Violation of Art. 2;Violation of Art. 3;No violation of Art. 3;Violation of Art. 5;Violation of Art. 13

The applicants were born in DATE respectively and live in the village of GPE , GPE .

The facts of the case as submitted by the parties are summarised in section A below ( paragraphs CARDINAL - DATE ) . A description of documents submitted by the Government is contained in section B below ( paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL ) .

The first CARDINAL applicants are a married couple . They have CARDINAL children , CARDINAL of whom – PERSON , born in DATE , and PERSON , born in DATE – lived together with their parents in a household comprising QUANTITY houses in GPE . The third applicant was married to PERSON .

On DATE a NORP armoured personnel carrier ( ORG ) was attacked and blown up in the vicinity of PERSON and the military responded with a “ sweeping ” operation in the village .

During this operation an armed man , who was being pursued by soldiers , entered the applicants ' house and hid in one of the rooms . According to the Government , the man was PERSON , a member of an illegal armed group . The servicemen strafed the house , using machine - guns and grenade - launchers . CARDINAL daughters and a grandson of the first CARDINAL applicants , the second applicant , the third applicant , PERSON and PERSON were inside the house at the time . A DATE grandson of the first CARDINAL applicants was in a car parked in the courtyard .

A. was killed when the military threw CARDINAL grenades into the house and shelled it from the ORG . The servicemen then wrapped the corpse in a blanket and put it into PERSON car , a white GPE . They then searched the house . PERSON , who had been feeling ill that day and was lying in bed , was blindfolded and ordered to step out of the house and lie down .

Major PERSON , an officer in command , seized the identity papers , car documents and car key belonging to PERSON , who was then forced into the car . PERSON was put into an ORG which had no visible vehicle number . They were both taken away .

The first applicant later found out that the ORG number was CARDINAL and belonged to ORG of ORG of GPE ( ORG разведывательное управление PERSON ) .

Following their detention , PERSON and PERSON were brought to a temporary operational headquarters of the military commander 's office situated near GPE . According to the first applicant , who referred to unnamed witness statements , PERSON was beaten there by federal officers .

Thereafter the PERSON brothers were brought to ORG of the ORG ( временный ОВД Урус-Мартановского района , “ the VOVD ” ) and questioned . The first applicant submitted , with reference to the witnesses ' accounts , that after the interrogation her sons and CARDINAL other persons apprehended in GPE DATE had again been brought to the temporary operational headquarters . At TIME the military released the other QUANTITY persons , but not PERSON and PERSON , of whom there was no further news .

DATE federal troops sealed off the village of PERSON . On DATE , after restrictions were lifted , the first applicant went to ORG and notified the head of the district administration ( глава администрации ) of the detention of her sons .

She then went to the district military commander 's office ( районная военная комендатура ) where she noticed her elder son 's car in the courtyard . The first applicant applied to military commander PERSON with enquiries about her sons and the car . The military commander told the first applicant that he had no information concerning PERSON and PERSON and advised her to come back in DATE . As regards the car , PERSON stated that it was “ unclean ” .

On DATE first applicant also applied to the ORG prosecutor 's office ( прокуратура Урус-Мартановского района ) , claiming that her sons had been unlawfully detained .

On DATE the first applicant went to the military commander 's office again . PERSON told her that he had not participated in the “ sweeping ” operation on DATE and had no information about the whereabouts of her sons . Later , the military commander stated that the PERSON brothers had been taken to the main federal military base in GPE . As to the car , PERSON said that a database check had confirmed that it was “ clean ” and that the first applicant had to produce a power of attorney to recover the vehicle . The first applicant stated that she did not have this paper , as all the documents had been in the seized car , and the military commander refused to return the vehicle . In the first applicant 's submission , the car was returned only on DATE , after her son - in - law had brought a copy of the power of attorney from a vendor from ORG .

During DATE and DATE the first applicant repeatedly applied to the military commander 's office , the PERSON and prosecutors at various levels in connection with her sons ' disappearance . She received hardly any substantive information from official bodies in reply to her enquiries . The responses were mainly formal ones stating that her requests had been forwarded to different prosecutor 's offices .

In a letter of DATE an acting prosecutor of ORG informed the first applicant that PERSON and PERSON were not detained in the PERSON , that they were not listed in the PERSON registration papers , and that no criminal proceedings had ever been brought against them . The letter further stated that information requests sent to military units had remained unanswered , and that the head of ORG had been instructed to commence a criminal investigation into the disappearance of the PERSON brothers .

According to the applicants , on DATE the NORP TV channel ORG showed PERSON body as that of a rebel fighter killed during the “ sweeping ” operation in PERSON on DATE . The applicants did not submit a copy of that recording .

NORP In DATE a serviceman of a military unit stationed in the village of ORG produced a plan of a burial site near the cemetery of PERSON , where , he claimed , PERSON and PERSON had been buried . According to the applicants , they had to pay for the indication of the site .

On DATE the applicants notified the head of the administration of PERSON , ORG , the military commander 's office and the district administration of ORG ( администрация Урус-Мартановского района ) that they were going to excavate the grave .

On DATE second applicant exhumed the grave in the presence of a police officer and officials from the local administration and found CARDINAL corpses , all of which showed signs of having met a violent death . He identified his sons ' bodies by fragments of the remaining teeth . The other CARDINAL bodies were identified as that of the man killed in the applicants ' house on DATE and that of a resident of PERSON , who had been detained along with the PERSON brothers . It appears that the remains were examined by officials of the administration of PERSON , who issued a certificate in this respect .

NORP The police officer undertook no investigative actions at the excavation site . According to the Government , the applicants refused to submit the bodies for an autopsy on account of their national and religious traditions . The applicants buried the remains shortly afterwards , without taking photographs or inviting a medical doctor to attend before the burial .

On DATE ORG certified the death of PERSON , upon the first applicant 's request . The court heard evidence from CARDINAL witnesses , who confirmed the first applicant 's submissions about the detention of her son on DATE , the discovery of his body and his burial on DATE at the GPE cemetery . The court certified that PERSON death had occurred on CARDINAL DATE in the village of LOC . It does not appear that a court certification of death was made in respect of PERSON .

On DATE and DATE respectively the registry office of ORG issued death certificates for PERSON , born in DATE , and PERSON , born in DATE . The date and the place of death were recorded DATE , PERSON .

On DATE a medical certificate of death was issued for PERSON . Referring to the certificate of the administration of PERSON and a certificate of the ORG prosecutor 's office , the medical certificate stated that PERSON death had been caused by multiple stab wounds and severe injuries . The date and the place of death were recorded as CARDINAL DATE , PERSON .

On DATE the Urus - Martan VOVD refused to institute criminal proceedings in connection with the discovery of CARDINAL bodies on CARDINAL September CARDINAL , referring to the absence of essential elements of a crime .

On DATE the ORG prosecutor 's office set aside the above decision and instituted criminal proceedings under LAW ( CARDINAL-a ) of LAW ( murder of CARDINAL or more persons ) . The case file was assigned the number CARDINAL .

In a letter of CARDINAL DATE the military prosecutor of military unit no . DATE ( военная прокуратура DATE ) informed the first applicant that a suspect in the blowing - up of the ORG had been found in their house , and that her sons had been detained for an identity check in this connection . The letter confirmed that after being apprehended PERSON and PERSON had been brought to ORG VOVD but stated that no further information about them was available , since they were not listed among the detained persons . The letter went on to say that on DATE a burial site had been excavated by police officers who had found CARDINAL male bodies there . CARDINAL of the bodies had been identified as those of the first applicant 's sons . The letter also stated that Major PERSON , the officer in charge of the operation , had left for his permanent location in ORG , and that efforts were being made to obtain information from him about the detention of PERSON and PERSON .

On DATE the ORG prosecutor 's office received a letter from a district prosecutor of ORG informing him that on DATE Major PERSON had been questioned about the operation of DATE . The transcript of this interview was enclosed . Major PERSON stated the following :

“ From DATE until DATE I was seconded to the town of ORG , GPE . ...

In addition to ORG , military personnel of the troops of the interior and of the army ( военнослужащие из внутренних и федеральных войск ) and the military commander 's company ( комендантская рота ) also took part in the operation [ on DATE ] . I can not say which particular person was in command of the operation . From our department there was the head of ORG , PERSON . There were also CARDINAL generals , whose names I do not know , and military commander PERSON in the vicinity of the village of PERSON .

Acting on the instructions of the superiors of the alignment , I and a group of DATE men arrived by bus and ORG in PERSON at TIME CARDINAL men in the group were police officers , the rest were army servicemen . I was in charge of the police officers , and the [ army ] servicemen were under the command of an officer with the rank of captain , whose name I do not know . I do not know in which particular military units those servicemen served and at whose disposal the ORG with the vehicle number CARDINAL was .

During the “ sweeping ” operation we went to the courtyard of one of the houses . It was subsequently established that the house belonged to the PERSON family . ...

I approached CARDINAL of the windows and looked inside . I saw a man wearing an ammunition jacket and holding a pistol . Having seen me , the man fired ... at me . ... In response to the shots from the house , our personnel opened fire . ... [ During the fight another ] man came over to me and said that he lived in GPE and was a relative of this family . ...

CARDINAL of the soldiers threw CARDINAL grenades into the house , but the shots from the house did not stop . Then [ we ] started shooting at the criminal from the ORG , and only then did the fire from the house cease , but the house caught fire . ...

CARDINAL man seemed to have been shooting from the house , and CARDINAL body was found inside . The soldiers put this corpse into a white car and the relative from GPE also got into this vehicle . Then I went out and saw CARDINAL cars near the house . The servicemen said that they had seized those cars . I can not tell who ordered them to seize the cars . I did not give such an order . Besides , on the ORG I noticed another detained man in a white shirt . I do not know who ordered that man to be detained . We escorted the detained men and CARDINAL cars to the outskirts of PERSON , where the command centre of the alignment was located . ... On the instructions of the superiors , the detained persons and the cars were left at the command centre . Upon my return from PERSON , somebody told me that the detainees and the red car had been released . The detainees were not brought to ORG , as upon my return there in the evening I saw neither the white car nor the persons apprehended during the fight at the ORG ' house . I do not know whether they were brought to the military commander 's office and who escorted them . ... Following the instruction of the superiors , we left these detainees at the command centre , and I have no further information about them , or about the white car . ”

Having regard to the transcript , the prosecutor of ORG ordered the military commander PERSON to be questioned . According to the first applicant , that order was never complied with .

In a letter of CARDINAL DATE the military prosecutor of military unit no . CARDINAL informed the ORG prosecutor 's office and the first applicant that an inquiry had been carried out into the first applicant 's allegations , and that no involvement of the military personnel of ORG or of the interior troops of ORG in the detention of the PERSON brothers had been established , and therefore no criminal proceedings would be brought against the aforementioned personnel .

On DATE the ORG prosecutor 's office suspended the criminal proceedings in case no . DATE for failure to establish the identity of the alleged perpetrators . The first applicant was notified of that decision in a letter of DATE .

On DATE the ORG prosecutor 's office quashed the decision of DATE , stating that the investigation had been incomplete and that , in particular , no forensic medical examination of the bodies had been carried out and the witnesses who had identified the corpses had not been questioned . The prosecutor 's office thus ordered that the investigation be resumed .

On an unspecified date the first applicant received a letter from the ORG prosecutor 's office dated DATE . The letter contained a restatement of the facts of the detention of PERSON and PERSON and the discovery of their bodies and informed the first applicant that a criminal investigation had been commenced and that the case file had been assigned DATE . The letter also stated that the first applicant would be informed of any further developments in the case .

On DATE the criminal proceedings in case no . CARDINAL were adjourned as it was impossible to establish the identity of the alleged perpetrators . The proceedings were then resumed pursuant to a decision of the ORG prosecutor 's office dated DATE and suspended DATE .

On DATE the prosecutor 's office of GPE ( прокуратура PERSON , “ the NORP prosecutor 's office ” ) set aside the decision of CARDINAL DATE and resumed the investigation , ordering the investigators “ to study thoroughly the circumstances of the PERSON brothers ' disappearance and to establish the identity of those responsible ” .

On DATE the ORG prosecutor 's office granted the first applicant the status of victim of a crime and civil claimant .

On DATE the ORG prosecutor 's office suspended the investigation into the death of the PERSON brothers .

In a letter of CARDINAL DATE ORG informed the first applicant that the investigation into her sons ' death had been resumed on DATE and was being supervised by them .

DATE and DATE the proceedings remained suspended and there were no developments in the case .

In DATE the present application was communicated to ORG . On DATE the ORG prosecutor 's office resumed the investigation , referring to the fact that a number of essential steps had not previously been taken and giving detailed instructions to the investigators as to what measures should be taken .

In a letter of DATE the ORG prosecutor 's office informed the first applicant that the proceedings in criminal case no . DATE had been recommenced on that date .

On DATE the Urus - Martan prosecutor 's office notified the first applicant of the suspension on DATE of the preliminary investigation into her sons ' murder in the absence of those responsible .

It appears that at some point the investigation was resumed , then suspended on DATE and recommenced on the same date . It was then suspended on CARDINAL May and DATE and resumed on DATE and CARDINAL DATE respectively .

Referring to the information provided by ORG , the Government submitted that the investigation into the murder of PERSON and PERSON had commenced on DATE and had then been suspended and resumed on several occasions , but had so far failed to identify those responsible . According to the Government , the applicants were duly informed about all decisions taken during the investigation . They further submitted that the first applicant had been questioned on DATE and DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE and DATE and had been granted the status of victim and been declared a civil claimant on DATE and CARDINAL DATE respectively . The second applicant had been questioned as a witness on DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE and DATE . Apart from the first CARDINAL applicants , the investigating authorities had also questioned CARDINAL witnesses , including the applicants ' relatives and acquaintances , residents of PERSON , the head of the local administration and a number of servicemen of law - enforcement agencies who had been working in GPE at the material time . The Government referred in particular to the statement of PERSON , an investigator of the ORG prosecutor 's office , to the effect that military commander PERSON had told him that the PERSON brothers had been detained and then released . The Government did not specify on which date this statement had been made . They also submitted that military commander PERSON had not been questioned during the investigation , as he had been killed on DATE in a terrorist attack . The Government did not indicate any other names of the servicemen who had allegedly been questioned by the investigators .

According to the Government , it was impossible to identify other witnesses in the case , but the search for them was currently under way . The Government further stated that the applicants had refused to disclose the place of burial of PERSON and PERSON and allow the investigating authorities to exhume the bodies so as to enable forensic experts to examine them . Finally , the Government stated that the investigating authorities had sent a number of queries to various ORG bodies on DATE , CARDINAL and DATE , DATE , CARDINAL and DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE and CARDINAL DATE and undertaken other investigative actions , but did not specify what those actions had been .

On unspecified dates the first CARDINAL applicants issued separate sets of civil proceedings against ORG in ORG of GPE ( “ the ORG ” ) , seeking compensation for non - pecuniary damage in connection with the unlawful detention of their sons .

On DATE and CARDINAL DATE ORG delivered CARDINAL similar judgments . It established that on DATE in the house of the PERSON family in the village of ORG , a member of an illegal armed group had been found and killed , as he had shown armed resistance . The applicants ' sons , PERSON and PERSON , were detained and escorted to ORG so as to establish the circumstances of the above - mentioned incident . On DATE their corpses were found at the outskirts of PERSON , and criminal proceedings were instituted in this connection but later suspended , as no culprits could be identified . The court further stated that under LAW of GPE the ORG was liable only for damages for its agents ' actions that were unlawful . It then noted that the military operation in GPE had been launched by virtue of Presidential Decree no . CARDINAL of DATE , and Governmental Decree no . CARDINAL of DATE which had been found constitutional by ORG on DATE , except for CARDINAL provisions of the governmental decree . In the latter respect the court noted that the said CARDINAL provisions had never been applied to the applicants and that “ it did not follow from the evidence submitted that there was a causal link between the loss by [ the first CARDINAL applicants ] of their sons and any unlawful actions on the part of the ORG bodies ” . The court concluded that the applicants ' claims were not based on domestic law and dismissed them accordingly .

On DATE ORG rejected an appeal by the first applicant and upheld the judgment of DATE .

It is unclear whether the second applicant appealed against the judgment of CARDINAL DATE , and , if so , what the outcome of the appeal was .

In DATE , at the communication stage , the Government were invited to produce a copy of the investigation file in criminal case no . CARDINAL opened into the killing of PERSON and PERSON . Relying on the information obtained from ORG , the ORG replied that the investigation was in progress and that disclosure of the documents would be in violation of LAW , since the file contained information of a military nature and personal data concerning the witnesses . In DATE the ORG reiterated its request and suggested that Rule CARDINAL § CARDINAL be applied . In reply , the Government stated that the submission of the case file would breach the relevant national legislation , given that it contained classified information of a military nature and personal data concerning witnesses . At the same time , the Government suggested that a ORG delegation could have access to the file at the place of the preliminary investigation with the exception of “ the documents [ disclosing military information and personal data concerning the witnesses ] , and without the right to make copies of the case file and transmit it to others ” .

On DATE the application was declared partly admissible . At that stage the ORG again invited the ORG to submit the investigation file and to submit information concerning the progress in the investigation . In DATE the Government informed ORG latest dates on which the investigation had been suspended and reopened and produced CARDINAL documents running to CARDINAL pages from the case file , which , as could be ascertained from the page numbering , comprised CARDINAL pages . The documents included :

( a ) a procedural decision of DATE instituting criminal proceedings in connection with the discovery of CARDINAL bodies on CARDINAL DATE ;

( b ) numerous procedural decisions suspending and reopening criminal proceedings in connection with the killing of the applicants ' relatives ;

( c ) a number of investigators ' decisions taking up case no . CARDINAL

( d ) NORP letters informing the first applicant of the suspension and reopening of the criminal proceedings in case no . DATE .

The Government did not furnish the ORG with any other documents from the case file .

The Government enclosed a number of letters from various higher courts in GPE , stating that the applicants had never lodged any such complaints about the allegedly unlawful detention of their relatives or challenged in court any actions or omissions of the investigating or other law - enforcing authorities .

NORP Until DATE criminal - law matters were governed by LAW RSFSR . On DATE the old Code was replaced by LAW .

Article CARDINAL of the new ORG enshrines the rule that data from the preliminary investigation may not be disclosed . Part CARDINAL of the same LAW provides that information from the investigation file may be divulged with the permission of a prosecutor or investigator but only in so far as it does not infringe the rights and lawful interests of the participants in the criminal proceedings and does not prejudice the investigation . It is prohibited to divulge information about the private life of the participants in criminal proceedings without their permission .

The Law on Complaints to Courts against Actions and Decisions Violating the Rights and Freedoms of Citizens ( as revised by LAW of DATE ) provides that any citizen has the right to lodge a complaint with a court when he or she considers that his or her rights have been infringed by an unlawful action or decision of a ORG agency , local self - government body or an institution , enterprise or association , non - governmental organisation or official or ORG employee . ORG may be lodged either directly with a court or with a higher ORG agency , which must review the complaint within DATE . If the complaint is rejected by the latter or there has been no response on its part , the person concerned has the right to bring the matter before a court .

Under LAW of the Law on Operational Search Activities , an individual who considers that his rights and freedoms have been violated by the bodies carrying out the operational search activities can complain of those actions to a higher body carrying out the operational search activities , a prosecutor or a court .


András Sajó;Françoise Tulkens;Ireneu Cabral Barreto;Kristina Pardalos;Nona Tsotsoria

The applicants , Mr PERSON , Mr PERSON , Mr PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON PERSON Halat and ORG , are NORP nationals who were born in DATE , respectively , and live in GPE . They were represented before the ORG by Mr PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE . ORG ( “ the Government ” ) were represented by their Agent .

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

The applicants were the founders and members of a co - operative by the name of ORG PERSON ( “ the cooperative ” ) .

In DATE ORG and LANGUAGE ( PERSON ) ( “ the General Directorate ” ) expropriated a plot of land partially owned by the co - operative ( plot no . CARDINAL ) , located in the village of GPE , in the Höyük district of GPE , GPE .

On DATE the co - operative brought an action before ORG seeking additional compensation . On DATE ORG awarded the cooperative additional compensation of MONEY ( TRL ) , plus interest .

On an unspecified date in DATE , the applicants allegedly sought the enforcement of this judgment before ORG . They have not , however , submitted any supporting documents regarding these enforcement proceedings , which they blamed on the destruction of the archives of the enforcement office .

On DATE ORG quashed the judgment of the first - instance court .

On DATE ORG re - examined the case and awarded the co - operative additional compensation of GPE CARDINAL , plus interest .

On DATE ORG upheld the judgment of ORG with a minor amendment ( düzelterek onama ) and awarded the co - operative ORG CARDINAL instead of the amount previously calculated by the first - instance court .

On DATE the money owed to the co - operative , together with statutory interest , was deposited with ORG accounting office ( a total of ORG ) .

By a letter dated DATE the co - operative 's lawyer was invited to apply to the accounting office of ORG to collect the additional compensation .

In DATE the co - operative was liquidated .

On DATE the applicants sent a warning letter to ORG through a notary public , requesting payment of the compensation awarded by ORG , together with interest .

On DATE ORG replied that they could not be held responsible for the non - payment as the co - operative had failed to collect the compensation despite the official letter dated DATE inviting them to do so . In this letter , they also informed the applicants that the payment would be effected upon their application to the accounting office .

According to the information in the case file , the applicants have still not obtained the additional compensation awarded by ORG .


CASE OF SITAROPOULOS AND GIAKOUMOPOULOS v. GREECE

No 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;Vote)

Anatoly Kovler;Angelika Nußberger;Ann Power-Forde;Christos Rozakis;Dean Spielmann;Egbert Myjer;Elisabeth Steiner;Flogaitis;Françoise Tulkens;Ineta Ziemele;Ján Šikuta;Jean-Paul Costa;Josep Casadevall;Khanlar Hajiyev;Lech Garlicki;Luis López Guerra;Nicolas Bratza;Nona Tsotsoria;Spyridon Flogaitis;Sverre Erik Jebens;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Zdravka Kalaydjieva

The applicants were born in DATE and DATE respectively and live in GPE . They are officials of ORG .

By Presidential Decree no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE , ORG was dissolved and a general election was called for DATE .

NORP In a faxed letter of DATE to the NORP ambassador in GPE , the applicants , who are permanently resident in GPE , expressed the wish to exercise their voting rights in GPE in the elections to be held on DATE .

On DATE the ambassador , relying on the instructions and information provided by ORG , replied as follows .

“ [ ORG ] confirms its wish – frequently expressed at the institutional level – to enable NORP citizens resident abroad to vote from their place of residence . However , it is clear that this necessitates statutory rules which do not currently exist . In fact , such rules can not be introduced by a simple administrative decision , as special measures are required for the setting - up of polling stations in embassies and consulates ... In the light of the above and despite the wish expressed by the ORG , your request concerning the forthcoming elections can not be granted for objective reasons . ”

NORP The general election took place on DATE . The applicants , who did not travel to GPE , did not exercise their right to vote .

The relevant provisions of the LAW read as follows .

Popular sovereignty shall be the foundation of government .

All powers shall derive from the people and exist for the people and the nation ; they shall be exercised as specified by LAW . ”

“ CARDINAL . The number of members of parliament shall be defined by law . It shall not be below CARDINAL .

NORP The members of parliament shall represent the nation .

NORP The members of parliament shall be elected through direct universal suffrage and by secret ballot , by those citizens who have the right to vote , as specified by law . The law shall not curtail citizens’ right to vote except in cases where the statutory minimum age has not been attained , in cases of legal incapacity or in connection with a final criminal conviction for certain offences .

Parliamentary elections shall be held simultaneously throughout the country . The conditions governing the exercise of the right to vote by persons outside the country may be specified by statute .

The exercise of the right to vote shall be mandatory . Exceptions and criminal sanctions shall be specified in each case by law . ”

“ CARDINAL . The electoral system and constituencies shall be specified by a law which will apply to the elections immediately following the forthcoming elections unless an explicit provision , adopted by a majority of CARDINAL of the total number of members of parliament , stipulates that it is to apply as of the forthcoming elections .

NORP The number of members of parliament elected in each constituency shall be specified by presidential decree on the basis of the population of the constituency for legal purposes , derived , according to the latest census , from the number of persons registered on the relevant municipal rolls , as provided for by law . The results of the census for this purpose shall be those published on the basis of the data held by the relevant department DATE after DATE of the census .

Part of the ORG , comprising not CARDINAL of the total number of its members , may be elected on a uniform nationwide basis in proportion to the total votes won by each party throughout the country , as specified by law . ”

“ CARDINAL . The ORG must be attentive to the situation of emigrant NORP and to the maintenance of their ties with the homeland . The ORG shall also attend to the education and the social and professional advancement of NORP working outside the ORG .

The law shall lay down arrangements relating to the organisation , operation and competences of ORG , whose mission is to allow the full expression of NORP worldwide . ”

The second paragraph of LAW was added during the DATE revision of the LAW .

In DATE , LAW was amended as follows :

“ Parliamentary elections shall be held simultaneously throughout the country . The conditions governing the exercise of the right to vote by persons living outside the country may be specified by statute , adopted by a majority of CARDINAL of the total number of members of parliament . Concerning such persons , the principle of holding elections simultaneously does not rule out the exercise of their right to vote by postal vote or other appropriate means , provided that the counting of votes and the announcement of the results are carried out at the same time as within the country . ”

At the time of the parliamentary elections in issue , Presidential Decree no . PERSON , which was the electoral legislation then in force , provided as follows .

“ CARDINAL . Any NORP national aged CARDINAL or over shall be entitled to vote . ... ”

“ The following persons shall lose the right to vote :

( a ) persons who have been placed under guardianship , in accordance with the provisions of LAW ;

( b ) persons whose final conviction for one of the offences provided for in LAW or LAW is accompanied by a measure disqualifying them from voting for the duration of their sentence . ”

“ CARDINAL . The right to vote in a constituency shall be reserved to those persons registered on the electoral roll of a municipality or local authority area within that constituency .

The exercise of the right to vote shall be mandatory . ”

The report on this bill placed before ORG by the Ministers of the ORG , ORG and ORG DATE indicated that the purpose of the bill was to fulfil “ one of the government ’s major historical obligations , one which undeniably reinforces NORP expatriates’ ties with the homeland ” . The report stated that voting rights for NORP nationals living abroad arose out of both LAW and LAW . It pointed out in particular that LAW . This provision obliges ORG to take all necessary measures to maintain NORP expatriates’ ties with GPE , to ensure that they have access to NORP education and to make provision , as a matter of ORG duty , for the social and professional advancement of NORP working outside GPE . Regulating the conditions for the exercise by NORP expatriates of their right to vote in NORP parliamentary elections will undeniably contribute to real ties being forged between NORP expatriates and their homeland . ” Moving on to the constitutional provision on this specific subject , namely LAW , the report characterised the statute to which that LAW . Lastly , the report considered that “ in these times of globalisation , it is self - evident that NORP expatriates should have a decisive say in the development of their own country ” .

The Scientific Council ( Επιστημονικό Συμβούλιο ) of ORG is a consultative body reporting to the Speaker of ORG . It comprises CARDINAL members , including professors of law , political science , economics , statistics and information technology , and an expert in international relations . It produced a report dated DATE on the above - mentioned bill . The report noted that , in the past , some legal authorities had argued that LAW imposed upon the legislature an obligation to permit expatriate NORP to exercise the right to vote from outside GPE . However , referring to other legal authorities and to the preparatory work for LAW , it asserted that it was an option rather than a duty for the legislature to permit the exercise of voting rights from abroad . It also took the view that the optional nature of the above - mentioned provision of LAW had not been affected by the DATE constitutional revision .

On DATE the bill was rejected by ORG since it failed to secure the majority of CARDINAL of the total number of members of parliament required under LAW . The members of parliament , especially those on the opposition benches , referred in particular to the number of NORP citizens living abroad compared with the numbers resident in GPE , and to the implications this would have for the composition of the legislature .

The relevant texts adopted by ORG of ORG read as follows .

NORP In accordance with the opinion of ORG ) adopted in DATE , [ ORG ] ... invites the member and observer ORG to reconsider all existing restrictions to electoral rights and to abolish all those that are no longer necessary and proportionate in pursuit of a legitimate aim .

The ORG considers that , as a rule , priority should be given to granting effective , free and equal electoral rights to the highest possible number of citizens , without regard to their ethnic origin , health , status as members of the military or criminal record . Due regard should be given to the voting rights of citizens living abroad .

Given the importance of the right to vote in a NORP society , the member countries of ORG should enable their citizens living abroad to vote during national elections bearing in mind the complexity of different electoral systems . They should take appropriate measures to facilitate the exercise of such voting rights as much as possible , in particular by considering absentee ( postal ) , consular or e - voting , consistent with Recommendation Rec(CARDINAL)CARDINAL of ORG to member GPE on legal , operational and technical standards for evoting . Member GPE should cooperate with one another for this purpose and refrain from placing unnecessary obstacles in the path of the effective exercise of the voting rights of foreign nationals residing on their territories .

The ORG therefore invites :

i. ORG member and observer GPE concerned to :

b. grant electoral rights to all their citizens ( nationals ) , without imposing residency requirements ;

c. facilitate the exercise of expatriates’ electoral rights by providing for absentee voting procedures ( postal and/or consular voting ) and considering the introduction of e - voting consistent with Recommendation Rec(CARDINAL)CARDINAL of ORG and to cooperate with one another to this end ;

“ CARDINAL . Referring to its Resolution CARDINAL ( DATE ) on the abolition of restrictions on the right to vote , ORG calls upon ORG to :

i. NORP appeal to member and observer GPE to :

a. sign and ratify the DATE ORG on the Participation of Foreigners in Public Life at Local Level ( ETS No . CARDINAL ) and to grant active and passive electoral rights in local elections to all legal residents ; and

b. reconsider existing restrictions on electoral rights of prisoners and members of the military , with a view to abolishing all those that are no longer necessary and proportionate in pursuit of a legitimate aim ;

ii . invite the competent services of ORG , in particular ORG ) and its ORG , to develop their activities aimed at improving the conditions for the effective exercise of election rights by groups facing special difficulties , such as expatriates , prison inmates , persons who have been convicted of a criminal offence , residents of nursing homes , soldiers or nomadic groups ;

iii . review existing instruments with a view to assessing the possible need for a ORG convention to improve international cooperation with a view to facilitating the exercise of electoral rights of expatriates . ”

The Code states that “ the right to vote and to be elected may be accorded to citizens residing abroad ” ( point I.CARDINAL.CARDINAL.c.v . ) . The explanatory report makes the following indication in this regard :

“ ... the right to vote and/or the right to stand for election may be subject to residence requirements , residence in this case meaning habitual residence . ... Conversely , quite a few States grant their nationals living abroad the right to vote , and even to be elected . This practice can lead to abuse in some special cases , e.g. where nationality is granted on an ethnic basis . ”

The other relevant parts of the Code provide :

CARDINAL Freedom of voters to express their wishes and action to combat electoral fraud

i. NORP voting procedures must be simple ;

ii . NORP voters should always have the possibility of voting in a polling station . Other means of voting are acceptable under the following conditions :

iii . NORP postal voting should be allowed only where the postal service is safe and reliable ; the right to vote using postal votes may be confined to people who are in hospital or imprisoned or to persons with reduced mobility or to electors residing abroad ; fraud and intimidation must not be possible ;

iv . NORP electronic voting should be used only if it is safe and reliable ; in particular , voters should be able to obtain a confirmation of their votes and to correct them , if necessary , respecting secret suffrage ; the system must be transparent ;

v. very strict rules must apply to voting by proxy ; the number of proxies a single voter may hold must be limited ;

NORP The report notes , among other things , the following :

“ Voting rights for citizens abroad

External voting rights , e.g. granting nationals living abroad the right to vote , are a relatively new phenomenon . Even in long - established democracies , citizens living in foreign countries were not given voting rights until DATE ( e.g. GPE , GPE ) or DATE ( e.g. , GPE , GPE ) . In the meantime , however , many emerging or new democracies in LOC have introduced legal provisions for external voting ( out - of - country voting , overseas voting ) . Although it is yet not common in LOC , the introduction of external voting rights might be considered , if not yet present . However , safeguards must be implemented to ensure the integrity of the vote ...

Postal voting is permitted in several established democracies in western LOC , GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE ... It was also used , for example , in GPE and the GPE in order to ensure maximum inclusiveness of the election process ( ORG ( CARDINAL ) DATE ) . However , it should be allowed only if the postal service is secure and reliable . Each individual case must be assessed as to whether fraud and manipulation are likely to occur with postal voting .

The conclusions of this report read as follows .

“ CARDINAL . National practices regarding the right to vote of citizens living abroad and its exercise are far from uniform in LOC .

NORP However , developments in legislation , such as the judgment delivered recently by ORG in a case concerning GPE , which is not yet final , point to a favourable trend in out - of - country voting , in national elections at least , as regards citizens who have maintained ties with their country of origin .

That is true at least of persons who are temporarily out of the country . But definitions of the temporary nature of a stay abroad vary greatly and if this criterion is adopted , it should be clarified .

Distinctions should also be drawn according to the type of elections . ORG , single - constituency elections are easier to open up to citizens resident abroad , while local elections are generally closed to them , particularly on account of their tenuous link with local politics .

The proportions of citizens living out of the country may also vary greatly from CARDINAL country to another . When there are a large number of them , they may have a decisive impact on the outcome of the election , which may justify the implementation of specific measures .

It is perfectly legitimate to require voters living abroad to register to be able to vote , even if registration is automatic for residents .

The obligation to vote in an embassy or consulate may in practice severely restrict the right to vote of citizens living abroad . This restriction may be justified on the grounds that the other means of voting ( postal vote , proxy voting , e - voting ) are not always reliable .

To sum up , while the denial of the right to vote to citizens living abroad or the placing of limits on that right constitutes a restriction of the principle of universal suffrage , the ORG does not consider at this stage that the principles of the NORP electoral heritage require the introduction of such a right .

Although the introduction of the right to vote for citizens who live abroad is not required by the principles of the NORP electoral heritage , ORG PERSON suggests that GPE , in view of NORP mobility , and in accordance with the particular situation of certain GPE , adopt a positive approach to the right to vote of citizens living abroad , since this right fosters the development of national and NORP citizenship . ”

The right to vote is enshrined in LAW , the relevant parts of which read as follows :

“ Every citizen shall have the right and the opportunity , without any of the distinctions mentioned in LAW and without unreasonable restrictions :

( b ) To vote and to be elected at genuine periodic elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret ballot , guaranteeing the free expression of the will of the electors ;

During the drafting of the General PERSON on LAW , which was published on DATE by ORG , a proposal was made calling on GPE to enable their nationals residing overseas to make use of absentee postal - voting systems where such systems were available . However , as ORG could not agree on the proposal , it was not included in the General Comment .

Article CARDINAL of the said ORG provides as follows :

“ CARDINAL . Every citizen shall enjoy the following rights and opportunities :

a. to take part in the conduct of public affairs , directly or through freely chosen representatives ;

b. to vote and to be elected in genuine periodic elections , which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and by secret ballot that guarantees the free expression of the will of the voters ; and

c. to have access , under general conditions of equality , to the public service of his country .

The law may regulate the exercise of the rights and opportunities referred to in the preceding paragraph only on the basis of age , nationality , residence , language , education , civil and mental capacity , or sentencing by a competent court in criminal proceedings . ”

The right to vote under LAW is not absolute and may be subject to restrictions on the grounds expressly laid down in the second paragraph , which include “ residence ” . However , not every restriction of the right to vote based on residence is justified .

In the case of ORG v. GPE ( Case CARDINAL , Report no . CARDINAL of DATE ) , ORG held that the approach to the interpretation and application of the right guaranteed under LAW was consistent with the case - law of the other international systems of human rights protection whose treaties provided similar guarantees . It referred in that regard to the case - law of ORG and ORG :

“ CARDINAL . ... Like ORG and this Commission , ORG has recognized that the rights protected under LAW ORG [ International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights ] are not absolute , but that any conditions that apply to the right to political participation protected by LAW should be based on ‘ objective and reasonable criteria’ . The ORG has also found that in light of the fundamental principle of proportionality , greater restrictions on political rights require a specific justification .

Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL of this LAW is worded as follows :

“ Every citizen shall have the right to participate freely in the government of his country , either directly or through freely chosen representatives in accordance with the provisions of the law . ”

Taking the view that this provision was similar in substance to LAW , ORG interpreted LAW in the light of ORG General PERSON on LAW . It therefore held that any conditions applicable to the exercise of LAW rights should be based on objective and reasonable criteria established by law ( see PERSON and PERSON v. The GPE , Communication no . CARDINAL , § DATE ) .

According to the comparative - law materials available to ORG on the legislation of member ORG concerning the right to vote from abroad , the majority of the countries concerned authorise and have implemented procedures to allow their nationals resident abroad to vote in parliamentary elections . However , the situation varies greatly and the different scenarios do not lend themselves to classification into neat categories . A distinction can nevertheless be made CARDINAL broad categories : those member GPE which permit their citizens to vote from abroad , on the basis of a variety of arrangements ; and those which , as a general rule , do not . Lastly , most of the member ORG which allow voting from abroad lay down administrative procedures for the registration of expatriates on the electoral roll .

CARDINAL member GPE fall into this category : GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE , the GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE , “ the former GPE ” , GPE , GPE and GPE .

The above - mentioned countries provide either for voting in polling stations abroad or postal voting , or both . The following CARDINAL countries allow voting in embassies or consulates or in polling stations set up elsewhere : GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE , “ the former GPE ” and GPE .

CARDINAL countries ( GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE , the GPE , GPE and GPE ) allow their citizens living abroad to vote by post only , either through an embassy or consulate or by writing directly to the competent national authority . The possibility of voting either at an embassy ( or consulate ) or by post is provided for in GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE and GPE . A handful of countries – GPE , GPE , the GPE , GPE and GPE DATE also allow voting by proxy . In GPE , proxy voting is the sole means by which nationals of that country can vote from abroad .

GPE ( the GPE and GPE ) allow Internet voting . This type of voting is already enshrined in law and in operation in GPE , while it is under consideration in GPE .

In CARDINAL member GPE ( GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE and “ the former GPE ” ) , only persons temporarily resident outside the country have the right to vote from abroad . In the last - mentioned country , the law refers explicitly to persons living and working abroad temporarily . In some countries , expatriates lose the right to vote after a certain period of time DATE in GPE and DATE in GPE ) .

Certain countries such as GPE , GPE , GPE and GPE allow external voting only with the permission of the host country .

In CARDINAL countries – GPE , GPE , GPE and GPE – expatriates may elect their own representatives to the national parliament in constituencies set up outside the country . In GPE , each of the CARDINAL constituencies elects a member of parliament . NORP citizens living abroad participate in the election of QUANTITY members of the ORG via ORG . DATE , they will also be able to elect CARDINAL members to ORG . In GPE and GPE , the number of parliamentary seats allocated to expatriate constituencies depends on the number of votes cast .

Eight member ORG , GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE and GPE – do not allow voting from abroad in parliamentary elections . In particular , in GPE , the electoral code in force contains no provisions concerning voting from abroad . In GPE , strict rules are laid down , with postal voting for expatriates being confined to members of the police and armed forces and to NORP diplomats and their spouses . The right is therefore limited to a specific , very small group of individuals . Under the legislation in GPE and GPE , persons resident abroad may vote only in their own country .

In CARDINAL of the member GPE which allow voting from abroad , persons wishing to avail themselves of this facility must apply by a certain deadline to be registered on the electoral roll , either to the authorities in their country of origin or to the diplomatic or consular mission abroad .

NORP In GPE an application for registration must be made before each election to the country ’s central electoral commission . In GPE , persons eligible to vote have to submit an application to the last municipality in which they lived . In GPE , voters may request registration at the diplomatic or consular mission , by filling out an application to the local electoral bureau within the specified time - limit . In GPE and GPE , the request must be made to the local authorities . In GPE , voters living abroad must request registration on a special electoral roll held by the municipal authorities of ORG . In GPE , persons voting abroad must notify the national electoral commission , while in GPE they must request registration on the electoral roll as foreign residents . NORP voters must apply to the provincial branch of the electoral bureau for registration on the special list of absentee voters . In GPE , overseas voters must re - register DATE with their local electoral registration office .

In some countries , the request must be sent to the diplomatic mission or consulate , which either draws up the list of voters itself or forwards requests to the competent authority in the country of origin . NORP citizens included on the population register held by the diplomatic mission or consulate must complete a form indicating the municipality in which they wish to be registered and the voting method they will use . The form is then sent to the municipality concerned and the person ’s name is added to the list of expatriate voters .

In GPE , GPE , GPE and GPE , the list of expatriate voters is drawn up by the diplomatic or consular mission on the basis of requests from voters . NORP citizens wishing to vote abroad must register with the NORP embassy or consulate . NORP voters who wish to vote by post have to apply to the diplomatic mission or consulate concerned , where they are registered on a special list . In the GPE , expatriates eligible and wishing to vote must request registration on the electoral roll of NORP nationals living abroad by applying to the head of the consular mission , who forwards the request to GPE . In GPE , voting abroad entails prior registration on a consular list of voters . NORP citizens living abroad must apply to the diplomatic or consular mission with which they are registered . The application is forwarded to the municipality in which the person concerned habitually voted , and he or she is registered on the electoral roll there . In “ the former GPE ” , expatriate voters are registered on the country ’s electoral roll after applying to the diplomatic mission or consulate . In GPE , expatriate voters must register on a special electoral roll by submitting a declaration of residence to the nearest consulate .

In other countries , expatriate voters do not have to complete any formalities in order to register , as the authorities register them automatically on the basis of the existing lists of voters . This is the case in GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE and GPE . Voters who are not on the electoral roll may register on request ( for instance in GPE , GPE , GPE and GPE ) .

In GPE , voters must re - register on the national electoral roll after CARDINAL years’ residence abroad ; in GPE and GPE , the time - limit is DATE .

In some countries which have automatic registration , expatriates must complete certain formalities in order to vote in their country of origin . For instance , NORP voters resident abroad who wish to vote in GPE must inform the relevant consular authority in writing . NORP expatriates must request registration on the electoral roll in GPE if they wish to vote there .


Alvina Gyulumyan;Corneliu Bîrsan;Ján Šikuta;Josep Casadevall;Luis López Guerra;Mihai Poalelungi;Nona Tsotsoria

NORP The applicant , PERSON , is a NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in GPE . She was represented before the ORG by GPE kancelária PERSON , ORG . , a law firm with its registered office in GPE .

The Government of GPE ( “ the Government ” ) were represented by their Agent , PERSON .

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

NORP The applicant is a judicial enforcement officer ( súdny exekútor – “ JEO ” ) .

The status and powers of and procedures relating to JEOs are governed by LAW ( Law no . PERSON . , as amended - “ the LAW ” ) , details concerning the remuneration of JEOs for carrying out enforcement proceedings being laid down in LAW of JEOs ( Decree no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL Coll . , as amended - “ the Decree ” ) .

In her official capacity , the applicant acted on behalf of the municipal District of Bratislava – Staré mesto ( “ the claimant ” ) in seeking the enforcement of an amount of money payable to the claimant by CARDINAL individuals ( “ the defendants ” ) under a judgment of the Bratislava II ORG ( Okresný súd ) of CARDINAL DATE . The sum payable arose in consideration for the sale of non - residential LOC by the claimant to the defendants .

Under the Decree , as it then stood , the basis for calculating the applicant ’s remuneration was the amount of the claim that was being enforced ( vymáhané ) . After the events complained of had taken place , this provision was changed in that the basis for the calculation of a ORG ’s remuneration was to be the amount of the claim that had actually been enforced ( vymožené ) . Should the entire claim be enforced , the remuneration would be PERCENT of that base figure ( see paragraphs CARDINAL in the “ Relevant domestic law and practice ” section below ) .

On DATE the claimant requested that the applicant enforce the judgment and late - payment penalties against the defendants . The accumulated claim amounted in total to the equivalent of CARDINAL euros ( ORG ) .

On DATE a single judge of ORG authorised the applicant to carry out the enforcement .

On DATE the applicant issued a notice of enforcement ( upovedomenie o začatí exekúcie ) by which she notified the defendants that the enforcement proceedings had commenced and that , unless they settled their debt within DATE , the applicant intended to enforce the judgment and costs of the enforcement by establishing a mortgage over real property belonging to the defendants and by seeking a forced sale of that property .

On DATE the applicant issued an order for enforcement ( exekučný príkaz ) of the judgment . By this order she directed the defendants’ bank to deduct the judgment debt and costs of the enforcement from the defendants’ account . By these means , amounts equivalent to some ORG CARDINAL and EUR CARDINAL were recovered , respectively , for the benefit of the claimant and the applicant by way of her remuneration .

On DATE the claimant and the defendants reached a settlement , in which :

( i ) the defendants acknowledged their debt ( equivalent to ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL ) , consisting of the principal amount ( ORG CARDINAL ) and legal fees payable by them ( EUR CARDINAL ) ;

( ii ) the claimant waived CARDINAL of the debt on the condition that the defendants paid the remainder according to a payment schedule agreed upon , less the ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL that they had already paid ; and

( iii ) the claimant undertook to withdraw its enforcement petition on the condition that the defendants “ settle all provable expenses of [ the applicant ] that [ had been ] incurred in connection with the enforcement of the clam [ referred to above ] ” .

On DATE , the claimant lodged a request with the applicant for the enforcement to be discontinued . Reference was made to “ an agreement on the payment of the owed amount ” .

DATE and DATE , the applicant requested that ORG discontinue the proceedings and rule on her costs and ORG invited the applicant to submit further information . The applicant responded , specifying the amount of her outstanding claim for remuneration at the equivalent of ORG CARDINAL .

In a letter dated DATE the claimant informed the applicant that the defendants had paid the outstanding amount of their debt .

On DATE ORG discontinued the enforcement proceedings and ruled that the defendants were to pay the applicant the equivalents of LAW by way of remuneration and of EUR CARDINAL exclusive of value - added tax ( “ VAT ” ) by way of reimbursement for the costs of enforcement .

ORG referred to Article CARDINAL of the Code and to sections CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the Decree ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and DATE in the “ Relevant domestic law and practice ” section below ) . It based the calculation of the applicant ’s remuneration on the amount that had been actually obtained for the claimant through the direct involvement of the applicant ( EUR CARDINAL ) . The amount of remuneration already paid ( EUR CARDINAL ) was deducted .

The decision of CARDINAL DATE stated that it was not subject to appeal . Later on , the LAW was amended so that a decision on the remuneration and reimbursement of a ORG ’s costs was made subject to appeal ( see paragraph CARDINAL in the “ Relevant domestic law and practice ” section below ) .

On DATE the applicant challenged the ruling of CARDINAL DATE concerning her remuneration by way of a complaint under LAW to ORG ( Ústavný súd ) ( see paragraph CARDINAL in the “ Relevant domestic law and practice ” section below ) .

She relied on a judgment ( nález ) of ORG of DATE in case no . II . ÚS CARDINAL ( see paragraph CARDINAL in the “ Relevant domestic law and practice ” section below ) and argued , first of all , that her claim for remuneration constituted “ possessions ” for the purposes of LAW No . CARDINAL .

The applicant further argued that there was no justification in law for limiting the amount of her remuneration by calculating it on the basis of the amount actually enforced through her direct involvement . She submitted that the object and purpose of the relevant rules had required that the amount of her remuneration should have been calculated on the basis of the total amount paid by the defendants to the claimant while the enforcement proceedings were pending . This was implied , inter alia , in section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the Decree read in conjunction with LAW of the LAW ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and DATE in the “ Relevant domestic law and practice ” section below ) , which regulated the remuneration of a ORG in the event that a defendant settled his or her debt voluntarily .

A different approach would allow any defendant to circumvent the law by delaying payment of his or her debt until enforcement proceedings commenced and then paying the debt directly to the creditor without having to bear the consequences , such as the costs of the enforcement .

A distinction between amounts paid through the involvement of a ORG and directly to the creditor without the involvement of a ORG was unfounded and unlawful .

Accordingly , the applicant asserted a violation of her rights under LAW No . CARDINAL and its constitutional counterpart .

On DATE ORG declared the applicant ’s complaint inadmissible as manifestly ill - founded .

The Constitutional Court observed that the applicant ’s entitlement to remuneration as such had not been contested but that what remained disputed was that remuneration ’s amount .

In those circumstances , her claim did not amount to an existing “ possession ” . Neither could her hope of her entitlement being realised as a specific amount in accordance with her interpretation of the relevant laws be considered “ legitimate ” so as to amount to a “ possession ” under the applicable case - law .

The Constitutional Court accepted that the present decision was “ at [ a ] certain variance ” with its above - cited judgment in case no . II . ÚS CARDINAL . However , that judgment had concerned a specific problem relating to LOC . Even though it had not been expressly stated in that judgment , a ORG liable to pay ORG on his or her remuneration had a legitimate expectation to have that amount of tax reimbursed by a defendant . The present decision was thus fully in compliance with the ORG ’s jurisprudence .

Article CARDINAL provides :

“ CARDINAL . The Constitutional Court shall decide complaints by natural or legal persons alleging a violation of their fundamental rights or freedoms ... unless the protection of such rights and freedoms falls within the jurisdiction of a different court .

NORP If ORG finds a complaint justified , it shall deliver a decision stating that a person ’s rights or freedoms as set out in paragraph CARDINAL have been violated by a final decision , specific measure or other act and shall quash such decision , measure or act . If the violation that has been found is the result of a failure to act , ORG may order [ the authority ] which has violated the rights or freedoms to take the necessary action . At the same time it may remit the case to the authority concerned for further proceedings , order such authority to refrain from violating the fundamental rights and freedoms ... or , where appropriate , order those who have violated the rights or freedoms set out in paragraph CARDINAL to restore the situation to that existing prior to the violation .

NORP In its decision on a complaint ORG may grant appropriate financial compensation to the person whose rights under paragraph CARDINAL have been violated . ”

Under LAW , as applicable at the relevant time , a ORG is to “ abandon ” ( upustí ) enforcement proceedings if the debtor has complied with its obligations as adjudicated and has settled the costs of the enforcement .

The supervising court is to discontinue ( zastaví ) the enforcement if the person who initiated the enforcement has so requested ( Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL ( c ) ) .

Under the LAW , as applicable at the relevant time , no appeal lay against a decision on costs upon the discontinuation of enforcement proceedings . However , on DATE an amendment ( PERSON no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL Coll . ) to the Code entered into force , pursuant to which such decisions are now subject to appeal ( LAW of the amended Code ) .

In respect of enforcement carried out under the LAW , a ORG is entitled to remuneration , reimbursement of costs and compensation for time spent on the matter . These expenses are normally to be borne by the debtor ( ORG CARDINAL and CARDINAL § CARDINAL ) ( see also the ORG ’s decisions of CARDINAL DATE in the cases of ORG v. GPE no . CARDINAL ( § § DATE and CARDINAL ) and no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ( § § DATE and DATE ) ) .

If the creditor causes the discontinuation of enforcement proceedings , the court can order him or her to cover the necessary costs of the enforcement ( Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL ) . This provision implies that the court has the ability , not an obligation , to make an order for costs against the creditor . Such an order presupposes an analysis of procedural responsibility ( zavinenie ) for the discontinuation . The provision confers discretion on the part of the court based on an assessment of the actions of the creditor and the degree and seriousness of the creditor ’s responsibility should it be established ( a decision by ORG of DATE in case no . I. ÚS CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) ( see also ORG v. GPE , no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , cited above , § § DATE ) .

Under section CARDINAL ) , as applicable at the relevant time , the basis for calculating a ORG ’s remuneration was the amount of the claim that was being enforced ( vymáhané ) .

With effect as from DATE , section CARDINAL ) of the Decree was amended ( Decree no . CARDINAL Coll . ) to the effect that a ORG ’s remuneration was no longer to be calculated on the basis of the amount of claim that was being enforced ( vymáhané ) , but rather on the basis of the amount of the claim that had actually been enforced ( vymožené ) .

An introductory report ( predkladacia správa ) and an explanatory report ( dôvody ) on the amendment refer to “ interpretative question marks ” and “ inconsistent practice in applying ” the existing rules in respect of the basis for calculating the remuneration of judicial enforcement officers . The amendment has no retroactive effect .

Under section CARDINAL ) , a ORG ’s remuneration is to be PERCENT of the figure used as the basis for calculation .

In the event that defendants settle their debts themselves and the enforcement is consequently “ abandoned ” under LAW of the LAW , the ORG ’s remuneration is to be reduced to CARDINAL of the amount calculated pursuant to the abovementioned rules ( section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) ) .

If a ORG succeeds in enforcing part of a claim before its enforcement is discontinued , the ORG ’s remuneration is to be calculated on the basis of the amount actually enforced ( vymožené ) ( section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) ) . This provision applied at the relevant time and has remained unaffected throughout the subsequent legislative developments .

On DATE the Constitutional Court gave a judgment ( nález ) in an unrelated case no . II . ÚS CARDINAL , concerning the applicability of GPE to the remuneration of JEOs . In this judgment , ORG held that :

“ The term ‘ possessions’ encompasses things , rights and claims . ORG therefore considers that compensation in respect of costs of the proceedings , which is due to a [ ORG ] upon the discontinuation of enforcement proceedings , constitutes possessions , which are acquired by virtue of a final and binding ruling of an ordinary court awarding it . This claim fully enjoys the protection of [ ... ] LAW , because compensation in respect of costs of the proceedings is undoubtedly a claim of a party to the proceedings against another party to the proceedings , which is moreover enforceable as any other financial claim .

A claim for compensation of costs of proceedings has to be allowed to the party concerned in the entire scope envisaged by statute , which includes [ VAT ] in so far as the party concerned is liable to pay that tax under the applicable statute on the amount awarded . ”