Violation of Art. 5-3;Violation of Art. 5-5;Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient;Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings

NORP In DATE the applicant , born in DATE , was a soldier of the regular forces in ORG . On DATE the Special Investigations Branch of the military police ( “ SIB ” ) began investigating charges against him in relation to the misuse of travel warrants . The applicant was due to be interviewed on CARDINAL DATE and went missing from his unit . On DATE he was arrested by the civilian police and returned to his unit . His commanding officer dealt with the charge summarily and sentenced him to , inter alia , CARDINAL days’ imprisonment . The applicant served DATE ( after remission for good conduct in detention ) .

The applicant was therefore due for release on CARDINAL DATE but his detention continued on the basis of the suspected offences that were being investigated by the ORG . On CARDINAL and DATE the applicant was interviewed by the ORG and he was advised by a civilian solicitor during those interviews . The applicant then instructed his current representative on DATE . On DATE the applicant was brought before his commanding officer and a charge sheet recording CARDINAL charge under LAW DATE relating to the making of fraudulent motor mileage claims was read to him .

On DATE a further charge sheet was read to the applicant which included CARDINAL additional and similar charges ( obtaining property by deception ) and the applicant was remanded for trial by court - martial . On DATE the applicant applied for legal aid under the army legal aid scheme , which was granted as from DATE .

NORP In DATE the applicant commenced habeas corpus proceedings in the ORG requesting his release on the grounds , inter alia , that he had not been given a formal hearing at which he was informed of the case against him and was able to present his own case for release , and on the grounds of the delay in holding the court - martial . The army authorities admitted that due to an “ administrative oversight ” the applicant had not been charged until DATE . On DATE the army authorities undertook to the ORG to release the applicant from close to open arrest and he was so released on DATE . The form of order of ORG recorded the pleadings before it and the ORG ’s undertaking to release the applicant , but included no other order except to award costs to the applicant . The applicant was released from open arrest in DATE and was sent on leave .

On DATE the applicant instituted further proceedings in the High Court for compensation from ORG in respect of his detention from DATE to DATE . The applicant alleged unlawful detention , breach of a duty of care , false imprisonment and trespass to the person . The defence filed by the army authorities in those proceedings accepted that the applicant had not been charged until DATE , initially because the investigation of the charges had been impeded by his absence and , subsequently , due to an error associated with the replacement of the applicant ’s commanding officer . The authorities therefore accepted that the applicant ’s detention DATE and DATE was unlawful . Various other admissions were made by the army authorities as regards the failure properly to complete certain delay reports , but it was denied that these latter omissions rendered the applicant ’s subsequent detention unlawful . The applicant had also claimed , and the army authorities denied , that there had been a violation of the rules of natural justice and of LAW .

The matter was settled on DATE , the applicant being paid a substantial sum of money and his costs .

Although a district court - martial was initially convened by order of DATE to try the applicant , it was postponed on a number of occasions . In DATE the applicant was charged with further but similar offences and , on DATE , the army authorities directed that the applicant be tried by court - martial on the CARDINAL outstanding charges against him . On DATE the applicant was tried by general court - martial . He pleaded guilty to offences of obtaining property by deception to the value of £ MONEY and was sentenced to CARDINAL months’ imprisonment of which he was to serve DATE . The reviewing authority later reduced this sentence to CARDINAL months’ imprisonment and the applicant ’s appeal to ORG is pending .

At the relevant time the provisions governing the prosecution and pre - trial detention of accused members of the army were contained in LAW DATE ( “ the DATE LAW ) , in the Rules of Procedure ( Army ) DATE ( “ the DATE LAW ) and in FAC for the ORG DATE ( “ the Queen 's Regulations ” ) .

Subsequent to the relevant facts of the present case , the law has been amended by , inter alia , LAW ( see the GPE v. the GPE judgment of DATE , Reports of Judgments and ORG , p. CARDINAL , § § CARDINAL ) and by the Investigation and Summary Dealing ( Army ) Regulations DATE .

NORP The legal provisions relevant to the present application are set out in detail in the judgment of ORG in the case of PERSON v. the GPE ( judgment of DATE , to be published in the Official Reports of selected Judgments and Decisions ) . The main provisions are summarised below .

In general terms , the commanding officer of an accused retains numerous powers and duties in relation to the arrest and pre - trial detention of an accused and in respect of the investigation and subsequent prosecution of charges . If the accused is a soldier ( as opposed to an officer ) , the commanding officer 's powers are broader as regards the investigation and pursuit of charges against an accused .

Any allegation that a person subject to military law has committed an offence under LAW must be reported to that person 's commanding officer . The latter may investigate the charge ( section QUANTITY ) and may issue a warrant for the arrest of a person who is accused of certain charges .

Subsequently the commanding officer of an accused must , unless it is impracticable , within TIME of becoming aware that an accused is detained , have such person brought before him , inform him of the charge against him and begin to investigate it . If the investigation has not begun within TIME , the commanding officer must report the case to a higher authority together with the reasons for the delay in commencing the investigation ( Rule CARDINAL of the DATE Rules ) .

Commanding officers are responsible for ensuring that in each case the need to keep an accused in detention , together with the form of that detention , is kept under constant review ( paragraph CARDINAL of ORG ) . However , ultimate responsibility initially lies with the officer convening the court - martial and , as the pre - trial detention continues , with the convening officer ’s superior officer and , finally , with the Commander in Chief of the accused ( paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL ) .

If the detention of an accused is considered necessary , the category of detention ( close arrest or open arrest ) is to be determined in the interests of the service and by the nature of the alleged offence . Generally , a person is to be placed under close arrest only when confinement is necessary to ensure his safe custody or to maintain discipline . The circumstances which would warrant placing an accused under close arrest include those where the accused is deliberately trying to undermine discipline , is likely to injure himself or others , or is likely to suborn witnesses , where he has not surrendered but has been apprehended as an illegal absentee , or has habitually absented himself , and where , having regard to the nature or prevalence of the alleged offence which is under investigation , it is undesirable in the interests of discipline that he should be at large or allowed to consort with his comrades ( paragraph CARDINAL of LAW ) .

The commanding officer is responsible for the compilation of the abstract of evidence during the investigation . The abstract consists of the evidence of each witness considered necessary to prove the charge . Once it is compiled , the accused is given a copy , he is cautioned as to the use that could be made of any evidence he may submit and statements submitted by the accused are attached to the abstract of evidence ( Rule CARDINAL of the DATE Rules ) . The pamphlet entitled “ Rights of a Soldier ” describes the purpose of the extract of evidence as , inter alia , to “ provide a brief for the prosecutor at trial ” and to inform the accused of the evidence which will be given at trial .

The commanding officer can also decide how a charge will be proceeded with after investigation . The commanding officer can deal summarily with or dismiss certain charges and can stay the proceedings against an accused ( sections CARDINAL and ORG of the DATE Act ) . He can also decide that the accused should be tried by court - martial and he must take the necessary steps in this respect ( section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) and ( CARDINAL ) of LAW ) . The necessary steps include ( LAW ) sending to a higher authority a draft charge sheet signed by the commanding officer , the abstract of evidence , a statement of character together with the service record of the accused , and the commanding officer ’s recommendation as to how the charge should be proceeded with ( for example , by district or general court martial ) . It is the higher authority who takes the final decision as to whether a court - martial is to be convened , and it is the convening officer of that court - martial who finally decides on the charges to be retained against an accused , although the latter generally does so by countersigning the draft charge sheet submitted by the commanding officer .


The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in PERSON . He is represented before the ORG by Ms B. GPE , a lawyer practising in ORG . The respondent Government were represented by their Agent , Mr J. PERSON , of ORG .

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

On DATE the applicant was arrested by the police .

On DATE the ORG remanded him in custody on a charge of attempted extortion . On DATE the applicant was released from detention .

On DATE ORG stayed the criminal proceedings against the applicant as his co - accused , a certain Mr PERSON , had gone into hiding . On DATE the prosecution service resumed the proceedings in order to prepare an extradition request in respect of PERSON , who had been arrested in GPE . On DATE the proceedings were stayed again .

In DATE the bill of indictment was submitted to ORG .

On DATE the ORG ordered that the applicant be remanded in custody for DATE . It found that the applicant had not collected the court ’s summons and that he did not reside at the address indicated to the prosecution . In those circumstances a copy of the bill of indictment could not be served on the applicant and the hearing could not commence . Consequently , ORG found that the applicant had obstructed the proceedings .

On DATE the applicant was arrested and placed in detention . On DATE the applicant ’s lawyer appealed against the detention order of DATE . On DATE the ORG quashed the impugned detention order . The applicant was released on DATE .

It appears that the proceedings are pending before ORG .

In DATE the applicant published the first issue of the “ Information Bulletin of ORG ” . In the article entitled “ The prosecutor ’s son breaks the law ” the applicant alleged that a prosecutor S.S. influenced the outcome of the criminal proceedings against his son , who had been involved in a traffic accident .

On DATE ORG brought a private prosecution against the applicant , alleging that he had been defamed . He requested ORG to take over the prosecution , arguing that the public interest so required .

On DATE the Ząbkowice Śląskie District Prosecutor opened the investigation into the case . On DATE the prosecutor lodged a bill of indictment with ORG . The applicant was indicted on the charge of defamation under LAW . In particular , the prosecutor alleged that in the bulletin the applicant imputed to S.S. “ unlawful behaviour in order to lower him in public opinion and undermine public confidence in his capacity to perform the duties of a prosecutor ” .

On an unspecified date in DATE ORG transmitted the case to ORG which had jurisdiction to hear it .

On DATE the ORG convicted the applicant under LAW of defamation committed through the mass media . It sentenced him to CARDINAL months’ imprisonment suspended for DATE .

The applicant appealed against his conviction but his appeal was dismissed on DATE by ORG .

Article CARDINAL provides as follows :

“ GPE shall ensure freedom of the press and other means of social communication . ”

LAW , which lays down a general prohibition on disproportionate limitations on constitutional rights and freedoms ( the principle of proportionality ) , provides :

“ Any limitation upon the exercise of constitutional freedoms and rights may be imposed only by statute , and only when necessary in a democratic ORG for the protection of its security or public order , or to protect the natural environment , health or public morals , or the freedoms and rights of other persons . Such limitations shall not violate the essence of freedoms and rights . ”

LAW guarantees freedom of expression . It states , in so far as relevant :

“ The freedom to express opinions , to acquire and to disseminate information shall be ensured to everyone . ”

Article CARDINAL lists the sources of law . That provision reads , in so far as relevant , as follows :

“ CARDINAL . The sources of the universally binding law of GPE shall be : the LAW , statutes , ratified international agreements , and regulations . ... ”

LAW , in its relevant part , states :

“ CARDINAL . After promulgation thereof in LAW ( PERSON ) , a ratified international agreement shall constitute part of the domestic legal order and shall be applied directly , unless its application depends on the enactment of a statute .

An international agreement ratified upon prior consent granted by statute shall have precedence over statutes if such an agreement can not be reconciled with the provisions of such statutes . ”

Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL of the LAW provides as follows :

“ In accordance with principles specified by statute , everyone whose constitutional freedoms or rights have been infringed , shall have the right to appeal to ORG for a judgment on the conformity with LAW of a statute or another normative act on the basis of which a court or an administrative authority has issued a final decision on his freedoms or rights or on his obligations specified in LAW . ”

Article CARDINAL of the LAW , insofar as relevant provides as follows :

“ CARDINAL . Judgments of the Constitutional Court shall be universally binding and final .

Judgments of ORG , ... shall be published without delay .

A judgment of the Constitutional Court shall take effect from DATE of its publication ; however , ORG may specify another date for DATE the binding force of a normative act . Such time - limit may not exceed DATE in relation to a statute or DATE in relation to any other normative act . ...

A judgment of ORG on the non - conformity with LAW , an international agreement or statute , of a normative act on the basis of which a final and enforceable judicial decision or a final administrative decision ... was given , shall be a basis for re - opening of the proceedings , or for quashing the decision ... in a manner and on principles specified in provisions applicable to the given proceedings . ”

Article CARDINAL § § CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW provides as follows :

“ § CARDINAL . Anyone who imputes to another person , a group of persons , an institution , a legal person or an organisation without legal personality , such behaviour or characteristics , as may lower this person , group or entity in the public opinion or undermine public confidence in their capacity necessary for a certain position , occupation or type of activity , shall be liable to a fine , a restriction of liberty or imprisonment not exceeding CARDINAL year .

§ CARDINAL . NORP If the perpetrator commits the act described in paragraph CARDINAL through a means of mass communication , he shall be liable to a fine , restriction of liberty or imprisonment not exceeding DATE . ”

In DATE a constitutional complaint was lodged with ORG against Articles CARDINAL § CARDINAL and CARDINAL § CARDINAL of LAW . A claimant in that case , who had been convicted on the basis of these provisions , alleged that they were incompatible with LAW read in conjunction with LAW and LAW . The case was registered under no . ORG CARDINAL/CARDINAL and currently the proceedings on the merits of that complaint are pending .

Article CARDINAL of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides as follows :

“ The Prosecutor General or the Ombudsman may lodge a cassation appeal against any final and enforceable judicial decision . ”

Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL of LAW stipulates that a defendant may not lodge a cassation appeal in cases where a suspended prison sentence has been imposed .

LAW provides for reopening of the proceedings following a judgment of ORG . It provides as follows :

“ The proceedings shall be reopened to the benefit of the accused when as a result of ORG judgment a provision of law which served as the basis for conviction or conditional discontinuation [ of the proceedings ] was abolished or amended . ”

On DATE the Law of CARDINAL DATE on complaints about a breach of the right to a trial within a reasonable time ( LOC o skardze na naruszenie prawa strony do rozpoznania sprawy w postępowaniu sądowym bez nieuzasadnionej zwłoki ) ( “ the CARDINAL Act ” ) entered into force . It lays down various legal means designed to counteract and/or redress the undue length of judicial proceedings .

A party to pending proceedings may ask for the acceleration of those proceedings and/or just satisfaction for their unreasonable length under LAW read in conjunction with section CARDINAL ) of LAW .

Section CARDINAL , in so far as relevant , reads as follows :

Section CARDINAL provides , in so far as relevant :

“ CARDINAL . A complaint about the unreasonable length of proceedings shall be lodged while the proceedings are pending . ... ”

Section CARDINAL refers to proceedings that have been terminated and that do not fall under the transitional provision of section CARDINAL ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) in the following terms :

“ A party who has not lodged a complaint about the unreasonable length of the proceedings under LAW ( CARDINAL ) may claim DATE under LAW ... DATE compensation for the damage which resulted from the unreasonable length of the proceedings after the proceedings concerning the merits of the case have ended .

Article CARDINAL of the Civil Code sets out limitation periods in respect of various claims based on tort . That provision applies to situations covered by Article CARDINAL of LAW . Article CARDINAL , in so far as relevant , reads :

“ CARDINAL . A claim for compensation for damage caused by a tort shall lapse DATE following the date on which the claimant learned of the damage and the persons liable for it . However , the claim shall in any case lapse DATE following the date on which the event causing the damage had occurred . ”

Section CARDINAL of LAW lays down the following transitional rules in relation to the applications already pending before the Court :

“ CARDINAL . Within DATE after the date of entry into force of this law persons who , before that date , had lodged a complaint with ORG ... complaining of a breach of the right to a trial within a reasonable time guaranteed by LAW ... , may lodge a complaint about the unreasonable length of the proceedings on the basis of the provisions of this law if their complaint to ORG had been lodged in the course of the impugned proceedings and if the ORG has not adopted a decision concerning the admissibility of their case .

A complaint lodged under subsection CARDINAL shall indicate the date on which the application was lodged with the ORG .

The relevant court shall immediately inform the Minister of ORG of any complaints lodged under subsection CARDINAL . ”

On DATE ORG ( Sąd Najwyższy ) adopted a resolution ( no . III SPP CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) in which it ruled that while the DATE Act produced legal effects as from the date of its date of entry into force ( DATE ) , its provisions applied retroactively to all proceedings in which delays had occurred before that date and had not yet been remedied .


Giovanni Bonello;Lech Garlicki;Ledi Bianku;Nebojša Vučinić;Nicolas Bratza;Päivi Hirvelä

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

The applicant and PERSON had a daughter PERSON , born on DATE . The couple married in DATE . The applicant and his wife separated on DATE .

On DATE lodged a divorce petition with ORG ( Sąd Wojewódzki ) . On DATE the proceedings were discontinued as she had withdrawn her petition .

NORP In DATE PERSON again lodged a petition for divorce , this time with ORG in GPE .

DATE and DATE PERSON was detained on charges of child abduction and theft . On DATE she was acquitted by ORG .

On DATE the GPE ORG awarded custody rights to PERSON The court considered that the mother took great care of the child and that the child had very good living conditions at her mother ’s place .

On DATE the applicant lodged an application with FAC for sole custody of his daughter .

On DATE ORG in GPE , GPE , gave a decision . The court awarded parental rights to GPE and limited the applicant ’s rights to visiting rights . The court did not specify the access arrangements . The court also restricted PERSON ’s parental rights by appointing a guardian to supervise her in the exercise of her rights .

Meanwhile , on DATE the applicant asked the court to specify the access arrangements .

On DATE the ORG gave a decision pursuant to the provisions of LAW . It allowed the applicant to visit the child on DATE between TIME and CARDINAL p.m. The meeting was to take place on the LOC of FAC ( ORG pomocy dziecku i rodzinie w ORG ) . In addition , ORG and a court guardian were to be present during the meeting .

On DATE the Bedzin Family Centre confirmed that DATE and DATE the applicant failed to report for visits . On the other hand , the child and the mother were present at every meeting .

On DATE the applicant applied to ORG to change the access arrangements . He wished to see his daughter during DATE of DATE and DATE in DATE . On DATE ORG dismissed his request .

On DATE the applicant lodged an application with the GPE ORG challenging his paternity with respect to GPE However , a DNA test confirmed his paternity .

On DATE ORG in GPE dissolved the applicant ’s marriage and awarded parental rights to PERSON

On DATE PERSON instituted proceedings before FAC in which she requested that the applicant be divested of his parental rights on the ground that he had been aggressive towards her . She further requested that the court prohibit the applicant from having contact with his daughter .

On DATE the applicant asked the court to dismiss PERSON ’s request . He also requested that it grant him parental authority and limit PERSON ’s parental authority to a right to have contact with the child . He submitted that PERSON was incapable of bringing up a child and had a history of criminal convictions for theft . In addition , criminal proceedings against her were pending ( for assault on the applicant ) .

On DATE the ORG gave a decision and dismissed both the applicant ’s and his ex - wife ’s requests . It also varied the contact arrangement of DATE . The court allowed the applicant to visit his daughter CARDINAL times a year , on DATE QUANTITY The court held that the meeting was to take place on the LOC of FAC and PERSON and a court guardian were to be present during the meetings .

The applicant appealed . On DATE ORG dismissed his appeal . The court repeated the reasons given by ORG .

On DATE the GPE ORG convicted PERSON of assault on the applicant .

A further cassation appeal by the applicant was dismissed by ORG ( Sąd Najwyższy ) on DATE . The court referred to the child ’s best interest .

In DATE and DATE PERSON failed to report with the child to FAC for visits . In particular , on DATE , CARDINAL May , and DATE , and DATE and CARDINAL DATE the applicant was present at FAC . On all these occasions the mother did not bring the child .

The applicant met his daughter on DATE , CARDINAL DATE , CARDINAL May and DATE .

On DATE the applicant made a request for modification of his contact arrangements . He asked to see his daughter without the presence of the mother and the guardian . On DATE the ORG gave a decision . On the basis of an expert ’s report the court considered that contact with the applicant had been very stressful for the child . For these reasons and in view of the well - being of the child the court dismissed the applicant ’s request .

On DATE the applicant made a request to ORG under LAW , asking the court to fine PERSON for failure to comply with the order of DATE . On DATE the court dismissed his request .

On DATE the applicant met his daughter in FAC .

In DATE the applicant ’s daughter ( then DATE ) sent a letter to her father stating that she did not wish to see him .

On DATE the mother again failed to bring PERSON for a visit .

On DATE the applicant made a request to ORG under LAW , asking the court to fine PERSON for failure to comply with the order of DATE . He also asked the court to vary the contact arrangements and to allow him to visit his daughter CARDINAL times a year , on DATE TIME

On an unknown date the request to impose a fine on PERSON was transferred to ORG of ORG . On DATE she was fined ( MONEY ( ORG ) ) for failing to appear at meetings . Her appeal against his decision was dismissed on DATE .

On DATE FAC gave a decision and dismissed the applicant ’s request for modification of the contact arrangements . The court heard the CARDINAL -year - old PERSON , who stated that she did not wish to have any contact with the applicant . The court held that it was not in the child ’s best interest to vary the visiting arrangements .

The relevant domestic law concerning the enforcement of a parent ’s visiting rights is set out in the ORG ’s judgment in the case P.P. v. GPE no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , § § CARDINAL - CARDINAL , DATE .


Preliminary objections joined to merits and dismisssed (non-exhaustion of domestic remedies, lack of effective remedy in respect of the length-of-proceedings complaint);No violation of Art. 6-1 concerning the alleged restriction on the applicant's right of access to court in respect of the liquidation order;Violation of Art. 6-1 concerning the denial of the applicant 's right of access to court as a result of the Constitutional Court's failure to take a decision on his constitutional complaint;Violation of Art. 6-1 concerning the non-enforcement of the final decision of 7 July 1993;Violation of Art. 6-1 concerning the excessive length of the first and second sets of proceedings;No violation of Art. 6-1 concerning the excessive length of the third, fourth and fifth sets of proceedings;Violation of Art. 13 concerning the lack of an effective remedy in respect of the applicant's length-of-proceedings complaint;Not necessary to examine the remainder of the complaints under Art. 6;Violation of P1-1;Remainder inadmissible;Pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage - financial award (global);Costs and expenses (domestic proceedings) - claim dismissed;Costs and expenses award - Convention proceedings

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

In DATE the applicant , an NORP and NORP national , and ORG established a joint - venture company for DATE . It was called “ LOC ” and specialised in the production of plastic materials . The company ’s memorandum , dated CARDINAL DATE , was validated by a decision of ORG on DATE . The new company was duly registered in ORG .

NORP The assets of the company consisted of a factory with its equipment , of a total value of CARDINAL NORP leks ( ALL –approximately CARDINAL ( ORG ) ) , which had previously belonged to a ORG - owned company named PERSON . The applicant ’s investment in the company consisted of capital amounting to MONEY ( DATE approximately ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL ) , to be used for the renovation of the factory and the future purchase of new technology . The parties would each hold PERCENT of the shares .

On DATE , in order to comply with the obligations entered into in the memorandum , the applicant , on behalf of ORG , signed a contract for the purchase of new technology for the production of plastic materials with ORG , an NORP company . A lump sum of USD CARDINAL,CARDINAL ( approximately ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL ) was paid by the applicant . A second amount of money was to be invested subsequent to the first stage of the factory ’s renovation .

When PERCENT of the renovation of the factory had been carried out , the ORG terminated the company ’s activities and requested the applicant to propose new terms of cooperation . The applicant objected . Subsequently , in a decision of DATE ORG annulled its decision of CARDINAL DATE and unilaterally rescinded the agreement establishing the ORG company .

On an unspecified date , in order to obtain redress , the applicant applied to ORG ( Arbitrazhi i Shtetit ) , which was the competent body at the material time to deal with disputes involving ORG joint - ventures .

On DATE ORG upheld the validity of the ORG company ’s memorandum . Moreover , it ordered the ORG to pay the applicant ALL CARDINAL ( approximately FAC ) for the loss of profit incurred as a result of the cessation of the company ’s activities during DATE and ALL CARDINAL ( approximately ORG CARDINAL ) to cover bank interest on the ORG CARDINAL investment . Furthermore , it ordered the ORG - owned company to finish the reconstruction work at the factory by DATE . Lastly , ORG dismissed the applicant ’s request to have his share of the investment refunded , on the ground that it was part of the assets of the company .

The ORG appealed against the above - mentioned decision to ORG ( ORG PERSON ) . On DATE the latter upheld the part of the decision of ORG ordering the ORG to comply with its obligation to pursue the activities of the joint venture , but quashed the part of the decision awarding the applicant compensation for bank interest and loss of profit and remitted the case to ORG for a fresh calculation of the loss of profit . The first part of the decision of CARDINAL DATE became final on DATE .

On DATE ORG , following the guidelines given by ORG in its decision of DATE , ordered the ORG to pay the applicant a lump sum of MONEY ( approximately ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL ) for loss of profit in DATE . The decision became final on DATE .

On an unspecified date in DATE the bailiffs , in compliance with the above - mentioned final decision , froze the assets of the ORG - owned company and paid the applicant the sum of ALL CARDINAL due to him .

Following the refusal of ORG to serve ORG decision of DATE on him , the applicant lodged a complaint with ORG in order to obtain redress . On DATE ORG found a violation of the applicant ’s constitutional rights and ordered that he be served with the decision issued by ORG .

DATE after the decision of ORG , ORG served the decision on the applicant .

On an unspecified date the ORG - owned company that was the applicant ’s partner in the joint - venture applied to ORG to have the arbitration decision of CARDINAL DATE declared null and void on the ground that it had been issued after ORG had ceased to exist as a decision - making body on DATE . Moreover , it requested the court to annul the bailiffs’ order concerning the freezing of its assets with a view to enforcing the arbitration decision .

On DATE and DATE respectively , ORG and ORG dismissed the company ’s application and upheld the validity of ORG decision in the applicant ’s favour . The judgment became final at the latest on DATE .

On DATE and DATE respectively , ORG ( ORG ) sold to F. the premises of the factory and the plot of land adjacent to it , despite their being the assets of the ORG company .

The applicant initiated proceedings contesting the privatisation decisions .

On DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE respectively , ORG , ORG , ORG , ORG , and ORG found the privatisation acts to be null and void and , inter alia , ordered that the factory be treated as part of the assets of the ORG company . Lastly , the domestic courts ordered F. to return possession of the factory and its adjacent plot of land to the partners of the ORG company .

Following a request by the applicant , on DATE ORG issued a writ for the execution of the judgment of DATE .

Notwithstanding the above - mentioned order , on DATE ORG and Finance , without the applicant ’s consent , concluded a DATE lease agreement with another company , NORP , which was to operate the factory at issue for the purpose of producing shoes ( see the proceedings outlined in section F below ) . The NORP company already occupied and operated the factory under a DATE lease agreement concluded with F. in DATE ( see the proceedings outlined in section D below ) .

In DATE , while the proceedings on the legality of the decisions to privatise the factory were pending , PERSON concluded a DATE lease agreement with the NORP company , on the basis of which the latter would operate the factory for the purpose of producing shoes .

With a view to suspending the execution of the writ of CARDINAL January CARDINAL , the NORP company lodged an application with ORG for a stay of the enforcement proceedings . On DATE the court upheld the application .

In a decision of CARDINAL DATE ORG held that the applicant should comply with the terms of the lease agreement entered into by PERSON and the NORP company . On DATE ORG upheld the above - mentioned decision .

The applicant appealed against the decision to ORG .

On DATE ORG found that , since the privatisation decisions had been held to be null and void , PERSON had been in no position to conclude such an agreement : therefore the lease was null and void . The court quashed the decisions of ORG and discontinued the proceedings .

NORP However , by that time the DATE lease agreement had terminated ( on DATE ) and the NORP company now operated the factory under a new lease agreement , this time concluded with the Government ( see the proceedings outlined in section F below ) .

On DATE , while the proceedings against the NORP company concerning the validity of the first lease agreement were pending , ORG and the applicant agreed to establish a new ORG company . The new company was founded on the basis of the memorandum of the first ORG company , dated DATE , ORG decision of DATE and ORG final judgment of DATE in the applicant ’s favour .

By CARDINAL of the memorandum establishing the new company , “ the parties recognised their responsibilities for the failure to comply with the obligations entered into in the first memorandum and agreed to pay the damages due ( ORG decision of DATE and ORG judgment of DATE ) ” .

The parties agreed to joint ownership of the company on a CARDINAL basis for a period of DATE and the applicant was to act as the administrator of the company .

In a decision of CARDINAL DATE the ORG registered the new company as ORG , a plastic - manufacturing company jointly owned by the applicant and a ORG - owned enterprise that at the material time was under the responsibility of ORG .

On DATE the partners held the first general meeting of the company in order to quantify their shares in the capital . The representative of the ORG - owned company submitted that the ORG would register its share of the capital in the name of the ORG company once the applicant had invested his share . The applicant disagreed on the ground that the law provided that the partners should invest their shares of the capital at the same time .

On DATE , despite the registration of the new company on DATE and in breach of the obligations assumed by ORG on DATE , ORG and Finance , without the applicant ’s consent , concluded a DATE lease agreement with the NORP company . Under the new agreement , the NORP company was to use the factory belonging to the ORG company for the purpose of producing shoes .

In the light of the above , on DATE ORG and ORG ordered the removal of ORG assets from ORG ( PERSON ) . As a result , the factory and the adjacent plot of land were registered as ORG properties .

The applicant lodged appeals against the order with ORG , ORG and other ORG bodies . On DATE ORG ordered a stay of execution of the order .

In a letter of DATE the Deputy Prime Minister advised the Minister for Labour , the Minister for ORG and ORG to comply with the courts’ final decisions in the applicant ’s favour .

Notwithstanding the above , the assets of the applicant ’s company were removed from ORG .

On an unspecified date the applicant lodged an application with ORG contesting the lawfulness of such a measure .

On DATE ORG ordered the re - entry of the company ’s assets in the register .

On DATE ORG quashed ORG decision on procedural points and remitted the case to ORG for fresh consideration .

On DATE ORG dismissed an appeal by the applicant , holding that his grounds of appeal fell outside the scope of Article CARDINAL of the Code of Civil Procedure ( ORG ) .

On an unspecified date ORG , in the rehearing of the case , called the liquidator of the applicant ’s company to intervene in the proceedings as a third party ( see the proceedings outlined in section H below ) .

On DATE ORG , in a fresh set of proceedings , dismissed the applicant ’s application on the ground that he represented a company in liquidation and thus had no standing before the court . That decision was upheld by ORG on DATE .

On DATE ORG dismissed an appeal by the applicant , holding that his grounds of appeal fell outside the scope of Article CARDINAL of the ORG .

In the light of the above , the NORP company applied to ORG for a stay of execution of the writ issued by the same court on DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . On DATE the court allowed that request .

The applicant appealed to ORG .

DATE . On DATE ORG found that the NORP company was not a party to the proceedings that had led to the writ of CARDINAL DATE and was therefore not eligible to make such a request .

On DATE and DATE , and on DATE respectively , the ORG ) and the Ambassador of GPE in GPE called on the authorities to honour the final judgments given in the applicant ’s case .

In a letter of CARDINAL DATE the Minister for ORG requested ORG not to enforce the writ of DATE since the factory had been entered in ORG as ORG - owned property and was therefore no longer an asset belonging to ORG but was subject to a lease agreement concluded with another company .

On DATE ORG decided not to proceed with the enforcement of the writ .

Following an appeal by the applicant on behalf of the company , ORG on DATE and ORG on DATE upheld the applicant ’s grounds of appeal and ordered ORG to proceed with the enforcement .

ORG appealed against those decisions before ORG .

On DATE ORG , quashed the decisions of ORG and ORG and remitted the case to ORG for a fresh examination , on the ground that the courts had failed to give notice of the proceedings to ORG .

On an unspecified date , in the new set of proceedings ORG , having regard to its own decision to liquidate the company , called the liquidator of the ORG company to join the proceedings ( see the proceedings summarised in section H below ) . The applicant contested this on the ground that the dispute concerned his interests and not those of the company in liquidation .

On DATE , at the liquidator ’s request , ORG discontinued the proceedings . The decision was upheld by ORG and ORG on DATE and DATE , respectively .

In DATE the ORG - owned company on various occasions unsuccessfully requested the applicant , in his capacity as administrator of the ORG company , to organise a general meeting of the company .

On DATE , during a general meeting of the company , the representative of the ORG - owned company informed the applicant of its decision to rescind the agreement with the ORG company . The applicant contested this . Accordingly , ORG requested the court to order the winding - up of the ORG company and the liquidation of its assets , on account of the applicant ’s lack of interest in the company ’s activities .

On DATE the court appointed a liquidator and confirmed the liquidation of ORG . ORG decision was upheld by ORG in a decision of DATE . ORG , on DATE , dismissed a subsequent appeal , holding that the grounds of appeal fell outside the scope of LAW of the ORG .

On an unspecified date the applicant lodged an appeal with ORG , claiming , inter alia , that the proceedings were unfair on the grounds that ORG , not being a shareholder of the ORG company , had no right to request the winding - up of the company and that the proceedings had been initiated against the applicant and not against the company , since ORG , the other shareholder , had not been given notice of the proceedings .

On DATE the liquidator of the ORG company requested the applicant , in his capacity as the company ’s administrator , to submit the company ’s accounts and its stamp . In view of the applicant ’s reluctance to participate in the general meetings organised by the liquidator , the latter requested ORG to validate the final accounts of the company and to order its removal from ORG . The applicant requested a stay of the proceedings until ORG had determined the case .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s request , validated the final accounts of the company and ordered the termination of the winding - up proceedings . Moreover , it ordered that the termination of the winding - up proceedings be entered in ORG . That decision was upheld by ORG on DATE .

On DATE ORG , in a formation of CARDINAL out of the CARDINAL judges provided for by the relevant law on its functioning and organisation , dismissed the applicant ’s appeal since its vote was tied . The court ’s reasoning was limited to the fact that the court could not reach a majority on any of the issues raised in the present case . The applicant was invited by virtue of section CARDINAL of LAW to lodge a fresh appeal ( see paragraph DATE below ) .

The applicant did not lodge a fresh constitutional appeal under LAW of LAW .

The relevant parts of LAW read as follows :

“ In the protection of his constitutional and legal rights , freedoms and interests , or in defending a criminal charge , everyone has the right to a fair and public hearing , within a reasonable time , by an independent and impartial court established by law . ”

“ The Constitutional Court shall decide : ...

( f ) in a ruling that shall be final , complaints by individuals alleging a violation of their constitutional rights to a fair hearing , after all legal remedies for the protection of those rights have been exhausted . ”

ORG decides with the majority of all its members . ”

“ State bodies shall comply with judicial decisions . ”

The LAW provides that ORG is the highest authority which guarantees compliance with the LAW and rules on its final interpretation .

DATE . The ORG is composed of CARDINAL members , who are appointed by the President of the Republic with the consent of ORG ( section CARDINAL ) .

A preliminary review of complaints lodged by individuals is conducted by a panel of CARDINAL ORG judges , including the reporting judge ( section CARDINAL ) .

The ORG decides on individual applications at a plenary session attended by all the judges . The quorum of the plenary session is CARDINAL of the elected judges in office ( section CARDINAL ) . The ORG takes its decisions by a majority of all its members ( LAW ) .

The decisions of ORG are taken by a majority of the judges present and abstentions are not allowed ( section DATE ) .

Pursuant to section CARDINAL of the Act , in the event of a tied vote ORG must dismiss the appeal . The dismissal of an appeal for this reason does not prevent the appellant from resubmitting the complaints to ORG , which subsequently adopts a decision provided that a majority of the sitting judges is attained .

LAW provided for the organisation and functions of ORG ( Arbitrazhi i Shtetit ) , which was the body with jurisdiction to determine disputes where the economic interests of the ORG were at issue . Under LAW of the LAW , its decisions , once final , were binding on ORG or other ORG financial bodies and ORG .

Proceedings for the enforcement of final adjudications were initiated by filing a decision with ORG . Under LAW of the LAW , the decisions of ORG were subject to appeal before ORG ( ORG PERSON ) .

Law no . DATE dated DATE repealed the LAW and dissolved ORG .

DATE . Materials available to the ORG describe relevant aspects of the occurrence of tied votes in the upper ORG decision - making in several ORG representing different legal traditions . There is no uniform practice in the contracting GPE with regard to the occurrence of a tied vote in decision - making before ORG . Many GPE provide for measures to avoid tied votes and to ensure that a majority is obtained , such as establishing formations made up of an uneven number of judges ( for example , in GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE and GPE ) and/or prohibiting judges from abstaining ( for example , in GPE , GPE and GPE and GPE ) and/or providing for an uneven number of judges to make a decision - making quorum ( for example , in GPE , GPE and GPE ) . Even in these circumstances , however , a tied vote could still occur . With a view to ensuring that a final decision can be reached , even in the event of a tied vote , different legal systems provide for different solutions , such as a casting vote for the president of the court / formation ( for example , in GPE , GPE and GPE ) or for the judge rapporteur ( for example , in GPE ) , or giving an interpretation to the tied vote ( for example , in GPE , GPE , GPE and GPE ) . In the event of a tied vote , the NORP legal system provides for the adjournment of the case for an unspecified period of time until the circumstances that created the tied vote have ceased to exist ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .


CASE OF ÇETİN AND OTHERS v. TURKEY [Extracts]

Preliminary objection rejected (non exhaustion);Violation of Art. 10;Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed;Non-pecuniary damage - financial award

The applicants are NORP nationals and live in GPE . At the material time , they worked as journalists on PERSON , a LANGUAGE - language DATE newspaper based in GPE . Publication of the newspaper ceased on DATE and it was replaced initially by PERSON and subsequently , on DATE , by another DATE newspaper , CARDINAL ORG PERSON . That newspaper was replaced on DATE by a DATE periodical called PERSON .

At the material time one of the applicants , PERSON , an independent journalist , wrote a column entitled “ Notes from GPE ” ( PERSON ) , which was published on DATE in PERSON . PERSON was PERSON representative in GPE . He currently works as a press officer for ORG .

As for the other applicants , PERSON is now the mayor of ORG , Mr Kaya is a lawyer and Mr PERSON and PERSON both teach in schools in eastern GPE . Mr GPE continues to work as a journalist with the DATE publication CARDINAL . PERSON , while Mr PERSON currently works as a press officer for ORG .

NORP The main point at issue in the present case is a ban that was imposed on DATE by the governor of the state of emergency region on the distribution of PERSON in that region .

According to the applicants , the distribution of PERSON was impeded by the security forces in the period from DATE , and the governor of the state of emergency region subsequently imposed a ban on its publication and distribution in the region where the state of emergency had been declared ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . On DATE the proprietor of ORG sent a letter to ORG informing it of the disruption caused to the distribution of the newspaper and demanding an end to these unlawful acts . He also sought compensation for the loss sustained .

On DATE the governor of the state of emergency region wrote to the proprietor of PERSON to say that his office was not responsible for the acts mentioned in the letter . He enclosed the seizure orders that had been made by the relevant authorities .

The Government have produced to ORG DATE warrants issued by judges of ORG for the seizure of various issues of the newspaper in DATE , DATE .

On DATE Mr Bakaç and PERSON lodged a criminal complaint with the ORG public prosecutor 's office because of the alleged disruption to the distribution of the newspaper .

On DATE the public prosecutor 's office ruled that it had no power to deal with the complaint and referred it to ORG under the Prosecution of Civil Servants Act .

On DATE ORG held that there was no case to answer in view of the seizure warrants that had been issued by ORG . Its decision was upheld by ORG on DATE .

On DATE the governor of the state of emergency region imposed a ban on the publication and distribution of PERSON in that region .

On DATE ORG wrote to PERSON , in his capacity as PERSON representative in GPE , informing him of the ban . Its letter read as follows :

“ Regard being had to Directive no . CARDINAL issued by the governor 's office of the state of emergency region on DATE ,

With effect from DATE the publication and distribution of the DATE newspaper ORG in the provinces in which a state of emergency has been declared under the aforementioned directive ( ORG , PERSON , PERSON , GPE , GPE and PERSON ) shall be prohibited . ”

Likewise , on DATE ORG wrote a letter to the company responsible for distributing the newspaper , PERSON , based in GPE , in the following terms :

With effect from DATE the publication and distribution of the GPE DATE newspaper ORG in the provinces in which a state of emergency has been declared under the aforementioned directive ( ORG , PERSON , PERSON , GPE , GPE and PERSON ) shall be prohibited , pursuant to LAW no . CARDINAL and section CARDINAL(e ) of ORG . ”

On DATE the governor of the state of emergency region imposed a ban pursuant to LAW no . CARDINAL on the publication and distribution of PERSON , the DATE newspaper that had replaced PERSON .

Similarly , on DATE he issued an order prohibiting the publication and distribution of the DATE newspaper CARDINAL ORG PERSON in the state of emergency region .

Lastly , on DATE the DATE publication PERSON , which had replaced CARDINAL ORG PERSON , met the same fate , with a ban being imposed on its publication and distribution in the region .

The applicants have produced a notice dated DATE which shows that at different times the governor of the state of emergency region imposed bans on the publication and distribution of CARDINAL periodicals , including PERSON , PERSON and QUANTITY ORG PERSON .

NORP The governor 's office of the state of emergency region was set up with special powers after the state of siege was officially declared to be over on DATE by LAW no . CARDINAL of DATE . A state of emergency was thus decreed in the provinces of ORG , GPE , ORG , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , GPE and PERSON . On DATE the state of emergency was extended to the province of ORG , but lifted in the province of ORG . It was declared to be over in the provinces of Batman , ORG and ORG on DATE , in the province of GPE on DATE and in the provinces of GPE and PERSON on DATE . In DATE it was extended by DATE in the provinces of GPE and GPE .

The powers of the governor of the state of emergency region ( Olaganüstü PERSON GPE ) are set out in GPE ( Law no . CARDINAL of DATE ) and various legislative decrees that were issued after the state of emergency was declared ( Legislative Decrees nos . CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL ) .

Section CARDINAL(e ) of LAW reads as follows :

“ ... If a state of emergency is decreed , the following measures may be imposed with a view to maintaining general security , safety and public order and to preventing any escalation in the violence ... :

( e ) An order prohibiting , either absolutely or without prior permission , the editing , dissemination , publication or distribution of newspapers , reviews , brochures , pamphlets , posters or any similar publications , or the publication or distribution of any such [ publications ] which have been printed or disseminated outside the state of emergency region ... ”

DATE ( a ) of Legislative Decree no . CARDINAL provides :

“ The printing , dissemination , publication or distribution of books , reviews , newspapers , brochures , posters or other similar publications liable seriously to undermine public order in the region , to cause agitation among the local population or to obstruct the security forces in the course of their duties by giving a false account of operations being conducted in the region shall be prohibited , either absolutely or without the prior permission of the governor of the region to which the state of emergency applies or the governors of the provinces concerned . [ Likewise , ] the publication or distribution of [ any publication of the same type ] that has been printed and published outside the state of emergency region shall be prohibited , either absolutely or without the prior permission of the governor of the region to which the state of emergency applies or the governors of the provinces concerned ... ”

The relevant part of Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL of the LAW provides :

“ ... There shall be no right of appeal to ORG to contest the form or substance of legislative decrees issued during a state of emergency , a state of siege or in wartime . ”

DATE Decree no . CARDINAL , as amended by LAW no . CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE , precludes any application in the administrative courts to have an administrative act performed pursuant to Legislative Decree no . CARDINAL set aside .

DATE of Legislative Decree no . CARDINAL reads as follows :

“ No criminal , financial or civil liability may be asserted against ... the governor of the state of emergency region or provincial governors in that region in respect of decisions taken , or acts performed , by them in the exercise of the powers conferred on them by this legislative decree , and no application shall be made to any judicial authority to that end . This shall be without prejudice to the rights of individuals to claim reparation from the ORG for damage which they have been caused without justification [ sebepsiz ] . ”

ORG has reviewed the constitutionality of LAW no . CARDINAL , as amended by LAW no . CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE , in a judgment of DATE , which was published in ORG on DATE . It stated :

“ It is not possible to reconcile that provision [ which precludes any judicial scrutiny of acts performed by the governor of the state of emergency region ] with the concept of the rule of law ... The system of government when a state of emergency has been declared is not an arbitrary one that escapes all judicial scrutiny . There can be no doubt that individual and regulatory acts performed by the competent authorities while the state of emergency continues must be subject to judicial review . Contravention of this principle is inconceivable in countries run by democratic regimes and founded on freedom . However , the impugned provision is contained in a legislative decree that can not be the subject of constitutional review ... Consequently , the application for an order quashing that provision must be dismissed as being incompatible ratione materiae [ yetkisizlik ] ... ”

As regards LAW no . CARDINAL , in CARDINAL judgments delivered on DATE and CARDINAL DATE ( published in ORG on DATE and DATE respectively ) , ORG followed that decision in dismissing as incompatible ratione materiae applications for orders quashing the relevant provisions .


The applicant , born in DATE , is a NORP national . He is a businessman by profession . When lodging his application , he was detained in a prison at PERSON / PERSON .

In DATE criminal proceedings were commenced against , inter alia , the applicant on charges of drug trafficking . In these proceedings , he was assisted by defence counsel .

The applicant was arrested on DATE on the basis of an arrest warrant issued by ORG ( ORG ) on DATE and taken into detention on remand . His detention was suspended on DATE . On DATE he was again arrested and detained on remand until DATE .

On DATE ORG ) preferred the indictment ( PERSON ) against the applicant . He was charged with CARDINAL counts of drug trafficking .

On DATE the GPE ORG ( Landgericht ) partly rejected the indictment . It refused in particular to open the trial proceedings as to CARDINAL count of drug trafficking . The court considered that , having regard to the evidence presented by ORG , there was not sufficient suspicion to justify committing the applicant for trial . On DATE ORG ( Oberlandesgericht ) , on ORG appeal , committed the accused for trial on all counts . It further directed that the trial was to open before ORG .

On DATE the GPE ORG , following trial hearings DATE , convicted the applicant of CARDINAL count of drug trafficking . Having regard to CARDINAL previous convictions , it fixed a cumulative sentence of DATE and DATE imprisonment . The court found in particular that the applicant and his co - accused had sold cocaine to an undercover agent of the NORP police . The ORG considered that their defence , namely that they had themselves intended to arrange for a fictitious deal and the subsequent prosecution of the purchaser , was in itself inconclusive and refuted by the evidence . The applicant 's contacts with the police authorities had only served the purpose of finding out whether the purchaser was an undercover agent . Medical expert evidence had confirmed the applicant 's full criminal responsibility .

On DATE ORG ( ORG ) dismissed the applicant 's appeal on points of law . In his statement of appeal , the applicant ’s counsel had complained about the violation of substantive law in general and also about a point of procedural law , namely the alleged taking into account of evidence not produced at the trial . The applicant ’s request for leave to file supplementary reasons out of time was rejected on the ground that he had failed to submit these reasons together with his request . The applicant received the decision on DATE .

Sitting as a panel of CARDINAL members , on DATE ORG ( zweite ORG ) of ORG ( Bundesverfassungsgericht ) declined to entertain the applicant 's constitutional appeal of CARDINAL DATE .


The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in the town of PERSON of GPE . ORG were represented by PERSON , Representative of GPE before ORG .

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

The applicant is a former employee of various coal mines of ORG , a joint - stock limited liability company .

It was established as a result of restructuring of CARDINAL of the major NORP coal producers in DATE .

In DATE a number of production units were incorporated under the private law rules as a joint - stock company with limited liability . According to the ORG , the federal and regional authorities owned stakes in the company of CARDINAL and MONEY respectively . It appears that the remaining stock was held by private shareholders , including the company ’s employees .

It appears that in DATE the company ran into trouble and subsequently experienced difficulties in managing its debt , the greater part of which represented salary arrears owed to the company ’s numerous employees .

In DATE , having faced social tensions in the respective region , the federal authority intervened by adopting a special programme according to which OAO was to be liquidated , its assets auctioned and the company ’s debt financed , in part , by the authorities .

In DATE , shortly after his dismissal , the applicant brought CARDINAL court actions against his former employer claiming salary arrears and unpaid social benefits .

By a judgment of DATE the Justice of the Peace of the CARDINALth circuit of the town of GPE of GPE recovered the applicant ’s unpaid salary totalling MONEY ( RUR ) from the defendant company for the period DATE . The judgment came into force on DATE .

According to the Government , the money owed to the applicant was transferred to his bank account in full on DATE , which is slightly over DATE after the judgment of CARDINAL DATE had been given .

On DATE the NORP ORG of the Rostov Region ordered the defendant company to pay the applicant work - related sickness benefits of ORG . This judgment came into force on DATE .

The Government submitted that the judgment at issue had been executed in full by bank transfer dated DATE , which is DATE , DATE and DATE after the judgment of DATE became enforceable .

By a judgment of CARDINAL DATE the NORP ORG of GPE ordered the defendant company to pay the applicant non - pecuniary damages of RUR CARDINAL,CARDINAL for the delays in payment of the salary . This judgment became enforceable on DATE .

According to the Government , this judgment was enforced in full by bank transfer to the applicant ’s account on DATE . The transfer was made DATE and DATE after the judgment in question became enforceable .

By a judgment of DATE the Justice of ORG the town of GPE of GPE ordered the defendant to pay the applicant a compensation of RUR CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL for delays in payment of his salary DATE . The judgment became enforceable on DATE .

The Government submitted that the execution writ in respect of the judgment of DATE had been accepted by the winding - up committee of the company and joined to the list of the company ’s priority CARDINAL creditors . It would be complied with after the additional sale of the company ’s assets and after the debts towards the priority CARDINAL creditors had been honoured .

On DATE the Justice of the Peace of the CARDINALst circuit of the town of GPE of GPE awarded the applicant damages for being kept out of his money through the delays in payment of his salary for DATE , ordering the defendant company to pay ORG . The judgment came into force on DATE .

The Government submitted that the applicant had received a copy of the writ in respect of this judgment from the registry of the first - instance court on DATE , but had not sent it to the company until DATE . As a result , the writ was received on DATE . The winding - up committee was still waiting for the applicant to submit a second copy of the writ and a copy of the judgment of CARDINAL DATE . Upon receipt of the said documents , the applicant ’s claim would be recorded in the list of the company ’s priority CARDINAL creditors .

On DATE the bailiffs of the town of ORG seized the assets of ORG ; of which the estimated value was ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL,CARDINAL .

By letters of DATE and DATE the Deputy Governor of GPE in charge of fuel , energy and natural resources informed the applicant that PERSON was an unprofitable company , that the question of its restructuring had been long debated by the authorities at various levels , that on DATE ORG on ORG adopted a plan under which the company was to be wound - up , that on DATE the meeting of ORG shareholders had adopted that decision , that the debts of ORG would be honoured through the sale of its assets and also with the financial assistance of the authorities and that the existing salary debts would be honoured during DATE .

By letter of CARDINAL DATE ORG , a ORG agency set up to solve problems arising out of restructuring of the coal - mining industry , informed the applicant that his previous complaints about the prolonged failure to execute the judgments had been forwarded to ORG and that the president of its winding - up committee had been asked to repay the debts as soon as possible .

Section CARDINAL of the Joint - Stock Companies Act ( Law no . CARDINAL of DATE ) provides , among other things , that a joint - stock company is a commercial organisation whose capital is divided into a definite number of shares of stock certifying the rights and obligations of the members ( shareholders ) vis - à - vis the company . Shareholders are not liable for obligations of the company and bear the risk of losses associated with its activity only to the extent of the value of the shares owned by them .

Under LAW ( Law no . CARDINAL-FZ of DATE ) bankruptcy creditors are creditors of monetary obligations , except for authorised bodies , citizens to whom a debtor is liable for harm to life or health or for moral harm or to whom royalties are owed under copyright contracts , and stakeholders of the debtor in so far as the liabilities in respect of such participation are concerned . They are among the parties to a bankruptcy case and may complain to the court about action or failure to act breaching their rights .

By virtue of the above decree , ORG was to finance the debt of ORG in so far as the salary debts and related social payments prior to the decision to wind up the company were concerned .

The ORG institution PERSON was established by ORG of DATE as a principal coordinator of the programmes of local development introduced to solve social problems arising out of restructuring of the coal - mining industry .