Violation of Art. 8;Not necessary to examine Art. 6-1;Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed;Non-pecuniary damage - financial award;Costs and expenses partial award

The applicants , PERSON , PERSON and PERSON , are GPE nationals and live in GPE aan den PERSON , in the GPE .

Mr PERSON and PERSON , who were born in DATE and DATE respectively , are the parents of PERSON . PERSON was born on DATE .

From DATE PERSON and PERSON became aware that PERSON 's breathing sometimes stopped and her heart raced . This led them to seek medical advice from , inter alios , doctors practising at ORG . PERSON was taken into hospital for CARDINAL periods , of DATE and DATE respectively , in the course of DATE and DATE .

NORP The doctors found nothing physically wrong with PERSON . They began to suspect that PERSON was healthy but that PERSON might be suffering from a psychological disturbance known as the Munchausen syndrome by proxy .

The Munchausen syndrome by proxy is a condition in which a parent of a young child , nearly always the mother , driven by a need of her own for attention , seeks superfluous medical assistance for her child . The parent may invent a disease or even cause the symptoms . In certain cases , for example if the child 's breathing is interfered with , the child 's life may be in danger .

At around this time PERSON was referred to Curium , a children 's psychiatric clinic in GPE , near GPE .

NORP In DATE ORG doctors made their fears known to ORG ( PERSON ) . The Government state that the identity of the applicants was not revealed to ORG at this time . ORG advised the doctors to provide adequate medical care and discuss their fears with the child 's parents . The PERSON family was kept under medical observation but the doctors did not discuss their suspicions with PERSON and PERSON .

On DATE ORG inzake GPE ) in GPE telephoned ORG . A doctor connected with this centre stated – according to the Government , still without naming the applicants – that it was suspected that PERSON was suffering from the Munchausen syndrome by proxy . In spite of the medical care provided , the situation had not improved . The question arose whether to intervene . It was agreed that ORG doctor would obtain more information with a view to informing ORG . It is not recorded that the doctor did so .

Kimberly was again taken into hospital on DATE , following an incident DATE .

A meeting took place on DATE to discuss the case of PERSON . Those taking part included the director of ORG , CARDINAL doctors and CARDINAL nurses connected with ORG , the doctor connected with ORG , the PERSON family 's general practitioner , the deputy unit head of ORG and a specialised family help worker ( gezinsverzorger ) . It was decided that ORG and ORG would jointly submit a report to ORG . PERSON and PERSON were neither involved nor informed .

It would appear that it was only during this meeting that the identity of the applicants was communicated to ORG .

On DATE ORG was provided by ORG with a first version of this report ( hereinafter “ ORG report ” ) . In response to questions received from ORG , the reporting parties made additions to it .

On DATE Curium sent the revised version of the report to ORG . The report stated that they believed PERSON 's life to be at risk and that urgent action was required . It expressed the opinion that it was not possible to discuss the matter with PERSON and PERSON PERSON , there being a danger that they might react unpredictably . According to the Government , ORG received the report on DATE .

On DATE ORG applied by fax to the juvenile judge ( PERSON ) of ORG ( arrondissementsrechtbank ) of GPE for a supervision order ( ondertoezichtstelling ) and an order for PERSON to be placed away from her family ( uithuisplaatsing ) . The same day the juvenile judge issued a provisional supervision order ( voorlopige ondertoezichtstelling ) , valid until DATE , pending a decision of a more permanent nature , at the same time ordering PERSON to be placed away from her family . The juvenile judge did not hear PERSON and PERSON before coming to this decision . She scheduled a hearing for DATE .

The Government state that ORG wrote to PERSON and PERSON on DATE , enclosing with their letter the application for a provisional supervision order , ORG report and several articles on the Munchausen syndrome by proxy .

The applicants state that they did not at any time receive either the letter of CARDINAL DATE or any of the other documents mentioned . The Government appear to dispute this .

On DATE PERSON and PERSON arrived at ORG intending to collect ORG and take her home with them . It was then that they learnt of the juvenile judge 's decisions of CARDINAL DATE . They were not allowed to see PERSON .

Also on DATE the juvenile judge issued an order , again without hearing PERSON and PERSON , for PERSON to be taken to a foster home , the name and address of which was withheld from PERSON and PERSON Venema . This order was carried out DATE .

Again on DATE CARDINAL of the doctors from ORG DATE a paediatrician and a child psychiatrist – and the investigating officer of ORG met with PERSON and PERSON to discuss ORG report , the implications of a provisional supervision order and ORG 's placement away from her family .

On DATE the juvenile judge heard Mr and PERSON in camera . Mr and PERSON were assisted by a lawyer . A representative of ORG was also present . At the close of the hearing the juvenile judge decided that , given the expert opinions to the effect that PERSON 's life appeared to be in danger , the provisional supervision order would have to remain in force but that a second opinion would be obtained as soon as possible from a psychiatrist and a child psychiatrist .

It can be inferred from the case file that PERSON and PERSON were allowed to see PERSON once DATE under an access arrangement , but no copy of the access order has been submitted .

The order of DATE was transmitted to PERSON and PERSON on DATE .

The psychiatrist 's report was dated DATE . It concluded that there were no indications that PERSON and PERSON posed any danger to PERSON . However , a paragraph which the psychiatrist added to this report on DATE , after discussions by telephone with ORG , stated that it “ [ could ] not be entirely ruled out ” that PERSON was suffering from the Munchausen syndrome by proxy , and recommended further examination .

ORG sent the psychiatrist 's report to ORG and ORG . Curium let it be known in response that it saw no reason to reconsider its point of view .

Mr and PERSON appealed to ORG ( gerechtshof ) of GPE on DATE against the placement order .

Mr and PERSON submitted written statements made by their general practitioner ( dated DATE ) and PERSON gynaecologist ( dated DATE ) . These criticised the quality of the reporting by ORG and ORG doctors and expressed doubts as to the validity of their diagnosis . They also noted that PERSON had not shown any tendency to seek superfluous or clearly unnecessary medical attention .

Mr and PERSON also submitted separate statements of CARDINAL different psychiatrists ( dated CARDINAL , DATE and DATE ) , including CARDINAL university professors , who had examined them at their request . All were extremely critical of the diagnosis made by ORG doctors . They concluded that ORG would be in no apparent danger if she were returned to her parents and recommended that this be done .

The child psychiatrist , from whom an opinion was to be obtained pursuant to the order made by the juvenile judge on DATE , was approached by ORG on DATE .

On DATE the ORG doctors elaborated on the reasons for their suspicions as set out in their report of DATE to ORG .

A second child , PERSON , was born to PERSON and PERSON on DATE . ORG , aware that PERSON was due to give birth , had on DATE applied for a provisional supervision order aimed at the protection of the second child immediately after the birth , but had withdrawn this application on DATE .

ORG held a hearing on DATE .

On DATE ORG dismissed the appeal . It found that ORG had had sufficient reason to approach the juvenile judge as it had done , and that the juvenile judge had had sufficient reason to make the orders in question . It would have been preferable , even so , to have involved the parents in the decision - making process beforehand , or at least at an earlier stage . As matters stood , the experts disagreed amongst themselves . Given the likelihood that the examinations ordered by the juvenile judge would be brought to a conclusion shortly and that the juvenile judge would rescind the placement order immediately if the outcome was favourable to Mr and PERSON , ORG decided to confirm the decision of the juvenile judge .

On DATE the juvenile judge gave a decision prolonging ORG 's placement away from her family until DATE . PERSON and PERSON PERSON appealed .

It appears that around DATE the access arrangement was modified in that PERSON and PERSON were then allowed to see PERSON once DATE instead of once a fortnight . The Government state that the initiative for this change was taken by the juvenile judge .

Mr and PERSON lodged an appeal on points of law ( cassatieberoep ) against ORG decision of DATE with ORG ( PERSON ) on DATE .

On CARDINAL DATE the juvenile judge made an order prolonging PERSON 's placement away from her family until DATE . Mr and PERSON appealed , complaining among other things that the juvenile judge had not heard them before reaching this decision . On CARDINAL DATE , after holding a hearing , ORG gave a decision confirming the juvenile judge 's order . It held that although the juvenile judge had erred in not hearing PERSON and PERSON , this error was sufficiently remedied by the appeal hearing . As to the merits of the case , ORG agreed that the opinion of the child psychiatrist appointed as an expert pursuant to the order of the juvenile judge was slow in coming but considered nonetheless that the potential danger to PERSON 's life outweighed any disadvantages of ORG 's placement away from her family . On DATE ORG , by a separate decision , declared PERSON and PERSON appeal against the decision of DATE , which had prolonged the placement order until DATE , inadmissible because by then it had become devoid of purpose .

The child psychiatrist submitted his opinion on DATE . It contained extensive reports of medical and other examinations and discussions with the applicants , character witnesses and doctors who had treated PERSON on several occasions after she had stopped breathing . Appended to the opinion were psychiatric reports in standard form on Mr and PERSON , finding no sign of any psychiatric disorder , and a report by CARDINAL ORG paediatricians finding a physical explanation for PERSON 's arrested breathing but no sign of maltreatment . The opinion noted that ORG 's normal development had been impaired by the proceedings and that PERSON and PERSON had found the entire sequence of events profoundly distressing . It concluded without reservation that PERSON should be handed back to her parents .

On CARDINAL DATE , following a hearing in camera , the juvenile judge rescinded the provisional supervision order and the placement order , at the same time refusing to replace the provisional supervision order with a permanent CARDINAL . PERSON was handed back to PERSON and PERSON .

ORG not yet having given judgment , PERSON and PERSON PERSON submitted on DATE that they nonetheless had a continued interest in obtaining a decision of that court as to the legality of the measures in question . They stated , in particular , that a finding in their favour would provide them with some form of moral satisfaction ; would enable them to take action in tort for damages against the ORG , ORG and ORG ; would prevent further interference with their family life ; and would obviate the need for the applicants to take further civil proceedings .

The Advocate - General ( advocaat - generaal ) at ORG submitted an advisory opinion on DATE . He expressed the view that the appeal was inadmissible as PERSON and PERSON no longer had any legal interest in the outcome of the proceedings . The possible satisfaction of being found in the right was not in itself a sufficient interest . Nor was the possibility of a further civil action for damages , it being by no means obvious that such an action would in fact be made possible by a decision of ORG . The possibility of further interference with the applicants ' family life in the future was not relevant to the case before ORG . The question whether the ORG , ORG had committed a tort against the applicants was outside the scope of the case before ORG , so that the need , if any , for further civil proceedings could not be considered relevant either . Turning to the merits of the case , ORG expressed the opinion that the decision of ORG was based on adequate legal grounds and sufficiently reasoned .

DATE . On DATE ORG gave judgment declaring Mr and PERSON appeal on points of law inadmissible for lack of interest . It was held that the interests stated were insufficient .

In the meantime , on DATE , a discussion took place between a representative of ORG ( PERSON – “ VVNOR ” ) , a non - governmental organisation that had taken up PERSON and PERSON case , and the Director of ORG . It would appear that ORG representative showed the Director documents taken from ORG 's medical records , which had been obtained from ORG and which had been in PERSON and PERSON possession for DATE .

On DATE , CARDINAL DATE , ORG transmitted a written statement of complaint on Mr and PERSON PERSON 's behalf to ORG .

On DATE the Deputy Director of ORG gave a written decision declaring the complaint partly well - founded and partly ill - founded . Complaints considered well - founded related to the failure to give PERSON and PERSON access to certain documents – due to the absence from the file , at the relevant time , of certain meeting reports , and in the case of a list of contacts , due to an omission DATE and to the application for a provisional supervision order lodged on DATE in respect of the second child PERSON and PERSON were then expecting . As to the latter issue , it was stated that the said application had been withdrawn on DATE because it appeared not to be legally possible to seek a supervision order in respect of an as yet unborn child ; the application had therefore been precipitate . The Deputy Director expressed regret for the lapse of time involved .

The Legal Proceedings Monitoring Group , on behalf of PERSON and PERSON PERSON , lodged an appeal with ORG no . PERSON ( PERSON voor de kinderbescherming ) , which was received by that body on DATE .

ORG held a hearing on CARDINAL DATE and gave its decision on DATE . It was considered reasonable that ORG had accepted the assessment of ORG and Curium doctors that PERSON 's life was in danger ; given the apparent urgency of the situation , the ORG could not be faulted for not ensuring that ORG and Curium doctors had obtained PERSON and PERSON prior permission for the transmission to it of medical information . The ORG ought , however , to have informed PERSON and PERSON in good time that it did not intend to make use of witnesses named by them but intended to rely solely on the court - appointed experts . ORG further accepted the ORG 's statement that the psychiatrist had added to his report of CARDINAL DATE a reservation to the effect that it could not be ruled out that PERSON was suffering from the Munchausen syndrome by proxy , not at the bidding of ORG , but in response to a reminder that the report did not contain corroborating information from third - party sources ( heteroanamnesis ) .

The case received a measure of publicity . Questions in ORG and a complaint to the Deputy Minister of ORG ( ORG ) , lodged on behalf of PERSON and PERSON by ORG , led the Deputy Minister to order an official inquiry into the way ORG had handled the affair .

NORP The report of the official inquiry was published on DATE . Its conclusions , in so far as relevant , may be summarised as follows .

– In deciding to intervene without the prior involvement of PERSON and PERSON Venema , ORG had no doubt sought in good faith to protect ORG 's interests , but it might with advantage “ have displayed more creativity in seeking a solution that did more justice to the parents ' interests ” .

– Given ORG own lack of psychiatric expertise and the fact that the Munchausen syndrome by proxy is difficult to diagnose , the use which ORG made of a variety of contradictory reports had not been “ unacceptable ” although it might have assessed them in a more critical fashion .

– A lack of coordination within ORG had delayed the involvement of the child psychiatrist , who was only approached on DATE . This was regrettable because otherwise the reports might have been complete by the time of the birth of PERSON .

– ORG advice to the juvenile judge might have been more complete . As a minimum , ORG could reasonably have been expected to justify the absence of any inquiry of its own and to give more extensive reasons for the choices it made .

– ORG case - file management and internal reporting were deficient : documents explaining the background to its decisions were not contained in the file .

– The transmission of the report of the psychiatrist to ORG doctors and PERSON had constituted a breach of confidence vis - à - vis Mr and PERSON since , after they had first reported PERSON 's case to ORG , their involvement had ended . Curium in particular had been treated virtually as an external expert body .

– It appeared that PERSON and PERSON had not been summoned in writing to the hearing of the juvenile judge on DATE , notwithstanding ORG statement to the contrary , but that this was due to a misunderstanding between the registry of ORG and ORG and could not be blamed on the latter .

The report went on to formulate recommendations aimed at preventing the recurrence of cases such as the present .

According to the ORG , the report led the Deputy Minister to conclude that ORG had “ acted lawfully and fulfilled its statutory responsibility ” , although its internal working procedures deserved some criticism . It had been right for ORG to take firm action and , in view of the nature and seriousness of the complaint , to rely on the expertise of third parties .

At the time of the events complained of , there was a child welfare board in the judicial district of each regional court ( Article CARDINAL:CARDINAL § CARDINAL of the Civil Code ( Burgerlijk Wetboek – “ the ORG ” ) , as in force at the time ) . Their duties included keeping themselves informed of developments affecting child welfare within their area , promoting cooperation between institutions concerned with child welfare and giving advice , upon request or of their own motion , to authorities and institutions ( LAW ) .

Each of the child welfare boards had competence to take action in the interests of the under - aged persons resident in its area ( LAW ) .

At the relevant time , LAW provided as follows :

“ CARDINAL . If a child is growing up under such conditions that it is threatened with moral or physical destruction [ zedelijke of lichamelijke ondergang ] , the juvenile judge may order the child to be placed under supervision .

He may do so on the application of CARDINAL of the parents , CARDINAL of the relatives by marriage or blood up to and including the fourth degree of consanguinity , the child welfare board or the public prosecution service [ openbaar ministerie ] . ”

Article CARDINAL:CARDINAL of the ORG provided as follows :

“ The juvenile judge may place the child under supervision provisionally pending an investigation . A provisional supervision order shall remain in force until a final and binding decision [ gewijsde ] on supervision is made . ”

The relevant part of LAW provided as follows :

“ CARDINAL . NORP The juvenile judge may lift the supervision order at any time . ... ”

At the material time , Article CARDINAL:CARDINAL of the ORG provided , in its relevant part , as follows :

“ CARDINAL . A child shall only be placed away from its family under ... [ Article ] CARDINAL:CARDINAL [ of this Code ] ... ”

Article CARDINAL of the ORG provided , in its relevant part , as follows :

“ CARDINAL . If necessary in the interest of the child 's care and upbringing , the juvenile judge shall order the child to be taken into an institution that qualifies for funding under the Juveniles ( Assistance ) Act [ Wet op de Jeugdhulpverlening ] or elsewhere . ... ”

At the relevant time , LAW “ the ORG ” ) provided as follows :

“ CARDINAL . No appeal or objection [ geenerlei voorziening ] is allowed against a provisional supervision order under LAW .

Such a decision can be given without any prior hearing . ”

Article CARDINAL of the ORG , in its relevant part , provided as follows :

“ CARDINAL . Each of the parents may appeal against the decisions referred to in this Article [ namely decisions under LAW ] . ”

Complaints about the actions of an agent of a child welfare board could be made to the director of the child welfare board concerned by a person with an interest in a case or an informant who had been affected by those actions . Such complaints could be submitted orally or in writing . The time - limit was DATE . If the matter on which the complaint was based was pending before a court , the director had to inform that court of the complaint ( section CARDINAL of the DATE ORG ) Ordinance – Organisatiebesluit raden voor de kinderbescherming DATE which was in force at the relevant time ; “ the DATE LAW ) .

DATE . The director had to try to reach a solution that was acceptable for the complainant . If that was not possible and the complainant wished to pursue the complaint before ORG , the director had to give a decision within DATE after hearing the complainant and the agent involved ( section CARDINAL of the DATE Ordinance ) .

The complainant had DATE to refer the complaint to ORG ( section CARDINAL of the DATE Ordinance ) . Unless this committee considered the matter a simple one or the complaint manifestly ill - founded ( in which case the matter was dealt with by ORG chairman ) , it would hear the complainant and the director of the child welfare board and give a reasoned opinion , normally within DATE after receiving the complaint . It could declare the complaint well - founded or ill - founded . The opinion was sent to the Minister of ORG ( sections CARDINALa and CARDINAL of the DATE Ordinance ) .


Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Procedural aspect)

Françoise Tulkens;Ireneu Cabral Barreto;Nona Tsotsoria;Vladimiro Zagrebelsky

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in LOC . He was the manager of a hotel at the time of the events .

On an unspecified date , a number of persons complained to the police that the applicant , together with other persons , was extorting money and threatening them .

On DATE the applicant , together with CARDINAL other persons , was arrested and taken into custody by police officers from the organised crime unit of ORG . A certain amount of heroin was also found in the car driven by the applicant during arrest .

According to the rights of the suspected accused form ( şüpheli sanık hakları formu ) signed by the applicant , on DATE , at TIME , the latter was informed of his rights , including the right to legal assistance and to remain silent , both of which he waived .

On DATE , at TIME , when interviewed by QUANTITY police officers he denied the accusations against him .

In the application form the applicant complained , without any details , that he had been subjected to torture , during interrogation , by CARDINAL police chiefs , named PERSON .

On DATE the applicant , at the ORG ’s specific request , submitted a letter running to CARDINAL pages in which he set out in detail the various forms of illtreatment he had been allegedly subjected to at the hands of various police officers in custody . In particular , these treatments included a violent punch on his chest during arrest ; being blindfolded , handcuffed , made to lie down on the floor face down and told to raise his legs and receiving kicks to his buttocks and a blow to his head when he lowered his legs after his arrival at the police station ; having CARDINAL officer pulling his right leg while at the same time another pressed down on his back during interrogation . During this time , his testicles were squeezed and he received kicks and pressure to his back . TIME before he was to be brought before the prosecutor , the applicant was told that chief PERSON was going to come and he was made to wait while sitting in an uncomfortable position for TIME . This person punched the applicant ’s face and his chin and kicked him on his knees . The applicant submitted that those responsible for his alleged ill - treatment were PERSON , GPE , GPE , PERSON , GPE and CARDINAL other police officers .

On DATE the applicant was examined by PERSON at the ORG hospital who found no signs of injury on his person .

On DATE , the applicant was brought before the public prosecutor and a judge at ORG . The latter ordered his remand in detention .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s objection .

In the meantime the applicant unsuccessfully asked for disciplinary proceedings to be brought against police officers at ORG .

A description of the relevant domestic law at the material time can be found in GPE and Others v. GPE ( nos . CARDINAL and QUANTITY , § § CARDINAL , ORG CARDINAL-IV ( extracts ) ) .


AANNEMERSBEDRIJF GEBROEDERS VAN LEEUWEN B.V. v. THE NETHERLANDS

The applicant is a limited liability company under GPE law ( besloten vennootschap met beperkte aansprakelijkheid ) which has its registered seat in GPE . It was declared bankrupt in DATE .

It is represented before the ORG by Mr W.T.J.G. Osse , a lawyer practising in PERSON ( the GPE ) . Mr ORG is also the trustee ( curator ) in the applicant company 's bankruptcy proceedings .

A.

On DATE the applicant company was subjected to a search of its LOC by the public authorities . They confiscated the administration of the applicant company because there was a suspicion that the applicant company had been drawing up false invoices . The applicant company ceased trading .

On DATE ORG ( Arrondissementsrechtbank ) of GPE declared the applicant company bankrupt and appointed Mr Osse as trustee in the bankruptcy proceedings .

On DATE the applicant company was notified of the closure of the preliminary judicial investigation ( gerechtelijk vooronderzoek ) . On DATE the applicant company received a notification that the prosecution would not be pursued in view of the time which had elapsed since the alleged offences had been committed .

Despite repeated requests , the administration of the applicant company was not returned to it by the public authorities until DATE .

On DATE the trustee in the bankruptcy proceedings initiated civil proceedings against the ORG claiming compensation on behalf of the applicant company for the actions of the police and justice officials . He argued that these actions had retrospectively lost all justification given that the charges had been dropped . On DATE ORG of The GPE gave judgment rejecting the ORG 's claims . The ORG lodged an appeal with ORG ( Gerechtshof ) of GPE .

On DATE ORG , in an interlocutory judgment , held that the actions of the ORG , although initially justified , had in fact lost all justification and that as a result the ORG was liable to pay damages . However , the obligation to pay damages might be mitigated , or lapse altogether , in light of circumstances which might appear from statements made by management personnel of the applicant company before the police in the criminal investigation . In order to establish whether or not this was the case , ORG requested the ORG to submit documents from the criminal investigation file .

The ORG submitted statements made to the police by the applicant company 's managing directors in which it was admitted that false invoices had been drawn up and that taxes and social security contributions had been unlawfully withheld .

On DATE ORG confirmed the decision of ORG . The judgment included quotations from the above - mentioned statements of the managing directors . ORG reasoning included the following :


Violation of Art. 6-1;Not necessary to examine Art. 13;Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed;Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient;Costs and expenses partial award - domestic proceedings;Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings

Mr PERSON was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

ORG On DATE the applicant was appointed minister of religion for the prefectures of PERSON and PERSON by ORG of the Christian Jehovah ’s Witnesses of GPE . He was given authority , inter alia , to perform wedding ceremonies between persons of that faith and to notify such weddings to the competent registry offices . By letter of CARDINAL DATE the Director of ORG of the Prefecture of PERSON notified the registry offices of PERSON of his appointment . By letter of CARDINAL DATE the registry offices of PERSON were also notified of it .

ORG On DATE the applicant lodged an application with ORG ( " ORG " ) to be exempted from military service in accordance with section CARDINAL of Law no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ( " LAW ) , which grants such a right to all ministers of " known religions " . On DATE ORG rejected the application on the ground that GPE ’s Witnesses were not a " known religion " .

ORG On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal with the Director for Recruitment at ORG for ORG ( " the Director for Recruitment " ) . It was rejected on DATE on the ground that he was not a minister of a " known religion " . On DATE , ORG ordered the applicant to report for duty at a military training centre in GPE on DATE .

ORG The applicant presented himself at the PERSON centre , as ordered , but refused to join his unit , invoking his status as a minister of a " known religion " . Taking the view that the applicant had committed the criminal offence of insubordination ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , the military commander of the training centre detained him pending trial in the centre ’s disciplinary unit and ordered a preliminary investigation into the facts . The investigation completed , the applicant was committed for trial on DATE . The order for his detention was renewed and he was transferred to the military prison at GPE .

ORG On DATE the applicant brought proceedings in ORG ( Symvoulio tis Epikratias ) to have the Director for Recruitment ’s decision of DATE quashed .

ORG On DATE ORG ( PERSON ) , composed of CARDINAL military judge and CARDINAL ordinary military officers , examined the criminal charges against the applicant . Having heard the evidence and the parties’ submissions on the question of the applicant ’s guilt , the tribunal withdrew for deliberations . After the deliberations , the President announced the verdict . The applicant was acquitted because " there was no act of insubordination " as the applicant had no obligation to perform military service , being a minister of a " known religion " .

ORG The applicant was immediately released but was ordered to report for duty on DATE at the NORP centre . On DATE the applicant presented himself at the ORG centre , where he was ordered to join the military forces . When he refused , he was again charged with insubordination and placed in detention . On DATE he was committed for trial .

On DATE , ORG examined the new criminal charges against the applicant . Having heard the evidence and the parties’ submissions on the question of the applicant ’s guilt , the tribunal withdrew for deliberations . After the deliberations , the President announced the verdict . The applicant was acquitted , because there were doubts as to his intention to commit the criminal offence of insubordination . The following order was attached to the tribunal ’s verdict and read out with it : " No compensation should be granted to the applicant for his detention pending trial , because his detention was due to his own gross negligence . "

ORG The applicant was immediately released from FAC , given leave of absence and ordered to report for duty at the NORP centre on CARDINAL DATE . He was again ordered to join his unit . When he refused he was charged with insubordination and detained .

ORG On DATE ORG quashed the Director for Recruitment ’s decision of DATE on the ground that GPE ’s Witnesses were a known religion and the administrative authorities had not challenged the evidence produced by the applicant that he was a minister of that religion .

ORG On DATE the applicant was provisionally released following a decision of ORG sitting in chambers . A certificate of provisional exemption from military service was issued on the ground that the applicant was a minister of a " known religion " .

ORG On DATE ORG , considered the criminal charges against the applicant . Having heard the evidence and the parties’ submissions on the question of his guilt , the tribunal withdrew for deliberations . After the deliberations , the President announced the verdict . The applicant was acquitted , because he had not had the intention of committing the offence of insubordination . The following order was attached to the tribunal ’s verdict and read out with it : " The ORG is under no obligation to compensate the applicant for his detention pending trial , because his detention was due to his own gross negligence . "

Article CARDINAL of LAW provides as follows :

" A member of the armed forces who refuses ... to obey an order by his superior to perform one of his duties is punished ... "

ORG On DATE ORG held that a GPE ’s Witnesses minister of religion who had refused to collect military clothing when first called upon to join the army was not guilty of insubordination . The tribunal considered that there had been no act of insubordination , because the accused had no obligation to perform military service as he was a minister of a " known religion " .

ORG LAW provides that where a procedural matter is not regulated in LAW , LAW applies .

ORG The relevant provisions of LAW read as follows :

" Persons who have been detained on remand and subsequently acquitted ... shall be entitled to request compensation ... if it has been established in the proceedings that they did not commit the criminal offence for which they were detained ... "

" The ORG shall have no obligation to compensate a person who ... has been detained on remand if , whether intentionally or by gross negligence , he was responsible for his own detention . "

" CARDINAL . Upon an oral application by a person who has been acquitted , the court which heard the case shall rule on the ORG ’s obligation to pay compensation in a separate decision delivered at the same time as the verdict . However , the court may also make such a ruling proprio motu ...

The ruling on the ORG ’s obligation to pay compensation can not be challenged separately ; it shall , however , be quashed if the decision on the principal issue of the criminal trial is reversed . "

" CARDINAL . A person who has suffered loss may seek compensation at a later stage from the same court .

In those circumstances the application must be submitted to the prosecutor [ ORG ] at that court no later than TIME after the delivery of the judgment in open court . "

" Where it has been decided that the ORG must pay compensation , the person entitled thereto may bring his claim in the civil courts , which shall not call in question the existence of the ORG ’s obligation . "

" Persons who have been unfairly ... detained on remand must be compensated for any pecuniary loss they have suffered as a result of their ... detention . They must also be compensated for non - pecuniary loss ... "


No violation of Art. 6-1 (tribunal established by law, impartiality, hearing);Violation of Art. 6-1 (equality of arms);Damage - claim dismissed;Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings

ORG Mr PERSON , the applicant , is a waiter . He was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

ORG In DATE he faced charges of attempting to bribe staff of ORG . He had offered money to CARDINAL civil servants as an inducement to issue him false certificates .

ORG On DATE , before the trial at ORG ( PERSON ) had begun , the presiding judge , PERSON , sent a note to PERSON , the applicant 's lawyer at the time , informing him that one of the members of the court , Judge PERSON , had taken part in the questioning of CARDINAL witnesses during the preliminary investigation . PERSON was asked to inform the court by DATE whether he wanted to challenge Judge PERSON on that ground . Mr PERSON did not reply .

ORG The trial took place on DATE . Before the court began to hear evidence , the presiding judge again mentioned that PERSON had acted as investigating judge for part of the preliminary proceedings . The record of the trial states that the parties waived the right to raise this point as a ground of nullity ( " Auf Geltendmachung dieses Umstandes als PERSON allseits verzichtet " ) .

ORG In a statutory declaration ( eidesstättige Erklärung ) submitted during the proceedings before ORG , PERSON stated that he had answered the question whether he was prepared to waive the right to raise the point as a ground of nullity by saying that , in his view , it was not possible to waive the right to raise questions relating to the disqualification of a judge . He considered that it was only possible to waive a challenge to a judge if it was for partiality . In a document which was likewise submitted to ORG stated that the waiver had been made as recorded . He added that he remembered PERSON adding words to the effect that he did not consider the waiver to be valid .

ORG The applicant was found guilty as charged and fined CARDINAL NORP schillings ( ORG ) , suspended for DATE .

Mr Bulut filed an appeal on grounds of nullity ( PERSON ) and an appeal ( GPE ) against sentence to ORG ( Oberster Gerichtshof ) . In his appeal on grounds of nullity under Article CARDINAL para . CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of LAW ( GPE - see paragraph CARDINAL below ) the applicant alleged that he had been heard by a judge who was disqualified from sitting by law ( ex lege ) . He further alleged breaches of Article CARDINAL para . CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) , ( CARDINAL ) and ( PERSON ) . In connection with sub - paragraph ( CARDINAL ) ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , the applicant complained that the trial court should have tested the witnesses ' ability to recognise the applicant 's voice over the telephone . Under sub - paragraph ( CARDINAL ) ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) he further complained , inter alia , that the trial court had found CARDINAL witnesses completely credible and had found that inconsistencies in their stories were easily explained as mistakes of memory . He alleged that the contradictions were fundamental and that there should have been a confrontation between the CARDINAL witnesses and the applicant 's brother , who had for a while been suspected of the offence . The prosecution also appealed against sentence .

ORG On DATE , the Attorney - General ( ORG ) filed the following observations ( " croquis " ) with ORG :

" In the view of the Attorney - ORG , the appeallodged by the accused , PERSON , meets thecriteria for a decision under LAW . A copy of the decision isrequested . "

These observations were not disclosed to the defence .

ORG On DATE ORG rejected the applicant 's appeal under Article ORG para . CARDINAL of the Code of Criminal Procedure ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . After confirming that a disqualified judge had taken part in the trial , ORG referred to the waiver entered in the record of the trial , and noted that Article CARDINAL para . CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) required a ground of nullity relating to ORG CARDINAL and DATE of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) first to have been raised at the trial itself . In respect of the grounds of nullity under LAW para . CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) , ORG found that the complaints were an attempt to challenge the assessment of the evidence made by the trial judges and as such inadmissible and insufficient to constitute a ground of nullity . Notwithstanding the applicant 's assertion to the contrary , ORG also found that there had in fact been a confrontation between the CARDINAL witnesses and the applicant 's brother . The appeal on grounds of nullity was rejected . ORG remitted the applicant 's appeal against sentence to ORG ( Oberlandesgericht ) .

ORG On DATE , after a hearing , ORG increased the applicant 's sentence to DATE imprisonment , suspended for DATE .

ORG By LAW para . CARDINAL of LAW ,

" Hearings by trial courts in civil and criminal casesshall be oral and public . Exceptions may be prescribedby law . "

Article CARDINAL para . CARDINAL of LAW provides that a person shall be disqualified ( ausgeschlossen ) from participating in a trial if he has acted as investigating judge in the same case .

Article CARDINAL para . CARDINAL of the Code of Criminal Procedure lays down the specific circumstances in which an appeal on grounds of nullity may be made , including :

" CARDINAL . if the court was not properly constituted , ... orif a judge took part in the decision who was disqualified(under Articles CARDINAL and DATE ) , unless the ground of nullitywas known to the appellant before or during the trial andwas not raised by him at the beginning of the trial or assoon as he became aware of it ;

if during the trial no decision was given on anapplication by the appellant or in an interlocutorydecision rejecting an application or objection by him thecourt disregarded or incorrectly applied laws or rules ofprocedure with which compliance is required by the verynature of a procedure which affords safeguards to theprosecution and the defence ;

if the judgment of the trial court in respect ofdecisive facts is unclear , incomplete orself - contradictory ; ... ... "

ORG Article CARDINAL para . CARDINAL of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides :

" During the private deliberations , an appeal on groundsof nullity may be rejected immediately :

if it ought to have been rejected by the court atfirst instance under LAW CARDINALa ... ;

if it is based on the grounds of nullity enumeratedin Article CARDINAL para . CARDINAL ( CARDINAL - CARDINAL and DATE ) and if the ORG unanimously finds that the complaint should bedismissed as manifestly ill - founded without any need forfurther deliberation . "

ORG Following the PERSON v. GPE judgment of CARDINAL DATE ( Series A no . CARDINAL ) and since DATE , Article CARDINAL para . CARDINAL of LAW reads as follows :

" If the public prosecutor at an appellate court submitsobservations on an appeal on grounds of nullity ... , theappellate court shall communicate those observations tothe accused ( person concerned ) , advising him that he maysubmit comments on them within a reasonable period oftime that it shall determine . Such communication may bedispensed with if the prosecutor confines himself toopposing the appeal without adducing any argument , if hemerely supports the accused or if the accused 's appeal isupheld . "


Violation of Art. 6-1;Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed;Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient

Anatoly Kovler;Christos Rozakis;Dean Spielmann;Elisabeth Steiner;Khanlar Hajiyev;Sverre Erik Jebens

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE , PERSON .

In DATE the applicant was injured in a road accident ; in particular , his arm was broken . Immediately after the accident he was taken to hospital , where he was given first aid . DATE his arm was amputated .

NORP In DATE the applicant brought proceedings for damages against the hospital before ORG of GPE . He claimed that the hospital ’s medical staff had failed to provide him with appropriate medical care and that their negligence had led to the loss of his arm .

On DATE the court examined the case in a public hearing at which the applicant , his representative and the defendant were present . It heard the parties and witnesses and examined other evidence .

At the close of the hearing the court read out the following operative part of the judgment :

“ On DATE ORG , composed of ... , having examined in an open court session a civil case which originated in an application by PERSON against ORG ] for compensation for bodily harm , on the basis of Article CARDINAL of [ LAW of GPE ] and being governed by ORG , CARDINAL , CARDINAL - CARDINAL of [ the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic ] ,

decided :

To reject the claims by PERSON against ORG of ORG for compensation for bodily harm .

An appeal or a protest against the judgment to ORG can be lodged with ORG within DATE . ”

A copy of the reasoned judgment was served on the applicant on DATE . It stated that , according to LAW , harm inflicted on the person or property of an individual is to be reimbursed in full by the person who inflicted the harm . After a description of the evidence examined by the court , the judgment contained the court ’s finding that there had been no malpractice on the part of the hospital staff and no causal link between the treatment and the amputation of the applicant ’s arm . For those reasons the applicant ’s claims were rejected .

The applicant appealed , inter alia , on the grounds that the district court had not read out the full text of the judgment at the hearing .

NORP On DATE ORG examined the case on appeal at a public hearing . Having heard the parties , it dismissed the applicant ’s appeal and upheld the judgment . It noted that by reading out the operative provisions of the judgment at the hearing and providing the applicant with a copy of the reasoned judgment within the established timelimit the district court had fully complied with LAW , notably Article CARDINAL .

According to the Government , ORG read out the operative provisions of its decision at the hearing in the applicant ’s presence and later served a copy of its reasoned decision on the applicant .

DATE , in force at the material time , provided :

“ ... Judgments shall always be pronounced publicly . ”

Article CARDINAL of the Code read :

“ Judgment shall be delivered immediately after the examination of a case . In exceptional circumstances , in extremely complex cases , the preparation of a reasoned judgment may be postponed for not DATE , providing that the operative part of the judgment is pronounced at the same hearing in which the examination of the case has ended . At the same time the court shall announce when participants to the proceedings and representatives may become acquainted with the reasoned judgment . The announced operative part of the judgment shall be signed by all judges and included in the case file . ”

Under LAW , judgments were to include an introductory part ( the time and place of the delivery of judgment , the name and composition of the court in question , the registrar , parties , the subject matter of the dispute , etc . ) , a descriptive part ( the claims and parties’ submissions ) , reasons ( the circumstances of a case as established by the court , the evidence on which the court based its conclusions , the reasons for which the court rejected CARDINAL or another piece of evidence , and the statutes by which the court was governed ) and an operative part ( the court ’s conclusion whether to grant or reject the suit , instructions as to how court costs should be divided and explanations concerning an appeal against the judgment ) .

Under LAW , copies of judgments were sent to parties and other participants in proceedings who were not present at the court hearing . Those persons who were present and participated in the examination of the case could receive copies of judgments if they so requested ( paragraph CARDINAL of Resolution no . CARDINAL of LAW of ORG of the GPE of CARDINAL DATE “ On court judgments ” ) .

Under LAW , the examination of a case on appeal begins with a report by one of the judges , who gives an account of the the first - instance court ’s judgment , points of appeal and observations in reply , the content of new materials submitted to the court and any other information necessary for assessment of the judgment .

By virtue of sections CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the federal law of DATE on the judicial system of GPE and sections CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the federal law of DATE on ORG at ORG of GPE , ORG at ORG provides administrative support for district and regional courts . In particular , it organises their clerical work , including archives . Thus , at the material time , the clerical work in a district court was governed by ORG Instruction no . DATE .

Paragraph CARDINAL of the ORG set out an exhaustive list of persons who could consult a case file in a court building . It was limited to the parties to the proceedings , their representatives , other participants in the proceedings , judges and officers of higher courts , public prosecutors and officers of ORG .

Paragraph CARDINAL of the Instruction set out an exhaustive list of persons who could be given , at the discretion of a president of a court or a judge , a copy of documents from a case file . It included the parties to a civil case , an accused person , a convicted person , an acquitted person and a victim in criminal proceedings , and their representatives .

By a final decision of DATE , ORG of the Russian Federation refused to examine an appeal lodged by CARDINAL individuals who were seeking to have the ORG declared void . It found that the ORG , as an instrument which concerned human rights , freedoms and obligations , had not been registered at the federal ORG and officially published and could not therefore be considered an instrument issued by a federal authority , the lawfulness of which would fall within the jurisdiction of ORG .

Instruction no . CARDINAL of ORG of DATE ( paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL ) concerning regional courts and the new ORG no . CARDINAL of ORG of DATE ( CARDINAL and CARDINAL ) concerning district courts , which are currently in force , contain provisions identical to those of paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the above - mentioned ORG no . CARDINAL .

These CARDINAL Instructions were challenged in ORG by a journalist , who argued that they violated the principles of open and public administration of justice , in that they restricted public access to court decisions and other court documents in case files . In its decision of DATE , ORG found that the ORG complied fully with LAW and LAW , which vested a right to consult a case file and receive a copy of court decisions and other documents only in the participants in the proceedings . It noted that journalists could have access to court documents to the extent and in the order prescribed by the relevant legislation . The journalist argued that the existing order did not ensure free access to court documents and that some court officers prevented journalists from exercising their right of access to information . The ORG replied that in such instances the journalist was free to complain by way of an appeal to a court . It dismissed the application . On DATE the decision was upheld by ORG .

Under LAW of DATE ( sections CARDINAL and CARDINAL ) , restrictions on PERSON access to information are not allowed and entail responsibility , save in cases concerning ORG secrets , commercial secrets or other confidential information protected by law .

Under LAW of DATE , in force at the material time , and Presidential Decree no . CARDINAL of DATE , information about the facts , events and circumstances of an individual ’s life which makes it possible to identify that individual is confidential . Under the Decree , confidential information further includes information containing the secrecy of the investigation and court proceedings , and official , professional ( medical secrecy , information protected by lawyer - client privilege , etc . ) and commercial secrecy .

Article CARDINAL of LAW of GPE provides :

“ CARDINAL . Harm inflicted on the person or property of an individual ... shall be reimbursed in full by the person who inflicted the harm .

A law may oblige a person who is not a tortfeasor to reimburse the harm .

A law or a contract may establish an obligation of a tortfeasor to pay the victim compensation in addition to the reimbursement of the harm .

NORP The person who inflicted the harm shall be liable for it unless he proves that the harm was inflicted through no fault of his . A law may provide for the reimbursement of harm in the absence of the tortfeasor ’s fault .

Harm caused by lawful actions shall be subject to compensation in cases provided by law .

Reimbursement of harm may be refused if the harm was caused at the request or with the consent of the victim , and the torfeasor ’s actions do not violate the moral principles of society . ”


The applicant is a NORP citizen , born in DATE . At present she lives in Liepājā in GPE .

She represented before the ORG by PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE .

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

A.

The applicant lived in GPE until her marriage in GPE ( GPE ) in DATE . Thereafter , together with her husband , a NORP military officer , the applicant briefly lived in the FAC enclave of GPE where she gave birth to her son . In DATE the applicant came to GPE for the first time , when her husband was appointed to a military post in PERSON . She stayed there until DATE , when the family moved to the far north of GPE , where the husband continued his military service . The applicant remained in GPE until DATE , when she came back to PERSON separately from her spouse . Ever since she has been living in GPE alone . Following the formal divorce in DATE , her former husband died in GPE in DATE . Her son and granddaughter live in GPE .

In DATE , under the Status of the Former GPE Citizens Act , the applicant was entered on ORG ( hereinafter referred to as “ the Register ” ) on the basis of her status as “ an ex - GPE citizen ” , a particular category of stateless persons under the NORP law ( see the Relevant domestic law part below ) . The applicant had no specific citizenship at that point .

On DATE the applicant adopted citizenship of GPE . She submits that she did so to be able to leave the territory of GPE and to go abroad on occasional commercial trips with a view to earning money .

On DATE the NORP ORG ( hereinafter referred to as “ the CMA ” ) annulled the applicant 's entry in the ORG and , upon her request , issued her with a temporary residence permit valid until DATE .

On DATE the applicant complained to the ORG , alleging a ORG official had misled her in offering to apply for temporary residence . The applicant stated that she was in fact entitled to the entry on the ORG as a permanent resident of GPE .

On DATE she brought court proceedings , alleging that the decision of the immigration authorities to annul her entry in the ORG was void .

On DATE the applicant denounced her NORP citizenship .

On DATE the ORG rejected the applicant 's claim .

On DATE , on the applicant 's appeal , ORG transmitted the case back to ORG for new examination on the ground of technical defect relating to the composition of the court at first instance .

On DATE the Liepājā City District Court again dismissed the applicant 's action . ORG held that the applicant had been a NORP citizen , and that her entry had been lawfully withdrawn by the ORG from the ORG as she had lost her special status as “ an ex - GPE citizen ” . ORG also noted that the applicant had herself filed an application for a temporary residence permit , which had been granted .

On DATE , on the applicant 's appeal , ORG confirmed the decision of ORG . The appellate court held that , having obtained NORP citizenship , the applicant became subject of GPE , and that her entry could not remain in the ORG .

The applicant appealed to ORG .

She also presented her problems to various parliamentary , executive and non - governmental institutions , but without success .

As the applicant failed to extend her temporary residence permit following its expiry on DATE , she was presented with an expulsion order on DATE . She refused to sign the deportation order pending her cassation appeal .

On DATE ORG dismissed the cassation appeal , finding that the lower courts had properly decided the case .

By a letter of DATE ORG informed the applicant that her stay in GPE was illegal .

The applicant again approached the immigration authorities , requesting registration as a permanent resident . This was refused . She did not request an extension of her temporary residence permit .

On DATE the applicant introduced a fresh court action , asking to be re - registered .

On DATE ORG rejected the application , finding that the matter had already been decided in the first set of court proceedings which had ended by a final decision of ORG on DATE . The applicant appealed , stating that the action was in fact new . On CARDINAL DATE ORG dismissed the appeal .

By a letter of the ORG of DATE the applicant was informed that her continued stay in GPE was illegal , and that she was required to leave the country . She was warned that , otherwise , she would be served with a deportation order .

In a letter to the ORG of CARDINAL DATE the applicant stated that , following the entry into force of the amended LAW on DATE , she became entitled to be registered as a permanent resident of GPE .

On DATE the applicant took up NORP citizenship .

On DATE the ORG Director authorised the immigration authorities to issue the applicant with a permanent residence permit in GPE on the basis of her status as a foreign citizen . By the above decision the deportation order in respect of the applicant was quashed .

On DATE the applicant was issued with a permanent residence permit in GPE .

B. Relevant domestic law

There are CARDINAL categories of permanent residents of GPE :

a ) NORP citizens ;

b ) stateless persons who have the special status of “ ex - GPE citizens ” ;

c ) foreign citizens or other stateless persons who obtain permanent residence permits .

Categories a ) and b ) have the right to be entered on ORG by sole operation of , respectively , LAW and the Status of the Former LAW . The persons in subparagraph c ) can be granted permanent residence permits by decision of a competent authority or by virtue of ORG .

LAW Former LAW DATE provides that only those stateless persons who “ are not or have not been citizens of another State ” can have the special status of an “ ex - GPE citizen ” .

Other foreign citizens or stateless persons must obtain limited ( temporary ) residence permits or visas in order to stay in the country legally in accordance with the Entry and Residence of Foreign Citizens and Stateless Persons Act .


The applicants were born in DATE and DATE respectively and live in LANGUAGE .

NORP In DATE administrative proceedings started concerning the grant of a building permit to the applicants ' neighbours . In pursuit of the applicants ' administrative appeals and their ensuing request for judicial review dated DATE , on DATE the ORG quashed the existing decisions and remitted the case to the second - instance administrative authority . It held that the building permit issued had approved some irregular plans . On DATE ORG upheld this judgment .

In the resumed administrative proceedings , on DATE ORG remitted the case to ORG . It appears that , by this time , the neighbours had already constructed the building in question . In DATE the ORG approved the continued existence of the building . On DATE ORG dismissed the applicants ' appeal in which they had requested the removal of part of the building , constructed irregularly in their view .

On DATE the ORG quashed these decisions and again remitted the case to the administrative instances . It held that the permit allowing the continued existence of the building had been adopted in defiance of the relevant administrative law because the interests of the other neighbours ( including the applicants ) had not been taken into account . On DATE ORG upheld the judgment . However , this decision was quashed in review proceedings by ORG on DATE . ORG remitted the case to the first - instance court .

Due to a change in the law , in the resumed judicial review proceedings ORG heard the case as a first - instance court . On DATE it ordered the administrative instances to resume the proceedings , because their previous decisions had approved some irregular plans . On DATE ORG , sitting as a second - instance court , upheld this decision .

In the resumed administrative proceedings , on DATE ORG granted the neighbours a permit for the continued existence of the building in question . On DATE ORG dismissed the applicants ' appeal in which they had alleged that the building had been constructed in defiance of the regulations and that its continued existence infringed their rights as neighbours .

In judicial review proceedings , on DATE ORG dismissed the applicants ' action . The court pointed out that , under LAW no . CARDINAL of DATE on Construction , the authority in charge of construction may take measures in respect of an irregularly constructed building within DATE from its taking cognisance of the irregularity but in any event not DATE from the certification of the building for use . In the court 's view , the DATE time - limit had been triggered by ORG decision of CARDINAL DATE ; therefore – the DATE time - limit having been elapsed DATE the neighbours could no longer be denied a permit for the continued existence of the building in question .

NORP This decision was upheld by ORG appeal bench on DATE . It stressed that DATE contrary to what was apparently argued by the applicants – the running of the DATE time - limit had not been interrupted by the review proceedings in which the decision of CARDINAL DATE had been quashed , because its execution had not been suspended .