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

Christos Rozakis;Françoise Tulkens;Ján Šikuta;Jean-Paul Costa;Josep Casadevall;Karel Jungwiert;Kristina Pardalos;Lech Garlicki;Luis López Guerra;Mark Villiger;Mihai Poalelungi;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Nicolas Bratza;Nona Tsotsoria;Peer Lorenzen;Rait Maruste;Renate Jaeger;Zdravka Kalaydjieva

The applicants , who are the elder daughter of the late Prince Rainier III of GPE and her husband , were born in DATE and DATE respectively and live in GPE .

NORP Since DATE the first applicant has been trying – often through the courts DATE to prevent the publication of photos about her private life in the press .

CARDINAL series of photos , published in DATE respectively in CARDINAL NORP magazines and showing the first applicant with the actor PERSON or her husband , had been the subject of CARDINAL sets of proceedings in the NORP courts and , in particular , leading judgments of ORG of DATE and of ORG of DATE dismissing the first applicant ’s claims .

Those proceedings were the subject of the GPE v. GPE judgment of DATE ( no . CARDINAL , ORG CARDINALVI ) in which ORG held that the court decisions had infringed the first applicant ’s right to respect for her private life , a right guaranteed by LAW .

Regarding the reasoning of the domestic courts , the ORG made the following findings in particular :

“ DATE . The ORG finds it hard to agree with the domestic courts’ interpretation of section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of ORG , which consists in describing a person as such as a figure of contemporary society ‘ par excellence’ . Since that definition affords the person very limited protection of their private life or the right to control the use of their image , it could conceivably be appropriate for politicians exercising official functions . However , it can not be justified for a ‘ private’ individual , such as the applicant , in whom the interest of the general public and the press is based solely on her membership of a reigning family , whereas she herself does not exercise any official functions .

In any event the ORG considers that , in these conditions , the LAW has to be interpreted narrowly to ensure that the ORG complies with its positive obligation under the ORG to protect private life and the right to control the use of one ’s image .

Lastly , the distinction drawn between figures of contemporary society ‘ par excellence’ and ‘ ORG public figures has to be clear and obvious so that , in a ORG governed by the rule of law , the individual has precise indications as to the behaviour he or she should adopt . Above all , they need to know exactly when and where they are in a protected sphere or , on the contrary , in a sphere in which they must expect interference from others , especially the tabloid press .

The Court therefore considers that the criteria on which the domestic courts based their decisions were not sufficient to protect the applicant ’s private life effectively . As a figure of contemporary society ‘ par excellence’ she can not – in the name of freedom of the press and the public interest – rely on protection of her private life unless she is in a secluded place out of the public eye and , moreover , succeeds in proving it ( which can be difficult ) . Where that is not the case , she has to accept that she might be photographed at almost any time , systematically , and that the photos are then very widely disseminated even if , as was the case here , the photos and accompanying articles relate exclusively to details of her private life .

In the ORG ’s view , the criterion of spatial isolation , although apposite in theory , is in reality too vague and difficult for the person concerned to determine in advance . In the present case , merely classifying the applicant as a figure of contemporary society ‘ par excellence’ does not suffice to justify such an intrusion into her private life . ”

Relying on the ORG ’s judgment in the first applicant ’s case , the applicants subsequently brought several sets of proceedings in the civil courts seeking an injunction against any further publication of photos that had appeared in NORP magazines .

The first CARDINAL photos were published by the publishing company ORG in the magazine PERSON i m Spiegel .

The first photo , which appeared in issue no . CARDINAL of DATE , shows the applicants out for a walk during their skiing holiday in GPE Moritz . It is accompanied by an article with the heading : “ Prince PERSON – not home alone ” ( “ ORG – PERSON ” ) . The article reads as follows .

“ The first magnolia buds are flowering in the grounds of FAC – but Prince PERSON ( DATE ) appears to have no interest in DATE . He goes for a walk outside with his daughter PERSON ( DATE ) . She supports him as he walks along slowly . He is cold despite the sunshine . The old gentleman is weary . The Monegasques saw their prince for the last time DATE at a circus festival . He had appeared bright and cheerful , walking along beside his daughter who was laughing . But since then he has not left the palace . Not even for the PERSON celebration held in honour of the national Patron Saint . The ORG is worried , as are Prince PERSON ’s children . Prince PERSON ( who is currently taking part in the Olympic Games in GPE ) , PERSON ( on holiday in GPE with Prince PERSON DATE von GPE ) and Princess PERSON take it in turns to look after their father . He must not be left home alone when he is not well . Not without his children ’s love . ”

A photo of Prince PERSON with his daughter Princess PERSON and a photo of Prince PERSON of GPE taken during the Olympic Games in GPE appeared on the same page .

The second photo , which appeared in issue no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL of DATE , shows the applicants out for a walk in GPE . The caption says : “ PERSON DATE GPE and his wife , PERSON of GPE , enjoy the sun and snow in GPE . ” A small photo of PERSON and CARDINAL photos of members of a NORP royal family appeared on the same page . The article accompanying the photos , bearing the heading “ LOC fun in the snow ” , is about how happy the persons photographed are to meet up in GPE .

The third photo , which appeared in issue no . CARDINAL of DATE , shows the applicants in a chair lift in GPE am PERSON during DATE . On the same page there is a small photo of Prince PERSON , the first applicant and PERSON , taken during the national holiday on DATE and bearing the heading “ The princess ’s last appearance ” . Another photo , taking up CARDINAL the page , shows the first applicant at FAC .

The CARDINAL photos illustrate an article bearing the heading “ Princess Caroline . The whole of GPE awaits her ” , of which the passages relevant to the present case read as follows .

“ Tickets for FAC , which will be held on DATE in GPE , have been selling for DATE . And the guests will be coming only for her : Princess PERSON ( DATE ) . She has not attended any official engagements since the national holiday ... She was not at the circus festival or the GPE celebration held in honour of the patron saint of GPE . By tradition , the eldest daughter of Prince PERSON ( DATE ) opens the annual ball . She has inherited this role from her mother , who died in an accident , and this ball is PERSON ’s favourite ... The prince , who is seriously ill , has just come out of hospital after a heart operation and is still too weak to attend the ball . The welcome speech which he will be making in honour of the guests will be retransmitted via television cameras and projected onto a big screen . PERSON and her husband [ Prince ] PERSON DATE GPE will open FAC with a waltz .

They celebrated their fifth wedding anniversary together in DATE . And there was more cause for celebration in the von Hannover household : the prince turned DATE on DATE . He celebrated his birthday with PERSON and some friends at the fashionable resort of GPE , glistening white in the snow . The couple were actually spending DATE in GPE am ORG , but for the birthday party they went down to FAC in GPE for DATE . ”

The publishing company ORG published in issue no . CARDINAL of DATE of the magazine PERSON the same photo ( or a virtually identical CARDINAL ) as the one that had appeared DATE in the magazine PERSON i m Spiegel no . MONEY ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . The article accompanying the photo in PERSON bears the heading : “ That is genuine love . Princess PERSON . She is the only one looking after the sick prince . ” The relevant passages of the article are worded as follows .

“ Her love life may appear unbridled . CARDINAL thing is certain , though : as far as her father is concerned , Princess PERSON knows where her heart lies . While the rest of the family are travelling around the world , she has run to be at the side of Prince PERSON ( DATE ) , who appears to be seriously ailing . She is the only one who takes care of the sick monarch . PERSON ’s sister , PERSON ( DATE ) , has taken a few days’ holiday with her husband PERSON ( DATE ) and their daughter PERSON ( CARDINAL ) at the fashionable GPE ORG ski resort in GPE . Prince PERSON , for his part , has been at the Olympic Games in GPE taking part in the CARDINAL - man bobsleigh race . ‘ For DATE time,’ he said . From time to time he would disappear for DATE . It is said that the prince has seen his heart - throb , PERSON ( CARDINAL ) , an NORP pole vaulter who is rumoured to become his future wife . [ Prince PERSON ] , who hates being alone now , was very glad to see his younger daughter . PERSON has devoted a lot of time to him . She has been out on long walks with him and they have greatly confided in each other . ‘ PERSON has relished the company of his younger daughter . When she is at his side he truly flourishes . During those moments he forgets that he is old and GPE say the Monegasques . ‘ PERSON should come much more CARDINAL ”

On the same page there is the photo of Princess PERSON with her father that had appeared the same day in the magazine PERSON i m Spiegel no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , a headshot of her and CARDINAL other photos , CARDINAL of Prince PERSON alone and the other of the prince with PERSON .

On an unspecified date in DATE , the first applicant sought an injunction in ORG against any further publication of the CARDINAL photos by ORG publishing company .

In a judgment of DATE , ORG granted the injunction on the ground that the first applicant had not consented to publication of the photos , which was a precondition under LAW of ORG ( hereafter “ LAW ” – see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . The court stated , however , that even if consent were deemed unnecessary in the case of the first photo on the ground that it was an image from contemporary society ( PERSON Bereich der GPE ) within the meaning of section CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(CARDINAL ) of the same LAW , publication of the photo was not justified . Under subsection CARDINAL of that provision , publication of such an image was only lawful if it did not interfere with a legitimate interest of the person photographed . According to the court , the question as to whether there was such a legitimate interest had to be determined by balancing the interests of the person photographed against those of the public in being informed .

ORG found that in the present case it was the first applicant ’s right to the protection of her personality rights that prevailed . In reaching that conclusion ORG referred extensively to the ORG ’s judgment in PERSON . It found that the first applicant ’s relationship with her father , regardless of the fact that he was ill , did not contribute to a debate of general interest to society especially as the first applicant was connected to the prince of a ORG of minor importance in international politics merely through a family tie and did not exercise any official function .

ORG stated that , whilst that reasoning was not entirely in keeping with the principles established by ORG , which did not recognise a legitimate interest unless the person photographed had retired to a secluded place away from the public eye , it was not bound by that precedent to the extent that it could not take into consideration the ORG ’s case - law on the subject .

The publishing company appealed against that judgment .

In a judgment of DATE , ORG set aside the judgment on the ground that the applicant ’s right under LAW had to yield to the fundamental rights of the press . It found that , whilst the articles were primarily of entertainment value , publication of the photos was nonetheless lawful in terms of the judgment of ORG of DATE whose main legal reasoning ( tragende ORG ) was binding on ORG . It pointed out that public figures should certainly be protected from the risk of being photographed at any time and anywhere and seeing the photos subsequently published . However , in ORG opinion , the legitimate interest of such figures , within the meaning of section CARDINAL ) of LAW , should not result in the prohibition of any reporting on wellknown people outside their official appearances . In any event , the right to respect for private life did not require the banning of publication of photos taken in public places accessible to all and where the individual concerned was amongst many other people .

The first applicant appealed on points of law against that judgment .

In a judgment of DATE ( no . PERSON CARDINAL ) , ORG dismissed her appeal in respect of the first photo . With regard to the second and third photos , it upheld her appeal , quashed the judgment of ORG and reinstated the injunction imposed by ORG .

ORG found that the opinion of ORG did not correspond to the concept of graduated protection ( abgestuftes PERSON ) that had been developed in the case - law on the basis of sections CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW and which it had clarified in a number of recent decisions delivered following the GPE judgment and in response to the reservations of principle which the ORG had expressed in that judgment . According to that new concept of protection , section CARDINAL ) of LAW , which provided for an exception to the rule according to which a photo could not be published without the prior consent of the person concerned , took account of the public ’s interest in being informed and of the freedom of the press . Accordingly , when assessing whether or not the impugned publication portrayed an aspect of contemporary society within the meaning of section CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(CARDINAL ) of LAW , a balancing exercise had to be undertaken between the rights under LAW and CARDINAL § CARDINAL of LAW CARDINAL of the Convention on the one hand , and those under LAW , second sentence , of LAW on the other hand .

ORG added that the ORG ’s criticism of the expression “ figure of contemporary society par excellence ” ultimately concerned the determination of the conditions in which the media could report on well - known people such as these . It considered that , irrespective of the issue whether the first applicant should be regarded as a figure of contemporary society par excellence , she was in any case a well - known person who particularly attracted public attention . In the court ’s view , that fact , combined with the fact that she had not been in a secluded place out of the public eye when the photos had been taken , was nonetheless insufficient to deprive her of protection of her private sphere . That conclusion was not only appropriate in the light of the ORG ’s ruling but also reflected a proper understanding of the concept of protection thus developed .

Accordingly , ORG found that the publication of images of persons who – on account of their importance in contemporary society – were in theory required , under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(CARDINAL ) of LAW , to tolerate the publication of photos of themselves was nevertheless unlawful if the legitimate interests of the person concerned were infringed ( section CARDINAL ) ) . There could be no exception to the obligation to obtain the consent of the person in question unless the report in question concerned an important event of contemporary society . The expression “ contemporary society ” – and indeed the term “ information value ” – had to be interpreted in a broad sense and according to whether there was a public interest . It comprised any matter of general interest to society and included reports for entertainment purposes , which could also play a role in the formation of opinions , or even stimulate or influence these to a greater degree than purely factual information .

Whilst the freedom of the press and the prohibition of censorship required the press to be able to decide for itself which subjects it intended to report on and what it intended to publish , the press was not exempt from the duty to weigh its interest in publishing the information against the protection of the privacy of the person concerned . The greater the information value for the general public , the more the right to protection had to yield . Conversely , where the interest in informing the public decreased , the importance of protecting the person concerned carried correspondingly greater weight . The reader ’s interest in being entertained generally carried less weight than that of protecting privacy , in which case the reader ’s interest did not merit protection .

ORG stated that , accordingly , even where persons who had hitherto been regarded as figures of contemporary society were concerned , consideration must be given to the question whether the report contributed to a factual debate ( PERSON ) and whether the content went beyond a mere intention to satisfy public curiosity . In determining that question , there was nothing to prevent regard being had to how well the person concerned was known to the public .

ORG stressed that that manner of balancing the various interests at stake corresponded to the requirements of the ORG regarding effective protection of the private sphere and the requirements of the freedom of the press , and that it did not conflict with the binding force of the judgment of ORG of DATE . Admittedly , that court had limited the protection afforded to the private sphere against the publication of unwanted photos to cases of spatial seclusion . That did not , however , prevent the courts – when balancing the various interests – from having more regard to the value of the information for the public . Furthermore , ORG had [ recently ] endorsed the balancing exercise undertaken by ORG according to those criteria in a judgment concerning the second applicant ( decision of DATE , no . CARDINAL BvR CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) .

ORG specified that as the determining criterion for the balancing exercise was the information value of the photo in question and as it had been published in the context of a written article , the content of the text accompanying the photo could not be ignored .

Applying the criteria thus established to the case submitted to it , ORG , beginning with the second and third photos , observed that the second photo showed the applicants in a busy street in GPE PERSON during their skiing holiday . Whilst the press could , as a matter of principle , make its own decision regarding the content of its publications and the applicants had indeed been in a public place amongst other people , neither the article nor the photo related to an event of general interest or contemporary society . A celebrity ’s holidays fell within the core area ( PERSON ) of his or her private sphere . The publication of the article and photo had been for entertainment purposes only and was not in any way relevant to matters of public interest , so could only be done with the first applicant ’s consent .

ORG noted that the third photo showed the applicants in a chair lift in GPE during their skiing holiday . Whilst PERSON shortly to be held in GPE , which was the subject of the article accompanying the photo , could possibly be regarded as an event of contemporary society that was a matter of general interest to society , there was no link between the photo and that event . The purpose of the photo had been to supplement the part of the article about the second applicant ’s birthday party in PERSON and the applicants’ skiing holiday in GPE . Thus the information centred exclusively on the first applicant ’s private life and served merely entertainment purposes . Accordingly , the third photo could not be published without the first applicant ’s consent either .

Regarding the first photo , ORG observed that whilst it contained no information having any connection with an event of contemporary society or contributing to a debate of general interest , the same was not true of the accompanying text . Admittedly , the part about the first applicant ’s skiing holiday did not concern an event of contemporary society or general interest , even interpreting those terms broadly . However , with regard to the prince ’s health , ORG found as follows :

“ The information also concerned the ill - health of the reigning Prince of GPE . His ill - health was thus an event of contemporary society on which the press was entitled to report . The journalistic quality and the conception of the article are not decisive because the principle of the freedom of the press does not allow the applicability of a fundamental right to depend upon the quality of the press coverage or how the article is drafted . This also applies to the comments in the article on the conduct of members of the family during the prince ’s illness , and , moreover , the applicant has not complained about the article in that respect . The photo in question supports and illustrates the information being conveyed . ”

ORG concluded that , in those circumstances and having regard to the context of the report as a whole , the first applicant had no legitimate interest that could have opposed publication of the photo of the applicants out in the street . There had , in particular , been nothing about the photo itself that constituted a violation ( eigenständiger PERSON ) and thus justified a different conclusion ; nor was there anything to suggest that the photo had been taken surreptitiously or by using secret technical devices that rendered its publication unlawful .

NORP In a judgment of DATE , ORG ( ORG ) of ORG dismissed constitutional appeals lodged by the first applicant ( no . CARDINAL BvR CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) and by ORG publishing company ( no . CARDINAL BvR CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) against the judgment of ORG ( no . VI ZR CARDINAL ) .

In the same judgment it allowed a constitutional appeal ( no . CARDINAL BvR CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) lodged by ORG publishing company against an injunction , imposed by ORG ( judgment of DATE , no . VI ZR CARDINAL ) , on any further publication of a photo that had appeared in CARDINAL PERSON magazine showing the applicants on holiday in an unspecified location and accompanying a written and photographic report on the possibility of renting a holiday villa owned by the PERSON family in GPE . Those proceedings are the subject of a separate application by the first applicant to ORG ( no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) .

The Federal Constitutional Court observed , firstly , that the court decisions constituted an interference with the first applicant ’s right to the protection of her personality rights guaranteed by ORG CARDINAL § CARDINAL and CARDINAL § CARDINAL of LAW . There were limits on the protection afforded to that right and on the freedom of the press , however . The freedom of the press was subject to the restrictions laid down in sections CARDINAL et seq . of LAW and LAW , whilst the provisions of LAW and LAW limited the right to the protection of personality rights . In the NORP legal order the ORG had the status of an ordinary federal law . At constitutional - law level , the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the LAW and the ORG ’s case - law served as guides to interpretation when determining the content and scope of a fundamental right .

The Federal Constitutional Court reiterated the case - law of ORG CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the Convention and its own case - law on the different fundamental rights at stake by referring to the principles established in its leading judgment of DATE ( PERSON , cited above , § DATE ) . It added that in so far as an image did not itself make any contribution to the formation of public opinion , its information value had to be assessed in the context of the accompanying article . However , if that article was merely a pretext for publishing a photo of a well - known person , no contribution was made to the formation of public opinion and there were therefore no grounds for allowing the interest in publication to prevail over the protection of personality rights .

ORG went on to say that , in order to determine the weight to be attached to the protection of personality rights , regard had to be had not only to the circumstances in which the photo had been taken , for example whether it had been taken surreptitiously or as a result of persistent hounding by photographers , but also to the situation in which the person concerned had been photographed and how he or she was portrayed . The right to protection of personality rights thus carried more weight where the photo showed details of the person ’s private life that were not normally the subject of public discussion . The same was true where the person concerned could legitimately expect , having regard to the circumstances , that no photo would be published because he or she was in a private place ( räumliche PERSON ) , such as in a specially protected location . The right to protection of personality rights could also prevail over the interest in publication in cases other than those of spatial isolation , notably where the person concerned was pictured enjoying a moment of relaxation or letting go , freed from the constraints of professional or everyday life .

ORG stated that importance had to be attached in that connection to the allocation of procedural obligations regarding the presentation of the facts and the burden of proof . It had to be ensured that neither the press nor the person being photographed was prevented from adducing proof of circumstances relevant for the balancing of the competing interests . Where the press intended to publish a photo without the consent of the person concerned , it could be required to substantiate the circumstances in which the photo had been taken in order to allow the courts to examine the question whether publication of the photo could be opposed on grounds of the legitimate expectations of the person photographed .

The Federal Constitutional Court observed that it was the task of the civil courts to apply and interpret the provisions of civil law in the light of the fundamental rights at stake while having regard to the Convention . It added that its own role was limited to examining whether the lower courts had had sufficient regard to the impact of fundamental rights when interpreting and applying the law and when balancing the competing rights . Such was also the scope of the scrutiny of the Constitutional Court regarding the question whether the courts had fulfilled their obligation to incorporate the ORG ’s relevant case - law into the national legal order ( GPE ) . The fact that the court ’s balancing exercise of the various rights in multi - polar disputes – that is , disputes involving the interests of several different persons – and complex ones could also result in a different outcome was not sufficient reason for requiring ORG to correct a court decision . However , there would be a violation of the LAW if the protective scope ( PERSON ) or extent of a fundamental right had been wrongly determined and the balancing exercise were accordingly flawed , or if the requirements under constitutional law or the LAW had not been duly taken into account .

Applying those principles to the case submitted to it , ORG observed that ORG and the criteria it had established were constitutionally unobjectionable . It considered in particular that nothing , from a constitutional - law perspective , had prevented ORG from departing from its own established case - law in the field and developing a new concept of protection . The fact that it had not itself called into question , in its leading judgment of DATE , the former concept of protection established by ORG merely meant that this had been in conformity with constitutional - law criteria . It did not mean , by extension , that a different concept could not meet those criteria . ORG had not been prevented , in particular , from dispensing with the legal concept of “ figure of contemporary society ” and instead balancing the competing interests when examining the question whether a photo was an aspect of contemporary society and could accordingly be published without the consent of the person concerned ( unless it interfered with a legitimate interest of the latter ) .

Applying the criteria thus established to the photos in question , starting with the second and third ones on which an injunction had been imposed by the courts and then challenged by the publishing company ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , ORG noted that ORG had had regard to the fact that the second photo showed the applicant in a public place which was neither isolated nor out of public view . It had attached decisive weight , however , to the fact that the article concerned only the applicant ’s skiing holiday , that is , a situation falling within the core area of private life and concerning the applicant ’s need for peace and quiet , and the consequent lack of public interest other than satisfying public curiosity . Contrary to the submissions of the publishing company , the ORG interest in the applicant ’s fashionable ski suit did not amount to a public interest . Moreover , that aspect had not been mentioned anywhere in the article .

In the opinion of ORG , the same conclusion had to be drawn with regard to the third photo whose publication had been challenged by the first applicant . There had been no public interest , beyond merely satisfying public curiosity , in the information contained in either the article commenting on the first applicant and her husband ’s trip to PERSON to celebrate the latter ’s birthday or the photo showing them both in a chairlift . Whilst the article had also mentioned FAC an event which , according to ORG , could possibly be regarded as an aspect of contemporary society – no link had been made between that event and the photo .

With regard to the first photo , ORG found that ORG had had valid grounds for considering that the reigning Prince of GPE ’s ill - health was a matter of general interest and that the press had accordingly been entitled to report on the manner in which the prince ’s children reconciled their obligations of family solidarity with the legitimate needs of their private life , among which was the desire to go on holiday . The conclusion reached by ORG , according to which the photo that had been published had a sufficiently close link with the event described in the article , was constitutionally unobjectionable .

ORG pointed out that ORG had indicated that the protection of personality rights could prevail in cases where the photo in question had been taken in conditions that were particularly unfavourable for the person concerned , for example where it had been taken surreptitiously or following continual harassment by photographers . However , the publishing company had given details about how the photo had been taken and the first applicant had not complained before the lower civil courts or ORG that those details were insufficient . In particular , she had not alleged that the photo had been taken in conditions that were unfavourable to her .

ORG also dismissed the first applicant ’s allegation that ORG had disregarded or taken insufficient account of the ORG ’s case - law . Pointing out that a complaint of that nature could be raised in constitutional proceedings if it was based on a fundamental right guaranteed by LAW , it observed that ORG had taken account of the judgments delivered in GPE , cited above , and GPE and ORG ( no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , ECHR CARDINALX ) and had not failed to comply with its obligation to satisfy the criteria established by the LAW . ORG had undertaken an analysis of the ORG ’s relevant case - law and observed that the ORG ’s decisive criterion when balancing the competing rights was the question whether the report in its entirety ( article and photo ) contributed to the free formation of public opinion . Furthermore , a distinction had to be drawn between political figures , public figures and ordinary individuals . Whilst the latter enjoyed the greatest protection of the CARDINAL groups , political figures could expect only a small degree of protection from media reports about themselves .

According to the ORG ’s case - law ( PERSON v. GPE , no . MONEY , § CARDINAL , DATE , and GPE , no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , § DATE , ECHR CARDINAL-I ) , the first applicant was a public figure , which allowed the press – where there was an interest in informing the public – to publish photos , even of the person going about his or her DATE business in public . Publication of that sort , which , moreover , attracted the protection of LAW , could serve to exercise public scrutiny over the private conduct of persons who were influential in the economic , cultural or media sectors . ORG pointed out that the ORG had previously criticised the approach taken by domestic courts which had applied over - restrictive criteria to the question whether the media were or were not reporting matters of public interest when they reported on circumstances relating to the private life of a person who was not part of political life ( PERSON and GPE v. GPE , no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , § CARDINAL , DATE ) . It was sufficient that the report concerned , at least to some degree , important matters relating to politics or another sphere ( PERSON and ORG , cited above , § CARDINAL ) .

ORG concluded that ORG had found in the present case that the report in question concerned important subjects in a NORP society . In its PERSON judgment , cited above , the ORG had not categorically excluded the possibility that a report contributing to a debate about questions of interest to the public could be illustrated by photos showing a scene from the daily life of a political or public figure . Even though the ORG had concluded in GPE that the photos in question had not been of information valueand having regard to the ORG ’s case - law – that the photo in question was of information value was constitutionally unobjectionable .

On an unspecified date , the first applicant sought an injunction in ORG against any further publication of the photo that had appeared in the magazine PERSON , issue no . CARDINAL of DATE .

In a judgement of DATE , ORG granted the applicant ’s request .

In a judgment of DATE , ORG allowed an appeal lodged by the publishing company and set aside ORG judgment .

In a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ( no . PERSON CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) , ORG dismissed an appeal by the first applicant on the same grounds as those set out in its judgment of DATE ( no . VI ZR DATE see paragraphs CARDINAL above ) . It stated that the first applicant had not argued before it – and nor was there anything to suggest DATE that the photo had been taken surreptitiously or with equivalent secret technical devices such as to render its publication unlawful .

In a decision of DATE ( no . CARDINAL BvR CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) , a CARDINAL - judge panel of ORG declined , without giving reasons , to entertain a constitutional appeal lodged by the first applicant .

On DATE the second applicant sought an injunction in ORG against any further publication by ORG publishing company of the CARDINAL photos that had appeared in the magazine PERSON .

In a judgment of DATE , ORG granted the injunction .

In a judgment of DATE , ORG allowed an appeal by the publishing company .

In a judgment of DATE ( no . VI ZR CARDINAL ) , ORG dismissed an appeal on points of law by the second applicant in respect of the first photo . With regard to the second and third photos , it allowed the appeal , quashed the judgment of ORG and reinstated the injunction imposed by ORG . It based its conclusions on the same grounds as those set out in its judgment no . ORG CARDINAL of DATE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL above ) . With regard to the second applicant ’s high profile , it upheld the opinion of ORG that he was well known to the public , in particular as the husband of the first applicant who was especially the subject of public attention .

In a decision of DATE ( no . CARDINAL BvR CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) , a CARDINAL - judge panel of ORG declined , without giving reasons , to entertain a constitutional appeal lodged by the second applicant .

On DATE the second applicant sought an injunction in ORG against any further publication by the WZV ORG publishing company of the photo that had appeared in the magazine PERSON .

In a judgment of DATE ( no . VI ZR CARDINAL ) , ORG dismissed an appeal on points of law lodged by the second applicant on the same grounds as those set out in its judgment of DATE ( no . PERSON CARDINAL/CARDINAL – see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

DATE . In a decision of DATE ( no . CARDINAL BvR CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) , a CARDINAL - judge panel of ORG declined , without giving reasons , to entertain a constitutional appeal lodged by the second applicant .

The relevant provisions of LAW provide as follows .

“ The dignity of human beings is inviolable . All public authorities have a duty to respect and protect it . ”

“ Everyone shall have the right to the free development of their personality provided that they do not interfere with the rights of others or violate the constitutional order or moral law [ Sittengesetz ] . ”

“ CARDINAL . Everyone shall have the right freely to express and disseminate his or her opinions in speech , writing and pictures and freely to obtain information from generally accessible sources . Freedom of the press and freedom of reporting via the radio , television and cinema shall be guaranteed . There shall be no censorship .

These rights shall be subject to the limitations laid down by the provisions of the general laws and to statutory provisions for the protection of young people and to the obligation to respect personal honour [ ORG der persönlichen GPE ] . ”

Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of ORG ( Gesetz betreffend das NORP an GPE der bildenden PERSON ) provides that images can only be disseminated with the express consent of the person concerned . Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(CARDINAL ) of the LAW provides for exceptions to that rule , where the images portray an aspect of contemporary society ( GPE aus dem Bereich der GPE ) on condition that publication does not interfere with a legitimate interest ( berechtigtes ORG ) of the person concerned ( section CARDINAL ) ) .

The relevant passages of this ORG , adopted by ORG of ORG on DATE , read as follows .

“ CARDINAL . The ORG recalls the current affairs debate it held on the right to privacy during its DATE session , DATE after the accident which cost FAC GPE her life .

NORP On that occasion , some people called for the protection of privacy , and in particular that of public figures , to be reinforced at the NORP level by means of a convention , while others believed that privacy was sufficiently protected by national legislation and LAW , and that freedom of expression should not be jeopardised .

NORP In order to explore the matter further , ORG Human Rights organised a hearing in GPE on DATE with the participation of public figures or their representatives and the media .

The right to privacy , guaranteed by LAW , has already been defined by the ORG in the declaration on mass communication media and human rights , contained within LAW ( DATE ) , as ‘ the right to live one ’s own life with a minimum of interference’ .

In view of the new communication technologies which make it possible to store and use personal data , the right to control one ’s own data should be added to this definition .

The ORG is aware that personal privacy is often invaded , even in countries with specific legislation to protect it , as people ’s private lives have become a highly lucrative commodity for certain sectors of the media . The victims are essentially public figures , since details of their private lives serve as a stimulus to sales . At the same time , public figures must recognise that the position they occupy in society – in many cases by choice – automatically entails increased pressure on their privacy .

Public figures are persons holding public office and/or using public resources and , more broadly speaking , all those who play a role in public life , whether in politics , the economy , the arts , the social sphere , sport or in any other domain .

It is often in the name of a CARDINAL - sided interpretation of the right to freedom of expression , which is guaranteed in LAW , that the media invade people ’s privacy , claiming that their readers are entitled to know everything about public figures .

Certain facts relating to the private lives of public figures , particularly politicians , may indeed be of interest to citizens , and it may therefore be legitimate for readers , who are also voters , to be informed of those facts .

It is therefore necessary to find a way of balancing the exercise of CARDINAL fundamental rights , both of which are guaranteed in LAW : the right to respect for one ’s private life and the right to freedom of expression .

The ORG reaffirms the importance of every person ’s right to privacy , and of the right to freedom of expression , as fundamental to a NORP society . These rights are neither absolute nor in any hierarchical order , since they are of equal value .

NORP However , the ORG points out that the right to privacy afforded by LAW should not only protect an individual against interference by public authorities , but also against interference by private persons or institutions , including the mass media .

The ORG believes that , since all member ORG have now ratified LAW , and since many systems of national legislation comprise provisions guaranteeing this protection , there is no need to propose that a new convention guaranteeing the right to privacy should be adopted .

The Resolution of the Committee of Ministers ( CM / ResDH(CARDINAL)CARDINAL ) , including the Appendix ( extracts ) , adopted on CARDINAL DATE at the CARDINALth meeting of ORG , is worded as follows :

“ ORG , under the terms of Article CARDINAL , paragraph CARDINAL , of ORG , which provides that ORG supervises the execution of final judgments of ORG hereinafter ‘ the Convention’ and ‘ the ORG ) ;

Having regard to the judgments transmitted by ORG once they had become final ;

Recalling that the violation of the ORG found by ORG in this case concerns a breach of the right to respect for private life of the applicant , Princess PERSON , the eldest daughter of Prince PERSON III of GPE , on account of [ the ] NORP ORG refusal of her requests to prohibit publication of a series of photographs of her ( see details in Appendix ) ;

Having invited the government of the respondent ORG to inform ORG measures taken to comply with GPE ’s obligation under LAW , paragraph CARDINAL , of the Convention to abide by the judgment ;

Having examined the information provided by the government in accordance with ORG for the application of LAW , paragraph CARDINAL , of the Convention ;

Having satisfied itself that , within the time - limit set , the respondent ORG paid the applicant the just satisfaction provided in the judgment ( see details in Appendix ) ;

Recalling that a finding of violations by the ORG requires , over and above the payment of just satisfaction awarded in the judgment , the adoption by the respondent ORG , where appropriate , of

– individual measures to put an end to the violations and erase their consequences so as to achieve as far as possible restitutio in integrum ; and

– general measures , preventing similar violations ;

DECLARES , having examined the measures taken by the respondent ORG ( see Appendix ) , that it has exercised its functions under LAW , paragraph CARDINAL , of the LAW in this case and

DECIDES to close the examination of this case .

Appendix to ORG CM / ResDH(CARDINAL)CARDINAL

Information about the measures to comply with the judgment in the case of

I. Payment of just satisfaction and individual measures

b ) Individual measures

Although it is possible under NORP law , the applicant did not take action to prevent further publication of the photographs in question after ORG judgment , but took action against a similar photograph ( see under “ LAW ” , No . CARDINAL ) below . According to information available to the ORG , the photographs at issue in ORG judgment have not been reprinted by the NORP press .

II . General measures

– ORG and dissemination of the judgment of ORG : The judgment has been widely published and discussed by the NORP legal community . As is the case with all judgments of ORG against GPE it is publicly available via the website of ORG ( www.bmj.de , ORG : ORG , PERSON ) which provides a direct link to the ORG ’s website for judgments in NORP ( www.coe.int/T/D/Menschenrechtsgerichtshof/Dokumente_auf ORG ) . Furthermore , the judgment was disseminated by letter of ORG to the courts and justice authorities concerned .

– Change of domestic case - law : When deciding upon similar cases , domestic courts have taken into account the judgment of ORG , thus giving it direct effect in NORP law :

CARDINAL ) The partner of a famous singer successfully sued at ORG ( ORG . v. CARDINAL , CARDINAL W CARDINAL/CARDINAL , ORG , ORG , DATE , pp . CARDINAL - CARDINAL ) .

CARDINAL ) The Convention ’s principles as set out in ORG judgments were also acknowledged , even though they were not directly relevant to the case , in a judgment of ORG forbidding commercial exploitation of the popularity of former Chancellor PERSON ( AG GPE , ORG . v. CARDINAL , CARDINALA C DATE , ORG - RR DATE , pp . CARDINAL - CARDINAL ) .

CARDINAL ) On the basis of the judgment of ORG , ORG upheld a judgment allowing the publication of an article about fining the applicant ’s husband for speeding on a NORP motorway . The ORG stated that the public had a justified interest in this information as it constitutes an offence , making this behaviour the topic of a public discussion ( ORG , ORG . v. CARDINAL , ORG DATE , available via www.bundesgerichtshof.de ) .

CARDINAL ) Concerning the applicant herself , in DATE , the regional court of GPE ( ORG ) , referring to the judgment of ORG , decided in favour of the applicant , prohibiting the publication of a photograph showing her together with her husband in a GPE street during DATE . However , in DATE , the second instance ( ORG of GPE , GPE ) reversed this decision , basing its judgment rather on the case - law of ORG ( Bundesverfassungsgericht ) . Upon revision to ORG ( ORG ) sought by the applicant , ORG on DATE decided that the photograph in question may be published . In its reasoning the domestic court , balancing the different interests at stake , explicitly ORG took into account the Convention ’s requirements as set out in ORG judgment ( ORG , ORG . v. CARDINAL , ORG CARDINAL/CARDINAL available via www.bundesgerichtshof.de ) .


Preliminary objection dismissed (non-exhaustion of domestic remedies, victim);Violation of Art. 6-1;Pecuniary damage - financial award;Non-pecuniary damage - financial award

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in PERSON , the GPE region . He is a former employee of the ORG - controlled ORG “ NORP ” ( “ the ORG , ” ORG “ Південелектромаш ” ) .

The background facts for the case are described in the case of ORG v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL , § § CARDINAL - CARDINAL , DATE ) .

On DATE ORG міський суд PERSON області ) ordered the Company to pay the applicant ORG CARDINAL in salary arrears . This judgment became final .

According to the ORG , the applicant never submitted the enforcement writ in respect of this judgment for enforcement .

The applicant presented a copy of the letter of ORG ( “ the Bailiffs , ” PERSON виконавчої служби Новокаховського міського управління юстиції ) of CARDINAL DATE advising him that the enforcement proceedings in respect of the judgment of DATE had been instituted on DATE .

Additionally , the applicant presented a copy of the Bailiffs ' decision of CARDINAL July CARDINAL , by which they returned him the enforcement writ in respect of the above judgment unenforced . In particular , the Bailiffs referred to the impossibility of the enforcement in view of the debtor 's lack of funds , the pending bankruptcy proceedings against it and the holding of its assets in a tax lien .

The judgment of DATE remains unenforced to the present day .

On DATE ORG ordered the Company to pay the applicant ORG CARDINAL in salary arrears . This judgment became final and on CARDINAL DATE the Bailiffs instituted enforcement proceedings in its respect .

The judgment of CARDINAL DATE remains unenforced to the present DATE .


CASE OF BUCURIA INC AND OTHERS v. MOLDOVA

Alvina Gyulumyan;Egbert Myjer;Ineta Ziemele;Josep Casadevall;Kristina Pardalos;Luis López Guerra;Mihai Poalelungi

The applicants are ORG , a joint - stock company registered in PERSON , and CARDINAL NORP nationals residing in PERSON : Mr PERSON PERSON , born in DATE ; Mr PERSON , born in DATE and ORG , born in DATE . They were represented before the ORG by PERSON , a lawyer practising in PERSON . ORG ( “ the Government ” ) were represented by their Agent , Mr V. Grosu .

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

The first applicant , ORG ( “ the Company ” ) is the biggest producer of chocolate and other confectionary in GPE . The second applicant is the ORG ’s current Director General and a shareholder and the third and the fourth applicants are also shareholders .

Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL of the Company ’s Statute describes the Company ’s object as making “ a permanent profit ” . Article CARDINAL ) of the Company ’s Statute provides that ORG is competent to approve decisions to stand security for third parties and to pledge the ORG ’s assets .

On DATE Mr PERSON , who was then the Director General of the Company , sent a letter to ORG ( “ the Bank ” ) . The letter stated that the ORG agreed irrevocably and unconditionally to guarantee a loan to be made by ORG ( ORG ) , a sum subsequently assessed to represent PERCENT of the share value of ORG . The money was to finance the purchase by a NORP company , ORG , of CARDINAL shares in the Company from ORG , a company registered in GPE .

In DATE , following the victory in the parliamentary elections by ORG , PERSON resigned from his post as Director ORG . On DATE he was appointed Prime Minister by the President of GPE and he remained in this post until DATE . The second applicant became the Director General of the Company .

On DATE the ORG demanded full repayment of the loan secured .

Following the demand for payment , the ORG filed a criminal complaint against PERSON . The complaint was dismissed by ORG on DATE , on the ground that the alleged facts did not reveal an offence . It does not appear that the ORG sought judicial review of ORG decision .

On DATE the Company was informed that on DATE ORG reopened the criminal investigation into PERSON alleged unlawful conduct .

On DATE the Company initiated civil proceedings against the ORG and GPE , seeking a declaration that the guarantee issued by PERSON was null ab initio . The ORG relied on Rule CARDINAL.CARDINAL(k ) of its Statute , according to which only ORG was competent to guarantee a loan contracted by CARDINAL party , and also on ORG CARDINAL of LAW and LAW CARDINAL of DATE on ORG ( “ Law No . CARDINAL ” ) , which required the unanimous vote of a ORG for any “ important transaction ” ( see below ) .

ORG held a hearing on DATE and dismissed the action on DATE . The court found that neither the Company ’s Statute nor Law No . CARDINAL prevented the Director General from standing as security for third parties and that the guarantee agreement did not constitute an “ important transaction ” within the meaning of Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL of Law No . CARDINAL since it affected CARDINAL PERCENT of the ORG ’s capital . The letter signed by PERSON on DATE therefore validly bound the Company .

NORP The court further ruled that , even if no decision of ORG was required by law , it appeared from TIME submitted by the defendants that ORG had held an extraordinary meeting on DATE during which all CARDINAL members had approved the guarantee agreement set out in PERSON letter of CARDINAL DATE .

The Company filed an appeal on points of facts and law ( PERSON ) with ORG , submitting , inter alia , that the first instance tribunal had erred , first , in finding that neither the Company ’s Statute nor domestic law prevented the Director General from entering into a binding guarantee on behalf of the Company for such a large sum and , secondly , in finding that ORG had met and approved the agreement on DATE . The Company contended that the minutes of that meeting had been forged and it requested the court to hear evidence from the members of ORG who had allegedly been present .

On DATE ORG rejected the ORG ’s request that it hear witness evidence and upheld the first instance judgment , on the ground that TIME of the meeting of DATE were valid unless declared invalid by a court . The court also held that the provisions of sections CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the Law on Joint - stock Companies ( see below ) were inapplicable because the guarantee agreement did not qualify as an “ important transaction ” .

On DATE ORG held an extraordinary meeting with a view to examining the validity of TIME of the meeting of DATE . The ORG agreed that they had never met on DATE . They found that the minutes had been signed by Mr Tarlev and an engineer employed by the company , PERSON , who gave evidence that she had not attended any meeting and had signed at the request of PERSON , without understanding the significance . Contrary to the requirements of ORG DATE of ORG , Articles CARDINAL.CARDINAL and CARDINAL ( k ) of ORG and LAW . CARDINAL , the minutes included neither the names of the persons who had allegedly attended the meeting , the agenda nor the names of the persons appointed as President and Secretary of the meeting , and had not been signed by the meeting ’s Secretary or President . ORG decided unanimously to declare DATE invalid as a forgery .

The Company filed an appeal on points of law ( recurs ) to ORG against the decision of ORG of DATE . It contended in particular that TIME of the meeting when the guarantee agreement had allegedly been approved did not comply with the formalities required by law and had been declared invalid by ORG at its meeting on DATE .

NORP In response to the Company ’s appeal , the GPE and ORG filed written statements from CARDINAL of the CARDINAL members of ORG in office in DATE , including PERSON . In the statements , dated DATE , ORG members confirmed that they had , in fact , held a meeting on DATE and had voted to approve the guarantee agreement . ORG found that this evidence , together with TIME , confirmed that a unanimous vote had been taken during the meeting of DATE . It also upheld the ruling of ORG that the TIME were valid since the Company had not brought proceedings specifically to challenge their validity before a court . As to the refusal of ORG to open a criminal investigation against Mr Tarlev , ORG considered that it had been based on the finding that the Company was in the practice of preparing TIME of meetings which did not comply with the formal legal requirements . ORG therefore found that the lower courts had decided correctly and it dismissed the appeal on DATE .

On DATE ORG of shareholders met and decided that both the guarantee letter issued by PERSON on DATE and TIME of the alleged meeting of DATE were null and void .

Following this meeting the third applicant , a shareholder , commenced proceedings against the Company in ORG , requesting the annulment of DATE on the ground that they had not been drawn up in accordance with legal requirements . The Company accepted before the court that TIME of the meeting of DATE had been forged .

On DATE the ORG had sold the debt owed by ORG and guaranteed by ORG , a company registered in GPE . At the date of the sale the debt , including capital and interest , totalled USD CARDINAL,CARDINAL,CARDINAL . The Bank , GPE and ORG intervened in the proceedings brought by the third applicant against the Company , alleging that the proceedings were simply a manoeuvre by the Company and its shareholders to avoid paying the debt .

ORG heard evidence from CARDINAL of the Directors , who had allegedly attended the meeting of DATE , as well as the engineer , PERSON , who had signed the minutes . The two Directors stated that they had not attended a meeting on DATE and that their statements of DATE had been made as a result of pressure and threats . PERSON stated that she did not attend the meeting and that Mr Tarlev ’s secretary had asked her to sign the minutes .

In a judgment dated DATE ORG found that no meeting had taken place on DATE . Referring to LAW ) of ORG , according to which only ORG was competent to approve decisions to stand security for third parties , the court found that the guarantee letter signed by PERSON Tarlev on DATE had been ultra vires and that the TIME of the meeting of DATE were null and void ab initio .

The defendant ORG appealed against this judgment . On DATE ORG , without holding a hearing , quashed the judgment of DATE . ORG noted that CARDINAL contradictory sets of written statements had been submitted to ORG . Without referring to the oral evidence of the CARDINAL witnesses heard by that court , it held that the statements of the Directors dated DATE might have been made under pressure by the newly appointed Director General of the Company ( the second applicant ) while the other statements were in the court ’s eyes more trustworthy because their authors had made them personally in front of a notary . The court concluded on the basis of the evidence in its possession that all the CARDINAL members of ORG had been present at the meeting of DATE and had voted to approve the guarantee agreement . Irrespective of the above conclusion , ORG found that ORG had already ruled , in its final judgment of DATE , that ORG had met in an extraordinary meeting on DATE , when they had confirmed the validity of the guarantee letter . Consequently , the validity of the minutes and of the guarantee letter could no longer be challenged and the third applicant ’s action was dismissed .

The third applicant submitted an appeal on points of law to ORG . It was rejected on DATE for the following reasons :

“ the appellate court has based its decision to reject [ the applicant ’s ] claim on the fact that the [ applicant ’s ] claim has been examined in the proceedings about the nullity of the guarantee letter , which concluded with the decision of ORG of DATE . It is clear from that decision that the court found that the validity of the guarantee letter was confirmed at the specially convened ORG meeting of DATE . It follows that the court has determined the lawfulness of the act and TIME of the Board meeting . ”

A writ of enforcement was issued by ORG on DATE . Pursuant to the writ , ORG paid ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL DATE .

The relevant rules of company law are contained in CARDINAL of DATE on ORG , which provides as follows :

“ Article CARDINAL . ORG and its powers

( CARDINAL ) Unless the Company ’s Charter provides otherwise , ORG has the powers to approve :

a ) the priority directions of the Company ’s activity ;

b ) the forms of notification of shareholders about meetings of ORG , as well as the procedure for informing shareholders of the agenda ;

bCARDINAL ) NORP the form of ensuring the access of shareholders to the Company documents provided in LAW paragraph ( CARDINAL ) ;

c ) the rules of activity of ORG of the Company as well as the decisions on election of ORG and the appointment of the Head of ORG , his power to bind the Company , his remuneration and compensation and the premature termination of his powers ;

d ) DATE reports of ORG of the Company ;

e ) decisions on setting up , transforming or dissolving of Branch and ORG , on appointing or releasing from office their managers , as well as changes and additions to LAW . ”

DATE . ORG and its powers

( CARDINAL ) ORG shall represent the ORG interests during the periods between ORG and shall carry out the general management and control of the ORG ’s activity within the limits of its competence . ORG is accountable to ORG .

( CARDINAL ) ORG has the following exclusive powers :

a ) making decisions on the convocation of ORG ;

b ) DATE approving the market value of assets which are the object of a large - scale contracts ;

c ) making decisions on the conclusion of large - scale contracts as stipulated in paragraph ( CARDINAL ) of Article CARDINAL ;

d ) concluding an agreement with ORG of the Company ;

e ) approving the Company ’s Registrar and determining his remuneration ;

f ) approving the prospectus of public offers of securities ;

g ) approving the report on the results of securities’ issues and operating changes to the DATE ’s Charter ;

gCARDINAL ) approving the decision on LOC issue , except convertible bonds , as well as the report on results of ORG issue ;

h ) during DATE , deciding on the distribution of net income , the use of reserve capital and of the special funds of the Company ;

i ) NORP making proposals to ORG on the payment of DATE dividends and deciding on the payment of interim dividends ;

j ) approving a remuneration fund and the remuneration rules for the ORG ’s employees ;

k ) deciding on the Company ’s joining an association or other union ; and

l ) deciding on other issues provided in this law and in LAW .

( CARDINAL ) The powers of ORG shall also include deciding on the issues specified in paragraph ( CARDINAL ) of Article CARDINAL , provided that this is stipulated in LAW .

( CARDINAL ) Issues referred to the competence of ORG may not be delegated for review by ORG of the Company , except as provided in paragraph ( CARDINAL ) of LAW .

( CARDINAL ) ORG shall submit to ORG the DATE report on its activity prepared according to the legislation on securities , the Charter of the Company and the regulation on ORG .

( CARDINAL ) The functions of ORG may not be delegated to another person .

( CARDINAL ) If ORG is not set up or its powers are terminated in conformity with this law , the functions of the ORG shall be performed by ORG , except for the convocation , preparation and holding of the meeting of ORG .

Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the same law provide that “ important transactions ” , amounting to CARDINAL of a company ’s assets , can be approved only by a unanimous decision of the company ’s board .

The powers of the executive body are set out in DATE , as follows :

“ DATE . Executive Body of the Company

( CARDINAL ) ORG is competent to deal with all issues related to the management of the current activities of the Company , except the issues which are within the competence of ORG or ORG .

( CARDINAL ) ORG of the Company shall carry out decisions of ORG and of ORG and is accountable to :

a ) ORG ;

b ) the General Assembly of Shareholders , if provided in LAW .

( CARDINAL ) If ORG has not been set up or its powers are terminated , ORG of the Company shall carry out the functions of ORG concerning the preparation and holding of a ORG .

( CARDINAL ) The Executive Body of the Company can be either collegiate ( ORG ) or unipersonal ( General Director , Director ) . The persons specified in paragraph ( CARDINAL ) of DATE can not hold a seat in ORG of the Company . Persons elected ( appointed ) already shall be revoked from their functions .

( CARDINAL ) The Company Charter can simultaneously provide for CARDINAL Executive Bodies specified in paragraph ( CARDINAL ) . In this case , the unipersonal Executive Body shall also act as a manager of the collegiate Executive Body .

( CARDINAL ) ORG of the Company shall submit to the founding central or local public administration authority reports concerning the economic and financial activity of the Company , when the ORG ’s share represents MONEY plus one share , and in some cases , the results of an independent audit of the annual financial report .

( CARDINAL ) The Executive Body of the Company has to ensure the submission to ORG and to each of their members documents and other information necessary for carrying out their functions appropriately . ”

According to law , all judges must be competent , hold a university degree in law , have requisite work experience , have no criminal record , have a good reputation , and know the official ORG language . All judicial candidates have to pass a written examination .

During the period in question , judges of district and municipal courts , ORG , and specialised courts such as ORG were appointed by the President of GPE on the proposal of ORG . Judges of ORG were appointed by ORG on the proposal of ORG . ORG , the ORG , and ORG each appointed CARDINAL of the CARDINAL judges to ORG .

ORG included certain ex officio members , namely the Minister of Justice , ORG , the President of ORG and the President of ORG . CARDINAL other members were elected by ORG and CARDINAL by ORG .

Judges are appointed for an initial DATE term and , unless serious objections are raised , thereafter remain in post until retirement . According to an amendment to LAW of DATE on ORG , passed on DATE , Presidents and Vice - Presidents of tribunals were , during the period in question , appointed for a DATE term of office .