The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

On DATE ORG ( PERSON ) instituted land consolidation proceedings ( PERSON ) involving the applicant 's property . The applicant did not appeal .

On DATE ORG issued the occupation and valuation schedule ( PERSON ) .

NORP By letter of CARDINAL DATE the applicant requested that his property be excluded from the consolidation proceedings .

By decision of CARDINAL DATE ORG notified the parties to the land consolidation proceedings that a valuation plan concerning the electric installations was held at their disposal at the office of the GPE municipality and could be consulted during DATE . The applicant appealed on DATE against this notification to ORG ( Landesagrarsenat ) . He submitted in particular that the occupation and valuation schedule had not been duly served on him . Moreover , he noted that his request to exclude his land from the consolidation proceedings had still not been dealt with . He repeated this request and claimed , in general terms , that he did not have any interest in the land consolidation at issue .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant 's request of CARDINAL DATE to exclude his property from the consolidation proceedings . It noted that an exclusion of property was not admissible , once the occupation and valuation schedule had become final . The applicant appealed against this decision , alleging that the occupation and valuation schedule had neither been served on him nor had it been duly published . Moreover , a new valuation would be required in the circumstances .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant 's appeal . It found that the occupation and valuation schedule had been served in accordance with the relevant procedural rules .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant 's appeal against the notification of CARDINAL DATE . It noted that the occupation and valuation schedule had become final . The additional valuation of electric installations had become necessary by a change in law and had been carried out correctly . Further it noted that the question whether a revision of the original occupation and valuation scheme was required was not the subject of the present appeal proceedings .

NORP The applicant filed complaints with ORG ( Verwaltungsgerichtshof ) against both decisions of ORG . He repeated in essence the arguments he had raised before that ORG . ORG received his complaints on DATE and DATE , respectively . Upon ORG request the applicant amended his complaint against ORG decision concerning the electric installations .

ORG filed observations with ORG on DATE and DATE , respectively .

On DATE ORG , having joined the applicant 's complaints , dismissed them . It confirmed ORG legal assessment .

On DATE ORG held a hearing concerning the additional valuation of electric installations . It issued a decision on this subject on DATE .

On DATE the applicant filed an application under LAW of ORG ) complaining that the proceedings , which were pending since DATE were still not terminated and that ORG had only held CARDINAL hearing since DATE .

ORG , on DATE , dismissed the application under LAW of the ORG as being inadmissible . It noted that such an application was only available where the authority had failed to decide on a specific application or on an appeal of a party . The applicant had not filed any specific application .

No consolidation scheme has been issued to date . Therefore , the proceedings are still pending .

Section CARDINAL of LAW ( Allgemeines Verwaltungsverfahrensgesetz ) deals with the administrative authorities ' duty to decide . So far as relevant , it reads as follows :

“ ( CARDINAL ) Subject to any contrary provision in the administrative regulations , the authorities must give a decision on applications by parties ... and appeals without unnecessary delay , and at DATE after the application or appeal has been lodged .

( CARDINAL ) If the decision is not served on the party within this time - limit , jurisdiction will be transferred to the competent superior authority upon the party 's written request ( PERSON ) . ... This request has to be refused by the competent superior authority if the delay was not caused by preponderant fault of the authority .

( CARDINAL ) The period for giving a decision by the superior authority runs from the date the request for transfer of jurisdiction was lodged with it . ”


ORG On DATE Miss PERSON started working as an auxiliary shorthand typist for ORG ( département of ORG ) . She was appointed as a trainee on DATE and given a permanent post on CARDINAL March DATE .

ORG In a decision of CARDINAL DATE the mayor of GPE ( " the mayor " ) granted a request by the applicant for DATE leave of absence for personal reasons from DATE .

ORG Miss PERSON applied for reinstatement with effect from DATE . On CARDINAL DATE she was informed that her application had been refused by the mayor .

On DATE she sought renewal of her leave of absence for DATE . The mayor granted her application in a decision of CARDINAL DATE .

ORG On DATE Miss PERSON applied for reinstatement on DATE . The mayor replied on DATE as follows :

As you are aware , reinstatement as of right is by way of appointment to one of the first CARDINAL posts falling vacant where the leave of absence has not exceeded DATE . The essential requirement , however , is that there should be a vacancy . As the posts of shorthand typist provided for in our establishment table are filled by permanent staff , it is not possible to reinstate you at present .

If the situation remains unchanged on DATE , you will be technically reinstated and will be on leave of absence without pay until another solution is found .

ORG On DATE Miss PERSON reapplied to the mayor for reinstatement . She argued that the regulations did not authorise him to " technically reinstate " her or to grant her a further DATE ’s leave of absence .

ORG On DATE the mayor ordered that Miss PERSON be " technically " reinstated and continue to be " on leave of absence without pay " .

ORG On DATE the applicant wrote to the mayor challenging the lawfulness of the measure taken and requesting her reinstatement and payment in full of her salary from DATE .

The mayor replied on DATE that reinstatement as of right was by way of appointment to CARDINAL of the first CARDINAL posts falling vacant and that in this instance CARDINAL appointments had been made to the same grade as the applicant .

In a letter of DATE Miss PERSON disputed the information given by the mayor . On DATE she made a further application for reinstatement .

On DATE the mayor told the applicant that if she considered her situation ( which , he said , was still the same ) unlawful , it was open to her to apply to the administrative court .

On DATE Miss PERSON applied for reinstatement on DATE . On CARDINAL March CARDINAL the mayor notified her of his refusal .

ORG On DATE the applicant sent the mayor the following letter :

Pursuant to your decision of DATE , you ‘ ORG reinstated me and you are aware that this situation is unlawful .

I therefore request

my actual reinstatement ; and

compensation in an amount corresponding to the salary I should have received since DATE . If you refuse my request , I shall bring proceedings in the administrative court to have the loss assessed in damages . ... "

On DATE the mayor made the following reply :

As there has been no change in the staff of your grade working for the ORG , I can only confirm what I said in my previous letters .

I have no objection to your bringing this case before the administrative court .

ORG On DATE Miss PERSON applied to ORG to have the mayor ’s decision confirming her " technical reinstatement " and her " leave of absence without pay " quashed and to obtain an order that he should pay her the salary she should have received from DATE .

ORG The mayor filed pleadings on DATE and DATE and on DATE and CARDINAL DATE . The applicant did likewise on DATE and CARDINAL DATE and on CARDINAL DATE .

ORG Following a hearing on DATE , the court delivered the following judgment on DATE :

With regard to Miss PERSON ’s technical reinstatement :

On the conditions laid down by the mayor of ORG Miss PERSON ’s reinstatement is a purely technical decision ; that being so , it is null and void . It is therefore necessary to set aside the decision of CARDINAL March CARDINAL in so far as it upholds the applicant ’s technical reinstatement .

With regard to Miss PERSON ’s right to reinstatement :

Under Article L. CARDINAL - CARDINAL of LAW as in force when the impugned decision was taken , ‘ A member of staff granted leave of absence at his own request shall be entitled to reinstatement by appointment to one of the first CARDINAL posts falling vacant where the leave has not exceeded CARDINAL years’ ...

The applicant claimed that CARDINAL posts she was suitably qualified for had fallen vacant and been filled during the period when she was requesting reinstatement and that CARDINAL posts had been created . The mayor of GPE asserted that , on the contrary , the posts provided for in the establishment table were filled and that no permanent staff had been recruited since DATE . That being so , the parties disagreed as to the facts . It is therefore necessary to order that further inquiries into the facts should be made , firstly to enable the mayor of GPE to produce all the documents necessary to determine the position since DATE regarding vacant posts and staff recruited in Miss PERSON ’s grade , and secondly so that the total salary the applicant would have received from DATE can be calculated .

ORG The applicant filed pleadings on DATE , DATE and CARDINAL DATE . The mayor did likewise on DATE and DATE .

ORG Through a member of parliament Miss PERSON asked the ombudsman to intervene and expedite the proceedings . The ombudsman replied on CARDINAL DATE that judgment had been given on DATE .

ORG This judgment was served on the applicant on DATE . The court rejected her remaining submissions on the following ground :

It is clear from an examination of the case file , and in particular of the table of posts of shorthand typist produced by the mayor of GPE , that CARDINAL posts are provided for in the budget , while CARDINAL posts are occupied by permanent staff , a number that has not changed since DATE . All the staff in question were taken on DATE , when Miss PERSON applied to be reinstated . The fact that the post Miss PERSON occupied before she was granted leave of absence is vacant has no bearing on the lawfulness of the contested decision . Under these circumstances the applicant is not justified in maintaining that the rights she derived from her priority entitlement to be taken on again following her leave of absence have been infringed . Miss PERSON therefore can not claim compensation corresponding to her total salary since DATE .

ORG On DATE Miss PERSON appealed against ORG CARDINAL judgments to the PERSON d’Etat . She filed a supplementary pleading on DATE .

ORG In a letter of CARDINAL DATE Miss PERSON enquired of the secretary of ORG of the ORG d’Etat about the proceedings . The secretary replied on CARDINAL DATE :

" ... the case file ... is currently in the hands of the lawyer for ORG for inspection and has been since DATE , for DATE .

As soon as he returns it , it will be sent to your lawyer for your reply , for the same length of time .

As soon as the written proceedings in preparation of the case for trial have been completed , I will submit your case file to the presiding judge . It is nevertheless likely that this case will not be heard until DATE at the earliest .

ORG filed a pleading on DATE , to which Miss PERSON replied on DATE .

ORG In a letter of CARDINAL DATE the applicant made further enquiries of the secretary about the proceedings . The secretary replied on DATE that , as soon as the preparation of the case for trial had been completed , he had submitted the case file to the presiding judge of the Third Section , who had allocated it to a reporting judge in DATE .

ORG filed a pleading on CARDINAL DATE .

ORG On DATE Miss PERSON sent the secretary a letter - to which she received no reply - expressing her concern at the time it was taking to deal with her case and asking if she should write to the presiding judge to make him aware that her situation called for an early judgment .

ORG The applicant ’s mother wrote to the secretary on DATE . She told him of the conflicting information her daughter had been given on the telephone by the registry

- the case file had apparently not yet been transferred to the Government Commissioner ( commissaire du gouvernement )

- and requested details of the proceedings and of what further could be done to speed them up .

The applicant ’s mother wrote again as follows on DATE after her daughter had received a copy of the latest pleading filed by ORG :

Given that preparation of the case for trial ended in DATE , [ my daughter ] can not understand why the opposing side should produce a further pleading and why this should be admitted to the case file when it had been stated that once the preparation of the case was terminated , no new document could be added .

I suppose that if the rules are to be applied , it would be simpler to withdraw this second pleading , which arrived undated DATE after termination of the preparation of the case , and for only the evidence already in the file to be submitted to the Government Commissioner appointed to study it .

ORG The PERSON d’Etat held a hearing on DATE and gave judgment on DATE . It dismissed the appeal as follows :

Firstly , under the ... provisions of Article L. CARDINAL - CARDINAL of LAW , the mayor was not bound to reinstate Miss PERSON until the third vacancy arising after the end of her leave of absence . It appears from the evidence that DATE and DATE CARDINAL vacancies arose that Miss PERSON was suitably qualified to fill . ... the mayor of GPE ’s decision of CARDINAL March DATE whereby he refused Miss ORG ’s application for reinstatement was therefore not in breach of the provisions of Article L. CARDINAL - CARDINAL of LAW .

It is clear from all the foregoing that Miss PERSON is not justified in maintaining that ORG , having ordered in a judgment of DATE that further inquiries into the facts should be made ( a measure which , contrary to what the applicant maintained , was not obstructive ) , was wrong in its judgment of CARDINAL DATE to refuse her application to quash the decision of CARDINAL March CARDINAL .

ORG The provisions of LAW that were applicable in the instant case

- they were repealed by PERSON no . CARDINAL - CARDINAL of DATE

- were the following :

" Leave of absence means that a member of staff is released from performing his normal duties and that , for the duration of such leave , his rights relating to promotion and retirement cease to accrue .

" Leave of absence shall be ordered in a decision by the mayor , either of his own motion or at the request of the person concerned . "

" Leave of absence may be granted at the request of a member of staff in the following circumstances only :

For personal reasons ; in this case the leave may not exceed DATE but shall be renewable for DATE .

" A member of staff granted leave of absence at his own request shall not be entitled to any remuneration .

" A member of staff granted leave of absence at his own request shall be entitled to reinstatement by way of appointment to one of the first CARDINAL posts falling vacant where the leave has not exceeded DATE . "

ORG A civil servant whose dismissal has been quashed as being unlawful is entitled to receive compensation for pecuniary damage , calculated on the basis of the salary lost ( PERSON d’Etat , DATE , ORG . CARDINAL ) .


Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial

András Sajó;Antonella Mularoni;Françoise Tulkens;Ireneu Cabral Barreto;Nona Tsotsoria;Vladimiro Zagrebelsky

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in Bag .

In DATE the applicant divorced her husband . The ex - spouses had an agreement about the placement of their son with the applicant . However , on DATE the ex - husband took the son with him on a trip and did not return him to the applicant . Despite several enforcement fines imposed on the father , the applicant ’s custody was restored only on DATE .

Meanwhile , on DATE the father introduced an action requesting custody of the child .

On DATE ORG , after having held several hearings and obtained the opinion of an expert , adopted a decision , changing the child ’s placement and granting custody to the father . On appeal , on DATE ORG quashed this decision .

In the resumed proceedings , on DATE ORG , after having held several hearings and obtained the opinion of an expert , again found for the father .

On DATE ORG upheld this decision and ordered the applicant to surrender the child to the father . This decision was served on the applicant ’s lawyer on DATE .


André Potocki;Angelika Nußberger;Ann Power-Forde;Dean Spielmann;Elisabet Fura;Ganna Yudkivska

The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in GPE . He was represented before the Court by Mr B. Gärde , a lawyer practising in GPE . ORG ( “ the Government ” ) were represented by their Agent , PERSON , of ORG .

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

The applicant obtained his medical licence in DATE and , since DATE , he has had his own private practice .

On DATE ORG , unit for regional supervision ( PERSON , GPE tillsynsenheten – hereafter “ the ORG ” ) in GPE reported the applicant to ORG ( Hälso- och sjukvårdens ansvarsnämnd – hereafter “ the Board ” ) and requested that his medical licence should be revoked or , in the alternative , that he should be subjected to a disciplinary sanction . It claimed that the documentation of his contact with patients was incomplete and that he had written medical certificates on uncertain medical bases and without having carried out thorough examinations . It had examined CARDINAL of the applicant ’s patient records and had found reason to criticise the procedure in CARDINAL of these . It therefore considered that he had not provided his patients with such professional and thorough care as was required by LAW på hälso- och sjukvårdens område , CARDINAL:CARDINAL ) .

The applicant contested the revocation of his medical licence , as he did not consider that he had been negligent in the exercise of his profession . However , he recognised that there was cause to criticise his documentation of contact with patients . Thus , in this respect , he left it to the ORG to decide whether he should be given a disciplinary sanction .

On DATE ORG decided to revoke the applicant ’s medical licence . It first noted that , on CARDINAL previous occasions in DATE , ORG had criticised the applicant ’s treatment methods as it had found that he did not follow recognised , conventional methods ( “ vetenskap och beprövad erfarenhet ” ) . As concerned the current CARDINAL cases where ORG had found cause for criticism , ORG considered them one at a time and found that each of them justified disciplinary sanctions . Moreover , in the ORG ’s view , the applicant ’s medical records of patients were very deficient and both the diagnoses and treatment of the patients had been made on the basis of insufficient examinations and tests . It further noted that in CARDINAL of the cases the applicant had repeatedly prescribed medication which was addictive ( sleeping pills ) to a man who clearly abused medication . Therefore , in conclusion , the ORG found that it was evident that the applicant ’s working methods were in sharp contrast to recognised , conventional methods and treatment within medicine and that his patient records were very deficient . Since he had shown such serious incompetence as a doctor , his medical licence had to be revoked .

The ORG ’s decision was immediately enforceable . Thus , since the applicant was no longer authorised to work at his private practice , he appealed against the decision to ORG ( länsrätten ) of GPE and also requested that it should not be enforceable until the court had examined his case . As from this stage of the proceedings , the applicant was represented by legal counsel .

On DATE ORG rejected the request . It considered that , on the basis of what had appeared from the case so far , there was no reason to stay the enforcement of the ORG ’s decision while the case was pending before it .

The applicant appealed against the decision to ORG ( kammarrätten ) in GPE , maintaining his request for interim measures . On DATE the court refused leave to appeal as did ORG ( ORG ) , on DATE , upon further appeal .

As the applicant was deprived of his livelihood , he renewed his request for interim measures to retain his medical licence while the appeal was pending before ORG . On DATE the court rejected the request and , upon appeal , ORG and ORG refused leave to appeal on DATE and DATE , respectively .

On DATE , after having held an oral hearing , ORG repealed the ORG ’s decision to revoke the applicant ’s licence but gave him a formal warning . It found that he had shown serious flaws in performing his professional duties but that , when making an overall assessment , these flaws were not of such a serious nature that his medical licence should be revoked . However , these failings were neither excusable nor negligible , for which reason he should receive a disciplinary sanction in the form of a formal warning . Consequently , the applicant ’s medical licence was returned to him and he could take up his work at his private practice again .

Both the applicant and ORG appealed against the judgment to ORG . The applicant requested that the formal warning should be removed whereas the ORG demanded that the ORG ’s decision be upheld and the applicant ’s medical licence be withdrawn .

On DATE , after having held an oral hearing , ORG upheld the lower court ’s judgment in full .

ORG and the applicant both appealed against the judgment to ORG , maintaining their respective claims .

On DATE ORG repealed the lower courts’ judgments and upheld the decision of the ORG to revoke the applicant ’s medical licence . It noted that he had made diagnoses without sufficient medical support and without considering other potential diagnoses . His treatments had not followed recognised , conventional methods and they had not been without risk for the patients . The court found that the lack of proper diagnoses and treatment had been systematic and deliberate and had remained unchanged despite previous criticism by ORG . It concluded that the applicant had shown such serious incompetence as a doctor that his medical licence had to be revoked .

In the meantime , in DATE , the applicant , represented by the same legal counsel as before the administrative courts , sued ORG , through the Chancellor of Justice ( NORP ) , for compensation because of the immediate revocation of his medical licence by ORG . He alleged that it had caused him substantial losses not to be able to work for DATE and he claimed compensation for pecuniary and non - pecuniary damage as well as for his costs in the national proceedings , in total FAC ( approximately EUR CARDINAL,CARDINAL ) . In his submissions , he claimed that the immediate revocation of his medical licence by ORG was in violation of LAW for several reasons , inter alia , that the ORG could not be considered an independent court and that , consequently , he had been deprived of access to a court before his licence was revoked . Moreover , the proceedings had not been fair , there had been no equality of arms and he had not been presumed innocent .

The Chancellor of ORG contested the claim . He accepted that LAW was applicable to the case but considered that the Board did fulfil the requirement of an independent court . However , he submitted that , even if this was not the case , the immediate decision by ORG had not breached LAW . In his view , the proceedings before the national courts had been fair and impartial .

On DATE ORG ( tingsrätten ) in GPE rejected the applicant ’s claim . In so far as concerned the applicant ’s complaints relating to the Convention , the ORG made the following assessment . On the issue of whether or not the ORG could be considered an independent court , it noted that ORG was an impartial body , established by law , and whose work was regulated by law , inter alia , by parts of the Code on Judicial Procedure ( ORG ) and LAW ( ORG , CARDINAL ) . This ensured that the rule of law was adhered to . Moreover , its chairman had to be a permanent judge and the CARDINAL other members had to have special knowledge in medicine and health care . ORG concluded that the ORG could be considered an independent court which had had jurisdiction to decide to revoke the applicant ’s medical licence . The court also observed that the applicant had had his case reviewed by a further CARDINAL judicial instances , including for his request for interim measures . He had consequently had access to court . In this respect , the court noted that the provision allowing ORG to revoke immediately a medical licence was a protective measure to ensure the safety and health of patients . As concerned the fairness of the proceedings , the court treated each of the applicant ’s specific complaints but concluded that he had been afforded full equality of arms during the entire proceedings and that there were no indications of a violation of LAW . In relation to his complaint under LAW , the court pointed out that it only related to criminal proceedings and thus was not applicable in the instant case . The court furthermore considered whether the revocation had been proportional to the aim pursued , namely to protect patients from harm and ensure the safety of their health , and found that this had indeed been a proportional measure . Lastly , ORG examined whether the applicant could be granted compensation under LAW ( Skadeståndslagen , CARDINAL:CARDINAL ) but concluded that there were no grounds for such compensation .

The applicant did not appeal against the judgment although he could have appealed to ORG ( hovrätten ) and further to ORG ( ORG domstolen ) . Both appellate courts required leave to appeal before considering a case on the merits .

LAW deals with the civil liability of the ORG . According to LAW of that chapter , acts or omissions by a public authority may give rise to an entitlement to compensation in the event of fault of negligence .

An individual who wants to claim compensation from the ORG may proceed in either of CARDINAL different ways : He or she may either petition the Chancellor of ORG in accordance with LAW on ORG against the State ( Förordningen om handläggning av skadeståndsanspråk mot staten , CARDINAL:CARDINAL ) , or bring a civil action against the ORG before a district court , with the possibility to appeal to a court of appeal and ORG . No appeal lies against a decision of the Chancellor of ORG . However , if the claim is rejected , the claimant still has the possibility to institute civil proceedings before the courts . In such proceedings , the ORG is represented by the Chancellor of ORG ( LAW [ GPE med instruktion för NORP , DATE ] ) .

In a judgment of DATE ( ORG DATE p. CARDINAL ) ORG dealt with a claim for damages brought by an individual against the NORP State , inter alia , on the basis of an alleged violation of LAW . The case concerned the excessive length of the criminal proceedings and ORG held that the plaintiff ’s right under LAW to have the criminal charges against him determined within a reasonable time had been violated . Based on this finding , and with reference , inter alia , to ORG and CARDINAL of the Convention and the ORG ’s case - law under these provisions , in particular the case of GPE v. GPE ( [ ORG ] , no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , ORG CARDINALXI ) , ORG concluded that the plaintiff was entitled to compensation under NORP law for both pecuniary and non - pecuniary damage . With respect to the level of compensation for non - pecuniary damage , ORG took note of the criteria established in the ORG ’s case - law stating that the ORG ’s practice constituted a natural point of departure in this regard .

In a decision of CARDINAL DATE ( ORG DATE p. CARDINAL ) , ORG held that the principle concerning a right to damages established in the above - mentioned case of DATE also applied with regard to the rights contained in LAW . ORG stated that the plaintiff ’s right to damages on account of a violation of Article CARDINAL should be assessed in the first place under LAW ( LAW no . CARDINAL:CARDINAL ) and LAW and Other Coercive Measures ( NORP om ersättning vid frihetsberövanden och andra tvångsåtgärder , CARDINAL:CARDINAL ) . To the extent necessary , the relevant provisions of domestic law should be interpreted in accordance with the LAW . If GPE ’s obligations under LAW could not be met by such an interpretation , the domestic courts should award compensation without the support of specific legal provisions . As concerned the determination of the level of compensation , ORG repeated that the ORG ’s case - law was a natural point of departure but also noted that account must be taken of the fact that different national conditions may lead to variations from CARDINAL country to another in what should be regarded as a reasonable level of compensation .

In a judgment of DATE ( ORG DATE p. CARDINAL ) , ORG held that the plaintiffs’ right to respect for their private life under LAW had been violated on the basis that a police decision on a medical examination of some of them had not been “ in accordance with the law ” . Having found that compensation for the violation could not be awarded directly on the basis of LAW , ORG held that there was no reason to limit the scope of application of the principle established in the above - mentioned cases of DATE and CARDINAL September CARDINAL to violations of Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the LAW . In view of this and with reference to , inter alia , LAW and the ORG ’s case - law under these ORG , ORG concluded that the plaintiffs should be awarded non - pecuniary damage for the violation of LAW . With regard to the levels of compensation , ORG concluded that they should not be too far removed from the levels which applied when awarding damages under LAW . Generally speaking these levels should , however , be compatible with the case - law of the Court . In the same case , ORG had also concluded , in a judgment dated DATE , that there had been a violation of Article CARDINAL and that an award for non - pecuniary damage should be made on the basis of the principle established in the case of DATE .

A further ORG judgment of CARDINAL DATE ( ORG DATE p. CARDINAL ) concerned a claim for damages against the NORP State on the basis of an alleged violation of LAW relating to the suicide of the LAW father while in detention . ORG concluded that the case revealed no violation of LAW . However , in its reasoning leading to this conclusion , ORG noted , inter alia , that according to the ORG ’s case - law there was a right to an effective remedy under LAW connected to the ORG ’s duty under the ORG to take measures to protect the lives of individuals in custody or who were otherwise deprived of their liberty , which should , in principle , include a possibility of obtaining compensation for damage . ORG referred in particular to the judgment in PERSON v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL , § CARDINAL , ECHR CARDINAL ) .

In DATE the ORG decided to set up a working group on tort liability and the ORG to study the current legal situation . In DATE the working group submitted its report ( PERSON , ORG CARDINAL:CARDINAL ) to the Government . In the report it is proposed that LAW be amended in order to allow natural and legal persons to obtain damages from the ORG or a municipality for violations of the LAW . Such an action against public authorities would be examined by a general court which would need first to establish that a right provided by the ORG has been violated . The aim of the proposal is to provide a legal basis for granting non - pecuniary damage arising from disregard of the LAW and to fulfil , together with the other already existing legal remedies , GPE ’s obligations under LAW .

In his comments on the above report , the Chancellor of ORG , on DATE , stated that , since the autumn of DATE following ORG case - law developments ( as set out above ) , he had dealt with a large number of requests from individuals for compensation on the basis of violations of the Convention . He estimated that he had dealt with CARDINAL cases over DATE . During this time he had also represented the NORP State in a number of cases before the civil courts concerning alleged violations of the Convention . A majority of the cases that he had dealt with had concerned non - pecuniary damage for excessive length of proceedings under LAW . Since DATE , he had received CARDINAL such complaints and in CARDINAL of them , he had found a violation and granted compensation . The level of compensation for non - pecuniary damage had been determined with reference to the ORG ’s case - law and varied CARDINAL and SEK CARDINAL ( approximately ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL and LAW ) . Furthermore , the Chancellor of ORG had dealt with a substantial number of cases ( CARDINAL ) concerning the registration of individuals in the register of ORG . These cases had concerned one or more of Articles CARDINAL , CARDINAL , DATE and DATE of the Convention . There had also been other individual cases relating to alleged violations of Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the LAW , among others .


The applicants , whose names appear in the appendix , are NORP nationals . They are represented before the ORG by Mr PERSON , a lawyer practising in ORG .

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

Until DATE the applicants lived in GPE , in the NORP district in GPE , where they own property . It is to be noted that the title deeds to the property that PERSON , PERSON and PERSON used in PERSON bear their ORG and ORG names .

In DATE security forces forcibly evacuated PERSON on account of disturbances in the region . They also destroyed the applicants’ property . The applicants and their families then moved to ORG where they currently live .

On DATE PERSON father filed a petition with the GPE office in GPE and requested redress for the damage he suffered and sought permission to return to their village .

On DATE PERSON father filed a petition with the Prime Minister ’s office requesting provided with government aid and asking the authorities to expropriate his property .

On DATE PERSON filed a petition with ORG requesting permission to return to his village and compensation for the damage he suffered .

On DATE the Governor ’s office in GPE sent a letter to PERSON father and informed him about the aid supplied by the GPE office in GPE . They further noted that there was no legal ground for expropriation of property .

On DATE PERSON filed a petition with the FAC Governor ’s office in GPE requesting redress for the damage he suffered and seeking permission to return to his village .

On DATE the applicants lodged petitions with ORG office in GPE complaining about the burning down of their house by security forces .

On DATE ORG sent a letter to the applicants stating that he had issued a decision of non - jurisdiction and had sent the case- files to ORG in Hozat . ORG further noted that the latter authority had decided not to conduct an investigation into the ORG allegations as the perpetrators of the alleged acts could not be identified .

Until DATE the applicants lived in GPE village , in the GPE district in GPE , where they own property . It is to be noted that GPE and PERSON did not submit any certificate to the ORG attesting their ownership of the property in ORG .

In DATE security forces forcibly evacuated ORG on account of disturbances in the region . They also destroyed the applicants’ property . The applicants and their families then moved to ORG where they currently live .

On an unspecified date the applicants lodged petitions with ORG office in GPE complaining about the burning down of their house by security forces .

On DATE ORG office issued a decision of non - jurisdiction and sent the case - files to ORG in GPE .

On DATE ORG in GPE decided not to conduct an investigation into the ORG allegations as the perpetrators of the alleged acts could not be identified .

On DATE and on DATE the headman of ORG village , PERSON , filed petitions with the President ’s office , ORG of ORG ) , the Prime Minister ’s office , the Presidency of ORG of GPE , ORG , the Governor ’s office in GPE , the GPE office in GPE and ORG office on behalf of the residents of ORG village and asked the aforementioned authorities to allow the residents to return to their village .

He further requested compensation for the damage they suffered . He received no response .

On DATE Cafer Toprak filed a petition with the District Governor ’s office in GPE requesting permission to return to his village .

On DATE the GPE office in GPE sent the following reply to him :

“ ... The struggle against terrorism in our region has been continuing intensively and positive result is being achieved .

Our government has been working on the solutions to the problems you have mentioned in your petition and you will be informed by the District Governor ’s office when it is possible to return to the villages ... ”

On an unspecified date PERSON , PERSON and PERSON filed petitions with the GPE office in GPE requesting permission to return to their village .

On DATE the District Governor ’s office in GPE sent the following reply to the applicants :

“ Your petition containing a request of permission to return to your village has been received by the District Governor ’s office and will be considered under the ‘ Return to Village and Rehabilitation Project’ . ”

Until DATE the applicants lived in GPE , in the GPE district in GPE , where they own property . It is to be noted that Ms. PERSON did not submit any certificate to the ORG attesting her ownership of the property in GPE .

In DATE security forces forcibly evacuated GPE on account of disturbances in the region . They also destroyed the applicants’ property . The applicants and their families then moved to ORG where they currently live .

On DATE and on CARDINAL DATE PERSON filed petitions with ORG ( İlçe PERSON ) in GPE and the Governor ’s office in GPE and requested loan for livestock .

On DATE Güllü Gülerdoğan and PERSON filed petitions with the Governor ’s office in GPE requesting permission to return to their village .

On DATE the Governor ’s office in GPE sent the following reply to the applicants :

“ Your petition containing a request of permission to return to your village has been considered by the District Governor ’s office . You will be informed about the developments by the headman ( muhtar ) of the village . ”

On DATE PERSON filed a petition with the GPE office in GPE requesting permission to return to his village .

On DATE the District Governor ’s office in GPE sent the following reply to the applicant :

On DATE and on DATE the headman of GPE , PERSON , filed petitions with the President ’s office , ORG of ORG ) , the Prime Minister ’s office , the Presidency of ORG of GPE , ORG , the Governor ’s office in GPE , the GPE office in GPE and ORG office on behalf of the residents of GPE and requested the aforementioned authorities to allow the residents to return to their village .

On an unspecified date the applicants filed petitions with ORG office in GPE requesting permission to return to their village .

On DATE the representative of the applicants informed the ORG that Mr NORP had died and his heirs , PERSON , PERSON , ORG and PERSON wish to pursue the application .

The investigation carried out by the authorities indicated that the applicants had left their villages of their own will . The security forces had not forced the applicants to leave their village .

The official records indicated that there was no obstacle preventing villagers from returning to their homes and possessions in their villages . Persons who had left their villages as a result of terrorism had already started returning and regaining their activities in their villages .

On DATE the Law on Compensation for Losses resulting from Terrorism and the Fight against Terrorism was passed by ORG and entered into force on DATE ( “ Compensation Law ” ) . That PERSON provided for a sufficient remedy capable of redressing the LAW grievances of persons who were denied access to their possessions in their villages .

In that connection Damage Assessment and Compensation Commissions were set up in QUANTITY provinces . Persons who had suffered damage as a result of terrorism or of measures taken by the authorities to combat terrorism could lodge an application with the relevant compensation commission claiming compensation .

The number of persons applying to these commissions had already attained CARDINAL . CARDINAL persons , whose applications were pending before the ORG , had also applied to the compensation commissions . Many villagers had already been awarded compensation for the damage they had sustained .

A description of the relevant domestic law can be found in the ORG ’s decision of PERSON v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , § § DATE , DATE ) and in its judgment of ORG and Others v. GPE ( nos . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , CARDINAL/CARDINAL and CARDINAL - CARDINAL/CARDINAL , § § DATE , ORG CARDINAL-VI ) .


CASE OF FRANCESCO SESSA v. ITALY [Extracts]

Remainder inadmissible;No violation of Article 9 - Freedom of thought conscience and religion (Article 9-1 - Manifest religion or belief)

András Sajó;Françoise Tulkens;Guido Raimondi;Helen Keller;Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

The applicant is NORP and a lawyer by profession . On DATE he appeared before the ORG investigating judge at a hearing concerning a request for the immediate production of evidence ( “ incidente probatorio ” ) in his capacity as representative of CARDINAL of the CARDINAL complainants in criminal proceedings against several banks . The investigating judge in charge of the case was prevented from sitting and his replacement invited the parties to choose CARDINAL dates for the adjourned hearing DATE either CARDINAL or DATE already identified by the investigating judge .

The applicant pointed out that both dates coincided with NORP religious holidays ( DATE and GPE respectively ) and stated that he would be unable to attend the adjourned hearing because of his religious obligations . He explained that he was a member of the GPE NORP community , and alleged a breach of sections CARDINAL and CARDINAL of Law no . CARDINAL of DATE governing relations between the ORG and ORG NORP communities .

The investigating judge set the hearing down for DATE .

DATE the applicant lodged an application with the investigating judge in charge of the case to have the hearing adjourned . On DATE , after examining the application , the judge decided to add it to the case file without ruling on it .

On DATE the applicant lodged a criminal complaint against the investigating judge in charge of the case and his replacement , alleging that they had breached section CARDINAL of Law no . CARDINAL of DATE . DATE he informed ORG about the complaint .

At the hearing of DATE , the investigating judge noted that the applicant was absent for “ personal reasons ” and asked the parties to express their views on the application for an adjournment made on DATE . The prosecution and counsel for the defendants objected to the application , arguing in particular that it was not based on any of the statutory grounds for adjournment . However , counsel for the other complainant supported the applicant ’s request .

NORP In an order issued the same day the investigating judge rejected the application for an adjournment . He noted at the outset that , under LAW of LAW , only the prosecution and counsel for the defendant were required to be present at hearings concerning the immediate production of evidence ; the presence of counsel for the complainant was optional . He went on to observe that LAW did not oblige the judge to adjourn a hearing where counsel for the complainant had legitimate reasons for being unable to appear . Lastly , he stressed that a large number of individuals were involved in the proceedings ( the defendants , the complainants , court - appointed experts and experts appointed by the parties ) and that , “ in view of the heavy workload of the office , which would [ have meant ] adjourning the hearing until DATE , the application , submitted by an individual with no legitimate reason to request an adjournment , ha[d ] to be rejected in accordance with the principle that cases should be heard within a reasonable time ” .

On DATE ORG informed the applicant that it was not competent to examine the matter since the applicant ’s complaints related to the exercise of judicial activity .

In the meantime , on DATE , the PERSON public prosecutor ’s office had requested that no further action be taken on the applicant ’s complaint . The applicant objected to this request on DATE .

On DATE the PERSON investigating judge made an order discontinuing the proceedings concerning the applicant ’s complaint , noting that the applicant had not objected to the request for no further action submitted by the public prosecutor ’s office .

On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law , complaining of the investigating judge ’s failure to take account of the objection he had lodged on DATE . ORG , observing that the failure to take the applicant ’s objection into account had probably been due to a registry error , set aside the order of DATE and referred the case back to ORG .

On DATE the applicant and the prosecution attended a hearing before the PERSON investigating judge . On DATE the latter issued an order discontinuing the proceedings . He noted that there was nothing in the case file to suggest that the investigating judge in charge of the case or the judge who had replaced him at the hearing of DATE had had any intention of infringing the applicant ’s right to practise his NORP faith freely or of offending the applicant ’s dignity on account of his religious faith .

Law no . CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE contains provisions governing relations between the ORG and ORG NORP communities . LAW the right to practise and manifest the NORP religion freely . Under section CARDINAL , GPE grants persons of NORP faith who so request the right to observe the Sabbath , in the context of flexible working arrangements and without prejudice to the requirements of the essential services provided for by the ORG legal system .

Section CARDINAL of Law no . CARDINAL states that DATE , GPE and other NORP religious holidays are to be treated in the same way as the Sabbath .

According to the fifth paragraph of LAW , manifestations of religious intolerance and prejudice are punishable by the penalties provided for in LAW CARDINAL of PERSON no . CARDINAL of DATE , which is the PERSON ratifying LAW of all Forms of Racial Discrimination . Under the latter provision , anyone who disseminates ideas based on superiority or on racial or ethnic hatred , or incites others to commit acts of racial , ethnic , national or religious discrimination , is liable to a prison sentence of DATE .

The first paragraph of LAW , which governs the procedure for the immediate production of evidence ( “ incidente probatorio ” ) reads as follows :

“ The hearing shall take place in private . The public prosecutor and counsel for the defendant shall be required to attend . Counsel for the injured party shall also have the option of attending . ”


CVEKLOVA AND OTHERS v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC

The applicants are :

PERSON , born in DATE and living in GPE ( no . GPE ) ;

Mr PERSON and PERSON , born DATE and DATE respectively , and living in GPE ( no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) ;

PERSON , born in DATE and residing in GPE , GPE , represented before the ORG by Mr PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE ( no . CARDINAL ) ;

PERSON , born in DATE and living in GPE ( no . CARDINAL ) ;

ORG , who was born in DATE and lived in GPE . She was represented by PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE ( no . CARDINAL ) . By a letter received at ORG on DATE the applicant ’s lawyer informed the ORG that on DATE the applicant had died and that her CARDINAL children wished to pursue the application in her stead ; and

PERSON , born in DATE and living in GPE ( no . CARDINAL ) .

They are NORP nationals . ORG ( “ the Government ” ) were represented by their Agent , Mr PERSON , from ORG .

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

In DATE an easement was established over the applicant ’s property in favour of her neighbour . As the latter had reconstructed his house so that it encroached on the applicant ’s land , on DATE , the applicant requested ORG ( okresní soud ) to order him to allow the officers of ORG entry onto his plot of land for a survey .

On DATE she lodged a new action seeking this time to clear the property .

On DATE ORG stayed the proceedings initiated by the applicant in DATE .

It appears that the applicant ’s action for the clearance of the property is currently pending before the national courts .

On DATE the applicants brought an action in ORG ( městský soud ) for recovery of property which they had been forced to sell in DATE . It appears that the proceedings are still pending before the national courts .

In DATE the applicant left the former GPE . On an unspecified date he acquired NORP citizenship . On CARDINAL DATE ORG ( okresní soud ) convicted the applicant in absentia of deserting the Republic , sentenced him to DATE years’ imprisonment and ordered the confiscation of all his property , including a plot of land in GPE .

On DATE the same court declared that , pursuant to LAW , the applicant ’s convictions and all ancillary decisions had been quashed with retrospective effect .

On DATE the applicant re - acquired NORP citizenship .

On DATE ORG ( PERSON ) abrogated the condition of permanent residence within the territory of GPE , laid down in LAW , for persons claiming restitution . On DATE the ORG adopted Act No . CARDINAL , which amended LAW , setting a new deadline for the lodging of restitution claims by the persons concerned , i.e. those who had not , until DATE , satisfied the permanent residence condition .

On DATE the applicant lodged an action for restitution of the land which ORG granted on DATE . In a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ORG ( krajský soud ) modified ORG judgment in that it dismissed the applicant ’s restitution action finding that on DATE , he had not satisfied the restitution requirements laid down by LAW . Actually , he was not a NORP citizen and did not reside permanently on the territory of GPE . The court held that the amendment of Act No . CARDINAL/CARDINAL did not concern the applicant ’s case .

On DATE ORG ( PERSON ) dismissed the applicant ’s appeal on points of law .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s constitutional appeal ( ústavní stížnost ) stating , inter alia , that on DATE ( expiry of the time - limit for introducing restitution claims under LAW ) , the applicant had not been a NORP citizen and that the new time - limit set up in Act No . CARDINAL/CARDINAL was not relevant in his case .

On DATE the applicant brought an action in the PERSON nad GPE ORG ( okresní soud ) , claiming damages for an injury he had sustained when working in uranium mines .

On DATE ORG stayed the proceedings following the applicant ’s withdrawal of his action filed on DATE . This decision became final on DATE .

On DATE the applicant was dismissed from her work following a breach of the rules of work discipline . On DATE she filed an action against her employer seeking to declare her dismissal null and void .

It appears that the proceedings are still pending before the NORP courts .

On DATE the applicant lodged an action for unjust enrichment against a private building company with the Prague CARDINAL ORG ( obvodní soud ) . It appears that the proceedings are still pending before the national courts .

The relevant domestic law and practice concerning remedies for the excessive length of judicial proceedings are stated in the ORG ’s decision in the case of PERSON v. GPE , no . MONEY ( dec . ) , § § CARDINAL - CARDINAL , DATE ) .


CASE OF TSIRLIS AND KOULOUMPAS v. GREECE

Violation of Art. 5-1;Violation of Art. 5-5;No violation of Art. 3;Not necessary to examine Art. 9;Not necessary to examine Art. 14+9;Not necessary to examine Art. 6-1;Not necessary to examine Art. 13;Pecuniary damage - financial award;Non-pecuniary damage - financial award;Costs and expenses partial award - domestic proceedings;Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings

ORG The applicants were born in DATE and live in GPE , ORG .

ORG On DATE Mr PERSON was appointed religious minister by ORG of the Christian Jehovah ’s Witnesses of GPE . He was given authority , inter alia , to perform wedding ceremonies between persons of that faith and to notify such weddings to the competent registry offices . By letter of CARDINAL DATE ORG notified the registry offices of LOC of his appointment .

ORG On DATE the applicant lodged an application with ORG ( " ORG " ) to be exempted from military service in accordance with section CARDINAL of Law no . DATE ( " the DATE Law " ) , which grants such a right to all ministers of " known religions " . On DATE ORG rejected the application on the ground that ORG Witnesses were not a " known religion " . The applicant immediately lodged an appeal with ORG at ORG for ORG ( " the Director for Recruitment " ) .

ORG While that appeal was pending , the applicant was ordered by ORG to report for duty at a military training centre in GPE on DATE . The applicant presented himself at the FAC centre , as ordered , but refused to join his unit , invoking his status as a minister of a " known religion " . He also refused to wear a military uniform as ordered by a military officer . He was arrested , charged with insubordination ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) and detained pending trial .

ORG On DATE the Director for Recruitment rejected the applicant ’s appeal against ORG decision , on the ground that GPE ’s Witnesses were not a " known religion " .

ORG On DATE ORG ( PERSON ) , composed of CARDINAL military judges and CARDINAL ordinary military officers , examined the criminal charges against the applicant . Mr PERSON claimed that he was innocent on the ground that he was a minister of a " known religion " exempted from military service . At the end of the hearing the President of the tribunal put the following question to its members :

" Is [ the applicant ] , who is a GPE ’s Witness , guilty of having refused to obey , while serving in the military , an order given by his commanding officer to perform a certain duty , namely collecting articles of clothing necessary for his training as an unarmed soldier , on the ground that the religious convictions of GPE ’s Witnesses did not permit him to do so ? "

The tribunal unanimously answered the question in the affirmative , found the applicant guilty of insubordination and sentenced him to CARDINAL years’ imprisonment , from which it deducted the period he had spent in detention pending trial .

ORG On DATE the applicant appealed against that decision to ORG ( PERSON ) .

ORG On DATE the applicant brought proceedings in ORG ( Symvoulio tis Epikratias ) to have the Director for Recruitment ’s decision of CARDINAL DATE quashed . He asked , among other things , to be treated like other religious ministers .

ORG On DATE the applicant ’s appeal came up for hearing before ORG , a court composed of CARDINAL military judges . The defence sought the applicant ’s acquittal or , alternatively , an adjournment of the hearing pending ORG decision on his administrative appeal . The defence also applied for the applicant ’s provisional release . The military court decided to adjourn the hearing to a date to be fixed by the prosecutor ( ORG ) , in order to enable the latter to produce a copy of the applicant ’s original application for an exemption and of ORG final decision on it . It further ruled that the applicant should not be provisionally released .

ORG On DATE the applicant requested ORG to order a stay of execution of the Director for Recruitment ’s decision refusing to exempt him from military service .

ORG On DATE the applicant ’s appeal came up again for hearing before ORG . In the meantime ORG had delivered judgment no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , in which the right of GPE ’s Witnesses ministers of religion to be exempted from military service had been expressly upheld ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . The prosecutor requested an adjournment of the hearing with a view to obtaining the opinion of the Director for Recruitment on the following matter :

" Is the accused under an obligation to perform military service in the light of judgment no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL of ORG , which quashed a decision of ORG at ORG for ORG , who had rejected an application for exemption from military service lodged by another accused person who was a religious minister of ORG of the Christian Jehovah ’s Witnesses ... ? "

ORG The prosecutor further submitted that the applicant should remain in custody . The defence agreed to the hearing being adjourned and considered that the question of the applicant ’s provisional release " should be left to the court ’s discretion " . The court granted the prosecution ’s application and ordered that the applicant should not be provisionally released .

ORG On DATE the applicant ’s appeal came up for hearing for the third time before ORG . A hearing had been fixed on DATE in the action the applicant had brought in ORG to have the Director for Recruitment ’s decision of DATE quashed .

ORG The prosecutor at ORG proposed adjourning the hearing of the applicant ’s criminal appeal pending ORG decision . He also submitted that the applicant should remain in custody . The defence considered that the first matter should be left to the court ’s discretion but made an application for the applicant ’s provisional release .

ORG The court decided to adjourn the hearing in order to obtain the opinion of ORG on the following question : " Was the accused exempted from the obligation to report for duty in the light of his purported status of religious minister ? " It further ordered that the applicant should remain in custody .

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

ORG On DATE a CARDINAL - member committee of ORG decided that in the circumstances there was no need to rule on the applicant ’s petition for a stay of execution of the Director for Recruitment ’s decision .

ORG On DATE ORG considered the applicant ’s appeal against ORG judgment of DATE . The issue before the court , as formulated by its President , was the following :

" Is [ the applicant ] , a member of the religious sect of ORG , guilty of having refused to obey , while serving in the military , an order given by his commanding officer to perform a certain duty , namely collecting articles of clothing necessary for his training as an unarmed soldier , on the ground that the religious convictions of ORG did not permit him to do so ? "

ORG Having heard the evidence and the parties’ submissions on the question of the applicant ’s guilt , the court withdrew for deliberations . After the deliberations the President announced the verdict . The applicant was acquitted , by CARDINAL votes to CARDINAL , on the ground that " there was no act " of insubordination . The dissenting judges considered that " the accused [ was ] not a religious minister " . The following order was attached to the court ’s verdict and read out together with it : " The ORG is under no obligation to compensate the applicant for his detention DATE and DATE , because his detention was due to his own gross negligence . "

ORG The applicant was immediately released and was provisionally discharged from the armed forces on the basis that he was a minister of religion .

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

ORG On DATE the applicant lodged an application with ORG ( " ORG " ) to be exempted from military service in accordance with section CARDINAL of the DATE Law . On DATE ORG rejected the application on the ground that ORG Witnesses were not a " known religion " . The applicant immediately lodged an appeal with ORG .

ORG While that appeal was pending , the applicant was ordered by ORG to report for duty at a military training centre in GPE on DATE . The applicant presented himself at the GPE centre , as ordered , but refused to join his unit , invoking his status as a minister of a " known religion " . He also refused to wear a military uniform as ordered by a military officer . He was arrested , charged with insubordination ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) and detained pending trial .

ORG On DATE the applicant brought proceedings in ORG to have the Director for Recruitment ’s decision of DATE quashed . He asked , among other things , to be treated like other religious ministers .

ORG On CARDINAL DATE ORG , composed of CARDINAL military judge and CARDINAL ordinary military officers , examined the criminal charges against the applicant . PERSON claimed that he was innocent on the ground that he was a minister of a " known religion " exempted from military service . At the end of the hearing the President of the tribunal put the following question to its members :

ORG On DATE the applicant appealed against that decision to ORG .

ORG On DATE the applicant ’s appeal came up for hearing before ORG . The defence sought the applicant ’s acquittal or , alternatively , an adjournment of the hearing pending ORG decision on his administrative appeal . The court decided to adjourn the hearing to a date to be fixed by the prosecutor , in order to enable the latter to produce copies of certain documents from ORG and ORG of ORG of GPE which had been relied on by the military authorities to refuse the applicant ’s application for exemption . The court further accepted the submission of both the prosecution and the defence that the applicant should not be provisionally released .

ORG The prosecutor further submitted that the applicant should remain in custody . The defence requested the applicant ’s provisional release . The court granted the prosecution ’s application and ordered that the applicant should not be provisionally released .

ORG On DATE the applicant ’s appeal came up for hearing for the third time before ORG . The prosecutor sought an adjournment of the hearing on the ground that ORG should give his opinion on the following matter : " Is the accused already exempted from the obligation to perform military service in view of the proceedings he has brought in ORG ? " He also submitted that the applicant should remain in custody . Despite the applicant ’s opposition , the court granted both applications .

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

ORG On DATE ORG considered the applicant ’s appeal against ORG judgment of CARDINAL DATE . The issue before the court , as formulated by its President , was the following :

" Is [ the applicant ] , a member of the religious sect of ORG , guilty of having refused to obey , while serving in the military , an order given by his commanding officer to perform a certain duty , that is to collects articles of clothing necessary for his training as an unarmed soldier , on the ground that the religious convictions of ORG did not permit him to do so ? "

ORG Having heard the evidence and the parties’ submissions on the question of the applicant ’s guilt , the court withdrew for deliberations . After the deliberations the President announced the verdict . The applicant was acquitted , by CARDINAL votes to CARDINAL , on the ground that " there was no act " of insubordination . The dissenting judges considered that " the accused [ was ] not a religious minister " . The following order was attached to the tribunal ’s verdict and read out together with it : " The ORG is under no obligation to compensate the applicant for his detention DATE and CARDINAL DATE , because his detention was due to his own gross negligence . "

ORG LAW no . DATE ( " LAW " ) exempts all ministers of " known religions " from military service . In application of this provision , priests of ORG obtain exemption without any difficulty .

ORG has repeatedly held that GPE ’s Witnesses are a " known religion " ( judgments nos . CARDINAL and CARDINAL , CARDINAL , GPE , DATE and CARDINAL and CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) . In its judgment no . DATE ORG expressly upheld the right of GPE ’s Witnesses ministers of religion to be exempted from military service .

ORG Article CARDINAL of LAW provides as follows :

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

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

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

ORG The relevant provisions of LAW read as follows :

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Alvina Gyulumyan;Egbert Myjer;Ineta Ziemele;Ján Šikuta;Josep Casadevall;Kristina Pardalos;Nona Tsotsoria

NORP The applicant , PERSON , is an NORP national , who was born in DATE and lives in the GPE . The President decided not to disclose the applicant ’s identity to the public ( Rule CARDINAL § CARDINAL ) . He is represented before the ORG by PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE .

ORG ( “ the Government ” ) are represented by their Deputy Agent , PERSON , of ORG .

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

On DATE , the applicant together with his spouse and their CARDINAL children , the latter born DATE , applied for asylum in the GPE . On unspecified dates , the applicant ’s spouse and children were granted asylum in the GPE . On DATE , a fourth child was born to the applicant and his wife .

On DATE the Minister for Immigration and Integration ( Minister PERSON ) , rejected the applicant ’s asylum request by holding LAW DATE LAW relating to ORG ( “ the DATE LAW ” ) against him . The Minister further decided , although the decision entailed that the applicant was no longer lawfully staying in the GPE and obliged to leave the country , that for the time being the applicant would not be expelled to GPE as it could not be excluded that , if returned to GPE , he would run a real risk of being subjected to treatment contrary to LAW .

On DATE the applicant filed an appeal against this decision with ORG ( rechtbank ) of GPE . In its judgment of DATE , ORG of The GPE sitting in GPE accepted the appeal , quashed the Minister ’s decision of DATE and ordered the Minister to take a fresh decision . Although it agreed with the Minister ’s decision and pertaining reasoning to hold LAW against the applicant , it also found – on the basis of rulings given on DATE and DATE by ORG ( Afdeling Bestuursrechtspraak ) of ORG ( PERSON ) and noting that the Minister had acknowledged that in GPE the applicant would be exposed to a risk of treatment proscribed by LAW that the Minister should also have examined whether the applicant had established that there was a sustained obstacle based on LAW for his expulsion to GPE . Consequently , the Minister ’s examination had been incomplete .

The applicant ’s subsequent appeal to ORG was rejected on DATE . It upheld the impugned judgment of CARDINAL DATE . No further appeal lay against this ruling .

On DATE , the applicant ’s spouse and their children were granted GPE citizenship .

On DATE , the Deputy Minister of Justice ( Staatssecretaris van Justitie ) DATE the successor to the Minister for Immigration and Integration – took a fresh decision on the applicant ’s asylum request . The Deputy Minister again decided to hold LAW against the applicant . As regards LAW , the Deputy Minister accepted that the applicant would run a real risk of being subjected to treatment prohibited in that provision if , given the current situation there , he were to be removed to GPE . However , this did not automatically imply that on this basis , the applicant should be granted a residence title as this would be contrary to LAW ) . This meant in the applicant ’s case that he was not eligible for admission to the GPE whilst no recourse would be had to the power to remove him to GPE . As regards the question whether the LAW obstacle for his removal was of a sustained nature , the Deputy Minister held that the term “ sustained ” was to be interpreted as entailing a situation in which the alien concerned could not for DATE be removed for reasons based on LAW without there being any prospects of a change in that situation within a not too long delay . If that were the case , and if resettlement in a third country – despite sufficient efforts to comply with the obligation to leave the GPE DATE was not possible and , in addition , the alien found him / herself in an exceptional situation in the GPE , there would be reason for the Deputy Minister to consider whether a continued withholding of a residence title was disproportionate . Noting that , at least until that moment , the applicant had been allowed to stay in the GPE , the Deputy Minister concluded that the applicant not yet found himself in a situation in which , for a great number of DATE , he could not be removed from the GPE for reasons based on LAW . In addition , the Deputy Minister decided to impose an exclusion order ( ongewenstverklaring ) on the applicant . As to the applicant ’s reliance on his right to respect for his family life within the meaning of LAW in the GPE with his spouse and their CARDINAL children , the Deputy Minister found that the exclusion order entailed an interference with the applicant ’s rights under this provision but that the general interest outweighed the applicant ’s personal interests . In this context the Deputy Minister considered , inter alia , that there was an objective obstacle standing in the way of family life being enjoyed in GPE , but that no objective obstacles had appeared for the enjoyment of the applicant ’s family life in a third country and that this was not altered by the fact that the applicant ’s spouse and children had become GPE nationals .

On DATE , the applicant filed an objection ( bezwaar ) with the Deputy Minister against the decision to impose an exclusion order . As this order is immediately enforceable and the objection not having suspensive effect , the applicant also filed a request with ORG of GPE for the issuance of a provisional measure , i.e. an injunction on his expulsion pending the objection proceedings . On DATE , the applicant also filed an appeal with ORG of The GPE against the decision to reject his asylum request .

On DATE , the provisional - measures judge ( voorzieningenrechter ) of ORG of The GPE sitting in GPE granted the applicant ’s request for an injunction on his expulsion pending the proceedings on his objection to the decision to impose an exclusion order on him .

On DATE the Deputy Minister rejected the applicant ’s objection of CARDINAL DATE . The Deputy Minister noted that , on the basis of the rulings of CARDINAL DATE and DATE , the decision to hold LAW against the applicant had become final and that for that reason an exclusion order could be imposed . In this connection , the Deputy Minister pointed out that GPE attached great importance to the premise that the GPE does not become a safe haven for persons in respect of whom there are strong suspicions that they have committed crimes referred to in LAW and that , in order to accomplish this , an exclusion order was imposed on persons against whom this provision had been held . As regards the question whether the LAW opposing the applicant ’s removal to GPE was of a sustained nature , the Deputy Minister held that the applicant did not find himself in a situation in which , for a great number of DATE , he could not be removed from the GPE for reasons based on LAW and , in this respect referred to a letter sent on DATE by the Minister and Deputy Minister of ORG to ORG ( ORG ) of ORG on the application of LAW , stating inter alia that the notion of “ a great number of years ” meant in principle a period of DATE . The Deputy Minister further considered that it had not been established that there were no prospects of change in the situation where Article CARDINAL opposed the applicant ’s removal to GPE , which country was undergoing a period of transition , comprising a complex reconciliation process which had the active support of the international community . The Deputy Minister lastly rejected the applicant ’s arguments based on his rights under LAW . As regards the question whether the applicant ’s family life could only be enjoyed in the GPE , the Deputy Minister accepted that , in the current circumstances , the applicant could not return to GPE but did not find it established that this family life could not be enjoyed in a third country . The Deputy Minister concluded that the interests of the applicant and those of his family were of insufficient weight to tip the balance in their favour .

On DATE , the applicant filed an appeal against this decision with ORG of The Hague . By judgment of DATE , that court , sitting in GPE , rejected the appeal . It held that , barring newly emerged facts or changed circumstances , the decision to hold LAW against the applicant had become final with the ruling given on DATE by ORG . Referring to the ORG ’s case - law , it reiterated that under “ newly emerged facts or changed circumstances ” was to be understood facts or circumstances having occurred after the initial decision , i.c . after DATE , and which could not and therefore should not have been submitted before that decision was taken and that , even if that condition was fulfilled , such facts or circumstances nevertheless did not warrant a revision of the judicial assessment if it was excluded from the outset that such new submissions or arguments could alter the initial decision . ORG did not find such newly emerged facts or changed circumstances in the applicant ’s submissions . It further noted that it was not in dispute that LAW had , as from the date of the applicant ’s asylum request and until the date of the impugned decision , uninterruptedly opposed the applicant ’s expulsion to GPE . Noting that DATE had elapsed between the filing of the asylum request and the taking of the impugned decision , it further accepted that the Deputy Minister did not have to determine the question whether the continued withholding of a residence title to the applicant was disproportionate . It agreed that DATE had elapsed at the time of its own examination , but held that its scope for review was limited to the impugned decision . If the applicant wished to obtain an examination of the proportionality of the continued withholding of a residence title , he should file a request for a regular residence permit together with a request for the lifting of the exclusion order . As regards the applicant ’s arguments under LAW , ORG held :

“ The appellant correctly points out that the existence of serious reasons for considering that he has committed offences as referred to in LAW does not offer the same degree of certitude about his culpability as a criminal conviction of such crimes . This does not alter the fact that the Deputy Minister ’s assumption , as accepted by ORG , is founded on the [ contents of the ] official country assessment report which , in the opinion of ORG , is carried by the underlying materials . As a general , the appellant has further exercised an important function under PERSON . In these circumstances , there exists a rather high degree of certainty that the appellant has committed the acts held against him which belong to the most serious crimes imaginable . In its ruling of DATE ( ORG [ National Jurisprudence Number – “ LJN ” ] ORG ) , ORG considered that a person against whom LAW has been held by the international community is regarded as a danger to ( international ) public order and public safety . In the ruling cited ORG found that the Deputy Minister , when considering that the aim of the exclusion order is to prevent that an alien against whom LAW has been held can obtain protection in the GPE DATE thereby rendering the GPE a host state for persons who have committed serious crimes DATE and to counter residence of that alien in the entire GPE territory , has on good grounds and with sufficient reasoning adopted the position that interference in the alien ’s family life is justified in the interest of public safety and security . ORG concludes that the fact that the appellant has not been criminally convicted does not mean that the LAW objection gives insufficient cause for interference in his right to family life .

When taking the impugned decision , the Deputy Minister proceeded on the basis of the existence of objective obstacles to family life being exercised in GPE . ORG sees no ground for holding that the Deputy Minister has incorrectly considered the interest of the appellant and his family to be of less weight than the interests served by the imposition of the exclusion order or that on this point the impugned decision lacks adequate reasoning . The appellant is indeed already for a long time involved in [ residency ] proceedings during which he has been allowed to stay in the GPE , but he has never held any residence title enabling him to exercise family life in the GPE . When the impugned decision was taken , his oldest child had come of age , whereas no special relationship of dependency between the appellant and this child has appeared . At that time , the other CARDINAL children were , respectively , CARDINAL , DATE . It has not appeared that , if need be , these children could not appeal to their mother and the oldest child for aid and assistance . Moreover , it can not be ignored that , for as long as the Deputy Minister considers that the appellant ’s expulsion to GPE is in breach of LAW and the appellant takes no concrete steps to meet the obligation placed on him – irrespective of the exclusion order – to leave the GPE by actively attempting to obtain admission to another country , the appellant will in fact remain with his wife and children . [ His claim ] that not a single other country is willing to admit the appellant does not , without more , have to be accepted by the Deputy Minister , the less so as the appellant ’s lawyer has stated during the hearing held on DATE that persons holding a higher rank than the applicant have been admitted to GPE and that the appellant is examining the possibilities of admission to that country . ORG concludes that the impugned decision does not violate LAW . ”

On DATE , the applicant filed an appeal against this judgment with ORG .

In a separate judgment , also given on DATE , ORG of The GPE sitting in GPE declared inadmissible the applicant ’s appeal against the Deputy Minister ’s decision of CARDINAL DATE to reject his asylum request . Referring to a ruling handed down by ORG on DATE ( PERSON [ Immigration Law Reports – “ JV ” ] CARDINAL ) , ORG held that the applicant did not have an interest in a determination of that appeal for as long as the exclusion order imposed on him had not been definitely lifted , as this order rendered him ineligible for any kind of residence title . Although a further appeal lay with ORG , there is no indication in the case file that the applicant has lodged such an appeal .

On DATE , ORG rejected the applicant ’s appeal of CARDINAL DATE and confirmed the judgment of ORG of The GPE relating to the imposition of the exclusion order . No further appeal lay against this ruling .

To date , the applicant has not been prosecuted for the offence defined in article CARDINAL of LAW ( GPE ) and he has not made any attempts to resettle in a third country .

Until DATE , the admission , residence and expulsion of aliens were regulated by LAW DATE ( PERSON ) . Further rules were laid down in LAW ( Vreemdelingenbesluit ) , the Regulation on Aliens ( Voorschrift Vreemdelingen ) and LAW DATE ( PERSON ) . On DATE , LAW DATE was replaced by LAW . On DATE , LAW , the Regulation on Aliens and LAW were replaced by new versions based on LAW . LAW ( PERSON ) applies to proceedings under LAW , unless indicated otherwise in this LAW .

Under LAW of LAW , an alien is eligible for a residence permit for the purpose of asylum if , inter alia ,

- he or she is a refugee within the meaning of the CARDINAL Refugee Convention , or

- he or she has established that he or she has well - founded reasons to assume that he or she will run a real risk of being subjected to torture or other cruel or degrading treatment or punishment if expelled to the country of origin .

If the exclusion clause under LAW of the CARDINAL ORG is held against an asylum seeker , the alien concerned loses any protection which might have been available under this LAW and , consequently , becomes ineligible for a residence permit for asylum under LAW of LAW ( article CARDINAL of LAW and LAW ) .

Under LAW , judicial review by ORG and ORG in administrative law appeal proceedings only addresses whether the executive authority concerned has exercised its administrative powers in a reasonable manner and , in the light of the interests at stake , could reasonably have taken the impugned decision ( marginale toetsing ) . Both before ORG and ORG it is possible to apply for a provisional measure ( voorlopige voorziening ) pending the outcome of the appeal proceedings .

Article CARDINAL of LAW DATE provides that a foreign national may be declared an undesirable alien , entailing the imposition of an exclusion order , on the ground , inter alia , that he or she poses a danger to public safety or national security and/or that it is in the interests of the international relations of the GPE . An exclusion order entails a ban on residing in or visiting the GPE .

An exclusion order , which is immediately enforceable , can be challenged in administrative law appeal proceedings under the terms of LAW . Such appeal proceedings do not have automatic suspensive effect .

Article CARDINAL of LAW ( GPE ) provides that an alien who stays in the GPE while he or she knows that an exclusion order has been imposed on him or her commits a criminal offence punishable by CARDINAL months’ imprisonment or a fine of CARDINAL CARDINAL,CARDINAL euros . In accordance with the discretionary powers held by the public prosecution service ( opportuniteitsbeginsel ) , it remains for that service to decide in each individual case and in line with the general policy rules defined by ORG ( College van procureursgeneraal ) whether to prosecute or not .

An exclusion order may be revoked , upon request , if the alien concerned has been residing outside the GPE for an uninterrupted period of DATE ( article DATE of LAW ) . Such revocation entitles the alien to seek readmission to GPE territory subject to the conditions that are applicable to every alien .

The implementation as from DATE of ORG Directive CARDINAL/CARDINAL/EC of DATE ( on common standards and procedures in Member GPE for returning illegally staying third - country nationals ) has no consequences in respect of persons on whom an exclusion order has been imposed which has obtained the force of res iudicata . Exclusion orders which are being challenged in administrative appeal proceedings or in respect of which a request for revocation has been filed may be replaced by an entry ban ( inreisverbod ) within the meaning of the Directive and a decision to that effect can be challenged in administrative appeal proceedings .

Pursuant to article CARDINAL of LAW , a decision rejecting an alien ’s request for admission to the GPE automatically has , amongst others , the following legal consequences :

- the alien is no longer lawfully residing in the GPE ;

- he / she is required to leave the GPE within DATE ;

- officials entrusted with the supervision of aliens are authorised DATE if the alien has not voluntarily left the GPE within the delay fixed for this purpose DATE to proceed with his / her effective removal from the GPE .

Under the preceding Aliens Act DATE , a separate decision was given in respect of each of these legal consequences which could each be challenged in distinct proceedings . This is no longer possible under LAW DATE and a negative decision on an admission request is therefore known as a so called “ multi - purpose decision ” ( meeromvattende beschikking ) .

Pursuant to the provisions of ORG ) , in force as from DATE , and article CARDINAL of LAW , an alien who does not have lawful residence in the GPE is not entitled to any benefits in kind , facilities and social security benefits issued by decision of an administrative authority . Derogation is possible if the benefits relate to education for minors , the provision of essential medical care ( i.e. prevention of life - threatening situations or loss of essential functions ) , the prevention of situations that would jeopardise public health of pose a risk for third parties ( for instance prevention of infectious diseases , or care related to pregnancy and childbirth ) or the provision of legal assistance to the alien concerned .

In a ruling of DATE ( PERSON ) , ORG considered that the decision to proceed with effective removal does not constitute an independent partial decision within the multi - purpose decision on a request for a residence permit , that the competence to proceed with effective removal is a legal effect ipso iure ( rechtsgevolg van rechtswege ) of the refusal of such a request , and that this competence is not of a discretionary nature . Although reiterating that in principle no further remedy lies against a multi - purpose decision as the lawfulness of its consequences has already been judicially determined in the administrative appeal proceedings challenging a refusal to admit the alien concerned , ORG also accepted that in certain exceptional circumstances , such as a relevant change of circumstances having occurred during the delay between the refusal of the admission request and an act aimed at effective removal ( daadwerkelijke uitzettingshandeling ) , an objection ( bezwaar ) and subsequent appeal ( beroep ) may be filed against an act aimed at effective removal . Under the terms of article CARDINAL of LAW , such an act can be equated with a formal decision within the meaning of LAW which can be challenged in separate administrative appeal proceedings .

A refusal on the basis of LAW of the CARDINAL Refugee Convention to grant an asylum - related residence permit does not necessarily imply that the alien concerned will be effectively removed to his or her country of origin if that would be in breach of LAW .

In CARDINAL rulings handed down on , respectively , CARDINAL and DATE ( nos . CARDINAL/CARDINAL and CARDINAL ) , ORG of ORG noted that , according to article CARDINAL § CARDINAL of LAW , a refusal to grant asylum entailed that the person concerned should leave the GPE voluntarily , failing which he or she could be expelled . It accepted that an alien – who was denied entry pursuant to LAW but who could not be expelled to his or her country of origin on the basis of a risk of being subjected to treatment in breach of LAW can be denied a residence permit . It did however underline the legislator ’s apparent wish to limit the size of this group as much as possible . Where an asylum seeker is able to demonstrate that LAW constitutes a sustained obstacle to his or her expulsion to the country of origin , , the immigration authorities had not dealt with the question whether the expulsion of the persons concerned would be in breach of LAW , as they had first examined whether and concluded that the exclusion clause of LAW applied . ORG concluded that , therefore , the immigration authorities’ examination of these cases had been incomplete .

These rulings resulted in an amendment to the relevant rules . Where it has been established that a person , for reasons based on LAW , can not be expelled to his or her country of origin but who , pursuant to LAW , is ineligible for any kind of residence permit , no act aimed at effective removal will be undertaken , at least for as long as these reasons exist . However , no residence title will be issued to the alien concerned who remains under the obligation to leave the GPE at his or her own motion . It further remains possible to proceed with his or her effective removal as soon as this no longer entails a risk of treatment contrary to LAW in the country of origin or to proceed with removal to a third ORG willing to accept the person concerned .

Eligibility for an eventual temporary regular residence permit may arise when the obstacle based on LAW return to his / her country of origin is of a sustained nature . In practice , such a situation may arise after a period of unlawful residence in the GPE of the alien concerned for DATE whilst Article CARDINAL continues to stand in the way of removal to his / her country of origin and without any prospect of change in that situation in the foreseeable future , and where the alien concerned has demonstrated that despite his / her best efforts there is no possibility for him / her to relocate to a third country , and where the continued withholding of a residence permit would be disproportional .

Article CARDINAL of the DATE LAW , as amended by LAW of DATE provides as follows :

“ The provisions of this Convention shall not apply to any person with respect to whom there are serious reasons for considering that :

( a ) he has committed a crime against peace , a war crime , or a crime against humanity , as defined in the international instruments drawn up to make provision in respect of such crimes ;

( b ) he has committed a serious non - political crime outside the country of refuge prior to his admission to that country as a refugee ;

( c ) he has been guilty of acts contrary to the purposes and principles of ORG . ”