Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for correspondence);Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)

ORG On DATE Mr PERSON , who had previously been dealt with by the courts and served sentences of imprisonment on a number of occasions , was convicted by ORG of GPE of assault and robbery . He was sentenced to CARDINAL years’ imprisonment , to run from CARDINAL DATE .

Following his conviction , he was initially allocated to ORG . In DATE he was transferred to ORG , because of the serious disruptive effect which he was having on other prisoners . Whilst in custody he lost CARDINAL days’ remission of sentence for a series of offences against prison discipline . He was released from prison on DATE .

ORG During the course of his sentence , PERSON spent CARDINAL periods in ORG ( see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) , the first from CARDINAL DATE to DATE and the second from DATE to CARDINAL DATE . The second period exceeded the usual CARDINAL months’ maximum in view of his particularly uncooperative attitude whilst he was there .

Both transfers to the ORG followed periods of bad behaviour on the part of the applicant , involving notably assaults on and abuse of staff . In each case it was considered that the transfer could benefit both him and the general situation in FAC .

ORG During DATE and DATE , the prison authorities imposed the following particular restrictions on the applicant ’s correspondence .

( a ) CARDINAL letters from the applicant , one to his solicitor and CARDINAL to a Member of ORG and each dated DATE , were stopped in accordance with Standing Order Ic CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(d ) and Standing Order Ic CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(a ) , respectively ( prohibitions on complaints about prison treatment ; see paragraph CARDINAL ( a ) and ( b ) below ) .

( b ) A letter of CARDINAL DATE from the applicant to the editor of ORG , asking for a copy of an article in that newspaper concerning the applicant ( " Cage Man Euro Court Plea " ) and enquiring if CARDINAL previous letters had been received , was stopped . The prison authorities considered that the letter did not conform to Standing Orders , but there is no record of the grounds for this view .

( c ) A letter dated DATE from the applicant to ORG was stopped because it contained allegations of assault on other prisoners , who had not themselves complained through any internal or external channel . The letter was regarded as objectionable in terms of Standing Order Ic CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(d ) ; the authorities also considered that to allow letters complaining on behalf of other prisoners would be contrary to good order and discipline . PERSON was allowed to write another letter containing allegations of assault concerning himself alone .

( d ) A letter dated DATE from the applicant to Miss PERSON of ORG was stopped on the grounds that she was not a previous correspondent of his , nor a legal adviser for the purposes of his petition to ORG ) and PERSON ) ; see paragraph CARDINAL ( d ) and ( c ) below ) .

( e ) Letters dated DATE from the applicant to his representative Mr PERSON were delayed and eventually posted on DATE . The Government had agreed that PERSON could , pursuant to Standing Order Ic CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(g)(i ) , correspond with PERSON in relation to his application to the Commission , on the understanding that Mr PERSON would abide by the ORG ’s rules of confidentiality . Some particulars of the applicant ’s complaints had appeared in the press and ORG was unwilling to allow further letters without an assurance from PERSON that he would comply with the rules in the future . After the ORG had received such an assurance , the letters in question were posted .

( f ) Copies of letters written by PERSON to ORG on DATE and to the Secretary of ORG on CARDINAL DATE were withheld from the applicant under Standing Order Ic CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(b ) ( see paragraph CARDINAL ( d ) below ) . The letters suggested that there had been a breakdown of discipline on the part of the staff at ORG and predicted disturbances among prisoners ; the second letter also implied that staff might have been responsible for causing a fire in the applicant ’s cell . The prison Governor considered the letters objectionable on the grounds of good order and discipline , fearing in particular that prisoners might be encouraged to make the disturbances predicted if the letters came into their hands .

ORG On DATE ORG imposed on the applicant a disciplinary award which included an absolute prohibition for DATE on all correspondence , pursuant to Rule CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the Prison ( GPE ) Rules DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . On DATE the Secretary of ORG for GPE , to whose attention the terms of this prohibition had been drawn , ruled that it was not to affect Mr PERSON ’s correspondence relating to his application to the ORG or his correspondence with his Member of ORG , the Procurator Fiscal or his legal adviser .

ORG At the relevant time the prison system in GPE was governed by ORG " LAW " ) , sections CARDINAL and CARDINAL of which vested general control and superintendance over prisons in GPE in the Secretary of ORG for GPE . He was empowered , by DATE , to commit prisoners to such prison as might be appointed by rules made under LAW and to transfer prisoners from CARDINAL prison to another and , by section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) , to " make [ by statutory instrument ] rules for the regulation and management of prisons ... and for the classification , treatment , employment , discipline and control of persons required to be detained therein " .

In exercise of his powers under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) , the Secretary of ORG made the ORG ( GPE ) Rules DATE ( " the Prison Rules " ) , which have been amended from time to time . He also , in supplement of ORG and by virtue of his general jurisdiction over prisons and of various powers conferred by LAW themselves , issues instructions to the Governors of prisons in the form of ORG and administrative circulars .

LAW and the Prison Rules apply to ORG , as do most of the Standing Orders and administrative circulars . There are also administrative instructions particular to the Unit .

ORG Rule CARDINAL of the Prison Rules empowers the Secretary of ORG to " set aside particular prisons or parts of prisons for particular classes of prisoners or for particular purposes " .

ORG was set up in DATE to provide a secure place of segregation for those prisoners who , through their violent or subversive behaviour , seriously disrupt the establishments in which they are accommodated , who had not responded to the forms of treatment available there and who flagrantly refuse to cooperate in the normal prison routine . The ORG also offers a special level of protection for staff .

Transfer to the ORG , which is not employed as a punishment , is intended to remove a threat to the good order and discipline of the transferring prison , to provide relief for staff there and to achieve an improvement in the prisoner ’s attitude .

ORG The ORG is used sparingly , prisoners being transferred there only when the facilities available elsewhere are considered ineffective . It is not used to capacity and has lain empty on a number of occasions . It was closed in DATE but re - opened in DATE .

Authority to transfer prisoners to the ORG is given personally by the Secretary of ORG for GPE or another NORP Office Minister , upon the recommendation of both the Governor of the transferring prison and the prison administration division of ORG and after consultation of ORG . Except in case of crisis or emergency , transfers are normally effected only after thorough consideration of the particular circumstances .

No prisoner will be detained in the ORG longer than is considered necessary . No minimum period is prescribed ; the maximum will not exceed DATE , save in exceptional circumstances .

ORG The progress of each prisoner detained in the ORG is constantly monitored by its staff , who report DATE to the prison administration division of ORG . Each case is also examined DATE by ORG , which may make recommendations to the Secretary of ORG for the individual ’s transfer out of the ORG .

ORG The ORG comprises CARDINAL single cells of QUANTITY in total area , to which prisoners are confined except for exercise periods , toileting , visits and authorised interviews . They are not permitted to associate with other prisoners .

The area in which the prisoner is confined , measuring QUANTITY by QUANTITY , is separated from the cell ’s entrance lobby by a security grille , designed to protect staff . The area in question is larger than the minimum recommended for a single cell in a security prison . The lighting , heating and ventilation of cells in the Unit are comparable or superior to those in separate cell areas in other prisons and to those in many ordinary cells in other prisons .

ORG Letters and visits are allowed on the basis normal in prisons in accordance with ORG and ORG . Unit visits normally take place at DATE and can be extended TIME .

ORG Library books and newspapers are provided on the normal prison basis , prisoners being free to purchase additional materials out of their own funds . Piped radio facilities are provided in each cell and notebooks are made available in accordance with ORG . Prisoners already taking correspondence courses are encouraged to continue .

Meals are taken and paid work , when available , is carried out by ORG inmates in their cells . Exercise is provided for them for TIME periods DATE , but not in association with other prisoners .

ORG In addition to visits from friends and relatives , prisoners in the ORG are visited by the Governor and the Chief Officer of ORG DATE , by the ORG chaplain and a psychiatrist DATE and by ORG on request .

ORG Rule CARDINAL of ORG provides , inter alia :

" ( CARDINAL ) Every prisoner shall be allowed to write and to receive a letter on his admission , and shall thereafter be allowed to write and receive letters and to receive visits at intervals laid down by the Secretary of ORG . The intervals so prescribed may be extended as a punishment for misconduct , but shall not be extended so as to preclude a prisoner from writing and receiving a letter , and receiving a visit , DATE .

( CARDINAL ) Subject to the provisions of Rule CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) every letter to or from a prisoner shall be read by the Governor or by an officer deputed by him for that purpose and it shall be within the discretion of the Governor to stop any letter if he considers that the contents are objectionable . "

ORG At the relevant time , these provisions were supplemented by various Standing Orders , of which the following were pertinent in the present case .

( a ) Standing Order Ic CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) dealt with the exercise of the Governor ’s discretion under LAW ) to stop " objectionable " letters . It stated :

" All ordinary matter , including news of public events , should be passed . Comment by a prisoner on his own conviction and sentence is not objectionable if expressed in proper terms . Objectionable matter falls within narrow limits , viz.-

( d ) Complaints of prison treatment . These should be addressed to the Secretary of ORG or ORG by petition .

( b ) Standing Order Ic CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(a ) dealt with the conditions governing the contents of letters to Members of ORG . It provided that such letters should be sent , after being read , " except where they include a complaint or request concerning prison treatment , including allegations against prison staff , which has not completed the prescribed procedure for remedying the grievance i.e. by petition to the Secretary of ORG or other appropriate official means " .

( c ) Standing Order Ic CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) related to petitions by inmates to the ORG and included the following passage :

" ( g ) If the question of legal advice arises it will be dealt with as under :

( i ) a prisoner may correspond with his legal adviser and with other persons in connection with the preparation of the petition to the Commission on the same basis as if he were an appellant .

( d ) Standing Order Ic CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) provided , with certain savings , that prisoners would be allowed to correspond with " close relations " and normally also with " other relatives and existing friends " . The Order also contained the following passages :

" ( b ) ... Governors have discretion to forbid [ letters in the second category ] ... on the grounds of security or good order and discipline or in the interests of the prevention or discouragement of crime .

( c ) Governors have discretion to allow communication with other persons not personally known to the prisoner before he came into custody . ... "

ORG In addition to a complaint to the Governor of the prison , a prisoner in GPE who is aggrieved by his treatment has available to him various remedies . They fall into the following CARDINAL categories :

( a ) internal channels of complaint , namely :

( i ) a petition to the Secretary of ORG for GPE ; ( ii ) a complaint to ORG ; ( iii ) a complaint to a ORG of the FAC ; ( iv ) representations to ORG ; ( v ) representations to ORG ;

( b ) an investigation by the Parliamentary Commissioner for ORG ;

( c ) judicial remedies .

Particulars concerning the remedies listed at ( a ) ( i ) and ( ii ) and ( b ) appear in the ORG ’s PERSON and PERSON judgment of DATE , Series A no . CARDINAL , at pp . CARDINAL , paras . CARDINAL - CARDINAL . An indication of those referred to at ( a ) ( iii)-(v ) is given at paragraph CARDINAL of the Commission ’s report in the present case . Judicial remedies are of the following CARDINAL kinds .

ORG A prisoner aggrieved by prison conditions may challenge them by the ordinary remedies of private law as an infringement of his civil rights .

It was emphasised by ORG in PERSON v. Honey ( [ DATE ] Appeal Cases CARDINAL and [ DATE ] CARDINAL All England Law Reports CARDINAL ) that " a convicted prisoner , in spite of his imprisonment , retains all civil rights which are not taken away expressly or by necessary implication " . Thus , the general principle of NORP law that a person has a right not to be subjected , deliberately or negligently , to physical or mental harm remains applicable to a prisoner . For example , he can bring an action against the Secretary of ORG seeking declarator and damages in respect of an alleged assault by prison staff or in respect of harm to his physical or mental health allegedly suffered as a result of unduly rigorous or inhumane conditions ( see , inter alia , GPE v. Chief Constable of GPE ( DATE ) , ORG , DATE ) .

The Government cited a number of authorities in support of the proposition that treatment of prisoners which is so inhuman or degrading that it can not be regarded as having been authorised by ORG will be unlawful and actionable as a civil wrong . In the context of correspondence , they stated that a restriction that infringed a right retained by a prisoner , such as his right of access to a legal adviser relating to possible civil proceedings , would be considered to be unlawful ( NORP v. Home Secretary , ex parte PERSON [ DATE ] ORG Reports CARDINAL ) .

ORG The exercise by public authorities of statutory powers and duties is subject to judicial review . The grounds on which such review may be open are in substance the same in GPE as in GPE and GPE ( see PERSON v. ORG , DATE ORG CARDINAL , per Lord PERSON at CARDINAL ) . In particular , an exercise of discretionary power may be challenged on the grounds that the authority concerned has acted arbitrarily , in bad faith , unreasonably , for an improper purpose or otherwise outside its statutory powers ( see , for example , the speech of Lord PERSON in ORG Unions v. Minister for ORG [ DATE ] Appeal Cases CARDINAL at CARDINAL and [ DATE ] CARDINAL All England Law Reports CARDINAL at CARDINAL - CARDINAL , as quoted in the DATE judgment of CARDINAL DATE , Series A no . CARDINAL , p. CARDINAL , para . CARDINAL ) . In GPE , the supervisory jurisdiction over public authorities is exercised by ORG , which can grant a wide range of remedies , including the annulment of any unlawful decision and the award of damages in appropriate conditions .

A prisoner aggrieved by prison conditions can in principle bring an application to the supervisory jurisdiction to establish that the Secretary of ORG had failed to perform the duties incumbent on him or that his decision to institute or maintain those conditions was unreasonable . Thus in NORP v. Home Secretary , ex parte PERSON [ DATE ] CARDINAL Weekly Law Reports DATE and PERSON v. Secretary of ORG for GPE DATE ORG CARDINAL applications for judicial review were brought by prisoners aggrieved by conditions in prisons to which they had been transferred . Likewise , a prisoner may challenge a restriction upon his correspondence as ultra vires in that it infringed his civil rights or as unreasonable , and such a challenge can be brought whether the restriction has been imposed by the Secretary of ORG ( NORP v. Home Secretary , ex parte PERSON , cited above ) , the prisoner Governor ( PERSON v. Deputy Governor of ORG [ DATE ] Appeal Cases CARDINAL ) or ORG in the exercise of disciplinary powers ( NORP v. ORG , ex parte PERSON [ DATE ] ORG Reports CARDINAL ) .


The applicant is a GPE national , who was born in DATE and lives in GPE . He is represented before the Court by PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE . The applicant has requested anonymity and the ORG has granted this request , under LAW of ORG .

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

On DATE the applicant and his cousin were arrested on suspicion of car theft and damage and , at CARDINAL p.m. , taken to GPE police station , where they were detained for questioning .

The custody record shows that the applicant was given a meal at TIME He spoke with CARDINAL of his sisters on the telephone , but transport difficulties prevented any member of his family from attending . He was interviewed in the presence of a social worker and a solicitor , both of whom advised the police that they did not consider that the applicant should be detained overnight because he had threatened to harm himself . The responsible police officer , however , decided that unless an appropriate adult could be found to ensure that the applicant would appear in court DATE , it would not be possible to release him . No adult could be found to provide the required surety .

Shortly after TIME the applicant was charged with theft , taking and driving away a car and criminal damage . The police did not seek the applicant ’s consent to take fingerprint and DNA samples , due to his “ age and tearful condition ” .

At TIME the applicant and his cousin were taken to ORG Justice Centre , which is situated in GPE , QUANTITY ( QUANTITY ) from GPE police station .

On arrival , at TIME , the applicant was searched and told to undress and take a shower . He was given pyjamas to wear and placed in a small cell with no furnishings in ORG , used at Lisnevin Juvenile Justice centre for isolation and punishment . There was a plastic mattress on the floor , a blanket and a pillow . The floor was uncovered and there was CARDINAL small window above head height . The applicant was frightened and did not know how long he would be held in the cell .

TIME , TIME , the applicant was taken to ORG , where he was released on bail .

Pursuant to LAW Order DATE , as amended by ORG ) ( GPE ) Order DATE , the police are empowered to send a juvenile offender to a place of safety , which is defined as any juvenile justice centre , hospital , surgery or other suitable place . Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the DATE Order provide that children DATE arrested without warrant for an offence other than homicide should be taken to a juvenile justice centre only on suspicion of committing a serious arrestable offence .

LAW DATE came into effect in GPE on DATE .

In DATE ORG ( “ SSI ” ) inspected Lisnevin Juvenile Justice Centre as part of a programme covering all such institutions in GPE ( “ Report on the inspection of ORG Justice Centre DATE ” ) . The SSI recommended , inter alia , the immediate suspension of the use of ORG .

In a report published in DATE , ORG , composed of CARDINAL senior civil servants and CARDINAL independent assessors , expressed the view that Lisnevin Juvenile Justice Centre was not suitable for holding juveniles , and recommended that it should close ( “ Review of ORG in GPE ” , ORG ) .

This treaty ( hereafter , “ the ORG Convention ” ) , adopted by ORG of ORG on DATE , has binding force under international law on GPE , including all of the member ORG .

Article CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the UN Convention states :

“ In all actions concerning children , whether undertaken by public or private social welfare institutions , courts of law , administrative , authoritative , or legislative bodies , the best interest of the child shall be a primary consideration . ”

Article CARDINAL provides :

“ GPE Parties shall ensure that :

( a ) No child shall be subjected to torture or other cruel , inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment . ...

( b ) No child shall be deprived of his or her liberty unlawfully or arbitrarily . The arrest , detention or imprisonment of a child shall be in conformity with the law and shall be used only as a measure of last resort and for the shortest appropriate period of time ;

( c ) Every child deprived of liberty shall be treated with humanity and respect for the inherent dignity of the human person , and in a manner which takes into account the needs of persons of his or her age . In particular every child deprived of liberty shall be separated from adults unless it is considered in the child ’s best interest not to do so and shall have the right to maintain contact with his or her family through correspondence and visits , save in exceptional circumstances .

( d ) Every child deprived of his or her liberty shall have the right to prompt access to legal and other appropriate assistance , as well as the right to challenge the legality of the deprivation of his or her liberty before a court or other competent , independent and impartial authority , and to a prompt decision of any such action . ”

Article CARDINAL ) provides :

“ GPE Parties recognise the right of every child alleged as , accused of , or recognised as having infringed the penal law to be treated in a manner consistent with the promotion of the child ’s sense of dignity and worth , which reinforces the child ’s respect for the human rights and fundamental freedoms of others and which takes into account the child ’s age and the desirability of promoting the reintegration and the child ’s assuming a constructive role in society . ”

The Beijing Rules were adopted by ORG on DATE . These Rules are not binding in international law ; in the Preamble , States are invited , but not required , to adopt them . Rule CARDINAL provides , inter alia , that detention pending trial should be used as a measure of last resort for juveniles , and for the shortest possible period of time . Whenever possible , detention pending trial should be replaced by alternative measures , such as close supervision , intensive care or placement with a family or in an educational setting or home .


Violation of Art. 8;No violation of Art. 14+8;No violation of Art. 6;Just satisfaction reserved

Mr. PERSON and his wife Mrs. PERSON were born in GPE in DATE and DATE respectively . They are both NORP citizens and retired .

In DATE , Mr. PERSON was appointed Director of the recently - created ORG . Consequently , the applicants , after selling their home in GPE , moved with their family and furniture to GPE . Initially , they occupied a house owned by GPE . However , in DATE , Mr. PERSON bought a plot of land on GPE , on which , after obtaining the requisite planning permission , he built a house , called " Whiteknights " . He and his family took occupation of this house on DATE .

The property 's rateable value was £ MONEY , of which £ MONEY was attributable to the house itself . It was then , and still is , " controlled housing " ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . However , the applicants did not require a licence to occupy the house , since they had " residence qualifications " by virtue of ORG ) ( GPE ) DATE ( " LAW " ) ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

In DATE , after Mr. PERSON had resigned from his post in ORG , the applicants and their family left GPE and Mr. PERSON took up employment with ORG ( ORG ) . Thereafter , and until he retired in DATE , he worked overseas for various development Agencies on the basis of temporary contracts .

From DATE , " Whiteknights " was let either to persons with the necessary " residence qualifications " or under a licence from ORG ( " ORG " ) in accordance with LAW and its subsequent amendments ( see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) . During this period , the applicants corresponded periodically with ORG from various addresses , inter alia , to inquire as to the operation of LAW in the event of their selling the property .

In DATE , Mr. PERSON transferred ownership of the house to his wife .

On DATE , ORG wrote to Mrs. PERSON advising her of the current tenant 's intention to leave " Whiteknights " and enquiring who would be the next tenant . By letter of DATE , Mrs. PERSON informed ORG that she and her husband proposed to return to GPE . The ORG replied , on DATE , that the applicants were not entitled to occupy their house unless they were granted a licence under LAW Law DATE ( LAW Housing Law CARDINAL " - see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

" Whiteknights " was empty after the departure of the last - mentioned tenant on DATE . It appears that neither ORG nor the applicants received any request to let the house after DATE .

In DATE , the applicants returned to GPE from GPE and they lived temporarily with Mrs. PERSON 's mother in GPE .

On DATE , Mrs. PERSON wrote to ORG advising it that she and her husband intended to return to " Whiteknights " to retire . She added that she was currently seeking a teaching post in GPE . Furthermore , the house required various repairs , some of which the applicants proposed to carry out themselves . Accordingly , in addition to seeking a long - term occupation licence , Mrs. PERSON also requested a temporary licence , until DATE , so that this work could be carried out .

On DATE , Mr. and Mrs. PERSON went back to GPE and re - occupied " Whiteknights " . On DATE , Mrs. PERSON , having received no reply from ORG , wrote again to it repeating her request and stating that she and her husband had returned to GPE .

ORG replied on DATE , informing Mrs. PERSON that , after having been considered at a meeting on DATE , her application for a long - term licence to occupy " Whiteknights " had been rejected in the light of the " present adverse housing situation " . The reply also stated : firstly , that the applicants had at no time been granted a licence to occupy this house ; secondly , that even assuming that Mrs. PERSON took up employment considered essential to the community ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , the applicants would not be permitted to stay in their property after her retirement , because she was too old to complete a minimum of DATE in such employment , as required by the Housing Law DATE .

No reference was made in the letter to the request for a temporary licence .

On DATE , a representative of ORG visited the applicants and furnished them with an official form of application for a temporary licence . They lodged the application DATE , but it was refused by decision of ORG on DATE . Notification of the refusal was given to Mrs. PERSON on DATE , and was accompanied by the reasons therefor , namely :

- that Mrs. PERSON had failed to adduce evidence showing that she would be employed in a position essential to the community ;

- that " Whiteknights " was likely to be sought after by persons fulfilling the residential qualifications which the applicants lacked ;

- that in the " present adverse housing situation " , ORG was unable in principle to justify granting a licence to the applicants .

Mrs. PERSON was also informed of her right to appeal from this decision to ORG , under LAW of the Housing Law CARDINAL ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . Finally , she was notified that , unless she and her husband could show good reasons to the contrary , ORG would refer their occupation of " Whiteknights " to ORG with a view to prosecution if they did not vacate the house within DATE .

In their reply of DATE , the applicants repeated their request for a temporary licence at least until DATE , in order to complete the necessary repairs to the property and to put it on the market for sale . They claimed that they had not been " occupying " the house , within the meaning of the Housing Law DATE . They maintained that the PERSON could not reasonably prevent them from carrying out the repairs necessitated by the fact that the property had been let for DATE , and that the PERSON allowed them to take the steps required to sell the property , steps which precluded anyone else from occupying it in the meantime . The applicants also contended that they had not been informed until DATE that they required a licence to live in " Whiteknights " ; in particular , they had not been notified of the entry into force on DATE of ORG Law DATE ( " LAW " ) , which contained new provisions under which they ceased to have " residence qualifications " ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

That letter was considered at a meeting of ORG on DATE . A reply was sent to Mrs. PERSON on DATE , confirming that she had not been notified before DATE of the change in the law or of the need to obtain a licence . ORG also agreed that , if the applicants vacated " Whiteknights " by DATE , it would take no action in respect of their unlawful occupation .

On DATE , Mrs. PERSON requested a further extension , until DATE , of the applicants ' permission to stay , since the property had not yet been sold . This request was refused on DATE and Mrs. PERSON was so informed on DATE . Furthermore , the applicants were given DATE to leave the house , on pain of prosecution .

On DATE , Mr. and Mrs. PERSON met the President of ORG and sought , inter alia , permission to remain in their property for DATE , in order to effect the sale . On this occasion , they raised the question of compensation for their loss of residence rights .

ORG wrote to the applicants on DATE , reporting that their application had been reconsidered on DATE and refused . They were informed that proceedings would accordingly be instituted against them for unlawful occupation , unless they vacated " Whiteknights " by DATE .

Mr. and Mrs. PERSON consulted an advocate in DATE and , on DATE , instructed him to appeal to ORG against all ORG decisions . Such appeals could only be lodged by an advocate of ORG , but the applicants ' advocate failed to file them within the statutory time - limit ( DATE ) .

However , on DATE he requested ORG to take no action against the applicants until he had had a further opportunity of advising them . On DATE , he submitted on their behalf a fresh application for a licence to occupy " Whiteknights " until DATE , in order to effect its sale . In its reply of CARDINAL DATE , ORG stated that :

" On DATE ORG noted the contents of your letter but resolved with regret that as [ the applicants ] took occupation without [ a ] licence and have been given an adequate time to vacate the LOC , it is unable to justify withholding action in this matter . The documents in the case have been referred to ORG . "

On DATE , the ORG notified the advocate that the further licence application had been refused on DATE .

On DATE , the advocate notified ORG , the police and the prosecuting authorities that the applicants intended to appeal . However , on DATE the police visited the applicants at " Whiteknights " and asked them to make a statement but they refused to do so unless their advocate was present . By letter of DATE to the chief of police , they explained that an appeal was being lodged . They were nevertheless summoned to appear in court on DATE .

On DATE , the applicants discovered that the appeal to ORG had not yet been lodged and addressed a complaint to ORG of the Guernsey Bar against their advocate . He finally filed an appeal - in the name of Mrs. PERSON and directed against ORG decisions of CARDINAL May , DATE and CARDINAL DATE refusing the licences - on DATE at TIME This appeal sought the grant of either an unrestricted licence or , alternatively , permission to occupy " Whiteknights " until DATE , and alleged that the decisions in question were an unreasonable exercise of ORG discretion and were ultra vires . The appeal was accepted by ORG for examination , although it had been lodged out of time .

Later on DATE , the applicants appeared , in accordance with the summons , before ORG . They asked for an adjournment on the ground that Mrs. PERSON 's appeal went to the heart of the question whether their occupation of " Whiteknights " was unlawful or not . However , the adjournment was refused on the insistence of the Law Officer .

The applicants cases were dealt with separately , the charges against Mr. PERSON being taken first . He was convicted of occupying " Whiteknights " without a licence and fined . Mrs. PERSON 's trial was adjourned twice and then suspended sine die , the court having taken into account , inter alia , Mrs. PERSON 's appeal to ORG and the fact that Mr. PERSON had appealed against his conviction .

The applicants finally sold " Whiteknights " on DATE for a price of £ MONEY , which in their view was less than its actual value .

On DATE , ORG , which was composed of a President and PERSON , dismissed Mrs. PERSON 's appeal , unanimously as regards ORG decisions of DATE and DATE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) and by a majority of CARDINAL votes to CARDINAL as regards the decision of CARDINAL DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . By virtue of section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the Housing Law DATE , this judgment was final and conclusive .

Mr. PERSON 's appeal against his conviction was heard and dismissed by ORG on DATE . Before and during the hearing , Mr. PERSON challenged the accuracy of the transcript of the first - instance proceedings and asked for leave to hear the original tape . This request was refused , but the PERSON of the ORG listened to the tape during a recess and pronounced the transcript accurate .

Mr. PERSON also alleged that ORG was inherently biased because , with the exception of CARDINAL NORP , its composition was the same as when it had determined his wife 's appeal against the decisions of ORG . He further maintained that the composition of ORG , as such , was archaic .

The complaint which the applicants lodged with ORG on DATE against their advocate for delay in filing the appeals against ORG decisions was found to be substantiated on DATE .

ORG is a dependency of FAC . It has its own legislative assembly , courts of law and administrative and fiscal systems , which are separate from those of GPE and GPE .

The legislative assembly is ORG , which has CARDINAL members and is presided over by the ORG or Deputy Bailiff , both of whom are appointed by the Sovereign . The GPE legislate for the LOC by way of " Laws " or , in some circumstances , by way of Ordinances ; the former require approval by Her ORG before they can take effect . Although ORG has power to legislate for GPE , it would be contrary to constitutional convention for it do so in respect of matters domestic to the island , such as LAW .

ORG is a court of unlimited jurisdiction which sits either at first instance or on appeal . It is composed of the Bailiff , the Deputy Bailiff or a Lieutenant Bailiff , as President , together with CARDINAL PERSON appointed by GPE . The Magistrate 's Court has summary jurisdiction in criminal matters and jurisdiction up to a limited amount in civil suits .

Following the liberation of LOC DATE after the Second World War , the return of many families and the influx of a large number of new residents created acute housing problems , which were followed by considerable increases in property prices . To meet this situation , the LOC enacted ORG Provisions)(Guernsey ) Law DATE ( LAW Housing Law CARDINAL " ) , which came into force on DATE . The PERSON limited the right to reside in GPE without a licence to persons having " residence qualifications " , that is persons who had been ordinarily resident there at some time DATE and DATE . The system of housing control introduced by this law has been modified from time to time to meet changing circumstances pertaining in the island .

On DATE , this PERSON was replaced by LAW , which replaced the above - mentioned final qualifying date of DATE by DATE . Thus , persons , like the applicants , who had been ordinarily resident in GPE on or before that date had " residence qualifications " and were permitted to live there without a licence .

The new PERSON also freed from control all houses of a " rateable value " ( for the purposes of local taxation ) in excess of £ CARDINAL per annum . Such properties , known as " open market houses " , could be occupied by anyone , without any restrictions . Houses with a lower rateable value , on the other hand , fell into the category of " controlled housing " and could be occupied only by persons having either " residence qualifications " or a licence granted by ORG for the particular house .

The Housing Law DATE was amended on matters of detail in DATE and DATE ( with regard to furnished accommodation ) and in DATE , when ORG ) ( Guernsey ) Law DATE raised the minimum rateable value for " open market houses " to £ CARDINAL . This was later reduced , by ORG ( Rateable Value ) Ordinance , to £ MONEY .

ORG and LAW consolidated all the previous legislation in this area .

In DATE , a significant number of people who had " residence qualifications " under LAW DATE but had subsequently left GPE , sought to return to the island . On DATE , there entered into force the Housing Law DATE , which added a further requirement as regards " residence qualifications " : to possess these the person concerned should not only have been ordinarily resident in GPE at some time DATE and DATE but also in occupation of a dwelling on DATE or be the spouse or child of someone so resident . The PERSON , however , included a saving provision in favour of anyone in lawful occupation of controlled LOC on DATE , but solely as regards those LOC . The applicants therefore ceased to possess " residence qualifications " entitling them to occupy " Whiteknights " without a licence , since they were not resident in GPE on the relevant date .

As regards the grant of licences to persons without " residence qualifications " to occupy controlled houses , the Housing Law DATE gave ORG discretionary powers which were limited by the enumeration of factors to be considered in deciding particular cases . Furthermore , the PERSON provided for appeals from ORG decision to ORG .

The Housing Law DATE , which was originally enacted for DATE , was extended until DATE . On DATE , it was replaced by the Housing Law DATE . This statute preserved the basic distinction between " open market houses " , available to all , and " controlled housing " for which " residence qualifications " or a licence were required . The categories of persons having " residence qualifications " were set out in section CARDINAL of the PERSON . It altered the basis of determining " residence qualifications " by allowing them also to be acquired by a certain period of lawful , licensed , residence in controlled housing and not only by residence on DATE ( section DATE ) ) . At the same time , certain provisions were designed to preserve existing rights ; in particular , " residence qualifications " continued to be possessed by persons who had been both ordinarily resident in GPE at some time DATE and DATE and in occupation of a dwelling on DATE ( section CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(h ) ) . Since the applicants did not possess " residence qualifications " , they needed a licence from ORG .

As far as the granting of a licence was concerned ( section CARDINAL ) , section CARDINAL of the Housing Law DATE enumerated the factors to be taken into account by ORG , including , inter alia :

( a ) whether the person concerned was engaged in employment considered essential to the community ( sub - section CARDINAL ( a ) - " essential licence " holder ) ;

( b ) whether the number of dwellings similar to that for which application was made and available for occupation was sufficient to meet the housing requirements of persons possessing " residence qualifications " ( sub - section CARDINAL(b ) ) .

However , ORG could , in the exercise of its discretion , take into account " such other factors as [ it ] may , from time to time , deem necessary or expedient " ( sub - section CARDINAL ) . According to the Government , prolonged ownership was a factor which ORG took into account in this connection , but it was not given substantial weight in the absence of other special features . The fact that an applicant had formerly possessed " residence qualifications " under an earlier law was also a factor to which ORG would have regard but more weight would be attached to the time that the applicant had actually spent in GPE .

Section CARDINAL of the PERSON provided for an appeal to ORG against the refusal of a licence on the grounds that the decisions of ORG were ultra vires or constituted an unreasonable exercise of its powers .

Section CARDINAL defined the offence of unlawful occupation as follows :

" Any person

( a ) who occupies or causes or permits any other person to occupy a dwelling in contravention of any of the provisions of this PERSON ; or

( b ) who contravenes any condition of a housing licence ;

shall be guilty of an offence and liable , on conviction , to a fine not exceeding QUANTITY , and , in the case of a continuing offence , to a further fine not exceeding QUANTITY for DATE during which the offence continues after conviction . "

ORG ) ( GPE ) DATE entered into force on DATE . It is designed to replace gradually the old " residence qualifications " developed from the Housing Law DATE by a system of periods of residence : DATE for persons born in GPE or having a parent born in GPE ; DATE for essential workers and their families ; and DATE for other licence holders .

GPE is an island of QUANTITY ( QUANTITY ) . In DATE , the population of GPE was CARDINAL , and in DATE , DATE after the introduction of the Housing Law DATE , it was CARDINAL . DATE , the census data available showed an increase to CARDINAL , but by DATE the population had dropped to CARDINAL . DATE the island has an estimated overall population of CARDINAL and an average population per square mile of CARDINAL persons . This makes GPE one of the most densely populated areas within the member ORG . In addition , during DATE there are CARDINAL tourists on the island at any one time , giving an average population at that time of QUANTITY .

The DATE census reveals that in the period from DATE to CARDINAL CARDINAL,CARDINAL persons moved into GPE to live and CARDINAL moved out . DATE , which is the period relevant to the present case , QUANTITY persons moved in and CARDINAL moved out , giving an excess of outflow over inflow of CARDINAL .

The economy of the island depends on horticulture , agriculture and tourism and , in DATE , the international finance industry . CARDINAL of the island 's greatest problems has been finding sufficient housing accommodation , while protecting the relatively small area of countryside and other spaces from overdevelopment .

On DATE , CARDINAL licences were in force , of which CARDINAL CARDINAL per cent had been issued in DATE .

The statistics for DATE show that a certain balance had been maintained between the essential and non - essential licences granted by ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . The number of essential licence holders exceeded that of non - essential licence holders for DATE , but the contrary was the case in DATE and DATE .

According to statistics supplied by the ORG , the non - essential licences fall mainly into CARDINAL or other of the following categories :

persons , principally in the tourist and horticultural industries , housed by their employer in staff quarters : CARDINAL in DATE and CARDINAL in DATE ;

returned GPE persons and persons with strong GPE connections : CARDINAL in DATE and CARDINAL in DATE ;

retired licence - holders and persons now qualified by virtue of long periods of residence under the DATE and the DATE Laws : CARDINAL in DATE and CARDINAL in DATE ;

compassionate and " en famille " ( DATE PERSON ) licences : CARDINAL in DATE and CARDINAL in DATE ;

miscellaneous ( including licences from CARDINAL's-CARDINAL 's if house built ) : CARDINAL in DATE and CARDINAL in DATE .

The strong demand for licences is also illustrated by the number of refusals : CARDINAL in DATE , CARDINAL in DATE , CARDINAL in DATE and CARDINAL in DATE ; the unsuccessful applicants included persons who had " residence qualifications " under LAW and persons who had previously been in essential employment .

The official census statistics for DATE show that there were a total of CARDINAL dwellings on the island , of which CARDINAL were occupied , leaving an unoccupied residue of CARDINAL ( as compared with CARDINAL in DATE ) . The DATE census stated that , of the vacant accommodation , MONEY consisted of " tourist units " , MONEY were on sale , MONEY were being renovated and MONEY were " habitable and probably vacant pending new occupiers or for sale " , leaving MONEY unexplained .

On the other hand , a limited survey , made in DATE by ORG on the problem of the empty houses found that , after excluding holiday flats , flats over shops and partially - occupied houses , CARDINAL dwellings were unoccupied and available for long - term occupation . However , some of them were ruined or in very bad condition . Although ORG concluded that there had been " no significant deterioration in the situation since the last survey " made in DATE , it recommended , inter alia , the re - development of old buildings in town areas .


No violation of Art. 6-1;No violation of Art. 6-3-c

Mr PERSON , a NORP national , is a lawyer who practises in GPE . At the material time , he was facing criminal proceedings in ORG ( ORG ) in connection with his activities as the lawyer of various members of ORG ( ORG ) .

Initially he was represented by CARDINAL lawyers of his choice : PERSON , practising in GPE , and PERSON , having his office in GPE . Subsequently , on DATE , they were designated , at his request , to represent him as court - appointed defence counsel . The applicant had , moreover , chosen CARDINAL further lawyers to assist in his defence , CARDINAL of whom were LANGUAGE , but they did not participate in the criminal proceedings in question here .

On DATE , on an application by the prosecuting authority , the President of ORG designated as third court - appointed defence counsel , PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE .

Mr Croissant raised objections both to the appointment of a third defence counsel itself and to the choice of the person concerned . He objected in particular that Mr PERSON was a member of ORG ( ORG ) , while he was fundamentally opposed to that party . He requested either that the decision appointing PERSON be annulled or that the latter be replaced by PERSON , who also had his office in GPE .

PERSON for his part asked to be relieved of his duties in the case .

ORG dismissed both applications on DATE .

On the first point it considered that it had been necessary to appoint a third defence counsel to ensure that the trial would take its course according to the principles laid down in LAW and , in any event , that the accused was adequately represented throughout the trial , having regard to its possible length and to the size and complexity of the case .

As to the other objection , it agreed that when selecting a lawyer to be appointed as defence counsel the court should , as a rule , endeavour to choose a lawyer in whom the defendant places confidence . This rule was formulated for cases where the defendant has no defence counsel and the court must appoint CARDINAL . However , at Mr Croissant ’s request , the court had appointed CARDINAL defence counsel who enjoyed his full confidence . Nevertheless , when selecting the third court - appointed defence counsel , the court had not only taken into consideration which lawyer would offer the best guarantees for a proper and effective defence , having regard to the subject - matter of the trial , the factual and legal complexity of the case and the personality of the defendant . It had also tried to choose CARDINAL in whom the defendant would probably be able to place confidence .

Taking into account all the circumstances which were relevant for assessing whether PERSON was a suitable person to defend PERSON , the court held that the fact that PERSON was a member of the ORG did not justify revoking his appointment : in so far as the defendant might wish the defence to make a sharp attack on the politics of this party , the other court - appointed counsel offered all the guarantees . PERSON too had expressed the opinion that he was in a position to appear for the defendant in spite of their political differences .

Finally , PERSON was defending CARDINAL of Mr Croissant ’s former employees in other proceedings and the possibility of a conflict of interests could not be ruled out .

On DATE ORG ( Oberlandesgericht ) upheld this decision . It recalled that , according to the case - law of ORG ( Bundesverfassungsgericht ) , an appointment to act as defence counsel could and should only be revoked when its purpose - that is , to ensure that the accused will be adequately defended and the proceedings properly conducted - is seriously endangered . On similar grounds as the first - instance court , it held that Mr Croissant had not established that this requirement was met in respect of Mr PERSON ’s appointment .

As to the appointment of a third defence counsel , the court found nothing to criticise . To appoint a further defence counsel having his office within ORG jurisdiction had been objectively justified by reason of the length of the proceedings , which could not be predicted accurately , and the size and complexity of the case .

As to PERSON request to be discharged from the case , the court found that unjustified too . Neither Mr Croissant nor PERSON maintained , nor was there anything to show , that the relations between them were so strained or they had quarrelled in such a way as to make a proper defence impossible .

Subsequently , PERSON tried to secure the additional assistance of PERSON , by choosing him as defence counsel , but to no avail . Under Article CARDINAL para . CARDINAL of the Code of Criminal Procedure , an accused may not be represented by CARDINAL such lawyers ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) and he had already retained CARDINAL counsel of his own choice ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

At the trial , which lasted DATE , the applicant was represented by the CARDINAL court - appointed defence counsel .

On DATE ORG convicted the applicant of supporting a criminal organisation and sentenced him to DATE and CARDINAL months’ imprisonment ; he was also barred from practising his profession for DATE and ordered to pay the costs and expenses , including those which he had been compelled to incur himself .

On DATE ORG ( ORG ) dismissed PERSON appeal on points of law .

On DATE the costs office ( ORG ) of ORG set the costs and expenses at ORG , including DM CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL for the fees and disbursements of the CARDINAL court - appointed defence counsel . In an additional bill ( GPE ) of DATE it fixed the final amount at ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL , DM CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL of which represented the ORG fees and disbursements . The amount payable in respect of PERSON was DM CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL .

The applicant lodged an objection ( GPE ) against this assessment , which he considered to be incompatible with Article CARDINAL para . CARDINAL ( c ) ( article DATE ) of the LAW . He argued that once free legal assistance had been granted no payment could subsequently be demanded , so that he was under no obligation to pay the court - appointed lawyers and in particular PERSON , who had been imposed on him .

On DATE ORG dismissed the objection ; it referred to the opinion which prevailed in NORP case - law and literature on the subject , which opinion had been endorsed by the ORG in a decision of CARDINAL DATE ( application no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , Decisions and Reports CARDINAL , p. CARDINAL ) .

Mr Croissant lodged an appeal ( Beschwerde ) in ORG , based on the same grounds . He stressed their particular relevance to PERSON , who had been appointed against PERSON will .

On DATE the appeal was allowed in respect of CARDINAL minor items ( DM CARDINAL in total ) , but was dismissed as to the main issue . ORG held that the designation of a third court - appointed defence counsel had corresponded to a pressing need - ensuring an adequate defence - , on account of the scope and complexity of the case and in view of the probable duration of the trial . If the court , when making the appointment , had also purported to secure that the trial would take its legal course , it had rightly done so since that was a legitimate interest to be taken into account as well . As to the applicant ’s arguments based on Article CARDINAL para . CARDINAL ( c ) ( article DATE ) of the LAW , the court endorsed the reasons given by ORG . It added that the financial means of the defendant are immaterial for deciding whether or not the court should appoint a defence counsel . The question whether a convicted person is able to pay only arises after the criminal proceedings have ended .

On DATE ORG , sitting as a panel of CARDINAL judges , refused to entertain Mr Croissant ’s constitutional appeal ( ORG ) , taking the view that it had no prospect of success . In the light of the ORG ’s case - law , the court considered that it did not follow from Article CARDINAL para . CARDINAL ( c ) ( article DATE ) of the LAW that legal assistance was definitively provided free . It held that a convicted person ’s obligation to pay costs and expenses derived from the fact that proceedings had been brought as a result of his own conduct . The principle of the " social state " ( Sozialstaatsprinzip ) and the right to a fair trial no doubt guaranteed that , where necessary , legal assistance be accorded to an indigent accused , but they did not require him to be definitively dispensed from paying the fees incurred . The law on legal costs and expenses made available other possibilities ( arrangements for payment or stay of execution ) to take effective account of the financial difficulties of the convicted person . Finally , ORG conclusion regarding the necessity of appointing PERSON as the third lawyer ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) was coherent and in any event had not been arbitrary .

In DATE the applicant had already requested an extension of the time - limit for payment ( Stundung ) , but this was refused by the President of ORG ( ORG ) on DATE . After a first appeal ( Beschwerde ) had failed , his further appeal ( PERSON ) was allowed on CARDINAL DATE , when ORG quashed the earlier decisions and remitted the matter to ORG . It considered that a decision to grant such an extension was primarily intended to facilitate the rehabilitation of a debtor who had already served his sentence . It was accordingly necessary to take account of the appellant ’s argument that a rejection of his request would force him to make a declaration of assets ( PERSON ) and would hamper his efforts to resume practising as a lawyer . It was also necessary to bear in mind that the applicant had agreed to the inspection of his documents and accounts by a member of ORG , in order to assess his income , and that ORG had proposed to ask him to make a confidential statement under oath before a notary instead of a declaration of assets . Even though granting the extension would mean in reality that a large part of the debt would remain unpaid indefinitely , that did not justify a refusal ; in any event it was unlikely that the total amount could ever be recovered . It was therefore necessary to reconsider the question and to determine whether it was possible to authorise smaller payments by instalments .

As a result , the President of ORG granted several extensions of the time - limit , on the most recent occasion until DATE . However , in DATE , on his own initiative , Mr Croissant started to pay ORG DATE , on the condition that this sum not be used to pay the court - appointed lawyers .

In DATE , DATE and DATE he had unsuccessfully sought to have the debt cancelled . A fourth such request , filed on DATE , led to an order made by the President of ORG on DATE . Whilst dismissing the remainder of the application , he reserved , pending the ruling of ORG , his decision on the payment of the fees and expenses of the court - appointed lawyers .

The following provisions of LAW concerning assistance by defence counsel are relevant in the present case .

" ( CARDINAL ) The accused ( PERSON ) may be assisted by a lawyer at any stage of the proceedings . He may not be represented by CARDINAL lawyers of his own choice .

( CARDINAL ) ... "

" ( CARDINAL ) The assistance of a defence counsel is necessary where :

the trial at first instance is conducted in ORG or ORG ;

" ( CARDINAL ) In the cases provided for in LAW ) , a defence counsel shall be appointed for an accused who has been officially charged before the court ( PERSON ) and is not yet represented by counsel , as soon as the accused is invited ... to make a statement on the indictment .

( CARDINAL ) Where the necessity of a defence counsel only becomes apparent at a later stage , CARDINAL shall be appointed immediately .

( CARDINAL ) ...

( CARDINAL ) ... "

According to the case - law of ORG and ORG , LAW does not preclude a court from appointing , when it holds this to be necessary in the interests of justice , one or more defence counsel for an accused who is already represented by CARDINAL or more counsel of his own choice .

" ( CARDINAL ) In so far as possible , the President of the court ORG shall designate the lawyer to be appointed from among the ORG lawyers admitted to plead in a court within the same ORG jurisdiction . The accused shall be offered the opportunity of indicating a lawyer of his choice within a prescribed ORG time - limit . Unless there are important reasons for not doing so , the President shall appoint the lawyer indicated ORG by the accused .

( CARDINAL ) ... "

Under Articles DATE of ORG ) , a lawyer designated as court- appointed defence counsel is obliged to assume the defence , but may request that the appointment be revoked when there are weighty grounds for doing so .

" CARDINAL . The defendant shall bear the costs in so far as they ensue from proceedings brought on account of an offence for which he has been convicted ... "

PERSON of DATE on court costs provides as follows :

" ( CARDINAL ) The payment of legal costs and other debts provided for in LAW , nos . CARDINAL to CARDINAL , of the Regulation on the recovery of costs ... of DATE ... may be deferred where their immediate payment would cause exceptional hardship to the person liable to pay and if such a deferment does not jeopardise the debt ...

( CARDINAL ) The debts referred to in paragraph CARDINAL may be partly or wholly remitted :

if this seems appropriate in the pursuit of aims serving the public good ; CARDINAL . where payment entails exceptional hardship for the person liable to pay ; CARDINAL . where this is equitable on other specific grounds .

The same applies in regard to the reimbursement or crediting of sums already paid .

( CARDINAL ) The competent Minister shall take the decision provided for in DATE and CARDINAL . In certain categories of cases he may delegate this power , in whole or in part , to subordinate authorities . "


Violation of Art. 11;Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient;Costs and expenses award

The applicant is the chairman of the association “ ORG , ORG for GPE ” ( „ Гражданско общество за български интереси , национално достойнство , единение и обединение – за GPE “ – “ the association ” ) .

The association was founded on DATE in GPE . At a meeting on that date the founders adopted its articles and elected its management bodies . The applicant was elected as its chairman .

The association 's articles read , as relevant :

“ CARDINAL . [ The association ] is a NORP patriotic nonprofit organisation . It shall be DEMOCRATIC in form and ORG in content .

OBJECT : mass , historically and morally enlightening , societal and political , cultural and educational , scientific and research , sport and technical , publishing , advertising , charitable and all other types of activities and services which are allowed ( not prohibited ) under the [ Persons and Family Act of DATE ] in respect of nonprofit associations .

NORP [ The association ] is founded with the aims of : uplifting the NORP spirit ; protecting the NORP interests and creating a wealthy , prosperous and patriotic nation ; elevating , developing and preserving the NORP national dignity ; uniting the NORP identity within and outside the boundaries of the promised NORP land , under the flag of historical truth ; protecting and restoring the coat of arms of GPE as a coat of arms of GPE .

NORP [ The association ] is for the creation of a people 's court to judge those responsible for the gravest economic , spiritual , moral and demographic crisis of the NORP society , NORP banking and NORP statehood since CARDINAL September CARDINAL , in particular the period DATE and DATE . ...

NORP [ The association ] is for a wide discussion ... of the illegal trampling and repealing of our first constitution after our liberation in DATE , the most democratic LAW of PERSON and the imposition of the present [ LAW ] ...

[ The association ] is for the reinstatement ( possibly with amendments ) of the unlawfully abolished ' ORG OF ORG ' ...

[ The association ] is for ... changing the form of government of GPE , for the returning of PERSON to the motherland and the throne . ...

NORP ... The core of the [ association 's ] activity shall be the spiritual unification of all NORP , contacts with and consolidation of ORG , establishment of sincere relations with ... all NORP outside GPE , and , in the international relations – point CARDINAL shall be : abolition ( opening ) of the border between GPE and GPE ... ”

On an unspecified later date the association submitted to ORG an application for registration .

ORG refused the application in a judgment of DATE . It held :

“ [ According to ] clause CARDINAL of [ its articles ] , [ the association ] intends to protect and restore the coat of arms of GPE as a coat of arms of GPE . According to clause CARDINAL of the articles , the association is for the establishment of a ' people 's court to judge those responsible for the gravest economic , spiritual , moral and demographic crisis of the NORP society , NORP banking and NORP statehood since DATE , in particular DATE and DATE . Clause CARDINAL of the articles provides for a debate on the repealing of the LAW of PERSON and the adoption of the [ C]onstitution [ of DATE ] which is presently in force .

The goals which have been enumerated thus far are sufficient to refuse the association 's registration . They are clearly political in nature and are characteristic of a political party , whose registration is to be carried out under LAW [ of DATE ] . ”

The applicant , acting in his capacity of chairman of the association , appealed to ORG . He argued , inter alia , that the association 's aims were not political , but goals which could be pursued by every citizen .

Following an amendment to LAW providing that the judgments of the regional courts were no longer appealable before ORG , but before the newly established courts of appeals , on DATE ORG forwarded the applicant 's appeal to the newly created ORG .

On DATE ORG upheld the lower court 's judgment . It held as follows :

“ The articles of [ the association ] contain provisions which are contrary to LAW of GPE . For instance , clause CARDINAL of the articles provides for the restoration of the coat of arms of GPE as the country 's coat of arms . Clause CARDINAL provides for a change of the form of government from republic to monarchy and for the restoration of the LAW of Tarnovo [ of DATE ] . Clause CARDINAL of the articles – abolition of the border between GPE and [ the former GPE of ] GPE . These goals , as formulated in the above - cited clauses , run counter to ORG , CARDINAL § CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the LAW . Moreover , the association indeed has political goals , whereas by LAW associations may not pursue political goals and carry out political activities that are characteristic solely of political parties . ”

The applicant appealed on points of law to ORG . He argued that the lower court had incorrectly held that the association 's aims were contrary to LAW . Furthermore , the association did not pursue political aims , because it was not aspiring to accede to power . The courts ' refusal to register it was an infringement of its founders ' freedom of expression .

On DATE ORG directed the applicant to specify the grounds on which he sought the quashing of the judgment below . In line with these instructions , the applicant submitted additional observations . He reiterated his contention that the association 's aims were not political , because it was not seeking to accede to power through elections or otherwise , or exercise it . Its aims were characteristic of the civil society and were to be achieved through other , nonpolitical means . Furthermore , the association 's articles did not provide for the creation of a people 's court , it did not in fact object to the new coat of arms of GPE and was not seeking to change the form of government from republic to monarchy . These were erroneous findings of the lower court . Finally , the association was seeking to achieve the spiritual union of all NORP , not the abolition of the border between GPE and the former GPE .

On DATE ORG upheld ORG judgment in the following terms :

“ The [ lower court ] correctly found that the goals set out in clauses CARDINAL , CARDINAL and DATE of the association 's articles have a certain political tenor and are characteristic of a political party , whose registration is to be carried out under LAW [ of DATE ] . These goals are contrary to ORG , CARDINAL § CARDINAL and QUANTITY [ of the LAW of DATE ] . ”

The relevant provisions of the LAW of DATE read as follows :

“ GPE is a republic with a parliamentary form of government . ”

“ The territorial integrity of GPE shall be inviolable . ”

NORP Parties shall facilitate the formation of the citizens ' political will . The manner of forming and dissolving political parties , as well as the conditions pertaining to their activity , shall be established by law .

No political parties shall be formed on ethnic , racial , or religious basis , nor parties which seek to accede to power by force . ”

“ CARDINAL . NORP The citizens ' associations shall serve to further and safeguard their interests .

Associations ... may not pursue political goals or carry out political activities that are characteristic solely of political parties . ”

“ CARDINAL . Citizens may freely associate .

Organisations whose activity is directed against the sovereignty [ or ] the territorial integrity of the country and the unity of the nation , towards the incitement of racial , national , ethnical or religious enmity ... as well as organisations which seek to achieve their goals through violence are prohibited .

The law shall specify the organisations which are subject to registration , the manner of their dissolution , as well as their relations with the ORG . ”

“ The Coat of Arms of the Republic of Bulgaria shall depict a gold lion rampant on a dark gules shield . ”

At the material time this LAW ( „ Закон за лицата и семейството “ ) , the relevant provisions of which were superseded by new legislation in DATE , regulated the formation , status and dissolution of nonprofit legal entities , i.e. associations and foundations . Its pertinent provisions were :

“ An association shall acquire legal personality after its entry in the register [ kept by ] ORG . ”

“ An association shall be registered pursuant to an application by [ its ] management committee [ to which shall be enclosed ] a resolution for its founding and its articles of association , signed by the founders ... ”

“ Associations shall be managed in accordance with [ their ] articles of association , which must contain provisions in respect of [ their ] name , aims , means ... ”

At the material time this LAW ( „ Закон за политическите партии “ ) , which was superseded by new legislation in DATE , regulated the formation , registration , functioning and dissolution of political parties . Its relevant provisions read as follows :

“ CARDINAL . Citizens may freely associate in political parties to influence the formation and expression of the political will of the people through elections or other democratic means .

Other organisations and movements may also carry out political activities within the bounds set by the LAW and the laws . ”

“ A political party may be formed [ by ] not CARDINAL enfranchised citizens . ”

“ CARDINAL . A public organisation which has not been registered as a political party may not carry out the activity of a political party .

A [ public organisation ] which has not been registered as a political party may not carry out organised political activities [ on the LOC of ] enterprises , government agencies and organisations .

' Organised political activities ' shall mean the holding of meetings , demonstrations , assemblies and other forms of campaigning in favour of or against a political party or an election candidate .

NORP If a public organisation ... clearly carries out the activity of a political party , the regional prosecutor shall propose that it be dissolved or [ re]register as a political party within DATE .

ORG If the organisation under the foregoing subsection does not cease its political activity or [ re]register as a political party , it shall be dissolved ... ”

The LAW also regulated the manner in which political parties were financed , providing for certain upper limits on the donations that they could receive and prohibiting their receiving anonymous donations and donations from foreign states and organisations ( section CARDINAL ) .

NORP Only political parties ( and coalitions of such parties ) , and not associations , may participate in parliamentary , presidential , local and NORP elections and nominate candidates ( section CARDINAL ) , ( CARDINAL ) and ( CARDINAL ) of the Electing of Members of ORG of DATE ( „ Закон за избиране на народни представители , общински съветници и кметове “ ) , section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the Electing of Members of Parliament Act of DATE ( „ Закон за избиране на народни представители “ ) , section CARDINAL ) and ( CARDINAL ) of the Electing of a President and a ORG of GPE of DATE ( „ Закон за избиране на президент и вицепрезидент на републиката “ ) , section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW of DATE ( „ Закон за местните избори “ ) , and section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) and ( CARDINAL ) of the Electing of Members of ORG from GPE of DATE ( „ Закон за избиране на членове на Европейския парламент от ORG ) ) .

In a judgment of DATE ( реш. № CARDINAL от CARDINAL април DATE г. по PERSON № DATE г. , обн. , GPE , бр. CARDINAL от CARDINAL април DATE г. ) ORG stated , inter alia , that “ political activities that are characteristic solely of political parties ” , within the meaning of LAW of DATE , were defined by LAW thereof as those which facilitate “ the formation of the citizens ' political will ” through “ elections or other democratic means ” , as specified by LAW of DATE . The court also stated that “ what was essential for this type of political activity [ was ] the direct participation in the process of forming the bodies through which , according to LAW , the people exercise[d ] its power ” . Of course , the activities of a party in connection with upcoming elections embraced the holding of meetings , assemblies and other forms of public campaigning in support of the party and the candidates nominated by it , which were also activities aimed at “ forming ” the citizens ' political will .

The LAW of DATE was the first written constitution of GPE , adopted by ORG on DATE , shortly after the creation of GPE as an independent ORG in DATE . It was repealed in DATE . It provided for constitutional monarchy ( Articles CARDINAL , CARDINAL , DATE , DATE and DATE ) , with a directly elected parliament and universal suffrage ( Article DATE ) , a government accountable to the parliament ( LAW , and separation of powers ( Articles CARDINAL , CARDINAL and DATE ) . It prohibited torture ( LAW ) and punishment without law and due process ( LAW and CARDINAL § CARDINAL ) , enshrined the right to property ( Articles CARDINAL and DATE ) , the right to respect for one 's home and correspondence ( Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL ) , and the freedoms of the press and of assembly and association ( Articles CARDINAL , DATE , CARDINAL and DATE ) .


The applicant is a naturalised NORP national of GPE origin , born in DATE and living in GPE . He is represented before the ORG by PERSON Schrevelius , a lawyer practising in GPE .

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

The applicant entered the GPE in DATE , where he has lived since . In DATE , his wife and their CARDINAL youngest children , who until that time had lived in LOC , joined the applicant in the GPE and were granted residence permits . The applicant ’s CARDINAL eldest children , PERSON and PERSON , born in DATE and DATE respectively , remained in the LOC because the applicant had not sufficient means to bring them over as well . They were cared for by the applicant ’s parents .

The applicant obtained GPE nationality in DATE . His wife has retained her LOC nationality . CARDINAL further children were born to the applicant and his wife in the GPE . These children have GPE nationality .

After the death of the applicant ’s father in DATE , his mother came to the GPE in DATE , where she was granted a residence permit on humanitarian grounds in view of her advanced age . The applicant ’s children PERSON and PERSON , who were still attending school , remained in LOC in the house that had formerly been inhabited by the applicant ’s parents . They were being cared for by a neighbour .

On DATE , the applicant applied for a provisional residence visa ( machtiging voor voorlopig verblijf ) for his children PERSON and PERSON for the purposes of family reunification . On DATE , in accordance with the advisory opinion of the Minister of ORG , the Minister of ORG rejected the applicant ’s request on the ground that the family ties between the applicant on the one hand and PERSON and PERSON on the other had been broken .

The applicant lodged an objection ( bezwaarschrift ) with the Minister for ORG against this decision on DATE . He produced his father ’s death certificate , his marriage certificate , his contract of employment , several pay slips , various letters received from the neighbour who was looking after PERSON and PERSON , and PERSON and PERSON ’s birth certificates . No translation of the neighbour ’s letters could be provided as they were written in an almost illegible hand and very poor NORP .

The applicant ’s objection was dismissed on DATE . The Minister considered not only that the family ties between the applicant and the CARDINAL children had been broken , but also that it had not been demonstrated that the intention had been to leave them with their grandparents temporarily rather than permanently . Moreover , it did not appear that the applicant ’s financial situation would have prevented him from bringing PERSON and PERSON over at an earlier date than DATE . Finally , given their age and the fact that they were being cared for by their neighbour , it did not appear that their situation would be desperate if they had to remain in LOC . It would , furthermore , be possible for the applicant to support them financially from the GPE .

On DATE the applicant appealed to ORG ( GPE bestuursrechtspraak ) of ORG ( PERSON ) , which held a hearing on DATE .

On DATE ORG dismissed the appeal , reiterating the grounds on which the Minister for ORG had dismissed the objection . It found in addition that no satisfactory explanation had been given for the applicant ’s waiting DATE after bringing over his wife and his CARDINAL younger children before bringing over PERSON and PERSON as well . His financial situation could not explain this lapse of time , since it did not appear that it had improved substantially during that time . It had not been established that the applicant had maintained contact with PERSON and PERSON and had supported them financially . It had not been shown that the neighbour who had taken care of them after their grandmother had left was no longer able or willing to do so , and in view of their age they should be considered increasingly able to take care of themselves , with financial support from the GPE if need be . Insofar as living conditions in LOC were less favourable than in the GPE , this was immaterial ; in this the situation of PERSON and PERSON did not differ from that of many of their compatriots who were likewise denied residence in the GPE . While ORG accepted that “ family life ” in the sense of LAW existed between the applicants and PERSON and PERSON , it did not accept that there had been an “ interference ” with it , since the effect of the decision appealed against was not to break up the family by removing PERSON and PERSON from the GPE ; nor were the applicant ’s arguments sufficient to find that the GPE were under a positive obligation to grant PERSON and NORP provisional residence visas .


Lech Garlicki;Nebojša Vučinić;Nicolas Bratza;Sverre Erik Jebens;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Zdravka Kalaydjieva

On DATE the applicant company lodged a claim for payment of MONEY ( ORG ) ( LAW ) against a company NORP with ORG . The case was to be examined by way of a summary procedure .

On DATE the court ordered the applicant company to pay ORG LAW ) in court fees for lodging its claim .

On DATE the applicant company filed a motion for exemption from court fees . It argued that its revenue in DATE had decreased significantly and that it had had to pay overdue taxes and debts to its creditors . The applicant company further indicated that it did not own any property of significant value . On DATE it submitted to the court its financial report for DATE , tax declarations ORG for DATE and PERSON for DATE , its bank account statements and information concerning its property and the number of employees .

On DATE ORG dismissed the application for exemption . It found that the applicant company had generated substantial gross income ( przychód ) in DATE ( ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL ) and DATE ( ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL ) and would be able to pay ORG CARDINAL in court fees .

On CARDINAL DATE the applicant company appealed . It submitted that on CARDINAL DATE it had filed a motion for insolvency . However , the motion had been rejected because the company had insufficient assets to cover the costs of the insolvency procedure .

On DATE ORG dismissed the appeal . It underlined that the documents produced by the applicant company indicated that from DATE it had spent the amount of MONEY and it had still possessed cash in its cash desk . The court also stressed that commercial entities should have set aside the resources necessary to fund potential litigation .

On DATE the applicant company paid ORG in court fees .

On DATE ORG issued an order for payment as sought by the applicant company . The defendant company filed an objection to the order and subsequently the applicant company ’s claim was to be examined by way of the ordinary procedure .

On DATE ORG ordered the applicant company to pay a further LAW ( LAW ) in supplementary court fees .

On DATE the applicant company filed an application for exemption from supplementary court fees . It submitted copies of the following documents concerning its financial situation : a financial report for DATE , a tax declaration PERSON for DATE , bank account statements , VAT-CARDINAL declaration for DATE , cash reports for DATE and information on its property and the number of employees .

On DATE ORG dismissed the application for exemption . It found on the basis of the documentary evidence that from DATE to CARDINAL DATE the applicant company had generated ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL in gross income . The court noted that the applicant company had sustained a loss , but that that was not a sufficient ground to exempt it from court fees . It emphasised that as the applicant company had carried out commercial activity on a large scale , it should have earmarked funds for litigation purposes . On DATE the applicant company appealed .

On DATE ORG dismissed its appeal , concurring with the reasons given by ORG . It found that in DATE the applicant company had generated gross income and had possessed enough funds to pay court fees . ORG underlined that the applicant company had not demonstrated that it had been in a difficult financial situation ; on the contrary , in its appeal it admitted to having funds to pay its debts to ORG .

On DATE the applicant company paid ORG MONEY in court fees .

On DATE ORG gave judgment . It dismissed the applicant ’s company claim against the company NORP on the grounds that the relevant limitation period had expired .

On DATE the applicant company lodged an appeal against ORG judgment . On DATE it applied for exemption from court fees for pursuing its appeal in the amount of ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL ( EUR CARDINAL ) . The applicant company submitted that the current state of its accounts had proved its disastrous financial situation .

NORP ORG instructed the applicant company to submit , on pain of dismissal of its motion , copies of the following documents : the financial report for the period from DATE to DATE , the tax declaration CIT-CARDINAL for DATE , the tax declaration PERSON for the period from DATE to CARDINAL DATE , information about all bank accounts of the applicant company and extracts thereof , information on all transactions made on each account within DATE , tax declaration VAT-CARDINAL for the period from DATE to CARDINAL DATE and information on its property and the number of employees .

On DATE the applicant company submitted the following declarations : tax declaration PERSON for the requested period , declaration PERSON for DATE , extract from a bank account of CARDINAL DATE and a declaration of ORG in Wyszków of DATE . It also stated that it did not own any real property .

On DATE ORG dismissed the application for exemption . It found that the applicant company had failed to substantiate its assertion that it had been unable to pay the court fees . It noted that the applicant company had failed to submit all requested documents concerning its financial standing . The court stressed that the applicant company had still carried out its commercial activity on a large scale and that in the period DATE and DATE it had generated a significant gross income in the amount of ORG MONEY ( ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL ) .

NORP Moreover , the court noted that the applicant company had produced only the cash report for DATE ( DATE ) despite the court ’s request to submit all reports for the period DATE and DATE . In the court ’s view , that failure might indicate the applicant company ’s intention to hide profits that had been actually made . The court had also regard to the declaration of ORG that for DATE of time there had been no financial operations on the applicant company ’s bank account . In this connection , the court found that the applicant company must have carried out its financial operations in cash since it had been obliged to keep a record of all income and expenses . The court underlined that a commercial entity should not claim that the refusal to exempt it from payment of court fees had constituted a limitation of its rights when it had not earmarked any funds for potential litigation and had carried out its financial operations in such a manner as to avoid the payment of court fees .

On DATE the applicant company appealed . It argued that the losses in the relevant period had exceeded the company ’s gross income and pointed to a significant debt owed to the tax office .

On DATE ORG dismissed the appeal . The court found that the applicant company had incurred substantial costs and expenses exceeding its generated gross income , which showed that it had not been properly managed . It also found that since the beginning of the proceedings the applicant company should have put aside money for the costs of future proceedings as it had been still carrying out its commercial activity .

ORG noted that the applicant company had failed to produce all the requested documents ( inter alia , the financial report for the period from DATE to DATE and the VAT-CARDINAL declaration for the relevant period ) . In this connection , it stressed that it was impossible to evaluate the financial situation of the applicant company . Furthermore , the cash report concerned DATE only ( DATE ) , while ORG had specifically requested a report for the period DATE and DATE . In respect of the declaration of ORG , the court noted that the company must have carried out its operations in cash or have had accounts in other banks .

On DATE ORG rejected the applicant company ’s appeal against the first - instance judgment of CARDINAL DATE for failure to pay court fees required for proceeding with its appeal .

Other facts as submitted by the applicant company

According to the certificate of the tax office of DATE , the applicant company owed ORG MONEY to the tax office .

On DATE the applicant company was exempted from court fees in civil proceedings instituted against it by another company .

On DATE and DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s company ’s requests to institute insolvency proceedings because its assets had been considered insufficient to cover the costs of proceedings , not to mention the debts that the company had accumulated . In the most recent of these decisions the court established that the applicant company had owed money to CARDINAL companies and the tax office . The liabilities due from its creditors were unenforceable in spite of several sets of proceedings instituted by the applicant company . The company ’s assets deposited in its bank account amounted to PLN CARDINAL,CARDINAL ; in addition , the company owned old forms for production of vacuum cleaners worth a total amount of ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL . In sum , the court considered that the applicant company would not be able to satisfy any of its debtors ; thus , the insolvency proceedings would be devoid of purpose .

NORP The legal provisions applicable at the material time and questions of practice are set out in paragraphs CARDINAL of the judgment delivered by ORG on DATE in the case of PERSON v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , ORG CARDINAL-VI ; see also the judgment delivered by ORG on DATE in the case of PERSON - CATV v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , § § CARDINAL ) .


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

The applicant had inherited CARDINAL a mine producing fluoride , which on CARDINAL DATE was assessed by an inspector . According to LAW , minerals are owned by the ORG and may be assigned by the ORG to any person , in accordance with the provisions of the law . The main obligation of a mine owner is the exploitation of the mine ( Articles CARDINAL and s. ) . When the competent public service establishes that no exploitation or mining research is carried out in a mine in accordance with the provisions of the law , it forwards the pertinent particulars to ORG which , after hearing the concerned parties , decides on the forfeiture of the right of ownership ( Article CARDINAL ) .

On DATE the applicant asked ORG not to declare that he had forfeited his rights over the mine . He claimed that the mine ’s production had dropped because its exploitation had provisionally become unprofitable .

On DATE ORG declared that the applicant and the other CARDINAL owners of the mine had forfeited their rights over it because they had remained idle during DATE , DATE . During that period there was a crisis in the market as opposed to complete lack of demand for the mineral in question , as the applicant had claimed . The applicant was not given any compensation .

On DATE the applicant and the CARDINAL other owners lodged an appeal ( προσφυγή ) against the decision of ORG before the first - instance administrative court ( ORG ) of GPE . They alleged that the ORG ’s decision did not contain adequate reasons . They pointed out in this connection that DATE the mine was not idle . Its production had simply fallen because there was a crisis in the fluoride market . They also alleged that the inspector ’s report of DATE , on which the ORG ’s decision was based , had not examined their claims . Finally , they alleged that the decision was unlawful because they should have been given DATE in which to exploit the mine .

On DATE the court rejected the appeal on the grounds that the mine had indeed remained idle , that it was up to the appellants to prove that there was a crisis in the market and that the fact that they had not been given an extra year was an irrelevant consideration under the relevant rules . This judgment was served on the applicant on DATE .

On DATE the applicant and the CARDINAL other owners appealed . A hearing was set down for DATE . On DATE , on the applicant ’s request , the hearing was postponed for CARDINAL DATE .

On DATE ORG ( Διοικητικό Εφετείο ) of GPE ordered the production of a number of documents including the report of DATE . On CARDINAL DATE it rejected the appeal considering , inter alia , that the crisis in the relevant market could not justify the idleness of the mine , as the report of CARDINAL DATE had wrongly accepted . The idleness could be justified only if there was no demand for the mineral in question whatsoever , a fact which the appellants did not prove . Finally , there was no obligation under the law for the authorities to grant the applicant DATE . This judgment was served on the applicant on DATE .

On DATE the applicant and the CARDINAL other persons appealed in cassation . At first , the hearing was set down for DATE but it was continuously postponed . A hearing was set down for DATE . On DATE , the applicant appeared before the court and announced that CARDINAL of the other appellants had died . The hearing was postponed and was finally held on DATE .

On DATE ORG rejected the appeal considering , inter alia , that it was for the lower courts to assess the report of CARDINAL DATE .