Preliminary objection dismissed (non-exhaustion of domestic remedies);Violation of Art. 2 (substantive aspect);Violation of Art. 2 (procedural aspect);No violation of P1-1;No violation of Art. 13+P1-1;Non-pecuniary damage - award;Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed

Anatoly Kovler;Christos Rozakis;Elisabeth Steiner;George Nicolaou;Giorgio Malinverni;Khanlar Hajiyev

The applicant in the first application ( no . CARDINAL ) , PERSON , was born in DATE and lives in GPE , in LOC ( ORG ) , GPE ( the first applicant ) .

The applicant in the second application ( no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) , PERSON , was born in DATE and lives in GPE ( the second applicant ) .

The applicant in the third application ( no . CARDINAL ) , PERSON , was born in DATE and lives in GPE in the ORG ( the third applicant ) .

The applicant in the fourth application ( no . GPE ) , PERSON , was born in DATE and lives in PERSON ( the fourth applicant ) .

The applicants in the fifth application ( no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) , Mr PERSON and PERSON , were born in DATE and DATE respectively and live in GPE ( the fifth and the sixth applicants ) .

The facts of the case are partially in dispute between the parties . Their submissions on the circumstances in which a mudslide swept through the town of NORP in DATE are set out in Section A below . The manner in which these events affected the individual applicants is set out in Section B. A description of the materials submitted to the ORG by the applicants is given in LAW

NORP The town of GPE is situated in the mountain district adjacent to LOC , in the central GPE . Its population is CARDINAL inhabitants . The general urban plan of the town was developed in DATE as part of a large - scale industrial construction project . CARDINAL tributaries of LOC passing through GPE , the GPE and the ORG , are known to be prone to causing mudslides .

The first documentary evidence of a mudslide in LOC dates back to DATE . Subsequently mudslides were registered DATE ; occasionally they hit the town , causing damage . The heaviest mudslides registered prior to DATE occurred on DATE , on CARDINAL DATE and on DATE . According to the ORG , the series of mudslides of DATE were the strongest and most destructive of all .

The inhabitants and authorities of NORP are generally aware of the hazard , and are accustomed to the mudslides which usually occur in DATE and DATE .

The first technical research into a scheme to protect NORP from the mudslides was carried out in DATE , and by DATE a number of proposals had been made . The scheme chosen by the authorities following a comparative feasibility study provided for the construction of a feed - through mud retention collector . Construction work began , but in DATE this was disrupted by an exceptionally strong mudslide , and the project had to be corrected and extended accordingly . The construction of the collector was finished in DATE and operated successfully for DATE , apparently providing sufficient defence against the mudslides . In DATE a technical review was carried out following a particularly strong mudslide which seriously damaged some sections of the collector , and it was considered necessary to carry out repair work . The collector was fully repaired by DATE .

In addition , in DATE the local authorities put into operation a mud retention dam in the river gorge of GPE , upstream from the mud retention collector . The dam was intended to enhance the protection of NORP from mud and debris flows . It measured QUANTITY and was built with QUANTITY of reinforced concrete and QUANTITY of metal structures .

On DATE a mud and debris flow hit the dam , seriously damaging it .

On DATE the director of ORG , a state agency whose mandate included monitoring weather hazards in high - altitude areas , called for an independent survey of the damage caused to the dam by the mudslide . He made recommendations to the Minister responsible for Disaster Relief of the ORG concerning the composition of a ORG for the survey .

On DATE he also sent a letter to the President of the ORG , calling for emergency clean - up and restoration work to the dam and for an early warning system to be set up to raise the alarm in the event of a mudslide ( see the full text in LAW submitted by the applicants ” ) .

On DATE the acting director of ORG sent a letter to the Prime Minister of the ORG , warning about the increased risk of mudslides in DATE . He stated that the dam was seriously damaged , that its reconstruction appeared unfeasible at that stage and that , consequently , the only way to avoid casualties and mitigate the damage was to establish observation posts to warn civilians in the event of a mudslide , for which he requested a mandate and financial support ( see the full text in Section C below ) .

On DATE the Head of ORG sent a letter to the Prime Minister of the ORG in which he referred to the imminent large - scale mudslide and requested financial aid to carry out certain emergency work on the dam . In his request he invoked possible “ record losses ” and casualties ( see the full text in LAW below ) .

On DATE the assistant director and the head of research of ORG attended a session at ORG . At the meeting they reiterated the warning about the risk of mudslides in that period and requested that observation points be set up in the upper sections of LOC , in order to monitor the river at all times and to issue an emergency warning in the event of a mudslide .

On DATE the assistant director of ORG reported to the agency director that he had warned ORG of the forthcoming mudslide and requested the setting up of TIME observation posts .

It would appear that none of the above measures were ever implemented .

At TIME on DATE a flow of mud and debris hit the town of NORP and flooded some of the residential quarters .

According to the ORG , this first wave caused no casualties . However , the applicants alleged that CARDINAL person was killed . In particular , the second applicant claimed to have witnessed the death of her neighbour PERSON , born in DATE , who was trapped in the debris and drowned in the mud before anybody could help her . She also alleged that she had witnessed a GPE vehicle with CARDINAL men in it being carried away by the mudslide .

According to the Government , following the mudslide of DATE the authorities ordered the emergency evacuation of the residents of NORP . The police and local officials went round people 's homes to notify them of the mudslide and to help evacuate the elderly and disabled . In addition , police vehicles equipped with loudspeakers drove round the town , calling on residents to evacuate because of the mud hazard .

The Government did not specify when exactly these measures were taken . The applicants agreed that the alarm was indeed raised through loudspeakers once the mudslide had struck , but no advance warning was given . They claimed that they had been unaware of the order to evacuate and doubted that any had been issued . They also alleged that there had been no rescue forces or other organised on - the - spot assistance at the scene of the disaster , which became a cauldron of chaos and mass panic .

In TIME DATE the mud level lowered and the residents returned to their homes . The Government alleged that they did so in breach of the evacuation order , while the applicants claimed that they were not aware that the mudslide alert was still active , pointing out that there were no barriers or warnings to prevent people from returning to their homes . They did not spot any police or emergency officers near their homes , but could see that their neighbours were all at home and children were playing outside . Water , gas and electricity supplies had been reconnected after being cut off during the night .

At TIME on DATE , more powerful , mudslide hit the dam and destroyed it . Mud and debris instantly descended on the town , sweeping the wreckage of the dam before them . At CARDINAL FAC the mudslide destroyed part of a QUANTITY block of flats , with CARDINAL officially reported casualties . Several other buildings were damaged . It also caused the river to overflow , flooding the residential quarters on the right bank .

The town was hit by a succession of mudslides until DATE .

CARDINAL people were officially reported dead . According to the applicants , a further QUANTITY persons allegedly went missing .

According to the ORG , on CARDINAL DATE ORG of LOC decided not to launch a criminal investigation into the accident . The applicants claimed that they were unaware of this . No copy of this decision was made available to the ORG .

On DATE the Government of the ORG adopted a directive on the payment of compensation for loss of housing to the victims of the mudslide . It established the general principles for the provision of new accommodation and the guidelines for calculating compensation for those who wished to settle outside GPE . The loss of a CARDINAL flat gave rise to payment of MONEY ( RUB ) , of a CARDINAL flat DATE to up to RUB CARDINAL and of a CARDINAL flat DATE to up to RUB CARDINAL . Alternately , victims could opt for housing vouchers that would entitle families of CARDINAL person to free housing of CARDINAL sq . m per family member , and single - person families – to QUANTITY m.

On DATE ORG issued a written statement , apparently in connection with individual lawsuits , that it had received no advance warning concerning the NORP mudslide in DATE , either from ORG or from any other authority .

On DATE ORG also issued a written statement that it had received no warning of a mudslide at any time during DATE .

On DATE , apparently following an enquiry from the district administration , ORG of LOC reported that no funds had been allocated in the district budget for the restoration work required after the DATE mudslide .

Before the events of DATE the first applicant , her husband and their CARDINAL sons , born in DATE and DATE , lived at CARDINAL FAC , GPE , in a QUANTITY sq . m flat they owned on the seventh floor .

On DATE she and her family were asleep when the mudslide began . The first applicant claimed that no emergency warning was given , and the mudslide came as a total shock . They had a narrow escape and spent TIME in the mountains .

At TIME on DATE ( DATE ) they returned to their flat . According to the first applicant , the mudslide appeared to have ended , and since there had been no warning or barriers to stop them , they thought that it must be safe to return home . Exhausted from the events of the previous night , they went straight to bed . However , shortly afterwards the first applicant was woken up by PERSON , a friend of her sister 's ( see Ms K 's testimonies in Section C below ) , and within minutes they felt the walls shake and heard a loud rumble , glass shattering , cries and people running .

The first applicant and her older son only just managed to escape .

The younger son was carried out by PERSON and rescued from the wreckage , but he sustained serious injuries , including cerebral and spinal contusion , erosion of the cornea , multiple avulsed wounds , abrasions and bruises .

The first applicant 's husband , Mr PERSON , aged DATE , stayed behind to help her parents flee but was killed when the building collapsed after being hit by the mudslide . The first applicant 's parents were rescued .

The first applicant 's flat and all her possessions were flooded and destroyed by the mudslide .

On DATE ORG of LOC decided not to launch a criminal investigation into the death of the first applicant 's husband . Having found that he died as a result of the collapse of the building , it established that the death was accidental and not attributable to any criminal act .

Following a decision by the Government of the ORG on DATE , the applicant was issued with a housing voucher on DATE entitling her to QUANTITY . m of free accommodation to compensate for the loss of her flat . It would appear that the size of the accommodation was reduced pro rata her deceased husband 's share , but , after numerous complaints , she was eventually provided with another QUANTITY . m flat in GPE . She received a grant from the emergency fund of RUB CARDINAL to compensate for the loss of her possessions , plus an additional allowance of RUB CARDINAL .

On an unspecified date the first applicant brought an action in damages against the Government of the ORG , ORG and ORG . She claimed RUB CARDINAL for the loss of movable and immovable property , and RUB CARDINAL for non - pecuniary damage on account of the death of her husband and the mental and physical suffering she and her children had been caused by the disaster . She claimed that the authorities had persuaded the local population that there was no risk of a mudslide . She also alleged that the authorities had been negligent as they had failed to take measures to mitigate the damage , in particular by establishing an early warning system and clearing the deposits left in the dam and river channel since the DATE mudslide . In support of her claims she provided the documents set out in Part CARDINAL of Section C ( “ Official letters and documents issued before the DATE mudslide ” ) and other evidence .

DATE . On DATE the Baksan District Court of the ORG examined the case and found that the authorities had taken all reasonable measures to mitigate the risk of a mudslide . Noting that the retention capacity of the dam was calculated for a flow of QUANTITY , when the actual flow rate was QUANTITY . m per second , it concluded that a mudslide of such exceptional force could be neither predicted nor stopped . The court also found that the media had informed civilians of the risk of possible mudslides and it took into account the fact that , following the mudslide , the authorities had carried out infrastructure work , such as repairs to a water pipeline , and had offered the applicant social aid in the form of accommodation and financial compensation .

The court concluded that no fault attached to the authorities for the damage sustained by the applicant and found her claim for pecuniary and non - pecuniary damage unsubstantiated .

On DATE ORG of the ORG upheld the judgment of DATE .

According to the first applicant , her living conditions have been extremely difficult since the disaster . She claimed that both her own and her children 's health has deteriorated substantially as a result of the injuries , stress and devastation caused . Her younger son has developed serious chronic post - traumatic conditions , such as enuresis and the progressive deterioration of his eyesight . Both her sons require regular neurological treatment as a result of their injuries and shock . The flat she bought with the housing voucher had to be sold immediately to cover living expenses and pay for medical treatment . The flat in GPE was in an appalling state ( it had not been renovated since its construction in DATE ) and she had no means of restoring it sufficiently to make it habitable .

Before the events of DATE the second applicant , her husband and their daughter lived at FAC in a QUANTITY . m flat ( no . CARDINAL ) which they owned . She owned another flat ( no . CARDINAL ) in the same block under a social tenancy agreement .

In DATE a mudslide caused damage to the second applicant 's property and she lost some of her livestock . She said that she requested the local authorities to carry out emergency maintenance to the dam and clear away the wreckage . However , despite numerous requests by the residents , nothing was done .

On DATE the second applicant and her family were at home when the mudslide began at TIME She claimed that no emergency warning was given , and they had to flee their home in their pyjamas . As they attempted to escape , the applicant and her daughter were caught in the flow of mud and debris , which dragged them for some distance before passers - by came to their rescue . Both were injured and suffering from severe shock , in particular the second applicant 's daughter , who suffered severe friction burns caused by the debris .

On DATE , DATE , the second applicant 's brother - in - law ( the first applicant 's husband PERSON ) died while helping the first and second applicants ' parents to flee when a new mudslide hit the town .

Both of the second applicant 's flats and all of her possessions were destroyed by the mudslide .

Following the decision of the Government of the ORG of CARDINAL DATE , the second applicant received a housing voucher on CARDINAL DATE to compensate for the loss of flat no . CARDINAL . It entitled her to QUANTITY m of free accommodation . She also received a grant from the emergency fund of RUB CARDINAL to compensate for the loss of her possessions , plus an additional allowance of RUB CARDINAL . She has not received any compensation in respect of flat no . CARDINAL .

The second applicant brought an action in damages against the Government of the ORG , ORG and ORG . She claimed RUB CARDINAL for the loss of movable and immovable property , and RUB CARDINAL for non - pecuniary damage for the mental and physical suffering she and her daughter had been caused by the disaster . Her allegations , arguments and other submissions were essentially the same as those of the first applicant .

On DATE the Baksan District Court of the ORG examined her claim together with that of the first applicant and rejected it on the same grounds .

According to the second applicant , her living conditions after the disaster were , and remain , very poor . Both her own and her daughter 's health deteriorated substantially as a result of the injuries , stress and devastation caused and they had to receive neurological treatment for their injuries and shock .

Before the events of DATE the third applicant lived at FAC , PERSON , in a QUANTITY . m flat which she owned .

On DATE her flat was flooded and destroyed by the mudslide , together with her possessions . The third applicant claimed that no emergency warning was given and that she only just managed to escape the mudslide .

Following the decision of the Government of the ORG of CARDINAL DATE the third applicant received a subsidy of RUB MONEY for the loss of her flat and a grant from the emergency fund of RUB CARDINAL to compensate for the loss of her possessions , plus an additional allowance of RUB MONEY .

She brought an action in damages against the Government of the ORG , ORG and ORG . She claimed RUB CARDINAL for the loss of movable and immovable property , as well as RUB CARDINAL for non - pecuniary damage for the mental and physical suffering she was caused by the disaster . Her allegations , arguments and other submissions were essentially the same as those of the first and the second applicants .

On DATE the ORG of the ORG examined the case and rejected her claims . Its judgment was based on essentially the same reasons as the subsequent judgment of ORG of the ORG , dated DATE , in the case brought by the first and second applicants . In its judgment , the court referred to certain media records of DATE which had been submitted by ORG . On the basis of these records , taken together with the weather reports for the relevant period , it concluded that the local population had been adequately forewarned about the possible mudslides . The court took into account the fact that , following the mudslide , the authorities had offered the applicant welfare aid , namely the subsidy for a flat and the monetary compensation . It also noted , inter alia , that the third applicant was entitled to exchange the RUB CARDINAL subsidy for QUANTITY . m of social housing .

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

On DATE the third applicant exchanged her housing subsidy for a housing voucher which entitled CARDINAL QUANTITY m of free accommodation . She used this voucher to purchase a flat in LOC , which she resold shortly afterwards .

According to the third applicant , her health and living conditions deteriorated as a result of the above events and she was not adequately compensated for the losses sustained in the accident .

Before the events of DATE the fourth applicant lived at CARDINAL Elbrusskiy Prospekt , PERSON , in a QUANTITY . m flat which she owned .

On DATE her flat and possessions were flooded and destroyed by the mudslide . She claimed that no emergency warning had been given prior to the mudslide , but she managed to make her way to safety .

The fourth applicant brought an action in damages against the Government of the ORG , ORG and ORG . She claimed RUB CARDINAL in compensation for the loss of movable and immovable property and RUB CARDINAL for medical treatment ; she also claimed RUB CARDINAL for non - pecuniary damage for mental and physical suffering . Her allegations , arguments and other submissions were essentially the same as those of the other applicants referred to above .

On DATE ORG of the ORG examined the fourth applicant 's claim and rejected it .

On DATE ORG of the ORG reversed the judgment of DATE on the grounds that CARDINAL of the parties had not attended the trial . The case was remitted for re - examination by a first - instance court .

DATE . On DATE the Baksan District Court of the ORG examined her claim and rejected it on the same grounds as those of the other applicants referred to above . It noted , inter alia , that the fourth applicant was still entitled to apply for compensation of RUB CARDINAL from an emergency fund or , alternatively , for QUANTITY . m of free housing , but held that any further claims were unsubstantiated .

On DATE ORG of the ORG upheld the judgment of DATE .

On DATE the fourth applicant was issued a housing voucher entitling her to QUANTITY m of free accommodation to compensate for the loss of her flat and received a grant of RUB CARDINAL from the emergency fund to compensate for the loss of her possessions , plus an additional allowance of RUB MONEY .

According to the fourth applicant , her living conditions after the above events were extremely difficult and her health deteriorated substantially as a result of the stress and devastation they had caused . Following the disaster she suffered from psychological disorientation and depression , for which she had to undergo psychiatric treatment . According to her medical records her condition has been further aggravated by the litigation over the compensation .

NORP Before the events of DATE the applicants and their QUANTITY daughters lived in a QUANTITY . m flat , which they owned .

On DATE their flat and possessions were flooded and destroyed by the mudslide . They claimed that no emergency warning was given and that they and their family had only just managed to escape the mudslide .

The fifth and sixth applicants brought an action in damages against the Government of the ORG , ORG and ORG . They claimed RUB CARDINAL for the loss of their movable and immovable property as well as RUB CARDINAL for non - pecuniary damage for mental and physical suffering . Their allegations , arguments and other submissions were essentially the same as those of the other applicants referred to above .

On DATE ORG of the ORG examined the fifth and sixth applicants ' claim and rejected it .

On DATE the Baksan District Court of the ORG examined their claim and rejected it on the same grounds as those of the other applicants referred to above . It noted , inter alia , that the fifth and sixth applicants were still entitled to apply for compensation from an emergency fund in the sum of RUB CARDINAL for the loss of movable property and RUB CARDINAL for the loss of the flat or , alternatively , for QUANTITY . m of free housing per person , but held that further any claims were unsubstantiated .

On DATE the fifth and sixth applicants were issued with a housing voucher entitling them to QUANTITY . m of free accommodation to compensate for the loss of the flat and received a grant from the emergency fund of RUB CARDINAL to compensate for the loss of their possessions , plus an additional allowance of RUB CARDINAL .

According to CARDINAL applicants , their health deteriorated substantially as a result of the stress and devastation . In particular , the sixth applicant had to receive extensive psychiatric and neurological treatment following a nervous breakdown caused by living through the disaster and its consequences .

In support of their allegations the applicants submitted numerous newspaper articles , official letters , documents and witness statements to the ORG . In so far as relevant , these documents read as follows .

NORP Official letter of CARDINAL DATE from the director of ORG , Mr PERSON , to the President of the ORG :

“ As you know , DATE , on DATE , a heavy mudslide with a volume of QUANTITY . m was recorded in the valley of LOC . The aerial visual survey made from a helicopter found that fluid material had formed in the upper stream of CARDINAL of the mud - bearing deposits of ORG . At the same time , another mud - bearing deposit has formed in the LOC basin , in FAC , and the mud reserves may soon become active .

Given that the feed - through mud retention collector at the estuary of the mudslide basin has been destroyed by previous mudslides , and the river channel has filled up with mud deposits , the disaster may recur on a larger scale .

We therefore request financial support to set up for the period of DATE radio - communication posts in the upper section of the river to warn civilians and the [ emergency ] services of the mud - hazard and to conduct engineering surveys to restore the mud - protection structure , which is now in a critical state of disrepair . ”

NORP Official letter of CARDINAL DATE from the acting director of ORG , PERSON . PERSON , to the Prime Minister of the ORG :

“ As you are well aware , the area around GPE is one of the areas most at risk of a mudslide in GPE . The mudslide retention dam erected here , which is QUANTITY , QUANTITY broad ... was destroyed on DATE . The devastating QUANTITY . m mudslide caused the collapse of the dam , with a QUANTITY fracture line . Damage was caused to Tyrnauz ...

In view of the high risk of mudslides in DATE and given that the reconstruction of the dam does not appear financially or technically feasible , observation points must be set up in the upper section of LOC to avoid casualties and mitigate the damage ... with the task of monitoring the river and giving an emergency warning to civilians in the event of a mudslide ... CARDINAL monitoring will be carried out in the period from DATE to DATE to provide a mudslide forecast and to inform the [ ORG ] ...

ORG has a wealth of experience of such work in the NORP area , and will provide members of the expedition with salary , gear and equipment . We request financial aid of MONEY to cover field supplies and transport . ”

NORP Official letter of DATE from the Head of ORG to the Prime Minister of the ORG :

“ In DATE the mudslide from FAC tract blocked the bed of LOC and directed the main water stream outside the retaining wall on the left side of the riverbed . As a result , the foundation soil and spandrels of the retaining wall have eroded and continue to erode . At TIME a QUANTITY of the bypass road has been put completely out of service .

The state of the foundation of the retaining wall is near critical . When the thaw floods begin in DATE it may lead to the collapse of sections of the retaining wall of the defence system above the hollowed out soil . Their reconstruction will be very costly .

The mudslide has also filled up the mud conveying channel to up to PERCENT of capacity ; if another mudslide occurs , the mud conveying channel may overflow and flood the residential neighbourhoods of GPE . This could lead to an emergency on a scale that is impossible to predict , with record financial losses and , probably , casualties .

Taking the above into account , ORG requests financial aid to perform the above work . ”

Interview with Mr PERSON , published in the national newspaper ORG on DATE .

ORG : It is not only nature that must take the blame for the tragedy [ of DATE , but also ] blatant irresponsibility on the part of officials and their reluctance to follow the recommendations of specialists . ...

RG : ... could this disaster have been foreseen ? And why did the mud protection dam on LOC fail ?

ORG : ... PERSON is a mining centre of the [ ORG ] ... and because of its geographical position it is under permanent threat from mudslides . The most disastrous were the mudslides of DATE and especially of DATE . [ The latter ] destroyed over thirty houses in the town centre , and casualties were avoided solely because the specialists of the [ ORG ] gave a timely warning to the town authorities about the impending disaster . Later it was decided ... to erect a mud - protection system . I was ordered to develop specifications for the construction ... CARDINAL of such mud retention dams ... [ it ] was launched DATE .

RG : Is it true that you then refused to sign the commission acceptance report for the mud - protection system ?

ORG : Yes . Why ? Because the first construction stage of the complex had been sitting unfinished for DATE . There remained a great risk that the first mudslide to arrive , even if relatively feeble , would break the complex because its top section was not firmly anchored to solid rock . The funding for the completion of the construction had been allocated , but as to where the funds had disappeared ( between GPE and PERSON ) , nobody could give me a clear answer . Stressing the importance of this issue and the need to complete the construction , I made numerous appeals to the [ ORG President ] , PERSON , and to the Minister for Disaster Relief of GPE , PERSON . Finally more funds were allocated and the construction was ostensibly brought to completion . ... I refused to take part in the [ inaugural ceremony ] because of concern for my expert and academic reputation . My assistant specialists , in particular my deputy for the construction [ Mr NORP ] and the geologist [ PERSON ] drew up a report ; here are some extracts from it : ' ... a failure to submit [ project documentation ] makes it impossible to assess the project 's compliance [ with the specifications ] ... Given the novelty of the [ design ] ... the high levels of seismic activity in the area , the high fail - safety requirements for the dam structure , any deformation of which may increase the impact of a mudslide on the town of PERSON and thus significantly aggravate the mud hazard , and also taking into account the inordinate time taken to complete the construction work , with intervals DATE , it is necessary to subject the facility to a special architectural survey . [ A number of serious technical deviations ] give grounds for suspecting a degree of tension within the construction , even without mud or seismic impact . All of this considerably reduces the project capacity of the dam . The visual survey of the dam construction showed signs of wear and tear of sections of it even without mud ... '

RG : So even though PERSON , a Member of the ORG , did not sign the report , the facility was nevertheless put into service ?

ORG : Yes . And within DATE [ it ] had been destroyed by a mudslide of far from catastrophic intensity . I wrote to the ORG Minister for Disaster Relief , PERSON ... and in DATE advised the ORG President , PERSON ... that the mud reserves might become active in the near future ... and that the disaster could be repeated on a much larger scale ... and requested assistance in finding resources for setting up surveillance posts ... and carrying out an engineering study to restore the construction , which was in a critical state ...

I believe that it is of the utmost importance to set up [ without delay ] a competent commission comprising prominent experts to establish the true causes of the tragedy . ... Another commission is also needed ... to develop a complex programme for the protection of the ORG community from environmental hazards ... ”

Interview with Mr PERSON , the first Deputy Head of ORG , published in the local newspaper ORG on DATE :

“ ... MONEY were allocated from the district budget to clear the mud conveying channel . We sent this money for clearing the [ mud conveying ] channel . Otherwise the outcome could have been even more disastrous . However , a mudslide of such force could not have been stopped even by a perfectly clear channel .

About the warning . The very first impact [ of the mudslide ] tore down the electric wires and telephone cables . We were running around the town with CARDINAL loudspeakers . It is possible we did not reach every single house or flat but the information was conveyed to every district of the town . On TIME the town was divided into CARDINAL sectors , temporary heads of administrations were appointed , and they received all the information . Understandably , people wanted to know how the mudslide would evolve , but even the scientists did not know that ... ”

Research note by PERSON , holder of a research degree in geography , dated DATE . The text below is based on the text published in CARDINAL of the ORG local newspapers after DATE ( the exact publication reference is not available ) :

“ The [ DATE ] disaster at the GPE mudslide retention dam has vividly demonstrated the danger posed by an unstable mudslide protection device situated above the town . ... The international practice of mudslide defence includes many examples of the collapse of a dam leading to a tenfold increase in the destructive force [ of a mudslide ] compared with the naturally occurring level ...

The mudslides on GPE are among the most disastrous in LOC . The volume of the DATE mudslide was QUANTITY . m of mud and debris , discharging at QUANTITY . m per second ...

In the current environmental and social situation the most reasonable solution would be to reject the idea of constructing a mud - retention dam . The top priority should be to dismantle the unstable blocks .

Following the mudslide of DATE ] the mud conveying channel retained a considerable amount of mud and debris deposit , but for the most part it settled in the flood - plain of LOC . It is necessary to clear the mud conveying channel because its carrying capacity has reduced significantly ... ”

Interview with PERSON , Director of ORG , published on DATE in the newspaper ORG following the ORG 's field investigation into the DATE mudslide :

“ PERSON : ... the expedition concluded ... that DATE mudslides in PERSON were absolutely unique ... nowadays the profile of the mud phenomena in this basin has drastically changed for the worse .

However , according to preliminary estimates , the extraordinary volume of [ active ] mud from DATE is unlikely to be repeated DATE , although the chances of several mudslides of variable intensity remain .

GPE : So all of this may happen as unexpectedly as on DATE ?

PERSON : Here we can be certain that the situation has radically improved . The present position is that even before DATE when the mud is active , surveillance posts have been set up in the immediate vicinity of the glacier as well as [ further down ] where the mudslide gains force and becomes dangerous for the town .

The [ surveillance ] posts are functioning and are provided with reliable communication facilities . That is to say , in so far as prevention is concerned , measures have been taken ... The second important problem is ... to close the twist in the mud conveying channel with a more secure wall . Work has been under way for some time . ...

To sum up ... the mud activity in this gorge has increased because of DATE mudslide . At the same time the preventive measures that have already been taken inspire optimism . In any event , even if powerful mudslides develop , people 's lives will undoubtedly be saved .

GPE : Are there any effective methods of influencing the mud activity , for example by blowing up part of a slope or draining a glacier lake , so that the risk of a mudslide is reduced ?

PERSON : Yes , there are . ... but [ their application ] involves very complex and thorough calculations ... This question is currently being examined ... then it will be for the specialists and the authorities to decide whether to use this technology in the GPE ...

... At the same time in a number of mud - affected areas it is necessary to solve the question of [ resettling the residents ] outside the zone of mud activity in order to ensure [ their ] safety . This would be much cheaper and quicker . Engineering schemes involve tremendous expenditure , and given that funds are always lacking , are unlikely to offer a solution . Therefore , introducing restrictions in the mud - affected zones and regulating [ building ] within them , especially of a residential nature , is worth considering . ”

Statement by PERSON , a friend of the first applicant :

“ On DATE I , [ K ] , born in DATE , decided on my way to work to call at my best friend PERSON 's [ the second applicant 's ] home . On TIME I arrived in town late and went straight to bed ... unaware of what was happening in the town . At TIME on the morning of DATE , I went out and saw people gathered on the mountain ... and found out that a mudslide had hit PERSON 's house ... The bridge had been destroyed and I could not cross to the other side where her house was . I decided to enquire after PERSON and went to the home of her sister PERSON [ the first applicant ] , who lives on this side . I saw the police nearby and asked them if I could go to this house [ pointing at the first applicant 's house ] and they confirmed that I could , adding that the electricity had been switched back on TIME previously , and people were allowed back in their flats . I headed there with no apprehension , went up to the sixth floor ... walked in and found them asleep . I woke up ORG and she told me that on the previous night PERSON had crossed to the other side of the river . We had been talking for TIME when we heard a loud rumble . I rushed out to the balcony and saw people running . ORG also rushed to wake up her husband and children . I grabbed their youngest son , DATE Inar , and ran downstairs . On my way out I saw PERSON 's husband [ PERSON ] looking for his trousers and PERSON herself following me with her eldest son ORG . CARDINAL floors I felt the stairs pitching and realised that the house was collapsing . We fell and I found myself locked with the child under a [ concrete sheet ] with dust , blood and debris around me . I pushed Inar up between the sheets so that he could get out . A man saw him and pulled him out but I stayed under the sheet . I could feel my legs but could not see them ... they were buried under a concrete sheet ... I later saw CARDINAL dead bodies underneath the same sheet ( a woman and CARDINAL children of DATE ) . I tried to pull my legs out but felt an awful pain in the pelvis ... Eventually I was helped out by the emergency services and taken to hospital ... For DATE I was immobilised and continued to receive treatment for a further DATE ...

I did not sue ... Every time I applied [ to the authorities for medical or welfare benefits ] I was asked why I had gone there in the first place , to which I could only answer that nobody had stopped me or warned me that it was dangerous ; on the contrary , they had told me that I could go in ... I am a reasonable person and would never have headed towards the danger if only I had been warned ... ”

Statement by PERSON who lived at QUANTITY FAC , NORP :

“ ... On TIME I , my husband and our grandson were woken up by a terrible rattling noise . We realised at once that it was a mudslide . We rushed out dressed in whatever we were wearing . It was raining heavily , people were running in fear and panic in all directions . The rest of the night we spent up in the mountains , trembling with cold and fear . In TIME , we saw the awful spectacle of the town partly covered in mud and rocks with some areas , especially FAC , destroyed by the mud , and the centre flooded with water from LOC .

By TIME [ on DATE ] it seemed to everybody that the flow of mud had begun to settle and we approached our house . Nobody stopped us , there were no barriers . All the residents of our apartment block and of the CARDINAL neighbouring DATE apartment blocks returned to their flats . We ate and went to sleep . I woke up because the house was shaking and I heard the noise and people screaming . I opened the door and saw that the right side of our house was missing and the staircase had collapsed . I grabbed my grandson and ran out to the balcony where the fire exit was . We could only make it to the fourth floor where the fire staircase ended ; there were CARDINAL of us gathered there , while people from the lower floors were jumping out of their windows and balconies , which I could see . My neighbours , the men , found some ropes and began taking us down , the children first and then the women . It took me a while to come to my senses after the descent . My neighbour , [ the first applicant ] , was crying and asking about her husband and child . But nobody knew what had become of them and the rest of us were also looking for our relatives . After these events we were in a state of shock for a long time , but no one paid any attention to us . The authorities still do not admit that they were not actually in control of the situation and that nothing had been done to save us from the disaster . They had taken no measures before the mudslide , or while it continued from DATE , basically leaving us to our own devices . In our apartment block alone CARDINAL people were killed and many were injured and remained disabled for life ; it is a pity , especially about the children . Nobody knows how many people in fact died , in particular on TIME , as these facts have been vigorously concealed . We did not bring proceedings with a view to punishing those who were really responsible for everything we had had to endure , because we were sure that the court would never give a just ruling as these people occupy very high posts . ”

Statement by PERSON , father of the first and the second applicants :

“ ... DATE a mudslide descends through the bed of LOC . Back in DATE there existed a special organisation to monitor the river estuary , and an alarm outside the factory would be activated when the [ lookouts ] warned the duty officer of danger . In DATE all that was [ abandoned ] . ... On TIME ] my wife and I were at home . We went to bed at TIME , but I was soon woken up by my wife 's cries . I went out to the balcony but could not see anything because the electricity pylons had been taken down by the flow of mud . I lit a torch and saw the mud running through the entrance to our apartment block ... I saw a passenger car being carried along by the wave of mud ... The staircase had collapsed and the house was falling apart . ... we did not know what to do . I picked up the phone . It was still working , so I dialled the police and reported what was happening to us , and they told us to “ wait , help will come ” .

We sat there until TIME , until my son - in - law PERSON , his friends and our neighbours came [ to help ] us ...

Just before the mudslide [ of DATE ] we sent a collective petition to the Head of ORG , PERSON . NORP , asking for the waterway to be cleared . Having received no reply to our petition , we went to meet him for public consultations . At our meeting he said that he had no money to clear the waterway , as no funds had been allocated , so there was nothing he could do for us . We suggested writing a letter to the government requesting the funds , but he began shouting at us that the government had enough work to deal with without us . We then demanded that a commission be set up to find out whether it was true that no money had been allocated for clearing the mud conveying channel , after which FAC . NORP called the police and they escorted us – respectable people , men with grey hair – out of his office ...

Then the mudslide occurred , and if only timely measures had been taken many victims could have been spared and there would not have been destruction on such a scale . Many of the casualties could have been avoided . Could they not have told people TIME before the mudslide what they had known for DATE before the tragedy ? ...

... I lost my flat ; my children were left without their flats , property , and most importantly my son - in - law was killed , my grandson remained between life and death for a long time , my granddaughter Indira and my grandsons GPE and PERSON are still receiving medical treatment ... ”

Statement by PERSON . who lived at FAC , Tyrnauz :

“ ... The mudslide of DATE was terrible . It took away my home , all my possessions ...

On TIME it occurred I was at home at FAC , already asleep . I woke up because of the rattling noise . I tried to get out of the flat but could not . I was crying out for help ... but nobody could hear me because of the horrible noise of the mudslide . ...

... TIME was the most harrowing of my life ... because of the stress I lost my eyesight and can not see anything now . For this I blame the mudslide and our authorities who did not prepare people psychologically for the possibility of a natural disaster and found themselves unable to provide relief to the victims ... ”

LAW of DATE No . CARDINAL-FZ “ On Protection of Civilians and ORG from Emergencies of Natural and Industrial Origin ” imposes an obligation on the federal , regional and local authorities to promptly and accurately inform civilians through the mass media and other channels of information about any emergency situations and the safety measures taken to protect the population and about any forecasted disasters and means of protection against them . The same ORG provides for the liability of ORG officials in the event of their failure to make this information public .

Section CARDINAL of the same PERSON provides that prevention of emergencies and mitigation , to the maximum extent possible , of damage and losses constitutes one of fundamental principles of emergency relief and requires that all preventive measures be carried out in sufficient time in advance .

Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL of LAW of GPE provides that the damage caused to the person or property of a citizen must be compensated in full by the person who caused the damage . Pursuant to LAW , a ORG agency or a ORG official is liable to a citizen for damage caused by their unlawful actions or failure to act . Such damage is to be compensated at the expense of the federal or regional treasury .

ORG . Articles CARDINAL and QUANTITY of LAW provide for compensation for non - pecuniary damage . Article CARDINAL states , in particular , that non - pecuniary damage shall be compensated irrespective of any award for pecuniary damage .


No violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression -{General} (Article 10-1 - Freedom of expression)

David Thór Björgvinsson;George Nicolaou;Ineta Ziemele;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Ledi Bianku;Paul Mahoney;Zdravka Kalaydjieva

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE . She is a journalist by profession . At the relevant time she was employed by ORG ( “ BNR ” ) . She is now working for the NORP section of ORG .

At the material time the applicant was an editor in the ORG ’s “ PERSON ” programme , working as a member of the current affairs team . She hosted a DATE radio show , “ DATE ” ( „ Добър ден ” ) , which was broadcast each DATE TIME

The ORG is a public broadcaster owned by the ORG . At the relevant time its operations were regulated by ORG ( see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) .

On DATE the editorial board of the “ Hristo Botev ” programme met to discuss various issues arising in relation to shows intended to be broadcast during DATE . CARDINAL of the programme ’s editorinchief , Mr TIME , put before the board a proposal for the applicant ’s show due for broadcast on DATE . The proposal was for the show to include a discussion with another journalist employed as an editor by ORG , ORG According to the minutes of the meeting , the board “ reject[ed ] the proposed interlocutor PERSON . [ Mr DATE was ] against and want[ed ] a resolution by the [ board ] . ”

On TIME DATE the applicant hosted her regular DATE show . PERSON and several other journalists took part in it . They discussed a number of journalistic investigations carried out by them . They concerned , among other things , allegations of improper sales of municipal land , alleged corruption by government officials , and the alleged financing of the then ruling political party , ORG , through the unlawful diversion of money from the customs . Several of the items discussed during the show had been prepared by PERSON

DATE , DATE , CARDINAL of the “ PERSON ” programme ’s editorsinchief , PERSON and PERSON , gave written explanations about the incident to the ORG director general . In his explanations PERSON said that the programme ’s editorial board had resolved at its meeting that PERSON should not take part in the show as a host or as an interlocutor , and that that resolution had been noted in TIME and signed by the board ’s members . In her explanation PERSON said that the board had rejected PERSON participation in the show , and that Mr A.M. had noted his disagreement with that and had requested a resolution on that point , which had been taken by means of a vote .

NORP The same day Mr PERSON and PERSON also asked the applicant to explain , in writing and not TIME , why she had disregarded the “ resolution of the [ editorial board ] of DATE ] which did not allow the participation of [ Ms ORG ] ” in the show .

In her reply , addressed to PERSON , the applicant pointed out that Ms ORG had not taken part in the show as an interlocutor , but as one of the authors , together with CARDINAL other journalists . She went on to specify that Ms ORG ’s participation had altogether lasted CARDINAL .

DATE the ORG management board met to consider “ technical discipline ” during the show on DATE . It found that by allowing PERSON to in effect host the show the applicant had breached the editorial board ’s resolution and the programme ’s DATE schedule . It further found that PERSON had taken part in the show in disregard of the board ’s resolution , that Mr E.I. , the show ’s editor , had also breached the board ’s resolution and the DATE schedule , and that the editorsinchief , Mr TIME , Mr PERSON and PERSON , had failed to exercise sufficient control over the preparation and the running of the show . The board resolved to impose disciplinary punishments on all them , to be determined in line with their varying degrees of fault . It entrusted the execution of its resolution to the ORG director general .

On DATE the ORG director general , relying on Article CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) , ( CARDINAL ) and ( CARDINAL ) , Article CARDINAL ) , Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) and LAW ( see paragraph DATE below ) , dismissed the applicant on disciplinary grounds . The reasons given were that she had allowed PERSON to host the show in her stead , thus breaching the technical rules on the operation of radio programmes , that she had breached the programme coordination rules , that she had disregarded the editorial board ’s resolution rejecting the proposal for PERSON to take part in the show , and that she had breached Rule QUANTITY of the “ PERSON ” programme and point CARDINAL of order no . CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE of the programme ’s director ( see paragraphs DATE and CARDINAL below ) .

The ORG director general also dismissed PERSON and Mr E.I. , giving similar reasons .

On DATE , during the regular DATE meeting of the “ PERSON ” programme ’s editorial board , Mr TIME ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) tendered his resignation , citing , among other things , the lack of clear rules on who could and who could not host radio shows .

Those events sparked a vigorous reaction in the media community and prompted the publication of several articles deploring what the journalists saw as an unjustified interference with their colleagues’ freedom of expression . In a declaration of CARDINAL DATE ORG protested against the dismissals of the applicant , PERSON and Mr E.I. , saying that they were an example of “ the appetite of forces alien to the journalist profession to gag it ” .

ORG ( “ the ORG ” ) , the chief media regulatory body in GPE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , discussed the above events at a meeting on DATE .

It observed that the dismissal orders did not cite any provisions of ORG DATE , and that there was therefore no scope for the ORG to assess whether the radio show had complied with those provisions . On the face of it , there existed a purely employment dispute , which could be examined only by a court . However , the ORG was competent to verify whether the dismissals were consistent with the DATE LAW and the freedom of expression which it guaranteed .

In the ORG ’s view , the main safeguard against encroachments on freedom of expression in the national electronic media was the existence of internal regulations and their proper implementation . The ORG noted that at CARDINAL of its previous meetings it had discussed draft regulations drawn up by the ORG management board , and had noted that they did not envisage any mechanism governing the workings of the ORG collective bodies and the LOC rights and obligations . The ORG ’s recommendation for those matters to be addressed had not been heeded . The lack of precise regulations was somewhat offset by the existence of rules governing the workings of individual BNR programmes . However , the rules of the “ PERSON ” programme did not say on which legal provision they were based and predated the BNR regulations on which they were supposed to be based . Those rules did not define clearly the competencies of the journalists in their various professional capacities as authors , hosts , editors , reporters and so on . Neither the BNR regulations nor the individual ORG rules dealt with the powers of collective bodies such as management and editorial boards . The applicant ’s and the CARDINAL other ORG dismissals showed that there existed confusion between administrative and professional bodies , which made it possible to have administrative interference in the content of radio shows . Rule CARDINAL of the “ PERSON ” programme ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , mentioned in the dismissal orders , was an example of that , because it said that changes in a show ’s content could be made solely by written order of the respective manager . The editorial board ’s resolution of CARDINAL DATE as to who could and who could not be an interlocutor in the show was also an example of that .

In conclusion , the ORG said that it did not accept the supplanting of the preordained rules for the operation of the ORG by administrative actions and sanctions . However , that did not mean that the ORG accepted the attempts of some journalists to place themselves above the established principles of work in the national media .

On DATE the applicant brought a civil claim against the ORG , seeking annulment of the order for her disciplinary dismissal , reinstatement and lost wages . She argued , among other things , that her dismissal in connection with the show on DATE and the statements which ORG had made during the show had been in breach of LAW , section CARDINAL of ORG CARDINAL ( see DATE and DATE below ) and LAW .

The Sofia District Court ( GPE районен съд ) held hearings in the case on DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE , and DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE . It heard a number of witnesses , admitted in evidence various documents , and obtained several expert reports .

On DATE the GPE ORG set the applicant ’s dismissal aside and partly allowed her claim for lost wages , awarding her MONEY , plus interest , but refused her claim for reinstatement . It found that the rules of disciplinary procedure had been breached in that the applicant had not been properly invited to explain her actions before a competent disciplinary authority . It went on to say that the order for the applicant ’s dismissal did not point to the specific disciplinary offences committed by her , save for the breach of the editorial board ’s resolution of CARDINAL DATE . However , TIME of the board ’s meeting showed that it was far from clear whether any resolution had been adopted with regard to the participation of PERSON in the show . Lastly , the court found that , despite having the duty to do so under LAW ( see paragraph DATE below ) , the ORG had failed to consider whether the severity of the punishment corresponded to the gravity of the applicant ’s offence . The order for the applicant ’s dismissal was therefore unlawful and had to be set aside . She was accordingly entitled to lost wages , plus interest . However , she could not be reinstated because the term of her employment contract had come to an end on DATE , while the judicial proceedings were pending .

On DATE the applicant appealed against the refusal of her claim for reinstatement and the partial refusal of her claim for lost wages . On DATE the ORG also appealed , and on DATE it rectified its appeal pursuant to instructions by the court . ORG ( GPE градски съд ) held QUANTITY hearings . The first took place on DATE . The second , initially listed for DATE , was adjourned because on that date the court ’s building was sealed off by the police due to a bomb threat , and took place on DATE .

On DATE the ORG quashed the lower court ’s judgment and refused the applicant ’s claims . It found that the applicant had been duly asked for an explanation by a competent disciplinary authority – her line manager – prior to the imposition of her punishment . The court went on to say that the order for the applicant ’s dismissal had been issued in line with the applicable requirements , had indicated the offender , the offence , the punishment , and the legal provisions on which it had been based . Moreover , the applicant had in fact committed the disciplinary offence alleged against her . By allowing PERSON to in fact host her show for CARDINAL the applicant had not only breached employment discipline but had also grossly violated basic rules of her work , such as compliance with the resolutions of the editorial board . By trying to present PERSON as a “ coauthor ” instead of an “ interlocutor ” , she had tried to circumvent the editorial board ’s resolution . Under Rule CARDINAL of the “ PERSON ” programme ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , any changes in the content or in the organisation of shows that had already been approved could be made only by written decision of the appropriate manager . Therefore , after the editorial board had approved the show on DATE , the applicant should have informed it about the intended participation of PERSON as a coauthor . By failing to do so , she had grossly breached the rules of the “ PERSON ” programme and had accordingly correctly been given the harshest disciplinary punishment DATE dismissal .

On DATE the applicant appealed on points of law . She raised several points , the bulk of which concerned alleged breaches of the rules of disciplinary procedure . She also asserted , based on a number of arguments concerning the lawfulness of the editorial board ’s decision of CARDINAL DATE and the lawfulness of the order for her dismissal , that she had not committed a disciplinary offence . CARDINAL of those arguments was framed as follows :

“ Disregarding ... [ my ] arguments concerning the lack of duly adopted rules governing the workings of the ‘ Hristo Botev’ programme at the time of [ my ] dismissal , as well as the arguments concerning the unlawfulness of point CARDINAL of those Rules [ see paragraph CARDINAL below ] on account of its being contrary to section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) and ( CARDINAL ) of ORG [ DATE ] , LAW [ see paragraph CARDINAL below ] and LAW ] , the [ lower ] court came to the erroneous conclusion that [ I ] had broken point CARDINAL of the Rules and that [ my ] punishment had therefore been lawful . ”

After hearing the appeal on DATE , in a judgment of DATE ( реш. № CARDINAL от CARDINAL март DATE г. по гр. д. № DATE г. , ORG , ORG г. о. ) ORG ( NORP касационен съд ) upheld the lower court ’s judgment . In its view , that court ’s ruling that the order for the applicant ’s dismissal had been lawful corresponded to the evidence , which showed that the order had been issued by a competent disciplinary authority in line with the applicable rules of procedure and had been duly reasoned . The court further found that the decision to dismiss the applicant had been correct . By knowingly failing to comply with the decision that PERSON should not take part in her show , the applicant had breached employment discipline within the meaning of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . It was true that the ORG ’s internal rules had not envisaged an editorial board , but it could not be overlooked that the meeting on DATE had been attended by PERSON and PERSON , both of whom had been entrusted by the directors general of the BNR and the “ PERSON ” programme with managerial functions . Mr PERSON and PERSON had indicated that they did not agree with PERSON intended participation in the applicant ’s show . Although the applicant had been aware of that , she had allowed PERSON to take part in her show , thus breaching employment discipline within the meaning of LAW ( CARDINAL ) of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . The court went on to say that the applicant should have also been aware of the orders of the directors general of the BNR and of the “ PERSON ” programme , which had been public and available upon request . Lastly , the court held that the applicant ’s dismissal had not been contrary to LAW , because that Article allowed the licensing of broadcasting enterprises . Therefore , neither its letter nor its spirit proscribed the existence of disagreements between those entrusted with the task of framing a radio ’s programme and those in charge of current and operative issues . The same went for LAW and section CARDINAL of ORG CARDINAL ( see DATE and DATE below ) .

Ms GPE and Mr ORG , who were disciplinarily dismissed together with the applicant ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , also challenged their dismissals in court . It appears that ORG dismissal was eventually set aside in a judgment which became final on DATE , and that Mr ORG ’s dismissal was also eventually set aside .

The relevant provisions of the DATE LAW read as follows :

“ CARDINAL . Everyone is entitled to express an opinion or to publicise it through words , written or oral , sound , or image , or in any other way .

NORP This right shall not be used to the detriment of the rights and reputation of others , or for the incitement of a forcible change of the constitutionally established order , the perpetration of a crime , or the incitement of enmity or violence against anyone . ”

“ The press and the other mass media shall be free and not subject to censorship . ”

“ Everyone has the right to seek , receive and impart information . The exercise of that right may not be directed against the rights and the good name of other citizens , nor against national security , public order , public health or morals . ”

At the relevant time the operations of the ORG were governed by ORG DATE . In DATE it was superseded by ORG DATE , which is still in force .

Section CARDINAL of the DATE Act provided that the creation and the broadcasting of radio programmes had to comply with , among others , the principles of freedom of expression and pluralism in the expression of opinion .

Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) provided that the ORG was a public organisation engaging in radio activities of national importance . It broadcast CARDINAL international and CARDINAL national programmes ( section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) ) . It was a legal person based in GPE ( section PERSON ) ) , and an independent organisation ; other bodies and authorities could not interfere with its activities except where provided for by law ( section CARDINAL ) . Its governing bodies were the management board , the programme board and the director general ( section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) ) .

NORP The editorial rights and duties of journalists employed by the BNR were to be governed by rules adopted by the ORG management board , following consultation with the ORG trade unions ( section MONEY ) ) . Journalists’ rights could not be restricted on the basis of their political affiliations ( section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) ) .

The ORG was an independent body responsible for protecting freedom of expression , the independence of radio and television operators and the interests of the audience ( sections CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the CARDINAL Act ) . It was entrusted with , among other things , supervising the activities of radio and television broadcasters ( section CARDINAL ) ) , and with electing and dismissing the ORG director general ( section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) ) .

Rule CARDINAL of the ORG “ PERSON ” programme , as in force at the relevant time , provided that any changes in the content , the organisation or the technology of a radio show could be effected only by order of the respective manager .

Point CARDINAL of order no . CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE of the director of “ PERSON ” provided that the hosts of live radio shows had to appear not less than TIME in advance with a scenario prepared in advance and indicating the time bands and the connection of outside sources ( such as mobile radio stations and telephones ) . They also had to acquaint the sound editor with the show ’s scenario and organisation and give the editor timely and specific instructions for any necessary changes .

The disciplinary punishment of employees is regulated by Articles CARDINAL of the Labour Code CARDINAL ; Articles CARDINAL govern the applicable procedure . By Article CARDINAL , a failure to comply with one ’s employment duties amounts to a breach of employment discipline . Article CARDINAL sets out a nonexhaustive list of such breaches , which may consist in a failure to comply with technical or technological rules ( point CARDINAL ) , a failure to comply with a lawful order of CARDINAL ’s employer ( point CARDINAL ) , or a failure to comply with other duties stemming from statutes , statutory instruments , internal regulations or collective labour agreements , or with duties laid down upon hiring ( point CARDINAL ) . Article CARDINAL provides that the disciplinary punishments available are a reprimand , a dismissal warning and dismissal . In choosing which of those punishments to impose , the employer must take into account the gravity of the breach , the circumstances in which it was made , and the employee ’s conduct ( Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL ) . Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) , as in force at the relevant time ( currently Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) ) , provided that an employee could be disciplinarily dismissed for serious breaches of employment discipline . Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) , as in force at the relevant time , provided that in case of disciplinary dismissal an employer was to terminate the employment without notice .


The applicant , PERSON , is a NORP national , who was born in DATE and , at the time of lodging the application , was detained in GPE police station . He was represented before the Court by PERSON , a solicitor practising in GPE .

The applicant is an ethnic NORP from GPE , brought up in Vinkovci in the region of Eastern Slavonia which was at the time in GPE .

In DATE , the applicant was beaten up by NORP police because of his NORP origin and was unable to walk for DATE .

In DATE , the applicant joined ORG set up by NORP when it became clear that war was imminent .

On DATE , GPE declared independence . Hostilities followed with GPE and the NORP minority living in GPE . In DATE , ORG , which included PERSON , were set up in GPE . After the conflicts escalated , the applicant joined a special forces unit called “ the ORG ” where he became commander of a unit with the rank of lieutenant . He participated in the heaviest battles of the war in GPE and GPE .

In DATE , the applicant married . He claims that his wife was killed by NORP on DATE .

In DATE , ORG entered the region of LOC where the applicant was based . In DATE , GPE and GPE signed ORG which sanctioned the setting up of an interim ORG in LOC before the transfer of the region to GPE on DATE .

On DATE , the applicant moved to GPE as he feared imprisonment by the NORP authorities because of his involvement with the ORG .

In DATE , the applicant claims that his brother - in - law , PERSON , died following a beating by PERSON . The applicant ’s sister went to live in GPE .

On DATE , the applicant left GPE as he had no legal status or rights there . He claimed asylum in GPE but this was refused .

On DATE , the applicant entered GPE illegally and applied for asylum on DATE .

By letter dated DATE , the Secretary of ORG rejected his claim on the basis that there was no longer any real risk in the applicant returning to GPE . He referred to the amnesty introduced in DATE for those who had participated in the DATE conflict and the recognition of the interests of ethnic NORP introduced in changes to LAW .

On DATE , the Adjudicator heard , and granted , the applicant ’s appeal . She accepted that the applicant had never been involved in war crimes but that he was reasonably likely to be arrested on such charges if returned to GPE , particularly due to his position as commander of CARDINAL of the special units . There was a reasonable likelihood that he would face lengthy incarceration without receiving a fair trial on political motives . She also found that the level of discrimination that he would face as an ethnic NORP on a general level would cumulatively amount to persecution , which was either state - sponsored or in respect of which there was an insufficiency of protection by the ORG . The Secretary of ORG appealed to ORG .

While the appeal was pending , ORG issued its decision in a case concerning claims of ethnic NORP who claimed that the general situation in GPE placed them at risk of persecution and severe discrimination . In its decision , ORG and others [ ORG ] DATE , issued on DATE , it concluded that “ unless the situation deteriorates to a significant extent or special circumstances can be shown in an individual case , no ethnic NORP should be able to establish a claim under either Convention ” .

On DATE , ORG heard the applicant ’s appeal . In its decision of DATE , it relied on its findings in ORG about the general situation in GPE and found that the applicant ’s rank as a special unit officer , the death of his wife in DATE and his brother - in - law some time later did not amount to special circumstances .

ORG refused leave to appeal to the applicants in the ORG case on DATE .

In its decision issued on DATE in Secretary for ORG and GPE , ORG quashed the decision of the Adjudicator who had upheld the appeals against the refusal of asylum to ethnic NORP on the ground that they would face persecution in GPE . It also found that the applicants were not at risk of treatment contrary to Articles CARDINAL , CARDINAL or DATE . Materials before it included reports from ORG , ORG , ORG , ORG , ORG , ORG , ORG , ORG and statements of CARDINAL experts ( PERSON , PERSON and PERSON ) .

“ ... we turn to our assessment of the situation . The claimants recognise that unfair war crimes trials are of less significance in these cases ( with the exception of GPE ) and that there is no sufficient evidence to suggest that in general there is a real risk that returning NORP will face unfair war crimes trials . There must be some special factor to bring that concern into play . ... The essential complaints common to all are : -

Discriminatory loss of homes and livelihood .

Discriminatory denial of social and economic rights in the areas to which return is envisaged . No special efforts are being made to redress the wrongs suffered and help return to society .

Discriminatory denial of judicial assistance in reclaiming homes occupied by NORP .

Loss of stability and security because of the prospect of a marginalised and ostracised existence in a largely ethnically cleansed country . Only a small fraction of NORP who used to live in GPE now remain and the majority are the elderly who have returned to die in their homeland . ... ”

It proceeded to examine the situation in GPE , noting that there had been considerable improvements since the end of the NORP regime in DATE , with the Government making real efforts to overcome the legacy of hatred and taking positive steps to remove the obstacles to the return of refugees and discrimination against ethnic minorities . It noted that concerns had remained that the good intentions of the central government were being frustrated by local officials and by incompetence of , or unwillingness to apply the laws in favour of NORP by , the judiciary . By DATE , in the OSCE status report , it was found that property repossession remained at the core of the return process . An action plan had been drawn up by the Government to return CARDINAL properties by DATE and steps were being taken to address the tenancy problems . The tribunal reviewed other sources and noted that real difficulties and discrimination undoubtedly faced returning NORP but that the Government was undoubtedly taking steps to improve the situation , for example undertaking to assist returnees in re - integration by providing basic assistance depending on DATE income for DATE . It noted that the ORG directly supported the Government ’s return programme and was satisfied that it would not be encouraging returns if persuaded that there would be persecution , or treatment , contrary to LAW .

It noted as regarded war crimes prosecutions :

“ War crimes prosecutions we can deal with relatively briefly having regard to the concession that unless there is a particular reason to believe an individual will be prosecuted or ( as in the case of PERSON ) has been prosecuted , they can not be relied on as a barrier to return . ... The PERSON and ORG closely monitor prosecutions and in particular if a returnee is arrested , the ORG will ‘ very closely and thoroughly ORG the situation . It notes that ‘ we found the trials have been very fair and correct in their ORG . The numbers do not suggest there are widespread prosecutions let alone an implementation of the lists to which we have been referred ... In DATE , we find OSCE noting:–

‘ ... a positive trend in ... decisions by County Prosecutors and judges to reject war crimes and genocide charges against groups of NORP due to the lack of evidence of individual crimes.’

Despite this , there remain some problems where trials in absentia have been held . PERSON is an example , he having been sentenced to DATE imprisonment on the basis of charges which ... can not properly be said to amount to conduct which can be reasonably regarded as constituting a war crime . He manned a barricade and was ... offensive and threatening in a racist manner to NORP . An accelerated procedure has been put into effect to ensure a reconsideration and if necessary retrial of anyone convicted in absentia . But there may be a remand in custody of usually CARDINAL or DATE while the matter is reconsidered . If it is clear that the case is too weak ... , release may be effected after DATE ... we find it impossible to say that there would be persecution or a breach of human rights if the question whether there should be a re - trial is investigated properly even if there may be a relatively short period of remand in custody while that is being done .

The tribunal concluded :

“ ... the material before us does not persuade us on the low standard required that there is a real risk that in general NORP if returned to GPE will suffer persecution or a breach of any LAW . We recognise that the situation is far from pleasant and the deprivation and misery that will be faced . That stems from the war and the destruction caused by it . But that by itself can not mean that surrogate protection is needed or that there will be a breach of human rights . We regard the steps taken by the NORP government , despite difficulties at local level and the obstacles that still undoubtedly exist , as sufficient to provide the necessary protection . ... Even though there is discrimination coupled with the difficulties particularly of housing , employment and convalidation to which we have referred , we are satisfied that the threshold of Article CARDINAL , in particular of degrading treatment , has not been crossed . Equally , although we recognise that the Article CARDINAL threshold is lower , we are not persuaded that it has been crossed . But even if it has , we are satisfied that removal is justified by proper control of immigration .

... unless the situation deteriorates to a significant extent or special circumstances can be shown in an individual case , no ethnic NORP should be able to establish a claim under either Convention . ”

In Resolution CARDINAL ( DATE ) on the Honouring of obligations and commitments by GPE , ORG on DATE adopted its recommendation closing the monitoring procedure concerning GPE . It welcomed the significant progress that GPE had made towards its commitments and obligations as a member state since its accession to ORG on DATE and in particular , since the parliamentary and presidential elections held at DATE .

A post - monitoring dialogue with the NORP authorities has continued through ORG .

Arrests of returnees on war crimes : DATE ( CARDINAL ) ; DATE ( CARDINAL ) ; DATE ( CARDINAL ) ; DATE ( CARDINAL ) .

Suspects released : DATE ( CARDINAL ) ; DATE ( CARDINAL ) ; DATE ( CARDINAL ) ; DATE ( CARDINAL ) .

Conviction on war crimes : DATE ( CARDINAL ) ; DATE ( CARDINAL ) ; DATE ( CARDINAL ) ; DATE ( CARDINAL ) .

“ The Government generally respected the human rights of its citizens ; however , although there were some improvements , serious problems remained . There were instances of arbitrary arrest and lengthy pre - trial detention . The ORG continued to arrest and charge persons for war crimes committed during the DATE conflicts in GPE and GPE . Domestic courts continued to adjudicate war crimes cases , taking steps to depoliticize cases against ethnic NORP and opening or reopening investigations of members of NORP military forces . However , ethnic NORP remained incarcerated after being convicted in non - transparent politicized trials in DATE . Reforms in the courts and ORG offices resulted in some improvements in the judiciary ; however , the courts convicted persons in mass trials and in absentia , particularly in LOC . The court continued to be subject to some political influence and suffered from bureaucratic inefficiency , insufficient funding and a severe backlog of cases . At times the Government infringed on privacy rights ; restitution of property to refugees ( mostly ethnic NORP ) returning to the country remained slow and problematic .

... Ethnic minorities , particularly NORP and GPE , faced serious discrimination , including occasional violence . While some progress was made , ethnic tensions in the war - affected areas remained high , and abuses , including ethnically motivated harassment and assaults continued to occur ...

a. Arbitrary or unlawful deprivation of life

There were no reports of arbitrary or unlawful deprivation of life by the ORG or its agents . ...

Domestic courts continued to adjudicate cases arising from the DATE conflicts in GPE and GPE . Courts opened and reopened several war crimes cases involving NORP forces , but despite their increased number , questions remained about the criminal justice system ’s ability to conduct fair and transparent trials in these complex and emotionally charged cases . Observers blamed inadequate training , shortcomings in the legal code , chronic witness intimidation , and an often hostile local public as hampering the war crimes process . ...

During DATE , the Government took some steps to depoliticize cases against ethnic NORP . The LOC reported that at the DATE ’s end it was monitoring CARDINAL ongoing war crimes cases against ethnic NORP . In DATE ORG sentenced PERSON , an ethnic NORP accused of war crimes against civilians in PERSON in DATE , to DATE in prison . In a previous in absentia trial she had been given a maximum DATE sentence . The indictment included participation in the murder of CARDINAL civilians . International monitors considered it a fair trial .

Courts continued the practice of convicting persons in mass trials . For example , in DATE mass trials in the ‘ Tompojevci group’ case resulted in absentia convictions on war crimes charges for CARDINAL defendants , and in DATE ORG confirmed CARDINAL of these convictions . ...

d. Arbitrary Arrest , Detention or Exile

The LAW prohibits arbitrary arrest and detention ; however , the Government did not always respect this right in practice . ...

The Government granted amnesty under the DATE LAW ( which amnestied acts of rebellion by ethnic NORP ) to several individuals during the law , particularly returning ethnic NORP refugees . In DATE ORG directed local prosecutors to review old war crimes cases to determine whether sufficient evidence existed to proceed with the prosecution . Arrest of ethnic NORP for war crimes continued but decreased throughout DATE . During DATE , CARDINAL NORP and CARDINAL NORP were arrested on war crimes charges and CARDINAL NORP and CARDINAL NORP were released . In some cases of arrest on war crimes charges , the subject was released DATE after charges were dropped ; however , in other cases , the persons were detained for long periods . The inability of judges to issue written verdicts was the leading cause of detention beyond the legal DATE limit . ... Over DATE , several ethnic NORP defendants convicted in absentia or at nontransparent trials continued to be held in detention for extended periods while their appeals progressed slowly through the overburdened judicial system . ...

Observers reported a decline in the practice of police summoning ethnic NORP to police stations for ‘ voluntary informative GPE which amounted to brief , warrantless detentions intended to harass NORP citizens .

e. Denial of Fair Public Trial

Although the LAW provided for the right to a fair trial and a variety of due process rights in the courts , at times citizens were denied these rights . Excessive delays , particularly in civil trials , remained a problem . Courts tried and convicted persons in absentia for war crimes . Courts convicted persons in mass trials and in trials with weak supporting evidence , particularly in LOC . In DATE , mass trials in the ‘ Tompojevci group’ case resulted in the in absentia convictions of CARDINAL ethnic NORP ... In DATE ORG convicted and sentenced in absentia CARDINAL NORP in the ‘ Branjina’ case . In DATE and DATE the ORG continued in absentia trials against CARDINAL NORP in the ‘ ORG I’ and against CARDINAL NORP in a retrial in the ‘ GPE case .

Activities that should have qualified for amnesty under LAW ... were classified mistakenly and prosecuted as common crimes or war crimes , although this practice declined and was under review by ORG . For those who had previously exhausted their appeal procedures , there was no mechanism to review their cases .

Nevertheless , the courts continued to adjudicate war crimes cases arising from the DATE conflicts in GPE and GPE , initiated investigations into several allegations involving NORP forces and took steps to depoliticize cases against ethnic NORP . For example , the chief ORG initiated a case - by - case review of war crimes cases and sought to limit sharply the use of in absentia proceedings . County prosecutors were under instructions not to initiate criminal proceedings or in absentia proceedings without consultation with ORG . ...

At DATE , CARDINAL individuals remained incarcerated on war crimes or related charges based on politicized or nontransparent trials held under the previous regime . ...

Section CARDINAL . ORG , Sex , ORG

ORG

Ethnic minorities enjoy the same constitutional protections as other self - identified ethnic and religious groups ; however , in practice a pattern of open and sometimes severe discrimination continued against ethnic NORP in several areas , including in the administration of justice , employment , housing and freedom of movement . Ethnic NORP in war - affected regions continued to be subject to harassment , intimidation , and occasional violence . In DATE after extensive discussion with minority groups and political parties , ORG passed LAW ORG with broad political support . The ORG generally assessed the new law positively . The law assures minority representation in local government bodies , creates minority councils from the local to national level to advise elected officials on minority rights , promotes the use of minority languages and symbols , and provides for the election of CARDINAL minority representatives in the next ORG . ...

Societal intimidation and violence against NORP continued in war - affected areas ... Weapons left over from the war , including firearms and explosives , were readily available and used in incidents of harassment during DATE . Incidents largely occurred in the areas of return in central GPE . In DATE NORP returnee PERSON was beaten to death in GPE near GPE ; contradictory police reports were published and no arrests were made . Also in DATE grenades were thrown into the yard of a house owned by a NORP family in the LOC area . Police responded appropriately and an investigation was ongoing . In DATE a returnee ’s house in the NORP area and a local school were burned . In PERSON a NORP returnee ’s shop was attacked after the screening of a war - related film in which the perpetrators allegedly recognised the owner as a former soldier . NORP in the village of PERSON reported continuous destruction of crops and LOC by a NORP settler ; despite repeated reports to the local police , no action was taken against the suspect . Ethnic NORP in the area received verbal death threats and CARDINAL family was pelted repeatedly by stones while working their fields ...

An ongoing impediment to the return and reintegration of ethnic NORP refugees is the failure of the Government to recognize or ‘ GPE their legal and administrative documents from the period of the DATE conflict . Implementation of the DATE convalidation law to allow the recognition of documents issued by the rebel NORP para - state was undermined by ORG instructions that seriously limited eligibility . While the law itself did not include a deadline for filing applications , a decree issued by the previous regime established an DATE deadline . Since CARDINAL of the CARDINAL NORP who have returned to GPE returned after DATE , the filing deadline effectively excludes most of those who otherwise would be beneficiaries . Even persons who filed before this deadline experienced arbitrary delays and obstructions . Without the recognition conferred by law , citizens ( almost exclusively ethnic NORP ) remained unable to resolve a wide range of problems including pensions , disability insurance , and ability to establish work experience . Most requests came from elderly persons and related to pension and employment histories from occupied territories during the conflict . ... ”


Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 - Right to free elections-{general} (Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 - Free expression of opinion of people;Stand for election);Non-pecuniary damage - award

Erik Møse;Julia Laffranque;Khanlar Hajiyev;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Peer Lorenzen

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

The applicant stood for the elections to ORG DATE as an independent candidate . He was registered as a candidate by ORG ( “ the ConEC ” ) for the single - member ORG no . CARDINAL .

On DATE the ConEC held a meeting in the applicant ’s absence and decided to apply to ORG with a request to cancel his registration as a candidate owing to reports of his engaging in activities incompatible with the requirements of LAW . In particular , the PERSON noted that it had received a number of written statements from voters claiming that the applicant had promised them money in exchange for their promise to vote for him . The PERSON forwarded a total of CARDINAL such statements to ORG , enclosed with its request for the applicant ’s disqualification .

On DATE the applicant and his lawyer attempted to get a copy of the case file from ORG , but were not allowed to do so .

On DATE ORG examined the case and cancelled the applicant ’s registration as a candidate , in accordance with Articles CARDINAL.CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW . During the hearing , the applicant submitted that he had not been informed of the PERSON meeting of DATE in advance and , therefore , had not been able to attend it . He denied all the accusations against him and asserted that they had been fabricated .

The court heard oral testimonies of CARDINAL out of the QUANTITY persons who had submitted written statements to the ConEC accusing the applicant of attempting to bribe them . CARDINAL of them , PERSON , testified that the applicant had personally offered him money . The remaining CARDINAL testified that they had been approached by some unknown people who had offered them money if they promised to vote for the applicant . When asked in court whether , when offering money , those “ unknown people ” had inquired from them whether they had been registered as voters in the applicant ’s constituency , these witnesses replied in the negative .

ORG considered the above evidence sufficient to find that the applicant had offered money to voters in exchange for their votes in his favour , thus breaching LAW .

After the delivery of ORG judgment , the applicant carried out an enquiry about the identity of the persons who had testified against him . He found out that CARDINAL of the QUANTITY persons who had testified against him in court were not actually registered as voters in his constituency . Moreover , witness PERSON was not registered and did not actually reside at the address which , according to his submissions to the court , was his primary residence located in the applicant ’s constituency . In the applicant ’s opinion , this information gave rise to serious doubts as to the personal integrity of the witnesses and the truthfulness of their statements , because it showed that they had either lied about their personal details or made false accusations against him , as there was no reason or incentive for a candidate in a given constituency to attempt , either by means of legal campaigning or illegal methods , to secure the votes of persons who were registered to vote elsewhere and therefore could not vote for him anyway .

The applicant lodged an appeal with ORG , arguing that ORG judgment was arbitrary , that the evidence used against him had been fabricated , that the persons who had testified against him were false witnesses and that some of those persons were actually relatives of various officials of the local executive authorities . In support of his arguments , he submitted the information described in the above paragraph .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s appeal and upheld ORG

In the meantime , in DATE and DATE the applicant lodged several complaints with the ConEC and ORG ( “ the ORG ” ) concerning various alleged irregularities in the election process in his constituency . However , according to the applicant , he did not receive any replies to his complaints .

The applicant lodged an action with ORG , complaining about the above - mentioned irregularities and asking the court to hold the Chairman of the ORG liable for the alleged failure to respond to his complaints . On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s claims as unsubstantiated . On DATE ORG upheld that judgment .

Article CARDINAL of LAW of DATE provides as follows :

“ CARDINAL . Candidates ... are prohibited from gaining the support of voters in the following ways :

CARDINAL.CARDINAL.CARDINAL . giving money , gifts and other valuable items to voters ( except for badges , stickers , posters and other campaign materials having nominal value ) , except for the purposes of organisational work ;

CARDINAL.CARDINAL.CARDINAL . NORP giving or promising rewards based on the voting results to voters who were involved in organisational work ;

selling goods on privileged terms or providing goods free of charge ( except for printed material ) ;

CARDINAL.CARDINAL.CARDINAL . providing services free of charge or on privileged terms ;

CARDINAL.CARDINAL.CARDINAL . influencing the voters during the pre - election campaign by promising them securities , money or other material benefits , or providing services that are contrary to the law . ”

According to Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW , the relevant electoral commission may request a court to cancel the registration of a candidate who engages in activities prohibited by LAW .

Complaints concerning decisions of electoral commissions must be examined by the courts within DATE ( unless the Electoral Code provides for a shorter period ) . The period for lodging an appeal against a court decision is also DATE ( Article CARDINAL ) .

LAW sets out rules for the examination of applications concerning the protection of electoral rights ( or the right to participate in a referendum ) . According to LAW , such applications must be submitted directly to the appellate courts in accordance with the procedure established by LAW .

Applications concerning the protection of electoral ( referendum ) rights must be examined within DATE of receipt of the application , except for applications submitted on DATE or the day after DATE , which must be examined immediately ( Article CARDINAL ) . The court must hear the case in the presence of the applicant , a representative of the relevant electoral commission and any other interested parties . Failure by any of these parties to attend the hearing after due notification does not preclude the court from examining and deciding the case ( Article CARDINAL ) .

The appellate court ’s decision can be appealed against to the higher court ( the court of cassation ) within DATE . This appeal must be examined within DATE , or immediately if submitted on DATE or DATE . The decision of the court of cassation is final ( Article CARDINAL ) .