Violation of Art. 3 (in case of extradition to Turkmenistan);Violation of Art. 5-1-f;Violation of Art. 5-4;Non-pecuniary damage - award

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

The applicant was born in DATE and currently lives in GPE .

The applicant was born and lived in GPE , GPE . He is of NORP ethnic origin and has family members in GPE . In GPE he headed a limited liability company called Argamak , which was engaged in the construction business and trade .

According to the applicant , DATE Argamak performed works under a government contract . The applicant submitted that certain officials from ORG of GPE had refused to honour their obligations under the contract and to pay for the work performed unless the applicant paid a bribe in the amount of MONEY ( ORG ) . The applicant further submitted that in DATE he had applied to ORG and complained CARDINAL inspectors from ORG , PERSON and NORP Both inspectors , according to the applicant , were of NORP ethnic origin . ORG allegedly supplied the applicant with specially marked banknotes and PERSON was detained during the transfer of the money . Following a criminal investigation , the case against PERSON and NORP was referred to a court , which after DATE of hearings ordered an additional investigation . It appears that the applicant participated as a witness . The applicant , who submitted that he did not speak NORP , was not provided with an interpreter , although the proceedings were conducted in NORP . The applicant was not aware of the outcome of the criminal case .

After DATE the applicant allegedly came under pressure from the law - enforcement bodies . According to him , officers of those bodies threatened him with revenge and demanded that he change his position in the criminal case . The applicant submitted that in DATE he had been called in for questioning at the transport police department for organised crime CARDINAL times , that is , almost every day . He also received threats from NORP and the relatives of PERSON in DATE and DATE the applicant was allegedly questioned on several occasions by ORG about his economic activities and was asked to become an informant . When the applicant refused he received further threats .

As a result , the applicant submitted that he feared for his life and for the lives of his relatives . The applicant felt that he had become a target , in particular because he belonged to the NORP minority , and decided to leave GPE .

On DATE the applicant applied for NORP citizenship at the NORP embassy in GPE . The applicant submitted that all the required documents had been collected and registered at the embassy and that he had received notification that his case file had been registered as no . DATE .

On DATE the office of ORG at the embassy in GPE supplied the applicant with a document entitled “ Permission to Repatriate from GPE to GPE and LOC ” . The document was based on the bilateral treaty on resettlement .

On DATE the applicant received an exit visa from GPE valid for DATE . On DATE the applicant travelled to GPE on a private invitation .

On DATE the applicant was issued with an entry visa by the NORP embassy in GPE , with the purpose of entry indicated as “ permanent residence ” .

On DATE the applicant went to GPE by plane . On DATE he travelled to GPE , where his brother lives , and from then on resided at his brother ’s address .

The applicant submitted that in DATE he had visited the office of ORG in GPE , where he was advised that he should not apply for refugee status because he already had migrant status , and that he should proceed with his application for NORP citizenship .

On several occasions DATE the applicant contacted the NORP embassy in GPE , ORG and ORG , enquiring about the progress of his application for citizenship . He submitted that he had not received any relevant response .

On DATE the applicant again applied to the GPE office of ORG and asked in writing to be granted refugee status . On DATE the applicant was interviewed and submitted that he feared persecution in GPE and that he was the subject of a criminal investigation . The applicant submitted all the necessary documents to the migration service , including his national passport .

On DATE the GPE office of ORG rejected the applicant ’s application for refugee status , and on DATE the applicant was notified of this in writing . The letter of rejection stated that the applicant had not met the criteria for refugee status , and that the real reason for his arrival in GPE was most probably an attempt to escape the criminal proceedings against him . The decision stated that in DATE the applicant had obtained migrant status in the NORP embassy for himself and for his family ; however , his family had continued to reside in GPE . The applicant had travelled first to GPE on business , and had arrived in GPE only in DATE . Since his arrival the applicant had failed to obtain legal status in GPE and had not applied for a residence permit or registration at his place of residence . The decision further stated that GPE Regional Department of the ORG had confirmed that the applicant had been wanted by the NORP authorities since DATE and in GPE , further to a request by the NORP authorities , since DATE . The letter also informed the applicant that he could appeal to a district court against the decision and that he should leave GPE if he had no other legal grounds for remaining .

On DATE the applicant appealed to the GPE district court of GPE against the refusal of his application . On DATE the case was registered by the court and the first meeting between the parties was scheduled for DATE . At the same time , the judge requested the applicant ’s file from the GPE office of ORG .

On DATE the hearing was scheduled for DATE . On DATE the judge decided that a request should be sent to GPE asking about the applicant ’s participation as a witness in the criminal case against PERSON and NORP The next hearing was first scheduled for DATE and then postponed until DATE .

At the same time , the applicant again contacted various bodies in relation to his application for citizenship . On DATE ORG informed the applicant that his application for citizenship had been returned to the NORP embassy in GPE for further processing .

NORP In DATE the applicant wrote to ORG . He stated that he had applied for NORP citizenship in DATE , and that consideration of such applications should take DATE . He had received no reply to his application . On DATE the Passport and ORG of ORG informed the applicant that his application had been forwarded to ORG of the ORG and that it would inform him of the results .

The applicant ’s family – his wife , daughter , son and CARDINAL grandchildren – remained in GPE . After the applicant had arrived in GPE , his wife informed him that she had been summoned to ORG on several occasions and questioned about her husband ’s whereabouts . She also told him that a criminal case against him had been opened and that part of his property had been confiscated .

On DATE the applicant was summoned to the Passport and ORG of ORG of the ORG to discuss “ issues relating to the granting of NORP citizenship ” .

On DATE the applicant went to the ORG ’s premises , where he was arrested . He was told that his detention related to a criminal case in GPE .

On DATE the prosecutor of LOC of GPE issued an order for the applicant ’s arrest on the basis of international search warrant no . DATE , issued by GPE in DATE . The order listed details of the charges brought against the applicant , which included the embezzlement of MONEY in DATE and DATE , when the applicant had been the director of a NORP - GPE joint venture . He was charged with offences under LAW , part CARDINAL , of LAW . On DATE he had been declared a wanted person in GPE , and on DATE a prosecutor in GPE had issued an arrest warrant . ORG GPE had been informed of the applicant ’s detention . The prosecutor requested the GPE district court of GPE to authorise the applicant ’s detention .

On DATE the applicant was brought before the GPE district court . He was represented by a lawyer . The prosecutor requested the court to detain the applicant and stated that he had been wanted in GPE since DATE for an offence under LAW , part CARDINAL , of LAW . ORG had been informed of the applicant ’s arrest . The court ordered the applicant ’s detention pending his extradition to GPE . The court did not specify the term of his detention .

The applicant ’s lawyer appealed to GPE . The motion stated that the applicant ’s appeal concerning his refugee status was pending before the same court . It referred to his pending application for NORP citizenship . It further stated that the applicant had been detained unlawfully , as there had been no decision by the competent prosecutor to detain him with a view to his deportation .

On DATE the head of the GPE criminal police requested the GPE district court to authorise the applicant ’s detention on charges of embezzlement on a large scale , an offence punishable under LAW by DATE imprisonment . The letter stated that the question of extradition would be immediately resolved through the prosecutor generals’ offices of the CARDINAL countries .

On DATE the applicant asked PERSON to represent him . The applicant submitted that PERSON had been denied access to the documents that had served as a ground for his detention , including information about the criminal proceedings in GPE and the decision of ORG to detain him with a view to his extradition . On DATE the lawyer submitted a written complaint to the President of the GPE district court . On DATE the lawyer was informed that she could have access to the documents in question if she submitted a written request to the judge . In reply to her written request the President of the GPE district court postponed the hearing from CARDINAL until DATE .

On DATE ORG High Commissioner for Refugees ( ORG ) in GPE issued a letter stating that the applicant ’s appeal concerning his refugee status was pending before the GPE district court and that his extradition to GPE prior to determination of his appeal might be in violation of section QUANTITY of LAW and LAW relating to ORG , to which GPE was a party .

On DATE ORG , under Rule CARDINAL of ORG , requested the NORP authorities not to extradite the applicant to GPE until further notice .

On DATE GPE , in the presence of the applicant ’s lawyer , upheld the decision of DATE . ORG noted that the applicant was on the international wanted list and that on DATE [ this should read DATE ] the deputy prosecutor of GPE had ordered his arrest . In the absence of a decision by a foreign court to detain the applicant the NORP court was competent to do so at the prosecutor ’s request . The decision of ORG did not specify a term for the applicant ’s detention .

On DATE ORG received a request from GPE for the applicant ’s extradition . ORG referred to this document but no copy was submitted to the ORG . The applicant and his lawyer submitted that they had not seen the document .

On DATE ORG informed the ORG that the applicant had been detained in accordance with LAW ORG ) and that no decision to extradite him had been taken . The Government further submitted that all proceedings in GPE would be suspended until further notice from the Court .

On DATE the Prosecutor General of GPE addressed the following letter to ORG :

“ ORG of GPE presents its compliments to ORG of GPE and issues a guarantee that PERSON will face criminal prosecution only in respect of the crimes committed by him ( embezzlement on a large scale ) and [ that he ] will not be subjected to , and has never been subjected to , persecution on political , religious or ethnic grounds . ”

On DATE the GPE district court dismissed the applicant ’s complaint concerning his refugee status on the ground that the applicant had failed to substantiate the allegations regarding his fear of ethnic or religious - based persecution in GPE .

On DATE GPE upheld the decision of DATE . Both courts noted that the applicant had not submitted any specific information about his alleged persecution on ethnic or religious grounds . They concluded that his fear of being returned to GPE was based mainly on the criminal proceedings initiated against him and that he had used the refugee status procedure as a means of evading those proceedings .

In the meantime , on DATE , the Deputy Prosecutor General had submitted a request for supervisory review ( надзорное представление ) to the ORG of GPE . In it he challenged the procedural fairness of the decision of CARDINAL DATE on the ground that the applicant ’s presence had not been secured .

On DATE the Presidium of ORG quashed the decision of CARDINAL DATE in the supervisory review proceedings and referred it back for re - examination . On DATE ORG again upheld the decision of DATE to detain the applicant . The applicant participated by video link .

After DATE the applicant appealed against his detention on several occasions . Since he had been arrested in LOC of GPE , he complained to the CARDINAL courts operating in the district , namely the PERSON , PERSON and LOC courts . He also submitted appeals to the NORP district court , which has jurisdiction in respect of pre - trial detention centre GPE , where he had been detained .

Before the domestic courts the applicant submitted that in accordance with LAW his detention could be authorised only for DATE , and that after DATE it had became unlawful .

In addition , the applicant applied on numerous occasions to various ORG offices in relation to the issue of the lawfulness of his detention .

A summary of these proceedings is set out below .

On DATE the applicant , and on DATE his lawyer , submitted complaints to the GPE district court , alleging that the authorisation for his detention which that court had given on DATE had expired on DATE and had not been extended .

On DATE the GPE district court informed the applicant ’s lawyer that the complaints had been transferred to the GPE GPE prosecutor ’s office .

The applicant ’s lawyer appealed against the court ’s actions to GPE on DATE , both directly and via the district court . On DATE the GPE district court informed the applicant that his complaint had been forwarded to the city prosecutor ’s office .

On DATE the applicant ’s lawyer again complained to GPE , challenging the GPE district court ’s refusal to consider the complaints .

In reply , on DATE GPE forwarded the applicant ’s complaint to the city prosecutor ’s office .

On DATE the GPE district court replied to the applicant that his complaints to ORG had been forwarded to the GPE prosecutor ’s office , which he should contact in the future if he wished to apply to have the measure of restraint imposed on him changed .

On DATE the President of the GPE district court informed the applicant ’s lawyer that no decision had been taken by that court , and that therefore no appeals were possible .

On DATE the applicant complained to the Smolninskiy district court of the unlawfulness of his detention . On DATE the authorities in the detention facility returned the complaint to the applicant , with a letter from a judge of that court stating that it had no jurisdiction to consider it .

On DATE the applicant , and on DATE his lawyer , wrote to the PERSON district court , complaining of the applicant ’s unlawful detention and requesting it to adopt a formal decision on his complaint . On DATE the applicant ’s lawyer also complained to GPE .

On DATE GPE returned to the applicant ’s lawyer her complaints concerning the actions of the PERSON and PERSON district courts without examining them , and stated that she could appeal against the GPE district court ’s decision of DATE by means of supervisory review .

On DATE the Smolninskiy district court returned the complaints to the applicant and stated that he could not appeal against a forwarding letter and that no decision had been taken on his complaint for lack of jurisdiction . All questions relating to extradition fell within the competence of ORG , to which he should apply .

On DATE the applicant complained of his unlawful detention to the LOC court . On an unspecified date that court returned his complaint without examining it and stated that since no investigation was pending in respect of the applicant in LOC of GPE , it had no jurisdiction with regard to his detention . The court informed him that he should challenge the lawfulness of his detention before the NORP district court , which was responsible for the detention centre where he had been detained .

On DATE the applicant appealed against that decision to ORG through the district court . On an unspecified date the court returned the applicant ’s complaint and stated that since no investigation was pending in respect of him in LOC , he should appeal against his detention to the authority responsible for his extradition .

On DATE the applicant ’s lawyer again contacted the Dzerzhinskiy district court , requesting it to review the substance of the complaint . On CARDINAL DATE the court ordered an oral hearing in the applicant ’s case and requested the city prosecutor ’s office to send it all the documents relating to his extradition and detention .

On DATE the LOC court held an oral hearing in the presence of the applicant and his lawyer and refused to consider the complaint on the merits for lack of territorial jurisdiction . The court stated the following :

“ The applicant ’s reference to LAW ORG is unfounded because LAW of the ORG , which regulates extradition on criminal charges , does not provide for a procedure for extending a person ’s detention . Persons arrested under LAW ORG may remain in detention until extradited to the foreign ORG . The law on criminal procedure links the term of detention only to the pre - established date set by the parties for transfer of the detainee ( LAW CCP ) . The law contains no reference to application of LAW by analogy ; therefore , the obligation on the investigators to seek an extension of the detention does not apply to this category of persons . Neither LAW ( DATE ) nor LAW of DATE on ORG , Family and Criminal Matters , as amended on DATE ( Article CARDINAL ) , contains any provision corresponding in meaning to LAW ORG .

The court does not question the fact that Mr PERSON , who is being kept in detention , has the right to judicial protection as guaranteed by LAW . However , the court considers that he and his lawyer can exercise this right by challenging the actions of the officials concerned through civil proceedings , by submitting a complaint to a competent court at the location of the GPE prosecutor ’s office or ORG , which is the body on which NORP criminal procedural law confers responsibility for issues relating to extradition . ”

The applicant ’s lawyer appealed against this decision on DATE . She argued that the provisions of LAW ORG should apply in the applicant ’s case and that the courts should be competent to review the lawfulness of his detention . She stated that NORP law provided that all issues relating to application of the provisions of criminal and criminal procedural law should be resolved in the manner provided for by the ORG and not through civil proceedings .

On DATE GPE dismissed the appeal and upheld the decision of DATE . In addition to the conclusions of the district court , it stated that the applicant could appeal to a court against the prosecutor ’s actions under LAW ORG .

On DATE the applicant complained to the NORP district court , through the authorities in the detention facility , of the unlawfulness of his detention . On DATE the head of the detention facility returned the complaint to the applicant , noting that the NORP district court had no jurisdiction to deal with it and that the applicant should apply to GPE instead .

On DATE the applicant ’s lawyer wrote to the head of the detention facility and stated that the latter had exceeded his powers in refusing to forward the applicant ’s complaint to the court . She also noted that the applicant ’s continued detention was unlawful and requested his release .

On DATE the applicant ’s lawyer submitted a complaint concerning the applicant ’s detention to the NORP district court . On CARDINAL May the court refused to consider the complaint in substance because no investigation was pending in respect of the applicant in GPE , and the provisions of the ORG did not therefore apply to him .

On DATE the applicant ’s lawyer appealed against that decision to ORG , which on DATE quashed the order of CARDINAL DATE and remitted the case to the district court .

DATE . On DATE the NORP district court held a hearing in the case and requested the GPE prosecutor ’s office to submit documents justifying the applicant ’s detention . Pending receipt of the documents , it adjourned consideration of the case until DATE , and subsequently until DATE . On DATE the hearing was adjourned until DATE , and subsequently until DATE .

On DATE the NORP district court , at a public hearing in the presence of the applicant and his lawyer , reviewed the complaint concerning the unlawfulness of his detention . The court dismissed the complaint and ruled that the case should be transferred to the GPE district court .

The applicant and his lawyer applied on numerous occasions to prosecutors at various levels , seeking to obtain his release .

On DATE the GPE prosecutor ’s office informed the applicant , in reply to his request to be released , that ORG was considering the request for his extradition , that he would be informed of the outcome and that there were no reasons to release him from detention .

On DATE ORG Office of GPE wrote as follows to the applicant ’s lawyer :

“ [ The applicant ] was detained in GPE in accordance with LAW of the [ GPE ] ORG , as a person in respect of whom an international search warrant had been issued by the NORP law - enforcement bodies .

Within DATE the Prosecutor General of GPE submitted a request for the extradition of Mr PERSON . On that basis , on an application by the GPE prosecutor ’s office , the GPE district court applied the preventive measure of detention under LAW ORG .

The question of extending the detention of a person detained under LAW ORG is not dealt with by NORP legislation .

According to the information provided by ORG at ORG , the decision of the President of ORG to apply Rule CARDINAL of the Rules of Court concerned only the expulsion / extradition / deportation , or any other forcible transfer , of Mr GPE to GPE , and no decision to release him has been taken . ”

On DATE the GPE city prosecutor ’s office informed the applicant ’s lawyer that her complaints of CARDINAL , DATE and DATE May and DATE concerning the applicant ’s release were unsubstantiated , because LAW ORG did not provide for the possibility of extending the detention of persons being held with a view to extradition .

On DATE ORG informed the applicant that his extradition to GPE had been stayed in view of the ORG ’s application of Rule CARDINAL of ORG . His allegations concerning persecution in GPE on political and ethnic grounds were under consideration . The letter concluded that there were no reasons to change the preventive measure applied to him .

On DATE ORG replied to the applicant ’s request to release him by a letter similar to that of CARDINAL DATE .

DATE . On DATE ORG replied to the applicant ’s lawyer , stating that the applicant ’s detention was lawful and that on DATE GPE had upheld the lawfulness of the decision of DATE . It further stated that the applicant ’s complaint concerning the lawfulness of his detention had been accepted for review by the NORP district court .

The applicant and his lawyer also appealed directly to the head of detention facility GPE , requesting the applicant ’s release and stating that his detention since DATE had been unlawful .

On DATE the applicant ’s lawyer was informed that his continued detention was based on the court ’s decision of CARDINAL DATE , taken in accordance with LAW ORG .

The applicant again complained to the head of detention facility IZ CARDINAL on DATE .

The applicant submitted that his medical condition had deteriorated while he was in detention .

On DATE the head of the facility replied to the applicant ’s lawyer that the applicant had been diagnosed with coronary heart disease and arrhythmia , but that he had received medical treatment and did not require hospitalisation .

On DATE the GPE district court accepted for review the applicant ’s complaint concerning the unlawfulness of his continued detention , in which he had also referred to the deterioration of his health .

On DATE ORG , in response to the request by the GPE district court , stated that no decision concerning the applicant ’s extradition to GPE had been taken and that his continued detention was lawful .

On DATE the GPE district court held a public hearing in the presence of the applicant and his lawyer and decided to release him . The court noted that no decision on extradition had been taken by ORG , in view of the application of Rule CARDINAL of ORG . It further noted that the ORG did not provide for the extension or alteration of a preventive measure in respect of a person arrested further to an extradition request . The district court directly applied LAW , which guarantees rights and freedoms in accordance with internationally recognised principles and norms of international law , and LAW , and concluded that the applicant should be released .

The Prosecutor General ’s Office appealed against that decision , but on DATE GPE upheld it .

In their latest observations submitted in DATE , the ORG stated that on DATE ORG Office of GPE had provided guarantees to its NORP counterpart to the effect that the applicant would not be subjected to torture , inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment in that country . The same letter also stated that the applicant would not be send to a third state without the consent of the NORP authorities ; once the judicial proceedings were over and the applicant had served his sentence , he would be allowed to leave GPE without any hindrance . ORG did not submit a copy of this letter to the ORG .

In DATE the ORG lifted the interim measure applied previously in respect of the applicant ’s extradition . At the same time it requested the ORG to inform it of any new developments regarding the extradition proceedings pending against the applicant .

The applicant submitted that he continued to be under threat of arrest and extradition to GPE . According to him , on DATE CARDINAL plainclothes policemen had visited his brother ’s house in GPE , looking for him . They did not produce any documents and said that the applicant should go to ORG of the Interior .

On DATE the applicant ’s lawyer and his brother went to the ORG ’s offices and were informed that the interim measure had been lifted and that the applicant should report to ORG . No documents were produced in respect of any proceedings . The officers also refused to clarify whether there had been a decision to extradite the applicant to GPE . On DATE the applicant called ORG but again received no explanations as to the status of his extradition . He did not go there in person , fearing that he would again be arrested .

NORP In DATE the Government informed the ORG that “ ORG reverted to the examination of the question of the applicant ’s possible extradition . Since the applicant ’s whereabouts are not established , the ... ORG , acting on instructions of ORG , is taking actions in order to apprehend the applicant . ” In reply , the ORG reminded the Government that they had been requested to submit updated information concerning the applicant ’s extradition . No such information has been forthcoming .

The applicant submitted a number of reports on the situation in GPE , including documents issued by the LOC , ORG , ORG , ORG , ORG , ORG and ORG . These documents speak of serious and continuing human rights violations occurring in GPE . In particular , they refer to persecution of ethnic minorities including NORP , violations of the principle of a fair trial , widespread use of torture , intolerable conditions of detention and lack of access to detainees by independent bodies , lawyers and relatives .

NORP In particular , ORG on GPE , issued by Prof . PERSON on DATE , stated :

“ Large - scale violations of all the principles of due process of law , like arbitrary detentions or show trials took place . Not only torture has been used to extract confessions , but the forced use of drugs was a means of criminalising the detainees , entailing lethal risks for them . A multiform collective repression fell on the ‘ enemies of the people’ , whereas forced displacement is announced in arid regions of the country , especially against people targeted on the ground of their ethnic origin . Even if the death penalty has been legally abolished , in practice , the survival expectancy of political detainees and displaced persons seems very low . ”

The ORG recommended , inter alia :

“ GPE , and particularly the GPE parties to ORG , should refuse to extradite or to hand over NORP nationals who , in the current circumstances , are in danger of being subjected to torture or inhuman and degrading treatments . They should envisage the possibility of granting refugee status to all persons having a well - founded fear of persecution and co - operate with the ORG to this end . ”

On DATE ORG adopted a resolution on GPE , which stated that “ the already appalling human rights situation in GPE has deteriorated dramatically recently , and there is evidence that this NORP state has acquired CARDINAL of the worst totalitarian systems in the world ” . It called on the NORP government , among other things , to conduct impartial and thorough investigations into all allegations of torture and ill - treatment of persons held in custody , to allow ORG access to prisoners and to ensure that independent observers were granted access to criminal trials .

Resolution CARDINAL of ORG on the situation of human rights in GPE deplored “ [ CARDINAL conduct of the NORP authorities with regard to the lack of fair trials of the accused , the reliance on confessional evidence which may have been extracted by torture or the threat of torture , the closed court proceedings , contrary to LAW ... and the refusal to allow diplomatic missions or international observers in GPE access to the trials as observers ” .

Resolution CARDINAL of ORG on the situation of human rights in GPE expressed its grave concern “ at the continuing failure of the Government of GPE to respond to the criticisms identified in the report of the Rapporteur of ORG of the LOC as regards the investigation , trial and detention procedures following the reported assassination attempt against President PERSON in DATE , as well as the failure of the NORP authorities to allow appropriate independent bodies , family members and lawyers access to those convicted , or to provide any kind of evidence to dispel rumours that some of the latter have now died in detention ” . ORG also called on GPE “ [ PERSON grant immediate access by appropriate independent bodies , including ORG , as well as lawyers and relatives , to detained persons , especially to persons detained following the events of DATE ” .

The report of the ORG Secretary - General on the situation of human rights in GPE of DATE ( ORG ) concluded that “ gross and systematic violations of human rights continued in the country ” . Among the main areas of concerns identified were the repression of political dissent , the situation of minorities ( including ethnic non - Turkmen ) , the use of torture and the absence of an independent judiciary .

Citing human rights concerns , ORG in DATE adopted a resolution to stop further consideration of an interim trade agreement with GPE . ORG resolution stated that ORG would approve an interim trade agreement with GPE only if “ clear , tangible , and sustained progress on the human rights situation is achieved . ” It called on ORG to release all political prisoners , allow the registration and free functioning of non - governmental organisations , permit ORG to work freely in the country and grant ORG human rights monitors “ timely ” access to GPE to monitor the situation .

The organisation ORG in its DATE ORG described GPE as “ one of the world ’s most repressive and closed countries , ” where the authorities severely suppressed all forms of dissent and isolated the population from the outside world . Its human rights record in DATE was described as “ disastrous ” . In particular , the report mentioned discrimination against ethnic and religious minorities in many important areas of social life , resort to torture and poor prison conditions . It also noted that “ the government persisted in its refusal to grant international organizations access to prisons ” .

Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the ORG contain provisions relating to pre - trial detention . They provide that detention can be imposed by a judge on a reasoned request by the prosecutor , or an investigator duly authorised by the prosecutor , if no other measure of restraint can be applied . The decision of the court to impose detention can be appealed against within DATE to a higher court , which must consider it within DATE from DATE of receipt of the appeal . Article CARDINAL lays down the following terms of pre - trial detention . The initial term of detention can not exceed DATE . If the investigation continues , it can be extended to a maximum of DATE by the court on an application by the prosecutor . After that , on an application by the regional prosecutor , it can be extended up to a maximum of DATE . In exceptional circumstances , on an application by ORG or his deputy , pre - trial detention can be extended up to a maximum of DATE .

Article CARDINAL of the ORG provides for judicial review of decisions by investigators that are liable to infringe the constitutional rights of the participants in the proceedings or prevent a person ’s access to court .

Chapter CARDINAL of the ORG regulates extradition on criminal charges . Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL state that the decision to extradite a person further to a request from another country is taken by ORG or his deputy . Such decision is subject to appeal to a regional court within DATE from the date of notification of the decision to the person concerned . The complaint is reviewed at a public hearing , in the presence of the person in question , his representative and the prosecutor . The decision of the regional court can be appealed against to ORG .

Article CARDINAL provides that extradition can not take place if the person whose extradition is sought is a NORP national or if he has refugee status .

Article CARDINAL contains provisions relating to the detention of a person whose extradition is sought . Detention can be authorised by ORG or his deputy upon receipt of an extradition request . If a foreign court has authorised the person ’s arrest , the decision of the prosecutor does not need to be confirmed by a NORP court . The period of detention can not exceed the normal terms of detention pending investigation laid down by LAW for similar crimes .

ORG . DATE of LAW ( the DATE Minsk Convention ) , to which both GPE and GPE are parties , provides that the Parties communicate through their central , regional and other bodies . Its other relevant provisions are as follows :

“ CARDINAL . NORP The person whose extradition is sought may also be arrested before receipt of a request for extradition , if there is a related petition ( ходатайство ) . The petition shall contain a reference to a detention order ... and shall indicate that a request for extradition will follow . A petition for arrest ... may be sent by post , wire , telex or fax .

NORP The person may also be detained without the petition referred to in point CARDINAL above if there are legal grounds to suspect that he has committed , in the territory of the other ORG , an offence entailing extradition .

NORP In case of [ the person ’s ] arrest or detention before receipt of the request for extradition , the other ORG shall be informed immediately . ”

“ CARDINAL . The Contracting Parties shall ... search for the person before receipt of the request for extradition if there are reasons to believe that this person may be in the territory of the requested ORG ...

A request for the search ... shall contain ... a request for the person ’s arrest and a promise to submit a request for his extradition .

A request for the search shall be accompanied by a certified copy of ... the detention order ...

The requesting Contracting ORG shall be immediately informed about the person ’s arrest or about other results of the search . ”

“ CARDINAL . A person arrested pursuant to LAW and LAW shall be released ... if no request for extradition is received by the requested ORG within DATE of the arrest .

A person arrested pursuant to LAW shall be released if no petition issued pursuant to LAW arrives within the time established by the law concerning arrest . ”

On DATE ORG examined an application by Mr PERSON , who claimed that since the detention of a person pending extradition was not limited in time , the resulting legal situation was incompatible with the constitutional guarantee against arbitrary detention . ORG declared the application inadmissible . It found that there was no ambiguity in the contested provisions because the general provisions governing measures of restraint were applicable to all forms and stages of criminal proceedings , including proceedings concerning extradition . ORG reiterated its settled case - law to the effect that excessive or arbitrary detention , unlimited in time and without judicial review , was not compatible with LAW . On DATE ORG refused to issue a clarification of that decision , noting that it was not competent to indicate specific legal provisions regulating the procedure and time - limits for application of a custodial measure in extradition proceedings , that being within the competence of the courts of general jurisdiction .

The Government referred in their submissions to CARDINAL decisions by ORG . According to the Government , on DATE the ORG of ORG had stated in a case concerning extradition of an NORP citizen that the provisions of LAW ORG were not applicable to the situation of detention pending extradition . Similarly , in the case of PERSON concerning the latter ’s detention with a view to extradition to GPE , ORG held as follows ( case no . DATE , DATE ) :

“ The term of detention of a person who is to be extradited to the place of commission of an offence ... is not governed by LAW . In accordance with the requirements of [ the DATE Minsk Convention ] , a person arrested at the request of a foreign state may be held in custody for DATE until a request for extradition has been received . Subsequent detention of the person is governed by the criminal law of the requesting party ( GPE in the instant case ) . ”


The applicants are father and son , both NORP nationals , residing in GPE and PERSON , respectively . They are represented before the ORG by Mr PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE , GPE .

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

On DATE a banking institution ( hereafter “ NORP ” ) filed a counterclaim against the first applicant and his wife requesting repayment of a mortgage loan , the validity of which had been contested by the couple in another set of proceedings ( “ the main proceedings ” ) . On DATE the second applicant joined the main proceedings as the first applicant and his wife had meanwhile transferred part of the real estate affected by the mortgage to the second applicant . On DATE the first applicant filed a statement of defence ( PERSON ) .

On DATE the court suspended the counterclaim proceedings until the delivery of a final judgment in the main proceedings . They were terminated by ORG judgment of DATE .

On DATE NORP filed a motion with ORG for the continuation of the proceedings . By a written submission of DATE , the first applicant gave notice of the proceedings ( PERSON ) to the second applicant .

At the hearing of DATE the applicants challenged the judge for bias . They contended that she had made subjective statements about the first applicant ’s son and the second applicant ’s brother , PERSON , in the judgment given in the main proceedings and had accused the first applicant and his wife of delaying the proceedings . By a decision of DATE , ORG rejected the motion , finding that the applicants’ allegations did not suffice to bear out a challenge for bias . On DATE ORG dismissed the first applicant ’s appeal .

On DATE ORG appointed an expert .

On DATE the first applicant requested the reopening of the main proceedings . On DATE ORG dismissed this request after it had been examined at CARDINAL lower instances .

On DATE the court file was transmitted to the expert for the preparation of his opinion . The expert submitted his opinion on DATE . The court ordered the parties to submit their comments and requests thereto within DATE . Both parties asked for an extension of the timelimit , which was granted . On DATE the applicants submitted their observations .

On DATE another hearing took place at which the applicants were present . A further hearing was scheduled for DATE , to which the first applicant and the applicants’ counsel were summoned . On DATE the ORG counsel filed a motion for an adjournment . He stated that he was unable to attend the meeting because of a clash with other appointments , that the first applicant had already scheduled DATE holiday in GPE , and the second applicant had planned to take part in a fair in GPE . The request was refused .

The court ordered them to submit certain documents within DATE . On DATE the applicants requested an extension of this time - limit , which was not granted . Thereupon , the applicants filed another motion challenging the judge for bias . They contended that the refusal of their requests proved that she was not willing to grant them a fair trial . They further complained that the judge had in an emotional manner conducted the hearing of DATE , which might have been caused by the fact that she had learned about the ORG submission of a complaint to ORG relating to the main proceedings .

The hearing of DATE was held as scheduled in the presence of the applicants’ lawyer , but in the absence of the applicants . At the hearing counsel further amended the motion for bias after the judge had objected to the allegation that she was not willing to grant the applicants a fair trial and after she had mentioned that she had a problem with the applicants’ counsel .

After the expert had given his opinion , the judge closed the hearing and announced the delivery of the written judgment following the final decision on the applicants’ motion for bias .

On DATE ORG dismissed the motion challenging the judge for bias . It held that the applicants had raised their argument as regards the alleged emotional conduct of the judge at the hearing of DATE too late and that the remainder of the motion did not disclose any indication of bias .

The applicants appealed , arguing in essence that the hearing held on DATE had been scheduled too late . Therefore , they had not had enough time to prepare their pleadings . Further , the period fixed for the delivery of documents had been too short . The refusal of an adjournment resulted in their exclusion from the proceedings . Finally , they contended that the judge had conducted the hearing in an emotional manner , and that ORG had failed to deal with the respective amendments of CARDINAL DATE .

On DATE the appeal was dismissed by ORG ( Oberlandesgericht ) . It noted that the summons had been served early enough to respect the DATE preparation - time guaranteed by NORP law . The lower court had lawfully refused the adjournment request as the first applicant was represented by a lawyer and his absence was for reasons of private holidays . As regards the absence of the applicants’ counsel , he had not submitted reasons why he was unable to attend the hearing or why he could not be represented by another lawyer . In any event , the second applicant had not been summoned in person . Therefore , the applicants had not been excluded from the procedure as they had been represented by a lawyer throughout , particularly at the hearing on DATE . As to the order to submit documents within DATE , ORG found that , pursuant to LAW , documents which were relied upon by a party in order to establish the truth of its allegations had to be submitted by that party if not otherwise provided . No sanction could be imposed in case of non - compliance with that order . As to the applicants’ allegations concerning the judge ’s emotional manner of conducting the hearing of DATE , ORG confirmed the lower court ’s decision that this complaint should have been raised already at the hearing and was therefore belated . The judge ’s objection to the allegation that she had denied the applicants a fair trial did not disclose any lack of impartiality on her part . Her further statement that she had a problem with the ORG counsel was not conducive to a constructive atmosphere in respect of the proceedings and might have been taken as a personal statement . However , in the context of counsel ’s repeated but unfounded motions for bias , it was understandable that she perceived counsel ’s actions to be problematic . This would not justify any fears that the judge would act and decide other than on objective grounds .

In its judgment dated DATE , ORG granted the R. ’s claim , referring to the submissions of the parties , the evidence of witnesses and experts , as well as the documentary evidence and the case - files of the proceedings . The judgment was served on DATE .

On DATE the applicants lodged an appeal against ORG judgment of CARDINAL DATE claiming in particular that the first instance court had refused to take evidence proposed by them .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicants’ appeal on grounds of nullity and confirmed the lower court ’s decision , but allowed their complaint as regards part of the sums involved . It held that ORG had correctly refused the ORG requests for the further taking of evidence since their numerous requests were aimed at delaying the proceedings . Moreover , at the hearing of DATE and for the first time , the applicants stated the opposite of what they had claimed in the main and in the counterclaim proceedings . Their further requests related to issues of law and facts that were already dealt with and finally determined in the main proceedings . On the whole , ORG found that the lower court had carefully assessed the evidence submitted to it .

On DATE ORG ( Oberster Gerichtshof ) dismissed the appeal . The decision was served on DATE .

Section CARDINAL of LAW ( PERSON ) , which has been in force since DATE , provides as follows .

" ( CARDINAL ) If a court is dilatory in taking any procedural step , such as announcing or holding a hearing , obtaining an expert ’s report , or preparing a decision , any party may submit a request to this court for the superior court to impose an appropriate time - limit for the taking of the particular procedural step ; unless sub - section ( CARDINAL ) of this section applies , the court is required to submit the request to the superior court , together with its comments , forthwith .

( CARDINAL ) If the court takes all the procedural steps specified in the request within DATE after receipt , and so informs the party concerned , the request is deemed withdrawn unless the party declares within DATE after service of the notification that it wishes to maintain its request .

( CARDINAL ) The request referred to in sub - section ( CARDINAL ) shall be determined with special expedition by a chamber of the superior court consisting of CARDINAL professional judges , CARDINAL of whom shall preside ; if the court has not been dilatory , the request shall be dismissed . This decision is not subject to appeal . "


Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial

Anatoly Kovler;Dean Spielmann;George Nicolaou;Giorgio Malinverni;Khanlar Hajiyev;Sverre Erik Jebens

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

The applicant and his wife obtained an occupation certificate for a municipal flat where another family , ( “ Family X ” ) , lived at the material time . Family X had , in turn , received an occupation certificate for another flat . As the flat offered to Family X did not meet their expectations , the family refused to move out of the old flat .

On DATE the applicant instituted proceedings in the ORG of GPE seeking the eviction of Family X.

On DATE ORG of GPE , who owned the flat at the material time , also lodged a claim for the eviction of Family X.

On DATE ORG in the absence of the defendants passed judgment in default , granting the applicant ’s request and ordering the eviction of Family X. However , the latter appealed against the above judgment which was annulled as a result on DATE .

On DATE the defendants lodged a counter claim , requesting , inter alia , that the applicant ’s occupation certificate be declared void .

Meanwhile , in DATE the applicant and his wife privatised the flat in dispute and registered their property right in ORG .

As regards the QUANTITY hearings fixed DATE and DATE , CARDINAL were adjourned following requests by the defendants and CARDINAL were adjourned because the representative of ORG of GPE failed to attend . The remaining CARDINAL hearings were adjourned in view of the non - attendance of ORG , which was responsible for the allocation of municipal housing to the defendants and whose attendance was required to verify the issue of the lawfulness of the provision to the defendants’ family of new housing and the taking away of the flat in dispute . It was not until ORG imposed a fine on ORG amounting to MONEY for non - attendance at the hearings that a representative of the ORG finally appeared before the court .

NORP On DATE the ORG of GPE granted the applicant ’s claim and dismissed that of the defendant .

On DATE the judgment was upheld on appeal by ORG and entered into force .

On DATE the bailiffs opened enforcement proceedings .

On DATE and CARDINAL DATE the enforcement proceedings were suspended until DATE and DATE respectively , pending the examination of the request filed by the defendants for supervisory review of the judgment of CARDINAL DATE , as upheld on appeal on DATE .

On DATE the enforcement proceedings were again suspended following the subsequent request from the defendants for supervisory review of the above judgment .

On DATE the Deputy President of ORG of GPE brought an application for supervisory review of the judgment to the Presidium of ORG .

On DATE the ORG of ORG quashed the judgment by way of supervisory review and remitted the case for fresh examination by a differently composed bench .

On DATE the ORG granted the GPE counter claim and declared the occupation certificate issued to the applicant void . The court further obliged ORG of GPE to provide the applicant and his family with another flat .

Following the appeal lodged against the above judgment by ORG of GPE , on DATE the ORG quashed the above judgment on appeal and remitted the case for fresh examination .

As regards the CARDINAL hearings fixed between CARDINAL DATE and DATE , CARDINAL was adjourned because the judge was involved in another case , CARDINAL were adjourned because of the non - attendance of the defendants and on their request , and CARDINAL were adjourned because of the non - attendance of ORG of GPE .

On DATE the ORG granted the applicant ’s claim and dismissed that of the defendants .

On DATE ORG upheld the judgment on appeal .

On DATE the bailiffs opened the enforcement proceedings .

On DATE the defendants were evicted . The applicant and his family moved into the flat .


The applicant was born in DATE and lives in the town of Shakhty of GPE .

In DATE the applicant 's son took part in the emergency operation at the site of the GPE nuclear plant disaster . Until DATE FAC ( hereafter - the Service ) made DATE payments to the son as a compensation for health damage .

After the ORG stopped payments , the applicant 's son sued it for arrears and a penalty . On DATE ORG awarded him MONEY ( “ RUR ” ) in arrears and the same amount as the penalty .

On DATE the arrears , but not the penalty , were paid .

After the son 's death , on DATE a notary public issued the applicant with an inheritance certificate certifying her right to CARDINAL of the penalty awarded by the judgment of CARDINAL DATE . The applicant 's grandson was issued with a certificate confirming his right to the second CARDINAL of the penalty .

As the penalty had not been paid , ORG , upon the applicant 's and her grandson 's request , ordered the following increases of the penalty to take account of the inflation :

- in the judgment of DATE , by RUR CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL ;

- in the judgment of CARDINAL DATE , by ORG ; and

- in the judgment of DATE , by ORG .

Those judgments were not appealed against and became effective .

On CARDINAL DATE the ORG paid the penalty in the original amount established in the judgment of DATE , but not the amounts awarded in the subsequent judgments .

In DATE the applicant and her grandson asked ORG to reconfirm their right to the sums awarded by the judgments of DATE , CARDINAL DATE and DATE .

On DATE ORG held that the applicant and her grandson each should receive ORG ( MONEY ) , representing CARDINAL of the amounts awarded by the judgments of CARDINAL DATE , CARDINAL DATE and DATE . The judgment of DATE was not appealed against and became final .

On DATE the money due to the applicant and her grandson under the judgments of DATE , CARDINAL DATE and DATE , as pronounced by the judgment of DATE , were paid to them in full .

On DATE the ORG accepted the applicant 's action against the ORG and awarded her ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL ( QUANTITY ) . That judgment was upheld on appeal on DATE and enforced in full on DATE .

In DATE the applicant sued the ORG and ORG for an increase of her pension , payment of arrears and compensation for damage .

On DATE the ORG partly accepted her action and ordered that the ORG should adjust her pension to take account of increases in the minimum subsistence level . ORG also awarded her ORG ( QUANTITY ) in arrears . The judgment became final on DATE after ORG upheld it .

On DATE the ORG paid the applicant ORG , but it did not increase her pension in line with the subsistence level .

In DATE the applicant asked the President of ORG to initiate a supervisory review in respect of the judgment of CARDINAL DATE . On DATE her request was disallowed .

In DATE the applicant asked ORG to clarify the judgment of CARDINAL DATE . She complained that the judgment had not been enforced in full because the DATE pension payments had not been increased .

On DATE the ORG confirmed the applicant 's right to the pension in the increased amount . It held that from DATE to DATE the applicant should have been paid ORG per month and from DATE she should have been paid RUR DATE . ORG also ordered that the ORG should subsequently increase pension payments in accordance with the law .

According to the Government , the judgment of CARDINAL DATE , as clarified by the judgment of DATE , was enforced in full in DATE .

On DATE , DATE , CARDINAL and DATE ORG accepted the applicant 's actions against the ORG for the adjustment of various unrelated judgment awards made in her favour in DATE and awarded her ORG ( approximately EUR CARDINAL ) , RUR MONEY ( approximately CARDINAL MONEY ) , RUR DATE ( approximately EUR CARDINAL ) , RUR CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL ( MONEY ) , RUR CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL ( MONEY ) , and ORG ( MONEY ) . The judgments were not appealed against and became final .

The judgments were enforced in full on DATE when the sums were credited to the applicant 's account .


Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre;Lech Garlicki;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Peer Lorenzen;Rait Maruste;Volodymyr Butkevych;Zdravka Kalaydjieva

The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in the village of GPE , GPE region .

On DATE ORG and the former GPE concluded an agreement on the mutual resettlement of NORP from GPE and NORP from GPE .

In DATE the applicant ’s family was moved from GPE to GPE . In GPE they left property , namely a house and other buildings and a QUANTITY plot of land . According to archive documents the value of that property was MONEY .

Thereafter the applicant and his family became members of a collective farm ( kolhoz ) in the village of GPE , where the applicant still lives .

In DATE the applicant started seeking information about the possibility of obtaining compensation for the property that had been abandoned by his family in GPE DATE .

On DATE , after receiving the applicant ’s request , ORG in GPE informed him that it was dealing with the issues concerning NORP nationals living in GPE and recommended that he raised the question with ORG .

On DATE ORG in the GPE region informed the applicant that it could not find among the existing documents anything to indicate that his family had received compensation in DATE for the property left in GPE . It further noted , however , that it did not have the GPE village council records for DATE .

On DATE the applicant wrote to the Head of ORG for advice on how to claim compensation for pecuniary and non - pecuniary damage sustained as a result of the forced resettlement in DATE and for the abandoned property . In reply , the ORG informed the applicant that he qualified for war - participant status which would entitle him to apply for various social benefits . As to compensation for the abandoned property and forced resettlement , it stated that it had no authority to deal with such issues .

The applicant sent similar requests to a number of institutions , but to no avail . He has informed the ORG that he sent a letter to ORG , but he has not given any details of the contents of the letter , nor has he stated whether he received a reply .

The Agreement between ORG and the Government of the NORP GPE on the evacuation of NORP citizens from the territory of the GPE and of the NORP population from the territory of GPE ( GPE pomiędzy ORG a ORG Republiki Rad dotyczący ewakuacji obywateli polskich z terytorium GPE i ludności ukraińskiej z terytorium ORG між ORG і Польським NORP визволення про евакуацію українського населення з території NORP і польських громадян з території УРСР – “ the Agreement ” ) was signed on DATE and entered into force the same day . It was officially published in ORG DATE , on DATE .

The Agreement provided , in so far as relevant , as follows :

Article CARDINAL

“ ... The Government of the NORP GPE declares that [ persons ] evacuated to the territory of the GPE Soviet GPE shall be settled according to their wishes either on a collective farm or on a plot of land to be used as an individual farm such plot to be no smaller than that used prior to the evacuation up to a maximum of QUANTITY per farm ... ”

Article CARDINAL

The following benefits shall be established for persons evacuated from the NORP ORG to GPE and from GPE to the territory of the NORP ORG :

( a ) the writing off of all arrears accumulated by such persons in respect of deliveries in kind , pecuniary taxes and insurance premiums ; ...

( c ) exemption from all State pecuniary taxes and insurance premiums due in DATE and DATE in respect of all the evacuated households , both on the territory of GPE and on the territory of GPE ;

( d ) the grant of a DATE pecuniary loan of MONEY or zlotys per household to evacuees at the place of their resettlement for their financial and other needs ; ...

Evacuees shall be allowed to take with them clothing , footwear , linen , bedding , foodstuffs , household goods , farming inventory stock , harnesses and other articles for household and agricultural use , up to a total weight of QUANTITY per family , as well as any cattle and poultry belonging to the evacuated farm .

Persons with specialised professions , such as workmen , craftsmen , doctors , artists and scholars , shall be accorded the right to take with them objects needed in the exercise of their professions .

The following may not be taken upon evacuation :

( a ) NORP cash , banknotes and gold and silver coins of any type , with the exception of NORP banknotes up to a maximum of MONEY per person , or NORP currency up to a maximum of MONEY per person ;

( b ) NORP gold and platinum in alloy , powder or scrap form ;

( c ) precious stones in unworked form ;

( d ) works of art and antiques whenever they constitute a collection , or even as individual items , unless they are the evacuated person ’s family property ;

( e ) firearms ( with the exception of hunting rifles ) and military equipment ;

( f ) photographs ( other than personal photographs ) , charts and maps ;

( g ) automobiles and motorcycles ;

( h ) furniture , whether by rail or by motor vehicle , because of the transport problems caused by the war .

The value of movable belongings left behind upon evacuation , and also of immovable property , shall be returned to the evacuated person on the basis of insurance valuations , in accordance with the applicable laws in GPE and in the NORP GPE , as the case may be . In the absence of an insurance valuation , the value of movable and immovable property shall be assessed by ORG of the Parties . The Contracting Parties shall undertake to ensure that town and village houses vacated as a result of resettlement are made available to resettled persons on a priority basis . ”

On DATE the Government of GPE and ORG , the NORP GPE , the GPE Soviet GPE and the Lithuanian Soviet Socialist Republic concluded an agreement on the mutual settlement of accounts in connection with the evacuation of population groups and the delimitation of the NORP - Soviet State border ( Umowa między PERSON , z jednej strony i ORG Republik Radzieckich , PERSON , PERSON Republiki Radzieckiej i ORG PERSON , z drugiej strony , o wzajemnych rozliczeniach , wynikłych w związku z ewakuacją ludności i delimitacją polsko - radzieckiej granicy państwowej CARDINAL “ the DATE LAW ) . LAW provided :

“ With a view to the complete and definitive mutual settlement of accounts for movable and immovable property , agricultural products and seed left on the territories of GPE and of the GPE by persons evacuated and resettled in connection with the delimitation of the NORP - Soviet State border , the Government of GPE undertake to pay the Government of the GPE the sum of CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) MONEY . ”

DATE to the present day , NORP law has provided that persons repatriated from the territories beyond LOC are entitled to have the value of the property abandoned as a result of the Second World War offset either against the fee for the right of perpetual use or replacement land or against the price of immovable property purchased from ORG .

That provision has been repeated in several statutes , starting with the Decree of DATE on the transfer from the ORG of non - agricultural property in GPE and the former GPE of Gdańsk ( Dekret o przekazywaniu przez CARDINAL mienia nierolniczego na obszarze PERSON i b. PERSON ) .

The so - called “ LOC ” ( “ PERSON ” ) were former NORP territories east of FAC , with which – upon PERSON ’s proposal – the victorious Allies compensated the NORP for the “ territories beyond the LOC ” that had been taken away from them by the former GPE .

Under the policy pursued at that time by the authorities , the “ LOC ” and Gdańsk , after the expulsion of NORP residing there , were intended for the accommodation of NORP citizens “ repatriated ” from “ beyond the LOC ” , that is , from the territories beyond the PERSON line . The repatriated persons had priority in purchasing land .

Further decrees and statutes were enforced DATE .

In DATE , however , the authorities started to consider the possibility of enacting a single statute dealing with all forms of restitution of property , including claims for compensation for property abandoned by repatriated persons ( PERSON v. GPE [ ORG ] , no . CARDINAL , § § DATE , ORG DATE ) .

Ultimately , a statute exclusively relating to the LOC claims ( DATE ) came into force on DATE ( PERSON v. GPE , cited above , § § CARDINAL - CARDINAL ) .

In GPE no specific legislation has been adopted or commitment made to compensate former NORP residents who were resettled in GPE under LAW DATE . However , in DATE other legislative measures have been introduced .

In DATE the Cabinet of Ministers of GPE submitted to ORG . The bill mentioned for the first time people resettled in GPE . PERSON ( ORG ) passed the bill with some amendments . In particular , they introduced a requirement of proof of work during the war , depending on the age of the person concerned . In its final version of DATE , as enacted by the ORG , the relevant parts of LAW read as follows :

Section CARDINAL . Persons to be considered war participants

“ The following persons shall be considered war participants :

CARDINAL ) ... Persons who worked during the Great Patriotic War in territories which after DATE were integrated into the former ORG , and persons who were resettled after DATE on the territory of GPE from the territory of other GPE , as well as citizens who were assigned by ORG bodies of the former GPE to work in countries allied to the GPE , shall also be considered war participants .

For persons who were born on or prior to DATE and have valid reasons for failing to submit documentary evidence of their work during the war , the status of war participant may be established by a motion by a special committee under the procedure established by ORG .

For persons born after DATE , the status of war participant may be established only by the production of documents and other evidence that unequivocally prove that they worked during the war ... ”

By LAW of DATE , section CARDINAL was changed and the categories of resettled persons , including persons resettled prior to and in DATE , were listed separately in a new paragraph of the LAW with no other conditions attached . This provision reads as follows :

“ ... CARDINAL ) persons resettled after DATE on the territory of GPE from the territory of other GPE . ”

The decree provides for a number of events to commemorate the forced resettlement but is silent on the question of compensation for pecuniary and non - pecuniary damage for those who were resettled .

This bill was submitted to the ORG in DATE but has not been adopted . LAW bill proposed compensating the resettled persons for pecuniary and non - pecuniary damage by granting them war - participant status and facilitating their travel to GPE to visit the lands where they had previously resided . The bill further stated that provision could be made in the domestic legislation for other benefits and forms of compensation to be furnished to resettled persons .

“ International treaties that are in force and have been agreed to be binding by the Verkhovna Rada of GPE are part of the national legislation of GPE . ”

“ ... international treaties concluded and duly ratified by GPE shall constitute an inalienable part of the national legislation of GPE and shall be applied according to the rank prescribed for norms of national legislation . ”

LAW on LOC

“ CARDINAL . International treaties that are in force and agreed to be binding by PERSON of GPE , are part of the national legislation of GPE and are applied in the order foreseen for the norms of the national legislation ... ”