CASE OF METROPOLITAN CHURCH OF BESSARABIA AND OTHERS v. MOLDOVA

Violation of Art. 9;Not necessary to examine Art. 14+9;Violation of Art. 13;Not necessary to examine Art. 6-1 and 11;Non-pecuniary damage - financial award

The first applicant , ORG , is an autonomous ORG having canonical jurisdiction in the territory of GPE . The other applicants are NORP nationals who are members of the eparchic council of the first applicant . They are : Mr Petru Păduraru , Archbishop of PERSON , Metropolitan of Bessarabia and living in PERSON ; Mr PERSON , prosyncellus , living in PERSON ; PERSON PERSON , protosyncellus , living in GPE ; PERSON , protopresbyter , living in PERSON , ORG ; Mr PERSON , a priest living in GPE , ORG ; Mr PERSON , a priest living in ORG , ORG ; PERSON , a priest living in GPE , GPE ; Mr ORG , a priest living in PERSON ; Mr PERSON , member of the NORP parliament and of ORG of ORG , and living in PERSON , Mr PERSON , living in PERSON ; and Mr PERSON , Chancellor of ORG , living in PERSON .

On DATE the applicant natural persons joined together to form the applicant ORG Bessarabia – a local , autonomous ORG . According to its articles of association , it took the place , from the canon - law point of view , of ORG which had existed until DATE .

In DATE it was attached to the patriarchate of GPE .

ORG adopted articles of association which determined , among other matters , the composition and administration of its organs , the training , recruitment and disciplinary supervision of its clergy , the ecclesiastical hierarchy and rules concerning its assets . In the preamble to the articles of association the principles governing the organisation and operation of the applicant ORG are defined as follows :

“ ORG is a local , autonomous ORG attached to the patriarchate of GPE . The traditional ecclesiastical denomination ORG is of a historically conventional nature and has no link with current or previous political situations . ORG has no political activities and will have none in future . It shall carry on its work in the territory of GPE . ORG of Bessarabia shall have the status of an exarchate of the country . According to canon law , communities of the NORP diaspora may also become members . No charge shall be made for the accession of individual members and communities living abroad .

In the context of its activity in GPE , it shall respect the laws of the ORG and international human rights law . Communities abroad which have adhered for the purposes of canon law to ORG of Bessarabia shall establish relations with the authorities of the GPE concerned , complying with their legislation and the relevant provisions of international law . ORG of Bessarabia shall cooperate with the authorities of the ORG in the sphere of culture , education and social assistance . ORG does not make any claim of an economic or any other kind against other Churches or religious organisations . ORG maintains ecumenical relations with other Churches and religious movements and considers that fraternal dialogue is the only proper form of relationship between Churches .

Priests of ORG working in GPE territory shall be NORP citizens . When nationals of foreign GPE are invited to come to GPE to carry on a religious activity or citizens of GPE are sent abroad for the same purpose , the legislation in force must be complied with .

Members of ORG of Bessarabia shall be citizens of GPE who have joined together on a voluntary basis to practise their religion in common , in accordance with their own convictions , and on the basis of the precepts of the Gospel , ORG , NORP canon law and ORG .

Religious services held in all the communities of ORG of Bessarabia shall include special prayers for the authorities and institutions of the State , couched in the following terms : ‘ We pray , as always , for our country , GPE , for its leaders and for its army . May God protect them and grant them peaceful and honest lives , spent in obedience to the canons of the Church.’ ”

To date , ORG has established CARDINAL communities in GPE territory , CARDINAL communities in GPE , CARDINAL in GPE , one in GPE , CARDINAL in GPE and one in GPE . The communities in GPE and GPE have been recognised by the ORG authorities and have legal personality .

CARDINAL NORP nationals are affiliated to the applicant ORG , which has CARDINAL clergy .

ORG is recognised by all the NORP patriarchates with the exception of the patriarchate of GPE .

Pursuant to LAW ( Law no . CARDINAL of DATE ) , which requires religious denominations active in NORP territory to be recognised by means of a government decision , the applicant ORG applied for recognition on DATE . It received no reply .

It made further applications on DATE and CARDINAL DATE . On DATE which has not been specified ORG refused these applications .

On DATE the applicant PERSON , relying on Article CARDINAL of the Code of Civil Procedure ( which governs judicial review of administrative acts contrary to recognised rights ) , brought civil proceedings against the government in ORG of the GPE district of PERSON . He asked for the decisions refusing to recognise the applicant ORG to be set aside . The court ruled in his favour and , on DATE , ordered recognition of ORG .

On DATE the ORG public prosecutor appealed against ORG ’s decision of CARDINAL DATE .

On DATE ORG set aside the decision of CARDINAL DATE on the ground that the courts did not have jurisdiction to consider the applicant ORG ’s application for recognition .

On DATE the applicant ORG filed a fresh application for recognition with the government . On DATE , having received no reply , the applicants brought civil proceedings against the government in ORG , seeking recognition of ORG . On DATE that court gave judgment against the applicants .

On DATE the applicants again filed an application for recognition , which went unanswered .

The applicants appealed to ORG ( ORG municipiului ) against the judgment of DATE . In a judgment of CARDINAL DATE , against which no appeal lay , ORG quashed the impugned judgment and allowed the ORG claim .

NORP However , following a reform of the NORP judicial system , the file was sent to ORG for trial de novo .

On DATE the applicants again applied to the government for recognition . On DATE , not having received any reply , they referred the matter to ORG , seeking recognition of ORG , relying on their freedom of conscience and freedom of association for the purpose of practising their religion . The resulting action was joined to the case already pending before ORG .

In ORG the government alleged that the case concerned an ecclesiastical conflict within ORG in GPE ( ORG of Moldova ) , which could be resolved only by the NORP and ORG , and that any recognition of ORG would provoke conflicts in the NORP community .

ORG allowed the applicants’ claim in a decision of DATE . It pointed out , firstly , that LAW and QUANTITY of the Moldovan Constitution guaranteed freedom of conscience and that that freedom should be exercised in a spirit of tolerance and respect for others . In addition , the various denominations were free to organise themselves according to their articles of association , subject to compliance with the laws of GPE Secondly , it noted that from DATE the applicant ORG , acting pursuant to sections DATE and CARDINAL of LAW , had filed with the government a number of applications for recognition , but that no reply had been forthcoming . By a letter of DATE the Prime Minister had informed the applicants that the government could not consider the application of ORG without interfering with the activity of ORG . ORG further noted that while the applicant ORG ’s application for recognition had been ignored , ORG had been recognised by the government on DATE , as an eparchy dependent on the patriarchate of GPE .

ORG dismissed the government ’s argument that recognition of ORG made it possible to satisfy the wishes of all NORP believers . It pointed out that the term denomination was not to be reserved for catholicism or orthodoxy , but should embrace all faiths and various manifestations of religious feelings by their adherents , in the form of prayers , ritual , religious services or divine worship . It noted that from the point of view of canon law ORG was part of ORG and therefore dependent on the patriarchate of GPE , whereas ORG was attached to ORG and therefore dependent on the patriarchate of GPE .

ORG held that the government ’s refusal to recognise the applicant ORG was contrary to the freedom of religion , as guaranteed not only by LAW but also by LAW CARDINAL of LAW , to all of which GPE was party . Noting that the representative of the government had taken the view that the applicant ORG ’s articles of association complied with domestic legislation , ORG ordered the government to recognise ORG and to ratify its articles of association .

NORP The government appealed against the above decision on the ground that the courts did not have jurisdiction to try such a case .

In a judgment of DATE ORG set aside the decision of DATE and dismissed the applicants’ action on the grounds that it was out of time and manifestly ill - founded .

It noted that , according to LAW , DATE was allowed for an appeal against a government decision alleged to infringe a recognised right . The time allowed began to run either on the date of the decision announcing the government ’s refusal or , if the they did not reply , DATE after the lodging of the application . ORG noted that the applicants had submitted their application to the government on DATE and lodged their appeal on DATE ; it accordingly ruled their action out of time .

It went on to say that , in any event , the government ’s refusal of the applicants’ application had not infringed their freedom of religion as guaranteed by international treaties , and in particular by LAW , because they were NORP and could manifest their beliefs within ORG , which the government had recognised by a decision of DATE .

ORG considered that the case was simply an administrative dispute within a single ORG , which could be settled only by ORG , since any interference by the ORG in the matter might aggravate the situation . It held that the ORG ’s refusal to intervene in this conflict was compatible with LAW of LAW .

Lastly , it noted that the applicants could manifest their beliefs freely , that they had access to Churches and that they had not adduced evidence of any obstacle whatsoever to the practice of their religion .

On DATE the applicants again applied to the government for recognition .

By a letter dated DATE the Prime Minister refused on the ground that ORG was not a religious denomination in the legal sense but a schismatic group within ORG .

He informed the applicants that the government would not allow their application until a religious solution to the conflict had been found , following the negotiations in progress between the patriarchates of GPE and GPE .

On DATE the applicants lodged a further application for recognition with the government . The ORG has not been informed of the outcome of that application .

Since the adoption of LAW , the government has recognised a number of denominations , some of which are listed below .

On DATE the government ratified the articles of association of ORG , attached to the patriarchate of GPE . On DATE it recognised the NORP Eparchy of ORG of PERSON , attached to ORG of ORG , whose head office was in GPE .

On DATE the government recognised the “ DATE ORG ” . On DATE it decided to recognise the “ DATE ORG ” .

On DATE the government ratified the articles of association of the “ Federation of NORP ( Religious ) Communities ” and on DATE those of the “ ORG of Messianic Jews ” .

Since it was first set up , ORG has regularly applied to the GPE authorities to explain the reasons for its creation and to seek their support in obtaining official recognition .

The government asked several ministries for their opinion about whether to recognise the applicant ORG .

On DATE ORG informed the government that it was favourable to the recognition of ORG .

On DATE ORG informed the government that it could see no objection to the recognition of ORG .

On DATE ORG declared that it was favourable to the recognition of the applicant ORG .

In a letter of CARDINAL DATE ORG emphasised the need for the rapid recognition of ORG in order to avoid any discrimination against its adherents , while pointing out that its articles of association could be improved upon .

On DATE the Secretariat of State for Privatisation stated that it was favourable to the recognition of ORG , while proposing certain amendments to its articles of association .

On DATE , in reply to a letter from the Bishop of Bălţi , writing on behalf of ORG , the NORP parliament ’s ORG noted that the delay in registering ORG was aggravating the social and political situation in GPE , even though its actions and articles of association complied with NORP legislation . The committee therefore asked the government to recognise the applicant ORG .

A memorandum from ORG , dated DATE , summarised the situation as follows :

“ For DATE an ecclesiastical group known under the name of ORG has been operating illegally in GPE territory . No positive result has been obtained in spite of our sustained efforts to put a stop to its activity ( discussions between members of the so - called ORG , priests , Mr G.E. , Mr GPE ... , representatives of the ORG and believers from the localities in which its adherents are active , Mr PERSON , Minister of State , and Mr N.A. , Deputy Speaker ; all the organs of local and national administrative bodies have been informed of the illegal nature of the group , etc . ) .

In addition , although priests and adherents of the ORG have been forbidden to take part in divine service , for failure to comply with canon law , they have nevertheless continued their illegal activities in the churches and have also been invited to officiate on the occasion of various public activities organised , for example , by ORG . The management of ORG and ORG have not acted on our request for liquidation of the group ’s bank accounts and strict supervision of its priests during their numerous crossings of the border .

The activity of the so - called ORG is not limited to attracting new adherents and propagating the ideas of ORG . It also has all the means necessary for the work of a ORG , it appoints priests , including nationals of other GPE ... , trains clergy , builds churches and many , many other things .

It should also be mentioned that the group ’s activity ( more political than religious ) is sustained by forces both from within the country ( by certain mayors and their villages , by opposition representatives , and even by some MPs ) and from outside ( by decision no . CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE the NORP government granted it CARDINAL lei to finance its activity ...

The activity of this group is causing religious and socio - political tension in GPE and will have unforeseeable repercussions ...

ORG notes :

( a ) Within NORP territory there is no territorial administrative unit with the name of PERSON which might justify setting up a religious group named ORG . The creation of such a group and recognition of its articles of association would constitute a wrongful anti - State act DATE a negation of the sovereign and independent ORG which GPE constitutes .

( b ) ORG was set up to take the place of the former Eparchy of Bessarabia , founded in DATE and recognised by Decree no . DATE promulgated on DATE by ORG Legal recognition of the validity of those acts would imply recognition of their present - day effects within NORP territory .

( c ) All NORP parishes in NORP territory have been registered as constituent parts of the of ORG ( ORG of Moldova ) , whose articles of association were ratified by the government in its decision no . CARDINAL of DATE .

In conclusion :

NORP If nothing is done to put a stop to the activity of the so - called ORG , the result will be destabilisation not just of ORG but of the whole of NORP society .

Recognition of ORG ) and ratification of its articles of association by the government would automatically entail the disappearance of ORG . ”

On DATE , following a question in ORG asked by the applicant PERSON , a NORP MP , the Deputy Prime Minister wrote a letter to the Speaker explaining the reasons for the government ’s refusal to recognise ORG . He said that the applicant ORG was not a denomination distinct from ORG but a schismatic group within ORG and that any interference by the ORG to resolve the conflict would be contrary to LAW . He pointed out that the political party to which Mr Cubreacov belonged had publicly expressed disapproval of ORG decision of DATE , that PERSON himself had criticised the government for their refusal to recognise “ this phantom metropolitan ORG ” and that he continued to support it by exerting pressure in any way he could , through statements to the media and approaches to the national authorities and international organisations . The letter ended with the assertion that the “ feverish debates ” about ORG were purely political .

On DATE ORG sent the Deputy Prime Minister its opinion on the question of recognition of ORG .

It pointed out in particular that not since DATE had there been an administrative unit in GPE with the name “ Bessarabia ” and that ORG had been recognised on DATE under the name of ORG , of which ORG was a “ schismatic element ” . It accordingly considered that recognition of the applicant ORG would represent interference by the ORG in the affairs of ORG , and that this would aggravate the “ unhealthy ” situation in which ORG was placed . It considered that the articles of association of the applicant ORG could not be ratified since they merely “ ORG ] those of ORG of another country ” .

On DATE ORG informed the government that it did not consider the articles of association of ORG to be contrary to GPE legislation .

By letters of DATE and DATE ORG and ORG again informed the government that they could see no objection to recognition of ORG .

On DATE ORG informed the government that it supported recognition of ORG .

On DATE ORG of the NORP parliament sent the government , for information , a copy of a report by ORG of GPE , which showed that on DATE there were CARDINAL different ORG in GPE , some of which had their head offices abroad . ORG expressed the hope that the above - mentioned report would assist the government to resolve certain similar problems , particularly the problem concerning ORG application for recognition .

In a letter sent on DATE to the applicant PERSON , the Deputy Attorney - General expressed the view that the government ’s refusal to reply to ORG of Bessarabia ’s application for recognition was contrary to the freedom of religion and to Articles CARDINAL , DATE and DATE of the Convention .

In a decision of CARDINAL DATE the government approved the amended version of LAW articles of association , worded as follows :

“ ORG of GPE is an independent ORG and is the successor in law to ... ORG . While complying with the canons and precepts of ORG , Fathers of the Church and ORG , and the decisions of ORG , ORG operates within the territory of ORG in accordance with the provisions of the legislation in force . ”

In a letter received by ORG the President of GPE expressed his concern about the possibility that the applicant ORG might be recognised . He said that the issue could be resolved only by negotiation between the NORP and NORP patriarchates , since it would be in breach of NORP legislation if the ORG authorities were to intervene in the conflict . Moreover , if the authorities were to recognise ORG , this would have unforeseeable consequences for NORP society .

In its Opinion no . CARDINAL ( DATE ) to ORG on GPE ’s application for membership of ORG , ORG of ORG noted GPE willingness to fulfil the commitments it had entered into when it lodged its application for membership on DATE .

These commitments , which had been reaffirmed before the adoption of the above - mentioned opinion , included an undertaking to “ confirm complete freedom of worship for all citizens without discrimination ” and to “ ensure a peaceful solution to the dispute between ORG and the ORG ” .

In its DATE report for DATE ORG criticised the NORP government ’s refusal to recognise ORG . The report stated that as a result of this refusal many churches had been transferred to the ownership of ORG . It drew attention to allegations that members of the applicant ORG ’s clergy had been subjected to physical violence without receiving the slightest protection from the authorities .

In its DATE report ORG criticised LAW , and in particular section CARDINAL thereof , which denied any protection of the freedom of religion to the adherents of religions not recognised by a government decision . It pointed out that this section was a discriminatory instrument which enabled the government to make it difficult for the adherents of ORG to bring legal proceedings with a view to reclaiming church buildings which belonged to them . In addition , the report mentioned acts of violence and vandalism to which the applicant ORG and its members were subjected .

The applicants reported a number of incidents during which members of the clergy or adherents of the applicant ORG had allegedly been intimidated or prevented from manifesting their beliefs .

The Government did not dispute that these incidents had taken place .

In DATE the assembly of NORP of the village of ORG ) decided to join ORG . ORG therefore appointed PERSON as the parish priest .

On DATE , when PERSON went to the church to celebrate the DATE mass , the mayor of GPE , GPE , forbade him to enter . When the villagers came out of the church to protest , the mayor locked the door and , without further explanation , ordered T.B. to leave the village within TIME .

The mayor summoned a new assembly of the NORP of the village on DATE . On that date he informed the villagers that PERSON had been stripped of his post as the village priest because he belonged to ORG . He introduced a new parish priest who belonged to ORG . The assembly rejected the mayor ’s proposal .

The mayor called a new assembly of the NORP of the village on DATE . On DATE he introduced to the villagers a third priest , also from ORG . He was likewise rejected by the assembly , which expressed its preference for T.B.

In those circumstances , PERSON , the chairman of the parish council , was summoned by the mayor and the manager of the local collective farm , who urged him to persuade the villagers to accept PERSON ’s removal from office . The chairman of the parish council refused .

On DATE PERSON was arrested on his way to church . He was pinned down by CARDINAL policemen , then thrown into a police van and taken first to the town hall , where he was savagely beaten . He was then taken into police custody at Ocniţa police station , where he was upbraided for showing favour to ORG . He was not informed of the reasons for his arrest . He was released after being detained for DATE .

Following these incidents T.B. left the parish .

In a letter of CARDINAL DATE the vice - president of the provincial council for the province ( raion ) of Făleşti rebuked ORG , priest of the parish of PERSON and a member of ORG , for having celebrated the GPE service on DATE in the town cemetery , that being an act contrary to LAW because ORG was illegal . For the same reason he was forbidden to conduct divine service in future whether inside a church or in the open air . The vice - chairman of the provincial council warned ORG not to implement a plan he had to invite priests from GPE to attend divine service on CARDINAL DATE , given that he had not first obtained official authorisation , as required by LAW .

In DATE ORG was fined CARDINAL lei ( MDL ) for officiating as a priest of an unrecognised ORG , ORG . ORG upheld the penalty , but reduced the amount of the fine to MDL DATE on the ground that ORG did not hold any office within the ORG concerned .

On DATE , before the beginning of divine service in the parish church , several persons , led by a priest of ORG , violently assaulted ORG , drawing blood , and asked him to join ORG . They also attacked the priest ’s wife , tearing her clothes .

G.E. managed to escape into the church , where the service was taking place , but he was pursued by his assailants , who began to fight with the congregation . A policeman sent to the scene managed to persuade the aggressors to leave the church .

On DATE the parish meeting published a declaration expressing the parishioners’ indignation about the acts of violence and intimidation to which members of ORG were subjected , requested the authorities to cease to condone such acts and demanded official recognition for their ORG .

On DATE the applicant PERSON , ORG , received CARDINAL anonymous telegrams warning him not to go to Făleşti . He did not lodge any complaint about this .

On DATE the applicant PERSON , priest of the parish of PERSON , was summoned by the president of the GPE provincial council to a discussion about ORG .

That discussion was also attended by the mayor of GPE , the secretary of the provincial council and the parish clerk . The president of the provincial council criticised the applicant for his membership of the applicant ORG , which made him a fellow - traveller of those who supported union with GPE . He then gave him DATE to produce a certificate attesting to recognition of ORG , failing which he would have to leave the parish .

In a letter of CARDINAL DATE to ORG , GPE , a NORP national , priest of the parish of GPE , reported that he was under intense pressure from the authorities of the province of GPE , who had upbraided him for belonging to the applicant ORG .

On DATE PERSON was summoned to the police station in GPE , where he was served with a government decision cancelling his residence and work permits and ordering him to leave NORP territory within TIME and to hand over the permits concerned to the relevant authorities .

On DATE PERSON , priest of the parish of PERSON , informed ORG that the windows of the church , which was affiliated to ORG , had been broken during incidents that had taken place on DATE and DATE .

A similar attack occurred in TIME to CARDINAL DATE . PERSON lodged a complaint on each occasion , asking the police to intervene in order to prevent further attacks taking place .

In TIME DATE a grenade was thrown by unknown persons into the house of ORG , causing damage . The applicant lodged a complaint about this at the police station in PERSON .

DATE . In DATE , after the death of PERSON , ORG appointed the applicant PERSON as the parish priest of PERSON .

Following that appointment the church of PERSON was occupied by representatives of ORG , who locked it and prevented the adherents of the applicant ORG from entering . They also took possession of the parish documents and seal .

On DATE the police issued a summons against ORG for organising a public meeting in front of PERSON church on DATE without first obtaining the authorisation required for public meetings .

On DATE Judge PERSON Buiucani Court of First Instance discontinued the proceedings on the ground that the applicant had not organised a meeting but had merely celebrated a mass in his capacity as priest at the request of CARDINAL believers who were present . Judge PERSON also noted that the mass had been celebrated on the square , as the church door had been locked .

In TIME DATE a grenade was thrown into the house of ORG , a member of the clergy of the applicant ORG . On DATE ORG was threatened by CARDINAL persons unknown to him . He immediately lodged a criminal complaint .

In a letter of CARDINAL DATE to the President of GPE , the Minister of the Interior expressed his regret about the slow progress of the investigations into ORG ’s complaints and informed him that on that account disciplinary penalties had been imposed on the police officers responsible for the inquiry .

In a report of CARDINAL DATE to ORG the parish clerk complained of the actions of CARDINAL PERSON , a priest of ORG , who was trying , with the help of the mayor of PERSON , to oust PERSON , a priest of the applicant ORG , and have the village church closed .

No complaint was lodged with the authorities on this subject .

On DATE , according to the applicants , Police Captain R. , claiming to be acting on the orders of his superior officer , Lieutenant - Colonel PERSON , placed seals on the door of the church of Cucioaia ( PERSON ) and forbade ORG , a priest of the applicant ORG , who regularly officiated there , to enter and continue to conduct divine service . After a complaint by the people of the village , the applicant PERSON wrote to the Prime Minister on DATE to ask him for an explanation .

The incident was also reported in the CARDINAL DATE issue of the newspaper ORG .

The Government asserted that following the above complaint the Ministry of the ORG ordered an inquiry . The inquiry showed that it was not a policeman but a member of ORG , ORG , who had placed the seals on the church door .

On DATE , at TIME , the parish priest was woken by persons unknown to him who were trying to force open the presbytery door . He was threatened with death if he did not give up the idea of creating a new parish in GPE .

DATE . On DATE he was threatened with death by one ORG , a priest of ORG . On DATE he complained to the police .

After leaving ORG in DATE to join the applicant ORG , the priest of the parish of PERSON and his family received threats on a number of occasions from various priests of ORG . The windows of his house were broken and , on DATE , he was attacked in the street and beaten by strangers , who told him not to meddle with “ those things ” anymore .

The parish priest consulted a forensic physician , who issued a certificate detailing the injuries that had been inflicted on him . He subsequently lodged a criminal complaint with the PERSON police .

The NORP newspapers regularly reported incidents described as acts of intimidation against the clergy and worshippers of ORG .

On DATE one GPE , a priest of ORG , and other persons accompanying him broke open the door of the village church and occupied it . When the parish priest , PERSON , a member of the applicant ORG , arrived to take the DATE service he was prevented from entering . The stand - off continued until the villagers belonging to the applicant ORG arrived on the scene .

In a report sent to ORG on DATE , ORG , priest of the parish of PERSON , stated that the church in PERSON had suffered acts of vandalism and that he himself and other parishioners had been the target of public acts of intimidation and death threats from one PERSON , a priest of ORG . Such acts were repeated on a number of further occasions without any protection being offered by the municipal council to parishioners who were members of the applicant ORG .

The NORP of the village of GPE joined the applicant ORG on DATE and formed a local community of that ORG on DATE . They also had a chapel built where mass could be celebrated .

On DATE the government adopted decision no . DATE , granting ORG a right of use in respect of the land on which the chapel built by ORG was situated . That decision was confirmed by a decree of DATE issued by the Floreni municipal council .

Following a request by ORG for the right to use the land concerned , in view of the fact that its chapel was built on it , ORG replied to the ORG ’s adherents in the parish of GPE that “ the local public authorities [ were ] not able to adopt such a decision since ORG [ had ] no recognised legal personality in GPE ” .

On DATE ORG asked ORG to authorise entry into GPE territory of goods to the value of MONEY ( ORG ) sent from GPE , and to classify the goods concerned as humanitarian aid . That request was refused on DATE .

On DATE the applicant PERSON asked the committee to inform him of the reasons for its refusal . He pointed out that the gift ( of second - hand clothes ) , sent by ORG , had been given a transit visa by the NORP authorities , who accepted that it was a humanitarian gift . However , the goods had been held up by the NORP customs since DATE , so that the addressee was obliged to pay PERCENT per day of storage . The applicant repeated his request for the goods to be allowed to enter NORP territory as a humanitarian gift .

On DATE the Deputy Prime Minister of GPE authorised the entry of this humanitarian gift into NORP territory .

PERSON , a priest of the applicant ORG , was refused a retirement pension on the ground that he was not a minister of a recognised denomination .

DATE of LAW , concerning freedom of conscience , provides :

“ CARDINAL . Freedom of conscience is guaranteed . It must be manifested in a spirit of tolerance and mutual respect .

Freedom of worship is guaranteed . Religious denominations shall organise themselves according to their own articles of association , in compliance with the law .

Any manifestation of discord is forbidden in relations between religious denominations .

Religious denominations shall be autonomous and separated from the ORG , and shall enjoy the latter ’s support , including facilities granted for the purpose of providing religious assistance in the army , hospitals , prisons , mental institutions and orphanages . ”

The relevant provisions of LAW , as published in ORG no . DATE , read as follows :

“ The ORG shall guarantee freedom of conscience and freedom of religion within GPE territory . Everyone shall have the right to manifest his belief freely , either alone or in community with others , to propagate his belief and to worship in public or in private , on condition that such worship is not contrary to the LAW , the present LAW or the legislation in force . ”

“ Intolerance on denominational grounds , manifested by acts which interfere with the free operation of a religious denomination recognised by the ORG , shall be an offence punished in accordance with the relevant legislation . ”

“ Denominations shall be free to organise and operate freely on condition that their practices and rites do not contravene the LAW , the present LAW or the legislation in force .

Where that is not the case , denominations shall not qualify for ORG recognition . ”

“ In order to be able to organise and operate , denominations must be recognised by means of a government decision .

Where a denomination fails to comply with the conditions laid down by the first paragraph of section CARDINAL of the present Act , recognition may be withdrawn under the same procedure . ”

“ To qualify for recognition , each denomination shall submit to the ORG , for scrutiny and approval , the articles of association governing its organisation and operation . The articles of association must contain information on its system of organisation and administration and on the fundamental principles of its beliefs . ”

“ Associations and foundations which pursue a religious aim , in whole or in part , shall enjoy religious rights and shall be subject to the obligations arising from the legislation on religious denominations . ”

“ Leaders of denominations having NORP and hierarchical rank ... , and all persons employed by religious denominations , must be NORP citizens .

Denominations which wish to take foreign nationals into their employ to conduct religious activities , or to delegate NORP citizens to conduct religious activities abroad , must in every case seek and obtain the agreement of the ORG authorities . ”

“ Denominations recognised by the ORG shall be legal persons ... ”

“ Only denominations recognised by the ORG and registered in accordance with the relevant legislation may

( a ) produce and market objects specific to the denomination concerned ;

( b ) DATE found periodicals for the faithful , or publish and market liturgical , theological or ecclesiastical books necessary for practice of the religion concerned ;

( c ) lay down scales of charges for pilgrimages and touristic activities in the denomination ’s establishments ;

( d ) organise , within NORP territory or abroad , exhibitions of liturgical objects , including exhibitions of items for sale ;

For the purposes of the present section , the term ‘ liturgical objects’ shall mean liturgical vessels , metal and lithographic icons , crosses , crucifixes , church furniture , cross - shaped pendants or medallions framing religious images specific to each denomination , religious objects sold from door to door , etc . The following items shall be assimilated with liturgical objects : religious calendars , religious postcards and leaflets , albums of religious works of art , films and labels portraying places of worship or objects of religious art , other than those which form part of the national cultural heritage , products necessary for worship , such as incense and candles , including decorations for weddings and christenings , material and embroidery for the production of liturgical vestments and other objects necessary for practice of a religion . ”

“ Bodies affiliated to religious denominations or institutions and enterprises set up by them may engage staff in accordance with labour legislation . ”

“ ORG and employees of religious denominations shall be engaged under a written contract ... ”

“ ORG and employees of religious denominations or the institutions and enterprises set up by them shall have the same legal status as the employees of organisations , institutions and enterprises , so that labour legislation shall be applicable to them . ”

“ Whatever pensions are paid by religious denominations , their clergy and employees shall receive ORG pensions , in accordance with the Moldovan State Pensions Act . ”

Article CARDINAL , as amended by PERSON no . CARDINAL of DATE , determines the jurisdiction of ORG as follows :

“ CARDINAL . ORG shall examine at first instance applications against organs of the central administration and their officials on account of illegal or ultra vires acts which infringe ORG rights . ”

Article CARDINAL , on the participation of several plaintiffs or defendants in the same trial , provides :

“ The action may be brought by a number of plaintiffs jointly or against CARDINAL defendant . Each of the plaintiffs and defendants shall act independently of the others .

Co - plaintiffs and co - defendants may designate CARDINAL of their number to prosecute the action ... ”

Article CARDINAL , on the right to appeal against unlawful acts of the administration , provides :

“ Any natural or legal person who considers that his rights have been infringed by an administrative act or the unjustified refusal of an administrative organ ... to examine his application concerning a legal right shall be entitled to ask the competent court to set aside the relevant act or uphold the infringed right . ”


The applicants , PERSON and her daughter PERSON , are NORP nationals , who were born in DATE and DATE respectively and live in FAC . They are represented before the ORG by Mr J.J. Eizenga , a lawyer practising in ‘ s - Hertogenbosch .

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

On DATE , the first applicant married Mr GPE in a traditional ceremony in GPE . They had CARDINAL children , PERSON ( born in DATE ) , PERSON ( born in DATE ) and the second applicant .

In DATE , Mr GPE fled from GPE to the GPE , where he applied for asylum . He was eventually granted a residence permit on grounds of a policy of tolerance ( gedoogdenbeleid ) , i.e. where expulsion would entail undue hardship given the general situation in the country of origin . The first applicant and the CARDINAL children continued to live in GPE ( GPE ) .

On DATE , the CARDINAL applicants travelled from GPE to GPE for which country they had obtained an entry visa . On DATE , they travelled from GPE to the GPE , where on DATE they applied for asylum . The CARDINAL other children , PERSON and PERSON , remained in GPE in the care of a friend . When interviewed on DATE by a GPE immigration official on the reasons for her asylum request , the first applicant stated that she had applied for asylum in the GPE because her husband was living there , of which fact she had become aware in DATE .

On DATE , ORG requested that GPE accept responsibility for the applicants’ asylum request pursuant to LAW . On DATE , the NORP authorities accepted that responsibility . The GPE Deputy Minister of Justice ( ORG ) subsequently declared inadmissible the applicants’ asylum request . The ORG appeal was rejected in a final decision taken by ORG ( arrondissementsrechtbank ) on DATE .

In the meantime , on DATE , the first applicant applied for a residence permit to stay with her husband . She also made this application on behalf of the second applicant . Holding that the first applicant had not established the existence of a legally valid marriage with Mr GPE by way of authenticated official documents , and that Mr GPE did not comply with the minimum income requirement under the applicable immigration rules ( i.e. the equivalent of MONEY per month ) , the Deputy Minister of ORG rejected this request on DATE and issued an order for the applicants’ expulsion .

On DATE , the first applicant filed an objection ( bezwaar ) against this decision with the Deputy Minister and , on DATE , requested the President of ORG to issue an interim measure to the effect that she would not be expelled pending the proceedings on her objection .

On DATE , Mr GPE was granted GPE nationality .

On DATE , considering that the Deputy Minister had considerably exceeded the statutory time - limit for determining the applicant ’s objection , and thus apparently attached no great importance to an expulsion at short notice , the President of ORG granted the interim measure requested by the first applicant .

On DATE , the Deputy Minister of ORG withdrew the policy decision in force since DATE to stay expulsions to GPE given the general situation there . The decision to withdraw this moratorium was based on the official reports ( ambtsberichten ) of DATE and CARDINAL DATE of ORG , according to which the general situation in GPE had improved .

According to a further official report of DATE of ORG , the security situation in GPE had considerably improved since DATE when the warring NORP Government forces and the ORG rebel forces signed an official ceasefire agreement in the form of a Memorandum of Understanding in order to pave the way for further negotiations on a political level . The report stated that both the Government and ORG forces respected the ceasefire agreement . However , some incidents of armed plundering , mostly caused by hungry former ORG fighters , had still occurred , which incidents could not always be effectively countered by the NORP police forces . Certain former unsafe areas could therefore not yet be classified as secure . Areas now classified as safe were the capital GPE , the coastal areas of the provinces ORG , PERSON , PERSON and ORG , and all the provincial capitals .

On DATE , the applicant was heard on her objection before an official committee ( ambtelijke commissie ) . On DATE , the Deputy Minister of ORG rejected the applicant ’s objection and ordered her expulsion from the GPE . On DATE , the first applicant filed an appeal ( beroep ) against this decision with ORG and , on DATE , requested the President of ORG to issue an interim measure allowing her to remain in the GPE pending the proceedings on her appeal .

In its decision of DATE , following a hearing held on DATE , ORG sitting in ‘ s - Hertogenbosch rejected the first applicant ’s appeal ( beroep ) against the decision of DATE .

It noted at the outset that the first applicant had failed to substantiate her marriage with Mr GPE with authenticated documents . It further noted that , pursuant to the applicable statutory immigration rules and the pertaining immigration policy guidelines , it was a material condition for the admission of foreign spouses that the existence of a marriage be shown by official and authenticated documents .

As the first applicant had failed to submit such documents and had failed to undertake any attempts to contact her parents , other relatives or the ( local ) authorities in GPE in order to obtain official and authenticated documents proving her marriage with Mr GPE , ORG concluded that the Deputy Minister had correctly rejected the first applicant ’s request for a residence permit on the grounds of her purported marriage . This finding was not altered by the recording of her marital status , on the basis of an affidavit given by the first applicant , in the municipal personal records database ( gemeentelijke basisadministratie ) of the town where she lived in the GPE , as the statutory provisions on such municipal databases could not be regarded as a specific regulation aimed at implementing statutory immigration rules .

Insofar as the first applicant complained that the refusal to grant her a residence permit was contrary to her rights under LAW , ORG held :

“ It is not disputed that in casu there is family life within the meaning of LAW between [ the first applicant ] , her ( purported ) spouse PERSON and their daughter , PERSON .

The [ Deputy Minister ] has correctly considered that there has been no interference as to the right to respect for family life as meant by LAW as the refusal to allow residence [ in the GPE ] did not entail depriving [ the first applicant ] of a residence title enabling her to enjoy family life .

The question thus arises whether there are facts and circumstances of such a nature that the right to respect for family life would give rise to a positive obligation for the [ Deputy Minister ] nevertheless to grant [ the first applicant ] residence [ in the GPE ] . In order to answer that question , the interests of the [ Deputy Minister ] must be balanced against the interests of [ the first applicant ] . It is of primary importance to attain a “ fair balance ” between those interests , in which the [ Deputy Minister ] enjoys a certain margin of appreciation . An important aspect of this balancing of interests is the question whether it is possible to exercise family life in the country of origin .

ORG is of the opinion that the [ Deputy Minister ] could find in all reasonableness that the [ first applicant ’s ] interests did not outweigh the general interest . In this finding it is important that neither for [ the first applicant ] nor for the other members of her family are there any objective obstacles to the exercise of family life outside the GPE or in GPE , the [ first applicant ’s ] country of origin . In this connection it is equally relevant that the ( purported ) spouse of [ the first applicant ] , who has not been admitted to the GPE as a refugee , also originates from that country . Noting the official reports ( ambtsberichten ) of the Minister of ORG of DATE and CARDINAL DATE , the situation in GPE also does not form an obstacle .

As to the [ first applicant ’s ] argument , based on the judgment of ORG August CARDINAL ... ( LOC v. GPE ) ... , that in her case it should also be examined whether in all reasonableness it can be expected from her husband , in view of his GPE nationality , that he returns to GPE or goes [ with her ] to GPE , ORG considers that it can in all reasonableness be expected of the ( purported ) spouse that he returns to GPE or goes [ with the first applicant ] to GPE to exercise family life there in view of the fact that he ( originally ) comes from GPE and that no objective obstacle has become apparent . Also the health problems advanced by [ the first applicant ] do not necessarily constitute an obstacle to the exercise of family life outside the GPE or in the country of origin as the family ’s separation was [ partly ] the cause of the [ first applicant ’s ] health problems . Furthermore , CARDINAL children of the family still reside in GPE . Also on that ground , ORG fails to see why family life could not be exercised there .

In view of the above considerations , ORG is of the opinion that the [ Deputy Minister } could in all reasonableness conclude that there was no positive obligation to grant [ the first applicant ] residence in the GPE on the grounds of LAW . ”

On DATE , the provisional measures judge ( voorzieningenrechter ) of ORG sitting in ‘ PERSON rejected the first applicant ’s request for an interim measure as her appeal against the decision of DATE had been rejected by ORG .


The applicant , PERSON , is a national of GPE who was born in DATE and lives in Velenje . She was represented before the ORG by the LOC lawyers . ORG ( “ the Government ” ) were represented by their Agent , Mr PERSON , State Attorney - General .

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

On DATE the applicant was injured while leaving the building where she was working . The applicant ’s employer had taken out insurance with the insurance company ZT .

On DATE the applicant instituted civil proceedings against ZT in ORG ( PERSON sodišče v PERSON ) seeking damages in the amount of CARDINAL tolars ( MONEY ) for the injuries sustained .

On DATE the court held a hearing .

On DATE the applicant lodged preliminary written submissions .

On DATE and CARDINAL DATE the applicant requested that a date be set for a hearing .

On DATE the court held a hearing and heard CARDINAL witnesses .

On DATE the applicant requested that a date be set for a hearing .

On DATE the court held a hearing , heard the applicant and CARDINAL witnesses . The court decided to issue a written judgment concerning the liability for damages .

The judgment finding in favour of the applicant was served on her on DATE . The decision concerning the amount of damages to be awarded was severed for further examination .

On DATE ZT appealed to ORG ( PERSON v PERSON ) .

On DATE the court dismissed the ORG ’s appeal .

The judgment was served on the applicant on DATE .

On DATE ZT lodged an appeal on points of law with ORG sodišče ) .

On DATE the court allowed the ORG ’s appeal in part and decided that both parties are equally liable for the accident .

On DATE the applicant lodged a constitutional appeal .

On DATE ORG ( PERSON sodišče ) declared the applicant ’s appeal inadmissible . The decision was served on the applicant on DATE .

In the meanwhile , on DATE , the applicant lodged preliminary written submissions with ORG concerning the amount of damages to be awarded .

On DATE the court held a hearing and decided to appoint a medical expert .

On DATE the court appointed a medical expert .

On DATE the court held a hearing . The court decided to issue a written judgment .

The judgment , upholding the applicant ’s claim for damages in part , was served on the applicant on DATE .

On DATE the applicant appealed to ORG .

On DATE , the court allowed the applicant ’s appeal in part and remitted the case for fresh examination of the claim concerning the costs and expenses .

On DATE ORG issued a new decision concerning the costs and expenses .

The applicant appealed against this decision to ORG which , on DATE , allowed the applicant ’s appeal in part and increased the amounts awarded in terms of costs and expenses .


Alvina Gyulumyan;Elisabet Fura;Ineta Ziemele;Josep Casadevall;Luis López Guerra

The applicant , ORG , is a private NORP broadcasting company ( “ the applicant company ” ) that was set up in DATE and has its registered office in GPE . The applicant company was represented before the Court by Mr PERSON , Mr PERSON , PERSON , Mr PERSON , ORG and PERSON , lawyers practising in GPE , Mr PERSON and Ms PERSON , lawyers practising in GPE , and PERSON . ORG ( “ the Government ” ) were represented by their Agent , PERSON , Representative of GPE at ORG .

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

In DATE the applicant company established the ACARDINAL + television company within its structure , with the intention of getting involved in television broadcasting .

On DATE , in preparation for broadcasting , the applicant company opened a school to train personnel , such as journalists , cameramen and technicians who were later employed by the applicant company .

On DATE the applicant company started television broadcasting through its ACARDINAL + channel , first sharing capacity and content with GPE “ REN ” TV , a NORP television company . Over time , the volume of the content produced by the applicant company increased significantly .

On DATE the applicant company was granted a license by the then ORG ( ՀՀ կապի նախարարություն ) permitting it to install a television transmitter in GPE and to broadcast within the decimetric wave band . The license was granted for a period of DATE .

In DATE the applicant company established “ PERSON , a network of CARDINAL private licensed regional television companies , broadcasting TIME a day .

The content of the CARDINAL + television channel included international and domestic news analysis ( PERCENT ) , advertising ( PERCENT ) and various entertainment programmes . The applicant company submitted that the ACARDINAL + television channel was widely recognised as one of the few independent voices in television broadcasting in GPE .

In DATE legislative changes were introduced in the sphere of television and radio broadcasting .

ORG ( « Հեռուստատեսության և ռադիոյի մասին ORG օրենք – “ the LAW ” ) , passed in DATE , established a new authority , ORG ( Հեռուստատեսության և ռադիոյի ազգային հանձնաժողով – “ the ORG ” ) , which was entrusted with regulating the licensing and monitoring the activities of private television and radio companies . The ORG was a public body composed of CARDINAL members appointed by the President of GPE . LAW also introduced a new licensing procedure , according to which a broadcasting license was granted on the basis of a call for tenders conducted by the ORG in respect of the list of available frequencies .

During DATE all existing broadcasting licenses were temporarily re - registered by the ORG until the relevant calls for tenders were announced .

On DATE the ORG replaced the applicant company 's license with a new license . The new license was granted for band CARDINAL and was due to expire on DATE .

On DATE the ORG decided to postpone the call for tenders for band CARDINAL until the adoption of appropriate rules and regulations and to permit the applicant company to continue to operate in band CARDINAL for an indefinite period of time until such call for tenders was put out .

On DATE the ORG announced calls for tenders for various broadcasting frequencies , including band CARDINAL .

The applicant company and CARDINAL other companies , GPE and ORG , submitted bids for band CARDINAL . The applicant company alleged that GPE had never previously operated in the field of television broadcasting and its main focus had been as the organiser of entertainment shows for young people and students . None of its employees had a background in professional journalism and the company had no premises , equipment and financial or technical infrastructure to commence broadcasting at the time of its bid . It further alleged that ORG had been registered DATE before the tender process took place and had had no previous experience of any sort in the field of broadcasting .

On DATE , before the winners of the tender process were announced , the applicant company instituted proceedings against the ORG before ORG ( ՀՀ տնտեսական դատարան ) . In its application to the court , the applicant company argued that the ORG had unlawfully postponed the call for tenders for band CARDINAL , that the ORG had violated the law and restricted the applicant company 's opportunities by announcing separate calls for tenders for different bands as opposed to a single one for all bands and that the ORG had exceeded its authority when defining the terms and conditions of the tendering procedure .

On DATE the ORG held a points - based vote and recognised GPE as the winner of the call for tenders for band CARDINAL . The decision stated :

“ Based on sections DATE and CARDINAL of [ LAW ] , sections CARDINAL , DATE and DATE of [ the NTRC ] Regulations Act and LAW no . CARDINAL of [ the ORG ] of DATE Approving ORG and ORG , and taking into account the results of the call for tenders for television broadcasting on decimetric band CARDINAL in the area of GPE , [ the ORG ] decides ( CARDINAL ) to recognise GPE as the winner of the call for tenders for television broadcasting on decimetric band CARDINAL in the area of GPE , and ( CARDINAL ) to grant a television broadcasting license to GPE ”

On DATE the applicant company lodged an additional application with ORG seeking , inter alia , to annul the decision of DATE . The applicant company also alleged that it had unsuccessfully requested the court to oblige the ORG to present TIME of their meeting which provided basis for this decision .

On DATE ORG rejected the applicant company 's applications . The court found that , even though the ORG should have announced the call for tenders DATE prior to the expiration of the applicant company 's license , this had not been done as certain legal acts , which were necessary for the proper conduct of the tender process , had not been adopted by that time . The court further found that the fact that the ORG had announced separate calls for tenders instead of a single one did not contradict the law . The applicant company had not been precluded from submitting bids for all these calls for tenders . The court finally stated that the ORG had been authorised under the law to define the terms and conditions of the tendering procedure and it had not exceeded its authority in doing so .

The applicant company lodged an appeal on points of law with ORG ( ՀՀ վճռաբեկ դատարան ) . In its appeal , the applicant company raised the same arguments as before ORG , claiming that the latter had not interpreted the law correctly . It further complained about the court 's rejection of its request concerning TIME ORG 's meeting .

On DATE ORG adopted a decision on the applicant company 's appealinter alia , that :

“ ... the arguments put forward in the appeal concerning a violation by ORG of [ the relevant legal acts ] are groundless , as [ the ORG ] , acting within the authority vested in it by the above legal acts ... defined the tendering rules for licensing of television broadcasting , which contains the rules on the conditions , procedures and time - limits of a call for tenders , submission of bids , recognising the winner of a call for tenders and declaring a call for tenders void . On DATE [ the ORG ] ... announced separate calls for tenders for unoccupied frequencies and on DATE in its decision no . CARDINAL recognised the winner of the call for tenders .

The applicant 's representative submitted a motion in court requesting that ' [ the ORG ] present the minutes of decision no . CARDINAL ' . [ ORG ] , stating that the dispute concerned the lawfulness of [ ORG 's ] decision no . CARDINAL and not the decision 's TIME , justly dismissed this motion .

... a well - founded dismissal of a motion which is not relevant for the resolution of the dispute has nothing to do with ... the requirements of LAW ] .

... the judgment of the ORG ”

On DATE as the announcement of the license winner , the ORG issued a memorandum to ORG ( ՀՀ տրանսպորտի և կապի նախարարություն ) requesting it to terminate broadcasts by the ACARDINAL + television channel .

On DATE , at CARDINALhCARDINAL , ORG of ORG - owned ORG ( ORG ցանց DATE “ the TNA ” ) , with whom the applicant company had earlier entered into a lease agreement to temporarily rent industrial LOC for the purpose of installing transmitter equipment , cut the electricity supply of the applicant company 's transmitter and the ACARDINAL + television channel ceased to broadcast .

The applicant company contested the actions of the ORG before ORG claiming that they had been unlawful and in violation of the lease agreement .

On DATE ORG rejected the applicant company 's claim , finding that the actions of the ORG had been lawful and that the applicant company should have ceased broadcasting voluntarily as it was no longer licensed .

The applicant company lodged an appeal on points of law with ORG .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant company 's appeal as unsubstantiated .

On DATE the ORG announced a new call for tenders for CARDINAL other bands .

The applicant company submitted bids for CARDINAL of the CARDINAL bands , namely bands CARDINAL , DATE and DATE .

On DATE the ORG announced another call for tenders for band CARDINAL .

The applicant company submitted its bid .

On DATE the ORG recognised the winner of the call for tenders for band CARDINAL . The applicant company was again refused a license .

On DATE the ORG recognised the winners of the call for tenders for bands CARDINAL , DATE and DATE . The applicant company was again refused a license .

On an unspecified date , the ORG announced a call for tenders for bands CARDINAL and DATE .

The applicant company submitted bids for both bands .

On DATE the ORG recognised the winners of the call for tenders . The applicant company was again refused a license .

On DATE the ORG announced a call for tenders for the last vacant band , namely band CARDINAL .

On DATE the ORG recognised the winner of the call for tenders . The applicant company was again refused a license .

The relevant provisions of the LAW , as in force at the material time , read as follows :

“ Unlawful acts of public authorities , local self - government bodies and their officials can be annulled or their actions ( inaction ) can be contested ( hereafter , annulling the unlawful act ) if the act in question contradicts the law and if there is evidence that the applicant 's rights and ( or ) freedoms guaranteed by LAW and laws have been violated . ”

“ An appeal on points of law can be lodged on : ( CARDINAL ) the ground of a material or a procedural violation of the parties ' rights ; [ and ] ( CARDINAL ) the ground of newly discovered circumstances . ”

“ Having examined a case , ORG has the right :

( CARDINAL ) to uphold the court judgment and to dismiss the appeal ... ;

( CARDINAL ) to quash the whole or part of the judgment and to remit the case for a new examination ... ;

( CARDINAL ) to terminate the proceedings or to leave the claim unexamined , if the grounds for [ doing so ] were disclosed during the proceedings in the court of first instance , ORG or ORG . ”

“ CARDINAL . ORG is not entitled to establish or consider as proven circumstances which have not been established by the judgment [ of ORG ] or have been rejected by it , to determine whether or not this or that piece of evidence is trustworthy , to resolve the issue as to which piece of evidence has more weight or the issue as to which norm of substantive law must be applied and what kind of judgment must be adopted upon the new examination of the case . ”

The relevant provisions of LAW , as in force at the material time , read as follows :

“ In GPE television and radio broadcasting shall be conducted on the basis of a licence . ”

“ ORG ( hereafter , ORG ) is an independent body with the status of a public agency whose activity is regulated by this law , its regulations and the legislation of GPE . ORG deals with licensing and monitoring of only private television and radio companies ( television companies or radio companies ) .

ORG : ( a ) shall allocate broadcasting frequencies on a public and competitive basis and ensure the publication of complete information on the results of a call for tenders ; ... ( c ) shall grant licences ... ”

“ The National Commission shall have CARDINAL members appointed by the President of GPE for a term of DATE , with the exception of the first composition ... ”

“ A television and radio broadcasting licence shall be granted for a particular available frequency on the basis of a call for tenders ... ”

“ When selecting the licence - holder , the ORG shall take into account :

( a ) the predominance of programmes produced in - house ;

( b ) the predominance of programmes produced in GPE ;

( c ) the technical and financial capacity of the applicant ; and

( d ) the professional level of the staff . ”

“ A licence shall not be granted if :

( a ) the applicant can not be a licence - holder pursuant to this law ;

( b ) the information contained in the bid is inaccurate ; or

( c ) the technical capacity for television and radio broadcasting is lacking or the declared technical capacity is insufficient .

An applicant shall be informed in writing of the reasons for the refusal of a licence within DATE from the date of the decision .

The refusal of a licence can be contested before the courts . ”

A licence to broadcast television and radio programmes or to produce and broadcast [ such programmes ] shall be granted to television and radio companies : ( a ) ... ; ( b ) for a period of DATE for on - air television and radio broadcasting . ”

The relevant provisions of LAW read as follows :

“ In order to grant a broadcasting licence , the ORG , at its meeting and within the period prescribed by the tendering rules , shall adopt a decision on the basis of the results of a call for tenders . ”

“ Following the consideration of a bid , the Commission shall adopt one of the following decisions : ( a ) to grant a licence ; or ( b ) to refuse a licence . ”

“ A copy of the decision granting or refusing a licence shall be duly sent to the applicant within DATE from its adoption . ”


David Thór Björgvinsson;Giovanni Bonello;Lech Garlicki;Ledi Bianku;Nicolas Bratza;Stanislav Pavlovschi

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

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

The applicant ’s wife died on DATE . By a letter of CARDINAL DATE , the applicant sought to claim widows’ benefits . On DATE the applicant was informed that his claim had been disallowed as he was not a woman . By a letter of CARDINAL DATE the applicant appealed . On DATE the appeal confirmed the previous decision .

The applicant did not appeal further as he considered or was advised that such a remedy would be bound to fail since no such social security benefit was payable to widowers under GPE law .

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


The applicants are Mr PERSON , PERSON , Mr PERSON , Mr PERSON , Mr ORG and PERSON . They were born in DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE respectively and live in the “ GPE ” ( “ GPE ” ) . They are represented before the ORG by Mr PERSON and PERSON , lawyers practising in GPE .

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

The first applicant was living in ORG ( PERSON ) , GPE , when he was abducted on DATE by forces under the control and/or the responsibility of the respondent Government . The second applicant is the wife of the first applicant . The other applicants are the children of the first applicant .

The applicants submit that in DATE their village had run out of food supplies because hostilities between the CARDINAL communities had prevented any form of safe transportation of food . On DATE the first applicant , who was a driver by profession , together with his friend , PERSON ( GPE ) , took his bus and headed towards the NORP - Cypriot town of GPE . On the way , whilst passing through the NORP - Cypriot village of GPE , he and his friend were abducted by a group of armed NORP , including a police officer , and taken to an unknown destination . They were never heard of again .

The persistent efforts of the relatives to ascertain the fate of the missing persons were in vain . Subsequently , on DATE , the first applicant ’s case was submitted to the appropriate authority on missing persons , ORG on ORG in GPE ( “ CMP ” ) ( case number CARDINAL ) .

According to the personal diary of a certain PERSON , a teacher from the NORP - Cypriot village of ORG , which was found in the possession of a NORP - Cypriot journalist , the missing persons were “ executed ” summarily in the NORP - Cypriot cemetery of NORP village by armed NORP Cypriots named ORG and Pari “ on the instructions of the ORG ” ( the code - name of the then Minister of ORG , ORG ) . Through the intermediary of the NORP - Cypriot member of the ORG , the relatives submitted this additional information to the ORG in the hope of finding out what really happened to the missing persons .

According to the applicants , a number of requests were made to the ORG to conduct an effective investigation into the fate of the first applicant and his friend . However , there was no response to their requests and no hint of any effective investigation having been undertaken . The third applicant wrote to ORG in GPE . He stated in his letter that all of their enquiries had so far borne no results and that ORG had persistently refused to investigate the matter . ORG answered by saying that it appeared that while the ORG may have investigated quite a number of cases submitted to it , it has not been able to bring any of these investigations to a conclusion because the ORG members have been unable to come to an agreement about the ORG ’s working methods .

The accidental discovery of human remains in DATE in the ORG region raised a hope for the applicants . However , a scientific report drafted by an NORP company , following the study of a bone sample , concluded that the individuals whose remains had been found had lived between CARDINAL and DATE .

On DATE ORG of the ORG sent the following letter to the ORG :

“ I am referring to the human remains which were accidentally discovered DATE in ORG . My letter dated CARDINAL , as well as your letter dated CARDINAL on this issue , are hereby appended for any reference .

Further to a conversation you had with PERSON concerning recent developments on the matter , I wish to inform you that on CARDINAL separate occasions , members of the team of ORG , assisted by our investigating officer and myself , searched the area for additional skeletal remains . All remains were subsequently taken to the laboratory of ORG for anthropological analysis , and for decent keeping .

Moreover , skeletal samples were sent to a laboratory in GPE for specialised tests in order to ascertain the period that the remains were buried . The report of the laboratory concerning the remains is appended , as well as a letter by Dr PERSON Director ORG .

We would be most grateful if you could inform accordingly ORG of the CMP of this development . We strongly suggest that the NORP family , which claimed in the press that the remains might belong to their missing father , should also be informed of the results of the scientific analysis by you too . We are at your entire disposal for any further information ... ” .


Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)

David Thór Björgvinsson;Giovanni Bonello;Ján Šikuta;Ledi Bianku;Nebojša Vučinić;Nicolas Bratza;Päivi Hirvelä

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

On DATE the applicant had an accident at work . The insurance company paid him an occupational injury pension until DATE .

The applicant applied to have the pension continued from DATE . On DATE the insurance company rejected his application finding that the applicant ’s work capacity had been reduced by PERCENT . It further held that the applicant ’s inability to return to his previous profession as a carpenter was not the result of the injury sustained during the accident , but of pains which had not been caused by the accident .

NORP In DATE the applicant appealed to ORG ( tapaturmalautakunta , olycksfallsnämnden ) , repeating his requests . He relied on a medical opinion dated DATE in which he was found to be unfit for carpentry work . He also submitted further medical opinions . ORG rejected his appeal on DATE . It ruled , inter alia , that he was incapable of full - time carpentry work . However , the applicant ’s pains were not caused by the accident and therefore could not be compensated under LAW .

The applicant , represented by a lawyer , appealed to ORG ( vakuutusoikeus , försäkringsdomstolen ) submitting further evidence . On DATE the court rejected the bulk of his appeal . However , it modified ORG decision so as to grant the applicant a PERCENT occupational injury pension for the period from DATE , during which the applicant had participated in a work - testing project . The case was referred back to the insurance company for further measures .

On acquainting himself with his case file at the office of ORG registry , he found CARDINAL documents which he claimed had not been communicated to him . In his application for leave to appeal to ORG ( korkein oikeus , högsta domstolen ) he claimed , inter alia , that he had not been sent all the documents relevant to his case .

ORG refused the applicant leave to appeal on DATE .

On DATE the applicant , using an extraordinary procedure , requested ORG to annul its decision and that of ORG . He argued that the latter court had failed to send him documents .

On DATE ORG rejected his application . It found that the non - communicated documents related to decision - making within the insurance company and that the documents had not been submitted to the court in connection with the parties’ submissions or relied on by the court in reaching its decision .

On DATE the applicant lodged an application ( no . CARDINAL ) with ORG against GPE . He alleged , in particular , that he had been denied a fair hearing within the meaning of LAW on account of the failure to provide him with an opportunity to comment on some documents which had been included in his case file . On DATE the ORG held unanimously that there had been no violation of LAW .

Meanwhile , the case was pending before the insurance company . On DATE the insurance company decided that the new medical evidence submitted was not capable of changing the conclusions of ORG in its decision of DATE . The insurance company found that , even though the applicant was incapable of full - time carpentry work , he was capable of other work .

On DATE the applicant appealed to ORG against the insurance company ’s decision . In his appeal , which became pending before ORG on DATE , he requested compensation for total incapacity for work . On DATE the Board held an oral hearing . On DATE it modified the insurance company ’s decision , changing the applicant ’s handicap allowance category from CARDINAL and ordering the insurance company to pay him a PERCENT occupational injury pension for the period from DATE to CARDINAL DATE . As concerned the time after that date , the case was referred back to the insurance company . ORG found that the applicant was still capable of working in another profession where his earnings could reach CARDINAL the level of his earnings before the accident . ORG referred to his relatively young age and DATE that he could expect to work .

The applicant appealed to ORG , repeating his requests . On DATE the court ordered the insurance company to pay the applicant a PERCENT occupational injury pension for the period from DATE to CARDINAL DATE and rejected the remainder of the claims . Referring to several medical opinions , the court estimated that the applicant ’s ability to work had been reduced from DATE onwards , when he started treatment for pain .

The applicant appealed to ORG which , on DATE , refused leave to appeal .

According to section PERSON ( CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) of LAW ( tapaturmavakuutuslaki , lagen om olycksfallsförsäkring ) , an appeal against a decision of an insurance company must be submitted to the company in question . If the company can not change the decision appealed against , it must refer the case , together with its opinion , to ORG within DATE from DATE appeal period or , if the time - limit has been extended , at the latest within DATE from DATE of appeal .