Violation of Art. 6-1;Preliminary objection rejected;Just satisfaction reserved

ORG Mr PERSON and his wife PERSON were born in GPE in DATE and DATE respectively . They are graduate teachers of LANGUAGE and live on the island of PERSON .

ORG On DATE the second applicant applied to ORG in GPE for authorisation to establish in PERSON a private school ( frontistirion ) for the teaching of LANGUAGE ( see paragraph QUANTITY below ) . On DATE the ORG refused the application on the ground that only NORP nationals could be granted such authorisation by the provincial secondary education authorities .

ORG On DATE PERSON tried to deliver a second application in person at the offices of ORG , but the responsible civil servant refused to acknowledge receipt . After a complaint had been lodged by PERSON lawyer , the authority informed her on DATE that under the NORP legislation in force foreign nationals could not obtain authorisation to open a frontistirion .

PERSON , considering that making nationality a condition for authorisation to establish a frontistirion contravened LAW DATE , applied to ORG , which referred the case to ORG of ORG . In a judgment of DATE ( no . CARDINAL , Commission of ORG v. GPE ) , ORG held that " by prohibiting nationals of other member GPE from setting up frontistiria GPE [ had ] failed to fulfil its obligations under LAW and CARDINAL of LAW " .

ORG On DATE PERSON made a further application to ORG and on DATE PERSON ORG separately sent the authority a similar application . On DATE the authority refused both applications for the same reasons as it had given in its reply of CARDINAL DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

ORG On DATE the Director of ORG for the NORP province informed the applicants that the question of granting non - NORP authorisation to open a frontistirion was being reviewed by the competent authorities .

ORG In a letter of CARDINAL DATE the applicants requested the Prime Minister to take the necessary steps to ensure compliance with the judgment given by ORG on DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

ORG On DATE each of the applicants had lodged with ORG an application to set aside the decisions of the NORP Director of ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

By CARDINAL judgments of CARDINAL and CARDINAL DATE ( CARDINAL . DATE and DATE ) , ORG set the decisions aside in the following , identical terms :

This application seeks annulment of the NORP Director of ORG decision ... of DATE rejecting the request of the applicant , a NORP national , for authorisation to set up a frontistirion for foreign - language teaching in PERSON .

Section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of PERSON no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ... provides : ‘ Authorisation to set up a frontistirion shall be granted to natural persons possessing the qualifications required for employment as a teacher in a primary or secondary school in the public system , or having equivalent academic qualifications.’

In addition , Article CARDINAL para . CARDINAL of LAW CARDINAL para . CARDINAL of which also applies to secondary and primary teachers - provides : ‘ No one shall be appointed to a civil service post who does not have NORP nationality.’ It appears from these provisions that it is against the law for a non - NORP to be given authorisation to set up a frontistirion for the teaching of foreign languages .

LAW ORG ... proclaims freedom of establishment for the nationals of a member ORG within the territory of another member ORG , prohibiting all discrimination on the ground of nationality as regards the right to take up activities as self - employed persons and to set up and run businesses . That provision ... has been ‘ directly applicable’ in NORP law since DATE , when the LAW came into force , without it being necessary to amend NORP legislation beforehand to bring it into line with Community law .

The above - mentioned bar preventing non - NORP from being granted authorisation to set up a frontistirion for the purpose of teaching foreign languages , in so far as it concerns the nationals of the other member GPE of ORG , is contrary to LAW ( judgment no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL of ORG of ORG , DATE , ORG v. GPE ) , since it has been without legal force , regard being had to the foregoing considerations , since DATE . Consequently , the impugned decision rejecting the applicant ’s request - based on the erroneous premiss that the bar complained of continues to apply to all non - NORP , without any distinction between the nationals of other member GPE of ORG and the nationals of non - member GPE - is unlawful and must therefore be set aside .

The application under consideration must accordingly be allowed .

For these reasons

ORG sets aside the Rhodes Director of ORG decision ... of DATE .

ORG On DATE CARDINAL associations of frontistirion owners and CARDINAL owners of such establishments in PERSON lodged a third - party appeal ( tritanakopi ) against judgments ORG . DATE and DATE with ORG . This appeal was dismissed by ORG on DATE .

ORG On DATE the applicants lodged CARDINAL further applications for authorisation with ORG , enclosing the judgments of ORG and emphasising that no further delay in granting authorisation could be justified . However , they received no reply .

On DATE the ORG lawyer again applied to the authority .

ORG On DATE the applicants brought a private prosecution in ORG against the NORP Director of ORG and any other civil servant responsible , relying on LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

On DATE the ORG gave judgment against the applicants , holding that even supposing the director had been acting unlawfully when he refused authorisation , the intent required by Article CARDINAL for the elements of the offence to be made out had not been established .

ORG On DATE the applicants brought proceedings in ORG seeking compensation ( Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL of ORG and sections ORG and CARDINAL of the Introductory Law ( Isagogikos Nomos ) to LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) ) for the prejudice they alleged had been caused them on account of the administrative authorities’ refusal to comply with the judgments of ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . PERSON and PERSON GPE claimed CARDINAL and MONEY ( GRD ) respectively for pecuniary damage and loss of income , and CARDINAL for non - pecuniary damage .

ORG On DATE ORG declared the application inadmissible ( judgment no . CARDINAL ) on the ground that the dispute submitted to it came within the jurisdiction of the administrative courts .

ORG On DATE the applicants brought an action for damages against the ORG in ORG . They relied , inter alia , on LAW and section CARDINAL of the Introductory Law to LAW . In addition , they argued that the compensation should cover not only the pecuniary and non - pecuniary damage they had already sustained but also the damage they would continue to sustain until the administrative authorities granted them the authorisation they sought .

On DATE , in judgment no . ORG , ORG accepted that the administrative authorities had unlawfully refused to process PERSON application for authorisation of CARDINAL DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) and that after publication of the judgments of ORG and ORG ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL above ) they had failed to comply with them . However , considering that the applicants had not sufficiently proved the damage they claimed to have sustained , it ordered further investigative measures .

ORG On DATE the applicants asked the Minister of Education to intervene . They applied to him again on DATE and DATE and to the Minister responsible for managing ORG business on DATE .

ORG On DATE the NORP Director of ORG informed the applicants that he had written to the Minister of Education to ask if he could grant the authorisation requested , in the light of ORG judgments of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . On DATE he informed them that he had again written to the Minister reminding him that DATE had already gone by since the above - mentioned judgments of ORG and that their application was still pending . He also referred to CARDINAL previous letters to the Minister which had gone unanswered .

ORG A presidential decree ( no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) published on DATE recognised the right of nationals of member GPE of ORG to establish frontistiria in GPE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . However , those who did not possess a NORP secondary school - leaving certificate had to pass an examination in NORP language and history .

On DATE the Minister of ORG asked the NORP Director of ORG to resume consideration of the applicants’ request in the light of Presidential Decree no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL and to keep the Ministry informed of further developments .

On DATE the Director sent the applicants a photocopy of the decree and urged them to take the necessary steps . On DATE he wrote to them again expressing his surprise that they had not yet taken the examination they needed to pass in order to obtain authorisation to open a frontistirion and to teach in one . He informed them that it was illegal for them to continue working in a frontistirion ( belonging to a NORP national ) under the relevant new legislation and asked them to regularise their situation if they wished to avoid application of the statutory penalties .

ORG Article CARDINAL para . CARDINAL of LAW provides :

" The administrative authorities shall be under an obligation to comply with judgments of ORG setting aside their decisions . Breach of that obligation shall engage the responsibility of any authority in breach , according to the provisions of statute law . "

ORG Article CARDINAL of the Criminal Code provides :

A civil servant who deliberately breaches an official duty with the intention of unlawfully obtaining a pecuniary advantage for himself or another or who causes prejudice to the ORG or a third party shall be punished by up to CARDINAL years’ imprisonment , save where the offence is punishable pursuant to another provision of criminal law . "

ORG The relevant Articles of ORG read as follows :

Any person whose personal rights are unlawfully infringed shall be entitled to bring proceedings to enforce cessation of the infringement and restraint of any future infringement . Where the personal rights infringed are those of a deceased person , the right to bring proceedings shall be vested in his spouse , descendants , ascendants , brothers , sisters and testamentary beneficiaries . In addition , claims for damages in accordance with the provisions relating to unlawful acts shall not be excluded . "

In the cases provided for in the CARDINAL preceding ORG , the court may , in the judgment it gives on the application of the person whose right has been infringed , and regard being had to the nature of the infringement , also order the infringer to make reparation for the plaintiff ’s non - pecuniary damage . Such reparation shall consist in the payment of a sum of money , publication of the court ’s decision and any other measure

ORG The following provisions of LAW ) to LAW ( Law no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) are relevant :

" The ORG shall be liable in accordance with the provisions of LAW concerning legal persons , for acts or omissions of its organs regarding private - law relations or ORG assets . "

" The ORG shall be under a duty to make good any damage caused by the unlawful acts or omissions of its organs in the exercise of public authority , except where the unlawful act or omission is in breach of an existing provision but is intended to serve the public interest . The person responsible shall be jointly and severally liable , without prejudice to the special provisions on ministerial responsibility . "

ORG Sections CARDINAL and CARDINAL of Presidential Decree no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL codifying the legislative provisions on ORG , of DATE CARDINAL/CARDINAL DATE , govern applications for judicial review of acts or omissions by the administrative authorities :

An application for judicial review alleging ultra vires or unlawful action is available only in respect of enforceable decisions of the administrative authorities and public - law legal persons and against which no appeal lies to another court .

Where the law requires an authority to settle a specific question by issuing an enforceable decision subject to the provisions of paragraph CARDINAL , an application for judicial review is admissible even in respect of the said authority ’s failure to issue such decision .

The authority shall be presumed to refuse the measure either when any specific time - limit prescribed by the law expires or after DATE have elapsed from the lodging of the application with the authority , which is required to issue an acknowledgment of receipt ... indicating the date of receipt . Applications for judicial review lodged before the above time - limits shall be inadmissible .

An application for judicial review validly lodged against an implied refusal [ on the part of the authorities ] is deemed also to contest any negative decision that may subsequently be taken by the authorities . Such decision may however be challenged separately .

Except as otherwise provided , an application for judicial review must be made within DATE of DATE following the date of notification of the impugned decision or the date of publication ... , or , otherwise , of DATE following DATE on which the applicant acquired knowledge of the decision . In the cases provided for in DATE , DATE and DATE of section DATE , time begins to run when the time - limits prescribed in those provisions have expired .

The decision allowing an application for judicial review shall declare the impugned measure void , which entails its general nullity , whether it is a general or individual measure .

In the case of failure to take action , where ORG allows the application , it shall refer the case back to the relevant authority so that it can take the action incumbent on it .

In discharging the obligation imposed on them by LAW para . CARDINAL of the LAW , the administrative authorities must comply with the judgments of ORG in the light of the circumstances of each case , either by taking positive measures to that end or by refraining from any action contrary to ORG decision . Failure to do so may entail , in addition to the criminal penalties laid down by LAW , personal liability in damages .

Judgments of the plenary court or the divisions allowing or refusing applications to set aside shall constitute binding authority in respect of the parties to a particular case and also in respect of each case or dispute pending before the judicial or other authorities where the administrative issue determined by ORG is decisive for the outcome . "

ORG The presidential decree of CARDINAL DATE on " bringing NORP legislation concerning the setting up and running of frontistiria ... into conformity with Articles DATE , CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the LAW instituting ORG " provides :

" The purpose of the present decree is to bring NORP legislation concerning the setting - up and running of frontistiria ... into conformity with Articles DATE , CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the LAW instituting ORG , by abolishing all forms of discrimination on the ground of nationality . "

" In addition to what is provided in section DATE ( CARDINAL ) of PERSON no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL on private schools , frontistiria and boarding - schools , authorisation to set up a frontistirion shall also be granted to nationals of the member GPE of ORG , providing that they have the qualifications required by law for such authorisation to be granted to a NORP national . ORG nationals shall be required to produce similar documentary evidence and the certificate prescribed by section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of PERSON no . DATE , which shall be applicable by analogy . "

" If the applicants ... do not have a NORP secondary school - leaving certificate , they shall be required to produce a certificate attesting that they understand NORP and speak it fluently and have a knowledge of NORP history . In order to obtain such a certificate , applicants must take an examination under regulations laid down by the Minister for ORG and ORG . "

ORG LAW no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL defines a frontistirion as " the organisation in CARDINAL place of courses for groups of CARDINAL persons , or , regardless of the composition of the groups , for CARDINAL persons in total per week , which have as their purpose , either to supplement and consolidate instruction forming part of the curriculum for primary , secondary and higher education ( the latter whether or not preparatory to university entrance ) , or to teach foreign languages or music or to provide general training in extra - curricular activities , for not TIME a day per group consisting of the same persons " .

Section CARDINAL of the same PERSON provides that the setting up of a frontistirion is subject to authorisation which may be granted only to natural persons who hold the qualifications required for employment in the civil service as a teacher in the public - education system . Those qualifications include , according to LAW , the possession of NORP nationality .

According to Law no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , frontistiria for foreign languages may be administered only by persons holding the statutory qualifications ; for a definition of those qualifications , reference is made to Law no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , which requires , in particular , the possession of NORP nationality .

NORP nationality is also required in the case of all persons teaching in a frontistirion of whatever kind . The only exception to that rule was laid down by Decree no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL of the Minister for Education and ORG . That decree , which , however , applies only to frontistiria engaged in the teaching of foreign languages , provides :

" Each frontistirion may employ CARDINAL foreign national if it does not employ CARDINAL foreign - language teachers of NORP nationality . If it employs CARDINAL NORP nationals , it shall be authorised to employ more foreign nationals in the proportion of CARDINAL foreign national to CARDINAL NORP nationals . "


Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial;Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property

Anatoly Kovler;Christos Rozakis;Dean Spielmann;George Nicolaou;Khanlar Hajiyev;Sverre Erik Jebens

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE , a city in LOC .

As a victim of GPE , the applicant was entitled to social beneﬁts . The beneﬁts were underpaid , and the applicant sued the local welfare authority .

ORG held for the applicant CARDINAL times .

On DATE the court awarded arrears and ﬁxed a new amount of periodic beneﬁts . This judgment became binding on CARDINAL DATE and was enforced in DATE .

On DATE the court awarded arrears and ﬁxed a new amount of periodic beneﬁts . This judgment became binding on DATE and was enforced on DATE .

On DATE the court awarded arrears and ﬁxed a new amount of periodic beneﬁts . This judgment became binding on DATE and was enforced in DATE .

On DATE the court awarded inationary loss caused by the non - enforcement of the previous CARDINAL judgments , awarded arrears , and ﬁxed a new amount of periodic beneﬁts . This judgment became binding on DATE and was enforced on DATE .

On DATE the court awarded arrears and ﬁxed a new amount of periodic beneﬁts . This judgment became binding on DATE and has been enforced in part .

Under section CARDINAL of LAW of DATE , a bailiff must enforce a judgment within DATE . Under section QUANTITY of LAW of DATE , ORG must enforce a judgment within DATE .


Violation of P7-4;Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed;Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient;Costs and expenses partial award - domestic proceedings;Costs and expenses award - Convention proceedings

On DATE the applicant was involved in a road traffic accident and , on DATE , he was found by ORG Bezirkshauptmannschaft ) to have been driving under the influence of alcohol , contrary to sections CARDINAL § DATE CARDINAL § CARDINAL ( a ) of LAW DATE ( Straßenverkehrsordnung ) . He was sentenced to pay a fine of ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL . It does not appear that the applicant appealed against this decision .

On DATE the ORG convicted him under Article CARDINAL § § CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW of negligently causing bodily harm in particularly dangerous conditions ( fahrlässige PERSON besonders gefährlichen ORG ) , and sentenced him to a fine of ORG CARDINAL .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s appeal . ORG distinguished the present case from the PERSON case of ORG ( PERSON v. GPE judgment of DATE , Series A no . CARDINAL-C ) on the ground that in the PERSON case the administrative proceedings were after the criminal proceedings , whereas in the present case the order of the criminal and administrative criminal proceedings was reversed .

Section CARDINAL of LAW DATE provides that it is an offence for a person to drive a vehicle if the proportion of alcohol in his blood or breath is equal to or QUANTITY respectively .

Section CARDINAL of the CARDINAL LAW provides , so far as relevant , that :

“ ( CARDINAL ) It shall be an administrative offence ( PERSON ) , punishable with a fine of not less than ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL and not more than ATS CARDINAL,CARDINAL or , in default of payment , with CARDINAL to CARDINAL GPE imprisonment , for any person :

( a ) to drive a vehicle when under the influence of drink ... ”

Section CARDINAL § CARDINAL of LAW regulates the relation between the offences under LAW DATE of that Act and offences of ordinary criminal law coming within the jurisdiction of the ordinary courts . While in respect of some offences under LAW of that LAW stipulates a relation of subsidiarity – if the same set of facts might constitute an offence of ordinary criminal law and LAW only an offence falling within the jurisdiction of the ordinary courts is committed – this is not the case with the offence under LAW of driving a vehicle under the influence of drink .

In its judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG had to examine the constitutionality of LAW subsection ( CARDINAL ) of LAW , by virtue of which the administrative offence of driving under the influence of drink was not subsidiary to an offence falling within the jurisdiction of the courts .

ORG noted that that it was not contrary to LAW if a single act constituted more than one offence . This was a feature common to the criminal law of many NORP countries . However , it was also accepted in criminal law doctrine that sometimes a single act only appeared to constitute CARDINAL offence , whereas interpretation showed that one offence entirely covered the wrong contained in the other so that there was no need for further punishment . Thus , LAW prohibited the trial and punishment of someone for different offences if interpretation showed that one excluded the application of the other . Where , as in the present case , the law explicitly provided that one offence was not subsidiary to another , it had to be guided by LAW . The ORG ’s Gradinger judgment of CARDINAL DATE had shown that there was a breach of this LAW if an essential aspect of an offence , which had already been tried by the courts , was tried again by the administrative authorities .

Section CARDINAL subsections ( CARDINAL)(a ) and ( CARDINAL ) of LAW , taken together , meant that the criminal administrative offence of drunken driving could be prosecuted even when an offence falling within the competence of the normal criminal courts was also apparent . According to the criminal courts’ constant case - law under LAW of LAW ( cited below ) , drunken driving was also an essential aspect of certain offences tried by these courts . In so far as LAW ( CARDINAL ) of FAC limited the subsidiarity of administrative offences to those enumerated in subsections ( CARDINAL ) to ( CARDINAL ) of LAW , thus excluding subsidiarity for the offence of drunken driving contained in LAW ) , it violated LAW .

Under LAW , it is an offence , punishable by CARDINAL months’ imprisonment or a fine , to cause physical injury by negligence .

Section CARDINAL § CARDINAL increases the sentence in respect of causing injury by CARDINAL months’ imprisonment , if the special circumstances of LAW § CARDINAL apply . LAW increases the sentence in respect of causing injury by up to CARDINAL years’ imprisonment , if the special circumstances of LAW § CARDINAL apply and the injury is particularly serious .

Section CARDINAL § CARDINAL applies where a person commits the offence

“ after allowing himself , even if only negligently , to become intoxicated ... through the consumption of alcohol , ... ” .

Under an irrebuttable presumption applied by the criminal courts , a driver with a blood alcohol level of QUANTITY or higher is deemed to be “ intoxicated ” for the purposes of section QUANTITY .


Giovanni Bonello;Ján Šikuta;Josep Casadevall;Kristaq Traja;Lech Garlicki;Nicolas Bratza;Päivi Hirvelä

The applicants , Mr PERSON and PERSON , are NORP nationals who were born in DATE and DATE respectively and lived in GPE , GPE . On DATE PERSON died . The applicants were represented by their son , Mr PERSON .

ORG ( “ the Government ” ) were represented by their Agent , Mr PERSON of ORG .

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

In DATE the ORG bought from the applicants several plots of land in GPE . The land was later partly developed and , inter alia , a bakery was built on it .

On DATE the first applicant applied for the return of the remainder of their property , which had not been built on according to the relevant development plans .

On DATE the Head of ORG ( FAC ) decided to return the property in question to the applicants . The applicants and other parties to the proceedings appealed against the decision .

On DATE the Białystok Governor ( ORG ) quashed the impugned decision and remitted the case .

DATE and DATE the case was stayed .

On DATE the Head of ORG dismissed the applicants’ application and refused to return the property to them . They appealed against the decision .

On DATE the Białystok Governor dismissed the appeal and discontinued the proceedings . The applicants lodged a complaint against the decision with ORG ( PERSON ) .

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

On DATE the Białystok Governor quashed ORG decision of CARDINAL DATE and remitted the case .

On DATE the Head of ORG stayed the proceedings on the grounds that the outcome of CARDINAL other sets of administrative proceedings was important for the instant case . The applicants’ appeal was dismissed on DATE .

On DATE the applicants complained to ORG about the non - compliance by ORG with the judgment of DATE and asked the court to impose a fine . ORG in its decision of DATE rejected the complaint finding that domestic law did not allow for the imposition of a fine in such circumstances .

On DATE the Head of ORG resumed the proceedings .

On DATE the applicants complained to the higher authority , ORG ( PERSON i PERSON ) , about the inactivity of ORG . The applicants claimed that they had received no further information about their complaint . The Government submitted that on DATE ORG had given a decision urging the Governor to issue a decision in the applicants’ case .

On DATE the Białystok Governor gave a decision in which he refused to return the property to the applicants .

The ORG appeal against this decision was dismissed by the Head of ORG on DATE . The applicants lodged a complaint against it with ORG .

On DATE ORG quashed both decisions and remitted the case to the Bialystok Governor . Following an amendment to the law , the case was transferred to the Mayor of ORG ) .

On DATE the Mayor of Siemiatycze dismissed the application and refused to return the property to the applicants .

The ORG appeal was dismissed by the PERSON Governor on DATE . The applicants lodged a complaint with ORG against that decision .

On DATE ORG quashed both preceding decisions and remitted the case to the Mayor of the District .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicants’ request for a fine to be imposed on the Mayor of Siemiatyczne . In their request , the applicants complained about the inactivity of the Mayor and his non - compliance with the judgment of ORG of DATE . However , at the hearing held on DATE the ORG representative specified that the complaint concerned the Mayor ’s alleged non - compliance with the court ’s judgment . Consequently , ORG found that the application was manifestly ill - founded as the impugned judgment had not imposed any obligation on the Mayor .

On DATE the applicants lodged a complaint about the inactivity of the Mayor of Siemiatycze with ORG . On DATE the court rejected the complaint as it had not been lodged first with the higher authority , as provided by the domestic law .

On DATE the Mayor of ORG decided to return the disputed property to the applicants .

On DATE the second applicant , PERSON , died . It appears that the applicants’ son , Mr PERSON , joined the proceedings as her heir .

The other parties to the proceedings appealed against the decision of CARDINAL DATE .

On DATE the Podlaski Governor allowed the appeals and quashed the decision . The appeal against this decision was dismissed by ORG PERSON ) on DATE .

The case was transferred to the Mayor of ORG who , on CARDINAL DATE , stayed the proceedings in view of the fact that ORG was examining the constitutionality of the relevant domestic regulation .

The other party to the proceedings appealed against the decision asking for the proceedings to be resumed .

On DATE the ORG Governor quashed the impugned decision , finding that there were no valid grounds for staying the proceedings .

The applicants’ son appealed against this decision to ORG and asked for the proceedings to be stayed until ORG had reached a decision .

On DATE ORG dismissed his complaint .

On DATE the Mayor of ORG dismissed the applicants’ motion for the return of the property .

It appears that the first applicant and Mr PERSON appealed against this decision to the PERSON Governor . The proceedings are pending .

Under LAW ( “ the LAW ” ) of DATE an administrative authority should give a decision on the merits of a case within DATE . If those time - limits have not been complied with , the authority must , under LAW , inform the parties of that fact , explain the reasons for the delay and fix a new timelimit .

Pursuant to LAW , if the case has not been handled within the time - limits referred to in ORG and DATE , a party to administrative proceedings can lodge an appeal to the higher authority , alleging inactivity . In cases where the allegations of inactivity are well - founded , the higher authority fixes a new term for handling the case and orders an inquiry in order to determine the reasons for the inactivity and to identify the persons responsible for the delay . If need be , the authority may order that measures be applied to prevent future such delays .

Until DATE , under LAW , a party to administrative proceedings could , at any time , lodge with ORG a complaint about the fact that an administrative authority had failed to issue a decision .

On DATE , the Law of CARDINAL DATE on ORG ( “ the DATE LAW ) entered into force . Under section CARDINAL of the DATE ORG was competent to examine complaints against inactivity on the part of an authority .

Section CARDINAL of the Act provided :

“ When a complaint alleging inactivity on the part of an administrative authority is well - founded , ORG shall oblige that authority to issue a decision , or to perform a specific act , or to confirm , declare , or recognise a right or obligation provided for by law . ”

Section CARDINAL of the CARDINAL Act set out the requirement of the exhaustion of available remedies before lodging a complaint with ORG . Accordingly , a complaint concerning alleged inactivity should be preceded by the lodging of a complaint with an administrative organ of a higher level , pursuant to the abovementioned LAW .

Pursuant to LAW , the decision of ORG ordering an authority to put an end to its inactivity was legally binding on the authority concerned . If the authority did not comply with the decision , the court could , under section CARDINAL , impose a fine on it and might itself give a ruling on the right or obligation in question .

LAW was repealed and replaced by LAW DATE on ORG ( “ the DATE Act ” ) which entered into force on DATE . LAW of LAW contains provisions analogous to section CARDINAL of LAW . It provides that administrative courts examine complaints about inactivity on the part of authorities obliged to issue an administrative decision or to carry out enforcement proceedings . Under section CARDINAL , if a complaint is well - founded , an administrative court shall oblige the authority concerned to issue a decision , to perform a specific act , or to confirm , declare , or recognise a right or obligation provided for by law .


David Thór Björgvinsson;Ján Šikuta;Lech Garlicki;Mihai Poalelungi;Nicolas Bratza;Päivi Hirvelä

The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a NORP national who was born in GPE in DATE and is currently serving a life sentence at ORG , GPE . He was represented before ORG by PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE .

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

The applicant was convicted on CARDINAL DATE of murdering a man in a night club in GPE DATE . He was also convicted of robbery and possession of a firearm with intent . The trial judge sentenced him to life imprisonment for the murder , with a recommended minimum term of DATE . For the CARDINAL other offences he was sentenced to terms of imprisonment of DATE and DATE respectively , to run concurrently . The Lord Chief Justice subsequently recommended a minimum term ( “ tariff ” ) of DATE . In DATE , the Secretary of ORG notified a tariff of DATE to the applicant .

Subsequent to the enactment of LAW DATE , the applicant applied to ORG in DATE for the setting of a tariff in accordance with paragraph CARDINAL of Schedule CARDINAL of the Act ( see under “ Relevant domestic law ” below ) . On DATE , his solicitors submitted representations for a reduction of DATE in the applicant ’s tariff . On DATE , ORG ( ORG ) was requested to seek the views of the victim ’s family on the applicant ’s request for a review of his tariff . The ORG being unable to assist , it was decided in DATE to enlist the help of Victim ORG in ORG to contact the families of victims . On DATE , the Victim Liaison Officer for the West Midlands indicated that the victim ’s family had not responded to the request for their views on the matter .

During DATE , the case of PERSON ) v. Home Secretary was under consideration by ORG , which was asked to rule on whether the relevant provisions of Schedule CARDINAL were to be construed as allowing for an oral hearing . In its decision of DATE , ORG ruled that an oral hearing was permissible in appropriate circumstances . This ruling was subsequently confirmed by ORG . According to the Government , it was not considered appropriate to process any applications for review under Schedule CARDINAL until the question of oral hearings had been dealt with . Once ORG had determined the issue , all prisoners in ORG database received a letter inviting their views on the need for an oral hearing in their case . Such a letter was sent to the applicant on DATE , eliciting a reply on DATE .

The procedure therefore only began to operate in DATE , at which point , according to the Government , there were CARDINAL cases pending . This number included applications from prisoners whose tariff had been set by the ORG Secretary , and from prisoners in respect of whom no tariff had yet been set .

In DATE , ORG , in answer to a letter from the applicant ’s solicitor enquiring about the delay in dealing with his case , apologised for the situation and explained that in view of the great number of such applications pending before ORG , priority was being given to cases in which the tariff would expire in DATE .

On DATE , ORG ( Mr Justice PERSON ) rejected the applicant ’s application . He concluded that the minimum period of DATE notified by the Secretary of ORG could not be said to be manifestly excessive and so would not be reduced , apart from the period the applicant had spent in custody on remand ( DATE ) .

Following the ORG ’s judgment in the case of GPE v. the GPE [ ORG ] , no . CARDINAL , ORG CARDINALIV , ORG adopted LAW DATE . Schedule CARDINAL of the Act sets out a procedure whereby a prisoner who received a mandatory life sentence before the date the LAW entered into force ( DATE ) and who was notified by the Secretary of ORG of the minimum term to be served may apply to ORG for a review of that tariff . The relevant provisions read as follows :

SCHEDULE CARDINAL

Mandatory Life Sentences : Transitional Cases

Existing prisoners notified by Secretary of ORG

CARDINAL Paragraph CARDINAL applies in relation to any existing prisoner who , in respect of any mandatory life sentence , has before the commencement date been notified in writing by the Secretary of ORG ( otherwise than in a notice that is expressed to be provisional ) either—

( a ) of a minimum period which in the view of the Secretary of ORG should be served before the prisoner ’s release on licence , or

( b ) that the Secretary of ORG does not intend that the prisoner should ever be released on licence .

CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) On the application of the existing prisoner , ORG must , in relation to the mandatory life sentence , either—

( a ) order that the early release provisions are to apply to him as soon as he has served the part of the sentence which is specified in the order , which in a case falling within paragraph CARDINAL(a ) must not be greater than the notified minimum term , or

( b ) in a case falling within paragraph CARDINAL(b ) , order that the early release provisions are not to apply to the offender .

( CARDINAL ) In a case falling within paragraph CARDINAL(a ) , no application may be made under this paragraph after the end of the notified minimum term .

( CARDINAL ) Where no application under this paragraph is made in a case falling within paragraph FAC ) , the early release provisions apply to the prisoner in respect of the sentence as soon as he has served the notified minimum term ( or , if he has served that term before the commencement date but has not been released , from the commencement date ) .

( CARDINAL ) In this paragraph “ the notified minimum term ” means the minimum period notified as mentioned in paragraph CARDINAL(a ) , or where the prisoner has been so notified on CARDINAL occasion , the period most recently so notified .

CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) In dealing with an application under paragraph CARDINAL , ORG must have regard to—

( a ) the seriousness of the offence , or of the combination of the offence and one or more offences associated with it ,

( b ) where the court is satisfied that , if the prisoner had been sentenced to a term of imprisonment , the length of his sentence would have been treated by CARDINAL of LAW DATE ( c. CARDINAL ) as being reduced by a particular period , the effect which that section would have had if he had been sentenced to a term of imprisonment , and

( c ) the length of the notified minimum term or , where a notification falling within paragraph CARDINAL(b ) has been given to the prisoner , to the fact that such a notification has been given .

( CARDINAL ) In considering under sub - paragraph ( CARDINAL ) the seriousness of the offence , or of the combination of the offence and CARDINAL or more offences associated with it , ORG must have regard to—

( a ) the general principles set out in Schedule DATE , and

( b ) any recommendation made to the Secretary of ORG by the trial judge or the Lord Chief Justice as to the minimum term to be served by the offender before release on licence .

( CARDINAL ) In this paragraph “ the notified minimum term ” has the same meaning as in paragraph CARDINAL .

Proceedings in High Court

CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) An application under paragraph CARDINAL or a reference under paragraph CARDINAL is to be determined by a single judge of ORG without an oral hearing .

( CARDINAL ) In relation to such an application or reference , any reference to “ the court ” in section FAC ) to ( CARDINAL ) and Schedule CARDINAL is to be read as a reference to ORG .


No violation of Art. 4;No violation of Art. 14+4

András Sajó;David Thór Björgvinsson;Elisabeth Steiner;Françoise Tulkens;Giorgio Malinverni;Guido Raimondi

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

The applicant is a practising lawyer . In DATE the applicant was informed by ORG that it planned to appoint him as legal guardian ( PERSON ) for K , who was suffering from a mental illness , and asked him to comment on the proposal . According to the document supplied by the court , there were no known relatives of K who could become guardians , and the association of guardians ( PERSON für Sachwalterschaft ) had informed the court that it lacked the capacity to take over guardianship .

The applicant submitted comments , stating that his wife objected to the proposal , since K might call the applicant at DATE and disturb their family life . His professional and spare - time activities would also not allow him to take on another duty . He added that he was not trained to deal with persons with a mental illness such as K and was not interested in acquiring the necessary training either . Furthermore , he argued that his professional insurance would not cover the risks associated with being a legal guardian ; therefore , he would have to enter into a separate insurance agreement . The costs would have to be borne by K , who DATE according to the court file which the applicant had received – did not appear to have the money to cover them .

By a decision of ORG of DATE the applicant was appointed as legal guardian for K in matters of management of income and representation before the courts and other authorities . The court found that no other person , such as a relative , was suitable to be ORG legal guardian . The association of guardians did not have the capacity to appoint a legal guardian for PERSON The applicant was the next person on the list of possible legal guardians . This list , which is kept by ORG , contains the names of all lawyers and public notaries in the district . The court also found that the reasons submitted by the applicant were not sufficient to justify his refusal ; it held that neither having CARDINAL children , nor leading a church choir , nor being member of a supervisory board constituted a valid reason as to why he should be declared unsuitable for the task . The court also held that the duty for lawyers to act as legal guardians did not constitute forced labour , as helping weaker members of society was a civic duty and for practising lawyers , rendering help in legal matters was part of their core professional duties and was comparable to a normal civic obligation within the meaning of LAW .

The applicant appealed against the decision to ORG , arguing that if the duty were to constitute a normal civic obligation , it was discriminatory to put only lawyers and public notaries on the list , as other persons also had knowledge of law , such as judges , public servants who had studied law or lawyers working in companies . He also alleged that the tasks he had been ordered to perform did not require special legal knowledge as any adult person could manage their income ; he further claimed that no court proceedings in which K was a party were pending , and thus it was not necessary to appoint a practising lawyer as his guardian .

On DATE ORG upheld the decision of ORG , holding that there was CARDINAL trial involving K pending , and that any other tasks the applicant would have to perform in the present case were limited and did not place an excessive burden on him .

The applicant lodged an extraordinary appeal on points of law to ORG , alleging a violation of LAW in conjunction with LAW , as only lawyers and their associates ( Rechtsanwaltsanwärter ) and public notaries and their associates ( PERSON ) , but no other persons who had studied law , were placed on the list of possible guardians . He also complained that lawyers were in principle entitled to remuneration for their services , but this applied only in so far as this would not endanger the fulfilment of the basic needs of the person placed under guardianship . By a decision of DATE ORG refused to deal with the matter , finding that it did not raise an important question of law .

The rules on guardianship are contained in LAW ORG ) , the relevant part of which was recently amended , and ORG ) .

The law in force at the relevant time provided that adult persons of unsound mind who could not handle all or some of their own affairs without the risk of disadvantages for them should be placed under guardianship ( section CARDINAL of LAW ) .

There were varying degrees of guardianship , ranging from a duty to carry out CARDINAL specific transaction or enforce or contest a specific claim , to the carrying out of certain types of duties , such as management of a person ’s entire assets or parts thereof , or taking care of all the affairs of the person concerned ( section CARDINAL of LAW ) .

Placement under guardianship was not permissible if and in so far as the person concerned could take care of his or her affairs to a sufficient degree with assistance , especially from the family or from institutions for people with disabilities ( section CARDINAL § CARDINAL of LAW ) .

Section CARDINAL of the Civil Code provided that guardians should be persons close to the persons placed under guardianship , unless the wellbeing of the person concerned required otherwise ( § CARDINAL ) ; if this was beneficial to the well - being of a person under guardianship , a person from a GPE association should be nominated as a guardian , where possible ( § CARDINAL ) . If taking care of the affairs of the person concerned required considerable knowledge of law , a practising lawyer ( or lawyer ’s associate ) or public notary ( or notary ’s associate ) was to be appointed as guardian ( § CARDINAL ) .

Section CARDINAL § CARDINAL of the Civil Code provided that the guardian should be in contact with the person under guardianship and should try to ensure that medical and social assistance was given to the person concerned .

A person whom the court planned to appoint as a guardian had to notify the court of any circumstances that might prevent him or her from carrying out the task . A particularly suitable person DATE according to the caselaw , a person belonging to the groups mentioned in section CARDINAL § CARDINAL of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) – could refuse to carry out the task only if it was unacceptable to him or her ( section QUANTITY of LAW ) .

The guardian was entitled to remuneration , fees and reimbursement of expenses . If the guardian used his special professional knowledge and skills for tasks for which the services of another person would otherwise have to be engaged , the guardian was entitled to adequate remuneration for these tasks . Remuneration could only be granted in so far as the basic needs of the person under guardianship could still be satisfied from the person ’s income ( sections CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW ) .

Section CARDINAL of the Non - Contentious Proceedings Act ( Außerstreitgesetz ) provided that a guardian had to report to the court about contacts with the person concerned , the life the person led and the person ’s physical and mental state . The reports had to be drawn up at reasonable intervals , at least once DATE . The court could also require the guardian to draw up a report . Further duties listed in the Non - Contentious Proceedings Act concerned the keeping of accounts for the assets and income of the person under guardianship ; the statements of account were subject to the court ’s approval .

Rule CARDINAL § CARDINAL of the Rules of Procedure of Courts of First and Second Instance ( Geschäftsordnung für die Gerichte PERSON . PERSON ) provides that each court has to have a list of lawyers and public notaries acting in the appropriate district ; courts have to ensure that there is a reasonable alternation in the persons appointed as guardians .

LAW ( Rechtsanwaltsordnung ) contains the following provisions on the rights and duties of practising lawyers in GPE :

“ ( CARDINAL ) The right of a lawyer to represent parties shall extend to all courts and authorities of GPE and shall include the authority to represent parties in a professional capacity in all judicial and extrajudicial and in all public and private matters . ...

( CARDINAL ) The authority to provide comprehensive professional representation to parties within the meaning of subsection ( CARDINAL ) above shall be reserved for lawyers . This is without prejudice to the professional powers deriving from the NORP regulations governing the professions of notaries , patent agents , chartered accountants and civil engineers . ”

“ ( CARDINAL ) Before being admitted to practise , all lawyers shall be required to furnish proof to ORG of ORG that they have taken out civilliability insurance with an insurance company authorised to carry on business in GPE to cover any claims for damages that may be brought against them as a result of their professional activities . They shall maintain the insurance cover throughout the duration of their professional activities and shall furnish proof thereof to ORG on request . ”


The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a GPE national who was born in DATE and lives in GPE . He was represented before the ORG by PERSON , a lawyer practising in PERSON .

On DATE the ORG ( arrondissementsrechtbank ) found the applicant guilty of having committed CARDINAL bank robberies and of having stolen CARDINAL cars . It convicted him of extortion and theft by means of breaking and entering , and sentenced him to CARDINAL years’ imprisonment . It further ordered his confinement in a custodial clinic ( terbeschikkingstelling met bevel tot verpleging van overheidswege ) . In its decision to issue this order , ORG had regard to CARDINAL reports drawn up by a neuropsychologist and a psychiatrist , according to whom the risk of the applicant reoffending was high .

In view of the applicant ’s extortion conviction , and pursuant to section CARDINAL in conjunction with section CARDINAL , subsection CARDINAL , of the DNA Testing ( Convicted Persons ) Act ( Wet DNA - onderzoek bij veroordeelden ; “ the LAW ” ) , the public prosecutor , on DATE , ordered that cellular material be taken from the applicant – who was at that time detained in a penitentiary institution in GPE – in order for his DNA profile to be determined . A mouth swab was taken from the applicant on DATE .

The applicant lodged an objection ( verweerschrift ) against the decision to have his DNA profile determined and processed , that is , entered into the national DNA database . He submitted that his DNA profile had never played any role in the investigation of the offences of which he had been convicted . Although it was true that he had threatened to use violence , he had never actually done so . He was therefore of the opinion that his DNA profile could not serve any useful purpose in the prevention , detection , prosecution and trial of criminal offences he might have committed . According to the applicant , the determination and storage of his DNA profile amounted to the imposition of an additional penalty after he had already been convicted , and moreover on the basis of a law which was not in force at the time of his conviction . He alleged a breach of LAW . He further relied on the right to respect for his private life as guaranteed by LAW , arguing that , even having regard to the interests of public order and of the prevention of crime , there was no strict necessity in his case for the authorities to have his DNA profile at their disposal . Finally , there was no single good reason why the applicant had to be distinguished from other persons in the GPE who were not required to have their DNA profile entered into the national database . To this extent there was thus discrimination as prohibited by LAW .

Having heard the public prosecutor and counsel for the applicant , ORG dismissed the objection on DATE . It considered that the exception contained in section CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(b ) of the LAW ( see below ) did not apply : the applicant had a lengthy criminal record and CARDINAL confinement orders imposed on him were still in place . It did not follow from the fact that no DNA profile of the applicant had been drawn up in previous investigations that his DNA could not serve any investigatory interests at the present time . Moreover , it could not be maintained that the risk of the applicant reoffending was so negligible that on that basis the compilation and processing of a DNA profile could not possibly serve any useful purpose .

ORG , noting that at the hearing counsel for the applicant had conceded that the obligation to provide cellular material did not constitute a punishment , considered that the applicant could not successfully rely on the principle of nulla poena sine lege . It further held in this connection that the impugned measure did not place the applicant in a more disadvantageous position than that to which he had exposed himself when he committed a criminal offence , since the seriousness of the intervention ( the manner in which cellular material was taken ) was not sufficiently burdensome . Although the entry of a DNA profile in a DNA database might lead to a more speedy prosecution of the applicant in respect of criminal offences ( to be ) committed by him , this did not justify protecting him against a retroactive application of the Act .

ORG was further of the opinion that the impugned order was not in breach of LAW . The order had been given in accordance with the law and , bearing in mind that the aim of the LAW was to be able to solve more crimes and to prevent recidivism as much as possible , it was necessary in the interests of public safety , the prevention of criminal offences and the protection of the rights and freedoms of others .

Finally , ORG found that there was no question of a violation of the principle of equality , since the LAW provided that a DNA profile would be compiled of every convicted person who satisfied the criteria laid down in the LAW . The applicant was no worse off than a person whose DNA profile was not included in the database , given that the fact that perpetrators of criminal offences could be traced sooner if their DNA profile was contained in the database did not constitute an interest worthy of legal protection , and since neither category were allowed to commit criminal offences .

No appeal lay against this decision .

The statutory maximum prison sentence is DATE for the offence of extortion , and DATE for theft by means of breaking and entering ( Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW ) .

The Criminal Code provides for the following principal penalties ( hoofdstraffen ) : imprisonment , detention , and fine ; and for the following additional penalties ( bijkomende straffen ) : deprivation of certain rights , forfeiture , and publication of the court judgment . Furthermore , the following measures ( maatregelen ) may be imposed pursuant to LAW : withdrawal from circulation of seized goods , confiscation of illegally obtained advantage , order to pay compensation , committal to a psychiatric hospital , a ORG order ( terbeschikkingstelling ; see Brand v. the GPE , no . CARDINAL , § § DATE , CARDINAL DATE ) , and placement in an institution for persistent offenders .

The DNA Testing ( Convicted Persons ) Act came into force on DATE .

Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the LAW requires the public prosecutor at ORG that has given judgment at first instance to order a sample of cellular material to be taken from a person who has been convicted of an offence carrying a statutory maximum prison sentence of DATE . Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) stipulates that the Act applies to persons on whom a custodial sentence or measure had been imposed at the time when the LAW came into force , unless the validity of this sentence or measure had already expired at that time .

According to the explanatory memorandum to LAW ( Memorie van Toelichting ; ORG of ORG , no . CARDINAL , DATE session , no . CARDINAL ) , the seriousness of the offence(s ) involved justified determining and processing a DNA profile of the convicted person in order to contribute to the detection , prosecution and trial of criminal offences committed by him or her and , if possible , to prevent him or her from committing criminal offences again .

Section CARDINAL ) sets out an exception : no order for sample collection will be made if , in view of the nature of the offence or the special circumstances under which it was committed , it may reasonably be assumed that the determination and processing of the DNA profile will not be of significance for the prevention , detection , prosecution and trial of criminal offences committed by the person in question . It appears from the explanatory memorandum to this provision that the first exception of subsection ( CARDINAL ) , relating to the nature of the offence , may apply when a person has been convicted of a crime for the resolution of which DNA investigations can play no meaningful role ; perjury or forgery , for instance . The second exception , relating to the special circumstances under which the offence was committed , may apply to a convicted person who is highly unlikely to have previously committed an offence in respect of which DNA investigation might be of use and who will not be able to do so in future , for example due to serious physical injury . It may also apply to the case of a woman who has never had any dealings with the law and who , after having been ill - treated by her husband for DATE , finally inflicts grievous bodily harm on him or kills him .

Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the Act stipulates that DNA profiles are only to be processed for the purpose of the prevention , detection , prosecution and trial of criminal offences . It further states that rules as to the processing of DNA profiles and cellular material are to be laid down by ORG ( algemene maatregel van bestuur ) , after ORG ( College Bescherming Persoonsgegevens ) has been heard . The rules in question are set out in the DNA ( Criminal Cases ) Tests Decree ( Besluit DNA - onderzoek in strafzaken ) . It regulates how and by whom samples are to be taken ; how they are to be kept , sealed and identified ; how and by whom the DNA profile is to be drawn up ; and which authorities are allowed to make use of the data stored in the DNA database . The Decree further lays down rules on the duration of the retention of a DNA profile and cellular material . This depends on the offence of which the individual concerned has been convicted . The data of persons convicted of an offence carrying a statutory sentence of DATE or more is retained for DATE . For less serious offences carrying sentences of DATE , cellular material and DNA profiles may be retained for a maximum period of DATE .

If execution of the order for the taking of cellular material so requires , the public prosecutor may issue a warrant for the arrest of the individual concerned ( section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) ) . Clothing worn , and objects carried , by the arrested person may be examined if this is necessary for the establishment of his or her identity . For the same purpose , the prosecutor may also order the detention of the arrested person for CARDINAL periods of TIME each ( outside TIME and TIME ) . Once the identity of the arrested convicted person has been established , he or she may be detained for a maximum of TIME in order for the cellular material to be taken ( section MONEY ) , ( CARDINAL ) and ( CARDINAL ) ) .

The individual concerned may lodge an objection against the determination and processing of his or her DNA profile with ORG within DATE after the sample has been taken or after he or she has been served with the notification , required by section PERSON ) of the LAW , that sufficient cellular material has been collected for a DNA profile to be determined and processed ( section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) ) .


The applicant , PERSON ORG , is a NORP national , who was born in DATE and lives in GPE . She is represented before the Court by Mr PERSON , a lawyer practising in PERSON .

In DATE ORG súd ) pronounced the dissolution of the applicant 's marriage .

On DATE the applicant petitioned to ORG for a division of the matrimonial property .

On DATE , in reply to the applicant 's complaint , the President of ORG acknowledged that there had been unjustified delays in the proceedings .

On DATE ORG sought evaluation by CARDINAL sworn experts of the movable and immovable property in dispute . The reports were submitted on CARDINAL DATE and CARDINAL DATE respectively .

A hearing scheduled for DATE had to be adjourned as , due to health problems , the defendant ( the applicant 's former husband ) could not appear .

ORG held hearings on DATE , CARDINAL DATE and CARDINAL DATE .

On DATE , following a hearing held on DATE , ORG divided the property . On DATE it corrected clerical errors in its judgment .

On DATE the defendant filed an appeal . On DATE ORG sent a copy of the appeal to the applicant . On DATE the applicant filed her observations in reply . On DATE ORG submitted the casefile to ORG ( Krajský súd ) for a decision on the appeal .

On DATE ORG quashed ORG judgment . It found that ORG had failed to establish the facts of the case adequately and that there had been several formal errors in its judgment . It remitted the case to ORG for reexamination and instructed it to establish carefully the subjectmatter of the proceedings .

On DATE ORG held a hearing . On DATE the applicant demanded that ORG determine the matter speedily . On DATE the case was assigned to another judge . On DATE the applicant again demanded that the ORG deal with her case promptly . On DATE ORG held a hearing at which it heard the parties .

On DATE it again divided the property . The judgment became final and binding on DATE .

On DATE the applicant lodged a petition ( podnet ) with ORG ( Ústavný súd ) objecting to undue delays in the above proceedings . On DATE the petition was declared admissible .

On DATE ORG found that ORG had violated the applicant 's right under LAW ( CARDINAL ) of the LAW to a hearing without unjustified delay . ORG observed that it had jurisdiction ratione temporis to consider only the period after DATE when it had been established . However it took into account the state of the proceedings at that time . The case was neither legally nor factually complex . The applicant 's conduct did not contribute substantially to the length of the proceedings . ORG failed to deal with the case with the requisite efficiency having regard to , in particular , the fact that the applicant was divorced , had the sole custody over CARDINAL minor children and was principally claiming ownership of the house where she had once lived with her family . Upon service of ORG finding ( nález ) on the applicant and ORG , it became final and binding on DATE .

On DATE the applicant lodged a complaint ( sťažnosť ) with the ORG pursuant to Article CARDINAL of the LAW as in force since DATE . She objected that , despite ORG finding of DATE , there had been no progress in her case . She invited ORG to find a recurring violation of her right under LAW ( CARDINAL ) of ORG to a hearing without unjustified delay , to order ORG to proceed with her case without delay , to award her CARDINAL NORP korunas ( SKK ) in just satisfaction and to order ORG to reimburse her legal costs . On DATE her complaint was declared admissible .

On DATE the Constitutional Court found a violation of the applicant 's constitutional right . This finding formally concerned only the period after DATE when its first finding of DATE had become final and binding . ORG observed that in the period DATE and DATE ( DATE , DATE ) ORG had been completely inactive . It also took notice of the fact that the total length of the proceedings was DATE and that there had already been CARDINAL finding of a violation of the applicant 's right to a hearing without unjustified delay in the case . ORG found no reasons to justify the length of the proceedings by the complexity of the case or by the applicant 's conduct . It awarded the applicant LAW by way of just satisfaction in respect of nonpecuniary damage and dismissed her remaining claims .

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

Pursuant to LAW ( CARDINAL ) , as in force until DATE , ORG could commence proceedings upon a petition lodged by a natural or legal person claiming that their rights had been violated .

According to its caselaw under the former LAW ( CARDINAL ) of the LAW , ORG lacked jurisdiction to draw legal consequences from a violation of a petitioner 's rights under LAW ( CARDINAL ) of the LAW . It could neither grant damages to the person concerned nor impose a sanction on the public authority liable for the violation found .

As from DATE , the LAW has been amended in that , inter alia , natural and legal persons can complain about a violation of their fundamental rights and freedoms pursuant to LAW . Under this provision , ORG has the power , in the event that it finds a violation of LAW ( CARDINAL ) of the LAW , to order the authority concerned to proceed with the case without delay . It may also grant adequate financial satisfaction to the person whose constitutional rights have been violated as a result of excessive length of proceedings ( for further details see , e.g. , ORG and Others v. GPE ( dec . ) , nos . CARDINAL , CARDINAL/CARDINAL , CARDINAL , PERSON , DATE , CARDINAL , DATE , DATE ) .