The applicant , PERSON , is a NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in GPE . He was represented before the Court by Mr PERSON and Mr. PERSON , lawyers practising in GPE . The respondent Government were represented by ORG , the representative of GPE at ORG .

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

The applicant and CARDINAL other members of his family lived in a house with a total area of QUANTITY m. and a living space of QUANTITY m. and an adjacent plot of land in the centre of the town of GPE .

In accordance with a zoning plan governing land use and land development in the town of GPE , a hotel complex was to be built in the town centre which required the expropriation of the necessary land and the demolition of a number of old houses which stood on the site , including the applicant 's .

By DATE of CARDINAL DATE , the local authority declared the houses unusable for permanent residence and ordered the district authority to demolish them and re - accommodate the occupants .

The district authority offered the applicant 's family CARDINAL flats in CARDINAL block of flats with an overall living space of QUANTITY m.

By Resolution CARDINAL of DATE , the local authority issued a permit for the construction of the hotel complex .

On DATE the local authority ordered a commission to evaluate the plants on the applicant 's land . On DATE the commission valued them at MONEY ( RUR ) . On DATE the local authority confirmed the commission 's assessment and ordered that the above amount be paid to the applicant .

By Resolution CARDINAL of DATE , the local authority ordered the seizure of the land occupied by the applicant and its use for the construction of a hotel .

As the applicant had refused to move to the flats offered to him , the district authority documented his refusal on DATE . In the relevant act , the applicant stated that he preferred to live in his own house rather than in a block of flats .

On DATE the applicant refused to allow the contractors to enter his land .

On DATE compensation of ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL,CARDINAL was paid to the applicant .

On DATE the district authority issued documents entitling the applicant 's family to a protected tenancy in CARDINAL publicly - owned flats in the same block , with an overall living space of QUANTITY m. in exchange for the demolition of their house .

From DATE to DATE the eviction of the applicant 's family by the bailiffs took place on the basis of a writ of execution issued by ORG DATE in pursuance of its judgment of DATE ( see below ) . The applicant and his family were settled in their CARDINAL new flats .

Pursuant to the local authority 's decision , on DATE a commission valued the applicant 's house at RUR CARDINAL . This money was paid to the applicant on DATE .

Soon afterwards the house was demolished .

The local authorities applied to a court seeking an order to the applicant not to put obstacles to the way of the construction works . The applicant lodged a counter - claim challenging Resolution CARDINAL of DATE .

On DATE the ORG of Ufa examined the case . The court found that the applicant was not the proprietor of the land but had only a right of use . The court further noted that the applicant chose not to dispute the valuation of his garden plants though he had been advised of that right by the court . The court granted the action of the district authority and rejected the applicant 's claim .

The judgment was upheld by ORG on DATE .

The applicant brought proceedings against the local authority challenging its refusal in DATE to issue a certificate of ownership of the land which he occupied . On DATE the ORG of Ufa rejected the application as the applicant had missed the relevant limitation period . ORG upheld the judgment on DATE .

On DATE ORG brought proceedings before ORG requesting the applicant 's eviction from his house on the basis of LAW dated CARDINAL DATE of the NORP town authority . The applicant submitted his written observations and requested the court to decide the case in his absence .

On DATE the court examined the case . It found that the district authority had given the applicant 's family , in accordance with the relevant provisions of the law , CARDINAL flats in the same block with an overall living space of QUANTITY m. , exceeding the total area of QUANTITY m. in the applicant 's house . It noted that the applicant had refused to move to those flats because he preferred to live in his house . The district court ordered the eviction and transfer of the applicant 's family to the new flats provided by the district authority . The applicant appealed .

On DATE ORG upheld the judgment .

Upon the applicant 's requests for a supervisory review ( надзор ) of the proceedings , on DATE the Deputy President of ORG of GPE lodged a special appeal ( протест ) against the above decisions with ORG . He requested the quashing of the decisions dated DATE and CARDINAL DATE because , inter alia , of the lack of adversarial proceedings , as the district authority had advanced at the hearing before the first instance court new arguments in support of their request for the applicant 's eviction on which the applicant could not comment .

On DATE ORG allowed the appeal and quashed the decisions on this basis and the fact that the courts had failed to apply the law regulating compensation in respect of property seized for public needs . The court remitted the case to the first instance court for a new examination .

On an unspecified date after DATE , the applicant lodged a counterclaim for repossession of the house and non - pecuniary damages . On DATE the ORG of Ufa refused to deal with it . On the applicant 's appeal , on DATE ORG quashed the decision and , on an unspecified date before DATE , ORG initiated proceedings on the applicant 's action and joined it to the pending proceedings concerning the applicant 's eviction .

On DATE the ORG of Ufa examined the case . The applicant , who had requested the court to decide the case in his absence , did not participate in the hearing . The court noted that , by the final decision of ORG dated CARDINAL DATE , the applicant 's land had been taken for public needs and that the lawfulness of that deprivation could not be disputed in the present proceedings . The court further noted that , in order to build a hotel complex , which had been completed in DATE , the demolition of the applicant 's house had been necessary . The court also noted that the alternative accommodation given to the applicant had a total living space exceeding that of the demolished house and was worth at least twice as much , according to an expert opinion obtained by the court on DATE . Account being taken of the money paid to the applicant for the house , the court found that the ORG had duly compensated the applicant . The court granted the action of the district authority and rejected the applicant 's claim . It held that the applicant 's right to the house had ceased in DATE and that the applicant could be evicted and transferred to the alternative accommodation provided by the district authority . As the applicant had already been evicted from the house , no execution of that decision was required .

The applicant appealed . On DATE ORG quashed the judgment of DATE on the grounds of the unlawful composition of the court , and the court 's failure to examine properly the evidence or to apply the relevant law . The case was remitted to the first instance court for a new examination .

On DATE ORG examined the case . The applicant , who had been duly notified of the hearing , did not appear , having requested the court to decide the case in his absence . The applicant amended his claims , now requesting higher compensation for the house and the garden plants , as well as compensation for an alleged loss of profit from the plants . The court observed that , in order to implement the public purpose for which the land had been taken , namely the construction of a hotel complex , the demolition of the applicant 's house had been necessary . The court noted that the hotel complex had been built in DATE and that it was now used for the reception of representatives of the federal government and governments of foreign GPE , being managed by a ORG institution . The court found that the applicant never owned the land de jure . He used it in so far as he owned the house on it . Moreover a part of the land had been taken by him without permission . The court held that , in the absence of the applicant 's consent to acquire ownership of the CARDINAL flats offered to him , the district authority had rightly given him a protected tenancy in the flats . Taking into account the applicant 's entitlement to the acquisition of the ownership of the flats free of charge by way of privatisation , the court noted that they were at least twice as expensive as the cost of the applicant 's house . The court found that , together with the RUR CARDINAL paid to the applicant for the house , the ORG had duly compensated the applicant . As regards the garden plants , the court estimated their value in accordance with statutory requirements , and found that the compensation paid to the applicant exceeded that amount . The court found for the district authority . The applicant 's claims for repossession of the house and non - pecuniary damages were made into separate proceedings . The remainder of his claims was rejected . The court declared that the applicant 's property rights to the house had ceased in DATE , and ordered the eviction and transfer of the applicant and his family to the CARDINAL flats given by the district authority . As the applicant had already been evicted from the house , no execution of that decision was required .

On appeal , on DATE ORG , having heard the applicant and his counsel and the district authority , quashed the part of judgment concerning the applicant 's claim for loss of profits in relation to the plants , and upheld the remainder . The court referred to the fact that the applicant 's house had been declared unsuitable for permanent residence .

On DATE ORG examined the applicant 's claims against the district authority for repossession of the house and damages , including the alleged loss of profits in relation to the plants . It also examined CARDINAL other actions brought by the applicant against various authorities of GPE in connection with the demolition of his house . The court rejected the claim concerning loss of profits as being unsubstantiated , taking into account an expert opinion on the point . The remainder of the claims was rejected as ill - founded .

On DATE ORG upheld the judgment on appeal .

Being dissatisfied with the way in which the judicial authorities in the aforementioned proceedings and various local and federal authorities and other persons had dealt with his case , the applicant attempted to bring proceedings against them all . However , his actions were either disallowed as having no basis in domestic law or not examined because of the applicant 's failure to meet relevant procedural requirements .


The applicant is an GPE national , living in GPE ( GPE ) . He is represented before the ORG by Mr PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE ( GPE ) .

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

On DATE the Mayor of ORG dismissed the applicant ’s request of CARDINAL DATE for a building permit in respect of a shed to be constructed on CARDINAL plots of land marked as a free zone in the development plan . ORG ) rejected the applicant ’s appeal on DATE .

On DATE ORG Bezirkshauptmannschaft ) dismissed the applicant ’s further appeal . It found that no building was permissible in a free zone .

On DATE ORG Verfassungsgerichtshof ) declined to entertain the applicant ’s complaint against the refusal of the building permit and referred the case to ORG ( Verwaltungsgerichtshof ) .

On DATE ORG requested the applicant to amend his submissions , which the applicant did on DATE .

On DATE ORG rejected the applicant ’s complaint . It found that the complaint related in essence to the alleged unlawfulness of the development plan underlying the refusal of the building permit , an issue outside ORG competence .


Mr PERSON , an officer in the revenue police , lives in GPE ( GPE ) .

On DATE he instituted proceedings in the Consiglio di Stato for judicial review of a decision of ORG assigning him to a rank lower than the one to which he considered himself to be entitled . He also sought a stay of execution of that decision .

In a decision of CARDINAL DATE the PERSON allowed the application for a stay of execution . After a hearing on DATE the PERSON ordered ORG to produce various documents .

In a judgment of DATE , the text of which was deposited with the registry on DATE , the PERSON gave judgment against the applicant .