Alvina Gyulumyan;Egbert Myjer;Elisabet Fura;Josep Casadevall;Luis López Guerra

NORP The applicant is a NORP national who was born in DATE and is currently in GPE .

CARDINAL .

On DATE the applicant arrived in GPE and applied for asylum and a residence permit . During her interviews before ORG ( Migrationsverket ) she claimed that her husband had been taken away from their home by CARDINAL men on DATE and had been found dead DATE by GPE . On DATE CARDINAL men dressed in civilian clothes had broken into her home and had cut her with a knife . She had recognised CARDINAL of her assailants as X. , a member of ORG and her husband ’s business partner . She had been hospitalised and , when she had returned home , she had discovered that all her husband ’s documents and money had disappeared . On DATE CARDINAL men had again broken into her home and had abducted her . They had raped her and forced her to sign a document without being allowed to see the content of the document . She had managed to escape DATE . Even though she had reported the events to the police and identified X. , the police investigation had come to nothing . Moreover , she alleged that neighbours had thrown stones at her house and had asked her maid threatening questions about her daily routines . Finally , on DATE , her house had burnt down following an explosion . She did not know why all of this had happened to her but she suspected that it might have been related to her husband ’s political involvement with the ORG ( ORG pour la Défense de la Démocratie ) or the ORG ( Forces Nationales pour la ORG ) because she had heard one of her assailants mention this in passing , or because X. had wanted access to her husband ’s bank account for the business .

On DATE ORG rejected the application . It first noted that the applicant had not proved her identity but that there were no indications in the case that she was from a country other than GPE . It then considered that the applicant ’s story lacked credibility as she had given remarkably vague information about the events and had shown a lack of knowledge of why she and her husband had been the victims of the alleged attacks . Moreover , although it did not question the scars on her body , the ORG observed that the applicant had not been able to substantiate that they were the result of the violence she had described . Furthermore , she had failed to show that her husband had died as she alleged , that he had been involved either with the ORG or the ORG , or that he had had a business with X. and a bank account . In this respect , the ORG observed that the applicant knew nothing at all about her husband ’s alleged political involvement or whether he had actually been active for the ORG or the ORG . ORG also noted that the applicant had claimed that X. had wanted to obtain access to her husband ’s bank account while at the same time stating that X. had continued to run the business after her husband ’s death . Hence , in the ORG ’s view , X. already had access to the bank account relating to the business , for which reason the applicant ’s statement in this respect did not ring true . In any event , ORG considered that the QUANTITY attacks of which the applicant claimed to have been the victim were criminal acts and for the PERSON authorities to deal with . The circumstance that the authorities had not acted upon her report due to lack of evidence did not imply that they were unwilling or unable to help and protect her . In this respect , it stressed that the applicant had not in any way been able to show that the alleged events had been politically motivated . Thus , it concluded that the applicant was not a refugee or otherwise in need of protection in GPE . Moreover , it considered that there were no other special reasons to grant her exceptional leave to remain in GPE .

The applicant appealed to ORG ( Migrationsdomstolen ) relying on the same grounds as before ORG and adding the following . Her husband had been an important person within “ the party ” and , before the elections in DATE , he had had an important role in mobilising people . In connection with the election , he had left the party as he had felt that he could not support activities which included eliminating NORP . Since he knew the party ’s secrets , he had been seen as a threat and therefore eliminated . No one had investigated his death even though she had sought help from various authorities and it was not possible for her to obtain proof that he had been killed . The applicant further claimed that she believed that she had been attacked in DATE because her assailants had thought that her husband had told her “ party secrets ” and she had therefore become a threat . Also , her neighbours had thrown stones at her home and harassed her because she was NORP and they were NORP and wanted her to leave . Some of her employees had seen them throw stones and they had also asked her employees questions about her daily routines .

The applicant further submitted a copy of a search warrant ( ORG ) which stated that the applicant and another person were sought by the judicial police for an attack on the interior security of the ORG ( Atteinte à la Sûreté Intérieure de l’Etat ) . It was dated DATE and issued by an officer at the judicial police station in ORG , of ORG and ORG . The applicant claimed that a NORP man , with whom she had become acquainted in GPE and who had travelled to GPE , had given it to her . He in turn had obtained it from the girl who took care of her CARDINAL children in GPE and whom he had met when he had been there . The applicant also submitted a copy of a hospital bill , dated DATE and addressed to the applicant . It stated that she had arrived at the hospital on DATE and left on DATE and that she had been treated in the surgery section of the “ PERSON Regent PERSON in GPE . It also contained the details of the bill and the total amount due .

On DATE ORG rejected the appeal . It noted that the copy of the document called “ Avis de Recherche ” was of poor quality and that her account of how she had come by it was not credible . Moreover , the court considered that the alleged threats against her were vague and that she had not shown that she would risk persecution upon return to her home country . For the rest , it shared the ORG ’s reasoning and conclusion that the applicant was not in need of protection in GPE and that there were no special reasons to grant her leave to remain in GPE .

Upon further appeal , ORG ( Migrationsöverdomstolen ) refused leave to appeal on DATE .

On DATE the ORG rejected a request from the applicant for reconsideration of her case . ORG found that she had invoked no new reasons for her request and that the preparation for the enforcement of her deportation order should continue .

On DATE , upon request by the applicant , the ORG decided to indicate to ORG under Rule CARDINAL of ORG a suspension of the applicant ’s deportation to GPE until further notice . Moreover , it invited the applicant to provide some more information surrounding her husband ’s activities and his death as well as her kidnapping and , if possible , to submit some evidence in support of these events . In addition , the ORG requested her to furnish some concrete evidence that she was sought by the PERSON authorities , since the copy of the alleged search warrant was of poor quality .

By letter received by ORG DATE the applicant submitted a death certificate for her husband which stated that he had died on DATE in GPE as a result of “ blows and injuries ” ( coups et blessures ) . She further added , inter alia , the following . Her husband was NORP and had been a businessman and a member of the CNDD - FDD ( ORG pour la Défense de la ORG ) . He had been responsible for mobilising and recruiting people to the party . During the elections in DATE , he had decided to leave the party as he had discovered that there was a hidden agenda of ethnicity , arbitrary arrests and assassinations . Moreover he had been asked , together with colleagues , to organise the assassination of NORP and certain NORP in opposition , which he had refused . He had instead joined the ORG . However , the CNDD - ORG had won the elections and had then started to persecute and eliminate all persons who had not supported them , including the applicant ’s husband , as he knew its secrets and even held certain party documents . Hence , on DATE , CARDINAL persons had come to their home , QUANTITY of whom wore a formal police uniform . They had shown her husband a warrant for his arrest and he had had to go with them . She had not been allowed to accompany them but had gone to the police station to ask for him and also to various detention centres in GPE . She had not managed to obtain any information but DATE he had been found dead by GPE . DATE after the funeral , the applicant had gone to the police station to complain , since CARDINAL of the CARDINAL men had been wearing a police uniform . She had been told that an investigation would be carried out but nothing had been done . Later , when she had insisted , she had been told to stop or she would meet the same fate as her husband , as would the entire family .

As to the attacks on her , the applicant stated that she had first been attacked in her home on DATE by CARDINAL persons in civilian clothes . She had heard them enter by force through the main door and she had tried to escape with her children . She had recognised CARDINAL of them as being X. They had caught her and stabbed her in the chest with a knife and she had lost consciousness . She had regained consciousness at the hospital , where she had then spent DATE recovering . She had several injuries to her face and arms and had also broken her left collar bone . When she had returned home she had found the house in disorder , their valuables had been stolen and a suitcase in which her husband had kept documents had also disappeared . The applicant submitted CARDINAL photos showing the scars from her injuries , namely a scar on the right side of her chest , a scar by her left armpit , a scar on her right lower arm and a scar over her left eyebrow . She further produced a copy of a certificate dated DATE , issued by QUANTITY GPE , head of psychosocial care at FAC in GPE . It stated that the centre was specialised in helping victims of sexual violence and that the applicant had been treated there and had received medical , psychological and social care . The author of the certificate had met with her on DATE at the FAC and heard her account of having been the victim of sexual violence and other forms of torture .

NORP The applicant further added that the second attack against her had occurred on DATE because the party had wanted to eliminate her as she knew some of their secrets through her husband . Thus , she had been kidnapped from her home by QUANTITY persons and taken to an unknown place where she had been locked up . She had been guarded by men who had raped her one after the other . She had been told that she would be interrogated and then killed . However , TIME the guard outside her room had left and she had taken the opportunity to jump out of the window and escape . She had broken her front teeth when she had jumped . As she had managed to escape the assassination attempt , someone had come during TIME CARDINAL DATE and had set fire to her house . She had been asleep , but had woken up and she and her children had managed to escape from the fire . All their belongings had been destroyed except for the applicant ’s handbag which she had managed to take with her . She and her children had then stayed with a friend of hers and they had received clothes and food from kind people around them .

The applicant ended her account to the ORG by claiming that the party ( CNDD - ORG ) remained in power and thus was still looking to eliminate her in order to erase all evidence of their atrocities .

The basic provisions applicable in the present case , concerning the right of aliens to enter and to remain in GPE , are laid down in the DATE LAW ( Utlänningslagen , DATE hereafter referred to as “ the DATE LAW ) .

LAW , of the CARDINAL Act stipulates that an alien who is considered to be a refugee or otherwise in need of protection is , with certain exceptions , entitled to a residence permit in GPE . According to LAW , LAW , of LAW , the term “ refugee ” refers to an alien who is outside the country of his or her nationality owing to a well - founded fear of being persecuted on grounds of race , nationality , religious or political beliefs , or on grounds of gender , sexual orientation or other membership of a particular social group and who is unable or , owing to such fear , is unwilling to avail himself or herself of the protection of that country . This applies irrespective of whether the persecution is at the hands of the authorities of the country or if those authorities can not be expected to offer protection against persecution by private individuals . By “ an alien otherwise in need of protection ” is meant , inter alia , a person who has left the country of his or her nationality because of a well - founded fear of being sentenced to death or receiving corporal punishment , or of being subjected to torture or other inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment ( LAW , LAW , of the DATE Act ) .

NORP Moreover , if a residence permit can not be granted on the above grounds , such a permit may be issued to an alien if , after an overall assessment of his or her situation , there are such particularly distressing circumstances ( synnerligen ömmande omständigheter ) to allow him or her to remain in GPE ( LAW , section DATE CARDINAL Act ) . During this assessment , special consideration should be given to , inter alia , the alien ’s health status . In the preparatory works to this provision ( Government Bill CARDINAL , pp . CARDINAL ) , life - threatening physical or mental illness for which no treatment can be given in the alien ’s home country could constitute a reason for the grant of a residence permit .

As regards the enforcement of a deportation or expulsion order , account has to be taken of the risk of capital punishment or torture and other inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment . According to a special provision on impediments to enforcement , an alien must not be sent to a country where there are reasonable grounds for believing that he or she would be in danger of suffering capital or corporal punishment or of being subjected to torture or other inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment ( LAW , LAW , of the DATE Act ) . In addition , an alien must not , in principle , be sent to a country where he or she risks persecution ( LAW , LAW , of the DATE Act ) .

Under certain conditions , an alien may be granted a residence permit even if a deportation or expulsion order has gained legal force . This applies under LAW , LAW , of LAW , where new circumstances have emerged that mean there are reasonable grounds for believing , inter alia , that an enforcement would put the alien in danger of being subjected to capital or corporal punishment , torture or other inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment or there are medical or other special reasons why the order should not be enforced . If a residence permit can not be granted under this provision , ORG may instead decide to re - examine the matter . Such a re - examination shall be carried out where it may be assumed , on the basis of new circumstances invoked by the alien , that there are lasting impediments to enforcement of the nature referred to in LAW , Sections CARDINAL and CARDINAL , of LAW , and these circumstances could not have been invoked previously or the alien shows that he or she has a valid excuse for not doing so . Should the applicable conditions not have been met , ORG shall decide not to grant a re - examination ( LAW , LAW , of LAW ) .

NORP Under LAW , matters concerning the right of aliens to enter and remain in GPE are dealt with by CARDINAL instances ; ORG , ORG and ORG ( LAW , LAW , and LAW , LAW , of LAW ) .

GPE is a constitutional republic with an elected government and a population of CARDINAL . PERCENT of the population are of NORP ethnic origin , PERCENT of the remaining population are NORP and PERCENT are GPE .

NORP The political landscape of GPE has been dominated in DATE by the civil war and a long peace process and move to democracy . The country has a multi - party system where the parties are usually based on ethnic background . Parties of relevance to the present case are :

- Conseil National pour la Défense de la Démocratie ( ORG ) ; it is a smaller faction of the former main NORP rebel group . It is now a political party led by PERSON . At the legislative elections in DATE , the party won PERCENT of the votes and CARDINAL out of CARDINAL seats in the ORG .

- Conseil National pour la Défense de la Démocratie – Forces pour la Défense de la Démocratie ( CNDD - ORG ) ; it is the largest faction of the former main NORP rebel group . The ORG was the political wing of the organisation , while the ORG was the military wing . The ORG - FDD split from DATE . In DATE the group registered as a legal political party , led by PERSON . At the legislative elections in DATE the party won CARDINAL PERCENT of the votes and CARDINAL out of CARDINAL seats in the ORG and PERSON was elected President .

- Forces Nationales de Libération ( ORG ; formerly ORG pour la ORG du PERSON or “ LOC ” ) ; it is a rebel group which fought in the GPE Civil War for the NORP ethnic group . The armed wing of ORG was the ORG , led by PERSON . FAC was the last NORP rebel group to sign an agreement with the GPE government , in DATE . A final agreement was signed in DATE , according to which it also changed its name to simply ORG ( as NORP political parties may not refer to ethnicities in their names ) . In DATE it began disarming and became a registered political party .

ORG , in its DATE Country Reports on ORG ; GPE , dated DATE , noted that the Burundian government ’s human rights record remained poor and that the government security forces continued to commit numerous serious human rights abuses . Members of the army , the police , and ORG were responsible for killings , torture and beatings of civilians and detainees , although there had been fewer such reports than in DATE . It further observed that civilian authorities generally maintained effective control of the security forces , although there were instances when elements of the security forces acted independently . Moreover , while government security forces , especially the army , took some steps to prosecute the perpetrators of human rights abuses , most individuals acted with impunity . Security forces also continued to harass members of the opposition . Furthermore , a large number of weapons circulated throughout the general population and many violent incidents and killings were considered the result of vigilante abuse and personal score - settling . Despite the cease - fire , abuses by the ORG against civilians continued , primarily in the FAC traditional strongholds of GPE and the LOC provinces . These abuses included killings , kidnappings , rapes , theft , extortion and the looting and burning of houses .

According to ORG of the Secretary General on ORG in GPE ( document S/CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) , dated CARDINAL DATE , the period under review ( DATE to DATE ) witnessed significant breakthroughs in the peace process which led to some improvements in the security situation in GPE , especially in the north - western provinces . Accordingly , the ORG security phase was adjusted from GPE in GPE and ORG , bringing the entire country under security phase III . Criminal activities perpetrated by alleged ORG elements , former combatants , members of the security forces and unidentified armed individuals persisted , however , throughout the country . These included killings , abductions , rapes , lootings , armed robberies , grenade attacks , ambushes and violent incidents related to land conflicts . Moreover , despite limited improvement in the overall human rights situation during the reporting period , impunity continued to be a source of serious concern , in particular for sexual and gender - based crimes .

Amnesty International reported in its Report DATE GPE , that there continued to be a high incidence of rape and other sexual violence against women and girls during DATE . For example , a centre run by ORG in GPE received an average of CARDINAL rape victims DATE .


The applicants , PERSON and Mr Tobiáš Loyka , are NORP nationals , who were born in DATE and DATE respectively and live in GPE . They are represented before the ORG by PERSON , a lawyer practising in PERSON . The respondent Government are represented by PERSON , their Agent .

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

The applicants set up a commercial limited liability company ( “ the company ” ) with a seat in GPE . Under LAW of LAW in conjunction with the applicable provisions of LAW the company has a distinct legal personality . The company was later transformed into a joint stock company , its name was changed and its seat was moved to PERSON and than back to GPE . Since DATE the name of the company has been ORG , a.s .

The applicants each own PERCENT of shares in the company and the first applicant is the chairperson of its board of directors and the second applicant is the chairperson of its supervisory board .

On DATE the ORG ( Krajský súd ) made an insolvency order against the company . The order was however quashed on appeal by ORG ( Najvyšší súd ) on DATE .

On DATE a new insolvency order was made . Under Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL ( a ) and ( l ) of LAW ( Law no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL Coll . , as amended ) , the declaration of insolvency entailed an automatic transfer of the right to make any dispositions in respect of the company ’s estate and its operational affairs to the bankruptcy trustee . Pursuant to subparagraph CARDINAL ( d ) in conjunction with subparagraph CARDINAL of LAW , any pending judicial or other proceedings involving the company were automatically stayed and could only continue on the trustee ’s request .

The insolvency proceedings are still pending .

In DATE the company bought certain real property including a peat plant . The property was subject to a claim by a group of original owners and legal successors of original owners for restitution of their ownership title under LAW ( Law no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL Coll . , as amended ) .

The restitution claim was granted by ORG úrad , odbor pozemkový , poľnohospodárstva a lesného hospodárstva ) in DATE and by ORG in DATE .

The decisions of DATE and DATE were quashed on the company ’s administrativelaw appeals by ORG on DATE and ORG on DATE respectively .

In the proceedings leading to the judgment of DATE the bankruptcy trustee informed ORG by a letter of DATE that she was the person entitled to act in the name of the company . By a letter of DATE she requested under LAW that the proceedings continue .

In the meantime , on DATE and DATE , respectively , ORG had again granted the restitution claim in so far as brought by CARDINAL categories of claimants . The trustee challenged these decisions by an administrativelaw appeal which is still pending in ORG .

On DATE ORG dismissed the whole of the restitution claim . Several of the claimants challenged the dismissal by an administrativelaw appeal which is also still pending in ORG .


Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention;Article 5-1-a - After conviction);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-5 - Compensation)

George Nicolaou;Ineta Ziemele;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Ledi Bianku;Päivi Hirvelä;Zdravka Kalaydjieva

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in Striama .

The applicant was convicted of a number of crimes committed DATE . The cases were given the case numbers CARDINAL , DATE , CARDINAL/CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , ORG and DATE .

On DATE a plea bargain agreement in case no . CARDINAL was approved by ORG , under the terms of which the applicant pleaded guilty to robbery and was sentenced to DATE imprisonment .

The applicant started serving that sentence on DATE .

By a decision of DATE in case no . ORG , ORG imposed an overall sentence of CARDINAL years’ imprisonment , which included imprisonment for CARDINAL of the applicant ’s other convictions ( cases nos . CARDINAL , ORG , ORG and CARDINAL ) .

Following an appeal lodged by the applicant , by a decision of CARDINAL DATE ORG set aside the lower court ’s decision . It imposed an overall sentence of DATE imprisonment solely for the applicant ’s convictions in cases CARDINAL . CARDINAL and ORG . From that prison term , the court deducted DATE which had been served by the applicant following his conviction in case no . CARDINAL . It also held that the period served by the applicant following his conviction in case no . ORG was also to be deducted from the overall sentence . The court did not specify when the DATE prison term was to expire . In respect of the convictions in cases nos . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , CARDINAL/CARDINAL , PERSON and PERSON ( the applicant had already served the sentence imposed in case no . CARDINAL and the sentences in the remaining CARDINAL cases were suspended ) , it concluded that imposing a separate overall sentence would be to the applicant ’s benefit but that another regional court was competent in this respect .

Following the decision of CARDINAL DATE the applicant , relying on LAW , applied for the suspension of his sentence . On DATE the regional prosecutor rejected the application , reasoning that an overall sentence for CARDINAL other convictions was yet to be imposed .

NORP The applicant was released on DATE , when it would appear that the decision of CARDINAL DATE , not having been appealed by either the applicant or the prosecution authorities , became final .

On an unspecified date in DATE a new set of proceedings in which an overall sentence would be imposed started on account of the applicant ’s conviction in case no . DATE , which had not been taken into consideration during the previous set of proceedings .

By a decision of CARDINAL DATE ORG imposed an overall sentence of DATE and CARDINAL months’ imprisonment for the applicant ’s convictions in cases ORG . CARDINAL , CARDINAL/CARDINAL and ORG . On DATE ORG upheld that decision .

It is not clear from the documents in the case file whether an overall sentence in cases QUANTITY . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , CARDINAL/CARDINAL , CARDINAL and PERSON was imposed .

On DATE , the applicant brought an action for damages under the ORG and Municipalities’ LAW DATE ( “ the DATE LAW ) against ORG and public prosecutor ’s office . He claimed that under the decision of CARDINAL DATE he had been sentenced to DATE imprisonment but that he had actually served DATE , DATE and DATE .

By a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG held that , after deducting time served and reducing the sentence to take account of DATE the applicant had worked in prison , he had served DATE and DATE over the prison term imposed by the decision of DATE . However , the court found that proceedings in which an overall sentence for some of the applicant ’s convictions would be imposed were pending , and that the period of time served in excess of the sentence imposed by the decision of CARDINAL DATE would be taken into consideration when an overall sentence was imposed for the remaining convictions . The court consequently dismissed the action and ordered the applicant to pay the sum of MONEY ( ORG ) in court fees .

The applicant appealed against the judgment . He stated that by adding another conviction and imposing a higher overall sentence , the decision of DATE had contradicted that of CARDINAL DATE . By a judgment of DATE ORG upheld the lower court ’s finding and ordered the applicant to pay an additional ORG CARDINAL in court fees . The court reasoned that his detention had been lawful because the applicant ’s conviction in case no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL had not been taken into consideration by the decision of CARDINAL DATE as it should have been – a shortcoming rectified by the decision of DATE and that consequently in DATE the proceedings in which an overall sentence would be imposed had not yet been completed .

The applicant subsequently appealed on points of law , claiming that the amount of court fees he had been ordered to pay had breached amendments to LAW which had come into force on CARDINAL DATE .

By a decision of CARDINAL DATE ORG ( “ SCC ” ) refused to grant the applicant ’s appeal on points of law , thus upholding the lower court ’s judgment . In respect of the complaint against the court fees , the SCC ordered that separate proceedings be initiated .

By a final decision of DATE ORG upheld the applicant ’s complaint in respect of the court fees . The court applied section CARDINAL and paragraph CARDINAL of the concluding provisions of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) and determined that a flat court fee of ORG CARDINAL should apply .

Article CARDINAL § QUANTITY of the Criminal Code DATE provides that when an individual is convicted pursuant to CARDINAL or more separate judgments , CARDINAL overall term of imprisonment shall be imposed if all of the crimes were committed prior to the first conviction . Paragraph CARDINAL of that provision states that time served following conviction pursuant to CARDINAL of the judgments shall be deducted from the time to be served under the overall term of imprisonment . Paragraph CARDINAL provides that in the event that a sentence imposed in CARDINAL or more of the judgments is suspended , the court imposing the overall prison term shall decide whether it is , in fact , to be served effectively .

Article CARDINAL of the Code of Criminal Procedure DATE ( “ the DATE LAW ) ( in force until DATE when it was replaced by a new Code ) provided that judgments and decisions were enforced after they become final . A copy of the judgment is sent to the prosecutor who is competent to take the necessary measures for its execution ; in the case of a custodial sentence the prosecutor orders the prison authorities to detain the prisoner in execution of the sentence ( LAW of LAW ) .

Article CARDINAL of the DATE Code provided , inter alia , that the service of a sentence of imprisonment could be interrupted on compelling grounds of a family or social nature . LAW stipulated that a prison governor could recommend such an interruption , which might then be ordered by the competent public prosecutor .

The relevant provisions of the ORG and Municipalities’ LAW DATE ( “ the DATE LAW ) in respect of court fees are summarised in paragraphs CARDINAL of the ORG ’s judgment in the case of PERSON v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , ECHR CARDINALVIII ) .

The CARDINAL Act was amended with effect from DATE , introducing , in new section CARDINAL , a flat court fee in cases brought under LAW , irrespective of the amount of claim . According to paragraph CARDINAL of the concluding provisions of LAW , section CARDINAL applied to proceedings pending at the time of its introduction .


GENCER INSAAT TAAHHUT TURIZM TICARET SANAYII LTD. STI. v. TURKEY

Alvina Gyulumyan;Corneliu Bîrsan;Egbert Myjer;Elisabet Fura;Josep Casadevall

NORP The applicant , PERSON GPE . , is a NORP commercial company based in GPE . It was represented by Mr M. Bir , a lawyer practising in GPE . ORG ( “ the Government ” ) were represented by their Agent .

On DATE the applicant company brought civil proceedings against a private individual ( ORG ) before ORG , claiming unjust enrichment .

The first hearing scheduled for DATE was postponed for administrative reasons . At the next hearing , which was held on DATE , both parties requested an adjournment to present their evidence .

At the following hearing on DATE the applicant company explained that it wished to adduce as evidence the entire case - file of a pending claim for reimbursement it had lodged against ORG The court therefore decided to await the outcome of the proceedings concerning the reimbursement claim and adjourned the case to DATE . The case - file indicates that the judgment in respect of the applicant company ’s reimbursement claim was delivered on DATE , in accordance with an agreement that had been reached between the applicant company and ORG This judgment was served on the applicant company on DATE and became final in the absence of any appeal .

As neither party attended the following CARDINAL hearings on DATE and CARDINAL DATE the court decided to discontinue the proceedings unless asked to reinstate them . Following a request to that effect by the applicant company the case was reinstated on DATE and a hearing was scheduled for DATE .

Of the CARDINAL subsequent hearings that were held DATE and DATE , the applicant company failed to attend CARDINAL and requested adjournments in a further CARDINAL .

On DATE an expert report was requested by the court . The report was submitted on DATE .

ORG held CARDINAL hearings in DATE before it delivered its judgment on DATE . The court awarded the applicant company MONEY . Both parties appealed . On DATE ORG quashed that judgment on the ground , inter alia , that the applicant company had not presented material evidence as proof of its alleged loss . The applicant company ’s rectification request was dismissed on DATE .

The case was remitted to ORG , which abided by the decision of ORG and dismissed the case on DATE . The applicant company appealed . On DATE ORG upheld the judgment .

The applicant company then sought rectification . On DATE ORG refused the applicant company ’s request .

The decision was lodged with the first - instance court ’s registry on DATE and served on the applicant company on DATE .


Violation of Art. 10;Pecuniary damage - financial award;Non-pecuniary damage - financial award;Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings

At the relevant time the applicant was the head of ORG division responsible for the financial and logistical support for the judicial system . In this capacity , he sometimes attended the meetings of ORG – the body responsible for , inter alia , allocating the judicial budget . ORG consists of CARDINAL members , including the chairpersons of ORG and ORG , and ORG . Its meetings are presided over by the Minister of Justice .

ORG held a meeting on DATE , at which the issue of the endofyear bonus for judges , prosecutors , and investigators was discussed . The applicant attended the meeting , as he usually did in cases when budgetary matters were considered . The deputy ORG , PERSON , who was a member of the ORG , was also present .

At some point during the meeting , after commenting the provisions of LAW , the applicant said : “ You have decided to have financial matters dealt with by PERSON For me he is not a clean person ... ” . He then added : “ I can prove this ” . The Prosecutor - General reacted vehemently , asking the applicant to leave the room . The applicant tried to continue but was interrupted by PERSON who asked him to clarify what he meant by “ unclean person ” . The Minister of ORG intervened and requested the applicant to retract the words “ unclean person ” . The Prosecutor - General reacted immediately : “ There is no retraction , there are prosecution authorities . This is already a problem , this is already a crime ” . The Minister insisted on the applicant apologising for the words “ unclean person ” . Thereupon the applicant said : “ Alright , I apologise ” . Because of the tense situation all financial matters which were due to be discussed at the meeting were adjourned .

NORP Immediately after the meeting the ORG requested a copy of TIME . He received it on DATE and on CARDINAL DATE sent it to ORG with instructions to carry out a preliminary inquiry with a view to opening criminal proceedings against the applicant . On DATE ORG transmitted the case file to GPE ORG with instructions to open criminal proceedings against the applicant for insult . The investigation was to be performed not by an investigator , as would usually be the case , but by a prosecutor .

On DATE the ORG instituted criminal proceedings against the applicant for “ having said publicly ‘ for me he is not a clean person’ in respect of [ Mr S. ] in his presence ... which was degrading for the latter ’s dignity ” , contrary to Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) , ( CARDINAL ) and ( CARDINAL ) in conjunction with LAW .

On DATE the applicant was charged .

The investigation was concluded on DATE and the applicant and his counsel were allowed to consult the case file . After having done so , counsel for the applicant requested that all members of ORG who had been present at the meeting be questioned and that an expert report be prepared to compare the audio tape of the meeting with the written TIME . The prosecutor in charge of the investigation refused , reasoning that the facts of the case had been elucidated by the evidence already gathered , which supported the accusation .

The applicant was indicted . The trial against him took place on CARDINAL DATE at ORG . The court heard CARDINAL witnesses : the alleged victim of the insult , PERSON , and another member of ORG . PERSON stated that it was difficult for him to say whether the applicant ’s remark had changed ORG opinion of him . The other witness stated that sometimes the discussions in the ORG were quite heated but that no one had ever used such words or made such remarks . CARDINAL other witnesses called

After that the court heard the parties’ closing argument . Counsel for the applicant pleaded for a verdict of not guilty , relying , inter alia , on LAW . She argued that the words “ for me he is not a clean person ” were only an expression of the applicant ’s personal opinion about Mr S. The applicant ’s words were objectively not rude , vulgar or insulting . He had simply exercised his right to voice what he thought about another person , in purely neutral terms . To equate this with an insult would mean that only those who had a favourable opinion of PERSON would be allowed to express it . In her view , the entire case had been sparked by the ORG ’s vindictiveness .

In a judgment of CARDINAL DATE the GPE ORG found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced him to a fine of CARDINAL old NORP levs ( ORG ) and to a public reprimand . The court held as follows :

“ The actus reus consisted of uttering words which were humiliating and disparaging for [ Mr S. ] in his presence . It is not disputed ... that the accused ... said in respect of [ Mr S. ] ‘ For me he is not a clean person’ . The expression has an insulting character , because it dishonours [ Mr S. ] . It contains a disapproval of his ethical and moral qualities , which is irreconcilable with his being in charge of the budgetary funds of the judiciary . In this fashion the personality of [ Mr S. ] and his authority in front of the other members of the [ ORG ] were disparaged . ‘ Not a clean person’ has CARDINAL interpretation , that the person concerned has a tainted consciousness and lacks morality . Even if this is the [ applicant ’s ] personal opinion about the qualities of [ Mr S. ] , the remark was aimed at affecting the honour and the dignity of [ Mr S. ] . Criticism ... , especially when it comes to the public manifestations of persons who represent state institutions , has to be consistent with the rules of society , ethics and the common rules of decency and morality . These must not be trampled on under the pretence that the personal opinion about another is a matter of perception and [ represents the exercise ] of the constitutional right to freedom of expression ... It is unconstitutional and criminal to criticise in an insulting form , as in the case at hand ...

The offence was intentional ... It was committed in public , in front of CARDINAL members of ORG and the deputyMinister of ORG . This increases the gravity of the offence , because the offensive words were heard not only by the victim , but also by a large group of persons ...

The fact that the [ applicant ] apologised to the victim after being invited to do so by the [ Minister of ORG ] does not remove the criminal character of his act or its harmful consequences . By uttering words which were humiliating for the victim , [ the applicant ] completed the offence and the harmful consequences arose . The derogation of the victim ’s reputation was irreversible . The fact [ that the applicant apologised ] must , however , be taken into consideration for the purpose of assessing the gravity of the offence ... and for the purpose of sentencing .

The defence ’s argument that the [ applicant ’s ] act was not criminal because it was in fact the expression of a personal criticism by a person exercising his freedom of expression ... can not be sustained . The right to freedom of expression carries the duty , set out in LAW , not to exercise this right to the detriment of the reputation of another . The present case represents an abuse of this right , because the personal disproval of [ Mr S. ] which the [ applicant ] expressed publicly had a humiliating content . The negative opinion was expressed indecently , in an insulting and humiliating manner , which is contrary to the law . This implies that the [ statement ] was contrary to both LAW and LAW ... , which enshrine the right to freedom of expression , but in the bounds of decency , respect for the rights of every member of society , tolerance and respect for the reputation of the others ... ”

The applicant appealed to ORG . His counsel again argued that the applicant ’s remark had not been couched in offensive terms , that he had expressed his personal views in an entirely acceptable way and that a penalty imposed on him for having voiced an opinion ran counter to his freedom of expression .

The prosecution appealed as well , requesting an increase of the applicant ’s sentence .

The Sofia City Court held a hearing on DATE .

In a judgment of DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s and the prosecution ’s appeals . It held , inter alia , as follows :

“ The [ court below ] correctly concluded that the [ applicant ’s ] words had an insulting content . The expression was examined by the district court in accordance with the meaning which was put in it – a disapproval of the ethical and moral qualities of [ Mr S. ] , which was incompatible with his being in charge of the budgetary funds of the judiciary ; a disapproval aiming to impinge on the victim ’s personal dignity . The [ words ] were analysed by the firstinstance court in view of their objective potential to impinge on the dignity of the victim , because they exceeded the bounds of ethical communication and the generally accepted rules of decency .

The defence ’s arguments ... that the [ words ] in issue were in fact the [ applicant ’s ] personal opinion , the expression of which is protected by the rule of LAW , are unfounded . The district court was correct in concluding that the expression of a personal opinion about someone , even though a constitutionally protected right , should not exceed the bounds set out in paragraph CARDINAL of [ LAW ] . In other words , the right to freely express one ’s opinion may not be used to infringe the rights and reputation of another ...

In its reasoning the district court examined all arguments of the defence , relying on the ORG constant caselaw under LAW and LAW . ... ”

On DATE the applicant lodged a petition for review with ORG , claiming that the lower courts’ judgments were unfounded and in breach of the law .

On DATE ORG accepted the petition for examination and listed the case for hearing .

NORP The court held a hearing on DATE . It heard the parties’ argument and reserved judgment . Prior to the hearing the applicant ’s defence presented written observations , in which it argued that the lower courts’ judgments were unfounded and unlawful . In particular , the courts’ holding that the applicant ’s words were offensive was arbitrary . On the opposite , they were not rude , vulgar or cynical , but completely neutral . The defence also reiterated its submissions in respect of the applicant ’s right to voice personal opinions .

ORG delivered its judgment on DATE , dismissing the petition in the following terms :

“ [ The words ] used by [ the applicant ] in the presence of [ Mr S. ] were humiliating and it can not be accepted that this was in line with the rule of LAW , which guarantees to all NORP citizens the possibility to express their personal opinion and criticise other persons . This possibility is subject to and dependent on the limitations of paragraph CARDINAL [ of this LAW ] , according to which this right should not be used for impinging on the reputation of another . In the case at hand there has been an abuse of the right under paragraph CARDINAL [ of this Article ] , because the personal opinion , expressed by [ the applicant ] in respect of [ Mr S. ] has a disparaging content . The negative opinion is expressed in an indecent , insulting and humiliating manner ... As such it falls under the prohibition of Articles CARDINAL [ and ] CARDINAL of LAW , because it not only goes against LAW , but also against LAW ... which enshrine the right to freedom of expression , but within the bounds of decency , respect for the rights of the person , tolerance , and protection of the reputation of the others . These rules are valid in all civilised and democratic societies .

It is unconstitutional and criminally liable to ‘ criticise’ in an insulting manner , as has been done in the case at hand . The words which were used had an insulting content , because they debased the victim ’s dignity and his authority before the other members of the [ ORG . They contained a disapproval of his moral and ethical qualities which is incompatible with his function as a person disposing with budgetary funds . What was said could be interpreted in CARDINAL manner only : that the person in question has a tainted consciousness and lacks morality ; it was aimed at impinging the honour and dignity of [ Mr S. ] . ... ”

The applicant paid the fine on DATE . He was not publicly reprimanded and on DATE a prosecutor of ORG ordered that his sentence was not to be enforced because the relevant limitation period had expired .

Article CARDINAL of the LAW of DATE provides :

“ CARDINAL . Everyone is entitled to express an opinion or to publicise it through words , written or oral , sound , or image , or in any other way .

NORP This right shall not be used to the detriment of the rights and reputation of others , or for the incitement of a forcible change of the constitutionally established order , the perpetration of a crime , or the incitement of enmity or violence against anyone . ”

Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL of LAW , as in force at the relevant time , provided :

“ Whoever says or does something degrading for the honour or the dignity of another in his presence shall be punished for insult by CARDINAL months’ imprisonment or a fine of MONEY . The court may also impose a public reprimand . ”

If an insult has been made in public , or against an official in the performance of his duties , or by an official in the performance of his duties , it was punishable by DATE imprisonment or a fine of up to ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL ( LAW ) , ( CARDINAL ) , and ( CARDINAL ) of LAW , as in force at the relevant time ) .

At the relevant time insult was privately prosecutable in all cases , save when perpetrated in respect of or by an official , in which case it was publicly prosecutable ( LAW , as in force at the relevant time , in conjunction with LAW and LAW ) and ( CARDINAL ) thereof ) . At present insult is privately prosecutable in all cases without exception ( LAW , as amended in DATE and presently in force ) .

By LAW , the victim of a criminal offence may make a civil claim in the context of the criminal proceedings , and request compensation for the damage sustained as a result of the offence . He or she may also take part in the criminal proceedings as a private prosecuting party alongside the public prosecutor ( LAW ) .


Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time)

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

On DATE the GPE and GPE Regional Pension Insurance Directorate established the applicant ’s service DATE and the amount of his old age pension . The applicant appealed , challenging the amount of service DATE recognised . The second - instance administrative authority accepted the claim in part on DATE . This decision was later modified slightly ex officio to the applicant ’s advantage on DATE .

On DATE the applicant sought judicial review against ORG decision before ORG . The court dismissed his action on DATE .

The applicant lodged a petition for review with ORG , which quashed ORG judgment and remitted the case to the first - instance court on DATE .

In the resumed proceedings ORG again dismissed the applicant ’s action on DATE . ORG upheld the first - instance judgment on DATE , which was served on the applicant on DATE .

The domestic courts relied on documentary evidence , the opinion of CARDINAL forensic accountant experts and testimonies of the parties .


No violation of Art. 8;No violation of P1-1;No violation of P1-2;No violation of Art. 14

Lord Justice Schiemann;Luzius Wildhaber;Nicolas Bratza

The applicants are gypsies by birth . As children , the applicants lived and travelled with their respective families in and around the area known as GPE in GPE . From DATE , the LOC was a designated area pursuant to section CARDINAL of LAW DATE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) .

NORP In DATE , the applicants married . When the second applicant became pregnant , the applicants decided to search for a permanent site on which to site their caravan . There remained few stopping places upon which they could lawfully park their caravan whilst travelling in the area and they faced the threat of continual eviction . The applicants wished for their children to be brought up in a stable environment which would facilitate the continuity of their education . The applicants now have CARDINAL children , PERSON born in DATE , PERSON in DATE , Jessica in DATE and PERSON in DATE .

The applicants stated that they were refused a place on any local authorised site . They camped outside one official site for DATE hoping to be offered a plot . No place was offered and court proceedings were brought against them by the LOC to secure their eviction from the land . The Government stated that the LOC has no knowledge or record of any request by the applicants for a pitch in DATE .

With the imminent birth of their first child , the applicants moved into the caravan occupied by the first applicant ’s mother on a permitted gypsy site and sold their own caravan . The caravan was however small and conditions became intolerable . Having nowhere else to go , the applicants in or DATE reluctantly applied for permanent accommodation and accepted the offer of a council flat . They commenced a tenancy in a fourth floor flat on DATE . Though they were moved to a first floor flat after DATE , they found the flats totally unsuitable and alien to their traditional gypsy lifestyle . On DATE , they requested a transfer to a house on the grounds of the second applicant ’s health but were informed that there was a waiting list and that a move would be conditional on payment of outstanding rent . The applicants disputed that they owed any rent and suggested that the GPE has mistaken them for the tenants of a different flat , there being some confusion as to the addresses involved . In DATE , the applicants requested a site on an official caravan site or more suitable accommodation but were told this was not possible . The ORG stated that they did not wish to be placed on the waiting list .

In DATE , the applicants purchased land known as ORG in NORP , GPE and moved onto it , living in a caravan .

On DATE , the second applicant made a retrospective planning application for permission to station a caravan on their site . Permission was refused by the GPE on DATE .

On DATE , an enforcement notice was issued requiring discontinuance of the unauthorised use .

In DATE , the applicants were convicted for failure to comply with the enforcement notice .

On DATE , a public enquiry was held by way of appeal against the refusal of planning permission . The appeal was dismissed . The Inspector accepted that the applicants were gypsies for whom conventional residence in permanent accommodation would lead to illness and problems of adjustment . They had therefore not lost their status as gypsies as a result of their residence in a flat . He found however that the development on a site , well outside built - up areas , was clearly visible and would constitute a significant intrusion into the attractive rural surroundings and seriously harm the character and appearance of the countryside contrary to the aims of the local development plans . The proximity of another established gypsy site a short distance along the same road was a further consideration for rejecting the application , since there would be a cumulative effect . Though there were hedges and trees providing partial screening , these would have less effect in the DATE and the site was still a significant intrusion in the landscape . While he expressed his concern for the serious consequences of a refusal for the applicants and their CARDINAL children , since they had nowhere to live for the foreseeable future apart perhaps from unauthorised camping sites , he concluded :

“ It is all a matter of weighing opposing considerations , and although both national and local policies envisage circumstances where the special needs of gypsies can outweigh the general objective of protecting the countryside , my view is that , because of such factors as the quality of this countryside , they do not prevail here . ”

The applicants made a further application for planning permission which was refused on DATE , seeking inter alia to argue that they had resited the caravan and provided more screening to minimise any visual impact on the landscape and that their site was less harmful than the CARDINAL poorly screened sites nearby which were authorised by the LOC .

A public enquiry was held before a Planning Inspector on DATE . The ORG refused their appeal on DATE and the applicants were penalised in costs on the basis that it was identical to the previous application . The Inspector did not find the granting of permission for caravans for CARDINAL gypsy families CARDINAL metres away along the same road could be regarded as a material difference .

“ On the contrary , in my opinion CARDINAL gypsy caravan sites within QUANTITY of the length of FAC would amount to an overconcentration of caravan sites in these rural surroundings . ”

The Inspector went on :

“ CARDINAL . As to … alleged intentional homelessness , Counsel for GPE , on instructions , assured the inquiry that the < applicants’ > family would be offered short - term housing . This is the position the family have faced for a long time . < The applicants > conceded that the only action taken since the DATE decision by or on behalf of the family to find another site or accommodation , was a telephone call … to GPE > in DATE . …

I have given sympathetic consideration to all of < the applicants > case . I accept that the family have a pressing local need for a caravan site . The provision of private sites should be encouraged . ORG support the provision of private sites . So does Government policy . There should be a flexible attitude to such planning applications . As was said in a Parliamentary answer in DATE , well - run gypsy sites , once established , seldom give cause for serious complaints . ‘ Designated’ authorities like GPE may still need to make extra provision in their area if the demand for gypsy accommodation increases . There are still gypsy families parked on unauthorised sites in LOC , including < the applicants > … No new gypsy sites have been opened in GPE since DATE .

In spite of < the applicants > planting and intended further planting , however , I find as a fact that the mobile home would remain intrusively visible from FAC and PERSON lane . The only way in which it could be made virtually invisible , … , would be to provide physical screening which would in itself be an intrusive feature in the countryside . From the point of view of passers - by , the visual impact of the mobile home is made especially serious because of this being a corner site , with CARDINAL long road frontages through which the site can be seen by the public . Having regard to the quality of the rural landscape , I consider that this development seriously damages the appearance and character of the surroundings . As this land is between the CARDINAL authorised sites , this development results in an incipient loose ribbon of suburban - type development strung out along FAC . This conflicts with generally well - respected policies aimed at protecting the landscape and at limiting residential development mainly to towns and villages .

Whilst the position towards the eastern corner is an improvement on the previous siting in the northern corner , the mobile home still causes demonstrable harm to countryside interests of acknowledged importance . There is nowhere within the site at which a mobile home or caravan could be positioned without causing equally serious harm .

I have taken into account the extent to which this site could satisfy the site - selection criteria … Rather than introducing minimum conflict with planning policies , this development is in serious conflict with the Structure Plan policies … aimed as protecting the character of the open countryside from development not demonstrated to be necessary for agriculture etc . There is also serious conflict with Policy CCARDINAL of the draft ORG , aimed at ensuring that permitted gypsy sites should not be intrusive features in the countryside . ”

On DATE , the applicants were convicted for breach of enforcement notices and ordered to pay GBP CARDINAL each as a fine and contribute GBP CARDINAL to the LOC ’s costs .

In DATE , the ORG stated that the applicants made enquiries from the LOC about rehousing but no formal application was made until DATE . On DATE , the applicants were formally informed by the Borough that they were considered as intentionally homeless since they had terminated their council tenancy to move onto land not permitted for residential use contrary to the advice of ORG .

In DATE , the applicants enquired about alternative accommodation on a private site but were informed that they were excluded due to the size of their family .

On DATE , the applicants stated that they were told that there was a waiting list for places on official sites but that since they were intentionally homeless they could not put their names on it for DATE . According to the Government , in DATE , the applicants applied to the Borough for housing on the grounds of homelessness and that contrary to the policy of refusing registration within DATE after a finding of intentional homelessness the GPE agreed to re - register them as homeless on condition that they paid their arrears of rent for the council tenancy . The applicants did not pay the arrears .

The records of the LOC noted that , at a meeting on DATE , its officials repeated offers of temporary accommodation to give the applicants time to find permanent accommodation . The applicants were recorded as stating that they would not accept a place on an official site and that they would only accept temporary accommodation in their own caravan , which the Borough could not provide . The applicants state that they have no recollection of making the former statement .

A third prosecution resulted in conviction and sentence was deferred to enable the applicants to move . On DATE , a fine of GBP CARDINAL was imposed on each applicant .

The PERSON took the decision to seek an injunction in the High Court restraining the applicants from stationing their caravan on their land and gave notice to the applicants . On DATE , the applicants left their land and travelled to GPE , GPE close to where some of the second applicant ’s family had stationed their caravans . On the site there was no sanitation or electricity and there was an infestation of rats . The applicants contacted the GPE ’s housing officer in the hope that he could offer more suitable alternative accommodation but he could not . He suggested that they apply for ORG accommodation which they did but were told that nothing would be available for DATE . The applicants heard nothing after that . The ORG stated that the applicants’ names were placed on the waiting list at DATE but they removed their names from that list in DATE . The applicants disputed that they removed their names .

On DATE , the applicants returned to their land , where the children could resume their education at their previous school .

The LOC commenced its proceedings for an injunction by summons dated DATE .

On DATE , the second applicant was convicted and fined for a continued breach of the enforcement notices .

The applicants applied for judicial review to quash the injunction proceedings on the basis that the decision to pursue the injunction against them was unreasonable . Leave was refused by ORG . On DATE , ORG dismissed the ORG appeal .

In DATE the applicants applied to the GPE for accommodation and were again offered temporary accommodation . The applicants stated that this was unsuitable bed and breakfast accommodation which would have entailed separating the first applicant from the rest of the family . The applicants were informed , the Government stated , of vacant plots on council and private gypsy sites in the county . The applicants recalled that these vacancies related to areas outside the LOC . CARDINAL site which they visited at ORG was infested with rats and a dangerous place for children .

On DATE , the applicants received notice that the Borough had decided to withdraw the injunction proceedings commenced in DATE and to enter their land and enforce the enforcement notice using its powers under section CARDINAL of ORG DATE . The applicants lodged an application for judicial review of that decision . On or DATE the applicants withdrew their application on the basis that they would be given DATE to vacate their land .

The applicants stated that they looked for an alternative private or official site on which to station their caravan but no such site could be found . In DATE , the applicants sold their land . They also sold their caravan at a substantial undervalue . They went to live temporarily in the caravan occupied by the second applicant ’s brother , which involved a family of CARDINAL sharing with a family of CARDINAL . This became intolerable . The applicants stated that they were faced with the choice of returning to the road , with the risk of further criminal sanctions or abandoning their traditional way of life by accepting the provision of conventional NORP accommodation . On DATE , the applicants reluctantly decided to take the latter course , moving into conventional housing in the form of rented accommodation supplied by ORG CARDINAL FAC , GPE , GPE . As a result , their CARDINAL younger children had to change schools . The CARDINAL older children gave up school and began working . While the move disrupted the children ’s education , it did not appear to have affected their health . The applicants suffered headaches , anxiety , claustrophobia and depression requiring them to seek medical treatment . They were both prescribed medication which did not however resolve their physical sense of confinement . The applicants bought a touring caravan , which they stationed on the land of the second applicant ’s brother . They took every opportunity they could to travel in the traditional style during school holidays , attending traditional gypsy fairs to continue horse trading activities and for the first applicant to find work landscaping and tree - felling . They have bought another plot of land in GPE , PERSON , with the intention of resuming their traditional life and intend to apply for planning permission .

ORG statistics for gypsy caravan sites for DATE indicated that in the GPE area there were CARDINAL local authority sites comprising CARDINAL pitches . In addition , there were CARDINAL caravans on authorised private sites and CARDINAL caravans on unauthorised sites , CARDINAL of which were tolerated by the local authority . The DATE gypsy count showed that the number of unauthorised encampments had remained at CARDINAL , while the number of public authorised sites had decreased from CARDINAL to CARDINAL and the number of authorised private sites had decreased from CARDINAL . The DATE figures showed that there were CARDINAL unauthorised sites , CARDINAL authorised public sites and CARDINAL authorised private sites .

ORG DATE ( as amended by LAW DATE ) ( “ the DATE LAW ) consolidated pre - existing planning law . It provides that planning permission is required for the carrying out of any development of land ( section CARDINAL of LAW ) . A change in the use of land for the stationing of caravans can constitute a development ( ORG v. Secretary of ORG for the Environment and GPE [ DATE ] ORG Law CARDINAL ; PERSON v. Secretary of ORG for the Environment and South Hertfordshire District Council [ DATE ] ORG ) .

An application for planning permission must be made to the local planning authority , which has to determine the application in accordance with the local development plan , unless material considerations indicate otherwise ( section CARDINALA of LAW ) .

The DATE Act provides for an appeal to the Secretary of ORG in the event of a refusal of permission ( section CARDINAL ) . With immaterial exceptions , the Secretary of ORG must , if either the appellant or the authority so desire , give each of them the opportunity of making representations to an inspector appointed by the Secretary of ORG . It is established practice that each inspector must exercise independent judgment and must not be subject to any improper influence ( see the PERSON the GPE judgment of CARDINAL DATE , Series A no . CARDINAL-A , p. CARDINAL , § DATE ) . There is a further appeal to ORG on the ground that the Secretary of ORG ’s decision was not within the powers conferred by LAW , or that the relevant requirements of LAW were not complied with ( section FAC ) .

If a development is carried out without the grant of the required planning permission , the local authority may issue an “ enforcement notice ” if it considers it expedient to do so having regard to the provisions of the development plan and to any other material considerations ( section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of LAW ) .

There is a right of appeal against an enforcement notice to the Secretary of ORG on the grounds , inter alia , that planning permission ought to be granted for the development in question ( section CARDINAL ) . As with the appeal against refusal of permission , the Secretary of ORG must give each of the parties the opportunity of making representations to an inspector .

Again there is a further right of appeal “ on a point of law ” to ORG against a decision of the Secretary of ORG under section CARDINAL ( section CARDINAL ) . Such an appeal may be brought on grounds identical to an application for judicial review . It therefore includes a review as to whether a decision or inference based on a finding of fact is perverse or irrational ( NORP v. Secretary of ORG for ORG , ex parte PERSON [ DATE ] Appeal Cases CARDINAL , CARDINAL ORG ) . ORG will also grant a remedy if the inspector ’s decision was such that there was no evidence to support a particular finding of fact ; or the decision was made by reference to irrelevant factors or without regard to relevant factors ; or made for an improper purpose , in a procedurally unfair manner or in a manner which breached any governing legislation or statutory instrument . However , the court of review can not substitute its own decision on the merits of the case for that of the decision - making authority .

Where any steps required by an enforcement notice to be taken are not taken within the period for compliance with the notice , the local authority may enter the land and take the steps and recover from the person who is then the owner of the land any expenses reasonably incurred by them in doing so ( section CARDINAL of LAW ) .

Part II of LAW DATE ( “ the DATE LAW ) was intended to combat the problems caused by the reduction in the number of lawful stopping places available to gypsies as a result of planning and other legislation and social changes in DATE , in particular the closure of commons carried out by local authorities pursuant to section CARDINAL of GPE and ORG DATE . LAW of LAW defined “ gypsies ” as :

“ persons of nomadic habit of life , whatever their race or origin , but does not include members of an organised group of travelling showmen , or of persons engaged in travelling circuses , travelling together as such ” .

Section CARDINAL of the DATE Act provided that it should be the duty of local authorities :

“ to exercise their powers ... so far as may be necessary to provide adequate accommodation for gipsies residing in or resorting to their area ” .

NORP The Secretary of ORG could direct local authorities to provide caravan sites where it appeared to him to be necessary ( section CARDINAL ) .

Where the Secretary of ORG was satisfied either that a local authority had made adequate provision for the accommodation of GPE , or that it was not necessary or expedient to make such provision , he could “ designate ” that district or county ( section CARDINAL of the DATE Act ) .

The effect of designation was to make it an offence for any gypsy to station a caravan within the designated area with the intention of living in it for any period of time on the highway , on any other unoccupied land or on any occupied land without the consent of the occupier ( section CARDINAL ) .

In addition , LAW gave to local authorities within designated areas power to apply to a GPE court for an order authorising them to remove caravans parked in contravention of section CARDINAL .

By DATE it had become apparent that the rate of site provision under section CARDINAL of the CARDINAL Act was inadequate , and that unauthorised encampments were leading to a number of social problems . In DATE , therefore , the Government asked Sir PERSON to carry out a study into the operation of LAW . He reported in DATE ( Accommodation for Gypsies : A report on the working of GPE DATE , “ the Cripps Report ” ) .

Sir PERSON estimated that there were CARDINAL NORP living in GPE and GPE . He found that :

“ DATE after the coming into operation of Part II of LAW , provision exists for CARDINAL of the estimated total number of gypsy families with no sites of their own . CARDINAL of them are still without the possibility of finding a legal abode ... Only when they are travelling on the road can they remain within the law : when they stop for TIME they have no alternative but to break the law . ”

The report made numerous recommendations for improving this situation .

Circular CARDINAL/CARDINAL was issued by ORG . Its stated purpose was to provide local authorities with guidance on “ statutory procedures , alternative forms of gypsy accommodation and practical points about site provision and management ” . It was intended to apply until such time as more final action could be taken on the recommendations of ORG .

Among other advice , it encouraged local authorities to enable self - help by gypsies through the adoption of a “ sympathetic and flexible approach to [ Gypsies’ ] applications for planning permission and site licences ” . Making express reference to cases where gypsies had bought a plot of land and stationed caravans on it only to find that planning permission was not forthcoming , it recommended that in such cases enforcement action not be taken until alternative sites were available in the area .

Circular CARDINAL/CARDINAL , which was issued on DATE , stated , inter alia , that “ it would be to everyone ’s advantage if as many gypsies as possible were enabled to find their own accommodation ” , and thus advised local authorities that “ the special need to accommodate gypsies ... should be taken into account as a material consideration in reaching planning decisions ” .

In addition , MONEY was spent under a scheme by which MONEY grants were made available to local authorities to cover the costs of creating gypsy sites .

Section CARDINAL of ORG LAW DATE ( “ the DATE LAW ) , which came into force on DATE , repealed sections CARDINAL of LAW and the grant scheme referred to above .

Section CARDINAL of the DATE Act gives to a local authority power to direct an unauthorised camper to move . An unauthorised camper is defined as

“ a person for the time being residing in a vehicle on any land forming part of the highway , any other unoccupied land or any occupied land without the owner ’s consent ” .

Failure to comply with such a direction as soon as practicable , or re - entry upon the land within DATE , is a criminal offence . Local authorities are able to apply to a GPE court for an order authorising them to remove caravans parked in contravention of such a direction ( section CARDINAL of the DATE Act ) .

In the case of NORP v. ORG , ex parte Atkinson ( DATE ) , PERSON referred to the DATE Act as “ Draconic ” legislation . He commented that :

“ For DATE the commons of GPE provided lawful stopping places for people whose way of life was or had become nomadic . Enough common land had survived DATE of enclosure to make this way of life still sustainable , but by s.CARDINAL of ORG and ORG DATE local authorities were given the power to close the commons to travellers . This they proceeded to do with great energy , but made no use of the concomitant powers given them by s.CARDINAL of the same Act to open caravan sites to compensate for the closure of the commons . By DATE , therefore ORG legislated to make the s.CARDINAL power a duty , resting in rural areas upon county councils rather than district councils … For DATE there followed a history of non - compliance with the duties imposed by the Act of DATE , marked by a series of decisions of this court holding local authorities to be in breach of their statutory duty , to apparently little practical effect . The default powers vested in central government to which the court was required to defer , were rarely , if ever used .

The culmination of the tensions underlying the history of non - compliance was the enactment of … the Act of DATE … ”

New guidance on gypsy sites and planning , in the light of LAW , was issued to local authorities by the Government in Circular CARDINAL/CARDINAL ( DATE ) , which cancelled ORG CARDINAL/CARDINAL ( see above ) .

Councils were told that :

“ In order to encourage private site provision , local planning authorities should offer advice and practical help with planning procedures to gypsies who wish to acquire their own land for development . ... The aim should be as far as possible to help gypsies to help themselves , to allow them to secure the kind of sites they require and thus help avoid breaches of planning control . ” ( para . CARDINAL )

However :

“ As with other planning applications , proposals for gypsy sites should continue to be determined solely in relation to land - use factors . Whilst gypsy sites might be acceptable in some rural locations , the granting of permission must be consistent with agricultural , archaeological , countryside , environmental , and LOC policies ... ” ( para . CARDINAL ) .

It was indicated that as a rule it would not be appropriate to make provision for gypsy sites in areas of open land where development was severely restricted , for example Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty , Sites of Special Scientific Interest . Nor were gypsy sites regarded as being among those uses of land normally appropriate in a Green Belt ( paragraph CARDINAL ) .

Further guidance issued by the Secretary of ORG dated DATE concerned the unauthorised camping by gypsies and the power to give a direction to leave the land ( LOC above ) . Paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL required local authorities to adopt “ a policy of toleration towards unauthorised gypsy encampments ” :

“ CARDINAL . ... Where gypsies are camped unlawfully on council land and are not causing a level of nuisance which can not be effectively controlled , an immediate forced eviction might result in unauthorised camping on a site elsewhere in the area which could give rise to greater nuisance . Accordingly , authorities should consider tolerating PERSON presence on the land for short periods and could examine the ways of minimising the level of nuisance on such tolerated sites , for example by providing basic services for gypsies e.g. toilets , a skip for refuse and a supply of drinking water .

Where gypsies are unlawfully camped on Government - owned land , it is for the local authority , with the agreement of the land - owning ORG , to take any necessary steps to ensure that the encampment does not constitute a hazard to public health . It will continue to be the policy of the Secretaries of ORG that Government Departments should act in conformity with the advice that gypsies should not be moved unnecessarily from unauthorised encampments when they are causing no nuisance .

The Secretaries of ORG continue to consider that local authorities should not use their powers to evict gypsies needlessly . They should use their powers in a humane and compassionate fashion and primarily to reduce nuisance and to afford a higher level of protection to private owners of land . ”

Paragraphs CARDINAL further require local authorities to consider their obligations under other legislation before taking any decisions under LAW . These obligations include their duties concerning pregnant women and newly - born children , the welfare and education of children and the housing of homeless persons . In a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ( NORP v. ORG , ex parte Atkinson , NORP v. ORG , ex parte GPE and NORP v. ORG , ex parte GPE , unreported ) , ORG held that it would be an error of law for any local authority to ignore those duties which must be considered from the earliest stages .

In a letter dated CARDINAL DATE , ORG drew to the attention of all local planning authorities in GPE that Circular CARDINAL/CARDINAL required local planning authorities to assess the need for gypsy accommodation in their areas and make suitable locational and/or criteria based policies against which to decide planning applications . The Government was concerned that this guidance had not been taken up . ORG research ( see below ) had showed that PERCENT of local authorities ( CARDINAL ) had no policy at all on gypsy sites and that many in the process of reviewing their plans at the time of the survey did not feel it necessary to include policies on gypsy provision . It was emphasised that it was important to include consideration of gypsy needs at an early stage in drawing up structure and development plans and the detailed policies should be provided . Compliance with this guidance was essential in fulfilling the ORG ’s objective that gypsies should seek to provide their own accommodation , applying for planning permission like everyone else . It was necessary , therefore , that adequate gypsy site provision be made in development plans to facilitate this process .

ORG for ORG and Other Travellers ( ACERT ) , which carried out research sponsored by ORG , noted in this report that since DATE private site provision had increased by CARDINAL caravans per year while the pace of public site provision had declined by CARDINAL caravans , disclosing that the pace of private site provision had not increased sufficiently to counterbalance decreases in public site provision . Noting the increase of gypsies in housing and the increased enforcement powers under LAW , it questioned , if these trends continued , the extent to which the ethnic , cultural and linguistic identity of ORG people would be protected .

The research looked , inter alia , at CARDINAL refused private site applications , which showed that PERCENT related to land within the countryside and that PERCENT were refused on grounds relating to the amenity value ( e.g. Green Belt , conservation area locations ) . Of the CARDINAL gypsy site applicants interviewed , for most acquiring permission for their own land was an important factor in improving the quality of life , gaining independence and providing security . For many , the education of their children was another important reason for private site application . All save CARDINAL had applied for permission retrospectively .

NORP The report stated that the figures for success rates in CARDINAL planning appeals showed that before DATE the success rate had averaged PERCENT but had decreased since . Having regard however to the way in which data was recorded , the actual success rate was probably PERCENT as given as the figures in DATE and DATE by the gypsy groups and ORG respectively . Notwithstanding the objectives of planning policy that local authorities make provision for gypsies , most local authorities did not identify any areas of land as suitable for potential development by gypsies and reached planning decisions on the basis of land - use criteria in the particular case . It was therefore not surprising that most gypsies made retrospective applications and that they had little success in identifying land on which local authority would permit development . Granting of permission for private sites remained haphazard and unpredictable .

In DATE , ORG figures on gypsy caravans disclosed that of CARDINAL caravans counted , CARDINAL were accommodated on local authority pitches , CARDINAL on privately owned sites and CARDINAL on unauthorised sites . Of the latter , CARDINAL gypsy caravans were being tolerated on land owned by non - gypsies ( mainly local authority land ) and CARDINAL gypsy caravans tolerated on land owned by gypsies themselves . On these figures , CARDINAL caravans were therefore on unauthorised and untolerated sites while over PERCENT of caravans were stationed on authorised sites .

DATE . Local authority duties to the homeless were contained in Part VII of LAW , which came fully into force on DATE . Where the local housing authority was satisfied that an applicant was homeless , eligible for assistance , had a priority need ( e.g. the applicant was a person with whom dependant children resided or was vulnerable due to old age , physical disability , etc . ) , and did not become homeless intentionally , the authority was required , if it did not refer the application to another housing authority , to secure that accommodation was available for occupation by the applicant for a minimum period of DATE . Where an applicant was homeless , eligible for assistance and not homeless intentionally , but was not a priority case , the local housing authority was required to provide the applicant with advice and such assistance as it considered appropriate in the circumstances in any attempt he might make to secure that accommodation became available for his occupation .

This Convention , opened for signature on DATE , provides inter alia :

“ Article CARDINAL

The protection of national minorities and of the rights and freedoms of persons belonging to those minorities forms an integral part of the international protection of human rights , and as such falls within the scope of international co - operation .

Article CARDINAL

The Parties undertake to guarantee to persons belonging to national minorities the right of equality before the law and of equal protection of the law . In this respect , any discrimination based on belonging to a national minority shall be prohibited .

NORP The parties undertake to adopt , where necessary , adequate measures in order to promote , in all areas of economic , social , political and cultural life , full and effective equality between persons belonging to a national minority and those belonging to the majority . In this respect , they shall take due account of the specific conditions of the persons belonging to national minorities .

The measures adopted in accordance with paragraph CARDINAL shall not be considered to be an act of discrimination .

Article CARDINAL

The Parties undertake to promote the conditions necessary for persons belonging to national minorities to maintain and develop their culture , and to preserve the essential elements of their identity , namely their religion , language , traditions and cultural heritage .

Without prejudice to measures taken in pursuance of their general integration policy , the Parties shall refrain from policies or practices aimed at assimilation of persons belonging to national minorities against their will and shall protect these persons from any action aimed at such assimilation . ”

The Convention entered into force on DATE . GPE signed LAW it opened for signature and ratified it on DATE . It entered into force for GPE on DATE . By DATE , it had been signed by CARDINAL of ORG ’s CARDINAL member states and ratified by CARDINAL .

The Convention did not contain any definition of “ national minority ” . However GPE in its Report of DATE to ORG concerned with the ORG accepted that gypsies are within the definition .

Recommendation CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of ORG on NORP in LOC included the recognition that gypsies as one of the very few non - territorial minorities in LOC , “ need special protection ” . In its general observations , the ORG stated inter alia :

“ CARDINAL . Respect for the rights of NORP , individual , fundamental and human rights and their rights as a minority , is essential to improve their situation .

Guarantees for equal rights , equal chances , equal treatment and measures to improve their situation will make a revival of PERSON language and culture possible , thus enriching the NORP cultural diversity . ”

Its recommendations included :

“ xiv . NORP member states should alter national legislation and regulations which discriminate directly or indirectly against NORP ; …

xviii . further programmes should be set up in the member states to improve the housing situation , education … of those NORP who are living in less favourable circumstances . … ”

In DATE , ORG against Racism and Intolerance issued General Policy Recommendation No . CARDINAL : Combating Racism and Intolerance against ORG . Its recommendations included :

“ … to ensure that discrimination as such , as well as discriminatory practices , are combated through adequate legislation and to introduce into civil law specific provisions to this end , particularly in the fields of … housing and education . …

… to ensure that the questions relating to ‘ ORG within a country , in particular , regulations concerning residence and town planning , are solved in a way which does not hinder the life of the persons concerned ; … ”

On DATE , ORG passed a ORG on the situation of NORP in the Community , calling on the governments of member states “ to introduce legal , administrative and social measures to improve the social situation of NORP and Travelling People in LOC ” ; and recommending that “ the ORG , the ORG and the governments of Member GPE should do everything in their power to assist in the economic , social and political integration of GPE , with the objective of eliminating the deprivation and poverty in which the great majority of LOC ’s Gypsy population still lives at the present time . ”

Protection of minorities has become one of the preconditions for accession to ORG . In DATE , ORG adopted “ Guiding Principles ” for improving the situation of GPE in candidate countries , based expressly on the recommendations of ORG of Roma / Gypsies and the OSCE High Commissioner on ORG recommendations .

DATE . The situation of GPE and PERSON has become a standard item on FAC the agenda of ORG . CARDINAL structural developments – ORG ( ORG ) and the appointment of a High Commissioner for ORG also concern protection of GPE and PERSON as minorities .

On DATE , the High Commissioner ’s Report on ORG and PERSON in LOC was published . Part PERSON of the ORG deals with the living conditions of GPE , noting that while nomadism had been central to NORP history and culture a majority of GPE were now sedentary ( CARDINAL estimation gave PERCENT as nomadic , PERCENT as semi - nomadic , moving DATE , while PERCENT were sedentary ) . This was particularly true of LOC , where there had been in the past policies of forced sedentarization :

“ It must be emphasised that whether an individual is nomadic , semi - nomadic or sedentary should , like other aspects of his or her ethnic identity , be solely a matter of personal choice . The policies of some ORG participating GPE have at times breached this principle , either by making a determination of a group ’s fundamental lifestyle that is inconsistent with its ORG choices or by making it virtually impossible for individuals to pursue the lifestyle that expresses their group identity . ” ( pp . CARDINAL - CARDINAL )

The ORG stated that for those GPE who maintained a nomadic or semi - nomadic lifestyle the availability of legal and suitable parking was a paramount need and precondition to the maintenance of their group identity . It observed however that even in those countries that encouraged or advised local authorities to maintain parking sites , the number and size of available sites was insufficient in light of the need :

“ … The effect is to place nomadic GPE in the position of breaking the law – in some countries , committing a crime – if they park in an unauthorized location , even though authorized sites may not be available . ” ( pp . CARDINAL - CARDINAL )

The Report dealt specifically with the situation of NORP in GPE ( pp . CARDINAL ) . It found :

“ Under current law , NORP have CARDINAL options for lawful camping : parking on public caravan sites – which the ORG acknowledges to be insufficient ; parking on occupied land with the consent of the occupier ; and parking on property owned by the campers themselves . ORG has issued guidance to local authorities aimed at encouraging the last approach . In practice , however , and notwithstanding official recognition of their special situation and needs , many NORP have encountered formidable obstacles to obtaining the requisite permission to park their caravans on their own property … ” ( pp . CARDINAL - CARDINAL ) .

Concerning the planning regime which requires planning permission for the development of land disclosed by the stationing caravans , it stated :

“ … This scheme allows wide ply for the exercise of discretion DATE and that discretion has repeatedly been exercised to the detriment of NORP . A DATE report by ORG described the prospects of applying for planning permission for a Gypsy site as ‘ a daunting one laced with many opportunities for failure’ . In DATE , DATE in which the success of application rates was evaluated , it was ascertained that MONEY of applications for planning permission by NORP were denied . In contrast , MONEY of all planning applications were granted during DATE . It is to be noted that , as a category , Gypsy planning applications are relatively unique insofar as they typically request permission to park caravans in areas or sites which are subject to restriction by local planning authorities . As such , virtually all Gypsy planning applications are highly contentious . Nonetheless , the fact remains that there is inadequate provision or availability of authorized halting sites ( private or public ) which the high rate of denial of planning permission only exacerbates . Moreover , there are indications that the situation has deteriorated since DATE . … In face of these difficulties , the itinerant lifestyle which has typified the GPE is under threat . ” ( pp . CARDINAL )

NORP The report ’s recommendations included the following :

“ … in view of the extreme insecurity many GPE now experience in respect of housing , governments should endeavour to regularize the legal status of GPE who now live in circumstances of unsettled legality . ” ( pp . CARDINAL and CARDINAL )


The applicant , PERSON , is a NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in PERSON .

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

The applicant is a lawyer and serves in the Police .

In a disciplinary order of CARDINAL DATE the Head of ORG of ORG in ORG found the applicant had committed a disciplinary offence ( disciplinárne previnenie DATE see below ) in that , in DATE , she had failed to discharge her duties prior to taking her DATE leave and had arbitrarily left for holiday without prior authorisation . The applicant was sanctioned by reducing her DATE salary by PERCENT for DATE .

On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal against the order to the Head of ORG . She argued that the order was illegal and unjustified and that there were several flaws in the procedure leading to it . She maintained inter alia that the facts had not been established objectively , that she had not been given adequate time and facilities to defend herself and that the order lacked appropriate reasoning .

On DATE the Head of ORG dismissed the appeal and upheld the order of CARDINAL DATE .

On DATE the applicant requested that the Minister of the Interior review the decisions of CARDINAL DATE and DATE in a special extra - appellate procedure ( mimo odvolacieho konania ) .

In a letter of DATE the Minister informed the applicant that he had reviewed the contested decisions and concluded that they were lawful .

Part ( Časť ) CARDINAL governs the administrative judiciary . LAW this Part lays down the rules for a review of the lawfulness of decisions taken by administrative authorities on the basis of administrative law actions .

Article CARDINAL defines situations in which administrative tribunals have no jurisdiction to review administrative decisions on the basis of administrative law actions . Pursuant to its paragraph CARDINAL ( f ) , as worded at the relevant time and until DATE , administrative tribunals did not have the power to review administrative decisions imposing sanctions on members of the armed forces unless such sanctions restrained the latter 's personal liberty or resulted in termination of their service .

The LAW regulates the service ( section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) ) in the Police , ORG , ORG , ORG and ORG and legal relations concerning commencement , changes and termination of such service ( section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) ) .

The disciplinary authority ( disciplinárna právomoc ) is vested in superior officers who have the power to make disciplinary awards ( disciplinárne odmeny ) and to impose disciplinary measures ( disciplinárne opatrenie ) on their inferiors .

The term disciplinary offence is defined in LAW ( CARDINAL ) as a culpable breach of a police officer 's duties which does not constitute a criminal offence ( trestný čin ) or a minor offence ( priestupok ) .

Pursuant to section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) in conjunction with section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) disciplinary offences can be sanctioned by disciplinary measures of ( i ) a written admonishment ; ( ii ) reduction of salary by PERCENT for a period of DATE ; and ( iii ) stripping of rank by one degree for a period of one year .

Section CARDINAL concerns judicial review of decisions . It stipulates that a policeman or policewoman has the right to challenge final and binding decisions of their superiors in court .