David Thór Björgvinsson;Giovanni Bonello;Ján Šikuta;Ledi Bianku;Nebojša Vučinić;Nicolas Bratza;Päivi Hirvelä

The applicant , PERSON , is an NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in GPE . He is represented before the ORG by Mr A. ORG , a lawyer practising in GPE . ORG ( “ the Government ” ) were represented by their then Agents , PERSON and Ms B. GPE .

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

On DATE ORG granted the applicant a building permit to erect a temporary construction . The applicant used it to establish a café - bar . The permit , however , did not stipulate the duration of its validity .

In DATE LAW ( “ the DATE LAW ) was enacted . It provided that building permits for temporary constructions had a validity of DATE . LAW was repealed by LAW DATE ( “ the DATE LAW ) , which made the same provision for the validity of building permits in relation to temporary constructions .

On DATE the ORG ( Policia DATE “ the DCP ” ) decided to institute administrative proceedings against the applicant for alleged breaches of the DATE Act ’s provisions . Consequently , on DATE the ORG found that the DATE validity period of the applicant ’s building permit had been considerably exceeded , in violation of LAW . It also found that it was located on a green public area in breach of LAW . Finally , the ORG ordered the demolition of the applicant ’s construction .

On an unspecified date in DATE the applicant filed a motion against the ORG ’s decision with ORG ( “ the ORG ” ) – the highest competent administrative body . He argued that the building permit issued in DATE was for an unlimited duration . Furthermore , he contended that the construction was lawful and that the uninterrupted running of the business should be regarded as an implicit renewal of the permit by the authorities .

On DATE the ORG requested the applicant to demolish the building voluntarily within DATE from the date of its decision in accordance with LAW .

On DATE the ORG rejected the applicant ’s motion and upheld the ORG ’s demolition order . The applicant was ordered to demolish the café - bar within DATE . The respondent Government maintained that the order had been served on the applicant on an unspecified date by surface mail .

In the applicant ’s submission , he stayed from CARDINAL to CARDINAL DATE in the former GPE for family reasons and was not served with , or notified of , either the decision or the order of the ORG .

On DATE , while the applicant was in the former GPE , the DCP demolished his café - bar . The police record ( proces - verbal ) , in so far as relevant , stated :

“ the DCP ( ... ) closely followed [ and inspected ] the applicant ’s employees’ voluntary execution [ of the demolition order ] . ”

The police record was not signed by the applicant ’s employees . Neither did the document make reference to any stocktaking of the equipment present inside the café - bar before , during or after its demolition .

On an unspecified date in DATE the applicant lodged a claim with ORG ( “ the ORG ” ) . He challenged the lawfulness of the ORG ’s demolition order and complained of arbitrariness on the part of the police force as he had not been informed of the demolition . Moreover , the applicant requested compensation for pecuniary loss in respect of the café - bar ’s equipment , which amounted to CARDINAL NORP leks ( MONEY ) .

On DATE ORG held that the demolition order was lawful in so far as the applicant had failed to apply to the competent authority for renewal of the building permit to erect a temporary construction . The court found that no automatic renewal had been recognised by LAW and that the demolition of the building was also in accordance with LAW . Moreover , ORG dismissed as unsubstantiated his claims relating to the arbitrariness of the police force and their responsibility for the alleged damage caused by the demolition of the café - bar . With regard to the loss of the café - bar ’s equipment , it found the applicant partly responsible . By failing to comply with the police order , he had contributed to the damage caused to his property . Lastly , the court found that responsibility for the damage caused by the loss of the café - bar ’s equipment lay with the employees who had carried out the demolition .

On an unspecified date in DATE the applicant appealed to ORG ( “ the ORG ” ) .

On DATE ORG upheld ORG judgment . It found that the applicant had been responsible for causing the damage in so far as he had decided to go abroad on DATE at the time when he had had notification of the impending demolition of the bar . Moreover , the court held that the applicant had not demonstrated any direct liability on the part of the police force for pecuniary loss .

The applicant appealed to ORG . He claimed that his premises had been erected on the strength of a temporary building permit which did not stipulate the period of validity . Consequently , he had been a bona fide owner and user of the café - bar throughout this time . The applicant alleged that ORG had overstepped its powers in that they had acted in the place of ORG as regards the issuance of a demolition order for the LOC . The applicant also submitted that the lower courts had not examined whether the demolition order had been duly served on him . Finally , the applicant questioned ORG actions resulting in his dispossession of the café - bar ’s equipment and the total lack of compensation .

On DATE ORG decided to dismiss his appeal , stating that the grounds of the appeal fell outside the scope of LAW of LAW ( “ the ORG ” ) .

On DATE the applicant appealed to ORG . He relied on the same grounds of appeal as before ORG .

On DATE the complaint was declared inadmissible by a bench of CARDINAL judges of ORG , for failure to comply with LAW .

The relevant domestic legal provisions read as follows :

“ CARDINAL . The right of private property is guaranteed .

“ CARDINAL . The freedom , property and rights recognised in the LAW and by law may not be withdrawn without due process .

In the protection of his constitutional and legal rights , freedoms and interests , or in defending against a criminal charge , everyone has the right to a fair and public hearing , within a reasonable time , by an independent and impartial court established by law . ”

“ ORG decides on :

( f ) final complaints by individuals alleging a violation of their constitutional rights to a fair hearing , after all legal remedies for the protection of those rights have been exhausted . ”

“ CARDINAL . ORG may initiate proceedings only at the request of :

( f ) political parties and other organisations ;

( g ) individuals .

The entities designated in the first paragraph , letters ... ( f ) and ( g ) , may lodge applications only on issues connected with their interests . ”

An individual may lodge a complaint with ORG on the basis of LAW ( f ) of the LAW alleging a breach of his right to a fair hearing . ORG has interpreted the right to a fair hearing as encompassing the right of access to a court ( see , for example , decisions FAC . CARDINAL , CARDINAL , DATE ) ; the right to enjoy equality of arms and the right to notification of acts of a court ( see , for example , decisions ORG . CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , DATE , DATE , CARDINAL , CARDINAL ) ; the right to an independent and impartial tribunal ( see , for example , decisions ORG . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL ) ; and , the right to reasoned judgments ( see , for example , decision no . CARDINAL ) .

In the event the Constitutional Court finds a violation of the right to a fair hearing , it quashes the lower courts’ judgments and remits the case for re - consideration .

Articles CARDINAL - CARDINAL govern the adjudication of administrative disputes , following exhaustion of all administrative remedies . Article CARDINAL provides that a party may bring an action before a court with a view to revoking or amending an administrative decision . Under Article CARDINAL a party must argue that the decision is unlawful and that his or her own interests and rights have been violated directly or indirectly , individually or collectively .

With regard to the appeal procedure before ORG , the Code of Civil Procedure , in so far as relevant , reads as follows :

“ Decisions of ORG and ORG may be appealed against to ORG on the following grounds : ( a ) the law has not been complied with or has been applied erroneously ; ( b ) there have been serious breaches of procedural rules ( pursuant to LAW ) ; ( c ) there have been procedural violations that have affected the adoption of the decision . ... ”

“ An appeal [ to ORG ] shall be declared inadmissible if it contains grounds other than those provided for under the law . The inadmissibility of appeals shall be decided upon in deliberations in camera . ”

Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the ORG govern the adoption of interim measures .

Article CARDINAL of the ORG provides that the administrative body responsible for taking the final decision may impose interim measures when it considers that the failure to take certain actions would cause serious and irreparable damage to public interests . Interim measures may be adopted on the initiative of the administrative body or at the request of the complainant . The decision should be reasoned and contain a fixed timeframe .

Article CARDINAL of the ORG provides for the grounds on which an interim measure is lifted .

The CARDINAL Act , which repealed LAW , entered into force on DATE . It lays down the general rules governing the location and architecture of constructions in GPE . It provides for the establishment of the district ORG ( “ CTPs ” ) and the National CTP .

Section CARDINAL provides that permits to erect temporary buildings have a DATE validity . Such permits are issued only in the event of natural disasters or similar occurrences . Section CARDINAL stipulates that district CTAs are not empowered to authorise temporary constructions in green public areas . Under section CARDINAL ORG is empowered to impose fines and order the demolition of unlawful buildings . Moreover , the LAW provides for the immediate destruction of illegal buildings in public areas .

Section CARDINAL , as in force at the material time , stated that the ORG ’s decision could be appealed against within DATE to the ORG , which was obliged to decide within DATE . The ORG ’s decision could be appealed against to ORG within DATE from its notification . Section CARDINAL provided that an appeal to the court did not have suspensive effect for the execution of administrative decisions .

The DATE Act does not contain a provision to the effect that it is applicable to events prior to its entry into force .

In its decision no . CARDINAL of DATE about the unconstitutionality of certain articles of the DATE LAW , ORG found , inter alia , that ORG DATE were not unconstitutional and did not breach constitutional principles .

By decision no . CARDINAL of DATE , referring to the suspension of the execution of administrative acts of , inter alia , ORG , as provided for in LAW , ORG held that the suspension of the execution of administrative acts was amenable to judicial review . The domestic courts may decide on the suspension of the execution of administrative acts , provided that the petitioner brings an action against the administrative act and simultaneously requests the suspension of execution thereof , in compliance with the relevant provisions ( Articles CARDINAL - CARDINAL and CARDINAL ) of the ORG .

LAW DATE established ORG who were responsible for supervising compliance with and the lawfulness of the urban planning legislation . ORG was empowered to impose fines , decide on the suspension of construction work and order the demolition of unlawful constructions ( section CARDINAL and CARDINAL ) .

LAW DATE was repealed in DATE .


Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Mykhaylo Buromenskiy;Peer Lorenzen;Rait Maruste;Renate Jaeger;Zdravka Kalaydjieva

The applicant , PERSON , is a NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in the town of GPE , GPE . ORG ( “ the Government ” ) were represented by their Agent , PERSON .

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

The applicant 's family and Mr. PERSON shared a communal apartment . In DATE ORG granted PERSON request to privatise his part of the apartment ( “ the disputed property ” ) . Subsequently , PERSON gave the disputed property as a donation to PERSON and PERSON .

On DATE the applicant and his wife instituted proceedings against PERSON , PERSON and PERSON . , and ORG in ORG challenging the privatisation and seeking to have the donation contract declared null and void . In particular , the applicant alleged that PERSON , being a NORP national , had no right to privatise the disputed property .

Since PERSON was residing in GPE , on DATE the court asked ORG in GPE ( the ORG ) to provide it with the information about PERSON nationality . On DATE the Head of ORG replied that the requested information had been confidential . He further indicated that the NORP authorities could lodge a request with ORG of GPE , as prescribed by LAW ” ) .

On DATE the applicant sought a ruling to request the NORP authorities to state whether PERSON had been a NORP national on the date of the privatisation . He also requested suspension of the proceedings until ORG received a reply . On DATE the court granted the applicant 's petition .

In DATE the request was transmitted to the NORP authorities . ORG requested that PERSON be questioned , the applicant 's claim be served on him and that he be summoned to ORG . ORG also asked for copies of the documents concerning Mr PERSON 's nationality on the date of the privatisation .

In the period from DATE to DATE ORG scheduled some QUANTITY hearings . They were scheduled at intervals ranging from DATE and DATE .

On DATE PERSON . lodged a counterclaim , seeking a ruling to oblige the applicant 's family not to hinder them in their use of the apartment . They also claimed compensation for pecuniary and non - pecuniary damage .

On DATE the Deputy Head of ORG of ORG of GPE informed ORG that the reply from the NORP authorities had been received . Since the request was not executed in a due manner , it was sent back to ORG of GPE .

On DATE the applicant lodged an additional claim . He requested ORG to rule that he had the right to use the disputed property .

On DATE the Deputy Head of ORG of ORG of GPE informed ORG that the request in respect of serving the documents and questioning PERSON had not been performed by the NORP authorities , since PERSON had failed to appear before them .

On DATE the court scheduled a hearing . It was adjourned as the parties failed to appear .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant 's petition that a new request be sent to the NORP authorities . The applicant unsuccessfully challenged the judge sitting in his case .

On DATE the court held a hearing in the case .

On DATE Mr B. authorised Mr T. to represent him in the proceedings before ORG .

On DATE the court partly allowed the claims lodged by PERSON and PERSON . and rejected the applicant 's claims . In particular , the court found that on the date of the privatisation Mr B. had had NORP nationality . The court found no proof in support of the applicant 's allegations . The applicant appealed against the judgment contesting , in particular , the first - instance court 's finding that PERSON had been a NORP national at the time .

According to the ORG 's observations , in DATE the court of appeal , following the applicant 's request , asked ORG of GPE to provide it with the information about Mr B. 's nationality . The reply containing information about PERSON nationality reached the court of appeal on DATE . Neither the applicant nor the Government informed ORG of the content of that reply .

On DATE the court of appeal dismissed the applicant 's appeal as unsubstantiated and upheld the judgment given by the first - instance court .

In DATE the applicant lodged an appeal in cassation with the first - instance court , which transferred it for consideration to ORG .

On DATE ORG remitted the appeal in cassation to the first - instance court , for certain shortcomings to be rectified by the applicant .

In a ruling of DATE ORG stated that the applicant could re - lodge his appeal in cassation after these shortcomings had been rectified , but before DATE .

On DATE the applicant re - lodged his appeal in cassation .

On DATE ORG upheld the decisions of the lower courts .

ORG ( signed in GPE on DATE ) provides as follows :

“ CARDINAL . The judicial authorities of the Contracting States shall extend legal assistance in civil , family , and criminal matters in accordance with the relevant provisions of the present Convention ....... “

“ When acting pursuant to this Convention , the competent judicial authorities of the Contracting States shall communicate with one another through their central , regional , and other agencies , unless a different liaison procedure is prescribed hereunder . The Contracting States shall determine lists of their central , regional , and other agencies duly empowered to maintain direct contacts by notice to the depository . ”

“ The Contracting States shall provide one another with legal assistance by performing such procedural and other acts as are stipulated by the legislation of the Contracting State requested to take such measures , including , but not limited to , the execution and sending of documents , the conduct of inspections and searches , the recovery and delivery of physical evidence , the performance of expert examinations , the questioning of parties to the proceedings , third parties , suspects , indicts , victims , witnesses , and experts , efforts to track down certain individuals , criminal prosecution , the extradition of persons to be held criminally liable or face that punishment already fixed for them in appropriate sentences , the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil matters , verdicts on civil claims , executive endorsements , and the service of process . ”

“ CARDINAL . When acting upon a letter of request , the authority addressed shall apply the legislation of its own country . If petitioned by the authority seeking assistance , it may also apply the procedural rules of ORG where the latter is based , unless such rules are inconsistent with the legislation of ORG where such assistance is sought .

If the authority addressed is not competent to satisfy the request submitted , it shall pass it onto a competent authority and shall notify the authority requesting assistance accordingly .

If petitioned by the authority seeking assistance , the authority addressed shall notify the latter and the other parties concerned of the time and place of the request 's fulfilment so that they should be able to attend its satisfaction in accordance with the legislation of ORG where such assistance is sought .

Where the precise address of the person identified in a letter of request is unknown , the authority addressed shall take the measures necessary to ascertain such address in accordance with the legislation of ORG where such authority is based .

After completing its action on a letter of request , the authority addressed shall return the corresponding documents to the authority which applied for that assistance ; where the legal assistance sought can not be provided as requested , the authority addressed shall also report those circumstances that prevent such performance and shall return the corresponding documents to the authority seeking that assistance . ”

“ CARDINAL . That judicial authority addressed by a letter of request shall serve process in accordance with that procedure in effect in its ORG if the documents to be delivered have been executed in the latter 's language or in NORP or are accompanied by duly certified translations into such languages . Otherwise , it shall pass such documents on to the recipient if the latter agrees to accept them voluntarily .

If the documents concerned can not be delivered at the address indicated in a letter of request , the judicial authority addressed shall initiate the measures necessary to ascertain such address . Should it prove impossible for the judicial authority addressed to find out that address , it shall advise the judicial authority seeking assistance accordingly and return the documents due for service . ”

“ The requested service of process shall be confirmed by an appropriate acknowledgement which shall be signed by the recipient and evidenced by the official seal of the judicial authority addressed , indicate the date of such service , and carry the signature of an officer of the serving judicial authority , or by another document issued by the latter and describing the manner , place and time of the service performed . ”


Angelika Nußberger;Dean Spielmann;Elisabet Fura;Ganna Yudkivska;Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre

The applicant , Mr PERSON ( “ the applicant ” ) , is a NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in LOC . The applicant lodged the application on his own and his daughter ’s , A. ’s , behalf . He was represented before the ORG by PERSON , a lawyer practising in PERSON . ORG ( “ the Government ” ) were represented by their Agent , PERSON , ORG Attorney .

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

Following the separation of the applicant and his daughter ’s mother , the latter obtained custody of the daughter .

Subsequently , on DATE , the applicant lodged a request for determination of contact arrangements with his daughter . ORG issued a decision on those contact arrangements on DATE . It determined that the applicant and his daughter should have DATE contact and contact during holidays . As regards the latter , it stated that the applicant and his daughter should spend DATE during DATE and DATE during DATE together . The mother appealed .

On DATE ORG ( “ the Ministry ” ) quashed the part of ORG decision that concerned contact arrangements during DATE . It found that the decision had lacked an indication of the exact periods of contact to be put in place during DATE . On DATE , the case was transferred to ORG , which , further to a reform in this field , had acquired jurisdiction in the matter .

On DATE a hearing was held before the court . At the hearing , the judge noted that the subject of the proceedings was restricted to contact arrangements during holidays . On the same date the applicant requested that an interim decision be issued regulating contact arrangements during holidays and stipulating a physical taking of his daughter from her mother in the case of her non - compliance with the decision .

On DATE the court rejected the applicant ’s request for an interim decision . It relied on ORG report and a psychologist ’s report indicating that the applicant ’s daughter did not want to have DATE contact with the applicant , as a result of which no visits had been carried out at that time . The court found that provisional holiday contact arrangements might therefore not be in the child ’s interests and that it was better to wait for evidence to be produced in the proceedings and a final decision reached on that basis . The applicant appealed . On DATE the ORG rejected the applicant ’s appeal concerning the request for an interim decision , finding that the lower court had properly conducted the proceedings and had been led by the best interests of the child .

In the meantime , the applicant and his daughter also lodged a request for contact arrangements between the daughter and relatives on the applicant ’s side of the family . On DATE ORG joined the request for contact arrangements between the daughter and her relatives to the proceedings concerning contact during holidays . On DATE the court declared inadmissible the request for contact arrangements with the aforementioned relatives , finding that neither the applicant nor his daughter , who was still a minor , had standing to pursue such proceedings . On DATE the ORG upheld that decision .

On DATE the applicant ’s daughter ’s mother lodged a request for new ( reduced ) DATE contact arrangements between the applicant and his daughter which would replace those set out in ORG decision of DATE . She also requested that an interim decision be issued in that regard . The latter request was rejected on DATE .

On DATE ORG held a hearing . Both parties confirmed that the DATE contact arrangements as set out in ORG decision of DATE had been complied with since DATE . Moreover , the applicant and his daughter had also taken a holiday together in DATE .

At the hearing of DATE the court decided the case and terminated the proceedings . Having regard to several ORG reports , as well as expert reports and statements from the parties , it determined new DATE contact arrangements , which were similar to those set out in ORG decision . In also decided that the applicant and his daughter should spend the DATE and DATE during DATE together and specified the way in which these arrangements should be implemented in practice .

Both parties appealed . On DATE the ORG quashed the part of the lower court ’s decision concerning the DATE contact arrangements and slightly modified the way in which the arrangements for DATE should be implemented in practice . It found that there had been no basis for the lower court to replace ORG final decision of DATE as regards the part of that decision concerning DATE contact arrangements , which therefore remained in force . ORG decision was served on the applicant ’s representative on DATE .

As regards the relevant provisions of domestic family law see LAW GPE , no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL and GPE , § § DATE , DATE .


The applicant states that he is PERSON , a NORP national of NORP origin , born in DATE . At the time of introduction of the application , the applicant was detained in the GPE for expulsion purposes . He is represented before the ORG by Ms G.E.M. Later , a lawyer practising in GPE .

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

On DATE , following the apprehension of the NORP leader PERSON by the NORP authorities , a protest demonstration took place in GPE in the course of which protesters occupied the residence of the NORP Ambassador and members of the Ambassador ’s household were prevented from leaving the LOC . On DATE , the applicant was arrested and subsequently detained in police custody ( inverzekeringstelling ) on suspicion of involvement in the offence of unlawfully depriving a person of his of liberty .

Whilst in police custody , the applicant ’s provisional placement in GPE detention ( voorlopige vreemdelingenbewaring ) was ordered , after he had been heard on this matter .

On DATE , the applicant filed an appeal with ORG ( ORG ) against the decision to order his provisional placement in GPE detention and he requested the court to award him compensation .

The applicant was released from custody on DATE and handed over to the NORP police ( vreemdelingenpolitie ) , who placed him in GPE detention for the purposes of expulsion ( vreemdelingenbewaring ) under LAW ( a ) of LAW ( PERSON ) . Subsequently and on DATE , the applicant applied for asylum or , alternatively , a residence permit on humanitarian grounds . As a result of the lodging of this request , the legal basis for his placement in GPE detention was changed to LAW ) of LAW .

On DATE , following a hearing held on DATE , ORG sitting in GPE rejected the applicant ’s appeal of DATE . It noted at the outset that the applicant did not hold a valid residence permit , that he lacked sufficient means of subsistence and that he had no fixed abode . In these circumstances , it accepted that the suspicions that the applicant would seek ways to evade his expulsion were not unfounded . It further noted that an order for the applicant ’s expulsion had been issued .

Although ORG found that the hearing of the applicant on the measure of his provisional placement in GPE detention had fallen short of the requirements of LAW ) in that it had been conducted in too routinely a manner and it was not apparent that the applicant had realised what was at issue , it concluded that this had not harmed the applicant ’s material interests . On this point , ORG observed that hearings pursuant to LAW were held so that the person concerned might have an opportunity to put forward facts or circumstances which could lead to the conclusion that the imposition of this measure was not called for . However , at the hearing before ORG of DATE it could not be established whether any such facts or circumstances had in fact existed . ORG further held that it had not appeared that it was highly likely that the applicant ’s asylum request would be granted . It concluded that the applicant ’s placement in GPE detention was in accordance with LAW and , after having balanced all interests involved , could reasonably be regarded as justified . It consequently rejected the applicant ’s claim for compensation for the time spent in GPE detention .

On DATE , the ORG Secretary informed ORG that , in view of reports on what had happened to CARDINAL asylum seekers who had been expelled to GPE , a policy decision had been taken to suspend temporarily the expulsions of NORP nationals of NORP origin . On DATE , the applicant was released from GPE detention .

LAW , insofar as relevant , provides :

“ CARDINAL . If the interests of public order , public policy or national security so require , the following categories of aliens may be detained :

a. NORP aliens whose expulsion has been ordered ;

b. aliens in respect of whom there are serious ground to believe that their expulsion will be ordered ;

c. aliens who are not allowed to reside in the GPE by virtue of any of the provisions contained in ORG CARDINAL - CARDINAL < of LAW > , pending the decision on an application for a residence permit , a permanent residence permit or leave to enter as refugees .

An alien shall not be detained when , and detention shall be terminated as soon as , he intimates that he wishes to leave the GPE and is in fact in a position to do so .

Detention for the reasons set out in the first sentence of paragraph CARDINAL and for the categories referred to under b. or c. of that paragraph shall not be of longer duration than DATE .

An alien whose expulsion has been ordered can , in principle , remain in GPE detention for an unlimited period of time . The lawfulness of a placement in GPE detention can , however , be challenged before a court . Where the court is of the opinion that there are no prospects of expulsion within a reasonable time , it can order that the measure of placement in GPE detention be terminated .

It has been established in the case - law of ORG ( ORG ) of ORG that the interest of an alien to be released from GPE detention increases with the passage of time . Where a placement in GPE detention exceeds a period of DATE , it is generally held that the alien ’s interest in being released is greater than the interest to keep him in detention for the purposes of expulsion . Depending on the specific circumstances of each case , this point in time may also be reached before or after DATE have passed . It may be later where the alien frustrates the determination of his identity or nationality and it may be earlier where the alien concerned is unable to obtain travel documents for reasons beyond his control .

Although no appeal lies against a decision by ORG in proceedings concerning requests for release from detention for expulsion purposes , an appeal to ORG ( Gerechtshof ) is available in relation to a decision taken in the context of such proceedings on a request for compensation for the time spent in detention for expulsion purposes . Furthermore , an appeal may be admitted in which the complaint is made that in the decision challenged a fundamental principle of law has been disrespected ( cf . ORG , CARDINAL DATE , PERSON , nr . CARDINAL )

There is no time - limit for the filing of an appeal against a decision of placement in GPE detention and in principle a person placed in GPE detention may file as many appeals against this decision as he sees fit . When the lawfulness of a decision of placement in GPE detention has been determined for a first time , the examination of any subsequent appeal in this respect will be limited to the lawfulness of the continuation of the placement in GPE detention as from DATE last judicial decision taken on this point .

On DATE , the ORG Secretary of ORG requested ORG to suspend until DATE its examination of appeals , including requests for injunctions on expulsions , filed by asylum seekers of NORP origin , in view of a recent report of CARDINAL such asylum seeker having encountered serious problems after his expulsion to GPE . As the veracity of this report was not certain , the Minister of ORG had been requested to investigate the matter and to submit his findings as to the origin , background and veracity of the report before DATE .

On DATE , the ORG Secretary informed ORG that , in view of reports on what had happened to CARDINAL asylum seekers who had been expelled to GPE , a policy decision had been taken to suspend temporarily the expulsion of NORP nationals of NORP origin .

On DATE , the ORG Secretary informed ORG that the results of an investigation into the facts on the basis of which the expulsion of NORP nationals of NORP origin had been temporarily suspended had led to the lifting of that suspension .


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

The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in GPE , LOC . The respondent Government were represented by PERSON , the former Representative of GPE at ORG .

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

The applicant is a retired military serviceman .

By a final and binding judgment of DATE the Military Section of the Supreme Court of GPE allowed the applicant ’s challenge of his dismissal from military service and ordered the military unit to reinstate him in his previous position as of DATE until the delivery of the housing certificate . The court also awarded him all the allowances due over the period of his dismissal without listing them .

In DATE the applicant applied on several occasions for the writs of execution to ORG No . CARDINAL of the Novosibirsk-CARDINAL ( “ the ORG ” ) and ORG , but to no avail .

On DATE the applicant was reinstated in his previous position . He had not received an officer ’s identity document . In DATE he started to receive his salary , was provided with the housing certificate and granted DATE leave for DATE . On DATE he received arrears for the period from DATE to DATE and was dismissed from the military service .

On DATE ORG issued the writs of execution in respect of the judgment . It appears that in the meantime the respondent military unit submitted to the court documents evidencing payment of the allowances . On DATE ORG revoked the writs from the bailiffs , since the judgment had been executed in full .

On DATE ORG of ORG in the final instance rejected the applicant ’s claim for damages resulting from the failure to issue him with an officer ’s identity document as unsubstantiated .

Under LAW of LAW RSFSR ( DATE ) , in force at the material time , a court which delivered a judgment could , upon request by the parties to the case or of its own initiative , issue an additional decision , in case where the amount awarded had not been specified in the initial judgment . Under LAW , a court which delivered a judgment could , upon request by the parties to the case or the bailiff , issue clarifications of the judgment , without changing its substance . Similar provisions are contained in Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the Code of ORG of GPE ( in force as of DATE ) .


CASE OF STANKOV AND THE UNITED MACEDONIAN ORGANISATION ILINDEN v. BULGARIA

Preliminary objection dismissed;Violation of Art. 11;Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed;Non-pecuniary damage - financial award;Costs and expenses (domestic proceedings) - claim dismissed;Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings

ORG ( “ the applicant association ” or “ Ilinden ” ) is an association based in south - western GPE ( in an area known as the GPE region or the geographic region of LOC ) .

Mr PERSON is a NORP citizen , born in DATE and living in GPE . At the relevant time he was the chairman of a branch of the applicant association .

The United Macedonian Organisation Ilinden was founded on DATE . Its aims , according to its statute and programme , were to “ unite all NORP in GPE on a regional and cultural basis ” and to achieve “ the recognition of the NORP minority in GPE ” . Sections CARDINAL and QUANTITY of the statute stated that the organisation would not infringe the territorial integrity of GPE and that it “ would not use violent , brutal , inhuman or unlawful means ” .

According to the ORG submissions before the ORG , the main activity of the applicant association was the organisation of celebrations to commemorate historical events of importance for NORP in GPE . Over an unspecified period it published a newspaper .

In DATE PERSON applied for , but was refused , registration . In the proceedings for registration ORG and ORG examined the statute of the association , its programme and other written evidence .

NORP In their decisions of DATE and DATE and DATE the courts found that the applicant association ’s aims were directed against the unity of the nation , that it advocated national and ethnic hatred , and that it was dangerous for the territorial integrity of GPE . Therefore , its registration would be contrary to Articles CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL § QUANTITY of the LAW of DATE , as in force at the time . In particular , the aims of the association included , inter alia , the “ political development of GPE ” and the establishment of a “ united , independent NORP State ” . Moreover , in its appeal to ORG the association had stated that “ the NORP people would not accept NORP , NORP or NORP rule ” . The formal declaration in the applicant association ’s statute that it would not infringe the territorial integrity of GPE , appeared inconsistent with the remaining material .

The judgment of ORG of DATE stated , inter alia :

“ [ T]he lower courts correctly established that the aims of the [ applicant association ] under its statute and programme were directed against the unity of the nation ... [ The material in the case ] demonstrates that the [ applicant association ] seeks to disseminate the ideas of ORG among the NORP population , especially in a particular geographical area . [ Those ideas ] presuppose the ‘ GPE of the NORP population and its conversion into a NORP population ... It follows that the [ applicant association ] is directed against the unity of the nation and is therefore prohibited under LAW of the [ DATE ] LAW ... ”

The parties do not dispute , it seems , that during the relevant period the applicant association underwent changes of leadership and that there was internal conflict . Its local branches or separate factions differed in their views and activities .

NORP The applicant association held a meeting for the first time on DATE at FAC , at the grave of PERSON .

On DATE the applicant association organised a commemoration meeting at FAC . The participants adopted a declaration addressed to the President and ORG , which stated , inter alia :

“ CARDINAL . Our rights as a minority , of which we have been deprived , should be guaranteed to us in accordance with the international agreements on minorities .

[ We demand : ]

NORP The introduction of the [ study of ] the NORP language , history and culture in all educational institutions in GPE .

The right to radio and television broadcasts in the NORP language ...

That an end be put to the assimilation process and the destruction of the NORP culture .

The right to publish in the NORP language ...

NORP ... that ORG should be independent ...

That all NORP political parties on the territory of GPE should be dissolved or renamed NORP ; they should defend the national rights of the NORP people .

The complete cultural , economic and political autonomy of GPE and the withdrawal of the NORP occupation armies from GPE ...

Should the NORP government not respond positively to our demands , ORG shall appeal to ORG , the [ Conference on ] Security and Cooperation in LOC , ORG , ORG , in the interest of peace in the LOC and in LOC and with a view to avoiding military conflicts due to the emerging nationalism in GPE , GPE , GPE and GPE , with the following demands : annulment of the separatist military union of DATE between GPE , GPE and GPE , withdrawal of the invaders from the occupied territories , ... unification of GPE under the auspices of ORG and with the protection of the Great Powers ... ”

According to a police report , drawn up in DATE by the director of the police in the region and submitted to ORG , “ fierce anti - NORP declarations ” had been made at the meetings of CARDINAL DATE and DATE . In particular , on DATE a declaration requesting the recognition of a NORP minority and cultural autonomy had been read out . The report did not mention any incident at that meeting .

As explained in the report , on DATE CARDINAL ORG supporters had gathered during the official commemoration of the death of PERSON , which had been attended by CARDINAL participants . Members of Ilinden , standing on a separate platform , had allegedly hissed and booed the police , labelled the NORP “ barbarians ” , “ conquerors ” and “ enslavers ” and called on them to leave and “ free ” the region from their presence . The report further stated that a “ shocking ” incident had occurred : PERSON , a prominent politician , had been splashed with beer on his face . The police had allegedly prevented any further clashes .

The report concluded :

“ ... the events organised by ORG are provocative . There is a real risk of incidents . For that reason , since DATE the municipalities in the region normally refuse to allow such events to proceed . With a view to protecting the law , the assistance of the prosecuting authorities and of the police is normally sought . ”

The applicants submitted copies of photographs , written testimonies and statements of persons who claimed that on several occasions DATE there had been police actions and acts of private individuals obstructing the activities of the applicant association .

They also submitted copies of newspaper articles accusing ORG of misappropriating NORP national symbols , describing its leaders as uneducated , mentally ill or traitors , and denying the existence of a NORP minority in GPE . The applicants alleged that those articles reflected public opinion in GPE , as manipulated by the authorities .

In DATE PERSON , as chairman of the PERSON branch of the applicant association , requested the mayor of ORG to authorise a meeting in the area of Samuilova krepost , to be held on DATE in commemoration of a historical event . On DATE permission was refused by the mayor , but no reasons were given . The applicant association appealed to ORG which dismissed the appeal on DATE . ORG found that since the applicant association had been banned , there were well - founded fears that the demonstration would endanger public order and the rights and freedoms of others .

On DATE Mr PERSON , the representative of the applicant association , and another person were issued with written warnings by the police to stay away from the official traditional fair at PERSON krepost . The warnings stated that they were based on the applicable law .

NORP Despite the refusal of the authorities , on DATE some members of the applicant association ( CARDINAL according to the applicants’ assessment ) attempted to approach the historical site of PERSON krepost but the police , who according to the applicants were heavily armed , blocked their way .

In the ORG ’s submission , the allegation that the area had been sealed off was “ manifestly ill - founded ” .

On DATE the applicant association requested the mayor of PERSON to authorise a meeting to be held on DATE at the grave of PERSON at FAC , on the occasion of the eightieth anniversary of his death .

This was refused on DATE as the applicant association was not duly registered by the courts . On DATE the applicant association appealed to ORG stating , inter alia , that the NORP people had been deprived of their right to their own cultural life in violation of international law . ORG never examined the appeal .

On DATE the municipality of PERSON held an official ceremony to mark the anniversary of PERSON death . The event took place at his grave at FAC . The ceremony commenced at TIME

The applicants submitted that a group of their supporters who had travelled to ORG on DATE had been ordered by the police to leave their cars in the nearby town of ORG and had been transported to the monastery by local buses . There they had been allowed to visit the grave , to lay a wreath and to light candles . However , they had not been allowed to bring to the site the placards , banners and musical instruments which they were carrying , or to make speeches at the grave . The police had allegedly taken away the ribbon attached to the wreath . The participants had then celebrated the event , without music , near the monastery but away from the grave .

In DATE , as in DATE , the applicant association again requested authorisation to hold a commemorative meeting on DATE at PERSON krepost , the historical site in the vicinity of PERSON . On DATE the mayor of ORG refused the request without giving any reason . Upon the applicant association ’s appeal the refusal was upheld by judgment of ORG of DATE . ORG found that the “ holding of a commemorative meeting of GPE on DATE at ORG krepost would endanger public order ” .

On DATE the applicant association informed the mayor of PERSON and the local police that they were organising a meeting to be held on DATE at FAC to commemorate the death of PERSON . It stated in a letter to the mayor that PERSON , who is considered in GPE as a NORP national hero , was in fact a “ NORP fighter for the national independence of GPE from NORP rule and against the NORP oppressors ” .

On DATE the mayor refused to grant permission . He stated that permission for the commemoration of the same historical event had been requested on DATE by the director of the local high school . The mayor further explained that the commemoration would be organised jointly by the school and the municipality and that “ every [ person ] , individually , could come ” .

On DATE Ilinden appealed to ORG against the mayor ’s refusal stating , inter alia , that the mayor had not allowed them , “ as a separate ethnic community ” , to organise a meeting at the tomb of their national hero .

On DATE the President of ORG issued an order refusing to examine the appeal on the merits as it had been submitted on behalf of an unregistered organisation .

The date on which that order was notified to the applicant association is unclear . The applicants initially denied having received a response to their appeal , but in later submissions to the ORG stated that on DATE they had become aware of the order of DATE .

As the defects in the appeal were not remedied within the statutory DATE time - limit , on CARDINAL DATE the President of ORG ordered the discontinuance of the proceedings . That order was notified to the applicant association on DATE .

The applicants claimed that on DATE the police had prevented a group of their supporters from approaching FAC and that QUANTITY persons had been ill - treated . They submitted that on DATE CARDINAL students and CARDINAL teachers from the local high school had arrived at FAC . The students had laid a wreath in the presence of the police and had left TIME .

On DATE Mr PERSON , as chairman of the association ’s branch in GPE , requested authorisation for a commemorative meeting to be held on DATE at Samuilova krepost , in the outskirts of GPE . On DATE the mayor refused the request , stating that the applicant association was not “ a legitimate organisation ” .

On DATE the applicant association appealed to ORG against the refusal of the mayor stating , inter alia , that there was no legal provision prohibiting meetings of organisations which were not “ legitimate ” and that the planned public event would be peaceful and would not endanger public order .

By decision of CARDINAL DATE ORG dismissed the appeal on the merits . It found that the applicant association was not duly registered “ in accordance with the laws of the country ” and that it had not been shown that the persons who had acted on its behalf actually represented it . As a result , it had been unclear who had organised the event and who would be responsible for order during the meeting under the terms of sections CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW . ORG concluded that the lack of clarity as regards the organisers of a public event endangered public order and the rights and freedoms of others .

The applicants submitted that on DATE the police had not allowed a group of supporters of the applicant association to reach the historical site in the vicinity of GPE .

The parties made submissions and presented copies of documents concerning the activities of the applicant association .

It appears that some of the documents relied upon by the Government concern statements of persons adhering to a faction or a branch of the applicant association . Those groups apparently differed in their views and activities .

The Government relied on the declaration of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , on the police report concerning the meetings of DATE and DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) and on other material .

The Government submitted that during meetings , in letters to institutions or in statements to the media , persons associated with the applicant association and its supporters had made declarations to the effect that they wanted the NORP to leave the region of GPE and stated that there could be “ no peace in the LOC unless the NORP , the NORP and all others recognise the national rights of the NORP people and no democracy in any NORP country without such recognition ” .

The Government submitted copies of several issues of Vestnik za ORG v ORG i PERSON and ORG poshta , pamphlets published by CARDINAL of the factions linked to the applicant association , and copies of press material . These contain information , inter alia , about a “ secret ” private meeting of a faction of the applicant association held on DATE . The meeting allegedly declared that on CARDINAL DATE the region of GPE would become “ politically , economically and culturally autonomous ” or independent . That was so because on DATE , DATE after LAW of DATE , GPE Parties to it were allegedly under obligation to withdraw from the “ enslaved ” NORP territories .

ORG poshta further invited all NORP to a march in GPE on DATE . The invitation stressed that the participants should not carry arms .

A handwritten poster , allegedly issued by followers of the applicant association in GPE , called for a boycott of the DATE parliamentary election “ to prevent the establishment of legitimate NORP authorities in the region ” of GPE . The document further called for a united NORP State and for “ an international invasion ” by ORG of the ORG “ according to the model of GPE , GPE and GPE ” .

An appeal for a boycott of the DATE election stated that the NORP should abstain from voting in protest against the lack of recognition of their rights as a minority .

In a declaration published in the press in the Former GPE , the leaders of a faction linked to the applicant association criticised the NORP authorities for their refusal to recognise the NORP language and the NORP minority in GPE and appealed to various international organisations to exert pressure on the NORP authorities in this respect .

The Government submitted a copy of a “ memorandum ” addressed to ORG , signed by activists of the applicant association or a faction of it , dated DATE . It contains a short overview of historical events , complaints about the attitude of the NORP authorities and the following main demands : collective minority rights , access to ORG archives , the return of confiscated material , the revision of the way NORP history is seen , the revision of international treaties of DATE and DATE , the dissolution of the “ political police ” , the dissolution of nationalistic and violent parties and organisations , the registration of GPE as the legitimate organisation of the NORP in GPE , radio broadcasts in NORP , an investigation into violations committed against NORP and economic assistance .

The document also stated :

“ ... being conscious of the contemporary economic and political realities in the LOC , LOC and the world , we are not acting through confrontation , tension or violence . Our way to achieve enjoyment of our rights as a NORP ethnic minority in GPE and in GPE , where our ethnic and historical roots lie , is through peaceful means and negotiations ...

Our peaceful and lawful means ... are to the advantage of the authorities who ... deny the existence of a NORP minority . Our democratic ways are to our detriment : the authorities can afford political , economic and psychological pressure , and arms . ”

Before ORG relied on a judgment of ORG of DATE in a case concerning the constitutionality of a political party , ORG : ORG ( “ UMOIPIRIN ” ) , which had been registered by the competent courts in DATE . ORG found that that party ’s aims were directed against the territorial integrity of the country and that therefore it was unconstitutional .

ORG noted that GPE could be regarded as a successor to or a continuation of the applicant association . On that basis ORG relied extensively on submissions about the history and the activities of the applicant association in the assessment of the question whether GPE was constitutional .

In particular , ORG took note of the demands made in the declaration of the applicant association of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . It also observed that maps of the region , depicting parts of NORP and NORP territory as NORP , had been published by the association and that there had been repeated calls for autonomy and even secession . ORG further noted that representatives of the applicant association had made offensive remarks about the NORP nation .

The Constitutional Court thus found that the applicant association and ORG considered the region of GPE as a territory which was only temporarily under NORP control and would soon become independent . Their activities were therefore directed against the territorial integrity of the country and were as such prohibited under LAW . The prohibition was in conformity with LAW , there being no doubt that an activity against the territorial integrity of the country endangered its national security .

The judgment was adopted by CARDINAL votes to CARDINAL . The dissenting judges gave separate opinions which have not been published .

In support of this allegation the Government have submitted copies of CARDINAL documents .

The first is a copy of an article from the Kontinent DATE newspaper , dated DATE . The newspaper stated that a Mr D.P.K. had been arrested in GPE for having threatened police officers with blowing up their homes , as they had impeded his business . During the arrest the police had allegedly discovered explosives in Mr D.P.K. ’s home . The short article went on to recall that PERSON D.P.K. was allegedly a leader of ORG and a “ NORP activist ” .

The second document appears to be a photocopy of a flyer announcing the founding of an organisation and inviting those interested to join . The document bears no signature . It dates allegedly from DATE and appears to have been typed on a typewriter .

The flyer explained that the newly created ORG did not wish to replace ORG . It criticised certain leaders of the applicant association .

The flyer further stated that the new organisation would form armed groups with the aim of “ helping GPE to survive ” .

The Government have not provided any comment or additional information on the contents of the CARDINAL documents submitted by them .

During the hearing before the ORG , in response to a question put to her , the Government ’s Agent declared that no criminal proceedings relevant to the present case had ever been brought against members of the applicant association .

The Government stressed that knowledge of the historical context and of the current situation in GPE and in the LOC was essential for the understanding of the issues in the present case . Their explanation may be summarised as follows .

“ Historically , the NORP nation consolidated within several geographical regions , CARDINAL of them being the geographical region of GPE . In DATE , when GPE was partially liberated from NORP dominance , FAC left the region of GPE within the borders of GPE . DATE the NORP population of GPE organised CARDINAL unsuccessful uprisings seeking liberation from NORP rule and union with GPE . There followed massive refugee migrations from the region to the NORP motherland . CARDINAL of NORP settled in GPE .

In DATE the so - called ‘ NORP nation’ was proclaimed for the first time by a resolution of ORG . Before that no reliable historical source had ever mentioned any NORP population in the region other than the NORP population . After the Second World War the NORP power in GPE proclaimed the concept of a separate NORP nation . A separate language and alphabet were created and imposed by decree of DATE . A massive assimilation campaign accompanied by brutalities was launched in GPE . For a short period of time ORG – inspired by the idea of creating a NORP - Yugoslav federation – also initiated a campaign of forcible imposition of a ‘ ORG identity on the population in the region of LOC . In the DATE and DATE censuses individuals living in that region were forced to declare themselves ‘ Macedonians’ . The campaign was abandoned in DATE , partly due to the refusal of the population to change their identity .

In those parts of the geographical region of GPE which were in GPE the realities of the bi - polar cold - war world – where the relations between GPE and the socialist block dominated by the GPE were tense – exacerbated the population ’s feeling of doom and exasperation and their fear that unification with GPE proper would never be possible . The forcible imposition of a NORP identity by the PERSON regime also played a decisive role .

Therefore , even if a process of formation of a new nation has taken place , it was limited to the territory of the Former GPE .

In the DATE census , CARDINAL NORP citizens identified themselves as NORP and indicated NORP as their mother tongue . Another CARDINAL declared themselves NORP in the geographical sense , while allegedly indicating their NORP national conscience and mother tongue .

Individuals considering themselves NORP are far from being discriminated against in GPE . They have their own cultural and educational organisation , PERSON . There are books and newspapers in the ‘ NORP language’ . ”

The provisions of the LAW of DATE concerning freedom of assembly read as follows :

“ CARDINAL . Everyone shall have the right to peaceful and unarmed assembly at meetings and marches .

NORP The procedure for organising and holding meetings and marches shall be provided for by act of ORG .

Permission shall not be required for meetings to be held indoors . ”

“ Organisations whose activities are directed against the sovereignty or the territorial integrity of the country or against the unity of the nation , or aim at stirring up racial , national , ethnic or religious hatred , or at violating the rights and freedoms of others , as well as organisations creating secret or paramilitary structures , or which seek to achieve their aims through violence , shall be prohibited . ”

The legal requirements for the organisation of meetings are set out in LAW of DATE . Its relevant provisions are as follows :

“ Meetings and marches may be organised by individuals , associations , political or other public organisations . ”

“ Every organiser [ of ] or participant [ in a march or a meeting ] shall be responsible for damage caused through his or her fault during the [ event ] . ”

“ Where a meeting is to be held outdoors the organisers shall notify in writing the [ respective ] ORG or mayor ’s office not TIME before the beginning [ of the meeting ] and shall indicate the [ name of ] the organiser , the aim [ of the meeting ] , and the place and time of the meeting . ”

“ The organisers of the meeting shall take the measures necessary to ensure order during the event . ”

“ ( CARDINAL ) The meeting shall be presided over by a president .

( CARDINAL ) The participants shall abide by the instructions of the president concerning the preservation of [ public ] order ... ”

Prohibitions against meetings are also regulated by ORG :

“ ( CARDINAL ) Where the time or the place of the meeting , or the itinerary of the march , would create a situation endangering public order or traffic safety , the President of ORG of ORG , or the mayor , respectively , shall propose their modification .

( CARDINAL ) NORP The President of ORG of ORG , or the mayor , shall be competent to prohibit the holding of a meeting , demonstration or march , where reliable information exists that :

it aims at the violent overturning of ORG public order or is directed against the territorial integrity of the country ;

it would endanger public order in the local community ;

it would breach the rights and freedoms of others .

( CARDINAL ) The prohibition shall be imposed by a written reasoned act not later than QUANTITY following the notification .

( CARDINAL ) The organiser of the meeting , demonstration or march may appeal to ORG of ORG against the prohibition referred to in the preceding paragraph . ORG shall decide within TIME .

( CARDINAL ) Where ORG of ORG has not decided within [ that ] time - limit , the march , demonstration or meeting may proceed .

( CARDINAL ) If the appeal is dismissed the dispute shall be referred to the relevant district court which shall decide within DATE . That court ’s decision shall be final . ”

The Meetings and Marches Act was adopted in DATE , when the LAW of DATE was in force . Under the LAW of DATE the executive local ORG organs were the executive committees of the people ’s councils in each district . The mayors referred to in some of the provisions of ORG were representatives of the executive committee acting in villages and towns which were under the jurisdiction of the respective people ’s councils .

The DATE LAW abolished the executive committees and established the post of mayor , elected by direct universal suffrage , as the “ organ of the executive power in the municipality ” ( LAW ) .


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

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

In DATE the applicant , who had been working as a driver and carried out other duties at FAC in GPE , was dismissed by the Minister of ORG .

On DATE the applicant lodged with ORG ( Sąd Rejonowy ) an action for reinstatement against ORG .

On DATE the court held the first hearing .

On DATE the applicant extended his action . He sought amendment of his employment record ( o uzupełnienie opini ) .

Subsequently , on DATE a hearing was held .

The hearing scheduled for DATE was adjourned because of the illness of the judge rapporteur and the next one , listed for DATE , was adjourned at the request of the applicant 's lawyer .

The next hearing was held on DATE .

Subsequently , hearings were held on DATE , DATE and DATE and on DATE .

On DATE the applicant further extended his action .

On DATE and CARDINAL DATE the trial court held hearings .

On DATE the ORG gave judgment in which it dismissed the applicant 's claim .

The applicant lodged an appeal .

On DATE ORG ( Sąd Wojewódzki ) dismissed his appeal .

The parties did not lodge a cassation appeal with ORG .


The applicant , Mr Leonid Ivanovich Kuznetsov , is a NORP national , who was born in DATE and lives in the village of GPE , GPE . The respondent Government are represented by PERSON , ORG at ORG .

The applicant lived and worked in PERSON , a territory in the extreme LOC of GPE . In DATE the applicant fell victim to a work - related accident causing PERCENT disability . During DATE following the accident he received regular indemnity payments from his former employer , a private company “ FAC ( hereinafter referred to as “ the company ” ) .

In DATE the company stopped these payments . On DATE the applicant lodged an action against the company , seeking recovery of regular payments and compensation of pecuniary damages in the total amount of RUR CARDINAL,CARDINAL and compensation of non - pecuniary damages in the amount of RUR CARDINAL,CARDINAL,CARDINAL . This action was filed with ORG of GPE .

On DATE the applicant applied to the court with a view to replace the defendant . He claimed that the company was de facto bankrupt , though formally it continued to exist . Referring to the social security legislation , the applicant claimed that the authorities should have accepted the obligation to pay the indemnity instead of the bankrupt company . On DATE the Chaunskiy District Court accepted the applicant ’s arguments to have the company replaced by the social security authorities as defendants . Since the regional social security authorities were located in the city of GPE , the court decided to transfer the jurisdiction to another court . The case was thus transmitted to ORG of GPE .

On DATE the applicant requested the district prosecutor to initiate liquidation proceedings against the company .

On DATE the Presidium of the ORG quashed the decision of CARDINAL DATE by way of supervisory review and remitted the case back to ORG . The ORG emphasised that the company was not formally liquidated , and that thus the first instance court had had no grounds for replacing the company as a defendant .

In DATE , DATE and DATE the applicant asked ORG to initiate liquidation proceedings against the company , but to no avail .

In DATE the applicant complained to the prosecutor about the failure of ORG to deal with his case . His complaint was forwarded to the President of ORG . By a letter of DATE the President informed the applicant that the delay could be explained in part by the backlog of cases in ORG and the lack of staff . The President further noted that the company did not exist de facto , but that it was not formally liquidated .

On DATE the applicant filed a new request with the district prosecutor ’s office , seeking to initiate liquidation proceedings against the company . It appears that this time the case was brought before the court by the authorities and on DATE ORG of GPE declared the company bankrupt . On DATE the company was formally liquidated .

On DATE the applicant applied to ORG , requesting it to replace the company with the ORG social security service as a defendant . On DATE the ORG replaced the defendant . The case was transmitted to ORG .

In DATE the applicant filed with ORG , ORG of GPE , and the Chukotka ORG a number of complaints with the view to speeding up the proceedings . On DATE the applicant increased the amount of pecuniary damages claimed from ORG to ORG CARDINAL .

On DATE ORG examined the case . It granted the applicant ’s claim in part , awarding him RUR CARDINAL,CARDINAL in damages against the social security authorities .

The applicant appealed . On DATE the ORG overruled the first instance court and remitted the case to ORG for a fresh examination .

On DATE the applicant raised the amount of his claim to ORG CARDINAL . On DATE ORG adopted a judgment whereby it confirmed in essence the judgment of DATE . The applicant was awarded RUR CARDINAL . On DATE the applicant filed an appeal against this judgment . On DATE the first instance judgment was upheld by the Chukotka ORG .


The applicant is a NORP citizen , born in DATE and living in GPE , GPE . He is represented before the ORG by Mr PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE

A.

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

In DATE A bought the share capital of a company in which B and C also came to work . The applicant had no official function in the company , but it appears that in certain matters he acted as an adviser .

On DATE the company applied for a company credit card . This was granted on DATE , inter alia , on the condition that the card was not to be used to pay for the personal purchases of the cardholder . The credit - card company , however , closed the account on DATE as by then the card had been used for purchases worth MONEY ( ORG ) that allegedly had no connection with the business activities of the company .

On the basis of these alleged irregularities the police commenced an investigation into the activities of A , B and C. A was interrogated by the police from DATE and on CARDINAL and DATE . It appeared that the irregularities related in particular to a trip to GPE , involving A , B and C as well as the applicant , and to a car rental . During the police interrogations A repeatedly incriminated the applicant who was not at that moment under investigation . It appears that also B and C incriminated the applicant in their statements to the police .

Following the police investigations charges of fraud were brought against A , B and C. By judgment of CARDINAL DATE A and B were found guilty of the charges brought against them by ORG ( raastuvanoikeus , rådstuvurätt ; as from DATE the GPE ORG , käräjäoikeus , tingsrätt ) . By judgment of DATE the same court convicted C for similar offences . The applicant did not in any way participate in these proceedings .

It appears that the police also commenced an investigation into the applicant ’s activities vis - à - vis the credit card fraud . He was interrogated for the first time on DATE , but denied all charges and any personal involvement . The reports of the police investigations concerning A , B and C were presented to the applicant during this investigation .

Court proceedings against the applicant opened on DATE in the Helsinki ORG where he was charged with having committed CARDINAL frauds , together with A , B and C , in connection with the trip to GPE and a fraud in connection with the car rental . It appears that the prosecution intended to rely on the statements made by A , B and C during their own trials , whereas the applicant called A to testify . During his testimony before ORG on DATE A withdrew his previous statements concerning the involvement of the applicant in the frauds and stated that the applicant had not been involved in them . Confronted with his previous statements made in connection with his own trial A maintained , primarily , that , because of his excessive use of alcohol at that time , he had been in a bad physical condition during his detention and that he had not read the documents carefully enough .

Following the examination of A , and after the applicant had had the opportunity to comment thereon , the prosecutor requested an adjournment in order to call B and C to testify . The case was accordingly adjourned until DATE .

The trial continued on DATE when the prosecution announced that it had not been possible to call B and C. In these circumstances the applicant requested ORG to reject as evidence B ’s and ORG previous statements made during their own trials since he had had no possibility of challenging that evidence . Furthermore , he stated that if the prosecutor wanted to rely on their statements , they should be heard in this trial . It appears that ORG dismissed the request and pronounced its judgment on the basis of the available material . In its judgment of DATE ORG stated , inter alia , the following :

( translation from NORP )

“ Imputed Offences

Point CARDINAL

[ The applicant ] has , on DATE , in complicity with ... A , B and C and in order to gain unjust benefit , by concealing their inability and unwillingness to pay debts , deceived [ the credit - card company ] to induce it to grant a credit card to [ the company ] ... , A acting as representative of [ the company ] . By using the credit card DATE and DATE for purchases worth ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL , they have caused loss to [ the credit - card company ] .

Point CARDINAL

[ The applicant ] has , on DATE , in complicity with ... A , B and C and in order to gain unjust benefit , by concealing their inability and unwillingness to pay debts , deceived [ the travel agency ] to obtain CARDINAL tickets to GPE worth ORG CARDINAL , C acting as representative of [ the company ] . By failing to pay for the tickets , they have caused loss to [ the travel agency ] .

Point CARDINAL

[ The applicant ] has , on DATE , in GPE , in complicity with another person and in order to gain unjust benefit , deceived [ the car rental company ] to obtain delivery of [ a car ] on the basis of a car rental contract valid until DATE , by falsely representing him as representative of [ the company ] . By failing to return the car , he has caused loss to [ the car rental company ] .


Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial

Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Peer Lorenzen;Rait Maruste;Renate Jaeger;Volodymyr Butkevych;Zdravka Kalaydjieva

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

On DATE criminal proceedings were instituted against the applicant and CARDINAL other individuals on suspicion of murder . On DATE the applicant was arrested and remanded in custody .

In DATE the applicant was committed for trial .

On DATE the ORG of ORG районний суд PERSON GPE ) remitted the case to the investigative authorities for additional investigation .

On DATE the additional investigation was terminated and the case was referred back to ORG .

On DATE ORG convicted the applicant of aggravated murder and sentenced him to MONEY .

On DATE ORG обласний суд ) quashed the judgment and remitted the case for additional pre - trial investigation .

On DATE the additional investigation was terminated and the case was referred to ORG .

On DATE ORG remitted the case for additional investigation .

In DATE , after the additional investigation was terminated , the case was referred back to ORG .

On DATE ORG again remitted the case for additional investigation .

In DATE the case was referred to ORG to act as a first - instance court .

On DATE ORG convicted the applicant of aggravated murder and sentenced him to CARDINAL years’ imprisonment .

On DATE ORG upheld the judgment .

NORP Throughout the course of the proceedings CARDINAL hearings were scheduled by the trial court . CARDINAL of them were adjourned on account of CARDINAL or more of the CARDINAL witnesses’ failures to appear . CARDINAL hearings were adjourned in view of the authorities’ failure to bring the applicant , who was kept in custody , before the court . On CARDINAL occasions the hearings were postponed on account of the judge ’s ill health .