Elisabeth Palm;Gaukur Jörundsson;Nicolas Bratza

The applicant is a NORP national , born in DATE and detained in FAC , GPE , GPE . He is represented before the Court by PERSON , a business analyst , of GPE , GPE .

A.

The court proceedings

On DATE , the applicant was convicted of robbing a PERSON of £ MONEY and possession of firearms . On DATE , he was sentenced to CARDINAL years’ imprisonment for the robbery with DATE for possession of firearms , a total of CARDINAL years’ imprisonment . He was represented under legal aid by solicitors and Counsel .

During the trial , the applicant ’s counsel was denied sight of CARDINAL intelligence reports from the police and MICARDINAL which were presented to the judge by the prosecution . Counsel for the applicant applied for sight of the reports . This was denied by the trial judge who stated that the named informants were contained therein and invoked ORG . During the jury deliberations , following consultation with defence counsel who proposed amendments to the written direction , the judge directed the jury that on the evidence it was possible to find that the applicant was the driver of the getaway car , rather than as originally submitted by the prosecution , driver of the car used in the robbery . Counsel did not apply for the introduction of a lesser charge of accessory after the fact . The jury convicted the applicant , rejecting his defence of duress which was raised at trial .

The applicant appealed against conviction with leave from a single judge of ORG . He claimed , firstly , that the judge introduced a new basis for convicting him ( that he was driving a getaway car rather than the vehicle used in the robbery ) at a late stage , namely during jury deliberations , which his counsel did not have a chance to address . Secondly , the judge ’s directions as to knowledge and participation in the robbery were muddled and inadequate in that the directions may have left the jury with the impression that it was open to convict the applicant as a principal even if all he did was to assist those who had committed a robbery to avoid apprehension and had no part in the planning and execution of the robbery .

In DATE , the applicant made an out of time application to ORG for leave to appeal . In DATE , ORG refused leave to appeal to ORG . The applicant states he did not receive confirmation in writing of this decision until DATE .

Conditions of imprisonment

The applicant was held on remand for DATE and moved to CARDINAL prisons and for DATE he was held in a segregation unit . He allegedly suffered a mental breakdown and received anti - depressant drugs . As a Category A prisoner , he states that he has no right to home leave , open prison or parole , he is checked every hour by a prison officer through TIME a light into his cell and disturbing his sleep and prospective visitors are vetted by ORG . According to him , Category A prisoners would also be executed in the event of a nuclear strike on GPE .

He complains that he received delayed medical treatment for a suspected heart condition . He was taken to a local hospital for an appointment but because the consultant was not there he was taken back to prison without seeing him due to the potential security risk . The visit was rescheduled and took place DATE . No heart problem was found . The applicant was advised by his solicitor that there was no prospect of obtaining legal aid to pursue a case relating to the delay in seeing a cardiologist .

The applicant was transported to ORG in DATE in an unheated van , locked in a metal cell in the rear of the van , wearing thin clothing with no food , water or toilet breaks for TIME . In DATE , his complaint to ORG was upheld who recommended the setting up of guidelines for the transfer of Category A prisoners . No proceedings were issued by the applicant against ORG .

The applicant states that the security classification of Category A prisoners should be reviewed DATE . He has only had CARDINAL review of his Category A status in DATE since he was first held on remand and DATE after his conviction . He has had no review since . The result of the review security category status was sent to the prison governor in a letter dated DATE but the applicant says it was not communicated to him in writing until DATE . It was decided that he should remain a Category A prisoner . On DATE , the applicant wrote to ask why he had only had CARDINAL review and when his next review would take place but has not received a response nor pursued the matter further .

B. Relevant domestic law and practice

Disclosure of evidence to the Defence

NORP v. Ward [ DATE ] CARDINAL WLR CARDINAL . This case dealt with the question of what duties the prosecution has to disclose evidence to the defence . It laid down the proper procedure to be followed when the prosecution claims that certain material is the subject of public interest immunity . ORG held that it was the court , and not the prosecution , who would undertake the balancing exercise between the interests of public interest immunity and fairness to the party claiming disclosure .

R v. PERSON ( DATE ) CARDINAL Cr . App . PERSON . ORG stated that that balancing exercise could only be performed by the trial judge himself examining or viewing the evidence , so as to have the facts of what it contains in mind .


No violation of Article 14+8 - Prohibition of discrimination (Article 14 - Discrimination) (Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life;Article 8-1 - Respect for family life)

Dean Spielmann;Ganna Yudkivska;Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre;Jean-Paul Costa;Karel Jungwiert;Mark Villiger

The applicants were born in DATE and DATE respectively and live in Clamart .

Ms Valérie Gas ( “ the first applicant ” ) has cohabited since DATE with PERSON ( “ the second applicant ” ) . The latter gave birth in GPE on DATE to a daughter , PERSON , conceived in GPE via anonymous donor insemination . A. does not have an established legal tie to her father , who acted as an anonymous donor in accordance with NORP law . The child has lived all her life in the applicants’ shared home . On DATE her name was entered in the register of births , deaths and marriages held at Clamart town hall . She was formally recognised by her mother on DATE .

The CARDINAL applicants subsequently entered into a civil partnership agreement which was registered on DATE with the registry of ORG .

On DATE the first applicant applied to the PERSON tribunal de grande instance for a simple - adoption order in respect of her partner ’s daughter , after her partner had given her express consent before a notary .

On DATE the public prosecutor lodged an objection against the first applicant ’s application , on the basis of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

In a judgment of DATE , the tribunal de grande instance observed that the statutory conditions for adoption were met and that it had been demonstrated that the applicants were actively and jointly involved in the child ’s upbringing , providing her with care and affection . However , the court rejected the application on the grounds that the requested adoption would have legal implications running counter to the ORG intentions and the child ’s interests , by transferring parental responsibility to the adoptive parent and thus depriving the birth mother of her own rights in relation to the child .

The first applicant appealed against that decision and the second applicant intervened in the proceedings on her own initiative .

Before ORG the applicants reaffirmed their wish , by means of the adoption , to provide a stable legal framework for the child which reflected her social reality . They argued that the loss of parental responsibility on the part of the child ’s mother could be remedied by means of a complete or partial delegation of parental responsibility , and submitted that other NORP countries permitted adoptions which created legal ties with a same - sex partner .

In a judgment of DATE , ORG upheld the refusal of the application .

Like the first - instance court , ORG noted that the statutory conditions for the adoption had been met and that it had been established that the first applicant was active in ensuring the child ’s emotional and material well - being . It nevertheless upheld the finding that the legal consequences of such adoption would not be in the child ’s interests , since the applicants would be unable to share parental responsibility as permitted by LAW in the event of adoption by the spouse of the child ’s mother or father , and the adoption would therefore deprive Ms GPE of all rights in relation to her child . The court further considered that simply delegating the exercise of parental responsibility at DATE would not suffice to eliminate the risks to the child resulting from her mother ’s loss of parental responsibility . Accordingly , in the court ’s view , the application merely accorded with the applicants’ wish to have their joint parenting of the child recognised and legitimised .

On DATE the applicants lodged an appeal on points of law , but did not pursue the proceedings before ORG to their conclusion . On DATE the President of ORG issued an order declaring the right to appeal on points of law to be forfeit .

There are CARDINAL types of adoption in NORP law : full adoption and simple adoption .

A full - adoption order can be made only while the child is still a minor and may be requested by a married couple or by CARDINAL person . It creates a legal parent - child relationship which takes the place of the original relationship ( if such existed ) . The child takes on the adoptive parent ’s surname . A new birth certificate is drawn up and the adoption is irrevocable ( Articles CARDINAL et seq . of LAW ) .

A simple - adoption order , by contrast , does not sever the ties between the child and his or her original family , but creates an additional legal parentchild relationship ( Articles CARDINAL et seq . of LAW ) . The order can be made irrespective of the age of the person being adopted , including when he or she has reached the age of majority . The adoptive parent ’s surname is added to that of the adoptee . The latter retains some inheritance rights in his or her family of origin and acquires rights vis - à - vis the adoptive parent . Simple adoption gives rise to reciprocal obligations between adopter and adoptee , in particular a maintenance requirement . The biological parents are required to support the adopted person financially only if the adoptive parent is unable to do so .

Where the adoptee is a minor , simple adoption results in all the rights associated with parental responsibility being removed from the child ’s father or mother in favour of the adoptive parent . The legislation provides for CARDINAL exception to this rule , namely where an individual adopts the child of his or her spouse . In this case , the husband and wife share parental responsibility . Hence :

“ All rights associated with parental responsibility shall be vested in the adoptive parent alone , including the right to consent to the marriage of the adoptee , unless the adoptive parent is married to the adoptee ’s mother or father . In this case , the adoptive parent and his or her spouse shall have joint parental responsibility , but the spouse shall continue to exercise it alone unless the couple make a joint declaration before the senior registrar of the tribunal de grande instance to the effect that parental responsibility is to be exercised jointly . ... ”

Unlike a full - adoption order , a simple - adoption order may be revoked at the request of the adoptive parent , the adoptee or , where the latter is a minor , the public prosecutor .

Simple adoption is largely aimed , where minors are concerned , at compensating for the failings of the biological parent or parents . In practice , most cases of full adoption are overseas adoptions , while the great majority of simple - adoption orders granted within families concern persons having reached the age of majority , and are often inheritance - related .

Parental responsibility is defined as the complete set of GPE rights and responsibilities towards their minor children . It is aimed at protecting children ’s “ health , safety and morals , in order to ensure their education and development ” ( Article CARDINAL - CARDINAL of LAW ) . In principle , once parentage has been established , the parents of a minor child automatically have parental responsibility , which can only be withdrawn on serious grounds . Parental responsibility ends when the child reaches the age of majority , normally at CARDINAL . A distinction is made between parental responsibility and the exercise of parental responsibility ; the latter may be entrusted to CARDINAL parent for reasons relating to the child ’s best interests . The parent not exercising parental responsibility retains the right and the obligation to oversee the maintenance and upbringing of his or her children . He or she must be informed of important decisions concerning them and may not be deprived of contact rights and the right to TIME visits without compelling reasons .

It is possible to delegate parental responsibility to a third party ( Articles CARDINAL et seq . of LAW ) . Since the enactment of LAW on parental responsibility , LAW , which governs the “ standard ” delegation of parental responsibility , provides that , where the circumstances so require , CARDINAL or both parents may apply to the family judge to have the exercise of parental responsibility delegated to CARDINAL party ( an individual , an approved institution or the child welfare services for the département concerned ) . The delegation of responsibility is not permanent and does not encompass the right to consent to adoption . In this context , parental responsibility may be transferred in whole or in part : parental responsibility continues to be vested in the parents , but its exercise is handed over to the third party .

Within the standard delegation procedure , the Law of DATE introduced a more flexible delegation option based on the sharing of parental responsibility ( Article CARDINAL - CARDINAL of LAW ) . The order delegating parental responsibility may stipulate , “ in the interests of the child ’s upbringing ” , that one or both parents are to share the exercise of their parental responsibility in whole or in part with the third party , thus retaining shared responsibility . This measure makes it possible to regulate the relationship between the child , the separated couple and the third parties , whether they be grandparents , step - parents or live - in partners . Each parent retains parental responsibility and continues to exercise it . The delegation of responsibility does not entail any change of surname or the establishment of a legal parent - child relationship ; it is temporary and ceases to have effect once the child reaches the age of majority .

In GPE , marriage is not available to same - sex couples ( LAW ) . This principle was reaffirmed by ORG , which , in a judgment delivered on DATE , reiterated that “ in NORP law , marriage is a union between a man and a woman ” .

A civil partnership is defined by LAW as “ a contract entered into by CARDINAL individuals of full age , of opposite sex or of the same sex , for the purposes of organising their life together ” . Civil partnerships entail a number of obligations for those who enter into them , including the obligation to live as a couple and lend each other material and other support .

Civil partnerships also confer certain rights on the parties , which increased with the entry into force on DATE of the PERSON of DATE on the reform of the arrangements concerning inheritance and gifts . Hence , the partners constitute a single household for tax purposes ; they are also treated in the same way as married couples for the purposes of exercising certain rights , particularly in relation to health and maternity insurance and life assurance . Some effects deriving from marriage remain inapplicable to civil partnerships . Among other things , the legislation does not give rise to any kinship or inheritance ties between the partners . In particular , the dissolution of the partnership does not entail judicial divorce proceedings but simply involves a joint declaration by both partners or a unilateral decision by CARDINAL partner which is served on the other ( Article CARDINAL of LAW ) . Furthermore , civil partnerships have no implications as regards the provisions of LAW concerning legal adoptive relationships and parental responsibility .

Assisted reproduction , which refers to the techniques allowing in vitro fertilisation , embryo transfer and artificial insemination , is governed by Articles L. CARDINAL - CARDINAL et seq . of LAW . Under LAW of the LAW , assisted reproduction techniques are authorised in GPE for therapeutic purposes only , with a view to “ remedying clinically diagnosed infertility ” or “ preventing transmission to the child or partner of a particularly serious disease ” . They are available to opposite - sex couples of reproductive age who are married or show proof of cohabiting .

In these circumstances , LAW provides for legal recognition of paternity for the second parent in the following terms :

“ Married or cohabiting couples who , in order to conceive , have recourse to medical assistance involving a third - party donor shall give their prior consent , in a manner that ensures confidentiality , before the judge or notary , who shall inform them of the implications of this act as regards the legal parent - child relationship .

Any man who , having given his consent to assisted reproduction , does not recognise the child born as a result shall incur liability vis - à - vis the mother and the child .

A judicial declaration of paternity shall also be issued in his regard . The action shall be brought in conformity with the provisions of ORG CARDINAL and CARDINAL . ”

ORG has issued several rulings on this subject . The first CARDINAL judgments , delivered on DATE , concerned cases involving lesbian couples living in a civil partnership and raising children whose sole legal parent was their mother , as their paternity had not been legally established . In both cases the mother ’s partner had applied for a simple - adoption order in respect of the children , with the consent of their mother . CARDINAL of the applications was granted by ORG on the ground , in particular , that “ the adoption [ was ] in the child ’s interests ” , while the other was rejected by ORG . Referring to LAW , ORG of ORG quashed the first ORG judgment and declared it null and void , in the following terms :

“ The adoption resulted in parental responsibility for the child being transferred , and in the biological mother , who planned to continue raising the child , being deprived of her rights . Accordingly , although Ms Y had consented to the adoption , ORG , in granting the application , acted in breach of the above - mentioned provision ; ”

It upheld the second ORG judgment as follows :

“ However , ORG correctly observed that Ms Y ... , the children ’s mother , would lose parental responsibility in relation to the children were they to be adopted by PERSON , although the couple were cohabiting . It noted that a delegation of parental responsibility could be requested only if the circumstances so required , which had been neither established nor alleged , and that in the present case the delegation or sharing of parental responsibility would , in the context of an adoption , be contradictory since the adoption of a minor was designed to attribute exclusive parental responsibility to the adoptive parent . Accordingly , ORG , which , despite the allegations to the contrary , examined the issue , gave lawful grounds for its decision . ” ( CARDINAL judgments of ORG , ORG , DATE , judgments ORG . CARDINAL and CARDINAL , ORG DATE I , nos . CARDINAL and CARDINAL ) .

ORG subsequently reaffirmed this approach :

“ Firstly , the child ’s ( father or ) mother would be deprived of parental responsibility in the event of the child ’s adoption , despite being perfectly fit to exercise that responsibility and having given no indication of wishing to reject it . Secondly , LAW provides for the sharing of parental responsibility only in the event of adoption of the spouse ’s child ; as the NORP legislation stands , spouses are persons joined by the bonds of marriage . Accordingly , ORG , which did not rule in breach of any of the provisions of ORG , gave lawful grounds for its decision . ” ( ORG , ORG , DATE , ORG DATE I , no . CARDINAL ; see also , to similar effect , the judgment of ORG , ORG , of DATE , unpublished , on appeal no . DATE and ORG , ORG , DATE ) .

The first CARDINAL judgments , delivered on DATE , were published in ORG , on the Internet and in ORG DATE report .

In a first leading judgment ( Court of Cassation , ORG , DATE , published in the Bulletin ) , ORG granted an application by a same - sex couple living in a civil partnership who sought to take advantage of this option . The court ruled that LAW “ [ did ] not prevent a mother with sole parental responsibility from delegating the exercise of that responsibility in whole or in part to the woman with whom she live[d ] in a stable and lasting relationship , where the circumstances so GPE ] and the measure [ was ] compatible with the child ’s best interests ” . ORG subsequently tightened up the conditions to be met for the granting of an application to delegate parental responsibility ( Court of Cassation , ORG , DATE , published in the Bulletin ) . While the conditions laid down remain the same ( the circumstances have to require such a measure and it has to be compatible with the child ’s best interests ) , ORG now requires applicants to demonstrate that the measure would improve the lives of the children concerned and is essential . This restrictive approach is now applied by the courts hearing such cases on the merits ( GPE tribunal de grande instance , DATE ) .

In a case concerning facts similar to those in the present case , the applicants alleged a breach of the constitutional principle of equality and requested ORG to transmit a request for a priority preliminary ruling on constitutionality to ORG . ORG granted the request .

In a decision of DATE , ORG held that it was not its task to rule on the constitutionality of the impugned statutory provisions in the abstract , but rather in the light of ORG consistent interpretation . In the case under consideration , the constitutionality of LAW therefore had to be assessed in the light of the fact that the latter had the effect of prohibiting in principle the adoption of a child by the individual ’s partner or cohabitant , as ruled by ORG on DATE .

ORG began by pointing out that the provisions of LAW did not hinder couples from cohabiting or entering into a civil partnership , any more than it prevented the biological parent from involving his or her partner or cohabitant in the child ’s upbringing . However , ORG ruled that the right to family life as guaranteed by LAW did not confer a right to establish a legal adoptive relationship between the child and his or her parent ’s partner .

ORG went on to observe that the legislature had deliberately chosen to confine the option of simple adoption to married couples and that it was not its place to substitute its own assessment for that of the legislature .

This Convention was opened for signature on DATE and came into force on DATE . It has not been signed or ratified by GPE . Its relevant provisions read as follows .

“ CARDINAL . The law shall permit a child to be adopted :

( a ) by CARDINAL persons of different sex

( i ) who are married to each other , or

( ii ) where such an institution exists , have entered into a registered partnership together ;

( b ) by CARDINAL person .

States are free to extend the scope of this Convention to same - sex couples who are married to each other or who have entered into a registered partnership together . They are also free to extend the scope of this LAW to different - sex couples and same - sex couples who are living together in a stable relationship .

“ CARDINAL . Upon adoption a child shall become a full member of the family of the adopter(s ) and shall have in regard to the adopter(s ) and his , her or their family the same rights and obligations as a child of the adopter(s ) whose parentage is legally established . The adopter(s ) shall have parental responsibility for the child . The adoption shall terminate the legal relationship between the child and his or her father , mother and family of origin .

Nevertheless , the spouse or partner , whether registered or not , of the adopter shall retain his or her rights and obligations in respect of the adopted child if the latter is his or her child , unless the law otherwise provides .

GPE Parties may make provision for other forms of adoption having more limited effects than those stated in the preceding paragraphs of this Article . ”

Recommendation CM / Rec(CARDINAL)CARDINAL of ORG to member States on measures to combat discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation or gender identity , adopted on DATE , recommends , inter alia , to member States :

Where national legislation recognises registered same - sex partnerships , member states should seek to ensure that their legal status and their rights and obligations are equivalent to those of heterosexual couples in a comparable situation .

Where national legislation does not recognise nor confer rights or obligations on registered same - sex partnerships and unmarried couples , member GPE are invited to consider the possibility of providing , without discrimination of any kind , including against different - sex couples , same - sex couples with legal or other means to address the practical problems related to the social reality in which they live . ”


The applicant , PERSON , is a NORP national , born in DATE and living in GPE , GPE . The respondent Government were represented by Mr PERSON , their Agent .

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

In DATE the applicant initiated judicial proceedings before the Banská Bystrica District Court seeking protection of her personality rights .

On DATE the action was dismissed . On DATE ORG returned the case file to ORG for a decision on the applicant ’s petition for exemption from the obligation to pay court fees . On DATE ORG exempted the applicant from the obligation to pay court fees . Subsequently the case file was mistakenly placed in ORG archive .

On DATE the case file was transmitted to ORG for a decision on the applicant ’s appeal . On DATE the Banská Bystrica Regional Court quashed ORG judgment of DATE .

The proceedings are pending at first instance .

LAW provides , inter alia , that every person has the right to have his or her case tried without unjustified delay .

As from DATE , the LAW has been amended in that , inter alia , individuals and legal persons can complain about a violation of their fundamental rights and freedoms pursuant to LAW which reads as follows :

“ CARDINAL . The Constitutional Court shall decide on complaints lodged by natural or legal persons alleging a violation of their fundamental rights or freedoms or of human rights and fundamental freedoms enshrined in international treaties ratified by GPE ... unless the protection of such rights and freedoms falls within the jurisdiction of a different court .

When the Constitutional Court finds that a complaint is justified , it shall deliver a decision stating that a person ’s rights or freedoms set out in paragraph CARDINAL have been violated as a result of a final decision , by a particular measure or by means of any other interference . It shall quash such a decision , measure or other interference . When the violation found is the result of a failure to act , ORG may order that [ the authority ] which violated such rights or freedoms shall take the necessary action . At the same time ORG may return the case to the authority concerned for further proceedings , order that such an authority abstain from violating fundamental rights and freedoms ... or , where appropriate , order that those who violated the rights or freedoms set out in paragraph CARDINAL restore the situation to that existing prior to the violation .

In its decision on a complaint ORG may grant adequate financial satisfaction to the person whose rights under paragraph CARDINAL have been violated . ” ...

The implementation of the above constitutional provisions is set out in more detail in Sections CARDINAL of Act No . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ( LAW ) , as amended with effect from DATE .

After DATE the ORG delivered a number of decisions in which it found a violation of LAW ) of the LAW , ordered the general court concerned to avoid any further delays in the proceedings and awarded the successful complainants financial compensation in respect of delays which had already occurred .


The applicant is a NORP national , born in DATE . He is currently being detained in an Immigration Deportation Centre awaiting removal to GPE .

The facts of the case as set out by the applicant and as deduced from the case file can be summarised as follows :

The applicant arrived in GPE on DATE and was given leave to enter GPE for DATE as a visitor . He was subsequently granted leave to extend his stay until DATE to pursue a course of studies . Further leave to remain beyond that date was refused on DATE and he was warned on CARDINAL DATE that he was liable to be deported . A deportation order was signed on CARDINAL DATE . The applicant alleges that he never received notice of that order and that it only came to his attention in DATE when his solicitor contacted ORG about his status in GPE .

On DATE the applicant came to the notice of ORG when he was arrested on suspicion of having submitted a fraudulent social security claim . A deportation order was served on the applicant on DATE . The applicant 's appeal against the order was rejected as being out of time .

On DATE the applicant was detained at a GPE police station . He requested political asylum DATE . He was interviewed by ORG on DATE and on CARDINAL and DATE about the grounds for his asylum request . At the interview conducted on DATE the applicant alleged for the first time that in DATE he had become caught up in a plot to overthrow the military regime in GPE when serving as an officer in ORG . The plot was uncovered and he had to flee GPE since he feared for his life . The Secretary of ORG refused his request on DATE , finding that the applicant had given contradictory accounts of his reasons for leaving GPE which called into question the credibility of his claim . For the Secretary of ORG it was significant that the applicant had not made a request for political asylum until DATE although he had arrived in GPE in DATE .

On DATE a Special Adjudicator rejected the applicant 's appeal against the decision of the Secretary of ORG , being of the view that the applicant was not a truthful and reliable witness and had not substantiated his account of the events relied on in his asylum request .

In a letter dated DATE the applicant made fresh representations to the Secretary of ORG claiming that he feared persecution on religious grounds if he were deported to GPE . The Secretary of ORG informed the applicant by letter dated DATE that he had not adduced any new elements which would lead him to reconsider his earlier decision . On DATE the applicant was removed to GPE but was returned to GPE DATE . It would appear that the NORP immigration authorities refused the applicant entry since he claimed to be a NORP national on arrival . On being returned to GPE the applicant made a further request for political asylum on the grounds that he had a well - founded fear of religious persecution if deported to GPE . His request was refused and he appealed to the Special Adjudicator who rejected his appeal following a hearing held on DATE . The Special Adjudicator found that the applicant had not substantiated his fear of religious persecution and questioned the truthfulness of the factual basis of his claim . The Special Adjudicator concluded that the claim was frivolous and lay outside the scope of LAW .

The applicant sought judicial review of the decision to remove him to GPE on the grounds that GPE authorities had procured a travel document for him from ORG without his consent . On CARDINAL DATE his application was refused .

Since arriving in GPE the applicant has formed a relationship with a NORP woman , who , according to ORG records , is an overstayer with no claim to remain in GPE . CARDINAL children have been born in GPE from that relationship , one in DATE and the other in DATE .


The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

CARDINAL .

The applicant initiated court proceedings against a private individual . On DATE ORG awarded him MONEY ( ORG ) . No appeal was lodged and the judgment became final DATE . He obtained an enforcement warrant , which the bailiff did not enforce .

NORP In response to a request of ORG dated DATE , ORG stated that the debtor did not have any real estate registered in PERSON .

On DATE a bailiff established that the debtor did not live at the address indicated by the applicant and that , accordingly , it was impossible to enforce the judgment .

On DATE the debtor 's wife paid the applicant ORG CARDINAL .

On DATE ORG ordered the local police to determine the debtor 's whereabouts . On an unknown date a copy of the decision was sent to the local police station . On DATE the police decided to take steps to locate the debtor . According to the police , the debtor can not be found .

The judgment of DATE has not been enforced to date .

The relevant domestic law has been set out in GPE v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL , ECHR CARDINALIII ( extracts ) ) .


Violation of Art. 8;No violation of Art. 14+8;Not necessary to examine Art. 3 and 7;Non-pecuniary damage - financial award;Costs and expenses award - domestic proceedings;Costs and expenses award - Convention proceedings

Mr PERSON , who is a NORP national , was born in GPE on DATE . He is currently living in GPE .

He arrived in GPE with his mother in DATE at the latest , in order to join his father , who had emigrated some time before and ran a butcher 's shop . Until he was deported in DATE , he lived in GPE and had a residence permit . CARDINAL of his CARDINAL brothers and sisters were born there . CARDINAL of his elder brothers already had NORP nationality at the material time .

While the applicant was still a minor in criminal law , that is to say in the period DATE , ORG dealt with CARDINAL charges against him , including CARDINAL of aggravated theft , CARDINAL of attempted aggravated theft and CARDINAL of robbery . It made various custodial , protective and educative orders . On CARDINAL occasions DATE and DATE , for instance , it ordered Mr GPE to be detained in FAC for periods not exceeding DATE ( under LAW and ORG of DATE - see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

On DATE the GPE investigating judge issued a warrant for the applicant 's arrest .

The CARDINAL charges mentioned above subsequently came before ORG of ORG , which in a judgment of DATE relinquished jurisdiction . It noted in particular : " The juvenile was already committing offences before he was CARDINAL ; in this regard he already came under the jurisdiction of ORG , and during the present proceedings he has not ceased to commit offences . " It accordingly remitted the case to ORG Office for prosecution in the appropriate court ( section CARDINAL of the Act of DATE previously cited - see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

On DATE Mr GPE appeared before ORG charged with CARDINAL offences that had taken place between CARDINAL DATE and DATE .

The evidence against the defendant and his CARDINAL accomplices included a summary report drawn up on DATE by the FAC gendarmerie . In this it was noted that the persons concerned " live[d ] like drop - outs , only rarely returning to their own homes or to the home in which they ha[d ] been placed " ; of the applicant the report said :

" NORP subject , elder brother of the above . Regarded as CARDINAL of the leaders of the gang . Currently involved in major crime . He will stop at nothing and his ' training placements ' in FAC have no beneficial effect . As soon as he comes out , he starts stealing again . He leads an idle life , sleeping by day and going out at night to commit his offences ; and he associates with ' reliable types ' . Some of the thefts he commits are planned and consequently on a large scale . On other occasions they are despicable and even sordid . He will stop at nothing and is becoming more and more steeped in crime . He is a real danger to society . "

On DATE ( DATE ) ORG found Mr GPE guilty on CARDINAL of the CARDINAL charges and sentenced him to DATE imprisonment , CARDINAL of which sentence was suspended for DATE subject to a supervision order . He was acquitted on the other charges .

The prosecution appealed and ORG gave judgment on DATE . It set aside the judgment of the court below and found the applicant guilty on CARDINAL of the CARDINAL charges . It passed prison sentences of DATE ( for CARDINAL offences of aggravated theft , CARDINAL offences of attempted aggravated theft , QUANTITY offence of theft and CARDINAL of handling stolen goods ) , DATE ( destroying a vehicle ) , CARDINAL periods of DATE ( on CARDINAL counts of assault ) and DATE ( on a count of threatening behaviour ) . It acquitted him on CARDINAL charges ( indecent assault with violence on a minor girl aged over CARDINAL ; criminal conspiracy ; attempted theft ; and criminal damage to fencing ) .

As none of these sentences was suspended , his immediate arrest was ordered .

Earlier , Mr GPE had been imprisoned on QUANTITY occasions DATE and DATE for periods not DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

On DATE the GPE investigating judge had him placed under arrest until , it would seem , his appearance before ORG of ORG on DATE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above ) .

Mr GPE was also briefly detained on remand before his trial on DATE at ORG ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL above ) .

He served part - DATE out of CARDINAL - of the prison sentences imposed on him by ORG on CARDINAL DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) ; he was released in DATE . DATE he was given DATE prison leave on CARDINAL occasions .

On DATE ORG referred the case to ORG on Aliens , which gave its opinion on DATE . It concluded that deportation would be justified in law but regarded it as " inappropriate " and gave the following reasons :

" The very large number of offences committed by Mr GPE and for which he was sentenced by ORG on DATE amounted , for the most part , to serious prejudice to public order ( ordre public ) justifying the proposed measure . They included CARDINAL aggravated thefts in addition to ordinary thefts , handling stolen goods , destruction , assault and threatening behaviour . The sentences passed were : DATE imprisonment + DATE + DATE .

ORG excludes from the offences amounting to prejudice to public order the indecent assault with violence and threatening behaviour referred to in the account of the facts drawn up by ORG ( Note PERSON Document CARDINAL ) . Counsel for Mr GPE told ORG that his client had been acquitted on this charge . The ORG finds that in DATE forwarded by ORG to ORG the section headed ' Nature of the charge ' does not include the offence of indecent assault , whereas all the other offences referred to in the account of the facts are listed there . It is not possible to tell from the file whether it is the account of the facts or the section headed ' Nature of the charge ' which is wrong .

While he was a minor in criminal law , he was placed several times in homes . ORG relinquished jurisdiction in respect of the offences of which he was convicted in ORG judgment .

ORG considers , however , that the proposed measure would be inappropriate for the following reasons :

Mr GPE 's youth ( he was born on CARDINAL ) , both at the time of the offences and now .

He arrived in GPE at DATE , in DATE .

His whole family lives in GPE ( father , mother and CARDINAL other children , CARDINAL of whom were born here ) .

Mr GPE is learning a trade - ( as a butcher 's apprentice ) - and could be helped by his father , who is a butcher . The father apparently owns the butcher 's shop that he runs .

Mr GPE has already had prison leave on CARDINAL occasions without any untoward incident occurring , and the granting of this shows some confidence in his behaviour . "

A royal order of CARDINAL DATE , which was served on Mr GPE on DATE and was to take effect from the moment of his release , required him to " leave the GPE and not return for DATE , ... except by special leave of the Minister of ORG " . It was based on the following reasons :

Having regard to the fact that [ Mr GPE ] has committed a series of CARDINAL offences of aggravated theft , attempted aggravated theft , theft , handling stolen goods , destroying a vehicle , assault and threatening behaviour , offences which were made out and for which on DATE , in a judgment that has now become final , he was sentenced by ORG to DATE imprisonment , DATE imprisonment , DATE imprisonment and MONEY , DATE imprisonment and MONEY , and DATE imprisonment and MONEY ;

Having regard to the fact that these were only some of the CARDINAL offences committed by Mr GPE while he was still a minor in criminal law and for which he was brought before ORG ( including CARDINAL robberies , CARDINAL offences of aggravated theft and CARDINAL offences of attempted aggravated theft ) , not counting the CARDINAL offences of theft of jewellery , weapons and cash committed after the offences which led to the aforementioned conviction ;

Having regard to the opinion of ORG on Aliens , which considers that deportation is justified in law but nonetheless inappropriate ;

Having regard to the fact that despite this opinion , the ORG acknowledges that the very large number of offences committed by Mr GPE amount , for the most part , to serious prejudice to public order justifying deportation ;

Having regard to the fact that Mr GPE has committed a substantial series of offences and that he is regarded by the local gendarmerie as one of the leaders of a dangerous gang of juvenile delinquents and as being a real danger to society ;

Having regard to the fact that by his personal behaviour Mr GPE has , consequently , seriously prejudiced public order ;

Having regard to the fact that the maintenance of public order must prevail over the social and family considerations set out by ORG ;

The applicant had to comply with the order within DATE of leaving prison .

On DATE Mr GPE 's father had written to the Queen asking her to intervene on his son 's behalf . On DATE ORG informed him that his application had been rejected and the deportation order signed .

Acting as the applicant 's representative , Mr GPE 's father made CARDINAL applications to the PERSON d'État on DATE seeking , firstly , to have execution of the deportation order stayed and , secondly , to have the order itself quashed .

The PERSON d'État rejected the first application on DATE . Mr GPE left GPE DATE .

On DATE the ORG d'État rejected the application for judicial review of the order on the following grounds :

The impugned order is founded mainly on CARDINAL offences admitted by GPE . CARDINAL of those led to convictions and heavy sentences and were regarded by ORG on Aliens as amounting , for the most part , to serious prejudice to public order justifying deportation in law .

The CARDINAL disputed offences appear , by the very terms of the impugned decision ( ' not counting the CARDINAL offences ' ) , as a superfluous ground in relation to the undisputed offences which were put forward as justifying the deportation .

It does not follow from GPE 's acquittal on the conspiracy charge that the information provided by the local gendarmerie that is mentioned in the impugned decision was inaccurate to the point that it was unusable as part of the basis of the assessment that GPE was a real danger to society . The ground of appeal is unfounded .

In final pleadings - which were , moreover , out of time - GPE put forward CARDINAL further grounds . ... The third new ground , based on ' the violation of Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL ( article CARDINAL , article CARDINAL) of ORG , in that the disputed act was both inhuman or degrading treatment and an intolerable infringement of private and family life ' , is unfounded . Firstly , deportation ordered in accordance with the law can not be equated either with a punishment or with inhuman or degrading treatment within the meaning of LAW ) of the LAW ; and secondly , respect for private and family life as guaranteed in DATE ( article CARDINAL) of the Convention is not an obstacle to the taking of a measure which , in a NORP society , is necessary for public safety . The fourth new ground , based on the violation of LAW ) of LAW , is similarly unfounded , as there is no evidence to suggest that the applicant was a victim , by reason of his nationality , of discrimination prohibited by that LAW ) . ... "

After his departure from GPE at DATE , Mr GPE went not to GPE but to GPE , where he was accommodated by friends of his parents .

On being asked to leave GPE , he settled in GPE , where he remained virtually without a break until DATE . He lived there - at times legally and at other times illegally - by his wits and by taking the odd undeclared job in NORP and NORP restaurants ; he was put up by his employers and chance acquaintances . When he managed to save up enough money , he went to a non - NORP country in order to obtain a DATE NORP tourist visa . He also applied for a long - term residence permit , and on DATE the NORP embassy in GPE issued him a permit authorising him to live in GPE until DATE of DATE ; this permit was subsequently renewed for DATE .

In a notarially certified document of DATE Mr GPE instructed his lawyer to make a " declaration of election of nationality " under , in particular , LAW of the new LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

ORG considered the declaration to be inadmissible in GPE as the applicant had not been resident there since his deportation . In response to a similar application , the NORP embassy in GPE said that it could not take account of unlawful residence .

The applicant 's lawyers made an urgent application to have execution of the deportation order stayed on the ground that Mr GPE 's position had worsened - on DATE a GPE psychiatrist had diagnosed the applicant as suffering from a depression brought about by the disruption of his family ties .

In an order dated DATE the GPE judge responsible for hearing urgent applications refused to order the interim measure sought .

On DATE CARDINAL of the applicant 's lawyers requested the Minister of ORG to " revoke or suspend the deportation order " , but he received no reply to his letter .

On DATE a royal order was issued , temporarily suspending the deportation order :

Having regard to the fact that Mr GPE came to GPE at DATE ;

Having regard to the fact that all his family are lawfully resident in GPE ;

Having regard to the fact that Mr GPE should be given an opportunity for rehabilitation ;

On a proposal by Our Minister of ORG ,

We hereby order as follows :

The royal deportation order made on CARDINAL DATE pursuant to LAW of DATE on the entry , residence , settlement and expulsion of aliens against PERSON , born in GPE on DATE , shall be suspended for a trial period of DATE during which the applicant shall be authorised to reside within GPE .

Continuation of the suspension and of the residence authorisation provided for in LAW shall be subject to compliance by Mr GPE with the following CARDINAL conditions : ( a ) he must personally have sufficient means of subsistence ; and ( b ) he must not prejudice public order or national security .

Unless a decision is taken to the contrary , the royal deportation order of CARDINAL DATE shall automatically be rescinded at DATE trial period provided for in DATE .

ORG informed the applicant 's lawyer on DATE , stating that the necessary steps had been taken to ensure that his client had no difficulty when he arrived at FAC pending completion of the administrative formalities . On DATE ORG sent him a safe - conduct authorising Mr GPE to enter NORP territory and remain there for DATE .

The applicant had already returned on DATE , and on DATE he reported to the municipal authorities in GPE and was registered as living there with his parents . On DATE he received a residence permit - a certificate of entry in ORG - which was valid for DATE and was renewable .

He is working in his father 's butcher 's shop and has enrolled at the local school for continuing education for small firms and traders .

The Children 's and ORG of DATE replaced an Act of CARDINAL DATE ; its purpose is to protect the health , morals and education of young people under DATE ( " juveniles " ) . Under it , " offending acts " committed by juveniles can normally be dealt with only by means of custodial , protective or educative measures and not by means of criminal sanctions .

The DATE Act contains provisions relating to " social welfare " and others relating to " protection by the courts " .

Judicial protection of juveniles is provided by specialised courts : ORG , which is a section of the tribunal de première instance ( regional court of first instance ) and sits as CARDINAL or more single - judge courts , and the juvenile divisions of ORG , which likewise have a single member .

Section CARDINAL of the CARDINAL Act lays down the cases in which the juvenile courts may take the various measures set out in the LAW in respect of juveniles . They may make an order on an application by ORG in several instances , including the case of " juveniles ... proceeded against for an act classified as an offence " .

The same courts can also intervene up on a complaint by " persons having paternal authority or having custody ... of a juvenile ... who on account of his misconduct or indiscipline gives serious cause for concern " .

The measures they may order are , for the most part , set out in section CARDINAL :

( a ) a warning ( section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) ) ;

( b ) placing the juvenile under the supervision of ORG or of a ORG ( section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) ) ;

( c ) keeping the juvenile in his own surroundings , subject to certain conditions , such as having to attend an educational establishment , to perform educative or socially useful tasks or to comply with instructions from an educational - counselling centre or mental - health centre ( section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) ) ;

( d ) placing the juvenile in the home of any trustworthy person or in any appropriate institution , under the supervision of ORG or of a ORG ( section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) ) ;

( e ) placing the juvenile in a ORG reformatory ( section GPE ) ) .

Where a juvenile over sixteen has been brought before the juvenile courts for an " act classified as an offence " , they may , if they consider the measures referred to in LAW to be " inadequate " , relinquish jurisdiction and remit the case to ORG so that proceedings may be taken in the appropriate court ( section CARDINAL of the DATE Act ) .

Relinquishment of jurisdiction is regarded as an exceptional measure , to be applied only as a last resort . The legislature made provision for it in order to cope with precocious or depraved juvenile delinquents .

In DATE the NORP juvenile courts gave CARDINAL decisions ; they relinquished jurisdiction in favour of ORG in CARDINAL cases .

By section CARDINAL of the DATE Act , a juvenile may , " if it is materially impossible to find an individual or an institution able to accept the juvenile immediately , ... be provisionally detained in a remand prison for a period not exceeding DATE " .

LAW of DATE on the entry , residence , settlement and expulsion of aliens governs aliens ' administrative status .

Even foreigners with residence permits may be deported under LAW where they have " seriously prejudiced public order or national security " ( section CARDINAL , second paragraph ) .

Before making such a deportation order , the Minister of ORG must seek the opinion of ORG on Aliens , which consists of a judge , a barrister and a member of an aliens ' welfare association .

PERSON orders are signed by the King . They are subject to judicial review by the PERSON d'État ( section CARDINAL ) , which on an application by the person concerned may grant a stay of execution until the application for review has been heard ( section CARDINAL , first paragraph ) . The PERSON d'État satisfies itself that the deportation appealed against is based wholly on the alien 's personal behaviour ; the mere fact that he has a criminal conviction does not automatically entail deportation .

The new NORP Nationality Code is contained in an LAW DATE and came into force on DATE - that is to say after the material events . LAW CARDINAL of the LAW confers the right to acquire NORP nationality on " a child who , for DATE before DATE , has had his principal residence in GPE with a person to whose authority he was legally subject " .

The Code replaces , in particular , LAW DATE , which required a private naturalisation Act , even for foreigners born in GPE .


Violation of Art. 6-1;Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed

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

On DATE her house in PERSON , GPE , was blown up by unknown perpetrators .

On DATE she instituted civil proceedings before ORG ( PERSON ) seeking damages from GPE for her damaged property .

Pursuant to ORG ( LAW ( ORG o izmjeni PERSON o obveznim odnosima ) , ORG stayed the proceedings on DATE .

Pursuant to the Damage from Terrorist Acts and Public Demonstrations Act DATE ( Zakon o odgovornosti za štetu nastalu uslijed terorističkih akata i javnih demonstracija ) , the proceedings resumed on DATE .

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

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

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

“ Section CARDINAL of LAW ... shall be repealed . ”

“ Proceedings for damages instituted under LAW shall be stayed .

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

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

“ Proceedings shall be stayed :

( CARDINAL ) where another statute so prescribes . ”

The Damage from Terrorist Acts and Public Demonstrations Act DATE ( Zakon o odgovornosti za štetu nastalu uslijed terorističkih akata i javnih demonstracija , ORG no . CARDINAL , hereinafter “ the DATE LAW ) provides , inter alia , that GPE is to provide compensation in relation to damage resulting from bodily injury , impairment of health or a death . All compensation for damage to property is to be sought under LAW .

The relevant parts of LAW ( Zakon o obnovi , ORG nos . CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL/CARDINAL and CARDINAL ) provide , inter alia , that the means for reconstruction are to be granted to persons whose property was destroyed in the war , under certain conditions . The request is to be submitted to ORG , Reconstruction and Construction ( ORG radove , obnovu i graditeljstvo ) .


Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Art. 6-1;No violation of Art. 6-1;Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed;Non-pecuniary damage - award

Anatoly Kovler;Dean Spielmann;George Nicolaou;Giorgio Malinverni;Khanlar Hajiyev;Sverre Erik Jebens

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in LOC .

NORP In DATE the applicant had a road traffic accident . Since the insurance company ORG “ the company ” ) refused to compensate the resultant damage , on DATE she instituted civil proceedings against it in ORG ( PERSON ) .

On DATE ORG ruled in the applicant 's favour ordering the company to pay her the amount of MONEY ( ORG ) together with the statutory default interest accruable from CARDINAL DATE . The applicant collected the judgment debt on DATE .

NORP However , in the meantime , on DATE ORG issued a decision rectifying a clerical error in its judgment of DATE . Instead of ordering the company to pay the statutory default interest accruable from CARDINAL DATE on the entire amount of damages awarded , ( ORG CARDINAL ) , in the rectified judgment the court ordered the company to do so only on the part of that amount , namely ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL , which was the amount awarded in respect of pecuniary damage . The company was ordered to pay the accrued interest on the remaining amount of ORG CARDINAL only with effect from DATE .

The decision on rectification was served on the applicant 's representative on DATE .

On DATE judge PERSON , who was at the time the President of ORG , filed a criminal complaint against the applicant with the Zlatar Municipal State Attorney 's Office considering that she had committed a criminal offence . PERSON stated in his complaint that at DATE a certain GPE , a lawyer employed with the insurance company ORG , had come to his office explaining the clerical error in ORG judgment of DATE and asking him to influence the applicant – who was working at the time as an advocate – with a view to returning the unlawfully obtained amount . After explaining the error and mentioning that it had been rectified by ORG decision of DATE , judge PERSON stated :

“ ... despite the rectification of the judgment , the advocate ORG , to date does not want to return the unlawfully appropriated money to [ the company ] ORG , GPE , for which reason the civil proceedings no . P-CARDINAL/CARDINAL were instituted [ against her ] .

Since we consider that the act of the advocate ORG also contains elements of criminal liability , we are reporting it to you with a view to investigating it and , possibly , instituting criminal proceedings against her ... ”

On DATE the Zlatar Municipal State Attorney requested transfer of jurisdiction because he was a friend of the applicant . On DATE the case was transferred to ORG Attorney who , on DATE indicted the applicant before ORG charging her with a criminal offence of misappropriation ( utaja ) .

NORP However , on DATE the judge assigned to hear the case requested that the case be transferred to another court as its president had actually filed a criminal complaint against the applicant . On DATE ORG ( decision no . CARDINAL ) granted the request and decided to transfer the case to ORG ( PERSON ) . The decision in its relevant part read as follows :

The ... judge [ assigned to hear the case ] of ORG made a request that the criminal proceedings ... against ORG ... be conducted before ORG .

The request is substantiated by the fact that the accused ORG is an advocate with her office in LOC and that the criminal complaint against her was filed by the president of ORG , which may objectively cast doubt on the impartial administration of justice if the proceedings are to be conducted before ORG .

The request is well - founded .

The circumstances highlighted in the request of the ... judge [ assigned to hear the case ] constitute in the present instance important reasons within the meaning of section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW for transferring territorial jurisdiction from ORG to ORG ...

On DATE ORG dismissed the charges against the applicant given that the prosecution for the offence she had been charged with had in the meantime become time - barred ( apsolutna zastara ) .

Meanwhile , on CARDINAL DATE the insurance company ORG brought a civil action for unjust enrichment against the applicant in ORG seeking to recover the overpaid interest . The statement of claim was served on the applicant on DATE .

On DATE the applicant made a counter - claim .

The court held hearings on DATE and DATE and CARDINAL DATE and DATE .

At the last - mentioned hearing ORG gave judgment against the applicant , ordering her to pay the plaintiff CARDINAL NORP kunas ( HRK ) together with the statutory default interest accruable from DATE , as well as HRK CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL in costs . It also declared her counter - claim inadmissible in CARDINAL part while dismissing it in the remaining part .

On DATE the applicant appealed to ORG ( PERSON u PERSON ) asking at the same time for transfer of jurisdiction ( svrsishodna delegacija nadležnosti ) from both ORG and ORG . She argued , inter alia , that ORG could not be expected to be impartial in the examination of her appeal given that judge DATE who had in the meantime become the president of that court DATE had previously filed a criminal complaint against her .

The Government submitted that judge PERSON had been appointed the president of ORG on DATE but that this court had become operational only on DATE .

On DATE ORG ( PERSON ) dismissed the applicant 's request for transfer of jurisdiction . It held that the circumstances relied on by the applicant did not cast doubt on the professional and objective examination of her appeal by ORG . Thus , there was no important reason justifying the requested transfer .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant 's appeal and upheld the first - instance judgment . The decision was served on the applicant on DATE .

On DATE the applicant lodged a regular constitutional complaint under section CARDINAL of LAW against the second - instance judgment . Relying on LAW , she claimed , inter alia , that her constitutional right to an impartial court had been violated because the impugned judgment had been delivered by the court whose president had previously filed a criminal complaint against her relying on the same facts as those relied on by the first- and second - instance courts when giving their decisions . On DATE ORG ( Ustavni sud PERSON ) dismissed her constitutional complaint . The decision was served on the applicant on DATE .

Meanwhile , on DATE the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint under LAW of LAW complaining about the length of the above civil proceedings for unjust enrichment . ORG examined the length of the proceedings in the period during which they were pending before the ordinary courts thus excluding the period of DATE while the case was pending before ORG itself ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . On DATE it found a violation of the applicant 's constitutional right to a hearing within a reasonable time and awarded her HRK CARDINAL in compensation .

According to information provided by the Government in reply to a request made by ORG , ORG has a civil and a criminal division . The civil division has CARDINAL judges sitting in CARDINAL different panels . The president of the court sits on CARDINAL of the panels . The criminal division has CARDINAL judges , and judges of the civil division sit with them when necessary . The cases are assigned to judges according to Rule CARDINAL of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . Thus , before being allocated to judges , cases are listed in chronological order according to the time when they were received at the court . After that , cases are allocated to judges in the alphabetical order of the panel presidents ' last names . However , account is being taken of whether some of the judges participated in the first - instance proceedings in a particular case . If they did , the case is not assigned to them .

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

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

The relevant part of LAW on LAW ( PERSON o PERSON , ORG no . CARDINAL of DATE – “ the LAW ” ) , as amended by DATE Amendments ( PERSON o izmjenama i dopunama PERSON zakona o PERSON sudu PERSON , ORG no . CARDINAL of DATE ) , which entered into force on DATE , reads as follows :

“ CARDINAL . Everyone may lodge a constitutional complaint with ORG if he or she deems that the decision of a state authority , local or regional self - government , or a legal person invested with public authority , on his or her rights or obligations , or about suspicion or accusation for a criminal offence , has violated his or her human rights or fundamental freedoms , or right to local or regional self - government , guaranteed by LAW ( hereinafter : constitutional right ) ...

If another legal remedy is allowed against the violation of the constitutional rights [ complained of ] , the constitutional complaint may be lodged only after this remedy has been exhausted .

In matters in which an administrative action or , in civil and non - contentious proceedings , an appeal on points of law [ revizija ] are allowed , remedies shall be considered exhausted only after the decision on these legal remedies has been given . ”

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

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

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

The relevant part of LAW ( Zakon o parničnom postupku , ORG of ORG nos . CARDINAL , CARDINAL/CARDINAL ( corrigendum ) , CARDINAL , CARDINAL/CARDINAL , CARDINAL/CARDINAL , DATE , DATE , DATE , CARDINAL/CARDINAL and CARDINAL/CARDINAL , and ORG nos . CARDINAL , GPE , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL/CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL/CARDINAL , CARDINAL and GPE ) , as in force at the material time , read as follows :

“ The highest court of a certain type in GPE may , following a proposal by the party or the competent court , assign another court from its territory to decide a certain case if this would obviously facilitate the proceedings or for other important reasons . ”

A judge ... shall be disqualified from exercising his or her functions :

CARDINAL ) if other circumstances exist to cast doubt on his or her impartiality .

( CARDINAL ) NORP Parties may also request withdrawal [ of a judge ] ...

( CARDINAL ) ORG party may request withdrawal of a judge of a higher court in the appeal or a reply thereto ...

( CARDINAL ) The party 's request for withdrawal of a judge shall be decided by the president of the court .

( CARDINAL ) Should the party request withdrawal of the president of the court , such request shall be decided by the president of the immediately higher court .

The relevant provisions of LAW ( Zakon o sudovima , ORG nos . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , CARDINAL/CARDINAL , DATE , CARDINAL/CARDINAL , CARDINAL/CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL ) , as in force at the material time , read as follows :

Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) provided that the president of a court exercised the duties related to court administration in accordance with the law and court rules .

Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) provided that the president of the court or the relevant division of the court was authorised to suspend the service of a decision delivered by a single judge or panel of judges , which was contrary to the legal view adopted by another judge or panel , until the differences in legal views were discussed at the meeting of the division of the court . If the division adopted the view contrary to that decision , a judge or panel which delivered it had to decide the case again .

Sections CARDINAL - CARDINALc read as follows :

a ) Performance of judge 's duties

Section CARDINAL

President of the court in which a judge exercises his or her duties determines for DATE :

whether a judge delivered the number of decisions which he or she had to deliver pursuant to the framework criteria for the performance of judges , where [ the president of the court ] shall determine the result of judge 's work according to the types of cases , in absolute numbers and in percentage ,

whether a judge respected the time - limits within which he or she has to pronounce , prepare and send a decision , indicating whether the time - limits were fully respected or respected in more or PERCENT of the cases ,

how many appeals were lodged against the first - instance decisions and what were the decisions delivered in the appellate proceedings ( [ that is whether the first - instance decisions were ] upheld , quashed or reversed ) , in absolute numbers and in percentage , and how many decisions were quashed for serious procedural errors ,

how many extraordinary remedies were lodged against the second - instance decisions ( [ that is whether the second - instance decisions were ] upheld , quashed or reversed ) , in absolute numbers and in percentage terms .

Section CARDINALa

If a judge did not deliver the number of decisions he or she had to deliver pursuant to the framework criteria for the performance of judges , because he or she was charged with exceptionally difficult and complex cases , it shall be assumed that he or she achieved the adequate result in his or her work , increased by PERCENT . That fact shall be stated in the operative provisions of the decision in which the president of the court determines the performance of the judge 's duties .

Section CARDINALb ( CARDINAL )

The circumstances from section CARDINAL and CARDINAL a of this Act shall be established for DATE by the president of the court in a decision that has to be delivered at the latest by DATE of DATE .

Section CARDINALc

( CARDINAL ) A judge who is not satisfied with a decision of the president of the court may appeal against it within DATE of its service .

( CARDINAL ) The appeal shall be lodged with the president of the higher court through the president of the court which delivered the decision .

Sections CARDINAL and DATE provided that judicial panels were the competent organs for appraisal of judges in the process of their permanent appointment to judicial office as well as in the process of their appointment to another court .

Judicial panels were organs formed for the territories of each county court and were composed of a certain number of judges of the county court at issue and judges of the municipal courts operating on the territory of that county court .

A judicial panel had to appraise a judge appropriately according to all the elements listed in section CARDINAL . In doing so it had to take into consideration the final decision of the president of the court on the performance of that judge 's duties as well as other documents related to his or her work .

Section CARDINAL provided that a judge had to inform the president of the court about every job it accepted and all business it undertook . The president of the court was to decide whether a job or business was incompatible with the judicial office . The judge could appeal against the president 's decision to the Minister of ORG .

Section CARDINALa defined the president of a court as a judge who , apart from his or her judicial function , exercises the duties related to court administration .

Section CARDINALg(CARDINAL ) provided :

Section CARDINAL g ( CARDINAL )

A judge shall be relieved of the duty of president of the court if in the supervision of court administration it is established that :

the president of the court does not exercise his or her duties related to court administration in accordance with the applicable regulations or in timely fashion ,

[ he or she ] breaches the rules governing assignment of cases , either directly or by failure to supervise ,

[ he or she ] , by breaching the applicable regulations or in some other way , violates the principle of judicial independence in the administration of justice ,

[ he or she ] does not submit requests to institute disciplinary proceedings in cases prescribed by law .

The National Judicial Council Act ( Zakon o državnom sudbenom vijeću , ORG nos . CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL and DATE ) regulates the composition , powers and operation of the authority competent to decide on the appointment and dismissal of judges DATE ORG . It regulates , in particular , the process of appointment of judges , disciplinary offences in the exercise of judicial office and disciplinary proceedings against judges . The relevant provisions of the LAW , as in force at the material time , read as follows :

Sections CARDINAL regulated the procedure of appointment of judges . After receiving applications from the candidates for the vacant post of a judge , the Minister of ORG had to , before submitting the list of candidates to ORG , request an opinion about the candidates from the respective judicial panels ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above ) . Section CARDINAL provided that the competent judicial panel , before issuing its own opinion on a certain candidate , could request information on the candidate from the president of the court in which that judge had been exercising his or her duties .

Sections CARDINAL regulated disciplinary proceedings against judges . Sections CARDINAL ) , CARDINAL ) and CARDINAL read as follows :

Section CARDINAL

( CARDINAL ) ...

( CARDINAL ) Disciplinary offences are :

unjustified failure to exercise judicial duties , or failure to exercise them in timely fashion ,

exercising service or activities , or doing business incompatible with judicial office ,

( CARDINAL ) Disciplinary proceedings for an offence from paragraph CARDINAL subparagraph CARDINAL of this section shall be instituted in particular if :

- a judge , without justified reason , is not preparing and sending court decisions within the statutory time - limits ,

- without justified reason , the number of decisions delivered [ by a judge ] in DATE is below the average in GPE .

Section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL )

If there is a reasonable suspicion that a judge has committed a disciplinary offence , the president of the court in which that judge exercised his or her duties is obliged to make a request that the disciplinary proceedings be instituted against [ that judge ] .

Section CARDINAL

( CARDINAL ) A judge shall be suspended from exercising his or her duties if criminal proceedings are instituted against him or her for a criminal offence punishable by DATE imprisonment , or while he or she is in detention .

( CARDINAL ) ...

( CARDINAL ) The decision on suspension in the case from paragraph CARDINAL of this section shall be delivered by the president of the court .

The Court Rules ( ORG poslovnik , ORG nos . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , DATE , CARDINAL/CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL/CARDINAL , DATE , CARDINAL/CARDINAL and CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) are a subordinate legislation regulating internal operation of courts . The relevant provisions , as in force at the material time , read as follows :

Rule CARDINAL

The internal operation of the court is separate from adjudication .

Rule CARDINAL

( CARDINAL ) The president of the court supervises the correct and timely discharge of all duties in the court .

( CARDINAL ) Supervision is effectuated through inspection of the work of court panels , single judges ... , inspection of files , decision and decisions of higher courts ... , review of the registration books ... , supervision of the work of the court 's central office ...

Rule CARDINAL ( CARDINAL )

NORP The president of the court coordinates the work of court divisions and other organisational units in the court . When the president of the court notices inconsistent practices or practices contrary to existing regulations or departure from established case - law of higher courts in the operation of divisions , panels or single or investigation judges , he or she shall submit his or her observations for discussion at the meetings of judges .

( CARDINAL ) Cases are assigned to judges by the president of the court in courts having no divisions or by the president of a division in courts having divisions .

( CARDINAL ) NORP Before assigning cases to judges , cases are listed in a chronological order ...

( CARDINAL ) Cases are then assigned in alphabetical order of judges within the court or a division , taking into account the equal distribution of cases during DATE , the type and complexity of cases . Second - instance cases are assigned in alphabetical order of the panel presidents , who then assign the cases in alphabetical order to the judges who are members of the panel .

( CARDINAL ) Should certain cases not be immediately assigned to judges , due to a backlog of cases or higher workload of judges , the president of the court or a division shall , pursuant to the criteria set forth in CARDINAL of this section , without delay assign those cases to judges .

( CARDINAL ) As an exception to the provision of Rule CARDINAL of the Court Rules whereby a case had to be assigned to a certain judge , the case shall in the event of [ his or her ] objective indisposition be assigned to the judge in the court or a division [ whose name is ] next in the alphabetical order .

( CARDINAL ) The procedure prescribed in paragraph CARDINAL of this section shall also apply to cases that have already been assigned to judges who are objectively indisposed from conducting the proceedings due to withdrawal , absence from work , particularly high workload or for other justified reasons , when this is necessary to ensure lawful and efficient operation of the court and the protection of the right of the parties to the administration of justice without undue delay .

The DATE plan is determined by the president of the court after obtaining opinions of the organisational units of the court , bearing in mind the needs of service and the wishes of the employees .

Section CARDINAL of LAW of DATE ( Zakon o krivičnom postupku , ORG of ORG nos . CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE , and ORG nos . CARDINAL , GPE , CARDINAL/CARDINAL ( consolidated text ) , CARDINAL/CARDINAL ( corrigendum ) and ORG ) and section CARDINAL of LAW of DATE ( Zakon o kaznenom postupku , ORG nos . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , DATE ( corrigendum ) , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL ( corrigendum ) , CARDINAL ( consolidated text ) and DATE ) provided that the immediately higher court could , following a proposal by an investigation judge , single judge , president of the panel or state attorney , assign another court from its territory to decide a case if that would obviously facilitate the proceedings or for other important reasons . In cases involving the applicant and/or ORG , ORG applied the above provisions in the following way :

Apart from the above case no . CARDINAL ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , ORG dealt with CARDINAL more criminal case involving the applicant . In its decision no . GPE - CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE ORG granted a request for transfer of jurisdiction from ORG to another court submitted by the single judge of that court in the case where the applicant was the accused in criminal proceedings instituted by CARDINAL of the judges of that court as a private prosecutor .

In other cases involving ORG granted requests for transfer of jurisdiction in the cases where : the accused was the mother of that court 's employee PERSON ( decision no . GPE - CARDINAL of DATE ) , the accused was the head of the land registry division of that court ( Kr-CARDINAL/CARDINAL - CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE ) , the private prosecutor was the sister of CARDINAL of the court 's employees ( Kr-CARDINAL/CARDINAL - CARDINAL of CARDINAL October CARDINAL ) , the second accused was the sister of an employee of the court , PERSON ( Kr-CARDINAL/CARDINAL - CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE ) , the injured party was a brother - in - law of an employee of the court , ORG and one of the witnesses her sister ( CARDINAL of DATE ) , the injured party instituted criminal proceedings by private prosecution against the president of the court , judge PERSON of CARDINAL DATE ) , the accused was a lay assessor ( sudac porotnik ) of that court ( Kr-CARDINAL/CARDINAL - CARDINAL of DATE ) , the accused were employees of ORG with whom the court cooperated on a DATE bases in cases against juvenile offenders and cases involving offences committed against minors ( Kr-CARDINAL/CARDINAL - CARDINAL of DATE ) . In the last - mentioned case ORG reasoned that the circumstance on the basis of which it granted the request for transfer of jurisdiction :

“ ... should be viewed in the light of the fact that the particular case concerns a working environment with a small number of employees , which inevitably leads to DATE contact between them . ”

In its practice ORG applied section DATE of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) in the following way :

Apart from the case no . CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE , to which the applicant referred to in her observations ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) and in which it granted the request for transfer of jurisdiction from ORG to another court , ORG did not deal with any other civil case involving the applicant .

In its decision no . Gr-CARDINAL/CARDINAL of DATE ORG granted the request for transfer of jurisdiction from ORG to another court submitted by the respondent in a case where the wife of CARDINAL of the plaintiffs was employed at that court . ORG held that this fact alone would not constitute an important reason for transfer of jurisdiction but nevertheless granted the request , taking into account that the court in question was a small court , which had also agreed with the plaintiff 's request , in order to dispel any suspicion as regards its impartiality .

In its decision no . Gr-CARDINAL/CARDINAL - CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE ORG granted a request for transfer of jurisdiction from ORG to another court submitted by the respondent in a case where the plaintiff was employed as the head accountant of that court . In so deciding ORG reasoned as follows :

“ ORG falls into the category of small courts . Its seat is in a small place [ town ] and it is common knowledge that the connection between people in institutions in small places and with a small number of employees is always stronger . ”

In its decision no . GrCARDINAL - CARDINAL of DATE ORG granted the request submitted by ORG for transfer of jurisdiction from that court to another one in the case where the plaintiff was a lay assessor of the same court .

In its decision no . Gr-CARDINAL/CARDINAL - CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE ORG granted a request for transfer of jurisdiction from ORG to another court submitted by the plaintiffs . ORG ruled that the fact that the plaintiffs had made a criminal complaint against the president of ORG and against one of the judges , coupled with that court 's statement made in reply to the request for transfer of jurisdiction that some of its judges and the president intended to file a criminal complaint against the plaintiffs , was an important reason for transfer of jurisdiction .

In other cases involving ORG granted requests for transfer of jurisdiction in cases where : the parties were the brother - in - law and the sister - in - law of the president of that court ( decision no . Gr-CARDINAL/CARDINAL of DATE ) , the respondents were the sister and the brother - in - law of ORG , an employee of the land registry division of the court ( decision no . Gr-CARDINAL/CARDINAL - CARDINAL of DATE ) , the second respondent 's wife was employed by ORG and the plaintiff had until recently been lay assessor of the same court ( decision no . GrCARDINAL - CARDINAL of DATE ) , the respondent was the husband of the typist employed with the court and assigned to the only judge , apart from the court 's president , who dealt with civil cases ( decision no . GrCARDINAL - CARDINAL/CARDINAL - CARDINAL of DATE ) .

In its decision no . Gr-CARDINAL/CARDINAL - CARDINAL of DATE ORG refused a request submitted by ORG for transfer of jurisdiction from that court to another one in the case where the president of ORG sued the ORG , challenging the authenticity of a document he had authenticated while a judge of ORG . ORG ruled that the fact that the plaintiff was the president of the appellate court in the matter was not an important reason for transfer of jurisdiction .

In other cases involving ORG or ORG refused requests for transfer of jurisdiction in cases where : the wife of a former president of ORG had worked in the same company as the plaintiff ( decision no . Gr-CARDINAL/CARDINAL - CARDINAL of DATE ) , the plaintiff 's representative was a former judge of that court ( decision no . CARDINAL of DATE ) , a former judge of ORG was the father - in - law of the legal representative of the enforcement creditor ( decision no . Gr-CARDINAL/CARDINAL - CARDINAL of DATE ) , the plaintiff 's representative was a former judge of ORG ( decision no . GrCARDINAL - CARDINAL/CARDINAL - CARDINAL of DATE ) .

In its decision no . Gr-CARDINAL/CARDINAL - CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE ORG refused a request submitted by ORG for transfer of jurisdiction from that court to another one , holding that the fact that ORG had filed a criminal complaint for insult against the plaintiff was not an important reason for transfer of jurisdiction .

In its decision no . CARDINAL of DATE ORG , in refusing the request for transfer of jurisdiction , stated as a matter of principle that making a criminal complaint by one of the parties to the proceedings against the judge assigned to hear the case did not constitute an important reason for transfer of jurisdiction to another court . It followed and further developed this practice in the subsequent cases , for example , cases nos . CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE , Gr-CARDINAL/CARDINAL - CARDINAL of DATE , Gr-CARDINAL/CARDINAL - CARDINAL of DATE , Gr-CARDINAL/CARDINAL - CARDINAL of DATE , Gr-CARDINAL/CARDINAL - CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE and Gr-CARDINAL/CARDINAL - CARDINAL of DATE , in which it refused requests for transfer of jurisdiction submitted by CARDINAL of the parties to the proceedings and based solely on the fact that he or she had previously filed a criminal complaint against the judge assigned to hear the case and/or the president or other judges or employees of the court at issue . In case no . CARDINAL of DATE ORG reached the same conclusion but also took into account the nature of the dispute and the fact that the case was being examined by a court with many judges .

The only exception to this line of case - law was case no . GrCARDINAL/CARDINAL in which ORG on DATE granted the request for transfer of jurisdiction from ORG to another court submitted by the plaintiff in a case where he had challenged the validity of a certain entry in the land register of that court . ORG held that the fact that the plaintiff had filed criminal complaints against the judge in the case and against the president of ORG who had previously approved the impugned entry in the land register , was an important reason for transfer of jurisdiction in the particular circumstances because the court in question had only ( these ) CARDINAL judges .


Anatoly Kovler;Christos Rozakis;Dean Spielmann;Elisabeth Steiner;Khanlar Hajiyev;Sverre Erik Jebens

The applicant , PERSON , is a NORP national who lives in GPE . She was represented before the ORG by Mr PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE . ORG ( “ the Government ” ) were represented by their Agent , PERSON .

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

Following her dismissal from work in DATE , the applicant brought a civil action in ORG ( PERSON ) against her former employer , “ Alkaloid ” PERSON , a pharmaceutical company with its headquarters in the Former GPE , seeking her reinstatement and payment of her salary for the period of her unemployment . At a hearing held on DATE the counsel for the defendant company refuted the applicant ’s submissions , relying , inter alia , on the defendant company ’s ORG ( hereafter “ the Agreement ” ) . The relevant part of the transcript of the hearing reads as follows :

“ ... The existing ORG between the firm ‘ Alkaloid’ GPE and its employees allows the employer to dismiss an employee who has not attained PERCENT of [ required ] working results . ”

On DATE the defendant company submitted a copy of the Agreement written in NORP and a translation into NORP of pages CARDINAL , CARDINAL , DATE , DATE , DATE and CARDINAL . These pages contained translations of sections CARDINAL , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the Agreement .

At a hearing held on DATE ORG issued a decision , the relevant part of which read as follows :

Counsel for the plaintiff is invited to consult the original copy of ORG , which was submitted as enclosure CARDINAL in the case file no . PR-CARDINAL/CARDINAL . ”

It appears that neither the applicant nor her counsel made any comments on the Agreement .

On DATE the applicant ’s claims were accepted . However , upon an appeal by the defendant company , on DATE ORG ( Županijski sud u GPE ) quashed the part of judgment concerning payment of salary and upheld the part concerning the applicant ’s reinstatement . The original proceedings were thus divided into CARDINAL sets of separate proceedings .

In respect of the appellate judgment upholding the applicant ’s reinstatement , the defendant company lodged an appeal on points of law ( revizija ) with ORG on DATE challenging the lower courts’ judgment on the grounds of procedural defects and errors in applying the relevant substantive law , without relying in any respect on its ORG . The applicant filed her reply on DATE . ORG dismissed the defendant company ’s appeal on points of law on DATE . However , upon a constitutional complaint by the defendant company , on DATE ORG quashed ORG decision and remitted the case to ORG .

On DATE ORG reversed its previous decision and upheld the applicant ’s dismissal . The relevant part of ORG judgment reads as follows :

“ ... section CARDINAL paragraph CARDINAL of the defendant ’s ORG expressly provides that provisions [ of LAW ] concerning dismissal are not to be applied in cases where the employment has been terminated due to [ the employee ’s ] inability to perform the duties of a certain post or failure to achieve the required working results . ”

In a subsequent constitutional complaint the applicant argued , inter alia , that ORG had relied on the defendant company ’s ORG although it had not been discussed in the proceedings before the lower courts ( the trial and the appellate court ) and she had therefore never had an opportunity to submit any comments on it , since ORG decided cases in closed sessions . A copy of the complete text of the Agreement had never been sent to her . On DATE ORG rejected the applicant ’s complaint finding , inter alia , that the Agreement had been submitted by the defendant company in another set of proceedings between the same parties .

On DATE ORG gave a fresh judgment accepting the applicant ’s claim .

The first - instance judgment was upheld by ORG on DATE .

In the course of those proceedings , on DATE the defendant company filed a copy of the Agreement , translated into NORP .

A subsequent appeal on points of law by the defendant company was declared inadmissible by ORG on DATE .

On DATE the defendant company requested ORG to annul the stamped endorsement certifying final adjudication ( hereinafter “ the final adjudication endorsement ” - klauzula pravomoćnosti ) as well as the certificate on enforceability ( potvrda ovršnosti ) of the judgment of DATE . On DATE ORG annulled the certificate on enforceability , but dismissed the request concerning the final adjudication endorsement . The applicant filed an appeal and on DATE CARDINAL ORG upheld the part of the first - instance decision dismissing the request that the final adjudication endorsement be annulled and quashed the part where the annulment of the certificate on enforceability had been granted . It remitted the case to ORG where the proceedings are still pending .

The relevant parts of LAW ( Official Gazette nos . ORG nos . CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL/CARDINAL – Zakon o parničnom postupku ) read as follows :

An appeal on points of law ( revizija ) shall be lodged with the court that adjudicated at first instance ...

The president of the first - instance court chamber shall forward a copy of a timely , complete and admissible appeal on points of law to the opponent , who shall file his or her reply within DATE ...

After the reply has been filed , or after the time - limit has expired , the first - instance court judge ... shall forward the appeal on points of law and the reply , if filed , together with the case file directly to ORG .

An appeal on points of law shall be decided upon without a hearing by ORG .


Violation of Art. 6-1;Remainder inadmissible;Non-pecuniary damage - financial award

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

On DATE the applicant ’s wife filed for divorce . She also requested the division of the matrimonial property and the settlement of the use of the couple ’s flat .

After CARDINAL hearings , on DATE the court gave a partial decision and pronounced the parties’ divorce . The proceedings concerning the matrimonial property continued .

Meanwhile , on CARDINAL DATE the applicant brought an action before the same court , challenging the validity of a contract by which his ex - wife had meanwhile sold their common flat .

After CARDINAL hearings , on DATE these proceedings were joined to the dispute concerning the division of the matrimonial property .

After another CARDINAL hearings , on DATE a valuation expert was appointed .

Following CARDINAL further hearings , on DATE ORG gave a partial decision . It established the parties’ respective shares of the ownership of the flat , annulled the above - mentioned contract and suspended the examination of the remainder of the case ( i.e. the distribution of movable property ) until the partial decision became final .

After a hearing on DATE , on DATE ORG confirmed the partial decision .

In review proceedings , on DATE ORG quashed the partial decision while upholding , again as a partial decision , the establishment of the parties’ respective shares of the ownership of the flat . However , it did not annul the disputed contract .

Subsequently , on DATE ORG resumed the proceedings . After a hearing on DATE , on DATE it divided the matrimonial property .


Violation of Art. 6-1;Violation of Art. 13;Non-pecuniary damage - award

Christos Rozakis;Dean Spielmann;George Nicolaou;Giorgio Malinverni;Khanlar Hajiyev;Sverre Erik Jebens

During DATE the applicants lent various sums of money to a certain GPE , who was supposed to pay the money back within periods ranging from DATE and at interest rates ranging from PERCENT per month ( so - called “ financial engineering ” ) .

NORP Since GPE failed to perform her contractual obligations , on DATE the applicants brought a civil action against her in ORG ( PERSON ) .

In the period before the entry into force of the Convention in respect of GPE ( DATE ) the court held several hearings .

On DATE the court invited the applicants to advance the costs of a financial expert . On DATE the applicants refused to do so , arguing that an expert opinion was unnecessary since they had already submitted a similar opinion to which the respondent had not objected . They invited the court to give a judgment on the basis of the existing evidence .

The court held further hearings on DATE and DATE and CARDINAL DATE . On the last - mentioned date it delivered a judgment finding for the applicants . The judgment was served on the applicants ' advocate on DATE .

On DATE GPE appealed to ORG ( Županijski sud u GPE ) .

On DATE ORG dismissed the respondent 's appeal and upheld the first - instance judgment .

Meanwhile , on DATE the applicants lodged a constitutional complaint with ORG ( Ustavni sud PERSON ) complaining about the length of the above proceedings . On DATE ORG found a violation of the applicants ' constitutional right to a hearing within a reasonable time , awarded CARDINAL NORP kunas ( HRK ) in compensation to each of them and ordered ORG to decide the appeal in the shortest time possible but DATE from the publication of the decision in ORG . ORG decision was published on DATE .


David Thór Björgvinsson;Giovanni Bonello;Lech Garlicki;Ledi Bianku;Mihai Poalelungi;Nicolas Bratza

The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in GPE . He was represented before the ORG by PERSON PERSON , a welfare rights worker in 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 . He claimed widows’ benefits on DATE and again on DATE . His claim was rejected on CARDINAL DATE on the ground that he was not entitled to widows’ benefits because he was not a woman . On DATE the applicant appealed and the decision was confirmed on DATE and again on CARDINAL DATE . Leave to appeal out of time was rejected on DATE . 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 benefits were payable to widowers under GPE law .

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