Remainder inadmissible;No violation of Art. 11

Ganna Yudkivska;Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre;Karel Jungwiert;Mark Villiger;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Peer Lorenzen;Rait Maruste

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in LANGUAGE .

In DATE the applicant began working as a boiler engine operator at Rivneteplokomunenergo , a municipal enterprise responsible for maintaining central heating in NORP . In DATE a number of employees of GPE , including the applicant , were transferred to GPE , a new municipal heating provider founded by ORG . Subsequently , PERSON ceased its activities , was declared bankrupt and liquidated .

Before DATE the applicant 's work performance was generally positive . On DATE she successfully passed tests on work safety when operating boilers .

According to the applicant , she and many of her colleagues had not received the salary due to them for the period of DATE during which they had worked at GPE . In DATE a number of the GPE employees met to discuss possible solutions to that problem . They agreed to form a trade union at GPE and to organise a picket . Subsequently , the applicant discontinued her membership of a trade union which had existed at GPE since DATE and informed the management of the company that a new trade union had been established by CARDINAL employees of GPE .

According to the ORG , the employees of GPE did not form a new trade union .

On DATE the applicant and CARDINAL other persons , allegedly acting on behalf of the GPE staff , gave a written notice to the Mayor of NORP which read as follows :

“ We , employees of GPE , inform you that at TIME on DATE [ we ] will picket the management of GPE , which is located at ... [ for the reason of ] non - payment of salary from DATE . ”

On an unspecified date ORG included the information about the picket in its register .

On DATE an inspection party comprising several colleagues of the applicant , including her direct supervisor and the deputy director of GPE , visited various boiler rooms , CARDINAL of which the applicant worked in , in order to check compliance with safety instructions . In relation to the applicant 's room , the inspectors noted that certain pieces of the boiler equipment were broken or otherwise not functioning , that such malfunctioning had not been recorded in a special log kept by boiler operators , that certain parts of boiler equipment were not in place , and that there were unauthorised objects on the boiler and in the room . They concluded that the applicant did not comply with the relevant safety instructions . On those grounds , the management issued a reprimand to the applicant on DATE .

On DATE the applicant and CARDINAL other persons took part in a picket in front of GPE 's main office . They expressed concerns that the management of GPE did not ensure timely payment of salaries and that the director had misappropriated company funds .

On DATE , the applicant was required to be at work at TIME but came to work at TIME The applicant 's direct supervisor drew up a report concerning the applicant 's TIME absence from work , noting that because of her absence the applicant 's colleague had had to work for TIME after the latter 's TIME shift .

On DATE GPE lodged a claim against the applicant and PERSON with ORG , asking the court to rule that the picket on DATE , which the company termed a strike , had been unlawful . GPE submitted that the strike had lasted for TIME , that CARDINAL persons had taken part in it , and that CARDINAL persons , including the applicant , had informed it of their participation in the strike by way of a written notice dated DATE . It alleged that the persons taking part in the strike had not been authorised to represent the interests of staff and that the demands of the strikers had not been approved by the staff or provided to the management in advance . A copy of the notice of CARDINAL DATE was joined to the claim .

The parties did not provide information concerning the outcome of GPE 's claim .

On DATE the applicant was dismissed from work for systematic breach of her duties of employment ( LAW of LAW ) .

On DATE the applicant instituted proceedings in ORG seeking reinstatement in her position at GPE and recovery of salary arrears . She argued that her dismissal had been unlawful and unfounded , and that the real reason for it had been the labour dispute between GPE 's management and staff concerning non - payment of salary arrears .

In the course of the court hearings concerning her case , the applicant stated that she had not been responsible for the issues discovered at her workplace on DATE , that she had been absent from work on DATE because she had participated in the picket , of which the local authorities had been duly informed , and that prior to the picket she had arranged with her colleague PERSON that he would replace her on DATE . The applicant acknowledged that she had not informed her direct supervisor of her absence in advance .

NORP The representatives of GPE denied that there had been a dispute between the applicant and the company 's management and reiterated that the applicant had been dismissed for systematic breach of her duties of employment , in particular because of her failure to ensure the safe working conditions in the boiler room on DATE and because of her unauthorised absence from work on DATE .

On DATE the court rejected the applicant 's claim , finding that she had committed serious violations of work regulations during the short period of time she had worked at GPE . In particular , it noted that , according to the statements of the applicant 's colleagues obtained during the court hearings and the documents submitted by GPE , the applicant had been responsible for the safety - related issues discovered on DATE and that she had been absent from work for TIME on DATE without informing management and her direct supervisor in advance . On these grounds , the court concluded that the applicant had been lawfully dismissed pursuant to LAW .

NORP The court also held that the applicant 's submissions concerning a labour dispute between the management and staff were unsubstantiated , as GPE was not responsible for the non - payment of salary arrears due to the applicant for the period before she left PERSON in DATE .

The applicant appealed against the judgment of the first - instance court and contested its findings of fact . She also stated that the management had been informed in advance of her participation in the picket on DATE , as on CARDINAL DATE she had submitted a written notice to the local authorities .

On DATE ORG quashed the judgment of DATE and remitted the case for fresh consideration . ORG disagreed that the applicant 's case concerned systematic breaches of her employment duties .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant 's claim on the same grounds as those given in its judgment of CARDINAL JuneCARDINAL .

By decisions of DATE and CARDINAL DATE , ORG and ORG of GPE , respectively , dismissed the applicant 's appeals as unsubstantiated and upheld the findings of the firstinstance court .

In its decision of DATE , ORG noted that the applicant 's allegation that she had been dismissed as a result of her participation in the picket on DATE was unsubstantiated .

The relevant provisions of the LAW read as follows :

“ Employees have the right to strike in order to protect their economic and social interests .

The procedure for exercising the right to strike shall be established by law , taking into account the need to ensure national security , the protection of health , and the rights and freedoms of other persons .

No one shall be forced to participate or to not participate in a strike .

A strike may only be prohibited on the basis of law . ”

The relevant extracts from LOC read as follows :

“ A labour contract of indefinite duration ... may be discontinued by [ an employer ] in the following cases :

( CARDINAL ) NORP systematic and unjustified failure by an employee to fulfil his duties under the labour contract or staff regulations , if there were earlier disciplinary or public sanctions imposed on him ... ”

“ If no new disciplinary sanction is imposed on an employee within DATE of the imposition of a [ previous ] disciplinary sanction , he is considered to have not been subjected to a disciplinary sanction ... ”

The relevant extracts from the LAW read as follows :

“ Parties to a collective labour dispute are :

at an occupational level – employees ( certain categories of employees ) ... or a trade union , or another organisation authorised by employees [ to represent their interests ] and the owner of an enterprise ... or [ the employer 's ] representative .

A body authorised by employees to represent [ their interests ] shall be the only authorised representative of employees during the time such a dispute exists . ”

“ A strike is a temporary , collective and voluntary cessation of work by employees ( non - appearance at work , breach of labour duties ) ... with the aim of resolution of a collective labour dispute .

Striking shall be an extreme means of resolution of a collective labour dispute ( when all other possibilities [ of such resolution ] have been exhausted ) if [ the employer ] refuses to allow the claims of employees or of a body authorised by them , or of a trade union , or of an association of trade unions or of a body authorised by them . ”

“ Pursuant to Article CARDINAL of the LAW of GPE employees have the right to strike in order to protect their economic and social interests .

The procedure for exercising the right to strike is established by this LAW .

A strike may be commenced if conciliatory procedures have not led to the settlement of a collective labour dispute or if [ the employer ] avoids conciliatory procedures or does not comply with an agreement reached in the course of the resolution of a collective labour dispute . ”

“ A decision to announce a strike at an enterprise shall be taken by the majority of employees at a general assembly ( conference ) of employees or by CARDINAL of delegates to the conference ... upon a request of a trade union or another association of employees , authorised , in accordance with section QUANTITY , to represent the interests of employees . Minutes must be drawn up reflecting such a decision .

A body ( person ) leading a strike shall inform [ the employer ] DATE before the commencement of a strike , or DATE if the decision to strike concerns a non - stop work process .

The owner or his representative shall inform , as soon as possible , suppliers , consumers , transport organisations , and other interested enterprises ... about the employees ' decision to announce a strike .

A body ( person ) leading a strike shall determine [ the place of the strike ] in agreement with the owner or his representative .

If an assembly , meeting , or a picket takes place outside the enterprise , the body ( person ) leading the strike shall inform the local authority DATE before it takes place . ”

“ An application by [ the employer ] seeking to have a strike declared unlawful shall be considered by a court .

[ It ] must be considered by a court ... within DATE .

A court 's judgment declaring a strike unlawful obliges persons taking part in the strike to adopt a decision discontinuing or cancelling the announced strike , and [ it obliges ] employees [ to return to work ] no later than DATE after the body ( person ) leading the strike is served with a copy of the court 's judgment .

“ Employees ' participation in a strike , with the exception of strikes declared unlawful by a court , shall not be considered as a violation of work discipline and may not serve as a ground for disciplinary action ... ”

“ Organisation of , or participation in , a strike declared unlawful by a court shall constitute a violation of work discipline .

Employees shall not be remunerated for the time during which they take part in a strike .

The time during which an employee takes part in a strike declared unlawful by a court shall not be included in the [ period of his ] general and uninterrupted length of service . ”

The relevant extracts from ORG read as follows :

“ CARDINAL . An employee may be dismissed pursuant to LAW [ of LAW ] for an offence committed at work only after disciplinary or public sanctions for unjustified breach of his duties under the labour contract or staff regulations have been imposed on him .

In such cases , only the disciplinary sanctions which are envisaged by law and are still in force ... ( Article CARDINAL [ of LAW ] ) shall be taken into account ... ”


Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Non-pecuniary damage - award

Corneliu Bîrsan;Egbert Myjer;Ineta Ziemele;Ján Šikuta;Josep Casadevall;Kristina Pardalos;Nona Tsotsoria

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in PERSON parish in GPE .

On DATE the applicant was placed in cell no . CARDINAL in a remand wing of FAC .

On DATE ORG ( Valmieras rajona tiesa ) convicted the applicant of resistance to a public official and sentenced him to CARDINAL years’ imprisonment but suspended the sentence . It appears that no appeal was lodged against this judgment .

On DATE , the court ordered the applicant ’s release .

According to the applicant , the cell where he was placed together with other detainees had been very poorly lit and poorly ventilated . The toilets had not been separated from the living area and had emitted a foul smell that had lingered in the air . Detainees had thus been forced to eat their meals in close proximity to the toilets . The applicant also alleged that the cell had been overpopulated , each detainee having had less than the domestic standard of QUANTITY m of living space per male adult detainee .

The Government disagreed with the applicant ’s version of facts . They noted that cell no . CARDINAL had had artificial and natural light and a ventilation system and they submitted that the toilet area in the cell had been separated off with a screen . The Government submitted that cell no . CARDINAL had measured QUANTITY m. and had accommodated CARDINAL detainees at a time , including the applicant .

In addition , the applicant contended that he had not received any personal hygiene products , save for CARDINAL of a bar of laundry soap . He had not been provided with toilet soap , a toothbrush , toothpaste and toilet paper , in violation of domestic law ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

The Government did not deny that the applicant had not been provided with these products .

On an unspecified date in DATE the applicant had received CARDINAL g of laundry soap , CARDINAL toothbrush , QUANTITY of toothpaste and QUANTITY roll of toilet paper .

On DATE , upon the applicant ’s complaint addressed to the prosecutor ’s office , ORG ( PERSON vietu pārvalde ) informed him that the prison lacked the financial resources to provide him with the personal hygiene products as laid down in ORG no . CARDINAL ( DATE ) .

On DATE the ORG administration confirmed that there were no financial resources to provide the relevant personal hygiene products , save for CARDINAL g bar of laundry soap per month .

On DATE ORG replied to the applicant in general terms that they had found during their onsite visits that penal institutions did not comply with many legal requirements . They noted , among other things , that they had drawn the attention of the relevant domestic authorities in DATE to insufficient financial resources having been allocated to the purchase of personal hygiene products . Finally , the applicant was informed of his right to submit an individual petition to the ORG .

Prior to DATE , ORG for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment ( “ the ORG ” ) had not visited FAC , where the applicant was placed during his pre - trial detention .

However , during its ad hoc visit from CARDINAL to CARDINAL DATE to several police headquarters ( in GPE , PERSON and GPE ) and prisons ( in Rīga and PERSON ) it noted that detainees and prisoners were not provided with basic personal hygiene products and recommended that immediate steps be taken to ensure that all detainees and prisoners be provided with adequate quantities of essential personal hygiene products ( see paragraphs CARDINAL of the relevant report : ORG ( DATE ) CARDINAL ) . The ORG also found that toilets were not adequately partitioned off in a number of cells .

In its response , ORG ( see the relevant document : ORG ( DATE ) CARDINAL ) noted that due to a lack of funding it was not possible to fully comply with the ORG ’s recommendations . The Government noted that prisoners could purchase the necessary products in a prison shop . At the same time , they noted that prison authorities used humanitarian aid to help prisoners who did not have sufficient financial means .

ORG , adopted on DATE , are recommendations of ORG to member ORG as to the minimum standards to be applied in prisons . States are encouraged to be guided in legislation and policies by those rules and to ensure wide dissemination of the Rules to their judicial authorities as well as to prison staff and inmates . The relevant parts read as follows :

“ CARDINAL The accommodation provided for prisoners , and in particular all sleeping accommodation , shall respect human dignity and , as far as possible , privacy , and meet the requirements of health and hygiene , due regard being paid to climatic conditions and especially to floor space , cubic content of air , lighting , heating and ventilation .

CARDINAL In all buildings where prisoners are required to live , work or congregate :

a. the windows shall be large enough to enable the prisoners to read or work by natural light in normal conditions and shall allow the entrance of fresh air except where there is an adequate air conditioning system ;

b. artificial light shall satisfy recognised technical standards ; and

c. there shall be an alarm system that enables prisoners to contact the staff without delay .

CARDINAL Specific minimum requirements in respect of the matters referred to in CARDINAL and CARDINAL shall be set in national law .

CARDINAL Prisoners shall keep their persons , clothing and sleeping accommodation clean and tidy .

CARDINAL The prison authorities shall provide them with the means for doing so including toiletries and general cleaning implements and materials . ”

Cabinet Regulation no . CARDINAL ( DATE ) , in force at the material time and effective until DATE , laid down the standards governing the basic personal hygiene products to be provided to detainees . A healthy adult male detainee was to receive CARDINAL g of laundry soap , CARDINAL g of toothpaste and QUANTITY roll of toilet paper DATE and CARDINAL toothbrush DATE . No toilet soap was to be provided .

Cabinet Regulation no . CARDINAL ( DATE ) , in force at the material time and effective until DATE , laid down the standards governing detention conditions in remand wings of prisons . It contained no provision on the partitioning off of toilets in cells .

Subsequently , the requirement to separate the toilet from the rest of the cell was laid down , initially , in cabinet regulations and , later , in law .

The Law of Administrative Procedure ( Administratīvā procesa likums ) took effect on DATE . It provides for the right to challenge administrative acts ( administratīvais akts ) and actions of a public authority ( faktiskā rīcība ) before the administrative courts .

At the material time , LAW of ORG defined an action of a public authority as “ an action within the sphere of public law which is not aimed at issuing an administrative act , provided that its results have or might infringe the rights or legal interests of an individual concerned ” . An action of a public authority also included “ an omission on the part of a public authority provided that such authority has an obligation under the law to take a specific action ” . The DATE amendments to the PERSON , which took effect on DATE , further clarified this definition .

Under section CARDINAL of the Law of Administrative Procedure everyone has the right to receive appropriate compensation for pecuniary and non - pecuniary damage caused by an administrative act or action of a public authority . Under section CARDINAL of the same PERSON , a claim for compensation can be submitted either together with an application to the administrative courts to have an administrative act or action of a public authority declared unlawful or to the public authority concerned following a judgment adopted in such proceedings .

In its DATE report dedicated to human rights issues in GPE for DATE , ORG ( VCB ) , noted that prisoners most commonly complained about the conditions of their detention and , in particular , about the lack of separation of toilets from other cell areas . Although they had paid a visit to FAC , the report did not describe the results of that visit in full . It was merely stated that :

“ The ORG has concluded that improvement in conditions of detention is connected to the lack of funding and that in many prisons , for example in ... FAC , it will be impossible to ensure normal conditions of detention without construction works .

Therefore , in DATE the ORG sent a letter to the Prime Minister , pointing out the possible problems [ that might occur ] if detainees were to lodge applications under LAW with the Court . Regrettably , the competent authorities did not always follow the ORG ’s recommendations and the ORG [ was left with no other possibility than to ] advise detainees to lodge applications with the ORG . [ If ] any improvements had been made , the ORG had not been informed of them ” .

On DATE ORG issued a compilation and analysis of the domestic case - law on definition and interpretation of the administrative law concept of an action of a public authority ( PERSON prakses apkopojums par faktiskās rīcības jēdzienu un interpretāciju ) . It was noted that PERCENT of cases before the administrative courts had concerned actions of a public authority .


Alvina Gyulumyan;Corneliu Bîrsan;Egbert Myjer;Josep Casadevall;Luis López Guerra

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

In DATE , Apartment CARDINAL situated in GPE at CARDINAL Aleea Hortensiei , the property of the applicant and of her husband , was seized by the ORG under Decree no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , following their decision to leave the country . No compensation was paid and no copy of the decision to seize the property was sent to them . The applicant 's husband later died in DATE , the applicant being his only heir .

On DATE and CARDINAL DATE the applicant and her husband informed ORG that they intended to recover their property , requesting the eviction of the tenants .

On DATE the ORG sold that apartment to the then tenants under PERSON no . LANGUAGE .

On DATE the applicant and her husband sought to have the seizure declared null and void , to recover ownership of Apartment CARDINAL and to have the former tenants evicted ; they also sought damages in respect of the furniture which had been in the apartment and which had allegedly been destroyed .

On DATE ORG allowed the action in part and annulled the seizure as unlawful , but dismissed the claim for restitutio in integrum on the grounds that the apartment was in the possession of third parties who were not party to those proceedings . It also dismissed the claim for damages in respect to the furniture for lack of payment of stamp duty .

Eventually , on DATE , ORG upheld that ruling in a final decision .

On DATE ORG , by a final decision , dismissed an action by the applicant for recovery of possession of immovable property lodged against those who had bought the apartment . The court considered that when proceedings are brought by a former owner against those who have acquired ownership under PERSON no . DATE , preference is given to the protection of the good faith principle . Thus , the former tenants had made the purchase in good faith and had complied with the provisions of PERSON no . DATE .

On DATE the ORG attached to ORG informed the applicant that there were no reasons to lodge an application for review ( recurs PERSON anulare ) against that final decision .

On DATE the applicant sought to recover Apartment CARDINAL under PERSON no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL governing immovable property wrongfully seized by the ORG .

On DATE ORG dismissed her request , since that apartment had been sold in accordance with LAW no . DATE , but proposed compensation in the equivalent of MONEY ( ORG ) . Then the file was sent to ORG and subsequently to the Secretariat of ORG .

On DATE ORG decided to award the applicant MONEY , the equivalent of EUR CARDINAL,CARDINAL according to the rate of exchange displayed on DATE by ORG .

According to the documents in the file , the applicant has neither contested that decision nor has she followed the administrative procedure provided under LAW , as amended by Government Emergency Ordinance no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , for opting between cash compensation or shares in the fund NORP .

On DATE ORG , by a final decision , dismissed a request by the applicant to have the sale declared null and void , considering that the former tenants had made the purchase in good faith .

The relevant legal provisions and jurisprudence are described in the following judgments : PERSON v. GPE ( [ ORG ] , no . CARDINAL , § § CARDINAL - CARDINAL , ORG CARDINALVII ) ; PERSON and Others v. GPE ( no . MONEY , § § DATE , ORG CARDINALVII ) ; ORG v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL , § § CARDINAL - CARDINAL , DATE ) ; PERSON v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL , § § CARDINAL , DATE ) ; and PERSON v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , § § DATE , DATE ) .


Violation of Art. 5-3;Non-pecuniary damage - financial award

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

On DATE the applicant was arrested on suspicion of extorting protection money from an escort agency . Subsequently , CARDINAL other persons were charged and remanded in custody in connection with the investigation against the applicant .

In the course of the investigation the applicant ’s detention was several times prolonged by ORG ) and ORG ( Sąd Wojewódzki ) . The prosecution authorities also obtained CARDINAL expert reports concerning the applicant ’s mental health .

On DATE the ORG ( Prokurator Wojewódzki ) lodged a bill of indictment with ORG ( Sąd Wojewódzki ) . The applicant was indicted together with CARDINAL other persons on charges of robbery and extortion . The prosecution asked the court to hear evidence from CARDINAL witnesses .

On DATE the applicant lodged an application for release . He submitted that his wife had been placed in a mental hospital and that their daughter had been left without care . On DATE the ORG upheld the detention order . The court held that , given the number of suspects involved in the case and the serious nature of the offence in question , keeping the applicant in custody was necessary to ensure that the process of obtaining evidence followed its proper course . On DATE the ORG ( Sąd Apelacyjny ) dismissed the applicant ’s further appeal .

On DATE the applicant made an application for release . It was rejected by ORG on DATE . The court held that keeping the applicant in custody had been necessary to ensure the proper conduct of the proceedings . On DATE , on an appeal by the applicant , ORG upheld this decision . The court found that the applicant ’s family situation did not militate against his continuing detention and that there were no grounds on which to release the applicant , as defined in LAW . Furthermore , it also underlined the gravity of charges brought against the applicant .

On DATE the applicant made yet another application for release . It was rejected by ORG on DATE as the applicant failed to submit any new arguments which would justify his release .

On DATE the ORG asked ORG ( PERSON ) to prolong the applicant ’s detention . On DATE ORG granted the application and prolonged his and CARDINAL other co - accused’ detention until DATE .

On DATE the applicant made yet another unsuccessful application for release from detention .

On DATE the ORG lodged a request under LAW of LAW with ORG , asking it to prolong the applicant ’s detention for a further period of DATE . On CARDINAL DATE ORG extended the applicant ’s detention until DATE , considering that it was necessary to ensure the proper conduct of the proceedings . The court stressed that the case was particularly complex as it concerned several co - accused . Furthermore , it observed that the trial court still had to hear evidence from CARDINAL witnesses .

On DATE the composition of the trial court had to be changed due to the presiding judge ’s illness .

DATE the trial court on four occasions allowed the applicant ’s family to visit him in prison .

On DATE the ORG again asked ORG to prolong the applicant ’s detention . On DATE ORG decided to extend the applicant ’s detention until DATE . It considered that even though the proceedings had been lengthy , the trial court could not be held responsible for the delay . The composition of the trial court had to be changed due to the presiding judge ’s illness . Moreover , some of the accused contributed to the length of the proceedings by lodging numerous motions with the court . ORG also referred to the complexity of the case , the fact that it involved several accused and the large number of witnesses .

NORP In DATE , DATE the applicant ’s family was allowed , on QUANTITY occasions , to visit him in prison .

On DATE the ORG released the applicant under police supervision . The court held that the detention had already been prolonged CARDINAL times by ORG but to no avail , as the proceedings had still not been terminated . In the court ’s opinion , any prolongation of his further detention on remand would be tantamount to serving a prison sentence .

Before DATE the trial court listed CARDINAL hearings , of which CARDINAL were cancelled or adjourned .

On DATE ORG gave judgment . It sentenced the applicant to CARDINAL years’ imprisonment .

At the material time the rules governing detention on remand were contained in LAW of the Law of DATE “ Code of Criminal Procedure ” ( ORG postępowania karnego ) ( “ the Code ” ) entitled “ Preventive measures ” ( NORP zapobiegawcze ) . The LAW is no longer in force . It was repealed and replaced by LAW DATE ( commonly referred to as the “ GPE Procedure ” ) , which entered into force on DATE . The Code listed as “ preventive measures ” , inter alia , detention on remand , bail and police supervision .

Article CARDINAL set out the general grounds justifying imposition of the preventive measures . That provision read :

“ Preventive measures may be imposed in order to ensure the proper conduct of proceedings if the evidence against the accused sufficiently justifies the opinion that he has committed a criminal offence . ”

Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL defined grounds for detention on remand . The relevant part of this provision , in the version applicable until DATE , provided :

“ CARDINAL . Detention on remand may be imposed if :

( CARDINAL ) there is a reasonable risk that an accused will abscond or go into hiding , in particular when he has no fixed residence [ in GPE ] or his identity can not be established ; or

( CARDINAL ) there is a reasonable risk that an accused will attempt to induce witnesses to give false testimony or to obstruct the proper course of proceedings by any other unlawful means ; or

( CARDINAL ) an accused has been charged with a serious offence or has relapsed into crime in the manner defined in LAW ; or

( CARDINAL ) an accused has been charged with an offence which creates a serious danger to society .... ”

On DATE sub - paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL of Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL were repealed and the whole provision was redrafted . From that date onwards the relevant sub - paragraphs read :

“ ( CARDINAL ) there is a reasonable risk that an accused will abscond or go into hiding , in particular when his identity can not be established or he has no permanent abode [ in GPE ] ; or

( CARDINAL ) [ as it stood before DATE ] . ”

Paragraph CARDINAL of Article CARDINAL provided :

“ If an accused has been charged with a serious offence or an intentional offence [ for the commission of which he may be ] liable to a sentence of a statutory maximum of CARDINAL years’ imprisonment , or if a court of first instance has sentenced him to CARDINAL GPE imprisonment , the need to continue detention in order to secure the proper conduct of proceedings may be based upon the likelihood that a heavy penalty will be imposed . ”

The Code set out the margin of discretion in maintaining a specific preventive measure . Articles CARDINAL § CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the Code were based on the precept that detention on remand was the most extreme preventive measure and that it should not be imposed if more lenient measures were adequate .


Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre;Karel Jungwiert;Mark Villiger;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Peer Lorenzen;Renate Jaeger;Volodymyr Butkevych

The first applicant , PERSON , is a NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in GPE . The second applicant , Mr ORG Wenger , is a NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

s , may be summarised as follows .

The second applicant is Professor of Economics at ORG . He is a founding member of ORG Verein zur Förderung der PERSON ) which is committed to protecting the rights of minority shareholders in joint stock companies . The first applicant worked as a student assistant for his department .

On DATE the first applicant , represented by ORG , a scientific assistant to the second applicant , bought CARDINAL shares in the M. company . DATE and DATE the second applicant bought CARDINAL shares in that same company . They paid MONEY ( ORG ) per share .

On DATE the management of the B. company , which was to take over the M. company , offered to pay ordinary shareholders of the M. company an indemnity of DEM CARDINAL per share in order to avoid actions instituted by them . The first applicant accepted that offer and made a profit amounting to CARDINAL . The second applicant accepted the offer for part of his shares .

On DATE ORG issued a warrant under LAW and LAW ( see Relevant domestic law below ) to search the first applicant ’s home in GPE ( her principal residence ) , her parent ’s home in GPE ( her secondary residence ) and herself . It further issued another warrant to search the second applicant ’s home in GPE , his office at ORG and himself . Both applicants were suspected of prohibited insider trading .

ORG ordered the search and seizure of all documents and electronic storage media concerning the purchase of shares in the PERSON company DATE and DATE . In the second applicant ’s case , it further ordered the search and seizure of documents concerning telephone conversations with members of the B. company , and in the first applicant ’s case documents concerning information given to her either by the second applicant or by his scientific assistant A. in respect of the purchase of the shares .

ORG observed that in a ORG meeting on ORG CARDINAL DATE the M. company decided to merge with a company affiliated to the B. company . ORG , which was founded by the second applicant and was represented during the meeting by his scientific assistant PERSON , objected to the decision and threatened to institute proceedings in court to set it aside , as no offer for a takeover of ordinary shares ( as opposed to preference shares ) was to be made to the shareholders of the M. company . Following negotiations with the holding company B. , the latter publicly announced on CARDINAL DATE a takeover offer of DEM CARDINAL per share also to those holding ordinary shares in the M. company .

ORG found that both the fact that negotiations were being conducted concerning a takeover offer and the content of those negotiations were insider information which was likely to lead to a higher stock rate when made public . The first applicant , who had not previously held any stocks in the PERSON company , had bought CARDINAL shares in that company on CARDINAL DATE . As she had been a scientific assistant to the second applicant , there was a suspicion that this insider information had been disclosed to her either by the second applicant or by A. , with whom she had been working in another company , and that she had used that information when buying the shares in the PERSON company . The second applicant , who had not previously held any shares in the PERSON company , had bought a total of CARDINAL shares DATE and DATE . As he had spoken to the managing directors of the B. company on the telephone during that period , there was a suspicion that he had obtained knowledge of the planned offer to shareholders and had used that information when buying shares in the M. company .

The search warrants were subsequently executed . The first applicant ’s home in GPE was searched in her presence , and her GPE home was broken into and searched in their absence and a number of objects and documents seized . The police also searched the second applicant ’s office and his home , the latter in the presence of his then DATE father with whom he was living , and seized several documents and his laptop .

On DATE the second and the first applicant respectively lodged an appeal against the search warrant and the seizures with ORG . They claimed that these measures had been unlawful . They had not had knowledge of the takeover offer made to ordinary shareholders in the LOC company before that offer had been made public . This had already been confirmed by the B. company on the request of ORG for ORG ( ORG für den ORG ) prior to the issuing of the search warrants .

On DATE ORG dismissed the first and second ORG appeal against the search and seizure orders as ill - founded . It found that ORG had rightly considered that there had been a suspicion of prohibited insider trading and had sufficiently specified the persons and rooms to be searched and the evidence to be searched for . The orders had not been disproportionate . Search and seizure had been appropriate and necessary measures . Awaiting the collection of further evidence , such as witness testimonies , would have entailed the risk that the evidence searched for could no longer be secured ; nor had issuing a search warrant against the first applicant been disproportionate , as the criminal investigations concerned a wider serious offence and had been instituted against several suspects who could have colluded , which made it necessary to coordinate the investigation measures taken . ORG further found that the seizure of the objects and documents in question had been lawful as they were possibly relevant for the criminal proceedings .

On DATE the first and the second applicant each lodged a complaint with ORG against the decisions taken by LOC and ORG . Relying notably on LAW ( see Relevant domestic law below ) , they complained about the searches and seizures , which they considered to breach their right to respect for their home and to be arbitrary .

In CARDINAL decisions adopted on DATE ORG declined to consider the first applicant ’s ( file no . CARDINAL BvR CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) and the second applicant ’s ( file no . CARDINAL BvR CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) constitutional complaints as they were ill - founded .

ORG found that the criminal courts had not breached the applicants’ right to respect for their home as protected by LAW . The criminal courts’ finding that there had been a suspicion of prohibited insider trading had not been arbitrary . After the ORG meeting on DATE it had not been certain whether or not a takeover offer would be made to ordinary shareholders . Nonetheless , the applicants had bought shares in the LOC company after this meeting and shortly before the public announcement of the takeover offer . The first applicant had bought the shares in cooperation with an assistant of the second applicant . In his capacity as a member of ORG , the second applicant had voiced his support for a takeover offer to be made to the ordinary shareholders as well and had been in contact by telephone with the management of the companies concerned .

ORG further found that it had not been arbitrary for the criminal courts to consider the searches as proportionate . The evidence to be searched for in accordance with the warrants was suitable to establish the circumstances in which the shares had been bought . The possibility that evidence proving knowledge of insider information would be found could not be excluded . Having regard to comparable cases , it had also not been arbitrary to consider the search ordered against the first applicant as proportionate despite the fact that she had CARDINAL shares . The possible damage caused amounted to CARDINAL and there had been a suspicion against several persons who could have colluded .

The decisions were served on the applicants on DATE . They are at issue in application no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL lodged with this ORG by the first applicant and application no . DATE brought by the second applicant .

On DATE ORG discontinued the investigation proceedings against the applicants . It found that the evidence collected was insufficient to secure their conviction of insider trading .

On DATE ORG issued a warrant under LAW and LAW for the search of the second applicant ’s home and cars in GPE , of his office at ORG and of himself on suspicion of prohibited insider trading . It ordered the search and seizure of all documents and electronic storage media concerning the purchase and sale of shares in the A. company by the second applicant and further co - defendants in DATE .

ORG found that the A. company had informed its shareholders on DATE that the PERSON limited liability company wanted to take over the shares of the minority shareholders of the A. company and was offering them an indemnity of some ORG CARDINAL per share . On DATE an increased offer of an indemnity of ORG CARDINAL per share was made public . The second applicant had purchased CARDINAL shares of the A. company for some ORG CARDINAL on DATE . He was suspected of having obtained knowledge of the A.B. company ’s intention to offer an indemnity in the higher amount from a third person ( S. ) , who had negotiated with him with a view to obtaining his agreement to sell the shares he already had , and to have used that knowledge when purchasing the shares on CARDINAL DATE . His profit amounted to some ORG CARDINAL .

The search warrant was executed on DATE , at the same time as warrants that had been issued against several other persons . No suspicious objects or documents were found or seized .

On DATE the second applicant appealed against the search warrant . He claimed that there had not been a reasonable suspicion of insider trading against him at the time the warrant had been issued , as PERSON had already told the investigation authorities that he had not informed him of the planned increased offer of an indemnity . He had bought the shares as he had previously received the public report of the A. company concerning the planned takeover of the shares of the minority shareholders and thus considered the purchase of shares to yield profits .

On DATE ORG dismissed the second applicant ’s appeal against the search warrant as ill - founded . Referring to the exhaustive report and the documents submitted by ORG for ORG ( Bundesanstalt für Finanzdienst - leistungsaufsicht ) to ORG , it found that there had been a sufficient factual basis for a suspicion of insider trading when ORG issued the search warrant . In particular , the fact that PERSON had proposed to others to persuade the second applicant to accept an offer of indemnity and that the latter had bought further shares DATE before the higher offer of indemnity was made public was sufficient to ground the suspicion of insider trading . Moreover , the documents to be seized had been described in sufficient detail in the search warrant . In view of the gravity of the offence the second applicant was suspected of , the search order had also not been disproportionate . The decision was served on the second applicant on DATE .

On DATE the second applicant lodged a constitutional complaint with ORG . He complained about the renewed search and argued that this measure had violated his right to respect for his home and had been arbitrary .

On DATE ORG declined to consider the second applicant ’s constitutional complaint ( file no . CARDINAL BvR CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) . It found that the second applicant had failed sufficiently to substantiate his complaint , which was therefore inadmissible . It argued that the second applicant had not informed the court of the contents of the report drawn up by ORG for ORG to which the criminal courts had referred in their decisions ordering the search . He should have done so as he had contested that there had been a sufficient suspicion of insider trading . Apart from this , the second applicant had also informed the court only selectively about the evidence on which the criminal courts had founded their suspicion against him . ORG was thus not in a position to review the criminal courts’ assessment . Moreover , the second applicant had failed to explain why it should have been obvious to the criminal courts that he could have had knowledge of the facts relevant for the trend in the share price from other sources . He does not appear to have informed the criminal courts that he had received the report of the A. company . In view of this , it could be left open whether the decisions of the criminal courts had violated the second applicant ’s fundamental rights .

The decision was served on the second applicant on DATE . It is at issue in application no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL lodged by him with this ORG .

On DATE ORG discontinued the investigation proceedings against the second applicant . It found that , even though it was likely that the second applicant had been informed of the increased takeover offer which was to be made either by PERSON or by one of his co - defendants and had bought the shares by using that knowledge , the investigations , including the search of the second applicant ’s home , had not yielded any evidence to prove that he was guilty of insider trading .

On DATE ORG issued a further warrant to search the home , cars and person of the first applicant and of PERSON , both qualified as witnesses , on suspicion of prohibited insider trading by the second applicant and others in respect of shares in the A. company .

The search order was executed on DATE without any evidence being found .

On DATE ORG granted an appeal by PERSON against the search warrant issued against him . It found that the warrant had been unlawful as the searches conducted on DATE of , inter alia , the second applicant ’s and PERSON ’s homes had not produced any results confirming the suspicion against them . Moreover , PERSON , heard as a witness on DATE , had denied having informed the second applicant of the intention to offer minority shareholders a higher indemnity . It was therefore unclear which relevant evidence should have been found when searching PERSON ’s home after that date . On the contrary , on DATE ORG dismissed as ill - founded the appeal lodged by the first applicant against the search warrant issued against her .

On DATE ORG , allowing the first applicant ’s constitutional complaint , quashed the decisions of LOC . It found that these decisions violated the first applicant ’s right to respect for her home . The search warrant issued by ORG was not sufficiently reasoned in that it did not explain why evidence against the suspects could be found in her home . Moreover , the search warrant against the first applicant , who was not suspected of an offence , was disproportionate as , at the time the warrant was issued , there was no longer a strong suspicion against the suspects and it was not likely that evidence would be found in the first applicant ’s home .

LAW stipulates that the home is inviolable . In accordance with paragraph CARDINAL of that Article , searches may be authorized only by a judge or , when time is of the essence , by other authorities designated by law , and may be carried out only in the manner prescribed therein .

LAW , on searches in respect of the suspect , provides that a search of the home and other LOC and of the person and the belongings of the suspect of a criminal offence may be made for the purpose of his apprehension or if it may be presumed that the search will lead to the discovery of evidence .

Pursuant to LAW , searches may only be ordered by a judge or , in case of urgency ( Gefahr i m Verzug ) , also by the public prosecutor ’s office and the officials assisting it .

Pursuant to section CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(CARDINAL ) of LAW ( Wertpapierhandelsgesetz ) insiders shall be prohibited from taking advantage of their knowledge of insider information to acquire or dispose of insider securities for their own account or for the account or on behalf of a third party . Likewise , a third party who has knowledge of inside information shall be prohibited from taking advantage of that knowledge to acquire or dispose of insider securities for his own account or for the account or on behalf of others ( section QUANTITY ) of LAW ) . Pursuant to section CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(CARDINAL ) of LAW , any person who acquires or disposes of an insider security in contravention of a prohibition under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(CARDINAL ) or CARDINAL ) shall be liable to up to CARDINAL years’ imprisonment or to a fine .


Violation of Art. 11;Non-pecuniary damage - award;Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed

Karel Jungwiert;Mark Villiger;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Peer Lorenzen;Rait Maruste;Snejana Botoucharova;Volodymyr Butkevych

Mr PERSON was born in DATE , PERSON and Mr PERSON were born in DATE , and Mr Gorbal was born in DATE . All the applicants live in GPE .

On DATE the applicants and CARDINAL other persons founded an association named “ ORG for ORG in GPE ( “ PERSON за збереження дикої ( корінної ) природи PERSON ” , the “ ORG ” ) . Mr PERSON was elected as the Civic Committee ’s head .

On DATE the applicants filed an application for the State registration of the ORG together with a copy of its articles of association with ORG ( the “ ORG ” ) .

The Civic Committee ’s articles read , in so far as relevant , as follows :

“ CARDINAL . ORG ... ( hereafter – ORG ) is a voluntary association of citizens , non - governmental organisations , and other legal entities , which unite their efforts in joint activities [ aiming at the ] preservation of wild ( indigenous ) natural systems in cities and towns .

PERCENT ORG is a non - governmental , non - profit organisation .

The activities of ORG are to be carried out on the territory of GPE . The ORG may have representative offices in other cities and towns of GPE .

“ CARDINAL . The ORG ’s activities shall be based on the principles of :

a ) democracy ;

b ) legality ;

c ) self - government ;

d ) equality of members ;

e ) openness ;

f ) combination of local actions with global thinking ;

g ) active creative initiative of the broader community . ”

“ CARDINAL . ORG was founded with the aim of protecting natural systems from their complete destruction in the process of urbanisation and from their replacement by artificial biomes in the process of urban development and growth .

The aim of the ORG is to preserve the remaining indigenous natural areas on the territory of the contemporary residential area of ORG . ”

“ CARDINAL . The ORG ... shall have the task of taking concrete action to raise awareness among urban planners , members of bodies of local self - government , and the general public about ... the difference between indigenous natural systems and artificial natural systems in cities and towns , of the possible consequences of the loss of samples of natural ecosystems , as well as [ the task of ] coordinating joint activities of public authorities , non - governmental organisations , and the general public [ aimed at ] the prevention of such consequences , the result of which should be the preservation of indigenous biomes as natural samples .

According to [ its ] aim and tasks the ORG shall perform its activities in the following areas :

a ) collection of information concerning the indigenous nature of ORG ;

b ) collection and study of world experience of coexistence of cities and natural systems ;

c ) creation and development of a publicly accessible electronic database ;

d ) cultural , educational , publishing , and informational activities ;

e ) lobbying of issues connected with the preservation of natural ecosystems with the national and local authorities ;

“ CARDINAL . ... the ORG shall have the right :

a ) to take part in civil law relations , to acquire pecuniary and non - pecuniary rights ;

d ) to [ disseminate ] propaganda , and [ carry out]cultural and educational activities ;

h ) to set up entities and organisations , to set up media , and to perform publishing activities ;

i ) to carry out non - governmental ecological expert examinations ;

In order to fulfil its tasks the ORG shall have the right to carry out the necessary economic ( “ господарську ” ) and other commercial activities by means of establishing legal entities . ”

“ CARDINAL . Membership in the ORG may be individual , collective , honorary , as well as [ through ] voluntary participation ( “ в якості волонтерів ” ) ;

ORG and other GPE who share the ideology and participate in certain projects and actions [ of the ORG ] for free , may become volunteers of the ORG ;

ORG of the Committee shall be responsible for the financial administration of projects , the accounting of ORG , and manage everyday administrative ( “ господарчу ” ) and financial activities to ensure the implementation of projects .

On an unspecified date the application and articles of association were returned to the applicants and they were advised to make changes to the text , which were noted down by ORG in the same documents . In particular , several sentences and paragraphs were crossed out , including paragraphs CARDINAL , CARDINAL ( d ) , and CARDINAL . Some other parts of the articles were rephrased or amended , like , for instance , the word “ lobbying ” in paragraph CARDINAL ( e ) was replaced by “ submission of propositions ” and the phrase “ to carry out non - governmental ecological expert examinations ” in paragraph CARDINAL ( i ) was reformulated to the effect that ORG could carry out ecological expert examination on a “ voluntary basis ” .

According to the applicants , on DATE they submitted the redrafted version of the articles of association , in which the ORG ’s corrections were only partially accepted . The Government denied this .

By letter of DATE , ORG informed the applicants of its refusal to register ORG on the ground that its articles had not been drafted in accordance with the domestic law . In particular , ORG status was not indicated ; the provision that ORG could have representative offices in other cities and towns of GPE did not correspond to the provision that its activities were to be carried out on the territory of GPE ; the articles listed CARDINAL aims of the organisation instead of CARDINAL aim and tasks ; ORG of ORG was entrusted with economic ( “ господарські ” ) functions while section CARDINAL of ORG envisaged that the economic activities of an association could only be carried through separate legal entities which it could establish for that specific purpose ; and the provisions that ORG could carry out publishing activities on its own and involve volunteers in its activities as members were contrary to the same law . Finally , the applicants had not taken into account all the corrections made to the text of the articles of association and they had submitted a copy of the document showing that they had paid registration fees , while the original was required .

In a letter of DATE , received by ORG on DATE , Mr GPE , acting on behalf of ORG as its head , stated that ORG had not taken into account the amended version of ORG articles lodged with it on DATE . He asked the ORG to reconsider its decision in the light of the amended version of the articles of association , the additional copies of which he could submit if the ORG wished .

NORP By letter of CARDINAL October CARDINAL , ORG acknowledged receipt of the ORG letter of DATE and , referring to its letter of DATE , informed them that the articles of association could not be examined if they had not been re - drafted in compliance with the law . ORG also informed them that its refusal to register ORG could be challenged before the courts .

The applicants continued to carry out certain activities of ORG , in particular , publishing articles on its behalf in various newspapers .

On DATE the applicants lodged a complaint with ORG of GPE , seeking the annulment of ORG decision not to register ORG . They alleged a violation of their right to form an association and the right to freely choose its aims and areas of activities . They also argued that the reasons for the refusal to register their association had been based on an incorrect interpretation and application of the relevant law by ORG . Furthermore , according to them , ORG had failed to take into account the amended version of the articles of association , which they annexed to their complaint to the court .

On DATE the court rejected the ORG complaint as unsubstantiated . On DATE ORG upheld the first - instance court ’s decision .

The courts held that the refusal to register ORG had been lawful , since the articles of association contained textual discrepancies with the relevant provisions of the domestic legislation . In particular , the aim of ORG was not defined correctly and did not correspond to the requirements of sections CARDINAL and CARDINAL of ORG . The provisions of paragraphs CARDINAL , CARDINAL , and CARDINAL of the articles of association authorising ORG of ORG to carry out “ everyday administrative and financial ” activities and envisaging that ORG could perform publishing activities were not in compliance with sections CARDINAL and CARDINAL of that law . The wording of paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the articles of association as regards the participation of volunteers in ORG activities contravened the principle of equality of members of an association embodied in section CARDINAL of the law .

The courts also noted that the applicants had failed to submit a corrected version of the articles of association , while the versions they had filed with the courts had not been drafted in compliance with the law .

On DATE a panel of CARDINAL judges of ORG rejected the ORG request for leave to appeal in cassation , finding no grounds for examination of the case by ORG of ORG .

On DATE the applicants decided to liquidate ORG and discontinued its activities .

The relevant provisions of LAW read as follows :

“ The legal order in GPE is based on the principles according to which no one shall be forced to do what is not envisaged by legislation .

ORG and local self - government bodies and their officials are obliged to act only on the grounds , within the limits of authority , and in the manner envisaged by the LAW and the laws of GPE . ”

“ ORG have the right to freedom of association in political parties and non - governmental organisations for the exercise and protection of their rights and freedoms and for the satisfaction of their political , economic , social , cultural and other interests , with the exception of restrictions established by law in the interests of national security and public order , the protection of the health of the population or the protection of rights and freedoms of other persons .

“ The founding and activities of political parties and non - governmental organisations are prohibited if their programme goals or actions are aimed at the liquidation of the independence of GPE , the change of the constitutional order by violent means , the violation of the sovereignty and territorial indivisibility of the ORG , the undermining of its security , the unlawful seizure of ORG power , the propaganda of war , violence , the incitement of inter - ethnic , racial , [ or ] religious enmity , and encroachments on human rights and freedoms and the health of the population .

Political parties and non - governmental organisations shall not have paramilitary formations .

The prohibition of the activities of associations of citizens shall be exercised only through judicial procedure . ”

Article CARDINAL of the Code provides :

“ Leadership of an association of citizens which was not legalised in the order envisaged by law , or the legalisation of which was refused , or which was dissolved by a court decision , but which continues to act , as well as participation in the activities of such associations within DATE following the application of the administrative sanction for the same offence , -

shall be punishable by the deprivation of liberty for a term of DATE . ”

With the entry into force of the new Criminal Code on DATE , the above offence was decriminalised .

Article CARDINAL of the Code reads :

“ Leadership of an association of citizens which was not legalised in the order envisaged by law , or the legalisation of which was refused , or which was dissolved by a court decision , but which continues to act , as well as participation in the activities of such associations -

shall be punishable by a fine [ in the amount ] of CARDINAL times the statutory non - taxable DATE income . ”

NORP The relevant provisions of the LAW read as follows :

“ A non - governmental organisation is an association of citizens for the satisfaction and protection of their lawful social , economic , creative , age - related , national and cultural , sporting and other mutual interests . ”

“ Associations shall not be legalised , or the activities of legalised associations shall be prohibited through judicial procedure if their aim is :

to change the constitutional order by violent means and the territorial integrity of the ORG by any illegal means ;

to undermine State security by means of activities in favour of foreign States ;

to propagate war , violence or brutality , fascism and neo - fascism ;

to incite national and religious enmity ;

to restrict generally recognised human rights .

“ Associations shall be established and shall act on a voluntary basis and on the principles of equality of their members ( participants ) , self - government , legality and openness . They shall be free to choose the direction of their activities .

Restrictions on the activities of associations may be introduced only by the LAW and the laws of GPE . ”

“ Associations shall have pan - NORP , local or international status .

ORG associations include associations the activities of which cover the entire territory of GPE and which have local branches in the majority of the regions [ of GPE ] .

Local associations include associations the activities of which cover the territory of the respective administrative - territorial unit or region . Associations shall designate the territory of their activities independently .

A non - governmental organisation shall be international if its activities cover the territory of GPE and of CARDINAL other ORG .

“ An association shall act on the basis of its articles of association .

The articles of association shall include :

CARDINAL ) the name of the association ( which shall differ from the names of existing associations ) , its status and address ;

CARDINAL ) the aim and tasks of the association ;

CARDINAL ) the conditions of and rules governing the granting of membership of the association , [ and of ] termination of membership ;

CARDINAL ) the rights and duties of the members ( participants ) of the association ;

CARDINAL ) the rules governing the founding and activities of the bodies of the association , local branches and their powers ;

CARDINAL ) the sources of , and rules governing the use of , funds and other assets of the association , rules governing reporting , control , and conducting economic and other commercial activities necessary to fulfil the tasks [ of the association ] ;

CARDINAL ) the procedure for changing and amending the articles of association ;

CARDINAL) the procedure for the liquidation of the association and settlement of property related issues connected with its liquidation .

The articles of association may contain other provisions concerning the peculiarities of the founding and activities of the association .

The articles of association shall not contradict the legislation of GPE . ”

“ Legalisation ( official recognition ) of an association shall be compulsory and may be effected through the ( association ’s ) registration or the notification of [ its ] foundation . The activities of an association which has not been legalised or which has been dissolved by a court decision shall be illegal .

In the event of its registration the association shall become a legal entity .

Political parties and international non - governmental organisations shall be registered by ORG .

Legalisation of a non - governmental organisation shall be carried out by ORG , local bodies of ORG executive power , [ or ] executive committees of village and town councils .

If the activities of a local non - governmental organisation cover the territory of CARDINAL or more administrative territorial units , its legalisation shall be carried out by the relevant higher authority .

The local bodies of ORG executive power and the executive committees of village and town councils shall register the local branches of registered pan - NORP and international associations , provided such registration is envisaged by the articles of association of these associations .

The body [ of ORG power ] responsible for the legalisation [ of associations ] shall make an act of legalisation ( official recognition ) of an association public through the media . ”

“ The founders of associations shall submit an application for their registration ...

The application for registration shall be accompanied by the articles of association , TIME of the constituent meeting ( conference ) or general meeting of founders , information about the composition of the central [ managing ] bodies , information about local branches , documents confirming the payment of registration fees , save for cases when a non - governmental organisation is exempted from the payment of registration fees in accordance with the laws of GPE .

The application for the registration shall be dealt with within DATE following the receipt of the documents . If necessary , the body performing the registration shall verify the data contained in the submitted documents . The applicant shall be informed in writing about a decision to register or about a refusal to register within DATE .

“ The registration of an association may be refused if its articles of association or other documents submitted for the registration contravene the legislation of GPE .

A decision refusing the registration shall contain reasons for the refusal . This decision may be challenged before the courts .

The body [ of ORG power ] responsible for the registration shall make public the refusal to register an association through the media . ”

“ Non - governmental organisations and their unions may be legalised by giving written notice to ORG , local bodies of ORG executive power , [ or ] executive committees of village and town councils . ”

“ To accomplish the goals and tasks set out in the articles of association , registered associations shall enjoy the [ following ] rights :

to take part in civil law relations , to acquire pecuniary and non - pecuniary rights ;

to represent and protect their lawful interests and the lawful interests of their members ( participants ) before public and non - governmental bodies ;

to take part in political activities , hold public events ( meetings , demonstrations etc . ) ;

to provide ideological , organisational , and financial support to other associations , to assist in their founding ;

to found entities and organisations ;

to receive information necessary for the fulfilment of their tasks from ORG and local self - government bodies ;

to disseminate information and to propagate their ideas and aims ;

to found media .

Non - governmental organisations shall have the right to found enterprises necessary for the fulfilment of their tasks .

“ To accomplish the goals and tasks set out in the articles of association , registered associations may carry out the necessary economic and other commercial activities by means of establishing separate legal entities , founding enterprises in accordance with the procedure envisaged by the legislation .

“ Leadership of the association which was not legalised in the order envisaged by law , or the legalisation of which was refused , or which was dissolved by a court decision , but which continues to act , as well as participation in the activities of such associations shall be punishable by administrative or criminal law . ”


Remainder inadmissible;No violation of Article 6+6-3-d - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Criminal proceedings;Article 6-1 - Fair hearing;Equality of arms) (Article 6-3-d - Examination of witnesses;Witnesses;Article 6 - Right to a fair trial)

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

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in PERSON .

In DATE the Krems a.d . ORG ( ORG a.d . GPE ) conducted criminal proceedings against the applicant , who was accused of both attempted and actual sexual abuse of minors and juveniles , and of offences under LAW .

During the proceedings , ORG appointed a neurological and psychiatric expert to examine the applicant , to establish , inter alia , whether the applicant fulfilled the conditions for referral to an institution for mentally ill offenders ( GPE für geistig abnorme PERSON ) pursuant to LAW ) . The applicant does not appear to have objected to the choice of expert or to the subject matter on which the report was to be obtained . On DATE the expert submitted his written opinion , establishing that the applicant was fully criminally responsible and diagnosing a disorder of sexual preferences , paedophilia and narcissistic personality disorder . The opinion was based on an examination of the applicant , the criminal files and the results of an ORG personality test . The expert found that the applicant ’s disordered conduct had progressed , in view of the decreasing age of his victims . The opinion concluded that there was a very high risk that the applicant would relapse , with severe consequences . Subsequently , the opinion was served on the applicant ’s counsel for comments .

On DATE the applicant ’s counsel commented on the expert ’s opinion , submitted the opinion of a private expert , a psychiatrist and neurologist , and requested the court to have it read out to the court - appointed expert at the oral hearing and to appoint another expert in the event that the court - appointed expert did not concur with the private expert ’s opinion .

The opinion of the private expert , dated CARDINAL DATE , also found that the applicant suffered from homosexual paedophilia , a disorder of his sexual preferences and a sexual maturity crisis . He found , however , that there was no indication of a narcissistic disorder . As regards the prognosis , the expert concluded that there was a low to moderate risk of the applicant reoffending as regards non - violent sexual abuse of children . The private expert commented on the court - appointed expert ’s opinion and criticised his methods , considering in particular that the factual statements he had made were unclear and were not accompanied by sufficient explanation . Finally , he also questioned the court - appointed expert ’s interpretation of those factual statements .

On DATE the court - appointed expert supplemented his opinion in writing and commented on every observation made by the private expert .

On DATE ORG held an oral hearing in which the court - appointed expert summarised and supplemented his opinion . During the hearing , the applicant ’s counsel questioned the court - appointed expert at length . The court did not , however , allow questions to be put by counsel which referred to the private expert opinion , or general questions regarding the court - appointed expert ’s education and competencies . Counsel also made applications for the admission of the private expert opinion to the proceedings and for the private expert to be allowed to testify as a witness . According to the record of the hearing , counsel requested , in particular ,

“ ... that evidence be heard from PERSON , a psychiatric specialist at ORG , on the subject of the requirements of LAW of LAW in the context of a psychiatric assessment and case history carried out after the assessment by the court - appointed expert and at a time when the accused ’s detention for DATE in an individual cell , a situation which was new to him and to which he was wholly unaccustomed , had come to an end ...

He requested that a further expert opinion be sought on the basis of the provisions of Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of LAW ( “ ORG ” ) , which made express reference to the need to seek the opinion of CARDINAL psychiatric expert , and on the basis of LAW of the ORG , according to which CARDINAL expert had to be called in the proceedings , failing which they would be declared null and void . Even after the additional questioning of the court - appointed expert there were grounds to assert that the conditions laid down in CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the ORG had not been met , with the result that no reliable prognosis could be made as to the dangerousness of the accused without a further expert report .

He reiterated his request for PERSON expert report and additional observations , contained in the file , to be read out and for GPE , GPE and GPE to be called as witnesses to testify that the accused had no difficulty forming relationships , had sufficient empathy and had no pathological need to control others . The appearance of those witnesses was also sought in order to testify that the facts on which the court - appointed expert based his opinion were partly inaccurate and incomplete , and thus defective overall .

The public prosecutor objected to the request . As far as the taking of evidence from PERSON was concerned , this was a means of introducing a private expert opinion into the proceedings and served no other apparent purpose . The other witnesses were to be asked to testify on medical matters that should be assessed by an expert , and were therefore unsuited to that purpose . Matters relating to the psychiatric assessment should also be determined by the expert ; an expert opinion was available which , even after several ORG questioning , still appeared consistent . The public prosecutor was therefore also opposed to a second expert opinion being sought . He repeatedly expressed his opposition to having the private expert opinion of PERSON read out in court . ”

ORG dismissed counsel ’s requests at the hearing and reasoned the dismissal as follows :

“ Decision refusing the requests

( CARDINAL ) As regards the taking of evidence from PERSON concerning the requirements of LAW of LAW : it is not clear , first , in what capacity PERSON might be examined . The requirements of LAW of LAW are a legal issue , to be determined solely by the court with the assistance of a court - appointed psychiatric expert . Witnesses are individuals who have to give their own observations regarding facts relevant to the taking of evidence : their role is in no sense to make statements concerning legal or empirical evidence or to speculate , express opinions , make value judgments or draw conclusions . As to the possibility of examining PERSON as a witness on the subject of his psychiatric assessment , it must be pointed out that such assessments are not a matter for witnesses . Since PERSON has prepared a private expert opinion in the present case , he can not also be regarded as an expert for the purpose of the proceedings , and any statements he might make as a witness concerning the psychiatric assessment would not constitute valid evidence .

( CARDINAL ) As far as obtaining a further expert opinion is concerned : neither provision can be interpreted as imposing a requirement to call a further expert in the proceedings concerning the accused ’s compulsory psychiatric admission . Here again , then , reference must be made to the provisions of LAW and LAW and CARDINAL of the ORG , according to which the calling of a further expert is required only if the existing findings and opinion are incomplete and inconclusive . This may arise in the event of difficulties in observing the patient and making an assessment ; this in turn will arise only if the court - appointed expert is unable to reply with certainty , or at all , to the questions put to him , in which case the possibility of the questions being answered by another expert can not be ruled out . In the instant case PERSON answered the questions put to him with certainty from the outset . During DATE ’s hearing , and especially during questioning by the defence , no important points were left unanswered . It can not therefore be argued that the expert did not answer the questions conclusively and with certainty . As a result , the criteria laid down in LAW , in particular read together with LAW and CARDINAL of the ORG , certainly do not apply and the request must be refused .

( CARDINAL ) As regards PERSON private expert opinion and additional observations : the public prosecutor opposed the reading - out of the report . Hence , the conditions laid down in LAW ORG do not apply , nor , in any sense , do those of LAW ( CARDINAL ) .

( CARDINAL ) As to the taking of evidence from witnesses GPE , GPE and GPE : the request does not explain why the witnesses in question might possess this knowledge . Furthermore , the assessment of whether an individual has difficulty forming relationships , is lacking in empathy and has a pathological need to control others can only be carried out by an expert , especially since witnesses may not draw conclusions from what they observe . It is not clear why these witnesses should know that the facts were inaccurately or incompletely conveyed by the expert in his opinion , nor has it been explained why they should have anything to contribute on the subject ; hence , their evidence is not valid in this regard . “

Upon a repeated request by counsel to allow the private expert to testify as a witness , ORG decided

“ ... to refuse the request for PERSON to testify as a witness on the subject of the psychiatric assessment conducted by him , since this was carried out after the assessment by the courtsworn expert . According to LAW ORG , where there are doubts as to an individual ’s mental incapacity or a mental disorder is suspected , an assessment of his mental or psychological state by CARDINAL or , if need be , CARDINAL doctors must be ordered . This clearly refers to court - appointed experts . This provision and , of course , the remaining provisions concerning the establishment of findings unambiguously provide that the examination or assessment is a matter exclusively for a court - appointed expert . It follows that PERSON , as a private expert , can not have made any findings within the meaning of the law or , more specifically , of the provisions concerning expert evidence , with the result that his observations as a witness concerning such findings do not constitute valid evidence . ”

On DATE , ORG . ORG , sitting as a panel composed of CARDINAL professional and CARDINAL lay judges ( ORG ) , convicted the applicant of both attempted and actual sexual abuse of minors and juveniles and of offences under LAW , and sentenced him to DATE imprisonment . He was also admitted to an institution for mentally ill offenders pursuant to LAW .

The applicant was found to have sexually abused a minor born in DATE by sustained touching of his sexual organs on CARDINAL occasions DATE , and to have enticed CARDINAL juveniles born in DATE to carry out sexual acts on CARDINAL occasions DATE by offering them money . He was further found to have provided CARDINAL juveniles with hashish CARDINAL times DATE .

As regards the psychological expert opinions , ORG found in its reasoning concerning the assessment of the evidence that

“ ... at the hearing and even beforehand the accused gave the court and PERSON , an experienced expert in neurology and psychiatry , a relatively full account of his life ...

On the basis of these extensive materials , PERSON first produced his written opinion , which he presented during the hearing and added to at length and in detail ...

... at the hearing PERSON gave reasons for his opinion in comprehensible , logical and consistent fashion . It is clear even to a lay person that the accused ’s problems , which have been well established , are of such severity as to constitute a serious personality disorder , even though some of his problems ( such as masochistic masturbation ) do not necessarily result in criminal behaviour ...

... The expert also confirmed that the accused does not have violent tendencies in the sense of using physical violence . However , it must be borne in mind that , particularly in the sphere of psychology and psychiatry , psychological violence plays an important role . The accused repeatedly abused young people as a result of his disposition , whether by giving them alcohol , showing them pornographic films , offering them money or using his position in society . The expert and , accordingly , the court therefore concluded that it was likely that the accused , on account of his mental disorder and in particular his paedophile tendencies , would commit further offences of the kind with which he has been charged .

The accused and his counsel attempted at first to call the expert ’s qualifications into question . However , in view of his training and professional experience , these were beyond doubt .

A request was then made for the private expert opinion of PERSON to be read out in court . This request was refused by the court because the parties did not agree on that point and none of the grounds provided for by ORG CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the ORG applied . The defence then had the terms “ abnormal sexual preferences ” and “ perversion ” explained to them and the expert reiterated in this context too that the accused showed no signs of sadistic tendencies . The defence subsequently tried to undermine PERSON opinion by claiming that he had not used all the available methods , which had apparently been used by the private expert . After PERSON had answered all the questions asked by the defence in consistent , comprehensible and , above all , comprehensive terms , the request for the private expert ’s opinion to be read out was repeated . This request was rejected on the same grounds and also , in particular , on the grounds that it was for experts themselves to decide which methods they used to substantiate their opinion , based on the present state of scientific knowledge . Only shortcomings in the procedure described in LAW and CARDINAL of the ORG or circumstances indicating particular difficulties in making a diagnosis or preparing the opinion could justify calling in a further court - sworn expert .

The request to circumvent these provisions by the taking of witness evidence from a private expert also had to be refused , since the latter did not and could not make observations concerning the alleged facts , and the findings are to be established exclusively by the courtappointed expert . For the same reason , the request for ORG , GPE and GPE to testify was also superfluous , especially since no specific subjects were even mentioned and , in particular , it was not made clear which of the facts ( findings ) presented by the expert had supposedly been incomplete or defective ...

In sum , it was thus demonstrated that there was no call to question the statements of the expert PERSON regarding the severity of the accused ’s disorder and his dangerousness , with the result that the court was justified in basing its decision on those statements . ”

On DATE the applicant lodged a plea of nullity ( GPE ) and an appeal ( GPE ) against the judgment .

On DATE ORG ( Oberster Gerichtshof ) rejected the plea of nullity and referred the appeal to ORG ( Oberlandesgericht Wien ) . As regards the expert opinions , that court found as follows :

“ The refusal of the request for a ‘ a further expert opinion [ to ] be sought on the basis of the provisions of LAW ( CARDINAL ) of LAW ( “ ORG ” ) , which made express reference to the need to seek the opinion of CARDINAL psychiatric expert , and on the basis of LAW of the ORG , according to which CARDINAL expert had to be called in the proceedings , failing which they would be declared null and DATE which was further based on the assertion that ‘ [ e]ven after the additional questioning of the court - appointed expert there were grounds to assert that the conditions laid down in LAW and CARDINAL of the ORG had not been met , with the result that no reliable prognosis could be made as to the dangerousness of the accused without a further expert report’ – did not adversely affect the rights of the defence . The panel of professional and lay judges correctly pointed out in its decision based on LAW ORG that there were no grounds for calling in a second expert either on account of difficulty in observing the patient or making an assessment , as referred to in LAW ORG ( which was also applicable to the committal proceedings ) , or on account of shortcomings in the findings or the opinion of the courtappointed expert ( Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the ORG ) , as the latter had answered all the questions ‘ conclusively and with ORG .

For the same reason DATE and also because it was patently concerned only with an examination that was inadmissible during the hearing – the request for the private expert PERSON to testify as a witness ‘ on the subject of the requirements of LAW of LAW in the context of a psychiatric assessment and case history carried out after the assessment by the court - appointed expert and at a time when the accused ’s detention for DATE in an individual cell , a situation which was new to him and to which he was wholly unaccustomed , had come to an end’ and ‘ on the subject of factual observations in connection with the psychiatric assessment of the accused , carried out after the assessment by the court - appointed PERSON was correctly rejected , with reference to the settled case - law concerning the content of witness statements and the inadmissibility of statements made by private individuals concerning the legal subject - matter of the proceedings .

The same applies to the refusal of the request for the reading out of the private expert opinion of PERSON , which is of no significance in terms of the criminal proceedings .

Lastly , the accused has not been adversely affected by the refusal of the request to hear evidence from witnesses ORG , GPE and GPE The request did not specify the “ facts ” on which these persons were supposed to give evidence ; hence , the subject to which it related could not be clearly identified . Furthermore , the request did not explain why the persons concerned should be expected to provide information concerning circumstances relevant to the accused ’s guilt or the legal characterisation ; this request therefore ( also ) related to inadmissible evidence . ”

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s appeal as unfounded . It stated that the expert ’s prognosis that there was a risk of the applicant relapsing was convincing and stated further :

“ As regards the criticism and the repeated request for the private expert opinion of PERSON , obtained by the accused , to be admitted in the proceedings and for a further expert opinion to be sought , these must be rejected first of all on the basis of the findings of ORG in its decision on the plea of nullity . Even after an in - depth study of the opinion of PERSON , the expert appointed by the first - instance court DATE whose opinion , incidentally , addressed all the criticisms raised in PERSON opinion and countered convincingly and in detail all the defence ’s criticisms based on the private expert opinion – ORG could find no grounds for the appointment of another expert in accordance with the provisions of LAW ORG . Accordingly , the request for a further expert opinion must be rejected in the first place for lack of legal basis . ”

NORP That appeal judgment was served on the applicant ’s counsel on DATE .

Article CARDINAL of LAW ) provides as follows :

" CARDINAL . If a person commits an offence punishable by a term of imprisonment exceeding one year , and if he can not be punished for the sole reason that he committed the offence under the influence of a state of mind excluding responsibility ( LAW ) resulting from a serious mental or emotional abnormality , the court shall order him to be placed in an institution for mentally ill offenders if , in view of his personality , his condition and the nature of the offence it is to be feared that he will otherwise , under the influence of his mental or emotional abnormality , commit a criminal offence with serious consequences .

NORP If such a fear exists , an order for placement in an institution for mentally ill offenders shall also be made in respect of a person who , while not lacking criminal responsibility , commits an offence punishable by a term of imprisonment exceeding one year under the influence of severe mental or emotional abnormality . In such a case the placement is to be ordered at the same time as the sentence is passed . "

The Code of Criminal Procedure ( GPE ) , as in force at the relevant time , provided that a court , during the proceedings and if the subject matter warranted it , should appoint an expert . The court had to appoint CARDINAL experts only if the subject matter to be examined was particularly difficult ( see LAW ) . Domestic case - law determined that an allegation that an expert opinion had reached the wrong conclusion was not to be considered to render the subject matter “ particularly difficult ” within the meaning of the provision ( EvBl CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) . Such difficulty could arise where an appointed expert was unable to answer a question put before him , if another expert would in all probability be able to answer it .

At the relevant time , an expert was appointed at the investigative stage by the investigative judge , or by the court . There was no right for the parties to formally object to the appointment of an expert . However , LAW provided that the parties should be informed of the planned appointment of an expert . If the parties brought forward objections regarding the appointment of the expert in a timely manner , the court could appoint another expert .

NORP In its FAC and CARDINAL , LAW provided for procedural steps to be taken in the event of a deficient expert opinion in criminal proceedings : the main principles deriving from those provisions were that in the event of an expert opinion being contradictory or inconclusive , or in the event that CARDINAL expert opinions clearly differed from each other and another oral examination of the experts could not eliminate the doubts with regard to the conclusions of their opinions , a new expert was to be appointed by the court .

A citation from the domestic jurisprudence summarises the general view of NORP domestic law on criminal procedure as regards private experts’ opinions : in a judgment of CARDINAL DATE ( CARDINALOsCARDINAL/CARDINAL ) , ORG , deciding on a plea of nullity , stated :

“ As regards the procedural objection , it should be made clear from the outset that private expert opinions related to the case , of the kind commissioned by the applicant and submitted with a request for the taking of evidence , can properly serve only to provide the accused and his or her defence counsel with expert clarification on important aspects of the case and thereby enable them to put pertinent questions to the court - appointed experts ; where applicable , they may also serve as grounds for obtaining an additional expert opinion ( ordered by the court ) ... As evidence , however , they have ... by law no procedural significance , since they lack in particular the guarantees of impartiality and judicial supervision of their preparation . Accordingly , they are not to be read out during the trial either . ”

At the material time LAW did not yet include an explicit provision allowing privately commissioned experts to be present at the oral hearing and to thereby assist defendants and their counsel in questioning the court - appointed experts during the hearing . Such a provision was introduced into LAW in DATE with its new LAW . However , also before the reform of LAW , ORG had stated in its case - law , with reference to a defendant ’s rights under LAW ( d ) of the LAW , that to ensure that the defendant could question an expert effectively during the hearing , he or she could make use of the professional support of a privately commissioned expert , and that expert could not be refused permission to sit next to counsel in the hearing room , albeit without having the right to question the court - appointed expert directly ( see judgment CARDINAL of ORG of DATE , and judgment ORG of ORG of DATE ) .

According to LAW at the material time , a witness testified before the court on his or her perception of the subject matter at issue ( see LAW ) . Again , the amended LAW codified the principles deriving from ORG jurisprudence in the matter and stated in its LAW that a witness was a person having directly or indirectly perceived relevant facts regarding the subject matter of the investigation or the proceedings and who should thus testify on those perceptions .

The referral of a defendant to an institution for mentally ill offenders under LAW of LAW had in principle to be ordered at the same time as the sentence was imposed ( see LAW ) . However , such a referral was null and void if the defendant had not been represented by counsel throughout the proceedings and if the order had been made without hearing CARDINAL psychiatric expert on the matter ( see Article CARDINAL in conjunction with Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL no . CARDINAL of the Code of Criminal Procedure ) .

Finally , Article CARDINAL of the Code of Criminal Procedure provided at the material time , inter alia , that witness statements or expert opinions were only permitted to be read out in the criminal proceedings if – among other things – both the defendant and the public prosecutor agreed .


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

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

On DATE the applicant filed for divorce before ORG .

On DATE the court dissolved the marriage and placed the couple 's minor child with the respondent . It regulated the child maintenance and the use of the family home . On CARDINAL DATE ORG upheld the first - instance decision .

In the ensuing proceedings concerning the matrimonial property , on DATE the court gave the ownership of the commonly used flat and a DATE - house to the applicant while granting the possession of their shop to her ex - husband . It also ordered the applicant to pay the difference in value of the different properties .

On appeal , on DATE ORG reversed the first - instance decision . The applicant lodged a petition for review with ORG . On DATE ORG , finding that ORG decision had been in compliance with the law , upheld it . This decision was served on the applicant on DATE .


The first and the second applicants , PERSON and Mr PERSON , were born in DATE . The third applicant , PERSON , was born in DATE . The applicants are NORP nationals and live in the town of GPE .

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

In DATE the applicants lodged with ORG of PERSON ( hereinafter “ ORG ) civil claims against the President of GPE , ORG ( hereinafter “ the ORG ” ) , and ORG seeking recovery of their indexed deposits in the ORG and compensation for non - pecuniary damage . On DATE and DATE the court found in part for the applicants and ordered the Dnipropetrovs’k ORG to pay them , respectively , ORG CARDINAL , ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL and ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL in reimbursement of the indexed bank deposits .

According to the ORG , the ORG appealed on DATE . In the third applicant ’s case , on DATE ORG rejected the appeal of the ORG for failure to lodge it within the statutory time - limit ; however , on DATE the Dnipropetrovs’k ORG ( hereinafter “ the ORG ” ) allowed the appeal of the ORG and granted an extension of the time - limit for lodging its appeal against the judgment of DATE .

On DATE and DATE ORG quashed the judgments of CARDINAL June and DATE and remitted the cases for a fresh consideration . The applicants did not appeal in cassation .

On DATE ORG left the first and the second applicants’ claim without consideration for failure to appear before the court . On CARDINAL DATE the court left the ORG appeal without consideration and allowed them time to rectify the shortcomings . On DATE the ORG appeal was returned without consideration for failure to comply with the ruling of CARDINAL DATE . The applicants did not appeal against this procedural decision .

On DATE ORG left the third applicant ’s claim without consideration for failure to appear before the court . The applicant did not appeal against this ruling .

Enforcement proceedings in respect of the judgments in the applicant ’s favour

On DATE and CARDINAL DATE ORG ( hereinafter “ the Bailiffs ” ) instituted the enforcement proceedings in respect of the judgments of ORG in the ORG favour . On DATE the Bailiffs discontinued the enforcement proceedings on the grounds that the debtor was not a separate legal entity and that the order of reimbursement of the indexed deposits should be established by ORG under LAW GPE on ORG . The applicants did not challenge these decisions before the domestic courts .