Violation of Art. 6-3-e;Just satisfaction reserved

Mr. PERSON , a NORP citizen born in DATE , is resident at ORG in GPE .

He arrived in GPE in DATE and works in the motor - car industry . After passing the necessary test , he was issued with a NORP driving licence on DATE .

In DATE , he estimated his net DATE income at MONEY .

On DATE in Bad Wimfen , the applicant drove his car into another car which was parked , causing MONEY 's worth of damage to both vehicles . The owner of the other car reported the accident to the PERSON police .

On arriving at the scene of the accident , the police , by means of a notice written in NORP , informed the applicant , amongst other things , of his rights to refuse to make any statement and to consult a lawyer . He availed himself of these rights , and a report ( PERSON ) was thereupon transmitted by the police to the GPE administrative authorities ( PERSON ) .

By decision of DATE , the GPE administrative authorities imposed on Mr. PERSON a fine ( PERSON ) of DM CARDINAL for causing a traffic accident by colliding with another vehicle as a result of careless driving ( " Ausserachtlassen der erforderlichen PERSON " ) ; in addition he was required to pay ORG CARDINAL in respect of fees ( PERSON ) and costs ( PERSON ) .

The decision was based on LAW of CARDINAL DATE , in its consolidated version of CARDINAL DATE ( PERSON über PERSON - " LAW " ; see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , on section CARDINAL of LAW ( Strassenverkehrsgesetz ) and on LAW and CARDINAL § CARDINAL , no . CARDINAL , of FAC ( PERSON ) . LAW reads as follows :

" Every road - user ( ORG ) must conduct himself in such a way as to ensure that other persons are not harmed or endangered and are not hindered or inconvenienced more than is unavoidable in the circumstances . "

Regulation CARDINAL § CARDINAL , no . CARDINAL , specifies that anyone who contravenes LAW is guilty of a " regulatory offence " ( PERSON ) . Under section CARDINAL sub - section CARDINAL of LAW , such an offence gives rise to liability to a fine .

On DATE , the applicant , who was represented by Mr. PERSON , lodged an objection ( PERSON ) against the above - mentioned decision ( section CARDINAL of the CARDINAL/CARDINAL Act ) ; he stated that he was not waiving his right to a public hearing before a court ( section DATE ) .

The public prosecutor 's office ( ORG ) attached to ORG ( Landgericht ) , to which the file had been transmitted on DATE , indicated DATE that it had no objection to a purely written procedure ; it further stated that it would not be attending the hearings ( sections CARDINAL and DATE ) .

Sitting in public on DATE , ORG ( ORG ) heard Mr. PERSON , who was assisted by an interpreter , and then CARDINAL witnesses . Immediately thereafter , the applicant withdrew his objection . The GPE administrative authorities ' decision of DATE accordingly became final ( rechtskräftig ) .

ORG directed that the applicant should bear the court costs and his own expenses . On DATE , ORG ) fixed the costs to be paid by Mr. PERSON at DM MONEY , of which DM CARDINAL represented interpreter 's fees .

On DATE , the applicant entered an appeal ( GPE ) against the bill of costs with regard to the interpreter 's fees . He relied on LAW and referred to the ORG 's report of CARDINAL DATE in the case of Luedicke , PERSON and GPE . At the time , that case was pending before the ORG , which delivered its judgment on the merits on DATE ( Series A no . CARDINAL ) .

ORG dismissed the appeal on DATE . It noted that the obligation to bear the interpreter 's fees was grounded on LAW ) and section CARDINAL of LAW ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL below ) . Relying on a DATE decision by ORG , it held that this obligation was compatible with LAW ( e ) ( article DATE ) of the LAW . According to ORG , the above - mentioned opinion of the Commission did not alter matters since , unlike a judgment of the ORG ; it was not binding on the GPE .

According to undisputed evidence adduced by the ORG , the court costs , including the interpreter 's fees , were paid by an insurance company with which Mr. PERSON had taken out a policy .

The purpose of LAW was to remove petty offences from the sphere of the criminal law . Included in this category were contraventions of LAW . Under section CARDINAL of LAW ( in its former version ) , commission of such contraventions had given rise to liability to a fine ( Geldstrafe ) or imprisonment ( PERSON ) . Section CARDINAL no . CARDINAL of the Act of CARDINAL DATE ( Einführungsgesetz zum Gesetz über ORG ) classified them as " Ordnungswidrigkeiten " and henceforth made them punishable only by fines not considered to be criminal by the legislature ( Geldbussen ) .

The CARDINAL/CARDINAL Act had been foreshadowed in GPE by CARDINAL enactments : the Act of DATE on " regulatory offences " ( Gesetz über ORG ) and , to a certain extent , LAW of DATE ( ORG ) .

Section CARDINAL sub - section CARDINAL of LAW defines a " regulatory offence " ( PERSON ) as an unlawful ( rechtswidrig ) and reprehensible ( vorwerfbar ) act , contravening a legal provision which makes the offender liable to a fine ( GPE ) . The fine can not be less than DM CARDINAL or , as a general rule , more than DM CARDINAL,CARDINAL ( section CARDINAL sub - section CARDINAL ) . The amount of the fine is fixed in each case by reference to the seriousness of the offence , the degree of misconduct attributable to the offender and , save for minor ( geringfügig ) offences , the offender 's financial circumstances ( section CARDINAL sub - section CARDINAL ) .

If the act constitutes both a " regulatory " and a criminal offence , only the criminal law is applicable ; however , if no criminal penalty is imposed , the act may be punished as a " regulatory offence " ( section DATE ) .

ORG are to be dealt with by the administrative authorities ( PERSON ) designated by law , save in so far as LAW confers the power of prosecution of such offences on the public prosecutor and their judgment and sentencing on the courts ( sections DATE and DATE ) . Where an act has come before him as a criminal matter , the public prosecutor may also treat the act as a " regulatory offence " ( section CARDINAL ) .

The administrative authorities will remit the matter to the public prosecutor if there is reason to suppose that a criminal offence has been committed ; he will refer the matter back to them if he does not take proceedings ( section CARDINAL ) . In the case of a " regulatory offence " having a close connection with a criminal offence in respect of which the public prosecutor has instituted proceedings , the prosecutor may extend the criminal proceedings to cover the " regulatory offence " as long as the administrative authorities have not fixed any fine ( section DATE ) .

The public prosecutor 's decision to treat or not to treat an act as a criminal offence is binding on the administrative authorities ( section DATE ) .

Subject to the exceptions laid down in the CARDINAL/CARDINAL Act , the provisions of the ordinary law governing criminal procedure , and in particular LAW , LAW ( Gerichtsverfassungsgesetz ) and LAW ( Jugendgerichtsgesetz ) , are applicable by analogy ( sinngemäss ) to the procedure in respect of " regulatory offences " ( section CARDINAL sub - section CARDINAL ) . The prosecuting authorities ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) have the same rights and duties as the public prosecutor in a criminal matter unless the CARDINAL/CARDINAL Act itself states otherwise ( section CARDINAL sub - section CARDINAL ) . Nevertheless , various measures permissible in criminal matters may not be ordered in respect of " regulatory offences " , notably arrest , interim police custody ( vorläufige PERSON ) or seizure of mail or telegrams ( section CARDINAL sub - section CARDINAL ) . The taking of blood samples and other minor measures , within the meaning of LAW ( a ) LAW , remain possible .

The prosecution of " regulatory offences " lies within the discretion ( pflichtgemässes ORG ) of the competent authority ; so long as the case is pending before it , the competent authority may terminate the prosecution at any time ( section CARDINAL sub - section CARDINAL ) .

Once the case has been brought before a court ( see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) , power to decide on a stay of proceedings rests with the court ; any such decision requires the agreement of the public prosecutor and is final ( section CARDINAL sub - section CARDINAL ) .

As regards the judicial stage ( if any ) of the proceedings ( see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) , section CARDINAL sub - section CARDINAL of the CARDINAL/CARDINAL Act attributes jurisdiction in the matter to divisions ( ORG ) of ORG and to chambers ( ORG ; ORG ) of ORG ( PERSON ) and of ORG ( ORG ) .

Investigations ( GPE ) into " regulatory offences " are a matter for the police authorities . In this connection , the police authorities enjoy discretionary powers ( pflichtgemässes PERSON ) ; save in so far as the CARDINAL/CARDINAL Act provides otherwise , they have the same rights and duties as in the prosecution of criminal offences ( section CARDINAL sub - section CARDINAL ) .

Prior to any decision being taken , the person concerned ( ORG ) has to be given the opportunity of commenting , before the competent authorities , on the allegation made against him ( section CARDINAL ) .

In the case of a minor ( geringfügig ) offence , the administrative authorities may give the person concerned a warning ( PERSON ) and impose on him an admonitory fine ( PERSON ) which , save for any exception laid down under the applicable law , may range from DM CARDINAL to CARDINAL ( section CARDINAL sub - section CARDINAL ) . However , sanctions of this kind are possible only if the person concerned consents and pays the fine immediately or within DATE ( section CARDINAL sub - section CARDINAL ) .

If necessary , the administrative authorities will designate an officially appointed lawyer to act for the person concerned in the proceedings before them ( section CARDINAL ) .

Measures taken by the administrative authorities during the preliminary procedure can in principle be challenged before the courts ( section DATE ) .

Save in so far as the CARDINAL/CARDINAL Act provides otherwise - as in the case of the matter being settled by payment of an admonitory fine - , a " regulatory offence " is punishable by an administrative decision imposing a fine ( PERSON ; section CARDINAL ) .

The person concerned may lodge an objection ( PERSON ) within DATE ( section CARDINAL ) . Unless they withdraw their decision , the administrative authorities will then forward the file to the public prosecutor who will submit it to the competent ORG ( sections CARDINAL sub - section DATE ) and thereupon assume the function of prosecuting authority ( section CARDINAL sub - section CARDINAL ) .

Under section DATE , if the ORG finds the objection admissible ( section CARDINAL ) it will , unless the CARDINAL/CARDINAL Act states otherwise , examine the objection in accordance with the provisions applicable to an " Einspruch " against a penal order ( PERSON ) : in principle , it will hold a hearing and deliver a judgment ( ORG ) which may impose a heavier sentence ( LAW ) .

However , its ruling may take the form of an order ( PERSON ) if ORG considers that a hearing is not necessary and provided the public prosecutor or the person concerned does not object ( section CARDINAL sub - section CARDINAL ) . In that event , it may , inter alia , acquit the person concerned , settle the amount of a fine or terminate the prosecution , but not increase the penalty ( section CARDINAL sub - section CARDINAL ) .

The person concerned has the option of attending hearings but is not bound to do so unless ORG so directs ( section CARDINAL sub - sections CARDINAL and CARDINAL ) ; he may be represented by a lawyer ( section CARDINAL sub - section CARDINAL ) .

The public prosecutor 's office may attend the hearing ; if ORG considers the presence of an official from that office to be appropriate , it will inform the latter accordingly ( section CARDINAL sub - section CARDINAL ) .

ORG will give the administrative authorities the opportunity to set out the matters which , in their view , are of importance for the decision to be given ; they may address ORG at the hearing , if they so wish ( section CARDINAL sub - section CARDINAL ) .

Subject to certain exceptions , section CARDINAL allows an appeal on points of law ( Rechtsbeschwerde ) to be brought against a judgment or an order issued pursuant to section DATE ; save in so far as the CARDINAL/CARDINAL Act states otherwise , in determining the appeal the court concerned will follow , by analogy , the provisions of LAW relating to cassation proceedings ( Revision ) .

The administrative authorities ' classification of an act as a " regulatory offence " is not binding on the court ruling on the objection ( PERSON ) ; however , it can apply the criminal law only if the person concerned has been informed of the change of classification and enabled to prepare his defence ( LAW sub - section CARDINAL ) . Once this condition has been satisfied , either by the court of its own motion or at the public prosecutor 's request , the person concerned acquires the formal status of an accused ( ORG , section CARDINAL sub - section CARDINAL ) and the subsequent proceedings fall outside the scope of the CARDINAL/CARDINAL Act ( section CARDINAL sub - section CARDINAL ) .

A decision imposing a fine is enforceable once it has become final ( sections CARDINAL and DATE ) . Unless the CARDINAL/CARDINAL Act states otherwise , enforcement of a decision taken by the administrative authorities is governed by LAW or LAW , as the case may be , on enforcement in administrative matters ( Verwaltungs - Vollstreckungsgesetze ) ( section CARDINAL sub - section CARDINAL ) . When the decision is CARDINAL taken by a court , certain relevant provisions of , inter alia , LAW are applicable ( section CARDINAL ) .

If , without having established ( dargetan ) his inability to pay , the person concerned has not paid the fine in due time , the court may , at the request of the administrative authorities or , where the fine was imposed by a court decision , of its own motion order coercive imprisonment ( Erzwingungshaft - section CARDINAL sub - section CARDINAL ) . The resultant detention does not replace payment of the fine in the manner of an GPE under the criminal law , but is intended to compel payment . The period of detention may not exceed DATE for CARDINAL fine and DATE for several fines ( section CARDINAL sub - section CARDINAL ) . Implementation of the detention order is governed , inter alia , by LAW ( section CARDINAL ) .

As far as the costs of the administrative procedure are concerned , the competent authorities apply by analogy certain provisions of LAW ( section CARDINAL ) .

Under section CARDINAL , the person concerned has to bear the costs of the court proceedings if he withdraws his " PERSON " or if the competent court rejects it .

The costs in question are made up of the expenses and fees of the ORG ( LAW , first sentence , of LAW ) . These fees and expenses are listed in LAW ( PERSON ) which in turn refers , inter alia , to the Witnesses and Experts ( Expenses ) Act ( PERSON über die Entschädigung PERSON ) . LAW sub - section CARDINAL of the last - mentioned LAW provides that " for the purposes of compensation , interpreters shall be treated as experts " .

Interpretation costs ( ORG ) are thus included in the costs of judicial proceedings . However , as far as criminal proceedings - and criminal proceedings alone - are concerned , the NORP legislature amended the schedule ( PERSON ) to LAW following the Luedicke , PERSON and PERSON judgment of CARDINAL DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ; see also ORG ( CARDINAL ) CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE of ORG . According to no . DATE in this schedule , henceforth no charge is to be made for " the sums due to interpreters and translators engaged in criminal proceedings in order to translate , for an accused who is deaf or dumb or not conversant with the NORP language , the statements or documents which the accused needs to understand for his defence " ( Act of CARDINAL DATE ) .

Under the terms of section CARDINAL of LAW , the question of payment of the costs of the proceedings , including the interpretation costs , only arises once the withdrawal or dismissal of the objection has become final . The person concerned may never be required to make an advance payment in respect of the costs concerned .

LAW , FAC and ORG and LAW ( ORG ) contain lists of " regulatory offences " punishable by fine ( section CARDINAL of LAW ) .

In the case of a " regulatory offence " committed in gross ( grob ) and persistent ( beharrlich ) violation of the duties incumbent on a driver , the administrative authorities or , where an objection has been lodged , the court may at the same time disqualify the person concerned from holding a driving licence ( Fahrverbot ) for a period of DATE ( section CARDINAL of LAW ) . According to the Government , in DATE such a measure was taken in MONEY of cases .

The ORG have co - operated together to adopt rules ( Verwaltungsvorschriften ) establishing a uniform scale of fines ( PERSON ) for the various road traffic " regulatory offences " ; legally , these rules are binding on the administrative authorities empowered to impose fines but not on the courts .

Section CARDINAL ( a ) of LAW , which was inserted in LAW of DATE but which has not yet been implemented , provides that the Minister of Transport shall issue such rules with the agreement of the NORP and in the form of a Decree ( Rechtsverordnung ) .

Under LAW of LAW , a fine imposed for contravention of the road traffic regulations may in some specified cases be entered on a central traffic register ( ORG ) if it exceeds a certain level ( DM CARDINAL at the time of the facts in issue , DM CARDINAL as from DATE ) ; on the other hand , no mention of it is included in the judicial criminal records ( PERSON ) . The entry must be deleted after a maximum of DATE , unless further entries have been made in the meantime ( section CARDINAL ) .

Only certain authorities have access to this register , notably for the purposes of a criminal prosecution or a prosecution for a road traffic " regulatory offence " ( section CARDINAL ) .

According to undisputed evidence supplied by the ORG , LAW in practice plays a particularly important role in the area of road traffic ; thus , it was said that MONEY of the fines imposed in DATE concerned road traffic offences .

The Government stated that DATE in GPE there were CARDINAL decisions imposing a fine ( GPE ) and CARDINAL warnings accompanied by a fine ( PERSON ) . The statistics of ORG offences were said to show that in DATE fines exceeding DM CARDINAL and DM CARDINAL came to MONEY and MONEY respectively of the total , as compared with MONEY for fines of MONEY and DM CARDINAL , MONEY for fines of between ORG CARDINAL and DM CARDINAL and CARDINAL.CARDINAL per cent for fines of DM CARDINAL or less .

CARDINAL per cent of road traffic offences consisted of contraventions of a prohibition on stopping or parking , MONEY of speeding , MONEY of non - observance of traffic lights and MONEY of illegal overtaking . Other offences totalled MONEY by category . The offences covered by LAW of ORG , the provision applied in Mr. PERSON 's case ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , amounted to MONEY .

Despite the absence of statistics in this connection , the ORG estimated that CARDINAL per cent of the CARDINAL or so fines imposed DATE concerned foreigners . Of the CARDINAL foreigners living in GPE , CARDINAL possessed a motor vehicle .


The applicants , whose particulars appear in the appendix , are represented before the ORG by Mr PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE and by PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE . The respondent Government were represented by their Agent , PERSON to whom PERSON succeeded on DATE .

The application of Mr PERSON was lodged on DATE . The remaining applicants introduced their applications on DATE .

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

On DATE private limited companies ILaS Vranov , ORG . and PERSON , ORG . concluded a contract under which the former undertook to sell real property to the latter .

The circumstances under which the contract was concluded are contested between the parties .

The Government submit that the applicants had personal links to the above companies and that they had pecuniary interests in them . In particular , both companies were subsidiaries of the company Topex and were controlled by PERSON . The Government express the view that the contract was actually drafted at DATE than indicated in it .

The applicants refute the ORG ’s allegation that the date of the contract had been forged .

On DATE the tax administration authority issued a pledge in respect of the above real property with a view to securing a tax debt which the company ILaS Vranov , ORG . possibly had . The representatives of the company attempted to have the decision lifted arguing that the company owed no taxes . On DATE the tax authority quashed its decision of CARDINAL DATE . On DATE , it issued an interim measure preventing the company from alienating the property on the ground that tax control was being carried out in the company . Subsequently the competent authorities found that the company had no tax debt .

As a result of the interference of the tax authority , the company ILaS Vranov , ORG . was not in a position to comply with the above contract and owed a considerable contractual penalty to its partner . Its representatives filed a claim for damages , under LAW of DATE , against the ORG , represented by ORG .

On DATE the Vranov nad Topľou District Court granted the claim and ordered the defendant to pay CARDINAL.CARDINAL.CARDINAL NORP korunas ( SKK ) to the plaintiff . The court established that the tax authority had proceeded erroneously and had thus caused damage to the plaintiff .

On DATE the ORG upheld ORG conclusion considering that the tax authority had proceeded contrary to the law . The appellate court reduced the sum granted to the plaintiff to SKK CARDINAL.CARDINAL.CARDINAL plus default interest . The decision became final on DATE and enforceable on DATE . The defendant filed an appeal on points of law . ORG rejected it as being inadmissible on DATE .

As ORG failed to comply with the judgment , PERSON , ORG . sought its enforcement .

On DATE a judge of the Vranov nad Topľou District Court authorised an execution officer to enforce the sum in question .

On DATE the enforcement officer notified ORG of the enforcement and invited it to pay the debt within DATE . ORG filed objections to the enforcement . They were dismissed by the Vranov ORG on DATE .

On DATE ILaS ORG transferred the title to the above sum to the company ORG .- C.D. , a.s . The Vranov ORG approved of this transfer by a decision of CARDINAL DATE .

On DATE the Vranov nad Topľou District Court granted the execution officer ’s request and authorised her to avail herself of securities in possession of the ORG with a view to enforcing the sum in question . Reference was made to Sections CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW of DATE . The decision stated , with reference to the relevant provisions of LAW , that the execution officer enjoyed all rights relating to the securities .

ORG filed an extraordinary appeal on points of law against this decision . ORG dismissed it on DATE . In ORG view , the execution officer had been authorised to enforce the sum due by having the securities sold . The decision further stated that even if the decision challenged by ORG was quashed , it would not affect the execution procedure as such . ORG did not , therefore , examine in detail the arguments adduced by ORG .

In the meantime , the execution officer concluded a contract with a private company specialised in trading in securities with a view to having the securities specified in the execution order sold . On the basis of this contract and the judicial authorisation to carry out the enforcement , a representative of the company commissioned by the execution officer arranged , at FAC ( GPE cenných papierov SR Bratislava , a.s . ) , for the sale to the applicants of shares of Transpetrol , a.s . , a joint stock company in which the sole shareholder was ORG . The operation was carried out on DATE .

On DATE company ORG .- C.D. , a.s . concluded contracts of pledge in respect of the securities with GPE , a.s . , GPE , a.s . , ORG , a.s . , ORG , ORG . , Mr PERSON and Mr ORG .

On DATE the execution officer returned the authorisation to carry out the execution to the Vranov ORG with the explanation that the sum due had been enforced .

The representatives of ORG , a.s . and of ORG challenged the transfer of the shares on the ground that it had been carried out without the approval of the issuer of the securities . On DATE the ORG therefore ordered that trading with the securities of Transpetrol , a.s . be suspended . On DATE , after the relevant documents had been checked , the ORG lifted the order .

On DATE ORG ordered ORG , with reference to LAW of DATE , to transfer the shares which the applicants had acquired back to ORG within DATE . The decision stated that ORG had acted erroneously . In particular , ORG had transferred the securities without prior consent of the owner , and there was a contradiction between the operative part of the court ’s decision authorising the execution officer to carry out the enforcement and the reasons for that decision . Furthermore , the relevant documents indicated that the enforcement should have concerned ORG and not ORG , and that under the relevant law the securities in question could only be owned by the ORG . Lastly , the decision stated that it could be challenged by means of a remedy ( rozklad ) to be lodged with ORG within DATE after its service . It was not served on the applicants and became final on DATE .

On DATE the ORG informed the applicants that it had complied with the order of ORG and that , as a result , they no longer owned the shares of Transpetrol , a.s .

On DATE Transpetrol , a.s . modified the form of its securities . As a result , the shares ceased to be registered at ORG .

ORG refused to give an explanation to the applicants on the ground that they were not parties to the administrative proceedings leading to the decision of CARDINAL DATE .

On DATE ORG informed the applicants that public prosecutors had no power to review the way in which ORG had proceeded .

The applicants , with the exception of ORG , ORG . , requested ORG to review the lawfulness of the decision of ORG of DATE . By CARDINAL decisions delivered on CARDINAL and CARDINAL DATE respectively ORG discontinued the proceedings in respect of the claims lodged by ORG , a.s . , GPE , a.s . , Mr PERSON and GPE , a.s . as the plaintiffs had not challenged the administrative decision complained of by means of a remedy ( rozklad ) before ORG . ORG considered irrelevant that the decision of DATE had not been served on the plaintiffs as it was obvious from their submissions that they had been aware of it . Furthermore , the plaintiffs could have requested the administrative authority concerned to grant them the status of parties to the proceedings . Under the relevant provisions of LAW , the administrative authority was obliged to decide on such a request and its decision could be challenged . ORG decided in camera without having summoned the plaintiffs .

By a decision delivered on DATE a different chamber of ORG discontinued the proceedings in respect of the claim lodged by Mr PERSON . The decision stated that the court lacked jurisdiction to deal with the case . ORG further held that the decision delivered by ORG on DATE had not directly determined the plaintiff ’s rights and that the latter had not been a party to the proceedings in the context of which the decision had been delivered . ORG therefore found no reason for proceeding pursuant to Secton CARDINALb(CARDINAL ) of ORG .

On DATE a different chamber of ORG discontinued the proceedings in respect of the claim lodged by Mr T. Kolesár on the ground that he had failed to pay the court fees before DATE as requested by the court . The decision was served on DATE . In the meantime , on DATE , the plaintiff had paid the fees . He therefore requested ORG , on DATE , that the proceedings be resumed . ORG did not proceed with the case .

In DATE the applicants filed both an ordinary and an extraordinary remedy against the decision delivered by ORG on DATE . They claimed , in particular , that administrative authorities lacked jurisdiction to determine ownership rights in respect of securities . The applicants also requested that they should be granted the standing of parties to the proceedings in which the contested decision had been delivered .

By decisions of CARDINAL and DATE respectively the Minister of Finance rejected the ORG submissions . The decisions stated that the ordinary remedy was inadmissible as the applicants lacked standing in the administrative proceedings complained of . Furthermore , the contested decision of DATE neither concerned the rights or legally protected interests of the applicants , nor did it directly affect them as the shares had been transferred back to ORG by FAC . As to the applicants’ request that they should be allowed to act as a party to the proceedings , the Minister ’s decisions stated that the applicants should have filed it before the contested decision had become final on DATE .

In the meantime , on DATE , company ORG .- C.D. , a.s . sued its above contractual partners , ORG , a.s . and ORG for the securities pledged . The plaintiff submitted that Transpetrol , a.s . had modified the form of the securities without the creditor ’s knowledge and that it was not known who possessed the securities pledged . On DATE the ORG rejected the action to the extent that it concerned ORG . The proceedings on the claim of company ORG .- C.D. , a.s . of DATE in respect of the other defendants are pending .

On DATE ORG , ORG . filed an action with ORG seeking a judicial review of the above decision delivered by ORG on DATE . The plaintiff argued that the contested decision had not been served on its representatives and that the ORG should have considered it as a party to the proceedings . The plaintiff further argued that decisions concerning the ownership of securities fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of ordinary courts .

On DATE ORG quashed the decision of ORG of DATE and sent the case back to the administrative authority for further proceedings . The decision stated that , despite several requests , the defendant ORG had failed to comply with its statutory obligation to submit the administrative file concerning the case to ORG . Without having the file before it , ORG was not in a position to review the lawfulness of the decision complained of .

ORG noted that it was contested between the parties whether or not the plaintiff was a party to the administrative proceedings in question . It recalled that administrative authorities were obliged to examine , of their own initiative and throughout the administrative proceedings , whether a person has standing in the proceedings . When such was not the case , the administrative authority had to issue a formal decision to that effect . ORG concluded that ORG should have delivered a formal decision in case that it considered that the plaintiff was not a party to the proceedings in question . The delivery of such a decision would have allowed the plaintiff company to avail itself of its procedural rights with a view to protecting its interests .

On DATE the ORG filed an extra - ordinary appeal on points of law against ORG judgment of CARDINAL DATE on the ground that ORG , ORG . lacked standing in the administrative proceedings complained of and that ORG had committed errors of law . On DATE ORG asked the representative of ORG , ORG . to submit comments on the submissions of ORG .

On DATE the applicants requested ORG ( PERSON pre finančný trh ) , which had taken over the role of supervisor of the financial market operations in the meantime , to order ORG to restore the securities in question to their accounts in accordance with the situation existing prior to DATE .

On DATE the applicants also requested ORG to restore the securities to their accounts with reference to ORG decision of CARDINAL DATE . They were informed that ORG could not to take any action without a prior decision of ORG .

On DATE the applicants filed an action with ORG , under LAW , claiming that ORG had failed to decide on their request of DATE .

On DATE a public prosecutor indicted the representative of ORG a.s . , CARDINAL representatives of PERSON . , the Vranov nad Topľou District Court judge and the execution officer involved in the above execution as well as an employee of ORG and a broker for several offences before the ORG .

On DATE ORG decided that the case was to be dealt with by ORG .

On DATE ORG discontinued the proceedings against the Vranov nad Topľou District Court judge as there was no indication that she had committed an offence . According to the Government , the proceedings against the other accused are pending .

Pursuant to Article CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) , owners have the right to protection against unjustified interference with their ownership rights by others . In particular , they are entitled to claim the restoration of the property from those who hold it without any valid legal ground .

In accordance with the established practice , a plaintiff claiming protection of ownership rights can only be successful , when it is proved that he or she is the owner of the property in question and that the defendant has held the property without any valid legal ground .

Article PERSON ) provides that judicial proceedings can be brought with a view to having the existence of a right or of a legal relation determined provided that it is justified by a pressing legal interest .

Article CARDINAL provides that in administrative judiciary courts review the lawfulness of administrative decisions which determine rights and obligations of individuals or legal persons . As from DATE , this provision has been amended in that courts are also entitled to review the way in which administrative authorities proceed including their failure to act .

Pursuant to Article CARDINAL ) , courts are entitled to decide on actions against decisions delivered by administrative authorities where such decisions have become final after the exhaustion of all ordinary remedies .

Article CARDINAL ) provides that plaintiffs in proceedings concerning the review of an administrative decision can be individuals or legal persons who allege , as parties to the administrative proceedings , that their rights were infringed as a result of the administrative authority ’s decision . Action for a judicial review of an administrative decision can also be lodged by individuals or legal persons whom the administrative authority did not consider to be parties to administrative proceedings where such persons should have been considered as parties .

DATE ) provides that , where the action is lodged by a person alleging that the administrative decision has not been served on him or her despite the fact that he or she should have been considered as a party to administrative proceedings , the court shall verify such an allegation and , where justified , order the administrative authority to serve the decision on the person concerned . According to the circumstances , the court shall also order that the enforceability of such a decision be delayed . The decision of the court is binding on the administrative authority . After the service of the decision in question the administrative authority shall transmit the case file to the court which shall decide on the action .

Article CARDINALb ( CARDINAL ) , enacted with effect from DATE , provides that courts shall not proceed in accordance with the procedure set out in DATE ) where DATE elapsed from the delivery of the administrative decision which was not served on a party .

LAW ) and ( CARDINAL ) , as in force since DATE , provides that natural and legal persons who consider that an administrative authority failed to proceed with a case without any valid reason can request a court to order the administrative authority to proceed with the case and to deliver a decision . Where such a request is granted , the court shall set a time - limit , which should not exceed DATE , within which the administrative authority is obliged to decide .

Under LAW , the court can repeatedly impose a fine up to SKK MONEY , at the request of a party to the proceedings , in case that the administrative authority remains inactive despite an earlier judicial order under LAW t .

Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW of DATE ( PERSON o správnom konaní ) admits as parties to administrative proceedings persons whose rights , legally protected interests or obligations are either to be determined or may directly be affected as a result of the proceedings . Any person alleging that the decision may directly affect his or her rights , legally protected interests or obligations shall also be considered a party to administrative proceedings until the opposite is proved .

ORG ) provides that submissions in the context of administrative proceedings can be made either in writing or orally . Oral submissions are to be recorded .

Section CARDINAL of LAW of DATE ( PERSON o súdnych exekútorch a exekučnej činnosti ) excludes the possibility of restitutio in integrum in execution proceedings .

Part CARDINAL of the Execution Order provides for enforcement of a debt by selling securities .

Under Section CARDINAL , upon the authorisation of the court the execution officer shall take all necessary measures with a view to maintaining or carrying out the rights relating to securities .

Section CARDINAL provides that the execution officer shall satisfy the creditor ’s claim by measures which are appropriate to the nature of the securities in question .

Pursuant to LAW of DATE ( PERSON o cenných papieroch , LAW . DATE ) , unless the law otherwise provides , the buyer becomes owner of a security even in cases when the vendor had no right to transfer such a security with the exception of cases where the buyer was aware of this fact at the time of the transfer .

Under LAW , ORG carries out ORG supervision over , inter alia , the trading with securities and ORG .

When ORG finds that a person under its supervision failed to comply with LAW or other legal rules , it is entitled , pursuant to LAW ) , to order that measures be taken with a view to remedying the shortcomings found .

Section CARDINAL of LAW of DATE ( PERSON o cenných papieroch a investičných službách a o zmene a doplnení niektorých zákonov , Act No . ORG ) provides that supervision of activities within the meaning of this LAW comprises , among others , the activities of issuers , central depositors and dealers with securities . The supervision is carried out by an office established for that purpose .

Under LAW , this LAW governs legal relations established prior to its entry into force . However , the establishment of such relations and claims resulting therefrom which arose prior to the entry into force of the LAW are to be assessed under the previously existing legal rules unless this LAW otherwise provides .

Act No . CARDINAL/CARDINAL on Supervision of the Financial Market and LAW provides in LAW for establishment of an office with legal personality . The office is entitled to carry out supervision under the relevant law .

Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(a ) provides that the office supervises the activities of , inter alia , dealers with securities , of the stock - exchange , of the securities central depository and , to the extent specified by law , of other persons active on the capital market . Such supervision comprises control of compliance with the relevant law , conduct of proceedings under the relevant law , delivery of authorisations and other decisions provided for by the law and control of compliance with the decisions delivered by the office .

Act No . CARDINAL/CARDINAL amended the provisions of LAW to Other Persons . It entered into force on DATE .

Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) provides , inter alia , that the company Transpetrol , a.s . can be denationalised only to such an extent that the ORG remains the owner of CARDINAL CARDINAL per cent of its shares .

Pursuant to LAW , as in force until DATE , ORG decided on complaints concerning final decisions made by , inter alia , local government authorities and local self - governing bodies in cases concerning violations of the fundamental rights and freedoms of citizens , unless the protection of such rights fell under the jurisdiction of another court .

Pursuant to Article CARDINAL ) of the LAW , as in force until DATE , ORG could commence proceedings upon a petition ( “ podnet ” ) presented by any individual or corporation claiming that their rights had been violated . According to its case - law under the former Article CARDINAL ) of the LAW , ORG lacked jurisdiction to draw legal consequences from a violation of a petitioner ’s rights . It could neither grant damages to the person concerned nor impose a sanction on the public authority liable for the violation found . In ORG view , it was therefore for the authority concerned to provide redress to the person whose rights were violated .

With effect from DATE , the LAW has been amended in that , inter alia , individuals and legal persons can complain about a violation of their fundamental rights and freedoms pursuant to LAW which reads as follows :

“ CARDINAL . The Constitutional Court shall decide on complaints lodged by natural or legal persons alleging a violation of their fundamental rights or freedoms or of human rights and fundamental freedoms enshrined in international treaties ratified by GPE ... unless the protection of such rights and freedoms falls within the jurisdiction of a different court .

When the Constitutional Court finds that a complaint is justified , it shall deliver a decision stating that a person ’s rights or freedoms set out in paragraph CARDINAL have been violated as a result of a final decision , by a particular measure or by means of any other interference . It shall quash such a decision , measure or other interference . When the violation found is the result of a failure to act , ORG may order that [ the authority ] which violated such rights or freedoms shall take the necessary action . At the same time ORG may return the case to the authority concerned for further proceedings , order that such an authority abstain from violating fundamental rights and freedoms ... or , where appropriate , order that those who violated the rights or freedoms set out in paragraph CARDINAL restore the situation to that existing prior to the violation .

In its decision on a complaint ORG may grant adequate financial satisfaction to the person whose rights under paragraph CARDINAL have been violated . ” ...

Section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of Act No . TIME on the liability of the ORG for damage caused by a ORG organ ’s decision or by its erroneous official action ( ORG o zodpovednosti za škodu spôsobenú rozhodnutím orgánu štátu alebo jeho nesprávnym úradným postupom - “ LAW ” ) provides that the ORG is liable for damage caused by unlawful decisions delivered by a public authority in the context of , inter alia , civil proceedings .

Section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) renders the ORG liable for damage caused in the context of carrying out functions vested in public authorities which results from erroneous official actions of persons entrusted with the exercise of these functions . A claim for compensation can be granted when the plaintiff shows that he or she suffered damage as a result of an erroneous action of a public authority , quantifies its amount , and shows that there is a causal link between the damage and the erroneous action in question .


Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial

Karel Jungwiert;Mark Villiger;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Mykhaylo Buromenskiy;Peer Lorenzen;Rait Maruste;Renate Jaeger

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

On an unspecified date criminal proceedings were initiated on the suspicion that a network of private commercial enterprises , “ Top - Service ” , directed by the applicant , organized an armed group with conspiracy to kill ORG officials and businessmen who were allegedly obstructing its business .

On DATE the Podilskyy ORG of GPE sanctioned the applicant for forcefully resisting police and placed him DATE administrative arrest .

During the period of CARDINAL April to CARDINAL May DATE the applicant was questioned and participated in a number of investigative activities as a witness in the criminal proceedings ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

On CARDINAL DATE the applicant was arrested as a suspect and on DATE he had his first meeting with lawyers .

On DATE ORG charged the applicant with banditism . Namely , he was charged with having created a gangster group suspected of having committed CARDINAL counts of murder , attempted murder and infliction of serious bodily injuries .

On DATE the pre - trial investigation was declared completed and the applicant was given access to the case file .

On DATE the investigation was resumed and new charges were brought against the applicant : in addition to banditism , they included infringement on the life of a law - enforcement official and incitement to murder for profit , related to the victims ' official duties and committed repeatedly by an organised group following orders .

On DATE the applicant 's lawyer complained to ORG ( “ the GPE prosecutor ” ) that by reopening the investigation the investigator had in fact unlawfully prolonged the term of the applicant 's detention and had violated his right to defence .

On DATE the ORG prosecutor rejected the above complaints , having noted , in particular , that the reopening of the investigation had been necessitated by the need for additional investigative activities and that the applicant would be given the opportunity to study the case file again after the completion of the investigation .

On DATE the GPE prosecutor found unsubstantiated the applicant 's complaints that , inter alia , he had not had access to the schedule for studying the case - file and to certain documents , as he had signed a statement to the contrary .

On DATE a new indictment was brought against the applicant . He was charged with additional counts of incitement to murder .

DATE the applicant , at his own request , submitted in writing his statements in respect of the new charges , in which he alleged that he himself had been a victim of banditism . However , on DATE the investigator proposed that he answer his questions instead , as he claimed that the applicant 's statements did not relate to the essence of the charges against him . The applicant explained that he would answer the questions as soon as he had finished writing his statements and asked not to be prevented from using that possibility fully . On DATE the investigator declared the investigation completed , having found the applicant 's statements to be of no relevance for the investigation at issue . The applicant 's lawyer complained about that to the GPE prosecutor , who upheld the investigator 's actions .

On DATE the case was referred to ORG ( “ ORG ” ) for trial . The applicant continued to be represented by CARDINAL professional lawyers .

The proceedings in ORG , which acted as a first - instance court , lasted from DATE until DATE . As the case had attracted public attention and no court room was big enough for all those wishing to attend , a cinema hall was rented by the court for this purpose .

NORP However , on DATE the court decided to hold hearings in camera , stating as follows :

“ ... The hearing is constantly attended by a person , who , according to him , on the orders of PERSON , audiotapes [ the proceedings ] . This person does not react to the repeated remarks of the Presiding Judge in this respect . Furthermore , this person has a pistol on him .

The ORG , bearing in mind the number of charges , with a view to avoiding disclosure of the statements of witnesses and victims , and in order to safeguard the security of the trial participants , according to the recommendations of LAW No . CARDINAL of the Plenary of ORG of DATE “ On Application of the Law ' On ORG , Employees of Courts and Law Enforcement Bodies and Trial Participants ' , Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the Law ' On ORG ” ,

RULED :

to hold further hearings of the criminal case against PERSON and others in camera . ”

NORP In accordance with the procedural legislation this ruling was not subject to appeal . The applicant , who denied having instructed anyone to audiotape the hearings , unsuccessfully called for an investigation into the incident and requested the bench to reconsider its decision .

The hearings continued in camera in the cinema .

As it follows from a letter of ORG to the local bar commission of DATE on an unrelated issue , the security measures for the trial included the presence of CARDINAL guards .

NORP In the course of the trial CARDINAL witnesses and CARDINAL co - defendants gave evidence . The court examined the written statements of CARDINAL witnesses who had been questioned during the pre - trial investigation but failed to attend the trial , as well as self - incriminating statements by the co - defendants obtained during the pre - trial investigation . The court further reviewed videotapes of several reconstitutions of events . It also examined a large quantity of written evidence and experts ' opinions , which included : the registration and statutory documents of all the companies within the network ; their contracts with other enterprises throughout the business chain ; findings of the related investigation undertaken in GPE , GPE , GPE and GPE under the inter - State legal aid scheme ; findings of the investigation by ORG ; and numerous other documents .

During the trial the co - defendants withdrew their self - incriminating statements and pleaded innocent . They alleged that they had been forced to incriminate themselves and the applicant . The court examined their allegations of ill - treatment in police custody ( of which the applicant did not complain ) and found them unsubstantiated , having referred , inter alia , to the results of medical examinations they had undergone and the lack of any complaints on their part during the investigation .

In the course of the trial the applicant requested the court to summon certain witnesses : namely , CARDINAL of the cofounders of the companies led by the applicant , PERSON , who had allegedly possessed more information than he had disclosed during the pre - trial investigation ; certain customs officials ; and the manager of CARDINAL of the NORP companies , who could allegedly confirm his business relationship with the applicant . The court allowed his request concerning PERSON and rejected the others . Mr PERSON was summoned by the court several times , but failed to appear .

The trial court established that the applicant had managed a network of companies involved in fraudulent financial activities and that he had created a gangster group for the protection of its business interests .

On DATE it found the applicant guilty of having formed a criminal organisation , CARDINAL counts of incitement to murder , as well as incitement to inflict serious bodily injuries on a law - enforcement official and infringement on the life of a law - enforcement official , and sentenced him to life imprisonment .

The applicant 's subsequent appeal in cassation challenged the above judgment on a number of points : the admissibility of the evidence admitted by the court , a lack of conclusive evidence for each count , the refusal of the investigator to continue questioning the applicant , and the court 's failure to summon or to ensure attendance of certain witnesses . The applicant also complained that the high - ranking prosecution officials had publicly declared him guilty even before his first questioning as a suspect and that the court had also presumed him guilty from the outset .

On DATE ORG of GPE , following a public hearing , upheld the applicant 's conviction , having heard the arguments of the prosecution and the defence and having assessed the case file materials . Its ruling did not address any of the specific issues raised by the applicant in his cassation appeal . According to the applicant , ORG held CARDINAL hearing , which lasted for TIME .

On DATE , immediately following the applicant 's arrest as a suspect in the criminal investigation , ORG organised a press conference , which received broad coverage in the media .

On DATE the GPE DATE newspaper published an article entitled “ A gang of killers has been arrested in the capital ( sensation ) ” , which contained the following statements :

“ The Kyiv Prosecutor PERSON , his first deputy PERSON and Deputy Head of ORG of ORG told journalists about the arrest of CARDINAL members of a gang which has been engaged in criminal activities in the city since DATE . ... According to the law - enforcement authorities , the director of CARDINAL of the “ Top - Service ” structures , PERSON , is suspected of being a principal inciter . He is charged with CARDINAL incitements , including incitement to murder ... PERSON paid MONEY in cash to his accomplices to carry out the crimes . ... ORG stressed that “ the officials were persecuted by the gangsters exclusively on account of the scrupulous performance of their duties , which had interfered with the plans of the structure headed by Shagin ... ”

On DATE the GPE I GPE DATE newspaper published an article entitled “ For the first time an organized group of killers , which executed murders of state officials , was arrested in GPE ” . The article contained the following statements :

“ During DATE 's briefing , ORG PERSON told journalists that a series of ordered murders and attempted murders had been uncovered ... CARDINAL members of the gang involved in the commission of those crimes have been arrested : CARDINAL killers , CARDINAL intermediaries , CARDINAL inciters and CARDINAL arms supplier . The head of the gang is also among the arrestees DATE it 's PERSON , CARDINAL of the directors of a well - known trading company , “ Top - Service ” . The killers confessed that it was he who had incited the murders ... ”

The article also quoted the First Deputy of ORG PERSON as follows :

“ DATE old PERSON ... was the inciter of CARDINAL out of CARDINAL episodes established by us . ... Shagin paid the killers a total of MONEY to carry out his orders ... ”

On DATE the ORG DATE newspaper published an article under the headline “ The criminal leader has been identified ( CARDINAL crimes against GPE public officials are attributed to him ) ” , which contained the following :

“ ORG reported DATE at the press - conference that the director of “ Top - Service ” , the NORP national PERSON , had incited CARDINAL crimes against ORG officials DATE ... ”

On DATE the ORG DATE newspaper published an article entitled “ Murderous Top - Service ” , in which it quoted the First Deputy of ORG , PERSON , as follows :

“ According to our calculations , Shagin paid the killers a total of MONEY in cash to carry out his orders . ... In fact , PERSON was the leader of that group . His orders [ to murder ] were of a systematic nature . ”

The aforementioned quotations of the First Deputy of ORG PERSON also appeared on CARDINAL DATE in the PERSON newspaper 's article “ Who is behind the killers ” .

On DATE the PERSON ( “ NORP ” ) newspaper published an article entitled “ Bloody business ” , where it announced that :

“ Sensational reports on the arrest of a large gangster group were disclosed DATE by the Head of ORG of Ukraine PERSON and ORG ORG According to the Deputy Minister of the Interior PERSON , the CARDINAL arrestees , including CARDINAL professional killers , have a long record of notorious crimes ... Heads of the law - enforcement bodies assured that the ... governmental employees ... had become victims of the business appetites of PERSON , who was the head of GPE “ ORG Do you remember a nice commercial on TV “ Oh , ORG , oh ORG , people are nice here ... ” ? That nice man PERSON incited others to kill those who prevented him from implementing his plans . ”

On DATE ORG ) DATE newspaper published an article under the headline “ NORP - style presumption of innocence ” , in which it expressed a view that the statements made by the public officials concerning the applicant 's case were incompatible with the principle of the presumption of innocence . The article contained the following quotations of ORG PERSON :

“ The killers are testifying that PERSON ordered several attempted murders ” ; “ These crimes can be considered resolved even though the investigation is still going on ” .

Article CARDINAL of the LAW of GPE guarantees the public nature of a trial as one of the fundamental principles of the administration of justice .

Article CARDINAL of the Law “ On the Judiciary ” , in so far as relevant , reads as follows :

“ The courts shall examine cases publicly , with the exceptions envisaged by the procedural legislation . ( ... ) In camera hearings are possible upon a court 's ruling in the cases envisaged by the procedural legislation . ”

The Code of Criminal Procedure , in its relevant part , provides as follows :

“ LAW . Public nature of court proceedings

Judicial examination in all courts shall be public , unless the interests of security of the state or other secrets protected by law require otherwise .

Hearing in camera can also be allowed by a reasoned court ruling in cases of crimes by minors , in cases of sexual crimes , and in other cases with a view to avoiding disclosure of the private information of the trial participants , or in cases when it is necessary for the security of persons under protection . ... ”

The Law “ On Protection of the Security of Persons Participating in Criminal Trials ” provides for hearings in camera as a security measure ( DATE ) . Pursuant to its LAW , hearings in camera may take place if ordered by a reasoned court ruling in cases where it is necessary for the security of persons under protection .

Section CARDINAL of Resolution No . CARDINAL of DATE of the Plenary of ORG of GPE “ On Application of the PERSON ' On ORG , Employees of Courts and Law Enforcement Bodies and Trial Participants ' ” reads as follows :

“ In order to avoid disclosure of incriminating statements of victims and witnesses , where there is a real danger of infringement on their life , home or property , courts may hold hearings in criminal cases ( especially in cases of organized crime ) in camera . ”

The principle of the presumption of innocence is enshrined in LAW of LAW , which can be found in the judgment of PERSON v. GPE , no . GPE , § CARDINAL , DATE .

LAW , in so far as relevant , reads as follows :

“ A person shall be presumed innocent of committing a crime and shall not be subjected to criminal punishment until his or her guilt is proved in compliance with the legally established procedure and established by a court 's verdict of guilty ” .

Resolution No . CARDINAL of the Presidium of ORG of GPE of DATE “ On the situation with the administration of justice in DATE and DATE ” contained the following paragraph :

“ There have been numerous publications in the media in breach of LAW of the LAW concerning persons not yet found guilty of having committed crimes by a court 's verdict . Those included the publication of statements aimed at prejudging cases in favour of certain persons . ”


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

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in PERSON .

At the relevant time the applicant was the publisher and editor in chief of the DATE Domino efekt . In DATE the DATE published CARDINAL articles which concerned civil proceedings for defamation pending before the NORP courts . The proceedings were between Mr Slobodník , a Minister who became later a Member of ORG , and PERSON , a poet and publicist who had published a statement alleging , inter alia , that ORG had a fascist past . The relevant parts of the articles , which were not written by the applicant , read as follows .

“ Quo vadis , NORP justice ? ( A shameful judgment delivered by ORG )

When ORG put an end to the first round of the judicial dispute between Mr Slobodník and Mr PERSON dismissing the former minister ’s action for protection of his personality rights , voices could be heard alleging that the outcome of the appellate proceedings before ORG would be different . They argued that [ ORG ] judges were ‘ different’ . Those views came true and GPE faces further ridicule at the international level . The ORG chamber presided over by [ judge Š. - the article mentioned the full name of the judge ] did not disappoint .

A tragicomic farce

The NORP poet and writer PERSON ( who opted for NORP nationality in the meantime ) stated in DATE that Mr PERSON , who had just become the Minister of Culture of GPE , should not exercise the post of a minister in a democratic state as he had a fascist past ... The statement was based on facts which were generally known : during World War II Slobodník had been a member of the ORG and he had participated in a terrorist course in Sekule organised under the auspices of that organisation . Several participants in that course ( it should be mentioned that ORG was not among them ) had been later involved in the killing of the inhabitants of [ a ] village ...

ORG , who never alleged that ORG was a murderer or a criminal ... expressed the view of a citizen of a free society who considered that a person who had belonged to the ORG and who had been close to people who later killed members of the civilian population , should not be a minister of a democratic state . Nothing more and nothing less ...

[ Instead of retiring from the post ] PERSON filed an action for protection of his personality rights and thus gave rise to a case which , in a certain way , is tragicomic ... [ and in the course of which ORG ] failed to show that he had not been a member of the ORG and that he had not participated in the course in Sekule . [ Mr PERSON ] thus failed to disprove the facts on the basis of which ORG had declared that he had a fascist past . We simply recall that a decree by President PERSON DATE provided that the ORG was to be considered as a fascist organisation .

Strange reasoning

ORG took all the above facts into account and ... dismissed the action of ORG . [ ORG judge ] ... thus established the very best case - law for the newly born democracy and warned every politician that his or her past may and even must be the object of an increased interest by the public .

At the hearing held on DATE [ ORG ] judge PERSON took the opposite approach in that he ordered PERSON to pay CARDINAL NORP korunas [ SKK ] to GPE and to apologise to the latter [ in the press ] ... Thus [ judge PERSON ] warned all citizens of GPE that , should they come to the conclusion that the moral profile of a politician is incompatible with the exercise of the public function entrusted to him or her , they had better keep quiet .

[ Judge PERSON ] also showed the strength of his spirit when giving reasons for the judgment . CARDINAL . ORG ... was , in principle , a very good organisation which had been abused by politicians , CARDINAL . PERSON not only caused damage to GPE , but also to the whole of GPE , the Prime Minister , the Movement for a NORP GPE , the Government and the ORG , ... CARDINAL . the post - war retribution decrees enacted in GPE were the result of a conspiracy between President PERSON and the communists .

[ Judge PERSON ] revises history

[ It should be recalled that ] the NORP legal rules on retribution , of which the decrees by President PERSON form a part , were adopted in accordance with the principles of ORG for ORG established in GPE on DATE . They were further based on the ... agreement on the establishment of ORG of CARDINAL DATE and the ORG on ORG held in GPE ... Such retribution rules were adopted by practically all NORP states which had been occupied by NORP GPE during the war and which had to take a position with respect to collaborators and traitors .

The words which [ judge Š. ] used in order to justify his judgment directly call in question the attitude which , after World War II , the democratic states in LOC took towards fascism and those who had served it .

It should be said , however , that [ judge Š. ] had no choice . When he wanted to reach the decision which he reached , no other reasoning was available – it simply did not exist ... When I wish to say A , that is that the past of a person who was a member of the ORG and who took part in the course in Sekule is not a fascist one , I am obliged to say also B , that is that I do not recognise the law which defines the ORG as a fascist organisation . As the case may be , I will add that the ORG was a good organisation and things are settled .

Thus , quo vadis , NORP justice ? PERSON is said to look forward to the international court in GPE . However , a NORP citizen , having in mind such ‘ LOC decisions of the ‘ ORG and ‘ impartial’ ORG does not have many reasons for being pleased . Even if he or she is successful at first instance , the chances of obtaining justice after a possible appeal to ORG are slight as has been shown by the case PERSON v. GPE . ”

On DATE the DATE Domino efekt published an interview with the former president of ORG who was the lawyer of PERSON Feldek in the defamation proceedings brought by ORG . It was entitled “ GPE is governed by an absolute legal chaos ” and the relevant parts read :

- “ The press stated that [ judge Š. ] , who decided the case of GPE against ORG in the way he did and in which you were the advocate of the poet , is a candidate of ORG in the [ parliamentary ] election . What do you think about it ?

- ... It is ... unusual that a judge , whose task it is to guarantee the objectiveness and impartiality in a NORP society , manifests his political views in public . Having one ’s name included in the list of candidates of a political party undoubtedly represents such a manifestation of political views .

- Let ’s talk about the particular inscription of [ judge Š. ] on the election list of a particular party , namely ORG ...

- One should see that that party has a clear position as regards DATE . To put it mildly - it does not condemn that period . And this is the core of the problem - [ judge Š. ] , who decided the case of GPE against ORG , that is a dispute in which CARDINAL of the main points at issue had been the behaviour of CARDINAL of the participants during the period of GPE , is the candidate of a party which does not condemn GPE or the regime by which it was governed , on the contrary ...

... Section CARDINAL of the Judiciary and Judges Act clearly provides that one of the principal obligations of judges is that ‘ a judge shall abstain from any action which could impair the dignity of the judicial function or jeopardise the trust in independent , impartial and just decision - making of the courts’ ...

- Do you think that [ judge Š. ] had internally decided ‘ the case of LANGUAGE long before the delivery of the judgment and that all the fuss in the court room served nothing ?

- There is nothing else that I can think . The performance of that judge has no other explanation . In particular , I can say that , after the delivery of the judgment , I learned that ORG judges had expected such a decision to be taken . The views of [ judge PERSON ] as regards the case or as regards the existence of the NORP State during World War II were known ...

The appeal against ORG judgment , which was in favour of PERSON PERSON , was transmitted to ORG on DATE ... The case was decided upon on DATE ... that is with the rapidity of a missile , and one can hardly find another case examined by ORG which was dealt with the same promptness . ”

“ See you soon in GPE ( Not even death will separate the couple GPE – Feldek )

The judicial proceedings in the case GPE v. PERSON which have lasted DATE have not been ended by the decision delivered by the cassation chamber of ORG . Even the latter has not found the courage to quash in full the legal farce ( ‘ PERSON [ The Short Dictionary of the Slovakian Language ( Slovak Academy of Sciences , GPE , DATE , p. CARDINAL ) defines “ paškvil ” as ( i ) a satirical and offensive piece of writing or as ( ii ) an unsuccessful imitation of something . ] ) produced by [ judge Š. ] on DATE . The aforesaid judge quashed the decision delivered by ORG in GPE and granted the whole claim lodged by GPE .

CARDINAL jokes were thus produced out of one ... [ To the extent that the claim by ORG was granted by the cassation chamber of ORG ] , PERSON will bring the case ... before ORG in GPE .

Thus NORP justice was open to ridicule . To make things clear – GPE has no chances of success in GPE . The existing case - law of [ ORG ] comprises a sufficient number of examples where that court used a phrase protecting freedom of expression as such , which every politician in a democratic state should be acquainted with : ‘ The limits of admissible criticism are wider as regards a politician and narrower in the case of a private person’ . It is easy and clear at the same time and the cassation chamber of ORG ( like [ Mr ] PERSON ) has not grasped it ...

A different fact is relevant : PERSON has to apologise for a civic ‘ value judgment’ whereas this is not acceptable for the free world . ‘ ORG expressed publicly are not , in accordance with the established NORP practice and also in accordance with LAW , susceptible of proof ...

Should we admit ( as we did in fact ) [ that a journalist who publishes his or her value judgments in respect of a public figure be obliged to prove the truth of such statements ] , a situation would arise which has nothing to do with democracy and with the principles of a NORP society . ORG will simply fear making ‘ value judgments’ because they will be under the threat of a sanction . As a result , the vital sap of democracy will dry out – namely an open debate on issues of public interest .

ORG failed to understand these principles which ... are simple and easy to understand and which are respected by the democratic world as something that is ‘ given’ . Or , as the case might be , it did not want to understand .

P.S. I will dare make a ‘ value judgment’ despite the position which ‘ value judgments’ have in this country thanks to this case law . In my view , ORG of GPE did NOT WANT to respect the NORP principles of the protection of the freedom of expression . It would have sufficed if the judges had read LAW . In particular LAW where it is written in black and white . ”

On DATE judge PERSON filed an action under LAW seq . of LAW for protection of his personal rights against the applicant . The plaintiff claimed that the above articles interfered grossly with his civil and professional honour and also with his authority as a ORG judge . The plaintiff further claimed that the applicant be ordered to publish an apology and to pay him SKK CARDINAL in compensation for non - pecuniary damage .

In his reply the applicant stated that the author of the above articles had informed the public about the judicial proceedings in a case which attracted public attention . The contested statements were value judgments and the articles contained permissible criticism of a public figure .

On DATE the ORG delivered a judgment in which it ordered the applicant to publish , in the DATE Domino efekt , the following statement :

“ a ) ... the article ‘ A shameful judgment delivered by ORG ; PERSON , NORP justice’ , which presented [ judge Š. ] , the president of a chamber of ORG in a negative light and which ridiculed the proceedings conducted by him ,

b ) ... the interview with the former president of ORG published on DATE in which it is stated that [ judge Š. ] made up his mind on the outcome of the proceedings long before the delivery of the judgment ,

c ) the phrase ... ‘ Even the latter has not found courage to quash in full the legal farce produced by [ judge Š. ] on DATE CARDINAL’ which was published in the article ‘ Not even death will separate the couple GPE – Feldek ; See you soon in Strasbourg’ published on DATE ,

interfere grossly and without any justification with the civil and professional honour of [ judge Š. ] for which [ the applicant ] , as the editor of the newspaper ORG efekt makes a public apology to [ judge Š. ] ... ”

The applicant was further ordered to pay the plaintiff SKK CARDINAL in compensation for non - pecuniary damage and to pay the court fees and the plaintiff ’s costs .

ORG found that the limits of objective and acceptable criticism had been exceeded in that the above articles comprised such expressions as “ tragicomic farce ” , “ shameful judgment ” , “ strange reasoning ” and “ legal farce ” . The first and the third article were capable of giving the readers the impression that the plaintiff had been biased . ORG further recalled that the judgment criticised in the articles was delivered by an appellate chamber of CARDINAL judges . However , the articles referred to the plaintiff as if he were the only author of the judgment . ORG recalled that a chamber of the appellate court always decides after deliberations in the presence of a typist . A majority of votes is required and the presiding judge is the last to vote . ORG also recalled that judges are independent when deciding on matters before them and that the cassation chamber of ORG had not found any procedural shortcomings in the proceedings leading to the judgment criticised in the above articles .

When deciding to grant non - pecuniary damages to the plaintiff ORG noted that the above articles criticised , repeatedly and without justification , a judge of ORG whereby his dignity and position in the society had been considerably affected .

The applicant and the plaintiff appealed . The applicant argued that ORG had failed to apply the law correctly and that it had decided arbitrarily . The applicant submitted that the statements in question were value judgments which were based on facts explicitly set out in the articles . He therefore requested that the first instance judgment , to the extent that it granted the action , be overturned . The plaintiff failed to submit any reasons and subsequently he maintained that he had not appealed .

On DATE ORG overturned the first instance judgment in that it dismissed the action of judge ORG judgment stated that the applicant had ceased being the editor of NORP efekt in DATE . As he was not the author of the articles in question , he no longer had standing to be a defendant in the case . The new editor could not be sued as he was not a general successor to the rights and obligations relating to the DATE . The plaintiff ’s claim that an apology be published in the DATE could not , therefore , be granted .

ORG also examined the merits of the case and found that the phrase “ Even the latter has not found courage to quash in full the legal farce produced by [ judge PERSON ] on DATE ” published on DATE represented an attack against the authority of the courts as such and that it was not proportionate to the aim pursued , namely to criticise the reasons for ORG judgment presented orally by judge PERSON However , no satisfaction could be granted in this respect as the applicant had lost standing in the case .

On DATE the plaintiff filed an appeal on points of law in which he challenged the conclusions reached by ORG .

On DATE the cassation chamber of ORG quashed ORG judgment of DATE . ORG held that the appellate court had decided erroneously and instructed the latter to take further evidence . As regards the merits of the case in particular , the court of cassation held that because of their expressive character the applicant ’s statements were disproportionate to the aim pursued , namely to criticise a judicial decision or the public activities of judge NORP In ORG view , those statements clearly indicated that the applicant had intended to offend judge PERSON , to humiliate and discredit him . Limits of acceptable criticism had been thereby exceeded .

On DATE ORG upheld the part of the PERSON CARDINAL ORG judgment of DATE by which the applicant had been ordered to pay SKK CARDINAL , together with the statutory default interest , to the defendant in compensation for non - pecuniary damage . ORG further dismissed the remainder of the plaintiff ’s action .

The judgment stated that the plaintiff had failed to submit reasons for his appeal . Accordingly , ORG could review the first instance judgment only to the extent that it had been appealed against by the applicant . ORG dismissed the claim that an apology be published in NORP efekt as ( i ) the editing rights had been transferred to a different person and the name of the DATE had changed and ( ii ) the plaintiff had failed to amend his action so that a judgment in this respect could be enforced . ORG noted that the plaintiff had failed to specify which parts of the article published on DATE interfered with his personal rights . The relevant part of the action was therefore also dismissed .

As regards the merits of the remaining part of the case , ORG recalled , with reference to LAW and the relevant provisions of the LAW , that judges enjoyed special protection as regards the criticism of the way in which they exercised their function . This was dictated by the requirement of impartiality of judges . The latter could be jeopardised if the society tolerated unjustified criticism of a judge for a decision delivered by him or her .

The judgment further stated that the situation is different in cases where a judge makes public his or her intention to become involved in politics , and where the decision on a case to be subsequently taken by such a judge is linked to the political views presented by him or her . By failing to withdraw from a case in such circumstances the judge concerned deliberately exposes himself or herself to the threat of criticism by the public , notwithstanding that the decision in question was lawful . ORG therefore held that , when a judge decided to become involved in politics , he or she became a person of public interest and , as such , he or she no longer enjoyed special protection as regards the limits of acceptable criticism .

ORG recalled that it was bound by the views expressed in the judgment delivered by the cassation chamber of ORG on DATE . It therefore concluded that the contested statements in the articles published on CARDINAL DATE and on DATE interfered with the personal rights of the plaintiff , whereby his dignity and the esteem for his person in society had been considerably diminished . The expressive character of the terms used was disproportionate to the aim pursued , namely the criticism of a judicial decision or the plaintiff ’s involvement in public life . Those terms clearly showed that the purpose of the statements was to offend , to humiliate and to discredit the criticised person . Accordingly , the plaintiff was entitled to compensation for non - pecuniary damage which he had thus suffered .

On DATE judge PERSON filed an appeal on points of law . It was dismissed by ORG on DATE .

The right to protection of a person ’s dignity , honour , reputation and good name is guaranteed by LAW . of LAW .

According to LAW , any natural person has the right to protection of his or her personality , in particular of his or her life and health , civil and human dignity , privacy , name and personal characteristics .

Pursuant to LAW , any natural person has the right to request that unjustified infringement of his or her personal rights should be stopped and the consequences of such infringement eliminated , and to obtain appropriate satisfaction .

DATE ( CARDINAL ) provides that in cases where the satisfaction obtained under LAW ) is insufficient , in particular because a person ’s dignity and position in society have been considerably diminished , the injured person is entitled to compensation for non - pecuniary damage .


CASE OF BARBERÀ, MESSEGUÉ AND JABARDO v. SPAIN (ARTICLE 50)

Pecuniary damage - financial award;Non-pecuniary damage - financial award;Costs and expenses partial award - domestic proceedings;Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings

ORG The case was referred to the ORG by ORG ( " the Commission " ) and by ORG ( " the Government " ) on DATE and CARDINAL DATE , respectively , within the DATE period laid down by Article CARDINAL para . CARDINAL and LAW ( article DATE , article CARDINAL ) of ORG ( " the Convention " ) . It originated in CARDINAL applications ( nos . CARDINAL - CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) against GPE lodged with the Commission under LAW ( article CARDINAL ) by CARDINAL NORP nationals , Mr ORG , Mr PERSON and Mr PERSON , on DATE .

ORG In a judgment of DATE ( " the principal judgment " ) , the ORG found a violation of LAW para . CARDINAL ( article CARDINAL ) of the LAW . In view of the belated transfer of the applicants from GPE to GPE to face trial , the unexpected change in the court ’s membership immediately before the beginning of the trial , the brevity of the trial and , above all , the fact that very important pieces of evidence were not adequately adduced and discussed at the trial in the applicants’ presence and in public , the proceedings in question , taken as a whole , did not satisfy the requirements of a fair and public hearing ( Series A no . CARDINAL , pp . CARDINAL - CARDINAL , paras . CARDINAL , and point CARDINAL of the operative provisions ) .

ORG As the issue of the award of just satisfaction was not yet ready for decision , the ORG , in the principal judgment , reserved the whole of this question . It invited the ORG and the applicants to submit to it in writing , within DATE of the delivery of the judgment , their observations on the matter and in particular to inform it of any agreement reached between them ( ibid . , pp . CARDINAL - CARDINAL , paras . CARDINAL and point CARDINAL of the operative provisions ) .

ORG On DATE , the ORG filed a memorial in which they replied to the claims that the applicants had lodged in DATE ( ibid . , p. CARDINAL , para . CARDINAL ) and drew attention , inter alia , to the fact that under NORP law , as it then stood , the proceedings could not be reopened and restitutio in integrum was impossible .

In a letter of CARDINAL DATE the applicants informed the PERSON that , on DATE , they had lodged an application with the Audiencia Nacional to have the judgment of that court of DATE set aside . They accordingly requested the ORG to stay the proceedings concerning the application of LAW ) until the national court had given judgment . On DATE they submitted observations in reply to the ORG ’s memorial .

On DATE , after consulting the Agent of the Government and ORG , the President agreed to stay the proceedings . On several occasions he renewed this decision pending the outcome of the various proceedings brought in GPE with a view to having the judgment of DATE set aside . On DATE the applicants requested that the GPE proceedings be resumed as ORG had quashed their convictions . On DATE the President requested the Agent of the Government for information on the progress of the domestic proceedings . In the light of that information , on DATE the ORG decided to resume its examination of the question within DATE .

ORG The domestic proceedings conducted subsequent to the principal judgment included the following decisions :

( a ) on DATE the Audiencia Nacional decided to transmit the file to ORG after having found that it lacked jurisdiction . It ordered a stay of execution of the sentences imposed on the applicants by the judgment of DATE and their immediate release ;

( b ) on DATE the Audiencia Nacional decided to attach conditions to the applicants’ release , namely an obligation to report to a judge twice a month and a prohibition on leaving NORP territory ;

( c ) on DATE ORG gave a judgment dismissing the applicants’ application to have the original judgment set aside and revoking the stay of execution of their sentences ;

( d ) on DATE the Audiencia Nacional ordered that they be returned to prison ;

( e ) on DATE the ORG gave a judgment staying the execution of ORG judgment of DATE . It ordered that the applicants be released subject to the conditions laid down in the Audiencia Nacional ’s decision ;

( f ) on DATE ORG set aside the judgment of ORG and allowed the applicants’ application of CARDINAL DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . It ordered the reopening of the trial in the Audiencia Nacional ;

( g ) on DATE , in a judgment which has become final , the Audiencia Nacional acquitted the applicants , finding that there was insufficient evidence .

ORG On DATE the President requested the applicants to submit a memorial summarising and updating their claims for just satisfaction . The Registrar received this memorial on DATE and the Government ’s observations in relation thereto on DATE . On CARDINAL and CARDINAL DATE respectively the applicants filed additional observations and the Delegate of the Commission lodged his comments .

ORG On DATE the ORG decided that , in the circumstances of the case , it was not necessary to hold a hearing .


David Thór Björgvinsson;Giovanni Bonello;Lech Garlicki;Ledi Bianku;Nicolas Bratza;Stanislav Pavlovschi

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

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

The applicant ’s wife died on DATE . On DATE the applicant applied for widows’ benefits . On DATE the applicant was informed that his claim had been disallowed as he was not a woman .

The applicant did not appeal further as he considered or was advised that such a remedy would be bound to fail since no such social security benefit was payable to widowers under GPE law .

The domestic law relevant to this application is set out in Runkee and White v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , § § CARDINAL , DATE .


Violation of Art. 14+4-3-d;Not necessary to examine P1-1;Costs and expenses award - domestic proceedings

ORG Mr PERSON , a NORP national who was born in DATE , lives at GPE , in LOC .

On DATE the relevant municipal authorities required him to pay a fire service levy ( Feuerwehrabgabe ) of MONEY ( DM ) for DATE . This decision was based on LAW of ORG , as amended on DATE ( GPE , see paragraph CARDINAL below LAW " ) and on the municipal decree ( ORG ) of DATE ; it stated that all male adults residing in GPE at the beginning of the budget year ( DATE ) were liable to pay the contribution in question .

ORG The applicant regarded this decision as contrary , inter alia , to the constitutional principle of equality before the law ( LAW ) and he appealed against it . The administrative authority ( PERSON ) of the district of GPE ( GPE ) rejected this appeal on DATE .

ORG On DATE the applicant appealed to ORG ( Verwaltungsgericht ) , which dismissed his appeal on DATE . Referring to the case - law of ORG ( Bundesverfassungsgericht ) and to that of ORG ( Verwaltungsgerichtshof ) of the Land , it ruled that the obligation for men , and not women , to serve in the fire brigade or to make a financial contribution was compatible with LAW .

The Administrative Appeals Court dismissed the appeal which PERSON had filed against the decision of ORG ; it refused him leave to appeal on points of law .

It pointed out that like ORG it had always held the legislation requiring only the male residents of a municipality to pay a fire service levy to be consistent with LAW . The applicant ’s arguments could not persuade it to reconsider its case - law or to refer the question to ORG again . There were no new facts to present to ORG and there had not been a fundamental change in legal opinion on the subject . ORG stated that it endorsed the opinion expressed in ORG judgment of CARDINAL DATE to the effect that , in view of the risks inherent in service in the fire brigade , there remained objective reasons for imposing the obligation on men but not on women .

ORG The applicant challenged this judgment , which had been delivered on CARDINAL DATE , in so far as it had refused him leave to appeal on points of law , but ORG ( ORG ) dismissed his appeal on DATE .

In its view , the case raised no issue of principle ( grundlegende GPE ) . On the question whether the imposition of a fire service levy was in breach of the LAW , it concluded that it was not , in conformity with a judgment of ORG of DATE . It would only be possible to refer the matter once again to ORG if there were new facts or a fundamental change in legal opinion . However , ORG had found no evidence of this .

ORG On DATE Mr PERSON applied finally to ORG , which on DATE , sitting as a panel of CARDINAL members , declined to accept the appeal for adjudication , on the ground that it did not have sufficient prospects of success . It noted , inter alia :

ORG has already held , in its judgment of CARDINAL DATE ... , concerning the provision which corresponds to the present section CARDINAL para . CARDINAL , first sentence , of FAC , that there had been no violation of the principle of equal treatment . In subsequent decisions delivered ... on DATE ( CARDINAL BvR CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) , CARDINAL DATE ( CARDINAL BvR CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) , CARDINAL DATE ( CARDINAL BvR CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) , DATE ( CARDINAL BvR CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) and DATE ( CARDINAL BvR CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) , it stated that from the point of view of Article CARDINAL para . CARDINAL of LAW [ enshrining the principle of sexual equality ] there had still been no general change in legal opinion ; the fact that the obligation to serve in the fire brigade was limited to the male residents of a municipality still continued to be objectively justified on account of the risks inherent in service in the fire brigade , even though some fire brigade duties were performed by women and recently fire brigades for female volunteers had even been set up .

Nor does the fact that the Länder of Lower Saxony ( section CARDINAL para . CARDINAL of ORG ) and the GPE - Palatinate ( section CARDINAL para . CARDINAL of the Rhineland- FAC ) make provision for an obligation to serve in the fire brigades regardless of sex constitute a reason for departing from this case - law . The sole decisive factor is that there remain DATE objective reasons ( Anknüpfungspunkte ) on the basis of which the legislature is entitled to treat men and women differently in this regard . That does not mean that there is an obligation to enact regulations differentiating between the sexes .

ORG The Baden - FAC dates from DATE ; it has been amended on several occasions , most recently on CARDINAL DATE . At the time of the events in the present case the LAW was applicable as amended on DATE .

The Act requires municipalities to set up proficient fire brigades which may be composed of volunteers or professionals ( sections CARDINAL para . CARDINAL and CARDINAL para . CARDINAL ) . Their role is to deal with , among other things , fires , natural disasters and collapsed buildings , but they may also be required to ensure safety in theatres , at meetings and exhibitions and also at markets ( section CARDINAL paras . CARDINAL and CARDINAL ) . All the male residents of the municipality DATE CARDINAL inclusive may be required to serve as firemen , unless they can show that they are unfit to do so on health grounds ( section CARDINAL para . CARDINAL ) . If there are insufficient volunteers , the municipalities may call upon these residents to serve ( section CARDINAL para . CARDINAL ) , but so far this has never occurred in GPE .

As the LAW does not recognise a right to active service , the municipalities may refuse to accept a volunteer ( section CARDINAL para . CARDINAL ) .

ORG The municipalities may adopt decrees making provision for a fire service levy of CARDINAL DM ; the resulting funds may only be used to meet the needs of the fire brigade ( section CARDINAL paras . CARDINAL and CARDINAL ) .

Anyone who is liable for fire service duty ( section CARDINAL ) and who resides in the municipality at the beginning of the budget year , may be required to pay this levy ( section CARDINAL para . CARDINAL ) . Certain persons are , however , exempted , such as the members of the municipal fire brigade ( section CARDINAL para . CARDINAL ) .

ORG The system operated in GPE was challenged upon the entry into force of the LAW on DATE . On DATE ORG ruled that the fire service levy was compatible with LAW and in particular with the general principle of equality before the law in so far as it constituted a " compensatory charge " ( PERSON ) deriving directly from the obligation to serve .

ORG In CARDINAL of the CARDINAL ORG GPE - including GPE , the residents of municipalities are required by law to perform active service in the fire brigade if there are insufficient volunteers . CARDINAL Länder make provision for such service solely for male residents . In addition to GPE , residents are required to pay a contribution to the fire brigade or to the fire protection department in GPE and Thüringen . Where service is compulsory for residents of both sexes , both men and women are liable to pay the contribution .

ORG Moreover , according to information provided by the applicant and not contested , CARDINAL women had served in fire brigades in GPE as at DATE and in GPE - PERSON women have been permitted to serve in fire brigades since DATE .


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

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

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

On DATE ORG refused to adjust the applicant ’s old - age pension . The decision stated that the applicant had not fulfilled the statutory requirements which would entitle him to the pension ’s adjustment according to ORG . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ( see " The relevant domestic law " below ) .

The case was subsequently dealt with by courts at CARDINAL levels . On DATE ORG upheld the judgment of ORG of DATE by which the administrative decision of DATE had been upheld . The courts established that the applicant had been abducted to ORG as a captive of the NORP army from the present territory of GPE and not as an individual from the territory of GPE . These established facts led to the conclusion that the applicant had not been entitled to the adjustment of his old - age pension .

On DATE the applicant complained to ORG about unfairness and length of the proceedings before ORG . On DATE ORG rejected his complaint . The latter observed that the length of proceedings complaint had been submitted belatedly . As far as the alleged unfairness was concerned , ORG stated that it was primarily for the ordinary courts to interpret and apply the domestic legislation and that its role was limited to verifying whether the effects of such interpretation are compatible with the LAW or international conventions on human rights . The Constitutional Court declared this part of the complaint inadmissible as being manifestly - ill founded as the applicant had alleged errors of facts and law committed by ordinary courts .

Section CARDINAL of Law No . CARDINAL/CARDINAL on Mitigation of Certain Wrongs of Material Nature and on ORG in GPE ( PERSON o zmiernení niektorých majetkových krívd a o pôsobnosti orgánov štátnej správy PERSON republiky v oblasti mimosúdnych rehabilitácií ) was intended to give means of redress to individuals who were forcibly abducted to ORG or to the camps established by ORG in other states DATE . The persons concerned ( or their heirs ) are to be awarded pecuniary compensation for the period of abduction and for death during the period of abduction .

The entitled person is an individual , who was unlawfully and forcibly abducted by the forces of ORG to the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics from the present territory of GPE , where such person is a citizen of the NORP and GPE or its successor GPE , has permanent residence within its territory , originates from the present territory of GPE and the descendants of such person live there .