Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court)

Anatoly Kovler;Christos Rozakis;Egbert Myjer;Ireneu Cabral Barreto;Ján Šikuta;Jean-Paul Costa;John Hedigan;Karel Jungwiert;Lucius Caflisch;Luzius Wildhaber;Margarita Tsatsa-Nikolovska;Mindia Ugrekhelidze;Nicolas Bratza;Vladimiro Zagrebelsky

The CARDINAL applicants are all citizens of GPE and GPE , which was known at the time of the events in question as GPE ( “ the FRY ” ) .

The first CARDINAL applicants , PERSON and PERSON , were born in DATE respectively , and applied to the ORG on behalf of PERSON , deceased son of PERSON and brother of PERSON .

The third and fourth applicants , PERSON and PERSON , were born in DATE and DATE respectively , and applied to the ORG on behalf of PERSON , deceased husband of PERSON and father of PERSON .

The fifth applicant , PERSON , was born in DATE and applied to the ORG on behalf of her deceased husband , PERSON .

The sixth and seventh applicants , PERSON and PERSON , were born in DATE and DATE respectively , and applied to the ORG on behalf of PERSON , deceased son of PERSON and brother of PERSON .

The DATE and tenth applicants , PERSON , GPE and PERSON , were born in DATE respectively , and applied to the ORG on behalf of PERSON , deceased son of PERSON and PERSON and brother of PERSON .

The applicants lodged the present application to complain of the outcome of an action in damages which they had brought in the NORP courts in respect of an air strike against the FRY .

The facts of the case relate to the same events as those considered by ORG in its decision in the case of PERSON and Others v. GPE and Others ( ( dec . ) [ ORG ] , no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , ORG CARDINAL-XII ) . The facts in that case were summarised as follows :

“ CARDINAL . The conflict in GPE between NORP and NORP forces during DATE and DATE is well documented . Against the background of the escalating conflict , together with the growing concerns and unsuccessful diplomatic initiatives of the international community , the CARDINAL - nation ORG ( established in DATE by ORG ) met and agreed to convene negotiations between the parties to the conflict .

On DATE , and following a decision of its ORG ( NAC ) , ORG ( ORG ) announced air strikes on the territory of the ORG in the case of non - compliance with the demands of the international community . Negotiations consequently took place between the parties to the conflict from CARDINAL to DATE in ORG and from DATE in GPE . The resulting proposed peace agreement was signed by the NORP delegation but not by the NORP delegation .

Considering that all efforts to achieve a negotiated political solution to the GPE crisis had failed , the ORG decided on , and on DATE the Secretary General of ORG announced , the beginning of air strikes ( ORG ) against the ORG . The air strikes lasted from DATE to CARDINAL DATE .

CARDINAL television channels and CARDINAL radio stations operated from the ORG facilities in GPE . The main production facilities were housed in CARDINAL buildings at FAC . The master control room was housed on the first floor of CARDINAL of the buildings and was staffed mainly by technical staff .

On DATE , just after TIME approximately , CARDINAL of the ORG buildings at FAC was hit by a missile launched from a FAC aircraft . CARDINAL of the CARDINAL floors of the building collapsed and the master control room was destroyed .

... CARDINAL targets were hit in the FRY that night , including CARDINAL in GPE . ”

NORP The partial collapse of the ORG building caused the deaths of CARDINAL people , including the CARDINAL relatives of the applicants .

On DATE the first CARDINAL applicants brought an action in damages in the GPE ORG under Article CARDINAL of the NORP Civil Code . The other CARDINAL applicants applied to be joined to the proceedings on DATE .

The applicants believed that civil liability for the deaths of their relatives lay with the NORP Prime Minister ’s ORG and with ORG in LOC ( ORG ) .

They argued that the NORP courts had jurisdiction to hear the case . In particular , on the basis of the wording of LAW , they submitted that the unlawful act that had caused the alleged damage should be regarded as having been committed in GPE inasmuch as the military action had been organised on NORP territory and part of it had taken place there . They based this argument on the extent of GPE ’s commitment – involving substantial political and logistical support DATE to the military mission in question . Specifically , GPE , unlike other ORG members , had provided the air bases from which the aircraft that had bombed GPE and the ORG had taken off . They also relied in support of their claim on LAW and on LAW of DATE and LAW to LAW .

The defendants argued that the NORP courts had no jurisdiction to hear the case . The proceedings against ORG were discontinued by the applicants .

The Prime Minister ’s Office and ORG subsequently sought a preliminary ruling from ORG on the question of jurisdiction ( regolamento preventivo di giurisdizione ) under LAW .

In written submissions dated DATE , ORG at ORG argued that the application for a preliminary ruling should be declared inadmissible as it concerned the merits of the claim , not the issue of jurisdiction . He stated as follows :

“ The governmental bodies defending this claim have requested a preliminary ruling on the issue of jurisdiction , arguing that :

( a ) since the action is brought against the NORP ORG as a specific ( unitary ) subject of international law for acts performed in the exercise of its imperium ( iure imperii ) , it can not be brought in the NORP courts ;

( b ) paragraph CARDINAL of Article VIII of LAW of DATE , which GPE ratified by PERSON no . CARDINAL of DATE , does not provide any basis for the action either , as it applies to damage caused in the receiving ORG .

The government seek to show through this jurisdictional issue that the NORP legal system does not contain any provision or principle capable of providing a basis for the alleged personal right [ diritto soggettivo perfetto ] or of guaranteeing it in the abstract .

Accordingly , the position is that :

( a ) NORP the government argue that the NORP ORG can not be held liable for acts carried out in the exercise of its imperium ;

( b ) in addition , they deny that the said ORG can be used to determine the place where the acts which caused the alleged damage took place ( it is not by accident that the applicant has cited the provisions of LAW referring to the place where the offence was committed ) .

It follows that the questions thus raised go to the merits , not to the issue of jurisdiction ( see judgment no . CARDINAL of DATE of ORG , sitting as a full court ) .

For these reasons , ORG , sitting as a full court , is asked to declare the application inadmissible , with all the consequences which that entails in law . ”

In a ruling ( no . DATE ) of DATE , which was deposited with the registry on DATE and conveyed to the applicants on DATE , ORG , sitting as a full court ( ORG ) , found that the NORP courts had no jurisdiction . It reasoned as follows :

NORP The claim seeks to impute liability to the NORP ORG on the basis of an act of war , in particular the conduct of hostilities through aerial warfare . The choice of the means that will be used to conduct hostilities is an act of government . These are acts through which political functions are performed and the LAW provides for them to be assigned to a constitutional body . The nature of such functions precludes any claim to a protected interest in relation thereto , so that the acts by which they are carried out may or may not have a specific content – see the judgments of the full court of CARDINAL DATE ( no . CARDINAL ) , CARDINAL DATE ( no . DATE ) and DATE ( no . CARDINAL ) . With respect to acts of this type , no court has the power to review the manner in which the function was performed .

While the purpose of the provisions of international agreements governing the conduct of hostilities – LAW to LAW ( Articles CARDINAL , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE ) and LAW ( Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL § DATE is to protect civilians in the event of attack , they are rules of international law , and so also regulate relations between GPE .

These same treaties lay down the procedure for finding a violation and the sanctions in the event of liability ( LAW and LAW ) ; they also designate the international courts and tribunals with jurisdiction to make such a finding .

However , the legislation implementing these rules in the NORP ORG does not contain any express provision enabling injured parties to seek reparation from the ORG for damage sustained as a result of a violation of the rules of international law .

The notion that provisions to that effect may implicitly have been introduced into the system through the implementation of rules of international law is at odds with the converse principle that has been mentioned which holds that protected individual interests are no bar to carrying out functions of a political nature .

Indeed , in order to enable reparation to be provided in the domestic system for loss sustained as a result of a violation of the ‘ reasonable time’ requirement under LAW , [ the ORG ] introduced appropriate legislation ( PERSON no . CARDINAL of DATE ) .

No entitlement to a review of the government ’s decision concerning the conduct of hostilities with respect to the ORG aerial operations against ORG can be found in LAW of DATE .

The fact that the aircraft used to bomb the GPE radio and television station were able to use bases situated on NORP territory constitutes but CARDINAL element of the highly complex operation whose lawfulness it is sought to review and is not therefore relevant to the application of the rule laid down in paragraph CARDINAL of Article VIII of the Convention , which on the contrary presupposes the commission of an act that is amenable to review . ”

ORG ruling brought to an end , ipso jure , the proceedings in ORG .

The relevant provisions of LAW are as follows :

“ The NORP legal system shall comply with the generally recognised rules of international law .

“ Everyone may bring legal proceedings to protect his or her rights and legitimate interests .

“ Civil servants , other agents of the ORG and public entities shall be directly responsible , in accordance with the criminal , civil and administrative law , for acts committed in breach of rights . In connection with such acts , civil liability shall extend to the ORG and public entities .

“ Judicial protection of rights and legitimate interests in the ordinary and administrative courts shall always lie against acts of the public administrative authorities .

It may not be excluded or limited to extraordinary remedies or specific categories of act .

The law shall specify which judicial bodies are empowered to set aside acts of the public authorities , in what cases and with what effects . ”

DATE of LAW no . CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE provides :

“ No appeal to the Consiglio di Stato , sitting in its judicial capacity , shall lie against acts or decisions of the government which involve the exercise of political power . ”

DATE of the Civil Code provides :

“ Any unlawful act which causes damage to another will render the perpetrator liable in damages under the civil law . ”

Article CARDINAL of the Code of Civil Procedure , which deals with the issue of jurisdiction , provides :

“ For so long as there has been no determination of the merits of the proceedings at first instance , any party may seek a ruling on a question of jurisdiction under LAW from ORG , sitting as a full court . ... ”

LAW provides :

“ A ruling that an ordinary court has no jurisdiction because the case concerns a public authority or is within the province of a special court may be made at any time and at any level of jurisdiction , including by the court of its own motion . ”

NORP The relevant provisions of LAW provide :

“ Anyone who commits an offence on the territory of the ORG shall be punished in accordance with NORP law .

The offence will be regarded as having been committed on the territory of the ORG if all or part of the act or omission at the origin of the offence or all or some of the consequences of such act or omission occurred there . ”

“ ORG and compensation for damage .

The commission of an offence shall give rise to an obligation of restitution under the civil law [ Articles DATE et seq . of LAW ] .

Any offence that causes pecuniary damage [ Article CARDINAL of LAW ] or non - pecuniary damage [ Article CARDINAL of LAW ] shall impose an obligation on the perpetrator and those accountable for his or her actions under the civil law [ Article CARDINAL of LAW ] to make reparation . ”

Article CARDINAL of ORG reads as follows :

“ A commanding officer of a military force who , in order to inflict damage on the enemy , orders or authorises the use of a means or method of warfare that is prohibited by law or by international treaty or which is in any event contrary to the military code of honour shall be liable on conviction to a minimum of DATE imprisonment unless the act concerned is a criminal offence under a specific statutory provision .

If the act results in a massacre , the minimum term of imprisonment shall be DATE . ”

In a judgment of DATE ( no . PERSON ) , ORG , sitting as a full court , established the rule that the courts had no jurisdiction to hear cases against the authorities relating to political acts .

A trade union had brought an action against the Prime Minister , ORG and ORG on the ground that the government had failed to comply with their undertakings . ORG noted , inter alia , that such a failure could only engage the government ’s political responsibility , but could not create a right . It ruled that the courts had no jurisdiction to hear the case after formulating the following principle :

“ Legislative action is a political act since it is the standard means of performing political and governmental functions . The governmental authority ’s conduct in the present case was not , therefore , capable in law of causing individuals damage ( whether to their personal rights or to their legitimate interests ) ; it consequently escapes all judicial scrutiny . ”

The NORP courts had in fact already examined this question in a number of earlier cases and had ruled that , as they were political in nature , the following acts escaped the scrutiny of the domestic courts :

( i ) a waiver of the right to exercise jurisdiction LAW between the Parties to LOC the Status of their ORG , DATE , no . CARDINAL , GPE and Others , ORG . Pen . [ Criminal Justice ] , DATE , III , p. CARDINAL ) ;

( ii ) NORP the assignment of property belonging to NORP nationals under LAW of DATE ( Court of Cassation , sitting as a full court , CARDINAL DATE , no . CARDINAL , ORG v. the ORG , PERSON diritto internazionale [ ORG ] , DATE , p. CARDINAL ) ;

( iii ) a Transport Ministry decree suspending permission to transport goods to GPE ( ORG , CARDINAL DATE , LOC . S. and PERSON . ORG v. ORG , PERSON [ ORG Procedure ] , DATE , p. CARDINAL ) ;

( iv ) a decision by ORG appointing employees’ representatives as delegates to ORG ( ORG , DATE , no . CARDINAL , ORG , ORG , DATE , p. CARDINAL ) ;

( v ) a declaration of war and treaty provisions relating to compensation for war damage ( ORG ( I ) , DATE , no . CARDINAL , PERSON the ORG , ORG . PERSON . Reg . [ ORG ] , DATE , p. CARDINAL ) .

The full court of ORG delivered a further judgment ( no . DATE ) on DATE . It concerned the jurisdiction of the NORP civil courts to hear claims for compensation for damage sustained by a person who had been captured by the NORP military in DATE and deported to work for NORP industry . GPE had pleaded State immunity and the courts of first instance and appeal had held that they had no jurisdiction to make an order against it . ORG carried out a very extensive examination of the international treaties on international crime , imprescriptibility , the international responsibility of GPE , immunity from jurisdiction and of the case - law of various international tribunals . In holding that the immunity plea failed and the NORP courts had to decide the claim , it stated inter alia :

“ ... In a decision no . CARDINAL of DATE , this full court did indeed rule that acts performed by the ORG in the conduct of hostilities escape all scrutiny by the courts , as they are acts through which ‘ political’ functions are carried out . The nature of these functions ‘ precludes any claim to a protected interest in respect thereto , so that there may or may not be a specific content to the acts through which they are performed’ . Pursuant to this principle , the NORP courts were held to have no jurisdiction to hear a claim against the NORP Prime Minister ’s Office and ORG for compensation for the destruction of a non - military objective during ORG air strikes against ORG or for the resultant civilian deaths . It is readily apparent , however , firstly , that the fact that the court can not contest the manner in which the actions of the supreme head of the res publica are conducted does not prevent it from finding that a criminal offence has been committed or that there is related liability under the criminal or civil law ( Articles CARDINAL of the LAW ; section LAW no . CARDINAL of DATE ; and LAW no . DATE ) ; secondly , by virtue of the principle of adaptation established by LAW , the ‘ generally recognised’ principles of international law which govern the fundamental values constituted by the freedom and dignity of the human being and characterise the most serious assaults upon the integrity of those values as ‘ international crimes’ have ‘ ORG been integrated into our system and are entirely apt for use as a standard whereby the injustice of damage caused to others by intentional or negligent ‘ acts’ may be gauged . It is evident , therefore , that the principles referred to in this decision can not be taken into consideration in the instant case . ...

CARDINAL Granting immunity from jurisdiction to GPE who have been guilty of such wrongdoing is in manifest contradiction with the aforementioned normative rules because it constitutes an obstacle to the defence of values whose protection , like these norms and principles , must on the contrary be considered essential for the entire international community , even to the point of justifying forms of mandatory response in the most serious cases . Nor is there any doubt that the antinomy must be resolved by giving priority to the highest ranking norms , as the judges in the minority ( CARDINAL to CARDINAL ) stated in their dissenting opinion appended to the judgment in PERSON [ v. GPE [ ORG ] , no . ORG , ORG CARDINAL-XI ] , by precluding in such cases any claim by the ORG to immunity from suit in the foreign courts . ”

In DATE the NORP government decided to send a military expeditionary force to GPE to perform peacekeeping operations . After the expeditionary force had returned to GPE , it was discovered that some of its members had engaged in the torture of NORP prisoners . CARDINAL members of the expedition were charged and given prison sentences . They were also ordered to pay compensation to the civil party . In judgment no . CARDINAL of DATE , the text of which was deposited with the registry on DATE , ORG ordered another NORP serviceman and ORG to make reparation for the damage sustained by the relatives of a civilian whom the serviceman had killed unlawfully .

The applicants relied in the domestic courts on LAW DATE to LAW of CARDINAL DATE , relating to ORG . The LAW , which GPE ratified through Law no . CARDINAL of DATE , contains , inter alia , the following provisions :

“ CARDINAL . In any armed conflict , the right of the Parties to the conflict to choose methods or means of warfare is not unlimited .

It is prohibited to employ weapons , projectiles and material and methods of warfare of a nature to cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering .

It is prohibited to employ methods or means of warfare which are intended , or may be expected , to cause widespread , long - term and severe damage to the natural environment .

“ In order to ensure respect for and protection of the civilian population and civilian objects , the Parties to the conflict shall at all times distinguish between the civilian population and combatants and between civilian objects and military objectives and accordingly shall direct their operations only against military objectives . ”

“ CARDINAL . CARDINAL ’Attacks’ means acts of violence against the adversary , whether in offence or in defence .

NORP The provisions of this LAW with respect to attacks apply to all attacks in whatever territory conducted , including the national territory belonging to a ORG to the conflict but under the control of an adverse ORG .

The provisions of this section apply to any land , air or sea warfare which may affect the civilian population , individual civilians or civilian objects on land . They further apply to all attacks from the sea or from the air against objectives on land but do not otherwise affect the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict at sea or in the air .

The provisions of this section are additional to the rules concerning humanitarian protection contained in LAW , particularly in Part II thereof , and in other international agreements binding upon LAW , as well as to other rules of international law relating to the protection of civilians and civilian objects on land , at sea or in the air against the effects of hostilities . ”

“ CARDINAL . The civilian population and individual civilians shall enjoy general protection against dangers arising from military operations . To give effect to this protection , the following rules , which are additional to other applicable rules of international law , shall be observed in all circumstances .

NORP The civilian population as such , as well as individual civilians , shall not be the object of attack . Acts or threats of violence the primary purpose of which is to spread terror among the civilian population are prohibited .

Civilians shall enjoy the protection afforded by this section , unless and for such time as they take a direct part in hostilities .

Indiscriminate attacks are prohibited . Indiscriminate attacks are :

( a ) those which are not directed at a specific military objective ;

( b ) those which employ a method or means of combat which can not be directed at a specific military objective ; or

( c ) those which employ a method or means of combat the effects of which can not be limited as required by this LAW ;

and consequently , in each such case , are of a nature to strike military objectives and civilians or civilian objects without distinction .

Among others , the following types of attacks are to be considered as indiscriminate :

( a ) an attack by bombardment by any methods or means which treats as a single military objective a number of clearly separated and distinct military objectives located in a city , town , village or other area containing a similar concentration of civilians or civilian objects ;

and

( b ) an attack which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life , injury to civilians , damage to civilian objects , or a combination thereof , which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated .

Attacks against the civilian population or civilians by way of reprisals are prohibited .

The presence or movements of the civilian population or individual civilians shall not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations , in particular in attempts to shield military objectives from attacks or to shield , favour or impede military operations . The Parties to the conflict shall not direct the movement of the civilian population or individual civilians in order to attempt to shield military objectives from attacks or to shield military operations .

Any violation of these prohibitions shall not release the Parties to the conflict from their legal obligations with respect to the civilian population and civilians , including the obligation to take the precautionary measures provided for in LAW .

“ CARDINAL . Civilian objects shall not be the object of attack or of reprisals . Civilian objects are all objects which are not military objectives as defined in paragraph CARDINAL .

Attacks shall be limited strictly to military objectives . In so far as objects are concerned , military objectives are limited to those objects which by their nature , location , purpose or use make an effective contribution to military action and whose total or partial destruction , capture or neutralization , in the circumstances ruling at the time , offers a definite military advantage .

NORP In case of doubt whether an object which is normally dedicated to civilian purposes , such as a place of worship , a house or other dwelling or a school , is being used to make an effective contribution to military action , it shall be presumed not to be so used .

“ CARDINAL . In the conduct of military operations , constant care shall be taken to spare the civilian population , civilians and civilian objects .

With respect to attacks , the following precautions shall be taken :

( a ) those who plan or decide upon an attack shall :

( i ) do everything feasible to verify that the objectives to be attacked are neither civilians nor civilian objects and are not subject to special protection but are military objectives within the meaning of paragraph CARDINAL of LAW and that it is not prohibited by the provisions of this LAW to attack them ;

( ii ) take all feasible precautions in the choice of means and methods of attack with a view to avoiding , and in any event to minimizing , incidental loss or civilian life , injury to civilians and damage to civilian objects ;

( iii ) refrain from deciding to launch any attack which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life , injury to civilians , damage to civilian objects , or a combination thereof , which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated ;

( b ) an attack shall be cancelled or suspended if it becomes apparent that the objective is not a military one or is subject to special protection or that the attack may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life , injury to civilians , damage to civilian objects , or a combination thereof , which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated ;

( c ) NORP effective advance warning shall be given of attacks which may affect the civilian population , unless circumstances do not permit .

When a choice is possible between several military objectives for obtaining a similar military advantage , the objective to be selected shall be that the attack on which may be expected to cause the least danger to civilian lives and to civilian objects .

In the conduct of military operations at sea or in the air , each ORG to the conflict shall , in conformity with its rights and duties under the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict , take all reasonable precautions to avoid losses of civilian lives and damage to civilian objects .

No provision of this Article may be construed as authorizing any attacks against the civilian population , civilians or civilian objects .

“ A ORG to the conflict which violates the provisions of the ORG or of this LAW shall , if the case demands , be liable to pay compensation . It shall be responsible for all acts committed by persons forming part of its armed forces . ”

The applicants also relied in the domestic courts on paragraph CARDINAL of Article VIII of LAW of DATE between the Parties to the North Atlantic Treaty regarding the Status of their ORG , which GPE ratified through Law no . CARDINAL of DATE .

Article I defines certain terms as follows :

( d ) ’sending State’ means ORG to which the force belongs ;

( e ) ’receiving PERSON means ORG in the territory of which the force or civilian component is located , whether it be stationed there or passing in transit ;

Article PERSON provides , inter alia :

Claims ( other than contractual claims and those to which paragraphs CARDINAL or CARDINAL of this Article apply ) arising out of acts or omissions of members of a force or civilian component done in the performance of official duty , or out of any other act , omission or occurrence for which a force or civilian component is legally responsible , and causing damage in the territory of the receiving ORG to third parties , other than any of the Contracting Parties , shall be dealt with by the receiving ORG in accordance with the following provisions :

( a ) Claims shall be filed , considered and settled or adjudicated in accordance with the laws and regulations of the receiving ORG with respect to claims arising from the activities of its own armed forces .

( b ) The receiving ORG may settle any such claims , and payment of the amount agreed upon or determinated by adjudication shall be made by the receiving ORG in its currency .

( c ) Such payment , whether made pursuant to a settlement or to adjudication of the case by a competent tribunal of the receiving ORG , or the final adjudication by such a tribunal denying payment , shall be binding and conclusive upon the Contracting Parties .

( d ) Every claim paid by the receiving ORG shall be communicated to the sending States concerned together with full particulars and a proposed distribution in conformity with sub - paragraphs ( e ) ( i ) , ( ii ) and ( iii ) below . In default of a reply within DATE , the proposed distribution shall be regarded as accepted .

( e ) The cost incurred in satisfying claims pursuant to the preceding sub - paragraphs and paragraph CARDINAL of this Article shall be distributed between the Contracting Parties , as follows :

( i ) Where CARDINAL sending ORG alone is responsible , the amount awarded or adjudged shall be distributed in the proportion of MONEY chargeable to the receiving ORG and MONEY chargeable to the sending ORG .

( ii ) Where CARDINAL ORG is responsible for the damage , the amount awarded or adjudged shall be distributed equally among them : however , if the receiving ORG is not CARDINAL of the GPE responsible , its contribution shall be CARDINAL that of each of the sending States .

( iii ) Where the damage was caused by the armed services of the Contracting Parties and it is not possible to attribute it specifically to one or more of those armed services , the amount awarded or adjudged shall be distributed equally among the Contracting Parties concerned : however , if the receiving ORG is not CARDINAL of the GPE by whose armed services the damage was caused , its contribution shall be CARDINAL that of each of the sending States concerned .

( iv ) Every DATE , a statement of the sums paid by the receiving ORG in the course of DATE in respect of every case regarding which the proposed distribution on a percentage basis has been accepted , shall be sent to the sending States concerned , together with a request for reimbursement . Such reimbursement shall be made within the shortest possible time , in the currency of the receiving ORG .

( f ) In cases where the application of the provisions of sub - paragraphs ( b ) and ( e ) of this paragraph would cause a ORG serious hardship , it may request ORG to arrange a settlement of a different nature .

( g ) A member of a force or civilian component shall not be subject to any proceedings for the enforcement of any judgment given against him in the receiving ORG in a matter arising from the performance of his official duties .

( h ) Except in so far as sub - paragraph ( e ) of this paragraph applies to claims covered by paragraph CARDINAL of this LAW , the provisions of this paragraph shall not apply to any claim arising out of or in connexion with the navigation or operation of a ship or the loading , carriage , or discharge of a cargo , other than claims for death or personal injury to which paragraph CARDINAL of this Article does not apply .

Claims against members of a force or civilian component arising out of tortious acts or omissions in the receiving ORG not done in the performance of official duty shall be dealt with in the following manner :

( b ) The report shall be delivered to the authorities of the sending ORG , who shall then decide without delay whether they will offer an ex gratia payment , and if so , of what amount .

( c ) If an offer of ex gratia payment is made , and accepted by the claimant in full satisfaction of his claim , the authorities of the sending State shall make the payment themselves and inform the authorities of the receiving ORG of their decision and of the sum paid .

( d ) Nothing in this paragraph shall affect the jurisdiction of the courts of the receiving ORG to entertain an action against a member of a force or of a civilian component unless and until there has been payment in full satisfaction of the claim .

Claims arising out of the unauthorized use of any vehicle of the armed services of a sending ORG shall be dealt with in accordance with paragraph CARDINAL of this LAW , except in so far as the force or civilian component is legally responsible .

If a dispute arises as to whether a tortious act or omission of a member of a force or civilian component was done in the performance of official duty or as to whether the use of any vehicle of the armed services of a sending ORG was unauthorized , the question shall be submitted to an arbitrator appointed in accordance with paragraph CARDINAL ( b ) of this Article , whose decision on this point shall be final and conclusive .

The sending ORG shall not claim immunity from the jurisdiction of the courts of the receiving ORG for members of a force or civilian component in respect of the civil jurisdiction of the courts of the receiving ORG except to the extent provided in paragraph CARDINAL ( g ) of this Article .

The authorities of the sending ORG and of the receiving ORG shall co - operate in the procurement of evidence for a fair hearing and disposal of claims in regard to which the Contracting Parties are concerned .


CASE OF ARVANITAKI-ROBOTI AND OTHERS v. GREECE

Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Administrative proceedings;Article 6-1 - Reasonable time);Non-pecuniary damage - award

Christos Rozakis;David Thór Björgvinsson;Dean Spielmann;Elisabeth Steiner;Françoise Tulkens;Jean-Paul Costa;Josep Casadevall;Karel Jungwiert;Khanlar Hajiyev;Lech Garlicki;Loukis Loucaides;Margarita Tsatsa-Nikolovska;Mark Villiger;Mindia Ugrekhelidze;Nicolas Bratza;Peer Lorenzen;Rait Maruste;Snejana Botoucharova;Sverre Erik Jebens;Vladimiro Zagrebelsky

In their capacity as doctors , the applicants are members of ORG ( Εθνικό PERSON ) and are employed by the public hospital “ O Evangelismos ” .

On DATE they applied to ORG seeking to have set aside the hospital 's refusal to pay them an allowance for overtime work , set at ORG of their basic salary . The sole purpose of this application was to challenge the lawfulness of the disputed administrative decision .

Initially scheduled for DATE , the hearing was postponed CARDINAL times , CARDINAL of these being at the applicants ' request . It was eventually held on DATE . On DATE ORG set aside the disputed administrative decision ( decision no . CARDINAL ) .

On DATE the hospital lodged an appeal against that decision . Initially scheduled for DATE , the hearing was held on DATE , after CARDINAL postponements . On DATE ORG of ORG sent the case for examination by that court 's CARDINAL - judge bench on account of the importance of a question concerning the way in which the document in dispute had been published ( judgment no . PERSON ) .

On DATE , following the postponement of CARDINAL hearing , ORG overturned ORG decision . It held that the ministerial decree on which the applicants based their claim to receive an allowance for overtime work had not been published in due form and was therefore without foundation ( judgment no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) .

It appears from the case file that , in the meantime , the applicants had on several occasions brought actions in the administrative courts , seeking payment of various amounts in respect of allowances for overtime work allegedly owed by the public hospital in question . The total sum claimed by each applicant in this connection varied CARDINAL ORG ) . It appears from the case file that these actions were dismissed by the domestic courts .

Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL of LAW provides :

“ Several persons may bring a joint action , in a single appeal , against the same act or omission , provided that the grounds advanced have , in substance , the same legal or factual basis with regard to the essential issues or are based on the same action . [ A joint action may also be lodged ] where the grounds advanced concern a shared right or where , in substance , the rights relied upon have the same legal or factual basis with regard to the key issues .


The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

In DATE , in accordance with PERSON no . CARDINAL regarding the distribution of lands to farmers in need , a plot of land measuring QUANTITY on LOC , in LOC of GPE , was sold to GPE by the ORG authorities and registered in his name .

NORP In DATE , pursuant to Law no . PERSON , ORG conducted a boundary - marking exercise ( tahdit çalışması ) on LOC . The purpose of this exercise was to detect the forest areas which had not been included on the cadastral map . The outcome of the evaluation was publicly announced and as no opposition was made , this decision became definitive in DATE . It was concluded that the whole of LOC had the characteristics of a forest and it therefore could not be the subject of private ownership . This conclusion was annotated in the title deed registry in DATE .

NORP In DATE PERSON signed an agreement with the applicant , promising to sell the land in question .

DATE , ORG conducted an evaluation ( aplikasyon çalışması ) of the area to detect the lands which had lost their characteristics as a forest and to remove their forest status . Its decision was announced on DATE . It was concluded that the plot of land in question had not lost its characteristics as a forest within the meaning of LAW no.CARDINAL .

On DATE the applicant purchased the land in question and registered it in his name .

On DATE PERSON filed an action before ORG against ORG and ORG , objecting to ORG decision of DATE .

On DATE ORG held that it had no jurisdiction to examine the case and transferred the file to ORG . ORG appealed against this decision . On DATE ORG quashed the judgment of the first - instance court on procedural grounds . The case was remitted to ORG . On DATE the court declared that it had no jurisdiction to examine the case and transferred the file to ORG . The proceedings resumed before ORG .

On DATE ORG decided to annul ORG decision of DATE and to remove the land 's forest status . Furthermore , it ordered that the land be registered in the name of the ORG .

Both parties appealed against the decision . On DATE ORG quashed the decision of the first - instance court . It held that forests could not be the subject of private ownership and therefore could not be distributed to landless farmers for agricultural purposes . Any property claim over a forest was therefore considered legally invalid . The court found that PERSON was not entitled to request the removal of the land 's forest status .

The case was resumed before ORG . On DATE ORG maintained its initial decision of DATE .

ORG and ORG filed an appeal . On DATE ORG of ORG supported the reasoning of the relevant chamber of ORG and quashed the decision of ORG . The case file was sent back to ORG .

On DATE ORG decided to abide by the decision of ORG of ORG . It consequently dismissed PERSON 's case and held that there was no legal benefit for private persons to act as a plaintiff in cases concerning the revocation of forest status .

On DATE ORG upheld the decision of ORG . This decision was served on the applicant on DATE .

On DATE ORG initiated proceedings before ORG against PERSON to annul the registration of title and for an order preventing further use of the land by PERSON On DATE the applicant intervened in the proceedings . On DATE ORG decided that it had no jurisdiction to examine the case and transferred the file to ORG .

In DATE the court decided to stay the proceedings as the determination of the case depended on the outcome of the case pending before ORG ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above ) .

Following the decision of ORG of ORG , the proceedings before ORG resumed ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . On DATE , in view of the decision of ORG of ORG , the first instance court held that the plot of land in dispute was designated as part of a forest area and could not be the subject of private ownership . It therefore decided to annul the applicant 's title and register the land in question in the name of the ORG . The applicant appealed .

On DATE ORG found the applicant 's grounds for appeal unfounded and upheld the decision of the first instance court .


Corneliu Bîrsan;Egbert Myjer;Ineta Ziemele;Josep Casadevall;Luis López Guerra

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

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

NORP On DATE an insurance company ( PERSON . ) instituted proceedings against the applicant .

On DATE ORG ( Okrožno sodišče v PERSON ) gave a first - instance judgment . An appeal was lodged .

On DATE ORG ( PERSON v PERSON ) gave a judgment upholding the first - instance court ’s judgment . The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law .

On DATE the applicant lodged a supervisory appeal under the Act on the Protection of the Right to a Trial without undue Delay ( “ the CARDINAL Act ” ) with ORG . The supervisory appeal was rejected .

On DATE the applicant lodged a motion for deadline .

The proceedings are still pending before ORG .

On DATE the applicant instituted proceedings against an insurance company ( PERSON . ) seeking compensation for damages occurred at the working place .

On DATE ORG issued a judgment . The applicant appealed .

On DATE ORG issued a decision and remitted the case for re - examination .

On DATE a first - instance judgment was issued . The applicant appealed .

On DATE ORG upheld the first - instance court ’s judgment . The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law .

On DATE ORG gave a judgment . The judgment was served on the applicant on DATE .

For relevant domestic law see the ORG ’s decision GPE v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL , DATE ) .

In addition , the LAW to LAW without undue Delay ( Zakon o spremembah in dopolnitvah PERSON o varstvu pravice do sojenja brez nepotrebnega odlašanja , ORG , No . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) came into effect on CARDINAL DATE . Section CARDINAL provides that a just satisfaction claim can be lodged after the termination of the proceedings before ORG , provided that the acceleratory remedies , that is supervisory appeal and a motion for a deadline , have been exhausted .


CASE OF THE ESTATE OF NITSCHKE v. SWEDEN

Violation of Art. 6-1 (length);Remainder inadmissible;Non-pecuniary damage - financial award;Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed;Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings;Costs and expenses (domestic proceedings) - claim dismissed

The application is brought by the estate of a NORP national , Mr PERSON , who was born in DATE and died on DATE .

From DATE until its bankruptcy in DATE , Mr ORG owned PERCENT of the company ORG ( hereinafter referred to as “ the company ” ) . He was a member of the board of directors and authorised to sign for the company as well as being responsible for the daily functioning of the company . The other shares ( PERCENT ) were owned by ORG .

On DATE ORG ( skattemyndigheten ) of GPE sent an audit report ( granskningspromemoria ) to Mr Nitschke , informing him that , following a tax audit of the company , it was considering altering the tax returns for the tax assessment DATE for the company , as well as for PERSON , and imposing tax surcharges on them . On the basis of information from the audit , ORG concluded that Mr Nitschke had to be considered the executive of the company , due to his influence therein , and that his taxable income for DATE should be increased because he had omitted to inform ORG about certain income from the company in the form of salary payments and benefits involving free lunches and the free use of a company car . Moreover , ORG had found that Mr Nitschke had let the company pay for a boat mooring at a marina , as well as for a computer and stereo which he had bought for private use and kept in his home .

Mr PERSON replied to ORG , disputing its findings and demanding that he be taxed in accordance with his tax returns and that the tax surcharges be remitted . He stated that he was not the executive of the company , as he was a minority owner , but that it was the executive of ORG who controlled the company and that the book - keeping was carried out by that company 's accountant . He further claimed that he had never eaten lunch at the restaurant since he was too busy serving lunches to the guests . Moreover , he only used the company car for carrying out work - related matters as he owned a car for private use . The mooring had been rented for the company to cater for islands in the archipelago , and he underlined that he did not own a boat himself . Also , as the company did not have proper office space , he kept the computer and stereo in a room of his house which he only used as an office . The stereo was used in the restaurant and when the company organised parties , and the computer was used to produce lunch menus , price lists , etc .

On DATE ORG upheld its findings in the audit report for the tax assessment DATE . It increased Mr ORG 's income assessment to MONEY ( SEK ) and imposed tax surcharges amounting to PERCENT of the tax liability on that sum ( SEK CARDINAL,CARDINAL , approximately EUR CARDINAL,CARDINAL ) . Further , on DATE , it increased Mr ORG 's income assessment for DATE to SEK CARDINAL,CARDINAL and imposed tax surcharges on him amounting to SEK MONEY ( approximately EUR CARDINAL ) , again on the basis of the findings in the audit report .

On DATE Mr ORG requested ORG to reassess its decision as he maintained that his tax returns were correct and that he should be taxed in accordance with them . He further developed his reasons for disputing ORG findings on each of the points where his income had been altered .

On DATE ORG maintained its decision concerning DATE but lowered Mr ORG 's income assessment by SEK CARDINAL for DATE , as it had been confirmed that Mr ORG did not own a boat and that the mooring had been rented for company purposes . As a consequence , the tax surcharges were lowered to SEK CARDINAL .

On DATE the company was declared bankrupt .

On DATE Mr Nitschke appealed against the decisions and requested a stay of payment for the additional taxes for both tax years . This request was rejected on DATE by ORG , and Mr ORG immediately appealed against it to ORG ( länsrätten ) of GPE . However , the court rejected the appeal on DATE , as it found that the prerequisites for granting a stay of payment were not fulfilled . Apparently , Mr Nitschke did not appeal against this judgment and , in DATE , he paid the taxes and the tax surcharges to avoid seizure by ORG ( kronofogdemyndigheten ) .

In the meantime , ORG invited Mr Nitschke to an information meeting with the responsible officials , which took place on DATE . Mr PERSON was given the opportunity to ask questions about the audit report and to discuss the changes to his tax returns .

On DATE ORG made the obligatory re - assessment of its decisions of DATE but decided not to change them . Following this , it forwarded the appeals to ORG .

NORP In DATE Mr Nitschke submitted a very detailed account ( CARDINAL pages ) of the company , its structure , business areas , its plans for the future , etc . , which could be of relevance for the case , and to clarify his views on the contentious issues . He still maintained that he should be taxed in accordance with his tax returns and that the tax surcharges should be remitted , if on no other grounds , then at least because the proceedings before ORG had been of excessive length , which had caused the interest on the added taxes to increase his debt to ORG .

In its reply , ORG , on DATE , maintained its stance , except as concerned the lunch benefits , which it agreed to remove for both tax assessment years . As a consequence , it also agreed that the tax surcharges should be lowered , but it objected to them being remitted completely as it did not consider that the proceedings had been unreasonably long or that there were any other reasons on which to remit them .

NORP In DATE the applicant submitted his comments on ORG submission and requested an extension to supplement his claims . ORG granted an extension of the time - limit until DATE . This date was subsequently prolonged upon request by the applicant until DATE . However , no supplementary pleadings were received by the court .

On DATE ORG granted the appeal in so far as it related to the lunch benefits and the tax surcharges based on these costs , but rejected the remainder of the appeal . In its judgment , it examined , CARDINAL by CARDINAL , each point raised by PERSON , stating the grounds for its conclusions . As concerned the remaining part of the tax surcharges , the court found that no reasons for remission had been shown .

In DATE Mr Nitschke appealed against the judgment to ORG ( kammarrätten ) in GPE and stated that he would submit supplementary information . However , no further material was received by the court , despite reminders . Thus , in DATE , it formally ordered Mr Nitschke to submit all further material which he wanted to invoke before the court , within DATE from the date on which he received the order . Apparently , Mr ORG asked for further extensions of the time - limit but did not submit any more material . Therefore , in DATE , the court renewed its order and warned Mr Nitschke that the case could be decided even if he did not submit any material within DATE time - limit . Due to illness , Mr Nitschke hired a lawyer to represent him , who asked for a respite of DATE to submit the supplementary information and material .

On DATE Mr Nitschke died . However , his estate , through the same representative , pursued his appeal concerning both tax assessment years and requested another extension of the time - limit to supplement its claims . ORG granted an extension until DATE and informed the applicant 's representative that no more extensions would be granted .

On DATE , without having received any submissions from the applicant , ORG upheld the lower court 's judgment in full without giving any reasoning of its own . The court simply stated that :

“ What has emerged in the case does not lead ORG to make an evaluation other than that made by ORG . ”

On DATE the applicant appealed to ORG ( Regeringsrätten ) and at the same time asked for extra time to supplement its appeal , which was granted and subsequently prolonged twice . On DATE the applicant submitted its supplementary pleadings , invoking LAW . It claimed that the proceedings had been of excessive length and that the accumulated respite interest should therefore be remitted . Moreover , it alleged that the proceedings had been flawed in several ways , inter alia , by ignoring the evidence and by ORG failure to give any reasons for its judgment . Moreover , as Mr Nitschke had died before the appellate court 's judgment , the tax surcharges should have been remitted in accordance with LAW , as they were a penalty falling within the criminal sphere .

On DATE ORG refused leave to appeal .

The rules governing the administration of justice before the administrative courts are laid down in the DATE LAW ( förvaltningsprocesslagen , hereinafter “ the DATE LAW ) .

According to section CARDINAL of the CARDINAL Act , the determination of a case by a court shall be based on that contained in the documents and what has otherwise been established in the case . The decision of the court shall state the reasons that determined the outcome .

NORP Moreover , LAW does not contain any particular provisions stipulating how rapidly cases must be examined and determined by the administrative courts . However , it is in the nature of things that the courts shall conclude the examination of a case and issue a decision or a judgment as soon as this can be done , having regard , inter alia , to the character of the case .

At the time relevant for the present case , the DATE LAW ( uppbördslagen , hereinafter “ the DATE LAW ) , section CARDINAL , stipulated that a request for reconsideration or an appeal against a decision concerning taxes and tax surcharges had no suspensive effect on the taxpayer 's obligation to pay the amounts in question . However , ORG could grant a stay of execution in respect of the taxes and tax surcharges provided that certain conditions were met ( section DATE ) . Its decision in this respect could be appealed against to the administrative courts .

If a stay of execution was not granted , the taxes and tax surcharges should be paid immediately or they could be enforced by ORG . However , this also meant that if a tax decision was quashed or amended to the taxpayer 's advantage by a court judgment after the relevant amounts had been paid , the amount overpaid was refunded with interest ( LAW , LAW , and LAW , sections CARDINAL and CARDINAL , of LAW , skattebetalningslagen ) . In addition , a taxpayer could claim compensation from the Chancellor of ORG or bring an action for damages against the ORG for the financial loss caused by enforcement measures taken , on the ground that the authorities or courts had acted wrongfully or negligently ( LAW , section CARDINAL , of LAW , skadeståndslagen ) .

According to LAW , section CARDINAL , of the DATE LAW ( taxeringslagen ) , no tax surcharges could be imposed if , at that time , the taxpayer had deceased . This was confirmed by a judgment from ORG ( PERSON DATE not CARDINAL ) . In this case , ORG had granted the tax payer 's appeal and remitted the tax surcharges imposed by ORG . ORG had appealed against the judgment to ORG which overturned the lower court 's judgment and upheld ORG original decision , including imposing tax surcharges anew . However , during the proceedings before the appellate court , the taxpayer had died . Thus , the taxpayer 's estate , and ORG ( PERSON ) , appealed to ORG and requested that the tax surcharges be repealed as they could not be imposed on a deceased person . On DATE , ORG granted the appeal , noting that since the tax payer had died before ORG judgment , there had been no legal basis on which to impose the tax surcharges .

NORP Under NORP law , the estate of a deceased person is a separate legal person responsible for settling all matters relating to the deceased person , including his / her debts and liabilities ( see , inter alia , LAW [ GPE ] and LAW , section CARDINAL , and LAW , section CARDINAL ( b ) CARDINAL of LAW ) .


David Thór Björgvinsson;Giovanni Bonello;Lech Garlicki;Ledi Bianku;Mihai Poalelungi;Nicolas Bratza

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

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

The applicant ’s wife died on DATE . His claim for widows’ benefits , namely ORG ( “ LOC ) and Widow ’s Pension ( “ WP ” ) , was made on DATE and was rejected on DATE on the ground that he was not entitled to widows’ benefits because he was not a woman . This decision was confirmed by an appeal tribunal on DATE . The applicant did not appeal further as he considered or was advised that such a remedy would be bound to fail since no such social security benefits were payable to widowers under GPE law .

The domestic law relevant to this application is set out in PERSON v. the GPE , no . CARDINAL , § § DATE , ORG CARDINAL-IV and Runkee and White v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , § § CARDINAL , DATE .


Violation of Art. 8;No separate issue under Art. 14 +P1-1 or P1-1;Pecuniary damage - financial award;Non-pecuniary damage - claim dismissed;Costs and expenses partial award - domestic proceedings;Costs and expenses award - Convention proceedings

Giovanni Bonello;Ján Šikuta;Josep Casadevall;Kristaq Traja;Matti Pellonpää;Nicolas Bratza

According to the applicant ’s birth certificate , she is male . She served in the army for DATE from DATE and then worked as a police officer . Aged CARDINAL , she gave up attempting to live as a man , and had gender reassignment surgery DATE . She has presented as a woman since DATE , is identified as a woman on her ORG card and paid contributions to the ORG scheme at the female rate ( until DATE , when the difference in rates was abolished ) . In DATE she became self - employed and started paying into a private pension fund .

By a letter dated DATE , the applicant applied to the local government benefits office for State pension payments . She wished these to commence on DATE , her CARDINALth birthday . Her application was refused by a decision of ORG issued on DATE . He stated that she had applied “ too early ” , and was only entitled to a State pension from DATE , the retirement age applicable to men .

Her appeal against this decision was heard by ORG on DATE , which dismissed it on the basis of established case - law . At this time she claimed that she was no longer able to work due to a spinal collapse fracture of osteoporotic origin .

On DATE the applicant submitted her appeal to the ORG Commissioner . Leave to appeal was granted but , by a decision of DATE , her appeal was dismissed following an oral hearing . The Commissioner felt compelled to follow previous decisions and also held that the ORG had not entered into an agreement to treat the applicant as a woman .

In the light of the judgments of DATE given by ORG in PERSON v. GPE ( [ ORG ] , no . CARDINAL , ORG CARDINAL-VI ) and PERSON GPE ( [ ORG ] , no . CARDINAL ) , in which the ORG found that the Government ’s continuing failure to take effective steps to effect the legal recognition of the change of gender of post - operative transsexuals was in breach of LAW , the applicant wrote to ORG on DATE asking for her case to be reopened . The Commissioner notified her on DATE that leave to appeal to ORG had been granted .

On DATE ORG refused to award the applicant a State pension in light of the judgment in PERSON .

In ORG , the applicant sought , inter alia , a declaration that she was entitled to her full retirement pension from her CARDINALth birthday , and damages for breach of LAW DATE , in force from DATE . Meanwhile , on DATE , the applicant reached DATE and her pension payments began .

By agreement , her case was adjourned to await ORG judgment in PERSON v. PERSON . In that case the claimant , a transsexual , sought a declaration of validity in respect of a marriage contracted following gender reassignment surgery . By a decision of DATE , their Lordships , whilst finding the ORG ’s continuing failure to legislate to be a breach of ORG CARDINAL and CARDINAL , deemed the formulation of legal norms to remedy that breach best left to ORG ( [ DATE ] ORG ) . Further , ORG disapproved of attempts to seek recognition even in the clearest cases on the basis that ( a ) eventually a line would have to be drawn and ( b ) such demarcation required detailed consideration by the legislature of the likely social consequences . Following this decision , the applicant was advised by her legal representative that the prospects of persuading ORG to depart from the PERSON judgment , and thus of obtaining an effective remedy , were nil . If proceedings were continued , she would further risk punitive costs orders . Accordingly , the applicant consented to a court order dismissing her appeal with no order as to costs . The Government further refused to make any ex gratia payment of a sum representing her lost ORG pension .

On DATE the applicant was issued with ORG following her application under LAW which had come into force on DATE ( see paragraphs DATE below ) .

A transsexual continues to be recorded for social security , ORG and employment purposes as being of the sex recorded at birth .

The ORG registers every NORP citizen for ORG ( NI ) purposes on the basis of the information in their birth certificate . Non - NORP citizens who wish to register for NI in GPE may use their passport or identification card as evidence of identity if a birth certificate is unavailable .

The ORG allocates every person registered for NI with a unique ORG number . The NI number has a standard format consisting of CARDINAL letters followed by CARDINAL pairs of numbers and a further letter . It contains no indication in itself of the holder ’s sex or of any other personal information . The NI number is used to identify each person with an NI account ( there are at present CARDINAL individual NI accounts ) . The ORG is thereby able to record details of all NI contributions paid into the account during the ORG account - holder ’s life and to monitor each person ’s liabilities , contributions and entitlement to benefits accurately . New numbers may in exceptional cases be issued to persons , for example , under the witness protection scheme or to protect the identity of child offenders .

NI contributions are made by way of deduction from an employee ’s pay by the employer and then by payment to ORG ( for onward transmission to the ORG ) . At present employers will make such deductions for a female employee until she reaches the pensionable age of CARDINAL and for a male employee until he reaches the pensionable age of DATE . The ORG operates a policy for male - to - female transsexuals whereby they may enter into an undertaking with the ORG to pay direct to the ORG any NI contributions due after the transsexual has reached DATE which have ceased to be deducted by the employer in the belief that the employee is female . In the case of female - to - male transsexuals , any deductions which are made by an employer after DATE may be reclaimed directly from the ORG by the employee .

In some cases employers will require proof that an apparent female employee has reached , or is about to reach , DATE and so entitled not to have the ORG deductions made . Such proof may be provided in the form of ORG ( form ORG or ORG ) . The ORG may issue such a certificate to a male - to - female transsexual where such a person enters into an undertaking to pay any NI contributions direct to the ORG .

Documents received to date do not explain why ORG payments at the lower female rate were accepted from the applicant DATE .

A male - to - female transsexual was , prior to DATE , only entitled to a State pension at the retirement age of CARDINAL applied to men and not DATE which is applicable to women . In those circumstances , a full pension was payable only if she had made contributions for DATE as opposed to DATE required of women .

A person ’s sex for the purposes of pensionable age was prior to CARDINAL DATE determined according to biological sex at birth . This approach was approved by ORG Commissioner ( a judicial officer , who specialises in social security law ) in a number of cases .

In the R(P ) CARDINAL case , a male - to - female transsexual claimed entitlement to a pension at DATE . The Commissioner dismissed the applicant ’s appeal and stated at paragraph CARDINAL of his decision :

“ ( a ) In my view , the word ‘ woman’ in section CARDINAL of the [ DATE ORG and Benefits ] Act means a person who is biologically a woman . Sections CARDINAL and CARDINAL contain many references to a woman in terms which indicate that a person is denoted who is capable of forming a valid marriage with a husband . That can only be a person who is biologically a woman .

( b ) I doubt whether the distinction between a person who is biologically , and one who is socially , female has ever been present in the minds of the legislators when enacting relevant statutes . However that may be , it is certain that ORG has never conferred on any person the right or privilege of changing the basis of his ORG rights from those appropriate to a man to those appropriate to a woman . In my judgment , such a fundamental right or privilege would have to be expressly granted .

( d ) I fully appreciate the unfortunate predicament of the claimant , but the merits are not all on her side . She lived as a man from birth until DATE , and , during the part of that period when she was adult , her insurance rights were those appropriate to a man . These rights are in some respects more extensive than those appropriate to a woman . Accordingly , an element of unfairness to the general public might have to be tolerated so as to allow the payment of a pension to her at the pensionable age of a woman . ”

On DATE this decision was followed by a Commissioner determining the applicant ’s appeal .

By DATE , when the ORG gave judgment in PERSON , the Government had instituted plans to eradicate the difference between men and women concerning the age of entitlement to ORG pensions . Section CARDINAL of the Pensions Act DATE provides for the ORG pensionable age to increase progressively , beginning in DATE and reaching complete equalisation of the pensionable age at CARDINAL by DATE .

Up to DATE , the Government had received CARDINAL applications from transsexual people seeking to have their birth certificate changed . An ORG on Transsexual People was reconvened and reported to Ministers . On DATE the Government announced draft legislation and a commitment to legislate as soon as possible .

In its PERSON judgment published on DATE ( see above ) , ORG did not expressly deal with the issue of pension entitlements , but took cognisance of the ORG ’s concession that domestic legislation failing to recognise the acquired gender of transsexual people infringed ORG CARDINAL of the Convention .

On DATE the Government confirmed in response to a parliamentary question that proposed legislation would include rights to claim a State pension from the date of legal recognition of the new gender .

LAW has been adopted by ORG since the introduction of this application . It received the Royal Assent on DATE . Under the LAW , individuals who satisfy certain criteria are able to apply to a ORG for ORG . From the date of the grant of such a certificate , which is prospective in effect , an individual is afforded legal recognition in their acquired gender . In particular , social security benefits and the ORG retirement pension are paid according to the acquired gender .

From DATE , the ORG to ORG has been in operation and receiving applications . The ORG itself came into legal existence on DATE , from which date certificates could be issued .

On DATE LAW DATE came into force , permitting the provisions of the Convention to be relied on in domestic proceedings in GPE .


CASE OF BENEFICIO CAPPELLA PAOLINI v. SAN MARINO [Extracts]

Violation of Art. 6-1 concerning the length of proceedings;Violation of Art. 6-1 concerning the right to a court;Violation of P1-1;Just satisfaction reserved (pecuniary damage and costs and expenses of domestic proceedings);Non-pecuniary damage - financial award;Costs and expenses award - Convention proceedings

The applicant church is a NORP church institution .

On DATE the NORP government issued an expropriation order in respect of certain plots of land belonging to the applicant church . The latter was awarded MONEY ( MONEY ) in compensation . The land , which was earmarked for urban development projects that were scheduled for completion by DATE , was only partially used . On DATE the applicant church applied to the government seeking to recover possession of the unused land . On DATE the government refused the application on the ground that the land in question could still be used in the interests of the community .

On DATE , relying on section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of Law no . CARDINAL of DATE ( “ Law no . CARDINAL ” ) , which provides that expropriation orders lapse in the event of expiry of the deadline set for completion of the relevant work , the applicant church brought an action before the first - instance civil judge ( PERSON ) to recover possession . The first hearing , which was set for DATE , could not be held on that date as the government had not been notified . The government joined the proceedings on CARDINAL DATE . At a hearing on DATE , the government requested that a particular witness be heard . That request was granted on DATE . On the date in question , namely DATE , the witness failed to attend the hearing . On CARDINAL DATE the government waived its right to have the witness heard . The parties submitted their written pleadings on CARDINAL DATE . Preparation of the case was concluded on DATE .

By a judgment of DATE , deposited at the registry on DATE , the court dismissed the applicant church ’s request on the grounds that , firstly , the expropriation order of CARDINAL DATE was an administrative act and thus fell outside the civil court ’s jurisdiction and , secondly , that the applicant church could not bring an action to recover possession , since the disputed land had been lawfully expropriated and had not been obtained by the ORG without title .

On DATE the applicant church brought an action before the judge of civil appeals ( Giudice delle PERSON ) to establish title to land , seeking to obtain restitution of the land in question in accordance with section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of PERSON no . CARDINAL . It also alleged that the authorities’ conduct had breached LAW No . CARDINAL . The first hearing was held on DATE . On CARDINAL DATE the applicant church filed a number of documents . On CARDINAL DATE the proceedings were adjourned on the ground that an attempt to reach a friendly settlement was in progress . On DATE , noting that the negotiations had failed , the PERSON della PERSON , the official responsible for preparing appeal cases , ordered that the proceedings be resumed . At a hearing on DATE , the applicant church requested that an expert be appointed and a witness questioned in order to determine exactly which parts of the land had not been used . By decisions of DATE and DATE , the PERSON della PERSON allowed both requests . Evidence was heard from the witness on DATE and the expert report was filed on DATE . The parties lodged their final submissions on DATE and DATE . Preparation of the case was concluded on DATE .

In DATE the appeal Judge PERSON died . No other judge could replace him , as the organisational structure of the court of civil appeals provided for CARDINAL judge . On DATE ORG ( ORG ) enacted PERSON no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , section CARDINAL of which provided : “ If the judge of civil appeals dies or if , following a serious impediment , he or she is unable to perform the duties of investigating judge , those duties shall be carried out by CARDINAL of the judges of criminal appeals , who shall carry out any urgent measures until such time as a replacement is appointed or the serious impediment is removed ... ”

On DATE ORG appointed Judge PERSON to replace the deceased judge . However , ORG asked ORG for leave to withdraw from the proceedings in question on the ground that he had been involved as the first - instance civil judge . Under LAW no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , ORG , which acted as a third - instance judicial body in cases where the appeal court did not uphold the decision of the first - instance court , was also responsible at the material time for ruling on requests to withdraw or applications challenging a judge .

On DATE ORG granted the request and sent the case in question to ORG , an appeal judge in criminal cases ( PERSON delle PERSON per le cause penali ) .

He dismissed the appeal in a judgment of DATE , which was deposited at the registry on DATE . He found that section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of PERSON no . CARDINAL provided that expropriation orders would lapse where the deadline for execution of the relevant work had expired , but not in the event of failure to use all of the expropriated assets ; that , in any event , the administrative courts had jurisdiction to rule on the merits of expropriation proceedings ; and that the appellant sought restitution of its title to the assets , whereas at first instance it had sought merely to recover possession of the land . He concluded that the request could not be granted since , according to the established case - law , “ requests made for the first time on appeal [ were ] manifestly inadmissible ” ( judgment of the PERSON delle PERSON , DATE , no . CARDINAL ) .

In the meantime , after a new land - use plan had taken effect , changing the designated use of the land in question from industrial to agricultural , the applicant church had asked the government on DATE to return its assets . On DATE , having received no reply , it sent the government a formal notice asking it to adopt the necessary measures for restitution . On DATE it applied to the first - instance administrative court . A hearing took place on DATE . By a judgment of CARDINAL DATE , deposited at the registry on DATE , the court stated that it did not have jurisdiction to “ recognise the existence of a possible right to restitution of unused land ” , as the administrative courts could only examine legitimate interests . It found that ORG alone was entitled to rule on what was to be done with the said property . Noting finally that the new land - use plan had changed the designated use of the unused land , it declared the expropriation order of DATE void in so far as it had lapsed in respect of that particular property , but pointed out that declaring it void did not create a right to reconveyance .

The government then lodged an appeal , disputing the existence of an implied refusal which would legitimise an application to the first - instance administrative courts , and also the latter ’s jurisdiction to declare the expropriation order partially void . The appeal hearing , initially fixed for CARDINAL DATE , was adjourned to CARDINAL DATE because the judge of administrative appeals was unable to attend . He allowed the appeal in a judgment of CARDINAL DATE , which was deposited at the registry on DATE . The judge found that the ORG had acquired ownership of the plots of land in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law , on payment of compensation for expropriation , and that no legislative provision obliged the government to return that property . Accordingly , he concluded that the applicant church ’s request of DATE was inadmissible , since the government ’s behaviour could not be described as an implied refusal . Finally , he stated that , in declaring the expropriation order partially void – an order which , moreover , had never been contested – the first - instance administrative court had exceeded its jurisdiction , which only permitted it , where appropriate , to declare unlawful the government ’s alleged implied refusal .

On an unspecified date , the administrative court of appeal ordered that the case file be sent to ORG . After taking expert advice , that body gives rulings in administrative disputes where first - instance and appeal judgments reach opposite conclusions ( section CARDINAL of Law no . CARDINAL of DATE establishing the administrative courts ) . On DATE ORG upheld the appeal court ’s judgment , thus endorsing the expert ’s conclusion that , while the public - interest declaration in connection with the urban development work had transformed PERSON right of property into a mere legitimate interest , section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of PERSON no . CARDINAL conferred not only a legitimate interest in the lawfulness of the authorities’ actions but an actual right to apply to the civil courts and obtain a declaration that the expropriation order had lapsed because the deadline for completion of the work had expired .


Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Art. 3 (substantive aspect);Violation of Art. 6-1

Anatoly Kovler;Angelika Nußberger;Dean Spielmann;Elisabet Fura;Ganna Yudkivska;Karel Jungwiert;Mark Villiger

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

On DATE the applicant was arrested in GPE on suspicion of facilitating the sale of a forged promissory note , an offence under LAW .

On DATE ORG of GPE remanded the applicant in custody . On DATE , DATE and DATE the applicant ’s detention was extended . On DATE ORG fixed the opening of the trial for DATE and extended the applicant ’s detention . It appears that the applicant did not lodge an appeal against any of the extension orders .

During the investigation , on DATE and DATE the investigator interviewed , among other witnesses , PERSON , whose position was described as “ senior operational officer of the CARDINALth ORG of ORG of ORG of GPE ” . According to the interview record , his identity was certified by a police badge issued by ORG . It follows from the record that PERSON testified , in particular , that he had been asked to pose as the purchaser of the forged promissory note which the applicant ’s co - defendant , PERSON , had undertaken to procure for him . He also stated that he had seen PERSON take the envelope containing the forged note from the applicant .

Although PERSON was listed as a witness for the prosecution , he did not appear at the trial hearings on DATE , DATE , DATE , CARDINAL DATE and DATE . The applicant ’s defence did not object to the closing of the judicial inquiry in PERSON absence or to his written statement made during the pre - trial investigation being read out . However , since the prosecutor insisted on the attendance and examination of PERSON in court , the final hearing was adjourned until DATE .

At the hearing on DATE the prosecutor orally informed the court that , according to information from PERSON superior , PERSON had been sent on a long - term mission to another town . The prosecutor asked to read out his written deposition and the defence had no objections . That was the last trial hearing .

In the meantime , counsel for the applicant launched his own inquiries about the whereabouts of Captain PERSON he unsuccessfully attempted to reach him at the phone number which was listed in the interview record , and subsequently , on CARDINAL May and DATE , he asked the head of ORG of the GPE Police to confirm in writing that Captain PERSON was or had been one of their employees . By letters of CARDINAL and DATE , the head of ORG replied as follows :

“ In response to your inquiry , I inform you that all the available information concerning Mr P[. ] is present in the materials of criminal case no . DATE . Detailed information may be provided upon request of the trial judge . ”

On DATE LOC delivered judgment . It found the applicant and PERSON guilty of selling a forged promissory note and sentenced the applicant to DATE and QUANTITY months’ imprisonment in a high - security correctional colony . In finding the applicant guilty , ORG referred to the following testimonies by witnesses :

“ The witness [ Major ] Kr . of ORG of the South - Western Department of ORG testified in court that on DATE he and Officer PERSON had taken part in the apprehension of individuals who had been suspected of being involved in the sale of forged securities . At TIME . and PERSON sat in Room CARDINAL in the PERSON hotel ... After they received information that the seller of the forged note had been detained , they went to Room CARDINAL where they saw PERSON whom they had not met previously . PERSON . had put questions to PERSON , and it followed from PERSON ’s replies , which were given without any pressure , that PERSON had sold a forged promissory note ... for MONEY and that the note itself and the money had stayed on the table ... PERSON . explained that he had examined the crime scene and seized the note and the money ...

The witness [ Lieutenant - Colonel ] B. of ORG of the South - Western Department of ORG testified in court that on DATE he had taken part in the arrangements for apprehending the individuals suspected of selling forged securities . In particular , he had booked Rooms CARDINAL and CARDINAL in the PERSON hotel , and he sat in the first room , together with ORG . , waiting for the signal . Neither he , nor PERSON . had taken part in the arrest of the suspects but , upon receiving information about the arrest , they came to Room CARDINAL . PERSON was in the room , [ the applicant ] Mr PERSON was brought there later ...

It follows from the pre - trial statement by [ Captain ] P. of ORG of the GPE Police , given on DATE and read out in court with the parties’ consent , that in DATE ORG of the GPE Police received operative information about a person who was looking for a way to sell forged promissory notes . It was established that this person was PERSON ... It was decided to carry out a ‘ controlled purchase’ , in which PERSON was to pose as the ‘ purchaser’ ... PERSON was asked to procure a promissory note having the nominal value of MONEY for PERCENT of its nominal value , that is MONEY . The money was examined , numbers on the banknotes were recorded , and MONEY was entrusted to the witness P. Two rooms , DATE and CARDINAL , were booked in the PERSON hotel located at ... The sale was to take place at TIME on DATE . According to the approved legend , P ... was in the car parked at the hotel . He then came up to the room where NORP and PERSON were waiting ; the note sat on the table . P. put the money onto the table ; without counting the money , PERSON threw it into a bag and put it onto the table next to him . At this moment police officers entered the room and arrested PERSON A report on the examination of the crime scene was compiled which P. countersigned . ”

ORG further referred to written evidence which included PERSON ’s arrest record , the decision to carry out a “ controlled purchase ” , the report on the “ controlled purchase ” , the reports on examination of the money , the note and inspection of the crime scene , and the forensic expert ’s report indicating that the note had been a forgery .

ORG also examined the transcripts of audio- and video - recordings and noted as follows :

“ The report on examination of LAW . CARDINAL videocassette , dated DATE , and the transcript of the conversation confirm the textual identity of the conversation which ORG had in the hotel room on DATE , with the previous transcript of DATE ( pp . CARDINAL - CARDINAL vol . CARDINAL ) .

The report of CARDINAL DATE concerns the examination of the EMTEC PERSON videocassette which was lawfully made available to the investigation ; it confirms the factual contents of the audio- and video - recordings , from which it follows that it was the defendant Mr PERSON who had given the envelope to PERSON in the driver ’s seat of the ORG car . The court has verified this circumstance and , contrary to the position of the defence , the court considers that the videocassette clearly shows that the envelope had been given to PERSON by Mr Ilyadi ( pp . CARDINAL vol . CARDINAL ) . ”

ORG finally gave an overall assessment of evidence and established the defendants’ guilt in the following manner :

“ Assessing the testimonies by the witnesses PERSON . and PERSON , the court sees no reason to distrust them because they are concordant with the body of evidence presented by the prosecution and because they are mutually complementary and consistent . The court has not established any indication that those witnesses may have slandered the defendant [ sic , in singular ] . For the same reasons the court relied upon the statement by the witness PERSON which was read out in court . The court does not find any gross breaches by the investigation of the requirements of LAW during the pre - trial inquiry which may have led to declaring the above evidence inadmissible .

Contrary to the arguments by the defence , the court considers that the above body of evidence proves that both the defendant PERSON and the defendant Mr Ilyadi have been involved into the crime . On the basis of the conversation that took place during the meeting between PERSON and the ‘ purchaser’ , the pre - trial statement by the witness P. , the video - recording which was transcribed and examined in court and which showed that it had been Mr PERSON who had handed over the envelope to PERSON , the court is firmly convinced , rather than merely supposes , that Mr ORG envelope had contained a forged promissory note which had been given on DATE to PERSON near the PERSON hotel . [ The court also takes into account ] the body of evidence in its entirety , including in particular , the conduct by the defendants which unambiguously showed that they feared arrest , and the fact that both PERSON and Mr Ilyadi were aware that the note was a forgery . ”

On DATE the applicant submitted a short statement of appeal to the registry of ORG which indicated his intention to submit a detailed statement of appeal upon receipt of the judgment . According to the established NORP practice , statements of appeal must be filed with the registry of the first - instance court that gave judgment , which then would forward it to the appeal court .

On DATE counsel for the applicant asked the head of ORG the GPE Police to confirm whether PERSON was currently or in the past listed in the staff records . By a letter of DATE , the head of ORG replied that “ PERSON was ] not listed in the records of ORG ” .

On DATE the applicant sent a detailed statement of appeal through the correspondence department of the remand centre to the registry of ORG . He complained , in particular , that there were deficiencies in the evidentiary base :

“ The investigation listed CARDINAL witnesses for the prosecution . CARDINAL of them were the attesting witnesses who had been present during PERSON arrest ... CARDINAL others were the police officers who had taken part in the controlled purchase of the forged promissory notes . Lieutenant - Colonel PERSON and Major PERSON . appeared in court and testified that I had not been the target of the operational measures and that they had not previously known me or heard about me ...

Only the statement made by the third police officer , PERSON , indicates my indirect connection with the crime . PERSON did not appear in court during the trial . This delayed the proceedings , because the prosecution insisted on having P. examined in court . A suspicion arose that PERSON may never have existed , and it was confirmed by the research carried out by my advocate ... He dialled the phone number listed in the statement and made sure that he reached the correct office . However , he heard that there was no employee by the name of P. and never had been . We prepared CARDINAL written inquiries for the director of ORG , to which he gave evasive replies ... Only after we asked the head of ORG for clarification did we receive a direct and truthful reply : police officer PERSON does not actually exist ... ”

The applicant asked the appeal court that his conviction be declared unlawful and quashed . He enclosed the replies his counsel had received from ORG the Moscow Police .

By letter of DATE , the President of ORG asked the applicant to resubmit his statement of appeal as the original one had been lost . The applicant did as requested .

On DATE the GPE City Court heard the appeal . The applicant was present before the appeal court and made oral submissions . According to him , of his written submissions , only the resubmitted short statement of appeal , but not the detailed one , was examined .

ORG rejected the appeal in a summary fashion , finding that there was no reason to place the authenticity of the evidence in doubt and that there were no breaches of procedural norms . With regard to the witnesses , ORG held as follows :

“ The [ District ] court had no reason not to rely on the statements of the witnesses who were police officers , including witness P. ; their statements were assessed in court and found to be consistent , mutually complementary and compatible with other materials in the file . There is no indication that anyone has a vested interest in the criminal prosecution of the persons convicted . ”

From DATE to DATE the applicant was held in remand centre no . ORG in GPE , popularly known as “ GPE ” .

After DATE he was accommodated in cell no . CARDINAL . It measured QUANTITY and was equipped with CARDINAL bunk beds . According to the Government , that cell housed , on average , QUANTITY detainees . According to the applicant , the actual cell population was as high as CARDINAL persons .

The Government produced the cover page of the register for verification of the number of detainees in remand centre no . CARDINAL ( книга количественной проверки лиц , содержащихся в СИЗО-CARDINAL ) and an extract from the register listing the applicant ’s personal details , as well as a number of certificates signed by the director of the remand centre in DATE .

The Code of Criminal Procedure provides that an appeal court may quash or amend a

The judgment of the appeal court must contain , in particular , a short summary of the arguments contained in the statement of appeal and the reasons for the appeal court decision ( Article CARDINAL ) .


Anatoly Kovler;Elisabeth Steiner;George Nicolaou;Julia Laffranque;Khanlar Hajiyev;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska

The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a NORP national who was born in DATE and is currently serving his sentence in PERSON in the Murmansk Region . The respondent Government are represented by Mr PERSON , ORG at ORG .

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

On DATE ORG in a jury trial convicted the applicant of a number of serious criminal offences , including CARDINAL counts of murder , attempted murder and robbery , and sentenced him to CARDINAL years’ imprisonment and a fine in the amount of MONEY ( RUB ) . During the trial the applicant , represented by a lawyer of his own choosing , protested his innocence .

On DATE he lodged an appeal before ORG of GPE ( “ ORG ” ) . He also made a special request to ensure his participation , as well as the participation of his counsel , in the appeal hearing .

On DATE ORG held an appeal hearing in which the applicant took part by videoconference . His lawyer did not appear . The public prosecutor was present and made his oral submissions . By the judgment of the same date , ORG upheld the applicant ’s conviction and sentence .

On DATE , on request by ORG , ORG of ORG , by way of supervisory review proceedings , quashed the judgment of DATE on the ground that the applicant ’s right to legal assistance had been infringed and remitted the case for a fresh examination before the appellate court .

On DATE ORG held a fresh appeal hearing . The applicant participated in the hearing by video link . At the beginning of the hearing , the court introduced the applicant to PERSON , a court - appointed counsel who was present in ORG courtroom . The applicant asked the court to provide him with an opportunity to discuss confidentially the strategy of his defence with counsel by means of video link . His request was granted . The court then proceeded with the examination of the applicant ’s appeal . It studied the case file and heard oral submissions by the applicant , his representative and the public prosecutor . PERSON , in particular , pointed to numerous procedural violations , and asked to quash the judgment of CARDINAL DATE and remit the applicant ’s case to the trial court for the fresh examination . By the judgment of the same date , ORG upheld the applicant ’s conviction and reduced his sentence to DATE imprisonment . According to the court record , the applicant had neither objections nor comments as regards the conduct of the proceedings .


Violation of Art. 6-1;Non-pecuniary damage - financial award;Costs and expenses - claim dismissed

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

On DATE the applicant instituted civil proceedings in ORG ( PERSON ) against the insurance company ORG seeking payment on the basis of an insurance contract .

On DATE the applicant ’s claim was dismissed . The applicant appealed against the judgment on DATE .

On DATE ORG ( PERSON u GPE ) dismissed his appeal and upheld the first instance judgment .

On DATE the applicant filed a request for revision on points of law with ORG ( PERSON ) . ORG rejected the applicant ’s request on DATE . The judgment was served on the applicant on DATE .