Alvina Gyulumyan;Corneliu Bîrsan;Johannes Silvis;Josep Casadevall;Luis López Guerra;Nona Tsotsoria

The applicants , Mr PERSON and PERSON , are NORP nationals who were born in DATE and DATE respectively and live in Chețani . They were represented before the ORG by PERSON , a lawyer practicing in PERSON .

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

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

On DATE , following their divorce , the ex - wife ( “ the third party ” ) brought proceedings against Mr PERSON ( “ the first applicant ” ) seeking the division of joint movable and immovable property .

On DATE the first applicant , assisted by a legal representative of his choosing , lodged a counterclaim against the third party , and argued , inter alia , that the collective value of the movable and immovable property in dispute was MONEY ( ROL ) ( MONEY ( ORG ) ) out of which the value of the main immovable property in dispute , in particular an apartment , was ROL CARDINAL,CARDINAL,CARDINAL ( approximately LAW ) .

On DATE the third party asked the first - instance court for the first applicant ’s mother PERSON ( “ the second applicant ” ) to join the proceedings . The third party argued , inter alia , that the ROL CARDINAL,CARDINAL,CARDINAL spent by her and the first applicant at the start of their marriage to extend the second applicant ’s home , where they lived for a while , should also be considered joint property . FAC allowed the third party ’s request by an interlocutory judgment on DATE .

ORG , in an interlocutory judgment of DATE , granted a request by the parties and their chosen legal representatives for a building expert report concerning the market value of the apartment and the extension work carried out on the second applicant ’s home to be produced in the case .

On an unspecified date the expert report was submitted to the first - instance court . The applicants objected to the report . They argued that the said report on the one hand undervalued the apartment because it did not take into account the improvement work carried out after the apartment had been purchased by the first applicant and his former wife , and on the other hand overvalued the extension work carried out on the second applicant ’s home .

By an interlocutory judgment of DATE ORG allowed in part the applicants’ objection concerning the apartment , and ordered the building expert to supplement the report .

On DATE the building expert produced a second expert report and concluded that the market value of the disputed apartment , taking into account the improvement work carried out after it had been bought , was ROL CARDINAL,CARDINAL,CARDINAL . The applicants objected to the new expert report and argued that the improvement work had been undervalued by the building expert . Consequently , they requested the court to order a third expert report .

By an interlocutory judgment of DATE ORG dismissed the applicants’ request for a new expert report and held that it was unnecessary .

On DATE the first applicant submitted written observations to the first - instance court and argued , without providing a total estimated value of the disputed properties , that the market value of the apartment in dispute was in his opinion MONEY . In addition , he argued that the extension work carried out on the second applicant ’s house had been paid for by her , and that with some exceptions the value of the remaining properties to be divided had been overestimated .

By a judgment of DATE ORG , on the basis of witness statements , documents , the statements of the parties and the building expert report available to the file , allowed the third party ’s action . It decided that the total value of the movable and immovable property disputed by the parties was ROL CARDINAL,CARDINAL,CARDINAL ( approximately ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL ) . It awarded the apartment to the third party , together with part of the movable assets , and ordered her to pay the first applicant a sum of ROL CARDINAL ( approximately EUR CARDINAL,CARDINAL ) in compensation . The operative part of the judgment expressly stated that it was subject to appeal within DATE following notification .

On an unspecified date in DATE the applicants , assisted by a legal representative of their choosing , appealed against the judgment of DATE before the Târgu - ORG . They argued that the first - instance court should have divided the apartment in dispute and awarded CARDINAL to each of the parties . In addition , without providing a total estimated valuation of the disputed properties , they contended that the extension work carried out on the second applicant ’s home and valued by the first - instance court at ORG had been paid for exclusively by the second applicant , and should not have been included in the common property to be divided between the first applicant and his former wife . Moreover , other properties had been overvalued or undervalued or should also not have been considered joint property . Lastly , they asked the secondinstance court to order a new expert report to determine the value of the apartment in dispute .

At a hearing on DATE the third party ’s lawyer argued before the second - instance court sitting in a bench of CARDINAL judges that the disputed property was worth no more than ROL CARDINAL,CARDINAL,CARDINAL,CARDINAL ( approximately EUR CARDINAL ) . Consequently , according to LAW the ORG appeal needed to be re - qualified by the court from appeal to appeal on points of law ( recurs ) .

NORP The applicants’ legal representatives argued that the provisions of LAW cited by the third party did not apply in respect of proceedings concerning division of the property .

By an interlocutory judgment of DATE , after hearing submissions from both parties , the Târgu - ORG re - qualified the ORG appeal as an appeal on points of law and referred the case to a bench of CARDINAL judges competent to examine an appeal on points of law .

On DATE the applicants raised a constitutional objection against the provisions of LAW ) of LAW . They argued that the limitation of their right to lodge an appeal against the judgment of the first - instance court on account of the value of the disputed property amounted to a discriminatory limitation of their right of access to court .

By an interlocutory judgment of DATE ORG suspended the proceedings and referred the applicants’ constitutional objection to ORG .

By a final judgment of DATE ORG dismissed the applicants’ constitutional objection . It held that the distinction between the types of proceedings that could or could not be subjected to appeal was made on the basis of the value of the object in dispute and not on the basis of the applicants’ social status or wealth . The legal regime in question was required by the particular circumstances , which needed different legal solutions in order to ensure the speediness of the proceedings . In addition , neither LAW nor the international legal instruments required access to CARDINAL levels of jurisdiction .

On DATE the applicants argued , inter alia , before the Târgu - ORG that reasons of public order , in particular contradictions between the operative and the reasoning part of the lower court ’s judgment in respect of the total value of the disputed properties and the wrongful indication of the type of appeal that could be exercised by the applicants , justified the quashing of the said judgment . Alternatively , the applicants asked the second - instance court for the time - limit for an appeal on points of law to be reinstated .

By a final judgment of CARDINAL DATE the PERSON - ORG , sitting in a bench of CARDINAL judges , declared null the applicants’ appeal on points of law . It held that the applicants had not submitted their reasons for appeal on points of law within the allowed time - limit . Moreover , none of the arguments raised by them amounted to reasons of public order , and the contradiction referred to by them could be corrected by proceedings seeking the elimination of material errors . Furthermore , it dismissed the ORG request for the time - limit for an appeal on points of law to be reinstated , on the ground that the first - instance court had re - qualified their appeal in accordance with the requirements set out by the legislation in force , and by observing the principle of lawfulness . Consequently , it considered that there was no circumstance of public order or unlawfulness justifying the said request .

On DATE the applicants informed the ORG that although they had repeatedly requested the first - instance court to allow them to prove that the value of the disputed property was greater than LAW , their requests had been refused .

Article CARDINAL ) and ( CARDINAL ) of the former NORP Code of Civil Procedure provides that failure to lodge any form of appeal within the lawfully allowed time - limit results in deprivation of the said right , except when the law provides otherwise or the party proves that it has been impeded from doing so by an unforeseen circumstance . In the latter case the right can be exercised within DATE of the date the impediment ceased to exist .

Articles CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the former ORG provide that judgments of a first - instance court are subject to appeal within DATE of the date of notification . The reasons for appeal must be submitted by the parties at the latest at the time of the first hearing before the court . The failure to submit the reasons for appeal within the allowed time - limit does not lead to annulment of the appeal , but removes the opportunity to raise additional issues of fact and law that had not been raised before the first - instance court .

Articles DATE ( CARDINAL ) ( amended by PERSON no . CARDINAL which entered into force on DATE ) , CARDINAL , CARDINAL of the former NORP Code of Civil Procedure provide that judgments delivered in respect of disputes where the object of the dispute is valued at MONEY ( approximately LAW ) are not subject to appeal . Judgments not subject to appeal are subject to appeal on points of law ( recurs ) . An appeal on points of law may be lodged within DATE of the date the judgment was notified to the parties . The reasons for the appeal on points of law must be submitted within the same DATE period , or the appeal on points of law will be declared null .

Article CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the former NORP Code of Civil Procedure provides that the president of the court which receives the request for an appeal on points of law can return it for changes to the party presenting it if it does not meet the lawful requirements extending the time - limit for the appeal on points of law by DATE .


The applicants are NORP national , born in DATE and at the time of the introduction of the application detained in GPE . He is represented before the ORG by PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE .

A.

On DATE , CARDINAL bags containing parts of a human body were found in a river near GPE ( GPE ) . Around QUANTITY DATE , it was found very likely that these remains , in any events the hands found , were those of Mr PERSON . According to the findings of an examination of the remains , the victim had died DATE prior to the finding of the remains .

On DATE , PERSON filed a criminal complaint with the police against the applicant for extortion and unlawful deprivation of liberty of her friend Mr PERSON . She claimed that she had given a considerable amount of money to the applicant in exchange for the release of Mr Roo .

On DATE , a preliminary judicial investigation ( gerechtelijk vooronderzoek ) against the applicant was opened . On DATE , the applicant was arrested in his father ’s home in GPE , where further a suitcase containing an amount of ORG . CARDINAL were found . The applicant was taken into custody and interrogated a number of times , during which he remained silent . Following consultations between the police , the public prosecutor and the investigating judge ( rechter - commissaris ) , it was decided to transfer the applicant to detention facilities in FAC in order to interrogate him there with use of the so - called “ NORP verhoormethode ” ; a specific interrogation technique .

During the applicant ’s interrogations in ORG DATE , the “ NORP verhoormethode ” was used . On DATE , at TIME , the applicant communicated with his lawyer . On DATE , at TIME , the applicant gave a confessing statement . He was subsequently charged and summoned to appear before ORG ( Arrondissementsrechtbank ) of GPE .

By judgment of DATE , following adversarial proceedings , ORG acquitted the applicant of the charges relating to the killing of PERSON , convicted him of extortion and sentenced him to DATE imprisonment . Both the prosecution and the applicant filed an appeal with ORG ( Gerechtshof ) of GPE .

Hearings before ORG were held on DATE , DATE and DATE .

During its hearing held on DATE , ORG watched videotapes containing a summary of the applicant ’s interrogations by the police . This summary , or a total duration of TIME , concerned nearly exclusively parts of the applicant ’s interrogations of CARDINAL and DATE . The summary had been made in consultation with the parties .

In the course of the hearing held on DATE , ORG took evidence from the witness PERSON , a warder in the detention centre where the applicant had been held and to whom - prior to the applicant ’s interrogation in PERSON - the applicant had told that he had had a conflict with a man who had owed him money for drug transports , that he had unintentionally shot this man dead and that he had had problems in disposing of the body . PERSON had not asked the applicant for the name of the victim . Mr PERSON stated that the applicant had been in GPE for DATE and that , after his return from PERSON , the applicant had appeared to be different in that he had become more relaxed .

On DATE , ORG took evidence from PERSON , also a warder in the detention centre where the applicant had been held and to whom the applicant had said that he was detained for a big case and that he risked a considerable sentence . The applicant had further told him that it had been “ him or me ” , “ it was a stout man , QUANTITY , QUANTITY tall ” and “ I was covered with blood ” . PERSON did not recall whether the applicant had told him this before or after his stay in PERSON .

Further hearings before ORG were held on DATE and DATE .

By judgment of DATE , following adversarial proceedings , ORG quashed the judgment of DATE , convicted the applicant of homicide and extortion and sentenced him to CARDINAL years’ imprisonment .

As to the applicant ’s argument that the prosecution should be declared inadmissible in that he had been subjected to the “ NORP verhoormethode ” , which - in his opinion - was in violation of LAW , the principle of nemo tenetur ( right of an accused not to be compelled to provide incriminating evidence and thus to contribute to his own conviction ) and the prohibition of exerting pressure on suspects as referred to in LAW ( Wetboek van Strafvordering ) , ORG considered , with reference to a finding to this effect in the advice of ORG ( PERSON ) , that the use of the “ NORP verhoormethode ” was not per definition contrary to LAW .

ORG examined the facts found established as to the manner in which the applicant had been interrogated . It noted , inter alia , that he had been interrogated for lengthy periods by sometimes CARDINAL persons , that nobody had shouted at the applicant , that he had been addressed in a soft voice and that only at some moments voices had been raised . It further found that photographs had been placed in the applicant ’s field of vision , showing places , persons and objects linked in some way to the facts of which the applicant was suspected ( a farmhouse , the victim , PERSON , their daughters , parts ( legs ) of the victim ’s remains , a wrapped trunk ( of what later appeared to be a previously killed prostitute ) , the applicant ’s spouse and his daughter , inside and outside views of the applicant ’s home ( including bedrooms ) and that telephone threats received by the applicant ’s wife had been discussed whereas he was repeatedly told that the police would only be able to protect his family if he would give a statement so that the police would know against whom they needed to be protected . As to the applicant ’s physical condition during the interrogations of CARDINAL and DATE , ORG noted that the applicant had apparently eaten nothing or little before and during his stay in PERSON , but that he had regularly been offered a meal and has been allowed to drink coffee and smoke cigarettes . He had further requested and obtained aspirins . At no point in time had the applicant indicated to be physically incapable to proceed with the interrogations . It therefore concluded that it was not established that the applicant was physically incapable to be subjected to interrogation .

As to the admissibility of the prosecution , ORG considered that it did concern a both physically and mentally very burdensome and intrusive interrogation , but that it could not be regarded as treatment contrary to LAW in consequently rejected the argument that , on this basis , the prosecution should be declared inadmissible .

ORG further found no violation of the principle of nemo tenetur , as it had not been established that , as a result of the police actions during the interrogations in PERSON , such a serious violation of the principles of a fair trial had occurred that the prosecution should be declared inadmissible .

The defence had also argued that , at least on CARDINAL occasion , the applicant ’s interrogators in PERSON had not allowed him to speak to his lawyer as they wished to finish the interrogation . The observation made on this point by the public prosecutor that the applicant had agreed with this course of action , was refuted by the defence stating that , on that moment , the interrogators were in the process of easing him away from his lawyer by stating that the applicant should not care so much about what others were saying . ORG rejected the complaint of the alleged refusal to grant the applicant access to his lawyer as not having been established . It also found that it had not been established that the investigating authorities , by deciding to use the “ NORP verhoormethode ” and the manner in which it had been conducted , had acted intentionally or with gross negligence contrary to the applicant ’s interests in his right to a fair hearing .

As to the argument under LAW , ORG considered that , as a result of the at least particularly strong and misleading suggestion that the applicant ’s spouse had received threats by telephone in combination with the ORG intrusive and lengthy harping - using photographs - on the situation in which the applicant’ spouse and in particular his daughter could end up , the acceptable border of the , in itself not unacceptable presentation to an accused of possible consequence of his silence , had been surpassed . It was of the opinion that , therefore and in conjunction with the character and duration of the interrogations of CARDINAL and DATE , the pressure exerted on the applicant had been increased to such a level that “ pressure prohibition ” had been violated .

ORG did not use the results of the applicant ’s interrogations of CARDINAL and CARDINAL DATE in evidence . It based the applicant ’s conviction on other evidence , i.e. inter alia police reports on the finding and examination of the victim ’s remains and the subsequent criminal investigation , statements made by the witnesses PERSON and PERSON to the police and ORG , statements taken by the police from other witnesses who had had contacts with the applicant either during the period in the course of which the victim was likely to have been killed or at a later point in time , a statement taken by the police from the applicant on DATE , and statements taken by the police from PERSON , and statements of CARDINAL other persons to the police in relation to the concealment of amounts of ORG . CARDINAL and ORG . CARDINAL respectively . The applicant filed an appeal in cassation with ORG ( PERSON ) .

In its judgment of DATE ORG , after having corrected an apparent textual error in the judgment of ORG pointed out by the applicant , rejected the applicant ’s complaints in cassation .

This judgment , insofar as relevant , reads :

< Translation >

“ CARDINAL.CARDINAL . The first ground of cassation contains the complaint is that ORG has unjustly or on insufficient grounds rejected the argument < of the defence > to the effect that the prosecution should be declared inadmissible . ....

CARDINAL.CARDINAL.CARDINAL . According to TIME of the hearing on appeal of DATE , counsel has submitted different grounds which should lead to the inadmissibility of the prosecution , which grounds concern the manner in which the suspect has been interrogated in PERSON by the police ...

According to TIME of the hearing on appeal of DATE , videotapes made of the police interrogations have for a part been shown and watched there and then . ORG > has selected those parts upon proposal of ORG and with the consent of the defence . That summary of TIME , as found by ORG , ( almost ) exclusively concerns ( parts ) of the suspect ’s interrogations on CARDINAL and DATE .

According to TIME of the trial on appeal , ORG > has summarised and rejected the argument < of the defence > as set out on pages CARDINAL , para . CARDINAL , of its judgment .

The considerations of ORG > referred to in CARDINAL have to be understood as follows . On grounds of its findings as to the course of the interrogations , ORG > has held that on a number of points , set out on page CARDINAL of the judgment under the heading “ Violation of LAW ” , unacceptable pressure has been exerted on the suspect as a consequence of which LAW para . CARDINAL of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been violated . This finding does not disclose an incorrect conception of the law and is not incomprehensible . On that ground ORG > apparently has held that the statements obtained as a result of the interrogations conducted on CARDINAL and DATE can not be used in evidence as these have been unlawfully obtained ; consequently , ORG > have not used these confessions in evidence . ...

ORG > has further considered that and why the use of the contested interrogation technique and irregularities referred to above found by ORG > should not lead to the inadmissibility of the prosecution .

To this it has held in the first place ... that although , noting the circumstances in which the interrogations of CARDINAL and DATE have taken place , it did concern a physically and also mentally very burdensome and intrusive interrogation , it has not by this violated LAW . In difference to the first cassation ground ’s aim , this finding does not disclose an incorrect conception of the law and is not incomprehensible .

The findings of ORG > further mean that - noting that what ORG > has found established as to the basis of the defence plea - there has been no violation of the principles of a fair trial of such serious nature that this should lead to the inadmissibility of the prosecution as it has not been established that there have been infringements of those principles as a result of which intentionally or with gross negligence the suspect ’s interests in a fair hearing of his case have been disrespected .

Understood as such , the findings of ORG > do not disclose an incorrect conception of the law and , in the light of the trial proceedings , not incomprehensible . Insofar as the first ground in cassation objects to factual and not incomprehensible findings and to this relies on facts and circumstances not found established by ORG < ORG considers > that this can not lead to cassation . ”

PERSON Relevant background and domestic law

DATE of LAW , insofar as relevant , reads :

< Translation >

" CARDINAL . In all cases where a person is heard as a suspect , the questioning judge or civil servant shall refrain from everything which could have the effect of obtaining a statement of which it could be said it was not freely made . The suspect is not obliged to answer .

Before the hearing the suspect is informed that he is not obliged to answer .

On DATE , following the national broadcast of a television programme in which the “ NORP verhoormethode ” was discussed , a Member of ORG put questions about this interrogation technique to the Minister of ORG , who decided to seek the views of ORG ( PERSON ; hereinafter “ ORG ” ) as to the lawfulness and functionality of this method .

On DATE , the Minister of Justice informed ORG that , once she would have taken notice of the final outcome of CARDINAL trials in which the lawfulness of this method had been raised as well as the ORG advice , she would take a final decision as to the acceptability of this interrogation technique . In the meantime , she had instructed the public prosecution department to suspend the use of this technique . In DATE , in conformity with the advice contained in the ORG report of DATE , the Minister of ORG decided to prohibit the use of the “ NORP verhoormethode ” .

The PERSON report describes the “ NORP verhoormethode ” as an interrogation technique based on the so - called CASE CARDINAL ( ORG CARDINAL ) communication method . The method was developed by a communication expert and was further elaborated for police practices .

CASE DATE is described in the report as a communication method focussing in particular on the way in which a person internally perceives the outside world . The application of the CASE CARDINAL technique allows to obtain a very accurate picture of the behaviour of a person and the internal processes on which this behaviour is based , thus enabling to communicate effectively ( a correct statement by the suspect ) and efficiently ( within a short time ) .

The CASE CARDINAL technique is based on ORG ( ORG ) ; originally a form of psychotherapy . ORG has been defined as “ the study of the structure of subjective experience ” . ORG provides a model of human behaviour and communication which answers questions like “ How does a person behave in relation to his environment , how does he take in information and how does he process this information ? ” An interrogation according to the CASE CARDINAL communication method is aimed at the creation of a tie between the suspect and interrogators through which an optimal communication must become possible and thus to attain the truth via communication .

The actual interrogation is prepared by planning certain steps to be taken during the interrogation . This planning includes , amongst other things , the allocation of individual roles ( father figure , specialist , analyst , person of confidence ) to each member of the interrogation team . Furthermore , a preliminary meeting with the suspect takes place in order to find out which pattern of thought ( in detail or global ) he uses and what his “ focal points ” are , i.e. to what points he looks when he is not specifically asked to look at something . A determination of “ focal points ” is relevant for the making of “ visual chronological lines ” .

In having the suspect draw ( visual ) chronological lines during the interrogation , it is attempted to verify when what has taken place . This takes place , inter alia , by making a suspect relive an experience in his mind . If a suspect has an auditive preference , there is a bigger chance of communication and a reliving when he is made to listen to recordings , like telephone conversations . Has the suspect a sensory preference , the chance of communication is bigger when having him touch an object found at the crime scene , whereas in case of a visual preference , he can be shown photographs of the crime scene .

In case a suspect has a “ focal point ” on a particular spot on a wall , it is possible to place photographs there . He will unconsciously look at them after which , as the intention is , he will remember facts insofar as he has been responsible for them . The showing of photographs includes both photographs connected to the offence and photographs linked to the suspect ’s person , like photographs of his spouse or children . These CARDINAL kinds of photographs are either shown separately or combined with each other .

The interrogation team leader and the external communication expert watch and listen to the interrogation in another room . There are CARDINAL hidden cameras covering the entire interrogation room and CARDINAL hidden camera aimed at the suspect ’s face . The suspect is informed that the interrogations are recorded but does not know where the cameras are . The interrogators receive instructions via earphones from the team leader or the external communication expert during the interrogation . The interrogation is constantly adapted to the suspect ’s behaviour . The suspect ’s non - verbal communication is followed and whether his behaviour is congruent , i.e. whether his body language is in conformity with her verbal expressions . Other features of this interrogation technique are the copying of a suspect ’s physical behaviour which is intended to reassure the suspect and the so - called “ pushing in ” , i.e. to push CARDINAL by CARDINAL and on deliberate moment the chairs of each interrogator close to the suspect until in the end all interrogator sit intimately around the suspect .

The interrogations are conducted within DATE , lasting on average TIME per day depending on how the interrogation proceeds .


Lech Garlicki;Ledi Bianku;Nebojša Vučinić;Nicolas Bratza;Päivi Hirvelä;Zdravka Kalaydjieva

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

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

From DATE until DATE the applicant was detained in FAC . On DATE he was released .

The applicant submitted that he had been held in inadequate living and sanitary conditions . In particular , all the cells which he had occupied were overcrowded .

From DATE to DATE the applicant was detained in cell no . CARDINAL , which measured QUANTITY and was shared by CARDINAL people at a time . The cell was furnished with CARDINAL bunk beds , CARDINAL tables and a number of stools . A bathroom with a toilet cubicle and a washbasin were accessible from the cell . There was CARDINAL window , which was partly covered by a bunk bed .

The applicant did not make any statements as to whether or not he lodged any complaints with the penitentiary authorities regarding the conditions of his detention or any other aspect of his detention in ORG .

He submitted , however , among other documents , ORG copies of CARDINAL letters of reply sent by ORG of ORG ( ORG PERSON ) on DATE and DATE , and by ORG ( PERSON ) on DATE and DATE .

The letters in question have typewritten headings and text . In the space reserved for the name of the addressee and the address the words : “ ORG ” ( PERSON ) or “ Prison , PERSON . Getta Street no . DATE PERSON ( PERSON . PERSON . PERSON , CARDINAL - CARDINAL PERSON ) are typed in bold letters . The name of the addressee in these letters has been erased and CARDINAL of the letters in question have an empty space directly above the address . In the remaining CARDINAL letters , however , the applicant ’s own name has been handwritten in the empty space .

The letters in question contain replies of the relevant penitentiary authorities to complaints about irregularities in treating correspondence , which had been made by a prisoner detained in ORG .

Moreover , the applicant brought a civil action under LAW . He sought compensation on account of overcrowding and resulting from it , inadequate living and sanitary conditions in FAC .

On DATE ORG ( PERSON ) dismissed the applicant ’s claim for compensation . The applicant failed to lodge an appeal in compliance with procedural requirements . On DATE ORG rejected his application for leave to lodge an appeal out of time .