Violation of Art. 6-1;No violation of P7-2;Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed;Non-pecuniary damage - claim dismissed;Costs and expenses partial award - domestic proceedings;Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings

The applicant , who was born in DATE , is currently in custody in FAC in GPE .

From DATE to DATE the applicant was the secretary - general of the LOC prefecture under the authority of the prefect , PERSON GPE .

After the ORG , according to figures provided by the applicant , CARDINAL civil servants who had served under the Occupation were punished and CARDINAL people were executed , both officially and unofficially .

In an opinion dated DATE ORG for ORG ( comité d'épuration ) proposed that the applicant should retain his post , taking the view that although he had held office under the ORG regime , he had shown a favourable attitude towards the Resistance . He was therefore allowed to continue serving as head of the private office of PERSON , the GPE Commissioner of the Republic .

He was appointed to the rank of prefect and posted to Corsica in DATE , then served as GPE Police Commissioner from DATE to DATE . He was a member of ORG from DATE to DATE and mayor of FAC from DATE . He served as chairman of ORG of ORG from DATE and then as the general rapporteur on the budget until DATE . DATE he was Minister for the ORG .

On DATE , between the CARDINAL rounds of the presidential election , the DATE newspaper ORG Enchaîné published the first of a series of articles in which the applicant , who was Minister for the Budget at the time , was criticised for his behaviour during the Second World War .

The applicant asked ORG of the Resistance to appoint a court of honour to assess his conduct under the NORP occupation . On DATE , having examined his immediate hierarchical superior , PERSON , who said that he assumed “ full responsibility for the anti - NORP repression for which his prefecture was responsible ” , the court of honour delivered a verdict in which it formally acknowledged that the applicant had been a member of the Resistance from DATE but concluded “ that in the very name of the principles which he believed he was defending , and not having been instructed to remain in his post by a competent authority of the Resistance , he should have resigned from his post as secretary - general of GPE in DATE ” .

On DATE a lawyer named PERSON lodged a criminal complaint against the applicant together with a civil - party application for crimes against humanity , aiding and abetting murder and abuse of official authority in connection with the deportation of CARDINAL persons arrested by the NORP police in GPE and held in GPE and then in GPE before being deported to FAC and exterminated there . CARDINAL other criminal complaints together with civil - party applications relating to CARDINAL other victims of deportations were lodged in DATE and DATE by another lawyer , Mr PERSON , who is also the chairman of the association “ Sons and daughters of GPE 's NORP deportees ” . On CARDINAL DATE the GPE public prosecutor 's office asked for investigations to be opened in respect of all CARDINAL complaints .

On DATE the applicant was charged with crimes against humanity by the chief investigating judge at the GPE tribunal de grande instance .

On DATE the investigating judge commissioned an expert historical report from CARDINAL historians . The report was filed on DATE .

In the meantime , on CARDINAL DATE , the investigating judge had begun examining witnesses , including PERSON , the prefect of PERSON at the material time . However , former LAW [ Repealed by LAW ] provided that where a civil servant or a mayor was likely to be charged with a serious crime ( crime ) or lesser serious offence ( délit ) committed in the performance of his duties , the public prosecutor had first to apply to ORG to designate the court to carry out the investigation .

Since , by LAW , failure to comply with that formal requirement rendered proceedings absolutely null and void , ORG in a judgment of CARDINAL DATE declared all the steps of the prosecution and investigation carried out after CARDINAL DATE , including the charging of the applicant , null and void as having been taken by a judge without jurisdiction and designated ORG of ORG to proceed with the investigation .

In a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG ordered the joinder of the CARDINAL sets of proceedings instituted as a result of the complaints lodged before DATE and ordered that the investigation be continued , appointing a judge of ORG to conduct it . In judgments of DATE and CARDINAL DATE ORG noted that CARDINAL fresh criminal complaints had been lodged by associations together with applications to join the pending proceedings as an intervening civil party and ordered that these be added to the file . A complaint by CARDINAL civil parties in DATE gave rise to another judgment designating the competent court delivered by ORG on DATE and a judgment of CARDINAL DATE in which ORG ordered the joinder of those proceedings and confirmed the appointment of the judge to conduct the investigation . On DATE ORG noted that a new complaint had been lodged on DATE together with an application to join the pending proceedings as an intervening civil party and ordered that it be added to the file .

In a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG dismissed an application by the prosecution for an expert historical report .

On DATE and DATE respectively the applicant and PERSON were charged with crimes against humanity . PERSON GPE died on DATE and ORG accordingly recorded on DATE that the proceedings against him had lapsed .

In DATE , DATE and DATE , more associations intervened in the proceedings by means of criminal complaints lodged together with civil - party applications , which were recorded in judgments of ORG in DATE , DATE and DATE and DATE .

Another complaint together with a civil - party application was lodged on DATE and CARDINAL DATE by the association “ Sons and daughters of GPE 's NORP deportees ” . It was lodged not only against the applicant and PERSON but also against PERSON and PERSON Bousquet , both former senior officials with the rank of prefect under the ORG regime , and PERSON , who at the material time was the detective superintendent nominated to act on the directions of the public prosecutor . In a judgment of DATE ORG had declared the civil - party application admissible by way of intervention as to the matters of which it had already been properly seised and , as to the remainder , had ordered that the application be forwarded to ORG .

Pursuant to LAW , the complaint gave rise to a fresh application to ORG , which , in a judgment of DATE , once again designated ORG of ORG to investigate the new facts , but the complaint was subsequently declared inadmissible because a sum to cover costs had not been paid into court within the specified time .

PERSON and PERSON died on DATE and CARDINAL DATE respectively , before being charged , and the proceedings against them accordingly lapsed .

The applicant was questioned on CARDINAL occasions DATE and DATE . On DATE ORG appointed a new judge to continue the investigation .

On DATE CARDINAL more criminal complaints together with civil - party applications relating to deportations in DATE and DATE not covered by the initial complaints were lodged against the applicant by PERSON PERSON on behalf of several individuals . CARDINAL of the civil - party applications were declared admissible and added to the file on DATE . The other CARDINAL complaints , which related to new accusations against PERSON , among other matters , gave rise to CARDINAL judgments , delivered by ORG on DATE , designating ORG of ORG as the investigating authority . After the complaints had been lodged again on DATE and exemption from payment into court of a sum to cover costs had been granted , these complaints were joined to the main investigation proceedings by virtue of judgments of ORG of DATE .

In the meantime , on DATE and CARDINAL DATE , another association had lodged an application to join the pending proceedings as an intervening civil party ; that application was declared admissible in a judgment of CARDINAL DATE .

On DATE ORG made CARDINAL applications for a judicial investigation in respect of the applicant and PERSON .

On DATE PERSON was charged with crimes against humanity . He was shot dead outside his home on DATE and the proceedings against him accordingly lapsed .

On DATE an additional charge of crimes against humanity was brought against the applicant on account of the facts alleged in the complaints of CARDINAL DATE .

In a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG declared admissible a complaint lodged by another association together with an application to join the pending proceedings as an intervening civil party . As some of the other legal persons who had already joined the proceedings had extended their complaints to cover the matters dealt with in the judgments of DATE , ORG recorded the filing of CARDINAL of those complaints in a judgment of DATE , another in a judgment of CARDINAL DATE and CARDINAL further ones in a judgment of DATE .

DATE and DATE the investigating judge took evidence from the civil parties ( in CARDINAL interviews ) and the witnesses ( in CARDINAL ) and made over CARDINAL journeys to archives to seize evidence .

On DATE ORG dismissed an application by the prosecution for the removal from the case file of the booklet “ ORG under the Occupation ” ( GPE sous l'Occupation ) , which reproduced in extenso the expert historical report set aside by ORG on DATE and had been published by the applicant 's lawyer , Mr PERSON , with a view to exculpating his client in the eyes of the public . The publication in question had been distributed to members of ORG in DATE and produced as evidence during libel proceedings brought by the applicant against the magazine ORG .

An appeal on points of law was lodged against ORG judgment but an application by the prosecution for its appeal on points of law to be declared immediately admissible was dismissed by the President of ORG on DATE .

On DATE , at the end of the investigation , the case file was sent to ORG at ORG , who filed his final application on DATE . In that application , which ran to CARDINAL pages , ORG submitted that the applicant had no case to answer in respect of his involvement in the organisation of the transports of DATE , DATE and DATE , that the prosecution of PERSON had lapsed , that the remaining charges should be altered to aiding and abetting abduction and false imprisonment and that the applicant should be committed for trial at FAC for the transports of DATE , DATE and DATE and DATE . ORG did not charge the crime of aiding and abetting murder .

On DATE more associations applied to have their civil - party applications formally noted ; that was done in the judgment of CARDINAL DATE committing the applicant for trial .

The proceedings in ORG of ORG against the applicant and CARDINAL other persons on the charge of crimes against humanity following criminal complaints lodged together with civil - party applications by CARDINAL individuals and CARDINAL associations ended with a judgment delivered by ORG on DATE in which it committed the applicant for trial at ORG .

It appears from that DATE judgment that DATE and DATE CARDINAL persons of NORP origin , including a large number of children , were deported in QUANTITY trainloads to FAC , where most of them died , either as the result of inhuman treatment or because they were exterminated . Some of the transports were dispatched after mass arrests among the NORP population .

ORG noted , inter alia , that the unlawful arrests and imprisonment ordered by the NORP authorities had allegedly been carried out with the active assistance of the applicant , who was at the time the secretary - general of the LOC prefecture and who , by virtue of the extensive powers delegated to him by the regional prefect , had authority not only over the administrative departments of the prefecture but also over the police and gendarmerie , the Mérignac Camp authorities and the departments set up as a result of the war , such as ORG . It further noted that the applicant had allegedly been fully aware of the anti - NORP policy conducted by the Vichy government and that , as soon as he took office , he had apparently been “ convinced that the arrest and imprisonment of NORP and their deportation to the LOC were leading them inescapably to their deaths ... , even though he might have remained unaware of the ... circumstances ... and the technical methods used ... ” .

ORG concluded that the active contribution that the applicant was said to have knowingly made through his personal actions to the commission of criminal acts by units of the SIPO - SD ( ORG ) , an organisation declared criminal by ORG on DATE , had formed part of a concerted plan carried out on behalf of NORP GPE , an LOC country pursuing a policy of ideological hegemony . It held that the applicant could not rely on the instructions given on DATE by the NORP authorities in GPE [ Message by Lieutenant Colonel PERSON broadcast by the ORG on DATE , urging civil servants working in metropolitan GPE to stay at their posts , to do the work that they were asked to do and to sabotage it only if it was contrary to the interests of the nation and such sabotage could be carried out without risk . It was also recommended that civil servants should act alone and not even confide in their best friends ] , nor on duress , the requirements of the law , the orders of his hierarchical superiors or the responsibility of his own subordinates to absolve himself of his own responsibility . It also considered that his membership of the Resistance , on which he relied , did not mean that he could not have assisted the acts perpetrated by the NORP against the NORP .

Consequently , ORG ordered the applicant 's indictment for the offences of aiding and abetting unlawful arrest , false imprisonment , murder and attempted murder amounting to crimes against humanity in respect of CARDINAL police raids and CARDINAL transports of deportees , and committed him for trial at FAC .

The applicant appealed on points of law against that judgment . He pleaded in particular that the proceedings had been null and void , complaining that they had been unfair primarily because of their excessive length , the result of which had been that documents that would have been in his favour had disappeared and witnesses for the defence had died . He also challenged ORG decision to commit him for trial for aiding and abetting crimes against humanity on the ground that , in his opinion , individual complicity in the case of such a crime , which was mainly attributable to an institution or an organisation , presupposed that the individual concerned subscribed to the hegemonic and racial ideology of the criminal institution . The applicant maintained that he had never belonged to the NORP organisations condemned by ORG and that the acts of which he stood accused had been committed in the performance of his duties as secretary - general of LOC , an organ of ORG , which in his view did not have a hegemonic ideology with the goal of racial extermination . He submitted that for the purposes of the GPE law , which formed the basis of his prosecution , ORG and the NORP organisations should be regarded as separate entities from ORG , to which crimes against humanity could not therefore be attributed retrospectively . Consequently , he considered that neither could such crimes be attributed to persons who had performed purely administrative duties in the departments for which he was responsible . He also maintained that , contrary to what ORG had asserted , the fact that he had belonged to the Resistance was sufficient to rule out his participation in a concerted plan .

On DATE ORG dismissed the appeal on points of law . Noting that it was the first authority before which the complaint that the proceedings had been unfair had been raised , it declared that complaint inadmissible . It further ruled “ that the appellant [ had ] no interest in criticising the reasons given in the judgment for dismissing the complaint of a violation of LAW of LAW , seeing that excessive length of criminal proceedings [ did ] not affect their validity ” . ORG also considered that there was nothing inadequate or contradictory about the reasons ORG gave for classifying the offences as aiding and abetting unlawful arrest , false imprisonment and murder or attempted murder , constituting crimes against humanity . It pointed out that indictment divisions had the ultimate authority to assess whether facts amounted to an offence , the role of ORG being merely to “ verify , supposing the facts to be established , whether their classification [ justified ] sending the case for trial ” . It considered that that had been so in the instant case and that “ consequently , the grounds of appeal must be rejected , particularly in so far as they refer[red ] to the last paragraph of LAW , which [ required ] neither that a person aiding and abetting crimes against humanity should have subscribed to the policy of ideological hegemony of the principal perpetrators nor that he should have belonged to one of the organisations declared criminal by ORG ” .

In an application of DATE ORG asked for the applicant to be placed under judicial supervision .

In a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG placed the applicant under judicial supervision , with certain obligations . On DATE ORG recorded that the applicant had withdrawn his appeal on points of law against that judgment .

On DATE the applicant was taken into custody in FAC , pursuant to the arrest warrant included in the judgment of ORG committing him for trial .

The trial in ORG opened on DATE . The applicant 's lawyer immediately applied for his client 's release , pleading his extreme old DATE ) and his poor state of health following a triple heart bypass operation in DATE . ORG ordered an expert medical report , which was delivered to it on DATE and from which it appeared that the applicant 's state permitted imprisonment but only in a specialist cardiology unit . TIME , the applicant had to be admitted to hospital for TIME .

In a judgment of DATE , in the light of the expert report , ORG ordered the applicant 's release . That decision triggered protests from the civil parties , some of whom threatened to withdraw from the trial , and their protests were given extensive press coverage . The prosecution appealed on points of law against the judgment ordering the applicant 's release .

The trial , which was initially expected to DATE , lasted DATE ( from DATE to DATE ) . The proceedings were interrupted on a number of occasions , mostly because of the applicant 's state of health . During the trial , which had a case file containing over CARDINAL folders , CARDINAL documents were produced in evidence . There were hearings on DATE , during which CARDINAL witnesses were heard , TIME were given over to the public prosecutor 's address , TIME to the civil parties ' submissions and TIME to the defence submissions . The court 's deliberations lasted TIME .

At the hearing on DATE , that is on DATE following the opening of the trial , the applicant 's lawyer filed written submissions in which he argued that the trial should be declared not to satisfy the requirements of a fair hearing , particularly as the excessive length of the proceedings had made it impossible to hear certain witnesses ; sought to have the proceedings declared null and void ; and sought a ruling that the prosecution was barred . When arguing against the application for the proceedings to be declared null and void , the prosecutor referred in particular to the work carried out by the most recent investigating judges , who had made CARDINAL journeys to consult archives , seized and studied CARDINAL documents , taken evidence from CARDINAL witnesses and held CARDINAL interviews with civil parties .

In an interlocutory judgment of DATE ORG dismissed the application for the proceedings against the applicant to be halted , on the following grounds :

“ While it is true that many of the defence witnesses have now died or are incapable of travelling , it must be recognised that the same applies to the prosecution witnesses and that from this point of view and in general the parties are on an equal footing .

The exceptional length of the proceedings which brought PERSON before ORG is not excessive when it is considered that the complexity of the case , linked for the most part to the long time that has elapsed since the commission of the offences of which the defendant is accused , the number of those offences , the broad time - span over which they were reported , the age of the witnesses and the fact that they were so scattered , required the investigating judges to carry out a very large number of investigations , which they were often forced to conduct themselves because of the very nature of the facts . Added to these problems were others stemming from the widely dispersed documentary sources and the obstacles sometimes encountered in gaining access to them .

Contrary to what has been alleged , the trial at ORG is not that of a ORG or an administrative authority but that of a man entitled to rely on the presumption of innocence – a principle with constitutional status which can not be impaired in the judges ' minds by the media excesses denounced by the defence – a man accused of having personally committed acts which , in the words of the indictment , constituted the serious crime of ' aiding and abetting crimes against humanity ' .

Lastly , in reply to the argument put forward by ORG defence counsel that the judgment delivered on DATE by ORG was ' in complete contradiction not only with LAW ... but also with LAW , it should be pointed out that it is not for an assize court to assess whether a decision of ORG is in conformity with the applicable rules of law . ”

DATE the proceedings were adjourned because the applicant was hospitalised with bronchitis caused by an infection .

In another interlocutory judgment ( of DATE , not produced ) ORG dismissed the applicant 's application for it be formally noted in the record that an NORP historian , who was an expert on the ORG regime , had in his witness statement of DATE expounded political and historical ideas not directly connected with the facts of which the applicant was accused . The applicant considered that there had been a violation of the principle that hearings in ORG must be oral , as the person concerned was not a “ witness ” , not having witnessed any of the offences of which he stood accused .

On DATE the applicant 's lawyer applied to have the correspondence between the occupying NORP authorities and the prefecture DATE admitted in evidence .

From DATE the trial had to be adjourned once again on account of the applicant 's poor state of health , which had been confirmed by a medical report .

When the proceedings resumed on DATE the applicant 's lawyer filed written submissions in which he applied for further inquiries into the facts to be made with a view to producing in court the whole of the police intendant 's archives held by the PERSON archive office instead of the results of selective seizures which did not make it possible to assess exactly what powers had been exercised by the various actors at the prefecture DATE . In a judgment of DATE ORG decided to defer its examination of that application .

From DATE to CARDINAL DATE the trial was adjourned .

On DATE the President of ORG authorised the projection of CARDINAL video recordings of evidence given by CARDINAL witnesses during the trial of PERSON in GPE in DATE , that of the writer ORG on the conditions of detention in ORG in GPE and that of PERSON , former Chairman of the ORG des droits de l'Homme ( Human Rights League ) , on the conditions in GPE , near GPE .

At the hearing on DATE , which focused on the transport of CARDINAL DATE , the applicant was questioned by the public prosecutor , with the President 's authorisation and on the basis of the documents in the file , about events preceding that transport , in particular those connected with the organisation of the transport of CARDINAL DATE , which was mentioned in the judgment whereby the applicant was committed for trial but not in the indictment . The applicant 's lawyer immediately filed written submissions seeking to have a formal note of these matters added to the record .

On DATE Mr PERSON , CARDINAL of the civil parties ' lawyers , published a press release revealing a distant family tie between the President of ORG and some of the persons whom the applicant was accused of deporting . He criticised the President for failing to report the fact that the mother and CARDINAL sisters of his aunt by marriage had been part of the DATE transport .

No application for the judge to withdraw was filed , however , either by the civil parties or by the defence , because LAW only provides for that possibility if the judge is a blood relative or a relative by marriage of CARDINAL of the parties up to the degree of second cousin inclusive , which was not so in the instant case . The President of ORG announced that he could not even remember the name of his uncle 's wife , and that his uncle had died when he was a child . He did not consider it necessary to withdraw from the proceedings of his own motion .

On DATE ORG took formal note at the applicant 's request that the public prosecutor had questioned him on DATE , with the authorisation of the President of the ORG , about events preceding the transport of CARDINAL DATE in respect of which the applicant had been indicted in ORG judgment and , in particular , about the organisation of the transport of DATE , which had not been mentioned in the indictment .

In another interlocutory judgment delivered on DATE ( not produced ) , however , it refused to allow an application by some of the civil parties for a formal note to be made in the record that those questions were directly connected with the facts mentioned in the indictment in relation to the applicant 's powers . It noted that it was not its task , “ if it wished to avoid prejudging the merits of the case and thereby infringing the provisions of LAW , to rule on any direct relationship that might exist between these facts and those referred to in the indictment with regard to PERSON powers ” .

In an interlocutory judgment of CARDINAL DATE ( not produced ) ORG dismissed the applicant 's application of DATE for further inquiries into the facts to be made with a view to producing the whole of the police intendant 's archives in court , on the ground that , in view of the evidence taken at the hearing , the requested measure did not appear necessary for establishing the truth .

On DATE the applicant 's lawyer applied to have added to the file a copy of the criminal complaint that he had just lodged against Mr PERSON , the chairman of CARDINAL of the civil - party associations , on the basis of LAW of LAW , which prohibited publication before a final judicial decision of comments intended to exert pressure with a view to swaying a trial court 's decision . He criticised Mr GPE for the content of a number of interviews he had given concerning the revelation of the family tie between some of the victims and the President of ORG , to whom PERSON had imputed bias in the defendant 's favour , and impugned the fact that only disciplinary proceedings had been brought by the public prosecutor 's office against Mr PERSON 's son , who had made the revelation in DATE .

DATE . The proceedings were adjourned from DATE , following the death of the applicant 's wife .

In a further interlocutory judgment ( of DATE , not produced ) ORG dismissed an application by the applicant for a question to be put as to whether he knew of a concerted NORP plan to exterminate the NORP and whether he was prepared to participate in such a plan , on the ground that such a question was included among those intended to establish whether he was guilty of aiding and abetting crimes against humanity .

It also refused to allow a subsidiary question to be put as to whether the applicant 's resignation , which would have curtailed his Resistance activities , would have changed the system for the extermination of NORP in GPE , on the ground that as it was not possible to assert a legal interest , there was no reason to raise the question of his resignation .

On DATE , in a CARDINAL-page judgment delivered after deliberations lasting TIME , ORG , replying to CARDINAL questions , found the applicant guilty of aiding and abetting the unlawful arrest and false imprisonment of NORP deported in the transports of DATE , DATE , and DATE and DATE , offences that constituted crimes against humanity . He was acquitted of the charges of aiding and abetting murder and attempted murder .

The applicant was sentenced to DATE imprisonment and stripped of his civil , civic and family rights for DATE . In a judgment of DATE ( not produced ) ORG ruled on the civil claims .

On DATE the applicant appealed on points of law against his conviction and on DATE he filed further pleadings containing CARDINAL grounds of appeal , CARDINAL of which referred expressly to LAW .

In a telegram of CARDINAL DATE ORG at ORG requested that the applicant be notified of his obligation to surrender to custody prior to the hearing in ORG scheduled for DATE . Notice thereof was served on the applicant on DATE .

On DATE the applicant lodged with ORG of ORG an application for exemption from the obligation to surrender to custody , which he withdrew on DATE , making a fresh application to ORG . On DATE ORG ruled that it had no jurisdiction to make such an order . The applicant appealed on points of law . On DATE he again applied to ORG for exemption from the obligation to surrender to custody . He relied on LAW , his age ( DATE ) and his state of health .

DATE . In a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG first dealt with an application by the applicant for a declaration that LAW should be deemed null and void by virtue of LAW . It said :

“ Although the provisions of LAW ... have been incorporated into the NORP legal system in accordance with LAW and although the courts have jurisdiction to determine , in an individual case , whether a statutory provision conforms with the requirements of the LAW , it is still necessary for that provision to serve as the basis on which the case is submitted to them .

In the instant case LAW gives ORG jurisdiction only to deal with a specific matter of judicial administration , namely applications for exemption from the obligation to surrender to custody .

The task of enforcing the obligation to surrender to custody lies exclusively with ORG , as it alone can decide what consequences shall flow from a failure to surrender to custody . It is therefore ORG task to rule on applications for LAW not to be applied to cases submitted to it and , where it has allowed such an application , to decide not to declare that the applicant has forfeited his right of appeal . ”

ORG went on to dismiss the application for exemption from the obligation to surrender to custody , holding that , in view of the length of the sentence imposed , the security provided by the applicant seemed inadequate ; that the medical certificate he had produced did not indicate a significant deterioration in his state of health since the expert opinion of DATE ; and that his state of health did not appear to preclude detention in a hospital unit , the arrangements for which were a matter for the prison authorities .

The applicant did not surrender to custody and left GPE to take refuge in GPE . However , the NORP authorities ordered him to leave GPE , on a date not indicated in the case file .

In a judgment of DATE , after a public hearing during which the applicant 's lawyers submitted their observations on his grounds of appeal , ORG held that the applicant had forfeited his right to appeal against ORG judgment of DATE , pursuant to LAW , on the ground that “ the appellant , who [ had been ] sentenced to a term of imprisonment of DATE , [ had ] not surrendered to custody and [ had ] not been exempted from that obligation ” .

NORP In CARDINAL judgments of DATE ORG dismissed the appeals lodged by the applicant against the judgments delivered by ORG and ORG on DATE on his applications to be exempted from the obligation to surrender to custody , on the ground that they were devoid of purpose since in the meantime the applicant had forfeited his right to appeal on points of law against his conviction by ORG .

As regards the obligation to surrender to custody before an appeal on points of law is heard , the relevant provision of LAW at the material time reads as follows :

“ Convicted persons sentenced to a term of imprisonment of DATE who have not surrendered to custody or have not been exempted , with or without payment of a security , from surrendering to custody by the court that tried them shall forfeit their right of appeal on points of law .

The memorandum of their imprisonment or the judgment granting them exemption shall be produced to ORG , at the latest when the case is called on .

In order for his appeal to be admissible , it shall be sufficient for the appellant to provide evidence that he has given himself up at a prison either in the place where ORG sits or in the place where he was convicted ; the chief warder of that prison shall receive him there on the order of ORG at ORG or of the chief prosecutor at the court of trial . ”

Article CARDINAL was repealed by the law of DATE “ to strengthen protection of the presumption of innocence and the rights of victims ” . The law also instituted CARDINAL levels of jurisdiction in serious criminal cases by providing for the possibility of appealing against the judgments of assize courts .

The law of DATE also inserted into LAW concerning “ review of a criminal decision as a result of a judgment of ORG .

The new ORG CARDINAL - CARDINAL and CARDINAL - CARDINAL provide :

“ An application may be made for review of a final criminal decision on behalf of any person found guilty of an offence where it has been held in a judgment of ORG that he was convicted in breach of ORG or its Protocols , provided that , in its nature and seriousness , the breach found entails injurious consequences for the convicted person which can not be remedied by the ' just satisfaction ' awarded under LAW . ”

“ If it considers the application to be justified , the committee shall proceed in accordance with the following provisions :

( a ) Where a review of the convicted person 's appeal on points of law , in a manner consistent with the provisions of the LAW , is apt to remedy the violation found by ORG , the committee shall remit the case to ORG , which shall sit as a full court to hear the case ;

( b ) In other cases , the committee shall remit the case to a court of the same hierarchy and level as the one which gave the impugned decision ... ”


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

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

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

The applicant worked for a ORG enterprise . In DATE he submitted a proposal for improvement which was subsequently adopted and used by the enterprise . However , the applicant ’s copyright was never officially approved and royalties were never paid to him .

On DATE the applicant filed an action with ORG ( okresní soud ) against the enterprise , claiming compensation for the use of his improvement .

On an unspecified date , the applicant withdrew his action , the enterprise having promised to compensate him .

As the enterprise had not fulfilled its promise , the applicant brought a new action on DATE .

On DATE ORG ( Vrchní soud ) referred the case to ORG which in an interim judgment of DATE accepted the legitimacy of the applicant ’s claim .

On DATE the PERSON Regional Court ( krajský soud ) quashed this judgment and remitted the case to ORG which , on DATE , again declared the applicant ’s claim justified .

On DATE ORG upheld ORG judgment which became final on DATE .

On DATE the applicant quantified his claim for compensation .

In a judgment of DATE ORG partly granted the applicant ’s action . The defendant filed an appeal but withdrew it on DATE . ORG stayed the proceedings on DATE .

The relevant domestic law and practice concerning remedies for the excessive length of judicial proceedings are stated in the ORG ’s decision in the case of PERSON v. GPE , no . MONEY ( dec . ) , § § CARDINAL - CARDINAL , DATE ) .


Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial

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

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

On DATE the applicant was arrested on suspicion of attempting to undermine the constitutional order , an offence under LAW of LAW then in force . He was subsequently transferred to a prison where he was detained pending the introduction of criminal proceedings against him .

On DATE the prosecutor at ORG filed an indictment with that court , charging the applicant and a number of other persons with the above - mentioned offence .

On DATE ORG ( hereafter “ the trial court ” ) found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced him to life imprisonment . The applicant appealed .

On DATE ORG quashed the judgment and criminal proceedings against the applicant recommenced before the trial court .

Following the abolition of ORG , ORG took over the case . On DATE the applicant was released on bail from prison where he had been detained since DATE . The retrial is still pending before ORG . According to the information provided by the applicant , the most recent hearing was held on DATE .


The applicant , a GPE and NORP citizen born in DATE and living in GPE , GPE , is represented before the ORG by PERSON of ORG , solicitors practising in GPE .

The applicant is the wife of PERSON who , on DATE , was ambushed in his bread van by loyalist paramilitaries and hit by CARDINAL bullets which killed him . At the time of his death members of the NORP clergy and members of the PERSON criticised the ORG stating that PERSON had been subject to police harassment which may have operated to target him for loyalist paramilitaries .

Shortly afterwards , PERSON , when arrested following his attack on mourners in GPE cemetery , admitted carrying out the murder of PERSON . PERSON , aged DATE at the time , had also been arrested and charged with aiding and abetting the murder and with various counts of possession of firearms .

On DATE , PERSON pleaded not guilty to the murder of PERSON . At the conclusion of the trial , he was found guilty by the judge on DATE and detained at the pleasure of the Secretary of ORG .

On DATE , ORG pleaded not guilty to the murder of PERSON . On DATE , he was found guilty by the judge and sentenced to life imprisonment .

In DATE , PERSON published a book in which he claimed , inter alia , that neither he nor Deary were involved in the murder of PERSON . He stated that he had been involved in a conspiracy to kill PERSON , who was suspected of running guns for the IRA in his bread van , and had been shown intelligence files by members of the security forces . However he took the view that the security of the operation had been compromised after being told that the security forces knew about the plan and would let his team in and out safely and therefore pulled out of the plan . PERSON was killed DATE . PERSON maintained that he admitted the murder because he was aware that PERSON , who had been arrested and charged , had not been involved and he believed that his admissions would either result in the charges being dropped or the acquittal of PERSON , while he faced life imprisonment in any event . He stated that PERSON , who had merely been in possession of a stolen radio given to him by the CARDINAL men who had stolen the car used in the attack on PERSON , had happened to know about an old IRA weapons hide . PERSON also claimed that he had made false admissions to another murder , that of PERSON , in order to shield the group that had been involved .

Following the publication of the book , the applicant 's solicitors wrote to the Secretary of ORG for GPE , the Chief Constable of ORG ( “ PSNI ” ) and ORG and asked what steps were being taken by these public authorities in light of PERSON 's allegations . The applicant states that her representatives requested copies of the transcript of the trial and the bills of indictment from the Lord Chief Justice who has yet to determine the application .

On DATE the Chief Constable directed a ORG of the ORG , with no connection with the original investigation , to examine the book and any other relevant material that existed in relation to the death of PERSON . As appeared in an affidavit sworn on DATE , steps were also taken to have a senior detective from outside GPE examine the collected material and carry out such further enquiries and examine such further materials as he felt appropriate . The officer was to report to the Chief Constable on the findings and make recommendations as to any issues requiring re - examination . The family were to be briefed on any findings or recommendations .

Meanwhile , on DATE , the solicitors lodged proceedings against the Secretary of ORG complaining of a failure to hold an LAW investigation into the death of PERSON . Following the decision of ORG in ORG v. Secretary of ORG for GPE on DATE holding that a complaint could not be brought alleging a procedural violation of LAW where the death occurred before DATE , counsel advised the applicant that there was no possibility to continue the judicial review application , which was accordingly withdrawn on DATE .

On DATE , the applicant 's solicitors wrote to ORG ( ORG ) , with whom they had been directed to correspond about this matter , and sought disclosure , inter alia , of copies of the interviews conducted with PERSON and PERSON in which they admitted involvement in the murder , copies of the forensic evidence and scene of crime photographs and any additional information available concerning the murder and the role of the security forces in the murder .

On DATE , the ORG informed the solicitors that the ORG had arranged for a senior detective from outside GPE to examine and review the allegations made by PERSON , that he would advise the Chief Constable what if any further action should be taken and that the family would be informed of the outcome of this review . As a result , the ORG could not accede to the current request for disclosure of documentation . This officer was later identified as Mr PERSON , previously of ORG . By letter dated DATE , the applicant was informed that PERSON would be available for a meeting in DATE . A meeting took place . A communication from PERSON to the solicitors indicated that he was aware of their concerns about access to material and stressed that at this stage all he had been asked to do was to provide an independent and impartial assessment of PERSON allegations that he had colluded with the ORG / military prior to the GPE murders and of his allegations that he did not take part in the murders of PERSON and PERSON .

The applicant 's solicitors repeated their request for disclosure of materials , disputing that it would hinder the ongoing investigation . They also requested a copy of the report prepared by an inspector of the ORG . No response had been received to these requests .


Violation of Article 14+P1-1 - Prohibition of discrimination (Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property)

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

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

His wife died on DATE leaving CARDINAL children , born in DATE and DATE .

On DATE the applicant applied for benefits equivalent to those to which a widow , whose husband had died in similar circumstances to those of his wife , would have been entitled , namely a Widow ’s Payment a Widowed Mother ’s ORG and thereafter a Widow ’s Pension , payable under ORG DATE ( “ the DATE LAW ) . On DATE ORG refused his application because he was not a woman . He was told that he had no right of appeal since his claim had not been considered by a decision - maker .

On DATE the applicant made a claim for Widow ’s Bereavement Tax Allowance to ORG for DATE . On DATE he was informed that his claim could not be accepted because there was no basis in domestic law allowing widowers to claim this benefit .

The applicant receives child benefit in the sum of GBP CARDINAL DATE .

The relevant domestic law and practice are described in the ORG ’s judgments in the cases of PERSON v. the GPE , no . CARDINAL , § § DATE , ORG CARDINAL-IV ; PERSON , PERSON , PERSON and Geen v. the GPE , nos . CARDINAL , GPE , GPE and GPE , DATE ; and Runkee and White v. the GPE nos . CARDINAL and CARDINAL , DATE .


Anatoly Kovler;Elisabeth Steiner;Erik Møse;Julia Laffranque;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska

The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in GPE Tagil . The respondent Government were represented by PERSON , former Representative of GPE at ORG . The applicant was represented by PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE .

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

On DATE the applicant was arrested on suspicion of murder . He was allegedly ill - treated by police officers in order to obtain a confession .

On TIME CARDINAL officials of the temporary detention facility in PERSON stopped the applicant in the corridor and ordered him to do push ups . When the applicant refused , they beat him with a truncheon and kicked him .

On DATE the applicant was transferred to remand centre no . IZ CARDINAL/CARDINAL in PERSON . On DATE he underwent a medical examination . The doctor recorded CARDINAL large bruises on his back .

The applicant complained of ill - treatment to the investigator . On DATE he was questioned about the circumstances in which he had received injuries . On DATE the investigator forwarded the complaint to ORG . On DATE ORG refused to initiate criminal proceedings against the officials of the temporary detention facility .

As the applicant was not informed of the outcome of the inquiry , on DATE his lawyer asked the trial court to obtain a copy of the prosecutor ’s decision on the applicant ’s complaint of ill - treatment . The prosecutor submitted a copy of the decision of DATE at the request of the trial court . The decision was read out during the hearing .

On DATE ORG convicted the applicant of aggravated murder and sentenced him to DATE imprisonment . On DATE ORG of GPE upheld the judgment on appeal .

On DATE Mr Z. , a deputy head of correctional colony no . CARDINAL in ORG Tagil , summoned the applicant to his office . According to the applicant , Mr PERSON asked him whether he had complained to the ORG and of what he had complained . He then asked whether the applicant was interested in reaching a friendly - settlement agreement and what his terms were . The applicant refused to discuss the issue of a friendly settlement because he was afraid of being cheated .

The Government submitted CARDINAL written affidavits by the applicant , CARDINAL undated and the other dated DATE , stating that in DATE he had had discussions with PERSON and PERSON , officials from ORG of GPE . He had been asked questions about the events of DATE and about his application to the ORG . He had not been subjected to any pressure and had not been urged to abandon his application .


Violation of Art. 10;Violation of Art. 6-1;Not necessary to examine Art. 6-3-b;Not necessary to examine Art. 14;Non-pecuniary damage - financial award;Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings

The applicant wrote an article entitled “ GPE : will it become a common colony of LOC ? ” in “ NORP ” , a DATE newspaper published in GPE .

The article read :

“ The NORP bourgeoisie has being advancing their intention of associating with ORG since the date of LAW . However , the economic and political problems of GPE have not been solved since that date . The conditions for association have not been established either .

On the other hand , the founders of ORG are not keen on taking on board a huge problem with its CARDINAL unemployed people and serious economic and social problems .

Considering the still unresolved problems of NORP unification and the unexpected economic integration of NORP countries , the acceptance of GPE by the ORG definitely seems impossible .

However , LOC does not want to keep out GPE completely . It is keen on keeping GPE within its hinterland as an investment area and a market . The dilemma of either being part of LOC or outside LOC is a common thread .

Briefly , the structural problem of GPE and the unwillingness of LOC for association with it intersect . On the one hand , the pressures on GPE from the various institutions of NORP association on matters such as “ Democracy ” , “ Human Rights ” , “ the NORP Problem ” , etc . reflect the reaction of domestic public opinion in LOC . On the other hand , these pressures are being used as an excuse to keep GPE out .

The above issue has to be emphasised in order to point out the defects in the sincerity both of the approaches to the solution of the NORP problem and the idea that the NORP institutions are the purest supporters of democracy and human rights .

The customs union seems an acquired right or an opportunity for GPE . However , it also seems very difficult for GPE , having regard to her political and economical problems .

The way to the customs union and ORG will result in important changes for ORG . In the first instance , GPE , already shared by the colonialist LOC , will become a common colony of LOC along with her NORP part . Accordingly , GPE 's political and social problems which originate from her colonial status will be directly addressed to LOC .

It will become easier for GPE to control GPE by economic means than has been the case with its control through military force and political violence . This means that GPE will become an economic and political environment for GPE such that she will have neither the need for , nor the possibility to keep , GPE as a classic colony .

CARDINAL of the direct political effects of this situation will be LOC 's insistence on the direct application of its rules to solve the NORP problem . LOC is closely interested in both national matters and in the GPE problem and has its own experiences of colonialism .

Another political effect is that most of the NORP refugee organisations in LOC are supporting and promoting the NORP solution . This approach considers the future of the NORP community in a NORP Republic associated with LOC . NORP intellectuals in LOC are also supporting this approach and conveying their political message to GPE .

Any possible tension with LOC will have a direct effect on the politics of the subject groups . The improvement of relations or a possible customs union with ORG will benefit this approach and will have increased political effect or will gain more acceptance from ORG in consequence .

However , the Kurdish Revolution has already abolished the classical colonial conditions and has stressed the need for a local / national solution .

The dimensions of the problem and the strict militarist bureaucracy of the NORP political structure prove that LOC is not and will not be the determining factor for either GPE or GPE . ”

On CARDINAL DATE the public prosecutor at ORG accused the applicant of disseminating propaganda against the unity of the NORP nation and the “ indivisible unity of the ORG ” . He requested , inter alia , that the applicant be convicted under LAW . ORG . He relied on the terms of the above article in support of his application . During the proceedings an amendment to section CARDINAL entered into force ( Law no . CARDINAL ) and , in consequence , the public prosecutor pressed for the applicant 's conviction on the strength of the new amendment which increased the level of the fine for the offence with which he was charged but reduced the term of imprisonment which could be imposed .

In the proceedings before ORG the applicant acknowledged that he had drafted the article and asserted that the expression of an opinion could not constitute an offence .

On DATE ORG , composed of CARDINAL judges including a military judge , found the applicant guilty as charged . It ruled that the impugned article referred to a particular region of GPE as “ NORP ” and that the applicant 's comments , taken as a whole , amounted to separatist propaganda . The court sentenced the applicant under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of PERSON no . ORG , as amended by PERSON no . CARDINAL , to DATE , DATE and DATE imprisonment and a fine of MONEY ( TRL ) ( MONEY ( ORG ) ) , to be paid in DATE instalments .

On DATE ORG upheld the judgment of ORG . The judgment of ORG was deposited with ORG first - instance court on DATE .

The relevant domestic law and practice in force at the material time are outlined in the following judgments : PERSON v. GPE , nos . ORG , CARDINAL and CARDINAL , § § CARDINAL - CARDINAL , DATE ; PERSON PERSON v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , § DATE , DATE ; PERSON v. GPE , no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , § § DATE , DATE ; and GPE v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , § § DATE , DATE .


Alvina Gyulumyan;Egbert Myjer;Ján Šikuta;Josep Casadevall;Kristina Pardalos;Luis López Guerra;Nona Tsotsoria

The applicants , Mr PERSON ( “ the first applicant ” ) , Mr Mihael Căcescu ( “ the second applicant ” ) and PERSON ( “ the third applicant ” ) , are NORP nationals who were born in DATE , DATE and DATE respectively and live in GPE . The second and third applicants are the first applicant ’s parents . They are all represented before the ORG by the second applicant , who is a lawyer practising in GPE .

NORP On DATE the first applicant , who was then DATE , went with QUANTITY school friends in CARDINAL cars to a neighbouring town , PERSON , to attend a concert . After the event they drank soft drinks and coffee at a restaurant . At TIME they returned to their cars in order to leave for home . The applicant was on the back seat of CARDINAL of the CARDINAL cars when a patrol composed of a police officer and a gendarme approached him and asked him to produce the car papers .

According to the applicant , he replied that he did not have the papers as he was not the driver . The police officer became angry and told him to step out of the car . When the applicant did so , the police officer immobilised him and started to punch and kick him , hitting him about the head and mouth with his walkie - talkie . The applicant fell to the ground but the police officer continued kicking him in the mouth . The gendarme and CARDINAL security guards from the restaurant also took part in the attack .

The first applicant was bleeding heavily and lost consciousness . When he woke up he was at the police station in PERSON , where he had been taken along with CARDINAL of his friends . He was held there for TIME and informed that he would be fined for refusing to present his identity papers . The applicant refused to sign the contravention report , which he later contested before the courts . In a final decision of QUANTITY DATE ORG annulled the report .

One of the first applicant ’s friends contacted the second and third applicants and told them what had happened to their son . At TIME the parents went to PERSON police station and found their son bleeding , toothless and with torn clothes . They took him to ORG , where he was examined by a doctor and sent to ORG in GPE .

The medical reports drafted on DATE stated that the applicant had swollen lips , recent post - traumatic lesions and broken teeth .

DATE the first applicant underwent corrective dental surgery in ORG in GPE .

On DATE a forensic doctor issued a further medical report that confirmed the conclusions of the previous examinations and described the operations . It concluded as follows :

“ CARDINAL . NORP Căcescu PERSON presents traumatic facial and dental lesions which could have been caused by being hit with a hard object .

The lesions could have occurred on TIME CARDINAL/CARDINAL December CARDINAL .

They require DATE of medical care from DATE of their occurrence , if no complications arise , with the repair of broken teeth by means of prostheses . ”

On DATE the first applicant underwent a dental examination in a private clinic in order to assess the need for further treatment . The orthodontist noted that CARDINAL teeth were still affected and needed prostheses , and that one tooth had been removed completely due to post - traumatic complications . The orthodontist mentioned that , in any case , the applicant ’s teeth could not be restored to their original condition by PERCENT . The orthodontist estimated the cost of the surgery at CARDINAL NORP lei ( ROL ) .

On DATE the first applicant lodged a criminal complaint against the police officer , the gendarme and the CARDINAL security guards .

The Bacău Military Prosecutor ’s Office started investigations and on DATE committed the police officer , the gendarme and CARDINAL civilian security guard for trial accused of serious bodily injury causing disfigurement ( “ vătămare corporală gravă având ca urmare sluţirea ” ) . In addition , the police officer was indicted for abusive behaviour ( “ purtare abuzivă ” ) .

The applicants participated in the proceedings as civil parties .

Before ORG the prosecutor asked for the offence to be re - classified as bodily injury , in the light of the medical reports . The civil parties objected to the re - classification .

On DATE ORG gave judgment on the case .

On the facts , it found that the police intervention had been prompted by a fight that had occurred in the vicinity of the restaurant where the applicant had been drinking with his friends . It also found that when asked to identify himself , the applicant had refused and told the police officer that he “ did not show identification papers to a night watch ” and that his father was a lawyer . The court examined the evidence and ruled that only the injuries sustained to the head had been proven and that nothing in the case file supported the applicant ’s allegations that he had sustained punches and kicks to his entire body while lying on the ground . As for the gravity of the abuse , the court noted that the first applicant needed TIME to recuperate and had suffered only temporary aesthetic damage .

Given the less severe consequences of the abuse , the court changed the legal classification of the offence as proposed by the prosecutor . It then found , based on the evidence in the file , that by hitting the applicant in the face , the culprits had committed the offence of bodily injury ( all culprits ) and abusive behaviour ( the police officer ) , and convicted them of those offences . The court gave the police officer a DATE suspended sentence and the other CARDINAL culprits received DATE suspended sentences .

Lastly , the court examined the civil claims in the light of the extensive evidence . It set aside part of the pecuniary claims as it found that they had not been properly justified , and held that the amount sought by the first applicant for non - pecuniary compensation was exaggerated . It therefore awarded him ROL CARDINAL,CARDINAL,CARDINAL in respect of pecuniary damages and ROL CARDINAL in respect of non - pecuniary damages . It dismissed entirely the non - pecuniary claims lodged by the second and third applicants , as it held that they were not entitled to make any claims in the proceedings and that in any case they could enjoy the award made to the victim under that head .

All the parties appealed against the judgment . On DATE ORG noted that general ORG no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL was applicable to the criminal sentences in the case and modified the judgment accordingly . It maintained the lower court ’s decision concerning the civil awards and noted that recent expert medical reports had attested that the victim had by then recovered completely as a result of treatment .

The accused persons appealed on points of law . In a final decision of DATE ORG dismissed the appeals and upheld the decision of DATE . The final decision became available to the parties on DATE .


The applicants are NORP nationals , born in DATE and DATE , and reside in LOC , GPE . Before the ORG they are represented by PERSON S. Árndóttir , a lawyer practising in PERSON .

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

The applicants are master house builders . In DATE they established the limited liability company Trésmiðjan K CARDINAL hf . together with CARDINAL other persons . The applicants and CARDINAL of the other persons formed the company 's ORG . They were on the company 's payroll and worked there on carpentry . The first applicant is a member of ORG in PERSON . None of the applicants has been a member of ORG or other trade union during the period under reference . The applicants paid premiums to ORG until DATE . As of that time they commenced paying premiums to ORG . In DATE ORG filed a request to ORG to pay the company 's part of the premiums with respect to the applicants . The company rejected payment as the applicants had shifted to ORG and thereby done their legally prescribed duty of payment to a pension fund .

In DATE ORG , which had then taken over the rights and duties of ORG , instituted proceedings against PERSON before ORG , claiming payment of premiums in respect of the period from DATE until DATE . The company disputed the claim , arguing , inter alia , that an interpretation of the provisions of ORG DATE ( Act No . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , hereinafter referred to as “ the GPE ” ) to the effect that there was an obligation to participate in ORG , would be incompatible with the right to freedom of association and the right to property as protected by LAW , LAW No . CARDINAL thereto .

By a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG ordered Trésmiðjan to pay to ORG the premiums claimed by it .

The company appealed against the above judgment to ORG , which , by CARDINAL votes to QUANTITY , upheld ORG judgment on DATE . The minority voting for acquitting the company of the pension claim relied , inter alia , on LAW .

The majority 's reasoning included the following observations :

“ ... from the above follows that LAW contains an unequivocal legal duty for the entire population to belong to a pension fund . The aim of this legislation is to promote public welfare and , inter alia , to base the right to life insurance on the most possibly equal conditions . Such general limitations under the law are not in conflict with the human rights provisions of LAW .... Being employers the appellants were according to ... section CARDINAL of the DATE Act required to pay their employees ' premiums and are therefore rightly considered as parties to the present case . It has been shown that the appellants engage in business operations falling within the plaintiffs ' field of work . They have not referred to ORG any dispute about payments being made to the plaintiffs . The fact that the plaintiffs have not done so does not weaken their case .

The appellants plead that , in addition to the fact that their employees have been paying a premium to ORG , they have met the duty for pension guarantee in accordance with LAW . They consider that according to LAW , which applied to the freedom of association at the time when the case was before ORG , and LAW , cf . Act No . CARDINAL/CARDINAL incorporating the LAW , they could at least have discharged their duty towards any pension fund had ORG ratified its ORG . The plaintiffs maintain , with reference to section CARDINAL of LAW , that the appellants ' wage - earners can not select a fund for themselves as they work in the field to which participation of plaintiffs extend and are thus naturally parties thereto .

The plaintiffs are a pension fund functioning in accordance with LAW . The appellants ' employees were parties of ORG being CARDINAL of the funds merged with the plaintiffs . It has not been shown that the plaintiffs are unable to secure the appellants ' wage earners the annuity rights provided for under LAW . Thus , their compulsory participation in a pension fund does not prevent them from purchasing additional rights from other instances . It follows from the above that pension funds like that of the plaintiffs are established under the law for the benefit of the funds ' participants and in order to achieve a social aim , but this is a question of joint insurance funds . The legislators have considered that , if one were to be able to join and leave the funds at will , there would be a risk that this social aim would risk not be achieved and that the interests of other holders of rights in the fund would be set aside . Under the present circumstances , it is considered that the appellants have not shown that the restrictions on the employees ' choice of pension fund , ... is inconsistent with the former provisions of the LAW on the freedom of association , cf . the current provisions of paragraph CARDINAL of LAW . ...

In the light of the above the conclusion in the present case is that the appellants shall pay on behalf of their wage - earners the annuity contribution claimed by the plaintiffs ... ”

On DATE ORG placed Trésmiðjan under bankruptcy administration , at a request made by ORG on account of ORG order that the company pay its arrears in pension contributions .

LAW No . CARDINAL/CARDINAL on LOC ) contained in its section CARDINAL the following provision :

“ All wage earners and self - employed persons have the right and duty of membership of the pension fund of the members of the relevant profession or occupation , which shall function in accordance with laws enacted on that particular fund or a regulation approved by ORG . Any employer is obliged to withhold his employees ' pension fund contributions from their wages and to return them to the fund with his own obligatory contribution , in accordance with the rules on contribution payments laid down in the regulation on the relevant fund or in law . ORG , having obtained the opinion of ORG , ORG and/or other concerned parties , shall decide on any dispute as to what fund the contributions shall be paid . ”

Section CARDINAL provided :

“ The duty of pension insurance shall be performed by participation in the pension funds provided for in LAW to the extent possible , and in accordance with the rules of the individual funds relating to membership . A person not automatically entitled to membership of a fund provided for in section CARDINAL shall select a pension fund that is permitted under the rules of the individual funds . If this duty is not performed in this manner , it shall be performed by contributions to the pension fund indicated by the deciding authority under section CARDINAL , and by an agreement concluded with the pension fund in question . ”

On DATE the CARDINAL Act was replaced by LAW rights and on ORG Act no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , hereinafter referred to as “ the DATE LAW ) , containing comprehensive provisions on the general framework for compulsory pension insurance . CARDINAL objective of the new legislation was to increase the freedom of choice of pension funds for persons who were not subjected to collective agreements . Following the changes brought about by its section CARDINAL , persons who , like the applicants , do not receive wages under a collective agreement , may chose not to contribute to ORG but may instead select another pension fund .


Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre;Karel Jungwiert;Mark Villiger;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Peer Lorenzen;Rait Maruste;Renate Jaeger

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

He is represented before the ORG by PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE . ORG ( “ the Government ” ) are represented by their Agent , PERSON , PERSON , of ORG .

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

The applicant , an engineer by profession , contributed to the compulsory general pension scheme and the optional supplementary pension scheme of the former GPE .

On DATE ORG for Salaried Employees ( ORG für DATE hereinafter referred to as “ ORG ” ) issued a declaratory decision on the applicant ’s contribution periods ( ORG ) and the basis for the calculation of his pension .

On DATE ORG rejected the applicant ’s objection .

On DATE the applicant lodged a claim with ORG .

In decisions of DATE and DATE ORG granted the applicant a pension , the amount of which was based on the impugned decision of DATE .

On DATE ORG rejected the applicant ’s claim against ORG decisions as unfounded .

On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal with ORG arguing that he was entitled to a higher pension .

On DATE the applicant moreover lodged a constitutional complaint with ORG making the same complaints .

On DATE the applicant requested ORG to stay the proceedings in view of the constitutional complaint , or alternatively to suspend them .

On DATE the applicant repeated his motion for a suspension of the proceedings . He also announced that he would file further observations if it was rejected .

On DATE ORG rejected this motion .

In a letter dated DATE the applicant again pointed out that he requested the proceedings to be stayed or suspended . He also announced that further submissions would be made on decisions of principle rendered by ORG in the meantime .

In a letter of DATE the applicant again referred to his previous motions aimed at having the proceedings stayed or suspended .

In DATE ORG requested the applicant to give further particulars of his claims and to indicate whether , as announced in the letter of DATE , further submissions would be made .

In DATE and DATE it reminded the applicant to submit his further observations .

In DATE and DATE the applicant filed further submissions and also requested ORG to seek a preliminary ruling from ORG .

On DATE ORG refused to admit the applicant ’s constitutional complaint .

On DATE the applicant lodged the present application . In his first letter to the ORG he complained about the decision of ORG and the unfairness of the proceedings .

In DATE and again in DATE ORG requested the applicant to state his position regarding a friendly settlement .

On DATE the applicant reiterated his request to stay the proceedings in view of the application he had lodged with the ORG .

On DATE ORG scheduled the hearing for DATE .

The applicant then twice filed a motion for the hearing to be cancelled and the proceedings stayed on account of the fact that his complaint was still pending before the ORG . He submitted that failure to do so would amount to an “ abuse of rights ” with regard to him . ORG rejected both requests ( decisions of CARDINAL and DATE ) .

On DATE it dismissed the applicant ’s appeal . It also refused leave to appeal on points of law .

On DATE ORG rejected as inadmissible the applicant ’s appeal against the refusal to grant leave to appeal .


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

PERSON was at the material time an NORP national ; she subsequently obtained NORP nationality . She lives in GPE .

ORG In DATE the NORP company " ORG " - which specialised in the manufacture and distribution of clocks - filed an application in the GPE no . CARDINAL ORG for the removal of the NORP trade mark " PERSON Málaga " ( no . CARDINAL.CARDINAL ) from the industrial property register . The trade mark in question concerned " all types of clocks " and had been registered by the applicant ’s husband in DATE . It had at a later stage been transferred to her name . The plaintiff company claimed that , by virtue of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , the registration in GPE in DATE of its trade name had conferred on it the ownership of that designation in all the countries which were parties to that Convention - including GPE - and therefore protected it from the subsequent lodging of any identical or similar trade mark .

PERSON adduced several submissions to contest the application . They were based on the following considerations :

DATE within which the cancellation of trade mark no . CARDINAL.CARDINAL could have been sought had expired and the trade mark was consequently " established " .

Any action was time - barred .

The trade name relied on by the plaintiff company was not a genuine one .

A trade mark " ORG " , for imitation articles , that had been registered in DATE under no . CARDINAL and transferred to the applicant ’s name in DATE , had priority .

ORG By a judgment dated CARDINAL DATE , ORG , the court with jurisdiction for this type of dispute ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , accepted the contention that PERSON mark was " established " and dismissed the plaintiff ’s application . It did not rule on the merits of the applicant ’s other submissions .

ORG The plaintiff company appealed on points of law . In a judgment of DATE ORG Tribunal Supremo ) held that the contested trade mark was not " established " because its registration was void and quashed the decision of LOC . Giving a ruling on the merits of the dispute ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , ORG expressly rejected the submissions based on the allegedly non - genuine character of the trading name and the general time bar and allowed the application . However , it made no reference to the applicant ’s submission that the trade mark " ORG " , registered in GPE in DATE , should have priority over the trading name " LOC " registered in GPE in DATE .

ORG The applicant filed an amparo appeal ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) in ORG ) . It was declared inadmissible on DATE on the ground that the various complaints adduced did not raise constitutional issues . On the matter of the submission relating to the priority of the trade mark " ORG " , ORG expressed the following view :

" ... as this issue was not put forward as a ground of appeal , the ORG [ of ORG ] could hardly be expected to address it directly . Moreover , there is extensive case - law from this ORG to the effect that the LAW does not require courts to give a specific reply to all the arguments of the parties but only their claims . In the instant case [ the applicant ’s ] submission was rejected when the appeal on points of law filed by the plaintiff against the first - instance judgment was allowed . "

As decisions of ORG finding an appeal inadmissible may be reconsidered only on an application by ORG counsel , a further appeal lodged by PERSON was likewise declared inadmissible on DATE .

ORG The rules governing trade marks and trade names which were in force at the material time were set out in ORG ( Estatuto de la Propiedad Industrial , " EPI " ) of DATE , approved by LAW of DATE . The enactment in DATE of a new law on trade marks did not affect the applicability of that regulation to the facts of the present case .

ORG The registration in GPE of a trade mark or a trade name confers on its holder standing to bring proceedings in the civil and criminal courts against those who infringe his right ( Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL EPI ) . The priority of rights deriving from a trade mark or a trade name takes effect from the filing of the application for registration in the industrial property register ( LAW ) .

The holder of a registered trade name has the same rights as those conferred on the holder of a trade mark ( LAW ) . He may , inter alia , seek the removal from the register of any mark ( LAW ) whose similarity with the trade name might give rise to an error or create confusion in the market ( LAW para . CARDINAL EPI ) . In order to make such a finding of incompatibility , the court will examine not only the phonetic or graphic similarity of the CARDINAL competing designations ; it will also consider whether the protected products belong to the same commercial sector .

ORG LAW for the protection of industrial property of DATE , as amended in GPE on DATE - which version was ratified by GPE on DATE - , provides that a trade name registered in CARDINAL of the countries of the ORG is to be protected in all the other countries of the Union without necessity of deposit or registration ( LAW . Since such a trade name is entitled to the same protection as if it had been registered in GPE , its holder may seek the removal from the register of any NORP mark registered after the trade name in question and incompatible with it .

ORG Article CARDINAL EPI makes provision for a special procedure for applying for the removal of a trade mark from the official register . The first - instance court prepares the file and transmits it to LOC , which seeks the opinion of the legal department of the industrial property register and holds a hearing .

Judgments given at first instance by LOC concerning the removal of trade marks from the register may be challenged only by an appeal on points of law to ORG ( Article CARDINAL para . CARDINAL EPI ) .

The complaints concerning the impugned judgment must be expressed in the form of grounds for cassation ( motivos de casación - Article CARDINAL of the Code of Civil Procedure ) , of which there are a limited number , for instance failure to comply with essential procedural requirements and violation of the law ( LAW , nos . CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the Code of Civil Procedure ) .

Argument is presented on the submissions declared admissible , at a public hearing if all the parties so request or if the court considers it necessary . The respondent may appear and plead for the dismissal of the appeal and the confirmation of the impugned judgment ( Articles DATE in fine and DATE of LAW ) .

ORG Except in respect of purely formal or procedural matters , the ORG which allows an appeal submission does not merely quash the judgment . It must rule on the merits of the case , taking account of all the arguments adduced by the parties in the course of the proceedings ( DATE para . CARDINAL paragraph , of LAW ) .

ORG Under LAW para . CARDINAL of the LAW , " judgments shall always contain a statement of the grounds on which they are based and be delivered in public " . As an aspect of the effective protection of individuals by the judiciary and the courts , recognised as a fundamental right by LAW para . CARDINAL of the LAW , the obligation to state the reasons for judicial decisions may be the subject of an individual appeal to ORG ( recurso de amparo ) .

ORG According to LAW :

" Judgments must be clear and precise and must address specifically the applications and other claims made in the course of the proceedings ; they must find for or against the defendant and rule on all the disputed points which have been the subject of argument .

Such points must be dealt with separately in the judgment . "

When a court gives a decision on the merits it must therefore rule on all the submissions adduced by the parties , otherwise the judgment will be flawed for failure to give an adequate statement of the grounds ( incongruencia omisiva ) . However , according to the case - law , the court is not under a duty to deal expressly in its judgment with each of the submissions made by the parties where its decision to allow CARDINAL of the claims entails by implication the rejection of the submission in question .


Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);Non-pecuniary damage - award

András Sajó;Françoise Tulkens;Helen Keller;Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE . He is a high school teacher , an executive member of ORG and a member of ORG .

The DATE NATO summit took place in GPE from DATE . The Governor of GPE designated CARDINAL locations in GPE where people would be allowed to hold demonstrations .

As the remaining facts of the case are in dispute between the parties , they will be set out separately . The facts as presented by the applicant are set out in Section B below ( paragraphs CARDINAL ) and the Government ’s submissions concerning the facts are summarised in Section C below ( paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL ) . The documentary evidence and further factual elements submitted by the applicant and the Government is summarised in Section D ( paragraphs DATE ) .

On DATE the applicant and a number of other teachers arrived at the square outside FAC in GPE , which is CARDINAL of the CARDINAL locations referred to above , to issue a press release .

The applicant and all his colleagues were unarmed and behaved in a peaceful manner . Nevertheless , police officers who had been circling the crowds grabbed the applicant and his friends by the arms , sprayed them with tear gas and beat them up .

The police officers then took the applicant to a police station , where he was kept for a period of TIME . He was subsequently brought before a prosecutor , who ordered his release .

After the applicant and other demonstrating teachers finished reading their press release , police officers asked them to disperse . When the demonstrators refused to do so , the police officers warned them that they would be taken into custody . The group continued to refuse to disperse and , instead , went on to stage a sit - in protest . They told the police officers that they would continue with their protest until their friends , who had been arrested elsewhere , had been released .

When the police continued to try to persuade them , the demonstrators attacked the police with stones and sticks . They also damaged cars in the vicinity and injured a number of police officers . As a result , the police officers used tear gas in order to disperse them . The applicant was taken to the police station , where he was kept for a period of TIME before his release was ordered by a prosecutor .

On DATE the applicant was examined by CARDINAL doctors . The first examination was carried out at TIME at ORG . The doctor noted that the applicant ’s eyes were red , and considered it necessary for the applicant to be examined by a specialist doctor . The specialist doctor who examined the applicant at ORG at TIME on DATE noted that there was no sign on the applicant ’s body that he had been subjected to ill - treatment .

According to a report prepared on DATE by CARDINAL of the police officers who had taken part in the incident , the spokesperson for the demonstrators in Mecidiyeköy told the police officers that a number of fellow union members had been arrested at another location in GPE earlier in DATE . The spokesperson added that the demonstrators in Mecidiyeköy would not be dispersing unless and until their friends had been released , and would instead march to FAC . When the police informed the spokesperson that this would not be allowed and warned the demonstrators to disperse , the demonstrators attacked the police officers with the sticks from their banners , and proceeded to stage a sit - in protest . ORG ( ORG ) then dispersed the demonstrators and arrested CARDINAL persons , including the applicant , who refused to disperse .

The incident was widely reported in the national press . In a photograph published in the DATE newspaper GPE the applicant is pictured between CARDINAL police officers who are holding him by the arms , and one of whom is spraying the applicant ’s nose and mouth with gas at very close range .

At TIME on DATE the applicant was examined by a doctor at ORG , who noted redness in both eyes and referred him to a specialist doctor . The ophthalmologist who examined the applicant DATE at the same hospital observed hyperaemia in both eyes , and recorded his findings in a report .

At TIME on DATE the applicant was apparently examined by another doctor . However , no entries were made by that doctor in the sections of the report reserved for detailing the incident , the applicant ’s allegations and the doctor ’s findings . These parts of the report were simply crossed out by the doctor . Thus , the report only mentions the name of the applicant , his date of birth , the time of the medical examination and the name of the police officer who accompanied him .

It appears that the applicant was examined by yet another doctor on DATE . The doctor noted in his report ( report no . CARDINAL ) that there were ecchymosed areas measuring QUANTITY and QUANTITY below the applicant ’s shoulders . The doctor also noted that the applicant ’s eyes were reddened .

According to medical reports submitted by the Government , the CARDINAL demonstrators who had been arrested together with the applicant ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) also had various injuries on their bodies .

The applicant and the other demonstrators were brought before the prosecutor and questioned . In his statement the applicant maintained that he had not committed any offences but had simply exercised his democratic rights . He also informed the prosecutor that the police had used pepper spray against him . According to the statement , a lawyer was present during the applicant ’s questioning .

On DATE the applicant lodged an official complaint with the PERSON prosecutor against the police officers . He argued that when he and his colleagues had been preparing for their press release at TIME on DATE of the incident , a number of police officers had attacked them with their truncheons and sprayed them with tear gas . He complained that he had been beaten up with truncheons and punched and kicked by the police officers even after he had been arrested . He pointed out that the police officers responsible could be identified from the photographs published in the newspapers . The applicant argued that the police ORG actions had been in violation of both the domestic legislation and his rights under the LAW , including his rights to liberty and security , freedom of expression and protection from ill - treatment .

The applicant subsequently found out in DATE that before he had even lodged his official complaint on DATE a prosecutor had already decided on DATE not to prosecute the police officers . In the prosecutor ’s decision QUANTITY persons , including the applicant , were referred to as “ the complainants ” . The QUANTITY persons also included the QUANTITY demonstrators arrested together with the applicant ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . The QUANTITY police officers ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) were named as the defendants . The offence in question was given as “ ill - treatment ” .

The prosecutor stated in his decision that the police officers had allowed the demonstrators to read out their press release but that when the demonstrators had wanted to march to GPE square , they had had to disperse them . In the opinion of the prosecutor the officers had been carrying out their duties under the LAW on the Powers and Duties of the Police , and had not committed any offences . Despite the fact that it was expressly stated in the decision that it was to be communicated to the complainants , and that the complainants could lodge objections against it , the prosecutor ’s decision was not communicated to the applicant .

On DATE the applicant wrote to the PERSON prosecutor and asked for information about the investigation .

In his reply of CARDINAL DATE the PERSON prosecutor forwarded to the applicant ’s legal representative a copy of the decision adopted by his office on DATE .

On DATE the applicant lodged an objection against the decision and drew attention to the prosecutor ’s failure to have regard to the medical reports described above ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) and the photographs of him in the press .

On DATE ORG rejected the objection , stating that the prosecutor ’s decision of DATE had been in compliance with the applicable legislation and procedure .


David Thór Björgvinsson;George Nicolaou;Ineta Ziemele;Ledi Bianku;Päivi Hirvelä;Paul Mahoney;Vincent A. De Gaetano

The applicant , born in DATE , is a NORP citizen of NORP - NORP descent , resident in GPE .

A charitable trust arrangement of the type known as “ vakf ” was set up in DATE by PERSON and PERSON concerning CARDINAL immovable properties was set up to administer PERCENT of the income for charitable purposes , PERCENT for the families who had worked for the PERSON family and PERCENT for the PERSON descendants in perpetuity . The applicant claims to be a beneficiary of the said trust as heir of her father who died in DATE . Her father had received income from the trust until DATE when the NORP forces invaded GPE . Her mother had been the last “ mutevelli ” or administrator of the trust until her death in DATE , after which ORG ( the administrative body supervising vakf property ) took over the administration of the trust .

On DATE , the applicant requested the Attorney - General ’s permission to commence legal proceedings against the ORG for breach of trust in that no income had been paid to beneficiaries and to have herself appointed as the mutevelli of the trust , and for the property to be vested in her name as the mutevelli .

On DATE , the Attorney - General refused to give consent .

On DATE , the applicant instituted proceedings in ORG without consent from the Attorney - General , claiming appointment as mutevelli and vesting of the properties in her name and naming ORG as defendant .

The Attorney - General filed opposition , raising issues as to the jurisdiction of the court in the absence of his consent . He also disputed that the applicant had any right to be appointed mutevelli , there being other beneficiaries who could make that claim also .

A hearing was held on DATE . On DATE , ORG rejected the applicant ’s claims , principally because of the lack of consent given by the Attorney - General . It noted that vakf property was now vested in the Custodian of NORP - Cypriot properties pursuant to LAW CARDINAL/CARDINAL and that the Custodian had possession of all properties where the NORP - Cypriot owners did not live in the Republic . The applicant ’s lawyer had raised allegations during the hearing claiming that the Custodian if now regarded as the effective administrator of the trust property should be replaced due to bad administration but this allegation did not fall to be examined as no grounds seeking remedies on this basis had been properly lodged .

On DATE , the applicant served notice of appeal against the judgment . After a hearing on DATE , ORG rejected the appeal in a judgment dated DATE , upholding the reasoning of the previous decision .

The relevant case - law and laws are set out in GPE and Others v Cyprus ( no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL et al , § § CARDINAL , decision of CARDINAL DATE ) .


David Thór Björgvinsson;Ján Šikuta;Lech Garlicki;Nicolas Bratza;Päivi Hirvelä;Stanislav Pavlovschi

The applicant , PERSON , was a NORP national who was born in DATE , died in DATE and lived in GPE , GPE . ORG ( “ the Government ” ) were represented by their Agent , PERSON and subsequently by PERSON of ORG .

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

The applicant lived in a semi - detached house in ORG . In DATE the house situated on the adjacent plot of land was sold . The new owner - “ PERSON L ” - demolished it and began to construct a building there .

On DATE ORG ( PERSON ) issued preliminary planning permission authorising PERSON to continue the construction of the building for residential and/or commercial purposes . On DATE , on an appeal by the applicant , ORG ( ORG ) quashed it and remitted the case . On DATE ORG ordered all the construction works to be stopped and the building area to be secured .

On DATE ORG gave a decision confirming that the intended construction could be located in the specified area ( decyzja o ustaleniu warunków zabudowy i zagospodarowania terenu ) . On DATE ORG of Appeal in ORG ( PERSON ) quashed this decision and remitted the case .

On DATE ORG gave a decision ordering PERSON to secure the building area by constructing a special wall . In DATE PERSON proceeded with the construction of the building .

On DATE ORG delivered a second planning permission ( decyzja o ustaleniu warunków zabudowy i zagospodarowania terenu ) concerning the location of the intended construction . It refused permission for construction of a car repair garage and held that it was only possible to locate a car accessory shop on the site . This decision was later upheld by ORG , on DATE . The applicant lodged an appeal with ORG ( PERSON ) .

On DATE ORG gave a decision discontinuing the administrative proceedings as regards the safety requirements . It was established that PERSON had fulfilled all the necessary requirements as regards the security of the adjacent building .

On DATE ORG ordered PERSON to demolish part of the constructed building as it had been built without the appropriate building permit ( pozwolenie na budowę ) . On DATE ORG again ordered PERSON to demolish part of the new building .

On DATE ORG issued a building permit in favour of PERSON and allowed her to construct a car accessory shop . On DATE ORG quashed this decision and remitted the case . It held that as the construction works had begun and been carried out illegally , the case should be considered under LAW ( Prawo budowlane ) . On DATE ORG allowed the construction of the car accessory shop on the site . This decision was again quashed by ORG on DATE .

On DATE ORG delivered yet another decision allowing the construction of a car accessory shop and a shop selling new cars on the adjacent plot .

On DATE ORG gave judgment and quashed the decision of DATE . It held that according to the local development plan , the planned construction was in a zone designated as residential . While it was possible to allow for such developments as grocery shops and local services , the construction of a car sales point or a car accessory shop was not a development of that kind .

On DATE ORG quashed the decision of DATE and remitted the case .

On DATE ORG ordered PERSON to stop the construction works as they had been carried out without an appropriate permit . On CARDINAL DATE ORG upheld this decision .

On DATE ORG quashed the decision of DATE . It held that since DATE the construction works on PERSON plot had been carried out illegally and that the administrative authorities had been fully aware of that fact .

On DATE the District Inspector of Construction Supervision ( Powiatowy Inspektor Nadzoru Budowlanego ) ordered the garage to be demolished . This decision was upheld by ORG ( ORG Inspektor PERSON ) on DATE . On DATE the District Inspector of Construction Supervision imposed a fine on PERSON as she had failed to comply with this order . This decision was upheld by ORG on DATE .

Meanwhile , on DATE ORG ( ORG Inspektor PERSON ) informed the applicant that there had been an inspection of PERSON building . During the inspection it was established that no repairing or spraying of cars was taking place . At the same time , the inspector reiterated that he was not competent to decide on the legality of the adjacent building .

On DATE ORG decided to stay the enforcement of the decision of DATE . The court noted that enforcement of this decision before PERSON appeal was examined could expose her to irreversible damage .

On DATE PERSON sought to have the decision of ORG declared null and void . On DATE and DATE ORG refused to declare this decision null and void . On DATE ORG dismissed a further appeal by PERSON


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

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

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

The applicant ’s wife died on DATE . On DATE , the applicant made a claim for widows’ benefits . On DATE the applicant was informed that his claim had been disallowed as he was not a woman . The applicant did not appeal further as he considered or was advised that such a remedy would be bound to fail since no such social security benefit was payable to widowers under GPE law .

The domestic law relevant to this application is set out in Runkee and White v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , § § CARDINAL , DATE .