that the police officers allegedly involved in the applicant ’s beating had not been identified . As to GPE ’s alleged involvement , the investigator relied on ORG statements , noting that the latter had not carried out any unlawful actions against the applicant .

The applicant was not provided with any information concerning the criminal investigation until DATE . On DATE the applicant contacted ORG investigator and inquired about the state of the proceedings . The investigator informed him that the criminal investigation had been suspended on DATE , but did not provide the applicant with a copy of the decision suspending the investigation .

On DATE the applicant lodged a complaint with ORG . He complained that the investigator had failed to provide him with a copy of the decision suspending the investigation , thus making it impossible for him to lodge a proper complaint against it . He also asked the court to quash this decision and remit the case for investigation . He insisted , in particular , that the group of police officers who had hit him had been under GPE ’s command , and that the photo of GPE taken at the time of the incident had been submitted to the police .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s complaint , finding that the decision suspending the investigation had been lawful and had been sent to the applicant on DATE . The decision was silent as to ORG and his alleged role in the applicant ’s beating . It appears that the court did not hear any witness at the hearing .

On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal reiterating his previous complaints . In particular , he argued that the suspension of the investigation , for which the reason given was that it was impossible to identify the policemen who had beaten him , was wrong , and that the investigation authorities knew who the perpetrators were . In this connection , he noted that he and other journalists had specifically identified GPE , who was present at the scene of the incident at the relevant time .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s appeal and upheld ORG decision of CARDINAL DATE .

On DATE the applicant lodged a separate civil action against ORG , asking for compensation for pecuniary and non - pecuniary damage caused by his beating on DATE . He relied on Articles CARDINAL , CARDINAL of the Convention .

On DATE ORG refused to admit the action for non - compliance with the formal requirements . The court held that the applicant had failed , in particular , to provide a forensic report showing the cause of the injuries and had not supplied a copy of any document showing that a police officer had been found responsible for the applicant ’s beating . The court also noted that the applicant had failed to identify actual individuals , rather than ORG in general , as defendants .

On DATE the applicant appealed against the first - instance court ’s inadmissibility decision , reiterating his previous complaints .

On DATE ORG upheld ORG decision of DATE .

On DATE ORG upheld the decisions of the lower courts .

Article CARDINAL ( III ) of LAW reads as follows :

“ No one shall be subjected to torture or ill - treatment . No one shall be subjected to degrading treatment or punishment . ... ”

Police officers may use special equipment when , inter alia , it is considered that a person who is behaving dangerously may cause damage to himself or people around him ( Article CARDINAL.II ) . “ Special equipment ” is defined as truncheons , arm - restraining instruments , tear gas , rubber bullets , water cannons and other means ( Articles CARDINAL ) . Physical force , special equipment or firearms may be used when absolutely necessary in a manner proportionate to the danger posed . The police authorities must carry out an inquiry into every incident involving the use of physical force , special equipment or firearms , and must issue a pertinent opinion on its lawfulness ( Article CARDINAL.VII ) . Unlawful use of force by a police officer entails the officer ’s responsibility under the relevant legislation ( LAW ) .

Police officers may use physical force , special equipment or firearms only in the event of absolute necessity or necessary self - defence , after all other means of coercion have failed to produce the required result , and depending on the gravity of the offence and the character of the offender ( Article CARDINAL ) . Anyone injured as a result of the use of physical force , special equipment or firearms must be provided with the necessary medical aid ( Article CARDINAL ) . The police officer must report to the relevant police authority , in writing , on the occasions he or she used physical force , special equipment or firearms ( DATE . The relevant prosecutor must also be informed of any such use of force within TIME ( Article CARDINAL.I.CARDINAL ) .


No violation of Art. 7;No violation of Art. 9 with regard to the measures taken against the first, second and third applicants for the proselytising of airmen Antoniadis and Kokkalis;No violation of Art. 9 with regard to the measures taken against the first and third applicants for the proselytising of airman Kafkas;Violation of Art. 9 with regard to the measures taken against the second and third applicants for the proselytising of the civilians;No violation of Art. 14+9;Not necessary to examine Art. 10;Non-pecuniary damage - financial award;Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings

The first applicant , Mr PERSON , was born in DATE and lives in ORG . The second applicant , Mr PERSON , was born in DATE and lives at FAC . The third applicant , Mr PERSON Sarandis , was born in DATE and lives in PERSON .

At the time of the events in question , the CARDINAL applicants were officers in the same unit of the NORP air force . They were all followers of ORG , a NORP Christian denomination which adheres to the principle that it is the duty of all believers to engage in evangelism .

In the evidence he gave for the purposes of the prosecution against the applicants ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , airman PERSON said that he was transferred to the ORG unit in DATE , DATE after joining the air force , and was placed under the command of the second applicant in the teletyping service . On CARDINAL occasions the first and second applicants engaged him in religious discussions , reading aloud extracts from the Bible and encouraging him to accept the beliefs of ORG . The second applicant told him that some members of the sect were able to speak in foreign languages with the assistance of divine power . Whenever airman PERSON returned from leave , the second applicant asked him if he had visited ORG . The former testified that he felt obliged to take part in these discussions because the applicants were his superior officers .

NORP In his statement before ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , airman PERSON testified that he served in the ORG unit DATE and DATE , although he was not under the direct command of any of them . During that time the first applicant engaged him in theological discussions on TIME occasions , and the third applicant on CARDINAL occasions , initially concealing the fact that they were not NORP but subsequently criticising some of the tenets of that faith and urging airman NORP to accept their beliefs . The third applicant repeatedly asked him to visit ORG in PERSON while he was on leave , telling him that miracles took place there including the acquisition by believers of the ability to speak in foreign languages , and gave him the NORP newspaper ORG to read . The applicants were very good officers and were always polite to him , but their approaches bothered him nonetheless .

Airman PERSON was unable to give evidence at the first- instance hearing because his wife was ill , but he told ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) that he had served in the same unit as the applicants , under the command of the third applicant , DATE and DATE . The applicants did not put any pressure on him to become a member of ORG . He himself approached the third applicant and asked why he was so peaceful , to which the latter replied that this was the result of reading the Gospel . When , at the suggestion of the first and third applicants , he started to read the Bible , he noticed a number of points of divergence between it and the teachings of ORG . He did not have any discussions with the applicants concerning the NORP and ORG , although he did seek their advice whenever he had any questions concerning the Bible and always found their replies convincing . They never gave him any NORP literature or told him to go to ORG . The third applicant never authorised his absence for purposes related to ORG , which he had visited for the first time in DATE , after he had been discharged from the armed forces .

PERSON father , PERSON PERSON , told the first - instance court that his son had been converted from the NORP to ORG while serving in the air force under the orders of the third applicant . According to his father , shortly after he joined the unit his behaviour changed . He stopped seeing his friends , spent long periods of time in his room studying the Bible and listening to taped sermons and brought back from the barracks his television and radio sets and the books from which he used to study for university entrance examinations . He told his father that he had met CARDINAL officers who were real NORP , unlike his father . When his parents followed him on CARDINAL of his visits to ORG , he left home and went to live in GPE . He returned after DATE , when he reconverted to ORG , explaining to his father that the first and third applicants had converted him to ORG , taking advantage of their rank to exert pressure on him and using special skills of persuasion . They had told him that he would be given leave of absence if he promised to visit their church . When PERSON left to go on a trip , PERSON reconverted to ORG . His father concluded that his son had no will of his own and always did as he was told by other members of ORG .

According to the statement of Captain PERSON , his brother - in - law , Mr ORG , a member of ORG , began DATE to rage at his wife , telling her that he saw Satan in her . The second applicant was summoned , and as soon as he arrived Mr PERSON became calmer . The second applicant then preached a sermon to the members of the Baïramis family and some neighbours who had come to see what was going on , in the course of which he urged them all to convert to the NORP religion .

NORP In a statement prepared for the purposes of an administrative inquiry against the applicants , PERSON explained that her husband had joined ORG , which led to the breakdown of her family life with him . In an attempt to understand her husband ’s behaviour , PERSON visited ORG and the applicants’ homes on several occasions over a period of DATE . During this time the applicants , particularly the second and third applicants , used to visit her and urge her to join their ORG . They told her that they had received signs from God and could predict the future , and that PERSON and her children were possessed by the devil . Eventually she developed psychological problems and severed all links with the applicants and ORG .

On DATE , the applicants appeared before ORG ( PERSON ) in GPE , composed of CARDINAL officer with legal training and CARDINAL other officers . They were tried for various offences of proselytism , under section CARDINAL of Law no . CARDINAL as amended ( henceforth , “ section CARDINAL ” – see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

In a decision delivered on DATE of the hearing ( no . CARDINAL ) , the court rejected the defence ’s argument that the law against proselytism was unconstitutional , finding that no issue could arise under the principle nullum crimen sine lege certa because of the non - exhaustive enumeration in the statute of the means by which an intrusion on another person ’s religious beliefs could be brought about . It found all CARDINAL applicants guilty of proselytism , holding in particular as follows .

In respect of the first applicant , the court observed :

“ The accused , while he was a military officer ... serving in Unit X , committed the offence of proselytism in the military camp of this unit DATE by engaging in several acts which … gave rise to a single , albeit continuing , breach of the relevant criminal provision . He acted with the aim of intruding on and changing the religious beliefs of airman PERSON , an NORP who served in the same unit . Abusing the trust placed in him by airman PERSON , who was his hierarchical subordinate , the accused tried on CARDINAL occasions to persuade airman PERSON to become a member of the sect of ORG by engaging in discussions on theology with him in the course of which the accused contested the correctness of the teachings of the university department of theology concerning PERSON and the NORP dogma . He also encouraged airman PERSON to read the Bible in the light of the accused ’s own beliefs as a member of ORG , questioned the holy traditions and recommended that he visit the church of the NORP sect in GPE .

ORG Acting in the same capacity , the accused committed the offence of proselytism DATE by engaging in several acts which … gave rise to a single , albeit continuing , breach of the relevant criminal provision . He acted with the aim of intruding on and changing the religious beliefs of airman PERSON , NORP who served in the same unit . On CARDINAL occasions the accused tried to persuade airman NORP to become a member of the sect of the Church of GPE by engaging , persistently and importunately , in discussions with him about the correctness of his beliefs as a member of the sect of ORG , questioning the holiness of ORG and inviting airman PERSON to listen to taped recordings on the beliefs of the NORP sect . The accused took advantage of the trust inherent in the relationship between a subordinate and a superior and of airman NORP ’s naïvety , inexperience and youth , telling him that in his ORG some people started speaking foreign languages under the effect of the Holy Spirit .

Acting in the same capacity , the accused committed the offence of proselytism DATE and DATE , in the place mentioned above , by … acting with the aim of intruding on and changing the religious beliefs of airman PERSON GPE , who served under his orders in the same unit . Taking advantage of the trust inherent in the relationship between a subordinate and a superior , and of the young man ’s naïvety and inexperience , the accused tried to persuade airman PERSON to become a member of the sect of the Church of GPE by continually , persistently and importunately expounding on his beliefs concerning the sect of ORG , reading and explaining the Bible in the light of his beliefs and providing him with copies of a tract entitled PERSON . The accused succeeded in converting airman PERSON by taking advantage of the latter 's inexperience in theological matters and the influence he had on him due to his position and rank . ”

The court also found the first applicant guilty of proselytising another airman , PERSON .

It sentenced him to CARDINAL months’ imprisonment for proselytising airman PERSON , DATE months’ imprisonment for proselytising airman PERSON , CARDINAL months’ imprisonment for proselytising airman PERSON and CARDINAL months’ imprisonment for proselytising airman PERSON . Overall , however , because some of these periods were to run concurrently , the first applicant was ordered to spend DATE in prison . The court ordered that these penalties be converted to fines and not enforced provided the applicant did not commit new offences in the following DATE .

In respect of the second applicant , the court held as follows :

“ The accused , while he was a military officer ... serving in Unit X , committed the offence of proselytism in the military camp of this unit DATE by engaging in several acts which … gave rise to a single , albeit continuing , breach of the relevant criminal provision . He took advantage of the authority exercisable by him due to the difference in rank over airman PERSON , who served in the same unit . On CARDINAL occasions , on dates which have not been specified , the accused tried to intrude on and change the religious beliefs of airman PERSON by means of skilful discussions with him concerning religion . The accused urged airman PERSON , because of his youth , to study nothing but the PERSON , where he told him he would find the truth , which differed from the NORP dogma . He also tried , by means of skilful interpretation of extracts from ORG in accordance with the beliefs of the sect of the GPE , to convince him that the NORP faith was not correct and that he should adopt the beliefs of the accused , urging him at the same time in a pressing manner to visit during his leave the church of the NORP sect in GPE .

The accused also committed the offence of proselytism in PERSON in DATE by … taking advantage of the inexperience and intellectual weakness of PERSON Zounara . He tried on several occasions , on dates which have not been specified , to intrude on and change her religious beliefs by engaging in a skilful analysis of the beliefs of the sect of the GPE and their difference from those of the NORP faith . Elaborating on the correctness of the former , he tried persistently to convince her that the followers of ORG bore marks given to them by PERSON , that they could prophesy the future , that she and her children were possessed by the devil who was fighting to keep control over her , that she worshipped idols and demons and that ORG held the truth . He also urged her in a pressing manner to be baptised and become a member of ORG .

The accused also committed the offence of proselytism in PERSON on a date which has not been specified towards DATE . Having been summoned by Captain PERSON , the accused went to the house of PERSON PERSON , Captain Baïramis ’s brother , where Mr GPE , the brother - in - law of the Baïramis brothers and a follower of the sect of ORG , was in a delirious state under the influence of his religious beliefs . He was foaming at the mouth , invoking NORP ’s name and saying ‘ Thank you Christ , because I have known the truth , I see the devil in my wife ’s and children ’s faces’ . The mere fact of the accused ’s presence calmed Mr ORG , and the former skilfully took advantage of this by attempting to intrude upon and change the religious beliefs of PERSON Baïramis and PERSON , PERSON and PERSON , who were present during the incident and had been impressed by it , and of a number of neighbours who gathered afterwards . He preached to them , elaborating on the beliefs of the sect of ORG and telling them that these , and not those of ORG , were correct and that in DATE the world would come to an end and the ORG would be ‘ captured’ . He urged them persistently and importunately to believe in the true NORP and told them that , by virtue of being NORP , they had taken sides with the devil . ”

The second applicant was sentenced to CARDINAL months’ imprisonment for proselytising airman PERSON , DATE months’ imprisonment for proselytising PERSON , and CARDINAL months’ imprisonment for proselytising the Baïramis family and their neighbours , although he was only to serve DATE overall . The court ordered that these penalties be converted to fines and not enforced provided the applicant did not commit new offences in the following DATE .

In respect of the third applicant , the court held as follows :

“ The accused , while he was a military officer ... serving in Unit X , committed the offence of proselytism in the military camp of this unit DATE by engaging in several acts which … gave rise to a single , albeit continuing , breach of the relevant criminal provision . He acted with the aim of intruding on and changing the religious beliefs of airman PERSON , NORP who served in the same unit . Taking advantage of the trust inherent in the relationship between a subordinate and a superior , the accused tried CARDINAL times to convince airman NORP that the teachings of the NORP faith were not correct on a number of issues , such as the virginity of ORG , the ranks of the priests and the power of the Holy Spirit . He engaged with airman NORP in persistent and importunate discussions regarding the teachings of the sect of ORG , of which the accused was a follower , telling him that the teachings of the sect , rather than those of ORG , were correct . He urged him to visit a place in PERSON where the followers of ORG used to gather and to become a member of the sect and he gave him a free copy of a periodical published by the followers of ORG Christianismos . In the course of these encounters the accused intentionally failed to reveal to airman NORP that he was a member of the NORP sect .

Acting in the same capacity , the accused committed the offence of proselytism in the same place for a period of DATE , … acting with the aim of intruding on and changing the religious beliefs of PERSON NORP , an NORP . He skilfully took advantage of her inexperience in religious matters and her intellectual weakness , resulting from her low level of education , and tried importunately to persuade her to be baptised and become a member of the sect of ORG . He told her constantly that he bore signs given to him by God , that he could foresee the future and that she and her children were possessed . His intention was to undermine her faith in Orthodoxy and convert her to the sect of ORG .

Acting in the same capacity , the accused committed the offence of proselytism in the same place DATE and DATE , … acting with the aim of intruding on and changing the religious beliefs of airman PERSON , an NORP who served in the same unit . Taking advantage of the trust inherent in the relationship between a subordinate and a superior and of airman PERSON ’s naïvety and inexperience , the accused tried to persuade him to adhere to the sect of ORG . He engaged in continual , persistent and importunate analysis of his beliefs regarding the sect of ORG , continually reading the PERSON which he interpreted in accordance with his beliefs . He gave airman PERSON publications of his sect and took him to his place of worship . In this way , he succeeded in converting airman PERSON , taking advantage of his inexperience in religious matters and the influence he had on him because of his position and rank . ”

The court also found that the third applicant had engaged in the proselytising of a warrant officer , Adjutant PERSON Tsikas .

He was sentenced to CARDINAL months’ imprisonment for proselytising airman PERSON , CARDINAL months’ imprisonment for proselytising PERSON , CARDINAL months’ imprisonment for proselytising ORG CARDINAL months’ imprisonment for proselytising airman PERSON . He was to serve DATE overall . The court ordered that these penalties be converted to fines and not enforced provided the applicant did not commit new offences in DATE .

The applicants appealed immediately to ORG ( PERSON ) , a court composed of CARDINAL military judges . Their appeal was heard on DATE .

In a judgment pronounced immediately after the hearing ( no . CARDINAL ) , ORG rejected the defence ’s argument to the effect that the accused had merely exercised a constitutional right and upheld most of their convictions , using the same reasoning as the first- instance court . It did , however , reverse the conviction of the first applicant for proselytising airman PERSON and that of the third applicant for proselytising Adjutant PERSON ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) .

ORG maintained the penalties imposed by the first - instance court on the first and third applicants in respect of the convictions it had upheld . However , because of the quashing of the CARDINAL convictions , their overall sentences were reduced to TIME respectively .

It reduced the second applicant ’s sentence to CARDINAL months’ imprisonment for proselytising airman PERSON , DATE for proselytising PERSON , and DATE for proselytising the Baïramis family and neighbours . His overall sentence was reduced to CARDINAL months’ imprisonment .

As none of the overall sentences imposed involved DATE imprisonment , they were automatically converted by the court into pecuniary penalties of MONEY per day . The court ordered that the penalties should not be enforced provided that the applicants did not commit new criminal offences in DATE .

The applicants appealed in cassation .

In a judgment delivered on DATE ( no . DATE ) , ORG ( PERSON ) found as follows :

“ It follows from section CARDINAL ) and ( CARDINAL ) of PERSON no . TIME [ see paragraph CARDINAL below ] that in order for the crime of proselytism … to be established , there must be a direct or indirect attempt to intrude on the religious beliefs of a person of a different religious persuasion with the aim of undermining those beliefs , provided that the attempt is made using the means enumerated in a non - exhaustive fashion in the above - mentioned section , namely by any kind of inducement or promise of an inducement or moral support or material assistance , or by fraudulent means or by taking advantage of the other person ’s inexperience , trust , need , low intelligence or naïvety .

The above - mentioned provisions of this section … are not contrary to [ the provisions of LAW guaranteeing the principle nullum crimen , nulla poena sine lege ] ; moreover , they are perfectly consistent with LAW [ see paragraph CARDINAL below ] , which provides that all known religions are free since , under LAW , proselytism is prohibited … The argument to the contrary finds no support in the fact that under [ the previous Constitutions ] the prohibition of proselytism was designed to protect the then ( and still ) dominant religion , whereas under LAW that prohibition is associated with freedom of conscience in religious matters relating to all known religions . This reasoning is undeniably consistent with both the letter and the spirit [ of section CARDINAL ] , pursuant to which protection from proselytism employing the unlawful means set out therein is provided for the religious convictions of all persons of different persuasions ,

i.e. all those belonging to a religion or dogma other than that of the author of the proselytism , and not exclusively those professing the principles of ORG .

Furthermore , freedom of conscience in religious matters and of thought , protected as a human right by the present LAW and by Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the United Nations’ Universal Declaration and Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW , is not undermined by the above - mentioned criminal provision , since it does not sanction the holding of religious beliefs , which is completely free , but only any attempt to intrude on another person ’s religious beliefs with the aim of changing them . Such attempts are quite incompatible with religious freedom , which creates an obligation to respect the religious convictions of all those who hold different beliefs . ”

The court therefore dismissed the ORG appeal .

Article CARDINAL of LAW provides , as relevant :

“ CARDINAL . Freedom of conscience in religious matters is inviolable . The enjoyment of personal and political rights shall not depend on an individual ’s religious beliefs .

There shall be freedom to practise any known religion ; individuals shall be free to perform their rites of worship without hindrance and under the protection of the law . The performance of rites of worship must not prejudice public order or public morals . Proselytism is prohibited . ”

Section CARDINAL of Law no . CARDINAL , as amended by PERSON no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , provides as follows :

“ CARDINAL . Anyone engaging in proselytism shall be liable to imprisonment and a fine of CARDINAL ; he shall , moreover , be subject to police supervision for a period of DATE to be fixed by the court when convicting the offender .

By ‘ proselytism’ is meant , in particular , any direct or indirect attempt to intrude on the religious beliefs of a person of a different religious persuasion ( eterodoxos ) , with the aim of undermining those beliefs , either by any kind of inducement or promise of an inducement or moral support or material assistance , or by fraudulent means or by taking advantage of the other person ’s inexperience , trust , need , low intellect or naïvety .

The commission of such an offence in a school or other educational establishment or philanthropic institution shall constitute a particularly aggravating circumstance . ”

There is a considerable body of case - law interpreting and applying this section : see the ORG ’s Kokkinakis v. GPE judgment of CARDINAL DATE , Series A no . CARDINAL , pp . CARDINAL , § § CARDINAL–CARDINAL .

In their applications lodged with the ORG on DATE ( nos . CARDINAL , CARDINAL and ORG ) , PERSON , Mr PERSON and Mr Sarandis claimed that section CARDINAL of PERSON no . DATE was too broad and vague to be compatible with the requirements of legal certainty under Articles CARDINAL , CARDINAL § QUANTITY of the Convention . In addition , they complained that their convictions for proselytism amounted to violations of their rights to freedom of religion and expression under Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the LAW , and were discriminatory , contrary to Article CARDINAL taken in conjunction with Article CARDINAL .

On DATE , the ORG ordered the joinder of the CARDINAL applications under Rule CARDINAL of its Rules of Procedure and declared them admissible .

In its report of CARDINAL DATE ( Article DATE ) , the Commission expressed the opinion that there had been violations of LAW in so far as the second applicant was convicted of proselytising the Baïramis family and their neighbours ( unanimously ) and in so far as the second and third applicants had been convicted of proselytising PERSON ( CARDINAL votes to CARDINAL ) . However , it found no violation of LAW in so far as the first and second applicants were convicted of proselytising airman PERSON and the first and third applicants were convicted of proselytising airman LANGUAGE ( CARDINAL votes to one ) , and in so far as the first and third applicants were convicted of proselytising airman PERSON ( CARDINAL votes to CARDINAL ) .

It further concluded that there had been no violation of LAW ( CARDINAL votes to one ) and that no separate issue arose under LAW ( unanimously ) nor under LAW in conjunction with LAW in so far as the second applicant was convicted of proselytising the Baïramis family and neighbours and the second and third applicants were convicted of proselytising PERSON ( unanimously ) . Finally , it concluded that there had been no violation of Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL taken together in so far as the first and second applicants were convicted of proselytising airman PERSON and the first and third applicants were convicted of proselytising airmen NORP and PERSON ( unanimously ) .

The full text of the ORG ’s opinion and of the CARDINAL separate opinions contained in the report is reproduced as an annex to this judgment .

In their memorial and at the hearing before the ORG , the ORG maintained that no violation of the LAW had arisen in the applicants’ case .

The applicants , however , asked the ORG to find violations of ORG CARDINAL , CARDINAL , DATE and CARDINAL of the LAW and to award them just satisfaction under LAW .

The applicants contended that the law against proselytism failed to comply with LAW , which provides :

“ CARDINAL . CARDINAL shall be held guilty of any criminal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a criminal offence under national or international law at the time when it was committed . Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the criminal offence was committed .

This Article shall not prejudice the trial and punishment of any person for any act or omission which , at the time when it was committed , was criminal according to the general principles of law recognised by civilised nations . ”

They argued that the NORP law violated the principle enshrined in LAW that only the law can define a crime and prescribe a penalty ( nullum crimen , nulla poena sine lege ) , since it was impossible to predict whether certain types of behaviour would lead to a prosecution for proselytism . They contended that this deficiency in the law was evident both from the text of section MONEY ) ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) and the jurisprudence which had arisen from it .

For example , the use of the words “ in particular ” implied that the subsequent definition was CARDINAL form of proselytism punishable under the statute , and other expressions employed , such as “ direct or indirect ” and “ any kind of inducement or promise of an inducement or moral support or material assistance ” were so broad and vague as to embrace almost any form of practical evangelism . The case - law which had grown out of section CARDINAL ( see the examples set out in the ORG ’s ORG v. GPE judgment of CARDINAL DATE , Series A no . CARDINAL , p. CARDINAL , § CARDINAL ) , showed that no one in GPE could possibly determine in advance whether or not his religious actions would constitute the offence of proselytism .

The Government and the Commission , referring to the above - mentioned ORG judgment , were both of the opinion that there had been no violation of this provision .

The ORG recalls its finding in the above - mentioned ORG case ( op . cit . , p. CARDINAL , § CARDINAL ) that the definition of the offence of proselytism contained in section CARDINAL , together with the settled body of national case - law interpreting and applying it , satisfied the conditions of certainty and foreseeability prescribed by LAW .

It is not persuaded that the position in NORP law has become any less clear in DATE since that evaluation . Bearing in mind that the need to avoid excessive rigidity and to keep pace with changing circumstances means that many laws are inevitably couched in terms which , to a greater or lesser extent , are vague ( ibid . , p. CARDINAL , § CARDINAL ) , it sees no reason to reverse its previous decision .

It follows that there has been no violation of LAW .

The applicants claimed that their prosecution , conviction and punishment for proselytism amounted to violations of LAW , which states :

“ CARDINAL . Everyone has the right to freedom of thought , conscience and religion ; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief and freedom , either alone or in community with others and in public or in private , to manifest his religion or belief , in worship , teaching , practice and observance .

Freedom to manifest one ’s religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a NORP society in the interests of public safety , for the protection of public order , health or morals , or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others . ”

ORG denied that there had been any such breach . The ORG found that there had been no violation with regard to the measures taken against the applicants for the proselytising of the airmen , although it found that LAW had been violated in so far as the proselytising of civilians was concerned ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

The ORG must consider whether the applicants’ Article CARDINAL rights were interfered with and , if so , whether such interference was “ prescribed by law ” , pursued a legitimate aim and was “ necessary in a NORP society ” within the meaning of LAW .

The ORG considers , and indeed it was not disputed by those appearing before it , that the prosecution , conviction and punishment of the applicants for offences of proselytism amounted to interferences with the exercise of their rights to “ freedom … to manifest [ their ] religion or belief ” ( see the ORG judgment cited at paragraph CARDINAL above , p.CARDINAL , § CARDINAL ) .

The applicants , for the same reasons they had advanced in support of a finding of violation of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , contended that the measures taken against them were not “ prescribed by law ” , as required by LAW .

The Government and the Commission were of the contrary opinion , again relying on the ORG ’s Kokkinakis judgment .

The ORG recalls that the expression “ prescribed by law ” in LAW , inter alia , that the law in question must be both adequately accessible to the individual and formulated with sufficient precision to enable him to regulate his conduct ( see , mutatis mutandis , ORG v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL ) judgment of CARDINAL DATE , Series A no . CARDINAL , p. CARDINAL , § DATE ) .

It refers to its finding in the above - mentioned ORG case that the measures taken against that applicant under section CARDINAL were “ prescribed by law ” ( op . cit . , pp . CARDINAL–CARDINAL , § § CARDINAL–CARDINAL ) . As the ORG has already concluded in relation to LAW ( see paragraphs CARDINAL–CARDINAL above ) , it is not satisfied that the position in NORP law has changed subsequently or that it should depart from its earlier assessment for any other reason .

In conclusion , the measures in question were “ prescribed by law ” within the meaning of LAW .

The Government , with whom the ORG agreed , reasoned that the relevant action was taken against the applicants with the aim of protecting the rights and freedoms of others and also , as far as the measures taken following the proselytising of the airmen were concerned , with the aim of preventing disorder in the armed forces and thus protecting public safety and order .

The applicants made no particular submission in this connection .

CARDINAL

The ORG emphasises at the outset that while religious freedom is primarily a matter of individual conscience , it also implies , inter alia , freedom to “ manifest [ one ’s ] religion ” , including the right to try to convince one ’s neighbour , for example through “ teaching ” ( ibid . , p. CARDINAL , § CARDINAL ) .

Article CARDINAL does not , however , protect every act motivated or inspired by a religion or belief . It does not , for example , protect improper proselytism , such as the offering of material or social advantage or the application of improper pressure with a view to gaining new members for a ORG ( ibid . , p. CARDINAL , § CARDINAL ) .

The ORG ’s task is to determine whether the measures taken against the applicants were justified in principle and proportionate . In order to do this , it must weigh the requirements of the protection of the rights and liberties of others against the conduct of the applicants ( ibid . , p. CARDINAL , § CARDINAL ) . Since different factors come into the balance in relation to the proselytising of the airmen and that of the civilians , it will assess the CARDINAL matters separately .

The Government contended that the applicants had abused the influence they enjoyed as air force officers and had committed the acts in question in a systematic and repetitive manner . The measures taken against them were justified by the need to protect the prestige and effective operation of the armed forces and to protect individual soldiers from ideological coercion .

The applicants submitted that the practice of evangelism within a superior / subordinate relationship could not without more be equated to an abuse of trust . They emphasised that the airmen were adults , able to die for their country , and that there was no evidence that the applicants had used their positions to coerce or override the wills of their subordinates . To interpret LAW so as to restrict evangelism to “ equals ” would be a severe limitation of religious freedom , both within the armed forces and in other contexts .

The Commission found that the interference could be justified as ensuring that the CARDINAL airmen ’s religious beliefs were respected , in view in particular of the special character of the relationship between a superior and a subordinate in the armed forces , which rendered the subordinate more susceptible to influence in a variety of matters including religious beliefs .

The ORG observes that it is well established that the Convention applies in principle to members of the armed forces as well as to civilians . Nevertheless , when interpreting and applying its rules in cases such as the present , it is necessary to bear in mind the particular characteristics of military life and its effects on the situation of individual members of the armed forces ( see the PERSON and Others v. the GPE judgment of CARDINAL DATE , Series A no . CARDINAL , p. CARDINAL , § DATE , and , mutatis mutandis , the PERSON v. GPE judgment of DATE , Reports of Judgments and Decisions CARDINAL-VII , pp . CARDINAL , § CARDINAL ) .

In this respect , the ORG notes that the hierarchical structures which are a feature of life in the armed forces may colour every aspect of the relations between military personnel , making it difficult for a subordinate to rebuff the approaches of an individual of superior rank or to withdraw from a conversation initiated by him . Thus , what would in the civilian world be seen as an innocuous exchange of ideas which the recipient is free to accept or reject , may , within the confines of military life , be viewed as a form of harassment or the application of undue pressure in abuse of power . It must be emphasised that not every discussion about religion or other sensitive matters between individuals of unequal rank will fall within this category . Nonetheless , where the circumstances so require , GPE may be justified in taking special measures to protect the rights and freedoms of subordinate members of the armed forces .

The ORG refers to the evidence adduced in the domestic proceedings ( see paragraphs CARDINAL–CARDINAL above ) .

It notes that airmen PERSON and NORP testified that the applicants approached them on a number of occasions in order to persuade them to convert and to visit ORG . Mr PERSON stated that he felt obliged to take part in the discussions because the applicants were his superior officers , and PERSON ORG said that the applicants’ approaches bothered him . As the Commission found , there is no evidence that the applicants used threats or inducements . Nonetheless , it appears that they were persistent in their advances and that these CARDINAL airmen felt themselves constrained and subject to a certain degree of pressure owing to the applicants’ status as officers , even if this pressure was not consciously applied .

The ORG notes that , contrary to the evidence given by his father at first instance , airman PERSON testified before ORG that the applicants did not apply any pressure to him to become a member of ORG and that he himself initiated the religious discussions that took place between them ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . However , ORG , having had the opportunity to assess the evidence , including Mr PERSON ’s demeanour and credibility , upheld the first - instance court ’s decision that the first and third applicants had unlawfully taken advantage of the influence they had over PERSON PERSON due to their position and rank ( see paragraphs CARDINAL , DATE and CARDINAL above ) . The ORG , considering that the domestic courts were better placed than itself to determine the facts of the case , and taking into account the matters referred to in paragraph CARDINAL above , is of the view that Mr PERSON , like the other CARDINAL airmen , must have felt to a certain extent constrained , perhaps obliged to enter into religious discussions with the applicants , and possibly even to convert to the NORP faith .

CARDINAL

It follows that there has been no violation of LAW with regard to the measures taken against the first applicant for the proselytising of airmen PERSON , NORP and PERSON , those taken against the second applicant for the proselytising of airman PERSON or those taken against the third applicant for the proselytising of airmen NORP and PERSON .

The Government reminded the ORG that under section CARDINAL , only improper proselytism is punishable . They contended that the second and third applicants had systematically exploited the family problems and psychological distress suffered by the Baïramis family and PERSON and had thus applied unlawful pressure . Furthermore , the penalties imposed on them were not particularly onerous .

The Commission , with whom the applicants agreed , considered that the circumstances leading to the conviction of the second and third applicants for proselytising the Baïramis family and PERSON were similar to those of the ORG case ( cited at paragraph CARDINAL above ) , in that the “ targets ” of the proselytism were not military personnel and the domestic courts established the defendants’ guilt by reciting the words of section CARDINAL without adequately explaining in what way the methods employed by the accused had been “ improper ” . It had not been satisfactorily demonstrated that their convictions on these counts were “ necessary in a NORP society ” .

The ORG recalls that the second applicant was convicted under section CARDINAL for preaching on a single occasion to the Baïramis family and their neighbours , following an incident when he had managed to calm a member of the Baïramis family who was in a delirious state . Together with the third applicant , he was also convicted for the proselytising of PERSON , whom they had attempted to convert on a number of occasions during a period when she was experiencing marital problems ( see paragraphs DATE , DATE , DATE and CARDINAL above ) .

The ORG finds it of decisive significance that the civilians whom the applicants attempted to convert were not subject to pressures and constraints of the same kind as the airmen .

With regard to the Baïramis family and their neighbours , none of the evidence indicates that they felt obliged to listen to the applicant or that his behaviour towards them was improper in any way .

As for PERSON , it was not disputed before the domestic courts that she initially sought out the applicants in an attempt to understand the reasons behind her husband ’s behaviour . Whilst it is clear that during the period she was in contact with them she was in a state of distress brought on by the breakdown of her marriage , the ORG does not find it established that her mental condition was such that she was in need of any special protection from the evangelical activities of the applicants or that they applied improper pressure to her , as was demonstrated by the fact that she was able eventually to take the decision to sever all links with ORG .

CARDINAL

It follows that there has been a violation of LAW with regard to the measures taken against the second applicant for the proselytising of the Baïramis family and their neighbours and those taken against the second and third applicants for the proselytising of PERSON .

The applicants claimed that the measures taken against them had also interfered with their rights to freedom of expression , in breach of LAW , which states , as relevant :

“ CARDINAL . Everyone has the right to freedom of expression . This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority …

The exercise of these freedoms , since it carries with it duties and responsibilities , may be subject to such formalities , conditions , restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a NORP society , in the interests of national security , territorial integrity or public safety , for the prevention of disorder or crime , for the protection of health or morals , for the protection of the reputation or rights of others , for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence , or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary . ”

The Commission , with whom the ORG agreed , found that no separate issue arose under this provision .

Having regard to its scrutiny of this case in the context of LAW , the ORG also agrees that no separate issue arises in relation to LAW .

The applicants alleged that they had been the victims of discrimination contrary to LAW , which provides :

“ The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in [ the ] Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex , race , colour , language , religion , political or other opinion , national or social origin , association with a national minority , property , birth or other status . ”

They contended that the law against proselytism was applied only to members of religious minorities in GPE , no follower of the ORG ever having been convicted of the offence under section CARDINAL .

The Government made no particular submission in relation to this complaint .

The Commission found that no separate issue arose under ORG CARDINAL and CARDINAL taken together in relation to the measures directed against the second and third applicants for the proselytising of the civilians . As far as the measures taken against the applicants for the proselytising of the airmen were concerned , since no material was provided to substantiate the complaint under ORG CARDINAL and CARDINAL , it reached a finding of no violation .

The ORG notes that the applicants alleged in their memorial that the NORP law against proselytism was applied in a discriminatory manner . However , they have not produced any evidence to suggest that an officer in the armed forces who attempted to convert his subordinates to ORG in a manner similar to that adopted by the applicants would have been treated any differently . It follows that no violation of ORG CARDINAL and CARDINAL taken together has been established in connection with the proselytising of the airmen .

Having found a violation of LAW with regard to the measures taken against the second and third applicants for the proselytising of the Baïramis family and PERSON , the ORG considers that no separate issue arises in that connection under ORG CARDINAL and CARDINAL taken together .

The applicants requested just satisfaction under LAW , which provides :

“ If the ORG finds that a decision or a measure taken by a legal authority or any other authority of a High Contracting Party is completely or partially in conflict with the obligations arising from the ... Convention , and if the internal law of the said ORG allows only partial reparation to be made for the consequences of this decision or measure , the decision of the ORG shall , if necessary , afford just satisfaction to the injured party . ”

The applicants sought MONEY ( GRD ) each to compensate them for moral and material prejudice . This was the amount that the ORG had awarded to Mr ORG in DATE ( op . cit . , p. CARDINAL , § CARDINAL ) .

At the hearing before the ORG , the ORG submitted that , in the event of the ORG finding a violation , such finding would in itself constitute sufficient just satisfaction .

On the same occasion , the ORG ’s ORG commented that the fact that the domestic courts had not sought to take the ORG ’s case - law into account was a particular element to be taken into consideration under LAW .

The ORG observes that it has found violations of the LAW in respect only of the measures taken against the second applicant for the proselytising of the Baïramis family and the second and third applicants for the proselytising of PERSON ( see paragraphs CARDINAL–CARDINAL above ) . The first applicant is not , therefore , entitled to any just satisfaction under LAW .

Making its assessment on an equitable basis , it awards LAW each to Mr Mandalarides and Mr Sarandis .

The applicants also requested QUANTITY ( GBP ) to cover the legal costs and expenses of the proceedings before ORG in GPE .

DATE . The Government considered the amount claimed to be excessive and submitted that the sum awarded should not exceed GRD CARDINAL .

The ORG again notes in this context that it does not find any violation of the LAW in respect of the first applicant and that it finds in favour of the second and third applicants in connection with CARDINAL part of their complaints , namely in relation to the measures taken against them for the proselytising of civilians .

In the light of the above , it awards to the second and third applicants part of the costs and expenses claimed , in total GBP CARDINAL , together with any value - added tax which may be payable , less the amount received by way of legal aid from ORG .

According to the information available to the ORG , the relevant statutory rates of interest applicable at the date of adoption of the present judgment are PERCENT per annum in GPE and PERCENT per annum in GPE .

Done in LANGUAGE and in LANGUAGE , and delivered at a public hearing in FAC , GPE , on DATE .

Signed : PERSON

President

Signed : PERSON

Registrar

In accordance with LAW , the following separate opinions are annexed to this judgment :

PERSON : PERSON

PERSON : PERSON