The applicant , PERSON , is a NORP national , who was born in DATE and lives in GPE , GPE . He is represented before the ORG by PERSON PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE .

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

In DATE , criminal investigations were initiated against the applicant on the suspicion of his participation in planning several transactions of illegal sales of weapons to GPE .

On DATE , ORG convicted the applicant of several counts of offences under LAW ( PERSON ) . It found that he had counselled and participated in planning the illegal sales of weapons to GPE . The applicant was sentenced to CARDINAL months’ imprisonment on probation .

On DATE , ORG , upon the applicant ’s appeal , amended the ORG decision to the effect that he was found guilty of CARDINAL offence under LAW . It imposed a fine amounting to CARDINAL DATE rates of CARDINAL DEM ( approximately CARDINAL Euro ) .

On DATE , following the applicant ’s appeal on points of law , ORG repealed this decision and referred the case back to a different chamber of ORG . It found that the procedural delays caused by judicial organs had not been taken into account by the lower court .

On DATE , ORG confirmed its decision of DATE . It briefly mentioned the delays in proceedings , but found that , bearing in mind the gravity of the offence , CARDINAL DATE rates was the lowest possible sentence .

On DATE , ORG , following the applicant ’s second appeal on points of law , also quashed the decision of DATE and referred the case back to yet another chamber of ORG . It found that the judicial organs had unnecessarily prolonged proceedings for DATE and that this constituted a violation of LAW ) and of LAW . However , it found that , contrary to the applicant ’s submissions , this did not constitute a procedural impediment that would warrant for proceedings to be discontinued . Finally , ORG noted that in its decisions , ORG had failed to show if and to what extent the excessive length of proceedings had an effect on the sentence .

On DATE , ORG amended the decisions of DATE and DATE while changing the sentence to the effect that the fine was reduced to CARDINAL DATE rates of CARDINAL ORG .

It found that the following delays had been unnecessary and were attributable to the judicial organs : although ORG had been in possession of most of the relevant information by DATE , the indictment was not submitted before DATE , which amounted to a delay of DATE and DATE . ORG decision of CARDINAL DATE , having been finalised for service on DATE , was not served upon the applicant before DATE , i. e. DATE . The proceedings were not furthered between DATE and DATE , when the case was transferred to ORG . In appeal proceedings before ORG , ORG took DATE and DATE ( DATE ) to submit its memorial to ORG . These delays amounted to DATE in total .

ORG found that the delays and the excessive length of proceedings were in breach of LAW CARDINAL of the Convention . Having regard to all circumstances , ORG concluded that the procedural delays did not require that the proceedings be discontinued . Weighing all personal mitigating and aggravating factors , ORG found that , without taking account of the procedural delays , it would have imposed a fine of CARDINAL DATE rates of CARDINAL ORG . It reduced the fine to CARDINAL DATE rates , on account of the above - mentioned delays in the past , and , in a second step , further reduced the fine to CARDINAL DATE rates , considering the further delays caused by the appeal proceedings .

On DATE , ORG rejected the applicant ’s appeal .

On DATE , ORG refused to entertain the applicant ’s constitutional complaint . ORG found , in particular , that ORG had given a detailed account of the delays attributable to the judiciary and had taken these delays into account when reducing the fine by CARDINAL DATE rates . The reduced fine did not reach the statutory limits for inclusion in a certificate of good conduct ( PERSON ) and would be removed from the applicant ’s criminal record after the minimum statutory period . ORG had therefore sufficiently reduced the sentence on account of the procedural delays .


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

The applicant is a practising NORP and is thus required by his religion to wear a turban . He stated that in DATE he travelled to GPE on a business trip ; on the return journey on DATE he was compelled by security staff at FAC to remove his turban for inspection as he made his way through the security checkpoint prior to entering the departure lounge .


Inadmissible under Art. 6-1;Violation of Art. 6-1 (legal certainty and right to a court);Not necessary to examine complaint under Art. 13;Violation of P1-1;Pecuniary damage - financial award;Non-pecuniary damage - financial award;Costs and expenses awards - Convention proceedings

The applicants , all of whom are NORP citizens , live in GPE . They were born in DATE , DATE , CARDINAL , DATE , DATE and DATE respectively .

NORP In DATE each applicant concluded a contract with ORG ( an insurance company incorporated in GPE ) , according to the terms of which he or she paid an insurance premium in exchange for an annuity pension . The size of the DATE pensions varied CARDINAL NORP lei ( ORG ) and LAW ( between the equivalent of MONEY ( ORG ) and CARDINAL at the time ) .

NORP On different dates between CARDINAL and DATE ORG stopped paying the pensions , in some cases , or refused to start paying them , in other cases , invoking a change in the interest rate of ORG and calling for the termination of the contracts .

On unspecified dates in DATE , the applicants brought civil actions against ORG , seeking the payment of the pension arrears to date and requiring the company to abide by the contracts of DATE .

All the applicants obtained final and enforceable judgments DATE , by which the domestic courts ordered ASITO to pay the pension arrears and to resume the execution of the contracts . The courts found the contracts to be valid and dismissed ORG ’s requests to terminate them or to exempt it from abiding by them on the ground of force majeure , which in ORG ’s view was constituted by the economic crisis , inflation and the change in the interest rate of ORG . The ORG was not presented with information on whether those judgments were complied with by ORG .

On DATE the Prosecutor General lodged an “ appeal in the interest of the law ” with ORG . According to ORG , the appeal had the purpose of clarifying the controversy surrounding the contracts and of setting a uniform practice for all courts .

On DATE , ORG issued a judgment deciding the dispute between ORG and the pension beneficiaries in favour of the former . In particular , it ruled that the economic crisis , inflation and the change in the interest rate of ORG could be relied upon by ORG in order unilaterally to avoid the annuity contracts . It also ruled that its judgment was binding on all the courts , although it could not , however , affect already existing judgments and it could not be used against the parties to proceedings which had already been decided .

Subsequently , on different dates , ASITO brought civil actions against the applicants asking for the termination of the contracts concluded in DATE . It relied on the same arguments as in the first sets of proceedings and also the judgment of ORG of DATE .

DATE and DATE ASITO obtained final favourable judgments against all the applicants . The courts dismissed the ORG submissions to the effect that the matter of the unilateral denunciation of the contracts by ASITO on grounds of hardship had already been resolved by final judgments and found instead that the subject matter of the proceedings which had ended in final judgments favourable to the applicants had been different , because those proceedings had been concerned with the enforcement of the annuity contracts up to the moment of their termination , while the subject matter of the new proceedings was the termination of the contracts .

On DATE , after the ORG communicated the present cases to the ORG , ORG upheld a revision request lodged against its judgment of DATE by a group of ASITO pensioners who are not applicants in the present cases . ORG quashed its previous judgment while finding inter alia that ORG could not rely on the economic crisis , inflation and the change in the interest rate of ORG for avoiding its annuity contracts .

The old Code of Civil Procedure in force DATE and DATE read as follows :

CARDINAL ) the proceedings shall be discontinued if previously a final judgment has been adopted in a dispute between the same parties , regarding the same object and having the same scope ...

In order to ensure a uniform application of the law in the entire territory of the country , the Prosecutor General can address ex officio to ORG an appeal , asking the court to give an opinion on questions of law which have been solved differently by the courts .

ORG appeal shall be examined in a hearing by ORG .

The judgments adopted by the Plenary can not affect already existing judgments and they can not be used against the parties to proceedings where judgments have been delivered . The judgments adopted in respect of the appeals in the interest of the law shall be brought to the attention of the courts and shall be binding on them .

On DATE a new Code of Civil Procedure entered into force . Section CARDINAL , insofar as relevant , reads as follows :

“ Grounds for revision

Revision may be requested :

When new and essential facts or circumstances have been discovered , that were unknown and could not have been known earlier ;

When , after the adoption of a judgment , new documents have been discovered , that were hidden by CARDINAL of the parties to the proceedings or that could not have been presented to the court for reasons not imputable to the party who seeks revision ; ...

When a court decision or a decision of another body on which a judgment is based , has been annulled ... ”

“ A revision request may be lodged :

Within DATE on which the concerned person has come to know the essential circumstances or facts of the case which were unknown to him / her earlier and which could not have been known to him / her earlier , in cases provided by LAW ) ;

Within DATE on which the documents have been discovered , in cases provided by LAW ( d ) ;

Within DATE on which the court decision or the decision of another body on which the judgment is based have been annulled , in cases provided by LAW ( f ) ... ”


Ganna Yudkivska;Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre;Karel Jungwiert;Mark Villiger;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Peer Lorenzen;Rait Maruste

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

In DATE , while undergoing training at the SU-CARDINAL company , the applicant had an accident . As a result of this accident he was classed as a disabled person .

Starting in DATE the applicant instituted CARDINAL sets of proceedings against the Vinnitsa specialised collective company no . CARDINAL ( “ the company ” ) , the successor of the company responsible for the accident , in the GPE ORG of FAC ( “ ORG ” ) .

On DATE the applicant instituted proceedings against the company , seeking a ruling to oblige the company to provide him with a wheelchair for home use and a wheelchair for outside use . The applicant also claimed compensation for non - pecuniary damage .

By its judgment of DATE ORG ordered the company to provide the applicant with CARDINAL wheelchairs . It also partly allowed the applicant 's claim for compensation . By an additional judgment of DATE ORG amended its previous judgment and ruled that the company should provide the applicant with all components for wheelchairs .

On DATE ORG quashed the above judgments and remitted the case for a new consideration to ORG . The applicant appealed in cassation . In the period from DATE the ORG mainly examined the admissibility of the applicant 's appeal in cassation against the ruling of DATE .

In DATE the applicant 's appeal in cassation was sent to ORG . On DATE the latter dismissed it .

DATE and DATE no hearings were scheduled .

DATE and DATE ORG scheduled some QUANTITY hearings , QUANTITY of them were adjourned on account of absence of the company 's representative , CARDINAL other on account of the judge 's absence . CARDINAL hearings were adjourned since the applicant 's representative failed to appear .

DATE and DATE no hearings were held .

In the period from DATE to CARDINAL DATE ORG scheduled CARDINAL hearings . CARDINAL of them were adjourned because the judge was involved in other proceedings and CARDINAL on account of his illness . CARDINAL hearings were adjourned because the ORG 's representative failed to appear , CARDINAL due to the absence of the company 's representative .

On DATE the case was transferred to another judge .

DATE and DATE ORG scheduled some CARDINAL hearings , CARDINAL of them were adjourned since the judge was ill and one because he was involved in other hearings .

On CARDINAL DATE ORG left the applicant 's claim without consideration . The applicant in his submissions alleged that he learned about that decision from the Government 's observations sent to him in DATE .

On DATE the applicant instituted proceedings against the company . The applicant claimed nursery allowance and compensation for non - pecuniary damage caused to him by the company .

The first hearing was held on DATE . On unspecified dates the prosecutor and ORG of ORG ( “ Fund ” ) joined the proceedings .

According to the records provided by the Government , of around CARDINAL listed hearings CARDINAL were adjourned since the ORG 's representative failed to appear . On CARDINAL occasions the hearings were adjourned as the prosecutor failed to appear . QUANTITY hearings were adjourned since the judge was involved in other proceedings and CARDINAL on account of the judge 's illness . CARDINAL hearings were adjourned since the applicant or his representative failed to appear or at their request . CARDINAL hearings were adjourned because of the absence of the company 's representative or at his request .

On DATE ORG left the applicant 's claim without consideration . The applicant in his submissions alleged that he learned about that decision from the Government 's observations which were sent to him in DATE .

On DATE the applicant lodged a complaint with the ORG challenging the actions of the head of the company . He alleged that the latter had unlawfully refused to send him for a medical examination in order to establish that he needed anti - bedsore treatment .

On DATE the applicant challenged the judge sitting in his case . On DATE ORG dismissed his request . The applicant appealed . On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant 's appeal .

DATE and DATE ORG scheduled CARDINAL hearings , CARDINAL of them were adjourned at the company 's request . The applicant challenged a judge sitting in his case on several occasions . On DATE , CARDINAL DATE and CARDINAL DATE his requests were granted and the case was transferred to another judge .

On DATE the prosecutor joined the proceeding . On an unspecified date the ORG joined the proceedings as a third party .

There were no hearings scheduled DATE and DATE .

Out of around CARDINAL hearings listed in the period from CARDINAL DATE to CARDINAL DATE , CARDINAL were adjourned because the ORG 's representative failed to appear . CARDINAL hearings were adjourned due to the absence , or at the request , of the applicant or his representative . On QUANTITY occasions the judge failed to appear because he was ill , on QUANTITY occasions since he was involved in other proceedings , and on CARDINAL occasion as he was on holiday . CARDINAL hearings were adjourned because the company 's representative failed to appear or at his request .

On CARDINAL DATE ORG left the applicant 's claim without consideration . The applicant submitted that he had learned about that decision from the Government 's observations sent to him in DATE .

On DATE the applicant instituted proceedings against the company . He challenged the company 's refusal to provide him with bedclothes and claimed compensation .

On DATE ORG left his claim without consideration due to its procedural shortcomings .

On DATE ORG quashed the ruling of DATE and remitted the case to ORG .

On DATE ORG allowed the applicant 's claim . The company appealed .

On DATE the ORG of Appeal quashed the judgment of DATE and remitted the case for a fresh consideration . On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant 's appeal in cassation against the ruling of DATE .

DATE and DATE ORG scheduled CARDINAL hearings . CARDINAL of them were adjourned due to absence of the ORG 's representative . CARDINAL hearings were adjourned since the applicant or his representative failed to appear or at their request . CARDINAL hearings were adjourned as the judge was on holiday , CARDINAL since he was involved in other proceedings and CARDINAL on account of the judge 's illness . QUANTITY hearings were adjourned since the company 's representative failed to appear or at his request .

On CARDINAL DATE ORG left the applicant 's claim without consideration . The applicant in his submissions stated that he had learned about that decision from the Government 's observations sent to him in DATE .


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

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

She is the owner of an apartment in GPE , which she had let to PERSON

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

On DATE , the Naples Magistrate did not uphold the validity of the notice to quit and declined jurisdiction on account of the value of the case .

On DATE , the applicant resumed the proceedings before ORG . In a judgment of DATE , deposited with the registry on CARDINAL DATE , the court declared that the lease would terminate on CARDINAL DATE and ordered that the LOC be vacated by DATE .

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

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

On DATE , the applicant made a statutory declaration that she urgently required the premises as accommodation for her daughter .

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

Thereafter , the applicant decided not to pursue the enforcement proceedings , in order to avoid useless costs , given the lack of prospects of obtaining the assistance of the police .

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

Between DATE and DATE , the bailiff made CARDINAL attempts to recover possession . Each attempt proved unsuccessful , as the applicant was never granted the assistance of the police in enforcing the order for possession .

On DATE , the tenant vacated the premises .

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


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

On DATE the applicant , who had several convictions and had served a number of prison terms , was charged with the theft of construction material from a warehouse . It was alleged that he had been one of the members of a group that had committed thefts .

The applicant did not appear when summoned for questioning and on CARDINAL DATE he was arrested and remanded in custody , by order of an investigator or a prosecutor . He remained in detention throughout the investigation proceedings and the trial .

On DATE ORG acquitted the applicant . He was released on DATE .

Upon the prosecutor 's appeal , the acquittal was upheld by ORG on DATE . ORG found , inter alia , that at the outset there had been clearly insufficient proof of the applicant 's involvement in the thefts . In particular , a police officer had testified that the only reason for suspecting the applicant had been the presence of his name on an internal police list of nicknames as the person behind the nickname “ PERSON ” .

On an unspecified date in DATE the applicant brought an action against ORG , seeking damages in respect of his pre - trial detention . He relied on LAW ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL below ) .

The applicant sought non - pecuniary damages for the suffering caused by his pre - trial detention , which had lasted DATE , DATE and DATE . In his initial claim he sought CARDINAL “ old ” NORP levs ( “ ORG ” ) . In the course of the proceedings he increased the claim to ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL,CARDINAL ( the equivalent of approximately LAW ) , including interest , which in his view was to be calculated as from DATE , the date of his arrest .

The Sofia City Court delivered its judgment on DATE . It held that the ORG was liable to pay all damage suffered by the applicant as a result of his “ unlawful pre - trial detention ” and the “ unlawful bringing of charges ” against him .

The court stated , inter alia :

“ [ ORG ] has not exercised the necessary supervision over the GPE prosecutors and the investigation authorities which , during a period of [ DATE ] , mounted an unjustified criminal prosecution against [ the applicant ] on charges of theft ... They remanded him in custody , imposing the harshest measure of judicial control , which resulted in [ the applicant ] spending DATE and DATE [ sic ] DATE in detention ... [The applicant ] has undoubtedly suffered non - pecuniary damage ... ”

As to the amount , the court considered that the length of the detention should be taken into consideration and rejected as unproven the applicant 's contention that his health had deteriorated as a consequence of his detention . Deciding on an equitable basis , the court awarded to the applicant BGL CARDINAL in non - pecuniary damages ( the equivalent of approximately ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL ) plus interest from the date on which the applicant had been acquitted with final effect , DATE . The court dismissed the remainder of the applicant 's claim for damages .

The court further applied section QUANTITY of ORG ( see paragraphs DATE below ) and ordered the applicant to pay BGL CARDINAL ( the equivalent of approximately EUR CARDINAL ) in court fees . That amount represented PERCENT of the dismissed part of the applicant 's claims .

The applicant appealed to ORG . He averred , inter alia , that the sum awarded in damages was too low and that it was unlawful to order him to pay court fees in an amount almost equal to the compensation award .

On DATE the ORG dismissed the appeal . As regards the court fees , it stated that section QUANTITY of ORG was unambiguous and required the payment of court fees proportionately to the dismissed part of the claim . In the applicant 's case , he had indicated an excessive amount in his claim and had thus himself brought about the situation complained of .

The applicant submitted a cassation appeal to ORG which was dismissed by judgment of DATE . As regards the costs , ORG reiterated the position taken by ORG . It stated that although no initial payment of court fees was required when bringing proceedings under LAW , in accordance with its section CARDINAL § CARDINAL the plaintiff was liable for fees in an amount proportionate to the dismissed part of the claim . By setting his claims at an excessive level , the applicant himself had caused his liability for a substantial amount in court fees .

In civil proceedings in GPE , the general rule is that court fees are payable by the plaintiff in advance , upon the submission of the claim ( LAW and sections DATE of LAW ) . A court fee at the flat rate of PERCENT is payable in respect of pecuniary claims ( Fees Schedule CARDINAL to LAW ) . Where the plaintiff succeeds fully or partly , the defendant is ordered to pay him his costs , including court fees , proportionately to the successful part of the claim .

By section QUANTITY of ORG , in proceedings under LAW , no court fees or costs are payable by the plaintiff upon the submission of the claim . However , in circumstances where the claim is eventually wholly or partly dismissed , the court is to order the plaintiff to pay “ the court fees and costs due ” . The courts have interpreted the above provision as meaning that the plaintiff should pay court fees calculated as a pro rata percentage of the dismissed part of his claims . LAW provides for waiver of the fees in cases of indigence but concerns fees due upon the submission of the claim ( argument from ORG judgment no . CARDINAL of CARDINAL in case no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) .

As a result of section CARDINAL § CARDINAL , where a court holds that a claim against the ORG is well - founded but excessive in quantum , it orders the ORG body concerned to pay damages to the plaintiff and at the same time orders the plaintiff to pay court fees to the ORG budget . Where the plaintiff indicated too high an amount in the claim form , the court fees may exceed the sum awarded in damages , the overall financial award being in favour of the ORG despite the finding that the plaintiff suffered damage which called for compensation under LAW ( see , for example , the following judgments of ORG : judgment no . CARDINAL of CARDINAL in case no . CARDINAL and judgment no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL of CARDINAL in case no . CARDINAL ) . There is no provision for judicial discretion and considerations of equity play no role in fixing the court fees ' amount . The court fees are fixed with reference to the amount indicated in the claim form , even if in the course of the proceedings the plaintiff makes a binding declaration waiving part of the claim ( ORG no . CARDINAL of DATE , ORG ) .

Section CARDINAL of ORG of DATE provides , as relevant :

“ The ORG shall be liable for damage caused ... by the organs of ... the investigation , the prosecution , the courts ... for :

unlawful pre - trial detention ... , if [ the detention order ] has been set aside for lack of lawful grounds ...

unlawful bringing of criminal charges , if the person concerned has been acquitted or the proceedings discontinued on the following grounds : ... ”

Persons seeking redress for damage occasioned by decisions of the investigating and prosecuting authorities or the courts in circumstances falling within the scope of ORG have no claim under general tort law as LAW is a lex specialis and excludes the application of the general regime ( section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the LAW ; реш. № DATE г. от CARDINAL декември DATE г. , по PERSON № DATE г. на ВС GPE ) .

The following DATE which draw on a summary report prepared by the research division of the ORG 's registry – describe relevant aspects of the system of court fees and costs in several member GPE representing different legal traditions , with emphasis on court fees in proceedings for damages against the ORG in cases where the respective domestic law provides for compensation for pre - trial detention .

The general rule with regard to compensation claims lodged with an administrative court ( section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of LAW ) is that a state fee of PERCENT of the amount claimed - but not CARDINAL kroons ( EUR CARDINAL ) and no more than in civil court proceedings concerning an equivalent amount – is charged when the claim is brought . In case non - pecuniary damages are claimed but the amount of the compensation is left to the discretion of the court , a simple fee of CARDINAL kroons ( EUR CARDINAL ) is due ( section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) ) .

LAW ( Riigi poolt isikule alusetult vabaduse võtmisega tekitatud kahju hüvitamise seadus ) , which concerns , inter alia , criminal proceedings that ended in acquittal or were discontinued , provides that the individual concerned can lodge a compensation request with ORG . No fees are involved . The amount of compensation is fixed by the LAW : it is DATE of the national DATE minimum salary ( enacted by the Government ) per day of detention . There is a presumption that this compensation covers non - pecuniary damage and loss of profit .

Compensation for pecuniary damage is regulated by LAW . In accordance with section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL)(CARDINAL ) of LAW ( which came into force on DATE ) , no fee is payable on a claim lodged with an administrative court for pecuniary damage caused by deprivation of liberty .

A claim for damages against the ORG can be brought under LAW . The court fee is approximately LAW , depending on the procedural actions undertaken by the court , regardless of the amount claimed .

CARDINAL avenues of redress are open in such cases : an administrative claim to ORG in accordance with LAW out of ORG Funds to Detainees or Convicts Found to Have Been Innocent ( no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL as amended ) or a civil action for damages under the aforementioned LAW . In either case no court fees are due in cases of detainees or acquitted persons .

Since DATE the ORG has been responsible for paying court costs in respect of criminal proceedings . LAW provides for a right to be compensated for all pecuniary and non - pecuniary damage sustained as a result of pre - trial detention in cases of acquittal or discontinuation of the proceedings . The claim is filed with the President of ORG in whose area the criminal case was decided . All fees and costs in these proceedings are borne by the ORG .

Actions for damages for unlawful detention are adjudicated by the civil courts . Proceedings for damages against the ORG may also be instituted before the administrative tribunals , where the wrongful conduct was imputable to the public administration .

Court fees are in fixed amounts , irrespective of the sum claimed . The fees are different for first instance and appellate courts and modest in quantum : none of them exceeds LAW , according to the Decree no . CARDINAL of DATE .

Actions for damages for unlawful detention are exempt from court fees ( Article CARDINAL ) of LAW ( no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) . In proceedings involving compensation claims against the ORG , the maximum fee is the equivalent of approximately ORG CARDINAL ( Article CARDINAL(m ) of the Act ) . As to costs and expenses , at the conclusion of the proceedings , the losing party has to reimburse the other party 's costs and expenses .

Claims for damages for unlawful detention are examined by ordinary courts in civil proceedings . Plaintiffs are exempt from court fees ( Article CARDINAL.CARDINAL , Sections CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) and CARDINAL of LAW ) and the court can not order the plaintiff to pay such fees at the end of the proceedings , even if the claim was partially or fully dismissed .

The successful party is entitled to the reimbursement of its costs . If an action succeeds only partly , the costs are divided proportionately between the parties ( Article CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW ) . The defendant is required to pay into the federal budget a fee , from which the plaintiff is exempt , in proportion to the allowed part of the claim ( Article CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW ) .

There are CARDINAL possibilities for seeking damages for unlawful detention in GPE . The first is an administrative quasi - judicial procedure before the Chancellor of ORG , who can award compensation in fixed amounts . There is no fee for the claimant . The second possibility is a civil action for damages before the civil courts , for which a modest fixed court fee is payable regardless of the amount of the claim . Also , the claimant who loses the case must pay the other party 's costs

An action for damages against the state for unlawful detention is called a “ claim for false imprisonment ” which is treated as an action in trespass to the person ( i.e. a personal injury claim ) and is brought in the civil courts . Taking into account the money value of the claim and the complexity of the case , the court will allocate the case to CARDINAL of CARDINAL tracks : the “ small claims ” track , the “ fast - track ” or the “ multi - track . ” An action for false imprisonment is likely to be allocated to the multi - track .

There are several types of court fees that the claimant has to pay in proceedings for false imprisonment . The first one is the “ issue fee ” , charged for filing the claim . It depends on the amount of money claimed in accordance with a decreasing table . For example , the issue fee for claims of MONEY ( ORG ) is GBP CARDINAL , for claims MONEY it is GBP CARDINAL and for claims MONEY it is GBP CARDINAL . The higher issue fee , charged for claims of GBP CARDINAL and higher , is GBP CARDINAL .

When a defence is filed , the court allocates the case to a track and orders the claimant pay an “ allocation fee ” in the amount of £ MONEY ( except for claims not exceeding GBP CARDINAL for which no allocation fee is due ) . Finally , for matters that go to trial , a “ trial fee ” is payable as follows : in multi - track cases – GBP CARDINAL and in fast - track cases – GBP CARDINAL , no fee being due for small claims track cases .

In respect of all fees , the court may decide that the claimant does not have to pay a court fee ( exemption ) , or that he / she may pay a smaller fee ( remission ) . That is usually done in cases involving indigent claimants .

When deciding on the award to be granted to the claimant , the courts enjoy a wide power to limit the amount that a party may recover with regard to the trial costs . According to ORG , the court is “ to have regard to all the circumstances ” in determining what costs are payable ( r.CARDINAL.CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) ) . Those circumstances specifically include those set out in r.CARDINAL.CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) , namely : ( a ) the procedural conduct of all the parties , including in particular , the efforts made , if any , before and during the proceedings in order to try to resolve the dispute ; ( b ) the amount involved ; ( c ) the importance of the matter to all the parties ; ( d ) the particular complexity of the matter or the difficulty or novelty of the questions raised ; ( e ) the skill , effort , specialised knowledge and responsibility involved and ( f ) the time spent on the case;.

There is a constitutional presumption that unreasonable charges would not be imposed in the court proceedings ( PERSON v. the Minister for ORG and others , ORG judgment of DATE , [ DATE ] IESC CARDINAL ) .


Violation of Art. 6-1;Non-pecuniary damage - financial award;Costs and expenses (domestic proceedings) - claim dismissed;Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings

DATE and CARDINAL DATE the applicant was a member of the ORG . On DATE he signed an undertaking ( Official Secrets Act CARDINAL - “ the CARDINAL Act ” ) which applied during and after his SIS service .

NORP In or around DATE the applicant became an agent for GPE when he disclosed secret information to the NORP authorities . In DATE he was arrested . In DATE he pleaded guilty to CARDINAL counts of unlawfully communicating information contrary to LAW and was sentenced to DATE imprisonment . In DATE he escaped from prison . He made his way to GPE and from there to GPE where he lives to date .

NORP In DATE he wrote his autobiography entitled “ No Other Choice ” ( “ the Book ” ) which was described later by ORG as “ his apologia for the course his life has taken ” . Substantial parts related to his activities , and were based on information acquired by him as an ORG officer .

In DATE he signed a contract with a Publisher to publish the Book in GPE . He was paid at that stage an advance on royalties ( CARDINAL , MONEY ( ORG ) net ) and a further advance royalty payment ( GBP CARDINAL ) was due to him on publication . In DATE the Publisher announced the impending publication of the Book and it was published on DATE .

By letter of DATE to the Publisher , the Treasury Solicitor stated that it would hold the Publisher liable for the applicant 's breach of his duty of confidentiality . The Publisher denied the claims but confirmed that it would not make payments without notice to the ORG . ORG letter to the Publisher of DATE considered the applicant liable for a breach of a fiduciary duty to the ORG : the Publisher rejected these claims .

The Attorney General ( “ ORG ” ) issued a writ in ORG on DATE seeking from the applicant any financial benefit from publication ( royalties already due from the Publisher and any future royalties ) arguing that in writing and authorising the publication of ORG , he had acted in breach of the duty of confidence he owed to the ORG as a former member of the ORG . There was no reliance on LAW , LAW DATE ( “ the DATE LAW ) or on the undertaking signed in DATE .

On DATE a statement of claim was submitted .

On DATE an extension of time was given for lodging the defence and this was filed on DATE .

NORP By letter dated DATE to the applicant , ORG refused legal aid and he appealed within DATE time - limit . By letter of DATE that ORG indicated that his appeal had been adjourned pending receipt from him of further information in relation to royalty payments already made to him and it was noted that he had not requested the ORG Solicitor to release the monies held by the Publisher to fund his defence of the proceedings . In DATE and DATE the applicant requested the ORG Solicitor to release the monies held by the Publisher to fund his defence , and these requests were refused ( in DATE and DATE , respectively ) .

In DATE the Publisher rejected the applicant 's request for the payment of royalties due , or MONEY CARDINAL,CARDINAL , to cover legal costs maintaining that that was a matter between the applicant and the ORG .

On DATE the applicant 's sister completed a schedule detailing how the payments received from the Publisher had been spent : some on household goods with the majority given to family members .

On DATE his solicitors informed ORG how the royalty payments to date had been spent and about the refusal of the Treasury Solicitor and the Publisher to release the monies to him . By letter dated DATE from ORG the applicant was informed that ORG had rejected his appeal . It appeared to ORG unreasonable that he should be granted representation : since the litigation was known to him , not later than DATE , he had voluntarily divested himself of substantial funds under his control and direction . The applicant claimed that he had given approximately GBP QUANTITY to his children before DATE and that CARDINAL had been spent thereafter ( most of which he had given to his son ) . The balance remaining ( GBP CARDINAL ) was insufficient to fund his litigation .

By letter dated CARDINAL DATE the applicant informed the Treasury Solicitor that he would apply to ORG for an order that the ORG consent to the release of the relevant monies to fund his defence . This application was made on DATE and on CARDINAL DATE the matter was adjourned for a hearing before a judge . On DATE ORG dismissed the application finding that it had no jurisdiction to make an injunction against the ORG . The matter could be revisited if the Publisher was joined as a third party to the proceedings . On DATE the ORG refused leave to appeal .

On DATE ORG allowed the applicant serve a third party notice on the Publisher , the notice issued on DATE , on DATE the Publisher submitted its defence and counterclaim followed by , in DATE , Further and Better Particulars of the Counterclaim . The Publisher did not oppose the release of funds and the applicant renewed his request for release of the funds .

On DATE ORG rejected his re - application for the release of the monies : the ORG 's claim was prima facie a strong one . Many litigants presented their cases themselves and the court was able to ensure that there was a fair trial . Since he was a fugitive from justice and would not appear in person , the lack of legal representation would not deny him a fair trial . It was also noted that , by this time , he had received in the region of $ MONEY for a NORP television documentary which could contribute to his legal costs .

On DATE his solicitors applied and were granted leave to cease to act for the applicant . They could not continue to act on a pro bono basis and costs ' orders had already been made against the applicant .

Given that the applicant would not be attending to represent himself and on the initiative of the ORG , on DATE ORG appointed a ORG and a junior counsel to act as amici curiae in the case . The ORG was also represented by ORG and by junior counsel . The applicant was not present or further represented before ORG .

On DATE and DATE a hearing took place in ORG . On DATE ORG rejected the ORG 's application by detailed judgment and , in particular , the ORG 's claim of a continuing fiduciary duty owed by the applicant to the ORG . On DATE the ORG appealed .

ORG refused legal aid for the appeal by letter dated DATE stating that the applicant had not shown reasonable grounds for taking , defending or being a party to proceedings . In particular , he had not made any comment on the ORG 's grounds of appeal and it was not therefore possible to determine his likely prospects of success . He appealed this refusal , submitting detailed and reasoned argument . ORG , by letter dated DATE , confirmed the rejection of his appeal noting that the ORG considered that it would be unreasonable to grant legal aid to enable him to continue to pursue a claim so long as he remained “ a fugitive from justice already meted out to you ” .

His solicitors again applied for the release of the monies to fund his litigation which application was rejected by ORG .

ORG hearing took place on DATE . The applicant was neither represented nor present and the Publisher took no part in the proceedings . The ORG was represented by ORG , ORG and CARDINAL junior counsel , with a Queen 's Counsel and CARDINAL junior counsel appearing as amici curiae . ORG later noted that the amici curiae had deployed before it all the arguments which the applicant might have wished to present if he had been present .

Counsel acting as amici curiae suggested a possible public law remedy and the court also considered that the ORG might have a private law restitutionary remedy against the applicant . The proceedings were therefore adjourned ( until DATE ) to allow submissions on those CARDINAL issues as defined by the court . The ORG was also granted leave to amend his statement of claim . Arrangements were made for the applicant to be sent the amended statement of claim . He did not respond because , he submitted , he was not legally represented .

On DATE Lord PERSON delivered the court 's judgment dismissing the CARDINAL private law grounds of appeal ( breach of a life - long fiduciary duty arising from S.I.S. employment ; breach of contract given the undertaking signed in DATE ; and a claim for restitutionary damages for profits from a breach of contract where the defendant obtained profit by doing the very thing which he contracted not to do ) . The ORG 's public law claim ( the ORG 's inherent power to bring proceedings to ensure the enforcement of the criminal law ) was allowed . Accordingly , Lord PERSON granted an injunction restraining the applicant from receiving any payment or other benefit in connection with the exploitation of the Book

On DATE the applicant 's solicitors sought leave to be reinstated and , acting on a pro bono basis , lodged skeleton arguments before ORG seeking leave to appeal to ORG . On DATE the applicant 's representatives went back on record . On DATE ORG gave leave to appeal . On DATE the applicant requested waiver of security for costs and the ORG Solicitor confirmed consent on DATE .

On DATE ORG allowed the filing of the appeal petition out of time . On DATE the applicant again applied for the release of the monies held by the Publisher , which was refused by the ORG Solicitor on DATE . His request to ORG for the release of monies was made on DATE and was rejected in DATE , ORG advising him to apply for a waiver of the appeal fees . The applicant submitted that DATE and DATE he corresponded with ORG concerning funding for the appeal to ORG . On DATE the applicant returned the completed waiver request form and on DATE the applicant 's solicitors applied for the waiver of appeal fees . On DATE ORG requested further information of the applicant as regards the waiver application . DATE the applicant and the ORG Solicitor agreed on a statement of facts for the purposes of the appeal .

In or DATE ORG agreed to waive the appeal fees and security for costs . The expenses ( not including legal costs ) of preparing the hearing bundles for ORG amounted to GBP CARDINAL . His solicitor and junior counsel represented him on a pro bono basis . CARDINAL ORG and CARDINAL junior counsel represented the ORG .

The appeal hearing was fixed for DATE . Although he accepted that the restitutionary damages ' ( private law ) issue raised points of general interest , the ORG confined the appeal to the public law injunction . However , by letter dated DATE to the parties , ORG indicated that it wished to hear argument at the hearing on the matter of restitutionary damages for breach of contract . Both parties prepared written submissions on the point and a hearing took place DATE .

The main judgment was delivered on DATE by Lord PERSON , with whom Lords PERSON and ORG concurred . Lord PERSON delivered a separate judgment and Lord PERSON dissented . Lord PERSON concluded that there was no reason in principle to rule out an account of profits as a remedy for breach of contract in exceptional situations notably where other remedies were inadequate and where the plaintiff had a legitimate interest in preventing the defendant 's profit - making activity and , hence , in depriving him of his profit .

The final basis for making an order for an account of profits was the applicant 's breach of contract and , in particular , the undertaking of confidentiality signed in DATE . However , that did not confer on the ORG any proprietary interest in the debt due to the applicant from the Publisher . The Crown was entitled , on the taking of the account , to a money judgment which could then be enforced by attachment of the debt in the usual way . Given that the Publisher who held the monies wished to deduct its legal expenses in defending the third party proceedings , the appropriate form of order was a declaration that the ORG was entitled to be paid a sum equal to whatever amount was due and owing to the applicant under the publishing agreement of CARDINAL DATE . The injunction would remain in force until the Publisher made payment to the ORG .

The applicant remained in GPE for the duration of the proceedings .


Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for home);Non-pecuniary damage - award

Anatoly Kovler;Elisabeth Steiner;Erik Møse;Khanlar Hajiyev;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Peer Lorenzen

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE . Her income consists of her pension , amounting to HRK CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL per month , and a social benefit amounting to HRK CARDINAL per month .

On DATE the applicant ’s husband was awarded a specially protected tenancy ( stanarsko pravo ) of a flat in GPE . Pursuant to the relevant legislation , the applicant as his wife automatically became a co - holder of the specially protected tenancy of the flat . After the death of her husband in DATE she became the sole holder of the tenancy .

On DATE the applicant and her husband went to the village of PERSON , between Obrovac and PERSON . In DATE the applicant ’s husband fell ill . They also found out that third persons had broken into and occupied their flat in GPE . In these circumstances she decided to stay with her husband in PERSON .

After the death of her husband on DATE , the applicant went to live with her daughter in GPE . The applicant returned to ORG in DATE and lived in a friend ’s flat until DATE , when the third persons moved out of her flat and she moved back in .

Meanwhile , on DATE the applicant made a request to purchase the flat at issue to ORG as the provider of the flat . She relied on section CARDINAL of the Specially Protected Tenancies ( Sale to Occupier ) Act , which entitled holders of specially protected tenancies of flats in social ownership to purchase their flats from the provider of the flat under favourable conditions ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

As she received no reply to her request to purchase of the flat , on DATE the applicant , relying on section CARDINAL of ORG , brought a civil action in ORG ( PERSON ) against ORG seeking judgment in lieu of a contract of sale .

The defendant submitted a counterclaim seeking the applicant ’s eviction .

On DATE ORG ruled for the applicant . Following an appeal by the defendant , on DATE ORG ( PERSON ) quashed the first - instance judgment and remitted the case .

In the resumed proceedings , on CARDINAL DATE ORG again ruled for the applicant . On DATE the ORG again quashed the first - instance judgment and remitted the case .

In the resumed proceedings , on DATE ORG delivered a judgment whereby it dismissed the applicant ’s action . At the same time it accepted the defendant ’s counterclaim and ordered the applicant to vacate the flat . It also ordered her to reimburse the defendant CARDINAL NORP kunas ( HRK ) for the costs of the proceedings . The court found that the applicant had been absent from the flat DATE and DATE , that is , for a period exceeding six months , and that her absence had not been justified . In so deciding the court followed the case - law of ORG ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL below ) , according to which , in cases where a third person moves into the flat , the bringing of legal proceedings in order to evict the occupant would demonstrate an intention to live in the flat and prevent the tenant ’s absence from being considered unjustified and resulting in a termination of the tenancy . However , the applicant had never instituted any proceedings to regain possession of her flat . Therefore , the condition for termination of her specially protected tenancy stipulated in section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW had already been met on DATE . That being so , the court held , while expressly relying on decisions of the ORG nos . CARDINAL of DATE and Rev-CARDINAL/CARDINAL - CARDINAL of DATE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) , that she had not been entitled to purchase the flat under ORG or to acquire the status of a protected lessee under LAW . Accordingly , the court concluded that she had no title to the flat and ordered her eviction .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s appeal and upheld the first - instance judgment , which thereby became final and enforceable .

The applicant then lodged an appeal on points of law ( revizija ) with ORG ( PERSON ) . Relying on section CARDINAL ) of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) she argued that her case raised legal issues important for ensuring the uniform application of the law and equality of citizens . In particular , she argued , inter alia , that the judgments of the lower courts in her case were contrary to the case - law of ORG , according to which a specially protected tenancy could only be terminated by a court judgment ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL below ) .

On DATE ORG declared the appeal on points of law admissible on the ground that it concerned issues relevant for the unification of interpretation of some provisions of substantive laws .

On DATE ORG declared the applicant ’s appeal on points of law inadmissible as it found that neither the value of the subject matter of the dispute reached the statutory threshold nor were the legal issues raised therein important for ensuring the uniform application of the law and equality of citizens within the meaning of section CARDINAL ) of LAW . In particular , ORG held that the findings of the lower courts in the applicant ’s case were not incompatible with its own opinion expressed in judgment no . Rev-CARDINAL/CARDINAL - CARDINAL of DATE according to which , even in the absence of a judgment terminating a specially protected tenancy , the courts were entitled to examine , as a preliminary issue , whether the grounds for its termination had been present in cases where the prior existence of such a tenancy was a requirement for acquiring the right to purchase a flat under ORG or the status of a protected lessee under LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

On DATE the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint with ORG ( Ustavni sud PERSON ) against ORG decision , alleging violations of her constitutional rights to equality before the law and fair proceedings as well as her Convention rights to a fair hearing , respect for her home and peaceful enjoyment of her possessions . At the same time she asked for an interim measure under section CARDINAL ) of LAW that would postpone the enforcement of ORG judgment of DATE until ORG had decided on her constitutional complaint .

On DATE the applicant lodged a request for reinstatement of the proceedings in ORG . She also asked that the decision by ORG of DATE be served on her . She withdrew that request on CARDINAL DATE .

On DATE ORG declared the applicant ’s constitutional complained inadmissible as ill - founded on the ground that that she had not put forward any arguments relevant for the protection of her constitutional rights .

Meanwhile , on CARDINAL DATE ORG instituted enforcement proceedings before ORG with a view to enforcing the above - mentioned judgment of DATE .

On DATE the court issued a writ of execution ( rješenje o ovrsi ) ordering the applicant ’s eviction from the flat and the seizure and sale of her movable property to satisfy the enforcement creditor ’s claim for costs of the above - mentioned civil proceedings .

On DATE the applicant appealed against the writ to ORG and at the same time asked ORG to postpone the enforcement . She submitted that her income ( pension ) was insufficient to cover the costs of other accommodation , that she was DATE , in poor health and walked with the help of crutches . She argued that in those circumstances her eviction would amount to inhuman and degrading treatment causing irreparable harm , as it would certainly lead to a rapid deterioration of her health and eventually to her death . In support of her arguments the applicant enclosed with her appeal a medical certificate of DATE signed by PERSON from GPE stating that the applicant was in postoperative status after the hip surgery , suffered from hypertension , rosacea ( a skin condition ) and a psychoneurosis ( psychic tension ) . PERSON also stated that the applicant walked with the help of crutches and expressed his view that , due to her poor health , it was necessary to spare her from any relocation .

On DATE ORG issued a decision postponing the enforcement until ORG had decided the applicant ’s appeal of DATE and until ORG had decided on her appeal on points of law in the above - mentioned civil proceedings . The relevant part of that decision read as follows :

“ ... in the court ’s view the enforcement debtor demonstrated that , if the enforcement were to be carried out , she would probably suffer irreparable harm manifested in the fact that she is an elderly person in poor health who would be rendered homeless and who , at the moment , can not secure temporary accommodation for herself , whereas , on the other hand , the enforcement creditor would not suffer any loss on account of the postponement because the enforcement debtor regularly pays the rent for the flat at issue . ”

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s appeal and upheld the writ of execution of CARDINAL DATE .

On CARDINAL DATE ORG issued a decision to continue the enforcement proceedings . However , on DATE the enforcement proceedings were postponed until ORG decided on the applicant ’s request for reinstatement of the civil proceedings .

After she had withdrawn her request for the reinstatement of the civil proceedings , the applicant on DATE again asked that the enforcement proceedings be postponed until ORG delivered its decision . On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s request and resumed the enforcement proceedings which are still pending .

DATE Ustav Republike Hrvatske , ORG nos . CARDINAL and DATE ) reads as follows :

“ The home is inviolable .

A search of a person ’s home or other premises shall be ordered by a court in the form of a reasoned written warrant based on law .

The occupier , or his or her representative , shall be entitled to be present during a search of a home or other LOC . The presence of CARDINAL witnesses shall be obligatory .

Under the conditions prescribed by law and where it is necessary to execute an arrest warrant or to apprehend a person who has committed a criminal offence or in order to remove serious danger to the life or health of people , or to property of a high value , the police may enter a person ’s home or other LOC and carry out a search without a court warrant or the occupier ’s consent and without any witnesses being present .

Where there is a probability that evidence may be found in the home of a person who has committed a criminal offence , a search shall be carried out only in presence of witnesses . ”

The relevant part of LAW ( Official Gazette nos . DATE , CARDINAL/CARDINAL , DATE and CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) reads :

“ A specially protected tenancy is acquired on DATE of moving into the flat on the basis of a final decision allocating the flat or on another valid legal basis , unless otherwise provided by this LAW . ”

“ CARDINAL . A specially protected tenancy may be terminated if the tenant [ ... ] ceases to occupy the flat for an uninterrupted period exceeding six months .

A specially protected tenancy shall not be terminated under the provisions of paragraph CARDINAL of this section in respect of a person who does not use the flat on account of undergoing medical treatment , performance of military service or other justified reasons . ”

“ CARDINAL . The provider of the flat shall terminate a specially protected tenancy by bringing an action in the competent court .

The judgment ordering eviction shall not be enforced if the person to be evicted is not provided with another flat or basic accommodation [ nužni smještaj ] , when that is required by this LAW .

Another flat shall be made available by the provider of the flat at the latest by the end of the main hearing in the proceedings for the termination of the specially protected tenancy , unless otherwise provided for by this LAW . ”

Basic accommodation shall be secured in enforcement proceedings . ”

“ The duty of the tenant to vacate the flat extends to other users of that flat , unless otherwise provided for by LAW . ”

The Specially Protected Tenancies ( Sale to Occupier ) Act ( Official Gazette nos . CARDINAL , CARDINAL , DATE , DATE , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL/CARDINAL , CARDINAL/CARDINAL and CARDINAL , PERSON o prodaji stanova na kojima postoji stanarsko pravo ) regulates the conditions for the sale of flats let under specially protected tenancies . In general , the LAW entitles the holder of a specially protected tenancy of a publicly owned flat to purchase it under favourable conditions of sale .

The relevant provision of the LAW provides as follows :

“ Every holder of a specially protected tenancy ( hereinafter ‘ the tenant’ ) may submit a written application to purchase a flat to the ... owner ( ‘ the seller’ ) ... and the seller shall be obliged to sell the flat .

Section CARDINAL paragraph CARDINAL of LAW ( Zakon o vlasništvu i drugim stvarnim pravima , ORG no CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) reads as follows :

“ An owner has the right to seek repossession of his or her property from a person in whose possession it is . ”

The relevant part of LAW ( Zakon o parničnom postupku , ORG of ORG nos . CARDINAL , CARDINAL/CARDINAL ( corrigendum ) , CARDINAL , CARDINAL/CARDINAL , CARDINAL/CARDINAL , DATE , DATE , DATE , CARDINAL/CARDINAL and CARDINAL/CARDINAL , and ORG . CARDINAL , GPE , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL/CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL/CARDINAL , CARDINAL and GPE ) provides as follows :

The parties to the proceedings may lodge an appeal on points of law against a second instance judgment where the outcome of dispute depends on the assessment of some substantive or procedural issue of importance for ensuring the unified application of the laws and the equality of citizens ...

“ ( CARDINAL ) When ORG has found a violation of a human right or fundamental freedom guaranteed by LAW or additional protocols thereto ratified by GPE , a party may , within DATE of the judgment of ORG becoming final , file a petition with the court in GPE which adjudicated in the first instance in the proceedings in which the decision violating the human right or fundamental freedom was rendered , to set aside the decision by which the human right or fundamental freedom was violated .

( CARDINAL ) The proceedings referred to in paragraph CARDINAL of this section shall be conducted by applying , mutatis mutandis , the provisions on the reopening of proceedings .

( CARDINAL ) In the reopened proceedings the courts are required to respect the legal opinions expressed in the final judgment of ORG finding a violation of a fundamental human right or freedom . ”

NORP In decision no . Rev-CARDINAL/CARDINAL of DATE ORG interpreted section CARDINAL of LAW in the following way :

“ The specially protected tenancy is not lost ex lege by the mere fact of non - use of the flat for DATE . Rather , that is a ground for termination of a specially protected tenancy that can be terminated only by the provider of the flat . ”

The specially protected tenancy was terminated as soon as the court ’s judgment upholding the claim of the provider of the flat to that end has become res judicata ( see , inter alia , ORG decision no . Rev-CARDINAL/CARDINAL - CARDINAL of DATE ) .

In its decisions no . NORP of DATE and no . Rev-CARDINAL/CARDINAL - CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE ORG took the view that , even in the absence of a judgment terminating the specially protected tenancy , the courts were entitled to examine whether the grounds for its termination had been present in cases where the existence of such a tenancy was a precondition for acquiring and exercising the right of a tenant to purchase the flat under the Specially Protected Tenancies ( Sale to LAW .

The relevant part of the decision no . CARDINAL of DATE reads as follows :

“ In [ ORG ] view a contract of sale of a flat concluded with a person whose specially protected tenancy ended by termination after the conclusion of [ that ] contract , or in respect of whom it was established that a ground for termination [ of the specially protected tenancy ] had existed at time of the conclusion of [ such a contract ] , is null and void . ...

It was therefore necessary to examine whether at the time of the conclusion of the impugned contract any grounds for termination of the specially protected tenancy existed ... ”

The relevant part of the decision no . Rev-CARDINAL/CARDINAL - CARDINAL of DATE reads as follows :

“ The [ view ] of the first - instance court , which was also accepted by the second - instance court , that the existence of a judicial decision on termination of the specially protected tenancy is decisive for [ resolving ] the question whether the plaintiff ’s specially protected tenancy of the flat at issue has ended , is incorrect . In [ ORG ] view , if grounds for termination of the specially protected tenancy existed on the side of the plaintiff at the time of the conclusion of the contract of sale of the flat ... or at the time [ he ] made a request for purchase of the flat DATE on which issue the court should have in the instant case decided upon the defendant ’s counterclaim ( otherwise it could have decided it as a preliminary issue ) DATE ... the plaintiff [ would have no right ] to demand that a contract of sale of the flat be concluded . ”

In a series of decisions ( for example , in cases nos . Rev-CARDINAL/CARDINAL - CARDINAL of DATE , ORG - CARDINAL of DATE , CARDINAL of DATE , Rev-CARDINAL/CARDINAL - CARDINAL of DATE and CARDINAL of DATE ) , starting with decision no . CARDINAL of QUANTITY DATE , ORG interpreted section CARDINAL ) of LAW as follows :

“ The fact that a flat that is not being used by its tenant is illegally occupied by a third person does not , per se , make the non - use [ of the flat by the tenant ] justified . In other words , if the tenant fails to take the appropriate steps to regain possession of the flat within the statutory time - limits set forth in section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW ... , then the [ illegal occupation of the flat by a third person ] is not an obstacle to the termination of the specially protected tenancy . ”


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

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

PERSON , the son of the applicant , died on DATE having been shot by an armed police officer at ORG Working ORG ( ‘ WEWM’ ) in GPE . The background to the shooting is described as follows , the details largely taken from the evidence given at the inquest .

At TIME on DATE , an Inspector PERSON contacted ORG PERSON , with information which he considered to be ‘ reliable’ and which had been received from a registered informant . The applicant claims that GPE Reay of ORG of GPE police was aware of this information on DATE , but only passed on the information to a more senior police officer on DATE . The information was that PERSON and the deceased , PERSON , were planning a ‘ tie - up’ robbery that TIME at the ORG after TIME . The plan was forcibly to enter the residential steward ’s house adjacent to the club and , with the aid of an imitation firearm , to tie - up the steward ’s father and cause the steward to open the safe and hand over the cash contents . On the strength of this information , PERSON decided to target a Firearms Operation on the LOC club that evening with the purpose of protecting the occupants of the steward ’s house , protecting the officers involved in the operation and effecting the arrests of those involved in the planned offence .

Superintendent PERSON thereafter held several briefings with the firearms unit and was assisted by CARDINAL senior trained firearms officers , PERSON and ORG . The first briefing was at TIME The police officers on the operation were instructed to treat all imitation firearms as if they were real firearms unless and until proven otherwise . In particular , PERSON pointed out that PERSON had received training in the army , and read out the record of PERSON which detailed that a sawn - off shotgun had been found in the bathroom of his house .

By the time of the first briefing , the police were in receipt of further information about the robbery which was planned . They were now aware that PERSON , PERSON and CARDINAL other man planned to enter the steward ’s house via a downstairs kitchen window , before proceeding upstairs to commit the robbery . The imitation firearm which they would be carrying would possibly be a starting pistol . The amount of money involved was estimated to be CARDINAL .

The police discussed the following options at the briefing which was tape recorded :

A – an armed ambush inside the club . This would involve placing CARDINAL armed police officers at various vantage points inside the club . When the last intruder had entered the kitchen window and stepped onto the floor , the ambush team leader ( PC PERSON ) would call a ‘ strike’ . Accordingly , the lights of the premises would be switched on together with a shout of the warning ‘ stand still armed police’ . The armed officers in the LOC would come from behind closed doors of the kitchen with weapons drawn and would stop and apprehend the intruders . A second team of firearm officers ( the backup team ) would arrive outside the premises to prevent any intruders escaping from the LOC . The backup team would move on the strike being called from within the house . It was estimated that they were TIME away from the scene .

B – a ‘ blow - out’ consisting of swamping the club and the surrounding area with a high police presence . This high profile policing would be intended to have the effect of discouraging the intruders from making entry at all , thereby preventing the robbery and protecting the safety of the steward and his father .

C – arresting the intruders at their home addresses prior to the commission of the robbery .

Options B and C were rejected . Option B was rejected because the Superintendent considered that even though it would prevent the robbery that night , the suspects may return at DATE or decide to rob another club . Further , it was decided that it was better to pick up the men at TIME and get them off the streets as they were dangerous and carrying firearms . Option C was rejected because of the possibility that there would not be sufficient evidence to mount a successful criminal prosecution against the potential intruders .

At TIME , a briefing was held with the firearms officers , at the conclusion of which the guidelines for the use of minimum force were read out .

ORG surveillance officers were deployed along the route to the club . The backup team of police officers was on standby in the near vicinity of the club , and armed officers took their place inside the club before TIME on DATE . All the police officers were in their places by TIME .

At TIME , CARDINAL people , including PERSON and PERSON , were seen to make their way along the route to the club . They were wearing dark clothing , gloves and ski - masks . They waited outside the club for TIME before making an entrance , during which time they were observed .

The applicant claims that the officers inside the club were made aware via radio communications of exactly what was going on . They were informed that there were more potential intruders than originally expected ( CARDINAL instead of the original CARDINAL or CARDINAL ) .

At TIME the intruders broke in via the ground floor window as expected . The team leader PC PERSON called the strike when the third person had entered the kitchen window , and not when all the intruders had entered the kitchen , as planned . He explained in his statement that he did not consider it safe to allow all the intruders to enter into the hallway . He called the strike as the door from the kitchen to the hallway was pushed DATE open . He switched on the lights and shouted “ Armed police . Stand still . ” He heard other officers shouting “ Armed police . ”

CARDINAL of the police officers , PC ORG , who was meant to have been standing by a door just off the kitchen where the intruders would be entering was not in position . He later gave a statement to the police to the effect that the team leader had called the strike before he and his colleague Officer A were in position .

Officer A and PC ORG said that when they entered the kitchen , the fourth intruder was still entering the window . Officer A said that he saw a threatening movement from PERSON that he interpreted as a threat to his life . At the subsequent inquest , Officer A said that he thought Mr PERSON had a gun in his hand which he pointed at the officer . The officer said he discharged his firearm in self - defence , thereby killing PERSON . PC PERSON also testified that he considered the deceased to be a threat . The autopsy revealed that the bullet entry wound was on the right side of the chest and that the bullet travelled in a downwards direction to exit from the chest wall on the left side . The pathologist who conducted the post mortem stated that this was consistent with Officer A ’s description of the deceased as turning towards him at the moment at which he fired .

A small black torch was found under or near the deceased ’s body . PERSON in his statement later to the police said that PERSON had been carrying a small black torch when he entered through the kitchen window and had switched it off before the police entered the kitchen .

The deceased ’s accomplices , upon hearing the shot , all fled from the club LOC . None were caught at the scene . The backup team failed to arrive at the club to prevent any of the intruders escaping from the scene .

The deceased ’s accomplices were arrested DATE . The police found an imitation firearm near the scene ( a starting pistol ) , which was incapable of firing live rounds .

The inquest into Mr PERSON ’s death took place at ORG DATE . Several police officers gave evidence , including Officer A and PC PERSON who were the only persons present when the shooting occurred . Both testified that they considered the deceased to be a threat because of a dark object in his right hand . Although they considered it to be a firearm , it later transpired that it was a small black torch .

Officer A considered that he had only seen one intruder in the kitchen , even though there had in fact been CARDINAL intruders . Further , he over - estimated the distance between himself and the intruder , could not recall how many times a colleague had shouted and could not recall when certain lights were put on .

PC ORG thought that the shot that was fired had been discharged by CARDINAL of the intruders ; he described the sound as a ‘ phut’ rather than as a loud bang .

Evidence was adduced during the inquest to the effect that the police had received some total darkness training and ‘ torchlight GPE to aid them to assess danger in restricted lighting conditions . However , Professor PERSON , Professor of ORG at the Medical school of ORG , took part in a reconstruction of the circumstances surrounding the shooting and testified that he had no difficulty in understanding why Officer A fired his weapon . In his view , the combination of high level stress and low illumination led to a number of genuine misperceptions by the subject officer under the syndrome known as ‘ visual perception ORG . The officer ’s genuine concerns about his safety ( from his knowledge of the potential use of firearms by the intruders ) also contributed to this misperception .

The jury returned an open verdict and therefore failed to find definitively that the deceased had been unlawfully killed by Officer A.

In a letter dated DATE , ORG informed the applicant that it had been decided not to prosecute Officer A on the basis that there was insufficient evidence of any crime having been committed . It also found no basis for pursuing any other officer for gross negligent manslaughter or misfeasance in public office .

Section CARDINAL of LAW DATE provides inter alia :

“ A person may use such force as is reasonable in the circumstances in the prevention of crime , or in effecting the arrest or assisting in the lawful arrest of offenders or suspected offenders or persons unlawfully at large . ”

Self - defence or the defence of others is contained within the concept of prevention of crime ( see e.g. Smith and Hogan on Criminal Law ) .


CASE "RELATING TO CERTAIN ASPECTS OF THE LAWS ON THE USE OF LANGUAGES IN EDUCATION IN BELGIUM" v. BELGIUM (MERITS)

Violation of Art. 14+P1-2;No violation of Art. 8;Just satisfaction reserved

The object of the ORG 's request is to submit the case to the ORG , so that the ORG may decide whether or not certain provisions of the NORP linguistic legislation relating to education are in conformity with the requirements of ORG CARDINAL and CARDINAL ( article CARDINAL , article DATE ) of the Convention and Article CARDINAL of the Protocol of DATE ( hereinafter referred to as " LAW " ) ( PCARDINAL - CARDINAL ) .

The Applicants , who are parents of families of NORP nationality , applied to the ORG both on their own behalf and on behalf of their children DATE , of whom there are CARDINAL . Pointing out that they are LANGUAGE - speaking or that they express themselves most frequently in LANGUAGE , they want their children to be educated in that language .

GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE , PERSON and PERSON , where the signatories of CARDINAL of the CARDINAL applications ( Nos . GPE , GPE , DATE and CARDINAL ) live , belong to the region considered by law as NORP - speaking , whereas ORG ) has since DATE formed part of a separate administrative district with a " special status " . In all of these districts ( " communes " ) , part of the population - in some cases a large part - is LANGUAGE - speaking .

Though the CARDINAL applications differ on a number of points , they are similar in many respects . For the time being it is sufficient to note that in substance they complain that ORG :

- does not provide any LANGUAGE education in the municipalities where the Applicants live or , in the case of PERSON , that the provision made for such education is , in their opinion , inadequate ;

- withholds grants from any institutions in the said municipalities which may fail to comply with the linguistic provisions of the legislation for schools ;

- refuses to homologate leaving certificates issued by such institutions ;

- does not allow the Applicants ' children to attend the NORP classes which exist in certain places ;

- thereby obliges the Applicants either to enrol their children in local schools , a solution which they consider contrary to their aspirations , or to send them to school in the " LOC district " , where the language of instruction is NORP or NORP according to the child 's mother - tongue or usual language or in the " LANGUAGE - speaking region " ( PERSON area ) . Such " scholastic emigration " is said to entail serious risks and hardships .

The Applications in so far as they have been declared admissible by the ORG , allege that ORG CARDINAL and CARDINAL ( article CARDINAL , article DATE ) of the Convention and Article CARDINAL of the LAW ( PCARDINAL - CARDINAL ) have been violated . The violation is said to be a result of the Applicants and their children being subjected to various provisions of LAW of DATE " on language regulations in primary and intermediate education " , LAW of DATE " on the conferring of academic degrees " , the Acts of DATE and DATE , LAW of DATE " relating to the use of languages in education " and the Act of CARDINALnd DATE " on the use of languages in administrative matters " , etc . The Acts of CARDINALth and DATE were repealed by LAW DATE , but were still in force when the PERSON , GPE , GPE , GPE and GPE Applicants brought their cases before the Commission , and those Applicants still challenge these Acts while at the same time attacking the present legislation .

Summarising the opinion expressed in its Report of CARDINALth DATE ( hereinafter referred to as " the ORG " ) , the ORG recalled in paragraph CARDINAL of its memorial of DATE that it took the view :

" - by CARDINAL votes to CARDINAL , that the legislation complained of was not incompatible with the first sentence of LAW ( PCARDINAL - CARDINAL ) , considered in isolation ;

- unanimously , that the legislation was not incompatible with the second sentence of the said LAW ( PCARDINAL - CARDINAL ) , considered in isolation or in conjunction with LAW article CARDINAL+PCARDINAL - CARDINAL ) of the Convention ;

- by CARDINAL votes to QUANTITY , that the legislation was not incompatible , in the case of the Applicants , with LAW article CARDINAL) of the LAW , considered in isolation or in conjunction with LAW article DATE ) ;

- by CARDINAL votes to CARDINAL , that the general system of education in the areas which are unilingual by law was not incompatible with the first sentence of LAW , considered in conjunction with LAW article CARDINAL+PCARDINAL - CARDINAL ) of the Convention ;

- by CARDINAL votes to CARDINAL , that the same was true of the " special status " conferred by LAW of CARDINALnd DATE on CARDINAL bilingual communes , of which PERSON is one , on the periphery of GPE ;

- by CARDINAL votes to CARDINAL , that the Acts of DATE were incompatible with the first sentence of LAW , read in conjunction with LAW article CARDINAL+PCARDINAL - CARDINAL ) of the LAW , in so far as they result in the total withdrawal of subsidies from provincial , commune and private schools providing , in the form of non - subsidised classes and in addition to instruction given in the language prescribed by the language legislation , complete or partial education in another language ; - unanimously , that the conditions on which children whose parents live outside the LOC district may be enrolled in schools in that district ( LAW of DATE ) were not , in the case of the Applicants , incompatible with the first sentence of LAW , read in conjunction with LAW article CARDINAL+PCARDINAL - CARDINAL ) of the Convention ;

- that the Acts of DATE were incompatible with the first sentence of LAW , read in conjunction with LAW article CARDINAL+PCARDINAL - CARDINAL ) of the LAW , in so far as they prevent certain children , solely on the basis of their parents ' place of residence , from attending LANGUAGE - language schools at Louvain ( CARDINAL votes to CARDINAL ) and in the above - mentioned CARDINAL communes on the periphery of GPE ( CARDINAL votes to CARDINAL ) ;

- by CARDINAL votes to CARDINAL , that the legislation complained of was also incompatible with the first sentence of LAW , read in conjunction with LAW article CARDINAL+PCARDINAL - CARDINAL ) of the LAW , in so far as it has resulted , since DATE , in a refusal to homologate certificates relating to secondary schooling not in accordance with the language requirements . "

In the course of the written proceedings the following submissions were made on the merits of the case :

- by ORG in its memorial of CARDINALth DATE :

" ORG submits the following conclusions :

( CARDINAL ) The NORP legislation attacked in the Applications is incompatible neither with LAW ( PCARDINAL - CARDINAL ) nor with LAW article CARDINAL) of the LAW if those provisions are considered in isolation .

( CARDINAL ) Nor is it contrary to the first and second sentence of LAW or LAW even if read in conjunction with LAW article CARDINAL+PCARDINAL - CARDINAL , article DATE ) of the Convention .

( CARDINAL ) Neither the DATE Acts nor those of DATE are incompatible with LAW , first sentence , of the LAW , read in conjunction with LAW article CARDINAL+PCARDINAL - CARDINAL ) of the LAW , in so far as they forbid the establishment or subsidising by the ORG of any schools which do not comply with the language legislation .

( CARDINAL ) The DATE Acts are not contrary to LAW , first sentence , of the LAW , read in conjunction with LAW article CARDINAL+PCARDINAL - CARDINAL ) of the LAW , in so far as they result in the total withdrawal of subsidies from schools that , while they have sections in which tuition is given in the regional language , also provide complete or partial education in another language .

( CARDINAL ) The system introduced by LAW DATE in the communes on the periphery of GPE , including PERSON , is not incompatible with LAW , first sentence , of the LAW , read in conjunction with LAW article CARDINAL+PCARDINAL - CARDINAL ) of the Convention .

( CARDINAL ) The residence conditions laid down in the DATE Acts for admission to the LANGUAGE - language schools at PERSON and in the communes on the periphery of GPE , including PERSON , are compatible with LAW , first sentence , of the LAW , read in conjunction with LAW article CARDINAL+PCARDINAL - CARDINAL ) of the Convention .

( CARDINAL ) The provisions of DATE Acts are compatible with LAW , first sentence , of the LAW , read in conjunction with LAW article CARDINAL+PCARDINAL - CARDINAL ) of the LAW , in so far as they result in the refusal of homologation of secondary school leaving certificates for the sole reason that the schooling covered by them has not been in accordance with the requirements of the language legislation .

The Belgian Government reserves the right to add to or modify these conclusions in the course of the proceedings " .

- by the Commission in its memorial of DATE and , in almost identical terms , in that of DATE , prior to the judgment of CARDINALth DATE :

" As it recalled in its memorial of DATE , the ORG acts in the general interest and not , strictly speaking , as plaintiff vis - à - vis the High Contracting Party against which the Applications submitted to it for appraisal are directed .

It therefore once more formulates its conclusions interrogatively and invites the ORG to decide whether or not the legislation of which the Applicants complain satisfies the requirements of :

( a ) the first sentence of LAW ( PCARDINAL - CARDINAL ) , considered in isolation ;

( b ) the second sentence of that Article ( PCARDINAL - CARDINAL ) , considered in isolation ;

( c ) LAW article CARDINAL) of the LAW , considered in isolation ;

( d ) the first sentence of LAW read in conjunction with LAW article CARDINAL+PCARDINAL - CARDINAL ) of the Convention ;

( e ) the second sentence of LAW , read in conjunction with LAW article CARDINAL+PCARDINAL - CARDINAL ) of the Convention ;

( f ) LAW , read in conjunction with LAW article DATE ) .

In particular the ORG requests the ORG to decide whether or not , in the case of the Applicants , there is violation of all or some of the above - mentioned articles , inter alia :

( a ) in so far as the Acts of DATE prevented , and those of DATE prevent :

- the establishment , or

- the subsidisation

by the ORG , of schools not in conformity with the general linguistic requirements ;

( b ) in so far as the Acts of DATE result in the complete withdrawal of subsidies from provincial , commune or private schools providing , in the form of non - subsidised classes and in addition to the instruction given in the language prescribed by the linguistic Acts , full or partial instruction in another language ;

( c ) with regard to the special status conferred by LAW , third paragraph , of the Act of CARDINALnd DATE on CARDINAL communes , of which PERSON is one , on the periphery of GPE ;

( d ) with regard to the conditions on which children whose parents reside outside LOC may be enrolled in the schools of that district ( LAW of DATE ) ;

( e ) in so far as LAW , last paragraph , of LAW of DATE and LAW , third paragraph , of the Act of CARDINALnd DATE prevent certain children , solely on the basis of their parents ' place of residence , from attending LANGUAGE - language schools at PERSON and in the CARDINAL communes mentioned under ( c ) above ;

( f ) in so far as the Acts of DATE resulted , and those of DATE result , in absolute refusal to homologate certificates relating to secondary schooling not in conformity with the language requirements in education .

For the reasons stated at the end of its report ( ... ) , the ORG still refrains for the time being from putting forward conclusions on the claims for damages submitted by the Applicants of PERSON and PERSON , PERSON and PERSON . "

- by ORG in its memorial of DATE :

" Subsidiary , in case the ORG should feel obliged to adopt the ORG 's viewpoint , the NORP State points out the legitimate grounds that justify the legislation attacked .

ORG maintains however as its main argument the conclusions set down in its first memorial on the merits and reserves its final conclusions .

The ORG wishes to point out :

- first of all , that the distinctions of which the Applicants complain do not affect the rights laid down in LAW article CARDINAL) of the LAW , since the rights of parents and children with regard to education are defined not in that LAW but in LAW ( PCARDINAL - CARDINAL ) ;

- that these distinctions do not affect the negative right and the freedom laid down in LAW ( PCARDINAL - CARDINAL ) but relate to positive benefits and favours , which the ORG may , of course , grant in order to facilitate the exercise of that right and freedom but concerning which the High Contracting Parties have expressly declared that they did not intend to enter into any obligation ;

- that the distinctions in question do not interfere with any desire of the Applicants simply to have their children educated but concern their wish to have them educated in accordance with their linguistic preferences , and that any such preferences held in educational matters were deliberately not included by the High Contracting Parties in the enumeration of rights and freedoms safeguarded by the ORG ;

- that the rule of non - discrimination in LAW ) of the LAW can not apply to the distinctions of which the Applicants complain , since it relates only to rights and freedoms laid down in the LAW ;

- that the Applicants ' complaints are unfounded . "

The following submissions were made during the oral proceedings :

- by the ORG , on DATE :

" The ORG maintains the submissions it made to ORG at the end of its memorial on the merits of the case , while reserving the right to modify them or add to them in the light of subsequent proceedings . "

- by ORG , on DATE :

" I have the honour to read to the ORG the submissions made by ORG at the present stage of proceedings , while reserving the right to make any necessary additions or amendments during subsequent proceedings .

Principal submissions

DATE it please the ORG ,

To find that the measures of which the Applicants complain , whether the provisions invoked by the Applicants concerning them are considered in isolation or in conjunction , do not interfere with the rights or freedoms set forth in LAW and , replying in greater detail to the questions submitted by the Commission :

To rule that NORP legislation is not incompatible with :

( a ) the first sentence of LAW ( PCARDINAL - CARDINAL ) , considered in isolation ;

( c ) LAW article CARDINAL) of the LAW , considered in isolation ;

( d ) the first sentence of LAW , read in conjunction with LAW article CARDINAL+PCARDINAL - CARDINAL ) of the Convention ;

( f ) LAW , read in conjunction with LAW article DATE ) .

In particular ORG requests the ORG to find that in the case of the Applicants none of those ORG , whether considered in conjunction or in isolation , has been violated , inter alia :

( a ) in so far as the Acts of DATE prevented , and those of DATE prevent : the establishment , or the subsidisation by the ORG , of schools not in conformity with the general linguistic requirements ;

( b ) in so far as the Acts of DATE result in the total withdrawal of subsidies from provincial , commune or private schools providing , in the form of non - subsidised classes and in addition to the instruction given in the language prescribed by the linguistic Acts , full or partial instruction in another language ;

( c ) with regard to the special status conferred by LAW ) and ( CARDINAL ) of the Act of DATE on CARDINAL communes , of which PERSON is one , on the periphery of GPE ;

( e ) in so far as the last paragraph of LAW of DATE and LAW ) and ( CARDINAL ) of the Act of DATE prevent certain children , solely on the basis of their parents ' place of residence , from attending LANGUAGE - language schools at PERSON and in the CARDINAL communes mentioned under ( c ) above ;

( f ) in so far as the Acts of DATE resulted , and those of DATE result , in refusal to homologate certificates relating to secondary schooling not in conformity with the language requirements in education .

Auxiliary submission

If ORG accepts the ORG 's opinion that the first sentence of LAW , read in conjunction with LAW article CARDINAL+PCARDINAL - CARDINAL ) of the LAW , lays down an obligation not to discriminate , then

DATE it please the Court :

To rule that the NORP legislation complained of is in accordance with that requirement as it provides for no unlawful or arbitrary discrimination against the Applicants within the meaning of LAW ) of the Convention :

DATE it please the Court :

To rule that the Applicants ' complaints are without foundation . "

- by the ORG , on DATE :

" It only remains for me to confirm the submissions made by the Commission in its memorial of DATE . "

- by ORG on DATE :

" The submissions we had the honour to make to ORG ( on DATE ) may be considered as final ones . "