Not necessary to examine Art. 2;Not necessary to examine Art. 3;Not necessary to examine Art. 8;No violation of Art. 13

In DATE and at DATE the first applicant ( G.H.H. ) had been a supporter of his hometown branch of ORG ( “ the ORG ” ) , a NORP - Leninist organisation . This local wing of the organisation was headed by his cousin . The first applicant 's involvement in the organisation 's activities brought him to the attention of the authorities and he was detained on CARDINAL occasions in DATE . Following a government crackdown on the ORG and its members , the first applicant lost contact with the organisation . As from DATE he began to engage in the production and distribution of a newsletter carrying anti - government articles as well as dissident literary contributions . The first applicant himself contributed political articles and poems to the newsletter . He maintains that DATE he was kept under close surveillance by the intelligence services , including during his period of military service .

In DATE he married the second applicant who in DATE and DATE had been an anti - government activist in ORG ( “ the OIPFG ” ) . During her student days she had received several warnings from her university about her political activities .

While at university the first applicant founded a controversial literary journal and engaged in cultural , intellectual and social activities both within and outside his university which incurred the enmity of fundamentalist groups and led to his being questioned by the university intelligence services . He claims that his academic and research work as well as his NORP sense of dress were criticised as being incompatible with the fundamentals of ORG . He claims that in DATE he was arrested and detained for DATE by the authorities for drinking alcohol and during his detention received CARDINAL lashes .

NORP In DATE the first applicant attempted to publish his first book , a collection of poems , some of which were dedicated to persons who , like his cousin , were regarded with suspicion or hostility by the government . The poems conveyed feelings of romance , secularism and revolutionary fervour , but he composed them in a way which would not attract the application of the censorship laws . The first applicant finally secured official approval for the publication of the book on condition that he made certain amendments to its contents . With the assistance of a third party he procured by subterfuge a certificate of conditional approval to have the book printed which enabled him to have CARDINAL copies run off . Before waiting for the official approval permit for the book 's release , the first applicant distributed many copies to friends and bookshops . He has subsequently learned that the authorities refused to issue a permit . He maintains that since DATE he has submitted CARDINAL other books to ORG for printing permits but never received a reply , only the verbal disapproval of officials of the books ' contents . The first applicant claims that this effectively places a ban on his writings .

On DATE the first applicant paid a visit to his home town . He was immediately detained on arrival by members of the NORP security forces and taken to an intelligence office . He was questioned , inter alia , about his political activities , his literary associates and their meeting places and about how he had obtained a provisional permit to print his book . The security forces also interrogated him about the whereabouts of his cousin . He alleges that he was severely beaten while in detention . He was released after his brother agreed to stand bail for him . Before being released the first applicant was ordered to report back to the security services . He did not comply with this order and states that his brother was subsequently harassed and is currently facing prosecution on account of his failure to respect the terms of his conditional release .

The first applicant states that on DATE the publisher of a literary magazine with which he had connections was found murdered and that around the same period several other persons in the literary milieu who were known to him were imprisoned , attacked , disappeared or died in suspicious circumstances .

According to the first applicant , these events coupled with his own arrest and torture and dissident profile made him fear for his life and compelled him to flee GPE . He also states that after fleeing GPE his wife , the second applicant , was subjected to harassment and threats from vigilante groups in connection with his disappearance . During a search of their home by the intelligence services , a number of cassettes were found containing recordings of banned songs and of meetings attended by the first applicant and several of his literary associates . The first applicant alleges that the authorities used the tapes of the meetings to identify him and the other participants , several of whom were subsequently detained and questioned .

On DATE the first applicant obtained a passport by bribing an official and he fled to GPE DATE . He arrived in GPE on or DATE on a tourist visa and travelled to GPE . He was informed there that he should contact the office of the ORG High Commissioner for Refugees ( ORG ) in GPE , which in turn informed him that he should register as an asylum - seeker with the GPE police . The GPE police notified him that he could not register as an asylum seeker because he had been in GPE for DATE and that the asylum regulations required that asylum - seekers register within DATE of their arrival in the country .

The first applicant decided to renew his tourist visa fearing that if he lodged an asylum request he would be deported to GPE for non - compliance with the DATE time - limit .

On CARDINAL DATE the first applicant was interviewed by the ORG , which rejected his asylum claim on DATE . He appealed against this decision on CARDINAL DATE and on DATE the ORG rejected his appeal .

At some stage the first applicant was joined by the second and third applicants who fled GPE for their safety . The Government claim that the first applicant in fact arrived in GPE on DATE and was accompanied by the second and third applicants . In the applicants ' view the entire family had been in GPE before that date but had to go on a DATE trip to GPE to have their visas renewed . They re - entered GPE on DATE . The applicants do not dispute that they all registered as asylum - seekers with the GPE police on DATE . They were granted a residence permit on DATE and ordered to reside in the town of GPE .

On DATE the first applicant requested the ORG to reconsider his request for asylum and he was subsequently interviewed on DATE . On DATE the ORG rejected the first applicant 's renewed request and closed his case file .

On DATE the applicants received a deportation order from the NORP police . They were informed that they had QUANTITY days in which to appeal to the authorities against the implementation of the deportation order . The applicants objected and their residence permit was again extended on DATE . The applicants maintain that the decision to extend the residence permit was only taken in DATE and in response to the ORG 's requests on CARDINAL and CARDINAL DATE to the Government not to deport the family .

On DATE ORG reconfirmed that the applicants did not meet the criteria for the grant of refugee status . The applicants claim that they were never informed of this decision .

By letter dated DATE the ORG informed ORG that it had conducted a fresh examination of the first applicant 's request for refugee status . Following that examination , and in light of new elements submitted by the first applicant , the ORG decided to grant him refugee status . In reaching its decision the ORG had particular regard to the fact that the applicant had been actively involved in ORG and his activities had brought him into contact with other intellectuals who had been murdered in DATE , apparently on account of their work on behalf of the association . The ORG concluded that if the applicant were to be returned to GPE , there was a reasonable likelihood that he would face persecution .

Subsequently , on receipt of the ORG 's letter , ORG directed that the applicants be entitled to remain in GPE temporarily , for humanitarian reasons , until they were resettled in a third country . On DATE the relevant authorities were requested to extend the applicants ' temporary stay in GPE pending their resettlement .

NORP In DATE the applicants left GPE and were resettled in GPE in the framework of a resettlement programme .


Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Deprivation of property)

David Thór Björgvinsson;George Nicolaou;Lech Garlicki;Ledi Bianku;Nebojša Vučinić;Päivi Hirvelä;Zdravka Kalaydjieva

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in PERSON .

The applicant is a single mother and has CARDINAL children . Prior to her application for an earlyretirement pension she had been employed by the same company for DATE and paid social security contributions to the ORG .

On DATE the applicant filed an application with ORG ( ORG ) to be granted the right to an earlyretirement pension for persons raising children who , due to the seriousness of their health condition , required constant care , the socalled “ EWK ” pension ” .

Along with her application for a pension , the applicant submitted , among other documents concerning her daughter ’s health condition , a medical certificate issued by a specialist medical centre . The certificate stated that the child ( born in DATE ) suffered from chronic asthma ( przewlekła astma oskrzelowa ) and that she had been in need of her parent ’s constant care .

On DATE ORG ( “ the FAC ” ) issued a decision granting the applicant the right to an earlyretirement pension as of DATE in the net amount of MONEY ( ORG ) .

ORG initially suspended the payment of the pension until DATE due to the fact that the applicant was still working on the date of the decision . The applicant resigned from her job .

On an unspecified date ORG asked ORG doctor ( PERSON ) to inform it whether the applicant ’s daughter required the permanent care of a parent . On DATE the doctor stated that , on the basis of the medical documents , the child could not be considered as ever having required such care .

On DATE the ORG issued simultaneously CARDINAL decisions in respect of the applicant . By virtue of CARDINAL decision , the payment of the applicant ’s pension was discontinued with immediate effect . By virtue of the other decision , ORG reopened the proceedings , revoked the initial decision granting a pension and eventually refused to grant the applicant the right to an earlyretirement pension under the scheme provided for by the DATE Ordinance .

The applicant appealed against the respective decisions divesting her of the right to an earlyretirement pension . She submitted that she should receive the benefit because her child required constant care , as confirmed by the medical certificate attached to the applicant ’s original application for a pension . Moreover , the applicant alleged that the revocation of her retirement pension was contrary to the principle of vested rights .

On DATE ORG ( PERSON ) allowed the appeal and granted the applicant the EWK pension . The ORG appealed against the judgment .

On DATE ORG allowed the appeal and remitted the case for reconsideration .

On DATE ORG upheld the ORG ’s decision of CARDINAL DATE and dismissed the applicant ’s appeal against it . ORG concluded on the basis of the evidence that the applicant ’s child did not require her mother ’s permanent care since her health condition did not significantly impair her bodily functions . The domestic court held that the applicant had been rightfully divested of her right to a pension under the scheme provided by the DATE Ordinance as she did not satisfy the requirement of necessary permanent care .

The applicant further appealed against the firstinstance judgment .

On DATE the Rzeszów Court of Appeal ( Sąd Apelacyjny ) dismissed the appeal .

The applicant did not lodge a cassation appeal with ORG .

Following the social security proceedings the applicant was not ordered to return her earlyretirement benefits paid by ORG , despite the revocation of her right to an earlyretirement pension .

NORP The applicant submitted that after the revocation of the EWK pension she had not received any unemployment or other benefits from the State .

The Government submitted that DATE and DATE the applicant has been intermittently employed and was receiving a salary of MONEY per year . In DATE the applicant received unemployment benefit for DATE . In addition , the ORG maintained that the applicant has been receiving child support payment , apparently from the father of her children , in the amount of ORG CARDINAL per year . However , it is not clear how long she has been receiving such payment .

The Government submitted that the applicant ’s CARDINAL adult children have been employed since DATE . Moreover , the child in respect of whom the applicant had been granted the EWK pension , now aged DATE , started working in DATE .

NORP In addition , the Government submitted information as regards the various types of social benefits available in GPE . However , they did not specify which of those benefits , if any , were available in the applicant ’s situation .

Under the relevant laws currently in force , it appears that the applicant will qualify for a regular retirement pension in DATE .

CARDINAL applications arising from a similar fact pattern have been brought to the ORG . The majority of the applicants form ORG ( ORG przez ZUS ) ( “ the Association ” ) , an organisation monitoring the practices of ORG in GPE , in particular in the ORG region .

Out of all applications lodged with the ORG , about twentyfour applicants decided not to lodge a cassation appeal against the judgment of ORG given in their case .

One hundredandfour applicants lodged cassation appeals against the final judgments given in their cases . ORG entertained and dismissed on the merits DATE appeals . In eightyone applications ORG refused to entertain cassation appeals on the ground that they did not raise any important legal issues or require ORG to give a new interpretation to legal provisions which raised serious doubts or gave rise to ambiguity in the jurisprudence of the domestic courts . In the remaining CARDINAL cases cassation appeals were rejected for failure to comply with various procedural requirements .

NORP The legal provisions applicable at the material time and questions of practice are set out in the judgment in the case of GPE GPE , no . CARDINAL , § ORG , DATE .

The reopening of the proceedings concerning the earlyretirement pension is regulated in section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of LAW DATE on the system of social insurance ( Ustawa o systemie ubezpieczeń społecznych ) , which at the relevant time read as follows :

“ The right to benefits or the amount of benefits will be reassessed upon application by the person concerned or , ex officio , if , after the validation of the decision concerning benefits , new evidence is submitted or circumstances which had existed before issuing the decision and which have an impact on the right to benefits or on their amount are discovered . ”

On DATE a new subparagraph CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) a was added , which reads as follows :

“ Section CARDINAL shall apply respectively , if , after the validation of the decision it is discovered that the evidence that had been submitted did not give the right to a pension , disability pension or its amount . ”

A party to civil proceedings could , at the material time , lodge a cassation appeal with ORG against a judicial decision of a secondinstance court . A party had to be represented by an advocate or a legal adviser .

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

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

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

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

Pursuant to Article CARDINAL¹³ ORG , having allowed a cassation appeal , could quash the challenged judgment in its entirety or in part and remit the case for reexamination . Where ORG failed to find nonconformity with the law , it dismissed the cassation appeal . According to Article CARDINAL if the cassation appeal was wellfounded ORG could also amend the impugned judgment and adjudicate on the merits .

On DATE the ORG made an application to ORG , asking for section CARDINAL § CARDINAL of the Law of DATE on retirement and disability pensions paid from ORG ( LOC o emeryturach i rentach z Funduszu Ubezpieczeń Społecznych ) ( “ the DATE LAW ) to be declared unconstitutional in so far as it restricted the application of the DATE Ordinance to persons born before DATE . More specifically , the ORG submitted that the introduction of an agelimit in respect of persons taking care of a child , which in essence amounted to a deprivation of the right to a benefit , constituted a violation of the principle of equality set forth in LAW .

On DATE ORG ( KCARDINAL/CARDINAL ) declared the impugned section CARDINAL § CARDINAL of the DATE Law unconstitutional in so far as it restricted the application of the DATE Ordinance to persons born before DATE . ORG reiterated among other things the constitutional principle of acquired rights which guarantees particularly strong protection for the right to receive social welfare benefits .

On DATE the ORG made an application to ORG , asking for section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL)(a ) of the DATE Law to be declared unconstitutional in so far as it allowed the ORG to reopen ex officio proceedings relating to the grant of a pension or a disability pension on the basis of a new assessment of evidence which had already been submitted .

On DATE ORG ( GPE declared the impugned section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL)(a ) of the DATE Law unconstitutional in so far as it allowed the ORG to reopen such proceedings following a new assessment of evidence which had already been submitted .


Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre;Karel Jungwiert;Mark Villiger;Peer Lorenzen;Rait Maruste;Renate Jaeger;Snejana Botoucharova

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 , from ORG .

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

Proceedings nos . CARDINAL C CARDINAL/CARDINAL and CARDINAL C CARDINAL/CARDINAL

On DATE the applicant ’s father brought proceedings before ORG ( okresní soud ) against an agricultural cooperative . The proceedings terminated in the claimant ’s favour . On DATE ORG ( PERSON ) , upon a complaint by the former Prosecutor General , alleging a breach of law ( stížnost pro porušení zákona ) , quashed the judgments of the lower courts and sent the case back to ORG . In DATE the claimant specified his court expenses of CZK CARDINAL ( ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL ) which included a sum of CZK CARDINAL,CARDINAL ( EUR CARDINAL ) corresponding to damage caused by the ORG judgments . According to the Government , when presenting his final pleadings , the applicant qualified the amount of CZK CARDINAL,CARDINAL as court fees .

Proceedings no . CARDINAL C CARDINAL/CARDINAL

On DATE the applicant ’s father brought proceedings against the same cooperative for reimbursement of court fees . In the course of the proceedings , he extended his action seeking to order the cooperative to pay him CZK CARDINAL in respect of his court expenses . His action was dismissed . According to the Government , the proceedings finally terminated on DATE .

On DATE a certain PERSON brought an action in ORG against the applicant ’s father seeking to be paid CZK CARDINAL,CARDINAL ( ORG CARDINAL ) for legal services he had provided . On DATE ORG ordered the applicant ’s father to pay the sum in question . The latter appealed and filed a counterclaim of CZK CARDINAL,CARDINAL ( ORG CARDINAL ) . On DATE the ORG ( krajský soud ) upheld this judgment , separating the counterclaim for a separate hearing ( no . CARDINAL C CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) .

On DATE the applicant ’s father died . Inheritance proceedings were instituted .

On DATE ORG ( GPE PERSON ) declared manifestly ill - founded the applicant ’s constitutional appeal ( ústavní stížnost ) challenging the judgments of the lower courts .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s second constitutional appeal which was directed against the same judgments . It stated , inter alia , that in respect of his claim relating to the manner of which the lower courts had considered the sum of CZK CARDINAL,CARDINAL , the applicant ’s father had died and that the applicant was not a party to these proceedings .

On DATE inheritance proceedings concerning the applicant ’s father ’s estate terminated . The applicant as the only heir expressed his wish to continue pursuing the proceedings before ORG in his late father ’s stead .

On DATE ORG dismissed the counterclaim filed by the applicant ’s father . On DATE ORG partly quashed this judgment and remitted the relevant part of the case back to ORG which , on DATE , again dismissed the counterclaim . On DATE ORG upheld this judgment .

On DATE ORG rejected a limine the applicant ’s constitutional appeal .

On DATE ORG dismissed his appeal on points of law ( dovolání ) .

The relevant domestic law and practice concerning remedies for the allegedly excessive length of judicial proceedings are set out in the ORG ’s decision in the case of PERSON v. GPE , no . MONEY ( dec . ) , § § CARDINAL - CARDINAL , DATE ) .


CASE OF MILISAVLJEVIC v. BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA

Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial;Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property

David Thór Björgvinsson;Ján Šikuta;Lech Garlicki;Mihai Poalelungi;Nicolas Bratza;Päivi Hirvelä

The applicants were born in DATE , DATE and DATE respectively . While the first applicant lives in GPE , her sons , the second and the third applicants , live in GPE , in GPE .

On DATE the local authorities expropriated an apartment in GPE which was occupied ( but not owned ) by the applicants . The local planning authorities were ordered to allocate the first applicant a suitable replacement apartment . This decision entered into force on DATE .

On DATE the first applicant initiated court proceedings seeking the allocation to her by the local planning authorities of a suitable replacement apartment .

On DATE ORG held that , while it was clear that the local planning authorities were required to allocate the first applicant a suitable replacement apartment , the courts of law had no power to designate such an apartment . ORG , consequently , declined jurisdiction . This decision entered into force on DATE when ORG upheld it .

On DATE the first applicant complained to ORG about non - enforcement of the administrative decision of DATE .

On DATE ORG found breaches of LAW No . CARDINAL to the Convention . It ordered ORG a constituent Entity of Bosnia and Herzegovina ) to allocate , or to cause the local planning authorities to allocate , to the first applicant a suitable replacement apartment at the latest within DATE . ORG awarded the first applicant , in pecuniary damage , CARDINAL convertible marks ( BAM ) ( MONEY ( ORG ) ) plus BAM CARDINAL ( approximately EUR CARDINAL ) per month from DATE until DATE in which she was to be allocated a suitable replacement apartment . She was further awarded BAM CARDINAL,CARDINAL ( approximately ORG CARDINAL ) in respect of non - pecuniary damage . Lastly , she was awarded default interest on the above amounts at an DATE rate of PERCENT . This decision entered into force on DATE .

On DATE the local planning authorities offered the first applicant a tenancy of an apartment in GPE . On DATE the applicant rejected the offer .

On DATE ORG paid the following amounts to the first applicant : BAM CARDINAL in respect of pecuniary damage , BAM CARDINAL in respect of non - pecuniary damage and default interest on the above amounts at the rate indicated in ORG decision .

On DATE ORG requested the interpretation of the order to allocate , or to cause the local planning authorities to allocate , to the first applicant a suitable replacement apartment set out in FAC decision .

On DATE the legal successor of ORG , ORG within ORG , explained that in accordance with ORG decision the first applicant should be given ownership of a suitable apartment and not only a tenancy .

On DATE the local planning authorities offered the first applicant a tenancy of the same apartment as on DATE . The applicant has not accepted the offer .

On DATE the first applicant filed a criminal complaint against ORG with ORG of GPE ( non - enforcement of a final and enforceable decision of ORG constitutes a criminal offence ) . It would appear that no decision has been taken in that regard .

On DATE ORG paid an additional amount of BAM CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL to the first applicant in respect of pecuniary damage ( that is , BAM CARDINAL per month for the period from DATE until DATE plus default interest on those DATE amounts at the rate indicated in ORG decision ) .

The relevant law and practice were outlined in GPE v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , § § DATE , DATE ) also concerning the non - enforcement of ORG decision .


Violation of P1-1;Remainder inadmissible;Pecuniary damage and non-pecuniary damage - award

Anatoly Kovler;George Nicolaou;Julia Laffranque;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Peer Lorenzen

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in NORP - Aul .

He is the sole founder , director and owner of a limited liability company called PERSON ( PERSON с ограниченной ответственностью « Восход PERSON , “ the company ” ) .

According to the applicant , at the material time the company owned a mill complex and a petrol station .

In DATE ORG launched a counter - terrorism operation in GPE .

On DATE , during a special operation in the vicinity of the village of NORP - Aul , servicemen of military unit no . QUANTITY of ORG of the ORG blew up the mill belonging to the company , with the result that it was completely destroyed and the petrol station situated nearby was damaged .

In DATE the applicant complained on behalf of the company to a number of public officials , including the commander of military unit no . CARDINAL , the head of the administration of GPE and prosecutors at various levels , about the damage inflicted .

On DATE the prosecutor ’s office of military unit no . CARDINAL took a decision to dispense with criminal proceedings in connection with the incident of DATE . The decision stated that , on the date in question , the servicemen of military unit no . CARDINAL had been carrying out a special operation in the vicinity of NORP , and that , in order to destroy a place which was supposed to be a terrorist arms and ammunition store , and which the terrorists had transformed into a base from which they had strafed a federal checkpoint , the servicemen , following their commanding ORG order , had blown up the mill complex belonging to the company , with the result that it had been completely destroyed . The decision further stated that the actions of the commanding officers and servicemen of military unit no . ORG had been based on section CARDINAL of LAW ( “ LAW ” ) , had been rendered absolutely necessary by unlawful actions of unidentified illegal fighters putting the federal servicemen ’s lives in real danger , and had been aimed at eliminating that danger . The decision went on to note that the danger could not have been eliminated by any other means , and therefore the destruction of the company ’s property had not constituted a criminal offence . It thus concluded that there had been no evidence of a crime in the servicemen ’s actions . The decision also stated that , taking into account the aforementioned circumstances and the fact that the pecuniary damage had been inflicted on a third person who had not performed any actions that would have rendered the infliction of damage absolutely necessary , a question of compensation for that damage should be resolved by a civil procedure .

In DATE the applicant , acting on the company ’s behalf , issued proceedings against military unit no . CARDINAL before ORG of GPE . He sought compensation for losses sustained in the amount of MONEY ( RUB , MONEY , ORG ) .

On DATE the court rendered its judgment . Throughout the judgment the court referred to the mill complex and petrol station as the company ’s property . It established the circumstances of the incident of DATE as they had been presented by the claimant company and confirmed that the damage inflicted corresponded to the amount indicated in the court claim . In this latter respect , the court based its finding on a working estimate ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) and a letter from ORG for Construction , Architectural and Housing Policy , according to which the original amount should be adjusted in line with the index of prices in DATE .

The court further held as follows :

“ ... The military prosecutor ’s office of military unit no . CARDINAL carried out an inquiry into the incident . In a decision of CARDINAL DATE reflecting the result of the inquiry it had been established that on DATE , pursuant to a combat order , servicemen of military unit no . CARDINAL were pursuing a special operation in the village of NORP and its adjacent territory .

The materials of the case reveal that the mill belonging to the PERSON company was a convenient position to direct fire on the outpost of ORG troops stationed nearby , and that the lives and health of the servicemen were put under constant risk as a result . Since section CARDINAL of LAW permitted deliberate infliction of damage on the legally protected interests of a person , society , or the ORG , the commanding officers of military unit no . CARDINAL took a decision on the basis of which the servicemen of that unit blew up the mill complex belonging to the PERSON company . As a result of the explosion the building was completely destroyed .

... In accordance with section CARDINAL of LAW ... , on the basis of the legislation and within the limits established by it , damage may be caused to the life , health and property of terrorists , as well as to other legally protected interests , in the course of a counter - terrorism operation . However , servicemen , experts and other persons engaged in the suppression of terrorism shall be exempted from liability for such damage , in accordance with the legislation of GPE .

By virtue of LAW , damage inflicted in a situation of absolute necessity , and notably for elimination of a danger threatening the tortfeasor or third parties , if the danger , in the circumstances , could not be eliminated by any other means , shall be compensated for by the tortfeasor .

Having regard to the circumstances in which the damage was caused , a court may impose an obligation to compensate for such damage on a third party in whose interests the tortfeasor acted , or release from such an obligation , partially or in full , both the third party and the tortfeasor .

The court , taking into account the absence of unlawfulness in the defendant ’s actions and the fact that those actions were performed in a situation of absolute necessity , holds that they were lawful . Such actions are socially useful as they are aimed at protecting an individual , his rights and freedoms , the interests of society and the ORG from impending danger .

Taking into account the circumstances in which the damage was caused and the fact that [ it was inflicted on ] a person who had not committed any unlawful acts but had become a victim of a seriesobligation to compensate for the losses . ”

The court thus dismissed the claimant company ’s claims in their entirety and ordered the company to pay a court fee in the amount of RUB CARDINAL ( approximately EUR CARDINAL ) .

On DATE ORG of GPE , sitting as an appellate court , upheld the first - instance judgment , having in essence restated its reasoning . In its decision the court described the mill complex and petrol station as the company ’s property .

On DATE ORG of ORG ( “ the ORG ” ) dismissed the company ’s appeal , stating , in particular :

“ According to certificates issued by ORG of ORG and ORG and dated DATE and DATE [ the mill and the petrol station ] are registered in the name of the PERSON company ( зарегистрированы за PERSON Восход » ) on the basis of decisions of the NORP - Aul local council dated DATE and DATE respectively . However , the claimant company has not submitted to this court documents confirming that the mill complex and petrol station were properly transferred into the company ’s ownership ( переданы на баланс PERSON Восход FAC ) , or proof of any other legal grounds for the company to acquire the property title to the mill complex and petrol station . There is no documentary evidence to confirm the condition and value of [ the property in question ] before it was destroyed .

... The claimant company confirmed [ the amount of losses ] by estimates of costs for the construction of a new mill complex and petrol station .

The PERSON company did not offer proof that it had acquired the property , or of its value at the moment of destruction , and therefore the court rightly dismissed the claimant company ’s action . ”

The court also upheld the reasoning of the CARDINAL lower courts , stating , in particular , that the servicemen ’s actions had been based on LAW and relevant presidential decrees and had aimed at restoring constitutional order in GPE . It also noted that there had been no evidence in the materials of the case that the servicemen had acted ultra vires or that their actions had been unlawful , and therefore the servicemen should be exempt from responsibility for their actions .

Thereafter the applicant , acting on the company ’s behalf , sought to have the amount of the court fee imposed on him by the first - instance court reduced . His request was dismissed .

Both parties submitted various documents confirming that the applicant was the sole founder , owner and director of the company .

A certificate issued by a tax authority confirmed that the company had been registered with that authority on DATE and had been given an identification number as a taxpayer .

An extract of DATE from ORG государственный реестр юридических лиц ) provided various details concerning the PERSON company . It indicated , in particular , that the company ’s principal business activity was the retail sale of motor fuel , and its subsidiary activity was the production of flour , flour blends and pastry preparations for baking .

By a decision of CARDINAL DATE the local council of the village of NORP - Aul ( “ the NORP - Aul local council ” ) assigned to the applicant , in his capacity as director of the PERSON company , a plot of land measuring QUANTITY , and authorised the company to build a petrol station on that plot .

A certificate of DATE issued by a competent authority attested that the construction of the petrol station had been completed and that that authority had accepted it as commissioned and fully operational .

In a decision of CARDINAL DATE the NORP - Aul local council , at the applicant ’s request , gave him permission to build a mill complex and assigned him a plot of land measuring QUANTITY for that purpose .

A certificate of DATE issued by ORG of ORG confirmed that the mill complex had been registered as the PERSON company ’s property on the basis of the decision of DATE by the NORP - Aul local council . A similar certificate was issued by ORG on DATE in respect of the petrol station .

Under a contract of DATE the company agreed to purchase various equipment for the mill complex and to pay RUB CARDINAL ( approximately EUR CARDINAL ) .

A certificate of CARDINAL DATE attested to the ORG registration of the property title to a petrol station belonging to the PERSON company .

An extract of DATE from ORG therewith ( NORP государственный реестр прав на недвижимое имущество и сделок с ним ) confirmed that the PERSON company was the owner of a petrol station . Another extract of the same date stated that there was no entry in the aforementioned Register in respect of any property rights of the PERSON company to any mill complex .

A report of DATE stated that on that date a commission of the NORP - Aul local council had examined , at the applicant ’s request , the mill complex belonging to the PERSON company . The commission had established that the mill , which had had a production capacity of QUANTITY of flour per day and had consisted of a permanent CARDINAL - floor building measuring QUANTITY , had been completely destroyed . The report then gave a more detailed description of the damage inflicted . It also stated that the commission had examined the mill complex in DATE and had drawn up an evaluation report attesting to some damage inflicted on the building during the previous military actions . The report then certified that the complete destruction of the mill complex , established by the commission on DATE , had been carried out by federal forces on DATE during a special operation in NORP - Aul , this being confirmed by objective evidence and witness statements to the effect that representatives of the federal forces had planted explosive devices and then set off explosions in CARDINAL parts of the mill building . The commission also indicated in the report that the PERSON company should apply to specialised agencies for assessment of the damage inflicted .

By a certificate it issued on DATE the NORP - Aul local council attested that on DATE the mill complex with equipment belonging to the PERSON company had been destroyed and the petrol station had been damaged .

A working estimate of repair costs of DATE indicated that it was necessary to invest an overall amount of RUB CARDINAL ( approximately EUR CARDINAL,CARDINAL ) to restore the mill complex and petrol station .

A report of DATE drawn up by a ORG agency of expert examinations stated that this latter authority had , at the applicant ’s request , carried out an expert evaluation of the aforementioned estimate of repair costs and established that they should total RUB CARDINAL ( approximately EUR CARDINAL ) , taking into account the index of prices in DATE .

In a certificate of DATE , issued at the applicant ’s request , the NORP - Aul local council confirmed that on DATE , the date on which the mill complex belonging to the PERSON company had been blown up , the federal forces had been carrying out a special operation in NORP - Aul to blow up oil refining facilities . The operation in question had been conducted by military unit no . CARDINAL .

In his explanation given on DATE to the prosecutor ’s office of GPE the applicant confirmed that he was the sole founder , owner and director of the PERSON company . He further stated that the NORP - Aul local council in its decision , of DATE , ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , had authorised the company to build a petrol station , that the construction had been completed on DATE , and that the petrol station had been acknowledged by a competent ORG authority as commissioned and fully operational ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . The applicant pointed out that the company had duly registered the property title to the petrol station with ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , but no documents confirming the formal transfer of the title in respect of the petrol station to the company had ever been drawn up . The applicant also stated that on DATE the NORP - Aul local council had also authorised the company to build a mill complex ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . According to him , the construction had been completed in DATE [ apparently a mistake , should read DATE ] and the mill complex started functioning with a production capacity of QUANTITY of flour per day . The applicant stated that he had been unable to comply with the procedure whereby a new construction should be accepted by an appropriate ORG authority as commissioned and fully operational , because of the beginning of military actions in GPE at that time . He also stated that the company had registered the property title to the mill complex with ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , but no documents confirming the formal transfer of the title to the mill complex to the company had ever been drawn up . The applicant further claimed , with reference to the contract of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , that the company had purchased various equipment for the mill . He went on to state that from late CARDINAL , when the second counter - terrorism operation in GPE started , until DATE , military unit no . ORG had been stationed on the PERSON company site , including in the mill complex , and that servicemen of that unit had disassembled the equipment . After military unit no . CARDINAL had been transferred to another location , the servicemen of that unit had blown up the mill complex building . According to the applicant , prior to the events in question no survey of the petrol station and mill complex had been done . The applicant further referred to an estimate of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) and stated that at present the amount necessary to restore the petrol station and mill complex was considerably higher than that indicated in the estimate .

In a certificate of CARDINAL DATE the NORP - Aul local council confirmed that for DATE , from DATE until DATE , federal servicemen had been stationed within the territory and on the PERSON company site , of which the applicant was the founder and director .

LAW provides as follows :

“ CARDINAL . The right of private property shall be protected by law .

No one may be deprived of property otherwise than by a court decision . Expropriation of property for ORG needs may only be carried out subject to preliminary and equivalent compensation . ”

The rights and freedoms set forth in the LAW may only be limited by the federal law to the extent necessary for the protection of the fundamental principles of the constitutional system , morality , health , the rights and lawful interests of other people , or for ensuring the defence of the country and security of the ORG . ”

Article CARDINAL of the NORP Civil Code states that the title to and other proprietary interests in immovable property , limitations of those rights , their creation , transfer and termination shall be subject to ORG registration in a single ORG register by the relevant authorities . The ORG registration procedure was established in LAW with such Property ( “ LAW ” ) .

Article ORG provides that damage caused to the property of an individual or of a legal entity shall be compensated for in full by the person who inflicted such damage . The latter may be released from the obligation to pay compensation if he or she can prove that the damage was not inflicted through his or her own fault ; however , the law may provide for compensation in respect of damage even in the absence of fault by the person who caused it . Damage inflicted by lawful actions shall be compensated for in cases established by law .

By virtue of Article CARDINAL , damage inflicted in a situation of absolute necessity , and notably for elimination of a danger threatening the tortfeasor or third parties , if the danger , in the circumstances , could not be eliminated by any other means , shall be compensated for by the tortfeasor . Having regard to the circumstances in which the damage was caused , a court may impose an obligation to compensate for such damage on a third party in whose interests the tortfeasor acted , or may release from such an obligation , partially or in full , both the third party and the tortfeasor .

Article CARDINAL stipulates that a ORG agency or a ORG official will be liable towards a citizen for damage caused by their unlawful actions or failure to act . Compensation for such damage will be awarded at the cost of the federal or regional treasury .

Article CARDINAL of LAW Procedure establishes that actions must be brought in the courts at the location of the defendant .

The Federal Law on Suppression of Terrorism of DATE ( Федеральный закон от CARDINAL июля DATE г. № DATE « О борьбе с терроризмом DATE , “ the Suppression of Terrorism Act ” ) , as in force at the relevant time , provided as follows :

“ For the purposes of the present ORG the following basic concepts shall be applied :

... ‘ suppression of ORG shall refer to activities aimed at the prevention , detection , suppression and minimisation of the consequences of terrorist activities ;

‘ counter - terrorist operation’ shall refer to special activities aimed at the prevention of terrorist acts , ensuring the security of individuals , neutralising terrorists and minimising the consequences of terrorist acts ;

‘ zone of a counter - terrorist operation’ shall refer to an individual terrain or water surface , means of transport , building , structure or LOC with adjacent territory where a counter - terrorist operation is conducted ; ... ”

“ On the basis of the legislation and within the limits established by it , damage may be caused to the life , health and property of terrorists , as well as to other legally protected interests , in the course of a counter - terrorist operation . However , servicemen , experts and other persons engaged in the suppression of terrorism shall be exempted from liability for such damage , in accordance with the legislation of GPE . ”

The Federal Law On Registration of Property Rights to Immovable Property and Transactions with such Property ( Федеральный закон от CARDINAL июля DATE г. № CARDINAL « О государственной регистрации прав на недвижимое имущество и сделок с ним , “ LAW ” ) in its sections CARDINAL and CARDINAL provides that the title to and other proprietary interests in immovable property shall be subject to ORG registration , and that the latter shall be the only proof of the existence of a right of property .