The applicant is a NORP national who was born in DATE and currently lives in GPE ( GPE and GPE ) . The respondent Government were represented by PERSON , their Agent .

On DATE the applicant married a NORP national , PERSON PERSON . The marriage was celebrated and registered at ORG ( Standesamt Bonn II ) in GPE , which delivered a marriage certificate ( PERSON ) to the couple the same day . In the marriage certificate , the applicant was given her husband ’s surname “ PERSON ” .

In DATE the applicant asked ORG of the NORP ORG ( GPE ministrijas GPE un migrācijas lietu pārvalde –“the PERSON and Migration Service ” ) to replace her former NORP passport that had been issued in her maiden name with a new passport in her married name . She made an express request for her new surname to be retranscribed correctly , without any amendment .

On DATE the Nationality and Migration Service issued the applicant with a new NORP passport . However , on page CARDINAL , the main page containing all the passport holder ’s basic details , her surname appeared as “ Mencena ” , not “ GPE . Officials at ORG explained to the applicant that the changes in the written form of her surname had been made on the basis of Regulation no . CARDINAL on the transcription and identification of forenames and surnames in documents , which required all surnames and forenames to be reproduced “ in accordance with the spelling rules of the NORP literary language ” and “ as near as possible to their pronunciation in their original language ” . Consequently , the affricative consonant “ tz ” was replaced by the letter “ c ” , which is pronounced [ ts ] in NORP and therefore has the same phonetic value . Likewise , the inflectional ending “ -a ” was added to the applicant ’s surname , denoting the feminine nominative singular . However , in the section entitled “ Special remarks ” ( “ PERSON atzīmes ” ) on page CARDINAL of the passport , ORG affixed a special stamp certifying that the original form ( oriģinālforma ) of the surname was “ GPE ” .

After trying in vain to persuade the officials at ORG who had issued her with the passport to rectify the written form of her surname , the applicant lodged an internal appeal with the departmental head . She argued among other things that the phonetic transcription and grammatical adaptation of her surname had violated her right to respect for her family life , as guaranteed by LAW . On an unspecified date , the departmental head dismissed her appeal on the grounds that page CARDINAL of the passport provided the original version of the surname “ GPE in any event and that there had therefore been no alteration to the surname .

The applicant issued proceedings against ORG in ORG of GPE , which dismissed her claim in a judgment of DATE . After referring to an opinion of the linguistic consultations department of ORG valodas institūta NORP valodas konsultāciju dienests ) dated DATE , which stated that the transcription of the NORP name “ PERSON ” into NORP had to be “ Mencena ” for a woman , ORG found that the applicant ’s surname had been transcribed in accordance with the applicable regulations , namely Regulation no . CARDINAL on the passports of NORP citizens , and Regulation no . CARDINAL on the transcription and identification of forenames and surnames in documents . It also pointed out that persons finding themselves in that situation could always have the original form of their surname entered in the section of the passport entitled “ Special remarks ” if they so wished .

The applicant appealed against that judgment to ORG , arguing , inter alia , that ORG had misconstrued the domestic legislation . In her appeal , the applicant criticised the very principle of “ LOC ” of the written form of foreign surnames and forenames . In her submission , the CARDINAL sets of regulations cited in the impugned judgment violated the right to respect for private life guaranteed by LAW . The applicant also pointed out that neither LAW nor the relevant regulations required any grammatical or spelling changes to foreign trademarks or commercial undertakings . That being so , it was questionable whether such a practice with regard to names was either necessary or proportionate . Lastly , the applicant said that , owing to the change in the written form of her surname , she and her husband now had CARDINAL different surnames in their identity papers , which made their identification as members of the same family more difficult .

In a judgment of DATE , ORG dismissed the applicant ’s appeal . After noting that ORG had fully complied with the applicable law and regulations , it accepted that the situation complained of could be regarded as interference with the right guaranteed by LAW . However , it considered that the interference , which was intended to protect the NORP language , was consistent with the second paragraph of that provision . With regard to the applicant ’s submission that different rules applied to trademarks and company names , ORG considered that it had no bearing on the case before it , since people ’s names fell into a completely different category and were governed by special rules .

The applicant appealed on points of law to ORG of ORG , arguing , inter alia , that the protection of the NORP language could not be a legitimate aim for which restrictions were permitted by LAW . In a judgment of DATE , ORG dismissed her appeal , holding that , since the original form of the surname “ PERSON ” appeared on page CARDINAL of her passport , there had been no violation of her right to respect for her private life .

After amendments to LAW ( PERSON tiesa ) had come into force , the applicant lodged an appeal ( konstitucionālā sūdzība ) with that court seeking a declaration that section CARDINAL of LAW no . CARDINAL on the transcription and identification of forenames and surnames were unconstitutional . She submitted that the impugned provisions contravened Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW .

ORG decided the issue in a judgment of DATE ( case no . DATE ) . After acknowledging that surnames came within the scope of private life , it stated :

( CARDINAL ) ... ORG accepts the applicant ’s argument that the ‘ Latvianisation’ [ latviskošana ] of her surname affected her emotionally . The fact that her surname is not spelt in the same way as her husband ’s is a source of unpleasantness and social inconvenience . It makes DATE life more complicated , as she has to give additional explanations on her relationship with her partner . While the misunderstandings are eventually cleared up , it all takes time .

... CARDINAL of the main functions ... of the forename and surname is to make it possible to identify people and to determine the relationship of the person concerned with his or her family .

In view of the applicant ’s psychological attitude to the transcribed surname and the complications it entails in DATE life which , especially abroad , can be seen in the difficulty which others have in determining her relationship with her family , and since the stability of the surname affects not only the individual ’s private life but also the interests of society , the provision requiring foreign surnames in passports issued in GPE to be transcribed in accordance with the traditions of the NORP language and its linguistic rules must be considered to constitute interference in private life .

( CARDINAL ) ... [ The ] interference in the applicant ’s private life is in accordance with the law , as it has been provided for by regulations issued by the ORG .

( CARDINAL ) The applicant ’s argument that the NORP transcription of her surname does not pursue any of the aforementioned legitimate aims is without basis . Names are one of the features of language and the issue of the rules applicable thereto affects the entire system of language . It can be seen from the case file that the applicant in fact criticises the very principle of transcribing foreign surnames , which is a characteristic of the NORP language . Consequently , in order to determine whether the interference ... pursues a legitimate aim , it is necessary to examine the role of the NORP language in GPE .

By declaring that the official language of GPE is NORP , LAW it constitutional status . The constitutional status of the official language reinforces the legal basis for the use of NORP in documents issued by GPE . Regard being had to the fact that a NORP citizen ’s passport is an official document that not only identifies the person concerned , but also attests to a permanent legal link between the individual and the ORG , that person ’s surname and forename must be written in the official language .

... ORG agrees with the opinion of the expert ... that the surname is used not just by the person so named , but also by society . Consequently , surnames must be regulated ... for the convenience of members of society .

Owing to historical factors , in particular the fact that the proportion of NORP [ of origin ] on the national territory has diminished during the course of DATE , the NORP nation represents only a minority in some large towns , including GPE ... , and the NORP language has only recently recovered its status as the official language . The need to protect the official language and to consolidate its use is , therefore , closely linked to the democratic regime of ORG .

Regard being had to the fact that , ... in the context of globalisation , GPE is the only place in the world where the existence and development of the NORP language and , by the same token , the NORP nation , can be guaranteed , a restriction or limitation on the use of [ this ] language ... on the national territory constitutes a threat to the democratic regime of the ORG .

[ In a recent judgment , ] ORG also came to the conclusion that the official language helps to preserve national identity , unites the nation , and serves to express national sovereignty and the indivisibility of the ORG ...

That being so , the purpose of the interference in the applicant ’s private life was to protect the right of other residents of GPE to use the NORP language freely throughout the national territory and to protect the democratic regime of the ORG . Accordingly , the interference ... pursued legitimate aims .

( CARDINAL ) ... [ It ] is necessary to examine whether the interference [ in issue ] was proportionate to the legitimate aims [ it pursued ] .

( CARDINAL ) ... ORG has no doubt that the written form of names in documents has a direct bearing on the other spheres in which the language is used , as they are closely connected . If the written form of foreign names in documents were only permitted in their original form , it would be coherent and logical for their use [ in this form ] to spread progressively , because names are used in different texts . It is impossible to isolate the written form of foreign names in identity papers from [ their written form in other types of document ] . That would seriously threaten the quality of the NORP language and , therefore , the function of [ this ] language in society ...

The evidence in the case file shows that the [ impugned ] interference has not prevented the applicant ... from exercising other rights she possesses , such as to cross her and other States’ borders , to vote in elections and to receive mail . The inconvenience an individual might suffer in his or her DATE life does not constitute a sufficient ground for not applying rules that are the consequence of the language ’s official status .

ORG considers that the damage to the functioning of the NORP language as a single system that would result from writing foreign names in their original form only would outweigh the inconvenience individuals might suffer as a result of using a passport issued in a surname transcribed in accordance with the traditions of the NORP language .

In these circumstances , the functioning of the NORP language as a single system ... constitutes a social necessity , not a whim of the ORG authorities .

In some cases , transcription of the surname may make it more difficult to identify a person or to determine his or her relationship with his or her family ( partner ) . However , the interests in protecting NORP as the official language and , therefore , in protecting the democratic ORG system , justify [ this interference ] .

( CARDINAL ) The applicant ’s allegation that the surname that she acquired by marriage has been transformed is unfounded . The transcription [ atveide ] of a name does not constitute its translation into NORP ( it is not the ORG of the noun [ as such ] ) , but its adaptation to the grammatical particularities of the NORP language .

There are a large number of systems of writing in the world , which are widely used , and the differences between them make it objectively impossible when passing from CARDINAL system to another to preserve the original form . Due to the difference between alphabets , absolute conformity to the original is impossible even between languages using NORP characters . In NORP , since the beginnings of written language , the settled practice has been to transcribe foreign names according to their pronunciation in the original language , not their written form . Regulation no . CARDINAL translates this principle governing the written form of foreign names , which is a characteristic of the NORP language , into a legal rule ...

Both the [ Official ] LAW no . CARDINAL refer to rules of literary language . ... [ At ] the base of NORP grammar are declensions . The word endings indicate the gender and number of ordinary and proper nouns and the function of the word in the sentence . The declinable word - ending of a name indicates the gender of the bearer of the name . In many NORP languages ( such as LANGUAGE , NORP and NORP ) , either names have no grammatical gender or no distinction is made in the form of male and female surnames . Consequently , in these languages , foreign names can be incorporated into a sentence in their original form without destroying the grammatical system of the language . However , in NORP , a foreign surname can not be included in a sentence ... unless it is written in the way it is pronounced and has an ending . Consequently , the traditions governing the written form of foreign names are based on the grammatical particularities of the NORP language .

ORG can not therefore accept the applicant ’s submission that the damage to her rights is greater than the benefit to the ORG . With a limitation of this sort on the private life of the individual , the ORG enhances the stability of the NORP language system . Compliance with the codified traditional rules ... in all spheres of use and writing of names , including documents , plays an integral role in the concrete historical circumstances of the ORG in establishing the status of the official language . ...

( CARDINAL ) In order to reduce the inconvenience caused by the transcription of a person ’s name as far as possible , the [ Official ] LAW provides : ‘ [ When ] the person concerned ... so wishes and is able to produce documentary evidence [ of it ] , the original form of the foreign surname shall be indicated in the passport , in addition to his or her forename and surname as transcribed ... ’

The meaning of the expression ‘ in addition to’ [ papildus ] has been defined by the ORG in its Regulation no . CARDINAL . Paragraph CARDINAL of this regulation provides : ‘ ... when the person concerned so wishes , the original form of his or her surname and forename shall be entered in the section “ Special remarks ” , in accordance with the documentary evidence [ supplied ] ... ’ ...

However , section CARDINAL of Directive no . DATE issued by the head of ORG ... provides for the original form to be entered only on page CARDINAL of the passport , that is to say after the other [ relevant personal ] details . ...

Regard being had to the fact that , by choosing the place where the original form of the surname ... should be entered , the ORG has not done all in its power to ensure that the transcription of the surname causes the least harm to the individual , the provision of Regulation no . CARDINAL ... , which provides that the original form ... is to be entered in the field ‘ GPE , constitutes disproportionate interference with private life ... and is therefore incompatible with LAW and section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW . ”

On the basis of this reasoning , ORG found section CARDINAL of LAW , which establishes the general principle that foreign surnames are to be transcribed phonetically and adapted grammatically , consistent with LAW . However , it declared the regulation requiring the original form of the surname to be indicated on page CARDINAL of the passport and not in a more visible location nearer the front to be unconstitutional , having regard to the fact that the main page of the passport was page CARDINAL . ORG stated in particular that these provisions , including LAW no . DATE , would cease to be effective and would lapse on DATE .

LAW ( PERSON ) provides : “ The NORP language is the official language in GPE . ” LAW guarantees “ inviolability of private life , the home and correspondence ” . However , LAW permits restrictions on the exercise of that right in order to “ protect the rights of others , the democratic structure of the ORG , public safety , welfare and morals ” .

Section CARDINAL of the Forenames and Surnames ( Written Form in Documents ) Act of DATE ( NORP par vārdu un uzvārdu rakstību dokumentos ) , which has been repealed , laid down that forenames and surnames of foreign origin were to be written as they were pronounced in NORP , with the adjunction of the appropriate inflectional ending .

Section CARDINAL of the former LAW ( Valodu likums ) , which was in force until DATE , provided :

“ NORP names shall be used in accordance with NORP traditions and the rules of the language .

Names of foreign origin shall be transcribed and used in NORP in accordance with the rules of transcription [ atveide ] applicable to names of foreign origin . ”

Section CARDINAL of the new LAW ( NORP valodas likums ) , which was passed on DATE and came into force on DATE , reads as follows :

“ ( CARDINAL ) Names shall be transcribed in accordance with the traditions of the NORP language and the rules applicable to literary language , regard being had to the provisions of subsection ( CARDINAL ) of this section .

( CARDINAL ) The historical form of the family surname of the person concerned or , if he or she ... so wishes and is able to adduce documentary evidence [ of it ] , the original form of the foreign surname transliterated into the NORP alphabet , shall be entered in the passport and birth certificate in addition to his or her forename and surname transcribed in accordance with the current forms of the NORP language .

( CARDINAL ) Regulations shall govern the spelling and identification of forenames and surnames and the spelling and use of foreign names in the NORP language . ”

The relevant parts of Regulation no . CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE on the transcription and identification of forenames and surnames in documents ( GPE par vārdu un uzvārdu rakstību un identifikāciju dokumentos ) provide :

“ ... In all documents drafted in the official language , the person ’s name and surname shall be written in accordance with the spelling rules of the NORP literary language , using only the letters of the alphabet of the NORP literary language . All forenames and surnames ( with the exception of indeclinable forenames and surnames ) must have an ending that conforms to the rules governing nouns and adjectives in the NORP language . The names of people of the female sex must have the ending of the feminine gender . The forenames and surnames of foreign origin ending in o , -ā , ē , i , ī , -u , -ū in the nominative singular are indeclinable in NORP . ”

“ Irrespective of their etymology in NORP , forenames and surnames of foreign origin must be written so as to be as close as possible to their pronunciation in the language of origin in accordance with the rules for transcribing foreign names . Depending on the sex of the person concerned , a masculine or feminine gender ending shall be added to forenames and surnames of foreign origin , unless the forenames or surnames are indeclinable . ”

“ If the form of the forename or surname entered in the documents delivered in the NORP language is liable to make the holder ’s identification more difficult , the original form of the forename or surname may be indicated in the passport in accordance with Regulation ... no . CARDINAL on the passports of NORP citizens ... If the language of origin does not use NORP characters , such indication will be through transliteration into the NORP alphabet . ”

“ The record of a person ’s forename or surname in a document shall be legally identical to that contained in the birth certificate ( or other document ) if both records are wholly identical or the only differences between them are as follows :

( CARDINAL ) Each of the records is consistent with the grammatical or spelling rules of the NORP language at different historical periods , [ that is to say ] :

( CARDINAL.CARDINAL.CARDINAL ) an ending has been added to the forename or the surname in CARDINAL document , but not in the other ;

( DATE ) NORP the ending of the forename or surname in each document is of a different declension ;

( CARDINAL.CARDINAL.CARDINAL ) the forename or surname in each document is spelt differently ;

( CARDINAL ) the forename and surname are written in a foreign language in CARDINAL document and in NORP in another ;

( CARDINAL ) the forename or surname in each document is written using different rules for transcribing names of foreign origin . ”

Regulation no . CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE on the transcription and identification of forenames and surnames ( GPE par vārdu un uzvārdu rakstību un identifikāciju ) largely repeats the provisions of the preceding regulation . The other relevant provisions of this regulation are as follows :

“ If the person wishes to keep ... the historical form or original form of his or her surname and submits documents attesting to such form :

( CARDINAL ) the [ competent ] authorities shall indicate at a set point in the documents the historical form , original form or transliterated form of the person ’s surname in the NORP alphabet ( [ that is to say ] reproduced , letter by letter , from another alphabet ) ;

“ The form of the surname ... written in NORP shall be legally identical to the original form of the surname , the historical [ form ] or the form transliterated into LANGUAGE characters . ”

“ In copies and extracts , the forename and the surname shall preserve their original written form . ”

“ If the transcription of a person ’s forename or surname is damaging to his or her vital interests , he or she may apply to ORG ( NORP valodas centrs ) with a request for the name to be transcribed into NORP in a form that is less damaging to his or her interests . ORG opinion on the manner in which the person ’s forename and surname must be written in the official language shall be binding on the [ competent ] authorities . ”

In GPE the passport is the principal identity document of NORP nationals . LAW no . CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE on passports of NORP citizens ( GPE par Latvijas pilsoņu pasēm ) , which was in force until DATE , provided that if a person wished to have the original written form of his or her forename and surname entered in his or her passport , it was to be entered in the section of the passport headed “ Special remarks ” ( “ LOC atzīme ” ) . LAW no . DATE issued by the head of ORG ( the statutory predecessor to ORG ) states that the original written form must appear on a special stamp affixed to page CARDINAL of the passport .

On DATE , following ORG judgment cited above , ORG no . CARDINAL on the transcription and use of names of foreign origin in the NORP language ( GPE par citvalodu personvārdu rakstību un lietošanu latviešu valodā ) , meticulously codifying the rules for the transcription of foreign names . The relevant paragraphs of the regulation read as follows :

“ In NORP , feminine names , whether of NORP or foreign origin , shall be formed and used with the respective feminine gender endings . ”

“ The equivalent of masculine names ending in -s shall be feminine names ending in a or -e . ”

“ From masculine names ending in -ens ... , the feminine will be formed with the ending -a , for example : PERSON – PERSON , ORG . ”

“ [ As regards names of NORP origin ] , [ CARDINAL provisions of the [ preceding ] paragraphs of this regulation shall not apply to consonants or specific groups of consonants , which are transcribed as follows :

( CARDINAL ) ’tz’ [ is transcribed by ] ‘ c’ ... ”

On DATE , in order to comply with ORG judgment of DATE , the ORG adopted a new Regulation no . CARDINAL on passports of NORP citizens and foreign permanent residents in GPE and the travel documents of stateless persons ( GPE par Latvijas pilsoņu pasēm , nepilsoņu pasēm un bezvalstnieku ceļošanas dokumentiem ) . The relevant provisions of the regulation , which came into force on DATE and replaced the aforementioned Regulation no . CARDINAL , provide :

“ In passports , the surname and forename ... of the person concerned shall be written in the form required by the law and regulations governing the spelling of surnames and forenames in the NORP language . ”

“ When the written form of the surname ... on page CARDINAL [ main page ] of the passport is different from its written form in the documents in which that name is written in its original form in another language ... , the original form ... , transliterated into the NORP alphabet , shall be entered on page CARDINAL of the passport if the person ... so wishes and is able to provide documentary evidence of [ the form concerned ] . The transliteration into the NORP alphabet shall be effected in accordance with Appendix no . CARDINAL to this regulation . ”

“ A passport shall be issued when :

( CARDINAL ) NORP the person wishes to receive a [ new ] passport to replace a valid NORP citizen ’s passport ... ”

In a judgment of DATE , ORG ( Konstitucinis teismas ) ruled on the conformity with LAW of a resolution of ORG dated DATE on the written form of forenames and surnames in the passports of citizens of GPE ir pavardžių rašymo PERSON piliečio pase ) . The relevant parts of this judgment read as follows :

“ ... LAW provides that the official language shall be NORP . The fact that the status of official language is enshrined in the LAW means that NORP has constitutional value . The official language preserves the identity of the nation , unites the civil nation , secures the expression of national sovereignty , the integrity and indivisibility of the ORG and the proper functioning of ORG institutions and local authorities . The official language is an important guarantee of equality before the law as it enables all citizens to enjoy the same relations with ORG institutions and local authorities when asserting their legitimate rights and interests . According the official language constitutional status also signifies that the legislature must ensure by law that the use of this language is protected in public life and must , in addition , afford the means for protecting the official language . Since NORP has acquired the status of official language in the LAW , it must be used in ORG institutions and local authorities and in all institutions , undertakings and organisations located on NORP territory . GPE and other legal instruments must be promulgated in the official language . Clerical , accounting , management and financial documents must be drafted in LANGUAGE . Lastly , correspondence between ORG institutions and local authorities , establishments , undertakings and organisations must be written in the official language .

Since the passport of the NORP citizen is an official document that attests to the permanent legal relationship between the individual and the ORG , namely the nationality of the person , and since the question of nationality comes within the sphere of the public life of the ORG , the individual ’s forename and surname must be written in the official language . Otherwise , the constitutional status of that language would be called into question .

As has been stated above , the sphere in which the use of the official language is obligatory is public life in GPE . Consequently , it is not obligatory in private life , in which people may use the language of their choice . The resolution of ORG does not regulate private life . It only determines how forenames and surnames are to be written in the passports of NORP citizens . ...

... It must be noted that the provisions of ORG resolution requiring a person ’s forename and surname to be written in NORP letters [ and ] as they are pronounced apply to all citizens without exception , without distinction on grounds of ethnic origin or otherwise . A person ’s membership of an ethnic group is a matter for that person to decide , that is to say that no one other than the person concerned is qualified to determine the ethnic group to which he or she belongs . Consequently , it is impossible to create exceptions enabling the official language to be used in accordance with the ethnic origin of the person concerned . Likewise , ethnic origin can not be relied upon in support of a request for exemption from the provisions that result from the language ’s status as the official language . Otherwise , the constitutional principle of the equality of everyone before the law would be infringed . ... ”

Currently , the main international instruments on the use of surnames and forenames are the conventions of ORG ) . In particular , Convention no . CARDINAL on ORG signed in GPE on CARDINAL DATE has been ratified by GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE , the GPE and GPE . GPE is not a signatory to it . The relevant Articles of this convention read as follows :

“ Where a record is to be made in the civil status register by an authority of a Contracting State and there is produced for that purpose a copy of or extract from a civil status record or some other document that shows the surnames and forenames in the same characters as those used in the language in which the record is to be made , those surnames and forenames shall be reproduced literally without alteration or translation .

Any diacritic marks forming part of such surnames and forenames shall also be reproduced , even if such marks do not exist in the language in which the record is to be made . ”

“ Where a record is to be made in the civil status register by an authority of a Contracting State and there is produced for that purpose a copy of or extract from a civil status record or some other document that shows the surnames and forenames in characters other than those used in the language in which the record is to be made , those surnames and forenames shall be reproduced as far as possible by transliteration , without being translated . If there are standards recommended by ORG ( ISO ) , they shall be applied . ”

“ In the event of a discrepancy in the spelling of surnames or forenames CARDINAL of the documents produced , the person concerned shall be designated according to the civil status records or documents establishing his or her identity that were drawn up in the State of which he or she was a national at the time when they were drawn up .

For the purposes of this provision , the term ‘ national’ includes not only persons who hold the nationality of a given ORG but also refugees and stateless persons whose personal status is governed by the law of that ORG . ”

The relevant parts of the explanatory report to the convention , adopted by ORG on DATE , provide :

It is hardly necessary to emphasise the need for such uniformity . Since surnames and forenames are the main means of identifying a person , they must be consistent wherever he or she may be , and the uniformity must be reflected in all civil status records that concern him or her .

The Convention is essentially technical in nature . It is confined to prescribing that the surnames and forenames to be shown in civil status records are to be an exact reproduction of the surnames and forenames appearing in existing records or documents produced with a view to the making of a further record . ...

Article CARDINAL

Of the various systems for reproducing names , the LAW chooses the literal system ; all the letters which go to make up the surname and forenames are reproduced without modification . This system is the only one that will ensure uniformity , by avoiding , for example , the letter ‘ u’ being changed into ‘ ou’ or ‘ oe’ or the letters ‘ ORG into ‘ c’ or ‘ tch’ .

The literal reproduction rule also applies to diacritic marks . Examples are the letter ‘ ü’ with diaeresis or the letter ‘ PERSON which will be copied as ‘ PERSON and not changed into ‘ oe’ . PERSON marks must be reproduced , even if they do not exist in the language in which the record is to be made . If the record is typewritten , the diacritic marks are to be added by hand if necessary .

The first paragraph of the LAW also provides that surnames and forenames shall be reproduced without being altered or translated . However , it should be remembered that the strictness of this rule , which is especially important where particles , declined names and forenames are concerned , is tempered , in appropriate cases , by the provisions of the second , third and fourth paragraphs of LAW .

Article CARDINAL

Of the various systems of transposition , the LAW chooses transliteration : each letter , with any diacritic marks , is reproduced by its equivalent in the other language .

Where there are no standards recommended by ORG , the transposition must , as far as possible , still be achieved by transliteration .

Thus , there are at present no standards for the transliteration of NORP characters into NORP characters . Transliteration does however seem possible in many cases , especially with the help of the transliteration rules contained in ORG RCARDINAL ( international system for the transliteration of NORP characters into NORP characters ) .

On the other hand , it seems clear that in the total absence of standards it is not possible to transliterate LANGUAGE , LANGUAGE or LANGUAGE characters into NORP characters , or NORP characters into NORP or LANGUAGE characters . In these circumstances reproduction can be achieved , in the cases envisaged , by another process such as phonetic transposition . However , even in that event , translation is still forbidden . The surname and forenames must be reproduced by transliteration from the records and documents produced with a view to the making of the further record . ”

At its meeting in GPE on DATE , ORG adopted the following resolution :

“ ORG ... is of the opinion that the phrase ‘ or some other document that shows the surnames and PERSON , contained in the first paragraph of LAW , covers any public document even if it does not emanate from a civil registrar , such as a passport of the person concerned . ”

On DATE ORG ( ECJ ) delivered a judgment in PERSON v. PERSON , GPE , and PERSON , PERSON ( C-CARDINAL/CARDINAL , ORG Reports DATE , p. I-CARDINAL ) . In this case , which concerned a referral by ORG ( ORG ) for a preliminary ruling , the ECJ had to consider the question of the compatibility of the transliteration of a NORP name with freedom of establishment , as guaranteed by former Article CARDINAL of the LAW establishing ORG ( which became LAW when LAW came into force ) . In that case , the name of the applicant in the main proceedings , Mr PERSON ( ORG ) , a NORP national who worked as a masseur in GPE , was transcribed in a translation of his birth certificate and in the register of marriages as “ PERSON ” . This was the written form that resulted from the application of ORG CARDINAL , as prescribed by LAW no . CARDINAL ( see above ) . The ECJ ruled as follows :

“ CARDINAL . ... [ T]he national court ’s CARDINAL questions are to be regarded as seeking to ascertain , in substance , whether LAW is to be interpreted as meaning that it is contrary to that provision for the name of a NORP national who has settled in another Member ORG in order to pursue an occupation as a self - employed person to be entered in the registers of civil status of that ORG in a spelling differing from the phonetic transcription , whereby its pronunciation is modified and distorted .

NORP In answering that question , it must first be borne in mind that , as the ORG has stated on numerous occasions , LAW constitutes one of the fundamental legal provisions of the Community . By prohibiting any discrimination on grounds of nationality resulting from national laws , regulations or practices , that Article seeks to ensure that , as regards the right of establishment , a Member ORG accords to nationals of other Member GPE the same treatment as it accords to its own nationals ...

It must therefore be determined whether national rules relating to the transcription in NORP characters of the name of a NORP national in the registers of civil status of the Member ORG in which he is established are capable of placing him at a disadvantage in law or in fact , in comparison with the way in which a national of that Member ORG would be treated in the same circumstances .

There is nothing in the LAW to preclude the transcription of a NORP name in NORP characters in the registers of civil status of a Member ORG which uses the NORP alphabet . It is therefore for the Member ORG in question to adopt legislative or administrative measures laying down the detailed rules for such transcription , in accordance with the prescriptions of any international conventions relating to civil status to which it is a party .

Rules of that kind are to be regarded as incompatible with LAW only in so far as their application causes a NORP national such a degree of inconvenience as in fact to interfere with his freedom to exercise the right of establishment enshrined in that Article .

Such interference occurs if a NORP national is obliged by the legislation of the ORG in which he is established to use , in the pursuit of his occupation , a spelling of his name derived from the transliteration used in the registers of civil status if that spelling is such as to modify its pronunciation and if the resulting distortion exposes him to the risk that potential clients may confuse him with other persons .

It should therefore be stated in reply to the national court that LAW must be interpreted as meaning that it is contrary to that provision for a NORP national to be obliged , under the applicable national legislation , to use , in the pursuit of his occupation , a spelling of his name whereby its pronunciation is modified and the resulting distortion exposes him to the risk that potential clients may confuse him with other persons . ”


Violation of P1-1;Preliminary objection rejected;Pecuniary damage - financial award;Non-pecuniary damage - financial award;Costs and expenses partial award - domestic proceedings;Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings

ORG In DATE , ORG ( PERSON isleri ) , a ORG body responsible for dam construction , expropriated land belonging to PERSON and her husband , who died in DATE , in order to build the GPE hydro - electric dam in LOC . The land , which was located in the village of ORG ) had been used for growing rice . It now lies under water .

CARDINAL families ( CARDINAL people in all ) were affected by the expropriations resulting from the dam construction scheme .

ORG According to the applicant , a scientific study commissioned by ORG and carried out by ORG found the land to be worth CARDINAL ( GPE ) per square metre whereas the amount paid in DATE was QUANTITY .

ORG A committee of experts of ORG assessed the value of the applicant ’s land at GPE CARDINAL . That amount was paid to her when the expropriation took place .

ORG On DATE the applicant lodged an application with ORG of First Instance for increased compensation and requested that the rate of inflation be taken into account when determining the additional loss . On DATE the court awarded her additional compensation of GPE CARDINAL and simple default interest at the rate of PERCENT per annum from DATE , the date of the expropriation . The total compensation thus came to GPE CARDINAL . She was also awarded TRL CARDINAL for legal costs .

ORG The ORG appealed to ORG on points of law . PERSON filed a cross - appeal based on LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , in which she sought a ruling that the basis for calculating the additional loss should be the rate of inflation and not the rate of statutory interest for delay . On DATE ORG upheld the judgment at first instance .

ORG The additional compensation was paid in DATE , that is to say DATE after the application was lodged with ORG DATE after ORG decision .

PERSON now lives with her son - in - law , who provides for her needs .

ORG By PERSON no . CARDINAL of DATE the rate of interest on overdue ORG debts is PERCENT per annum . At the material time the average rate of inflation was PERCENT per annum and the rate of interest for delay payable on debts owed to the ORG was PERCENT per month ( PERCENT per annum ) ( section CARDINAL of Law no . DATE on LAW due to the ORG and Cabinet Ordinance no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) .

ORG Article CARDINAL of the Code of Obligations provides :

" Where the loss sustained by the creditor exceeds the interest for late payment and the debtor is unable to show that the creditor has been at fault , it is for the debtor to make good the loss .

If the additional loss can be assessed immediately the court may determine the amount when giving its decision on the merits . "

ORG On DATE ORG of ORG , which has jurisdiction in cases concerning compensation for expropriation , ruled as follows :

" The way in which creditors are compensated for the late payment of debt is through statutory interest . Since creditors are able , when resorting to enforcement measures , to claim the amount due to them plus interest , they are not entitled to claim any other form of compensation ; accordingly , the decision to grant the creditor ’s claim , on the basis that the rate of inflation was high , was ill - founded ... "

ORG On DATE ( judgment E : CARDINAL , K : CARDINAL ) ORG , sitting as a full court , ruled as follows :

" Law no . CARDINAL was approved and came into force when inflation in the country was high with rates well over PERCENT . Notwithstanding that fact , the legislature fixed the rate of interest for delay at PERCENT . In the present case it would therefore be unlawful to award compound interest at a rate PERCENT on the erroneous basis that the rate of interest payable on bank deposits was applicable . "


Violation of Art. 6-1 with regard to the length of the proceedings;Violation of Art. 6-1 with regard to the right to a court;Violation of Art. 6-1 with regard to impartiality;Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed;Non-pecuniary damage - financial award;Costs and expenses partial award

The applicant , PERSON , was born on DATE and currently resides in GPE .

On CARDINAL DATE the applicant was recognised as having been a relief worker at the CARDINAL Chernobyl Nuclear Plant disaster . The appropriate certificate ( an identity card ) was issued to the applicant by ORG of the NORP GPE .

NORP In DATE the applicant was recognised as falling within the second category of invalidity in relation to her participation in the relief work at GPE .

On DATE ORG of the NORP GPE annulled the certificate issued on CARDINAL DATE because the applicant had not stayed and worked in the “ GPE alienation zone ” ( тридцятикілометрова зона або зона відчудження)*.

On DATE ORG dismissed a petition filed by the chief doctor of ORG ( the applicant 's place of employment ) requesting that the employees ( including the applicant ) of ORG who had worked in the alienation zone be given the status of relief workers .

On DATE ORG informed the chief doctor of ORG that there were no documents proving that the employees had stayed in the alienation zone .

NORP In DATE the applicant lodged complaints with ORG of Odessa , seeking to establish that she had indeed stayed in the alienation zone . On DATE the ORG of GPE delivered a judgment in which it accepted that the applicant had stayed in the alienation zone on CARDINAL and CARDINAL DATE . The judgment became enforceable on DATE .

On DATE ORG dismissed as groundless the motion filed by the Chairman of ORG on ORG to reverse the judgment of DATE .

On DATE ORG issued a certificate ( an identity card ) acknowledging the applicant 's status as a victim of the GPE disaster , as established by the decision of DATE .

On DATE ORG no . FAC introducing amendments to its earlier Resolution of DATE no . CARDINAL on the Procedure for LAW ) to Victims of the Chernobyl Catastrophe . By virtue of these amendments , court judgments could not serve as a basis for the issue of certificates ( identity cards ) nor provide proof of being a victim of the disaster and thereby give entitlement to special ORG benefits and social payments .

On DATE ORG refused to confirm the applicant 's status as a GPE victim since the relief work had taken place outside the alienation zone .

On DATE ORG on ORG ( the “ Commission ” ) annulled the decision of CARDINAL DATE by which a certificate was issued to the applicant .

On DATE the Chairman of ORG of ORG adopted a decision withdrawing the certificate from the applicant , suspending her social security payments and annulling the benefits awarded to her as a victim of the GPE disaster .

On DATE the Commission adopted a decision annulling the certificate .

In DATE the applicant lodged a complaint with ORG .

On DATE ORG informed the applicant by letter that the refusal to issue a certificate could be appealed in accordance with the procedure established by law .

On DATE the applicant instituted proceedings in ORG of Odessa in order to annul the decision of DATE and to oblige the Commission to recognise her status as a GPE victim and to re - issue the certificate .

On DATE ORG allowed her claims and declared the actions of the Commission unlawful . It also annulled the ORG 's decisions and ordered it to issue a document recognising the applicant 's status as a GPE victim . The decision became enforceable on DATE .

On DATE the ORG annulled its decision of DATE and confirmed the applicant 's status as a relief worker . The applicant 's name was entered in the register of disabled GPE relief workers .

In DATE the Deputy Chairman of ORG on ORG filed a motion with the President of ORG , requesting the President to lodge a protest against the decision of CARDINAL DATE with a view to quashing it .

On DATE the President of ORG dismissed this petition as unsubstantiated .

On DATE the Commission issued a GPE victim identity card to the applicant . The applicant 's name was also entered in the list of persons who had requested improved living conditions .

On DATE the applicant filed a motion with ORG of Odessa for an interpretation of its judgment of CARDINAL DATE . She also requested that the ORG calculate her benefits and pension as from DATE and compensate her for arrears in benefits from that same date .

On DATE the ORG of Odessa allowed the applicant 's claims and ruled that the amount of compensation , arrears and benefits was to be calculated and paid to the applicant as from DATE .

On DATE the applicant requested ORG of Odessa to issue her a writ of execution in respect of the ruling of DATE . On CARDINAL DATE ORG of Odessa allowed the applicant 's request and issued this writ .

The execution proceedings commenced on DATE , i.e. DATE after ORG had received the writ .

On DATE ORG held that it had no jurisdiction over the enforcement of the ruling in the applicant 's case .

On DATE ( CARDINAL DATE according to ORG ) the Deputy President of ORG lodged a protest with the Presidium of ORG , requesting that the case be re - examined and the judgment of ORG of Odessa of DATE establishing the fact of the applicant 's stay in the alienation zone reversed .

On DATE the ORG of ORG allowed the protest and quashed the decision of DATE . It also remitted the case to ORG of Odessa for re - consideration .

On DATE the ORG of Odessa upheld the applicant 's complaint , finding that she had stayed in the alienation zone on CARDINAL and CARDINAL DATE .

On DATE the Odessa ORG lodged an appeal against the judgment of DATE .

On DATE the case file was transferred to the ORG of Appeal . However , it was sent back to ORG of Odessa on DATE since it was necessary to rule on the request for leave to appeal against the decision of DATE .

On DATE the ORG of GPE found that ORG had failed to comply with the formalities envisaged by law for the introduction of appeals . The ORG was given until DATE to rectify this shortcoming .

On DATE ORG rectified the shortcoming and appealed against the decision of DATE , seeking its annulment .

On DATE ORG extended until DATE the time - limit for ORG to lodge a petition .

On DATE the ORG of Appeal sent the case file to ORG of Odessa requesting it to rule on the formal defects in the appeal that had been introduced out of time .

On DATE the ORG of Odessa allowed the ORG 's motion to extend the time - limit for filing an appeal with ORG .

On DATE the ORG of Odessa sent the case file to ORG .

On DATE the NORP ORG of Appeal decided to initiate appeal proceedings in the case and scheduled a hearing on the merits for DATE .

On DATE the ORG quashed the decision of DATE and remitted the case to the same first - instance court .

DATE . On DATE the case file was remitted to ORG of Odessa for further consideration .

DATE and DATE the case could not be heard as the judge was on leave .

The case was scheduled for examination on DATE .

The hearing was adjourned to CARDINAL DATE as ORG , the ORG enterprise ORG and ORG had failed to comply with the court 's order of DATE to provide relevant documentary evidence of the applicant 's involvement in relief work at GPE . The evidence requested by the court did not arrive until DATE .

On DATE the Illichevsk District Court of Odessa held a hearing in the applicant 's case . On DATE the court postponed the hearing until DATE in order to summon specific witnesses .

On DATE the hearing was rescheduled for DATE as the ORG had requested that additional witnesses be summoned .

On DATE the court heard the additional witnesses . It also scheduled another hearing for DATE in order to allow time for the transfer of the case file relating to the applicant 's status as a GPE relief worker from FAC of Odessa .

On DATE the hearing was rescheduled as the ORG 's representative did not have a valid letter of authority . The next hearing was scheduled for DATE .

On DATE the applicant lodged a motion with the court seeking the adjournment of the hearing in her case so that she could provide additional information about her claims . The hearing was rescheduled for DATE .

On DATE ORG of Odessa ( the case having been transferred to this court in accordance with the territorial division of the districts of GPE ) found that the applicant had been a relief worker at FAC in DATE and had stayed in the “ alienation zone ” . There was no appeal against this decision and it became final on DATE .

On DATE GPE initiated execution proceedings in the case .

NORP The decision of DATE was executed on CARDINAL DATE once the applicant had received the GPE victim certificate .

On DATE the Malinovsky ORG terminated the execution proceedings since they had been completed .

On DATE FAC of Odessa gave an interpretation of the judgment of DATE to the effect that the applicant stayed in the alienation zone from CARDINAL DATE .

DATE ORG of Odessa awarded the applicant ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL in unpaid pension for the period from DATE to CARDINAL DATE . It also held that the applicant 's DATE salary should be ORG CARDINAL .

Relevant provisions of the LAW read as follows :

“ ... The main principles of judicial proceedings are :

CARDINAL ) NORP legality ;

... CARDINAL ) the mandatory nature of court decisions . ”

Relevant provisions of LAW read as follows :

“ Court decisions , rulings and resolutions may be reviewed in supervisory review proceedings following a protest lodged by the officials designated in LAW . ”

“ The following persons have the right to lodge a protest against an enforceable court judgment , ruling or resolution :

... CARDINAL ) NORP presidents of ORG , regional courts , GPE and LOC city courts and their deputies - against decisions and rulings of the district ( city ) , inter - district ( county ) court , and also against the cassation rulings of the civil division of ORG , regional courts , and the GPE and LOC city courts ; ... ”

“ The following courts hear cases in supervisory review proceedings : ...

The Presidium of ORG of the GPE , regional courts , GPE and LOC city courts : as regards protests lodged by the President of ORG , ORG and their deputies , Presidents of ORG , regional , GPE and LOC city courts and their deputies - against the judgments and rulings of the district ( city ) , inter - district ( county ) courts and against judgments of the district ( city ) courts , inter - district ( county ) courts and against the cassation rulings of ORG , regional courts , GPE and LOC city courts ; ... ”

“ Officials who have the right to lodge a protest may suspend execution of the relevant judgments , rulings and resolutions until DATE of the supervisory review proceedings .

The lodging of a protest against a judgment adopted following a complaint about unlawful actions by an official who interferes with the citizen 's lawful rights suspends execution of that decision until the end of the supervisory review proceedings . ”

“ Parties and other persons participating in the case have the right to lodge written explanations regarding the protest .

Persons informed about the place and time of consideration of the case can at their request participate in the proceedings . Their absence does not influence the consideration of the case . ”

“ When considering a case in supervisory review proceedings , the court has the right by its ruling or resolution to :

CARDINAL ) NORP leave a judgment , ruling , resolution without changes , and refuse a protest ;

CARDINAL ) NORP annul a judgment , ruling or resolution in whole or in part and remit the case for re - consideration to the court of first or cassation instance ;

CARDINAL ) NORP annul a judgment , ruling or resolution fully or partially and terminate proceedings in a case or leave it without consideration ;

CARDINAL ) NORP leave one of the previously adopted judgments in the case , or one of the rulings or resolutions without satisfaction ;

CARDINAL )

“ The directions of the court that made the supervisory review are binding on the court which later re - examines the case . These directions are binding within the limits established by LAW of this Code .

When considering a case in supervisory review proceedings or annulling the cassation decision , the court has no authority to determine the conclusions that could be made in the course of re - consideration of the case by the cassation court . ”

Relevant provisions of the Law of DATE read as follows :

“ CARDINAL . This PERSON shall enter into force on DATE ...

Appeals in civil cases lodged before DATE shall be considered in accordance with the procedure adopted for the examination of appeals against local court judgments .

Protests against judgments lodged before DATE shall be sent to ORG of GPE for consideration in accordance with the cassation procedure .

Judgments that have been delivered and which have become enforceable before DATE can be appealed against within DATE in accordance with the cassation procedure ( to ORG ) . ”

Relevant provisions of LAW DATE read as follows :

“ Relief workers dealing with the consequences of the GPE nuclear power plant disaster are those citizens who took part directly in any work related to dealing with the disaster itself or its consequences in the alienation zone in DATE regardless of DATE worked , and in DATE for not CARDINAL DATE , including the evacuation of persons and property from this zone , and those temporarily present there or assigned there from their place of employment within the designated terms for the execution of works in the alienation zone , including military servicemen , civil servants ( якщо це державні службовці ) , the public , enterprises , institutions and organisations regardless of their jurisdiction and those who worked not less than DATE in DATE in the acting ambulance stations for the decontamination of the population and the deactivation of the equipment or buildings . The list of these stations is drawn up by ORG . ”

“ Persons who are considered victims of the GPE nuclear power plant disaster are the following : ...

CARDINAL ) persons who worked for DATE from the time of the accident until DATE or for DATE during DATE outside the exclusion zone in particularly harmful working conditions ( taking into account radioactivity factors ) , where this work was related to the elimination of the consequences of the GPE nuclear plant disaster and was carried out on the basis of instructions received from the Government . The types of work and territories to be covered are determined by ORG . ”

DATE . Relevant provisions of the ORG no . CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE read as follows :

“ ... persons assisting in eliminating the consequences of the nuclear power plant disaster shall be issued certificates on the basis of CARDINAL of the following documents :

a ) a certificate of assignment to the alienation zone ;

b ) a military certificate ;

c ) a certificate of proof of bonus payments for participation in the relief work ;

d ) ( excluded on the basis of ORG no . CARDINAL of CARDINAL.CARDINAL.CARDINAL ) a decision of a court establishing direct participation in any work for a certain period related to dealing with the consequences of the nuclear power plant disaster , its consequences in the alienation zone , including the evacuation of persons and property from this zone ...

The decision to issue or not to issue the relevant certificate shall be adopted within DATE from the date of receipt of the necessary documents by the body issuing such a certificate . ”

Relevant provisions of the ORG no . CARDINAL of DATE read as follows :

“ ... Commentary : The town of PERSON to which the applicant was assigned from the place of his employment ( GPE ) is not included in the list of localities ... ”

“ CARDINAL . ( delete paragraph CARDINAL from ORG . CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE ) .

Commissions on disputed issues regarding the determination of the status of persons who assisted in dealing with the consequences of the nuclear power plant disaster , created at ORG ... shall verify the issue of certificates to victims of the GPE nuclear plant disaster on the basis of judicial decisions and shall take action where they find a violation of the procedure for establishing such status . ”

Relevant provisions of ORG of DATE read as follows :

“ CARDINAL . ... – in accordance with the PERSON of GPE on ORG and ORG on the Procedure for LAW , adopted in accordance with the PERSON , certificates may be issued on the basis of a court judgment establishing the person 's specific participation in any kind of work for a certain period of time ( determined by the legislation ) related to eliminating the consequences of the disaster and its consequences in the alienation zone , including the evacuation of persons and property from such zones , and/or the works in the acting ambulance stations for decontamination of the population and deactivation of equipment . All other issues concerning the status of the victims of the GPE nuclear power plant disaster shall be determined on the basis of the relevant documentation of the commissions of the executive bodies of the GPE and ORG , and disputes shall be settled by the commissions of ORG of GPE and GPE and of ORG . ”


The applicant , PERSON , is a company with registered office in the village of PERSON , the FAC region . It held PERCENT of the shares of ORG DATE ( “ DCB AD ” or “ the bank ” ) , a bank with registered office in PERSON . The applicant was represented before the ORG by Mr PERSON and PERSON , lawyers practising in GPE and GPE respectively .

On DATE ORG found that as of DATE DCB DATE 's capital adequacy had been PERCENT , which was significantly below the level set forth in ORG DATE . The fact that the capital adequacy of the bank was negative indicated that the bank 's riskweighted assets significantly exceeded the amount of its capital base . The bank experienced durable difficulties to perform its obligations on the date of their maturity , as evidenced by the high number of noncompleted payments . For a prolonged period the bank had not had enough liquid funds to perform its obligations to pay . For the period after DATE the bank had had waiting payments every day . As of DATE these payments had been CARDINAL amounting in total to CARDINAL,CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL old NORP levs ( “ BGL ” ) [ On DATE the NORP lev was denominated . CARDINAL new NORP lev ( “ ORG ” ) equals CARDINAL old NORP levs ( “ BGL ” ) ] . Thus , ORG was of the opinion that there was a risk of ORG AD becoming insolvent within the meaning of section CARDINAL ) and ( CARDINAL ) of ORG DATE . Therefore BNB placed the bank under special supervision ( „ особен надзор “ ) . It removed its board of directors from office and appointed special administrators ( „ квестори “ ) to act in its place . It also limited the bank 's activities , prohibiting it from taking deposits , extending loans , dealing with commercial papers , dealing with foreign currency and precious metals , making guarantees , effecting noncash payments , clearing cheques , acting as a stock broker and carrying out factoring operations . It also prohibited the bank to pay dividends and to dispose of its assets .

DCB AD did not seek judicial review of this decision .

On DATE ORG petitioned ORG to open bankruptcy proceedings against ORG AD . The bank , which was respondent in these proceedings , was represented by the special administrators previously appointed by ORG .

On DATE ORG found that during the period of special supervision , which had expired on DATE ( i.e. DATE after the entry into force of LAW DATE paragraph CARDINAL of the transitional and concluding provisions of the LAW ) , DCB DATE 's financial situation had improved through the efforts of the special administrators . Its debts towards other financial institutions had been paid off and the bank had collected more than FAC it had extended as loans and had thus improved its capital adequacy . Also , it could be expected that its overall capital adequacy would improve sharply during DATE . However , as at that time the bank was still unable to pay off all its creditors , certain restrictions on its activities had to be maintained . Accordingly , ORG , exercising its powers under LAW of LAW , reappointed the special administrators for DATE , ordered ORG AD to increase its capital adequacy to PERCENT of its tierone capital not later than DATE , and prohibited it from receiving deposits , extending loans , paying dividends , effecting noncash operations and clearing cheques until it had attained the said PERCENT ratio . The decision stated that it was not subject to judicial review .

On DATE the general meeting of shareholders of ORG AD resolved to increase the bank 's capital from ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL,CARDINAL,CARDINAL to ORG CARDINAL through the issuing of CARDINAL new shares with par value of ORG CARDINAL each . CARDINAL new shares were to be subscribed exclusively by the applicant and the remaining CARDINAL shares were to be subscribed by all shareholders of DCB DATE pro rata their respective shareholdings . On DATE the resolution was entered in the register of companies kept by ORG .

The applicant subscribed the shares and , accordingly , became liable to pay them up .

However , it sought to discharge this liability by other means . On DATE it had purchased debts due by ORG AD to CARDINAL other banks . By virtue of these debt assignments the applicant , apart from being shareholder of ORG DATE , had become also its creditor . It advised ORG AD that it wished to set off its obligation to pay its newly subscribed shares against the debt that DCB AD now owed to it . Accordingly , on DATE ORG AD made entries in its accounts whereby it effected the required setoff .

Also , on DATE the applicant had made a contract with ORG AD whereby it had provided funds to the bank under the understanding that they were given as a hybrid capital instrument for the increase of the bank 's capital base . The applicant had transferred to DCB AD BGL CARDINAL pursuant to the contract .

On DATE ORG , exercising its powers under LAW of LAW , ordered ORG AD to cancel the abovementioned entries in its accounts and to return the amounts given by the applicant . It reasoned that the setoff had represented non - cash consideration for the shares and that it had been effected in breach of sections DATE CARDINAL of LAW and of section CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(CARDINAL ) of LAW . Further , ORG found that the contract whereby the applicant had provided a hybrid capital instrument to ORG DATE had not been approved by ORG , as required by section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of its Regulation No . CARDINAL on the capital adequacy of banks , and was thus invalid .

Meanwhile , on DATE ORG , acting on the joint motion of ORG and ORG DATE , decided to stay the proceedings under the bankruptcy petition against the bank . Also , on DATE ORG , finding that the previous special administrators ' mandate had expired , appointed new special administrators of DATE .

On DATE ORG revoked DCB DATE 's licence by reason of insolvency . It found that a check up of its assets and liabilities as of DATE indicated that the liabilities exceeded its assets by ORG CARDINAL . The decision stated that it was not subject to judicial review .

On an unspecified date in DATE ORG requested ORG to resume the proceedings for declaring ORG DATE bankrupt .

On DATE ORG held a hearing in chambers . DCB DATE was represented by attorneys retained by the special administrators appointed by ORG . The attorneys for ORG DATE argued that the bank 's assets exceeded its liabilities and that ORG 's determination in this respect had been erroneous . Also , ORG AD tried to commence an action for declaratory judgment to the effect that ORG 's decision for revoking the bank 's licence had been unlawful . The court rejected the action as inadmissible , holding that by LAW ORG 's decisions for revoking a bank 's licence were not subject to judicial review and that it was thus not competent to examine the action .

In a judgment of the same date ORG declared DCB DATE insolvent and bankrupt , terminated the powers of its bodies , appointed trustees in bankruptcy ( „ синдици “ ) ( the companies ORG and ORG ) , divested the bank of its property and ordered the sale of its assets . It held that whereas under ORG DATE it had had the power to independently ascertain whether a bank was indeed insolvent either because its liabilities exceeded it assets or because it could not discharge a undisputed debt which had fallen due , under the new Banks Act DATE it was precluded from verifying the existence of these prerequisites . According to section CARDINAL of the LAW , the court 's task was only to ascertain whether ORG 's bankruptcy petition complied with the requirements of sections CARDINAL ) and CARDINAL ) of the LAW , i.e. whether it was facially valid and indicated the grounds on which the bank 's licence had been revoked . In the case at hand ORG had revoked DCB DATE 's licence and had indicated the ground on which it had done that . Therefore its bankruptcy petition had to be allowed .

As the judgment was immediately enforceable , from that moment on the persons having the right to act on behalf of ORG AD were the courtappointed trustees .

Before the trustees had started performing their duties , the bank 's attorneys filed appeals against the judgment for declaring DCB DATE bankrupt and against the decision in which ORG had rejected the action for a declaratory judgment as inadmissible . However , once the trustees started performing their duties , they withdrew the powers of the attorneys and withdrew the appeals . Accordingly , in a decision of CARDINAL DATE a threemember panel of ORG discontinued the appeal proceedings and declared that ORG judgment had entered into force .

On DATE the applicant complained to the prosecution authorities about the actions of the vicegovernor of ORG who had signed ORG 's decision of CARDINAL DATE and had proposed the revoking DCB DATE 's licence on DATE . It argued that she had acted ultra vires with a view to causing prejudice to ORG DATE . The prosecution authorities opened criminal proceedings against the vicegovernor and on DATE charged her . However , on DATE ORG discontinued the proceedings , holding that the vicegovernor had acted lawfully and had not abused her office .

On an unspecified date in DATE the applicant requested ORG to replace the trustees . It argued , inter alia , that their actions had prejudiced the creditors of ORG DATE . In particular , the trustees had failed to collect a number of the bank 's receivables and had deposited MONEY ( “ USD ” ) of the bank 's money in a another bank which was experiencing financial difficulties .

On DATE ORG rejected the motion , holding that the applicant did not have standing to make such a request and that the trustee of a bankrupt bank could only be removed if BNB had struck its name off the register of bank trustees it was keeping . The applicant did not appeal against this decision .

On DATE ORG discharged ORG and ORG as trustees in bankruptcy . It appointed PERSON as the new trustee of ORG . The applicant did not specify whether this was done on its motion , on the motion of another creditor or of the court 's own motion . However , it appears that this was done because in DATE LAW was amended to provide that only natural persons , and not juridical persons , could be trustees in bankruptcy .

On DATE the applicant requested ORG to replace the new trustee . It argued , inter alia , that she had failed to collect a number of the bank 's receivables , that she had been squandering the bank 's assets , that she had deposited ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL,CARDINAL of the bank 's money in another bank which was experiencing financial difficulties and that she had made unnecessary expenses .

In a decision of DATE ORG rejected the request . It held that the trustee had not failed to perform her duties . In particular , she had commenced a large number of actions to recover the bank 's dues . The depositing of the USD CARDINAL,CARDINAL,CARDINAL had been done by the previous trustees . Finally , the trustee had been making DATE reports about the expenses she had been incurring . The court instructed the ORG to reduce to a minimum the number of attorneys she had retained to prosecute actions on the bank 's behalf . The applicant did not appeal against the decision .

On DATE the applicant requested ORG to strike PERSON out of its register of bank trustees in bankruptcy . It averred that she had deposited USD CARDINAL,CARDINAL,CARDINAL in another bank which had gone bankrupt . The expenses ( allegedly MONEY ( “ BGN ” ) ) she had incurred for administrating the bankruptcy estate – in particular , by retaining a high number of lawyers to prosecute cases on behalf of the bank – had been unreasonably high . Further , she had done nothing or very little to collect the bank 's dues and had kept the bank 's accounting books in a very poor manner .

BNB carried out an inspection in DATE and in a letter of DATE rejected the applicant 's request . As regards the deposit of ORG CARDINAL in another bank , ORG found it had been done by the previous trustees . Moreover , as of the date of the deposit the other bank had not experienced financial difficulties . At the time PERSON had been appointed , she had tried to withdraw the amount from the other bank , but had succeeded only partially . She had made a claim before the trustees of the other bank in respect of the part of the amount which had remained at the other bank at the time it had been declared bankrupt . As regards the fact that PERSON had commenced a large number of actions , the vast majority of those had been against debtors of ORG DATE and for the avoidance of transfers , i.e. for the benefit of the bankruptcy estate . The number of lawyers retained by the ORG had been minimal and the expenses , compared to those for the administration of the estates of other bankrupt banks , had been smaller . The overall expenses incurred by the ORG had not been ORG , as claimed by the applicant , but ORG DATE .

On DATE the applicant requested ORG to replace the trustee . It argued that she had improperly filed actions against ORG AD and that she had been squandering the bank 's assets .

On DATE the ORG filed objections against the request , submitting that it was inadmissible and unfounded . As regards the actions she had filed against DCB AD , those were actions seeking to avoid transfers effected by the bank prior to becoming bankrupt ; the court examining those actions had instructed the trustee to constitute the bank as a codefendant . The trustee further provided a detailed account of the expenses she had incurred .

In a decision of DATE ORG rejected the applicant 's request . It held that it was inadmissible , because a bank 's trustee in bankruptcy could only be removed by the court if he or she had been stuck off the register of bank trustees kept by BNB . Nevertheless , the court proceeded to examine the request on the merits and held that it was also unfounded . It found that in DATE the applicant had signalled ORG about alleged irregularities in the trustee 's activities and that ORG had carried out an inspection and had not found any wrongdoing on the part of the trustee . The court went on to state that the fact that the trustee had constituted DCB DATE as a codefendant in the actions she had filed was not improper ; on the contrary , it had been done pursuant to the court 's express instructions . The applicant 's contention that the ORG had squandered the bank 's assets was unsubstantiated . The ORG had provided a detailed account of the amounts she had expended . That account , as well as the results of ORG 's inspection of DATE , indicated that she had not spent large amounts , as averred by the applicant .

The applicant appealed to ORG .

In a decision of CARDINAL DATE ORG vacated the lower court 's decision and declared the applicant 's request inadmissible . It held that in proceedings for the bankruptcy of a bank the court could only remove the trustee if he or she had been struck off the register of bank trustees kept by BNB . Therefore ORG should have declared the request inadmissible and should not have examined its merits .

Despite an express request by ORG in a letter to the applicant of DATE , the applicant did not provide any information about the further course of these proceedings . However , the published caselaw of ORG ( определение № CARDINAL от CARDINAL ноември DATE г. по ч.гр.д. № CARDINAL/CARDINAL г. , ORG V г.о. , ORG CARDINAL/CARDINAL , № DATE , с. CARDINAL ) indicates that the applicant appealed to that court and that in a decision of DATE it quashed ORG decision and remitted the case with instructions to the lower court to examine the request on the merits . It held that the striking of a trustee off the register kept by ORG and the removal of the ORG pursuant to a request by the debtor or a creditor DATE such as the applicant – were completely distinct hypotheses . The fact that BNB could bring about the discharging of a trustee did not mean that a creditor could not request her removal if she did not perform her duties properly or imperilled the creditor 's interests through her actions .

Similarly , despite the above - mentioned express request by ORG , the applicant did not provide any information about the proceedings on remittal before ORG . Noting however that PERSON was not removed as trustee , the ORG concludes that apparently ORG examined the applicant 's request on the merits and found it to be unfounded .

On DATE the applicant requested ORG to annul certain actions of the trustee which it considered prejudicial to DCB DATE 's creditors . On DATE the judge in charge of the bankruptcy proceedings informed the applicant that he did not have the power to annul actions of the trustee .

On DATE some of ORG DATE 's assets were put on sale by the ORG , at a price fixed by experts appointed by ORG . The applicant submitted that it had tried to challenge that price as being too low , but that the courts examining its request had rejected it as inadmissible because they had considered that the experts ' valuation was not subject to judicial review and that a creditor of the bankrupt bank did not have standing to appeal against the fixing of the sale price . Despite an express request by ORG in a letter to the applicant of DATE , the applicant did not provide any further details , not did it submit any documents relating to these events .

On an unspecified date in DATE or DATE DCB DATE 's trustee in bankruptcy asked ORG for permission to sell the bank as a going concern .

In a decision of DATE ORG granted permission . On DATE the trustee entered into a contract with ORG ( “ ORG AD ” ) whereby it agreed to purchase ORG AD as a going concern . The contract provided that ORG would pay ORG for the bank and pay ORG CARDINAL to the bank 's fourth - tier creditors ( all previous tiers having been already paid off ) , which consisted solely of ORG ( which had indemnified all depositors of the bank and had subrogated itself in their claims ) . By an annex to the contract of DATE ORG agreed to pay the creditors ORG CARDINAL instead of BGN CARDINAL .

The ORG submitted the contract to ORG for approval . The court requested ORG to submit its observations on the contract . ORG submitted its observations on DATE . It maintained that ORG offer to buy DCB DATE was fully compliant with ORG and that ORG had enough funds to pay the creditors of the bankrupt bank .

In a decision made in chambers on DATE the court approved the contract , terminated the bankruptcy proceedings and struck DCB DATE from the register of companies . It held , inter alia , that the sale of ORG AD as a going concern would not prejudice its creditors ' interests and would not put them in a worse position than that which would have obtained in case the bank 's assets were sold apiece . The net worth of ORG , as assessed by experts appointed by the trustee with the assent of the court , was a negative value . The total value of its assets , as assessed by the same experts , was BGN CARDINAL . Since the price agreed by ORG was ORG CARDINAL , the creditors were in fact placed in a better position . Moreover , the creditors would receive their dues much faster ( within DATE after the sale had been approved by the court ) than if the bank 's assets were to be sold apiece . The assets which had been sold apiece thus far had generated proceeds amounting only to ORG GPE , whereas the aggregate of the creditors ' claims against ORG AD amounted to BGN CARDINAL .

As provided by section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW , the decision was not subject to appeal .

Under ORG DATE ( superseded on DATE by LAW ) BNB could put a bank under special supervision , if it found that the bank was at a risk of becoming insolvent ( section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) ) . By CARDINAL of the LAW , a bank was at such a risk when ( a ) its capital adequacy was below a certain minimal level or when ( b ) due to the state of its assets there was a risk that it could not pay its debts at maturity . When ORG placed a bank under special supervision , it could remove the members of its governing bodies from office and appoint special administrators with powers to act in their place ( section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) in limine and section CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(CARDINAL ) ) . It could also limit the bank 's activities and prohibit it from paying dividends or from disposing of its assets ( section CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(CARDINAL ) , ( CARDINAL ) and ( CARDINAL ) ) .

Paragraph CARDINAL of the transitional and concluding provisions of LAW provides that the regime of special supervision imposed on a bank under the repealed LAW DATE lapses if within DATE after the entry of the LAW into force ( i.e. CARDINAL DATE ) BNB does not revoke the bank 's licence .

Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(CARDINAL ) and ( CARDINAL)(CARDINAL ) of LAW allows in broad terms BNB to order a bank to remedy violations it has made of the LAW and of ORG 's regulations and other acts and directives .

Under section CARDINAL of LAW DATE BNB may , in certain circumstances ( e.g. when placing a bank under compulsory administration or revoking its licence ) appoint special administrators ( „ квестори “ ) . These special administrators act in place of the banks ' board of directors ( section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) ) , i.e. on behalf of the bank . They are appointed and dismissed by BNB ( section CARDINAL ) ) , it may give them directions ( section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) ) , and they are accountable to it ( section CARDINAL ) ) .

ORG mandatorily revokes the licence of a bank on the ground of insolvency when ( a ) the bank does not discharge for DATE a debt which has fallen due or ( b ) the total amount of the bank 's debts is greater than the total amount of its assets ( section CARDINAL ) of LAW ) . The value of the assets and of the debts of the bank is determined by ORG in accordance with supervisory requirements and rules prescribed in regulations issued by it ( section ORG ) ) .

When revoking a bank 's licence , ORG appoints special administrators if such have not been appointed before that ( section ORG ) ) . The administrators manage and represent the bank until the court appoints trustees in bankruptcy ( section CARDINAL ) ) . ORG 's decision to revoke a banking licence is immediately enforceable ( section CARDINAL ) ) . In derogation of the general rules of administrative procedure , ORG does not have to inform the bank about the opening of the procedure for revoking its licence , nor does it have to examine and take into account the bank 's explanations and objections , if any ( ibid . ) .

After revoking a bank 's licence on the ground of insolvency , ORG must mandatorily file with the competent court a petition for the opening of bankruptcy proceedings against the bank ( section ORG ) ) .

Whereas ORG 's decisions under ORG DATE were , without limitation , subject to review by ORG ( section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) and ( CARDINAL ) ) , LAW prohibits judicial review of a number of ORG 's decisions . Thus , coercive measures ordered by ORG under LAW of LAW are not subject to judicial review ( section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) ) ; neither are its decision to revoke a bank 's licence ( section CARDINAL ) ) , or to appoint or replace special administrators ( sections CARDINAL ) and CARDINAL ) ) .

A bank 's “ capital adequacy ” : the ratio between its “ capital base ” – defined as its primary , or tierone , capital ( including paid - up shares plus premiums and statutory and other reserves minus intangible assets , losses , and treasury shares DATE section CARDINAL of ORG 's Regulation No . CARDINAL on the capital adequacy of banks ) plus supplementary capital elements , or tiertwo capital ( including retained earnings , special reserves , hybrid capital instruments , subordinated debt , etc . – section CARDINAL of the Regulation ) DATE and its riskweighted assets and offbalancesheet items may not be PERCENT ( section CARDINAL ) of the Regulation ) . Hybrid capital instruments may be included in the tiertwo capital of a bank only after the approval of the vicegovernor of BNB ( section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the Regulation ) .

Before DATE bank bankruptcy was regulated by ORG DATE . From that date onward the newly adopted LAW DATE became applicable to such proceedings . [ On DATE the provisions of LAW DATE relating to bank bankruptcy were superseded by LAW ] The regime of bank bankruptcy set forth in LAW contained a number of special features . Only BNB , and not just any creditor or the bank itself , could file a petition for the opening of bankruptcy proceedings against a bank ( section GPE ) of LAW ) . ORG mandatorily filed such a petition after revoking a bank 's licence on the ground of insolvency ( section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) ) . The petition needed only specify the grounds for revoking the bank 's licence under LAW ) ( section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) ) . The petition was examined by the court in chambers ( section CARDINAL ) . There was no possibility for reorganisation of the bank ( section CARDINAL ) , it was divested of all its assets ( section CARDINAL ) ) , and , when allowing the petition , the court had to also immediately order the sale of the assets and the distribution of the proceeds to the bank 's creditors ( section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) ) . The court terminated the powers of the bank 's bodies ( general meeting of shareholders , board of directors , etc . ) ( section CARDINAL ) ) and appointed trustees in bankruptcy in whom these powers , including the right to represent the bank in court , vested ( section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) in conjunction with section CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(CARDINAL ) [ At present section CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(CARDINAL ) ] of LAW ) . The court could appoint trustees only from a pool of persons featuring on a list drawn up by LAW ) ) . LAW applied only insofar as LAW did not contain special rules and insofar as its provisions were compatible with the special features of bank bankruptcy ( section CARDINAL ) . Section CARDINAL of LAW , which appears to have been thus applicable , provides that the court 's judgment for declaring a debtor insolvent and for the opening of bankruptcy proceedings against it is immediately enforceable .

Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW provides that upon the motion of the debtor or any creditor the bankruptcy court may discharge the trustee if he or she does not perform his or her duties or imperils the creditor 's or the debtor 's interests through his or her actions .

Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW provides that the trustee is liable to indemnify the debtor and the creditors for all damage caused due to his or her fault .

Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW DATE provided that the bankruptcy court must discharge the trustee if he or she was struck off the list of bank trustees kept by BNB .

In NORP law there are CARDINAL methods for disposing of the assets of a bankrupt company in order to satisfy its creditors ' claims : ( a ) selling them apiece or ( b ) selling the company as a going concern , i.e. as an aggregate of assets and liabilities . Section CARDINALa of LAW DATE gave preference to the second method . It provided that the trustee of a bankrupt bank had to first try to sell it as a going concern . He or she had to opt for the other method and dispose of the bank 's assets apiece only if the sale as a going concern was not possible within DATE after all creditors ' claims had been filed and allowed or if that would place the bank 's creditors in a worse position .

A bankrupt bank could be sold only to another bank ( section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW ) . The buying bank had to pay directly to the creditors of the bankrupt bank by opening bank accounts in their names within DATE after the sale had been approved by the court ( section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) ) . The issue which creditors were to be thus paid off and which not was to be determined in the sale contract . The buying bank was liable to pay only those creditors whose claims it had agreed to pay off . All other creditor 's claims were extinguished ( section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) ) . The shareholders ' rights , including the right to a share of the remaining assets of the bank , if any , were likewise extinguished , unless the buying bank had agreed to pay to the shareholders as well ( section PERSON ) ) .

The procedure for selling a bankrupt bank as a going concern was as follows : the ORG requested the bankruptcy court to allow the sale of the bank through direct negotiations ( section PERSON ) ) . After receiving permission from the court , the trustee approached potential buyers and entered into a contract with them . He or she then submitted the contract for approval by the court . The court had to call for observations from ORG ( section ORG ) ) , and , after receiving them and verifying whether the sale did not contravene the law and did not prejudice the creditor 's interests ( section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) ) , approved it , terminated the bankruptcy proceedings and struck the bank off the register of companies . The court 's decisions were not subject to appeal ( section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) ) .


Lech Garlicki;Ledi Bianku;Nicolas Bratza;Päivi Hirvelä;Sverre Erik Jebens;Vincent A. De Gaetano

NORP The applicant , Mr PERSON , is an NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in GPE . He was represented by ORG , a firm of solicitors based in GPE . ORG ( “ the Government ” ) were represented by their Agent , PERSON , of ORG .

NORP By application to the Chief Electoral Officer for GPE dated DATE , the applicant sought inclusion in the electoral register for GPE . The applicant was at the time of the application a serving prisoner , detained in FAC Maghaberry . The application was made in view of the pending elections to ORG , to be held on DATE . The deadline for registration in order to vote in the elections of CARDINAL DATE was DATE . At the date of this deadline the applicant was serving sentences of imprisonment totalling DATE imposed in DATE and DATE .

NORP By letter dated CARDINAL DATE , the application was refused . The Chief Electoral Officer concluded that by virtue of sections CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the Representation of the People Act DATE ( as amended ) the applicant was legally incapable of voting as a result of his status as a convicted person currently detained ( see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) .

The applicant , together with another serving prisoner , lodged an application for judicial review of the decision of the Chief Electoral Officer . He sought various forms of relief , including a declaration that the disqualification on convicted prisoners voting contained in sections CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the DATE Act did not apply to the forthcoming or any future election to ORG ; a declaration that he was entitled to vote in the forthcoming and any future election to ORG ; damages for a breach of his rights under the Convention ; and a declaration that LAW Order CARDINAL ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) was not compatible with LAW No . CARDINAL and should not be applied to the forthcoming or any future election to ORG .

In the context of the judicial review proceedings , counsel for the ORG submitted that even if , in light of this ORG ’s judgment in ORG v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL ) [ ORG ] , no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , ORG CARDINALIX , the Government pursued the option of permitting some prisoners to vote depending on the length of their sentence , they were unlikely to propose that prisoners serving sentences as long as the applicant ’s should become entitled to vote while detained . It was further pointed out that the applicant had failed to submit his application to be enrolled on the electoral register by the deadline for participation in the elections of CARDINAL DATE .

On DATE , ORG of GPE dismissed the application for judicial review . PERSON considered that the judgment in ORG , cited above , gave a margin of appreciation to GPE in deciding how to ensure respect for the rights guaranteed by LAW No . CARDINAL . Accordingly , he concluded :

“ CARDINAL(iv ) . I consider that the [ GPE ] court has deliberately left the method of compliance in the hands of ORG subject to the overriding veto of the court ... Accordingly I see nothing intrinsically objectionable about the various options being explored by the Government proposals contained in the consultation paper of DATE which makes up its response to the ORG decision . The consequence of this is that not only is Mr PERSON [ Deputy Director , Rights and International Relations in ORG at ORG ] entitled to say ... that the Government is unlikely to propose that prisoners serving sentences as long as those of the applicants should become entitled to vote whilst detained , but I am left singularly unconvinced that the applicants are currently or will ever be able to lay claim to a right to vote . I reject the argument of Mr PERSON [ for the applicants ] that because a blanket prohibition on prisoners is incompatible with the Convention that somehow converts into the proposition that all prisoners are currently entitled to vote until the vacuum is filled . In my view that conforms neither with principle nor logic and certainly does not find any authority in ORG which expressly recognises that restraints on LAW are justifiable provided they pursue a legitimate aim and are proportionate . ”

He added :

“ Notwithstanding their knowledge since DATE that an election was to be in the near future , these proceedings were not launched until DATE at a time when the granting of the relief sought would have caused potentially the maximum confusion , disruption and waste of public money already incurred . This is particularly pertinent in the context of both applicants having failed even to apply to register to vote in time . These factors alone should extinguish any smouldering sense of injustice harboured by these applicants at this time . ”

The applicant was released from prison on DATE .

ORG dismissed the applicant ’s appeal on DATE .

On DATE ORG refused leave to appeal .

Section CARDINAL of the Representation of the People Act DATE ( “ the DATE LAW ) provides :

“ ( CARDINAL ) A convicted person during the time that he is detained in a penal institution in pursuance of his sentence ... is legally incapable of voting at any parliamentary or local election . ”

NORP The disqualification does not apply to persons imprisoned for contempt of court ( section CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(a ) ) or to those imprisoned only for default in , for example , paying a fine ( section CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(c ) ) .

Section CARDINAL of the CARDINAL Act provides :

“ ( CARDINAL ) A person is entitled to be registered in the register of parliamentary electors for any constituency or part of a constituency if on the relevant date he–

( a ) is resident in the constituency or that part of it ;

( b ) is not subject to any legal incapacity to vote ( age apart ) ;

( CARDINAL ) A person is entitled to be registered in the register of local government electors for any electoral area if on the relevant date he–

( a ) is resident in that area ;

ORG ( Elections ) Order DATE ( “ the DATE LAW ) provides as follows :

“ CARDINAL . A person is entitled to vote at an ORG election in a constituency if on DATE of the poll he would be entitled to vote as an elector at a local election in a district electoral area wholly or partly comprised in that constituency . ”

Section CARDINAL of LAW DATE ( “ LAW ” ) provides as follows :

“ ( CARDINAL ) So far as it is possible to do so , primary legislation and subordinate legislation must be read and given effect in a way which is compatible with the Convention rights .

( CARDINAL ) This section-

( a ) applies to primary legislation and subordinate legislation whenever enacted ;

Section CARDINAL of the LAW provides :

“ ( CARDINAL ) Subsection ( CARDINAL ) applies in any proceedings in which a court determines whether a provision of primary legislation is compatible with a Convention right .

( CARDINAL ) NORP If the court is satisfied that the provision is incompatible with a Convention right , it may make a declaration of that incompatibility .

Finally , section DATE ) of the LAW provides that it is unlawful for a public authority to act in a way which is incompatible with a LAW right . Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) clarifies that :

“ Subsection ( CARDINAL ) does not apply to an act if–

( a ) as the result of CARDINAL or more provisions of primary legislation , the authority could not have acted differently ; or

( b ) in the case of CARDINAL or more provisions of , or made under , primary legislation which can not be read or given effect in a way which is compatible with the Convention rights , the authority was acting so as to give effect to or enforce those provisions . ”

In PERSON v. PERSON SLT CARDINAL , ORG in GPE considered the refusal of ORG for GPE , GPE and GPE to enrol a convicted prisoner on the electoral register on the basis of sections CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the CARDINAL Act , in anticipation of elections to ORG . The Secretary of ORG conceded in the proceedings that in light of the judgment of this ORG in ORG , cited above , section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the DATE Act was incompatible with LAW No . CARDINAL to the LAW and that the appellant ’s rights under that LAW had been violated . He also accepted that for the purposes of LAW No . CARDINAL ORG was a legislature .

The Registration Appeal Court handed down its judgment on DATE . It declined to “ read down ” the electoral legislation pursuant to section CARDINAL of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) in order to allow serving prisoners to vote . However , it made a declaration of incompatibility in respect of section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

Further details of legal challenges brought by serving prisoners in the various jurisdictions of GPE are set out in the ORG ’s judgment in NORP and PERSON v. GPE , nos . CARDINAL and CARDINAL/CARDINAL , § § DATE , DATE .