CASE OF VISTINS AND PEREPJOLKINS v. LATVIA

No violation of P1-1;No violation of Art. 14+P1-1

Alvina Gyulumyan;Corneliu Bîrsan;Egbert Myjer;Ineta Ziemele;Josep Casadevall;Lech Garlicki;Luis López Guerra

By contracts signed in DATE , in respect of donations inter vivos , the applicants became the owners of a number of plots of land on the island of GPE . This island , situated close to the mouth of LOC , is part of the city of GPE , to which it is connected by a road - bridge and a railway line . It mainly consists of port facilities , with a small residential area in its southern part .

The donors were the heirs of the legitimate owners of the land in question , which had been unlawfully expropriated by GPE after DATE . They had recovered ownership in the context of the “ denationalisation ” process in DATE . According to the applicants’ explanations , not contested by the Government , all the donations had been made in return for certain personal services that the applicants had rendered to the donors . Thus , the second applicant became the owner of CARDINAL plots of land measuring CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL sq.m respectively . The donor of the first plot of land gave it to him by way of remuneration for having helped her to complete the formalities to obtain restitution of her CARDINAL properties located throughout GPE . The donor of the second plot had apparently been a longstanding friend of the second applicant , whilst the other CARDINAL plots were given to him as a token of gratitude because he had covered the cost of expensive heart surgery for the donor . As to the first applicant , he obtained a plot of land measuring CARDINAL sq.m . in return for undisclosed services rendered .

Each of the above - mentioned contracts stipulated the value of the land in question . The parties agree that the said value was not the cadastral value ( that is to say the reference value for the calculation of land tax ) , but merely an indicative sum solely for the purposes of calculating the registration tax , which at the time represented PERCENT of the property ’s value . The contracting parties thus valued each plot of land at CARDINAL NORP lati ( ORG ; CARDINAL euros ( ORG ) ) , except for that of CARDINAL sq.m . , which was valued at ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL ( about EUR CARDINAL,CARDINAL ) . In addition , the applicants paid FAC in notary ’s tax . However , they were not obliged to pay income tax , as gifts between individuals were not liable for such tax .

Shortly afterwards , in DATE , ORG of the city of GPE ( PERSON pilsētas PERSON nodaļa ) entered the applicants in the land register as owners of the plots of land in question . In addition , in accordance with the law applicable at the time ( see paragraph DATE below ) , they were exempted from the payment of land tax ( zemes nodoklis ) for a period of DATE following the acquisition , that is to say until DATE .

On DATE ORG no . CARDINAL fixing the perimeter of GPE ( GPE par Rīgas ostas robežu noteikšanu ) . In accordance with that ORG , all the plots of land owned by the applicants were included within the port ’s perimeter . That inclusion was confirmed by ORG ( PERSON tirdzniecības brīvostas likums ) , enacted on DATE . Under that LAW , all the privately - owned land situated within the port ’s boundaries became subject to a servitude for the benefit of the public corporation responsible for the port ’s management . In return , the corporation was to pay the owners an DATE compensation of not PERCENT of the cadastral value of the plots of land .

NORP In DATE the applicants requested ORG of ORG ( ORG dienesta Nekustamā īpašuma vērtēšanas centrs ) to determine the current cadastral value of their respective plots of land . In CARDINAL letters of DATE , the ORG certified that the value amounted to ORG ( QUANTITY ) for Mr PERSON ; as for PERSON , the cadastral value of his plots of land amounted to ORG CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL respectively , representing a total of ORG CARDINAL ( about EUR CARDINAL,CARDINAL,CARDINAL ) .

On DATE the administration of ORG of GPE applied , in turn , to ORG , requesting it to calculate the amount of compensation that would have to be paid to the applicants in the event of expropriation of their land , in accordance with LAW decision on the arrangements for the entry into force of the law on the expropriation of real estate in the public interest ( the “ LAW ” , enacted in DATE ) . That DATE which was applicable inter alia to the applicants – limited the amount of the compensation to be paid to the owners of certain land that was to be expropriated ; the compensation would not exceed the cadastral value of the land as fixed on DATE , multiplied by a conversion coefficient .

On DATE the ORG issued CARDINAL certificates stating that the first applicant would receive ORG ( about ORG CARDINAL ) for his CARDINAL sq.m . of land , and the second ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL ( QUANTITY ) for his land , of which the total surface area came to CARDINAL sq.m .

By Regulation no . CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE , which was adopted in the context of delegated legislative authority ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) and which entered into force on DATE , ORG ordered the expropriation of all the land in question for the benefit of the ORG . On DATE that measure was confirmed by ORG , which enacted a special law for that purpose ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . Under that law Mr PERSON and PERSON were to be paid compensation for the expropriation , which would be deemed completed once the sums had been paid into their current accounts .

On DATE the NORP ORG ( Latvijas PERSON un zemes banka ) opened current accounts in the names of each of the applicants . On DATE that bank officially certified that the above - mentioned sums of ORG and ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL , awarded to the applicants by way of compensation , had actually been paid into the CARDINAL accounts . The applicants , however , refused to make use of those sums in any way . Following the payment , by CARDINAL orders of CARDINAL and DATE ORG ( zemesgrāmatu tiesnesis ) ordered that the title to the expropriated land be registered in the name of the ORG . No tax was levied on the above - mentioned sums .

In DATE the second applicant brought CARDINAL sets of proceedings to obtain rent arrears for the use of his land . In the first proceedings , against ORG and ORG , he requested the payment of sums due under the lease for the period from CARDINAL DATE to DATE . In a judgment of DATE , upheld in cassation proceedings on DATE , ORG ordered ORG to pay the second applicant ORG ( about ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL ) for the use of his land during the period in question .

The second applicant subsequently filed a new claim against FAC seeking the payment of rent arrears for the period after DATE , together with compensation for a servitude imposed on his property . On DATE ORG of ORG partly upheld his claim , awarding the applicant the sum of ORG ( about ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL ) on that basis , as the rent represented PERCENT of the current cadastral value of the land . In fixing that amount ORG particularly took into account the fact that the second applicant had not invested in any development of the land in question . It further indicated that the applicant ’s title to the property had ceased on DATE , when the expropriation had become effective . In a judgment of CARDINAL DATE the ORG of ORG upheld the judgment of ORG .

The first applicant , PERSON , brought similar proceedings . In a judgment of DATE ORG ordered ORG to pay him ORG CARDINAL ( QUANTITY ) in rent arrears for DATE .

In DATE the applicants sued ORG ministrija ) before ORG . In their pleadings they requested the annulment of the cadastral registration of the ORG ’s title , and the restoration , in the land registers , of the previous entries attesting to their ownership of the land in question .

NORP In support of that claim , the applicants alleged that LAW provided for a uniform procedure : after the enactment of the special law of DATE , ORG was required first to start negotiations with them with a view to reaching a friendly settlement as to the amount of the compensation ( section CARDINAL of LAW ) ; if those negotiations failed , ORG would have to refer the matter to the court of competent jurisdiction for settlement of the dispute ( section CARDINAL ) . That procedure had not been followed in the present case . The applicants particularly emphasised the fact that they were not satisfied about the sums paid by way of compensation and that they were deprived of their right to challenge those sums before a court . In this connection , the applicants pointed out that the orders of ORG had been made in the absence of any prior final judgment concerning the amount of the compensation ; they thus argued that the orders did not comply with CARDINAL of LAW . The applicants submitted that the expropriation in general and the transfer of title in particular had been carried out in breach of that LAW , thus directly entailing a violation of LAW No . CARDINAL .

In a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG dismissed the applicants’ claims . According to the judgment , the expropriation was not based on LAW , as the applicants had claimed : since the measure in question had been decreed in the context of the NORP land reform , the special law of DATE was to be applied . Section CARDINAL of that special law provided for CARDINAL elements – the law itself and the payment of the compensation – which , taken together , formed a statutory basis for the transfer of title to the ORG . As the corresponding sums had been paid into the applicants’ accounts , both of those elements were present , and by registering the ORG as the new owner of the land in question , ORG had acted in accordance with the law .

NORP Moreover , ORG pointed out that section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the PERSON of DATE on the calculation of compensation referred to LAW decision on the arrangements for the entry into force of LAW ; that decision had been declared compliant with LAW No . CARDINAL by ORG .

The applicants appealed before ORG of ORG . In their appeal , they emphasised at the outset that they did not object to the expropriation as such , provided that the statutory formalities were observed and the amount of the compensation was reasonable . This had not been the case , however ; in particular , no expert ’s report had been ordered for the purpose of determining the actual value of the disputed land ( section CARDINAL of LAW ) . The applicants did not challenge ORG finding that the PERSON of DATE constituted a lex specialis in relation to the general law ; they argued , however , that the said law could not be interpreted as derogating from the normal expropriation procedure . Consequently , by recognising the ORG ’s title without having received a copy of a judgment determining the amount of the compensation , ORG had acted illegally .

NORP In a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG dismissed the appeal , essentially endorsing the reasoning and findings of the judgment appealed against . Since the applicants had criticised the compensation awarded , it pointed out that the sums had been determined in accordance with LAW above - mentioned ORG decision . If the applicants had considered that the calculation by the ORG ’s ORG had been erroneous and that the relevant coefficients had been incorrectly applied , they could have challenged the calculation in separate proceedings , but had not done so .

The applicants lodged a cassation appeal before the ORG of ORG . In their appeal , they submitted that the direct and immediate object of their claim was not to challenge the calculation of the compensation as such , but rather the fact that they had not been able to have the sum fixed through fair judicial proceedings , as required by LAW . If such proceedings had taken place , they would have been able to provide the court with evidence of their investments in respect of the land in question . Moreover , the applicants pointed out that they were not entitled to initiate such proceedings themselves , as section LAW reserved that right for the authorities .

In a judgment of DATE the ORG dismissed the applicant ’s appeal on the same grounds as ORG .

In the meantime , on CARDINAL DATE , the ORG had granted the use of all the plots of land in question to a private transport company , B. , from which it has been receiving rent to date .

On DATE ORG of ORG notified the first applicant of a tax re - assessment , requesting him to pay the sum of ORG CARDINAL in land tax in respect of the land in question , plus penalties , for the period from DATE to DATE , the date of the expropriation . The first applicant challenged this before ORG for the district of GPE , which upheld his claim and annulled the re - assessment . ORG appealed before ORG , which , in a judgment of DATE , upheld the annulment of the re - assessment . According to that judgment , the land tax was attached to a plot of land and not to a specific individual ; therefore , it could be paid by someone other than the owner . In that case , to the extent that it was the first applicant ’s land , the tax had already been paid by the public corporation that was responsible for the port ’s management and was using the land on the basis of a servitude . ORG lodged a cassation appeal with the ORG of ORG , which dismissed it in a judgment of DATE .

As to the second applicant , on DATE ORG of ORG notified him of a tax re - assessment for ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL , penalties included , for DATE . The applicant brought annulment proceedings before the court of competent jurisdiction , which upheld his claim . ORG appealed and on DATE ORG annulled the judgment of ORG , finding that the second applicant ’s land was not part of that for which the public corporation had paid land tax . That judgment was upheld at cassation level . However , in DATE the ORG of ORG re - opened the proceedings on account of newly discovered facts . The case file was sent to ORG , which , in a judgment of DATE , upheld the second applicant ’s claim and annulled the disputed re - assessment on the ground that the port management company had already paid land tax for the land in question . On DATE the ORG of ORG , ruling on a cassation appeal , upheld that judgment . The second applicant was therefore not obliged to pay any supplementary tax on his land .

Article CARDINAL of LAW ( PERSON ) provides as follows :

“ Everyone has a right of property . Property may not be used for purposes contrary to the interests of society . Property rights may be restricted only as provided by law . Forced deprivation of property for the need of society shall be authorised only in exceptional cases , on the basis of a special law and in return for fair compensation . ”

Article CARDINAL of the LAW ( repealed in DATE ) entrusted ORG with delegated and limited legislative power . At the time of the expropriation of the land in question , this provision read as follows :

“ CARDINAL legislative sessions , ORG shall be entitled , in cases of pressing need , to adopt regulations with statutory force . Such regulations may not amend either the law on parliamentary elections , the laws on judicial organisation and procedure , LAW or budgetary law , or laws enacted by the sitting legislature ; nor may they regulate amnesty , the issuance of ORG bills , taxes levied by the ORG , ORG , railway fares and loans , and they lapse if they are not submitted to ORG DATE after the opening of the following legislative session . ”

The first paragraph of CARDINAL of LAW DATE on land reform in the cities of GPE ( NORP “ ORG zemes reformu Latvijas Republikas pilsētās ” ) originally read as follows :

“ In all ... cases , where the original owner ’s land has [ in the meantime ] been built upon , or where , in accordance with urban planning and construction projects it is intended to erect thereon constructions necessary to satisfy the needs of society , the former owners of the land or their heirs shall be entitled , as they choose :

to claim restitution of their property title and to obtain from the owner of the building or construction ... the payment of rent , of which the maximum amount shall be fixed by ORG ... ; or

to request that they be granted the right of ownership or use of another plot of land of the same value , situated within the administrative boundaries of the same town , depending on the type of use projected for the said land ; or

to receive compensation in accordance with the statutory conditions . ”

A law of DATE imposed restrictions on the restitution of land on which certain constructions or facilities have been erected . It thus amended the above - mentioned wording as follows :

“ Former property owners or their heirs shall recover their title to land that previously belonged to them , except :

( CARDINAL ) Where , on the land of the former owners , there can be found ... facilities or infrastructures of civil engineering and transport ... , [ for example ] of ports . The title to the land is then registered in the name of the ORG or the local authority concerned ; as to the former owners and their heirs , they shall be entitled , as they choose , to request that they be granted title to another plot of land of the same value and situated within the administrative boundaries of the same town , or otherwise to receive compensation in accordance with the statutory conditions . ”

A law of CARDINAL DATE amended that provision as follows :

( CARDINAL ) Where , on the land of the former owners , there can be found ... facilities or infrastructures of civil engineering and transport ... , [ for example ] of ports . The title to the land is then registered in the name of the ORG or the local authority concerned , after the former owners or their heirs have , as they choose , and in accordance with the statutory conditions , received land of the same value situated elsewhere ... or [ monetary ] compensation . If it is impossible to reach an agreement with the former owner of the land , or his or her heir , as to the compensation or to the allocation of another plot of land of the same value , the land shall then be expropriated in accordance with the conditions laid down in the law on the expropriation of real estate on public interest grounds . ”

The law of CARDINAL DATE reformulated the above - mentioned provision , deleting the last sentence concerning the expropriation of land . The next law , which was enacted on DATE and which entered into force on DATE , added to the said paragraph a note that read as follows ( having the same statutory force as the provision itself ) :

“ Note : Where the former owners of the land or their heirs possess dwellings on the territory of a port , they are entitled to recovery title to that land to the extent that they have the lawful use thereof ; [ the surface area of such land ] must not , however , exceed QUANTITY , except for the residential area of GPE which forms part of the territory of ORG of GPE and where the former owners and their heirs are granted restitution of their title in respect of the entire surface area of the land that belonged to them in the past . ”

At the same time a new paragraph was inserted into section CARDINAL . It reads as follows :

“ Where the former owners of the land or their heirs have recovered title to land on which are erected any facilities referred to in point CARDINAL of the first paragraph of the [ present ] section ... , the DATE amount of the rent for the land shall not exceed MONEY of the land ’s cadastral value ” .

Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW of DATE ( NORP par ostām ) reads as follows :

“ Restrictions on the restitution of property title , as established by section CARDINAL of the law on land reform in the cities of GPE , shall not apply to land incorporated within the territory of FAC after DATE ... Former owners ( or their heirs ) who , as at DATE , possessed a plot of land situated on the current territory of the port , and whose title to the land has been recognised ... but has not been restituted on account of the statutory restrictions , shall be entitled to receive a plot of land of the same value or to be compensated in the form of property compensation certificates , in accordance with the legal instruments governing land reform . ”

Regulation no . CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE on the calculation of compensation to be awarded to former landowners and their heirs , and on the fixing of payments in respect of land of which ownership has been transferred in cities ( GPE par kompensācijas aprēķināšanu bijušajiem zemes īpašniekiem vai viņu mantiniekiem un maksas noteikšanu par īpašumā nodoto zemi pilsētās ) was adopted on the basis of the law on land reform in the cities of GPE . LAW reads :

“ Where persons claiming compensation are not satisfied with the compensation amount calculated [ by ORG ] , they shall be entitled to submit their complaint to the courts ” .

At the material time , and up to CARDINAL DATE , measures of expropriation were governed by ORG ( NORP “ ORG nekustamā īpašuma piespiedu atsavināšanu valsts vai sabiedriskajām vajadzībām ” ) , which was first enacted in DATE and which re - entered into force on DATE . The relevant sections of that Act read as follows :

“ Expropriation of real estate in the public interest shall be authorised only in exceptional cases , always with payment of compensation and on the basis of a special law . ”

“ The proposal to expropriate ... shall be made by the government on the basis of an opinion by the relevant administrative body or local authority , where the institution in question is unable to acquire the real estate by means of an agreement with the owner . The proposal must include information about the real estate to be expropriated and the justification for the expropriation . ”

“ After the [ expropriation ] law has been enacted , the institution that proposed the expropriation shall approach the owner with a view to entering into a [ friendly ] agreement for the transfer of the real estate , and , as the institution sees fit , shall either offer compensation or propose to exchange [ the real estate ] for property of the same value . ”

“ Where compensation is determined by friendly agreement , or where the value of the expropriated real estate is compensated for by exchanging it for other property , the parties shall enter into a contract ... ”

“ Where [ the parties ] fail to reach an agreement , the case shall be examined by a court upon an application by the institution concerned .

After receiving the application , the court shall assign a bailiff to assess the value of the real estate , in the presence of the representative of the institution for whose needs the property is to be expropriated , together with the owner and CARDINAL experts chosen by joint agreement between the parties ... ”

“ The institution by which the expropriation has been proposed shall submit to the court a statement indicating and justifying its assessment of the value of the real estate to be expropriated . Copies of the statement shall be served on the owner of the real estate and to any mortgage creditors of the owner ... ”

“ The value shall be assessed according to local prices and the specific circumstances of the relevant property . Should the owner so request , the assessment shall also take into account its profitability .

The profitability of real estate shall be assessed on the basis of information supplied by its owner . In such cases , the price of the real estate is determined by adding MONEY to the average net income from the real estate over DATE , or , where the owner has held it for DATE , over the entire period of possession . ”

“ Before examining the case , the court shall summon the owner , the representative of the authority having proposed the expropriation and any mortgage creditors .

The court shall determine the compensation to be paid on the basis of experts’ opinions , either according to local prices or , where the owner so requests and the court finds such request reasonable , according to the profitability [ of the property ] .

The court ’s decision may be appealed against in accordance with the statutory procedure . ”

“ After the court ’s decision pertaining to the expropriation of the real estate takes effect , the owner shall be paid the compensation determined and any interest at the rate fixed by the court ; the interest rate shall not be lower than PERCENT per annum from the date of transfer of the property until DATE of payment . ”

“ After the payment of compensation ... , the institution concerned shall transmit to ORG a copy of the court ’s decision together with a description of the real estate , for the purposes of its registration in the name of the ORG or local authority . ”

The use of the term “ a special law ” in LAW and in LAW indicates that each individual expropriation measure falls within the exclusive remit of the legislature , that is to say ORG . As ORG observed in its judgment of DATE , this is a specific feature of the NORP legal system in comparison with that of other countries ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . In other words , there are always CARDINAL legislative instruments : the general law , determining the rules of expropriation in general , and a special targeted law by which ORG orders the expropriation of designated property in a specific case . As to the sum to be paid in compensation , it is fixed by friendly agreement or , failing that , by the courts ( section CARDINAL of LAW of DATE ) .

The relevant parts of LAW decision of DATE on the conditions of the entry ( or in reality , the re - entry ) into force of the above - mentioned Act ( PERSON “ Par Latvijas PERSON likuma ‘ ORG nekustamā īpašuma piespiedu atsavināšanu valsts vai sabiedriskajām vajadzībām’ spēkā stāšanās kārtību ” ) , as inserted by the law of DATE , read as follows :

“ Where , in the course of the land reform , an expropriation ... concerns real estate that is necessary for ... the maintenance and operation of ... transport infrastructures , [ and where the object of the expropriation ] is or must be subject to restitution to the former owner ( or to the heirs thereof ) , the amount of the compensation shall be determined as a sum of money , according to the statutory procedure ; however , it shall not exceed the value of the said real estate as fixed by the land registers or by cadastral records drawn up before DATE and including an indication of the property ’s value . The conversion coefficients to be applied to the value of the property , [ converting ] the prices from DATE ( in pre - war lati ) into current prices ... , shall be determined by ORG .

Where , after the restitution of title the owner has increased the value of the real estate , any investments related to the increase in value must also give rise to compensation . Similarly , compensation must be paid for any expenses reasonably incurred by the owner ( heir ) related to the restitution of the title ( surveying , obtaining of information from records , etc . ) . Any expenses incurred in respect of the services of a representative must be restituted within the limits of the amounts actually paid ; however , they must not exceed the scales of lawyers’ fees .

The expropriation procedures laid down by the present Article shall apply also to owners who have acquired property from the former owner ( or heirs thereof ) by way of donation . ”

Regulation no . CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE on the expropriation of land for the needs of the ORG within ORG of Riga was promptly submitted to ORG , as required by LAW as then in force . On DATE ORG enacted the law on expropriation for the needs of the State of land within ORG of Riga ( NORP “ ORG zemes īpašuma atsavināšanu valsts vajadzībām PERSON tirdzniecības brīvostas teritorijā ” ) , which used almost the exact wording of the Regulation . The law reads as follows :

“ The expropriation , for the needs of the ORG , shall concern land within the territory of ORG of Riga , on ORG , along the bank of the GPE , belonging to :

( CARDINAL ) Mr PERSON :

( a ) for a surface area of QUANTITY ... ,

( b ) for a surface area of QUANTITY ... ,

( c ) for a surface area of QUANTITY ... ,

( d ) for a surface area of QUANTITY ... ;

( CARDINAL ) Mr NORP Vistiņš – for a surface area of QUANTITY ... ”

“ ORG shall be responsible for having the land referred to in section CARDINAL hereof ... entered in the land register in the name of the ORG , represented by ORG . ”

“ CARDINAL A current account shall be opened with the public corporation Latvijas PERSON un zemes banka [ NORP ORG ] in the name of each of the landowners referred to in section CARDINAL hereof ; the compensation sums shall be paid into such accounts in accordance with LAW decision on the conditions of the entry into force of ORG .

CARDINAL The number of the current account shall be notified , by registered letter , to each of the beneficiaries of the compensation payment . ”

“ The land referred to herein shall be entered in the land register in the name of the ORG on the basis of the present LAW and having regard to the confirmation from the Latvijas PERSON un zemes banka that the sums determined as compensation for the value of the properties have [ effectively ] been paid into the accounts of the persons mentioned in DATE hereof . ”

The law of CARDINAL DATE on the expropriation of land for the needs of the ORG within the territory of the “ GPE ” State airport corporation ( Likums “ ORG zemes īpašumu atsavināšanu valsts vajadzībām valsts lidostu uzņēmuma ‘ Rīga’ teritorijā ” ) is almost identical in structure to that of the law mentioned previously . Sections CARDINAL and CARDINAL order the expropriation of the specific plots of land enumerated in the annexes to the law . LAW requires ORG to have the ORG ’s title entered in the land register , while the last CARDINAL sections concern the conditions of payment of the compensation and the effective transfer of title .

To the extent that it is relevant to the present case , section CARDINAL of the law of CARDINAL DATE on FAC ( PERSON tirdzniecības brīvostas likums ) provided as follows :

“ ( CARDINAL ) There shall be established hereby a personal servitude for the benefit of the public corporation ‘ Commercial Port of Riga’ , affecting the land of natural and legal persons ... that is occupied by FAC .

( CARDINAL ) The user of the land shall pay to its owner compensation for the use of the servitude ; the amount of that compensation shall be determined by joint agreement , but it may not exceed MONEY per annum of the cadastral value of the land . ”

On DATE ORG enacted a new law pertaining to ORG ( PERSON brīvostas likums ) . It entered into force on DATE , superseding the previous one . LAW ) of this new law is identical to section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the previous law .

Under Article CARDINAL , first paragraph , of LAW ( Civillikums ) , “ [ o]nly the person who is recorded in the land register as owner of real estate shall be recognised as such ” . However , LAW , second paragraph , stipulates that “ [ r]ights in rem based on a law shall be effective even in the absence of an entry in the land registers ” .

In a judgment of DATE given in case no . CARDINAL - CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) , ORG declared LAW decision on the conditions of entry into force of LAW ( paragraph CARDINAL above ) compliant with LAW No . CARDINAL . It observed , in particular , as follows :

“ ... CARDINAL . The second and fourth paragraphs of LAW decision do not deprive owners whose property has been expropriated in the public interest of their right to apply to the courts for a review of the determination of compensation . The second paragraph of LAW decision only establishes the upper limit of such compensation . Therefore , the argument ... that such persons are deprived of their right to judicial protection and to equality before the courts is unfounded . ... ”

In a judgment of DATE , given in case no . DATE - CARDINAL - CARDINAL , ORG declared unconstitutional , null and void , the amendments to LAW in DATE . The relevant parts of that judgment read as follow :

“ ... ( CARDINAL ) ...

( CARDINAL - CARDINAL ) The fourth sentence of LAW provides that forced deprivation of property shall be allowed only in exceptional cases on the basis of a ‘ special law’ .

Expropriation not only on the basis of a law but ‘ on the basis of a special law’ is to a certain extent a specific feature of LAW . Most Constitutions of European States envisage only that expropriation must be carried out on the basis of a law or in accordance with a procedure established by law .

The aim of LAW , pertaining to expropriation on the basis of a special law , is to protect the fundamental rights of the individual against any arbitrariness on the part of the administrative authorities . The word ‘ specific’ here must not only be interpreted literally and grammatically , but must primarily be given a substantive meaning . When enacting such a ‘ specific’‘exceptional case’ and whether it serves the needs of ORG or society ; it must also ensure that the expropriation gives rise to fair compensation .

Under LAW , first paragraph , of the law of DATE on land tax ( NORP “ ORG zemes nodokli ” ) , as in force at the material time , a person acquiring land was exempt from the payment of land tax for DATE from the date of acquisition .


The applicants teach as temporary staff at the polytechnic school in GPE ( PERSON ) on the basis of private - law contracts . On DATE they sued their employer for a supplement to their salary , as research allowance ( ερευνητική χορηγία - hereinafter “ the benefit ” ) , that had been granted by ministerial decision no . CARDINAL to “ those teaching at polytechnics ” . They served their action ( επίδοση αγωγής ) to the school on DATE .

The applicants relied on a number of decisions by ORG in GPE granting the benefit in question to academic staff of the polytechnic school with the applicants’ status . Their action was CARDINAL of several actions pending before the LOC courts at the time .

On DATE the single - member first instance civil court ( GPE Πρωτοδικείο ) of GPE considered that the applicants were entitled to the benefit . It awarded GRD CARDINAL to applicant no . CARDINAL , GRD CARDINAL to each of applicants nos . CARDINAL - CARDINAL , GRD CARDINAL to each of applicants nos . CARDINAL and DATE , GRD CARDINAL to each of applicants nos . CARDINAL , GRD CARDINAL to each of applicants nos . CARDINAL - CARDINAL , GRD CARDINAL to each of applicants nos . CARDINAL and GRD CARDINAL to applicant no . CARDINAL . The court also held that the applicants should be awarded legal interest on the abovementioned sums from the date when they served their action to the school , namely from DATE .

On DATE the school appealed .

NORP On DATE ORG enacted Law no . DATE . Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL of that law provided the following : the ministerial decision of DATE , according to its true meaning , concerned only permanent staff ; any claims that had not been recognised by final decisions were statute - barred ; all pending court cases were discontinued .

On DATE ORG of GPE upheld the school ’s appeal ( decision no . CARDINAL ) . The court considered that LAW no . CARDINAL “ is truly interpretative and has retroactive effect ( Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL of the LAW ) ” , and that “ it clearly results from these provisions that the temporary staff of the polytechnic schools are not entitled to the benefit provided for by the ministerial decision [ of DATE ] ” . The court continued :

“ Moreover ... Articles DATE and CARDINAL of the LAW ... provide for equal pay for work of equal value rendered ... However , the principle of non - discrimination ... is relented when the differentiation in the pay for work of equal value is imposed by reasons of general public and social interest . Such a reason , which justifies the fixing by the legislator of a different pay among employees who render ... the same work , exists when the ones work on the basis of public law contracts and the others on the basis of private law contracts , i.e. when each group belongs to a different category , ruled by a different legal status entailing different ... rights and obligations . Therefore the judgment under appeal which ... considered that [ the applicants ] as temporary staff of the school ... working on the basis of private law contracts , are entitled to receive the benefit ... was wrong and did not interpret correctly the law , which was in fact interpreted by the ensuing ( truly ) interpretative PERSON no . DATE , and thus the doubt which was created due to its ambiguity has been removed . In view of the fact that by virtue of that law the benefit is given only to permanent staff and not to temporary staff ... like [ the applicants ] , the constitutional principle of equal pay for work of equal value is not violated , given that this deviation is imposed by the general public and social interest , because a full equation of the pay of these different categories of working people would overrule the basic principle of free negotiation of the employment conditions in the public sector ... ”

On DATE the applicants appealed in cassation relying , inter alia , on Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL of the Convention and Article CARDINAL of Protocol No . CARDINAL .

On DATE ORG considered that the DATE law simply interpreted the DATE ministerial decision , did not have the purpose of resolving the litigation and did not interfere with the applicants’ rights under LAW . It rejected their appeal ( decision no . CARDINAL ) .

The relevant provisions of LAW read as follows :

“ The authentic interpretation of the laws shall rest with the legislative power . ”

“ The courts shall be bound not to apply laws , the contents of which are contrary to LAW .

ORG ( ORG ) of GPE in its decisions ORG . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , CARDINAL/CARDINAL and DATE considered that the benefit provided for by the ministerial decision of DATE concerned both permanent and temporary staff . The same line was followed by the single - member firstinstance civil court of GPE in decisions ORG . DATE , CARDINAL/CARDINAL , CARDINAL/CARDINAL and ORG , the single - member first - instance civil court of ORG in decision no . CARDINAL , the single - member first - instance civil court of PERSON in decision no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , the multi - member first instance civil court ( PERSON ) of GPE in decision no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , ORG in decision no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , and ORG of GPE in decisions ORG . CARDINAL/CARDINAL and ORG .

Law no . DATE provides the following :

“ a ) The true meaning of the provisions of paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL of Article CARDINAL of decision no . CARDINAL is that the benefit ... is paid only ... to the permanent staff of the schools ...

b ) Any claims relating to the payment of such benefit also to the temporary staff ... shall be extinguished unless for cases in which , at the time of the publication of this law , a final judgment ( αμετάκλητη δικαστική απόφαση ) has been issued . Any claims pending in any court for the payment of such benefit shall be struck out ... ”

The single - member first - instance civil court of GPE , in its decisions ORG . CARDINAL/CARDINAL and DATE , considered that LAW no . DATE was clearly unconstitutional as it violated the principle of equality . Therefore it refused to apply it and allowed the ORG claims . The same line was followed by ORG in decisions ORG . FAC and CARDINAL .


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

Karel Jungwiert;Mark Villiger;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Mykhaylo Buromenskiy;Peer Lorenzen;Rait Maruste;Zdravka Kalaydjieva

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

The ORG owns PERCENT of the share capital in the company ORG DATE ( “ the company ” ) , which is therefore subject to the moratorium on the forced sale of property of entities in which the ORG holds PERCENT of the share capital , barring the attachment and sale of its assets .

On DATE ORG started insolvency proceedings against the company .

On DATE the ORG ordered the company to pay the applicant CARDINAL NORP hryvnas ( ORG ) in salary arrears and compensation . The amount represented the salary due to the applicant after deduction of income tax . The judgment became final , but remains only partially enforced , the outstanding debt being ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL .


CASE OF PAULIUKIENĖ AND PAULIUKAS v. LITHUANIA

No violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for private life)

András Sajó;Guido Raimondi;Helen Keller;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque

The first applicant , PERSON , was born in DATE . The second applicant , her husband Mr PERSON , was born in DATE . They are both NORP nationals and live in GPE .

NORP In DATE the first applicant bought a portion ( CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) of a plot of land at CARDINAL FAC and CARDINAL FAC in GPE . In DATE the subplot was registered in her name in ORG .

It appears from a letter from the authorities of CARDINAL DATE to the ORG neighbour , FAC , that on DATE the GPE territorial planning authorities issued an administrative - law penalty notice against the first applicant on the ground that she was pursuing construction works inside a warehouse ( ūkinio pastato viduje ) built on the above - mentioned plot of land and was disregarding the orders of the official supervising construction works . The Government state that to their knowledge that decision has not been quashed . On DATE the first applicant was again ordered to stop the building works as she had no permit to carry them out .

On DATE the GPE region territorial planning authorities issued an administrative - law penalty notice on the ground that the first applicant had unlawfully reconstructed a house situated at CARDINAL FAC and QUANTITY FAC in GPE . The first applicant was fined CARDINAL NORP litai ( LTL ) . On DATE the administrative court quashed the decision , on the procedural ground that the penalty notice of CARDINAL DATE had been issued in the absence of the first applicant . The case was returned to the territorial planning authorities . On DATE the authorities issued a repeat penalty notice about the unlawfully reconstructed house . This time the applicants’ daughter was present and signed the document . She told the authorities that they could not enter the house because she had no keys to it . The first applicant was fined in the same amount , LTL CARDINAL,CARDINAL .

By a decision of CARDINAL DATE ORG quashed the decision of DATE due to procedural flaws . The court considered that the first applicant ’s offence was of a continuous nature , and that it was therefore necessary to establish the date on which the offence had become known , because a fine under LAW could be imposed only within DATE date the violation became known . The territorial planning authority appealed .

On DATE ORG allowed the appeal in part and returned the case for new examination due to procedural flaws . The court noted however that the legal qualification of the first applicant ’s actions was not questioned in that case .

By a decision of DATE ORG found that the date on which the administrative violation by the first applicant had come to light was DATE . Given that the fine on the first applicant was imposed only on DATE , DATE had passed since that violation surfaced , and therefore no administrative punishment was possible . The case was discontinued .

In DATE the first applicant asked the GPE territorial planning authority to approve the house in question , built on the plot of land belonging to both applicants , as fit for habitation . The authorities informed her , however , that there were certain deficiencies in respect of the arbitrarily reconstructed house . Moreover , after those deficiencies had been eliminated the second applicant was also obliged to obtain approval in relation to the building from their neighbour Č.P.

NORP The GPE neighbour GPE had sued the second applicant in civil proceedings for pecuniary damage , on the ground that on DATE the second applicant had arbitrarily and unlawfully demolished FAC ’s fence . In that connection the municipal authorities had earlier found the second applicant guilty of a violation of administrative law . Their decision was upheld by administrative courts at CARDINAL levels of jurisdiction . By a decision of DATE GPE allowed GPE ’s civil claim in full .

On DATE the territorial planning authorities gave the first applicant an administrative warning , because she had unlawfully built a wall on ORG land and had refused to demolish it . This conclusion was confirmed by GPE on DATE .

Further , on DATE the applicants’ neighbours GPE , GPE , GPE and GPE addressed a written complaint to them . The neighbours stated that for DATE the applicants had been ignoring the law , had lied , and had used corrupt connections when managing their property . They also submitted that the second applicant had used his position as a GPE elder for his personal proprietary interests , instead of trying to keep an untarnished reputation . The neighbours gave a detailed list of the applicants’ misdemeanours as confirmed by the authorities’ decisions , where it had been mentioned that the applicants’ house was too large , and that they had unlawfully occupied certain parts of a plot of land belonging to neighbours GPE and GPE , and had also occupied ORG land . The neighbours expressed the wish , however , that in future all the neighbours would be able to live in peace , and that the applicants would abide by the law . The Government state that later on a copy of this note was given to a journalist .

On DATE the first applicant was informed by the authorities that some parts of her house were outside the boundaries of the plot of land at CARDINAL FAC and CARDINAL FAC in GPE and were on land belonging to the State . She was reminded that arbitrary occupation and use of State land entailed administrative liability . On DATE a penalty notice for an administrative offence was issued to the first applicant for arbitrary occupation of ORG land . However , by a ruling of DATE the court found that the boundaries between the applicants’ land and the ORG land had been established only after those parts of the house had been built , and that therefore the first applicant could not be held liable for the offence .

In DATE the first applicant brought court proceedings against her neighbour GPE , claiming that in DATE he had built a brick wall between her plot of land and his , and that that wall encroached on her plot by QUANTITY and thus breached her property rights . Her civil claim was dismissed as unfounded by both the first - instance and the appellate courts . On DATE ORG terminated the proceedings , upholding the lower courts’ conclusions .

On DATE the DATE newspaper PERSON published an article covering the applicants’ boundary disputes with FAC and the other neighbours . The article mentioned that DATE the second applicant had been elected elder of GPE centre ( FAC miesto centro seniūnas ) . The article alleged that the applicants were illegally building on their plot of land and had occupied part of the land belonging to the other owners and the ORG . The relevant passages of the article stated as follows :

“ The elder was occupying the ORG land [ GPE užėmė kaimynų žemę ] ;

Elected GPE centre elder DATE , PERSON has been building illegally on his plot after occupying land belonging to his neighbours and the ORG , and is not complying with prohibitions by various institutions on rebuilding the derelict dwelling house situated in his yard [ ORG miesto GPE seniūnu išrinktas PERSON , pažeisdamas įstatymus , savo sklype vykdo savavališkas statybas , ORG užėmęs valstybinę ir kaimynams priklausančią žemę , nepaiso įvairių institucijų draudimo rekonstruoti apleistą gyvenamąjį namą , stovintį kieme ] ;

When going through the process of acquiring the land in DATE , [ Mr and PERSON ] LOC enlarged their plot at the expense of the neighbours and the State – the entrance to GPE ’s yard was narrowed and the roof of [ the applicants’ ] house overhung PERSON ’s outhouse [ DATE ORG tvarkydami žemės įgijimo dokumentus , MONEY teritoriją kaimynų ir valstybinės žemės sąskaita – susiaurėjo GPE įvažiavimas į kiemą , o virš nedidelio ORG namuko pakibo ORG namo stogas ] ;

The residential dwelling section of the city ’s housing department ordered Pauliukai [ reference to both applicants ] either to submit a reconstruction project or to demolish the building by DATE However , PERSON did not comply with the order , and continued to build a new house inside the old one without permission [ GPE ūkio departamento būsto skyrius įpareigojo GPE iki gegužės CARDINAL parengti statinio kapitalinio remonto projektą CARDINAL jį nugriauti . PERSON , NORP nurodymo nepaisė ir senojo pastato viduje , neturėdami tam leidimų , ėmė statyti naują namą ] ;

PERSON has worked as deputy director of ORG , an enterprise belonging to ORG [ V.Pauliukas ORG dirbęs ORG koncernui priklausančiame “ GPE ” direktoriaus pavaduotoju ] ;

Despite several notices [ warning them ] not to proceed with the illegal building work , PERSON have disregarded letters from various institutions and have continued with the works [ Nors Pauliukai buvo kelis kartus įspėti nevykdyti savavališkų statybų , PERSON įvairių tarnybų raštų nepaiso ir toliau atlieka darbus ] . ”

After the article was published , on DATE the second applicant asked the newspaper to correct the part of the article he considered to be erroneous and damaging to his reputation as a GPE centre elder . He was also dissatisfied at being linked to the ORG , owned by the ORG group of companies , which was at that time under criminal investigation for bringing Inkaras to insolvency . As the newspaper did not comply with this request , he then brought a claim in the civil courts , seeking rectification of the article and compensation for non - pecuniary damage . The third party in the civil proceedings , the applicants’ neighbour GPE , told the court that the article did not contain any untruths , and suggested that the civil claim be dismissed .

On DATE the GPE City Second ORG dismissed the second applicant ’s claim . The court took into account that when preparing the publication the journalist had talked to the applicants’ neighbours , examined documents , telephoned the second applicant and had regard to his opinion . The court pointed out that , in accordance with LAW , the press could be held liable for defamation if it knew that information it published did not correspond to reality , that is if it acted in bad faith . However , in some circumstances the media had a right to trust certain sources of information ( for example , an official police report or a document by other municipal or ORG authorities ) . In such cases the media were exempt from the obligation to verify the accuracy of that information . On this point the court noted that the applicants’ neighbours had repeatedly addressed complaints to ORG and municipal institutions about the applicants’ housing projects . Those complaints had been investigated by the authorities and official replies had been received . For the court , the case file showed that both of the applicants had been held liable under administrative law for rebuilding the house without a permit and for unlawfully occupying ORG land . Conversely , the applicants’ neighbours had been honest when they addressed the ORG and municipal institutions , because , as the replies from those institutions indicated , their accusations in respect of the applicants had proved to be true . These were precisely those written replies that were given to the journalist when she was preparing the publication . Given that they were official documents , the journalist had a right to trust their content .

The district court also noted that the first applicant had been named in the article as the owner of the plot of land in question . Given that no evidence had been submitted to the court to the effect that the property had been divided between the CARDINAL applicants , the presumption that the plot of land was joint property of the CARDINAL applicants as spouses was a valid CARDINAL . This explained why the article mentioned not only the first applicant but also the second applicant . It was also noteworthy that in the civil court the second applicant had acknowledged that the authorities had ordered a halt to construction on the plot of land belonging to his wife , but argued that they had obeyed the order . However , from the letter of CARDINAL DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) it was clear that the reference in the article to administrative sanction was correct . As regards the second applicant ’s prior work at GPE , he himself admitted that he had worked at the Inkaras factory as head of a production unit ( cecho viršininkas ) . Accordingly , the second applicant had failed to prove that his dignity had been insulted because of the published reference to his position at GPE .

The GPE City Second ORG next observed that defamation meant publication of material which did not correspond to reality and which in the light of law and moral and customary norms damaged a person ’s honour , dignity or reputation in society . It indicated further that the insulting nature of the material published did not have to be proven if the words or combination of words used were manifestly insulting . The court concluded that the publication at issue did not contain such language . Next , the court noted that in defamation cases the court had to examine the construction of the sentence as well as the whole context of the publication in order to find out the exact meaning of the word or combination of words . The court concluded that the second applicant had indicated only separate sentences but had not had regard to the whole content of the publication .

By a ruling of CARDINAL DATE , ORG allowed the second applicant ’s claim in part and ordered the DATE to print a rectification . Specifically , the documents from ORG showed that the owner of the house and of the plot of land was the first applicant . Consequently , the published material did not correspond to reality , because the evidence of inappropriate use of the property had been linked to the first applicant but not to the second . Similarly , as regards the second applicant ’s former post at GPE , which belonged to the ORG group , that statement was misleading , because the second applicant had in fact worked as a director at a [ subsidiary ] enterprise , PERSON padai , which he did not deny . The appellate court thus concluded that naming the second applicant separately and together with the first applicant as persons who had broken the law , and linking those breaches of the law to the first applicant ’s employment , as well as stating that in DATE second applicant had had links to the ORG group , was damaging to his authority as a public figure . The court considered that the journalist had deliberately ignored her obligation to provide information that was fair , accurate and impartial , in breach of LAW to the Public .

On DATE ORG took a final decision in the case . The court indicated that LAW of LAW guaranteed the right to freedom of expression . Nevertheless , that right was not an absolute one , and had to be exercised taking into account the rights of others as well as the interests of society . Furthermore , ORG CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the PERSON on the Provision of Information to the Public obliged the media to present information correctly , without bias and in compliance with the requirements of journalistic ethics .

As regards the the publication at issue described a situation in which there was conflict among CARDINAL co - owners of the plot of land over the boundaries of that plot , the applicants’ illegal construction and their unlawful occupation of the ORG and ORG land . It was clear from the content of the applicants’ ORG complaints to various institutions and the replies they had received that those neighbours were trying to protect their rights which had been breached , and also to make sure that the second applicant , who was a public figure , abided by the law . The neighbours , acting in good faith , gave copies of those complaints and replies to the journalist , who in turn wrote an article on the subject . The first - instance court was correct to find that the official replies from municipal and ORG institutions , which referred to violations of law committed by both applicants in that they had reconstructed the house without a permit and had also occupied ORG - owned land and demolished part of a neighbour ’s wall , among others , were a sufficient basis for publication of information about a public figure , the second applicant , who had been elected GPE centre elder .

ORG also emphasised that the mere fact that the second applicant was not mentioned in the replies from the municipal authorities did not confirm that the violations could not be linked to him . Despite the fact that the plot of land and the house where both applicants lived were registered in the first applicant ’s name , that property had been acquired during their marriage . Accordingly , this was their joint property which they had equal rights to manage and use , in accordance with LAW of LAW . Moreover , in the event that a co - owner of the property of a public figure exercised their co - ownership rights inappropriately , the public figure ( in this case the second applicant ) had a duty to control his co - owner ’s actions and to prevent violations of the law , as in this case . For ORG , if a co - owner exercising the joint property rights of both spouses violated the pecuniary and non - pecuniary rights of other persons , the other co - owner incurred liability as well , the more so if that other co - owner was a public figure . Having regard to the above arguments , ORG concluded that the appellate court had wrongly interpreted LAW to the Public and erred in finding that the journalist had deliberately violated that law by breaching her responsibility to present correct , precise and impartial information . ORG concluded that those errors made the decision of the appellate court invalid . The decision of the first - instance court was upheld .

Article CARDINAL of LAW provides that the private life of a person is inviolable . Information concerning private life may be collected only in accordance with the law , which protects everyone from arbitrary and unlawful interference and from encroachment upon his or her honour or dignity . Article CARDINAL provides for a right to seek and impart information . This right may not be limited unless it is necessary to do so to protect a person ’s private life or dignity .

As regards the right to privacy and protection of honour and dignity , the Civil Code reads as follows :

“ CARDINAL . The privacy of a natural person shall be inviolable . Information on a person ’s private life may be made public only with his consent ...

Establishment of a file on another person ’s private life in violation of law shall be prohibited . A person may not be denied access to the information contained in the file except as otherwise provided by the law . Dissemination of information on a person ’s private life shall be prohibited unless , taking into consideration the person ’s official position and his status in society , dissemination of the said information is in line with a lawful and well - grounded public interest in having the said information .

Publication of matters related to a person ’s private life , however truthful they may be , as well as making private correspondence public in violation of the procedure prescribed in DATE and CARDINAL of the given Article , and invasion of a person ’s dwelling without his consent except as otherwise provided by the law , keeping his private life under observation or gathering information about him in violation of law as well as other unlawful acts , infringing the right to privacy , shall all form the basis for bringing an action for compensation for pecuniary and non - pecuniary damage incurred by the said acts ... ”

“ CARDINAL . A person shall have the right to demand the refutation , in judicial proceedings , of publicised data which abase his honour and dignity and which are erroneous , as well as redress for pecuniary and non - pecuniary damage incurred by the placing in the public domain of the said data ... Data which have been made public shall be presumed to be erroneous unless the publisher proves the opposite to be true .

Where erroneous data have been publicised by mass media ( including the press , television and radio ) the person who is the subject of the publication shall have the right to provide a refutation and demand that the media outlet concerned publish the said refutation free of charge or make it public in some other way ...

A request for redress for property , pecuniary or non - pecuniary damage shall be investigated by the court , irrespective of whether or not those responsible for the dissemination of those data have refuted them .

Where a media outlet refuses to publish a refutation or make it public in some other way , or fails to do so within the term provided in paragraph CARDINAL of the given LAW , the person concerned thereby acquires the right to apply to court in accordance with the procedure established in paragraph CARDINAL of the given LAW . The court shall establish the procedure and the term for the refutation of data which were erroneous or abased the person ’s reputation .

Media outlets which publicise erroneous data abasing a person ’s reputation shall provide redress for damage to property , pecuniary and non - pecuniary damage incurred only in cases when it knew or should have known that the data were erroneous , as well as in cases when the data have been made public by its employees or anonymously and the media outlet refuses to name the person who supplied the said data .

A person who places erroneous data in the public domain shall be exempted from civil liability in cases when the publicised data relates to a public figure and his ORG or public activities , and the person who has placed them in the public domain can show that his actions were in good faith and meant to introduce the person and his activities to the public ... ”

The relevant parts of the PERSON on the Provision of Information to the Public read as follows :

“ CARDINAL . In GPE freedom of information is enshrined in the LAW , this and other laws , and international treaties of GPE .

Producers and disseminators of public information as well as journalists shall be governed in their activities by the LAW and laws , international treaties of GPE , also by the principles of humanism , equality , tolerance , and respect for an individual person ; they shall respect freedoms of speech , creativity , religion , and conscience , variety of opinion , adhere to the norms of professional ethics of journalists , support the development of democracy and public openness , promote civil society and ORG progress , enhance ORG independence , and develop national culture and morality .

Public information must be presented in the media fairly , accurately and in an unbiased manner .

The use of freedom of information may be restricted by the requirements , conditions , restrictions or penalties set out in the laws and necessary in a NORP society to protect GPE ’s ORG security , its territorial integrity , public order and constitutional system , to guarantee the impartiality of its judicial authority in order to prevent law violations and crimes , disclosure of confidential information and protect people ’s health and morality as well as their privacy , dignity and rights .

Persons shall be held accountable for violating the freedom of information and statutory restrictions on the use of freedom of information in accordance with the procedure established by this and other laws . ”

“ CARDINAL . Every person shall have the right to freely express his ideas and convictions . This right encompasses freedom to maintain CARDINAL ’s opinion , to seek , receive and disseminate information and ideas in accordance with the conditions and procedure set out in the laws ... ”

“ CARDINAL . When producing and disseminating public information , a person ’s right to have his personal and family life respected must be ensured .

Information about a person ’s private life may be published only with the consent of that person , except for the cases specified in paragraph CARDINAL of this LAW and if the publication of such information does not cause harm to that person .

Information concerning private life may be published without a person ’s consent in cases where the publication of such information helps to reveal violations of law or criminal acts , also where such information is presented in open court . Furthermore , information about the private life of a public figure ( ORG political figures , public servants , heads of political parties and public organisations , as well as other persons participating in public or political activities ) may be made public without his consent where such information discloses the circumstances of the aforementioned person ’s private life or his personal characteristics which are of public significance ... ”

It shall be prohibited to disseminate disinformation and information which is slanderous and offensive to a person or degrades human dignity and honour ... ”

The Law on Civil Service provides that the civil service is based on the principles of rule of law , transparency and responsibility for the decisions taken . CARDINAL of the basic principles of conduct for civil servants is exemplariness : he or she must duly perform his or her duties and be of irreproachable reputation , respectful and orderly ( Article CARDINAL ) .

The Law on Local Government provides that the neighbourhood ( seniūnija ) is a structural territorial unit of a municipality . The neighbourhood is headed by the elder ( seniūnas ) , who is appointed by the director of the municipal administration in accordance with ORG . The elder carries out internal management of the neighbourhood ( Articles DATE ) .

On DATE ORG adopted a ruling concerning ORG practice in civil cases concerning protection of honour and dignity ( PERSON praktika , DATE , PERSON . CARDINAL ) . The court ruled that a person ’s privacy and his or her honour and dignity should be protected when it is established that information about him has been disseminated without his consent and in the absence of lawful public interest . When assessing non - pecuniary damage caused it was important to take into account such criteria as the form and the manner of dissemination , the guilt of the defendant , and the content of the information .

LAW ir šeimos kodeksas ) provided that property obtained by spouses during their marriage was their common and joint property . They had equal rights to manage and use that property . Even if the property had been registered in the name of one of the spouses , it was considered to belong to both spouses .

Article CARDINAL of LAW , acceded by GPE on DATE , provides that no one shall be subjected to arbitrary or unlawful interference with his privacy , nor to unlawful attacks on his honour and reputation . Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks .


Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time);Violation of Article 13 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy)

Aleš Pejchal;André Potocki;Angelika Nußberger;Ganna Yudkivska;Mark Villiger;Paul Lemmens

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

On DATE the applicant instituted a labour dispute before ORG seeking the annulment of the decisions of DATE and DATE whereby her contract had been terminated due to her unauthorised absence from work .

On DATE the first - instance court delivered a judgment rejecting her request . She appealed .

On DATE ORG upheld the appeal and remitted the case for re - examination . The appeal court found that the facts had not been properly established and that as a consequence the application of the law was also questionable .

On DATE the first - instance court rejected the applicant ’s claim . She appealed .

On DATE the appeal was rejected . The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law .

On DATE ORG rejected the appeal . The applicant lodged a constitutional appeal .

On DATE ORG rejected the appeal .

On DATE the applicant instituted proceedings before ORG seeking payment of benefits .

On DATE the first - instance court delivered a judgment upholding her request in part . An appeal was lodged .

On DATE ORG remitted the case for re - examination .

On DATE the first - instance court rendered a judgment . An appeal was lodged .

On DATE the appeal was rejected and on DATE the appeal on points of law was rejected . The applicant lodged a constitutional appeal

On DATE ORG rejected the appeal as being lodged out of time .

For relevant domestic law see PERSON v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL ,

DATE ) .