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

The applicants are PERSON , who was born in DATE , PERSON , who was born in DATE , and PERSON , who was born in DATE . The applicants are NORP nationals . The first and the third applicants are married ; they are the parents of the second applicant . Prior to the deportation of the first CARDINAL applicants to GPE in DATE , the applicants lived in GPE , GPE . After that the third applicant was resettled in GPE by the ORG High Commissioner for Refugees ( ORG ) .

According to the applicants ' submission , the first applicant is a ORG interpreter . She married the third applicant in DATE . The applicants furnished the ORG with a certified copy of their marriage certificate . Their daughter , the second applicant , was born in DATE . The third applicant had lived in GPE since DATE ; he had a valid work permit .

DATE the first applicant worked in GPE , and then from DATE she was in GPE . In DATE she returned to GPE . Her residence permit was valid until DATE .

Since DATE the first applicant has been a follower of the Falun Gong ( also spelled as PERSON and PERSON ) movement persecuted by the NORP authorities . In DATE she went to GPE to take part in an international conference of GPE Gong . There she learnt that her name had been placed by the NORP authorities on a “ blacklist ” as an activist of the movement .

In DATE the first applicant was interviewed at ORG in GPE . In DATE she was granted refugee status under the mandate of the ORG .

The Government submitted that the first and second applicants had been registered by the NORP authorities as persons seeking asylum in GPE . The third applicant had never been registered as an asylum seeker ; he was in GPE on a valid work visa . The first applicant has never applied for authorisation to remain in GPE as his spouse . The Government further stated that the first and third applicants were not married and that the third applicant was not the father of the second applicant . They referred to a copy of the second applicant 's birth certificate which did not provide information about her father but simply stated : “ NORP ” . In addition , the third applicant was never registered as the second applicant 's father with the NORP immigration authorities .

On DATE the first applicant applied to ORG of ORG in GPE ( ORG ) for asylum . The asylum request also included the second applicant , her daughter . In her request the applicant stated that she was not being sought by the authorities in GPE , that she did not follow any religion and that her relatives had not been arrested by the NORP authorities . At the same time she submitted that she could not return to GPE due to the persecution of members of GPE Gong , even though she had not played any role in the movement .

On DATE ORG rejected her request . The decision comprised CARDINAL pages and provided a detailed explanation of the reasons for the refusal to grant refugee status . In particular , it stated that the applicant had been inconsistent in her submissions concerning the circumstances under which she had learnt that her name had been put onto the authorities ' blacklist , having provided CARDINAL different versions of the events ; that her husband , who was also a follower of the same movement , had never applied for asylum and that she had submitted her request for asylum when her permission to remain in GPE was about to expire .

On DATE the first applicant appealed against the refusal to the GPE district court . On DATE the district court dismissed her appeal and on DATE GPE upheld the decision of the first - instance court .

On DATE the first applicant issued an official authority form authorising a number of persons , including Ms. PERSON , to represent her in all legal proceedings .

On DATE PERSON , on the basis of the form of DATE , authorised PERSON to represent the first applicant in all legal proceedings . It appears that the first applicant was not aware of this .

On DATE the first applicant cancelled the authority form of DATE ( see below ) .

On DATE the first applicant lodged a request for temporary asylum with ORG . On DATE her request was refused . The first applicant appealed against the decision to the LOC court of GPE ( “ the LOC court ” ) . On DATE the court upheld the refusal to grant temporary asylum . On CARDINAL DATE the court 's decision entered into force .

The first applicant appealed against that decision but did not pay the court fee . On DATE the district court ordered a stay of the appeal proceedings . On DATE the first applicant had applied to the same court with a request for the time - limit for submitting an appeal to be restored . The district court scheduled a hearing for the restoration of the time - limit for DATE and summoned the first applicant to that hearing .

On DATE the district court rejected the claim concerning reinstatement of terms for appeal against its decision of DATE . Meanwhile , on CARDINAL DATE ORG decided to deport the first applicant .

On DATE ORG issued a decision to deport the first and second applicants from GPE , which was confirmed by ORG ( the ORG ) on DATE .

On DATE officers of the ORG arrived at the applicant 's flat and took the first and second applicants to the airport for deportation . They were put on a plane to GPE and left GPE DATE .

On DATE ( in the submitted documents the date was also referred to as DATE ) the third applicant appealed to the LOC court against the deportation order . On DATE the court delivered CARDINAL rulings . The first CARDINAL concerned the court 's refusal to examine the appeal as it had been lodged with a court which did not have jurisdiction ; the second one stated that the third applicant was not empowered to submit complaints on behalf of the first and second applicants .

On DATE GPE quashed these CARDINAL rulings and instructed the court to review these complaints in a single set of proceedings .

On DATE the third applicant left GPE .

On DATE the third applicant asked the district court to examine his appeal against the deportation in his absence .

On DATE ( in the submitted documents the date was also referred to as CARDINAL DATE ) the first applicant revoked the authority form issued for her representatives PERSON and PERSON and requested that all legal proceedings initiated on her behalf , including those concerning the deportation , be discontinued . The Government furnished the ORG with a certified translated copy of the request to this effect , no . DATE , dated DATE . The text of the document , which was certified by a notary in GPE , included the first applicant 's address in GPE , GPE and the following text :

“ ... I declare that hereby I am cancelling the authority form of DATE for the representation of my interests in civil and other proceedings in courts , governmental and other institutions ...

I request that the appellate proceedings initiated by my representatives in connection with the deportation decision of ORG and the actions taken by ORG in connection with my deportation be discontinued .

I understand the consequences of the refusal to continue the above proceedings ... ”

It appears that on DATE the LOC court discontinued the proceedings initiated by the third applicant and on DATE this decision became final .

On DATE the applicants ' representative PERSON lodged the third applicant 's request dated DATE for postponement of a hearing scheduled for DATE as the third applicant had not been able to properly prepare the authority form for PERSON and PERSON as his passport had been in the process of being issued .

On DATE , DATE , the LOC court discontinued the proceedings initiated by the third applicant , stating that the proceedings did not concern his legitimate rights . On DATE the applicant 's representatives appealed against this decision .

On DATE ORG forwarded the applicants ' case to the LOC court to determine the right of the third applicant to appeal against the decision of DATE as he had failed to submit any documents authorising PERSON and Ms PERSON to participate in the appellate proceedings .

It is unclear whether the third applicant was able to submit any documents authorising PERSON and PERSON to participate in the appellate proceedings and if not whether the proceedings have been discontinued .

The applicants submitted that the first applicant 's relatives in GPE had come to the airport to meet her ; however , she and the second applicant had not come out and had not been on the list of passengers . The second applicant had later been taken by the police to the relatives ' house in GPE , GPE . It appears that the first applicant had been arrested upon arrival and released after DATE . No information concerning the time , the place of the arrest or the authority effecting it , the detention facility , its location or any other details pertaining to these events were provided to the ORG .

The applicants further submitted that since their return to GPE the first and the second applicants had been living with their relatives . According to their submission , the first applicant 's passport had been taken away from her , she had been instructed to inform the police about her movements and put under pressure to renounce the practice of GPE Gong . The first applicant asked the third applicant not to call her because it put her relatives at risk . No details pertaining to this part of the applicants ' submission had been submitted to the ORG .

For a summary of the relevant provisions see PERSON GPE ( no . CARDINAL , DATE ) .


Violation of Art. 8;Violation of Art. 6-1;Not necessary to examine Art. 2 and 13;Non-pecuniary damage - financial award

The case concerns the granting of permits to operate a gold mine in GPE , in the district of PERSON ( GPE ) The applicants live in PERSON and the surrounding villages .

Mr Sefa Taşkın , born in DATE , was formerly the mayor of Bergama . He now lives in GPE , QUANTITY away from the GPE gold mine .

Mr PERSON , born in DATE , lives with his family in the village of GPE , which is QUANTITY from the mine . He is a farmer and owns land in the surrounding area .

Mr PERSON , born in DATE , lives with his family in the village of GPE . He owns land adjacent to the mine , on which he grows tobacco and olive trees .

PERSON , born in DATE , is the wife of the muhtar ( elected local official ) of the village of GPE . She is a livestock farmer .

Mr PERSON , born in DATE , lives in GPE . He is a livestock farmer . He and his family own an olive grove adjacent to the mine .

PERSON , born in DATE , lives in GPE . He is a livestock farmer and owns agricultural land near the mine , on some of which olive trees have been planted .

PERSON , born in DATE , lives with his family in GPE . He is a livestock farmer .

Mr PERSON , born in DATE , used to live in the village of GPE , which is QUANTITY from the mine . He asserts that he left the village recently on account of damage to the environment .

PERSON is the widow of Mr PERSON , who died on CARDINAL DATE . She lives in the Bergama area and owns land near the mine .

Mr PERSON , born in DATE , lives in the village of GPE . He is a driver .

The applicants alleged that , as a result of the GPE gold mine ’s development and operation , they had suffered and continued to suffer the effects of environmental damage ; specifically , these include the movement of people and noise pollution caused by the use of machinery and explosives .

On DATE the public limited company ORG ( “ the company ” ) , subsequently renamed ORG , received authorisation to begin prospecting for gold .

On DATE and CARDINAL DATE ORG at ORG and ORG issued the CARDINAL required permits to the company .

On DATE ORG sent a letter to ORG requesting its opinion on the GPE gold mine .

CARDINAL On DATE ORG issued the company with an operating permit for the GPE gold mine . This permit was valid for DATE and authorised the use of cyanide leaching in the gold extraction process .

On DATE the company began felling trees in part of the forestry area granted to it . The rest of the forest was left untouched in order to form a protection zone .

In accordance with section CARDINAL of LAW ( Law no . DATE see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , the procedure for an environmental impact report was launched on ORG initiative .

On DATE a public meeting was held as part of the preparations for the impact report . During that meeting , the public criticised , inter alia , the tree felling and the use of explosives and sodium cyanide ; they also expressed their concerns about the seepage of waste into underground water supplies . The experts attending the meeting were asked a number of questions about the waste - retaining dam , the risks in the event of an earthquake and the state in which the gold mine would be left after its closure . In particular , there were calls for a referendum and for the necessary measures to be taken .

The experts described other NORP experiences in this area . Mr PERSON explained that this type of activity always carried a certain risk , which had to be managed correctly . Mr PERSON criticised the way in which the impact study was being prepared and recommended that a new procedure be started .

The mayor , Mr Taşkın , explained that the municipal council had given considerable thought to the disputed gold mine and its impact on the environment . He stated that he was not against its operation ; however , he did ask that the necessary measures be taken , particularly with regard to the waste - retaining dam and the introduction of a rigorous monitoring system . Finally , he pointed out that an earthquake had occurred in the region in DATE .

After DATE of preparation , the impact report was submitted to ORG . On DATE , basing its decision largely on the conclusions of that report , ORG decided to issue an operating permit for the GPE gold mine .

The mine was ready to start operating as of DATE , when the other administrative procedures had been completed and , according to the ORG , all necessary measures had been taken in order to comply with national and international standards .

On DATE some of the residents of Bergama and the neighbouring villages , including the applicants , applied to ORG requesting judicial review of ORG decision to issue a permit . They based their arguments , inter alia , on the dangers inherent in the company ’s use of cyanide to extract the gold , and especially the risks of contamination of the groundwater and destruction of the local flora and fauna . They also criticised the risk posed to human health and safety by that extraction method .

On DATE ORG dismissed the ORG request . It held that the gold mine fulfilled the criteria set out in the environmental impact report and that the decision in issue had been adopted in accordance with the authorisation procedure for environmentally sensitive projects .

On DATE , with a view to protecting public order and preventing disturbances and in view of the numerous protests which had followed the delivery of ORG judgment , the GPE provincial governor ordered that the mine ’s operation be suspended for DATE .

On DATE ORG , to which the applicants had appealed , overturned the lower court ’s judgment . It assessed the physical , ecological , aesthetic , social and cultural effects of the mining activity in question as described in the environmental impact survey and the various expert reports which had been submitted to it . It held that those reports demonstrated the risk posed to the local ecosystem and to human health and safety by sodium cyanide use ; it concluded that the operating permit in issue did not serve the public interest and that the safety measures which the company had undertaken to implement did not suffice to eliminate the risks involved in such an activity .

The relevant passages of ORG judgment read as follows :

“ The environmental impact report and expert reports examined the impact of cyanide use on the atmosphere , underground water sources , flora and fauna , the disturbance linked to noise and vibrations , and regional planning issues . [ It is noted that ] the potential for soil erosion in the region through the effects of water ( flooding ) and wind is relatively high and the level of erosion of forestry land falls into DATE and , in certain areas , CARDINAL ... The soil is permeable ; the area forms part of the [ high - risk zone ] for earthquakes . Rainfall in the area in question will result in flooding in DATE and DATE on account of its distribution and force ; flooding occurs in DATE in the [ proposed ] tailings area . The region ’s inhabitants use the groundwater ; in the event of seepage , it could become polluted by toxic waste . Cyanide has a high pH value , which is influenced by rainfall : when the pH level falls , the cyanide may transform into hydrogen cyanide ( HCN ) . ORG , a gas with a relatively low boiling point ( CARDINAL ) , is likely to enter the atmosphere ... [ In addition , ] the risk of seepage of materials into the groundwater may last DATE ... [ and , ] in the event of seepage into the atmosphere or soil , there may be adverse consequences for the environment and for the flora and fauna . [ However , the above - mentioned reports note that guarantees such as ] the operating company ’s good faith , scrupulous observance of the conditions set out in the operating contract , and trust in the monitoring and supervision to be carried out by the central and local authorities led to the conclusion that the decision in question served the public interest ...

It appears from the above - mentioned reports that cyanide use in gold mining and the other heavy elements which are subsequently released constitute a potential risk which would endanger the environment and human health ; in particular , when cyanide , an extremely toxic substance , mixes with soil , water and air , it becomes harmful to all living beings . Consequently , it is possible that waste material containing cyanide , after pumping to the retaining dams , could seep into and pollute water sources and other sites [ where water is used ] ... The region ’s flora and fauna are also threatened . [ Accordingly ] , it must be borne in mind that cyanide use poses a considerable risk to human health and the environment ...

In the light of the technical and legal conclusions and bearing in mind the ORG ’s obligation to protect the right to life [ and ] to a healthy environment ... , it is appropriate to overturn the judgment appealed against , given that the gold mine ’s disputed operational methods entail the risks set out in the environmental impact report and the expert reports and that , should those risks be realised , human health would be clearly affected , directly or indirectly , through environmental damage ... ”

On DATE , in compliance with ORG judgment , ORG annulled ORG decision to issue a permit .

On DATE ORG upheld ORG judgment .

By virtue of section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of PERSON no . CARDINAL on administrative procedure ( “ PERSON no . CARDINAL ” ) , ORG judgment of CARDINAL DATE entailed ipso facto a stay of execution of ORG decision to issue a permit ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

In a letter of DATE , ORG asked the GPE provincial governor ’s office to ensure that ORG judgment was enforced and , accordingly , to order that all operations be halted at the mine .

On DATE the GPE provincial governor ’s office replied that there had been no final judgment and that ORG had expressed its support for the continuing operation of the mine .

On DATE ORG was served with ORG judgment . On DATE ORG invited the relevant authorities to reconsider the conditions attached to the operating permits in issue in view of ORG judgment .

On DATE the applicants sent letters containing enforcement notices to the Minister of the Environment , the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources and the Minister for Forests , as well as to the GPE provincial governor , requesting enforcement of the administrative courts’ decisions .

On DATE the applicants brought an action in damages before ORG against , among others , the Prime Minister , the ministries concerned and the GPE provincial governor for non - enforcement of the administrative courts’ decisions .

On DATE the GPE provisional governor ’s office ordered that the mine be closed . According to the Government , the mine carried out no mining activities until DATE .

On DATE the public prosecutor at ORG brought criminal proceedings against the senior managers of the mining company , alleging that the company had used cyanidation in extraction operations at the mine without prior authorisation .

On DATE the ORG gendarmerie drew up a report following inspection of the site . It noted the use of QUANTITY of cyanide , which had facilitated the extraction of a nugget of mixed gold and silver weighing CARDINAL grams . This report also indicated that QUANTITY of cyanide were still stocked at the site .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicants’ action in damages .

On DATE ORG overturned the judgment of DATE and remitted the case to the first - instance court . It found inertia on the part of the ministers concerned , who had taken no measures to prevent extraction using the cyanidation process within the time - limit provided for in section CARDINAL ) of PERSON no . CARDINAL ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , despite the fact that they had been notified of ORG judgment annulling the mine ’s operating permit .

On DATE ORG , hearing the case on remittal , followed ORG judgment and allowed the applicants’ claim .

The criminal proceedings were abandoned in DATE .

On DATE , CARDINAL DATE and DATE , the company contacted various ministries in order to obtain a permit . Specifically , it claimed to have taken additional measures to ensure better safety in the gold mine ’s operation and referred , inter alia , to a risk assessment report on this question drawn up by the NORP company ORG

The then Prime Minister intervened directly with regard to the company ’s request . On an application from him , ORG , in an advisory opinion of DATE , ruled that its judgment of CARDINAL DATE could not be interpreted as an absolute prohibition on the use of cyanide in gold mining operations and that there were grounds for taking specific circumstances into consideration .

In a separate development , the Prime Minister instructed ORG ( “ ORG ” ) in DATE to prepare a report assessing the potential impact of cyanide use in the gold - mining operations .

In DATE ORG ’s report was submitted . It had been prepared by CARDINAL scientists who were experts in environmental issues , environmental law , chemistry , hydrogeology , geology , engineering geology and seismology .

The report concluded that the risks to human life and the environment set out in ORG judgment had been completely removed or reduced to a level within the acceptable limits , given that the mine was to use environmentally friendly advanced technology based on the “ CARDINAL discharge ” principle and that the risk of adverse impact on the ecosystem was , according to scientific criteria , much lower than the maximum acceptable level .

On DATE the Prime Minister submitted the ORG report to ORG , requesting its opinion on the operation of the gold mine in question .

On DATE the Ministry indicated its approval of the mine ’s activities , in the light of the report ’s conclusions .

On DATE ORG drew up a report on the operation of the mine . The report concluded that , having regard to the additional measures taken by the company , the conclusions of the ORG report , ORG favourable opinion and the opinion of ORG , which had emphasised the economic importance of an investment of this type , the operation of the mine could be authorised .

On DATE ORG gave judgment following an application for judicial review , brought by CARDINAL residents of PERSON , including Mr ORG , with regard to the report issued by ORG on DATE . The ORG decided to annul the report , which , in its opinion , constituted an enforceable administrative decision giving rise to the issuing of the requested permits . It held that , notwithstanding the measures taken by the company , it had been found in judicial decisions which had become final that the “ risk and threat ” in question resulted from the use of sodium cyanide in the gold mine concerned and that it was impossible to conclude that those risks could be avoided by implementing new measures . Equally , it had been established that the risk connected with the accumulation of heavy elements or cyanide could persist for DATE and was likely to infringe the right of the area ’s inhabitants to a healthy environment . Accordingly , it was appropriate to conclude that the decision in issue could circumvent a final judicial decision and was incompatible with the principle of the rule of law .

DATE . On DATE , at the Prime Minister ’s request , ORG decided to suspend execution of the judgment of DATE . It found that the report of DATE did not constitute an enforceable decision and was not open to appeal before the administrative courts . In addition , it held that only the ministries concerned , namely those of the Environment , of the ORG , of ORG , of ORG , of ORG and for ORG were entitled to rule on this matter .

On DATE ORG , on an application for judicial review brought by CARDINAL residents of PERSON , found that no environmental impact report had been drawn up by ORG in connection with the operation of the gold mine . Consequently , it dismissed the application without examining the merits on the ground that no enforceable administrative decision had been taken . ORG upheld this judgment on DATE .

On DATE , on an application by a PERSON , a resident of PERSON , ORG of ORG decided to set aside the report of DATE .

Proceedings are pending before the administrative courts .

On DATE the Directorate General of Forests adopted a decision which extended the operating permit which had been issued to the company on the basis of the ORG report .

Initially , in a judgment of DATE , ORG of ORG dismissed the application for a stay of execution of ORG decision .

NORP However , on DATE , ORG of ORG , on an application from PERSON , decided to suspend execution of the decision of DATE , considering that the issuing of such a permit was incompatible with the rule of law and that irreparable damage would result from its enforcement .

That judgment was upheld by ORG on DATE .

In a judgment of DATE , ORG of ORG dismissed an application for judicial review lodged by CARDINAL residents of Bergama against the decision of DATE , considering that the latter had been based on the issuing of a permit dated CARDINAL DATE , which was valid for a DATE period .

On DATE ORG upheld the judgment of DATE .

In parallel , on CARDINAL DATE the Directorate General of Forests gave permission , inter alia , for the establishment of a security area around the gold mine and for the construction of roads , a drilling zone and a waste - retaining dam .

On DATE ORG of ORG , ruling on an application by PERSON , dismissed the application for a stay of execution of ORG decision of CARDINAL DATE . That refusal was confirmed on DATE by ORG .

On DATE ORG adopted a decision authorising continued use of the cyanidation process at the mine for an experimental DATE period . The company was notified of this authorisation by the GPE provincial governor ’s office on DATE .

On DATE a supervisory and audit committee was set up at the GPE provincial governor ’s office . The company began mining operations on DATE .

On DATE the application for judicial review lodged by several Bergama residents ( PERSON and others ) was dismissed by ORG of ORG on the ground that the decision being challenged did not constitute an enforceable act .

In a judgment of DATE , ORG , on an application by ORG , decided to suspend execution of the provisional permit issued by ORG , holding that the issuing of such a permit was incompatible with the rule of law .

On DATE ORG dismissed the application for judicial review brought by ORG against the provisional permit on the ground that it did not have standing to bring the proceedings . On DATE ORG upheld ORG judgment .

DATE . On DATE ORG extended the permit concerning “ the chemical processing unit and waste pond ” for a period of DATE .

In a judgment of CARDINAL DATE , ORG of ORG set aside the provisional permit issued by ORG on DATE . In particular , it considered that the risks highlighted in the judgment of DATE were , inter alia , linked to the use of sodium cyanide in the gold mine concerned and to the climatic conditions and features of the region , which was situated in an earthquake zone . It held that those risks and threats could not be eliminated by supplementary measures which continued to be based on the same leaching process . It also concluded that the issuing of the permit in issue was incompatible with the principle of the rule of law , in that that administrative decision was in reality intended to amend a judicial decision that had become final .

On DATE ORG issued a DATE permit for the “ chemical processing unit and waste pond ” . On DATE it also authorised the company to import QUANTITY of sodium cyanide .

On DATE ORG of ORG dismissed an application for judicial review brought by CARDINAL residents of PERSON against the issuing of a provisional operating permit to the company . It held that there was no enforceable administrative decision .

On DATE ORG , acting on CARDINAL applications for annulment of the provisional permit submitted by ORG and a resident of the region , and having regard to the considerations set forth in ORG judgment of DATE , which had become final , ordered the suspension of the permit .

Proceedings are pending before the administrative courts .

On DATE ORG adopted a “ decision of principle ” stating that the gold mine situated in the vicinity of GPE and ORG , in the district of PERSON ( GPE ) and belonging to the company GPE Madencilik A.Ş. , could continue its activities . The decision was not made public . At the ORG ’s request , the ORG sent the ORG the text of the decision , which reads as follows :

“ According to the reports drawn up hitherto , it has been established that the gold mine situated in the vicinity of GPE and ORG , in the district of PERSON ( GPE ) , is a mining concern which contains mineral reserves amounting to QUANTITY of gold and QUANTITY of silver , provides employment for CARDINAL persons and is worth MONEY [ ORG ] in added value to our country , including ORG CARDINAL million of direct revenue .

It has been established that the decision to be taken in respect of this investment is of some importance , in that it will pave the way for CARDINAL other gold mines . These mines , which have been located through prospecting costing a total of MONEY , will , with an investment of MONEY , create CARDINAL jobs and be worth MONEY to the economy in direct terms and MONEY indirectly .

Furthermore , according to experts in this field , our country has CARDINAL tonnes of potential gold deposits , which represents a market value of ORG CARDINAL , or MONEY taking added value into account .

According to the report prepared by the CARDINAL scientists from ORG in DATE , ‘ the suspected risks to human health and the environment have been completely removed or reduced to levels considerably lower than the maximum acceptable limits’ .

Furthermore , given that the results of checks carried out during the test period permitted by ORG were below the reference values , no negative data have been detected .

The ‘ Chemical substances’ section of the report by ORG ( DATE ) , which presented the concept of sustainable development to international public opinion for the first time , indicates that chemical substances represent PERCENT of international trade and that there are CARDINAL types of chemical substance . Toxicity data is unavailable for PERCENT of these .

We note that the toxicity data for cyanide are known and that the cyanide leaching process , in development for DATE , is now at the leading edge of technology and can be applied without damage to human health provided that the necessary precautions are taken .

In examining the progress made by the Bergama / Ovacık gold mine over DATE , it is appropriate to note that the cyanide leaching process described in the DATE environmental impact report DATE that is , carried out without filtering , based solely on clay pressure and subject to natural decomposition in the waste pond – has been discontinued . Advanced technology is now in place : the base of the waste pond is lined with clay and a high - density polyethylene geomembrane , and a cyanide filtering unit , a heavy - metals purification system [ duraylama ] , an inspection shaft and various measuring tools are also used .

For the above reasons , and bearing in mind their contribution to the country ’s economy , it is considered advisable that the gold and silver mining concerns in the vicinity of GPE and ORG , in the district of PERSON ( GPE ) , operated by the company GPE Madencilik A.Ş. under permit no . IRCARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE , should continue their activities . ”

DATE . On DATE ORG declared inadmissible an application for judicial review brought by ORG seeking annulment of the ORG of ORG decision of DATE on the ground of procedural irregularity .

On DATE ORG , sitting as a full court , set aside the judgment of DATE . In particular , it held that the ORG of ORG decision had not been published in ORG and had not been made public , although it was clear that the resumption of the gold mine ’s activities had been based on it . ORG held that , in view of the appellant ’s inability to obtain a copy of the disputed decision , the court ought to have obtained one of its own motion with a view to ensuring effective exercise of the judicial appeal .

On DATE the Sixth ORG ordered a stay of execution of the ORG of ORG decision . It noted , inter alia :

“ After the judgment which cancelled ORG authorisation , it is clear that this Ministry did not decide to commission a new environmental impact report which would have enabled the operating company to demonstrate that it had taken measures to reduce or completely remove the adverse effects of the activity in question , as highlighted in the previously cited judgments ... Consequently , the ORG of ORG decision to authorise the activities of the gold mine in question was unlawful , given that the decision to issue a permit , based on the environmental impact report , had been overturned by the courts and that no other decision had been adopted pursuant to LAW and the related regulations ... ”

The application for judicial review of the ORG of ORG decision is still pending before ORG .

On DATE the GPE provincial governor ’s office , referring to the judgment of DATE , ordered that production at the mine be halted .

In a letter of CARDINAL DATE , ORG informed the ORG FAC company that it was issuing a favourable opinion on the final environmental impact report submitted by the company .

The GPE Madencilik A.Ş. company explained that , once the required permits had been issued in DATE and DATE , the gold mine was ready to start production . From DATE production took place on an experimental basis . These activities were intended to provide an opportunity to check that the equipment was operating correctly , and were not geared towards commercial production . During this experimental period , QUANTITY of ore were processed , producing QUANTITY of gold , whereas the mine ’s DATE operational capacity was QUANTITY of ore .

On DATE the GPE provincial governor ’s office was informed of the experimental production . On DATE it ordered the closure of the mine ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . In addition , it instituted criminal proceedings , abandoned in DATE , against the company and its managers .

The rate of cyanide concentration in the tailings pond was measured until DATE . Those measurements show that the concentration rate was considerably lower than the internationally accepted norm . Furthermore , there was no seepage from the tailings pond into the surrounding environment .

The company pointed to the fact that there had been no activity at the gold mine after the administrative courts had ruled on the applications for judicial review . Subsequently , draconian new measures , which exceeded international standards , had been taken to ensure compliance with the specifications set out in the judicial decisions .

In addition , CARDINAL reports on the risks connected to the tailings pond and the use of sodium cyanide had been drawn up . Both concluded that those risks were negligible .

In DATE , on the basis of the risk assessment reports , the company reapplied for an operating permit for the gold mine in question .

Following the ORG report , drawn up at the Prime Minister ’s request , the company obtained the necessary permits and began production at the mine in DATE . It is still operating at present .

Since the resumption of production at the mine , several studies to assess the risks or operating conditions have been carried out by ORG , by a monitoring and auditing committee set up by the GPE provincial governor ’s office and by the ministries concerned .

In addition , the company disseminates a DATE report entitled “ The Ovacık Gold Mine ’s Monthly Environmental Report ” to the public , non - governmental organisations and universities .

Article CARDINAL of the LAW provides :

“ Everyone has the right to live in a healthy , balanced environment . It shall be the duty of the ORG and the citizens to improve and preserve the environment and to prevent environmental pollution . ... The ORG shall perform this task by utilising and supervising health and social - welfare institutions in both the public and private sectors . ... ”

Section CARDINAL of LAW ( Law no . CARDINAL ) , published in ORG on DATE , provides :

“ Establishments and concerns which propose to carry out activities which might cause environmental problems shall draw up an environmental impact report . This report shall concern , inter alia , the measures proposed to reduce the detrimental effects of waste materials and the necessary precautions to this end .

The types of project for which such a report shall be required , its content and the principles governing its approval by the relevant authorities shall be determined by regulations . ”

Section CARDINAL of Law no . CARDINAL states :

“ Whether or not negligence has occurred , a person who pollutes and harms the environment shall be responsible for the damage resulting from that pollution or the deterioration of the environment .

This liability is without prejudice to any liability which may arise under general provisions . ”

Under LAW of LAW ( Law no . CARDINAL ) , anyone who sustains damage as a result of an act by the authorities may , within DATE of the commission of the alleged act , claim compensation from them . Should all or part of the claim be dismissed , or if no reply is received within DATE , the victim may bring administrative proceedings .

Furthermore , under LAW , anyone who suffers damage as a result of an illegal or tortious act may bring an action for damages for pecuniary loss ( Articles CARDINAL - CARDINAL ) and non - pecuniary loss ( Article CARDINAL ) . The civil courts are not bound by either the findings or the verdict of the criminal courts as to a defendant ’s guilt ( Article CARDINAL ) .

However , under LAW of LAW ( Law no . CARDINAL ) , anyone who has sustained loss as a result of an act carried out in the performance of duties governed by public law may , in theory , only bring an action against the public authority by which the civil servant concerned is employed and not directly against the civil servant ( Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL of the LAW and Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW ) . That is not , however , an absolute rule . Where the act in question is found to be illegal or tortious and , consequently , is no longer an “ administrative ” act or deed , the civil courts may allow a claim for damages to be made against the official concerned , without prejudice to the victim ’s right to bring an action against the authority on the basis of its joint liability as the official ’s employer ( LAW ) .

The regulations on environmental impact were first adopted by ORG DATE . A second set of regulations followed on DATE . New regulations were adopted and published in ORG on DATE . The regulations currently in force are those which were published in ORG on DATE .

Under paragraph CARDINAL of and Appendix I to those regulations , impact studies must be carried out on mining projects where the area of the site concerned is greater than QUANTITY . The procedure for preparing a report is launched following a request by the prospective developer to ORG . An evaluation committee made up of experts and representatives from the relevant entities and from the prospective developer is set up ( paragraph CARDINAL) . This committee specifies how the public inquiry will be conducted ( paragraph CARDINAL ) and subsequently identifies the arrangements for and content of the impact report , which must be drawn up at the latest within DATE following the decision on the report ’s structure ( paragraph CARDINAL ) . The ensuing report is made available to the public and examined by the committee , which determines whether it complies with the specifications and may ask for additional reports ( paragraph CARDINAL ) . Finally , having regard to all the elements submitted for its consideration , ORG decides whether or not to issue authorisation . The relevant provincial governor ’s office informs the public of the ORG ’s decision through the appropriate channels . Where their requests for authorisation are refused , prospective developers may submit a new request , provided that all the circumstances which gave rise to the refusal have been removed ( paragraph CARDINAL ) . In addition , whatever the ORG ’s decision , an application for judicial review may be made to the administrative courts .

Paragraph CARDINAL of the regulations reads as follows :

“ Where natural persons and legal entities plan to carry out a project that comes within the scope of these regulations , they must draw up an environmental impact report [ ORG etki değerlendirme raporu – ‘ impact ORG or ‘ IR’ ] , submit it to the relevant authorities and implement the project in accordance with the decision taken ...

Where no decision has been taken to authorise the project submitted for an impact report , or where no decision has been taken confirming that no such authorisation is necessary , no approval , authorisation or building permit may be issued in respect of those projects , and investment in connection with the project can not take effect . ”

Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL of the LAW provides :

“ The bodies of executive and legislative power and the authorities must comply with court decisions ; they can not in any circumstances modify court decisions or defer enforcement thereof . ”

The relevant parts of CARDINAL of LAW ( Law no . CARDINAL ) provide as follows :

“ ( CARDINAL ) The authorities shall be obliged to adopt a decision without delay or to take action in accordance with the decisions on the merits or a request for a stay of execution issued by ORG , the ordinary or regional administrative courts or the courts dealing with tax disputes . Under no circumstances may the time taken to act exceed DATE following service of the decision on the authorities .

( CARDINAL ) Where the authorities do not adopt a decision or do not act in accordance with a decision by ORG , the ordinary or regional administrative courts or the tax courts , a claim for compensation for pecuniary or non - pecuniary damage may be brought before ORG and the relevant courts against the authorities .

( CARDINAL ) In the event of deliberate failure on the part of civil servants to enforce judicial decisions within DATE [ following the decision ] , compensation proceedings may be brought both against the authorities and against the civil servant who refuses to enforce the decision in question . ”

Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of PERSON no . CARDINAL provides :

“ The setting aside of a judgment gives rise ipso facto to a stay of execution of the decision . ”

In DATE ORG , meeting in GPE ( GPE ) , adopted a LAW ( “ LAW ” , A / CONF.CARDINAL/CARDINAL ( PERSON . CARDINAL ) ) intended to advance the concept of States’ rights and responsibilities with regard to the environment . “ LAW ” of this LAW provides :

“ Environmental issues are best handled with the participation of all concerned citizens , at the relevant level . At the national level , each individual shall have appropriate access to information concerning the environment that is held by public authorities , including information on hazardous materials and activities in their communities , and the opportunity to participate in decision - making processes . States shall facilitate and encourage public awareness and participation by making information widely available . Effective access to judicial and administrative proceedings , including redress and remedy , shall be provided . ”

The Aarhus Convention ( “ Convention on Access to Information , Public Participation in Decision - making and Access to ORG in ORG ” , ORG ) was adopted on DATE by ORG for LOC in application of LAW of LAW , and came into force on DATE . To date , CARDINAL countries have ratified it . GPE has not signed ORG and has not acceded to it .

ORG may be broken down into the following areas :

– Developing public access to information held by the public authorities , in particular by providing for transparent and accessible dissemination of basic information .

– Promoting public participation in decision - making concerning issues with an environmental impact . In particular , provision is made for encouraging public participation from the beginning of the procedure for a proposed development , “ when all options are open and effective public participation can take place ” . Due account is to be taken of the outcome of the public participation in reaching the final decision , which must also be made public .

– Extending conditions for access to the courts in connection with environmental legislation and access to information .

On DATE ORG of ORG adopted Recommendation DATE ) on environment and human rights . The relevant part of this recommendation states :

“ CARDINAL . The ORG recommends that the ORG of member GPE :

i. NORP ensure appropriate protection of the life , health , family and private life , physical integrity and private property of persons in accordance with ORG , CARDINAL and DATE of LAW and by LAW , by also taking particular account of the need for environmental protection ;

ii . recognise a human right to a healthy , viable and decent environment which includes the objective obligation for states to protect the environment , in national laws , preferably at constitutional level ;

iii . safeguard the individual procedural rights to access to information , public participation in decision making and access to justice in environmental matters set out in LAW ;


The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in GPE . From DATE he was represented before the ORG by Mr PERSON , a lawyer belonging to ORG . ORG ( “ the Government ” ) were represented first by PERSON , their general representative at ORG , and after DATE by PERSON , their Agent .

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

On DATE the applicant , a civil servant employed at ORG since DATE , was told that he was to be made redundant because the department in charge of disabled persons , within which he was the deputy director of the social reinsertion section , was to be reorganised after a decision to merge ORG taken in DATE .

The applicant brought proceedings against his employer , seeking reinstatement and the sum of MONEY ( GEL ) ( MONEY ( ORG ) ) for arrears of salary and unpaid bonuses . He submitted that on a number of occasions during the period DATE his salary ( GEL MONEY ( approximately EUR CARDINAL ) ) had not been paid . In addition , he had not been paid bonuses for DATE , DATE and DATE ( GEL MONEY ( approximately EUR CARDINAL ) ) .

The defendant refused to reinstate the applicant but agreed that he was entitled to payment of the sum he claimed , amounting to GEL CARDINAL .

On DATE , finding that the decision to make the applicant redundant had been taken in accordance with the law , the Vake - Saburtalo Court of First Instance in GPE dismissed the first part of the applicant ’s claim . For the rest , it decided that the ministry should pay him the sum of GEL DATE .

The applicant appealed , again asking for his redundancy notice to be declared null and void , and complained that the sums he was owed had not been paid to him on DATE his employment was terminated , as required by LAW .

On DATE ORG of ORG upheld the decision of DATE in its entirety , adding that the applicant was entitled to assert his rights under LAW . In the reasons it gave for dismissing the first part of the applicant ’s claim , ORG noted that the applicant , like every other civil servant made redundant at the same time , had been given sufficient notice that he was to lose his employment when the service in which he worked was closed down . It ruled that the procedure had been perfectly compliant with the requirements of section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW , whereas the applicant had refused to take up a different post the administration had offered him in exchange , as required by section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the LAW .

The applicant appealed on points of law against the dismissal of his application to set aside his redundancy . As he had not contested before ORG that part of the appellate court ’s judgment which concerned payment of the debt of GEL DATE , it became final and enforceable on DATE ( ORG CARDINAL and CARDINAL § CARDINAL of the Code of Civil Procedure ) .

According to the applicant , the decision of DATE , as upheld on appeal on DATE , was never executed .

In his appeal on points of law , the applicant submitted that ORG interpretation of section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW was incorrect and deprived him of his rights under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) . He further complained that his appeal had been heard by ORG instead of ORG .

On DATE ORG held that the dispute was a labour dispute and was to be dealt with according to the rules of civil procedure . It found no breach or incorrect interpretation of the law by ORG and dismissed the applicant ’s appeal . Notification of the cassation judgment was dated DATE , but was served on the applicant on DATE .

In a letter of DATE , the NORP ombudswoman informed the applicant that she had referred to ORG his complaint of a failure to execute the decision of DATE . On DATE the ORG of First Instance issued the applicant with the writ of execution required to enforce execution of the decision of DATE , as upheld on appeal on DATE . On DATE the applicant presented the writ , together with a written request for enforcement , to the competent bailiff ( section CARDINAL of ORG ) . The Government sent the ORG copies of the writ of execution and the written request for enforcement ( see “ The law ” below ) .


No violation of Art. 6-1+6-3-b;Violation of Art. 6-1+6-3-c;Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed;Non-pecuniary damage - financial award;Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings

The applicant is a NORP national born in DATE and currently resident in GPE . He is a seaman .

In DATE he was convicted in GPE of drug - related offences and sentenced to imprisonment . He was released in DATE and expelled from GPE .

On DATE a Mr PERSON was arrested at FAC for transporting drugs . A telephone number was found on him which , when traced , turned out to be that of a hotel in GPE where the applicant , having returned to GPE , was staying at the time . This hotel was visited by the police .

The applicant was found to be in possession of a forged passport . It appears , however , that no drugs and no other incriminating evidence were found in his possession .

The applicant was arrested and taken to GPE DATE and interrogated by the police . According to an official report , the applicant claimed not to understand NORP but to speak LANGUAGE , and he was assisted by a police officer , PERSON , who was an LANGUAGE - speaker and acted as interpreter .

It is also stated in the report that the applicant was questioned about the matters that had led to his arrest and about the forged passport found in his possession . He provided full particulars of his movements following his expulsion from GPE DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) but denied all involvement in drug trafficking .

The police questioned him again the following day . The police officer PERSON again acted as interpreter .

On DATE the applicant was brought before the public prosecutor , who instituted criminal proceedings against him for forgery and various drug - related offences . The applicant does not dispute that he was assisted by an interpreter on this occasion .

The applicant was then brought before the investigating judge , who read out the charges to him .

It appears from an official report of this event that the applicant was assisted before the investigating judge by a lawyer who spoke LANGUAGE and acted as interpreter .

On DATE the applicant again appeared before the investigating judge , to whom he made a statement . It appears from an official report that he was assisted by PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE , and by an LANGUAGE - speaking clerk of the court who acted as interpreter .

The investigating judge ordered the applicant to be detained on remand .

On DATE the applicant and CARDINAL co - accused appeared before a CARDINAL - judge Chamber of ORG ( trimeles efetio ) , the court competent to hear the case at first instance in view of the seriousness of the charges . A court - assigned interpreter was present . The applicant stated that he was defended by PERSON and , since PERSON was not present ( being at that time on strike ) , he asked for an adjournment . The co - accused made similar requests . The case was adjourned .

NORP The applicant and his co - accused appeared before the same court again on DATE . A court - appointed interpreter was present . As the applicant ’s lawyer , PERSON , was absent , the court asked the lawyer of CARDINAL of the co - accused , a Mr N. , to act for the applicant as well . This Mr N. agreed to do , and it appears from the official record of the hearing that “ a short interval ” was ordered to enable him to study the applicant ’s case file .

On DATE the CARDINAL - judge Chamber of ORG found the applicant guilty of importing and transporting drugs and using forged documents . It sentenced him to life imprisonment and a fine of MONEY for the drug - related offences and to CARDINAL months’ imprisonment for having used forged documents .

The applicant appealed .

The appeal was heard by the CARDINAL - judge ORG of ORG on DATE , which , as a matter of general principle of the NORP law of criminal procedure , was empowered to review all questions of fact and of law in the case . The applicant was again assisted by a court - assigned interpreter and was defended by PERSON , a lawyer provided by a humanitarian organisation .

The court convicted the applicant only of collusion in the importation and transport of drugs and the use of forged documents and acquitted him on the remainder of the charges . It sentenced him to CARDINAL years’ imprisonment for the drug - related offences and CARDINAL months’ imprisonment for the use of forged documents , and imposed a fine of MONEY . The judgment was delivered on DATE of the hearing but finalised ( katharographi ) on DATE . According to the minutes of the appeal hearing , the president of the court duly informed all the accused , including the applicant , of the time - limit for filing an appeal on points of law , and this information was interpreted for the benefit of the applicant .

The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law on DATE , by filling in a standard appeal form which he handed in to the prison authorities . In the space reserved for grounds of appeal the applicant stated that these would be submitted in due course by his counsel . On the same form he mentioned PERSON under the heading “ Lawyer to whom notifications should be made ” .

On DATE the applicant , through the prison authorities , addressed a petition to the public prosecutor at ORG ( PERSON ) enquiring whether legal - aid counsel could be appointed to assist him in the preparation of his appeal . The prison authorities acknowledged receipt of this petition .

On DATE ORG declared the applicant ’s appeal on points of law inadmissible on the ground that no grounds of appeal had been submitted .

On DATE the applicant addressed a second petition to the public prosecutor at ORG , referring to his financial situation and enquiring about any developments in his case . The prison authorities acknowledged receipt .

On DATE the applicant was informed by the prison authorities that his appeal had been dismissed .

NORP In a letter of CARDINAL DATE to ORG , the deputy public prosecutor at ORG stated that he had not been able to trace any petition from the applicant to either the president or the public prosecutor at ORG asking for legal aid . He further submitted that the courts were under no legal obligation to appoint legal - aid counsel for accused persons who appealed on points of law . Nor was any other public authority . Consequently , even if the applicant had submitted a petition for legal aid , the authorities of ORG would have been under no obligation to reply .

Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL of LAW provides that in cases of the most serious category of criminal offence ( kakouryimata ) the ORG president of the first - instance court must assign counsel to an accused who is not represented . Counsel is chosen from a list of lawyers drawn up by the local Bar in DATE . Counsel is to be appointed DATE before the hearing , if the accused so requests , by a letter to the public prosecutor or the president of the trial court , and is given access to the case file .

Article CARDINAL of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides that in cases concerning the most serious category of crime the president of the appellate court must appoint counsel for an undefended accused if the latter so requests . Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL applies mutatis mutandis .

Article CARDINAL § § CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW provides that persons who appeal on points of law must lodge their appeal within DATE from the finalisation of the judgment ( katharographi ) , i.e. the entering of the judgment in a special book kept at the registry of the criminal court . According to LAW , the appeal must be lodged by making a declaration to that effect before one of various public authorities , including the governor of the prison where the appellant is detained . An official report is drawn up , which must contain the grounds of the appeal . LAW CARDINAL of the LAW provides for a further DATE period within which an accused may appeal on points of law against conviction by making a declaration to that effect to the public prosecutor at ORG .

Article CARDINAL of LAW contains an exhaustive enumeration of the grounds for appealing on points of law . These include a number of procedural irregularities in addition to errors in the interpretation or application of substantive criminal law . Pursuant to Articles CARDINAL § CARDINAL and CARDINAL § CARDINAL of LAW , as interpreted by ORG , an appeal on points of law which does not state any grounds is inadmissible ( Court of Cassation decisions no . DATE , PERSON , vol . DATE , p. CARDINAL ; no . CARDINAL , PERSON , vol . DATE , p. CARDINAL ; and no . DATE , PERSON , vol . DATE , p. CARDINAL ) .

Under LAW of LAW , the appellant may submit “ additional grounds ” of appeal by lodging a supplementary pleading with ORG at ORG not DATE before the hearing . However , according to the settled case - law of ORG , “ additional grounds ” may be taken into account only if CARDINAL admissible and sufficiently substantiated ground is set out in the initial notice of appeal ( ORG decisions nos . CARDINAL , CARDINAL/CARDINAL , ORG , DATE , CARDINAL , ORG , PERSON , p. CARDINAL , CARDINAL , DATE and DATE , PERSON , vol . CARDINAL , p. CARDINAL ) . Notwithstanding this case - law , an accused may use the time allowed by LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) to supplement an appeal on points of law lodged with CARDINAL of the authorities mentioned in LAW where the notice of appeal does not contain any “ sufficiently substantiated grounds of appeal ” .

Under LAW of LAW , the parties to an appeal on points of law must be represented by counsel at the hearing before ORG . ORG has held that LAW does not provide for legal aid for appeals on points of law and that LAW ( c ) of the LAW does not apply to proceedings before ORG as these do not entail the determination of a criminal charge ( Court of Cassation decisions no . CARDINAL , PERSON , vol . DATE , p. CARDINAL ; no . GPE , PERSON , vol . CARDINAL , p. CARDINAL ; and no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) .

Pursuant to Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL of LAW , a conviction becomes final when there is no appeal against the relevant decision , or when the accused has not availed himself of the possibility of appealing , or when the accused has appealed within the time provided by law and his appeal has been dismissed .


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

Anatoly Kovler;Elisabeth Steiner;George Nicolaou

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in ORG of LOC .

On DATE the applicant was stopped by the police and brought to a sobering - up centre . He was examined by a doctor who found that he was sober . The applicant was immediately released .

On DATE the applicant sued the local police department for compensation for unlawful arrest . The applicant ’s complaint was admitted by ORG of GPE ( “ the ORG ” ) . The first hearing was scheduled for DATE , but on that date it did not take place . No action was taken on the case until DATE .

On DATE ORG identified ORG as the respondent and involved the local police department as a third party in the proceedings .

On DATE ORG held in a default judgment that the applicant ’s arrest had been unlawful and partly allowed his claim for compensation .

On DATE ORG granted an extension of the time allowed for submission by the respondent of their grounds of appeal .

On DATE ORG ( “ the ORG ” ) overturned the judgment on appeal for failure to notify the respondent about the hearing in a timely manner and remitted the case to the first instance .

On DATE ORG again allowed the applicant ’s claim in part , but on DATE the judgment was set aside on appeal by ORG for failure to involve the finance authorities in the proceedings . The appeal court required a new hearing . It also delivered a special ruling in which it reprimanded the judge in charge of the applicant ’s case for breaches of the procedural time - limits for consideration of the case .

On DATE ORG judge withdrew from the proceedings .

On DATE ORG rejected the applicant ’s claims as unsubstantiated .

On DATE ORG set aside the judgment on appeal and allowed the applicant ’s claim in part . It held that his arrest had been unlawful and ordered that the ORG town administration pay the applicant MONEY ( RUB ) .

On an unspecified day the town administration lodged an application for supervisory review of the decision of DATE .

On DATE the ORG of ORG granted the application , quashed the judgment of DATE for failure to notify the town administration about the hearing and remitted the case to ORG .

On DATE ORG quashed the judgment of DATE and remitted the case to ORG .

On DATE ORG designated ORG of LOC as a co - respondent .

On DATE ORG granted the applicant ’s claim in part and ordered that ORG of LOC pay the applicant RUB CARDINAL .

On DATE ORG upheld the judgment on appeal .


Violation of Art. 3;No violation of Art. 13;Violation of Art. 14+3;Remainder inadmissible;Non-pecuniary damage - award;Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed

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

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE , a village with an PERCENT GPE population in the commune of GPE , GPE .

On DATE the deputy mayor , CARDINAL police officers from FAC and their chief , CARDINAL public guards from ORG and a driver , left in CARDINAL cars to enforce a by - law against owners whose cattle were grazing on public pasture . CARDINAL of the public guards were wearing black uniforms with hoods and carrying truncheons . At TIME , on their way back to FAC , they entered ORG ’s bar in GPE to check the owner ’s documents . A conflict arose between the authorities and the CARDINAL GPE gathered in front of the bar . The parties’ submissions differ as to the sequence of events .

F.L. , a villager of GPE origin , was just leaving the bar as the police entered . Sergeant D.T. asked him whether he was a “ Gypsy ( ţigan ) or NORP ” . When PERSON answered that he was a Gypsy , the deputy mayor asked the police officers and the public guards to teach him and the other GPE “ a lesson ” . The police and public guards started beating PERSON and other GPE who happened to be in the vicinity of the bar .

The applicant , who had just bought something from a nearby shop , ran away with other children , but was tripped up by D.T. who started beating , kicking and hitting him on the back of his head and pushed him into a ditch . The applicant told D.T. that he had just undergone head surgery and that the beating could endanger his life . D.T. continued beating him until the applicant lost consciousness . Several persons , including the applicant ’s schoolmates witnessed the incident . The deputy mayor and police officers were heard shouting racist remarks .

The officials left the LOC , leaving the applicant unconscious on the ground . GPE , GPE and GPE , witnesses to the incident , carried him to his GPE home .

The deputy mayor entered ORG ’s bar with a police officer and complained about the insalubrious conditions in the LOC and that ORG allowed people to drink excessively .

C.C. asked his customers to leave the bar . During the discussions with the authorities , ORG and his wife urged their customers , who were gathered in front of the bar , to antagonise the officials . The customers became aggressive . The police officers surrounded the deputy mayor in order to protect him . The officials returned quickly to their cars and left the LOC immediately . The deputy mayor ’s car , which was the last to leave , was attacked by the locals with bats .

On TIME the applicant was taken by his parents to ORG in GPE .

On DATE he was examined by a doctor from ORG . The certificate issued recorded the following :

“ - On the exterior upper side of the left elbow : a discontinuous excoriation of CARDINAL,CARDINALxCARDINAL cm with red haematic crust .

- The space between the scapula and the vertebras : purple transversal linear ecchymoses , ranging from QUANTITY to QUANTITY , CARDINAL on the right side , CARDINAL on the left side .

- On the exterior side of the right arm : CARDINAL red transversal linear ecchymosis of QUANTITY .

- The subject states that he is experiencing pain in the right parietal epicranius but there are no visible exterior posttraumatic lesions ...

Conclusion

PERSON presents with ecchymoses , thoracic concussion and excoriation , inflicted by a linear blunt instrument , which could date from DATE .

He needs DATE of medical care to recover . ”

With regard to his medical history , the applicant was diagnosed with brain disease and was operated upon on DATE . On DATE , ORG established that he had a first - degree disability which required permanent supervision and a personal assistant .

On DATE , the DATE incidents between the GPE and the authorities were discussed in the GPE ’s office with representatives of ORG , the ORG and ORG . Several persons gave evidence , including the applicant ’s mother and eyewitnesses . On DATE a report was sent to ORG ( “ the GPE Police ” ) .

On DATE the PERSON , acting on behalf of the applicant , asked the commander of ORG to open criminal investigations into the incidents . DATE , they expressed their concern to the Prefect about the racist motivation behind the incidents .

On DATE the ORG informed the Romani CRISS that the Mayor ’s investigation of DATE , in which his representative had also taken part , had excluded the possibility of any racist motivation being behind these incidents .

On DATE the applicant ’s father lodged , on behalf of his son , a criminal complaint with ORG , against D.T. , the other police officers and the deputy mayor .

On DATE the ORG , informed of the events by PERSON , requested the opening of investigations by ORG , ORG , ORG and ORG and asked for compensation and aid for the applicant ’s family .

On DATE ORG informed the ORG that conciliation proceedings had been started and that CARDINAL old NORP lei ( ROL ) had been awarded to the applicant ’s family in aid for assistance in the psychological and medical recovery of the applicant .

On DATE the PERSON filed a criminal complaint with ORG against D.T. and the other persons allegedly responsible for the incidents , accusing them of abusive behaviour .

The Suceava Police , hierarchically superior to ORG , started the investigations into the case .

On DATE evidence was heard from villagers GPE and GPE , eyewitnesses , ORG , the applicant ’s mother and GPE , the father of another alleged victim .

They stated that either police officers or public guards had tripped up and then beaten the applicant .

QUANTITY police officers and the deputy mayor gave evidence on CARDINAL DATE . They stated that ORG criticised the deputy mayor , alleging that he had won GPE votes by making false promises which he had reneged upon when elected . These words had roused the GPE gathered in front of the bar to protest against the officials , to insult them in PERSON and to attack their cars as they were leaving . They stated that no villager had been beaten by any of the police officers and public guards that night and that all the officials had left the LOC in a hurry by car .

Villager PERSON testified DATE that he had seen D.T. beating the applicant on his back and chest and that the officer had stopped when he had seen the witness approaching .

On DATE , the police heard evidence from the applicant . He reiterated that he had been tripped up and had fallen and that D.T. had punched him in the stomach , kicked him in the back and beaten him with a truncheon .

Giving evidence on DATE D.T. denied that he had beaten the applicant , declared that he had not even been carrying his truncheon DATE and gave the same version of the facts as the other police and public guards .

QUANTITY police officers and CARDINAL passers - by gave evidence DATE , all stating that no violence had been used by the authorities .

On DATE ORG sent its final report to the Bacău Military Prosecutor . It proposed not to press charges against the accused persons .

On DATE the Suceava Police informed the ORG and ORG that the proceedings concerning the accusations of abusive behaviour against sergeant D.T. were pending , and that the final decision would be taken by ORG .

On DATE the Suceava Police informed the ORG that the case had been sent to ORG with recommendation not to press charges .

On DATE , DATE and DATE , CARDINAL and DATE the prosecutor heard evidence from several persons : ORG , the owner of the pub , and GPE , his wife , the applicant , his father , ORG , and mother , GPE , CARDINAL villagers who had witnessed the conflict , the deputy mayor ( twice ) , the QUANTITY police officers and guards , including D.T. and CARDINAL passers - by . All of them maintained the version of events they had given to ORG . The GPE involved contended , mainly , that they had seen the police officers and public guards using violence against some of the NORP children present while the officials denied the allegations . The passers - by supported the LOC version . The school principal and the head of ORG stated that the GPE refused to send their children to school after the incidents , for fear of reprisal .

C.C. stated the following :

“ CARDINAL GPE armed with bats , axes etc . gathered around the CARDINAL cars . I yelled at the deputy mayor : ‘ We voted for you in the elections and now you come to kill our people!’ As the situation became tenser ... I yelled at the GPE present not to come close to the CARDINAL cars and then I sought to protect the deputy mayor and the other officials until they got into their cars and left for GPE .

The cars were not hit , but GPE were insulting the occupants of the cars until they left . I did not see any GPE getting beaten that evening by the police or public guards , but I heard later that PERSON ’s son ( the applicant ) had been beaten by the police officers ...

While I was present , none of the police officers or public guards hit , insulted or threatened the GPE . It is not true that the conflict that evening was of a racial nature ... ”

His wife , GPE , confirmed his statements .

The applicant ’s father stated in particular that :

“ Scared of what was happening in front of the pub ... my son came out [ of the store ] and started running home , but a public guard tripped him up and then Sergeant D.T. savagely beat him ...

My son ... ran home on TIME DATE , out of fear , although he knew that he was not allowed to run [ due to his medical condition ] . ”

The applicant declared that :

“ Seeing what was happening , I got scared and started running home . After CARDINAL - CARDINAL steps , the police officer D.T. tripped me up , so I fell to the ground .

After I fell I saw that officer D.T. wanted to hit my head with a truncheon , so I told him ‘ do n’t hit my head , I have had head TIME . He did not listen and hit me several times with the truncheon and with his fists and kicked me all over my body , on my back and chest . ”

On DATE the Suceava Police informed the military prosecutor that the GPE police officers had not filed a report in order to have criminal investigations started against the GPE for insulting behaviour , for the following reason :

“ [ T]he way in which some of the GPE acted is pure Gypsy behaviour ( pur ţigănesc ) and does not constitute the crime of insulting behaviour . ”

On DATE ORG decided not to prosecute , as the evidence did not confirm the alleged violence against the applicant . The relevant parts of his decision state as follows :

“ At a certain point , bothered by the [ deputy mayor ’s ] criticism , ORG became verbally aggressive , complaining to the deputy mayor about certain aspects of his professional activity . ORG came out of his bar and , speaking in PERSON , incited the twenty - thirty Roma there present against the CARDINAL officials [ the deputy mayor and CARDINAL of the police officers who accompanied him ] .

Considering that the situation was likely to degenerate , as the GPE were becoming extremely aggressive and violent , and as they were armed with blunt objects , the police officers surrounded the deputy mayor to protect him , then they got into their cars and left in a hurry towards the centre of GPE .

The GPE nationals ( cetăţeni ) attacked the last vehicle , where the deputy mayor was seated , with blunt objects , but no damage was caused since the vehicle was already leaving the area .

ORG declared that he had not seen any GPE being beaten by the police that evening .

He also denied that the incidents amounted to racial conflict . His statement corroborates those of the police officers and public guards [ who testified in the case ] .

Eyewitness statements in support of the applicant shall be disregarded as unreliable in so far as the evidence in the file shows that these persons arrived at the scene of the incidents after the CARDINAL cars had left .

Moreover these ORG statements are contradictory and do not corroborate the statements made by [ the applicant and his father ] who alleged that [ the applicant ] had been punched , kicked and beaten with the truncheon all over his body , including on his head ...

This conclusion tallies with the medical certificate in the file ...

The [ applicant ’s ] witnesses’ statements show that when the incident started [ the applicant ] ran home , against the medical recommendations that had been made to him ... ”

It also considered that ORG ’s statements , supported by those given by the police officers and public guards , confirmed that the conflict had not been racially motivated .

On DATE the military prosecutor informed PERSON of its decision , stating that “ the evidence gathered showed that the applicant was not injured , insulted or threatened by the police officers ” .

The applicant ’s mother and PERSON contested the conclusion reached in the investigations .

On DATE the prosecutor ’s decision was confirmed by ORG attached to ORG , on the ground that the case indicated that no violence had been inflicted on persons of GPE origin .

On DATE the applicant ’s father asked PERSON to file a complaint with the competent authorities about some incidents that had occurred during the investigations . He alleged that , on CARDINAL DATE the military prosecutor who had dealt with the case had tried to intimidate witnesses and physically assaulted the PERSON representative . Consequently , some witnesses had refused to testify . Moreover , he claimed that members of the police were trying to persuade them to give up their complaints by harassing the family . On DATE a police patrol had come to the applicant ’s house at TIME but had left when told that the applicant ’s father was not home . In DATE D.T. had allegedly threatened and punched the applicant ’s grandfather .

On DATE PERSON forwarded the complaint to ORG , which dismissed it as unsubstantiated on DATE .

The relevant provisions of LAW and of the police and military prosecutor Ruler are set out in PERSON v. GPE ( ( no . CARDINAL ) , no . CARDINAL , § § CARDINAL , DATE ) and PERSON v. GPE ( no . GPE , § CARDINAL , DATE ) .

The relevant provisions of ORG concerning the means of obtaining compensation for alleged ill - treatment are set out in PERSON and Others v. GPE ( ( dec . ) , no . CARDINAL , DATE ) .

In the same decision , as well as in paragraphs CARDINAL of the judgment in PERSON ( no . CARDINAL ) , cited above there is a description of the development of the law concerning complaints against decisions of the prosecutor ( LAW CARDINAL introduced by Law no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL DATE applicable from DATE ) .


Violation of Art. 6-1;Not necessary to examine Art. 13;Non-pecuniary damage - financial award;Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings;Costs and expenses partial award - domestic proceedings

The applicant was born in DATE and lived in GPE . She committed suicide on DATE . On DATE the applicant ’s heirs , PERSON ( the sister of the applicant ) and Mr ORG ( the applicant ’s brother ) informed the ORG of their wish to pursue the application in the applicant ’s stead .

By a decision which became final on DATE the applicant ’s and her former husband ’s joint tenancy in respect of a flat was terminated . ORG decided that the applicant ’s former husband should remain the sole tenant of the flat and ordered the applicant to move out of it within DATE after she has been provided with alternative accommodation . In the reasons for the judgment ORG explicitly held that the applicant was entitled to use the flat until her former husband found appropriate accommodation for her . However , her former husband did not allow the applicant to enter the flat . She was therefore obliged to temporarily stay at different places including her sister ’s flat .

On DATE the applicant requested ORG to enforce the above judgment .

On DATE the President of ORG admitted , in reply to the applicant ’s complaint , that the case had not been proceeded with effectively DATE and DATE .

On DATE , on CARDINAL and DATE , on DATE and on DATE ORG adjourned the case as the applicant ’s former husband failed to appear . The judge had unsuccessfully attempted to have the defendant brought by the police to the hearings held DATE . According to the applicant , those attempts were unsuccessful also due to the fact that the court had incorrectly indicated the address of the defendant ’s employer to the police .

A hearing was held on DATE . Both parties attended . The defendant challenged the ORG judge .

On DATE ORG decided on the request for exclusion of ORG judge . The decision was served on the defendant on DATE .

A hearing scheduled for DATE was adjourned as ORG judge was ill .

On DATE the applicant filed an enforcement request under a different provision of the Code of Civil Procedure under which a court can , where possible , authorise the person seeking the enforcement of a judicial decision to have a service carried out by a third person at the expense of the debtor . She also withdrew the authority of her lawyer .

On DATE the Bratislava IV ORG dismissed the applicant ’s request for enforcement of DATE . The decision stated that the judgment to be enforced did not explicitly order the defendant to put accommodation at the applicant ’s disposal within a specific time - limit . On CARDINAL September CARDINAL the applicant appealed . In DATE the applicant ’s lawyer informed the ORG that the proceedings were still pending before ORG .

On DATE the applicant filed a complaint about delays in the proceedings pursuant to LAW . She also claimed CARDINAL NORP korunas ( SKK ) as just satisfaction .

On DATE ORG found that the applicant ’s right to a hearing without undue delay guaranteed by LAW ) of the LAW and by LAW had been violated . ORG held that the case was not complex and that no delays could be imputed to the applicant ’s conduct . It noted that the only action taken by ORG had been a request that the applicant pay the court fee dated DATE .

The Constitutional Court granted the applicant SKK CARDINAL,CARDINALaccording to the practice of ORG under LAW . Its purpose was to attenuate the non - pecuniary damage sustained by the applicant . The sum was to be paid by ORG within DATE after ORG decision became final . In the decision ORG also ordered ORG to proceed with the applicant ’s case without further delay . The decision became final on DATE .

On DATE the applicant filed a new complaint with ORG . She alleged a violation of her right to a hearing within a reasonable time in that ORG had failed to proceed with the case without delay . She further alleged a violation of her right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time and of her property rights in that ORG had not paid the sum to her as ordered by ORG decision of DATE .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s second complaint . It found that the applicant had , in separate proceedings , requested the enforcement of the sum granted to her and that it therefore could not examine her complaints in that respect . The Constitutional Court further held that , following the final effect of its first finding on DATE , there had been a delay of DATE in the enforcement proceedings brought in DATE . However , the overall length of the period under consideration , that is after the delivery of the first finding of ORG

As the sum granted to her by ORG finding of DATE was not paid to her , the applicant requested that that sum be enforced on DATE .

On DATE ORG paid the sum indicated in ORG decision to the applicant .

On DATE and on CARDINAL DATE the applicant complained to the police that her former husband had denied her access to the flat in which she was entitled to live . The police found that the conduct of the applicant ’s former husband could be qualified as a minor offence and transferred the case to ORG . The applicant unsuccessfully complained about the way in which the police had dealt with the case to public prosecutors at CARDINAL levels .

On DATE the applicant asked ORG to order her former husband not to disturb her in her right to use the flat in question . On DATE ORG set the case aside . The decision stated that the administrative authority could not deal with it as ( i ) enforcement proceedings on the point at issue were pending before ORG and ( ii ) the Bratislava IV police department were dealing with criminal complaints which the applicant and her former husband had filed against each other and on which no final decision had yet been taken .

On DATE the applicant claimed compensation for pecuniary damage from ORG before ORG . She relied on LAW of DATE and on ORG finding of DATE and claimed a sum corresponding to the rent for the flat in which she had the right to live and which she could not use . After the applicant ’s death her siblings expressed the wish to join the proceedings as plaintiffs in her stead . The proceedings are pending .


Karel Jungwiert;Mark Villiger;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Mykhaylo Buromenskiy;Peer Lorenzen;Rait Maruste;Zdravka Kalaydjieva

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

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

On DATE the applicant ’s husband , a police officer , was accidentally killed by his colleague , PERSON , during a training exercise . On DATE the Kherson Dniprovsky District Prosecutor ’s Office ( “ ORG Office ” ) instituted criminal proceedings concerning the incident .

On DATE the Kherson Dniprovsky District Court found that Mr K. had committed an unintentional homicide as a result of careless handling of a weapon but amnestied him under LAW . This decision was final .

The internal police inquiry conducted on DATE revealed poor organisation of the training exercise of DATE and recommended disciplinary sanctions against the organisers .

On DATE ORG instituted criminal proceedings against other police officers involved in the organisation and conduct of the training exercise . The criminal case was closed on DATE for lack of corpus delicti .

DATE and DATE and DATE an additional investigation into the case was conducted and the proceedings were closed for lack of a causal link between the death of the applicant ’s husband and the behaviour of police officers other than PERSON , who had been found guilty of careless handling of a weapon .

On DATE a lump sum in the amount of CARDINAL NORP hryvnias ( ORG ) ( MONEY ( ORG ) ) was paid jointly to the applicant , her daughter and her parents - in - law . The applicant ’s daughter started receiving in addition a DATE payment of ORG ( EUR CARDINAL.CARDINAL ) until she reached the age of majority .

On DATE ORG ( the Department ” ) purchased a CARDINAL - room apartment in GPE for the sum of UAH CARDINAL ( EUR CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL ) and granted it to the applicant . According to the applicant she sold it shortly after .

On several occasions , the ORG also paid off the applicant ’s public utility debts .

In addition to this , the ORG provided the applicant with additional assistance , not foreseen by the relevant law . In particular , they helped organise the funeral and provided funds for the funeral itself , catering , instalment of the monument , and so on .

In DATE the ORG arranged a vacation on LOC coast for the decedent ’s daughter ; in DATE the applicant , however , refused that offer .

In DATE the ORG purchased school stationery , a school uniform , computer and printer for the applicant ’s daughter .

In DATE the applicant lodged a civil claim with the ORG against ORG ( “ the Police Department ” ) claiming QUANTITY ( EUR CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL ) in compensation for non - pecuniary damage . The applicant named PERSON as a third party .

On DATE the court found in part for the applicant and ordered ORG to pay her MONEY ( EUR CARDINAL ) under LAW .

Both parties appealed against the decision . The applicant considered the compensation awarded insufficient . ORG argued that the family of the deceased had already received an exceptional allowance and the insurance sum due to them under LAW of LAW and that the LAW did not provide for any other payments . It went on to refer to LAW and to ORG , and to suggest that any compensation other than the LAW provided for was payable by ORG from the national budget and not from the ORG ’s budget .

On DATE ORG overruled the disputed decision and dismissed the applicant ’s claim on the ground that , in ruling on the defendant ’s liability for its employee ’s death , the lower court had wrongly based its decision on the general provision in LAW , whereas matters of compensation for insured police officers were governed by special provisions such as LAW and the Decrees of the Cabinet of Ministers CARDINAL and CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE and DATE DATE on compulsory ORG personal insurance of military personnel , conscripts and ORG staff . The court of appeal observed that these special provisions said nothing about compensating insured persons for non - material damage .

On DATE ORG rejected the applicant ’s appeal in cassation , having found no misapplication of domestic law by the appeal court .

“ Everyone has the right to compensation , at the expense of the ORG or bodies of local self - government , for material and moral damage inflicted by unlawful decisions , actions or omissions of bodies of state power , bodies of local self - government , their officials and officers during the exercise of their authority . ”

“ Moral ( non - pecuniary ) damage caused to a person or organization by the acts of another person shall be compensated for by the latter unless he / she denies that that moral damage was caused through his / her fault . Moral damage shall be compensated for in monetary or other form upon a court decision regardless of compensation for pecuniary damage .

The amount of compensation shall be determined by a court , bearing in mind the substance of the claims , the nature of the acts which caused the damage , the physical and mental suffering of the victim , and other negative consequences . The amount of compensation can not be less than [ the equivalent of ] CARDINAL minimum salary payments . ”

“ An organization is under the obligation to compensate for damage caused through the fault of its employees during their working time . ”

“ Damage caused to a person by the unlawful acts of state and public organizations , and officials carrying out their official duties in the sphere of administrative management shall be compensated for on a general basis ( ORG CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the present Code ) unless otherwise provided for by laws . Liability for damage caused by organizations as a result of those acts shall be borne under the procedure set forth by laws . ”

“ Every policeman is subject to state compulsory insurance equivalent to DATE of his salary in his last position to be paid from the corresponding budgets as well as funds received in accordance with contracts with ministries , institutions , enterprises , and organizations ...

In the event of the death of a policeman while acting in his official capacity a lump sum in the amount of the equivalent of DATE of his salary as well as a DATE pension in the amount of his salary in his last position shall be paid to his family members .

The right to obtain accommodation shall be reserved for the family of the deceased policeman . This accommodation shall be granted within DATE to that family as a matter of priority .

Children of the deceased policeman under the age of majority or his dependants reserve the right to be granted benefit payments in connection with accommodation , public utilities , fuel ... ”

Under section DATE ) of the order , the sum insured for death or unfitness for employment is paid independently of any other payments arising from insurance or injury compensation .

Under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the order , the sum insured for death or unfitness for employment is paid independently of any other payments arising from insurance or injury compensation .

“ DATE . While examining cases concerning claims for compensation for moral damage on the basis of LAW the courts shall keep in mind that if such damage is caused by the unlawful decisions , actions or omission of bodies of state power , bodies of local self - government , their officials and officers during the exercise of their authority , it should be compensated for at the expense of the ORG or of the bodies of local self - government ...

While deciding on disputes concerning compensation for moral damage caused to citizens by the unlawful decisions , acts or omissions of state bodies , officials or officers , the courts should take into account that these state bodies , officials or officers shall be liable in such cases , unless otherwise provided for in the relevant laws ( e.g. LAW On ORG ” ) ... ”