The applicant was born in DATE and lives in Kežmarok .

The applicant and her husband held a joint tenancy of a CARDINAL - room flat owned by a cooperative in GPE .

Owing to differences with her husband , the applicant left the flat together with her CARDINAL children in DATE . They started living in a CARDINAL - room flat owned by ORG . It was leased by the applicant 's father , who suffered from a long - term illness and died on DATE . The applicant and her CARDINAL children , born in DATE and DATE respectively , continued to live in the flat . The applicant paid the rent .

In a decision which became final on DATE a court granted a divorce order in respect of the applicant and her husband . Their children were placed in the applicant 's custody .

On DATE the applicant and her former husband reached an agreement whereby the latter would continue using the flat in which they had formerly lived together . On DATE the ORG which owned the flat and of which the applicant was a member approved a request for the flat to be exchanged for a CARDINAL - room flat in Kežmarok . The applicant 's former husband lived in the flat in Kežmarok until his death on DATE . His and the applicant 's son inherited membership rights in respect of the cooperative which owned the flat in Kežmarok , including the right to use it . The applicant later started leasing the flat with a view to improving her financial situation .

After her father 's death the applicant requested to be registered as permanently residing in the flat where she had lived DATE . In a letter of DATE the mayor of ORG replied that the position was unclear . It had to be determined , in particular , whether the tenancy had passed to the applicant pursuant to LAW after her father 's death .

On DATE ORG informed the applicant that she had formally ceased to be a tenant of the flat which she had used with her former husband on DATE that is , after the death of her father . The right to use her father 's flat had not passed to the applicant after the former 's death as the requirements of Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL of ORG had not been met .

On DATE ORG included the applicant on a list of persons seeking the tenancy of a flat . No municipal flat could be put at the applicant 's disposal at that time as other persons were above her on the list .

As the applicant had refused to move out , on DATE ORG sought a judicial order for her eviction .

On DATE ORG ordered the applicant to move out of the flat within DATE after its judgment had become final . On DATE the ORG upheld the first - instance judgment . The courts established that the applicant had not become a tenant of the flat originally used by her father since , at the time of the latter 's death , she had been registered as a user of a different flat , in which she had lived with her former husband . The requirements of LAW had not been met . After her father 's death the applicant had lived in the flat in issue without any justification . In addition , ORG held that the applicant could live in the flat in Kežmarok which her son had inherited from her former husband . The plaintiff had rightly sought the protection of its ownership rights in respect of the flat .

The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law , arguing that the plaintiff company lacked the capacity to take part in the proceedings . On DATE ORG dismissed the appeal on points of law , holding that the plaintiff was a legal entity established by ORG . As such it had standing to sue the applicant .

The GPE requested that the order be enforced . The applicant objected that her son had reached the age of majority and that she could not live in his flat in Kežmarok . ORG dismissed the objection on DATE , holding that the issue could not be examined in the context of the enforcement proceedings . On DATE an enforcement officer enforced the judgment , in accordance with the relevant provisions of ORG with the result that the applicant was obliged to move out of the flat in which she had lived DATE .

On DATE that flat was allocated to a municipal employee who lived in a CARDINAL - room flat and who had applied , on DATE , for a bigger one as she had to take care of an elderly and ill relative . Later the new tenant acquired ownership of the flat for a relatively small sum in accordance with the relevant law .

The applicant , with her under - age daughter , started living in the CARDINAL - room flat in Kežmarok inherited by the applicant 's son . The flat has a surface area of QUANTITY . The applicant has continued to work in GPE . The distance between the CARDINAL towns is QUANTITY .

The applicant filed a petition under LAW of the LAW , alleging , inter alia , a violation of her constitutional right to protection of her private and family life as well as a violation of her ownership rights in the proceedings referred to above . She argued that the municipality had been informed that she had moved to her father 's flat in DATE with the intention of living there permanently . She had requested to be allocated municipal housing and had therefore believed that her interests would be protected . The municipality 's argument that she could live in her son 's CARDINAL - room flat in Kežmarok was unreasonable . In addition , her daughter , who was under age , was disturbed by having to live in that flat as the girl 's father had committed suicide there .

On DATE ORG declared admissible the complaint alleging a violation of the applicant 's right to respect for her private and family life .

On DATE ORG found that by its judgment of DATE the ORG had violated the applicant 's rights under LAW and LAW .

The decision stated that the ordinary courts ' conclusion that the requirements of Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL of ORG had not been met in the applicant 's case was correct as such . It also had to be considered , however , whether there had been a pressing social need for the interference and whether it had been proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued , .

The applicant had not acted contrary to the law when she had moved to her father 's flat in DATE . She had lived in that flat continuously , together with her children , even after her father 's death . At the time of the examination of the request for her eviction the applicant had had no other place to live . The flat was to be regarded , therefore , as the applicant 's home .

ORG noted that LAW permitted the granting of relief from hardship in justified cases by ensuring that alternative accommodation should be provided to persons who had been ordered to move out of a flat . As to ORG practice and , in particular , judgment no . CARDINAL Cdo CARDINAL/CARDINAL ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , the circumstances of the applicant 's case were different in that the applicant had legally moved into the flat in DATE and the flat was owned by the municipality and not by individuals . In any event , neither LAW nor any other legal provision could be interpreted and applied in a manner producing effects incompatible with GPE 's obligations under international treaties .

In view of LAW , the municipality 's ownership rights in respect of the flat could not be dissociated from its obligation to assist citizens of GPE in having their basic needs satisfied . it should have been examined whether ordering the applicant to leave the flat , together with her under - age daughter and without providing them with alternative accommodation , was contra bonos mores within the meaning of LAW . The protection of family , minors and juveniles under LAW should also have been taken into account .

Furthermore , ORG had registered the applicant as a person seeking a flat , after having verified whether her request had been justified , at approximately the same time as it had initiated judicial proceedings for her eviction . It should have been verified whether the municipality , as the owner and manager of municipal flats , had a compelling reason for ordering the applicant to move out of the flat immediately without being obliged to provide her with alternative accommodation .

ORG did not consider the applicant 's behaviour improper . In DATE she had left the cooperative flat where she had lived with a view to avoiding the negative impact of her husband 's inappropriate behaviour on her and her children . The applicant had petitioned for divorce and her return to that flat would not have resolved her personal situation as her husband also had the right to use it .

Finally , the applicant had used the flat for a long time and the representatives of the municipality had initially not taken a firm standpoint as regards her title to use the flat . Reference was made , in particular , to the mayor 's letter of DATE . The owner of the flat had therefore contributed to the applicant 's belief that she would not be obliged to leave the flat without alternative accommodation being provided to her . In DATE , when the judicial proceedings had started , the applicant had been in a difficult situation as the mother of CARDINAL under - age children who had lost their father .

When deciding the case , the ORG had not duly considered the above relevant facts . Its decision to uphold the first - instance judgment ordering the applicant to leave the flat without being provided with any other accommodation therefore amounted to an interference with the applicant 's right to respect for her private and family life and for her home which was not based on relevant and sufficient reasons . As a result , and also having regard to the particular protection which LAW afforded to children and juveniles , that interference could not be regarded as being necessary in a democratic society .

Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL guarantees to every person the right to protection against unjustified interference with his or her private and family life .

NORP In decision NORP . ÚS CARDINAL/CARDINAL of CARDINAL March CARDINAL ORG rejected a petition filed by a judge who alleged a violation of LAW and CARDINAL of the LAW in that ORG had asked him to submit a financial statement . The decision stated that the petitioner should have sought redress before the ordinary courts by means of an action under LAW seq . of LAW for protection of his personal rights .

Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL guarantees the right to own property . Paragraph CARDINAL of Article CARDINAL prohibits the abuse of ownership to the detriment of the rights of others or contrary to general interests protected by law .

Under LAW , interference with the inviolability of the home ( other than the search of a home in the context of criminal proceedings , which is governed by paragraph CARDINAL of the same Article ) may be permitted by law only where it is necessary in a NORP society for the protection of a person 's life , health or property , for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others or in cases of serious threat to public order .

Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL provides that marriage , parenthood and family are to be protected by law . Particular protection is to be afforded to children and juveniles .

Pursuant to LAW , as in force until DATE , the ORG could commence proceedings upon a petition ( podnet ) filed by any individuals or corporations claiming that their rights had been violated .

According to its case - law under LAW , ORG lacked jurisdiction to draw legal consequences from a violation of a petitioner 's constitutional rights . It could neither grant damages to the person concerned nor impose a sanction on the public authority liable for the violation found . In ORG view , it was therefore for the authority concerned to provide redress to the person whose rights were violated .

Pursuant to LAW , the exercise of civil rights and obligations must not interfere with the justified rights and interests of others unless there are relevant legal grounds and must not be contra ORG mores .

By DATE , any natural person has the right to protection of his or her personality , and in particular of his or her life and health , civil and human dignity , privacy , name and personal characteristics .

Under Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL , where a tenant of a flat dies , unless the flat has been jointly leased by spouses , the tenancy passes to the late tenant 's children and other close relatives , provided that they lived in the same household as the tenant at the time of his or her death and that they do not have their own flat .

NORP In judgment no . CARDINAL Cdo CARDINAL/CARDINAL , delivered on DATE , ORG expressed the view that LAW could not be applied for the purpose of obliging the owner of a flat ( CARDINAL individuals in that particular case ) to provide accommodation to a person who used the flat without any legal grounds . Imposing such an obligation would infringe the owner 's property rights .

On DATE the applicant lodged an application with the ORG in which she complained under LAW and LAW above - mentioned decisions of the ordinary courts leading to her eviction from the flat in which she lived . The application was registered as no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL .

On DATE a committee of CARDINAL judges rejected the application as being inadmissible . At that time the constitutional proceedings initiated by the applicant were still pending . As ORG had declared admissible the complaint alleging a violation of the applicant 's right to respect for her private and family life , the ORG considered the relevant part of the application to be premature at that time . The decision on admissibility reads as follows :

“ The ORG has examined the application and notes that the applicant has been informed of the possible obstacles to its admissibility . In the light of all the material in its possession , and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence , the ORG finds that they do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the ORG or its Protocols . It follows that the application must be rejected , in accordance with LAW . ”


Preliminary objection dismissed (non-exhaustion of domestic remedies);Violation of Art. 8;Non-pecuniary damage - award

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

The applicants in application no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , PERSON GPE and Ms Meri Vladimirova GPE , were born in DATE and DATE respectively and live in GPE . They are sisters .

The applicants in application no . CARDINAL , Mr PERSON , PERSON and PERSON , were born in DATE , DATE and DATE respectively and live or lived in GPE . The first CARDINAL were husband and wife , and the third is their daughter . As mentioned in paragraph CARDINAL above , Mr PERSON died in DATE .

At the material time the applicants in application no . ORG ( “ the NORP sisters ” ) , both of whom are retired , owned a flat on the first floor of entrance “ B ” of a Ushaped block of flats in the centre of GPE . Both of them had lived in that flat since DATE . They submitted that as a result of the events described below , they were forced to move out of the flat . On DATE they sold it to a limited liability company for CARDINAL . On DATE they bought a smaller flat in another neighbourhood , and on DATE went to live there .

The applicants in application no . CARDINAL ( “ the PERSON family ” ) own and live in a flat on the first floor of entrance “ C ” of the same block of flats . ORG daughter , born on DATE , also lives there .

In DATE a company rented a flat on the ground floor of entrance “ B ” of the block , below the flat of the NORP sisters . It started operating a computer club there , without obtaining the necessary permits .

NORP In DATE the club moved into a flat situated opposite the original one , again on the ground floor of entrance “ B ” . That flat was located diagonally below both the flat of the NORP sisters and that of the PERSON family .

According to CARDINAL affidavits , the first of which was drawn up by Mr PERSON and PERSON , and the rest by witnesses asked by the applicants to describe the situation , the club had fortysix computers and CARDINAL vending machines . It was open twentyfour TIME a day , DATE a week . The services it offered were chiefly computer gaming and Internet surfing . The club ’s clients , mostly teenagers and young adults , often gathered in front of the building , chatting loudly and shouting , drinking alcohol , and smoking cigarettes and allegedly even narcotic drugs . They would often break the door of the building and enter the passageway , where they drank and smoked . The noise and the vibrations generated by them , both while inside the club and while entering or leaving the LOC , could be clearly heard and felt in the flats of the NORP sisters and of the PERSON family .

The NORP sisters produced a certificate in which their general practitioner attested that from DATE both of them started complaining of constant headaches , insomnia , irritability and anxiety , had high blood pressure , and had lost weight . In DATE PERSON developed a sinus tachycardia . As a result of her increasingly frequent cardiac crises , she had to be hospitalised . According to the doctor , those health problems were due to the constant disturbance and noise caused by the club ’s operations , and gradually subsided after the NORP sisters went to live elsewhere in DATE .

On DATE the general meeting of the block ’s occupants resolved , by CARDINAL votes and QUANTITY abstentions , that the club ’s operations should be stopped , and that no commercial activities should be allowed in the building . It stated that the club ’s operations caused serious disturbances to all inhabitants . The club ’s manager , who was present at the meeting , said that he disagreed and would do everything necessary to keep the club open .

Having earlier made numerous complaints by telephone , the applicants made written complaints to the police on DATE , CARDINAL and DATE , and DATE and DATE . They submitted that those complaints had prompted only a cursory inspection of the club , which had produced no tangible results .

On DATE the head of the local police station told the applicants that when asked to do so , the club ’s manager had been able to produce all necessary permits , and that no breaches of public order had been found . The manager had been warned not to allow breaches of public order and had undertaken to inform the police of any disturbances . The head of the local station further said that the police had no power to shut down commercial premises . On DATE the applicants protested against the passiveness of the police .

On DATE the club ’s manager called at the ORG ’s flat and allegedly threatened Mr PERSON with violence if he persisted in his efforts to have the club ’s operations stopped . The same day Mr PERSON complained to the police , but apparently nothing ensued .

On DATE the applicants asked the borough mayor to order the cessation of the club ’s operations . The same day the municipal services wrote to the police , informing them that the club was operating without the requisite licence .

On DATE municipal inspectors visited the premises and noted that the club was operating unlawfully . On DATE the municipality sent the file to FAC .

NORP However , on DATE the chief architect of the municipality approved a plan for the conversion of the flat into commercial LOC . On DATE Mr PERSON , acting in his capacity as chairman of the condominium , contested that decision before FAC . On DATE the ORG , while noting that section CARDINAL of the DATE LAW ( see paragraphs LAW below ) had not been complied with , said that that did not constitute grounds for invalidating the legalisation of the conversion under section CARDINAL ) of the LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) and upheld the mayor ’s decision .

Despite the ORG repeated complaints to the municipal authorities , they took no further action .

On DATE the chief architect of the municipality granted the club an operating permit , on the condition that its clients entered through the back door and not through the passageway used by the building ’s residents . On DATE the applicants challenged that decision before FAC , arguing that the condition imposed by the mayor was impossible to comply with , as the only access to the back door was through the passageway . They requested that the permit be set aside and that the club be closed . It does not seem that the permit was annulled .

On CARDINAL DATE the applicants requested ORG to prohibit the use of the flat .

In a decision of DATE the ORG prohibited the use of the flat . It also ordered that its electricity and water supplies be cut off . It noted that the flat had been converted into a computer club without a building permit and that the club had started operating without a use permit , in breach of section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the DATE LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . It also observed , referring to section CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(CARDINAL ) of the LAW ( ibid . ) , that any application for judicial review of the decision would not automatically suspend its enforcement .

The flat ’s owner appealed to ORG . On DATE the ORG rejected the appeal as inadmissible , noting that the impugned decision was not subject to an appeal to a higher authority but only to judicial review . On DATE ORG instructed ORG to enforce the decision .

On DATE the flat ’s owner sought judicial review . She asked the court to suspend enforcement as an interim measure .

DATE the Sofia City Court ( GPE градски съд ) granted her request . It noted that by law the decision was enforceable immediately , even if it had been challenged by way of judicial review . However , the courts could in their discretion suspend enforcement and it was justified in doing so because the file did not contain any indications that the conditions envisaged by section QUANTITY of the CARDINAL LAW , which governed the enforcement of nonfinal administrative decisions ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , were fulfilled . In addition , the court allowed the condominium and the company operating the computer club to intervene in the proceedings , and fixed a hearing on the merits of the case for DATE .

On DATE the applicants appealed to ORG ( NORP административен съд ) . On DATE it reversed the lower court ’s ruling , saying that the courts could suspend the enforcement of the decision only if it would engender irreparable harm or frustrate the object of the proceedings . However , the flat ’s owner had not shown that these prerequisites were satisfied , nor had the lower court made such a finding . It had merely referred to section CARDINAL of the CARDINAL LAW , which was not applicable .

The applicants subsequently asked LOC to enforce the decision . It seems that they did not receive a reply .

On DATE the ORG , acting pursuant to a fresh request by the flat ’s owner , again suspended the enforcement of the decision . It held that its immediate enforcement would impede the proper course of the main proceedings and result in damage for the club ’s owner . There was no indication that the life or health of others were at risk , that with time enforcement would grow more difficult or be blocked , or that important ORG interests were at stake .

On an appeal by the applicants , on DATE ORG reversed that order . It found that in principle administrative decisions should be immediately enforced only if , inter alia , that was necessary to safeguard the life or health of others , or to protect important ORG or public interests . However , where the law specifically provided for the immediate enforcement of certain decisions , there was a presumption that such a need existed . Therefore , it was possible to suspend the enforcement of a decision which was immediately enforceable by operation of law only if that would put at risk an opposing interest of the same intensity as the one sought to be protected , which was not the case . Any pecuniary damage sustained by the club ’s owner was not of such a nature , as it could be fully compensated for by the payment of money .

After that the applicants made numerous requests for the decision to be enforced . However , they were informed that on DATE the local authorities had permitted the use of the club ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , and that therefore the decision could not be enforced . The applicants complained about that situation to the prosecuting authorities , but to no avail .

In the meantime , ORG tried to hold a first hearing on the merits of the case on DATE . However , the flat ’s owner had not been properly summoned and the court adjourned the proceedings . It fixed the next hearing for DATE . On DATE the applicants complained about the delay to ORG . On DATE that court , noting that according to LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL in fine below ) , the proceedings had to follow a fasttrack procedure , instructed ORG to bring forward the date of its hearing . ORG accordingly rescheduled the hearing for DATE . However , as the flat ’s owner had again not been properly summoned , the hearing was adjourned .

On DATE the applicants made a new complaint about delays . On DATE ORG rejected it , finding that GPE had made all possible efforts to allow the proper progress of the proceedings and that , in view of that court ’s busy calendar , the listing of a hearing for DATE did not amount to an unjustified delay .

At the hearing on DATE the ORG started to examine the merits of the case . At the next hearing , held on DATE , the flat ’s owner declared that she wished to withdraw her application for judicial review , and the court accordingly discontinued the proceedings .

On DATE the FAC found that the computer club was operating in breach of the condition laid down in the permit of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , as its clients were entering through the passageway used by the building ’s residents and not through a separate entrance .

On DATE the flat ’s owner informed the authorities that the computer club had ceased its operations . On DATE the FAC , having found after an inspection on DATE that the vending machines and CARDINAL computers had still not been taken out of the club , again prohibited its use and ordered that its electricity and water supplies be cut off .

Some time after that the flat was rented by another company , which apparently used it as an office until DATE .

NORP In the meantime , on DATE , the NORP sisters asked ORG to exempt them from paying court fees for a tort claim which they intended to bring against the persons operating the club . On DATE the court ’s president refused to examine the request , saying that it could be made only if a claim had already been brought , or if it had been lodged concomitantly with the statement of claim . That ruling was later upheld by ORG and ORG . It seems that the NORP sisters did not bring a claim against the persons operating the club .

Having obtained a building permit on DATE , in DATE the owner of the flat occupied by the computer club until DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) started transforming it into an electronic games club . The works involved pulling down internal walls , installation of highvoltage cables and changing the flat ’s windows .

On DATE the Milevi sisters complained about that to FAC , saying that no assent had been sought from them under LAW ( see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) . On DATE the ORG replied that the works were lawful as they had been carried out under a permit .

The NORP sisters then complained to ORG . On DATE it instructed ORG to check the lawfulness of the works . Apparently nothing ensued .

In the meantime , on DATE , the PERSON sisters contested the building permit before ORG . On DATE the ORG rejected the challenge as being out of time . On an appeal by the PERSON sisters , on DATE the ORG set that decision aside and instructed the ORG to examine the challenge on the merits . The ORG appealed against that ruling , but on DATE ORG upheld it .

In the meantime , the NORP sisters made numerous complaints about the conversion to both the building control authorities and the police , apparently to no avail .

In DATE a company rented the flat adjacent to the flat of the NORP sisters and started using it as an office . The PERSON sisters asserted that after that they could hear telephones ringing and conversations , loud voices , moving of furniture and banging of doors .

On DATE the applicants complained to the municipality , stating that the company had not sought their assent for using the flat as an office , in breach of section CARDINAL ) of the DATE LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . On DATE municipal inspectors visited the building and noted that the flat was being used as an office . However , the owner was not present and the inspectors were not allowed access to the premises to make more detailed findings . They sent a summary of their findings to FAC .

After repeated complaints by the NORP sisters , on DATE the ORG instructed the municipality to gather more evidence that the flat was indeed being used as commercial premises entailing regular visits by outsiders . As a result , on DATE the inspectors made a second visit . However , they were refused access to the flat and the police , who had been called in aid , did not show up .

Apparently the office continued operating undisturbed throughout that period .

Section CARDINAL ) of the DATE LAW ( ORG за устройство на територията ) provides that a flat in a condominium may be converted into an office , entailing visits by outsiders , if it is on the ground floor and if all sanitary , hygienic , fireprotection and technical requirements have been complied with . The conversion must be approved expressly , in writing and before a notary by all immediate neighbours of the LOC whose conversion is proposed . Exceptionally , a flat on a higher floor may also be converted into an office , but in that case the conversion must be approved not only by the immediate neighbours but also by the condominium ’s general meeting .

Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) provides that a flat on the ground floor of a condominium may be converted into a shop or other commercial LOC , if all sanitary , hygienic , fireprotection and technical requirements have been complied with and if a separate entrance which does not affect the passageway to the residential part of the building is made possible . The conversion must be approved by the condominium ’s general meeting and requires the express written assent , certified by a notary , of all immediate neighbours of the LOC whose conversion is proposed .

Under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) and ( CARDINAL ) , a permit allowing the reconstruction of an existing building must be brought to the attention of the persons whose approval is required under LAW . They may challenge it before FAC ( section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) ) . Under section DATE ) , as worded DATE and DATE , building permits could , as a rule , be revoked only before the works had started . They could be revoked after that only if they were contrary to the zoning plan , substantially deviated from the building regulations and norms as regards distances to neighbouring buildings , or substantially deviated from the applicable safety requirements ( section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) , as in force DATE and DATE ) .

NORP Under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) , as in force at the material time , it was prohibited to use a building or a part of it before the issuing of a use permit . If a building or a part of it was being used without such permit , ORG had to ban the use and order that the building ’s electricity and water supplies and heating be cut off ( section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) , as in force at the material time ) . Applications for judicial review of such decisions do not have suspensive effect ( section CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(CARDINAL ) ) . Since such decisions can not be appealed against before a higher administrative authority , they are immediately enforceable . However , their enforcement may be suspended by the court ( section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) ) . Under section CARDINAL , as in force at the material time , the courts had to examine applications for judicial review of such decisions in special fasttrack proceedings under Articles CARDINAL of the DATE Code of Civil Procedure .

Under section PERSON ) ( now section CARDINAL ) ) , ORG enforces decisions prohibiting the use of buildings or parts of them . In so doing , it may use technical devices and means ( section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) ) . If it encounters resistance , it may enlist the help of the police ( section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) ) .

Section CARDINAL of the DATE LAW ( ORG за собствеността ) provides that the owner of a piece of immovable property can not carry out actions which impede , in more than the usual way , the use of the neighbouring properties .

Under section GPE ) , the owner of a flat in a condominium may be evicted by resolution of the general meeting of the condominium if he or she , among other things , systematically breaches the internal regulations of the building or the resolutions of the general meeting for the internal order of the building , or acts contrary to good morals . However , the owner may request the district court to annul the resolution ( section CARDINAL ) ) . The eviction may take place only if the owner has not stopped the breach despite having been warned in writing that he or she will be evicted ( section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) ) . The district court may issue a writ of execution pursuant to the resolution , once it has become final ( section PERSON ) ) . According to a DATE decision of the former ORG , that does not preclude the owner from challenging his eviction in subsequent enforcement proceedings ( реш. № CARDINAL от CARDINAL ноември DATE г. по гр. д. № DATE г. , ORG , I г. о. ) . There is no reported caselaw on the application of those provisions in DATE . In DATE the former ORG described that procedure as a means of last resort , to be used only where the owner persisted in his breach ( реш. № CARDINAL от CARDINAL май DATE г. по гр. д. № DATE г. , ORG , PERSON г. о. ) .

Under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) , an owner may request the cessation of any “ unjustifiable activity ” which hinders him in the exercise of his rights .

In an interpretative decision of CARDINAL DATE ( тълк. реш. № DATE от CARDINAL февруари DATE г. по гр. д. № DATE г. , ORG ) the former ORG explained that this claim ( actio negatoria ) provided protection against unjustified interferences – whether direct or indirect DATE which prevented an owner from using fully his property . It can be used to declare such interferences unlawful and enjoin the persons concerned to stop them and remove their effects ( for instance , demolish a building in a neighbouring property ) . Unlike decisions of the building control authorities , the ORG judgments pursuant to such claims finally determine the disputes between the aggrieved owner and the perpetrator of the interference , and may be executed by force .

The claim may be brought by the owner against any person , irrespective of whether or not they are owners of an adjoining property ( реш. № DATE от CARDINAL октомври DATE г. по гр. д. № DATE г. , ORG , IV г. о. ) . It may be brought by the owner of a flat in a condominium against the owner of another flat ( реш. № DATE от CARDINAL ноември DATE г. по гр. д. № DATE г. , ORG , GPE г. о. ) . It may be joined to a tort claim in respect of any past loss ( реш. № DATE от DATE г. по гр. д. № CARDINAL/CARDINAL г. , ORG , GPE г. о. ) .

Noise nuisance is actionable under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) ( реш. № CARDINAL от CARDINAL декември DATE г. по гр. д. № DATE г. , ORG ) .

For the purposes of section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) , a distinction needs to be made between buildings on neighbouring properties and activities taking place there ; while the former may be lawful and thus not actionable , the latter may unduly impinge on ORG rights and thus be subject to injunctive relief ( реш. № CARDINAL от CARDINAL март DATE г. по гр. д. № CARDINAL г. , ORG , PERSON г. о. ) .

In some cases ( реш. № DATE от CARDINAL ноември DATE г. по гр. д. № DATE г. , ORG , GPE г. о. , реш. № DATE от CARDINAL февруари DATE г. по гр. д. № DATE г. , ORG , GPE г. о. ) the former ORG has associated the existence of “ unjustifiable activity ” resulting from constructions in neighbouring properties with failure to observe the building regulations . However , in other cases the former ORG and ORG have held that the question whether a reconstruction amounts to “ unjustifiable activity ” does not automatically hinge on whether it complies with the building regulations or has been approved by the authorities . The decisive factor appears to be whether it unduly interferes with the ORG enjoyment of their properties ( реш. № DATE от CARDINAL юли DATE г. по гр. д. № DATE г. , ORG , GPE г. о. ; ORG № CARDINAL от CARDINAL март DATE г. по гр. д. № CARDINAL г. , ORG , V г. о. ; MONEY CARDINAL от CARDINAL юли DATE г. по гр. д. № DATE г. , ORG , GPE г. о. ; реш. № CARDINAL от CARDINAL юли DATE г. по гр. д. № DATE г. , ORG , GPE г. о. ; реш. № CARDINAL от CARDINAL юли DATE г. по гр. д. № CARDINAL г. , ORG , GPE г. о. ; реш. № CARDINAL от CARDINAL февруари DATE г. по гр. д. № DATE г. , ORG , GPE г. о. ; реш. № DATE от CARDINAL ноември DATE г. по гр. д. № DATE г. , ORG , GPE г. о. ; реш. № DATE от CARDINAL ноември DATE г. по гр. д. № DATE г. , ORG , PERSON г. о. ; реш. № CARDINAL от CARDINAL април DATE г. по гр. д. № DATE г. , ORG , GPE г.о. ; реш. № CARDINAL от CARDINAL февруари DATE г. по гр. д. № DATE г. , ORG , GPE г. о. ; MONEY CARDINAL от CARDINAL януари DATE г. по гр. д. № DATE г. , ORG , GPE г. о. ; реш. № CARDINAL от CARDINAL октомври DATE г. , по гр. д. № DATE , ORG , г. о. ; опр. № CARDINAL от CARDINAL август DATE г. по гр. д. № CARDINAL/CARDINAL г. на ORG , ORG г. о. ) .

The Regulations for Management , Order and Supervision in Condominiums ( Правилник за управлението , реда и надзора в етажната собственост ) , adopted in DATE , at the material time dealt with the internal organisation of condominiums . They contained detailed rules on the internal order of the buildings and the use of the common parts .

Regulation CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) provided that the resolutions of the condominium ’s general meeting were immediately enforceable . The chairman of the condominium ’s management council could apply to the competent district court to obtain a writ of execution . The resolutions for evicting an owner under section CARDINAL of the DATE LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) were not immediately enforceable . To obtain a writ of execution , the condominium had to show that it had warned the owner under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the LAW ( regulation CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) ) .

Under section CARDINAL of the DATE ORG , the organs of ORG could stop the use of buildings , installations , etc . , as well as stop all other activities which , among other things , posed a risk for public order .

Regulations on Public Order and the Preservation of Municipal Property on the Territory of GPE ( ORG CARDINAL за обществения ред и опазването на общинските имоти на територията на PERSON голяма община ) , issued by ORG in DATE and superseded by similar regulations in DATE , dealt with public order on the territory of GPE Regulation CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) prohibited noisy social events in residential buildings . Under regulation CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) , noisy commercial activities in residential buildings were allowed only if their inhabitants agreed in writing . Under regulation CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) , if no effective noise protection could be secured , the use of noisy devices and machines was allowed only from TIME and from TIME

Breaches of the Regulations were punishable by a fine ( regulation CARDINAL ) ) . Repeat offenders were liable to an increased fine ( regulation MONEY ) ) . If the repeated offence was connected to a profession or a trade , the penalty could also be a prohibition on engaging in such profession or trade for a period ranging from DATE to DATE ( ibid . ) .

DATE . The supervisory organs , which included the police and officials authorised by the mayor ( regulation CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) ) , had to note down every breach of the regulations ( regulation CARDINAL ) ) .

The Regulations on the Manner of Carrying On Commercial Activities on the Territory of GPE ( Наредба за реда на провеждане на търговска дейност на територията на Столичната община ) , issued by ORG on DATE and superseded by new regulations in DATE , subjected commercial operations on the territory of GPE to a licence requirement . Regulation CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) provided that when giving a licence the borough mayor had to fix TIME of the operation in a way that ensured the tranquillity of others and public order . Under regulation ORG ) the borough mayors had to take all necessary steps to stop and punish breaches of the regulation . Such breaches were punishable by a fine and , in case of repetition , a ban on commercial activities for DATE ( regulation CARDINAL ) ) .

Section DATE LAW , as in force at the material time , provided that administrative authorities could direct that a decision be immediately enforceable , if that was necessary to protect the life or health of individuals , prevent losses for the economy , or safeguard other material ORG or public interests , or if there was a risk that the enforcement would subsequently be frustrated or seriously hindered .

Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the DATE ORG Caused to Citizens Act ( on DATE its name was changed to “ ORG and ORG ” ) provides that the ORG is liable for damage suffered by private persons as a result of unlawful decisions , actions or omissions by civil servants committed in the course of or in connection with the performance of their duties . LAW ) provides that compensation for damage stemming from unlawful decisions may be claimed after the decisions concerned have been annulled in prior proceedings .


Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Art. 6-1;Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed;Non-pecuniary damage - award

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

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

On DATE several schools organised a collective visit by pupils to a local cinema , which was owned by the municipal company E. , for a film showing . The applicant 's daughter , PERSON , born in DATE , was among the pupils who visited that cinema . While the first group of pupils was still watching the film , another group of pupils for the next showing entered the auditorium . As a result of a lack of control of entry to the auditorium during the film , there was a stampede in which CARDINAL children were trampled to death and QUANTITY children , including the applicant 's daughter , received varying degrees of injury . The applicant 's daughter , in particular , was diagnosed with , inter alia , severe post - traumatic hypoxic damage to the central nervous system ( посттравматичне постгіпоксичне ураження центральної нервової системи важкого ступеню ) , a right sided pneumothorax , and other injuries . According to the applicant , her daughter was in a coma for DATE .

On DATE the applicant 's daughter was classified as temporarily Category CARDINAL disabled . DATE , on DATE , she was classified as permanently disabled .

The applicant 's daughter underwent inpatient medical treatment at least until DATE , after which she periodically had medical treatment and rehabilitation therapy .

By a judgment of CARDINAL March CARDINAL ORG ( “ the ORG ” ) declared the applicant 's daughter incapacitated . Apparently that judgment became final and on DATE the ORG appointed the applicant as the legal guardian of her disabled daughter .

At the present time the applicant 's daughter still suffers the consequences of post - traumatic consequences and needs medical assistance and nursing .

On DATE the ORG instituted criminal proceedings and on an unspecified date indicted PERSON , the head of the E. company ( it appears from the submitted documents that criminal proceedings against other persons were also instituted but were subsequently abandoned for various reasons ) .

On DATE a medical expert reported on the aforesaid injuries to the applicant 's daughter and identified them as serious .

Meanwhile , on DATE a special administrative committee composed of CARDINAL experts was set up to investigate the accident of DATE . On DATE that committee drew up a report which recommended that CARDINAL persons be dismissed and CARDINAL others subjected to disciplinary sanctions .

According to the applicant , the pre - trial investigation was completed by DATE and the case was transferred to ORG .

On DATE the applicant lodged a civil claim against S. , seeking compensation for pecuniary and non - pecuniary damage . CARDINAL other claims were also lodged with the court by other victims .

On DATE ORG found S. guilty of abuse of authority and forgery and sentenced him to DATE imprisonment . The court also banned PERSON from holding managerial positions for DATE . As to the civil claims , the court allowed them in part , awarding , in particular , the applicant CARDINAL NORP hryvnias ( ORG ; PERCENT ( ORG ) at the material time ) in respect of non - pecuniary damage , to be paid by S.

On DATE ORG ( “ the Court of Appeal ” ) quashed that judgment because of procedural shortcomings of the trial before the first - instance court . On DATE , having held a re - trial , it found S. guilty of forgery in office ( he had forged the documents stating that he had taken necessary accident prevention measures and instructed his subordinates ) and negligence that had had serious consequences , finding that the cinema personnel had not been instructed and lacked relevant expertise , the auditorium had not been properly equipped and the cinema tickets had been sold without indication of time , row and seat . The court thus sentenced PERSON to DATE imprisonment and banned him from holding managerial positions for DATE . However , in view of LAW , the court exempted S. from these punishments . Finally , the court awarded the applicant ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL ( about EUR CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL ) in respect of pecuniary damage and ORG CARDINAL ( about EUR CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL ) in respect of non - pecuniary damage , to be paid by ORG , as well as ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL ( about EUR CARDINAL.CARDINAL ) in respect of non - pecuniary damage , to be paid by S.

On the last - mentioned day ORG issued a special ruling ( окрема постанова ) informing its head and the head of ORG of the delays in the case caused by the first - instance court .

On DATE ORG of GPE amended the judgment of DATE , replacing the amnesty with statutory limitation , as the reason for LOC 's exemption from the punishment . The court also quashed the judgment in part related to the civil claims , casting doubts on the liability of ORG . Accordingly , it remitted that matter for fresh consideration .

It appears from the documents submitted that , at this stage of the proceedings , the applicant and another civil claimant requested ORG to join to the proceedings a number of legal persons ( such as the schools which had organised the pupils ' collective visit to the cinema , the PERSON company , the local department of education , etc . ) . For these reasons , on DATE ORG decided to remit the case to ORG .

Subsequently , a clinic which had treated the applicant 's daughter brought its claim against the defendants and joined the proceedings ; the other claimants ( some other victims of the accident ) withdrew their claims as being settled extra - judicially . In the course of the proceedings the claimants modified their claims on several occasions .

On DATE ORG found in part for the applicant and other civil claimants . In particular , it ordered ORG , the education and culture departments of ORG and PERSON to pay the applicant , who was acting on her own behalf and on behalf of her daughter , in the specified proportions the total amount of ORG ( about EUR CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL at the material time ) in respect of the care , medical , legal and other expenses she had incurred from the date of the accident to CARDINAL DATE and PERCENT of the statutory minimum salary after DATE , DATE . Additionally , the court awarded the applicant the total amount of ORG CARDINAL ( about ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL at the material time ) in respect of non - pecuniary damage to be paid by ORG and the education and culture departments of ORG . The court also awarded damages to other victims of the accident , as well as to the clinic in reimbursement of medical and other expenses for treating the applicant 's daughter .

On DATE ORG allowed the defendants ' appeals in part and quashed the judgment in part concerning the reimbursement to the clinic of medical and other expenses for treating the applicant 's daughter because it had been claimed by the applicant , not the clinic , and the applicant 's legal expenses regarding the publication in a newspaper of details of the court 's hearings ; consequently , it remitted these parts of the case for fresh examination . It also reduced the awards to other victims of the accident and upheld the remainder of the judgment .

On DATE ORG of GPE rejected the requests for leave to appeal in cassation lodged by ORG and the education and culture departments of ORG .

NORP Apparently , the proceedings in the remitted part are still pending before the first - instance court .

On DATE ORG instituted proceedings to enforce the judgment of DATE , as amended on CARDINAL DATE .

ORG and the education and culture departments of ORG requested adjournment of the enforcement for DATE , referring to a lack of relevant funds . On DATE ORG allowed these requests .

On DATE the victims of the accident were paid ex gratia by the local authorities the total amount of ORG CARDINAL , out of which the applicant was paid ORG CARDINAL ( MONEY at the material time ) . She was further paid :

on DATE ( about ORG MONEY ) ;

on DATE – UAH CARDINAL ( about ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL ) ;

on DATE – UAH CARDINAL ( about ORG CARDINAL ) ;

on DATE – UAH CARDINAL ( about EUR CARDINAL ) .

Articles DATE , DATE , and CARDINAL of the LAW on the right to life and right to compensation for damage caused by authorities are set out in PERSON and Others v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL , § MONEY , DATE ) .

Article CARDINAL ( forgery in office ) of the LAW provides as follows :

“ CARDINAL . Forgery in office , that is putting any knowingly false information in official documents , any other fabrication of documents , and also making and issuing knowingly false documents , by an official , –

shall punishable by a fine of CARDINAL tax - free minimum incomes , or restraint of liberty for a term of DATE , with the deprivation of the right to occupy certain positions or engage in certain activities for a term of DATE . ... ”

Article CARDINAL ( neglect of official duty ) of the LAW provides as follows :

“ CARDINAL . Neglect of official duty , that is the failure of an official to perform , or the improper performance of , his / her official duties due to negligence , where it caused significant damage to the legally protected rights and interests of individual citizens , or state and public interests , or interests of legal entities , –

shall be punishable by a fine of CARDINAL tax - free minimum incomes , or correctional labour for a term of DATE , or restraint of liberty for a term of DATE , with the deprivation of the right to occupy certain positions or engage in certain activities for a term of DATE .

The same act that caused any grave consequences , –

shall be punishable by imprisonment for a term of DATE with the deprivation of the right to occupy certain positions or engage in certain activities for a term of DATE and with or without a fine of CARDINAL tax - free minimum incomes . ”

Under Articles CARDINAL § CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) and CARDINAL § CARDINAL of the Code , a person convicted for an offense of medium gravity can be exempted from the punishment if a period of DATE has elapsed from the date of the criminal offense to the effective date of the judgment . An offense of medium gravity is punishable by imprisonment for a term of DATE ( LAW ) .

Articles DATE ( compensation for moral ( non - pecuniary ) damage ) and CARDINAL ( liability of an organisation for damage caused through the fault of its employees ) of the Code are set out in GPE v. GPE ( ( dec . ) , no . CARDINAL , CARDINAL DATE ) .


The applicants , whose names appear in the appendix , are NORP nationals . They are represented before the ORG by Mr PERSON , Mr LOC and Mr PERSON , lawyers practising in GPE .

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

Until DATE the applicant lived in PERSON , a hamlet of the GPE village in the district of GPE in GPE , where he owns property .

In DATE security forces forcibly evacuated ORG on account of disturbances in the region . They also destroyed the applicant ’s property . The applicant and his family then moved to GPE where they currently live .

On an unspecified date the applicant lodged a petition with ORG office in GPE , complaining about the burning down of his house by security forces .

On an unspecified date ORG office issued a decision of non - jurisdiction and sent the case - file to ORG in GPE .

On DATE ORG in GPE decided not to conduct an investigation into the applicant ’s allegations as the perpetrators of the alleged acts could not be identified .

On DATE and CARDINAL DATE the applicant filed petitions with the Governor ’s office in GPE for submission to the Governor ’s office in GPE and requested permission to return to his hamlet . He received no response to his petitions within the CARDINAL-day period prescribed by Law no . CARDINAL .

Until DATE the applicant lived in PERSON , a hamlet of the GPE village in the district of GPE in GPE , where he owns property . It is to be noted that the title deeds to the property that the applicant used in PERSON bear his father ’s name .

On an unspecified date the applicant filed a petition with the District Governor ’s office in GPE requesting permission to return to his village .

On DATE ORG of the GPE office in GPE sent the following reply to the applicant :

“ Your petition containing a request of permission to return to your village has been received by the District Governor ’s office and will be considered under the ‘ Return to Village and Rehabilitation Project’ . ”

ORG and ORG .

In DATE security forces forcibly evacuated ORG on account of disturbances in the region . They also destroyed the applicants’ property . The applicants and their families then moved to GPE where they currently live .

ORG and ORG lodged petitions with ORG office in GPE on DATE and on DATE respectively complaining about the burning down of their house by security forces .

On an unspecified date ORG issued a decision of non - jurisdiction and sent the case - files to ORG in GPE .

On DATE ORG decided not to conduct an investigation into their allegations as the perpetrators of the alleged acts could not be identified .

On DATE Ağa ORG filed a petition with the District Governor ’s office requesting alternative residence . He received no response to his petition .

On an unspecified date PERSON filed a petition with the Prime Minister ’s office requesting permission to return to his village .

On DATE he filed a further petition with the District Governor ’s office in GPE requesting permission to return to his village .

On DATE the Prime Minister ’s office sent the following reply to him :

“ Your petition containing a request of permission to return to your village has been transmitted to ORG for examination . ”

On DATE the District Governor ’s office in GPE sent the following reply to PERSON :

“ ... The struggle against terrorism in our region has been continuing intensively and positive result is being achieved .

Our government has been working on the solutions to the problems you have mentioned in your petition and you will be informed by the District Governor ’s office when it is possible to return to the villages ... ”

On DATE Ağa Lazım , PERSON and ORG lodged a petition with ORG requesting alternative residence and expropriation of their property in PERSON .

On DATE the Governor ’s office in GPE refused the ORG requests stating :

“ When the villages are secure and suitable for residence , you can return and reside in your village .

There is no legal ground for expropriation of your property . ”

On an unspecified date PERSON filed a petition with the Governor ’s office in GPE requesting permission to return to his village .

On DATE ORG of the Governor ’s office in GPE sent the following reply to the applicant :

“ Your petition containing a request of permission to return to your village has been received by the Governor ’s office and will be considered under the ‘ Return to Village and Rehabilitation Project’ . ”

On DATE the applicants filed a further petition with the Governor ’s office in GPE requesting permission to return to their village . They received no response to their petition within the CARDINAL-day period prescribed by PERSON no . CARDINAL .

Until DATE the applicants lived in the Karataş village , in the GPE district in GPE , where they own property . It is to be noted that another person , PERSON , appears to be the owner of the property in question on the documents submitted to the ORG .

On DATE PERSON lodged a petition with ORG office in GPE complaining about the burning down of his house by security forces .

On an unspecified date ORG office sent the case - file to the GPE office in GPE .

On DATE ORG in GPE decided not to conduct investigation into his allegations as the perpetrators of the alleged acts could not be identified .

On DATE PERSON filed a petition with the Governor ’s office in GPE requesting permission to return to his village .

On DATE ORG of the Governor ’s office in GPE sent the following response to the applicant :

On DATE the applicants filed petitions with the Governor ’s office in GPE requesting permission to return to their village . They received no response to their petition within the CARDINAL-day period prescribed by PERSON no . CARDINAL .

Until DATE the applicant lived in the Karataş village , in the GPE district in GPE , where he owns property .

In DATE security forces forcibly evacuated ORG on account of disturbances in the region . They also destroyed the applicant ’s property . The applicant and his family then moved to GPE where they currently live .

On DATE the applicant lodged a petition with ORG office in GPE complaining about the burning down of his house by the security forces .

On an unspecified date ORG office issued a decision of non - jurisdiction and sent the case - file to ORG in GPE .

On DATE ORG in GPE decided not to conduct an investigation into the applicant ’s allegations as the perpetrators of the alleged acts could not be identified .

On DATE the applicant filed a petition with the Governor ’s office in GPE to be referred to the Governor ’s office in GPE requesting permission to return to his village .

On DATE ORG of the Governor ’s office in GPE sent the following reply to the applicant :

“ Your petition containing a request of permission to return to your village has been received by the Governor ’s office and will be considered under the ‘ Return to Village and Rehabilitation Project’ . ”

On DATE the applicant filed a further petition with the Governor ’s office in GPE requesting permission to return to his village . He received no response to his petition within the CARDINAL-day period prescribed by PERSON no . CARDINAL .

Until DATE the applicants lived in the Karataş village , in the GPE district in GPE , where they own property . It is to be noted that the title deeds to the property that the applicants used in PERSON bear the names of PERSON , PERSON and PERSON .

PERSON , PERSON and PERSON lodged petitions with ORG office in GPE on DATE , DATE and DATE respectively complaining about the burning down of their houses by the security forces .

On an unspecified date ORG office issued decisions of non - jurisdiction and sent the case - files to ORG .

On DATE ORG in GPE decided not to conduct an investigation into the ORG allegations as the perpetrators of the alleged acts could not be identified .

On DATE PERSON filed a petition with the Governor ’s office in GPE requesting permission to return to his village .

On DATE ORG of the Governor ’s office in GPE sent the following response to him :

Until DATE the applicants lived in the Karataş village , in the GPE district in GPE , where they own property . It is to be noted that another person , ORG , appears to be the owner of the property in question on the documents submitted to the ORG .

PERSON and PERSON wife lodged petitions with ORG office in GPE on DATE and on DATE respectively complaining about the burning down of their house by security forces .

On an unspecified date ORG issued a decision of non - jurisdiction and sent the case - file to ORG in GPE .

On DATE ORG decided not to conduct an investigation into their allegations as the perpetrators of the alleged acts could not be identified .

On an unspecified date PERSON and ORG filed petitions with the Governor ’s office in GPE requesting permission to return to their village .

On DATE ORG , ORG and PERSON ORG filed petitions with the Governor ’s office in GPE requesting permission to return to their village .

On DATE ORG of the Governor ’s office in GPE sent the following reply to the applicants :

“ Your petition containing a request of permission to your village has been received by the Governor ’s office and will be considered under the ‘ Return to Village and Rehabilitation Project’ . ”

On DATE the applicants filed further petitions with the Governor ’s office in GPE requesting permission to return to their village .

They received no response to their petitions within the CARDINAL-day period prescribed by PERSON no . CARDINAL .

Until DATE the applicants lived in the Karataş village , in the GPE district , in GPE , where they own property . It is to be noted that other persons with the family name “ GPE ” appear to be the owners of the property in question on the documents submitted to the ORG .

On DATE PERSON , lodged a petition with ORG office in GPE complaining about the burning down of his house by security forces .

On an unspecified date , ORG issued a decision of non - jurisdiction and sent the case - file to ORG in GPE .

On DATE ORG decided not to conduct an investigation into his allegations as the perpetrators of the alleged acts could not be identified .

On DATE PERSON a filed petition with the Governor ’s office in GPE requesting permission to return to his village .

On DATE ORG of the Governor ’s office in GPE sent the following reply to the applicant :

On DATE the applicants filed petitions with the Governor ’s office in GPE requesting permission to return to their village . They received no response to their petitions within the CARDINAL-day period prescribed by PERSON no . CARDINAL .

Until DATE the applicant lived in the Karataş village , in the GPE district in GPE , where she owns property . It is to be noted that the title deeds to the property that the applicant used in PERSON bear her father ’s name

In DATE security forces forcibly evacuated ORG on account of disturbances in the region . They also destroyed the applicant ’s property . The applicant and her family then moved to GPE where they currently live .

On DATE the applicant filed a petition with ORG requesting permission to return to her village .

On CARDINAL DATE the Governor ’s office in GPE sent the following reply to the applicant :

“ ... The struggle against terrorism in our region has been continuing intensively and positive result is being achieved .

Our government has been working on the solutions to the problems you have mentioned in your petition and you will be informed by the District Governor ’s office when it is possible to return to the villages ... ”

On an unspecified date , the applicant filed a petition with the Governor ’s office in GPE requesting permission to return to her village .

On DATE the applicant filed a further petition with the Governor ’s office in GPE requesting permission to return to her village . She received no response to her petition within the CARDINAL-day period prescribed by PERSON no . CARDINAL .

Until DATE the applicants lived in the Karataş village , in the GPE district in GPE , where they own property . It is to be noted that PERSON and another person , PERSON , appear to be the owners of the property in question on the documents submitted to the ORG .

PERSON and PERSON husband , PERSON , lodged petitions with ORG office on DATE and on DATE in GPE respectively complaining about the burning down of their house by the security forces .

On an unspecified date ORG office issued a decision of non - jurisdiction and sent the case - files to ORG in GPE .

On DATE ORG in GPE decided not to conduct an investigation into the ORG allegations as the perpetrators of the alleged acts could not be identified .

On DATE PERSON and PERSON filed petitions with the GPE office in GPE requesting permission to return to their village .

On DATE the District Governor ’s office in GPE sent the following reply to the applicants :

On DATE PERSON filed a petition with ORG requesting permission to return to his village .

On DATE the District Governor ’s office in GPE sent the following reply to him :

On DATE PERSON , PERSON and PERSON filed petitions with the Governor ’s office in GPE requesting permission to return to their village . They received no response to their petition within the CARDINAL-day period prescribed by PERSON no . CARDINAL .

On DATE and CARDINAL DATE PERSON and PERSON respectively filed petitions with the Governor ’s office in GPE requesting permission to return to their village . They received no response to their petition within the CARDINAL-day period prescribed by PERSON no . CARDINAL .

Until DATE the applicants lived in the Karataş village , in the GPE district , in GPE , where they own property . It is to be noted that the title deeds of the property submitted to the ORG bear the name of “ ORG ” , the husband of PERSON , the father of PERSON and the father - in - law of ORG .

On DATE ORG and ORG lodged petitions with ORG office in GPE complaining about the burning down of their house by security forces .

On an unspecified date ORG issued a decision of non - jurisdiction and sent the case - files to ORG in GPE .

On DATE ORG decided not to conduct an investigation into their allegations as the perpetrators of the alleged acts could not be identified .

On DATE Saher Elmas and ORG filed petitions with the Governor ’s office in GPE requesting permission to return to their village .

On DATE ORG of the Governor ’s office in GPE sent the following reply to the applicants :

“ Your petition containing a request of permission to your village has been received by the Governor ’s office and will be considered under the ‘ Return to Village and Rehabilitation Project’ . ”

On DATE ORG filed a further petition with the Governor ’s office in NORP requesting permission to return to her village . She received no response to her petition within the CARDINAL-day period prescribed by PERSON no . CARDINAL .

On DATE PERSON and PERSON filed further petitions with the Governor ’s office in GPE requesting permission to return to their village . They received no response to their petitions within the CARDINAL-day period prescribed by PERSON no . CARDINAL .

Until DATE the applicant lived in the Karataş village , in the GPE district , in GPE , where he owns property . It is to be noted that other person , ORG , appears to be the owner of the property in question on the documents submitted to the ORG .

In DATE security forces forcibly evacuated ORG on account of disturbances in the region . They also destroyed the applicant ’s property . The applicant and his family then moved to GPE where they currently live .

On DATE the applicant lodged a petition with ORG office in GPE complaining about the burning down of his house by security forces .

On an unspecified date ORG issued a decision of non - jurisdiction and sent the case - file to ORG in GPE .

On DATE ORG decided not to conduct an investigation into his allegations as the perpetrators of the alleged acts could not be identified .

On DATE the applicant filed a further petition with the Governor ’s office in GPE requesting permission to return to his village .

He received no response to his petition within the CARDINAL-day period prescribed by PERSON no . CARDINAL .

Until OctoberCARDINAL the applicant lived in the Karataş village , in the GPE district in GPE , where he owns property .

On DATE the applicant lodged a petition with ORG office in GPE complaining about the burning down of his house by the security forces .

On an unspecified date ORG office issued a decision of non - jurisdiction and sent the case - file to ORG in GPE .

On DATE ORG in GPE decided not to conduct an investigation into the applicant ’s allegations as the perpetrators of the alleged acts could not be identified .

On DATE the applicant filed a petition with the Governor ’s office in GPE requesting permission to return to his village .

On DATE ORG of the Governor ’s office in GPE sent the following reply to the applicant :

“ Your petition containing a request of permission to return to your village has been received by the Governor ’s office and will be considered under the ‘ Return to Village and Rehabilitation Project’ . ”

Until DATE the applicant lived in the Karataş village , in the GPE district in GPE , where he owns property . It is to be noted that the applicant did not submit any certificate to the ORG attesting his ownership of the property in ORG .

On DATE ORG of the Governor ’s office in GPE sent the following response to the applicant :

He received no response to their petition within the CARDINAL-day period prescribed by PERSON no . CARDINAL .

Until DATE the applicant lived in the Karataş village , in the GPE district , in GPE , where he owns property . It is to be noted that other persons , PERSON and PERSON , appear to be the owners of the property in question on the documents submitted to the ORG .

In DATE security forces forcibly evacuated ORG on account of disturbances in the region . They also destroyed the applicant ’s property . The applicant and his family then moved to GPE where they currently live .

On DATE the applicant lodged a petition with ORG office in GPE complaining about the burning down of his house by security forces .

On DATE ORG sent a letter to the applicant stating that there would not be an investigation into his allegations as the perpetrators of the alleged acts could not be identified .

Until DATE the applicants lived in the Karataş village , in the GPE district , in GPE , where they own property . It is to be noted that PERSON appears to be the owner of the property in question on the documents submitted to the ORG .

On DATE PERSON and PERSON lodged petitions with ORG office in GPE complaining about the burning down of their houses by security forces .

On DATE Mahmut ORG , lodged a petition with ORG office in GPE complaining about the burning down of his house by security forces .

On an unspecified date ORG office issued a decision of non - jurisdiction and sent the case - file to ORG in GPE .

On DATE ORG sent letters to the applicants stating that there would not be an investigation into their allegations as the perpetrators of the alleged acts could not be identified .

On DATE the PERSON and PERSON filed petitions with the Governor ’s office in GPE requesting permission to return to their village .

On DATE ORG of the Governor ’s office in GPE sent the following response to the applicants :

“ Your petition containing a request of permission to return to your village has been received by the Governor ’s office and will be considered under the ‘ Return to Village and Rehabilitation Project’ . ”

On DATE the applicants filed petitions with the Governor ’s office in GPE requesting permission to return to their village . They received no response to their petitions within the CARDINAL-day period prescribed by Law no . CARDINAL .

Until DATE the applicants lived in the Karataş village , in the GPE district , in GPE , where they own property . It is to be noted that other persons with the family name “ PERSON ” appear to be the owners of the property in question on the documents submitted to the ORG .

On DATE PERSON filed a petition with the GPE office in GPE requesting an alternative residence . He received no response to his petition .

On DATE ORG lodged a petition with ORG office in GPE complaining about the burning down of his house by the security forces .

On DATE PERSON filed petitions with the GPE office in GPE and ORG requesting alternative residence and expropriation of his property in ORG .

On DATE the District Governor ’s office in GPE sent the following reply to the applicant :

“ ... The struggle against terrorism in our region has been continuing intensively and positive result is being achieved .

Our government has been working on the solutions to the problems you have mentioned in your petition and you will be informed by the District Governor ’s office when it is possible to return to the villages ... ”

On DATE the Governor ’s office in GPE refused PERSON request stating :

“ When the villages are secure and suitable for residence , you can return and reside in your village .

There is no legal ground for expropriation of your property . ”

On an unspecified date PERSON filed a petition with the Governor ’s office in GPE requesting permission to return to his village .

On DATE ORG of the Governor ’s office in GPE sent the following reply to the applicant :

“ Your petition containing a request of permission to return to your village has been received by the Governor ’s office and will be considered under the ‘ Return to the Village and Rehabilitation Project . ”

ORG and ORG filed petitions with the Governor ’s office in GPE on CARDINAL and DATE respectively requesting permission to return to their village . They received no response to their petitions within the DATE period prescribed by PERSON no . CARDINAL .

Until DATE the applicant lived in the Karataş village , in the GPE district , in GPE . It is to be noted that the applicant submitted CARDINAL documents dated DATE and DATE , certifying the ownership of property .

In DATE security forces forcibly evacuated ORG on account of disturbances in the region . They also destroyed the applicant ’s property . The applicant and his family then moved to GPE where they currently live .

On DATE the applicant lodged a petition with ORG office in GPE complaining about the burning down of his house by security forces .

On an unspecified date ORG office issued a decision of non - jurisdiction and sent the case - file to ORG in GPE .

On DATE ORG sent a letter to the applicant stating that there would not be an investigation into his allegations as the perpetrators of the alleged acts could not be identified .

On DATE the applicant filed a petition with the Governor ’s office in GPE requesting permission to return to his village . He received no response to his petition within the CARDINAL-day period prescribed by PERSON no . CARDINAL .

Until DATE the applicant lived in the Karataş village , in the GPE district , in GPE , where he owns property . It is to be noted that the title deeds to the property that applicant used in PERSON bear his father ’s name .

Until DATE the applicant lived in the Karataş village , in the GPE district , in GPE , where he owns property .

PERSON and PERSON , filed petitions with the Governor ’s office in GPE on CARDINAL and DATE respectively , requesting permission to return to their village . They received no response to their petitions within the CARDINAL-day period prescribed by PERSON no . CARDINAL .

Until OctoberCARDINAL the applicant lived in the GPE village , in the GPE district in GPE , where he owns property .

In DATE security forces forcibly evacuated GPE on account of disturbances in the region . They also destroyed the applicant ’s property . The applicant and his family then moved to GPE where they currently live .

On DATE the applicant lodged a petition with ORG office in GPE complaining about the burning down of his house by the security forces .

On DATE ORG office issued a decision of non - jurisdiction and sent the case - file to ORG in GPE .

On DATE ORG in GPE decided not to conduct an investigation into the applicant ’s allegations as the perpetrators of the alleged acts could not be identified .

On an unspecified date the applicant filed a petition with the District Governor ’s office in GPE requesting permission to return to his village .

On DATE ORG of the GPE office in GPE sent the following reply to the applicant :

“ Your petition containing a request of permission to return to your village has been received by the District Governor ’s office and will be considered under the ‘ Return to Village and Rehabilitation Project’ . ”

Until OctoberCARDINAL the applicant lived in GPE , in GPE district in GPE , where she owns property .

In DATE security forces forcibly evacuated PERSON on account of disturbances in the region . They also destroyed the applicant ’s property . The applicant and her family then moved to GPE where they currently live .

On an unspecified date the applicant lodged a petition with ORG office in GPE complained about the burning down of her house by the security forces .

On an unspecified date ORG office issued a decision of non - jurisdiction and sent the case - file to ORG in GPE .

On DATE the applicant applied to ORG of the GPE office in GPE and requested permission to return to her village . She was told by a police officer that her petition would not be registered and that she would not be replied . The applicant and CARDINAL other witnesses drafted a note on this statement . This note is attached to the applicant ’s application to the ORG . The applicant did not submit any official document to the ORG certifying the statement made by the police officer in question .

On DATE the applicant filed a further petition with the Governor ’s office in GPE requesting permission to return to her village . She received no response to her petitions within the CARDINAL-day period prescribed by PERSON no . CARDINAL .

Until OctoberCARDINAL the applicant lived in Tepsili village , in GPE district in GPE , where he owns property .

In DATE security forces forcibly evacuated Tepsili on account of disturbances in the region . They also destroyed the applicant ’s property . The applicant and his family then moved to GPE where they currently live .

On DATE the applicant filed a petition with the District Governor ’s office in GPE requesting permission to return to his village .

Until OctoberCARDINAL the applicant lived in the NORP village , in the ORG district in GPE , where he owns property .

In DATE security forces forcibly evacuated ORG on account of disturbances in the region . They also destroyed the applicant ’s property . The applicant and his family then moved to the PERSON village in GPE where they currently live .

The applicant filed petitions with the District Governor ’s office in ORG and the Prime Minister ’s office on DATE and on DATE respectively requesting permission to return to his village and compensation for the damages he suffered .

On DATE the Prime Minister ’s office informed the applicant that his petition had been transmitted to ORG .

On DATE the District Governor ’s office in ORG sent a letter to the applicant stating that the applicant had left his property voluntarily on account of disturbances in the region and had been granted financial aid by ORG ( PERSON ve PERSON ) .

Until OctoberCARDINAL the applicant lived in ORG , a hamlet of the GPE village in the district of GPE in GPE , where he owns property .

In DATE security forces forcibly evacuated ORG on account of disturbances in the region . They also destroyed the applicant ’s property . The applicant and his family then moved to the GPE village where they currently live .

On an unspecified date the applicant lodged a petition with ORG office in GPE and complained about the burning down of his house by the security forces .

On an unspecified date ORG office issued a decision of non - jurisdiction and sent the case - file to the office of ORG in GPE .

On DATE the GPE office in GPE decided not to conduct an investigation into applicant ’s allegations as the perpetrators of the alleged acts could not be identified .

On DATE the applicant filed a petition with the Governor ’s office in GPE requesting permission to return to his hamlet .

On DATE ORG of the Governor ’s office in GPE sent the following reply to the applicant :

“ Your petition containing a request of permission to return to your village has been received by the Governor ’s office and will be considered under the ‘ Return to Village and Rehabilitation Project’ . ”

Until OctoberCARDINAL the applicant lived in the GPE village , in the GPE district in GPE , where he owns property .

In DATE security forces forcibly evacuated GPE on account of disturbances in the region . They also destroyed the applicant ’s property . The applicant and his family then moved to GPE where they currently live .

On DATE the applicant lodged a petition with ORG office in GPE complaining about the burning down of his house by security forces .

On DATE ORG office issued a decision of non - jurisdiction and sent the case - file to ORG in GPE .

On DATE ORG in GPE decided not to conduct an investigation into the applicant ’s allegations as the perpetrators of the alleged acts could not be identified .

On DATE the applicant filed a petition with the District Governor ’s office in GPE requesting permission to return to his village .

On DATE ORG of the GPE office in GPE sent the following reply to the applicant :

“ Your petition containing a request of permission to return to your village has been received by the District Governor ’s office and will be considered under the ‘ Return to Village and Rehabilitation Project’ . ”

On DATE ORG issued a decision of non - jurisdiction and sent the case - file to ORG in GPE .

On DATE ORG decided not to conduct an investigation into his allegations as the perpetrators of the alleged acts could not be identified .

Until DATE the applicant lived in the Cevizlidere village , in the GPE district , in GPE , where he owns property . It is to be noted that the applicant did not submit any certificate attesting his ownership of property in Cevizlidere .

In DATE security forces forcibly evacuated Cevizlidere on account of disturbances in the region . They also destroyed the applicant ’s property . The applicant and his family then moved to GPE where they currently live .

Until DATE the applicant lived in the Cevizlidere village , in the GPE district in GPE , where he owns property . It is to be noted that PERSON appears be the owner of the property in question on the documents submitted to ORG .

In DATE security forces forcibly evacuated Cevizlidere on account of disturbances in the region . They also destroyed the applicants’ property . The applicants and their families then moved to GPE where they currently live .

On an unspecified date PERSON lodged a petition with ORG office in GPE complained about the burning down of his house by security forces .

On DATE ORG decided not to conduct an investigation into the applicant ’s allegations as the perpetrators of the alleged acts could not be identified .

On DATE PERSON filed a petition with the GPE office in the district of GPE in GPE to be referred to the GPE office in GPE requesting permission to return to his village . He received no response to his petition within the CARDINAL-day period prescribed by PERSON no . CARDINAL .

On DATE PERSON filed further petitions with the GPE office in GPE , the Governor ’s office in GPE and ORG requesting permission to return to his village .

On DATE he lodged a further complaint with ORG office in GPE requesting permission to return to his village .

On DATE ORG of the Governor ’s office in GPE sent the following reply to the applicant :

“ Return to the Cevizlidere village is forbidden for security reasons . However , you can return and reside in GPE , PERSON , ORG , GPE , PERSON , NORP and NORP villages .

Furthermore your petition will be considered under the ‘ Return to Village and Rehabilitation Project’ . ”

On DATE the GPE office in GPE sent the following reply to the applicant :

“ Your petition containing a request of permission to return to your village has been received by the District Governor ’s office and will be considered under the ‘ Return to village and Rehabilitation Project’ . ”

On DATE PERSON filed a petition with the GPE office in GPE requesting permission to return to his village .

“ Your petition containing a request of permission to your village has been received by the District Governor ’s office and will be considered under the ‘ Return to Village and Rehabilitation Project’ . ”

Until DATE the applicant lived in the Cevizlidere village , in the GPE district in GPE where they own property . It is to be noted that PERSON , PERSON and other persons with the family name “ GPE ” appear to be the owners of the property in question on the documents submitted to the ORG .

On unspecified dates PERSON and PERSON lodged petitions with ORG office in GPE complaining about the burning down of their houses by security forces .

On DATE ORG issued a decision of non - jurisdiction and sent the case - files to ORG in GPE .

On DATE ORG decided not to conduct an investigation into their allegations as the perpetrators of the alleged acts could not be identified .

PERSON and PERSON , filed petitions with the GPE office in GPE on DATE and on DATE respectively , requesting permission to return to their village . They received no response to their petitions within the CARDINAL-day period prescribed by PERSON no . CARDINAL .

On DATE PERSON and PERSON filed petitions with the Governor ’s office in NORP requesting permission to return to their village . They received no response to their petition within the CARDINAL-day period prescribed by PERSON no . CARDINAL .

The official records indicated that the inhabitants of GPE , GPE , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , GPE and Cevizlidere had evacuated their village on account of intense terrorist activities in the region and threats issued by the ORG ( Workers’ ORG ) terrorist organisation against the villagers . The security forces had not forced the applicants to leave their village .

Currently there was no obstacle preventing villagers from returning to their homes and possessions in their villages . Persons who had left their villages as a result of terrorism had already started returning and regaining their activities in their villages . In this connection , in a letter of DATE the NORP Governor of GPE informed the applicants that they could return to their villages and resume their economic activities if they wished . He further noted that all villages were open for re - settlement and that the authorities had been carrying out maintenance work to repair the infrastructure of the villages in the region .

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

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

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

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