CASE OF VEREINIGUNG BILDENDER KÜNSTLER v. AUSTRIA

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

PERSON is an association of artists with its seat in the NORP building in GPE . The Secession , an independent gallery , is devoted entirely to exhibitions of contemporary article One of the basic objectives of the association is to present current developments in NORP and international art , and to cultivate an openness to experimentation .

DATE and DATE the applicant association held an exhibition on its LOC . The exhibition , entitled “ DATE of artistic freedom ” ( “ PERSON künstlerischer PERSON ) , was intended as part of the celebrations of the association 's CARDINALth anniversary . Among the works to be shown was a painting entitled “ Apocalypse ” , which had been produced for the occasion by the NORP painter PERSON . The painting , measuring QUANTITY by QUANTITY , showed a collage of various public figures , such as GPE , the NORP cardinal PERSON GPE and the former head of ORG ( ORG ) Mr PERSON PERSON , in sexual positions . While the naked bodies of these figures were painted , the heads and faces were depicted using blown - up photos taken from newspapers . The eyes of some of the persons portrayed were hidden under black bars . Among these persons was PERSON , a former general secretary of the ORG until DATE , who at the time of the events was a member of ORG ) , a mandate he held until DATE . Mr PERSON was shown gripping the ejaculating penis of PERSON PERSON while at the same time being touched by CARDINAL other ORG politicians and ejaculating on Mother LAW .

The exhibition , for which admission was charged , was open to the public .

On DATE , while the exhibition was in progress , the NORP newspaper PERSON bristled at the above painting 's portayal of “ group sexual situations with ORG and GPE ” .

On DATE the painting was damaged by a visitor , who covered with red paint the part which showed , among others , Mr Meischberger . As a consequence of this incident the entire painted body of PERSON and part of his face were covered with red paint .

NORP Several NORP newspapers reported on this event and also published pictures of the painting .

On DATE Mr Meischberger brought proceedings under section CARDINAL of LAW ( Urheberrechtsgesetz ) against the applicant association , seeking an injunction prohibiting it from exhibiting and publishing the painting . He further requested compensation in the amount of CARDINAL NORP schillings ( ORG DATE ( ORG ) ) . He argued that the painting , showing him in sexual positions with several persons , debased him and his political activities and made statements as to his allegedly loose sexual life ( lotterhaftes PERSON ) . The black eye - bars did not prevent him from being recognised , because he was shown together with CARDINAL other ORG politicians . He remained recognisable even after the incident of CARDINAL June DATE , which had further increased the publicity given to the painting . Furthermore , there was a danger of recurrence as after the present exhibition the painting was due to be shown at another exhibition in GPE .

On DATE ORG ( ORG ) dismissed PERSON action . It noted that it had initially been intended to show the exhibition in GPE , GPE and GPE as well ; now the intention was to close down the exhibition . The court further found that it could be ruled out that the painting had adversely affected the claimant or divulged information about his private life , as the painting , which resembled a comic strip ( “ comixartig ” ) , obviously did not represent reality . However , a painting showing the claimant in such an intimate position could , regardless of its relation to reality , still have a degrading and personally debasing effect . In the present case , however , the right of the applicant association to freedom of artistic expression outweighed Mr PERSON 's personal interests . When balancing the latter 's interests against the interests of the applicant association , the court had regard in particular to the fact that the exhibition was dedicated to the association 's artistic spectrum over DATE , which included the work of the NORP painter PERSON . It further noted that the painting showed numerous other persons , among them friends and benefactors of the painter , and also representatives of the ORG party , which had always strongly criticised Mr Mühl 's work .

The painting in question could therefore be seen as a kind of counter - attack ( ORG ) . In any event , PERSON picture constituted only a rather small part of the painting and was therefore not striking . The court further added that there appeared to be no danger of recurrence ( PERSON ) as the painting had been partly covered by red paint and PERSON was therefore no longer recognisable on it .

On DATE ORG ( Oberlandesgericht ) , after having held an oral hearing , granted an appeal on points of law and fact by PERSON , issued an injunction against the applicant association prohibiting it from continuing to display the painting at exhibitions , and ordered it to pay the costs incurred by Mr Meischberger in the proceedings and ORG CARDINAL ( EUR CARDINAL ) , plus PERCENT interest with effect from DATE , in compensation . It further allowed Mr Meischberger to publish extracts of its judgment in CARDINAL NORP newspapers . It noted that Mr PERSON 's picture was only partly covered by red paint , so that part of his face , the shape of his head and his hairstyle were still recognisable . The limits of artistic freedom were exceeded when the image of a person was substantially deformed by wholly imaginary elements without it being evident that the picture aimed at satire or any other form of exaggeration . The painting in the present case was not intended to be a parable or even an exaggerated criticism conveying a basic message , such as , for example , the statement that PERSON had disregarded sexual decency and morals . It therefore did not fall within the scope of LAW , but in fact constituted a debasement of Mr PERSON 's public standing ( Entwürdigung öffentlichen Ansehens ) . The applicant association could not justify the exhibition of the painting under the artistic freedom protected by LAW ) . There was , furthermore , nothing to indicate that the applicant association would abstain from exhibiting the painting in the future , so that there was a danger of recurrence .

On DATE ORG ( Oberster Gerichtshof ) rejected an appeal by the applicant association as it did not concern a legal question of considerable interest . It noted that ORG had not questioned the fact that the painting fell within the scope of protection provided by LAW but , weighing the guarantee of artistic freedom enshrined in that provision against Mr PERSON 's personal rights as protected by section CARDINAL of LAW , had considered that the latter prevailed over the former because a picture of Mr Meischberger had been used in a degrading and insulting manner . As to the question whether PERSON could still be recognised despite the painting being covered with red paint , ORG had not contradicted the documents contained in the court file and there was therefore no need for a rectification . It ordered the applicant association to pay the costs of the proceedings .

That decision was served on the applicant association 's counsel on CARDINAL DATE .

Section CARDINAL of LAW , in so far as relevant , reads as follows :

“ ( CARDINAL ) Images of persons shall neither be exhibited publicly , nor in any way made accessible to the public , where injury would be caused to the legitimate interests of the portrayed persons or , in the event that they have died without having authorised or ordered publication , those of a close relative . ”

Artistic freedom is guaranteed by DATE LAW Staatsgrundgesetz ) , which provides :

“ There shall be freedom of artistic creation and of the publication and teaching of article ”


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

In DATE , the applicant was sentenced to DATE imprisonment for supplying heroin .

On DATE , at the CARDINAL point of his sentence , the applicant was released on licence , pursuant to section CARDINAL of LAW DATE . The licence expiry date was set at DATE , the CARDINAL point of his sentence ( section CARDINAL of LAW DATE ) .

The licence conditions included that he live “ where reasonably approved by [ his ] supervising officer and notify him or her in advance of any proposed change of address ” . A separate condition required him to live at his mother 's address and not to live elsewhere without the prior approval of his supervising officer . The applicant owned a house in GPE , GPE . The licence condition was designed to reduce contact with his erstwhile partner A. , a drug addict who lived at that address , with his daughter PERSON and her other daughter . He was allowed to visit his daughter PERSON at that address .

In DATE , A. left the ORG house and did not return . The applicant moved in to look after the children , there being insufficient room at his mother 's home .

On DATE , at his next probation appointment , the applicant informed his probation officer that he had moved . The applicant states that no action was taken or direction given that he leave the address .

The applicant states that allegations of domestic violence were made by A. to her own probation officer , although not to the police . On the basis of these allegations , a request was made by senior probation officers ( not including the applicant 's ) that he be recalled to prison for breach of his licence conditions .

On DATE , the applicant was recalled to prison for breach of the residence condition in his licence by the ORG Secretary under section CARDINAL of LAW DATE . In the document setting out the reasons for recall , it was stated that he was recalled because he had moved without prior approval and the risk that he posed because of his antecedents and his behaviour in moving meant that it was not right for him to remain on licence .

On DATE , the applicant 's solicitors made representations to ORG which had the power to order his release , in which he inter alia denied the allegations of domestic violence and alleged that the decision to recall was based on insufficient information , largely an unreliable account of ORG and without any investigations being carried out .

On DATE , the applicant was informed that his representations had been rejected . The decision stated that the applicant had clearly breached the conditions of his licence by not residing at his mother 's address as instructed , nor had he notified his supervising officer in advance of his proposed change of address . The condition had been specifically inserted in his licence to reduce contact with his ex - partner . This failure to comply with the licence conditions suggested that the objects of probation supervision had been undermined .

The applicant instituted proceedings for judicial review , challenging that decision as unlawful , disproportionate or unreasonable and as following an unfair or unlawful process ; he argued that both the common law and Articles CARDINAL , CARDINAL and DATE of the ORG had been breached and sought damages .

On DATE , the High Court judge refused permission , finding that ORG had not revoked his licence because of allegations by ORG or suspicions as to drug - taking . He noted that the reasons given were clear , that the applicant had notified the probation service after the event and the condition had been inserted to prevent / reduce contact with A. He held that the ORG was entitled to regard the breach of the condition in those circumstances as justifying recall .

The applicant 's renewed application was rejected by a different High Court judge on DATE . He noted a report prepared for ORG prior to his release which stated :

“ Although there are no current drug concerns it would be unrealistic to suggest that [ the applicant ] will not be ' at risk ' post release . An additional licence condition to initially reside at his parents ... and not to move in with his partner PERSON until he has demonstrated that he has remained drug - free for a significant period and she has overcome her own drug problem seems appropriate . Although such a condition would not prevent him seeing PERSON and providing support to his children , it would allow ORG to monitor the situation closely . ”

The judge found nothing unfair in the procedure whereby ORG rejected the applicant 's representations and held that although the decision was harsh it was impossible to say that it was arguably irrational : ORG had known all the facts and the fact that the girl friend was not at the address when he moved there did not entitle him to breach his licence .

On DATE , ORG refused permission to appeal . The judge stated :

“ The procedure was fair . The Appellant broke a condition of residence which was important and of which he was well aware . He was given the opportunity to make representations and the representations he made were considered . The decision did not depend on the truth of the allegations made by Ms. PERSON and ORG was right not to attempt any investigation of her allegations . The reasons given for the decision were adequate and ... rational . Even if it could be argued that it was harsh , it was not disproportionate . ”

Concerning the applicant 's arguments under the ORG , the judge referred to domestic case - law on the point ( see below ) .

On DATE , ORG refused to fund a renewed application to ORG .

On DATE , NORP ( West ) v. ORG ( [ DATE ] Prison Law Reports DATE , ORG rejected , by CARDINAL votes to one , the argument that the recall of a prisoner on licence who has been serving a determinate sentence amounted to a determination of a criminal charge for the purposes of LAW .

On DATE , in NORP ( PERSON ) v. ORG ( [ DATE ] EWCA CARDINAL ) , ORG held that neither LAW nor the civil provisions of LAW were engaged by recall of a prisoner on licence serving a determinate sentence .


Violation of P1-1;Violation of Art. 6-1;Pecuniary damage - financial award;Non-pecuniary damage - financial award;Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

The applicant is the owner of a flat in GPE , which he had let to A.R.

In a writ served on the tenant on DATE , the applicant communicated his intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before ORG .

By a decision of DATE , which was made enforceable on DATE , ORG upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by DATE .

On DATE , the applicant served notice on the tenant requiring him to vacate the premises .

On DATE , he served notice on the tenant informing him that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on DATE .

DATE and DATE , the bailiff made CARDINAL attempts to recover possession .

Each attempt proved unsuccessful , as the applicant was never granted the assistance of the police in enforcing the order for possession .

In the meantime , on DATE , the applicant made a statutory declaration that he urgently required the premises as accommodation for his daughter

Pursuant to LAW no . DATE , the enforcement proceedings were suspended .

At DATE the tenant vacated the flat .

The relevant domestic law is described in the ORG ’s judgment in the case of ORG GPE [ ORG ] , no . CARDINAL , § § DATE , ORG CARDINAL-V.


CASE OF NICOLESCU TRAIAN-CONSTANTIN v. ROMANIA

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

The applicant was born in DATE and formerly lived in ORG .

On DATE , ORG responsible for the application of LAW CARDINAL/CARDINAL ( “ the local commission ” ) issued in the applicant 's favour an ownership certificate ( “ adeverinţă de proprietate ” ) for a plot of land measuring QUANTITY located in the city of ORG , but did not put him into possession of the land .

The applicant brought administrative proceedings against the local commission , seeking to take possession of the land granted to him by the ownership certificate . On DATE , ORG allowed the action and ordered the local commission to enable him to take possession of the land on the original placement held by his father . That judgment became final .

In DATE , the applicant filed another action against the local commission , ORG responsible for the application of PERSON CARDINAL/CARDINAL ( “ the county commission ” ) and a natural person , PERSON , seeking to take possession of the CARDINAL hectares of land , to obtain the ownership title for that land and the partial annulment of an ownership title issued in favour of GPE for the area of QUANTITY that should have been restored to him in accordance with the final judgment of DATE . ORG of ORG allowed the action on DATE . Appeals filed by the commissions and ORG were dismissed by ORG on DATE . By a decision of DATE , ORG allowed an appeal on points of law filed by the commissions , quashed the decision rendered in appeal and remitted the file to GPE for a fresh examination of the appeals . The appeals were again dismissed on DATE . On DATE , ORG allowed the appeal on points of law filed by the local commission . It partially dismissed the action filed by the applicant with respect to the obligation of the commissions to authorise him to take possession of the land and to issue the ownership title , on the ground that the judgment of DATE rendered in his favour had the force of res judicata .

By an interlocutory judgment of DATE , ORG allowed the applicant 's claim for the payment of CARDINAL NORP lei ( ROL ) in damages per day of delay until the enforcement of the final judgment of DATE .

In DATE , the applicant filed another action against the local commission seeking to obtain payment by the latter of damages for the loss of profit caused by the non - enforcement of the final judgment of DATE . On DATE , ORG partially allowed the applicant 's claim and awarded him CARDINAL ROL . The judgment was upheld by ORG on DATE .

On DATE , the county commission issued CARDINAL ownership titles , but for other plots of land than those to which the applicant was entitled . The applicant lodged an action seeking to obtain the annulment of the ownership titles and new ownership titles in accordance with the judgment of DATE , namely on the former placement . During the proceedings , on DATE , the applicant died and his daughter , Ms PERSON , expressed her wish to pursue the action . ORG allowed the applicant 's claim on DATE . It ordered the county commission to issue on behalf of the applicant 's daughter an ownership title for QUANTITY of land on the former placements . The judgment became final .

Following the judgment of DATE , the local commission authorised the applicant to take possession of the land , a minute ( proces verbal ) being drafted to that effect on DATE .

NORP On DATE , ORG forwarded to ORG ( PERSON şi ORG ) all the documents necessary for the issue of the ownership title in accordance with the judgment of DATE .

The proceedings for the issue of the ownership title are pending . So far the applicant 's daughter has not received an ownership title .

The relevant domestic law is summarised in the judgments of PERSON PERSON v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL , § § CARDINAL , DATE ) and Drăculeţ v. GPE , no . GPE , § CARDINAL , DATE ) .


CASE OF MATRAKAS AND OTHERS v. POLAND AND GREECE

Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (Article 35-1 - Exhaustion of domestic remedies);Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court);Non-pecuniary damage - award;Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed

Elisabeth Steiner;Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre;Julia Laffranque;Khanlar Hajiyev;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska

The applicants were born in DATE , DATE and DATE respectively . They all live in GPE .

On an unspecified date in DATE the first applicant , represented by the third applicant , filed with ORG an application under LAW of DATE on the ORG ( “ the GPE ” ) for the recovery of maintenance from his father , TIME , a NORP national . The first applicant requested that the NORP authorities institute court proceedings with the aim of recovering the maintenance and enforce any decision that might be given by the NORP courts .

On DATE ORG , acting as the ORG under the New York Convention , transmitted the application to ORG ( “ the NORP Ministry ” ) , which acted as ORG .

On DATE the ORG informed ORG that the debtor had been summoned but had failed to appear , and that the case had been referred to ORG of ORG for further action .

On DATE ORG wrote to ORG requesting information about the progress in the recovery of the maintenance . It appears that in reply the NORP Ministry resent its letter of CARDINAL DATE .

On DATE , in response to the query from ORG , the third applicant informed the court that the first applicant had not received any maintenance payments from the debtor .

On DATE ORG requested ORG of ORG to intervene in the case . ORG requested the assistance of ORG in GPE .

On DATE the third applicant and TIME signed an agreement stipulating that DATE would pay MONEY ( CARDINAL ORG ) in maintenance to the first applicant DATE for DATE .

On DATE the third applicant again informed ORG that she had not received any maintenance payments from the debtor .

On DATE , upon a request filed by the first applicant , the ORG once again requested ORG Ministry of ORG to intervene in the proceedings .

On DATE the ORG informed ORG that the third applicant had hired a NORP lawyer to act in the divorce and maintenance proceedings . In the lawyer ’s opinion , there were good prospects of reaching a friendly settlement in the case . Consequently , ORG considered that its intervention at that point was not required . However , it would continue to monitor the situation and inform the ORG of any further developments . The applicant contested ORG assertion that she had hired a NORP lawyer .

On DATE acknowledged before a notary his intention to pay MONEY in DATE maintenance to the first applicant until he reached DATE . He also promised to pay MONEY ( CARDINAL ORG ) for the period up to DATE . The DATE maintenance payments were to be deposited on an account at ORG . This notarial deed was declared enforceable .

On DATE the Greek Ministry informed ORG that TIME had acknowledged his obligation to pay maintenance to the first applicant . It requested ORG to provide it with several additional documents , including the first applicant ’s birth certificate and a certificate of his residence , in order for it to proceed with the transfer of the maintenance to GPE .

On DATE ORG sent the requested documents to ORG .

ORG transmitted the requested documents to ORG of ORG DATE . On DATE that authority informed ORG that the debtor had deposited MONEY on a bank account on DATE . On DATE the said authority requested the debtor to inform it whether he had made any further payments to the account . The debtor replied that he had been making agreed DATE payments to the account and produced documentary evidence to this effect .

In the course of divorce proceedings instituted by the third applicant against TIME , on DATE FAC delivered an interim order awarding maintenance payments by TIME to the first applicant . The court noted that TIME ’s place of residence was unknown . On DATE the court increased the amount of maintenance payments .

On DATE and DATE ORG wrote to ORG requesting it to provide information about the progress of the proceedings . It appears that no reply was received to these letters . On DATE ORG sent another request for information . It noted that on DATE ORG had issued a divorce decree in default , dissolving the third applicant ’s marriage to TIME

On DATE the ORG informed ORG that the first applicant had received a payment of MONEY ( CARDINAL EUR ) in DATE . According to the agreement between the parties , this amount was supposed to cover the maintenance due for the period from DATE to DATE .

On DATE ORG informed the third applicant about the letter of DATE and requested her to submit comments . On DATE the third applicant informed the court that the amount of MONEY covered only the period DATE and that she intended to lodge a claim for non - received maintenance from DATE .

On DATE FAC gave a judgment in default , increasing the amount of the maintenance payments to be made to the first applicant by TIME

On DATE ORG again requested assistance from ORG . The court informed ORG of the debtor ’s single payment made in DATE . The court also informed ORG that CARDINAL judgments in default had so far been given in GPE ordering TIME to pay maintenance , and that on the basis of those judgments the first applicant had been able to receive substitute maintenance from the “ FAC ” ( ORG ) . In case of the lack of reaction from the debtor , the third applicant would have to request the enforcement of the NORP judgments in GPE on the basis of the bilateral agreement . No reply was received from the NORP authorities to that letter .

On DATE ORG informed the third applicant that in order to recover the maintenance due to the first applicant it was necessary for her to file a request with ORG for the recognition and the enforcement in GPE of the NORP judgments awarding the maintenance , on the basis of ORG October CARDINAL between the Polish GPE and GPE on legal cooperation in civil and criminal matters ( “ the DATE Agreement ” ) . The first applicant filed such a request on DATE .

On DATE ORG requested the assistance of ORG .

On DATE the NORP ORG requested ORG to assist the first applicant in obtaining the recognition and enforcement in GPE of FAC judgment in default of DATE .

By a letter of CARDINAL July CARDINAL , ORG informed ORG that it refused to proceed with the request for the recognition and enforcement of the NORP judgment in question . ORG explained that the request could not be allowed due to LAW . This provision stipulated that a request for recognition and enforcement could be refused in GPE if the NORP courts had the sole jurisdiction to examine the matter . Consequently , ORG returned the request , along with the entire case file , to ORG .

On DATE ORG wrote to ORG noting ORG position expressed in its earlier letter and requesting it to urgently proceed with the recovery of the maintenance due to the first applicant in accordance with the New York Convention .

On DATE ORG responded by reasserting the position expressed in its letter of CARDINAL July CARDINAL and confirming that the entire case file had been returned to ORG on DATE .

On DATE FAC gave another judgment in default increasing the amount of the maintenance payments to the first applicant .

On DATE the ORG requested ORG to provide it with information as to the progress of the proceedings and as to the prospects of a successful recovery of maintenance . On DATE the Greek Ministry replied by re - sending their letter of CARDINAL DATE .

On DATE the ORG requested the ORG of ORG ( “ the International Law Department ” ) to provide it with legal advice as to the further steps necessary to recover the maintenance due to the first applicant .

On DATE ORG advised the ORG to file a new request with the NORP authorities under LAW . It observed that the prospects of a successful recovery of the maintenance on the basis of the request filed in DATE were poor , given the lack of a proper response from the NORP authorities . It further informed ORG that there appeared to be no obstacles to the first applicant requesting the recognition and enforcement of ORG judgment given on DATE directly before NORP courts , on the basis of LAW of DATE on ORG and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters ( “ LAW ” ) provided that the conditions specified in that convention had been fulfilled .

On DATE the ORG delivered yet another judgment in default , again increasing the amount of the maintenance due to the first applicant .

On DATE ORG sent to the NORP authorities a new request filed by the first applicant under LAW , asking the NORP authorities to recover maintenance in respect of the period from DATE . In the same letter , the ORG also requested the NORP authorities to recognise and enforce the NORP judgment of DATE under the ORG .

On DATE the NORP Ministry informed ORG that its request for the recovery of maintenance under the ORG could not be accepted , because under LAW ( CARDINAL ) of that convention only NORP private international law was applicable . Consequently , the NORP court which had given the judgment awarding maintenance to the first applicant had had no jurisdiction to do so since at the time of filing the action the debtor had had his permanent residence in GPE . ORG returned the entire request together with all attachments .

On DATE the ORG requested the ORG to provide it with a legal opinion as to the correctness of ORG position .

On DATE ORG stated that the position of ORG was incorrect and that the Lugano Convention , which was binding on both GPE and GPE , did not allow GPE to invoke the sole jurisdiction of the NORP courts as an obstacle to the recognition and enforcement of NORP judgments . It noted that LAW replaced LAW . ORG further noted that it would perhaps be quicker for the first applicant to send a request for recognition and enforcement under LAW directly to the competent court in GPE . Alternatively , it advised ORG to resubmit its request to ORG .

On DATE ORG sent another request for the recognition and enforcement in GPE of the judgment of the FAC of DATE on the basis of the ORG . In the same letter , it reminded ORG about the request lodged under ORG and requested the recovery of the maintenance due from DATE first request filed in DATE . No reply to that request was received . Enquiries with the NORP postal service revealed that the letter had been served on ORG on DATE .

Meanwhile , on DATE ORG sent the first applicant ’s file to ORG in order for them to proceed with the enforcement of FAC judgment of DATE . On DATE ORG transmitted the case to ORG of ORG .

On DATE ORG again sent a letter to ORG . No reply to that letter was received .

On DATE the President of ORG requested ORG in GPE to intervene in the case .

On DATE ORG asked ORG for a certificate proving that TIME had been informed of the request which had commenced the proceedings terminated by the judgment of DATE . Such a certificate was necessary to start recognition and enforcement proceedings on the basis of ORG .

On DATE ORG forwarded the requested documents to ORG .

On various dates in DATE , at the request of the third applicant , ORG attested that she had not received any maintenance payments due to the first applicant . The third applicant needed the confirmation to receive substitute maintenance .

On DATE the NORP authorities lodged a request for the recognition and enforcement of the judgment of DATE with ORG . The first hearing , scheduled for DATE , was adjourned until DATE .

DATE . On DATE ORG asked ORG to provide it with further information as to the progress of the proceedings . On DATE the Greek Ministry replied that ORG would examine the case on DATE .

The hearing set for DATE was adjourned owing to elections . Upon a request from the NORP authorities a further hearing was scheduled for DATE . It was then postponed on account of the friendly - settlement negotiations between the parties .

On DATE ORG asked ORG to inform it of the results of the court hearing .

On DATE the Greek Ministry informed ORG that on DATE the third applicant had reached an agreement with TIME Under the terms of that agreement TIME was to pay MONEY to the first applicant as a final settlement of the sums of maintenance awarded by the NORP court up to CARDINAL DATE . The third applicant declared that she would withdraw her request to enforce the judgment of DATE .

On DATE the third applicant declared that TIME had paid his debts up to DATE but had not made any payments for the period DATE , and that he was not paying the current instalments .

On DATE the third applicant declared that TIME had paid part of his debt for DATE ( ORG CARDINAL ) but he had not paid the interest .

On DATE the third applicant informed ORG that the case could be closed . On DATE the case was closed by ORG . The latter court informed ORG that the recovery proceedings under LAW were terminated .

On DATE the first applicant filed a complaint under LAW of DATE on complaints concerning a breach of the right to a trial within a reasonable time ( “ the CARDINAL Act ” ) . He alleged that the length of the proceedings for the recovery of maintenance instituted in DATE on his behalf by his mother on the basis of ORG had been excessive . He also claimed compensation in the amount of MONEY ( ORG ) . The applicant explained that he had not been able to recover any maintenance from his father , despite the fact that several judgments awarding maintenance had been handed down in GPE and despite ORG repeated attempts to intervene with the NORP authorities .

On DATE ORG rejected the applicant ’s complaint . It recalled that a mere reference to the overall duration of the proceedings did not suffice for a conclusion that their length had been excessive and that the applicant had failed to sufficiently specify the omissions or delays attributable to the lower court . It further observed that , in any event , ORG role as the ORG in the impugned proceedings under the GPE had been limited solely to carrying out technical and organisational tasks , which ORG had duly done .

On DATE Y.M. , a NORP national , was declared the father of the second applicant by FAC . He was further ordered to pay DATE maintenance in the amount of ORG .

On DATE the second applicant , represented by his mother , filed with ORG a request for the recovery of maintenance from GPE under ORG . He requested that the NORP authorities secure a friendly settlement of the case or , alternatively , institute court proceedings with the aim of recovering the maintenance and enforce any judgment that might be given in this connection by the NORP courts .

By a letter of CARDINAL DATE ORG asked the applicant to rectify her request , in particular by attaching the required documents .

On DATE ORG , acting as ORG under ORG , transferred the second applicant ’s request to ORG , acting as ORG .

On DATE ORG requested ORG to confirm reception of the application filed by the second applicant . It appears that there was no response to that request . Enquiries with the NORP postal service revealed that the request had been served on ORG on DATE .

On DATE ORG issued a certificate for the third applicant attesting that she had not received any maintenance payments due to the second applicant . The certificate was necessary to claim substitute maintenance from ORG .

On DATE the ORG requested the assistance of ORG in GPE . In reply , on DATE the Polish Embassy informed ORG that ORG had instituted proceedings for the recovery of the maintenance due to the second applicant . The ORG further informed the court that a hearing before ORG , initially scheduled for DATE , had been rescheduled for CARDINAL DATE .

On DATE and DATE ORG requested ORG to inform it of the outcome of the hearing before the ORG court .

On DATE and DATE ORG requested ORG in GPE to enquire with the NORP authorities about the progress of the proceedings .

On DATE ORG sent the file concerning the second applicant ’s case to ORG , requesting its assistance .

DATE . On DATE ORG sent the case file back to ORG , informing it that the second applicant should address the NORP authorities directly with a request to be provided with a copy of the decision that had apparently been given in his case by the NORP court . On DATE ORG forwarded the ORG letter to the third applicant .

On DATE ORG requested ORG to inform it about any further steps taken with a view to recovering the maintenance . It sent again a copy of the original request for the recovery of maintenance from GPE and requested ORG assistance as GPE had not been paying maintenance due to the second applicant since DATE . On DATE , ORG requested ORG in GPE to intervene in the case .

On DATE the ORG informed ORG that they had already sent to it the judgment of ORG of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . They also requested the ORG to provide them with additional information as to the defendant ’s property , with a view to the enforcement of the judgment in GPE . ORG replied to ORG that the judgment of ORG given on DATE in the third applicant ’s case did not concern any maintenance payments in respect of the second applicant . Consequently , it requested ORG to proceed with the recovery of the maintenance owed by GPE to the second applicant .

In its response of CARDINAL DATE , ORG informed the ORG that the NORP judgment ordering GPE to pay maintenance to the second applicant was a judgment in default given in GPE ’s absence . Consequently , ORG requested ORG to provide it with documents proving that GPE ’s rights as a defendant in the proceedings before the NORP courts had been respected , as required by LAW . On DATE ORG forwarded the requested documents to ORG .

On DATE ORG transmitted the case to ORG as a competent authority to institute the proceedings in accordance with ORG . Subsequently , the case was transmitted to ORG of ORG for further action .

On DATE ORG , acting as ORG , filed a claim with ORG for the enforcement of FAC judgment of DATE .

On DATE ORG gave judgment , dismissing the claim . The court considered that the ORG had no standing to file such a claim because ORG did not apply to the case . It held that LAW was applicable to the case and that accordingly it was the second applicant who had standing to file a claim for enforcement . It is not clear whether ORG lodged an appeal against that judgment .

Meanwhile , on DATE the third applicant filed a claim with ORG requesting the recognition and enforcement of FAC judgment of DATE . The court gave judgment on CARDINAL DATE , dismissing the third applicant ’s claim . It held that the defendant , GPE , had not been correctly informed about the proceedings in GPE and therefore could not defend his interests in the proceedings . The court found that GPE had been served summons to appear at the hearing scheduled for DATE only on DATE , i.e. after the hearing had taken place . The third applicant appealed .

DATE . According to a document dated DATE prepared by a judge of the ORG the rights of GPE had been fully respected in the proceedings leading to the FAC ORG judgment of DATE . The judge noted that the second applicant ’s claim had been filed on DATE and that the first hearing had been scheduled for DATE . The latter hearing was adjourned since GPE had failed to appear and FAC had had no proof that the claim had been served on the defendant . After the court was notified that the claim had been served on GPE on DATE it scheduled a hearing for DATE . On that date PERSON ORG heard the case and delivered judgment in default . The judgment was translated and served on GPE on DATE . He was instructed that he could file an objection to the judgment in default within DATE from the date of the service but he did not react .

A hearing before ORG was scheduled for CARDINAL DATE . However , that hearing was rescheduled owing to a bomb attack which had occurred in the court in GPE DATE prior to that date . Another hearing in the case , scheduled for DATE , was also rescheduled , on account of the local elections due to take place from QUANTITY to DATE .

On DATE ORG dismissed the third applicant ’s appeal . It upheld the lower court finding that the GPE ’s rights to participate in the proceedings and to defend his interests had not been respected . Accordingly , the recognition of the judgment in issue would have been contrary to the public order .

It appears that the third applicant did not lodge an appeal with ORG .

On DATE the third applicant also lodged an action with ORG against GPE for maintenance on behalf of the second applicant . The proceedings were suspended pending the outcome of the proceedings for the recognition and enforcement of the judgment of DATE .

On DATE the second applicant , represented by his mother , filed a complaint under LAW . He claimed that the length of the proceedings for the recovery of maintenance instituted by him on DATE on the basis of ORG had been excessive . He also claimed compensation in the amount of ORG CARDINAL .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s complaint . The court observed that the second applicant had filed his application for recovery of maintenance under FAC on DATE . It noted that the initial application had been incomplete and had had to be rectified by the second applicant before being transmitted to ORG . ORG considered that the transmission of documents had been carried out without undue delay . It further considered that , in the proceedings under LAW , ORG had only acted as ORG and , as such , had had no influence on the expeditiousness of the recovery of the maintenance by the NORP authorities . Moreover , ORG found that ORG , although it had not been required to do so by law , had on several occasions attempted to intervene in the proceedings by sending reminder letters to the NORP authorities and by soliciting the assistance of the NORP embassy in GPE . Consequently , ORG considered that the ORG could not be held responsible for the overall length of the impugned proceedings and it dismissed the second applicant ’s complaint , refusing to award him any compensation .

On DATE ORG issued a divorce decree in default , dissolving the third applicant ’s marriage to a NORP national , GPE , and ordering GPE to pay maintenance to her .

On DATE the third applicant lodged an application with ORG for the recovery of maintenance from GPE under LAW . In her application , she requested the NORP authorities to secure a friendly settlement of the case or , alternatively , to institute proceedings with the aim of recovering the maintenance and to recognise and enforce the judgment of DATE .

On DATE ORG asked the third applicant to rectify her request by attaching the required documents . On DATE the court transmitted the application to ORG .

On DATE ORG sent the applicant ’s file to ORG in order for it to proceed with enforcement of the recovery of maintenance from GPE The efforts to summon NORP proved unsuccessful . On DATE ORG transmitted the case - file to ORG with a view to instituting enforcement proceedings in accordance with ORG . Subsequently , the case was referred to ORG of ORG for further action .

Meanwhile , on DATE the third applicant married PERSON According to ORG , pursuant to LAW of ORG , LOC ’s obligation to pay maintenance to the third applicant ceased as a consequence of this act . The applicant contested this assertion of ORG .

On DATE ORG requested ORG to provide it with proof that the summons had been served on GPE in the proceedings before ORG .

On DATE ORG sent the requested document to ORG , observing that it had already been sent to it on DATE , together with the initial request for recovery of maintenance .

On DATE the NORP authorities brought an action against GPE before ORG with the aim of obtaining the recognition and enforcement of the judgment of the ORG of DATE .

On DATE ORG decided to adjourn the hearing in order to verify whether the matter had not already been the subject of another final judgment concerning the same parties .

On DATE , CARDINAL DATE and CARDINAL DATE ORG requested ORG to provide it with information as to the progress of the proceedings . It appears that no response was received to these enquiries .

On DATE the ORG requested the assistance of ORG in GPE .

A hearing before ORG scheduled for DATE was adjourned . A hearing took place on CARDINAL DATE . On DATE the court decided to adjourn the hearing for the same reason as previously ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . The next hearing scheduled for DATE was adjourned . The hearing took place on DATE . Twice in the course of the proceedings the NORP authorities lodged a request with ORG for a hearing to be scheduled in the case .

On DATE ORG requested ORG to provide it with information as to the outcome of the hearing before the GPE court . Since no reply was received to that request , on DATE ORG requested the NORP Embassy in GPE to enquire with the NORP authorities as to the outcome of the proceedings .

On DATE the ORG informed ORG of the developments in the case .

On DATE ORG gave a judgment recognising ORG divorce verdict of DATE as enforceable in GPE . On DATE ORG sent a copy of the judgment to ORG .

On DATE ORG requested ORG Ministry of Justice to provide it with legal advice as to the further steps necessary to recover the maintenance due to the third applicant . On DATE the NORP Ministry suggested further cooperation with ORG and underlined that ORG acted only as a ORG .

On DATE ORG informed the third applicant that she should entrust the carrying out of the enforcement proceedings in GPE to a NORP counsel . The court further informed her that the proceedings in her case would be temporarily stayed pending the outcome of the enforcement proceedings in GPE .

On DATE a copy of the judgment of DATE was served on GPE , together with an order of payment for CARDINAL ORG .

On DATE ORG asked ORG to provide information as regards GPE ’s assets in GPE . In reply , the third applicant provided the information that GPE ’s assets included CARDINAL taverns in NORP and GPE , a house in ORG , a flat in GPE and several cars and motorcycles .

On DATE the ORG informed ORG that enforcement proceedings against GPE on the basis of the judgment of ORG of DATE had been initiated and that some property belonging to ORG would be seized and auctioned off .

Subsequently , CARDINAL auctions were organised in order to sell CARDINAL of GPE ’s apartments in GPE ( on DATE , DATE and DATE ) . However , this was to no avail , as there were no bidders at the auctions .

On DATE the NORP authorities requested ORG to fix a lower price for the CARDINAL apartments in order to facilitate the auction . On DATE the court partly granted the request and fixed the price at CARDINAL ORG and CARDINAL ORG respectively . CARDINAL subsequent auctions of CARDINAL and DATE were again to no avail for the lack of bidders .

On DATE the NORP authorities lodged a request with ORG to authorise the sale of GPE ’s CARDINAL apartments through an open sale .

CARDINAL

In the meantime , on DATE the third applicant filed a new application for recovery of maintenance payments . It was forwarded to ORG on DATE . The first hearing was set for DATE .

On DATE ORG asked ORG what the chances were that the maintenance would be recovered from GPE ORG did not reply .

The Convention on the Recovery Abroad of Maintenance was adopted and opened for signature on DATE by ORG on Maintenance Obligations . GPE and GPE ratified GPE on DATE and DATE respectively .

The relevant provisions of ORG read as follows :

The purpose of this Convention is to facilitate the recovery of maintenance to which a person , hereinafter referred to as claimant , who is in the territory of CARDINAL of the Contracting Parties , claims to be entitled from another person , hereinafter referred to as respondent , who is subject to the jurisdiction of ORG . This purpose shall be effected through the office of agencies which will hereinafter be referred to as ORG .

The remedies provided for in this Convention are in addition to , and not in substitution for , any remedies available under municipal or international law .

Where a claimant is in the territory of CARDINAL ORG , hereinafter referred to as the ORG of the claimant , and the respondent is subject to the jurisdiction of ORG , hereinafter referred to as the ORG of the respondent , the claimant may make application to a ORG in GPE the claimant for the recovery of maintenance from the respondent . ( ... )

The application shall be accompanied by all relevant documents , including , where necessary , a power of attorney authorising ORG to act , or to appoint some other person to act , on behalf of the claimant . It shall also be accompanied by a photograph of the claimant and , where available , a photograph of the respondent .

ORG shall take all reasonable steps to ensure that the requirements of the law of ORG are complied with ; ...

ORG shall , at the request of the claimant , transmit , under the provisions of article CARDINAL , any order , final or provisional , and any other judicial act , obtained by the claimant for the payment of maintenance in a competent tribunal of any of the Contracting Parties , and , where necessary and possible , the record of the proceedings in which such order was made . ...

Proceedings under article CARDINAL may include , in accordance with the law of the State of the respondent , exequatur or registration proceedings or an action based upon the act transmitted under paragraph CARDINAL .

ORG shall , subject always to the authority given by the claimant , take , on behalf of the claimant , all appropriate steps for the recovery of maintenance , including the settlement of the claim and , where necessary , the institution and prosecution of an action for maintenance and the execution of any order or other judicial act for the payment of maintenance .

ORG shall keep ORG currently informed . If it is unable to act , it shall inform ORG of its reasons and return the documents .

Notwithstanding anything in this Convention , the law applicable in the determination of all questions arising in any such action or proceedings shall be the law of the ORG of the respondent , including its private international law . ”

The Agreement between GPE and GPE entered into force on DATE .

The DATE Agreement provides , in so far as relevant :

Final court decisions in civil matters concerning rights of a pecuniary nature delivered in the territory of CARDINAL ORG may be recognised as enforceable in the other ORG if they were delivered after the entry into force of the present Agreement .

A request for the recognition or the enforcement of a court decision should be filed with the court which examined the matter in the first instance or with the competent court of the other ORG . In the former case , the court shall transmit the request to the competent court of the other ORG , in accordance with the procedure set out in article CARDINAL of the present Agreement .

A request for the recognition or the enforcement of a court decision should include :

b ) a document proving that a plaintiff who did not participate in the proceedings , or his lawyer , had been informed in due time and summoned in due time to a hearing on CARDINAL occasion .

ORG or enforcement may be refused :

d ) if , according to the law of ORG in whose territory the decision is to be recognised or enforced , the court of that ORG has sole jurisdiction to examine the matter .

GPE and GPE ratified LAW on DATE and DATE respectively . It entered into force in respect of GPE on DATE and in respect of GPE on DATE .

The relevant provisions of LAW read as follows :

For the purposes of this LAW , ‘ judgment’ means any judgment given by a court or tribunal of a ORG , whatever the judgment may be called , including a decree , order , decision or writ of execution , as well as the determination of costs or expenses by an officer of the court .

A judgment given in a Contracting State shall be recognised in the other Contracting States without any special procedure being required .

Any interested party who raises the recognition of a judgment as the principal issue in a dispute may , in accordance with the procedures provided for in LAW of this Title , apply for a decision that the judgment be recognised .

If the outcome of proceedings in a court of a Contracting State depends on the determination of an incidental question of recognition that court shall have jurisdiction over that question .

A judgment shall not be recognised :

if such recognition is contrary to public policy in the ORG in which recognition is sought ;

where it was given in default of appearance , if the defendant was not duly served with the document which instituted the proceedings or with an equivalent document in sufficient time to enable him to arrange for his defence ;

if the judgment is irreconcilable with a judgment given in a dispute between the same parties in the ORG in which recognition is sought ;

if the court of the ORG of origin , in order to arrive at its judgment , has decided a preliminary question concerning the status or legal capacity of natural persons , rights in property arising out of a matrimonial relationship , wills or succession in a way that conflicts with a rule of the private international law of the ORG in which the recognition is sought , unless the same result would have been reached by the application of the rules of private international law of that ORG ;

if the judgment is irreconcilable with an earlier judgment given in a noncontracting State involving the same cause of action and between the same parties , provided that this latter judgment fulfils the conditions necessary for its recognition in the ORG addressed .

A judgment given in a Contracting State and enforceable in that ORG shall be enforced in another Contracting State when , on the application of any interested party , it has been declared enforceable there .

The court applied to shall give its decision without delay ; the party against whom enforcement is sought shall not at this stage of the proceedings be entitled to make any submissions on the application .

The application may be refused only for CARDINAL of the reasons specified in Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL .

Under no circumstances may the foreign judgment be reviewed as to its substance .

The appropriate officer of the court shall without delay bring the decision given on the application to the notice of the applicant in accordance with the procedure laid down by the law of the ORG in which enforcement is sought .

ORG ( ORG ) No CARDINAL/CARDINAL lays down rules governing the jurisdiction of courts and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters in the ORG countries . The relevant provisions of the Regulation ( ORG ) No CARDINAL/CARDINAL read as follows :

For the purposes of this Regulation , ‘ judgment’ means any judgment given by a court or tribunal of a Member ORG , whatever the judgment may be called , including a decree , order , decision or writ of execution , as well as the determination of costs or expenses by an officer of the court .

A judgment given in a Member ORG shall be recognised in the other Member GPE without any special procedure being required .

Any interested party who raises the recognition of a judgment as the principal issue in a dispute may , in accordance with the procedures provided for in Sections CARDINAL and CARDINAL of this LAW , apply for a decision that the judgment be recognised .

If the outcome of proceedings in a court of a Member ORG depends on the determination of an incidental question of recognition that court shall have jurisdiction over that question .

A judgment shall not be recognised :

if such recognition is manifestly contrary to public policy in the Member ORG in which recognition is sought ;

where it was given in default of appearance , if the defendant was not served with the document which instituted the proceedings or with an equivalent document in sufficient time and in such a way as to enable him to arrange for his defence , unless the defendant failed to commence proceedings to challenge the judgment when it was possible for him to do so ;

if it is irreconcilable with a judgment given in a dispute between the same parties in the Member ORG in which recognition is sought ;

if it is irreconcilable with an earlier judgment given in another Member ORG or in a third ORG involving the same cause of action and between the same parties , provided that the earlier judgment fulfils the conditions necessary for its recognition in the Member ORG addressed .

A judgment given in a Member ORG and enforceable in that ORG shall be enforced in another Member State when , on the application of any interested party , it has been declared enforceable there .

The procedure for making the application shall be governed by the law of the Member ORG in which enforcement is sought .

The judgment shall be declared enforceable immediately on completion of the formalities in LAW without any review under LAW and DATE . The party against whom enforcement is sought shall not at this stage of the proceedings be entitled to make any submissions on the application .

The decision on the application for a declaration of enforceability shall forthwith be brought to the notice of the applicant in accordance with the procedure laid down by the law of the Member ORG in which enforcement is sought .

The decision on the application for a declaration of enforceability may be appealed against by either party .

The court with which an appeal is lodged under LAW shall refuse or revoke a declaration of enforceability only on one of the grounds specified in DATE . It shall give its decision without delay .

Under no circumstances may the foreign judgment be reviewed as to its substance .