Violation of Art. 3;Violation of Art. 5-3;Violation of Art. 6-1;Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed;Non-pecuniary damage - financial award;Costs and expenses partial award - domestic proceedings

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE . At the material time he was the president of ORG ( ORG ) .

On DATE criminal proceedings were initiated against the applicant , the details of which are set out under sub - heading B below . On DATE the applicant was taken into custody and , by a judgment of ORG ( PERSON городской суд ) of CARDINAL DATE , he was convicted of embezzlement and sentenced to a term of imprisonment .

From DATE to CARDINAL DATE the applicant was kept in the detention facility IZ-CARDINAL/CARDINAL in the city of ORG . CARDINAL ( СИЗО-CARDINAL ) ) . On DATE he was sent to serve his sentence , following the ORG judgment of CARDINAL DATE , to the penitentiary establishment AV-CARDINAL/CARDINAL in the village of ORG . On DATE he was transferred back to the detention facility in GPE where he stayed until his release on DATE .

CARDINAL ) NORP The applicant 's submissions on the facts

As regards the first period of his detention in the GPE detention facility , the applicant alleged that he had been kept in a cell measuring QUANTITY ( “ m² ” ) where there were CARDINAL bunk beds . However , it nearly always held CARDINAL inmates ; only rarely did the number fall to CARDINAL . As there were CARDINAL men to every bunk , the inmates slept taking turns . The others would lie or sit on the floor or cardboard boxes waiting for their turn . It was impossible to sleep properly as the television was on around the clock and , during DATE , there was much commotion in the cell . The light in the cell was never turned off .

The lavatory pan in the corner of the cell offered no privacy . A partition separated it from a wash stand , but not from the living area and dining table . The lavatory pan was elevated from the floor by QUANTITY while the partition measured QUANTITY in height . Therefore , the person using the toilet was in the view of both his cellmates and a prison guard observing the inmates through a peep - hole in the door .

The inmates had to eat their meals in the cell at a dining table which was QUANTITY away from the toilet . The meals were of poor quality .

The cell , which had no ventilation , was stiflingly hot in DATE and very cold in DATE . Because of the poor quality of the air in the cell , a window had to remain open all the time . Being surrounded by heavy smokers , the applicant was forced to become a passive smoker . The applicant claims that he was never given proper bedding , dishes or kitchen utensils . He only received a quilted mattress and a thin flannel blanket from the administration , and had to borrow kitchenware from cell - mates who had received these items from relatives .

The cells of the detention facility were overrun with cockroaches and ants , but no attempt was made to exterminate them . The only sanitary precaution taken was that once DATE the guards gave the inmates QUANTITY of chloride disinfectant for the lavatory .

He contracted a variety of skin diseases and fungal infections , losing his toenails and some of his fingernails . During the trial from DATE to DATE and from DATE to DATE , a recess was ordered so that he could be treated for scabies .

On CARDINAL occasions detainees , with tuberculosis and syphilis were placed in his cell and he received prophylactic antibiotic injections .

The applicant submitted that he could only take a walk outside his cell TIME per day and that usually he was only able to take a hot shower twice a month .

Finally , the applicant stated that , following his transfer back to the same facility on DATE , the detention conditions had not materially improved . He was not provided with proper bedding , towels or kitchenware . There was no treatment available for his skin disease due to a lack of proper medication . His cell was still overrun with cockroaches and there had been no anti - infestation treatment for DATE . However , in DATE the number of inmates in his CARDINAL-bed cell was reduced to CARDINAL .

CARDINAL ) The Government 's submissions on the facts

The Government claimed that the applicant 's cell measured CARDINAL ORG . The applicant had a separate sleeping berth , bedding , kitchen utensils and access to health care . The cell was designed for CARDINAL inmates . In connection with the general overcrowding of the detention facility , each bed in the cells was used by CARDINAL inmates . In the applicant 's cell there were CARDINAL or more inmates at any given time . Normally the number of inmates was DATE . The beds were used in turn by several prisoners on the basis of TIME shifts of sleep per prisoner . All inmates were provided with wadded mattresses , cotton blankets and sheets .

The applicant 's cell was equipped with a sanitary unit , including a lavatory pan and a wash stand . The lavatory pan was situated in the corner of the cell and was separated from the dwelling place by a partition - QUANTITY high - ensuring privacy . Such standards have been set by the “ Directives on Planning and Constructing Pre - Trial Detention Facilities of ORG ” , approved on DATE .

The Government submitted photographs to the ORG showing the applicant 's cell , which the applicant claimed had been improved slightly since the beginning of his detention . The ORG also provided a video recording of the facilities after the applicant 's release and their major renovation .

The cell had windows providing fresh air and daylight . There was no possibility to equip the cell with a ventilation system . In hot weather a window of the cell door could be opened for better ventilation . Inmates also had the opportunity to have compact fans delivered to them by relatives .

There was a television in the cell which belonged to the applicant who could control when to switch it on or off . Programmes were only transmitted during part of DATE in the region .

On DATE an inmate in the applicant 's cell was diagnosed with syphilis . The inmate was immediately removed to a separate cell and underwent a complete course of treatment for the disease . The other inmates , including the applicant , who had shared the cell with this person , were subjected to appropriate preventive treatment on DATE and to serological control measures . This was done pursuant to the “ ORG in ORG of ORG ” , approved on CARDINAL DATE .

In DATE one of the blocks in the detention facility was closed for repairs and the detainees were transferred to vacant places in other cells . The detainees who were moved to the applicant 's cell stayed there for DATE and some of them were ill with tuberculosis . However , in the opinion of the medical personnel , the latter did not present a danger to other inmates as these persons were undergoing out - patient medical treatment .

On DATE , an inmate who was observed to have residual tuberculosis was placed in the applicant 's cell . The inmate underwent the relapse prevention treatment for a period of DATE . As he did not suffer from tuberculosis in its open form , there was no danger of its transmission to other inmates .

The applicant underwent repeated fluorographic examinations which showed no abnormality of his thorax .

On DATE , an inmate who was undergoing treatment for syphilis was placed in the applicant 's cell . Medical examinations performed subsequently showed negative results . Blood tests which were performed in this connection on the applicant also revealed negative results .

The applicant was systematically examined by the medical personnel and he received medical assistance from a dermatologist , therapeutist and stomatologist . When the applicant was diagnosed with different diseases ( neurocirulatory dystonia , scabies and fungal infection ) he received immediate medical care . There were recesses announced during the trial in order to provide medical treatment for the applicant .

The applicant could shower DATE and was permitted to walk outside his cell for TIME a day .

Finally , the ORG submitted that , in order to prevent the appearance of infectious diseases , pre - trial detention facilities take prophylactic disinfection measures to secure the timely extermination of pathogenic micro - organisms , arthoropoda and rodents , pursuant to the above - mentioned ministerial guidelines of DATE . It was conceded , however , that the infestation of detention facilities with insects was a problem .

CARDINAL ) ORG records and an expert report

According to the applicant 's medical records , he had scabies in DATE , allergic dermatitis in DATE and DATE , a fungal infection on his feet in DATE , a fungal infection on his finger nail in DATE , mycosis in DATE and a fungal infection on his feet , hands and groin in DATE . The records also state that the applicant received treatment for these medical conditions .

A report by medical experts issued in DATE stated that the applicant was suffering from neurocirculatory dystonia , astheno - neurotic syndrome , chronic gastroduodenitis , a fungal infection on his feet , hands and groin and mycosis .

On DATE the applicant became a suspect in the embezzlement of his bank 's funds and was subjected to a preventive measure in the form of a ban on leaving a specified place . The criminal case was assigned the number CARDINAL .

On DATE he was formally charged with misappropriating CARDINAL shares of another company .

On DATE , by an order of the investigator , which was approved by the prosecutor , the applicant was arrested and placed in detention on remand on the ground that he had obstructed the establishment of the truth in the criminal proceedings . In particular , it was stated in the order , with references to concrete instances , that the applicant had refused to turn over certain bank documents necessary for the investigation , he had brought pressure to bear on witnesses and had tampered with documents . The order also referred to the seriousness of the offence with which the applicant was charged .

The applicant 's detention was subsequently extended by the competent prosecutor on unspecified dates .

On DATE , CARDINAL DATE and DATE , the applicant 's defence lawyer filed applications for release from custody with ORG , which rejected them on DATE , DATE and CARDINAL DATE , respectively .

The applicant contends that from DATE until DATE no investigative activity took place as the CARDINAL investigators in charge of the case were on holiday , and the person to whom the case was temporarily assigned undertook no action .

On DATE the applicant was charged with CARDINAL additional counts relating to the embezzlement of his bank 's funds .

On DATE the preliminary investigation of the charges against the applicant was terminated and the case was sent to ORG .

On DATE the applicant filed with ORG a request for his release from custody , which was refused on DATE .

On DATE ORG decided to remit the case to ORG for further investigation . The latter filed an appeal against the decision with ORG ( PERSON областной суд ) which , on DATE , rejected it .

Following an additional investigation as of CARDINAL DATE , ORG remitted the case to ORG on DATE .

In the meantime , on DATE , the applicant filed an application for release from custody with ORG in which he stated that he was being held in poor conditions and that his health had deteriorated . His application for release was refused on DATE .

On DATE the applicant filed another request for release .

On DATE ORG began its examination of the applicant 's case . On DATE it rejected his request for release filed on DATE .

At the hearing on DATE the applicant asked ORG to release him from custody on medical grounds . He stated that there were CARDINAL inmates in his cell with CARDINAL beds ; there was no ventilation in the cell where everybody smoked ; the television was constantly blaring and he had contracted scabies . Upon receiving a medical certificate confirming the existence of the disease , ORG adjourned the hearing until DATE . It refused to release the applicant from custody on the grounds of the seriousness of the offence with which he was charged and the danger of his obstructing the establishment of the truth while at liberty .

The examination of the applicant 's case by ORG lasted until DATE .

On DATE the case was adjourned due to the removal from office of the presiding judge for improper conduct unrelated to the applicant 's case .

On DATE the applicant filed another request for release , referring to the poor conditions in which he was being detained .

In DATE the applicant 's case was assigned to another judge who scheduled a hearing for DATE . On DATE the hearing was postponed because the defence lawyer could not attend for health reasons . The applicant 's request for release was rejected on the grounds of the seriousness of the offence with which he was charged and the danger of his obstructing the establishment of the truth in the criminal case .

The applicant 's further request for release from custody filed on DATE was refused on DATE .

On DATE the applicant complained to ORG about his case , asking for its transfer from ORG to ORG . He also submitted a complaint to ORG Российской ORG ) which forwarded it to ORG for examination . By letters of DATE and DATE , ORG informed the applicant that there was no reason for it to assume jurisdiction and suggested he turn to ORG with any questions relating to his case . It also requested ORG to take measures for the examination of the applicant 's case .

On DATE he made complaints to different authorities , in particular ORG GPE , ORG , ORG ( PERSON квалификационная коллегия судей Российской PERSON ) DATE a body dealing with questions of professional competence – and ORG . In his complaints , he submitted , inter alia , that he was being held in appalling conditions without any decision on the substance of the charges , that he had contracted various skin diseases , that his toenails had fallen off and that he was suffering from a heart condition .

By letter of CARDINAL DATE , the president of ORG informed the applicant that the court would resume its consideration of his case before DATE , referring to its complexity and the heavy workload of the judges .

On DATE ORG forwarded to ORG CARDINAL complaints made by the applicant , which it had received from ORG , ORG and other authorities .

On DATE the applicant commenced a hunger strike with a view to drawing the attention of the authorities to his lengthy detention and the absence of court hearings , which he continued until DATE .

On DATE the applicant complained about his case to ORG of GPE and to a parliamentary committee of ORG , requesting their assistance in the transfer of his case to ORG .

On DATE ORG of LOC , in response to the applicant 's complaint addressed to ORG of GPE , stated that the court would be able to deal with his case in DATE .

Meanwhile , the applicant lodged a request with ORG Российской PERSON ) to review the constitutionality of the provisions of ORG CARDINAL - CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the Code of Criminal Procedure concerning time - limits for the start of trials . By letter of DATE , ORG informed the applicant that , since the impugned provisions did not lay down any time - limits with regard to the length of detention while a case is being considered by the courts , his request could not be considered .

The applicant also complained to ORG about the delay in the consideration of his case which , by letter of DATE , asked ORG to investigate the matter .

On DATE the applicant filed a complaint with ORG about the delay in setting the date for his trial , in which he also referred to his poor conditions of detention . A copy of his complaint was sent to other authorities . All his complaints were forwarded by the addressee institutions to ORG for examination .

On DATE ORG informed the applicant that ORG had been requested to take measures for the consideration of his case . It also stated that the case was to be tried by ORG and that ORG could only act as a court of cassation .

On DATE the applicant filed a petition with ORG asking for his case to be transferred to ORG for trial .

By decision of the president of ORG of CARDINAL DATE , the applicant 's case was transferred to ORG ( ORG районный суд ) in order to expedite the proceedings .

On DATE the applicant complained about the delay in starting court hearings to ORG .

On DATE the applicant filed a request for release from custody with ORG in which he stated that his health had deteriorated as a result of the overcrowding and the poor conditions in his cell in the detention facility .

On DATE , he sent an application to ORG asking it to transfer his case to ORG . He submitted that the transfer of his case to ORG was unlawful and that its distance from the city of GPE would hamper an objective and fair examination of his case .

On DATE the applicant complained to ORG that ORG had not yet set a hearing date and asked it to speed up the proceedings .

On DATE the case was remitted to ORG as the applicant had expressed his disagreement with its transfer to ORG .

On DATE the applicant received a letter from ORG informing him that there were no grounds for it to act as a court of first instance or to assume jurisdiction in the case .

DATE the applicant requested ORG to release him , referring to the poor conditions of detention .

On DATE the applicant complained to the High ORG about the prolonged failure of ORG to examine his case . On DATE his complaint was transmitted to ORG with a request to provide information both on the complaint and on the work of ORG . On DATE ORG forwarded the applicant 's complaint to ORG .

The applicant also submitted a complaint to ORG about the delay in starting the trial hearings , which on DATE transmitted the complaint to ORG .

On DATE the applicant filed another complaint with ORG stating that all his previous complaints had been sent by ORG to ORG without any measures being taken . On DATE the applicant 's complaint was forwarded to ORG with a reminder about the request for information on the reasons for the prolonged delay in examining the applicant 's case . On DATE the applicant also submitted a complaint about the delay in the proceedings to ORG .

On DATE the applicant submitted further complaints to the Regional and High Qualification Boards of Judges .

On DATE ORG set the hearing date for DATE .

On DATE the applicant complained to ORG about the actions of the President of ORG , apparently requesting the institution of criminal proceedings against him . On DATE the complaint was forwarded for examination to the president of ORG with a request to submit a report to the competent ORG in case the applicant 's allegations proved substantiated .

On DATE ORG forwarded another complaint by the applicant to ORG .

DATE . On DATE the applicant submitted to ORG a request for release from custody .

On DATE ORG decided to send the applicant 's case back to the prosecutor for further investigation due to the violation of procedural norms by the investigative authorities . These violations consisted of an incomplete presentation of the case materials to the accused at the end of the preliminary investigation , as well as an imprecise recording of file documents . The court refused the applicant 's request for release having regard to the gravity of the charges against him and the danger of his obstructing the establisment of the truth while at liberty . The applicant lodged an appeal against the refusal with ORG which , on DATE , dismissed it . ORG however revoked the decision to send the case back to the investigative authorities as unfounded and ordered ORG to proceed with the trial . In a separate decision , issued on DATE , it considered the lengthy delay unjustifiable in view of the fact that the case was not particularly complex , and requested ORG to inform it within DATE of the measures taken .

On DATE the applicant submitted to ORG another request for release from custody .

On DATE he complained to ORG about his lengthy detention without a court judgment . DATE , the applicant submitted a similar complaint to ORG .

On DATE the applicant filed another complaint with ORG about the prolonged delay in the proceedings .

On DATE ORG resumed its examination of the applicant 's case .

At the hearing on DATE the prosecutor requested that , in view of the length of the applicant 's detention , a psychiatric evaluation of the applicant be carried out in order to determine the state of his mental health . ORG granted this request and adjourned the hearing until DATE .

At the hearing on DATE the applicant unsuccessfully applied for release from custody . He submitted that he was suffering from a lack of sleep . In his cell there were CARDINAL inmates who had to sleep in shifts . He further argued that he could not obstruct the establishment of the truth in his case as all the investigative measures had already been taken .

The prosecutor participating in the hearing asked ORG to request the administration of the detention facility in which the applicant was being held to provide the applicant with conditions allowing normal sleep and rest during the court hearings . The prosecutor further stated that he would submit a similar request to the prosecutor in charge of supervising detention facilities .

The applicant submits that subsequently the competent prosecutor came to his cell , acknowledged that the conditions were poor , but stated that the situation in other cells in the detention facility was no better and that there was no money to improve the conditions .

At the hearing on DATE the applicant requested his release . He stated that in his cell , where there were CARDINAL inmates , he could not prepare himself adequately to testify before the trial court . He further submitted that he had contracted scabies twice and that his bed sheets were not changed . The applicant 's request was rejected .

At the hearing on DATE the applicant filed another request for release , referring to the conditions of his detention . He submitted that he had a fungal infection and that his body was covered with sores caused by bites from bugs infesting his bed . He was sharing his bed with CARDINAL other inmates . Inmates could shower once DATE . The atmosphere in the cell was stifling as everybody smoked . He was feeling unwell and suffering from a heart condition . His weight had dropped from QUANTITY to QUANTITY . He further submitted that he could not obstruct the examination of his case if released .

ORG decided not to examine the request because it was apparently made outside the context of the hearing .

On DATE the High Qualification Board of Judges removed the president of ORG from office , as well as the president of ORG and his CARDINAL deputies , due to the delay in examining the applicant 's case .

DATE . At the hearing before ORG on DATE , the applicant stated that he was feeling unwell and that he could not participate . The court ordered a medical examination of the applicant by a commission of experts in order to determine whether his state of health allowed him to take part in the proceedings and whether he should be hospitalised .

In their conclusions issued on an unspecified date in DATE , the experts found that the applicant was suffering from a number of medical conditions ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . They considered that the treatment of these conditions did not require hospitalisation and that the applicant could remain in the detention facility . They also considered that the applicant 's state of health allowed him to attend the court hearings and to give testimony .

At the hearing on DATE , the applicant requested the trial court to release him from custody . He stated that the court had nearly concluded the examination of the evidence and that he could not obstruct the establishment of the truth . His request was refused .

In another ruling issued on DATE , ORG noted that , in the period from DATE until DATE , it had examined CARDINAL applications submitted by the applicant , including repetitive applications on previously rejected motions . It noted that the applicant had stated that he would testify only if his applications were granted and considered that such a position amounted to a deliberate attempt to delay the proceedings .

ORG heard TIME witnesses who were to be summoned before it . The testimonies of CARDINAL absent witnesses , which had been given during the pre - trial investigation , were read out in open court .

By a judgment of CARDINAL DATE , ORG found the applicant guilty on CARDINAL count and acquitted him on CARDINAL of the counts contained in the indictment , which had preferred CARDINAL separate charges . It sentenced him to DATE and DATE imprisonment in a correctional colony with a general regime , his term running from DATE . ORG considered that the preliminary investigation had been of poor quality and that the investigators had unjustifiably attempted to increase the number of counts in the indictment . It also found an infringement of procedural norms consisting , inter alia , of shortcomings in the presentation in due form of the relevant documents to the court . These shortcomings had had to be corrected at the trial , which had caused a delay . The court noted that , in the course of the investigation , there had been a lack of proper procedural supervision by those in charge of the investigation and the prosecutor 's office of LOC .

In a separate ruling on DATE , ORG decided to send part of the indictment back to the prosecutor for an additional investigation . The applicant appealed against the ruling to ORG , which on DATE found the decision lawful .

ORG judgment of DATE was open to appeal to ORG within DATE of its pronouncement . The applicant did not file an appeal in cassation as he considered that ORG had contributed to his conviction and thus that an appeal had no prospects of success . On DATE the judgment of ORG entered into force .

On DATE the applicant submitted to the director of the detention facility where he was being held a request to transfer him to the logistical services team in the same facility to serve his sentence .

On DATE the applicant lodged an extraordinary appeal with the President of ORG of GPE for a review of ORG judgment . On DATE the appeal was dismissed .

On DATE the applicant filed another extraordinary appeal with ORG , which rejected it on DATE .

On DATE , in the continuing criminal proceedings , the preventive custody measure was replaced by a ban on leaving a specified place . However , he remained in custody , serving his original sentence .

On DATE the proceedings concerning the remainder of the charges were terminated on the ground that the acts committed by the applicant did not constitute a criminal offence .

On DATE , however , a new charge relating to the misappropriation of property in his capacity as the bank 's president was brought against the applicant .

On DATE , upon completion of the preliminary investigation , the competent prosecutor approved the bill of indictment and sent the case to ORG for trial . The bill of indictment bore the original case no . DATE and stated that the proceedings in that case had been initiated on DATE . The applicant 's trial started on DATE . By a judgment of DATE ORG acquitted the applicant of the new charge .

On DATE the applicant was released from prison following an amnesty declared on CARDINAL DATE .

“ Until criminal - procedural legislation of GPE has been brought into line with the provisions of this LAW , the previous procedure for the arrest , detention and keeping in custody of persons suspected of committing a crime shall apply . ”

“ No one may be arrested otherwise than on the basis of a judicial decision or a prosecutor 's order . ”

“ When there are sufficient grounds for believing that an accused person may evade an inquiry , preliminary investigation or trial or will obstruct the establishment of the truth in a criminal case or will engage in criminal activity , as well as in order to secure the execution of a sentence , the person conducting the inquiry , the investigator , the prosecutor and the court may apply one of the following preventive measures in respect of the accused : a written undertaking not to leave a specified place , a personal guarantee or a guarantee by a public organisation , or placement in custody . ”

Article CARDINAL : Order and decision on the application of a preventive measure

“ On the application of a preventive measure a person conducting an inquiry , an investigator and a prosecutor shall make a reasoned order , and a court shall give a reasoned decision specifying the criminal offence which the individual concerned is suspected of having committed , as well as the grounds for choosing the preventive measure applied . The order or decision shall be notified to the person concerned , to whom at the same time the procedure for appealing against the application of the preventive measure shall be explained .

A copy of the order or decision on the application of the preventive measure shall be immediately handed to the person concerned . ”

“ Placement in custody as a preventive measure shall be done in accordance with the requirements of LAW concerning criminal offences for which the law prescribes a penalty in the form of deprivation of freedom for a period of DATE . In exceptional cases , this preventive measure may be applied in criminal matters for which a penalty in the form of deprivation of freedom for a period of DATE is prescribed by law . ”

“ A period of detention during the investigation of offences in criminal cases may not last longer than DATE . This time - limit may be extended by DATE by a district or municipal prosecutor ... if it is impossible to complete the investigation and there are no grounds for altering the preventive measure . A further extension of DATE from DATE of placement in custody may be effected only in cases of special complexity by a prosecutor of a constituent part of GPE ...

An extension of the time - limit for such detention beyond DATE shall be permissible in exceptional cases and solely in respect of persons accused of committing serious or very serious criminal offences . Such an extension shall be effected by a deputy of ORG ( up to one year ) and by ORG ( DATE ) .

No further extension of the time - limit shall be permissible , and the accused held in custody shall be releasable immediately .

The documents of a completed investigation in a criminal case shall be produced for consultation by the accused and his defence counsel not DATE before the expiry of the maximum time - limit for remand in custody , as prescribed in the second paragraph of the present Article . In the event of the accused being unable to consult the case documents before the expiry of the maximum time - limit for remand in custody , ORG , [ or ] a prosecutor of a constituent part of GPE ... may , not DATE before the expiry of the maximum time - limit for remand in custody , apply to the judge of the “ oblast ” , “ krai ” or comparable court for an extension of this time - limit .

Not DATE from DATE of receipt of the application , the judge must take one of the following decisions :

NORP to extend the time - limit for remand in custody until the accused and his counsel have consulted the case documents and the case has been referred to the trial court by the prosecutor but , anyway , for not more than six months ;

NORP to reject the prosecutor 's application and to release the person concerned from custody .

Under the same procedure , the time - limit for remand in custody may be extended , if necessary , to accede to a request by the accused or his counsel to pursue the preliminary investigation further .

An extension of the time - limit for remand in custody in accordance with the present Article is subject to appeal to a court and to judicial review of its legality and justification under the procedure provided for in Articles DATE and DATE of the present Code . ”

LAW or modification of a preventive measure

The cancellation or modification , by the person conducting the inquiry or by the investigator , of a preventive measure chosen on the prosecutor 's instructions shall be permissible only with the prosecutor 's approval . ”

“ If the accused is kept in custody , the question of setting a date for a court hearing must be decided DATE from the seizure of the court . ”

“ The examination of a case before the court must start DATE from the fixing of a hearing date . ”

According to LAW , applications and complaints of suspects and accused persons to ORG agencies , bodies of local self - government and non - governmental organisations are sent through the administration of the detention facility .

Applications and complaints addressed to a public prosecutor , a court or other ORG agencies supervising detention facilities for suspects and accused persons are not subject to censorship and will be forwarded to the addressee in a sealed envelope no later than the next working day .

The instrument of ratification of the Convention deposited by GPE on DATE contains the following reservation :

“ In accordance with LAW , GPE declares that the provisions of LAW and CARDINAL shall not prevent ... the temporary application , sanctioned by the second paragraph of point CARDINAL of LAW of GPE , of the procedure for the arrest , holding in custody and detention of persons suspected of having committed a criminal offence , established by LAW paragraph CARDINAL , LAW paragraph CARDINAL , ORG CARDINAL , CARDINAL , DATE , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , DATE , CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the RSFSR Code of Criminal Procedure of DATE , with subsequent amendments and additions . ”


Violation of Art. 6-1;Non-pecuniary damage - financial award;Costs and expenses partial award - domestic proceedings;Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings

On CARDINAL DATE Mr PERSON was recruited to ORG as an agricultural technician . He became established on DATE .

Further to a request made by the applicant on DATE , the High Commissioner of GPE ( “ the High Commissioner ” ) decided on DATE to grant him leave of absence for DATE from DATE . That decision was taken in accordance with LAW no . CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE embodying ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . By a decision of CARDINAL DATE the applicant was , at his own request , given a further CARDINAL years’ leave of absence from DATE , and that period was extended until DATE .

On DATE the Minister of Agriculture and Forestry placed Mr Le Calvez , at the latter ’s request , on secondment ( détachement ) for a period of DATE on DATE . He was assigned first to ORG for the département of Côtes d’Armor and then , from DATE , at his own request , to ORG at GPE .

After ORG issued an opinion on CARDINAL DATE recommending that the applicant should not be retained in that department , the Minister of Agriculture informed him that he had decided to terminate his secondment to the corps of ORG technicians and to request his reinstatement as a technician in the GPE agricultural service .

By an order of CARDINAL DATE the Minister terminated the secondment with effect from DATE .

In a letter of DATE the High Commissioner invited the applicant either to rejoin his original department or to request leave of absence .

On DATE , that is to say DATE , the applicant had been declared unfit for work by a doctor and had sought sickness benefit from ORG Scheme ( Mutualité Fonction Publique ) , which sent him a letter on DATE in the following terms :

“ ... we confirm that we are unable to pay you sickness benefit for the period of absence from work due to illness that has been prescribed for you from DATE to CARDINAL DATE . This is because you are an established civil servant . Sickness benefit for persons in that category is paid by the authorities ... ”

That DATE the insurers sent a letter to ORG confirming that the applicant had been absent from work owing to illness since DATE . They pointed out that as his service with ORG had been terminated with effect from DATE , the applicant ought to be able to claim compensation , either through the civil service or through the social - security scheme for civil servants .

Earlier , on CARDINAL DATE , Mr FAC had informed the relevant authorities that he did not wish to return to GPE before ORG ruled on an application he had made to have the order of CARDINAL DATE quashed ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

As a result , the High Commissioner , in a decision of DATE , sent the applicant on leave of absence , initially for DATE from DATE to DATE , which was renewed from DATE and ended on DATE .

On DATE ORG ( COTOREP ) of ORG for the département of Finistère refused the applicant disabled - worker status and accordingly ruled that he was fit for work .

On DATE the High Commissioner wrote to the applicant in the following terms :

“ Please find enclosed CARDINAL certified copies of the decision to keep you on leave of absence from DATE to CARDINAL DATE inclusive , at which point you will have used up all your entitlement to CARDINAL years’ leave of absence under LAW no . CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE . We have sent your application for reinstatement to the organisations likely to have a vacant budgetary post available that would allow you to be reinstated ... ”

On DATE the applicant applied to ORG for a stay of execution of the order of DATE terminating his secondment .

On DATE ORG dismissed that application on the ground that the harm that would result from execution of the order was not such as to justify ordering a stay . The PERSON d’Etat upheld that decision on DATE .

The applicant had also applied to ORG on DATE to quash the decision of DATE .

On DATE ORG dismissed that application on the following grounds :

Termination of the secondment

Firstly , section CARDINAL bis of Law no . CARDINAL of DATE , as inserted by LAW no . CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE , provides : ‘ Notwithstanding any provision to the contrary in the special rules governing civil servants subject to PERSON no . CARDINAL of DATE making provisions governing the civil service or in the special rules on local government staff and posts covered by PERSON no . CARDINAL of DATE making provisions relating to local government service , civil servants who are members of ORG may be seconded to departments and posts in central or local government authorities of a level equivalent to those to which they belong and may be appointed to them permanently’ . While these provisions allow civil servants from GPE to be seconded and to be appointed to equivalent departments in central or local government service , they nevertheless do not derogate from the principle that secondment may be terminated ...

Secondly , it is clear from the documents in the case file that , having been informed by letter of CARDINAL DATE of the decision to terminate the secondment ... , the ORG ’s delegate in GPE asked the applicant ... to say whether he wished to be given leave of absence or to be reinstated in his original department . It follows that Mr FAC can not validly argue that his reinstatement was refused after the leave of absence that had allegedly prevented his reinstatement earlier or that his original department had not agreed to that measure .

Lastly , the documents in the case file do not show that the decision to terminate his secondment was taken for reasons other than the interests of the service or was the result of an error of judgment .

Refusal of appointment

Although the decision in issue terminating his secondment must be regarded as also constituting a decision not to appoint him , the applicant can not validly maintain that the authorities were obliged to appoint him pursuant to section CARDINAL bis of the Law of DATE , since those provisions , as explained above , create no obligation on the part of the original department .

On DATE the applicant appealed against that decision of ORG to ORG .

The Minister of Agriculture lodged a pleading on DATE , to which the applicant replied on DATE .

Meanwhile , in an application registered at ORG registry on CARDINAL DATE , the applicant had informed that court that he “ consider[ed ] himself to be the victim of moral , intellectual and professional defamation and would like legal advice ” .

On DATE ORG gave the following judgment :

“ In his application Mr Le Calvez seeks an order quashing the decision of DATE to transfer him to ORG .

That decision was taken following a request by Mr Le Calvez on DATE . Furthermore , the only grounds put forward by the applicant relate to the unlawfulness of the decision of CARDINAL DATE terminating his secondment and are ineffective [ against ] the decision of CARDINAL DATE .

It follows from the foregoing that the application must be dismissed . ”

In the meantime , on DATE , the applicant had sent the High Commissioner a letter DATE to which he received no reply – requesting “ information on his administrative position ” and payment of sickness benefit and compensation for loss of salary with effect from CARDINAL DATE . He argued that he had been obliged by ill health to be absent from work since DATE and was entitled to sickness benefit under LAW .

On DATE Mr Le Calvez lodged an application with ORG to quash the High Commissioner ’s implicit refusal to pay him sickness benefit and compensation for loss of salary .

On DATE the applicant was granted legal aid .

The High Commissioner lodged a defence , which was registered at the court registry on DATE and served on the applicant ’s lawyer on DATE . In his defence the High Commissioner submitted :

Since DATE Mr FAC has regularly sent the territory ’s administrative authorities notifications of extensions of absence from work due to illness ( CARDINAL have been received to date ) . With a letter of DATE he sent his department a medical certificate in which PERSON certified that he would not be able to return to his post in GPE for health reasons ...

At the end of his period of secondment Mr Le Calvez chose , for personal reasons , not to return to GPE . The territory ’s administrative authorities have regularised his position by sending him on leave of absence , in accordance with the provisions of ORG Code , with effect from DATE .

Civil servants who are on leave of absence do not normally receive any salary and are no longer entitled to benefit under the social - security scheme for civil servants . Accordingly , Mr FAC can not claim any remuneration or any benefit .

On DATE the ORG , to whom the case had been referred , advised that he had been informed by the GPE authorities that they had no vacant post for the applicant . As to the question of paying sickness benefit to the applicant during his illness , he wrote :

“ ... I have been informed that he was not entitled to paid sick - leave as ORG did not have to remunerate Mr Le Calvez after DATE . The GPE authorities , who had been obliged to send him on compulsory leave of absence , could not pay him a salary either . For my part , I have to record that a friendly settlement , taking into account the considerations of fairness that I put to those to whom I have spoken , has been prevented by a strict application of the relevant regulations . ”

The applicant ’s lawyer lodged a pleading on DATE .

On DATE ORG dismissed the application on the following grounds :

“ Mr FAC , an agricultural technician in the agricultural service of ORG , was seconded to ORG for a DATE period commencing on DATE . By a decision of CARDINAL DATE the Minister of ORG terminated his secondment with effect from DATE . In a letter of CARDINAL DATE the ORG ’s delegate , the High Commissioner of GPE , invited Mr FAC to inform him within DATE whether he wished to be given leave of absence or to be reinstated in his original department . As he did not return to GPE , it was decided on DATE to send him on DATE leave of absence as from CARDINAL DATE to DATE inclusive , a period which was extended by decisions of CARDINAL DATE and CARDINAL DATE . Mr ORG application must be regarded as being for an order quashing the implied refusal of the Government ’s delegate , the High Commissioner of GPE , to pay him sickness benefit and compensation for loss of salary for DATE on DATE .

Although from DATE Mr FAC sent the GPE administrative authorities a succession of notifications of absence of work due to illness , the documents in the case file do not show that he was given sick - leave or that he had been given leave of absence for health reasons . In the circumstances Mr ORG Calvez can not validly rely on Articles L. CARDINAL - CARDINAL and NORP CARDINAL of the Social Security Code or on Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL of ORG Code and is not entitled to claim any compensation in respect of salary or any benefit under the social - security scheme for civil servants . ”

On DATE the applicant appealed against that judgment to ORG .

NORP The Minister for Overseas Departments and Territories lodged a pleading on DATE in which he indicated that the High Commissioner of GPE was the person who had responsibility for the matters before the court .

On DATE the applicant wrote to the President of ORG asking for his CARDINAL pending cases to be joined ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above ) . He explained that all his job applications had been unsuccessful and that it was not possible for him to be reinstated in his original department as there was no vacant budgetary post in GPE . He added that if he was granted financial assistance , he would be able to go to GPE in order to find out what the possibilities of reinstatement or redeployment were .

On DATE ORG registered the High Commissioner ’s defence , in which he submitted :

“ ... while Mr ORG application includes some factual submissions , for the most part irrelevant to the present case , it does not on the other hand contain any legal submissions ...

At the end of his period of secondment Mr Le Calvez chose , for personal reasons , not to return to GPE . The territory ’s administrative authorities regularised his position by sending him on leave of absence , in accordance with the provisions of ORG Code , with effect from DATE . Civil servants who are on leave of absence do not normally receive any salary and are no longer entitled to benefit under the social - security scheme for civil servants . Accordingly , Mr Le PERSON can not claim any remuneration or any benefit . His application for an order quashing the authorities’ refusal to pay him sickness benefit is therefore unfounded .

The applicant lodged a pleading on DATE .

In a letter of DATE to which he received no reply – he enquired about the progress of the proceedings before ORG . In a letter of CARDINAL DATE he again asked the President of ORG whether it would be possible to join the CARDINAL cases referred to above ( see paragraph CARDINAL ) and expressed concern at the length of time that the consideration of his cases was taking . The court registrar replied on DATE that the cases were not ready for trial as the lawyer who had been assigned to represent Mr Le Calvez under the legal - aid scheme had not yet filed a pleading .

According to the Government , that lawyer has since been disbarred .

On DATE the applicant again enquired of the President of ORG as to the progress of the proceedings . On DATE his new lawyer lodged a pleading .

On DATE ORG informed the applicant that a hearing would be held in the CARDINAL cases in question ( see paragraph QUANTITY above ) in DATE .

In a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG affirmed the judgment of the court below . It held that because the applicant was on leave of absence , he was not , by LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , entitled to the welfare benefits claimed . Furthermore , the court added that the provisions of LAW relied on by the applicant in support of his claims , namely Articles L. CARDINAL - CARDINAL and NORP CARDINAL - CARDINAL ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , did not apply in his position either , as they concerned civil servants in post .

On DATE the applicant appealed on points of law to the ORG d’Etat .

The provisions of Decree no . CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE issued by the High Commissioner and embodying ORG Code that are applicable in the case read as follows :

“ A civil servant is on leave of absence if he is no longer in his original department or service and ceases in that position to enjoy his promotion and pension rights . ”

“ Leave of absence shall be decided on by the head of the territory , either of his own motion or at the request of the person concerned ... ”

“ A civil servant may be compelled to take leave of absence only if he has exhausted his right to convalescence leave or extended sick - leave and is unable to resume his duties at DATE . Where compulsory leave of absence follows a period of sick - leave , the civil servant shall for DATE the salary he received when in post and all his family supplements . ”

“ Compulsory leave of absence shall not exceed DATE . It may be extended twice for the same length of time .

“ Leave of absence may be granted at a civil servant ’s request only in cases of accident or serious illness of a spouse or child or , exceptionally , after DATE service , for personal reasons or for research or studies of indisputable general interest . ”

“ Leave of absence at the civil servant ’s request shall not exceed DATE in duration . However , it may be extended twice for the same length of time . ”

“ A civil servant who is on leave of absence at his own request shall not be entitled to any remuneration ... ”

“ A civil servant who is on leave of absence at his own request must apply for reinstatement DATE before the expiration of the current period of leave . Reinstatement as of right is by way of appointment to CARDINAL of the first CARDINAL posts falling vacant where the leave of absence has not exceeded DATE in duration . ”

Leave of absence is also governed by LAW of PERSON no . CARDINAL - CARDINAL of DATE making provisions relating to local government service , which provides :

Leave of absence is either granted at the civil servant ’s request or is compulsory at the end of the leave referred to in subsections ( CARDINAL ) , ( CARDINAL ) and ( CARDINAL ) of LAW ( sick - leave of DATE , extended sick - leave of DATE and additional extended leave on health grounds ( congé de longue durée ) ) . A civil servant on leave of absence who successively refuses CARDINAL posts offered to him within the geographical area covered by his corps , post or service with a view to his reinstatement may be dismissed after consultation of the joint administrative committee . In other cases , if the leave of absence has not exceeded DATE , CARDINAL of the first CARDINAL posts falling vacant in the original authority or establishment must be offered to the civil servant .

Articles D. CARDINAL - CARDINAL and PERSON of LAW provide :

“ In the event of illness or maternity , civil servants shall receive social - security benefits in kind on the conditions and at the rates in force at the health - insurance offices to which they are affiliated … ”

“ Civil servants in post to whom ORG Code applies ... and their families shall be entitled in the event of illness , maternity , invalidity or death to benefits at least equal to those payable under the social - security system . ”


The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a NORP national born in DATE and living in GPE .

The applicant had been a member of ORG ( ORG advokatsamfund , hereinafter “ the Bar ” ) since DATE .

On DATE ORG of the Bar ( ORG advokatsamfunds disciplinnämnd ) , having previously received a number of complaints against the applicant , held a hearing at which the applicant was present .

On DATE the applicant submitted to ORG that he had had a migraine attack during the hearing and had therefore not been able to answer the questions or argue in a satisfactory manner . He stated his views on a number of issues and also enquired whether he could submit further explanations with regard to those issues . This was however refused by ORG .

On DATE ORG found that some of the applicant 's actions amounted to misconduct and that others involved serious neglect of his duties as a lawyer ( advokat ) . It decided to exclude him from the Bar with immediate effect .

The applicant appealed to ORG ( ORG domstolen ) which held an oral hearing during which the applicant was heard anew . A chartered accountant was heard as a witness at the applicant 's request . The applicant also invoked new written evidence , inter alia doctors ' certificates stating that his working ability during the period in question had been poor due to migraine and apnoea .

On DATE ORG rejected the applicant 's appeal . It concluded that there was not much guidance as to the meaning of “ misconduct ” for the purposes of the provision in the Code of Procedure ( PERSON , CARDINAL:CARDINAL ) entailing exclusion from the Bar . The preparatory works stated that the wording primarily aimed at actions pertaining to the relationship between the lawyer and his or her client but that the Bar could also focus on misconduct taking place outside the work as a lawyer . Furthermore , the action did not have to be punishable under criminal law in order to qualify as misconduct .

ORG had found that the applicant had neglected the creditors of his limited company . In this respect ORG concluded that it was clear that the applicant , without having informed himself of the company 's financial situation , had sold the company 's assets below cost to himself assuming only part of the company 's debts . He had thereafter disposed of the company shares without considering the interests of the creditors . ORG also concluded that these actions entailed misconduct .

ORG further recalled that a lawyer must not promote wrong and that according to its case - law , a lawyer having participated in the creation of false documents or consciously having drafted false documents had acted in a way amounting to misconduct . It found to be established that the applicant in DATE had issued a receipt dated DATE , in which he had stated that his law firm had received MONEY in cash as payment from a client . On DATE the same amount had been deposited in the account of another limited company . The payment did not concern a consultation and the applicant had furthermore antedated the receipt . ORG concluded that a receipt regarding payment from a client was an important document in a lawyer 's business , and consciously stating incorrect information could be considered as misconduct . Not being able to exclude that the applicant had been misled to sign the receipt , it however concluded that he had merely neglected his duties as a lawyer .

ORG finally determined that the organisation of the applicant 's office and business , inter alia an incorrect book - keeping , amounted to neglect of his duties as a lawyer .

ORG concluded that the applicant 's actions constituted misconduct and neglect of his duties as a lawyer . Even considering his state of health there were no mitigating circumstances as to his misconduct . The court found that he should therefore be disbarred .

The duties of the Bar are set out in LAW and its Regulations are issued by the Government . The Bar is a private association with the duty to maintain ethical and professional standards within the legal profession . Only a member of the Bar can use the title advokat ( as opposed to jurist ) . The Bar has also been entrusted with some public duties , such as its disciplinary powers .

Under chapter CARDINAL section CARDINAL of LAW , the activities of the members of the Bar are supervised by ORG and ORG .

Under chapter CARDINAL section CARDINAL of LAW , a lawyer who in his or her work consciously does a wrong or otherwise acts in a manner amounting to misconduct , shall be excluded from the Bar . If there are mitigating circumstances the lawyer might receive a warning . A lawyer who otherwise neglects his or her duties may receive a warning or an admonition . If there are especially aggravating circumstances the lawyer may be excluded from the Bar .

Under chapter CARDINAL section CARDINAL of LAW , anyone having been denied entry to the Bar or having been excluded from the Bar may appeal against the decision to ORG .

Under NORP law there is no requirement that a lawyer has to be a member of the Bar in order to practise law . Only when the state appoints a defence counsel in criminal cases should that person according to LAW be an advokat , but even in this case there are certain exceptions .

Under LAW , in order to be accepted as a member , the person in question must inter alia have worked in the legal field for DATE out of which DATE must have been spent working for another lawyer in a law firm ( advokatbyrå ) or in one 's own law firm . Furthermore , the person must be working in either of the CARDINAL in order to be granted membership . Lawyers working in companies , consultancy agencies , organisations or authorities can therefore not use the title advokat .


No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial

Giovanni Bonello;Lech Garlicki;Ledi Bianku;Nebojša Vučinić;Nicolas Bratza;Päivi Hirvelä

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in PERSON .

On DATE the applicant commenced his compulsory military service , which lasted until DATE . During his service he suffered a serious spinal injury . A series of medical tests carried out by military doctors showed that the applicant ’s disability had been caused by an ailment which he had had during his childhood . Difficult tasks which he had had to carry out during his military service had made his condition worse .

On DATE the applicant requested ORG ( ZUS ) to grant him a disability pension ( renta inwalidzka ) . By a decision of DATE ORG refused . By a judgment of DATE the ORG dismissed the applicant ’s appeal . The applicant appealed .

By an order of DATE the court , having regard to certain formal shortcomings in the applicant ’s appeal , requested him to rectify them . By a decision of DATE the court rejected the appeal , finding that he had failed to indicate the grounds for his appeal despite having been summoned to do so . NORP On DATE the applicant lodged an interlocutory appeal against the decision , which was dismissed on DATE .

NORP In DATE the applicant lodged an action with ORG . He requested compensation for physical injuries and suffering which he had sustained during his military service and requested the court to grant him a permanent disability pension , having regard to the fact that he was now unfit to work . On DATE the court exempted the applicant from court fees . In DATE a legalaid lawyer was assigned to the case to represent the applicant .

A first series of medical tests carried out by experts confirmed the findings of the military doctors and the conclusions reached in the reports prepared for the first set of the proceedings . The applicant refused to participate in a second series of medical tests , ordered at the defendant ’s request .

The proceedings were subsequently stayed at the applicant ’s request on DATE . They were resumed on DATE .

By a judgment of DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s action . The applicant appealed .

By a judgment of DATE ORG upheld the first - instance judgment . This judgment was served on the applicant ’s legal- aid lawyer on DATE .

By a letter of CARDINAL DATE the legal - aid lawyer informed the applicant that he had not found any legal grounds on which to prepare a cassation appeal . The letter read :

“ I hereby inform you that on DATE I was served with a written grounds for the judgment of ORG of DATE .

Having examined the written reasons for the judgment , I am obliged to state that there are no legal grounds on which to prepare a cassation appeal .

Cassation appeal is an extraordinary legal remedy which can be lodged where the court erred in the application of substantive or procedural law , if such an error could have affected the outcome of the case . In your case no such errors are disclosed .

In addition , for a cassation appeal to be accepted for examination by ORG , it is necessary to demonstrate that legal issues justifying such examination obtain in the case . In your case it is the establishment of the facts by the courts which is in issue .

Having regard thereto , I am forwarding to you a copy of the judgment as I can not be of any further assistance in your case . ”

On an unspecified later date the applicant requested the court to assign a new lawyer to the case for the purposes of lodging a cassation appeal . The court refused the request by a decision of CARDINAL DATE which read :

“ The court ... decided to dismiss the plaintiff ’s request for a legal - aid lawyer to be assigned to the case . ”

The decision did not contain reasons as under the relevant provisions of LAW no appeal was available against it and , in consequence , the court was not obliged to prepare any ( see paragraphs DATE CARDINAL below ) .

Pursuant to LAW , a court should give all necessary procedural instructions to a party acting without a lawyer and , in particular should indicate the consequences of that party ’s acts or failures to act .

Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that a party to the proceedings may ask the court competent to deal with the case to grant him or her an exemption from court fees provided that he submits a declaration to the effect that the fees required would entail a substantial reduction in his and his family ’s standard of living .

Pursuant to Article CARDINAL of the Code , persons exempted from the court fees may request that legal aid be granted to them . The court will then request the relevant ORG or ORG to assign an advocate or a legal adviser to the claimant ’s case .

Decisions on legal aid are given in the form of interlocutory decisions . Article CARDINAL of the Code of Civil Procedure guarantees a party to the proceedings the right to appeal against a decision of the first - instance court which terminates the proceedings . Such an interlocutory appeal ( zażalenie ) is also available against certain interlocutory decisions , specified in this provision . An appeal is available against a refusal of exemption from court fees and , likewise , against a refusal of legal aid , when such decisions were given by a first - instance court .

ORG held in a number of its decisions that no appeal to ORG is available against an interlocutory decision on legal aid given by a second - instance court ( II CZ CARDINAL/CARDINAL , DATE , unpublished ; I ORG CARDINAL , DATE , OSNC DATE , No . CARDINAL , item CARDINAL ; I ORG CARDINAL , DATE , ORG No . CARDINAL , item CARDINAL ) .

Pursuant to LAW , written grounds for interlocutory decisions shall be prepared by the court only if an appeal is available against such a decision .

At the material time a party to civil proceedings could lodge a cassation appeal with ORG against a final judicial decision of a secondinstance court which terminated the proceedings .

Under Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL of the Code of Civil Procedure a cassation appeal had to be lodged with the court that had given the relevant decision within DATE from the date on which the decision with its written grounds was served on the party concerned . Cassation appeals which were not lodged by an advocate or a legal adviser would be rejected .

Article CARDINAL of the Code as applicable at that time listed the grounds on which a cassation appeal could be lodged . It read as follows :

“ The cassation appeal may be based on the following grounds :

CARDINAL ) a breach of substantive law by its erroneous interpretation or wrongful application ;

CARDINAL ) a breach of procedural provisions , if that defect could significantly affect the outcome of the case . ”

Article CARDINAL specified the requirements of a cassation appeal . It read in its relevant part :

“ § CARDINAL . A cassation appeal should include :

CARDINAL ) an indication of the decision under appeal together with information as to whether the appeal is lodged against this decision in its entirety or in part only ;

CARDINAL ) NORP an indication of the grounds for the cassation appeal ;

CARDINAL ) NORP arguments showing that its examination would be justified ;

CARDINAL ) a motion to have the decision under appeal quashed or amended , specifying also the scope of the motion . ”

Article CARDINAL read as follows :

“ A second - instance court rejects in a hearing held in camera a cassation appeal lodged after a prescribed time - limit or which is inadmissible on other grounds ( ... ) . ”

The reasons justifying the examination of a cassation appeal by ORG could be inferred a contrario from Article CARDINAL of LAW which , as applicable at that time , read , in its relevant part :

“ CARDINAL . ORG may refuse to entertain the cassation appeal , if :

i ) there is no appearance of any significant legal issue in the case ,

ii ) there is no need for the interpretation of provisions raising serious doubts or causing discrepancies in the courts’ case law ,

iii ) the appeal is manifestly ill - founded .

Paragraph CARDINAL shall not apply if the judicial decision challenged manifestly breached the law or where the proceedings are invalid in law . ”

Article CARDINAL of LAW of DATE , as amended , reads , insofar as relevant :

“ CARDINAL . The Bar is established to provide legal assistance , co - operate in protecting a person ’s rights and freedoms as well as to formulate and apply the law .

The Bar is organized as a self - governing association .

An advocate whilst executing his / her professional duties is accountable only to the law . ”

Article CARDINAL of the LAW provides as follows :

“ The general tasks of the professional ORG are as follows :

CARDINAL ) creation of conditions for the statutory performance of the Bar ’s tasks ,

CARDINAL ) representation of the LOC and protection of its rights ,

CARDINAL ) supervision over the observance of the rules regulating the practice of the profession ,

CARDINAL ) development of professional skills and training of advocates ,

CARDINAL ) determination and promotion of professional ethics and ensuring their observance ,

CARDINAL ) management ( ... ) of the Bar ’s assets . ”

Article CARDINAL of the LAW reads :

“ CARDINAL . An advocate may only refuse to provide legal assistance for important reasons of which he must notify the interested party . Any doubts as to whether to provide legal assistance or refuse to do so shall be resolved by the local ORG , and in situations where time is of the essence , by the PERSON of that ORG .

In cases where legal assistance is granted on the basis legal regulations concerning legal aid , only the entity appointing the advocate to represent the client may decide to relieve him or her from providing legal assistance . ”

Under LAW of the LAW , an advocate shall provide legal aid services in the jurisdiction of a court where he or she has its office .

Lawyers are bound to act in accordance with rules of professional and ethical conduct enacted by ORG . They may be held accountable for professional misconduct or a breach of ethical principles in the proceedings before the bar disciplinary court .

Under LAW adopted by ORG on DATE , when an advocate , either privately hired by the client or appointed under legal aid scheme , considers that submission of an appeal in a case offers no reasonable prospect of success and the client disagrees with his or her view , the lawyer shall give notice of termination of the power of attorney terminate the representation , or notify the refusal to the body which appointed him or her .

In DATE ORG issued a resolution in reply to a legal question whether a legal aid lawyer could refuse to lodge a cassation appeal . It replied to the question in the positive .

The court observed that issues involved in the legal aid concerned not only proper administration of justice , but also touched on human rights , and a right of access to a court in particular . Nevertheless , there was no comprehensive and coherent regulation of legal aid available under NORP law .

The mere fact that it was necessary for a cassation appeal to be lodged by a qualified representative was not open to criticism . However , a certain conceptual confusion was to be noted in the provisions governing legal aid as a whole , mostly because the legislator had failed to harmonise the relevant provisions of civil and criminal procedure . In particular , the scope of legal aid lawyers’ obligations when legal representation was mandatory was not directly addressed by provisions of civil procedure . This was so partly because the essential body of law concerning civil procedure had been enacted in DATE , while the provisions on mandatory legal representation for the purposes of the cassation appeal had been introduced in DATE , when this new kind of appeal had been created .

As a result , the scope of legal aid lawyers’ obligations to provide a party to the proceedings with “ legal aid ” in civil proceedings was unclear . In particular , the provisions on the ORG legal aid obligations in connection with cassation proceedings before ORG lacked clarity . The court noted that the judicial practice regarding the application of relevant provisions had given rise to serious difficulties of interpretation and discrepancies in the case - law of the NORP courts .

The court observed that the issue of possible conflict between the opinion of a party granted legal aid and a lawyer assigned to represent him or her for the purpose of cassation proceedings had not been directly addressed by the applicable law . It further noted that the notion of legal assistance could not be identified with a simple obligation of a lawyer to act in accordance with the client ’s wishes . The role of a legal aid lawyer had rather to be understood as obliging him or her to provide legal advice to the party , including as to the prospects of success offered by a cassation appeal against a given judgment .

The constitutional role of ORG , the highest judicial authority , was also an argument in favour of a conclusion that a legal aid lawyer was not compelled by the will of the party to have a cassation appeal lodged if such an appeal was bound to fail . In case of a disagreement between the party and the lawyer , it was open to the party to complain to the local Bar under LAW . The Bar could then appoint a new lawyer who could lodge a cassation appeal , requesting at the same time to be granted leave to appeal out of time under LAW . It was true that the practice of ORG was not coherent in that in some cases it had been rejecting such requests and in other it accepted them . However , it did not prevent the parties from having recourse to this course of action .

Pursuant to LAW , a party to the proceedings may ask for retrospective leave to perform a procedural measure outside the prescribed time - limit ; this measure shall be performed simultaneously with lodging the request .

Article CARDINAL CARDINAL of the Code of Civil Procedure reads , insofar as relevant :

“ CARDINAL . If a legal representative or a person authorised to receive court correspondence on behalf of a party has been appointed in a case , the court correspondence shall be served on these persons . ”

Pursuant to the case - law of ORG , if a party to civil proceedings is represented by a lawyer , the procedural time - limits set by LAW start to run on DATE of the service of judicial decisions on him or her ( III CRN CARDINAL/CARDINAL ; I ORG , CARDINAL ) .


Violation of Art. 6-1;Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed;Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient

Mr. PERSON , a NORP national , was born in DATE and resides in GPE .

As heir to his mother , who died on DATE , he continued the proceedings she had commenced before the social courts against the Land , represented by ORG ( NORP - " ORG " ) .

Mrs. PERSON applied for a widow ’s supplementary pension ( GPE ) , claiming that the death of her husband PERSON on DATE had been the consequence of an industrial accident . Coming home on DATE from an appointment with an ear - nose - and - throat specialist whom he had consulted on leaving his workplace , he had slipped on a snow - covered pavement , breaking his left thigh - bone . As an employee ( Angestellter ) of ORG , he was compulsorily insured against accidents .

Represented by her son , Mrs. PERSON commenced proceedings in ORG ( ORG ) on DATE .

On DATE , the presiding judge of the competent chamber ordered communication of the originating claim to the defendant , who was given DATE to comment on it . On DATE , ORG submitted written pleadings , accompanied by a file on the accident , to which Mr. PERSON replied on DATE .

Wishing to elucidate certain points , the presiding judge sent a list of questions on DATE to the ear - nose - and - throat specialist , who replied in writing on DATE . On DATE , the applicant had himself produced a photocopy of a certificate issued by the doctor .

On DATE , Mr. PERSON inspected the file on the case but was not allowed to take it away .

He was asked , on DATE , whether his father ’s superiors had spoken to his father about his hearing problem and had asked him to seek treatment in the interests of the service ; he replied on CARDINAL DATE . ORG also asked the GPE Barmer Ersatzkasse to supply certain details ; on DATE , the latter provided a schedule of the periods of incapacity for work .

DATE , the presiding judge gave instructions to the registry for re - submission of the case - file in CARDINAL GPE time . On CARDINAL DATE , he declared the case ready for hearing . His successor , appointed on DATE , did likewise on DATE . A third presiding judge , who was appointed on DATE , declared the case ready for hearing on DATE ; DATE , he wrote to Mr. PERSON , who had telephoned on DATE to ask how matters stood , stating that he could not yet fix a date for the hearing since the chamber ’s programme was too full . On DATE , the case was transferred to a newly - established chamber . On DATE , its presiding judge declared in turn that the case was ready for hearing ; on CARDINAL DATE , he decided that the oral proceedings should open on DATE . In a memorandum dated DATE and received on DATE , the applicant had requested that a date be fixed for the hearing and that it be held in a court - room sufficiently large to accommodate members of the public , since he expected students , whom he would be lecturing in the DATE and DATE , to attend .

At the close of the hearing , ORG rejected Mrs. PERSON ’s claim , holding that the accident in question had been neither an industrial accident nor an accident on the way to or from work within the meaning of sections CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) , first sentence , and CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of ORG PERSON ) .

On DATE , ORG sent the parties a copy of the record of DATE hearing , including the operative provision of the judgment . On DATE , Mr. PERSON received the full text of the judgment , which was CARDINAL pages long .

In DATE , when Mrs. PERSON brought her action , ORG had CARDINAL chambers responsible for dealing with industrial - accident insurance claims . CARDINAL further chambers were set up in DATE , DATE and DATE .

According to statistics supplied by the ORG , the number of such claims pending was CARDINAL at DATE , CARDINAL at DATE , CARDINAL at DATE and CARDINAL at DATE . As far as the chamber hearing Mrs. PERSON ’s action was concerned , there were CARDINAL cases on its pending list on DATE .

Mrs. PERSON appealed against the judgment on DATE .

On DATE , ORG sent the case - file to ORG ( ORG ) , where Mr. PERSON inspected it on DATE .

Having been asked on DATE to state his reasons for appealing , the applicant submitted his arguments on CARDINAL March ; the defendant replied on DATE . On DATE , the presiding judge of the chamber directed that this reply be communicated to Mr. PERSON for information and comment .

Judge PERSON was appointed reporting judge on DATE and declared , on CARDINAL DATE , that the case was ready for hearing ; the presiding judge confirmed this on DATE .

On DATE , Judge PERSON asked ORG ( PERSON ) to send him the personal file on Mr. PERSON ’s father , which was received on DATE .

On DATE , he set the case down for hearing on DATE .

On DATE before the hearing , the applicant filed further written pleadings , seeking for his mother a death grant ( Sterbegeld ) as well as a widow ’s pension ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

On DATE , ORG dismissed the appeal : it had been unable to establish , on a sufficient balance of probability , any causal link between Mr. PERSON visit to a doctor and his employment by a public authority .

After telephoning DATE , the applicant was immediately sent a copy of the record of the hearing and , on DATE , a copy of the judgment , which was CARDINAL pages long .

On DATE , he asked ORG to rectify the statement of facts , but the ORG refused his request on DATE . This decision was communicated to the applicant on DATE and also provoked a request for rectification , which the presiding judge of the third chamber rejected on DATE .

On DATE , the applicant ’s mother entered an appeal on points of law ( Revision ) to ORG ( PERSON ) and this was registered on DATE . She also asked for extension of the time - limit for submission of supplementary written pleadings , since ORG had not yet decided on the request for rectification ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

The file was dispatched on DATE and reached ORG on DATE . DATE , Mr. PERSON had asked for a further extension of the time - limit so that he could consult the document supplied by ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

The applicant filed written pleadings on CARDINAL DATE . The following DATE ’s date was affixed to the document by ORG , which sent it to the defendant with DATE to reply .

On DATE , Mr. PERSON wrote to ask what action had been taken on his written pleadings of CARDINAL DATE and his request of DATE . Judge PERSON replied by letter of DATE that the written pleadings had been received , but a regrettable error in the registry had delayed examination of the request .

In the meantime , the presiding judge of the second chamber had , amongst other things , ordered the transmission of the case - file to ORG and asked ORG and ORG ( ORG ) to send certain documents directly to the court , so that Mr. PERSON could study them .

When informed that various files were open to him , Mr. PERSON told ORG , on DATE , that he would inspect them after DATE , since the documents to be furnished by ORG had only been obtained that TIME . He consulted the files on DATE .

An order was made on DATE , giving the defendant until DATE to submit its arguments ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . These were filed at ORG on DATE .

On DATE , the reporting judge decided to transmit them to Mr. PERSON . Mr. PERSON requested , on DATE , that a date be fixed for the hearing , preferably DATE , and the judge wrote to him on DATE , stating that the chamber ’s workload made it impossible to say when this decision would be taken and that he had noted the applicant ’s wish to consult the case - file on CARDINAL or DATE .

On DATE , the applicant inspected the file in GPE , seat of ORG .

On DATE , Mr. PERSON challenged Judge PERSON , whom he suspected of delaying the proceedings . Judge PERSON rejected the allegation of partiality in a declaration dated DATE . The applicant , who was entitled to submit observations on this point up to CARDINAL DATE , repeated his allegations by letter on DATE . In a decision adopted on DATE and notified on DATE , the second chamber of ORG dismissed the challenge .

On DATE , Judge PERSON , replacing the presiding judge , set the case down for hearing on DATE .

As soon as the hearing began , Mr. PERSON challenged Judge PERSON . The sitting continued with Judge PERSON presiding . Having heard Judge PERSON and deliberated , the chamber rejected the application . Under the presidency of Judge PERSON and with the same membership , it proceeded with examination of the case . On DATE , it set aside the decision of ORG and referred the case back to that ORG on the ground that Mrs. PERSON ’s case had not been given a proper legal hearing .

Notice of the record of the hearing , of the decision on the challenge and of the judgment , which was CARDINAL pages long , was given on DATE .

On DATE , ORG transmitted to ORG authentic copies of the judgment and the decision of DATE , as well as the files of ORG , ORG and ORG . On DATE , it sent ORG the documents relating to the appeal on points of law , specifying CARDINAL DATE as the date for the return of those documents .

In written pleadings dated CARDINAL DATE and received on CARDINAL May , Mr. PERSON challenged Judge PERSON for partiality ; he held Judge PERSON responsible for the defect found by ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , complaining that the judge had asked for documents without his mother ’s knowledge and had arranged for the disappearance of a photocopy produced at the hearing on DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . He also requested police intervention , if that proved necessary , and supervision of the challenged judge ’s access to the case - file .

On DATE , the presiding judge of the third chamber of ORG transmitted the pleadings to the President of the ORG , who contacted ORG .

On DATE , he requested that the case - file be sent to ORG ( Arbeitsgericht ) , which had , on DATE , granted PERSON entitlement to a special bonus for DATE of service .

By order dated DATE , the presiding judge directed the applicant to tell him which documents he had submitted on DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) : if these were photocopies , he could be presumed to have the originals . The applicant replied on DATE that he could supply no further information . The presiding judge reminded him on CARDINAL DATE that he had , according to his written pleadings of CARDINAL DATE to ORG , supplied a copy of CARDINAL of the ORG ’s judgments , and asked him to confirm this . He also invited him to reconsider his applications of CARDINAL DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) and , if he wished to uphold his challenge , to state his reasons .

In the meantime , the parties had been notified that the case - file had been received from ORG and the defendant had inspected it on DATE .

On DATE , the public prosecutor ’s department attached to ORG ( GPE ) asked ORG to send it the case - file . This was received on CARDINAL DATE and returned on DATE .

In written pleadings dated DATE and received on DATE , Mr. PERSON explained why he challenged Judge PERSON .

On DATE , the presiding judge appointed Judge PERSON reporting judge and asked him to ascertain whether the case was ready for hearing .

On DATE , Judge PERSON wrote to the administrative authorities of the Land , asking them to transmit to him any documents in their possession concerning Mr. PERSON Senior . He forwarded copies of this letter to the parties for information and asked the applicant whether he would consent to the case - file ’s being communicated to FAC .

Mr. PERSON objected to this on DATE , arguing that the Barmer Ersatzkasse should be joined as a third party ; he also enquired what measures had been taken to prevent Judge PERSON from having access to the case - file . The judge wrote on DATE , asking him why he wished such a joinder and pointing out that Judge PERSON was no longer acting as reporting judge in the case . In the absence of any reaction from Mr. PERSON , the judge wrote a further letter on DATE . The applicant replied on DATE that he refused to comment on this point before the filing of the defendant ’s written pleadings . Under an order issued on DATE , a copy of this letter was sent for information to the defendant .

In the meantime ( DATE ) , the Land administrative authorities had indicated that they had no documents relating to Mr. PERSON ’s father , apart from the personal file which they had already produced . By decision of the judge , taken on DATE , their letter was communicated to the parties for information .

On DATE , the applicant ’s mother personally complained to the presiding judge of the third chamber , alleging that photocopies had been made of documents in the case - file for transmission to a third party . The president denied this by letter on DATE ; he explained , however , that the case - file had been passed to the public prosecutor ’s department in execution of a request for the taking of evidence on commission ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . On DATE , Mrs. PERSON declared that communication of the case - file in this way was improper . The reporting judge forwarded this second letter to the presiding judge of the chamber , but since the latter was away on holiday the case - file came before the deputy presiding judge , Judge PERSON , who , being subject to challenge ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , felt unable to deal with the matter . Considering that the letter required no action , the reporting judge ordered re - submission of the case - file to the presiding judge on his return from holiday .

In a letter dated DATE and received on DATE , the public prosecutor ’s department attached to ORG ( Landgericht ) asked for the case - file . This was dispatched on DATE in accordance with an order issued on DATE , and was returned on DATE .

On DATE , Mr. PERSON visited ORG , wishing to remove the case - file and study it . The reporting judge allowed him only to inspect it on the spot .

On DATE , the applicant challenged Judge PERSON . On DATE , the presiding judge of the third chamber replied that the chamber could not take a decision on this matter for the time being , since the case - file was with the public prosecutor ’s department attached to ORG . Judge PERSON was invited on DATE to submit observations , and did so on DATE . On DATE , the third chamber rejected the challenge against this judge , as well as the challenge against the presiding judge , Judge PERSON ( see paragraphs CARDINAL , DATE and DATE below ) .

On DATE , Mr. PERSON filed written pleadings .

On DATE , the presiding judge ordered that the case - file be re - submitted on its return ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

In a letter dated DATE and received on DATE , the applicant stated , inter alia , that he would continue to appear in the proceedings , but not as counsel . The president replied on DATE .

DATE , the Land administrative authorities informed ORG that Mrs. PERSON had died on TIME DATE . The presiding judge of the chamber asked the applicant , on DATE , whether he wished to pursue the case ; the applicant replied , on DATE , that he did so wish . Since he also challenged the presiding judge , Judge PERSON , the case - file was passed to Judge PERSON , who requested the applicant on DATE to produce a certificate of heredity .

On DATE , Mr. PERSON pointed out that , as an only son , he was his mother ’s sole heir and was thus not obliged , in the absence of property and a will , to bring proceedings to obtain a certificate . On DATE , Judge PERSON wrote to inform the applicant that he could claim succession if he had been living in the same house as his mother at the time of her death , but that he would have to produce evidence of this . The applicant confirmed by letter on DATE that he had in fact lived with his mother , and referred to an attestation by a neighbour .

On DATE , Judge PERSON asked Mr. PERSON to give reasons for his challenge of the presiding judge , Judge PERSON , and told him that he would take a decision with CARDINAL members of the eleventh chamber . The applicant wrote on CARDINAL DATE - his letter was received on CARDINAL DATE - asking the names of these CARDINAL other judges ; Judge PERSON replied that there was no way of knowing their names in advance . On DATE , he forwarded the case - file to the presiding judge of the third chamber , asking him to comment on the challenge . In a memorandum dated DATE , the judge rejected the allegations of partiality made against him . In an order dated DATE , the third chamber dismissed the challenge .

After receiving the order , Mr. PERSON telephoned ORG on DATE , demanding correction of the heading , which referred to his professional status as a lawyer ; he renewed his demand in writing on DATE and again on DATE , on which date he also asked when the case would be set down for hearing . On CARDINAL DATE , the presiding judge of the third chamber replied that ORG , which he had consulted on DATE , had confirmed on DATE that the applicant was a member of the Bar . He requested the applicant to comment on this point .

On DATE , Mr. PERSON again challenged the presiding judge , Judge PERSON , complaining that he had contacted ORG without his knowledge . In a memorandum dated DATE , the judge rejected any accusation of partiality . By order dated DATE , the third chamber dismissed the challenge , as well as the challenge of Judge PERSON ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

On DATE , ORG enquired when judgment was likely to be given and was told that it might be given in DATE .

DATE , the reporting judge , considering the case ready for hearing , forwarded the case - file to the presiding judge . The case was registered as such on DATE .

On DATE , the presiding judge fixed CARDINAL October as the date for the opening of the oral proceedings .

With this in view , Mr. PERSON submitted written pleadings dated DATE . At the hearing , he stated that his challenge of Judge PERSON had become devoid of object ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . Deliberating immediately after the hearing , the chamber decided that further information was required ( PERSON ) .

On DATE , the court summoned ORG to appear ; in addition , the reporting judge asked ORG to comment on CARDINAL points which concerned the state of health of Mr. PERSON Senior at the time of the accident and which seemed to require elucidation . A reminder was sent on DATE , and the said authority replied DATE with a letter , dated DATE , accompanied by appendices . On DATE , the presiding judge decided to send a copy of this to the parties . The reporting judge transmitted the case - file to him : he considered the case ready for hearing but thought that CARDINAL witnesses should be heard as a precaution .

On DATE , the presiding judge set the case down for hearing on DATE and summoned the witnesses to appear on that date .

ORG delivered judgment at the close of the hearing : it declared the appeal inadmissible as regards the death grant and unfounded as regards the widow ’s pension . It refused leave to appeal on points of law .

On DATE , Mr. PERSON expressed surprise that he had still not received the text of the judgment . The reporting judge replied by letter on DATE that the text had been drawn up . The applicant received a copy on DATE ; the text was CARDINAL pages long .

On DATE , Mr. PERSON appealed against the decision refusing him leave to appeal ( Nichtzulassungsbeschwerde ) ; his appeal , posted in GPE , reached ORG on DATE .

On DATE , ORG asked ORG to forward it the case - file , which arrived on DATE .

In a letter dated DATE , again posted in GPE and received on DATE , Mr. PERSON sought a DATE extension of the time - limit for submission of written pleadings . On DATE , the presiding judge extended the time - limit to DATE .

On DATE , the applicant visited the registry of the second chamber of ORG , where he inspected the files of ORG and of ORG .

On DATE , he submitted supplementary written pleadings , which the reporting judge transmitted to the defendant on DATE . The defendant replied on DATE , enclosing with its observations a file on the accident .

On DATE , the reporting judge directed that the counter - pleadings and their appendix be communicated to Mr. PERSON and to FAC ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

DATE , ORG lodged its administrative file and stated that it did not intend to comment on the appeal . On DATE , the reporting judge ordered the communication of this statement to the CARDINAL parties . He scheduled a further submission of the case - file for DATE .

On DATE , ORG and ORG were asked to submit files . ORG replied on DATE that , for reasons of competence , it had passed the request on to ORG . After a reminder had been sent to the latter on DATE , the file was received at ORG on DATE . The file requested from ORG had been lodged on DATE .

In a letter dated DATE , the reporting judge notified Mr. PERSON that the documents requested had been received and that the chamber expected to give a decision in DATE .

On DATE , the applicant inspected the case - file in GPE . On DATE , he had written complaining that the personal file on his father was incomplete .

This letter was received on DATE and forwarded DATE to the defendant , who was entitled to submit observations . The court sent the defendant a reminder on DATE ; on CARDINAL DATE , it set the defendant a time - limit until DATE for the lodging of observations .

On DATE , the defendant produced new documents provided by ORG . It specified that since the Land authority probably possessed further documents , it had asked for these and would forward them as soon as they were received . Its letter was sent to the parties DATE .

On DATE , the defendant produced certain documents , which the reporting judge ordered on DATE to be communicated to the parties .

On DATE , Mr. PERSON visited the registry of the second chamber and was given permission to inspect the file on the premises . He did not , however , do so .

ORG dismissed Mr. PERSON ’s appeal on DATE . In its judgment , which was CARDINAL pages long , it ruled that his procedural complaints were partly unfounded and partly inadmissible ; and that , furthermore , the case raised no issue of general interest ( grundsätzliche GPE ) .

In a letter dated DATE , the applicant unsuccessfully contested this decision , which had been notified to him DATE .

On DATE , Mr. PERSON referred the case to ORG ( Bundesverfassungsgericht ) and , on DATE , submitted supplementary written pleadings . He complained that ORG had refused him access to the files ; that its decision of CARDINAL DATE had taken him by surprise ; that it was aware that the lower court judges lacked the requisite personal and objective independence ; and that it had been mistaken in holding that the case raised no issue of general interest . On DATE , ORG decided not to entertain the complaint , since , even assuming it to be admissible , its chances of succeeding were insufficient .

On DATE , ORG of Appeal registered an application from Mr. PERSON , dated DATE , to have the proceedings re - opened ( PERSON des PERSON ) . It rejected this application on DATE , after a hearing which had also dealt with challenges of various judges , and fined Mr. PERSON for bringing vexatious proceedings ( mutwillige Prozessführung ) .

On DATE , ORG rejected the appeal on points of law which the applicant had brought against the latter judgment .

The NORP social security system is principally governed by ORG PERSON ) , which covers sickness , accident and old - age insurance . GPE from DATE , it is rooted in laws passed DATE . Subsequently , social protection was extended by legislation to new categories of person and of risk .

DATE . In GPE , everyone employed on contract ( die auf Grund eines Arbeits- , Dienst- oder PERSON ) by private firms or a public authority is compulsorily insured against industrial accidents ( section CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(CARDINAL ) of ORG ) . Civil servants ( PERSON ) are in a different position and are covered by ORG or local authority regulations , depending on their employer .

Employees who are not civil servants are very broadly protected against industrial accidents , and are not obliged to prove fault , to bring legal proceedings or to suffer the consequences of an employer ’s insolvency . The victim - or his beneficiaries ( sections CARDINAL and CARDINAL of ORG ) - receive the benefits specified in section CARDINAL ( allowances , pensions , etc . ) , even when the victim was partly responsible for the accident . He only loses his rights if he has caused the accident intentionally .

The notion of industrial accidents , defined in section CARDINAL of the Code , includes accidents on the way to or from work ( section CARDINAL ) .

Employees ( who are not civil servants ) do not contribute to the accident insurance scheme , which is wholly financed by employers ( section CARDINAL of the Code ) . The amount of their contributions depends essentially on the salaries of the persons covered and on the likelihood of accidents ( section FAC ) ) .

For employees of private firms , the bodies ( Träger ) responsible for insurance against industrial accidents are the occupational associations ( ORG ) ; employees in the public sector are covered by the Federation , the ORG , the local authorities or ORG ( GPE für GPE ) , as the case may be ( sections CARDINAL - CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the Code ) . Every occupational association has a compulsory membership extending to all undertakings , including those in the craft sector , whose activities are carried on in the same economic field and whose company or trading centre is based in the association ’s catchment area .

In GPE , Land employees are covered by ORG ( GPE ) , a public body directly controlled by the Land authority . Its funds come chiefly from a sum included annually in the Land budget and otherwise from contributions paid by certain public concerns .

Under NORP law , disputes concerning application of the social security legislation are decided by specialised courts . There are CARDINAL levels of jurisdiction : ORG PERSON ) , ORG ( ORG ) and ORG ( Bundessozialgericht ) ( LAW DATE - Sozialgerichtsgesetz ) . These courts are empowered to review all decisions taken in this field by the administrative authorities and contested by those concerned . The relevant procedure is very similar to that before the administrative courts .