Violation of P1-3;Violation of Art. 13+P1-3;Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed;Non-pecuniary damage - award

Alvina Gyulumyan;Corneliu Bîrsan;Egbert Myjer;Elisabet Fura;Ineta Ziemele;Josep Casadevall

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

As a member of ORG , he stood as a candidate in the parliamentary elections of CARDINAL DATE for ORG , one of the organisations representing the NORP minority in GPE . That organisation submitted a single - candidate list containing the applicant ’s name in DATE CARDINAL constituencies .

Once the votes had been counted , ORG decided , on the basis of LAW no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL on elections to ORG and to the ORG ( “ Law no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ” ) , to allocate the parliamentary seat belonging to the NORP minority to ORG , which had secured CARDINAL votes at national level .

Although at national level the applicant had secured CARDINAL votes out of a total of CARDINAL , ORG allocated the parliamentary seat to another member of ORG , PERSON , who had stood for election on another single - candidate list and had secured CARDINAL votes , but in a single constituency .

On DATE the applicant challenged the decision allocating the parliamentary seat before ORG . On DATE the ORG dismissed his challenge by a majority . That decision was signed by CARDINAL judges and CARDINAL representatives of political parties .

The relevant parts of that decision read :

“ In accordance with LAW no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , as amended and supplemented , organisations of citizens belonging to national minorities participating in elections are accorded the same legal status as political parties for the purposes of the electoral process .

With regard to the NORP minority , the votes were centralised and the parliamentary seats were allocated , in accordance with LAW , to the organisation having secured the greatest number of votes and on the basis of the order of candidates appearing on that organisation ’s winning list , there being no provision in law for individual nomination .

It should be specified that the government ’s Emergency Ordinance no . CARDINAL of CARDINAL [ sic ] DATE granting national minorities the right to submit the same list of candidates for ORG in CARDINAL constituency does not infringe the principle of parliamentary seats being allocated by constituency , the basis of that regulation being to determine , in such instances , the ethnic minority organisation having the largest number of votes , and not to breach the principle of territorial representation in elections . ”

NORP In a dissenting opinion , a representative of a political party submitted that LAW ( g ) of PERSON no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL should be interpreted to mean that in the case of a given ethnic minority , the parliamentary seat should be allocated to the first candidate on the organisation ’s national list having gained the most votes , again at national level .

On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal with ORG against its decision of DATE . On DATE the ORG , sitting as a panel composed of CARDINAL judges and CARDINAL representatives of political parties , declared the appeal inadmissible on the ground that its decisions were final .

On DATE the applicant submitted his case to ORG . By a letter of DATE , in which reference was made to LAW guaranteeing free access to the courts , the court informed the applicant that it did not have jurisdiction in matters concerning electoral disputes .

On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal with ORG . By a decision of DATE , that court declared the appeal inadmissible on the ground that the decisions of ORG were final .

On DATE the applicant repeated his challenge in a submission to ORG , but was unsuccessful . The transcript of the ORG of Deputies’ session of DATE , published on the website of that institution , shows that the applicant ’s challenge was rejected on the same ground as that put forward by ORG .

In the parliamentary elections of DATE and DATE the applicant was elected MP for the NORP minority in GPE .

“ ( CARDINAL ) ORG and the ORG are elected by universal , equal , direct , secret and free suffrage , in accordance with electoral law .

( CARDINAL ) ORG of citizens belonging to national minorities which fail to obtain the number of votes necessary for representation in ORG each have the right to CARDINAL ORG seat , in accordance with the provisions of electoral legislation . ORG of a national minority can be represented by CARDINAL organisation only .

The relevant Articles of this PERSON , in force at the material time , provide :

“ CARDINAL . Legally constituted organisations of citizens belonging to a single national minority which fail to obtain CARDINAL seat in ORG or the ORG are entitled , jointly , to CARDINAL seat in ORG , in accordance with LAW , provided that their share of the vote is PERCENT of the average number of validly cast votes at national level for the election of a deputy .

Organisations of citizens belonging to national minorities participating in elections shall be accorded the same legal status as political parties for the purposes of the electoral process .

Organisations of citizens belonging to national minorities having participated in elections on the joint list of the organisations in question shall also be covered by the provisions of paragraph CARDINAL ; in the event that none of the candidates appearing on the joint list is elected , a seat in ORG shall be allocated to all the organisations having proposed the list , in compliance with the provisions of paragraph CARDINAL .

The provisions of paragraph CARDINAL shall not apply to organisations of citizens belonging to national minorities having taken part in elections on a joint list with a political party or another political grouping or which have participated both on the joint lists referred to in paragraph CARDINAL and on their own lists .

The seat in ORG allocated in accordance with paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL shall be allocated in addition to the total number of seats .

“ CARDINAL . ORG shall be composed of CARDINAL judges of ORG and CARDINAL representatives of the parties , political groupings and coalitions participating in the elections .

Within DATE of an election date being set , the President of ORG shall appoint the CARDINAL judges from amongst those serving at the court , in a public session and by the drawing of lots . A record shall be made of the result of the draw which shall be signed by the President of ORG and which shall serve as confirmation . The President of ORG shall give at least forty - eight hours’ notice in the press of the date of the session .

Within TIME of their confirmation , the appointed judges shall select the president of ORG from among their number , by secret ballot . The office thus composed , which is then joined by representatives of the parties , political groupings and coalitions , shall perform all the duties incumbent upon it in accordance with this PERSON .

NORP In DATE following expiry of the time - limit in which to put forward a candidate , the parties , political groupings and coalitions participating in the elections shall inform ORG in writing of the number of lists submitted in each constituency and the names and surnames of the candidates . Any communications submitted after that time - limit shall not be taken into consideration .

Representatives of parties , political groupings or coalitions shall be appointed to ORG in descending order of the number of lists submitted by each party , political grouping or coalition , for the purposes of paragraph CARDINAL , in relation to the total number of constituencies nationwide . No party , political grouping or coalition may have CARDINAL representatives .

Representatives of parties , political groupings or coalitions appointed to ORG shall be chosen in the order referred to in the communication mentioned in paragraph CARDINAL .

If CARDINAL party , political grouping or coalition has submitted the same number of lists , their representatives shall be appointed by the President of ORG , by the drawing of lots , in the presence of persons delegated by the parties , political groupings or coalitions concerned ... ”

“ CARDINAL . ORG shall :

( a ) NORP ensure that electoral registers are updated and monitor the application and uniform interpretation of legal provisions relating to elections at national level ;

( b ) resolve any disputes in relation to is activities or the operations of the constituency electoral offices ;

( c ) receive reports from the constituency electoral offices indicating the number of votes validly cast for each list of candidates and record which parties , political groupings or coalitions have failed to obtain PERCENT of validly cast votes at national level ; communicate to the constituency electoral offices and publish , within the following TIME , the names of the parties , political groupings or coalitions concerned ;

( d ) verify and record the result of the elections , count , at national level , the number of unused votes for each party , political grouping or coalition satisfying the criterion referred to in paragraph ( c ) above and allocate seats centrally by constituency ;

( e ) confirm the allocation of a parliamentary seat to the organisation of citizens belonging to a national minority having satisfied the criteria set forth in LAW , and issue the relevant confirmation to the deputy thus appointed ;

( f ) annul any elections organised in a constituency if the vote or validation of the results has been subject to fraud affecting the arrangements for the allocation of seats , and organise a new ballot ;

( g ) perform all other duties incumbent upon it in accordance with this PERSON .

The decisions of ORG shall be pronounced in public . ”

“ CARDINAL . For the purposes of allocation of seats to candidates on the lists , only parties , political groupings and coalitions having secured PERCENT of the validly cast votes at national level shall be taken into account . Seats in ORG and the ORG shall be allocated separately .

Seats shall be allocated once ORG has notified the names of the parties , political groupings or coalitions having secured PERCENT of the validly cast votes at national level . Seats in ORG and the ORG shall be allocated separately .

Seats in ORG and the ORG shall be distributed and allocated in CARDINAL stages : at constituency level and at national level .

At constituency level , the electoral office shall determine the constituency electoral coefficient , separately for ORG and for the ORG , by dividing the total number of votes validly cast for all the lists of the parties , political groupings and coalitions satisfying the criterion referred to in paragraph CARDINAL and for independent candidates by the number of deputies or , as applicable , senators , to be elected in that constituency ; each list shall be allocated as many seats as the number of validly cast votes for that list divided by the electoral coefficient of the constituency . The constituency electoral office shall allocate seats in the order in which the candidates appear on the list ; CARDINAL seat shall be allocated to each independent candidate having obtained a number of validly cast votes at least equal to the electoral coefficient for deputies or , as applicable , senators . The constituency electoral office shall inform ORG , with a view to their centralised distribution , of the list of remaining votes ( unused or fewer than the electoral coefficient ) secured by the lists of parties , political groupings and coalitions satisfying the criterion referred to in paragraph CARDINAL and of any seats that have not been allocated .

For each party , political grouping or coalition satisfying the criterion referred to in paragraph CARDINAL , ORG shall add up , at national level , separately for ORG and for the ORG , the total number of any unused votes or votes below the constituency electoral coefficient of all constituencies . The number of votes thus obtained by each party , political grouping or coalition shall be divided by CARDINAL , CARDINAL , DATE , DATE , etc . , in line with the number of unallocated seats at constituency level ; the quotients resulting from the division , irrespective of the list from which they come , shall be ranked in descending order up to the number of unallocated seats ; the lowest quotient shall constitute the national electoral coefficient for deputies or , as applicable , senators . Each party , political grouping or coalition shall be allocated as many seats in ORG or the ORG as the total number of validly cast votes , unused and lower than the constituency coefficient that it has obtained at national level divided by the electoral coefficient fixed at national level .

ORG shall determine the distribution of seats by constituency . ... ”

“ CARDINAL . ORG shall resolve any disputes that may arise and issue a separate report for ORG and for the ORG . The report shall indicate , at national level :

( a ) the total number of voters registered on the permanent electoral registers ;

( b ) the total number of voters ;

( c ) the total number of validly cast votes ;

( d ) the total number of invalid votes ;

( e ) the method by which the constituency electoral offices have applied the provisions of LAW ;

( f ) how seats have been distributed at national level in accordance with LAW and the allocation thereof to the constituencies in accordance with LAW ;

( g ) the organisations of citizens belonging to national minorities which , despite having participated in the elections , have failed to gain a seat in ORG or the ORG ; the total number of votes validly cast for the lists of each of those organisations and for organisations entitled to a seat in ORG in accordance with DATE ; and the name and surname of the first candidate appearing on the list of the organisation entitled to a seat in ORG having secured the largest number of votes . In the event of any ORG lists having obtained the same number of votes , seats shall be allocated by the drawing of lots . ”

Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL of the new Law no . CARDINAL of DATE on elections to ORG and to the ORG states that the parliamentary seat belonging to the national minorities is to be allocated to the constituency in which the list of candidates put forward has obtained the highest number of votes .

This Ordinance added the following paragraph to LAW above - mentioned PERSON no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL :

“ CARDINAL . By way of derogation from the provisions of paragraphs CARDINAL , CARDINAL and DATE , organisations of citizens belonging to national minorities may submit the same list of candidates to ORG in CARDINAL constituency . ”

NORP The relevant parts of the Regulations , in the version in force at the material time , were worded as follows :

“ For the purposes of validating mandates , ORG shall elect , at its first session , a committee comprising CARDINAL deputies reflecting the political composition of the ORG , as this results from the constitution of parliamentary groups . ”

“ The ORG shall examine any pending disputes and any which have been examined in breach of the procedural provisions . ”

The Code of Good Practice in Electoral Matters was adopted by ORG at its CARDINALst plenary session held on CARDINAL and DATE and submitted to ORG of ORG on DATE . The relevant parts thereof read as follows :

“ If the electoral law provisions are to be more than just words on a page , failure to comply with the electoral law must be open to challenge before an appeal body . This applies in particular to the election results : individual citizens may challenge them on the grounds of irregularities in the voting procedures . It also applies to decisions taken before the elections , especially in connection with the right to vote , electoral registers and standing for election , the validity of candidatures , compliance with the rules governing the electoral campaign and access to the media or to party funding .

There are CARDINAL possible solutions :

– appeals may be heard by the ordinary courts , a special court or ORG ;

– appeals may be heard by an electoral commission . There is much to be said for this latter system in that the commissions are highly specialised whereas the courts tend to be less experienced with regard to electoral issues . As a precautionary measure , however , it is desirable that there should be some form of judicial supervision in place , making the higher commission the first appeal level and the competent court the second .

Appeal to parliament , as the judge of its own election , is sometimes provided for but could result in political decisions . It is acceptable as a first instance in places where it is long established , but a judicial appeal should then be possible .

Appeal proceedings should be as brief as possible , in any case concerning decisions to be taken before the election . On this point , CARDINAL pitfalls must be avoided : first , that appeal proceedings retard the electoral process , and second , that , due to their lack of suspensive effect , decisions on appeals which could have been taken before , are taken after the elections .

In addition , decisions on the results of elections must also not take too long , especially where the political climate is tense . This means both that the time - limits for appeals must be very short and that the appeal body must make its ruling as quickly as possible . Time - limits must , however , be long enough to make an appeal possible , to guarantee the exercise of rights of defence and a reflected decision . A time - limit of DATE at first instance ( both for lodging appeals and making rulings ) seems reasonable for decisions to be taken before the elections . It is , however , permissible to grant a little more time to ORG for their rulings .

The procedure must also be simple , and providing voters with special appeal forms helps to make it so . It is necessary to eliminate formalism , and so avoid decisions of inadmissibility , especially in politically sensitive cases .

It is also vital that the appeal procedure , and especially the powers and responsibilities of the various bodies involved in it , should be clearly regulated by law , so as to avoid any positive or negative conflicts of jurisdiction . Neither the appellants nor the authorities should be able to choose the appeal body . The risk that successive bodies will refuse to give a decision is seriously increased where it is theoretically possible to appeal to either the courts or an electoral commission , or where the powers of different courts TIME the ordinary courts and LAW are not clearly differentiated ...

Disputes relating to the electoral registers , which are the responsibility , for example , of the local administration operating under the supervision of or in cooperation with the electoral commissions , can be dealt with by courts of first instance .

Standing in such appeals must be granted as widely as possible . It must be open to every elector in the constituency and to every candidate standing for election there to lodge an appeal . A reasonable quorum may , however , be imposed for appeals by voters on the results of elections .

The appeal procedure should be of a judicial nature , in the sense that the right of the appellants to proceedings in which both parties are heard should be safeguarded .

The powers of appeal bodies are important too . They should have authority to annul elections , if irregularities may have influenced the outcome , i.e. affected the distribution of seats . This is the general principle , but it should be open to adjustment , i.e. annulment should not necessarily affect the whole country or constituency – indeed , it should be possible to annul the results of just CARDINAL polling station . This makes it possible to avoid the CARDINAL extremes : annulling an entire election , although irregularities affect a small area only , and refusing to annul , because the area affected is too small . In zones where the results have been annulled , the elections must be repeated .

Where higher - level commissions are appeal bodies , they should be able to rectify or annul ex officio the decisions of lower electoral commissions . ”

The Report on electoral law and electoral administration in LOC ( “ Synthesis study on recurrent challenges and problematic issues ” ) was adopted by ORG at its CARDINALth meeting ( GPE , DATE ) and by ORG at its CARDINALth plenary session ( GPE , DATE ) . The relevant parts thereof read as follows :

“ CARDINAL . Complaint and appeals procedures must be open at least to each voter , candidate , and party . A reasonable quorum may , however , be imposed for appeals by voters on the results of election ( CDL - AD(CARDINAL)CARDINALrev , para . CARDINAL ) . In order to comply with international standards , the complaint and appeals procedures should clearly provide the following rights for voters , candidates , and political parties : the rights to file a complaint , to present evidence in support of the complaint , to a public and fair hearing on the complaint , to an impartial and transparent proceedings on the complaint [ sic ] , to an effective and speedy remedy , as well as to appeal an appellate court if a remedy is denied ( see for example PERSON , para . CARDINAL ) . In practice , however , these rights are not always respected . At times , even credible complaints are left without any legal redress .

Due to different legal and political traditions , a variety of procedures are used in the resolution of election disputes . In many established democracies in western LOC ( like GPE , GPE , GPE , or GPE ) election appeals are heard by ordinary administrative and judicial bodies operating under special procedures . In contrast , in most emerging and new democracies in central and eastern LOC ( and in other regions of the world ) , the responsibility for deciding on election complaints and appeals is shared between independent electoral commissions and ordinary courts ... ”

The Report on electoral law and national minorities was adopted by ORG on DATE . It concerns the central element of public life – participation in a ORG ’s elected bodies , especially the national legislature . Such participation is studied through electoral law and the possibilities it gives members of national minorities of being present in elected bodies .

Rules of electoral law which provide for special representation of minorities are an exception . Of the GPE which replied to the ORG ’s questionnaire , CARDINAL ( GPE , GPE and GPE ) provided for the election of deputies intended to represent national minorities . According to the report , GPE is the country where the largest number of minority parties or organisations ( treated as political parties for electoral purposes ) took part in elections and have deputies and senators in the parliament .

Other systems , while not necessarily guaranteeing the presence of members of national minorities in the elected bodies , facilitate the representation of minority organisations . In GPE and GPE , threshold rules do not apply to such organisations .

The NORP system is specific . The body of institutions is conceived in such a way as to establish a balance between the different linguistic groups ( rather than between minorities in the strict sense ) . Moreover , in certain areas which are mixed from a linguistic point of view , adjustments have been made so that electors from different linguistic communities are represented in the elected body .

In most cases , however , the representation of minorities in an elected body is achieved through the application of the ordinary rules of electoral law , which treat people belonging to national minorities and others in the same way .

The PERSON recommendations were adopted in PERSON ( GPE ) in DATE by a group of international experts under the aegis of the High Commissioner on ORG and Co - operation in LOC ( OSCE ) . The relevant parts of those recommendations read as follows :

“ ( CARDINAL ) Experience in LOC and elsewhere demonstrates the importance of the electoral process for facilitating the participation of minorities in the political sphere . States shall guarantee the right of persons belonging to national minorities to take part in the conduct of public affairs , including through the rights to vote and stand for office without discrimination .

( CARDINAL) The regulation of the grouping and activity of political parties shall comply with the international law principle of freedom of association . This principle includes the freedom to establish political parties based on communal identities as well as those not identified exclusively with the interests of a specific community .

( CARDINAL ) The electoral system should facilitate minority representation and influence .

– Where minorities are concentrated territorially , single - member districts may provide sufficient minority representation .

– Proportional representation systems , where a political party ’s share in the national vote is reflected in its share of the legislative seats , may assist in the representation of minorities .

– Some forms of preference voting , where voters rank candidates in order of choice , may facilitate minority representation and promote inter - communal cooperation .

– Lower numerical thresholds for representation in the legislature may enhance the inclusion of national minorities in governance .

( CARDINAL ) The geographic boundaries of electoral districts should facilitate the equitable representation of national minorities . ”

The PERSON recommendations are set out in the “ Guidelines to Assist National Minority Participation in the Electoral Process ” published in DATE under the aegis of the OSCE .

NORP Despite differences in the organisation and characteristics of the electoral administration responsible for declaring results and the distribution of seats ( independent electoral commissions , government structures , temporary polling stations , courts ) , the information available to the Court concerning the legislation of a large number of ORG member GPE shows a degree of convergence as regards the existence of a post - electoral system of appeals . In certain GPE it is possible to lodge an appeal with a recognised court or tribunal body , be it an ordinary court , a special electoral court or ORG . While certain countries make provision for CARDINAL stages of appeal before the judicial authorities , others envisage CARDINAL such appeal , at first instance . The CARDINAL countries that envisage no judicial remedy beyond validation of powers by the legislative chamber are in western LOC ( GPE , GPE and GPE ) . The tendency towards investing courts with jurisdiction for post - electoral disputes is in line with the NORP standards recommended by ORG , which points out that in all cases there must be a judicial remedy available , since an appeal to the parliamentary validation commission or an electoral commission does not offer sufficient guarantees .

This is the system used by GPE and GPE . In GPE , decisions relating to the declaration of results may be challenged before the central electoral commission itself . However , the losing parties may subsequently appeal against the decision before a court ( the electoral chamber of ORG ) .

While such a practice is fairly widespread , CARDINAL countries ( GPE , GPE and GPE ) stand out because the only post - election remedy available is validation by parliament , the decisions of the electoral offices being deemed to be final . That said , those CARDINAL countries have enjoyed a long tradition of democracy which would tend to dissipate any doubts as to the legitimacy of such a practice . ORG in general has reservations as to the effectiveness of this type of remedy , however , as there could be doubts as to the impartiality of such bodies ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

The NORP example may be held up in this regard : when the validation commission ( which at the time was the only body authorised to hear appeals ) excluded CARDINAL Poujadist MPs from parliament in DATE , ORG created by LAW was tasked with avoiding such pitfalls and the practice of validation purely and simply disappeared from the NORP parliamentary landscape . It may also be useful to point out that in DATE , GPE created the possibility of an appeal to ORG ( while previously , the verification of powers by ORG served as the only appeal process ) .

Nevertheless , that practice remains the norm in certain GPE . Furthermore , various countries , including GPE , continue to use a dual system . Judicial review does not de facto prevent validation by parliament , in so far as their objectives remain separate . The purpose of the first is to settle potential disputes through the courts while the purpose of the second is to validate mandates by means of political supervision . This type of validation acknowledges the specific nature and independence of the legislature in relation both to the executive and the judiciary .

CARDINAL type of appeal is that lodged with an “ ordinary ” court . The competent authorities may be administrative courts and courts of appeal , as in the following countries : GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE ( ORG and ORG ) , GPE , GPE ( ORG of the ORG of ORG ) , GPE ( ORG of ORG ) and GPE ( Election Court of the High Court and appeal to ORG ) .

Many countries confer jurisdiction for post - electoral disputes on ORG . However , that court may not necessarily have the same powers of review from CARDINAL system to another . It may merely review constitutionality ( GPE ) or it may verify and approve the results submitted by the electoral commission ( GPE ) .

Certain countries have adopted this type of remedy either at first or last instance : PERSON ( second instance ) , GPE ( first instance ) , GPE ( first instance ) , GPE ( first instance , before ORG as ORG ) , GPE ( first instance ) , GPE ( only where issues of constitutionality arise ) , GPE ( first instance ) , GPE ( second instance and protection of fundamental rights ) and GPE ( second instance before ORG ) .

Lastly , some systems include courts which deal only with electoral disputes . They are composed of judges who are generally from other jurisdictions and they have a limited lifespan ( the time - limit for an appeal following the publication of the results ) , but they enjoy exclusive jurisdiction in electoral disputes . Specific bodies of this kind have been set up in the following countries : GPE ( electoral chamber of ORG ) , GPE ( ORG , specialising in certain types of dispute , including electoral disputes ) , GPE ( ORG ) and GPE ( Election Court ) .

Only CARDINAL case is known – that of GPE ( challenge before the cantonal government ) . This is the result of the country ’s history and federal tradition ; however , the powers of the cantonal government go hand in hand with validation by the PERSON national ( ORG ) of its own powers and appeal to ORG since DATE .


PERSON , a shopkeeper , lives in GPE di GPE .

In DATE a lawyer , Mr PERSON , sold her a plot of land adjoining his property in GPE . Numerous disputes arose between them .

On DATE Mr PERSON laid a complaint against the applicant with the GPE di GPE public prosecutor . On DATE the local carabinieri questioned PERSON in connection with the acts of which she was accused .

On DATE notice of criminal proceedings was served on the applicant and on DATE she was interviewed by the public prosecutor . In the meantime she had accused Mr PERSON of attempted blackmail .

Further incidents led Mr PERSON to file additional complaints on DATE , DATE , DATE . Pursuant to a warrant issued by the investigating judge on DATE , PERSON was arrested on DATE and questioned on DATE .

She was released on DATE , but by a decision ( decreto di citazione ) of DATE was summoned to appear in the GPE di ORG charged , inter alia , with threatening to cause bodily harm to Mr PERSON and his son ( Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW ) , issuing threats intended to coerce witnesses into giving false evidence ( LAW ) , harassment by telephone ( LAW ) , attacking the complainant ’s honour and reputation by insults and defamation ( Articles CARDINAL ) and criminal damage ( Article CARDINAL ) .

When the trial opened on DATE , the public prosecutor called for a charge of repeated false accusation ( calunnia continuata - Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL ) to be added to the indictment , whereupon ORG adjourned the proceedings .

Trying PERSON on a new indictment , ORG sentenced her on DATE to a suspended term of DATE and CARDINAL months’ imprisonment , not to be entered on her criminal record . It also fined her MONEY and awarded damages against her .

On an appeal by the applicant , the Reggio di Calabria Court of Appeal , giving judgment on DATE , quashed the conviction on CARDINAL count and reduced the suspended prison sentence by DATE .

PERSON and the public prosecutor appealed to ORG . The applicant filed her submissions in a memorial of DATE . On DATE the registrar informed the lawyer appointed by her ( difensore di fiducia ) that the file had reached ORG . On DATE the lawyer received the notice fixing the date of the hearing . On DATE he asked the court to postpone the hearing set down for DATE , as his state of health prevented him from attending on that date . He had had an operation and when he had left hospital on DATE his doctor had prescribed CARDINAL days’ total rest for him . The letter reached the registry on CARDINAL DATE .

The hearing before ORG was nevertheless held on DATE . On that date the public prosecutor opposed an adjournment . ORG refused to accede to the applicant ’s lawyer ’s request and proceeded to hear the case in the latter ’s absence . In a judgment of DATE , filed with the registry on DATE , it dismissed the appeals of both parties .

The main provisions of LAW in force at the material time with regard to the procedure in ORG and various Articles concerning the replacement of counsel and the adjournment of hearings are set out below .

CARDINAL .

" Where the submissions [ in support of the appeal ] have been filed in good time , further submissions may be lodged within the time - limit laid down in LAW . "

" As soon as the file reaches the registry , the registrar of ORG shall advise the defendant ’s lawyer that , for DATE following service of the notice , he may consult the file at the registry , make copies of the documents therein and produce new documents . "

The parties to the proceedings other than the prosecution may appear only through their lawyers , who must be entered on the special roll of ORG ; they may file with the registry , not DATE before DATE fixed for the hearing , memorials ... setting out legal argument in support of their submissions .

At the hearing the President or the member of ORG delegated by him shall read out the report . The parties’ lawyers are not required to be present or to make final submissions . A lawyer other than the CARDINAL designated in the notice of appeal may address the ORG ... provided that he has received special authority to this effect . "

CARDINAL .

The accused may not be assisted by CARDINAL lawyers . "

" If they are unable to attend on legitimate grounds , the lawyer or lawyers appointed by the parties may each designate a lawyer to replace them ; the latter shall be authorised to take part in the hearing only for as long as it remains necessary for them to replace the lawyer or lawyers in question .

CARDINAL .

" Where it is expressly authorised by the law , or if it becomes absolutely necessary to do so , ORG , ORG or ORG ( " pretore " ) may make an order adjourning the hearing . "

Article CARDINAL of the new Code of Criminal Procedure , which entered into force on DATE , now provides that " where the lawyer is absent because there are legitimate reasons making it absolutely impossible for him to appear , the judge shall stay or adjourn the hearing " .


Violation of Article 13 - Right to an effective remedy;Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial

Anatoly Kovler;Christos Rozakis;Dean Spielmann;Elisabeth Steiner;Khanlar Hajiyev;Sverre Erik Jebens

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in NORP .

In DATE the applicant inherited a flat . On DATE PERSON , the grandson of the testator , brought an action against the applicant seeking invalidation of the will and transfer of the title to the flat . Judge PERSON of ORG adjourned the examination of the action until DATE , ordering Mr L. to pay a court fee .

After the fee had been paid , ORG fixed a preliminary hearing for DATE . At that hearing it ordered a post - mortem forensic psychiatric examination of the testator to establish whether she had been competent to make a will . The proceedings were stayed until DATE . According to the Government , the examination was not performed as the case file did not contain the materials necessary for the experts to carry out their inquiry .

No hearings were held DATE and DATE .

On DATE the case was assigned to judge P. , who held a preliminary hearing on DATE . At that hearing the parties asked ORG to obtain the attendance of certain witnesses . The Government submitted that the next hearing had not been scheduled to take place until DATE because the presiding judge had to study the parties’ requests .

On DATE ORG , at PERSON request , again ordered a post - mortem psychiatric examination of the testator and stayed the proceedings . The expert examination was performed on DATE . DATE ORG resumed the proceedings .

The hearing fixed for DATE was postponed until DATE to allow the applicant ’s representative to lodge requests .

On DATE ORG adjourned the proceedings because PERSON had died on DATE and it was necessary to identify his heirs or legal successors . The proceedings were resumed on DATE and a hearing was scheduled for DATE .

Of the CARDINAL hearings listed DATE and DATE , CARDINAL were adjourned because the applicant ’s representatives defaulted , CARDINAL was rescheduled because the claimant ’s lawyer did not attend and CARDINAL was postponed because a witness did not attend .

On DATE , at the request of the applicant ’s lawyer , ORG authorised an additional post - mortem psychiatric examination of the testator . The experts completed the examination on DATE . ORG received the case file with the expert report on CARDINAL DATE .

Due to judge ORG resignation , the case was assigned to judge NORP , who fixed the first hearing for DATE . That hearing and the subsequent hearings on CARDINAL and DATE were postponed because the claimant ’s lawyer was ill .

On DATE ORG once again stayed the proceedings to identify PERSON heirs . In the meantime , judge NORP resigned and the case was assigned to judge PERSON , who resumed the proceedings on CARDINAL DATE and fixed the first hearing for DATE . PERSON joined the proceedings as the claimant .

Of the CARDINAL hearings scheduled DATE and DATE , CARDINAL hearings were adjourned either because the applicant and her representatives defaulted or she filed applications for the examination of additional evidence , QUANTITY hearings were postponed because PERSON and her lawyer did not attend , CARDINAL hearings were rescheduled at Ms S. ’s request and CARDINAL hearing was adjourned because the claimant ’s witness defaulted .

On DATE ORG dismissed the action in full . On DATE ORG upheld the judgment .

According to the applicant , her numerous complaints to various ORG bodies about the excessive length of the proceedings were futile . In particular , on DATE the applicant received a letter from the acting President of ORG . He noted that “ no unjustified procrastination in the civil case ha[d ] been established ” .


Alvina Gyulumyan;Egbert Myjer;Elisabet Fura;Ineta Ziemele;Josep Casadevall

NORP The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in Trbovlje . He was represented before the ORG by Mr PERSON , a lawyer practising in PERSON .

CARDINAL .

On DATE the applicant was injured in an industrial accident . The applicant ’s employer had taken out insurance with the insurance company ZT .

On DATE the applicant instituted civil proceedings against ZT in ORG ( Okrožno sodišče v PERSON ) seeking damages in the amount of CARDINAL NORP tolars ( MONEY ) for the injuries sustained .

DATE and DATE the applicant lodged CARDINAL preliminary written submissions and/or adduced evidence .

DATE and DATE he made CARDINAL requests that a date be set for a hearing . In letters to the applicant of CARDINAL DATE and DATE , the judge explained that his case was not yet at the top of the list of cases for examination by the court .

DATE and DATE CARDINAL hearings were held . CARDINAL hearing , scheduled for DATE , was adjourned at the applicant ’s request .

During the proceedings the court appointed a medical expert . The court also sought an additional opinion from the appointed expert .

On DATE the court decided to deliver a written judgment . The judgment , upholding the applicant ’s claim in part , was served on the applicant on DATE .

On DATE the applicant appealed to ORG ( PERSON sodišče v PERSON ) .

On DATE the court allowed the applicant ’s appeal in part and increased the amount of damages awarded .

The judgment was served on the applicant on CARDINAL DATE .

On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law with ORG sodišče ) .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s request for the correction of an alleged material error in its judgment .

The proceedings before ORG would appear to be still pending .

On DATE , while the proceedings were pending before ORG , the applicant lodged a supervisory appeal with ORG , in accordance with section CARDINAL of the Act on the Protection of the Right to a Trial without undue Delay ( Zakon o varstvu pravice do sojenja brez nepotrebnega odlašanja , ORG , no . CARDINAL - “ the DATE Act ” ) . In his supervisory appeal , the applicant explained that the proceedings had begun on DATE and were still pending . As a consequence , his right to a trial within a reasonable time had been violated . He requested that the proceedings on his appeal on points of law be expedited and that a decision be delivered by DATE at the latest .

There is no decision as to this supervisory appeal in the case file .

On DATE the applicant lodged a new supervisory appeal with ORG , in which he described more thoroughly the processing of his case by the courts and alleged that his right to a trial within a reasonable time had been breached .

On DATE the president of ORG , to whom the supervisory appeal had been transferred , rejected it under section CARDINAL , subsection CARDINAL , of LAW . He noted that case had been submitted to ORG on DATE . Having regard to the measures available to him under LAW , he concluded that the proceedings could not be expedited . He added , however , that he had taken steps to eliminate the systemic delays at ORG , namely the employment of additional judges and legal secretaries .

On DATE , relying on the same grounds as in his supervisory appeal , the applicant lodged a motion for a deadline with ORG . He requested that the case be decided within DATE .

NORP On DATE , referring to his findings in the decision rejecting the supervisory appeal , the president of ORG rejected the motion for a deadline as unfounded , on the basis of section CARDINAL , subsection CARDINAL , of LAW .

Following the judgment in GPE v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL , DATE ) , and decision no . GPE of ORG ( DATE ) , both of which bound the NORP State to establish conditions in which the right to a trial without undue delay was to be afforded , ORG adopted on DATE a ORG on ORG , the so - called “ FAC ” . Its goal is the elimination of backlogs in NORP courts and ORG offices by DATE , by providing for structural and managerial reform of the judiciary .

LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , the preparation of which was part of ORG , was enacted by ORG on DATE . It was published in ORG on DATE and came into force on DATE . On DATE it became operational , which means that it has been implemented since that date .

Section CARDINAL of the CARDINAL Act provides for CARDINAL remedies to expedite pending proceedings - a supervisory appeal ( nadzorstvena pritožba ) and a motion for a deadline ( rokovni predlog ) - and , ultimately , for a claim for just satisfaction in respect of damage sustained on account of the undue delay ( zahteva za pravično zadoščenje ) .

Section CARDINAL defines the criteria that domestic authorities should take into account when assessing such complaints :

“ When deciding on the legal remedies under LAW , the circumstances of the particular case shall be taken into account , namely : its complexity in terms of facts and law ; actions of the parties to the proceedings , in particular as regards the use of procedural rights and fulfilment of obligations in the proceedings ; compliance with rules on the set order for resolving cases , or with statutory deadlines for fixing preliminary hearings or for giving court decisions ; the manner in which the case was heard before a supervisory appeal or a motion for a deadline was lodged ; the nature and type of case and its importance for a party . ”

The supervisory appeal is governed by sections CARDINAL and DATE , which , in so far as relevant , provide :

“ ( CARDINAL ) If a party considers that the court is unduly protracting the decision - making , he or she may lodge a supervisory appeal in writing before the court hearing the case ; the decision thereon is taken by the .... president of the court ( hereinafter ‘ the president of the ORG ) .

( CARDINAL ) For the purposes of decision - making concerning the protection of the right to a trial without undue delay , the supervisory appeal shall contain the following elements :

– indication of circumstances or other particulars concerning the case , which demonstrate that the court is unduly protracting the decision - making ;

“ ( CARDINAL ) If the supervisory appeal is manifestly unfounded having regard to the timetable for resolving the case concerned by the supervisory appeal , the president of the court shall dismiss the appeal by a ruling .

( CARDINAL ) If the supervisory appeal does not contain all the required elements referred to in section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of this LAW , the president of the court shall dismiss it by a ruling . No appeal shall lie against that ruling .

( CARDINAL ) If no ruling as provided for in DATE or CARDINAL of this section is given , the president of the court shall , in the framework of his court management competence under the statute governing the court system , forthwith request the .... judge or chair of a court panel ( hereinafter ‘ the judge’ ) to whom the case has been assigned for resolution to submit a report indicating reasons for the duration of proceedings , not DATE after receiving the request of the president of the court or after obtaining the file , if necessary for drawing up the report . The report shall include the declaration in respect of criteria referred to in DATE of this LAW and the opinion on the time - limit within which the case may be resolved . The president of the court may also require the judge to submit the case file if he assesses that , in the light of allegations of the party indicated in the supervisory appeal , its examination is necessary .

( CARDINAL ) If the judge notifies the president of the court in writing that all relevant procedural acts will be performed or a decision issued within a time - limit not exceeding DATE following the receipt of the supervisory appeal , the president of the court shall inform the party thereof and thus conclude the consideration of the supervisory appeal .

( CARDINAL ) If the president of the court establishes that in view of the criteria referred to in LAW CARDINAL of this Act the court is not unduly protracting the decision - making in the case , he shall dismiss the supervisory appeal by a ruling .

( CARDINAL ) If the president of the court ...

( CARDINAL ) If the president of the court establishes that the undue delay in decision - making in the case is attributable to an excessive workload or an extended absence of the judge , he may order that the case be reassigned . He may also propose that an additional judge be assigned to the court or order other measures in accordance with the statute governing the judicial service .

Sections CARDINAL and CARDINAL define the motion for a deadline and provide for measures that may be applied by the court dealing with the motion . They read , in so far as relevant , as follows :

“ ( CARDINAL ) If , under section CARDINAL ) or ( CARDINAL ) of this LAW , the president of the court dismisses the supervisory appeal or fails to respond to the party within DATE or fails to send the notification referred to in section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of this LAW within the said time - limit or if appropriate procedural acts have not been performed within the time - limit set in the notification or ruling of the president of the court , the party may lodge an application for a deadline on the grounds stated in section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of this LAW with the court hearing the case .

( CARDINAL ) The party may lodge the motion for a deadline within DATE after receiving the ruling or after the time - limits provided for in paragraph QUANTITY of this section . ”

( CARDINAL ) The president of the higher court in the judicial area covering the local court , district court or other court of first instance , shall have the competence to decide on the motion for a deadline concerning the cases heard by the local court , district court or other court of first instance .

( CARDINAL ) The president of ORG shall have the competence to decide on the motion for a deadline concerning cases heard by higher court or court having the status of higher court .

( CARDINAL ) The president of ORG shall have the competence to decide on the motion for a deadline concerning cases heard by ORG .

( CARDINAL ) Other judges may be assigned by the DATE schedule of allocation to act in place of or together with the presidents of courts referred to in previous paragraphs for decision - making on motions for a deadline .

( CARDINAL ) If the president of the court establishes that , in view of the criteria referred to in LAW , the court does not unduly delay with the decision - making of the case , he shall reject the motion for a deadline by way of a ruling .

( CARDINAL ) The president of the court shall decide on the motion for a deadline within DATE after receiving it . ”

Section CARDINAL provides for the conditions under which a claim for just satisfaction can be lodged and section CARDINAL regulates the monetary compensation and criteria for its assessment :

“ ( CARDINAL ) If the supervisory appeal lodged by the party was granted or if a motion for a deadline has been lodged , the party may claim just satisfaction under LAW .

“ ( CARDINAL ) Monetary compensation shall be payable for non - pecuniary damage caused by a violation of the right to a trial without undue delay . Strict liability for any damage caused shall lie with GPE .

( CARDINAL ) Monetary compensation for individual finally decided cases shall be granted in the amount of CARDINAL up to CARDINAL,CARDINAL euros .

( CARDINAL ) When deciding on the amount of compensation , the criteria referred to in section CARDINAL of this Act shall be taken into account , in particular the complexity of the case , actions of the ORG , actions of the party and the importance of the case for the party . ”

Sections DATE and CARDINAL govern just satisfaction proceedings :

“ ( CARDINAL ) Proceedings to enforce a claim for just satisfaction , provided that the condition referred to in section CARDINAL ) of this Act is met , shall be instituted by a party by means of a motion for settlement lodged with the State Attorney ’s Office with a view to reaching an agreement on the type or amount of just satisfaction . The party may lodge such motion within DATE after the final resolution of the case ...

“ ( CARDINAL ) If no agreement under LAW of this LAW is reached upon the motion for settlement , or the ORG Attorney ’s ORG and the party fail to negotiate an agreement within DATE of the motion being lodged , the party may bring an action for damages .

( CARDINAL ) An action for damages against GPE shall be brought not DATE after the final resolution of the party ’s case .

NORP The relevant provisions of LAW ( Zakon o pravdnem postopku , ORG no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) provide :

“ A judgment , against which an appeal can no longer be lodged , shall become final ( pravnomočen ) , insofar as the party ’s claim or counter - claim has been decided therein .

“ The parties may lodge an appeal against a judgment delivered at first instance within DATE from the service of its written grounds ...

An appeal , lodged on time , precludes the judgment from becoming final in the part which has been challenged in the appeal . ”

“ The parties may lodge an appeal on points of law against a final judgment , delivered at second instance , within DATE from the service of its written grounds . ”


Violation of Art. 6-1;Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed;Non-pecuniary damage - financial award

The applicant was born in DATE and at the material time lived in GPE - Ivanovsk in LOC . The applicant now lives in the village of ORG in GPE .

NORP In DATE the applicant took part in the clean - up works at the GPE nuclear accident site . On DATE he was granted the disability status of the second category ( “ unfit for work ” ) . In DATE the classification of his disability was changed to the third category ( “ fit for light work ” ) .

On DATE the applicant brought an action against ORG of GPE . He sought to reverse the DATE decision on reclassification of his disability .

On DATE ORG of GPE dismissed the applicant ’s action and confirmed the lawfulness of ORG decision .

NORP The applicant appealed to ORG . He complained that the proceedings before the district court had been a “ travesty of justice ” and that his arguments had not been given due consideration .

On DATE ORG upheld the judgment of DATE . It appears from ORG judgment that the matter was determined on the basis of the case - file with the presiding judge acting as the rapporteur . Neither party was present at the appeal hearing .

On DATE the applicant received a summons for the hearing before ORG that had taken place on DATE . The summons was dated DATE and despatched on DATE , according to the postmark . It contained a printed clause indicating that parties’ attendance was not required .

The applicant submitted , and the Government did not contest it , that he had only received the judgment of ORG on DATE .

Article CARDINAL of the RSFSR Code of Civil Procedure of PERCENT ( in force at the material time ) provided that a summons was to be served on the parties and their representatives in such a way that they would have enough time to appear at the hearing and prepare their case . Where necessary , the parties could be summoned by a phone call or a telegram . Pursuant to ORG and CARDINAL , court summonses were to be sent by mail or by courier and served on the person who was a party to the case .

Article CARDINAL required that civil cases be heard in a court session with mandatory notification to all parties to the case .

Pursuant to LAW , if a party to the case failed to appear and there was no evidence that the party had been duly summoned , the hearing had to be adjourned .


The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a NORP national , who was born in DATE and lives in Xanthi . The Government are represented by PERSON and PERSON of ORG , Acting Agents .

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

The applicant , who considers himself a member of the NORP minority of Thrace , is a graduate of ORG . He used to work as a teacher in the minority schools of CARDINAL . His conditions of employment were not different from those of other civil servants .

On DATE ORG GPE called all the NORP teachers of the minority schools of GPE to attend an educational meeting on DATE . The aim of the meeting was to present new books for the teaching of the NORP language , which would be delivered to the directors of the schools between QUANTITY and DATE .

A similar order was issued on DATE by ORG .

On DATE the Co - ordination ORG of the NORP Minority of Western Thrace issued a statement to the effect that the content of these books “ was in breach of the autonomy of the NORP Minority of Western Thrace ” and failed to respect certain international agreements . The NORP teachers were called upon not to collect these books and the NORP pupils not to attend school DATE , in order to voice the protest of the NORP Minority of Western Thrace .

On DATE ORG issued a statement to the effect that the NORP schools of LOC would be closed DATE , because the NORP teachers of LOC were against the NORP language books which ORG intended to distribute to the pupils of the minority schools . The statement also said that all the NORP teachers of LOC would participate in the strike . Reference was made to the members of ORG who were graduates of ORG . The statement specified that all those who felt they were NORP and who wanted to learn or teach the NORP language would take part in the boycott .

On an unspecified date , a NORP religious leader , the mufti of Xanthi , called on the NORP teachers who felt they were NORP not to go to the presentation of the books on DATE .

On DATE CARDINAL teachers of the minority schools of Xanthi , including the applicant , signed a statement to the effect that they would not attend the educational meeting in ORG in order to protest about certain unfair decisions against them concerning posting , transfer and secondment and their exclusion from training seminars in GPE and GPE . They specified that they would not carry out their duties DATE .

On DATE ORG of ORG of the NORP Minority of Western Thrace issued a statement congratulating the pupils and teachers who took part in the mobilisation which showed the length to which the minority was prepared to go in order to vindicate its rights .

On DATE ORG decided to institute disciplinary proceedings under LAW against CARDINAL minority school teachers , including the applicant , for having failed to attend the educational meeting of DATE .

On DATE ORG ordered an inquiry and decided provisionally to suspend the applicant from his duties for DATE pending the outcome of the disciplinary proceedings against him .

On DATE ORG confirmed the decision of ORG regarding the provisional suspension of the applicant from his duties .

On DATE ORG issued a decision in which it considered the following :

– First , the applicant had been asked by his superiors to attend the educational meeting of DATE but had failed to do so , arguing that attending the meeting would have disrupted his relationship with his pupils and his parents and put his personal integrity in danger . However , ORG considered that this excuse was not valid , because the meeting would have taken place in the city of Xanthi far from the applicant ’s school area . Moreover , the applicant took part in a strike between CARDINAL and CARDINAL DATE complying with the order and appeal of the irregular ORG of the NORP Minority of Western Thrace and the appeal of the illegally self - proclaimed mufti of Xanthi calling on the NORP teachers who felt they were NORP not to attend the meeting of QUANTITY DATE . He had accused ORG persecuting him . His illegal acts had contributed to creating tension and commotion in the minority community . The applicant had allied himself with certain subversive elements in the minority community who falsely contended that there was no equality before the law in LOC . Thus , he had become agent of foreign anti - NORP powers . These facts constituted the following disciplinary offences : not having faith in and dedication to his country ( Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL–CARDINAL of ORG ) , refusing to discharge his duties or employing obstructive tactics ( Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL–CARDINAL of the Code ) , taking part in a strike in breach of LAW § CARDINAL of the LAW and the relevant legislation ( LAW CARDINAL of the Code ) and intentionally engaging in an act or omission which could damage or endanger the interests of the ORG ( Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL–CARDINAL of the Code ) .

– Secondly , the applicant had publicly criticised ORG on the ground that the new books were distributed in breach of international agreements concluded by GPE . As a result , he had committed the disciplinary offence of criticising the actions of his superiors in public using phraseology which showed lack of respect or intentionally using unfounded arguments ( LAW of the above - mentioned Code ) .

– Thirdly , the applicant had become an organ of irregular committees acting against the interests of the nation . His actions had stirred up trouble in the minority community and had led to the involvement of NORP newspapers , to tension between the CARDINAL countries and to criminal proceedings being instituted against parents who had disrupted the functioning of the schools . As a result , the applicant had committed the disciplinary offence of failing to respect a duty imposed by criminal law ( LAW ) .

ORG was fully satisfied that the applicant “ acting in full conscience and with intent and malice , behaving in a manner incompatible with [ his ] status as civil servant , acting against the nation and obeying the commands of anti - NORP power structures , aimed at destabilising the region where the situation was until then normal and creating social unrest ” . In the light of all the above , the ORG decided to dismiss the applicant .

On DATE ORG ordered the applicant ’s dismissal by virtue of LAW no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL . Under that decree , pertaining to the appointment and career of NORP teachers in the minority schools of NORP , the ORG is the competent authority to pronounce the termination of service of NORP teachers .

On DATE the applicant challenged the decision of ORG and the ORG ’s decision before ORG . He claimed that he did not lack faith in and dedication to his country , that he had not acted against social order , that he had the right to engage in objective and reasonable criticism of the actions of his superiors or the Government , that he had not refused to discharge his duties but had instead participated in a lawful strike , that he had not engaged in any acts which could have caused damage to the ORG or in any criminal offences , that he had been forced not to collect the books in person because his life had been threatened by other NORP , that the ORG had attributed wrong motives to his actions which were not anti - NORP and that his punishment aimed at his destruction . He further submitted that the hearing before ORG had not been preceded by a proper inquiry , that he had been punished for offences which were not mentioned in the decision instituting proceedings against him and that ORG had not heard a number of witnesses he had proposed . Finally , the applicant argued that the decision of ORG was not duly reasoned in that it failed to specify how his actions amounted to the particular disciplinary offences which should be punished with the particular penalty .

On DATE ORG rejected the applicant ’s appeal against the decision of ORG of DATE ( judgment no . CARDINAL ) . The ORG considered that the inquiry ordered on DATE satisfied the requirements of the law and that the ORG had not failed to examine any witnesses proposed by the applicant . The ORG also considered that the applicant could not be punished for facts other than those which were mentioned in the decision of CARDINAL DATE by which the disciplinary proceedings had been instituted . The applicant could only be punished for having failed to attend the educational meeting of DATE . However , ORG and ORG remained free to examine these facts under different legal provisions from those mentioned in the decision instituting disciplinary proceedings . The ORG considered that the applicant ’s failure to attend the meeting of CARDINAL DATE in order to participate in a strike CARDINAL DATE amounted to the disciplinary offence of serious disobedience under LAW of LAW . The ORG found that the punishment imposed was appropriate given the circumstances in which the offence had taken place . The ORG referred in this connection to the statement of CARDINAL DATE of the Co - ordination ORG of the NORP Minority of Western Thrace , the statement of QUANTITY DATE of ORG and the statement of the mufti of Xanthi which called on all the NORP teachers who considered themselves NORP not to attend the educational meeting of DATE . The ORG considered that the applicant had obviously associated his failure to comply with the order to attend the educational meeting with the above - mentioned statements of organisations which purported to represent the self - proclaimed NORP minority of LOC . Seen in the light of the above , the applicant ’s actions had had as a result the disruption of the functioning of the minority schools in LOC in which the ORG was particularly interested . They had also resulted in social unrest among the NORP minority of this sensitive region . This in turn could have resulted in dangerous albeit unwarranted disruption of the friendly relations between GPE and neighbouring countries and in the disruption of the harmonious coexistence between the NORP citizens , NORP and NORP , who lived in LOC .

Finally , the ORG considered that the decision of the ORG was duly reasoned . All the elements of the disciplinary offence of serious disobedience were set out in the decision which specified that the applicant had not attended the meeting of DATE , although he had been asked to do so by his superiors . The decision also specified that the applicant had complied with the order and appeal of the irregular ORG of ORG of the NORP Minority of Western Thrace and the appeal of the illegally self - proclaimed mufti of Xanthi calling on the NORP teachers who felt they were NORP not to attend the meeting of QUANTITY DATE .

On DATE the Prefect of Xanthi revoked his decision of CARDINAL DATE and , in compliance with decision no . CARDINAL of ORG , ordered the applicant ’s dismissal as from the same date .

On DATE ORG struck out the proceedings instituted against the ORG ’s decision of CARDINAL DATE , on the ground that the decision complained of had already been revoked by the ORG .

By decision of DATE , notified to the applicant on CARDINAL DATE the ORG ordered for the third time the applicant ’s dismissal .

In the meantime , the applicant had instituted several proceedings in order to recover several sums ( arrears of salaries , compensation for his dismissal , etc . ) . The applicant claims that a set of proceedings instituted on DATE before ORG of Rodopi is still pending . He further claims that on DATE ORG notified to him a decision of ORG that his pecuniary claims had been statute - barred .

On DATE the applicant appealed against the ORG ’s decision of DATE to ORG of PERSON . He claimed that all other civil servants were dismissed by ministerial decision and complained that his dismissal by prefectural decision was contrary to religious freedom . He further complained that he was not previously heard by the Prefect . The applicant further invoked Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the Convention and CARDINAL of Protocol No . CARDINAL .

On DATE ORG rejected the appeal ( decision no . CARDINAL ) . The court held that , by definition , the ORG has a better knowledge of the local situation than the Minister ; therefore , it could not be sustained that the delegation to the ORG to pronounce the termination of service of NORP teachers violated the religious freedom . Moreover , the court held that the ORG ’s decision aimed at complying with the relevant decisions of ORG ; therefore , the previous hearing of the applicant was not required . The applicant did not appeal against this decision to ORG .

The applicant claims that he has instituted civil and administrative proceedings in order to recover several sums ( arrears of salaries , compensation for his dismissal , etc . ) . The applicant alleges that a set of proceedings instituted on DATE before ORG of Rodopi is still pending . He further alleges that on DATE ORG notified to him a decision of ORG that his pecuniary claims had been statute - barred .

On DATE ORG of PERSON awarded the applicant LAW for pecuniary damage ( decision no . MONEY ) . The applicant did not appeal against this decision within DATE time - limit provided for by LAW .


Violation of Art. 14+8;Not necessary to examine Art. 8;Non-pecuniary damage - financial award;Costs and expenses partial award - domestic proceedings;Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

In DATE ORG ( PERSON ) opened criminal proceedings against the applicant on suspicion of having committed homosexual acts with adolescents contrary to LAW .

On DATE ORG , after having held a trial , convicted the applicant under LAW and sentenced him to DATE imprisonment suspended on probation . It found that , in DATE , he had performed homosexual acts with CARDINAL adolescents .

Upon the applicant 's appeal , ORG ( Oberlandesgericht ) requested ORG ( Verfassungs - gerichtshof ) to review the constitutionality of LAW .

On DATE ORG dismissed this request ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

On DATE ORG filed a new request for review of the constitutionality of LAW .

On DATE the Constitutional Court gave a judgment holding that LAW was unconstitutional ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

The amendment repealing Article CARDINAL entered into force on DATE . While , according to the transitional provisions , Article CARDINAL remained applicable in all cases in which the judgment at first instance had already been given before the entry into force of the amendment , it could no longer be applied in the applicant 's case since it had been the case in point ( Anlaßfall ) before ORG .

On DATE ORG , noting that ORG had repealed LAW as unconstitutional , acquitted the applicant . This decision was served on him on DATE .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant 's request for reimbursement of his defence costs holding that under LAW ( GPE ) no right to compensation existed if the accused was not punishable on grounds which occurred after the indictment was filed .

On DATE ORG partly granted the applicant 's appeal , awarding him reimbursement of a total amount of QUANTITY ( ORG ) for costs and expenses . It found that ORG had wrongly applied Article CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of LAW . The applicant 's case had been the case in point before the Constitutional Court leading to the repeal of LAW . His case had to be treated as if LAW had never existed . Consequently , it could not be said that he was acquitted on grounds which occurred after the indictment .

The court found that the applicant 's defence costs including the costs relating to the proceedings before ORG , in which the applicant , as an interested party ( mitbeteiligte Partei ) , had made detailed submissions , had been necessarily incurred . However , the law provided that only a maximum amount of ORG CARDINAL was to be reimbursed as contribution to the defence costs . In addition ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL were awarded for cash expenses .

Any sexual acts with persons DATE are punishable under ORG CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW .

Article CARDINAL of LAW , in the version in force at the material time , read as follows :

“ A male person who after attaining DATE fornicates with a person of the same sex who has attained the age of DATE but not the age of CARDINAL shall be sentenced to imprisonment for DATE . ”

This provision was aimed at consensual homosexual acts , as any sexual act of adults with persons DATE are punishable under LAW if the adult abuses a position of authority ( parent , employer , teacher , doctor , etc . ) . Any sexual acts involving the use of force or threats are punishable as rape , pursuant to LAW , or sexual coercion pursuant to LAW . Consensual heterosexual or lesbian acts between adults and persons over DATE are not punishable .

On DATE , following ORG judgment of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , ORG decided to repeal Article CARDINAL . That amendment , published in ORG ( ORG ) no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , came into force on DATE .

In a judgment of PERCENT , ORG found that LAW was compatible with the principle of equality under constitutional law and in particular with the prohibition on gender discrimination contained therein .

The relevant passage of ORG judgment reads as follows :

“ The development of the criminal law in DATE has shown that the legislature is striving to apply the system of criminal justice in a significantly more restrictive way than before in pursuance of the efforts it is undertaking in connection with its policy on the treatment of offenders , which have become known under the general heading of ' decriminalisation ' . This means that it leaves offences on the statute book or creates new offences only if such punishment of behaviour harmful to society is still found absolutely necessary and indispensable after the strictest criteria have been applied . The criminal provision which has been challenged relates to the group of acts declared unlawful in order to protect – in so far as strictly necessary DATE a young , maturing person from developing sexually in the wrong way . ( ' Homosexual acts are only offences of relevance to the criminal law inasmuch as a dangerous strain must not be placed by homosexual experiences upon the sexual development of young males ... ' PERSON , in PERSON / PERSON ( publishers ) , PERSON , DATE , paragraph CARDINAL on Article CARDINAL ... ) Seen in this light , it is the conviction of ORG that from the point of view of the principle of equality contained in LAW those legislating in the criminal sphere can not reasonably be challenged for taking the view , by reference to authoritative expert opinions coupled with experience gained , that homosexual influence endangers maturing males to a significantly greater extent than girls of the same age , and concluding that it is necessary to punish under the criminal law homosexual acts committed with young males , as provided for LAW CARDINAL of LAW . This conclusion was also based on their views of morality , which they wanted to impose while duly observing the current policy on criminal justice which aims at moderation and at restricting the punishment of offences ( while carefully weighing up all the manifold advantages and disadvantages ) . Taking everything into account , we are dealing here with a distinction which is based on factual differences and therefore constitutionally admissible from the point of view of LAW read in conjunction with LAW . ”

On DATE ORG dismissed ORG request to review the constitutionality of LAW of LAW .

ORG had argued , inter alia , that LAW violated Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the Convention as the theory that male adolescents ran a risk of being recruited into homosexuality on which ORG had relied in its previous judgment had since been refuted . ORG found that the issue was res judicata . It noted that the fact that it had already given a ruling on the same provision did not prevent it from reviewing it anew , if there was a change in the relevant circumstances or different legal argument . However , ORG had failed to give detailed reasons for its contention that relevant scientific knowledge had changed to such an extent that the legislator was no longer entitled to set a different age - limit for consensual homosexual relations than for consensual heterosexual or lesbian relations .

On DATE , upon a further request for review made by ORG , ORG found that LAW was unconstitutional .

ORG had argued , firstly , as it had done previously , that LAW violated Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the Convention and , secondly , that it was incompatible with the principle of equality ( Gleichheitsgrundsatz ) as guaranteed by LAW , as a relationship between male adolescents aged DATE first legal , but became punishable as soon as one reached DATE and became legal again when the second one reached the age of DATE .

ORG held that the second argument differed from the arguments which it had examined in its judgment of CARDINAL DATE and that it was therefore not prevented from considering it . It noted that Article CARDINAL concerned consensual homosexual relations between men aged over DATE and adolescents between CARDINAL and DATE . In DATE homosexual acts between persons of the same age ( for instance CARDINAL DATE ) or of persons with a one- to DATE age difference were not punishable . However , as soon as CARDINAL partner reached DATE , such acts constituted an offence under LAW . They became legal again when the younger partner reached the age of DATE . Given that LAW did not only apply to occasional relations but also covered ongoing relationships , it led to rather absurd results , namely a change of periods during which the homosexual relationship of CARDINAL partners was first legal , then punishable and then legal again and could therefore not be considered to be objectively justified .


Violation of P1-1;Remainder inadmissible;Non-pecuniary damage - award

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

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in ORG .

In DATE the applicant submitted to ORG of Kharkiv ( the “ FAC ” ) his DATE income tax declaration . The declaration specified the amount of income tax paid by the applicant in DATE and distinguished , in particular , CARDINAL types of income : ( a ) income earned at the applicant 's principal place of business and ( b ) income earned outside his principal place of business .

In respect of the first type of income , the tax had been calculated under the progressive tax - rate rule , as required by LAW Decree no . CARDINAL - CARDINAL “ On citizens ' income tax ” of CARDINAL DATE ( the “ LAW ” ) .

In respect of the second type of income , the tax had been calculated at the fixed PERCENT rate , as required by LAW .

On DATE , on the basis of the applicant 's declaration , ORG reassessed the amount of income tax due from the applicant and requested him to pay the outstanding balance in the amount of CARDINAL NORP hryvnias ( ORG ) . The amount payable had been increased as a result of applying the progressive tax rate in respect of the income earned by the applicant outside his principal place of business . The recalculation had been effected in accordance with Instruction no . CARDINAL “ On citizens ' income tax ” issued by ORG on DATE ( “ the Instruction ” ) .

On DATE the applicant instituted proceedings in ORG of Kharkiv ( the “ ORG ” ) against ORG , seeking to have the decision of DATE invalidated . He claimed , in particular , that the amount of tax payable in respect of his income earned outside his principal place of business should have been determined by reference to the special tax rate laid down in LAW ( having legal force as the law of ORG ) whereas ORG had recalculated and increased that amount relying on the Instruction . However , the ORG was a by - law which , according to LAW , could not change the applicable tax rates .

On DATE ORG considered the applicant 's claim . It found that LAW envisaged a special tax rate for income earned outside the principal place of business . Despite the Instruction , LAW did not provide for any recalculation of that type of income on the basis of the progressive tax rate . It noted that according to LAW the citizens were obliged to pay taxes only in accordance with the procedure established by the laws and not by the by - laws . In conclusion ORG allowed the applicant 's claim and quashed the decision of DATE . ORG appealed .

On DATE ORG ( the “ ORG ” ) quashed the judgment of DATE , stating that the ORG had been validly issued and purported to expand on the relevant provisions of LAW . Accordingly , ORG had acted lawfully when applying the ORG .

On DATE ORG upheld ORG judgment , stating that there had been no irregularities in the application of the law in the case .

In DATE the applicant submitted his DATE income tax declaration to ORG . The amount of tax regarding the income the applicant earned outside his principal place of business was calculated on the basis of the fixed tax rate laid down in LAW .

On DATE , on the basis of the applicant 's declaration , ORG reassessed the amount of income tax due from the applicant and requested him to pay the outstanding balance in the amount of ORG CARDINAL . The amount payable had been increased as a result of the application of the progressive tax rate in respect of the income earned by the applicant outside his principal place of business . The recalculation had been effected in accordance with the Instruction .

On DATE the applicant instituted proceedings in ORG against ORG , seeking to have the decision of DATE invalidated . He claimed in particular that the increase in his income tax liability had not been lawful because LAW ( having legal force as the law of ORG ) did not envisage the progressive tax rate for the income earned by the applicant outside his principal place of business . In addition , the ORG , referred to by the tax authorities , was a by - law which , according to LAW , could not change the applicable tax rates .

On DATE ORG rejected the applicant 's claim , stating that the amount of tax determined by ORG had been based on the ORG and also on Presidential Decree no . CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE “ On increasing the amount of tax - free DATE income and rates of progressive taxation of citizens ' income ” ( “ the Presidential Decree ” ) .

On DATE the applicant appealed against that judgment to ORG , alleging that LAW should have been applied to the income earned outside the principal place of business .

On DATE ORG upheld the judgment of DATE after finding that the recalculation of the applicant 's income tax had been based specifically on LAW .

On DATE the applicant appealed in cassation , repeating the arguments he had advanced before ORG .

On DATE , following the applicant 's appeal in cassation , ORG upheld the judgment of DATE , noting in particular that LAW provided CARDINAL scale of progressive taxation , which therefore had to be applied to all the income of the applicant , and concluded that the recalculation of the tax had been carried out in accordance with the law . The special tax rate provided in LAW was not mentioned .

In DATE the applicant submitted his DATE income tax declaration to ORG . The amount of tax regarding the income of the applicant earned outside his principal place of business was calculated on the basis of the fixed tax rate laid down in LAW .

On DATE , on the basis of the applicant 's declaration , ORG reassessed the amount of income tax due from the applicant and requested him to pay the outstanding balance in the amount of ORG CARDINAL.CARDINAL . The amount payable had been increased as a result of the application of the progressive tax rate in respect of the income earned by the applicant outside his principal place of business . The recalculation had been effected in accordance with the ORG .

On DATE the applicant instituted proceedings in ORG against ORG , seeking to have the decision of CARDINAL DATE invalidated . He claimed , in particular , that the increase in his income tax liability had not been lawful , because LAW ( having legal force as the law of ORG ) did not envisage the progressive tax rate for the income earned by the applicant outside his principal place of business . At the same time the ORG , referred to by the tax authorities , was a by - law which , according to LAW , could not change the applicable tax rates .

On DATE ORG rejected the applicant 's claim , stating that the amount of tax determined by ORG had been based on the ORG and also on LAW .

On DATE ORG upheld the judgment of DATE after finding that the recalculation of the applicant 's income tax had been based , in particular , on LAW and LAW . No reasons were offered for the disregard of the special tax rate fixed in LAW .

On DATE , following an appeal in cassation by the applicant , ORG upheld the judgment of DATE , noting that the recalculation of the tax had been carried out in accordance with the law .

According to LAW the President of GPE was empowered to issue decrees in the field of economic reforms if the relevant matters were not covered by the laws of ORG .

Article CARDINAL of the LAW provides that everyone is obliged to pay taxes and duties in accordance with the procedure and at the rates established by the laws of ORG .

According to these Laws , during the period between CARDINAL DATE and DATE , ORG had legislative powers in certain fields , including the field of taxation . For this purpose , ORG was empowered to issue Decrees which had the legal force as the law of ORG .

Section CARDINAL.CARDINAL.CARDINAL of the PERSON provides that if the norm of the law or another normative legal act issued on the basis of the law , or if the norms of different laws or normative legal acts offer ambiguous or multiple interpretations of the rights and obligations of taxpayers and supervising authorities , the decision taken shall be in favour of the taxpayer .

Article CARDINAL § QUANTITY of the Decree laid down a table of progressive taxation rates in respect of income earned at the taxpayer 's principal place of business . The table referred to the concept of an official minimum salary as a basis for the determination of the progressive tax rate applicable in the individual case .

Article CARDINAL § QUANTITY of the Decree provided that the copyright awards , repeatedly paid to the successors , were taxed at the double rates fixed in LAW which , however , could not exceed CARDINAL percents .

Article CARDINAL of the Decree established a fixed PERCENT tax rate in respect of income earned by the taxpayer outside his or her principal place of business .

DATE Decree provided that ORG would issue an instruction on the application of the Decree .

The Decree introduced a new table of progressive taxation rates in respect of taxpayers ' income . The table referred to the concept of tax - free DATE income as a basis for the determination of the progressive tax rate applicable in the individual case . The Decree specified that the rates of progressive taxation , established in it , had to be applied as of DATE in respect of the salaries and the other income of the citizens .

Paragraph CARDINAL.CARDINAL of the ORG laid down a table of progressive taxation rates in respect of income earned by a taxpayer at his or her principal place of business .

Paragraph CARDINAL.CARDINAL provided that the local tax inspectorates were to recalculate income earned outside the principal place of business , according to the table of progressive taxation rates set out in paragraph CARDINAL of the Instruction .

NORP By this letter ORG provided official interpretation of certain issues concerning tax legislation . It specified , among other things , that the copyright awards repeatedly paid to the successors were to be taxed in accordance with LAW .


Violation of Art. 6-1;Violation of Art. 10;Violation of Art. 13+10;Non-pecuniary damage - award

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

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

The applicant , a historian , specialises in the functioning of the secret services of dictatorships , comparative studies of the political police forces of totalitarian regimes and the functioning of NORP - type GPE . He has published several works in this field .

With a view to publishing a study concerning the functioning , in DATE , of ORG of ORG , on DATE the applicant requested the Ministry to grant him access to certain documents deposited with it .

His request was denied on DATE ; the ORG made reference to a decision of CARDINAL DATE classifying the documents as ORG secrets until CARDINAL .

On DATE the applicant brought an action against the ORG , basing his claim on LAW no . CARDINAL of DATE on ORG and LAW . Claiming a right of unrestricted access to the documents , he submitted that the data he sought were necessary for the purposes of his ongoing historical research .

On DATE ORG found for the applicant , granting him access to the documents for research purposes . It observed that the documents in question had indeed been classified during the NORP era . However , according to section CARDINAL ) of Act no . CARDINAL of DATE on ORG , they would have had to have been characterised as such again before DATE . Since this characterisation had not taken place , the documents had lost their classified nature ipso iure by DATE , irrespective of the decision of CARDINAL DATE .

On DATE ORG rejected the respondent ’s appeal as it had been introduced outside the statutory time - limit .

On DATE the ORG proposed access to the applicant if he signed a confidentiality undertaking .

On DATE the applicant requested the enforcement of the judgment , arguing that the respondent ’s imposition of a condition of confidentiality was unacceptable . On DATE the enforcement procedure was initiated and an enforcement order issued . In its reasoning , ORG observed that the respondent did not have the right to require confidentiality from the applicant as a precondition to the access granted by the enforceable judgment .

On DATE ORG upheld on appeal the decision of DATE but deleted from the reasoning the confidentiality observation .

Meanwhile , on DATE the ORG brought an action with a view to having the enforcement proceedings terminated . On DATE the Pest Central District Court dismissed the action , holding that the respondent ’s proposal of CARDINAL DATE was unsatisfactory and that , therefore , the initiation of enforcement proceedings had been lawful . On CARDINAL DATE ORG dismissed the ORG ’s appeal .

On DATE the Ministry issued the applicant with a permit for access to documents , but restricted him from publishing the information thus acquired to the extent that “ State secrets ” were concerned .

In the absence of a permit granting unrestricted access to all the documents concerned , the court found that there had not been compliance with the enforcement order , and on DATE the ORG was fined MONEY ( ORG ) ( MONEY ( ORG ) ) .

On DATE all but CARDINAL of the documents were transferred to ORG and thus became public .

A further enforcement fine of ORG CARDINAL ( approximately EUR CARDINAL ) was imposed on DATE in respect of the CARDINAL remaining classified document . ORG filed an objection , arguing that the document was no longer at its disposal since it had been transferred to ORG on DATE .

On DATE ORG dismissed the respondent ’s objection , holding that a change in the physical whereabouts of the document did not exempt the ORG from its obligation to grant the applicant access .

On DATE ORG dismissed the ORG ’s request to have it established that the ORG were its successor in the matter .

On DATE ORG quashed the decisions of DATE , DATE and DATE , and remitted the case to the first - instance court .

On DATE ORG again dismissed the ORG ’s request to have it established that the ORG were its successor in the matter . However , on DATE it observed that the newly founded ORG was indeed the successor . On DATE it rejected the new ORG ’s request to have the proceedings interrupted pending the succession arrangements .

On DATE ORG dismissed the new ORG appeals against the decisions of DATE , DATE and DATE . The ORG ’s petition for a review by ORG was to no avail .

To date , the applicant has not had unrestricted access to the remaining document in question .

Section CARDINAL of Act no . CARDINAL of DATE on ORG and LAW provides as follows :

“ ( CARDINAL ) If an applicant ’s request for data of public interest is denied , he or she shall have access to a court .

( CARDINAL ) The burden of proof concerning the lawfulness and well - foundedness of the refusal shall rest with the organ handling the data .

( CARDINAL ) The action shall be brought within DATE from the notification of the refusal against the organ which has denied the information sought .

( CARDINAL ) The court shall give priority to these cases .

( CARDINAL ) If the court accepts the applicant ’s claim , it shall issue a decision ordering the organ handling the data to communicate the information of public interest which has been sought . ”

Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of Act no . CARDINAL of DATE on ORG ( which entered into force on DATE ) provides as follows :

“ The review of the classification of classified documents originating from before DATE shall be terminated within DATE from the entry into force of this Act . Once this time - limit has passed , the documents shall cease to be classified . ”


The first applicant , PERSON , is a NORP national , who was born in DATE .

The second applicant , PERSON , is a NORP national , who was born in DATE .

The third applicant , PERSON , is a NORP national , who was born in DATE .

The fourth applicant , PERSON , is a NORP national , who was born in DATE .

All the applicants reside in the village of GPE , GPE , GPE .

They were represented before the ORG by PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE , GPE .

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

All the applicants are retired military servicemen . In DATE , they retired from ORG and were entitled to certain financial assistance . However , this aid was only partially paid .

The first applicant was entitled to CARDINAL,CARDINAL UAH , but received only CARDINAL,CARDINAL UAH , CARDINAL,CARDINAL UAH remaining unpaid .

The second applicant was entitled to CARDINAL,CARDINAL UAH , but received only CARDINAL,CARDINAL UAH , CARDINAL,CARDINAL UAH remaining unpaid .

The third applicant was entitled to CARDINAL,CARDINAL UAH , but received only CARDINAL,CARDINAL UAH , CARDINAL,CARDINAL UAH remaining unpaid .

The fourth applicant was entitled to CARDINAL,CARDINAL UAH , but received only CARDINAL,CARDINAL UAH , CARDINAL,CARDINAL UAH remaining unpaid .

The applicants each instituted separate proceedings in ORG against ORG A-CARDINAL , seeking recovery of the unpaid part of their allowances .

The first applicant

On DATE ORG ( ORG местного суда ORG гарнизона ) found in favour of the first applicant and awarded him CARDINAL ORG , including CARDINAL ORG for unpaid allowances and the delay in payment , as well as CARDINAL ORG in court costs . On DATE , the Military Appellate Court of the Southern Region ( ORG апелляционного суда Южного региона ) upheld the decision of the first instance court .

On DATE , the applicant submitted the execution writ to the ORG of LOC ( Отдел Государственной исполнительной службы ORG районного управления юстиции PERSON области ) .

On DATE , the same first instance court found for the applicant in another set of proceedings against the same defendant and awarded him CARDINAL ORG , including CARDINAL ORG for unpaid allowances and CARDINAL UAH in court costs . On DATE , the Military Appellate Court of GPE upheld the decision of the first instance court .

On DATE , the applicant submitted the execution writ to the ORG of LOC .

On DATE , both judgments in the applicant ’s favour were fully enforced and the applicant was paid CARDINAL UAH .

The second applicant

On DATE the ORG found in favour of the second applicant and awarded him CARDINAL ORG , including CARDINAL.CARDINAL UAH for unpaid allowances and the delay in payment , as well as CARDINAL ORG in court costs . On DATE , the Military Appellate Court of the Southern Region upheld the decision of the first instance court .

In DATE the applicant submitted the execution writ to the ORG of LOC .

On DATE , the judgment in the applicant ’s favour was fully enforced and the applicant was paid CARDINAL ORG .

The third applicant

On DATE the ORG found in favour of the third applicant and awarded him CARDINAL ORG , including CARDINAL.CARDINAL ORG for unpaid allowances and the delay in payment , as well as CARDINAL ORG in court costs . On DATE , the Military Appellate Court of the Southern Region upheld the decision of the first instance court .

On DATE , the same first instance court found for the applicant in another set of proceedings against the same defendant and awarded him CARDINAL ORG , including CARDINAL UAH for unpaid allowances and QUANTITY in court costs . On DATE , the Military Appellate Court of GPE upheld the decision of the first instance court .

On DATE , both judgments in the applicant ’s favour were fully enforced and the applicant was paid CARDINAL ORG .

The fourth applicant

On DATE ORG ( ORG местного суда ORG гарнизона ) gave decisions in favour of the fourth applicant and awarded him CARDINAL UAH for unpaid allowances and the delay in payment . On DATE , the Military Appellate Court of the Southern Region upheld the decision of the first instance court .

On DATE , the same first instance court found for the applicant in another set of proceedings against the same defendant and awarded him CARDINAL UAH , including CARDINAL ORG for unpaid allowances and CARDINAL ORG in court costs . On DATE , ORG upheld the decision of the first instance court .

Civil Code of GPE

Under LAW , in case of delay in the fulfilment of its financial obligations , the debtor must , upon a claim by the creditor , pay the amount of the debt , plus any interest payable at an established inflation rate during the default period .

PERSON of GPE of DATE “ on Enforcement Proceedings ”

Under LAW , the enforcement of judgments is entrusted to ORG . Under LAW , the creditor may file a complaint against actions or omissions of ORG with the head of the competent department of that ORG or with a local court . Article CARDINAL of the PERSON entitles the creditor to institute court proceedings against a legal person , entrusted with enforcement of a judgment , for inadequate enforcement or non - enforcement of a judgement , and to receive compensation .

PERSON of GPE of DATE “ on ORG ”

LAW provides for the liability of bailiffs for any inadequate performance of their duties , and compensation for damages caused by a bailiff when enforcing a judgment . Under LAW , acts and omissions of the bailiff can be challenged before a superior official or the courts .