Violation of Art. 5-3;Violation of Art. 5-5;Remainder inadmissible;Non-pecuniary damage - financial award

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

NORP In DATE or DATE the applicant lodged an application with ORG in which he requested that criminal proceedings be initiated against CARDINAL persons , including QUANTITY police officers . The applicant had allegedly been beaten by these men . A prosecutor refused to initiate criminal proceedings .

Subsequently , the same QUANTITY persons made a report concerning an offence allegedly committed by the applicant . They argued that the applicant had submitted false accusations concerning the beating . On DATE criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicant under LAW ( submitting knowingly false accusations concerning the commission of a criminal offence by another person ) of LAW ( PERSON ) .

In DATE , the applicant repeatedly failed to appear at the police prefecture when summoned . On several occasions it proved to be impossible to compel him by force to appear ( sundtoomine ) , as he was not present at the address he had indicated and his whereabouts were unknown . On some occasions , when the authorities found him , he refused to familiarise himself with the charges , to give statements or to sign an undertaking not to leave his place of residence ( allkiri elukohast mittelahkumise kohta ) .

According to a forensic psychiatric expert opinion given in DATE on the request of an investigator , the applicant was not mentally unsound but had a paranoid personality disorder . He was considered to be able to give statements , attend court hearings and serve any punishment .

Also in DATE a new criminal case was instituted against the applicant , again under LAW § CARDINAL of LAW . The case was joined with the case initiated in DATE .

In DATE and DATE the period of the preliminary investigation was extended repeatedly due to the applicant ’s alleged ill - health . On DATE he was compelled by the police to appear in the police prefecture . On DATE , he was presented with the formal charges under Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL of LAW . He refused to make any statements , to familiarise himself with any documents or to sign them .

On DATE the prosecutor approved the summary of charges and the criminal case file was sent to ORG ( ORG ) .

On DATE ORG committed the applicant for trial and maintained the signed undertaking not to leave his residence as a preventive measure against him . The hearing was scheduled for DATE .

By a letter of DATE the applicant informed the court that he could not participate in the hearing due to his ill - health . He requested that the hearing be adjourned .

On DATE the hearing was adjourned due to the absence of the applicant and a new hearing was scheduled for DATE . The court decided that the applicant should be compelled by the police to appear before it on that date .

As the police was unable to find the applicant and to secure his attendance at the court hearing on DATE , the hearing was adjourned until DATE . The court again decided that the applicant had to be compelled by the police to appear in court .

On DATE the applicant failed to appear in court . The police had been unable to secure his attendance , as during repeated checks no one had opened the door at his residence . The applicant ’s appointed lawyer , the prosecutor and CARDINAL of the victims had appeared before the court . ORG decided to adjourn the hearing and to declare the applicant a fugitive . It decided that when found he should be taken into custody ( vahi alla võtmine ) and that a new hearing would be scheduled then . The court relied on LAW , DATE , CARDINAL § CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the Code of Criminal Procedure ( ORG koodeks ) .

The applicant was taken into custody on DATE in GPE .

He subsequently lodged a complaint addressed to ORG ( GPE ) . As stated by the applicant in the complaint , “ [ it was ] handed over on CARDINAL , in the presence of witnesses , to the officer in charge of ORG of ORG to be transmitted to ORG ” .

A copy of the complaint submitted to the ORG by the Government bears a handwritten note “ Complaint received . ORG . CARDINAL ” and a seal and signature of a judge of ORG .

According to the complaint , the deprivation of the applicant ’s liberty was unlawful , as he had not been presented with the decision of ORG on the basis of which he had been arrested . Moreover , the decision had been taken by ORG in his absence . He alleged that the registration of his residence at the address where ORG had sent the summonses had been cancelled . He noted that , according to LAW ( ORG üldosa seadus ) , in case the residence of a person could not be determined , the place where he or she was actually staying should be deemed his or her residence . On DATE he had stayed in GPE and prior to that in GPE . However , he had not received the summonses . He requested that he be immediately released from custody and that ORG decision concerning his arrest be invalidated .

The applicant was kept in custody until DATE . On that date ORG held a hearing in the presence of the applicant , his appointed lawyer and the prosecutor . The court decided that , as the applicant and his lawyer had not familiarised themselves with the case file , the hearing had to be adjourned . As the applicant alleged that he had not received the summons for the hearing of DATE and promised to appear before the court when invited in the future , he was released from custody . The court applied a more lenient preventive measure in respect of the applicant – a signed undertaking not to leave his place of residence .

On DATE ORG adjourned the hearing concerning the applicant ’s appeal against ORG decision of DATE , since the applicant ’s lawyer had not appeared .

On DATE ORG received the applicant ’s amendments to his appeal . He alleged , inter alia , that he had never signed an undertaking not to leave his place of residence and claimed compensation for his unlawful detention .

On DATE ORG held a hearing and dismissed the applicant ’s appeal . It noted that , under LAW , preventive custody could be applied in order to prevent a defendant at trial from evading the criminal proceedings or committing a new crime . It held that ORG had had good grounds to believe that the applicant was evading the criminal proceedings and that he was in breach of a signed undertaking not to leave his place of residence . He had not reacted to summonses sent to his place of residence and had not answered phone calls . The fact that the applicant had been taken into custody had made it possible , on DATE , to conduct a hearing , after which the applicant had been released . In respect of the applicant ’s allegation that he had never signed an undertaking not to leave his place of residence , ORG established , based on the case file , that the applicant had been presented with a decision according to which a prohibition to leave his place of residence had been applied as a preventive measure . The fact that the applicant had refused to sign it could not be interpreted to mean that the measure had not been applied . The preventive measure in the form of a signed undertaking not to leave one ’s place of residence was not meant to restrict one ’s freedom of movement ; its purpose was rather to keep the court informed of the person ’s whereabouts so that the criminal proceedings could be conducted without delays . However , in the particular instance , the criminal case could not be conducted without delays , as the applicant had failed to comply with the preventive measure applied under LAW . ORG noted that it was not possible in those proceedings concerning the appeal against ORG ruling to decide on the compensation claim for damage .

Under the provisions of the applicable criminal procedure law , the decision of ORG was final .

In DATE and DATE the hearings in the criminal case were repeatedly adjourned , mainly due to the applicant ’s failure to appear before the court and to comply with the court ’s orders concerning his forensic psychiatric expert examination . At the same time , the applicant lodged numerous complaints and appeals against various institutions .

According to a forensic psychiatric examination ’s report of CARDINAL DATE , the state of the applicant ’s mind did not allow him to understand and control his acts . He was considered to be unable to give statements before a court or to serve punishment . His compulsory treatment was deemed to be unnecessary , as he presented no danger to himself or to society .

By a decision of DATE , ORG found it established that the applicant had committed the acts that he had been charged with . However , since his state of mind had deteriorated , as evidenced by the forensic psychiatric examination ’s report , and he was unable to give statements before a court and serve punishment , the criminal proceedings were discontinued . The decision could be appealed against within DATE .

By a decision of DATE , ORG ( NORP ) rejected the applicant ’s appeal against several decisions of lower courts , including ORG decision of DATE . It held that only a lawyer – and not the applicant himself – could appeal against a decision of an appellate court . Moreover , the above decision of ORG had been final according to the applicable criminal procedure law .

On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal against ORG decision of DATE .

NORP The relevant provisions of LAW ( ORG koodeks ) , as in force at the material time , provided :

“ ( CARDINAL ) If there is sufficient reason to believe that an accused or a defendant at trial who is at liberty might abscond from an investigation or court proceedings or impede the establishment of the truth in a criminal matter or continue to commit criminal offences , or in order to ensure the enforcement of a court judgment , CARDINAL of the following preventive measures may be applied with regard to him or her :

CARDINAL ) a signed undertaking not to leave place of residence ( allkiri elukohast mittelahkumise kohta ) ;

CARDINAL ) taking into custody ;

“ ( CARDINAL ) In the choice of preventive measure , there shall be taken into account the seriousness of the criminal offence in question , the personality of the suspect , accused , or defendant at trial , the possibility that the suspect , accused , or defendant at trial may abscond from the investigation or from the court proceedings or may impede the establishment of the truth , and the state of health , age , marital status and other facts concerning the suspect , accused or defendant at trial which may be relevant to the application of a preventive measure .

“ ( CARDINAL ) A signed undertaking not to leave a place of residence means a written commitment obtained from a suspect , accused or defendant at trial not to leave his or her permanent or temporary residence without the permission of a preliminary investigator , prosecutor or court .

( CARDINAL ) If the suspect , accused or defendant at trial violates such a commitment , a more severe preventive measure may be applied with regard to him or her , the consequences of which the suspect , accused or defendant at trial shall be warned of at the time of obtaining his or her signature . ”

“ ( CARDINAL ) A preventive custody measure may be applied in respect of a suspect , accused or defendant at trial in order to prevent him or her from evading the criminal proceedings or committing a new offence , as well as to ensure the enforcement of a court judgment .

( CARDINAL ) ... A person to be taken into custody has the right to request his or her interrogation by a county or city court judge with the participation of defence counsel ... Such requirements are not applied if the person to be taken into custody is a fugitive , or if his or her whereabouts are unknown .

( CARDINAL ) A preventive custody measure ... shall be granted or refused by a reasoned ruling of a county or city court judge . ... ”

“ A person taken into custody ... may challenge the custody measure by an appeal lodged within DATE ... ”

( CARDINAL ) A preventive measure applied in respect of a defendant at trial may be altered or annulled by the trial court or a higher court .

“ ( CARDINAL ) A person who has been summoned ... has to promptly inform ... the court ... if he or she is unable to appear at the time indicated in the summons .

“ ( CARDINAL ) Compulsory attendance ( sundtoomine ) may be ordered ... by a court with regard to ... an accused ... , if he or she fails to appear before ... the court and the summons indicates that the person concerned may be compelled to attend in case of failure to appear .

( CARDINAL ) Compulsory attendance is effected by the police .

( CARDINAL ) A person subject to compulsory attendance who is staying in the same district as ... the court may be detained for TIME prior to the commencement of ... a court session . In the case of the compulsory attendance of a person who is staying in another district , the term of detention shall not exceed TIME .

“ ( CARDINAL ) A criminal matter shall be heard in a session of a court of first instance in the presence of the defendant at trial whose appearance in court is mandatory .

“ If the defendant at trial fails to appear in a court session , a court shall adjourn the hearing of the criminal matter ... . The court shall impose a fine on a defendant at trial who fails to appear ... and shall decide on the application of compulsory attendance or other preventive measures with regard to the defendant at trial . ”

“ In the course of a court hearing of a criminal matter , the court has the right to choose , amend or annul ... the preventive measures previously chosen with regard to the defendant at trial . ”

According to section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW ( ORG seadus ) , a person whose rights are violated by the unlawful activities of a public authority in a public law relationship may claim compensation for damage caused to him or her .

A special law – Unjust Deprivation of Liberty ( Compensation ) Act ( Riigi poolt isikule alusetult vabaduse võtmisega tekitatud kahju hüvitamise seadus ) DATE , which entered into force on DATE , deals with the issues of compensation for damage caused by unlawful deprivation of liberty . According to section CARDINAL ) of the LAW , damage caused by deprivation of liberty shall not be compensated for in a case where the person concerned absconded from the criminal proceedings , violated the obligation arising from a preventive measure not to leave his residence without the permission of a court , escaped or was in hiding .


Aleš Pejchal;Angelika Nußberger;Ann Power-Forde;Ganna Yudkivska;Helena Jäderblom;Mark Villiger

The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a NORP national , who was born in DATE and lives in FAC . He is represented before ORG by Odvetniška Družba Matoz D.O.O. , a law firm practising in PERSON .

ORG ( “ the Government ” ) are represented by their Agent , PERSON .

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

The applicant was serving a sentence in the closed section of Dob Prison from DATE until DATE .

As regards the facilities available to the applicant in the cells and common areas , as well as the health care regime in the prison , the conditions imposed on the applicant regarding activities outside the cells and contact with the outside world in general , see the ORG ’s decision in the case of PERSON and PERSON v. GPE ( dec . ) , nos . CARDINAL , CARDINAL/CARDINAL , CARDINAL , ORG , CARDINAL/CARDINAL , ORG , CARDINAL , ORG , CARDINAL/CARDINAL and DATE .

From DATE to CARDINAL DATE and from DATE to CARDINAL DATE the applicant was held in a cell no CARDINAL , ORG which measured QUANTITY and held CARDINAL inmates ( QUANTITY of personal space available to each inmate ) . He was later transferred several times . From DATE to DATE he was held in a cell no CARDINAL , Block CARDINAL which measured QUANTITY and held CARDINAL inmates ( QUANTITY of personal space available to each inmate ) . From DATE to CARDINAL DATE he was held in a cell no CARDINAL/CARDINAL , ORG which measured QUANTITY and held CARDINAL inmates ( QUANTITY of personal space available to each inmate ) . From DATE to CARDINAL DATE he was in a single cell which measured CARDINAL to QUANTITY .

According to the ORG ’s submissions dated DATE the applicant sustained injuries in CARDINAL physical conflicts with another prisoner on DATE and DATE . Due to injuries suffered on DATE he was hospitalised for DATE . In connection to this incident the applicant was found guilty of a serious disciplinary offence . After his appeal , where he stated that the tension with the other prisoner was calmed down with assistance of prison staff , ORG found that the conflict could have been prevented or avoided if the applicant behaved appropriately . Further , according to a doctor ’s report dated CARDINAL DATE the applicant was treated on CARDINAL occasions for different medical problems and was regularly treated by a psychiatrist . According to the Government ’s submissions dated DATE the applicant visited a doctor on CARDINAL occasions for treatment of his leg injury . As regards his allegations about an injury sustained on DATE , there is no note on it in his medical file . As regards his physical conflicts on DATE and DATE , the Government submitted that the applicant had played an active part in those fights . The applicant also never complained to the prison authorities about any conflict situation , neither did he ask to be transferred to another cell or prison .

For the relevant domestic law and practice , see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL - CARDINAL of the ORG ’s judgment in the case of ORG and Others v. GPE ( nos . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , CARDINAL/CARDINAL and CARDINAL , CARDINAL DATE ) , and paragraphs CARDINAL of ORG and PERSON GPE ( nos . CARDINAL/CARDINAL and CARDINAL , DATE ) , PERSON and Others , cited above , as well as PERSON v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , CARDINAL DATE ) and PERSON v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL , DATE ) .


The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a NORP national , who was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

On DATE ORG ( Yüksek Askeri Şura ) decided to discharge the applicant from the army on grounds of acts of “ insubordination and immoral conduct ” pursuant to LAW .

On DATE the applicant filed an application with ORG ( Yüksek PERSON ) against the decision of ORG .

On DATE ORG rejected the application .

The Government submit the following in the light of the intelligence reports concerning the applicant :

The applicant , a sergeant , was a member of the ORG branch of the PERSON sect . He was involved in disseminating the PERSON ideology . He acted discriminatorily in favour of the soldiers under his command who adopted the same ideology . He did not dedicate himself to the principles of GPE , notably to secularism . He adopted an extreme religious ideology . He had an antisocial character and his wife carried an NORP scarf . He refused to participate in social meetings because he believed that men and women should gather separately .

The applicant was sentenced to CARDINAL days’ confinement for being absent when called out and was sentenced to CARDINAL days’ confinement for disobeying orders .

A committee of CARDINAL members of the armed forces concluded , in the light of the findings of the above intelligence reports , that the applicant had breached military discipline and that he should be discharged from the army . Subsequently , ORG based its decision on that opinion .

The relevant provisions of the LAW are as follows :

“ None of the rights and freedoms set forth in the LAW may be exercised with the aim of undermining the territorial integrity of the ORG or the indivisible unity of its people , imperilling the existence of ORG and the Republic , abolishing fundamental rights and freedoms , handing over control of the ORG to a single individual or group or bringing about the dominance of CARDINAL social class over the others , establishing discrimination on the grounds of language , race , religion or adherence to a religious sect or setting up by any other means a ORG order based on such beliefs and opinions . ”

“ Everyone shall have the right to freedom of conscience , faith and religious belief . Prayers , worship and religious services shall be conducted freely , provided that they do not violate the provisions of LAW . No one shall be compelled to participate in prayers , worship or religious services or to reveal his religious beliefs and convictions ; nor shall he be censured or prosecuted because of his religious beliefs or convictions .

No one may exploit or abuse religion , religious feelings or things held sacred by religion in any manner whatsoever with a view to causing the social , economic , political or legal order of the ORG to be based on religious precepts , even if only in part , or for the purpose of securing political or personal influence thereby . ”

“ All acts or decisions of the administration are subject to judicial review ...

Decisions of the President of the Republic concerning matters within his sole jurisdiction and decisions of ORG shall not be subject to judicial review . ... ”

Article CARDINAL § § CARDINAL , CARDINAL and DATE of the LAW provides that a disciplinary action can not be imposed to the civil servants provided that that the right to defence is respected . Moreover , it lays out that the disciplinary actions , other that the warnings and the reprimands are subject to legal control . The provisions concerning the soldiers are reserved . LAW on ORG stipulates that the disciplinary actions imposed to the soldiers are not subject to legal control .

Section CARDINAL ( c ) of ORG provides :

“ Irrespective of length of service , servicemen whose continued presence in the armed forces is adjudged to be inappropriate on account of breaches of discipline or immoral behaviour on CARDINAL of the grounds set out below , as established in CARDINAL or more documents drawn up during their service in the last military rank they held , shall be subject to the provisions of LAW .

Where their conduct and attitude reveal that they have adopted unlawful opinions . ”

Section CARDINAL ( c ) of LAW provides :

“ Irrespective of length of service , servicemen whose continued presence in the armed forces is adjudged inappropriate on account of breaches of discipline and immoral behaviour shall be subject to the provisions of LAW . LAW shall lay down which authorities have jurisdiction to commence proceedings , to examine , monitor and draw conclusions from personnel assessment files and to carry out any other act or formality in such proceedings . A decision of ORG is required to discharge an officer whose case has been submitted by ORG to ORG . ”

Section CARDINAL ( b ) of LAW provides :

“ ( b ) Discharge from the army for the acts of insubordination and immoral conduct :

Notwithstanding the seniority in the service , the non - commissioned officers whose maintenance is considered to be inappropriate for the acts of insubordination and immoral conduct are subject to PERSON on ORG . The investigation , examination and follow - up of the notation reports and the formalities and the competent authorities fulfilling these duties are subject to the provisions of The Regulations on assessment of officers and non - commissioned officers . The General Staff determines which non - commissioned ORG cases concerning their discharge from the army should be examined by ORG . ”

LAW on assessment of officers and non - commissioned officers provides :

“ Irrespective of length of service , the compulsory retirement procedure shall be applied to all servicemen whose continued presence in the armed forces is adjudged to be inappropriate on account of breaches of discipline or immoral behaviour on CARDINAL of the grounds set out below , as established in CARDINAL or more documents drawn up during their service in the last military rank they held :

( e ) where by his conduct and attitude the serviceman concerned has provided evidence that he holds unlawful , subversive , separatist , fundamentalist and ideological political opinions or takes an active part in the propagation of such opinions . ”


The applicant is the borough council of a town in the region of GPE . It was represented before the court by PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE .

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

ORG said that it had been the owner of the castle situated in the town from time immemorial . There was evidence in the form of instruments disposing of municipal rights or interests in the castle dating back to DATE and since DATE ORG had been registered in the cadastral register as the owner of the castle .

During the Spanish Civil War in DATE the archives of ORG were destroyed in a fire . After the civil war , in DATE , PERSON , a member of the influential family of ORG , had her name entered in the new register as the owner of “ a very old castle and its external walls , all in an appalling state of ruin and destruction ” , on the ground that she had inherited the property in DATE from her mother .

In DATE the heirs of the ORG of Pidal brought an action before the LOC district judge no . CARDINAL against ORG for a declaration that they had title to the castle . In a judgment of DATE the district judge found in their favour and declared that the property in the castle was vested in them .

ORG appealed to the LOC provincial , which , in a decision of DATE delivered after an adversarial hearing , overturned the judgment of the district judge . It accepted ORG plea that it had acquired title by adverse possession since DATE and dismissed the claimants’ action . The heirs of the PERSON of Pidal appealed on points of law to ORG which , by a judgment of DATE , overturned the decision of the Audiencia provincial , and upheld the judgment of the district judge .

Relying on LAW ( right to a fair trial ) , ORG lodged an amparo appeal with ORG . The appeal was dismissed on DATE , as being manifestly ill - founded .


No violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Possessions);No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Civil rights and obligations)

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in the village of Nemcha in the Kursk region .

The applicant is an agronomist . When collective farms were being privatised , he left the ORG collective farm in LOC , LOC , and became head of a private farm “ LOC ” ( “ LOC ” ) . In DATE , by decisions of the Head of ORG of GPE , GPE was granted CARDINAL plots of agricultural land DATE hectares from the lands of the former ORG collective farm and CARDINAL hectares from a special State land fund . As the applicant considered himself the sole owner of the land and the other CARDINAL partners in ORG disagreed with his position , disputes began between them . ORG has been involved in various court proceedings since DATE and the land has not been farmed since that time .

By a ruling of DATE ORG of GPE pointed out violations of law in the setting up and registering of ORG and suggested that ORG of the Kursk region ( “ the FAC ” ) should take steps to remedy the situation . On DATE the Head of ORG no . CARDINAL whereby , inter alia , ORG no . DATE , drawn up in the name of PERSON V.A. Zhigalev , was annulled as having been issued in breach of the law and the rights of the other partners in ORG . Resolution no . CARDINAL of DATE , issued by the Head of ORG ( by which ORG was registered and on which Mr V.A. ORG was named as head of ORG ) was supplemented with a list of CARDINAL partners in ORG , comprising PERSON A.V. Gerasimov , PERSON S.V. ORG , PERSON N.N. Belov , PERSON A.N. Kazyulkin and PERSON PERSON ORG .

ORG Acting as head of ORG , Mr GPE brought proceedings on behalf of the farm , seeking to have ORG no . CARDINAL declared invalid . The proceedings ended with a decision by ORG of ORG of DATE granting ORG action , on the ground that the Head of ORG had had no jurisdiction to make such decisions , which could only be made by a court with regard to annulment of the land certificate , and on the basis of the relevant documents , adopted by the farm , with regard to including the list of its partners in the ORG .

On DATE , following an application by the Head of ORG , an investigator from ORG initiated criminal proceedings , having detected that CARDINAL copies of a Land Certificate concerning ORG land DATE one issued to Mr Zhigalev by ORG and ORG ( “ the ORG ” ) and the other one held by ORG , which ought to have been signed by the former Head of ORG , bore the signatures of CARDINAL different persons .

As a result of the investigation , it was established that , on the basis of ORG no . CARDINAL on the allocation of land to ORG , issued by the Head of ORG on DATE , Mr PERSON , former Chairman of ORG , had prepared ORG no . DATE concerning a plot of QUANTITY of land . The investigator found that , as a result of negligent performance of his duties , Mr Kolkov had failed to specify in ORG that the land had been allotted to ORG , and not to ORG alone . He had also failed to register this Land Certificate with ORG .

Later , on the basis of ORG no . CARDINAL of DATE on amendment of the above ORG no . CARDINAL , issued by the Head of ORG , PERSON PERSON had prepared ORG , no . DATE , concerning the same CARDINAL.CARDINAL-hectare plot and a plot of QUANTITY . It had been properly registered in the relevant records of ORG as no . CARDINAL . The investigator found that , as a result of negligent performance of his duties , PERSON PERSON had again failed to specify in this Land Certificate that the land had been allotted to ORG , including all its partners , and not to ORG alone . Another oversight was that ORG contained no reference to ORG no . CARDINAL of DATE , on the basis of which it had been issued . Furthermore , an original copy of the ORG belonging to ORG had been lost , and there remained CARDINAL copy , that issued to ORG . Mr PERSON had then prepared another unnumbered ORG , identical to ORG no . DATE save that it was issued in the name of ORG . This had been kept in ORG archives . The investigator found that ORG was unlawful , in that it had not been signed by ORG and did not bear ORG official stamp .

According to statements by PERSON Kolkov , he had considered that , by drawing up ORG in Mr Zhigalev ’s name , he had actually issued them to ORG inasmuch as ORG had been head of the farm .

In his decision of CARDINAL DATE , the investigator held that PERSON PERSON ’s actions contained elements of negligence punishable under LAW . However , as the DATE limitation period applicable to this offence , committed in DATE , had expired , the prosecution was time - barred . The proceedings were therefore terminated . On DATE a copy of the decision was served on Mr Zhigalev .

On DATE Mr Zhigalev , head of ORG , decided that PERSON A.N. Kazyulkin and PERSON S.V. ORG were to be dismissed from ORG . On DATE the same decision was taken in respect of Mr GPE Gerasimov . The farmers challenged the lawfulness of their dismissal in court .

By a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG of the LOC established that the above - named individuals had always been partners in ORG and not its hired workers . Accordingly , the court held that ORG had had no authority to dismiss them .

Acting as head of ORG , Mr GPE brought proceedings against ORG on behalf of the farm , seeking compensation in connection with the adoption of Resolutions nos . CARDINAL and CARDINAL of DATE and ORG no . CARDINAL of DATE . Mr ORG alleged that the adoption of those Resolutions had prevented cultivation of the land . He claimed compensation for expenses which the farm would necessarily incur in remedying the situation , and for loss of profit .

In a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG of the Kursk Region established the facts of the case as follows .

By Resolution no . CARDINAL of DATE , issued by the Head of ORG , ORG had been granted a plot of QUANTITY from the lands of the former ORG collective farm and a plot of CARDINAL hectares in lease for DATE . By the same Resolution V.A. ORG had been confirmed as head of ORG and GPE GPE , GPE ORG , ORG , ORG and PERSON ORG as partners in ORG .

By Resolution no . CARDINAL of DATE , issued by the Head of ORG , ORG had been registered as a legal entity .

Land Certificate no . DATE had been issued to ORG in pursuance of the above ORG for the founding of ORG .

By Resolution no . CARDINAL of DATE , issued by the Head of ORG , the earlier ORG no . CARDINAL had been amended in order to specify the size of the plot of land given in life - time inheritable possession to each partner in the farm .

Resolution no . CARDINAL of DATE , issued by the Head of ORG , had concerned the renaming of ORG as GPE farm by its partners and their re - election of the farm ’s head following a vote of no confidence to ORG . It had also ordered ORG to annul ORG issued to ORG and to prepare new documents accordingly . By ORG no . CARDINAL of DATE , issued by the Head of ORG , ORG had been re - registered as ORG . Resolutions nos . QUANTITY and CARDINAL had then been reversed by the Head of ORG , and , when the court delivered its judgment on DATE , Resolutions nos . CARDINAL and CARDINAL of DATE were in force in their earlier version .

By Resolution no . CARDINAL of DATE , issued by the Head of ORG , ORG no . DATE was annulled and ORG no . CARDINAL of DATE had been made more precise in respect of the partners in the farm . By a decision of ORG of ORG of DATE , ORG no . CARDINAL had been declared null and void .

Having examined the evidence in the case , ORG of GPE found that there was no single document from which it would follow that Mr Zhigalev had been the sole founder of ORG . The court held that ORG had been set up by the CARDINAL farmers ( ORG , ORG ORG , ORG , ORG and PERSON ORG ) and the farm ’s property had been formed from their property shares . In accordance with LAW , the property of a farm belonged to its partners as their common share property or common joint property , if the latter course was decided unanimously by a farm ’s partners . According to the legislation in force at the material time ( LAW ) , a farm ’s property was common joint property .

The court found no causal link between the adoption of Resolutions nos . CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL and the failure of the farmers to farm the land . The court held that there had been no obstacles to cultivating ORG land . It held that ORG had failed to substantiate his claims and that it was in fact his attitude that had brought about the possibility of losses for the farm .

In its judgment of CARDINAL DATE the court dismissed PERSON ORG ’s claims as manifestly ill - founded . That judgment was upheld by a decision of ORG of ORG of DATE .

On DATE the Prosecutor of the Kursk Region brought an action against ORG and ORG in defence of state and public interests before ORG of GPE .

The prosecutor requested that ORG no . DATE concerning the right of ownership to the plot of QUANTITY , which had been issued by ORG in Mr ORG ’s name , be declared null and void . The same request was made in respect of Land Certificate no . DATE on the right of ownership to the same plot of QUANTITY and the right of life - time inheritable possession to the CARDINAL-hectare plot , which had also been issued by ORG in Mr ORG ’s name . The prosecutor stated , inter alia , that the Land Certificates certifying Mr Zhigalev as the sole owner of the land had impaired the rights of the other CARDINAL partners in the farm , each of whom had been entitled to his share of the land .

The prosecutor also requested a finding of invalidity in respect of Resolutions no . CARDINAL of DATE , on the allocation of a plot of land for the organisation of ORG , and no . CARDINAL of DATE , on the amendment of ORG no . CARDINAL , both of which had been issued by the Head of ORG . The prosecutor argued that the size of the plot of land given to ORG had exceeded the relevant statutory limit .

The prosecutor requested that Mr Zhigalev , head of ORG , be joined to the proceedings as a third party on the defendant ’s side .

On DATE ORG of GPE ruled that Mr Zhigalev , head of ORG , was to be joined to the proceedings as a third party because the submitted action concerned his interests . The court referred to LAW , which regulated the procedural status of a third party who did not have separate claims with regard to the subject matter of a dispute .

By the same decision , the court ordered the parties to produce documentary evidence and scheduled a hearing for DATE .

On DATE the court adjourned the hearing to CARDINAL DATE in view of ORG failure to produce documentary evidence .

The court , composed of CARDINAL judges , held a hearing on DATE . Representatives of the defendant authorities admitted the claim in full . ORG explained that neither of ORG complied with LAW . CARDINAL and CARDINAL , on the basis of which they had been issued .

Mr ORG submitted an application to be recognised as a codefendant in the case . In its ruling of CARDINAL DATE , the court refused the application on the ground that the prosecutor ’s action concerned the validity of the documents adopted by ORG and ORG .

NORP The head of ORG argued that the prosecutor ’s claim should be rejected in view of the expiry of the relevant limitation period .

The prosecutor submitted that the limitation period had been interrupted by ORG adoption , on DATE , of ORG no . CARDINAL on the amendment of Resolutions nos . CARDINAL and CARDINAL . Resolution no . CARDINAL had been reversed by ORG on DATE .

The court held that , in accordance with LAW , a limitation period was applied exclusively at the request of a party to a case . As head of ORG , Mr ORG was not a party to the present proceedings pursuant to LAW , and the court could not therefore apply this ground for rejecting the prosecutor ’s claim .

Having examined the evidence in the case and heard the prosecutor , the defendants and the head of ORG in his capacity as a third party , ORG of the Kursk Region established the facts of the case as follows , as summarised in its judgment of DATE .

On DATE ORG had lodged an application with ORG of the Kursk Region for allocation of a plot of QUANTITY of agricultural land as a life - time inheritable possession ( право пожизненного наследуемого владения ) for the founding of ORG , together with the following partners in ORG : ORG , ORG , ORG and PERSON ORG .

Following applications by members of the ORG collective farm , namely ORG , ORG ORG , ORG , ORG and PERSON ORG , seeking to leave the farm and be granted a plot of land , on DATE the administration of ORG collective farm had decided that the said individuals would leave the collective farm with a share of CARDINAL hectares each .

On DATE the Head of ORG had adopted Resolution no . CARDINAL which stated that , pursuant to the above decision by the administration of ORG collective farm , a plot of QUANTITY from the land of GPE collective farm was to be given , free of charge , in ownership , for the founding of ORG . In the same ORG had ordered that a plot of QUANTITY of plough land be given to ORG in lease for DATE . The ORG had further confirmed V.A. ORG as head of ORG and GPE GPE , GPE ORG , ORG , ORG and PERSON ORG as partners in ORG . The ORG had further stated that ORG had been directed to delimit the plots of land on site and to issue a ORG for the right to use the land .

ORG had delimited the plot of QUANTITY on site , drawn up a plan and prepared a ORG , numbered DATE , certifying the right of ownership to this plot of land , in which ORG had been specified as the sole owner of the land .

Having examined an application submitted on DATE by ORG , head of ORG , to grant the land to ORG in life - time inheritable possession and not in lease , the Head of ORG had adopted ORG no . CARDINAL of DATE , by which the earlier ORG no . CARDINAL had been amended in respect of the plot of CARDINAL hectares . It had now stated :

‘ That QUANTITY of arable land is to be transferred from a special land fund to ORG in life - time inheritable possession , in the following shares :

V.A. ORG CARDINAL ha [ hectares ]

GPE Gerasimov CARDINAL ha [ hectares ]

ORG CARDINAL.CARDINAL ha [ hectares ]

ORG CARDINAL.CARDINAL ha [ hectares ]

PERSON CARDINAL ha [ hectares ]

PERSON ORG CARDINAL.CARDINAL ha [ hectares]’

Following Resolution no . CARDINAL ORG had prepared ORG , numbered DATE , certifying the right of ownership to the same plot of QUANTITY and the right of life - time inheritable possession to the plot of QUANTITY , in which ORG was again specified as the sole owner and possessor of both plots of land .

In the light of the above findings of fact , ORG of GPE found that the fact that ORG no . DATE did not specify the share of QUANTITY belonging to each partner in ORG ran counter to the content of ORG no . CARDINAL and to the law , particularly section CARDINAL of LAW ( « О крестьянском ( фермерском ) хозяйстве GPE ) , which provided that the property of a farm belonged to its members as common share property or as common joint property . The court further held that the same omission – the lack of information concerning the share of land for each partner in ORG - in ORG no . DATE was unlawful on the same grounds .

In a judgment of DATE ORG of the Kursk Region declared Land Certificates no . DATE and no . DATE null and void . The court rejected the remainder of the prosecutor ’s claim concerning Resolutions no . CARDINAL of DATE and no . CARDINAL of DATE , issued by the Head of ORG , because the court found no grounds to declare the said Resolutions unlawful .

Mr GPE , head of ORG , appealed against the judgment on the ground that the first - instance court had refused to examine his submission concerning the limitation period . At a hearing on DATE , in which the parties and Mr Zhigalev in his capacity as a third party participated , ORG of ORG of GPE , sitting as a bench of CARDINAL judges , examined the appeal .

It noted that on the basis of Resolutions nos . CARDINAL and CARDINAL , issued by the Head of ORG , the land had been allotted to each of the partners in ORG . Land Certificates no . DATE and no . DATE , issued in Mr Zhigalev ’s name on the basis of those ORG , had been found to be unlawful by the firstinstance court .

It further noted that it followed from the applicant ’s appeal that the only ground for quashing that court ’s judgment was its refusal to examine the applicant ’s submission concerning the limitation period . However , the court held that , pursuant to LAW , only a party to a case was entitled to request the application of a limitation period . As the applicant was not a party to the case it was not open to him to lodge such a request . The court dismissed the appeal and upheld the judgment of DATE .

The applicant lodged a cassation appeal , in which he requested that the decisions of the lower courts be quashed as they had allegedly been delivered in breach of the procedural and material law . In particular , he complained that his request for participation in the proceedings in the capacity of a defendant had been unlawfully rejected , which allegedly deprived him of the possibility to assert his rights to the land . The appeal was examined on DATE by ORG of ORG , sitting as a bench of CARDINAL judges , in the presence of the parties and Mr Zhigalev as a third party . The court summarised its findings as follows .

It followed from the materials of the case file that , in accordance with Resolutions no . CARDINAL and no . CARDINAL , issued by the Head of ORG , the land had been given to each of the partners in ORG .

NORP However , ORG had been issued in Mr ORG ’s name as the owner of the land , without specifying the shares of the other CARDINAL partners in the farm .

As these Land Certificates contradicted ORG no . CARDINAL and section CARDINAL of LAW , which provided that the property of a farm belonged to its members as common share property or common joint property , the first - instance court ’s decision to declare null and void LAW issued in Mr Zhigalev ’s name had been wellfounded .

Resolutions nos . CARDINAL and CARDINAL of ORG , pursuant to which the plots of land had been allotted for the founding of ORG , had been adopted in accordance with the legislation .

As regards the applicant ’s complaint alleging the court ’s failure to join him to the proceedings as a co - defendant , the first - instance court had rightly rejected this request and ordered that the applicant be joined to the proceedings as a third party , because the claims concerned documents adopted by ORG and ORG . The claims had been admitted by the defendants . The parties to the proceedings had not raised the issue of the expiry of a limitation period . Mr ORG was not a party to the present dispute and the right to request the application of a limitation period was therefore not vested in him .

In those circumstances the judgment of the first - instance court and the decision of the appeal court had been lawful and well - founded .

By a decision of CARDINAL DATE ORG of ORG upheld the judgment of ORG of GPE of DATE and the decision of ORG of GPE of DATE .

Following the outcome of the above proceedings , on DATE ORG no . CARDINAL , in which it ordered that the old Land Certificates no . DATE and no . DATE be annulled and a new ORG be issued to ORG by ORG in accordance with ORG Resolution no . CARDINAL of DATE and LAW . In pursuance of Resolution no . CARDINAL ORG issued a new ORG , numbered DATE , which stated that ORG owned the plot of CARDINAL hectares , and that each of the CARDINAL partners in ORG owned a share of CARDINAL hectares of that land .

On DATE Mr Zhigalev , acting as head of the farm , brought an action on behalf of ORG before ORG of GPE against ORG . He requested that ORG no . CARDINAL , by which he had allegedly been deprived of his rights to the land , and ORG no . DATE be declared void .

By ORG no . CARDINAL of DATE ORG annulled its ORG no . CARDINAL , considering that it had been adopted erroneously . On DATE the court terminated the proceedings in respect of the applicant ’s claim concerning ORG no . CARDINAL , on the ground that the said ORG had already been quashed .

The court examined the applicant ’s request to annul ORG no . DATE and granted it for the following reasons , as stated in its judgment of DATE .

Resolution no . CARDINAL , on the basis of which ORG had been issued , had been quashed .

DATE . According to the relevant legislation in force at the material time ( the PERSON on LAW and Decrees no . CARDINAL of DATE and no . CARDINAL of DATE of the President of GPE ) , the correct legal document certifying an individual ’s right to land was a registered “ LAW ” ( свидетельство о государственной регистрации прав на землю ) and not a “ LAW ” ( государственный акт на землю ) .

The court further addressed the applicant ’s argument that ORG no . CARDINAL of DATE was null and void in that it had allotted the land to each of the CARDINAL farmers in equal shares , allegedly in breach of the law . The court held that this issue had already been examined in the earlier proceedings , which had ended with the judgment of ORG of GPE of DATE , as upheld by higher courts , whereby the application to have ORG no . CARDINAL declared null and void had been dismissed . In accordance with LAW no . CARDINAL of ORG of DATE , the above judgment was binding , and the facts once established in a previously decided case were not subject to proof again in a case involving the same persons .

On DATE ORG of ORG quashed the decision of DATE of ORG of GPE , whereby that court had terminated the proceedings with regard to the applicant ’s claim in respect of Resolution no . CARDINAL .

During a fresh examination of this part of the case by ORG of GPE , the applicant specified his claims . He asserted that ORG no . CARDINAL violated the rights of ORG and his rights as a founder of the farm by depriving the farm of its right of ownership to QUANTITY and its right of life - time inheritable possession to QUANTITY . Mr Zhigalev claimed that all this land should belong to him as head of the farm because he was the only person whose name had appeared on ORG no . DATE and no . DATE . In support of his claims the applicant referred to the unlawfulness of Resolutions no . CARDINAL of DATE and no . CARDINAL of DATE , issued by the Head of ORG , to the lawfulness of Land Certificates no . DATE and no . DATE , issued in his name , and to the fact that ORG had exceeded its authority when adopting ORG no . CARDINAL of DATE .

A representative of the defendant ( that is , ORG ) submitted that the contested Resolution no . CARDINAL had merely followed the judgment of DATE of ORG of GPE , as upheld by higher courts , whereby Land Certificates no . DATE and no . DATE , issued in Mr ORG ’s name , had been declared null and void . Resolution no . CARDINAL had then been reversed because it had been adopted erroneously . The defendant authority further submitted that the applicant now had no documents certifying his title to the land and that neither ORG nor ORG had taken any measures to confiscate the land from ORG , which could continue farming it .

The court pointed out that the judgment of ORG of GPE of DATE had declared null and void ORG no . DATE , issued by ORG pursuant to ORG no . CARDINAL , because , in accordance with the legislation then in force , the correct legal document certifying rights to land was a Land Title Certificate , issued by a Department of ORG for ORG Property and Transactions with Immovable Property .

The court noted that the legal documents establishing the rights to the land in the present case were Resolutions no . CARDINAL and no . CARDINAL of DATE , issued by the Head of ORG . These ORG had been declared lawful by the final judgment of ORG of GPE of DATE , as upheld by higher courts . The applicant ’s argument concerning the unlawfulness of the said Resolutions was therefore unfounded .

The court further noted that Land Certificates no . DATE and no . DATE , which were the legal documents certifying the rights to the land , had been declared unlawful by the above - mentioned court judgment , which was final . The applicant ’s contention about the lawfulness of these Land Certificates was thus also unfounded .

DATE . In so far as the applicant claimed that ORG no . CARDINAL infringed upon the rights of ORG to the plots of land measuring QUANTITY , the court found that neither ORG nor ORG had taken any measures to confiscate the land from ORG or any other actions which would prevent the farm from cultivating the land . This fact was not disputed by the applicant , who submitted to the court that the land had not been farmed for DATE because he had been involved in litigation .

The court found that ORG no . CARDINAL had no adverse effect on the land rights of GPE . As to PERSON rights , the court had previously given decisions in this respect which had binding effect , and commercial courts no longer had jurisdiction over such claims .

By a judgment of DATE ORG of the Kursk Region therefore dismissed the applicant ’s claims . The judgment was upheld by a decision of ORG of ORG of DATE .

Luch Farm was involved in various other court proceedings during DATE , including proceedings with regard to tax disputes . It was represented in court by PERSON Zhigalev as head of the farm .

Resolution no . CARDINAL of DATE stated :

“ HEAD OF THE BOLSHESOLDATSKIY DISTRICT ADMINISTRATION ,

ORG REGION

RESOLUTION

DATE , no . CARDINAL

[ the village of ] ORG

‘ On the allocation of a plot of land for the purpose of setting up PERSON Farm’

Having examined the application from Mr ORG concerning the allocation of a plot of land for the purpose of organising ORG , and governed by the RSFSR “ Farming Enterprise Act ” , by ORG and ORG of DATE on additional measures to expedite land reform in the ORG , and by LAW ,

I hereby order :

that a plot of land with an overall area of QUANTITY , including CARDINAL ha of arable land , be allocated free of charge as property [ ownership ] for the establishment of ORG , from the territory of the former collective farm PERSON ( in accordance with the applications submitted to the administration of the ORG collective farm and on the basis of the decision by the collective farm ’s administration on the withdrawal as members of the collective farm , with a share of land and a stock share , of PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON and PERSON ) .

that a plot of land measuring QUANTITY in total , QUANTITY of which are to be arable land , is to be transferred from a special fund to ORG on a DATE lease .

That PERSON be confirmed as head of ORG , and that the following individuals be confirmed as partners in the farm :

PERSON

S.V. Kapustin

N.N. Belov

PERSON

PERSON

NORP That ORG and ORG carry out landdevelopment work by DATE in order to delimit the plot of land on site ( on the terrain ) , and draw up a state certificate on the right to use the land [ land certificate ] .

Head of the ORG [ signed by ] D. Shatalov ”

Resolution no . CARDINAL of DATE stated as follows :

ORG REGION

RESOLUTION

DATE , no . CARDINAL

[ the village of ] ORG

‘ On the amendment of resolution no . CARDINAL of DATE by of the Head of the administration ”

On the basis of the application from Mr V.A. ORG , as head of the farming enterprise ‘ Luch’ , concerning the allocation of CARDINAL hectares of arable land in life - time inheritable possession ,

I hereby order :

NORP that clause no . CARDINAL paragraph CARDINAL of resolution no . CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE by the Head of the administration “ On the allocation of a plot of land for the purpose of setting up ORG ” be considered invalid and be [ re]stated as follows :

‘ That QUANTITY of arable land is to be transferred from a special land fund to ORG in life - time inheritable possession , in the following shares :

V.A. ORG CARDINAL.CARDINAL ha [ hectares ]

GPE Gerasimov CARDINAL ha [ hectares ]

S.V. ORG CARDINAL.CARDINAL ha [ hectares ]

N.N. Belov CARDINAL.CARDINAL ha [ hectares ]

A.A. Kazyulkin CARDINAL ha [ hectares ]

A.F. ORG CARDINAL.CARDINAL ha [ hectares]’

[ signed by ] S. ORG , First Deputy Head of the ORG , for the Head of the Administration ”

The applicant submitted to the ORG a copy of ORG no . DATE which stated :

“ STATE CERTIFICATE

on rights of ownership of land , life - time inheritable possession and ( permanent ) use of land without limit of time

no . DATE

This state certificate is issued to the following owner , property - holder and/or user of the land :

PERSON , of the farming enterprise ‘ Luch’ , GPE , GPE village ,

by ORG ,

Confirming that , by ORG no . CARDINAL of DATE of ORG , the above mentioned owner , property - holder and/or user of the land is allocated in total QUANTITY of land , including QUANTITY as property [ ownership ] , free of charge , and QUANTITY as a life - time inheritable possession , as indicated on the plan , in order to set up the farming enterprise ‘ Luch’ .

ORG is drawn up in CARDINAL copies : the first is issued to PERSON ( the owner , property - holder and/or user of the land ) , the second is to be kept by ORG .

The certificate is registered as no . CARDINAL in LAW on property , possession and land - use rights .

[ signed by ] PERSON , Head of ORG

Quantitative description of land allocated as property , in ownership or for use :

ORG ( the owner , property - holder and/or user of the land )

( hectares )

[ the ORG is signed by ] PERSON , ORG and ORG of GPE

At the time that ORG was founded , the establishment and activity of farming enterprises were regulated by ORG ” ( О крестьянском ( фермерском ) хозяйстве ) no . CARDINAL - CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE .

Under LAW , a farm may be comprised of CARDINAL individual , a family or a group of persons . The head of a farm is CARDINAL of its capable partners . He or she represents the farm in dealings with enterprises , organisations , citizens and state organs .

Under LAW , on the basis of an application from an individual wishing to set up a farm , a plot of land is transferred to him or her in use , in life - time inheritable possession or in ownership by a decision of the local authority . The number of partners in a farm is taken into account in determining the size of a plot of land to be allotted for setting it up .

Where a plot of land is transferred in ownership , a decision by the local authority serves as a basis for issuing a ORG , which certifies the ownership of the land .

The land for setting up a farm is transferred in ownership free of charge within statutory norms , and is subject to payment in cases exceeding such norms .

Under section CARDINAL of the LAW , local , district and town authorities establish land funds for the purpose of organizing farms by , inter alia , taking land from collective farms on receipt of applications from individuals wishing to set up farms . Members of a collective farm are entitled to leave it , to receive a plot of land and to found their own farming enterprise . Their applications are examined by the collective farm ’s administration then by the local district or town authority , which takes the final decision ( section CARDINAL of the LAW ) .

Under LAW , the property of a farming enterprise comprises plants , buildings , cattle , equipment and machinery , vehicles and other property necessary for carrying out its activity .

Under section CARDINAL of the LAW , the property of a farming enterprise belongs to its partners in common share ownership or in common joint ownership , if the latter course has been decided unanimously by those partners .

According to LAW of DATE , certain categories of land may only be owned as a “ life - time inheritable possession ” ( право пожизненного наследуемого владения ) , which means that the land may be possessed , used and left to one ’s successors , but may not be sold to anyone except the ORG .

According to LAW , in force at the material time , CARDINAL parties enjoy full and equal procedural rights in proceedings , namely the plaintiff and the defendant .

Under LAW , third parties with their own claims in respect of the subject - matter of a dispute may join the proceedings prior to the court ’s delivery of a judgment . They enjoy practically all the procedural rights of a plaintiff .

Under LAW , third parties without their own claims in respect of the subject - matter of a dispute may join the proceedings on the side of the plaintiff or defendant prior to the court ’s delivery of a judgment , provided that the judgment is liable to affect their rights or obligations towards CARDINAL of the parties to the case . They enjoy the same procedural rights as a party to the proceedings , save for the rights to abandon a suit , to alter its ground or subject - matter , to increase or reduce the amount of a claim , to accept a suit , to conclude a friendly settlement agreement and to request the execution of a judgment .

According to LAW , a limitation period is to be applied by a court only at the request of a party to a dispute , and the request must be made prior to delivery of a judgment . Where such a request is made , the expiry of a limitation period may serve as a ground for the court to dismiss an action .

Under LAW , the general limitation period for civil claims is DATE .

Under LAW , an action seeking a remedy in the event of a void transaction may be brought within DATE of the date when the performance thereof commenced .


Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Procedural aspect);Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial

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

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

On DATE police officers from the anti - terrorist branch of the NORP police headquarters arrested the applicant on suspicion of having written slogans on a wall in support of ORG , namely , ORG of GPE / Marxist NORP - Marxist ORG of GPE ( ORG PERSON ) , an illegal organisation . He was placed in police custody . According to the arrest report of DATE , the applicant did not ask for a lawyer .

The applicant alleged that while in police custody he had been subjected to physical and psychological ill - treatment amounting to torture . The illtreatment consisted of , inter alia , being hosed with pressurised cold water and suspended by the arms , electric shocks and beatings .

According to CARDINAL medical reports drawn up on CARDINAL , DATE , DATE and DATE by a doctor at ORG , apparently at the request of the police headquarters where the applicant was being detained , there were MONEY of ill - treatment on the applicant ’s body . It was stated in the reports that the applicant “ did not have any complaints , appeared well and was conscious ” and that there were “ no injuries on his body ” .

On DATE , while he was in police custody , police officers questioned the applicant and recorded his statement . In the ninepage statement the applicant was reported as having stated that he did not want the assistance of a lawyer and went on to detail the activities he had carried out on behalf of the above - mentioned illegal organisation . These activities included distributing copies of a left - wing newspaper , writing slogans on walls and taking part in meetings with other members of the organisation .

On DATE the applicant was brought before the NORP prosecutor and subsequently before ORG ( Tunceli Sulh Ceza Mahkemesi ) , where he was questioned further . The applicant confirmed the accuracy of the contents of the statement he had made in police custody on DATE . ORG ordered the applicant ’s detention pending the outcome of the criminal proceedings . The applicant was detained in ORG .

On DATE the applicant submitted a petition to ORG , requesting his release . In his petition the applicant stated that , in the course of his detention in police custody he had been subjected to intensive physical and psychological torture in order to force him to sign a statement . Furthermore , he had not been allowed to sleep for DATE preceding his appearance before the prosecutor and , as a result , had not been fully conscious when questioned . The applicant ’s request for release was rejected the following day .

On DATE the applicant asked , in writing , for the ORG public prosecutor to refer him to a hospital so that MONEY left on his shoulders by the illtreatment could be documented . On DATE the ORG prosecutor decided that the alleged ill - treatment had not taken place in his area of jurisdiction and forwarded the applicant ’s letter to the NORP prosecutor .

Following a request apparently made by the director of ORG on DATE , the applicant was examined on DATE by the director of the ORG branch of ORG , who is also a medical consultant . According to the report drawn up by that doctor , there were CARDINAL scars , measuring DATE by QUANTITY , on the front and back of the applicant ’s shoulders . It also appears from the report that the applicant had complained to the doctor about pain and restriction of movement in his arms . The doctor recommended that the applicant be sent to a fully equipped hospital for further diagnosis of his injuries and complaints .

On DATE , and subsequently on DATE , the applicant made CARDINAL statements before a prosecutor and set out in detail the illtreatment to which he had been subjected by CARDINAL or QUANTITY police officers while in custody . According to these statements , the ill - treatment included being stripped naked and wrapped in a damp blanket before being beaten with truncheons and suspended by the arms , which caused the ligaments in his shoulders to tear . The police officers had also threatened to harm his relatives and get his father dismissed from his job as a neighbourhood security guard if he denied the allegations against him . The applicant told the prosecutor that the contents of the medical report drawn up by the NORP branch of ORG were correct and informed the prosecutor that he would be able to recognise the police officers responsible for the ill - treatment if he ever saw them again . He asked the prosecutor to prosecute them .

The applicant was examined by a consultant orthopaedist and a consultant neurologist at ORG on DATE . The orthopaedist noted a number of scars on the applicant ’s shoulders , compatible with the findings of the medical report of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . The neurologist recommended the applicant ’s referral to a specialist hospital .

On DATE the NORP prosecutor requested authorisation from the NORP governor to prosecute the police officers allegedly responsible for the applicant ’s ill - treatment . This request was made pursuant to LAW . DATE on ORG and other ORG .

The applicant was released on bail on DATE .

On DATE and CARDINAL DATE police chief PERSON , who was entrusted with the duty of investigating the applicant ’s allegations , questioned CARDINAL police officers , GPE and GPE , who had apparently questioned the applicant and taken down his statement on DATE . Both officers denied ill - treating the applicant and stated that “ members of terrorist organisations made such allegations in order to lower the morale of the police ” .

On CARDINAL DATE the NORP prosecutor referred the applicant to ORG in the city of ORG ( hereinafter “ ORG ” ) in order to establish whether the applicant ’s injuries had caused any permanent damage . A medical examination was scheduled to take place on DATE .

On CARDINAL DATE the police chief PERSON recommended to the NORP governor that permission for the prosecution of the CARDINAL police officers should not be granted .

NORP The NORP prosecutor ’s request for authorisation to prosecute was refused by the NORP governor on DATE . The governor considered , on the basis of a report prepared by the police chief PERSON , that , other than the applicant ’s own allegations , there was no evidence to prove that the injuries detailed in the medical reports had been caused in detention .

On DATE the applicant lodged an objection against the NORP governor ’s decision of CARDINAL DATE and argued that the decision , which had been taken before his examination at ORG was due , had failed to establish the truth and should be annulled .

In its decision of DATE , ORG annulled the decision of the NORP governor on the ground that it was based on an incomplete investigation . In particular , the governor ’s decision had been taken before a detailed medical report from ORG had become available . Furthermore , the decision was based on a report prepared by an investigator who had not interviewed the applicant . Finally , the authorisation to prosecute had been rejected solely on the basis of the statements taken from those allegedly responsible for the ill - treatment and the medical reports drawn up while the applicant was in detention .

On DATE Elazığ Hospital sent a letter to the NORP prosecutor informing him that the applicant “ did not have his ORG examination done ” .

The same police chief PERSON was entrusted with the duty of carrying out the new investigation . When he questioned the applicant on DATE the applicant told him that when he had been brought before the doctor while in police custody he had been very scared and therefore had not been able to tell the doctor anything about the ill - treatment . In any event , the doctor had not examined him properly . When he had finally been referred to ORG he had been asked to pay the costs of the medical examination but had been unable to afford it . As a result , the doctors at the hospital had refused to examine him . The applicant told the police chief that he wanted those responsible for his ill - treatment to be prosecuted .

NORP The police chief PERSON prepared his report on DATE and stated that in his opinion permission for the prosecution of the police officers should not be granted .

On DATE the NORP governor again refused authorisation to prosecute the police officers . The governor noted the applicant ’s claim that he had not been examined at ORG as he had been unable to pay the cost ( MONEY ) for an electromyography test ( an ORG ) . The NORP governor considered that the defects highlighted in ORG decision of DATE had been eliminated and that there was no evidence that the applicant had been subjected to ill - treatment . The report of CARDINAL DATE , showing injuries on the applicant ’s body , had been obtained DATE after his release from police custody .

According to the applicant , the NORP governor ’s decision was not communicated to him , as in the meantime he had fled GPE and settled in GPE as a result of harassment to which police officers had subjected him . He did not , therefore , lodge an objection against this decision . According to a document submitted to ORG , however , the applicant was served with the decision on DATE .

An automatic appeal was lodged against the NORP governor ’s decision with ORG , which , however , remitted it to the governor ’s office as only the applicant or the prosecutor could have lodged the appeal . ORG observed that the decision in question had become final as no appeal had been lodged .

On the basis of the NORP governor ’s decision of DATE , on DATE the NORP prosecutor rendered a decision not to prosecute the police officers allegedly responsible for the ill - treatment . The applicant lodged an objection , through his legal representative , against that decision and pointed to the failure to remedy the defects identified in ORG decision of DATE .

On DATE the applicant ’s objection was rejected by ORG on the basis of the NORP governor ’s above - mentioned decision of DATE .

In the meantime , on DATE the prosecutor at ORG filed an indictment charging the applicant with the offences of membership of an illegal organisation and aiding and abetting members of that organisation . In his indictment the prosecutor quoted extensive paragraphs from the statements taken from the applicant by police officers on DATE and then by the prosecutor and ORG on DATE .

Criminal proceedings commenced before ORG of ORG ( hereinafter “ the trial court ” ) . In the course of the proceedings the applicant was represented by a lawyer . The applicant told the trial court that his statement had been extracted under torture while he was in police custody . He repudiated the statement and maintained his innocence . The trial court had regard to the NORP prosecutor ’s decision of DATE not to prosecute the police officers .

On DATE the applicant was found guilty of the offence of aiding and abetting an illegal organisation , contrary to LAW , and sentenced to DATE and CARDINAL months’ imprisonment . In convicting the applicant the trial court had regard to the statements taken from the applicant by the police on DATE and by the prosecutor and ORG on DATE ( see , respectively , paragraphs CARDINAL above ) .

The applicant ’s conviction was upheld by ORG on DATE .


The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a NORP national , who was born in DATE and lives in GPE . The respondent Government are represented by Mr PERSON , Deputy ORG - Secretary , ORG .

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

On DATE the GPE and ORG dismissed the applicant 's request for a disability pension . On DATE ORG Director dismissed his administrative appeal . Subsequently , the applicant challenged this decision before ORG .

On DATE ORG held a hearing . On DATE it appointed the ORG to examine the applicant 's state of health . On DATE the ORG submitted its opinion .

On DATE ORG held a hearing . On DATE it appointed ORG to give a second opinion . ORG submitted its opinion on DATE .

On DATE ORG held a further hearing and stayed the proceedings at the applicant 's request . On DATE he requested that the proceedings be resumed .

On DATE ORG held a hearing and dismissed the applicant 's claims . ORG was satisfied that , in view of his working capacity , the applicant was not eligible for a disability pension . On DATE the applicant appealed against this decision .

In the appeal proceedings , on DATE ORG held a hearing . On DATE it upheld the first - instance decision .

On DATE the applicant requested the re - opening of the case . On DATE ORG held a hearing . Relying on further documents and the opinion of an expert , on DATE the court rejected the applicant 's request . On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant 's appeal .


Ganna Yudkivska;Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Peer Lorenzen;Rait Maruste;Renate Jaeger;Zdravka Kalaydjieva

The applicant , ORG , was born in DATE in GPE , GPE , and lives in GPE . He is represented before the Court by Mr PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE . The respondent Government are represented by PERSON , ORG .

On DATE ORG opened a trial against the applicant and others , as members of a joint criminal enterprise , on charges of having induced a number of people to lodge falsified asylum applications in CARDINAL cases . After a dispute as to jurisdiction between ORG and ORG , on DATE ORG ordered ORG to carry on with the proceedings .

On DATE ORG , ORG ( ORG ) sitting as a ORG ( ORG ) and presided over by Judge PERSON , who had been appointed to ORG DATE , convicted PERSON and R , CARDINAL NORP co - accused of the applicant , of having helped people in CARDINAL cases to lodge falsified asylum applications , S .- S. as a member of a joint criminal enterprise comprising , notably , the applicant . The proceedings against the co - accused had been severed after they had confessed to the offences . The applicant , who had been summoned as a witness in these proceedings , had refused to give evidence . The judgment contained references to the applicant ’s role in the offences . The main passages in this respect read as follows :

“ PERSON had the idea of helping asylum seekers , against payment of a considerable fee , to increase their prospects of success by submitting false statements . ... PERSON had told the accused , LAW , about a secret organisation called ‘ the NORP Movement’ ( ‘ the ASM’ ) , founded in GPE , but also active in GPE and other NORP countries . According to PERSON , he was a high - ranking member of this organisation . ... The accused , S .- S. , did not doubt the truth of PERSON ’s story and assumed that the ASM actually existed ... The chamber did not investigate whether the ORG really existed or whether it was just a sham organisation . According to PERSON , the prospects of success of an application for asylum could be increased if the applicant referred to his or her membership of the ORG , as well as to the holding of senior office within it . ... According to PERSON ’s plan , membership certificates , as well as documentation regarding the holding of senior office , should be submitted in the asylum proceedings by the accused , NORP , on stationery seemingly from the ASM and signed by him [ PERSON ] , PERSON , who is also being prosecuted , and the accused , PERSON ... According to PERSON ’s plan , the applicants would pay fees of MONEY for such assistance in the asylum proceedings . ... First of all , a counselling interview was arranged with each applicant . During this interview , in which PERSON , and , in some cases , the accused , PERSON , took part , the applicant seeking help was informed about the requirements of a successful application for asylum . ... In all the cases which are the subject of the verdict , PERSON and the accused , PERSON , invented posts in senior positions within the ASM which were allegedly held by the asylum seekers . In order to prove the alleged position of the applicants to the administrative authority or the administrative court PERSON , using a computer , developed a standard form . ... This statement was then stamped ‘ NORP Movement’ . This stamp had been designed by PERSON , who had also had it made . The statements were usually signed by PERSON . ... Furthermore , PERSON created another statement [ donation receipt ] . ... This statement was signed either by the accused , LAW , as secretary general or , once PERSON no longer held this position , by ORG as secretary general and by PERSON , who is also being prosecuted ... In DATE , at the request of ORG , the accused , R , agreed to handle the applications of the members of the ASM . ... When further enquiries needed to be made , the accused , NORP , contacted PERSON and PERSON rather than the asylum seekers . ”

In the subsequent summaries of the different cases of falsified asylum applications the applicant was generally referred to as “ the separately prosecuted ” ( der gesondert Verfolgte ) . Regarding the criminal liability of the accused S .- S. ORG found that she had acted as a member of a joint criminal enterprise and had conspired with the separately prosecuted GPE and PERSON to commit such crimes in the future . Regarding the sentence of GPE the trial court took into consideration , inter alia , that together with the other members of the joint criminal enterprise she had “ taken advantage of the vulnerable situation of the asylum seekers ” .

The judgment did not include an assessment of evidence because it had become final and could therefore be abridged by virtue of LAW ( see “ B. Relevant domestic law ” below ) . From the circumstances , which were found to be decisive in assessing the penalty , it follows , however , that both co - accused had confessed to the offences with which they had been charged .

On DATE the trial against the applicant continued before a ORG sitting as a ORG and Judge PERSON presiding . Throughout the proceedings , the applicant lodged numerous applications for the removal of ORG and other judges of ORG from sitting in the case on grounds of bias : DATE he submitted CARDINAL such applications . Inter alia , on DATE he alleged that PERSON had already determined the extent of the applicant ’s involvement in the offence ( PERSON ) with the judgment against the co - accused so as to be able to convict him more easily . ORG , including PERSON , dismissed the application on DATE as inadmissible , finding that it contained no evidence of bias . In his application dated CARDINAL DATE the applicant challenged Judge PERSON , inter alia , because he had participated in the proceedings against the CARDINAL co - accused . On DATE this application was dismissed as having been lodged late ( verspätet ) .

On DATE ORG convicted the applicant of participating in a joint criminal enterprise to induce asylum seekers to lodge falsified asylum applications in CARDINAL cases and sentenced him to DATE imprisonment . CARDINAL of these cases had also led to the conviction of the co - accused . The applicant ’s conviction was based , in particular , on the testimony of the former co - accused LAW , the witness statements of the individual asylum seekers and relevant documents . The applicant had exercised his right not to testify . The judgment comprised CARDINAL pages and contained a detailed assessment of the evidence before the court , in particular also regarding the credibility of ORG statements . As regards the description of the circumstances of the offence , the statement of facts contained similar and partly identical wording to the statement of facts in the judgment against the co - accused .

The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law with ORG in which he submitted , inter alia , that PERSON should have been excluded from sitting in the case by operation of law , namely by application of LAW ( see “ B. Relevant domestic law ” below ) mutatis mutandis , since he had sat on the bench trying the case against the co - accused . In its reply ORG office pointed out that LAW could not be applied mutatis mutandis in this situation . On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s appeal on points of law as ill founded .

In the constitutional complaint dated DATE the applicant ’s lawyer gave an account of the preliminary investigation proceedings and the trial against his client . Regarding the merits he firstly maintained that the criminal provisions the conviction was based on were unconstitutional . He further alleged that PERSON had been appointed to ORG specifically for the trial against the applicant . Also , after having presided over the trial of the co - accused PERSON should have been excluded from the applicant ’s trial by operation of law . It was further submitted that PERSON had lacked the necessary impartiality . At the trial against the co - accused , which was linked to the applicant ’s trial , PERSON had determined the extent of the applicant ’s participation in the offences . Because the CARDINAL proceedings dealt with the same offences and the same offenders the applicant alleged that F. could not view him with the necessary neutrality , objectivity and distance . He finally submitted that

“ a realistic examination of the procedural provisions concerning exclusion of judges ipso jure , taking into consideration the values of LAW and established knowledge in the area of psychology , leads to the conclusion that it is no longer appropriate that LAW of Procedure assumes that an issue of bias will not generally arise if a trial judge has previously participated in a decision related to the proceedings at hand . ”

The applicant submitted that ORG ’s bias was evidenced in particular by the dismissal of all of his applications for the removal of judges from sitting in the case as inadmissible .

On DATE ORG declined to consider the applicant ’s constitutional complaint . It held that the applicant had not sufficiently substantiated the complaint that ORG should have been legally barred from adjudicating on his case because he had been involved in criminal proceedings directly related to it . By claiming that PERSON had participated in the proceedings against him contrary to LAW ( see “ B. Relevant domestic law ” below ) he had simply reiterated the submissions he had made before ORG . ORG further reasoned :

“ ... the applicant failed to demonstrate that the decision not to consider the presiding judge to be legally barred from sitting in his case DATE thus applying a narrow interpretation of LAW had been arbitrary , i.e. based on an interpretation and application of LAW which was not legally arguable under any aspect of the provision . ”

On DATE the second set of proceedings ( opened in DATE before ORG ) against the applicant for having induced a number of people to lodge falsified asylum applications in CARDINAL more cases were provisionally stayed in accordance with LAW of LAW ( see “ B. Relevant domestic law ” below ) in view of the prior conviction of the applicant .

From DATE to CARDINAL DATE , when the arrest warrant was quashed and the applicant released , the applicant was placed in pre - trial detention for the first time on suspicion of having committed the asylum related offences with which he had been charged in the first set of proceedings . On DATE ORG found that the applicant ’s prolonged detention , as ordered by ORG on DATE , had violated his right to liberty .

On DATE ORG , having consulted CARDINAL doctors , ordered the applicant ’s second arrest and detention , finding that he had intentionally rendered himself unfit to plead by taking an overdose of analgesics . On DATE the ORG quashed the arrest warrant and the applicant was released . ORG found that the applicant ’s right to liberty , having regard to the overall length of his detention , now prevailed over the ORG ’s interest in securing the proper continuation of the proceedings . On DATE ORG declined to consider a constitutional complaint lodged by the applicant .

On DATE by which date the applicant had still not appeared for trial – ORG ordered the applicant ’s arrest on the ground that he might attempt to flee and confirmed this arrest warrant when delivering a judgment on DATE . On DATE ORG quashed the arrest warrant .

On DATE ORG issued an arrest warrant in respect of the other offences with which the applicant had been charged in the second set of proceedings . It argued that he was likely to flee if released owing to the considerable sentence he risked being given if convicted and considering that he had already tried to evade trial by deliberately rendering himself unfit to plead and by fleeing to GPE .

On DATE the applicant was arrested when re - entering GPE and detained for a third time .

On DATE , endorsing the reasons given by ORG , ORG upheld the arrest warrant of DATE . On CARDINAL May and DATE ORG declined to consider constitutional complaints lodged by the applicant in this regard .

On DATE ORG quashed the arrest warrant of DATE .

“ ( CARDINAL ) A judge who has participated in a decision which has been contested on appeal shall be barred by law from participating in the decision of a higher level of jurisdiction .

( CARDINAL ) A judge who has participated in a decision contested by an application for reopening of the proceedings shall be barred by law from participating in decisions in the proceedings to reopen the case . If the contested decision has been given at a higher level of jurisdiction , a judge who has participated in an original decision at a lower level shall be barred . The first and second sentences shall apply mutatis mutandis to the participation in decisions to prepare the reopening of the proceedings . ”

“ ( CARDINAL ) A judge may be challenged both where he is barred by law from exercising judicial office and on grounds of bias .

( CARDINAL ) A challenge on grounds of bias shall be justified if there is reason to doubt the impartiality of a judge . ... ”

“ ( CARDINAL ) A challenge to a judge shall be rejected by the court as being inadmissible if :

the challenge is not made in time ;

there is no disclosure of the ground for the challenge or of the means by which the challenge could be substantiated ...

( CARDINAL ) The court shall give its decision rejecting the challenge pursuant to paragraph CARDINAL without the judge in question being excluded from the bench . ... ”

( CARDINAL ) Once proceedings have been instituted , the court may provisionally stay them at any stage at the request of ORG .

( CARDINAL ) If the proceedings have been provisionally terminated on account of a penalty or measure of reform and prevention which is to be expected for another offence , the proceedings may be resumed , unless barred by limitation in the meantime , within DATE after the judgment imposed for the other offence has entered into force .

( CARDINAL ) If the court has provisionally terminated the proceedings , a court order is required for their resumption . ”

( CARDINAL ) If all parties entitled to lodge an appeal waive their right of appeal or if no appeal is lodged within a certain time - limit , the proven facts establishing the statutory elements of the criminal offence and the criminal provision applied must be indicated ; ... The further content of the reasons for the judgment shall be determined by the court taking into consideration - at its discretion - the circumstances of the individual case . ... ”

“ ( CARDINAL ) The criminal divisions shall be composed of CARDINAL judges , including the presiding judge , and CARDINAL lay judges ( grand criminal divisions ) ...

( CARDINAL ) At the opening of the main proceedings , the grand criminal division shall rule that it will be composed of CARDINAL judges , including the presiding judge , and CARDINAL lay judges during the main hearing unless a criminal division in the composition of CARDINAL judges and CARDINAL lay judges ( ORG ) has jurisdiction or the participation of a third judge appears necessary due to the scale or complexity of the case ... ”

LAW , second sentence , of the NORP Basic PERSON provides that no one shall be deprived of his right to a decision rendered by a legally competent judge ( gesetzlicher Richter ) . In its case - law , ORG has consistently dealt with the issue of whether a judge must be excluded for suspicion of bias in the framework of the right to a decision rendered by a legally competent judge .


Violation of Art. 6-1;Non-pecuniary damage - financial award;Costs and expenses - claim dismissed

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

On DATE the applicants ' house in PERSON was blown up by unknown perpetrators .

On DATE the applicants instituted civil proceedings against the ORG in ORG ( PERSON ) seeking damages . They based their claim on LAW .

On DATE ORG gave judgment dismissing the applicants ' claim on its merits .

On DATE the applicants appealed to ORG ( PERSON u GPE ) .

On DATE ORG introduced an amendment to LAW ( “ the LAW ” ) which provided that all proceedings concerning actions for damages resulting from terrorist acts were to be stayed pending the enactment of new legislation on the subject .

On DATE ORG stayed the proceedings pursuant to LAW .

On DATE ORG introduced the Act on Liability for Damage Resulting from Terrorist Acts and Public Demonstrations ( “ the DATE LAW ” ) .

It appears that the proceedings resumed on DATE , pursuant to the DATE LAW .

On DATE the case was transferred to ORG ( PERSON ) as the appellate court , due to changes in jurisdiction .

It appears that the proceedings are still pending .

The relevant part of LAW ( Zakon o obveznim odnosima , ORG nos . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , CARDINAL/CARDINAL , CARDINAL/CARDINAL , CARDINAL/CARDINAL and CARDINAL ) provided as follows :

“ Liability for loss caused by death or bodily injury or by damage or destruction of another 's property , when it results from acts of violence or terror or from public demonstrations or manifestations , lies with the ... authority whose officers were under a duty , according to the laws in force , to prevent such loss . ”

The relevant part of LAW ( Zakon o izmjeni PERSON o obveznim odnosima , ORG no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) ( “ the DATE LAW ) reads as follows :

“ Section CARDINAL of LAW ( the Official Gazette nos . CARDINAL , CARDINAL and DATE ) shall be repealed . ”

“ Proceedings for damages instituted under LAW shall be stayed .

The proceedings referred to in sub - section CARDINAL of this section shall be resumed after the enactment of special legislation governing liability for damage resulting from terrorist acts . ”

This Act entered into force on DATE .

The relevant part of LAW ( Zakon o parničnom postupku , ORG nos . CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL ) provides :

“ Proceedings shall be stayed :

( CARDINAL ) where another statute so prescribes . ”

The Act on Liability for Damage Resulting from Terrorist Acts and Public Demonstrations ( Zakon o odgovornosti za štetu nastalu uslijed terorističkih akata i javnih demonstracija , Official Gazette no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) ( “ the DATE LAW ” ) provides , inter alia , that the ORG is to compensate only damage resulting from bodily injuries , impairment of health or death . All compensation for damage to property is to be sought under LAW . LAW provides that all proceedings stayed pursuant to LAW are to be resumed . This Act entered into force on DATE .

NORP The relevant part of LAW ( Zakon o obnovi , ORG nos . CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL/CARDINAL and CARDINAL ) provides , inter alia , that the ORG shall grant , under certain conditions , reconstruction assistance to owners of property ( flats and family houses only ) which has been damaged during the war . The request is to be submitted to the competent ministry .

The relevant part of CARDINAL of LAW on LAW ( Ustavni zakon o PERSON , ORG no . CARDINAL ) ( “ LAW ” ) reads as follows :

“ ( CARDINAL ) The Constitutional Court shall examine a constitutional complaint whether or not all legal remedies have been exhausted if the court with jurisdiction fails to decide a claim concerning the applicant 's rights and obligations or a criminal charge against him or her within a reasonable time ...

( CARDINAL ) If a constitutional complaint ... under paragraph CARDINAL of this section is upheld , the Constitutional Court shall set a time - limit within which the court with jurisdiction must decide the case on the merits ...

( CARDINAL ) In a decision issued under paragraph CARDINAL of this section , the Constitutional Court shall assess appropriate compensation for the applicant for the violation of his or her constitutional rights ... The compensation shall be paid out of the ORG budget within DATE from the date a request for payment is lodged . ”

DATE ( Ustav Republike Hrvatske , ORG no . CARDINAL ) reads as follows :

“ In the determination of his rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him , everyone is entitled to a fair hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial court established by law . ”

On DATE the ORG gave decision no . ORG in the case of PERSON N. , who had filed a constitutional complaint under section CARDINAL of LAW alleging a breach of LAW § CARDINAL of the LAW . He complained about the length of the proceedings and of lack of access to a court because his action in the domestic courts had been stayed by statute for a long period . In its decision , ORG held that there had been a violation of the constitutional rights to a trial within a reasonable time and to access to a court . It ordered the court concerned to give a decision in Mr ORG 's case within DATE , and awarded him compensation .