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

Alvina Gyulumyan;Corneliu Bîrsan;Egbert Myjer;Ineta Ziemele;Josep Casadevall;Luis López Guerra;Mihai Poalelungi

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

On DATE the applicant reported to the police that his driving licence had been stolen in DATE . On DATE the applicant was issued with a new driving licence . He had applied for it only shortly before , i.e. in DATE .

During DATE , between CARDINAL DATE and DATE , ORG ( FAC het LANGUAGE – “ the NORP ” ) registered a total of CARDINAL motor vehicles in the applicant ’s name in the vehicle registration system ( kentekenregister ) , but without his consent . It would appear that these registrations were effected upon presentation of the applicant ’s stolen driving licence .

As a consequence of these vehicles being registered in his name , the applicant received large numbers of motor vehicle tax assessments ( aanslagen motorrijtuigenbelasting / houderschapsbelasting ) , he was on many occasions prosecuted on the basis of ORG ( Wet aansprakelijkheidsverzekering motorrijtuigen ) and fined by the public prosecutor ( officier van justitie ) on the basis of ORG ( Wet administratiefrechtelijk handhaving verkeersvoorschriften ) in respect of offences committed with the cars . Having been ordered by the competent court to pay these fines , he was detained for failure to comply with these orders ( gijzeling ) pursuant to LAW . The applicant ended up paying fines imposed on him on the basis of these motor vehicle registrations in respect of offences not committed by him . On several occasions the applicant was held liable by ORG ( PERSON ) for damage caused by uninsured vehicles registered in his name . The applicant ’s welfare benefits were stopped , as his financial means were considered to be quite adequate in view of the sheer number of vehicles registered in his name .

The applicant alleges that on DATE he requested the ORG to annul all the vehicle registrations , bar the one relating to his own car and was met with a refusal . Likewise , he alleges that he made several unsuccessful attempts in DATE to rectify the situation by , inter alia , writing complaints to ORG who had imposed fines on him . The Government state that no official record exists to support these allegations .

The applicant furthermore appealed , on DATE , to ORG ( gerechtshof ) against the refusal of ORG ( Openbaar Ministerie ) to prosecute those responsible for the malicious vehicle registrations in his name . In its decision of DATE , ORG considered , as relevant to the case before the ORG , that although the police could admittedly have proceeded more effectively with the investigation , too much time had passed ( the events in issue , i.e. the malicious registration of motor vehicles , had taken place DATE ) to expect any viable investigation to be conducted by the authorities concerned . ORG therefore dismissed the appeal , but it nevertheless noted that it was in favour of the course of action as advised by ORG , namely a complete remission in a single administrative act ( eenmalige sanering ) of all ( administrative ) sanctions imposed on the applicant which were an effect of the malicious registrations . According to the applicant ’s representative , no such remission took place . Moreover , ORG ) initially prevented the applicant from being eligible for debt rescheduling under LAW ( Wet Schuldsanering Natuurlijke Personen ) .

On DATE the applicant again requested the ORG to annul , with retroactive effect , the motor vehicle registrations in question .

On DATE the ORG partially granted the request , cancelling CARDINAL registrations as of that date . The remaining registrations were no longer in the applicant ’s name at that time . The ORG expressly stated that it was unable to cancel the registrations retroactively , as had been requested by the applicant , as that would be detrimental to the reliability of the motor vehicle registration system .

The applicant lodged an objection on DATE , arguing , in particular , that the motor vehicle registration system was already flawed owing to the existence of the impugned registrations ; that not granting the desired retroactive effect would have substantial financial consequences for him ; and that the ORG , in DATE , had offered to annul the stolen driving licence for purposes of motor vehicle registrations on condition that the applicant apply for a new licence , which condition the applicant had been unable to meet at that time for financial reasons .

The applicant ’s objection was dismissed on DATE . The ORG decided that cancellation of registrations with retroactive effect would lead to legal uncertainty and would entail the ORG ’s interference with competencies of other authorities , e.g. ORG or ORG , in that it could affect the legality of decisions which those authorities had made or might make on the basis of the contents of the motor vehicle registration system .

The applicant appealed against the ORG ’s decision to ORG ( rechtbank ) , arguing in particular that he had , already in DATE , made a similar request to the ORG and had reported the fraudulent use of his driving licence to the police , yet to no avail . The applicant also submitted that the motor vehicle registration system , as it was at the relevant time , had been sensitive to fraud , a risk which , in the applicant ’s view , should not be for the general population to bear . He argued furthermore that the requirement which existed in DATE to have to apply for a new driving licence in order to disallow motor vehicle registrations with a stolen CARDINAL was unjust and discriminatory .

ORG concurred with the ORG ’s decision and considered that no exceptional circumstances existed warranting a deviation from the standard practice not to grant retroactive effect . It noted in that respect that , although he had lodged complaints in DATE , the applicant had allowed DATE to pass before starting the proceedings at issue .

On DATE the applicant appealed against ORG judgment to ORG of ORG ( Afdeling Bestuursrechtspraak van de Raad van State – “ the Administrative Jurisdiction Division ” ) . The applicant argued , in relevant part , that his rights under LAW were being violated due to the unlawful registrations of motor vehicles in his name and that the vehicle registration system was flawed in that it allowed such large - scale fraud to occur so easily .

ORG gave its decision on DATE . Its reasoning included the following :

“ As ORG has held [ in an earlier case ] , it can not be found that the ORG ’s policy of denying in principle retroactive effect to decisions ... to cancel the registration of a vehicle is not reasonable . The purity of the vehicle register and legal certainty of the registration of vehicles justify such a policy , as ORG has rightly held . ORG has rightly held that the ORG was not obliged to consider the applicant ’s submissions in this matter a ground to deviate from this policy and retroactively cancel the registration of the said motor cars with effect from the date requested by the applicant . That being so , the applicant ’s complaint that ORG decision is incomprehensible and improperly reasoned must fail .

As regards the [ applicant ’s ] argument that LAW ( Kentekenreglement ) violate , inter alia , Directive CARDINAL of ORG and of ORG on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data ( ORG , CARDINAL/CARDINAL/CARDINAL ; hereafter : the Directive ) , ORG finds as follows . Contrary to what the [ applicant ] suggests , it can not be deduced from the fact that the guideline includes a right of correction that the processor of those personal data is obliged to do so sua sponte and unasked and might not make the desired correction dependent on a request to that effect . In addition , contrary to what the [ applicant ] suggests , the processing of personal data pursuant to the Directive is also permitted without the permission of the person concerned if such processing is necessary for the performance of a task carried out in the exercise of official authority . In the opinion of ORG , the use of a driving license involves recording the data of that driving license in a data filing system and processing them in the performance of the duty to secure compliance with legal obligations such as those here in issue . The [ applicant ’s ] complaint fails .

Nor does ORG agree with the [ applicant ] that LAW violate the right to liberty and security of person , laid down in LAW . Regardless of whether these provisions can be relevant to the decision - making process based on LAW – these regulations do not , after all , provide for the deprivation of liberty referred to by the [ applicant ] – these provisions contain an exception to the right to liberty and security of person in order to secure the fulfilment of an obligation prescribed by law . In this connection , ORG notes in addition that this exception is also covered by the circumstance , referred to by the [ applicant ] , that he was deprived of his liberty because he had not taken the measures needed to correct the [ registration of vehicles wrongly registered in his name ] . ”

No further appeal lay against this decision .

The DATE Road Traffic Act ( Wegenverkeerswet DATE ) entered into force on DATE . At the relevant time , as pertinent to the case before the ORG , it provided as follows :

A person to whom a registration number ( kenteken ) for a vehicle or trailer is issued will be treated , subject to evidence to the contrary , as the owner or registered user ( houder ) of that vehicle or trailer for the purposes of the provisions laid down by or pursuant to this LAW . ...

The Government Road Transport Agency shall keep a vehicle registration system listing the registration numbers issued .

NORP The vehicle registration system shall contain data concerning vehicles and trailers for which a registration number has been issued and the name of the person to whom such registration numbers have been issued , as well as data concerning other vehicles and trailers in so far as such data :

( a ) are necessary for the proper implementation of this LAW and for the enforcement of the regulations laid down by or pursuant to this LAW , or

( b ) are necessary for the proper implementation of LAW DATE , the Car and LAW DATE , ORG or other statutory provisions concerning vehicles and trailers , and for the enforcement of the regulations laid down by or pursuant to these statutory provisions . ...

Without prejudice to section CARDINAL and section CARDINAL , subsection CARDINAL , a driving licence will cease to be valid :

( a ) when a new or replacement driving licence is issued ;

( b ) when it is exchanged for a driving licence issued to the holder by a competent authority outside the GPE for the category or categories of motor vehicle to which the exchange relates ;

( c ) during a period in which the holder is disqualified from driving vehicles ;

( d ) if unauthorised changes are made to it ;

( e ) upon the death of the holder ; and

( f ) when it is declared invalid for the category or categories to which the declaration of invalidity relates . ... ”

At the relevant time , LAW , in their relevant part , provided as follows :

The registration in the register will lapse as soon as :

( h ) Our Minister has declared the registration certificate to be invalid ... ;

( k ) Our Minister has declared the registration to have lapsed on the grounds of a request as referred to in paragraph CARDINAL .

A person who is , in his view , wrongly listed in the register as the holder of a registration certificate may request Our Minister to arrange for the registration to be cancelled . Our Minister will arrange for the registration to be cancelled if he considers that sufficient grounds exist for this . ”

At the relevant time , LAW ( Proof of Identity ) Order ( PERSON legitimatievoorschriften kentekenbewijzen en kentekenplaten ) , in its relevant part , provided as follows :

The following identity documents shall be presented with an application for part II of a registration certificate if the application is submitted by a natural person :

( a ) a valid driving licence ... ”

At the relevant time , ORG ( PERSON ) , in its relevant part , provided as follows :

If it has been established that a vehicle for which a registration number has been issued was involved or instrumental in the action [ i.e. , for present purposes , the offence ] and the identity of the driver of the vehicle can not immediately be established , the administrative fine will be imposed on the person listed in the vehicle registration system as the holder of the registration certificate at the time of the action . The provisions of section CARDINAL will be drawn to his attention .

NORP The person to whom a decision is addressed may challenge the imposition of the administrative sanction by applying to the public prosecutor in the district court area in which the action took place . If it can not be determined in which district court area the action took place , the application may be made to the public prosecutor in the district court area in which the person concerned has his place of residence . ...

If , in the case of LAW , the holder of the registration certificate as listed in the vehicle registration system plausibly shows that the vehicle was used by another person against his will and that he could not reasonably have been expected to prevent this use , if he produces a written contract of hire entered into for a term not exceeding DATE showing who was the hirer of the vehicle at the time of the action or if he produces a notice of indemnity issued pursuant to LAW DATE showing that at the time of the action he was no longer the owner or keeper of the vehicle concerned , the public prosecutor will quash the decision . In such a case the public prosecutor may impose an administrative sanction on the person who performed the action , the person who was the hirer of the vehicle or the person to whom the vehicle was transferred . [ Section CARDINAL ] will then apply by analogy .

A person who has challenged the imposition of the administrative sanction may apply to ORG ( kantonrechter ) within whose area the action took place or , in the case referred to in section CARDINAL , subsection CARDINAL , second sentence , to ORG within whose area the person concerned has his place of residence , for judicial review of the decision of the public prosecutor .

The application for review may be lodged on the grounds that :

( a ) the action did not occur or , other than in the case of LAW , the person to whom the decision is addressed did not perform the alleged action ;

( b ) the public prosecutor should have decided that the circumstances in which the action occurred did not warrant the imposition of an administrative sanction or that , in view of the circumstances of the person concerned , the administrative sanction should have been set at a lower amount ;

( c ) NORP the public prosecutor wrongly failed to quash the decision by virtue of section CARDINAL . ...

NORP If the amount [ of the administrative fine ] has not been recovered DATE or not recovered in DATE in accordance with sections CARDINAL and DATE , the public prosecutor may , DATE after a final and unappealable decision has been given in respect of the imposed administrative fine , apply to ORG in the area in which the person subject to the fine has his address for an order authorising him to apply one or more of the following coercive measures for each action in respect of which an administrative sanction has been imposed :

( a ) taking the vehicle which was involved in the action out of commission ( or , if it can not be found , a similar vehicle in the possession of the person on whom the administrative sanction has been imposed ) for a maximum of DATE ;

( b ) confiscating the driving license of the person on whom the administrative sanction has been imposed for a maximum of DATE ;

( c ) committing the person on whom the administrative sanction has been imposed to a remand centre for a maximum of DATE .

No decision will be made on the application until after the person on whom the sanction has been imposed has been heard by ORG or has in any event been properly summonsed to appear . No appeal or other remedy lies against the decision . ... ”

Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(h ) of the DATE Road Traffic Act , enacted by LAW of DATE , Staatsblad ( Official Gazette ) DATE , no . CARDINAL , provides that a driving license will cease to be valid when it is reported missing . It entered into force on DATE .

Also on DATE a new model driving licence was introduced . It includes a number of security features aimed at countering misuse which the previous models lacked .

As relevant to the case before the ORG , Directive CARDINAL of ORG and of ORG on the protection of individuals with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data ( ORG , DATE ) provides as follows :

Definitions

For the purposes of this Directive :

( a ) ORG shall mean any information relating to an identified or identifiable natural person ( ‘ data subject’ ) ; an identifiable person is one who can be identified , directly or indirectly , in particular by reference to an identification number or to one or more factors specific to his physical , physiological , mental , economic , cultural or social identity ;

( b ) ’processing of personal ORG ( ‘ ORG ) shall mean any operation or set of operations which is performed upon personal data , whether or not by automatic means , such as collection , recording , organization , storage , adaptation or alteration , retrieval , consultation , use , disclosure by transmission , dissemination or otherwise making available , alignment or combination , blocking , erasure or destruction ;

( c ) NORP ’personal data filing system’ ( ‘ filing system’ ) shall mean any structured set of personal data which are accessible according to specific criteria , whether centralized , decentralized or dispersed on a functional or geographical basis ;

( d ) ’controller’ shall mean the natural or legal person , public authority , agency or any other body which alone or jointly with others determines the purposes and means of the processing of personal data ; where the purposes and means of processing are determined by national or Community laws or regulations , the controller or the specific criteria for his nomination may be designated by national or Community law ;

( e ) ORG shall mean a natural or legal person , public authority , agency or any other body which processes personal data on behalf of the controller ;

( f ) ’third party’ shall mean any natural or legal person , public authority , agency or any other body other than the data subject , the controller , the processor and the persons who , under the direct authority of the controller or the processor , are authorized to process the data ;

( g ) ’recipient’ shall mean a natural or legal person , public authority , agency or any other body to whom data are disclosed , whether a third party or not ; however , authorities which may receive data in the framework of a particular inquiry shall not be regarded as recipients ;

( h ) ’the data subject ’s consent’ shall mean any freely given specific and informed indication of his wishes by which the data subject signifies his agreement to personal data relating to him being processed .

Member GPE shall provide that personal data must be :

( a ) processed fairly and lawfully ;

( b ) NORP collected for specified , explicit and legitimate purposes and not further processed in a way incompatible with those purposes . Further processing of data for historical , statistical or scientific purposes shall not be considered as incompatible provided that Member GPE provide appropriate safeguards ;

( c ) adequate , relevant and not excessive in relation to the purposes for which they are collected and/or further processed ;

( d ) accurate and , where necessary , kept up to date ; every reasonable step must be taken to ensure that data which are inaccurate or incomplete , having regard to the purposes for which they were collected or for which they are further processed , are erased or rectified ;

( e ) kept in a form which permits identification of data subjects for no longer than is necessary for the purposes for which the data were collected or for which they are further processed . Member GPE shall lay down appropriate safeguards for personal data stored for longer periods for historical , statistical or scientific use .

It shall be for the controller to ensure that paragraph CARDINAL is complied with .

Member GPE shall provide that personal data may be processed only if :

( a ) the data subject has unambiguously given his consent ; or

( b ) processing is necessary for the performance of a contract to which the data subject is party or in order to take steps at the request of the data subject prior to entering into a contract ; or

( c ) processing is necessary for compliance with a legal obligation to which the controller is subject ; or

( d ) processing is necessary in order to protect the vital interests of the data subject ; or

( e ) processing is necessary for the performance of a task carried out in the public interest or in the exercise of official authority vested in the controller or in a third party to whom the data are disclosed ; or

( f ) processing is necessary for the purposes of the legitimate interests pursued by the controller or by the third party or parties to whom the data are disclosed , except where such interests are overridden by the interests for fundamental rights and freedoms of the data subject which require protection under LAW ) .

Right of access

Member GPE shall guarantee every data subject the right to obtain from the controller :

( a ) without constraint at reasonable intervals and without excessive delay or expense :

- confirmation as to whether or not data relating to him are being processed and information at least as to the purposes of the processing , the categories of data concerned , and the recipients or categories of recipients to whom the data are disclosed ,

- communication to him in an intelligible form of the data undergoing processing and of any available information as to their source ,

- knowledge of the logic involved in any automatic processing of data concerning him at least in the case of the automated decisions referred to in LAW ) ;

( b ) as appropriate the rectification , erasure or blocking of data the processing of which does not comply with the provisions of this Directive , in particular because of the incomplete or inaccurate nature of the data ;

( c ) notification to third parties to whom the data have been disclosed of any rectification , erasure or blocking carried out in compliance with ( b ) , unless this proves impossible or involves a disproportionate effort . ”


No violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention)

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

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

On DATE the applicant was arrested on suspicion of having committed armed robberies .

On DATE an investigating judge of ORG ( Županijski sud u GPE ) opened an investigation in connection with a suspicion that the applicant and CARDINAL other persons , acting as an organised criminal group , had committed more armed robberies , aggravated murders and attempted aggravated murders .

During the investigation the applicant was detained under LAW § CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) and ( CARDINAL ) of LAW ( risk of reoffending and gravity of charges ) .

On DATE the State Attorney ’s Office for ORG ( PERSON odvjetništvo , Ured za suzbijanje korupcije i organiziranog kriminaliteta ; hereinafter : the “ ORG Attorney ’s Office ” ) indicted the applicant and CARDINAL other persons in ORG on charges of conspiracy to commit armed robbery and aggravated murder .

The applicant ’s pre - trial detention was extended and he remained in detention throughout the trial .

On DATE a CARDINAL - judge panel of ORG extended the maximum statutory limit of the applicant ’s detention under LAW ) of LAW for DATE . This decision was based on section DATE ) of ORG , which provides for a possibility to extend the maximum duration of pre - trial detention for DATE in cases of corruption and organised crime .

On DATE the ORG found the applicant guilty of armed robbery and aggravated murder , and sentenced him to DATE imprisonment . On DATE the trial panel of ORG ordered that the applicant be committed to prison under LAW § CARDINAL of the Code of Criminal Procedure . The relevant part of the decision reads :

“ The detention of the accused , ORG , has been extended by decision of this court ... on DATE .

The accused has been sentenced to long - term imprisonment of DATE .

Under LAW paragraph CARDINAL of LAW , detention shall always be ordered when a sentence of CARDINAL or more years’ imprisonment is imposed .

On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal with ORG ( PERSON ) against the first - instance judgment .

On DATE a CARDINAL - judge panel of ORG extended the applicant ’s detention for DATE , basing its decision on LAW . The relevant part of the decision reads :

“ By the first - instance judgment of this court of DATE ... the accused , PERSON , was found guilty of offences under LAW of the [ LAW ] and was sentenced to long - term imprisonment of DATE ...

By order of this court ... of DATE under LAW of LAW , the accused , PERSON , has been detained since DATE .

Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL of LAW provides that in cases where a non - final judgment has been adopted the maximum period of detention , until the judgment becomes final , may be extended by CARDINAL of the term when the maximum period of detention is DATE , if [ the offence at issue ] carries a long - term prison sentence .

Since under the above - mentioned Article the maximum period of detention under LAW ) of LAW against the accused , PERSON , may be extended for DATE , it has been decided as noted in the operative part of this decision . ”

On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal against the above decision , arguing that he had not been given an opportunity to be heard when his detention had been extended and that the decision to extend his detention was not sufficiently reasoned .

ORG dismissed the applicant ’s appeal on DATE . The relevant part of the decision reads :

“ The accused has been detained since DATE . Under LAW ) of LAW the maximum period of his detention expired on CARDINAL DATE . Thereafter the first - instance court extended his detention under section DATE ) of ORG ... for DATE until DATE . By the impugned decision the detention was extended under LAW for DATE , namely DATE . Therefore under this provision he may be detained until DATE [ DATE ] . ”

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s appeal against the first - instance judgment as ill - founded .

On DATE the applicant lodged a further appeal with ORG against its judgment of DATE .

On DATE a CARDINAL - judge panel of ORG extended the applicant ’s detention under LAW of LAW for DATE . The relevant part of the decision reads :

“ By the judgment of ORG ... of DATE the first - instance judgment ... of this court of DATE in which the accused , PERSON , was found guilty was upheld in part ...

The accused PERSON is detained by order ... of the panel of ORG of DATE by which his detention under LAW ) of LAW was extended for DATE . He can therefore be detained until DATE .

Given that the accused personally and through his defence lawyer ... lodged appeals against the judgment of ORG ... of DATE , and in view of the provision of LAW and the fact that his detention expires on DATE , [ this ] panel has found that the conditions for extending his detention under LAW of LAW have been met . ”

The applicant lodged an appeal against the above decision on CARDINAL DATE . He argued that his detention after DATE had been unlawful since under LAW the detention should have lasted for a maximum of DATE following the adoption of the judgment against which an appeal was allowed . He pointed out that the judgment of ORG , against which an appeal was allowed , was adopted on DATE and that therefore his detention should have lasted only until DATE .

ORG dismissed his appeal on DATE . The relevant part of the decision reads :

“ The case file reveals that the accused PERSON has been detained since DATE . On DATE the ORG extended his detention for DATE and the detention under that decision lasted until DATE . The second - instance judgment in this case was adopted on DATE . Under LAW of LAW , from the date of adoption of the second - instance judgment against which an appeal is allowed , as in the present case , the accused may be detained until the judgment becomes final but not for DATE . However , the case file reveals that the first - instance judgment , and the second - instance judgment against which an appeal is allowed ( and [ the appeal ] was lodged in this case ) were adopted within the period of detention under LAW of LAW . Under LAW of LAW and according to the conclusions of the meeting of ORG on DATE , the maximum period of detention can be extended after the period under LAW . In this case this means beyond DATE and not , as suggested by the accused , after the date of the second - instance judgment . Thus all the accused , regardless of DATE second - instance judgment , are in the same position . ”

On DATE the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint with ORG ( Ustavni sud PERSON ) against ORG decision , reiterating that his detention after DATE had been unlawful .

On DATE ORG , acting as the final court of appeal , dismissed the applicant ’s appeal against the judgment of DATE and his conviction thus became final .

On DATE ORG , endorsing the arguments of ORG , dismissed the constitutional complaint against ORG decision of CARDINAL DATE .

On DATE the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint with ORG against ORG judgment of DATE by which his conviction became final .

The proceedings before ORG are still pending .

The relevant provisions of LAW ( Zakon o kaznenom postupku , ORG nos . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , DATE , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL ) provide as follows :

( CARDINAL ) When judgment is pronounced , detention shall be ordered if the accused is sentenced to CARDINAL or more years’ imprisonment . ”

“ ( CARDINAL ) Until the adoption of a first - instance judgment , pre - trial detention may last for a maximum of :

DATE for offences carrying a statutory maximum sentence of CARDINAL PERSON imprisonment ;

DATE for offences carrying a statutory maximum sentence of CARDINAL years’ imprisonment ;

DATE for offences carrying a sentence of DATE imprisonment ;

DATE for offences carrying a sentence of long - term imprisonment .

( CARDINAL ) In cases where a judgment has been adopted but has not yet become enforceable , the maximum term of pre - trial detention may be extended for CARDINAL of the term referred to in CARDINAL of paragraph CARDINAL of this provision until the judgment becomes final , and for CARDINAL of the term referred to in DATE and CARDINAL of paragraph CARDINAL of this provision .

( CARDINAL ) Where a first - instance judgment has been quashed on appeal , following an application by the ORG Attorney and where important reasons exist , ORG may extend the term of detention referred to in DATE of paragraph CARDINAL of this provision for DATE and the term referred to in DATE and CARDINAL of paragraph CARDINAL of this provision for DATE .

( CARDINAL ) Following the adoption of an appellate judgment against which an appeal is allowed , detention may last until the judgment becomes final , for a maximum period of DATE .

( CARDINAL ) A defendant placed in detention and sentenced to a prison term by a final judgment shall stay in detention until he is committed to prison , but for no longer than the duration of his prison term . ”

The relevant provision of ORG o Uredu za suzbijanje korupcije i organiziranog kriminaliteta - USKOK , ORG nos . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , DATE , ORG , DATE , CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) is worded as follows :

“ ( CARDINAL ) Custody under LAW shall be extended to TIME .

( CARDINAL ) The total duration of pre - trial detention in the above proceedings , in the case of extended investigation ( Article CARDINAL , paragraph CARDINAL of LAW ) may be DATE .

( CARDINAL ) If the pre - trial detention during the investigation had been extended under paragraph CARDINAL above , the total duration of the pre - trial detention under LAW shall be extended for DATE . ”

The relevant part of the guidelines adopted at a meeting of ORG on DATE ( published on ORG website under no . PERSON IVk-CARDINAL/CARDINAL - CARDINAL ) reads :

Where a first - instance judgment and a second - instance decision quashing the first - instance judgment have been adopted within the time prescribed for detention under LAW of the ORG , the overall duration of detention may be extended under LAW of the ORG and after the expiry of that period also under LAW of the ORG .

The overall duration of detention under LAW of the ORG is to be extended only after the time - limit prescribed in LAW ORG has expired , irrespective of whether the first - instance court has adopted a fresh judgment in the retrial proceedings .

The maximum period of detention where a judgment has been adopted but has not yet become enforceable is to be fixed according to the criminal offence of which the accused was found guilty , even where the ORG Attorney has filed an appeal on any grounds .

Where a first - instance judgment or a second - instance judgment against which an appeal is allowed have been adopted within the time - limits set by LAW ORG , the overall duration of detention may be extended under LAW of the ORG . After the time - limit set by that Article expires , detention may be extended under LAW of the ORG .

Where a first - instance judgment or a second - instance judgment against which an appeal is allowed have been adopted within the time - limits set by LAW ORG , the overall duration of detention may be extended under LAW of the ORG . After the time - limit set by that Article expires , detention may be extended under LAW of the ORG , after the expiration of the time - limit under LAW of the ORG .

Where a second - instance decision against which an appeal is allowed has been adopted within the time - limit set by LAW ORG , the overall duration of detention may be extended under LAW of the ORG , after the expiration of the time - limit set by LAW ORG .

Where a second - instance decision against which an appeal is allowed has been quashed within the time - limit set by LAW ORG , the overall duration of detention may be extended under LAW of the ORG , after the expiration of the time - limit set by LAW ORG .

Where a second - instance decision against which an appeal is allowed has been quashed within the time - limit set by LAW ORG , the overall duration of detention may be extended under LAW of the ORG .

ORG practice as regards interpretation of Article CARDINAL of the Code of Criminal Procedure is reflected in decisions nos . II Kž-CARDINAL/CARDINAL - CARDINAL and II Kž-CARDINAL/CARDINAL - CARDINAL .

The relevant part of decision no . II Kž-CARDINAL/CARDINAL - CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE reads as follows :

“ ORG , as the court of second - instance , considers that the first - instance court correctly established that in the present case the conditions for the extension of the overall detention of the accused ... under LAW had been satisfied , and thus extended his overall detention for a further DATE .

In a non - final judgment of ORG of DATE ... the accused ... was found guilty ... and sentenced to DATE imprisonment . That judgment ... was upheld by a judgment of ORG on DATE ... against which the accused lodged an appeal . In view of the sentence given , the detention of the accused is obligatory under LAW of LAW .

The accused was detained DATE and DATE ( DATE ) and also since DATE . The maximum period of detention [ applicable to him ] , of DATE under LAW ) of LAW , was due to expire on DATE . Given that the accused was , inter alia , convicted of the criminal offence of aggravated murder ... [ which is ] punishable by DATE imprisonment , a court may , under LAW , extend his overall detention for DATE [ of the term referred to in DATE and CARDINAL of paragraph CARDINAL of Article CARDINAL of LAW ] , that is to say for DATE .

Therefore , ORG finds that the extension of the accused ’s detention for DATE by the first - instance court was well founded and lawful ...

The accused ’s submissions based on LAW in which he argued that his detention should be lifted because DATE had passed since the second - instance judgment was adopted are also unfounded . ORG considers that where , as in the present case , a first - instance judgment and a second - instance judgment against which an appeal is allowed have been adopted within the time - limit for detention under LAW , the overall duration of detention may be extended LAW CARDINAL § CARDINAL of the Code of Criminal Procedure , and after that time - limit expires , it may be extended further under LAW . ”

The relevant part of decision no . II Kž-CARDINAL/CARDINAL - CARDINAL of DATE reads as follows :

“ After the adoption of the first - instance judgment , the detention was extended under LAW ... until DATE . The second - instance judgment against which an appeal is allowed was adopted on CARDINAL DATE .

Under LAW , from the date when the second - instance judgment against which an appeal is allowed was adopted , as in the present case , detention may last until the judgment becomes final but not for DATE . Since the first - instance judgment and the second - instance judgment against which an appeal is allowed were adopted within the time - limits for detention set out in LAW , the detention can be extended under LAW of LAW only after the period of detention under LAW CARDINAL of LAW has expired , which in this case means after DATE .

Therefore since the detention of the accused ... under LAW of LAW can last until DATE , detention under LAW of LAW was extended from that date until the judgment becomes final but not for DATE , namely until DATE . ”


Violation of Art. 6-1;Costs and expenses partial award - domestic proceedings

The applicant is a freelance tax consultant .

On DATE the Inspector of Direct Taxes sent the applicant an assessment of supplementary income tax ( naheffingsaanslag ) for DATE . In accordance with the applicable provisions ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) a fiscal penalty was additionally imposed to an amount equal to that of the assessment . The penalty came to MONEY ( NLG ) .

On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal against this assessment with ORG of ORG ( gerechtshof ) . By letter of DATE the registrar of that court asked the applicant to pay a court registration fee of NLG CARDINAL pursuant to section CARDINAL of ORG ( GPE administratieve rechtspraak belastingzaken ) .

The applicant ’s appeal was declared inadmissible by the President of ORG on DATE on the ground that the court registration fee had not been paid .

On DATE the applicant lodged an objection ( verzet ) against this decision with ORG . He submitted that he had sent an order to his bank for the payment by bank transfer of the court registration fee , but that that order had not been carried out . In his view this error on the part of the bank could not be held against him .

Having held a hearing on DATE , ORG declared the applicant ’s objection unfounded on DATE . It held that , as the applicant had himself chosen to make use of the services of a bank , it had been up to him to see to it that his order was correctly carried out .

The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law with ORG ( PERSON ) on DATE . He submitted that ORG had erred in law by holding him responsible for a mistake made by his bank in carrying out his transfer order . In the alternative , he submitted that the imposition of a fiscal penalty amounted to a penal sanction , and that it was inappropriate to levy a court registration fee in any case concerning the determination of a “ criminal charge ” .

The Deputy Minister of Finance ( Staatssecretaris van Financiën ) filed a written statement of defence ( vertoogschrift ) .

One of the advocates - general to ORG submitted an advisory opinion on DATE . He did not address the applicant ’s primary submission , apart from expressing the view that the decision of ORG had been correct , but gave extensive reasons why the alternative submission should be rejected .

The applicant did not receive a copy of the advisory opinion until ORG delivered its judgment .

ORG dismissed the applicant ’s appeal on DATE .

It held that a failure on the part of a bank to carry out an order for the transfer of a court registration fee could not be held against the person who had given such an order if the latter saw to it that the payment was made as soon as possible after he could reasonably be expected to be aware of such failure . Nevertheless , it appeared that the applicant had not paid the court registration fee at all and his primary submission had therefore to be rejected .

It further held that the court registration fee in question was not such as to constitute any real impediment to a taxpayer ’s right of access to a court , and that in appropriate cases a reduction of the fee in question could be granted . The applicant ’s alternative submission was therefore also rejected .

Pursuant to section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW ( Algemene wet inzake rijksbelastingen ) a demand for supplementary tax is made if a tax for which the taxpayer is under an obligation to file a declaration ( die op aangifte behoort te worden voldaan of afgedragen ) is not paid in its entirety or not paid at all .

In such cases a fiscal penalty is additionally imposed to an amount equal to the amount due in tax ( section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) ) .

It is open to a taxpayer to submit an administrative objection ( bezwaarschrift ) to the competent tax inspector ( section CARDINAL ) .

An appeal against the latter ’s decision lies to ORG ( section CARDINAL ) .

It is , however , also open to the taxpayer to lodge an appeal directly to ORG without first submitting an administrative objection to the tax inspector ( section PERSON ) ) . This was the course followed by the applicant in the present case .

A taxpayer who lodges an appeal with ORG is required to pay a court registration fee , which at the relevant time amounted to NLG CARDINAL ( section CARDINAL ) of ORG ) . This fee is reduced by NLG CARDINAL if the financial interest is very small ( section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) ) , or if the taxpayer is indigent ( section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) ) .

The entire fee is paid back to the taxpayer if his appeal is upheld in whole or in part ( section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) ) .

An appeal on points of law against the decision of ORG lies to ORG ( section CARDINAL ) . Such an appeal may be lodged by the competent tax inspector or other tax authority as well as by the taxpayer .

The defendant party – tax authority or taxpayer , as the case may be – may submit a written statement of defence ( section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) ) .

ORG does not hold an oral hearing unless it is asked to do so by one of the parties . Such a request may be made in either the statement of points of appeal or the statement of defence , or after the filing of those statements , by the party which has lodged the appeal on points of law ; in the latter case the time - limit for so doing is DATE after the statement of defence was sent to the party concerned ( section PERSON ) ) .

NORP If PERSON expresses the wish to be heard , the case file is sent to him after the hearing , or after the filing of the written statements if no hearing is held ( section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) ) . He must submit his advisory opinion in writing ( section CARDINAL ) ) .

It is not provided that the taxpayer must be supplied with a copy of the advisory opinion before the delivery of the judgment of ORG .

ORG deliberates in camera . Although there is no legal provision prohibiting the Procurator - General from attending ORG deliberations , in practice he never attends .

ORG may quash the decision appealed against on the grounds adduced or on other grounds ( section CARDINAL ) . In that event it decides on the merits of the case , substituting for the decision of ORG the decision on the merits which the latter ought to have given . Only if the decision on the merits depends on important facts which have not been established at an earlier stage of the proceedings does ORG refer the case back to ORG which gave the decision appealed against or CARDINAL of the other courts of appeal ( ibid . ) .

The duties and position of the Procurator - General ’s department ( openbaar ministerie ) are defined in ORG ( Wet op de rechterlijke organisatie ) .

The Procurator - General ’s department consists of the Procurator - General and advocates - general of ORG , the procurators - general and advocates - general of the courts of appeal and the public prosecutors of the regional and district courts ( section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of ORG ) . The advocates - general of ORG act as deputies of the Procurator - General of that court and are subordinate to him ( sections CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) , CARDINAL and DATE ) ) .

The Procurator - General ’s department must be heard by the courts in so far as the law so prescribes ( section CARDINAL ) . The advisory opinion of PERSON or an advocate - general to ORG takes the form of a learned treatise containing references to relevant case - law and legal literature and a recommendation , which is not binding on ORG , to uphold or reject points of appeal .


KAMCEVA v. "THE FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA"

Elisabeth Steiner;Erik Møse;Julia Laffranque;Khanlar Hajiyev;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska

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

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

The applicant worked , on a temporary basis , as a teacher in a ORG - run school PERSON in PERSON ( “ the school ” ) . In DATE , when her contract expired , the school advertised a vacancy announcement for several posts . The school recruited PERSON for the post for which the applicant also had applied . She complained to several inspection bodies alleging procedural irregularities . These bodies issued instructions , on the basis of which the school annulled the results of the competition .

On DATE the applicant brought a civil action requesting payment of damages for having been discriminated on political grounds . She alleged that PERSON , the successful candidate , had not had the required qualifications for the post . The claim was based on sections CARDINAL , DATE and CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of LAW ( see “ Relevant domestic law ” below ) .

ORG ( “ the first - instance court ” ) heard oral evidence from the applicant , witnesses PERSON , PERSON . , PERSON and ORG , as well as Mr PERSON , the school ’s director .

In her statement , the applicant referred to a meeting with Mr PERSON in DATE when allegedly he admitted to her that he had been under considerable pressure from other fellow - members of his political party and that he was not able to take any decision by himself . At a next meeting , PERSON PERSON confirmed that he had not taken the recruitment decision by himself .

PERSON , a former teacher in the school and unsuccessful candidate for one of the advertised posts , stated that during a meeting held in DATE , Mr PERSON said that a new contract would not be concluded with some acting teachers since the decision had not been made by himself , but by those who had appointed him director . On that occasion , he also stated that Ministers and Deputy Ministers had called and suggested him to appoint other candidates . She further referred to a discussion that she had on DATE with Mr PERSON , together with CARDINAL other unsuccessful candidates . On that meeting , Mr PERSON allegedly told them that given their qualifications he “ had cried for them ” , but that his political party had pressed him to dismiss them , and that CARDINAL people had voted against their recruitment . Mr E.L. and PERSON , who were also former teachers in the school and unsuccessful candidates , confirmed PERSON statement .

PERSON , the applicant ’s mother - in - law , stated that Mr PERSON told her that he had not made the selection , but that he had brought the list of candidates to the attention of his political party , which in fact , had taken the decision . None of CARDINAL people present at that meeting had voted in favour of the applicant .

Mr PERSON contested the statements described above . He stated that he had selected the successful candidate by himself and that no political party had been involved in the selection process . He further argued that the applicant and witnesses had invented the whole story with the aim to achieve a common objective . Lastly , he confirmed that on the basis of the instructions given by the inspection bodies , he had annulled the results of the competition .

On DATE the first - instance court dismissed the applicant ’s claim as unsubstantiated . It found that the political affiliation of candidates was not specified as a post requirement in the vacancy announcement . Furthermore , the inspection bodies , on the basis of the complaints submitted by the applicant and other unsuccessful candidates , issued instructions which prompted the annulment of the announcement . The court rejected the ORG statements as unsubstantiated since the vacancy announcement had not required that candidates be of any political affiliation .

The applicant appealed against this decision arguing that the first - instance court had not provided adequate reasons for having ignored the ORG statements that provided clear evidence that she had not been appointed due to political reasons . She asked the court why , despite the fact that she had been the only candidate who had satisfied the post requirements and had previous working experience , the school had appointed PERSON , who had not had the necessary qualifications for the post .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s appeal and confirmed the lower court ’s decision . It found no grounds to depart from the facts established by the first - instance court and the reasons given . It confirmed that the announcement , on the basis of the instructions given by the inspection bodies , had been annulled . The applicant was served with this decision on DATE .

Under LAW of LAW , ORG has jurisdiction to protect human rights and freedoms concerning inter alia the prohibition of discrimination on political grounds .

Section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of the DATE Act provides that a candidate for a post can not be discriminated against on the basis of his or her race , colour , sex , age , health , religious , political or other opinion .

Section CARDINAL of the CARDINAL Act defines direct and indirect discrimination .

Section DATE Act provides that the unsuccessful candidate can claim compensation in case of discrimination .

Under LAW , if the candidate produces evidence of practice contrary to LAW CARDINAL of this Act , the burden of proof is on the employer to prove that there was no discrimination .

Section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of the DATE Act provides that the unsuccessful candidate claiming to have been discriminated against can claim compensation in proceedings before the competent court .

Section CARDINAL of the Rules of Procedure provides that a person who considers that any of his or her rights or freedoms , set forth in LAW of the LAW , has been violated by an individual decision or action may seek redress before ORG within DATE from the adoption of the final decision or from DATE he or she had knowledge of the action taken , but DATE from DATE of its occurrence .

Section CARDINAL provides that in its decision for the protection of rights and freedoms , the Constitutional Court shall determine the way of eliminating the consequences from applying the individual decision or action , with which those rights and freedoms had been violated .

In its decision of DATE , ORG dismissed a constitutional appeal ( барање за заштита на слободите и правата ) submitted by CARDINAL individuals under LAW . The complainants claimed that they had been dismissed from work due to their ethnic origin and political affiliation . The court , after having interviewed them and held a public hearing , dismissed their appeal as manifestly ill - founded . It appears that the complainants did not claim damages in civil proceedings under sections LAW CARDINAL ) of LAW ) .


Remainder inadmissible;No violation of Art. 13+8

Dean Spielmann;Elisabet Fura;Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre;Jean-Paul Costa;Karel Jungwiert;Mark Villiger

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

He arrived on NORP soil in DATE at DATE and remained there until DATE , when he returned to GPE .

NORP In DATE , holding a tourist visa , the applicant returned to NORP in NORP GPE , where he went to primary school in DATE and then to secondary school . As he had no valid residence permit and could not apply for CARDINAL until he came of age , he had to leave school in DATE , at the age of CARDINAL .

In DATE he was stopped for a drug offence . By an order of CARDINAL DATE he was placed under court supervision and barred from leaving NORP GPE . On DATE the ORG gave him a DATE suspended sentence and CARDINAL years’ probation .

On DATE the applicant was stopped for a road check and , being unable to present any valid papers , was taken into custody .

A removal order and an administrative detention order were issued against him that DATE at TIME

On DATE , at TIME , the applicant lodged an appeal against the removal order with ORG , for abuse of authority , arguing that the order was illegal under LAW regulating the entry and residence of aliens and asylum seekers ( see the section on “ Relevant Domestic Law ” ) . A hearing was scheduled for DATE . An urgent application was filed at the same time as the appeal , asking the court to suspend the enforcement of the removal order while it examined the validity of the measure . In support of his application for a suspension the applicant relied on LAW , arguing that he had entered NORP territory before DATE , that he had lived there on a habitual basis ever since , that both his parents had residence permits , and that CARDINAL of his brothers had acquired NORP citizenship and the other three would be entitled to apply for it at DATE as they had been born on NORP soil .

NORP On DATE at TIME the applicant was removed to GPE .

The same evening ORG declared his urgent application for a suspension of his removal devoid of purpose as he had already been deported .

On DATE the applicant lodged an urgent application with ORG requesting that the Prefect of NORP GPE be instructed to organise his return there within TIME because of the interference with his family life . The application was rejected on DATE as the court had not yet reached a decision concerning the validity of the removal order , and the applicant ’s return would amount to a permanent measure whereas the urgent - applications judge could only order interim measures .

On an unspecified date the applicant returned to NORP GPE illegally , by his own means , to live with his family .

In a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG found the removal order illegal on the grounds that the applicant had shown that he had been habitually resident in GPE since DATE and could therefore not be deported . The court refused to have the applicant issued with a residence permit , but ordered the Prefect of NORP GPE to re - examine his administrative situation within DATE .

On DATE the authorities in NORP GPE issued the applicant with a “ visitor ’s ” permit , which was valid for DATE but did not allow him to work .

An investigation revealed that the authorities had issued the “ visitor ’s ” permit by mistake . The applicant was accordingly issued , in DATE , with a new residence permit for “ private and family life ” , backdated to DATE and allowing him to work .

That residence permit was not renewed upon expiry because of a problem with the documents required for its renewal . In DATE , however , the applicant was eventually issued with a residence permit valid from DATE to DATE .

“ The following persons shall not be required to leave NORP territory or removed therefrom under the provisions of this chapter :

CARDINAL Aliens who can prove by any means that they have been habitually resident in GPE at least since DATE . ”

“ For the purposes of this part [ concerning expulsion measures ] , the following provisions shall apply in NORP GPE and PERSON :

CARDINAL Without prejudice to the provisions of the preceding paragraph , an alien who has been ordered to leave NORP territory or against whom a removal order has been issued and who refers the matter to the administrative court may , at the same time , apply for a stay of execution .

Consequently , the provisions of Articles L. CARDINAL - CARDINAL and L. CARDINAL - CARDINAL to L. CARDINAL - CARDINAL [ whereby a removal order issued by the prefecture may be challenged before the administrative court within TIME , with suspensive effect on the removal order ] shall not apply in NORP GPE or ORG . ”

“ The provisions of Article L. CARDINAL - CARDINAL shall apply in the département of GPE and in FAC , for DATE from the publication of PERSON no . DATE of DATE on immigration and integration . ”


CASE OF VISTIŅŠ AND PEREPJOLKINS v. LATVIA

Preliminary objection dismissed (Article 35-3-b - No significant disadvantage);Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Deprivation of property);Just satisfaction reserved

Alvina Gyulumyan;András Sajó;André Potocki;Angelika Nußberger;Corneliu Bîrsan;Dean Spielmann;Egbert Myjer;Elisabeth Steiner;Françoise Tulkens;Ineta Ziemele;Ján Šikuta;Josep Casadevall;Julia Laffranque;Karel Jungwiert;Kristina Pardalos;Lech Garlicki;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Luis López Guerra;Nicolas Bratza;Nona Tsotsoria;Peer Lorenzen

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

The first applicant acquired a plot of land of QUANTITY . m under a contract of donation with PERSON dated DATE . The transfer of title was entered in the land register by ORG of the city of GPE ( PERSON pilsētas PERSON nodaļa ) on DATE . The second applicant became the owner of :

( a ) a plot of land measuring QUANTITY . m , under a contract of donation with PERSON dated DATE ( entered in the land register on DATE ) ;

( b ) a plot of land measuring QUANTITY m , under a contract of donation with Mr O. dated DATE ( entered in the land register on DATE ) ;

( c ) a plot of land measuring QUANTITY m , under a contract of donation with the same Mr O. dated DATE ( entered in the land register on DATE , CARDINAL DATE ) ; and

( d ) a plot of land measuring QUANTITY . m , under a contract of donation with PERSON dated DATE ( entered in the land register on DATE ) .

The clauses of the contracts in question were practically identical . The contract entered into by the first applicant stipulated that the second applicant was acting as the donor ’s representative . Similarly , it was stated in the first CARDINAL contracts entered into by the second applicant ( see points ( a ) , ( b ) and ( c ) of the previous paragraph ) that the first applicant was acting on behalf of the donors .

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

Each of the above - mentioned contracts stipulated that the value of the plots of land in question was fixed at CARDINAL NORP lati ( ORG ; CARDINAL euros ( ORG ) ) , except for the plot of QUANTITY . m , which was valued at ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL ( about EUR CARDINAL,CARDINAL ) . The parties agreed that the said value was not the cadastral value of the land in question ( that is to say , the reference value for the calculation of land tax ) , but an indicative sum solely for the purposes of calculating the registration tax , which at the time represented PERCENT of the property ’s value . Indeed , according to the applicants’ explanations , which have not been challenged by the Government , cadastral values did not exist at the relevant time and the sole basis of calculation for the tax was the property ’s sale price , in accordance with the applicable law ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

In addition , the applicants paid ORG in notary ’s tax . However , they were not obliged to pay income tax in respect of the transactions , as gifts between individuals were not liable for such tax . Furthermore , in accordance with the law applicable at the time ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , they were exempted from the payment of land tax ( zemes nodoklis ) for DATE following the acquisition , that is to say , until DATE .

The parties disagreed as to the actual value of the plots of land in question at the time of their expropriation . The ORG explained that the use of the land had begun during the NORP era , in DATE , at the time of the construction of the port infrastructure – storage containers and open - air freight platforms – which can be found there DATE . In their submission , those port facilities are outside the general property market , with the result that an estimation of their possible market value would be impossible and devoid of purpose .

In the applicants’ submission , the CARDINAL plots of land contained no infrastructure except for concrete blocks . They explained that the latter enabled the land to be used for the storage of shipping containers , but that no other equipment such as railway lines , cranes or warehouses had been installed there . Inventory records of CARDINAL of the plots of land , to which the applicants referred , indicate that the value of these concrete blocks is ORG QUANTITY .

According to the statistical information supplied by the Government , and accepted as accurate by the applicants , PERCENT of specialised container traffic in and out of GPE by sea in DATE passed through the part of the island where the land at issue is located . Nor have the applicants disputed the fact that the first decisions concerning the port area of ORG were taken during the constitutional transition period , DATE , by ORG ( the then legislative assembly ) . In DATE the authorities initiated proceedings for the purpose of fixing the port ’s boundaries and determining the infrastructure to be transferred from the former GPE to the independent NORP State .

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG dismissed the applicants’ claims . According to the judgment , the expropriation was not based on LAW , as the applicants had claimed , since the measure in question had been decreed in the context of the NORP land reform , and thus the special PERSON of DATE was to be applied . Section CARDINAL of the special PERSON provided that the mere existence of the law and the payment of compensation for the expropriation sufficed for the statutory transfer of title to the ORG . Noting in the present case that the corresponding sums had been paid into the applicants’ accounts , ORG found that both of those elements were present , and that by registering the ORG as the new owner of the land in question , ORG had acted in accordance with the law .

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

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

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

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

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

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

On DATE ORG of ORG notified the first applicant of a tax reassessment , requesting him to pay the sum of ORG CARDINAL in land tax in respect of the land that had belonged to him , plus penalties , for the period from DATE to DATE , the date of the expropriation . The first applicant challenged this before LOC , which upheld his claim and annulled the reassessment . ORG appealed before ORG , which , in a judgment of DATE , upheld the annulment of the reassessment . In its judgment the court found that , as the land tax was attached to a plot of land and not to a specific individual , it could be paid by someone other than the owner . It noted that the tax had already been paid by the public corporation responsible for the port ’s management which was using the land on the basis of a servitude . ORG lodged a cassation appeal with the ORG of ORG , which dismissed that appeal in a judgment of DATE .

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

Adopted in DATE , LAW ( PERSON ) became fully applicable again in DATE . In DATE , DATE when the impugned expropriations took place , it did not yet include a charter of fundamental rights , which were governed by a separate instrument , LAW of DATE on the rights and obligations of persons and citizens ( ORG likums “ ORG un pilsoņa tiesības un pienākumi ” ) . LAW of that PERSON read as follows :

“ The ORG recognises and protects ownership and the right to inheritance .

An individual may be the owner of property of all kinds , except that which is subject to the restrictions laid down in section CARDINAL [ pertaining to natural resources ] .

Property may be expropriated only as provided for by law and pursuant to a judicial decision . Where property is expropriated for the purpose of public projects , the owner shall be entitled to appropriate compensation . ”

By a Law of DATE , which entered into force on DATE , the legislature inserted into the LAW a new Chapter VIII on fundamental rights . In that Chapter , the new LAW provides as follows :

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

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

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

The first sub - section of section CARDINAL of the Latvian LAW of DATE ( NORP “ ORG zemes reformu Latvijas Republikas pilsētās ” ) originally read as follows :

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

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

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

to receive compensation in accordance with the statutory conditions . ”

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

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

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

A Law of DATE amended that provision as follows :

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

The Law of DATE reformulated the above provision , deleting the last sentence concerning the expropriation of land . PERSON DATE , which entered into force on DATE , added to the subsection in question a note that read as follows , having the same statutory force as section CARDINAL itself :

“ Note : Where the former owners of the land or their heirs possess dwellings on the territory of a port , they are entitled to recover title to that land to the extent that they have the lawful use thereof ; [ the surface area of such land ] must not , however , exceed QUANTITY , unless the land in question is situated within the residential area of GPE , including on the territory of ORG of Riga , where the former owners and their heirs may be granted restitution of their title in respect of the entire surface area of the land that belonged to them . ”

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

“ Where the former owners of the land or their heirs have recovered title to land on which are erected any facilities referred to in point CARDINAL of the first subsection hereof ... , the DATE amount of rent payable for the land shall not exceed MONEY of its cadastral value . ”

At the material time , section DATE ) of LAW of DATE ( NORP par ostām ) read as follows :

“ Only the ORG and local authorities acting through the intermediary of a port authority shall be entitled to purchase land within the territory of a port . It shall be prohibited for a port authority to sell land situated within the territory of a port . ”

Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of that LAW , as amended by a LAW of DATE , which entered into force on DATE , reads as follows :

“ Former owners ( or their heirs ) who , as at DATE , possessed land situated on the current territory of the port , and whose title to the land has been recognised ... but has not been restored on account of the statutory restrictions , shall be entitled to receive land of the same value or to be compensated in the form of compensation certificates , the number of which shall be calculated according to the updated cadastral value of the land in question . If the persons concerned have received compensation certificates corresponding to the cadastral value of the land for DATE , they will granted an additional number of ... certificates corresponding to the difference between the cadastral value of DATE and the updated cadastral value . ”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The profitability of real estate shall be assessed on the basis of information supplied by its owner . When the value of the property is determined in accordance with the income generated by the latter , it shall correspond to the average net income from the real estate over DATE increased by MONEY , or , where the owner has held it for DATE , over the entire period of possession , increased by MONEY . ”

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

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

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

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

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

A Law of DATE inserted certain provisions into LAW decision of CARDINAL DATE on the conditions of the entry into force of the DATE LAW ( PERSON “ ORG Republikas likuma ‘ ORG nekustamā īpašuma piespiedu atsavināšanu valsts vai sabiedriskajām vajadzībām’ spēkā stāšanās kārtību ” ) ; the relevant parts of those provisions read as follows :

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

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

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

On DATE Act was superseded by a new ORG ( PERSON vajadzībām nepieciešamā nekustamā īpašuma atsavināšanas likums ) , enacted on DATE . Under section CARDINAL of that new Act , expropriation of real estate can take the form of a friendly settlement between the ORG and the owner of the property in question , or of “ forced ” expropriation ordered on the basis of a special law .

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

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

“ The expropriation , for the needs of the ORG , shall concern land belonging to Mr PERSON within the territory of FAC , on ORG , along the bank of the GPE , for respective surface areas of CARDINAL hectares ... , QUANTITY ... , QUANTITY and QUANTITY ... , together with land in the same sector belonging to Mr NORP Vistiņš for a surface area of QUANTITY ... ”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The relevant provisions of LAW concerning the validity of contracts and other agreements read as follows :

“ An unlawful or immoral act whose aim runs counter to religion , statute law or morality , or which is intended to circumvent the law , can not give rise to an agreement ; any such agreement shall be null and void . ”

“ An agreement that expresses a genuine intent but has been concealed by another agreement shall be valid , unless it has been entered into with the aim of misleading a third party or , in general , of conducting an unlawful transaction . The visible agreement shall remain valid solely to the extent that this is necessary for the validity of the concealed agreement . ”

DATE of LAW authorises the revocation of a donation ( dāvinājums ) on grounds of ingratitude on the part of the donee . Apart from an ordinary donation , the NORP Civil Code provides for CARDINAL specific categories of donation : a donation of all the donor ’s present property , a donation subject to a condition or obligation , and a donation in consideration of past services ( dāvinājums atlīdzības nozīmē ) , as governed by LAW , which reads :

“ A donation in consideration of past services is a donation agreed in return for services rendered .

Such donations may not be revoked on grounds of ingratitude . ”

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

Land reform is a continuous and complex process which does not end with the return of the real property concerned to the former owners or their heirs , but with the completion of the restructuring of legal , social and economic relations ...

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

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

( CARDINAL ) ...

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

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

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

Under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW of DATE ( NORP “ ORG zemes nodokli ” ) , as in force at the material time , a person acquiring land was exempt from the payment of land tax in respect thereof for DATE from the date of its acquisition .

In its version in force in DATE , section CARDINAL of the PERSON on the reform and the conditions of entry into force of LAW of DATE read as follows :

“ In order to determine the value of property that is liable for tax in respect of the registration of ownership following a contractual transfer of title , the highest of the following amounts shall be used :

( CARDINAL ) the sale price indicated in the contract ;

( CARDINAL ) the amount resulting from the land tax assessment ;

( CARDINAL ) the amount resulting from the assessment for the purposes of obtaining a mortgage from a lending institution . ”