Violation of Art. 10;Violation of Art. 6-1 (independent and impartial tribunal);Not necessary to examine other complaint under Art. 6-1;Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed;Non-pecuniary damage - financial award;Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings

Mr PERSON , a NORP national born in DATE , lives in GPE . A lawyer by profession , he was at the material time a member of the executive committee of the LOC section of ORG ( “ the HEP ” ) . That party , which was represented in ORG , was dissolved by ORG on DATE .

On DATE the executive committee decided to distribute in the GPE constituency a leaflet criticising the measures taken by the local authorities , in particular against small - scale illegal trading and the sprawl of ORG camps around the city .

The title of the leaflet , of which CARDINAL copies were printed , was “ To all democratic patriots ! ” , and the text read as follows :

“ In DATE a campaign aimed at ‘ DRIVING THE NORP OUT OF THE GPE has been launched in GPE against the NORP population by a combination of prefecture , security police and town hall . In this campaign GPE has been designated a pilot - city . The first stage was the operation [ against ] street traders , stallkeepers and mussel sellers , whom they tried to hide away on the ground that it was necessary to smarten up the city and ease traffic congestion . The purpose of this operation was to impose an ‘ economic blockade’ on our , mainly NORP , fellow citizens who make their living through these activities , condemning them to destitution and starvation . In this way the masses were to be frightened , oppressed and compelled to return to their province of origin .

Before the ‘ DRIVING THE NORP OUT’ campaign began the organisational and psychological ground had already been prepared by leaflets signed by ‘ NORP inhabitants of NORP and handed out in large numbers for DATE by ‘ obscure forces’ . These leaflets incited hostility against the NORP population in particular and stirred up anti - NORP feelings . This led to racist and chauvinistic anti - NORP attitudes through propaganda saying : ‘ Do n’t give employment or housing to the NORP . Do n’t speak to them , do n’t let your daughters marry them and do n’t marry CARDINAL yourself . Smash the GPE That is how the psychological foundations were laid down , the preparations for the future offensives . Although these leaflets were handed out in broad daylight , those responsible – and nobody knows why – were never arrested .

But the campaign was by no means limited to the operation against street traders , stallkeepers and mussel sellers . The second prong was ‘ Operation shantytown’ . The same combination of prefecture , security police and town hall launched the demolition of the ORG camps . It began in PERSON and PERSON and continued in PERSON , [ all ] shantytown districts inhabited mainly by NORP , who , before the elections , were regarded by the parties in favour of the status quo as a source of votes . Those who had encouraged the mushrooming of the shantytowns by dishonestly promising freedom to build in exchange for votes and those who , with the local mafia , had appropriated public land this time set about the ferocious destruction of these huts to oppress and intimidate the NORP and force them to go back home .

The NORP and NORP proletarian people suddenly and without any warning saw the huts they had run into debt to build , with so many sacrifices made by cutting down on their children ’s food , collapsing about their ears . That is how they are trying to oppress the NORP and NORP people and drive them into distress and despair .

IT ’S STATE TERROR AGAINST NORP AND NORP PROLETARIANS !

It is certain that these demolitions , which began in PERSON and are still continuing in PERSON , will soon spread to GPE ’s other shantytowns . The ORG is testing the people ’s reactions and will to resist by causing various kinds of destruction . Passivity as a form of defence against this devastation has encouraged the ORG to commit further kinds of destruction .

In conclusion : The ‘ Driving - the - NORP - Out policy’ forms part of the SPECIAL WAR being conducted in the country at present against the NORP people . It is one of the mechanisms of that war , the way it impinges on the cities . Because the methods used are the same , namely enslavement , violence , terror and oppression through compulsion . It is a psychological war .

While , in the country , they are trying to oppress and silence the people through counter - insurgency tactics , special patrols , village guards , the ORG decree and every [ other ] form of ORG terror , in GPE they want to achieve the same aim by depriving our fellow citizens of their means of subsistence and in the end by knocking their houses down about their ears . The methods used , although different in form , are in the final analysis mechanisms serving the purposes of the special war . It is the urban form of the special war .

TO ALL DEMOCRATIC NORP !

The way to nullify these insults to the cities is to set up ORG BASED ON THE PEOPLE ’S OWN STRENGTH .

We call on all NORP and NORP democratic patriots to assume their responsibilities and oppose this special war being waged against the proletarian people .

LONG LIVE THE BROTHERHOOD OF NATIONS !

STOP THE SPECIAL WAR BEING SPREAD INTO THE CITIES ! ”

By a letter of DATE , accompanied by a copy of the leaflet in question , the president of the ORG informed the GPE prefecture of the executive committee ’s decision ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) and asked for permission to implement it .

NORP The GPE security police , to whom this request had been referred , considered that the leaflet contained separatist propaganda capable of inciting the people to resist the government and commit criminal offences .

On DATE they asked ORG attached to ORG ( “ the public prosecutor ” , “ the ORG ” ) to state his opinion as to whether the contents of the leaflet contravened the law .

On DATE , at the request of the public prosecutor ’s office , a substitute judge of ORG issued an injunction ordering the seizure of the leaflets and prohibiting their distribution .

The police searched the ORG ’s premises in GPE , first at the headquarters , where the party leaders handed over , without demur , CARDINAL copies of the leaflet which were still parcelled up , and then at the ORG district office , where CARDINAL remaining copies were seized .

Still on DATE the public prosecutor ’s office opened a criminal investigation against the ORG ’s local leaders and the members of its executive committee , including the applicant .

On DATE the public prosecutor instituted criminal proceedings in ORG against the applicant and the other CARDINAL members of the ORG committee who had taken part in the decision of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . Citing the text of the leaflet , he accused them of attempting to incite hatred and hostility through racist words and asked the court to apply Articles CARDINAL § § CARDINAL of LAW , LAW no . ORG ) and additional section CARDINAL of LAW ( Law no . CARDINAL ) ( see paragraphs CARDINAL , DATE and DATE below ) . He also asked the court to order confiscation of the leaflets .

On DATE ORG , composed of CARDINAL judges , CARDINAL of whom was a member of ORG , found the applicant guilty of the offences charged and sentenced him to DATE and CARDINAL days’ imprisonment and a fine of MONEY . It also ordered the confiscation of the leaflets and disqualified him from driving for DATE .

In its interpretation of the wording of the leaflet , ORG accepted the public prosecutor ’s oral submissions entirely , except for that part which related to the applicability of the Prevention of Terrorism Act ( Law no . ORG ) . It noted in particular that the leaflet suggested recourse to resistance against the police and the establishment of “ neighbourhood committees ” , which it held to be illegal forms of protest . It further held that the offence had been intentionally committed , since the accused had not contested either the existence or wording of the text on which the charge was based .

With regard to the severity of the sentence , it observed that although commission of the offence through the medium of print was an aggravating circumstance , it was necessary to take into account the accused ’s good faith and the fact that the authorities had been able to lay hands on the leaflets before they had been distributed .

On DATE the applicant and the other convicted persons appealed to ORG . In their notice of appeal they asked for a public hearing to be held and challenged ORG interpretation of the leaflet and its refusal to commute the prison sentence to a fine .

On DATE May ORG attached to ORG forwarded the case file together with an opinion couched in a standard form of words – which was not communicated to Mr DATE asking the court to uphold the judgment .

In a judgment of DATE ORG upheld all the operative provisions of the impugned judgment , after observing that , regard being had to the nature and length of the sentence imposed at first instance , it was not necessary to hold a hearing .

On DATE the prosecuting authorities decided , at the applicant ’s request , to stay execution of the prison sentence for DATE .

NORP The relevant provisions of LAW read as follows :

“ Public incitement to commit an offence

Where the incitement [ to commit an offence ] is done by means of mass communication , of whatever type , by tape recordings , gramophone records , newspapers , press publications or other published material , by the circulation or distribution of printed papers or by the placing of placards or posters in public places , the terms of imprisonment to which convicted persons are liable shall be doubled … ”

“ Non - public incitement to commit an offence

Whosoever expressly praises or condones an act punishable by law as an offence or incites the population to break the law shall be sentenced to DATE imprisonment and a … fine of DATE .

Whosoever expressly arouses hatred and hostility in society on the basis of a distinction between social classes , races or religions , or CARDINAL based on allegiance to a particular denomination or region , shall be sentenced to CARDINAL DATE imprisonment and a fine of DATE . If this incitement is done in a manner likely to endanger public safety , the sentence shall be increased [ by DATE ] .

The penalties to be imposed on those who have committed the above - mentioned offences by the means listed in LAW shall be doubled . ”

A conviction under LAW entails further consequences , particularly with regard to the exercise of certain activities governed by special legislation . For example , persons convicted of an offence under that section may not found associations ( LAW . CARDINAL , section CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(b ) ) or trade unions , nor may they be members of the executive committee of a trade union ( Law no . CARDINAL , section CARDINAL ) . They are also forbidden to found or join political parties ( PERSON no . PERSON , section CARDINAL ) ) and may not stand for election to ORG ( Law no . CARDINAL , section CARDINAL(fCARDINAL ) ) . In addition , if the sentence imposed exceeds CARDINAL months’ imprisonment , the convicted person is debarred from entering the civil service , provided that the offence has been committed intentionally ( Law no . CARDINAL , section PERSON ) ) .

DATE Additional CARDINAL ) of LAW ( Law no . CARDINAL ) provides :

“ Where distribution [ of the printed matter whose distribution constitutes the offence ] is prevented … by a court injunction or , in an emergency , by order of ORG , to be confirmed by a court , … the penalty imposed shall be CARDINAL of that laid down by law for the offence concerned . ”

Law no . CARDINAL of DATE , promulgated with a view to preventing acts of terrorism , refers to a number of offences defined in LAW which it describes as “ acts of terrorism ” or “ acts perpetrated for the purposes of terrorism ” ( sections DATE ) and to which it applies . However , the act punishable pursuant to LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) is not among them .

Article CARDINAL of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides for the holding of a public hearing in proceedings before ORG only where the impugned judgment concerns offences classified as “ serious ” , such as those punishable by the death penalty or a term of imprisonment of DATE . ORG jurisdiction , according to LAW , is limited to questions concerning the lawfulness and procedural regularity of the first - instance judgment .

ORG were created by PERSON no . DATE of DATE , in accordance with LAW . That PERSON was annulled by ORG on DATE . The courts in question were later reintroduced into the NORP judicial system by LAW . The relevant part of the statement of reasons contains the following passage :

“ There may be acts affecting the existence and stability of a ORG such that when they are committed special jurisdiction is required in order to give judgment expeditiously and appropriately . For such cases it is necessary to set up ORG . According to a principle inherent in our LAW , it is forbidden to create a special court to [ give judgment on ] a specific act after it has been committed . For that reason ORG have been provided for in our LAW to try cases involving the above - mentioned offences . Given that the special provisions laying down their powers have [ thus ] been enacted in advance and that the courts have been created before the commission of any offence … , they may not be described as courts set up to deal with this or that offence after the commission of such an offence . ”

The composition and functioning of ORG are subject to the following rules .

The constitutional provisions governing judicial organisation are worded as follows :

“ In the performance of their duties , judges shall be independent ; they shall give judgment , according to their personal conviction , in accordance with the LAW , statute and the law .

No organ , authority , officer or other person may give orders or instructions to courts or judges in the exercise of their judicial powers , or send them circulars or make recommendations or suggestions to them . ”

“ Judges … shall not be removed from office or compelled to retire without their consent before the age prescribed by LAW … ”

“ Presidents , regular members and substitute judges of ORG shall be appointed for a renewable period of DATE . ”

“ The personal rights and obligations of military judges … shall be regulated by law in accordance with the principles of the independence of the courts , the safeguards enjoyed by the judiciary and the requirements of military service . Relations between military judges and the commanders under whom they serve as regards their non - judicial duties shall also be regulated by law ... ”

Based on LAW , the relevant provisions of LAW no . CARDINAL on ORG , provide as follows :

“ In the capitals of the provinces of … ORG shall be established to try persons accused of offences against the Republic – whose constituent qualities are enunciated in LAW against the indivisible unity of the State – meaning both the national territory and its people DATE or against the free , democratic system of government and offences directly affecting the ORG ’s internal or external security . ”

“ The ORG shall be composed of a president and CARDINAL other regular members . In addition , there shall sit at each ORG CARDINAL substitute members . ”

“ The president of a ORG , CARDINAL of the other regular members and CARDINAL of the substitutes shall be civilian … judges , the other members , whether full or substitute , military judges of the first rank … ”

“ The appointment of military judges to sit as regular members and substitutes shall be carried out according to the procedure laid down for that purpose in the special legislation [ concerning those posts ] .

Except as provided in the present PERSON or other legislation , the president and the regular or substitute members of ORG … may not be appointed to another post or place , without their consent , within DATE …

If , after an investigation concerning the presidents and regular or substitute members of ORG conducted according to the legislation concerning them , competent committees or authorities decide to change the duty station of a military judge , the duty station of that judge or his duties [ themselves ] … may be changed in accordance with the procedure laid down in that legislation . ”

“ The ORG shall try persons accused of the offences defined in

( a ) [ Article ] CARDINAL § CARDINAL … of FAC … ”

“ ORG shall hear appeals from the judgments of ORG . ”

“ The rules governing the rights and obligations of … military judges appointed to ORG and their supervision … , the institution of disciplinary proceedings against them , the imposition of disciplinary penalties on them and the investigation and prosecution of any offences … they may commit in the performance of their duties shall be as laid down in the relevant provisions of the laws governing their professions …

The observations of ORG and the assessment reports drawn up by ORG assessors on judges of ORG and the files on any investigations conducted against them … shall be transmitted to ORG . ”

“ A ORG may be transformed into LAW , under the conditions set forth below , where a state of emergency has been declared in all or part of the territory in respect of which ORG concerned has jurisdiction , provided that within that territory there is CARDINAL ORG … ”

The relevant provisions of ORG are worded as follows :

“ The aptitude of military judges … appointed as regular or substitute members of ORG that is required for promotion or advancement in salary step , rank or seniority shall be determined on the basis of assessment reports drawn up according to the procedure laid down below , subject to the provisions of the present Act and ORG ( Law no . CARDINAL ) .

( a ) The immediate superior competent to carry out assessment and draw up assessment reports for military judges , whether full or substitute members … shall be the Minister of ORG in ORG , followed by PERSON .

“ Members … of ORG belonging to ORG … shall be appointed by a committee composed of the personnel director and legal advisor of ORG , the personnel director and legal adviser attached to the staff of the arm in which the person concerned is serving and ORG at ORG … ”

“ Military judges … shall be appointed by a decree issued jointly by the Minister of Defence and the Prime Minister and submitted to the President of the Republic for approval , in accordance with the provisions on the appointment and transfer of members of the armed forces …

The procedure for appointment as a military judge shall take into account the opinion of ORG , the reports by ORG assessors and the assessment reports drawn up by the immediate superiors … ”

“ The rules governing the salary scales , salary increases and various personal rights of military judges … shall be as laid down in the provisions relating to officers . ”

“ The Minister of Defence may apply to military judges , after considering their defence submissions , the following disciplinary sanctions :

A. A warning , which consists in giving the person concerned notice in writing that he must exercise more care in the performance of his duties .

B. A reprimand , which consists in giving the person concerned notice in writing that a particular act or a particular attitude has been found to be blameworthy .

The said sanctions shall be final , mentioned in the assessment record of the person concerned and entered in his personal file … ”

“ When military judges … sit in court they shall wear the special dress of their civilian counterparts … ”

Article CARDINAL of LAW of CARDINAL DATE provides :

“ It shall be an offence , punishable by DATE imprisonment , to abuse one ’s authority as a [ public ] official in order to influence the military courts . ”

Under LAW of PERSON no . CARDINAL ORG has jurisdiction to hear applications for judicial review and claims for damages based on disputes relating to the personal status of officers , particularly those concerning their promotion and professional advancement .

The Government produced several judgments of ORG setting aside decisions concerning the appointment and promotion of military judges or disciplinary sanctions applied to them . These were the judgments of CARDINAL DATE ( no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) , DATE ( no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) , DATE ( no . DATE ) , DATE ( no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) , DATE ( no . CARDINAL ) , CARDINAL DATE ( no . CARDINAL ) and DATE ( no . CARDINAL ) .

It appears from these judgments that in setting aside the transfer decisions concerned , ORG gave as its grounds either lack of consent on the part of the person concerned or abuse of the military authorities’ discretionary power . In connection with assessment reports , failure to state reasons or a lack of objectivity on the part of the immediate superior was taken into account . Lastly , in connection with a disciplinary sanction , against which in principle no appeal lies , ORG held that the acts of which the person concerned stood accused had been incorrectly established and that the sanction was accordingly null and void .

The Government also submitted a number of judgments rendered by ORG relevant to the impartiality of military judges sitting as members of such courts . These were the judgments of CARDINAL DATE ( no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) , DATE ( no . CARDINAL ) , DATE ( no . CARDINAL ) , DATE ( no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) , DATE ( no . CARDINAL ) , CARDINAL DATE ( no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) , DATE ( no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) , CARDINAL DATE ( no . CARDINAL ) , DATE ( no . CARDINAL ) , CARDINAL DATE ( no . CARDINAL ) , DATE ( no . CARDINAL ) , DATE ( no . CARDINAL ) , DATE ( no . CARDINAL ) , DATE ( no . CARDINAL ) , DATE ( no . CARDINAL ) and DATE ( no . CARDINAL ) .

Most of these decisions declared the accused guilty but also contained separate opinions by military judges adopting a dissenting opinion with regard to the establishment and classification of the facts , the way sentence was determined or the finding of guilt itself .


Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed (ratione materiae);Preliminary objection joined to merits;No violation of P1-1;Violation of Art. 6-1;Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed;Non-pecuniary damage - award

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

On DATE the applicant , who was born in DATE and lives in GPE , was arrested by the LOC police and remanded in custody until DATE . During this period of time some of the applicant ’s property stored in her house in GPE , where a café belonging to her was also located , and in her second house in GPE , was stolen . Criminal proceedings were initiated in this connection .

On DATE criminal proceedings in case no . DATE were initiated regarding the burglary in GPE .

On DATE the LOC police decided to acknowledge the applicant as a civil claimant in criminal case no . DATE , with a claim for CARDINAL NORP lati ( ORG ) ( approximately ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL ) .

On DATE another set of criminal proceedings , allocated case number no . DATE , was initiated regarding the burglary in LOC . On the same date the LOC police decided to acknowledge the applicant as a civil claimant in criminal case no . CARDINAL , with a claim for ORG ( approximately ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL ) . According to a copy of that decision , submitted by the applicant , the police investigator crossed out the above amount , putting ORG ( approximately ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL ) instead . The applicant requested to be acknowledged as a civil claimant with a claim for that amount when she was questioned on DATE .

On DATE the GPE police joined the CARDINAL sets of criminal proceedings into CARDINAL case , no . DATE .

On DATE a public prosecutor attached to ORG ( “ the PERSON public prosecutor ” ) informed the applicant that , following her complaint to ORG , an examination of the investigation in the criminal proceedings relating to the burglary of her property had been carried out . During the examination , serious infringements of the provisions of LAW had been detected . In that regard , according to the GPE public prosecutor , she had on DATE requested the head of the LOC police to rectify the deficiencies indicated to him and to identify the police officers who had failed to protect the applicant ’s property upon her detention , as required by LAW . An official investigation had been carried out into the failure to protect the applicant ’s property and the criminal proceedings in respect of the burglary of the property . As a result , QUANTITY police officers had been identified as responsible for the failure to protect the applicant ’s property . CARDINAL of them had been disciplined and the other ’s professional conduct had been assessed by the professional attestation commission .

On DATE the applicant wrote to the GPE public prosecutor , inquiring about the progress in the criminal proceedings .

On DATE the GPE public prosecutor informed the applicant that her complaint in respect of lack of progress in the criminal proceedings was well - founded , since the PERSON police had not carried out any investigative measures and the investigation in the criminal proceedings had been unlawfully delayed . According to the prosecutor , the head of the police at ORG had been informed thereof on DATE .

On DATE the applicant complained to ORG about the inefficiency of the PERSON public prosecutor , which had hindered the restitution of her stolen property . On DATE the Prosecutor General informed the applicant that her complaint had been transferred to the PERSON public prosecutor for examination .

On DATE , the PERSON public prosecutor informed the applicant that the investigation in the criminal proceedings in case no . DATE was still in progress . She had requested the head of the LOC police to speed up the investigation and to carry out the instructions she had given the LOC police on DATE by DATE . Thereafter , an additional examination of the conduct of the investigation was to be carried out .

On DATE the applicant complained to ORG about the lack of progress in the investigation in the criminal proceedings .

On DATE the PERSON public prosecutor confirmed that the applicant had been declared a civil claimant in the criminal proceedings in case no . DATE , which were still ongoing .

On DATE the Prosecutor General informed the applicant that her application of CARDINAL DATE had been transferred for examination to the PERSON public prosecutor on DATE .

On DATE the PERSON public prosecutor sent the applicant the decision of DATE , without answering in substance the applicant ’s questions about the progress in the criminal proceedings .

On DATE the PERSON public prosecutor informed the applicant that both decisions declaring her a civil claimant had been sent to her .

On DATE the GPE police , pursuant to Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL of LAW , decided to acknowledge the applicant as a civil claimant in criminal proceedings no . DATE , with a claim for ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL ( approximately ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL ) .

On CARDINAL DATE the GPE public prosecutor informed the applicant that her inquiries concerning criminal proceedings no . DATE had been transferred to the GPE public prosecutor , and those concerning criminal proceedings nos . CARDINAL and DATE ( paragraph CARDINAL , below ) to the GPE public prosecutor .

On DATE the GPE public prosecutor informed the applicant that criminal proceedings no . CARDINAL were still ongoing . ORG had been instructed to speed up the investigation .

On DATE a police officer of the NORP police decided to transfer the criminal case to the public prosecutor of GPE for prosecution . It had been established by the pre - trial investigation that DATE and DATE , during the applicant ’s detention , GPE , GPE , GPE and GPE had stolen and consumed food and alcoholic beverages , and stolen money , clothes , kitchen equipment and other items , which amounted to a total loss of LVL CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL ( approximately ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL ) to the applicant . GPE , GPE , GPE and GPE had thus committed a crime under LAW of LAW . This decision was sent to the applicant on DATE .

On DATE a prosecutor of ORG of GPE brought a charge against GPE for burglary in the amount of ORG CARDINAL ( approximately EUR CARDINAL,CARDINAL ) . A preventive measure – prohibition on changing her place of residence DATE was imposed on her .

On DATE a prosecutor of ORG of GPE brought a charge against GPE for burglary in the amount of ORG CARDINAL ( approximately ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL ) .

On DATE a prosecutor of ORG of GPE decided to terminate the criminal proceedings in case no . DATE because of a lack of sufficient evidence . It was stated , inter alia , that since during questioning the applicant had constantly increased the amount of the loss she had allegedly suffered , her statements in this respect should be treated with caution . It was established that during questioning GPE , GPE , GPE and GPE had denied having burgled the applicant ’s property and that it was impossible , on the basis of an assessment of the evidence , to discover what had been stolen from the applicant ’s property , and in what circumstances . Besides , since the instigation of the criminal proceedings in DATE no evidence had been obtained as to the persons responsible for the loss or theft of the applicant ’s property . The prosecutor considered that the case should be terminated on the grounds that it was impossible to obtain further evidence and to prove any charges against named individuals . According to the information provided by the Government , the decision was sent to the applicant on DATE , and she was informed that it could be appealed against to ORG . The applicant contested that claim , stating that she had not received the decision .

On DATE the GPE police instituted criminal proceedings in case no . DATE in respect of the burglary of the applicant ’s house in GPE .

On DATE the GPE police acknowledged the applicant as a civil claimant for an amount of ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL ( TIME ) .

On DATE a public prosecutor of the Dobele District decided to terminate the criminal proceedings in part and to reject the applicant ’s civil claim in part . It was established that the accused GPE had confessed to having stolen a few of the items declared by the applicant as stolen and was thus liable for the amount of ORG CARDINAL ( approximately EUR CARDINAL ) . Taking into account that the applicant could not give details of all the stolen items and their value , the prosecutor decided that the loss suffered by her should be considered approximate and , pursuant to LAW , decided to terminate the criminal case against GPE in part because of the lack of evidence and to reject the applicant ’s civil claim in the amount of ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL ( approximately ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL ) as unsubstantiated .

On DATE a public prosecutor of GPE decided to terminate the remainder of the criminal proceedings . She established that during the pre - trial investigation no evidence had been obtained to justify charging GPE with the burglary . As to GPE , considering that he was serving a sentence imposed on him in another set of criminal proceedings on DATE , and was thus unable to commit new offences , the prosecutor decided to terminate the criminal proceedings against him in the remaining part .

On DATE the head of ORG quashed the decision of the public prosecutor of GPE to reject the applicant ’s civil claim in the amount of ORG CARDINAL ( approximately EUR CARDINAL ) as unsubstantiated . The head prosecutor instructed that , at the pre - trial stage , it had to be checked whether the burglary could have been carried out by another person , and that the applicant herself should be questioned in detail as regards the allegedly stolen items , their description and value . The prosecutor ordered the initiation of a new criminal case , no . DATE , in respect of the theft of the applicant ’s property in the amount of ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL ( approximately ORG CARDINAL ) .

On DATE the GPE public prosecutor informed the applicant that criminal proceedings no . DATE had been terminated on DATE , pursuant to LAW ; criminal proceedings no . DATE ( concerning the stolen property in the amount of ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL ( approximately ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL ) ) were still ongoing at ORG , and the perpetrator had not been identified .

According to a letter of ORG of GPE , criminal case no . DATE was transferred to the GPE police for pre - trial investigation on DATE . The prosecutor responsible for the supervision of the investigation examined the case on DATE .

According to the submissions of the Government , the investigation of the criminal case is still ongoing .

On DATE the applicant filed a civil claim for damages against ORG with ORG , and asked to be exempted from court taxes because of her poor financial situation . According to the documents she submitted to ORG , she attached a copy of her pensioner ’s certificate of DATE , stating that she received an old - age pension in the amount of ORG ( approximately ORG CARDINAL ) , and the replies of the PERSON public prosecutor of DATE , CARDINAL DATE and DATE to her complaints . She requested the court to award her compensation in the amount of ORG CARDINAL ( approximately ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL ) for her stolen property and for the non - pecuniary damage she had suffered because the LOC police had acted contrary to the requirements of LAW .

On DATE a judge of ORG informed the applicant that she had requested exemption from paying court taxes without submitting any evidence that she was financially unable to do so . The judge further noted that she had not submitted any documents confirming the circumstances on which her claim was based . The judge set a deadline of DATE for rectification of those deficiencies .

On DATE the applicant amended her claim , stating that because the police had acted contrary to the requirements of LAW of LAW her rights guaranteed by LAW No . CARDINAL to the Convention had been violated . She again requested exemption from court taxes , attaching a copy of her pensioner ’s certificate and copies of the replies of the GPE public prosecutor of DATE and DATE to substantiate the claim .

NORP On DATE the judge of ORG replied to the applicant that her amendments of DATE were insufficient and that she should rectify the deficiencies by DATE .

On DATE the applicant amended her claim by submitting a copy of the decision of the NORP police of DATE , which acknowledged her as a civil claimant and stated that in order to assess the value of the remainder of the stolen property she was to invite witnesses to give evidence .

On DATE the judge of ORG considered that the deficiencies indicated by him had not been rectified and , finding that the claim had not been properly submitted , returned it to the applicant without examination .

On DATE ORG , in response to the applicant ’s ancillary complaint of CARDINAL DATE , upheld the decision of ORG . The court considered that the applicant had failed to submit evidence as to her financial situation and to attach documents establishing the circumstances her claim was based on . The decision was final and not subject to appeal .

LAW ) , as in force until DATE

Article CARDINAL stated that “ if an arrested person had property or an apartment which was left unattended , the police , a public prosecutor or a court had to ensure its protection ” .

Article CARDINAL stipulated that a civil claim could be submitted by a person who had suffered damage as a result of a crime . The civil claim could be brought against the accused or a person who was vicariously liable for the acts of the accused ( paragraph CARDINAL ) . The civil claim could be lodged upon initiation of a criminal case , during the pre - trial investigation , or with the court before the adjudication of the case ( paragraph CARDINAL ) . If the court stayed the adjudication , the civil claim could also be lodged before the beginning of the adjudication at the subsequent court hearing ( paragraph CARDINAL ) . A person had the right to lodge a civil claim by way of civil proceedings if the claim had not been brought in criminal proceedings or if the claim was not adjudicated due to the termination of the criminal case or a not guilty verdict ( paragraph CARDINAL ) .

Pursuant to LAW , a person who had suffered pecuniary damage as a result of a criminal offence could bring a civil claim against an accused or a person who was vicariously liable for the acts of the accused , which would be examined by a court in conjunction with the criminal case . Further , a person who had been acknowledged as a civil claimant by a decision of the police , a public prosecutor or a court was entitled to submit a complaint in respect of acts of the aforementioned authorities .

LAW provided that a person who had suffered damage as a result of a crime could be declared a civil party during the pre - trial investigation .

Pursuant to LAW and DATE , a criminal case or a part of it was to be terminated if a charge had not been proved and it was impossible to obtain additional evidence , and if it had been acknowledged , because of changed circumstances during the investigation of the case , that an offence committed by a person had lost its element of public danger or that that person no longer posed a danger to the public .

A civil claimant could submit a complaint about acts of the police to a public prosecutor . The complaint could be submitted to the prosecutor directly or through the intermediary of the person against whom the complaint was brought . A complaint submitted to a police officer had to be forwarded together with his explanations to the prosecutor within TIME ( LAW . The prosecutor had to decide on the complaint within DATE from its receipt and notify the complainant of the outcome . If the complaint was rejected , reasons therefore had to be stated . Decisions and acts of a public prosecutor could be appealed against to a higher prosecutor , who had to deal with that appeal in accordance with the aforementioned procedures ( Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL ) .

Pursuant to Article CARDINAL , if a civil claim had been left without examination upon adjudication of a criminal case , it could be lodged de novo within civil proceedings .

Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL stated that aggravated robbery carried a sentence of imprisonment of from DATE , with confiscation of property .

According to LAW , civil claims for compensation for pecuniary or non - pecuniary damage in criminal matters may be brought in accordance with the procedures prescribed by the criminal procedure law .

Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL states that a judgment in criminal proceedings is binding in civil proceedings to the extent that it concerns the determination of the offence for which a defendant has been sentenced , and the liability of the defendant .

The court shall stay court proceedings if adjudication of the case is not possible prior to the deciding of another matter which is required to be adjudicated in accordance with criminal procedure ( the relevant part of Article CARDINAL ) .

DATE stipulates that every wrongful act or failure to act per se shall give the person who has suffered damage the right to claim compensation from the wrongdoer , insofar as he or she may be held liable for such act or failure .

Everyone has a duty to compensate for losses he has caused through his acts or failure to act ( LAW . A loss shall be understood to mean any deprivation which can be assessed financially ( LAW . Losses may be either losses that have already been incurred , or losses that are expected to be incurred ; they give rise to a right to compensation ( LAW . A loss which has already been incurred may be a diminution of the value of the victim ’s existing property or a decrease in his or her anticipated profits ( LAW ) .

Every person has the right to defend his rights and lawful interests in a court and , in the event of unlawful interference with his rights , everyone has the right to adequate compensation ( Article CARDINAL ) .


Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security

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

The applicant was born in DATE and is serving a prison sentence in GPE .

The applicant was suspected of involvement in a criminal gang . On DATE ORG of GPE ( the “ ORG ” ) opened a criminal investigation into the gang ’s activities . On DATE the applicant was arrested on suspicion of CARDINAL counts of murder and placed in custody .

On DATE the prosecutor authorised the applicant ’s detention pending investigation , referring to the gravity of the charges and the risk of his absconding and obstructing justice . No time - limit for detention was fixed .

The applicant appealed . He claimed that the prosecutor ’s decision of CARDINAL DATE lacked justification . He also applied for release , arguing that he had no intention of absconding , had family commitments and a permanent place of residence and a job .

On DATE the ORG of Kazan rejected the applicant ’s appeal and his application for release and upheld the prosecutor ’s decision of DATE . In particular , the court stated the following :

“ When deciding to detain [ the applicant ] , [ the prosecutor ] took into account the gravity of the charges and the fact that [ the applicant ] might abscond and interfere with the establishment of the truth ...

The arguments furnished by [ the applicant and his counsel ] are not sufficient to refute [ the prosecutor ’s ] finding that [ the applicant ] might abscond and interfere with establishment of the truth . ”

On DATE ORG upheld the decision of DATE .

NORP In the meantime , on DATE ORG indicted the applicant for murder and involvement in a criminal gang . On an unspecified date the applicant was also charged with fraud , extortion and kidnapping .

On DATE ORG extended the applicant ’s detention until DATE . The detention order was issued in respect of CARDINAL defendants , including the applicant . Referring to the gravity of the charges , the prosecutor in charge of the investigation alleged that the defendants might abscond or interfere with the investigation . The detention order further indicated that several witnesses , including CARDINAL of the defendants , had identified the applicant as one of the perpetrators of the crimes under investigation . The applicant did not appeal .

On DATE and DATE the Deputy Prosecutor of GPE extended the applicant ’s detention until DATE and CARDINAL DATE respectively . The orders were issued in respect of CARDINAL and then CARDINAL defendants , including the applicant , and reiterated verbatim the reasoning previously used to justify keeping the accused in custody . As to the evidence collected in the course of the investigation , the prosecutor referred to numerous witnesses who had testified against the applicant . The applicant did not appeal .

On DATE the defendants and their lawyers started studying the case file which comprised CARDINAL volumes .

On DATE ORG further extended the applicant ’s detention until DATE . The court reasoned as follows :

“ [ The applicant ] should remain in custody since he is charged with grave offences and might abscond and threaten the witnesses and other parties involved in the proceedings . Besides , [ the applicant ] is to study a considerable volume of the case - file materials . In view of the above , the court grants the investigator ’s request to extend [ the applicant ’s ] detention . ”

The applicant appealed , arguing that the investigator had not furnished any evidence to substantiate his allegations that the applicant might abscond or interfere with the administration of justice . He further asked the appeal court to release him and apply any other alternative measure prescribed by law to ensure his presence in court or anticipate his custodial sentence , if any . On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s appeal and upheld the decision of CARDINAL DATE .

On DATE ORG further extended the applicant ’s detention pending his study of the case file . No time - limit for the detention period was indicated . The court provided the following justification for its decision :

“ [ The applicant ] should remain in custody since he is charged with grave offences and might abscond or interfere with the administration of justice . ”

The applicant appealed . Alleging numerous violations of the applicable rules of criminal procedure in the course of his arrest and detention , he asked the appeal court to release him .

On DATE ORG upheld the detention order of DATE on appeal . In particular , it noted as follows :

“ As [ the lower court ] indicated , [ the applicant ] may abscond or interfere with administration of justice and has been charged with grave and serious offences . Accordingly , the [ lower ] court ’s decision to extend the applicant ’s detention was justified . As regards [ the applicant ’s ] allegations about violations of rules of criminal procedure ... they will be subject to examination in the course of the trial ... ”

It appears that in DATE the defendants , including the applicant , and their counsel , completed their study of the case file . According to the Government , on CARDINAL DATE the Deputy Prosecutor of GPE approved the bill of indictment in respect of the applicant and CARDINAL other persons and forwarded the case file to ORG .

On DATE ORG reviewed the material in the case file in respect of the CARDINAL defendants , including the applicant , and scheduled the first hearing for DATE . The court further decided that the case would be tried by a jury and that CARDINAL defendants , including the applicant , should remain in custody pending trial . No time - limit for their detention was fixed . When dismissing the defendants’ application for release , the court noted as follows :

“ The defendants have been charged with numerous grave and serious offences which might entail a custodial sentence exceeding DATE . [ The court does not ] discern any special exceptional circumstances which would render [ the defendants’ ] release possible . The reasons earlier [ indicated by the court ] to extend the GPE detention , i.e. , the risk of absconding , threatening the witnesses and other parties involved in the criminal proceedings or interfering with the administration of justice in any other way , have not ceased to exist . ”

The applicant appealed . He argued that he had spent DATE and DATE in detention . He asked the court to release him on an undertaking not to leave town or on bail . He further referred to the fact that he had no previous convictions , that he was married and had a minor child and a full - time job . On DATE ORG of GPE dismissed the applicant ’s appeal and upheld the decision of DATE finding no reason to depart from the lower court ’s findings .

On DATE ORG extended the detention of CARDINAL defendants , including the applicant , until DATE . The applicant argued that he should be released pending trial . He claimed that the gravity of the charges alone could not constitute a sufficient reason for extension of his detention ; that he had been detained during a lengthy period ; that the prosecution had failed to prove that he might abscond or interfere with the administration of justice ; that the court had already examined the materials concerning a number of charges against the defendants ; and that the criminal proceedings had been too long . The court dismissed the applicant ’s arguments , noting as follows :

“ [ The defendants’ ] application for release can not be granted for the following reasons . They have been charged with grave and serious offences which might entail a custodial sentence exceeding DATE . [ The court does not ] discern any special exceptional circumstances which would render [ the defendants’ ] release possible . The reasons earlier [ indicated by the court ] to extend the GPE detention , i.e. , the risk of absconding , threatening the witnesses and other parties involved in the criminal proceedings or interfering with the administration of justice in any other way , have not ceased to exist ... The fact that the court had already examined several charges against the defendants can not be regarded as a sufficient reason to justify their release . Nor is the length of the criminal proceedings a factor to be taken into account when deciding the issue of detention . ”

On DATE , CARDINAL DATE , and CARDINAL DATE ORG extended the pre - trial detention for the applicant and CARDINAL other defendants until DATE , CARDINAL DATE and CARDINAL DATE respectively . Each time the court dismissed the GPE applications reproducing verbatim its earlier reasoning as follows :

It appears that the applicant did not appeal against the above decisions .

On DATE ORG found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced him to DATE imprisonment . On DATE ORG upheld the applicant ’s conviction on appeal .

Until DATE criminal - law matters were governed by LAW of DATE , “ the old CCrP ” ) . From DATE the old ORG was replaced by LAW ( Law no . CARDINAL of DATE , “ the new CCrP ” ) .

LAW of DATE establishes that a judicial decision is required before a defendant can be detained or his or her detention extended ( Article CARDINAL ) . Under the old ORG , a decision ordering pre - trial detention could be taken by a prosecutor or a court ( LAW , CARDINAL and DATE ) . The new ORG requires a judicial decision by a district or town court on a reasoned request by a prosecutor supported by appropriate evidence ( LAW CARDINAL , CARDINAL - CARDINAL ) .

Before DATE , pre - trial detention was authorised if the accused was charged with a criminal offence carrying a sentence of DATE imprisonment ( Article CARDINAL ) . The amendments of DATE repealed the provision that permitted defendants to be remanded in custody on the sole ground of the dangerous nature of the criminal offence they had committed . The new ORG reproduced the amended provisions ( Articles CARDINAL § CARDINAL and CARDINAL § CARDINAL ) and added that a defendant should not be remanded in custody if a less severe preventive measure was available .

After arrest the suspect is taken into custody “ pending investigation ” . The permitted period of detention “ pending investigation ” may be extended for DATE in “ exceptional circumstances ” . No extension beyond DATE is possible ( Article CARDINAL of the old CCrP , Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL of the new CCrP ) .

Access to the case material is to be granted DATE before the expiry of the authorised detention period ( LAW CCrP , LAW of the new ORG ) . If the defendant needs more time to study the case file , a judge , on a request by a prosecutor , may grant an extension of the detention until such time as the file has been read in full and the case sent for trial ( LAW CCrP , LAW ( CARDINAL ) of the new ORG ) . Under the old ORG , such an extension could be granted once only and for DATE . The new ORG does not set any time - limits in this respect . Once the defendant has finished reading the file , the prosecutor remits the case to the trial court and from that date the detention is classified as “ before the court ” ( or “ during the judicial proceedings ” ) .

Before DATE the old ORG set no time - limit for detention “ during judicial proceedings ” . On DATE a new Article , CARDINAL - CARDINAL , entered into force which established that the period of detention “ during judicial proceedings ” could not generally exceed DATE from the date the court received the file . However , if there was evidence to show that the defendant ’s release might impede a thorough , complete and objective examination of the case , a court could – of its own motion or on a request by a prosecutor – extend the detention by no longer than DATE . These provisions did not apply to defendants charged with particularly serious criminal offences . The new ORG provides that the term of detention “ during judicial proceedings ” is calculated from the date the court received the file up to the date on which the judgment is given . The period of detention “ during judicial proceedings ” may not normally exceed DATE , but if the case concerns serious or particularly serious criminal offences , the trial court may approve CARDINAL or more extensions of no longer than DATE each ( LAW and CARDINAL ) .


The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

On DATE the applicant ’s wife filed for divorce .

After several hearings , on CARDINAL DATE the Budapest II / III ORG dissolved the parties’ marriage , and ordered the applicant to pay maintenance for the couple ’s daughter in the amount of MONEY ( ORG ) , which included arrears . The court allowed no suspensive effect for any appeal on the maintenance decision . The use of the couple ’s flat was granted to the wife alone .

NORP On appeal , ORG held CARDINAL hearings and obtained the opinion of a real - estate valuation expert . On DATE the court amended the first instance decision , holding that the applicant was entitled to compensation in the amount of MONEY , which corresponded to his share of the flat . It ordered that this liability be taken into account when ORG , in the resumed proceedings , would eventually decide on the division of the matrimonial property .

On DATE execution was ordered . On DATE the applicant was evicted from the family flat . On DATE his car was attached , apparently in order to recover maintenance still owed .

The proceedings in respect of the remainder of the parties’ common property were resumed before ORG on DATE . DATE and DATE numerous hearings took place , and the case was extended to include several further respondents .

According to the information provided by the parties and the elements available in the case file to date , the case has not yet ended .


Anatoly Kovler;Julia Laffranque;Khanlar Hajiyev;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Peer Lorenzen

The applicant was born in DATE and lived in GPE , LOC .

By a judgment of DATE the Vetluga ORG of ORG ( “ the ORG ” ) granted in part the applicant ’s claim for recovery of unpaid military allowance and awarded him MONEY ( RUB ) to be recovered from military unit ORG .

The judgment became final on DATE and shortly thereafter the applicant obtained a writ of execution . DATE and DATE the Departments of ORG of GPE and of GPE returned the enforcement documents to the applicant on QUANTITY occasions without enforcement due to his failure to submit his bank account details and then due to re - organisation of the debtor .

By a decision of DATE ORG allowed the applicant ’s request and changed the method and order of enforcement of the judgment of DATE , replacing the defunct debtor with ORG of GPE .

The applicant forwarded the writ of execution concerning the decision of DATE to the head office of the bailiffs’ service in GPE in DATE . It appears from the correspondence and the applicant ’s submissions that the writ was subsequently lost .

On DATE the applicant died .

By a decision of DATE ORG ruled that the deceased applicant was to be succeeded by his mother , PERSON .

According to PERSON , in DATE she was contacted by a representative of ORG who explained to her that she was to obtain a copy of the lost writ of execution at the trial court and forward it to the authorities to enable further enforcement proceedings .

On DATE ORG of ORG informed that the debtor was ready to pay the due amount provided that they received the pertinent documents , including the writ of execution .

The Government submitted that the applicant ’s mother had refused to obtain a copy of the writ of execution from the trial court despite the LOC repeated invitations thereto , convinced that the award could be obtained only through the proceedings at ORG . PERSON did not dispute this allegation .

The judgment of DATE , as amended on DATE , remains unenforced to date .


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

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

On DATE ORG stayed inheritance proceedings after the death of PERSON , one of the applicants’ maternal uncles , and instructed the applicants’ mother , PERSON , to institute regular civil proceedings in order to realise her claim .

On DATE PERSON and her other CARDINAL siblings brought a civil action in ORG against PERSON ’s widow , claiming their right to a share of his estate .

Following PERSON ’s death , on DATE ORG recognised the applicants as her heirs in the proceedings . The first applicant is representing himself and the second applicant in the proceedings .

Subsequently , the other CARDINAL plaintiffs in the case died , and the court stayed the case pending the outcome of the respective inheritance proceedings and the determination of the heirs .

The proceedings resumed on DATE . The hearing scheduled for DATE was adjourned , inter alia , due to the applicants’ absence .

The next hearing was held on DATE , when the first applicant objected to the fact that the court had changed the case number . The first applicant did not attend the next hearing , scheduled for DATE .

He had meanwhile filed another submission , which the court considered pointless and irrelevant .

At the next hearing held on DATE , the first applicant again complained about the new case number . The hearing scheduled for DATE was adjourned because the court had not succeeded in serving the summons on the applicants .

At the hearing held on DATE , the CARDINAL other plaintiffs withdrew their action . The first applicant requested the court to give him time to decide whether to maintain the action . It appears that , at the end of that hearing , the first applicant refused to sign the minutes thereof because they had been written on CARDINAL pages , whereas he claimed they could have been written on CARDINAL .

The next hearing scheduled for DATE was adjourned due to the unsuccessful service of the summons on the applicant .

Since neither of the duly summoned parties appeared at the next hearing , pursuant to section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of LAW on DATE the court concluded that the action had been withdrawn .

In a submission sent to the court by the first applicant on DATE , he explained that he had been unable to attend the hearing of DATE because of heavy traffic . However , he did not request the full restoration of the case ( povrat u pređašnje stanje ) pursuant to section CARDINAL of LAW .

The court attempted to serve its decision of DATE on the applicant on CARDINAL and DATE , CARDINAL and DATE , DATE and CARDINAL May , DATE , DATE and DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE and DATE . Each time , the bailiff instructed the first applicant to be present at a certain place at a certain time with a view to service , but he never appeared .

The court subsequently decided to serve the said decision through its bulletin board , pursuant to section CARDINAL of LAW . It did so on DATE . The notice was removed on DATE , which date constituted service of the decision on the applicants .

On DATE , following an examination of the case file , the first applicant appealed against the decision of CARDINAL DATE .

On DATE the court declared his appeal inadmissible . Since the decision had been served on him through the bulletin board on DATE , the statutory time - limit for filing the appeal had elapsed .

On DATE , when the court bailiff attempted to serve the decision of CARDINAL DATE on the first applicant , he refused to accept it . The bailiff noted the time and date of the first applicant ’s refusal , which , pursuant to section CARDINAL of the Civil Procedure Act , constituted service of the decision on him .

On DATE the first applicant appealed against the first - instance court ’s decision of DATE . The case file was forwarded to ORG , being the second - instance court , where it is apparently still pending .

The relevant provisions of LAW ( Zakon o parničnom postupku ; published in ORG no . CARDINAL ) read as follows :

“ If a party does not appear at a hearing or fails to observe a time - limit for undertaking a certain action and thereby loses the right to that action , the court shall , upon that party ’s request and if there exists a valid reason , allow for the subsequent resumption of that action ( restitutio in integrum ) . ”

“ When the addressee of a letter ... without a legal reason , refuses to accept the letter , the bailiff shall leave it in the flat ... or hang it on the door of the flat ... [ The bailiff ] shall indicate on the service receipt DATE , time and reason for refusal of service , as well as where the letter was left , and thereby it shall be deemed served . ”

“ CARDINAL . When during the course of the proceedings it is impossible to serve a letter , this shall be executed through the [ court ’s ] bulletin board .

The letter shall be deemed served on DATE following its announcement on the bulletin board . ”

“ If both the plaintiff and the respondent unjustifiably fail to appear at the main hearing , the action shall be deemed to have been withdrawn . ”


POLAK SPOL. S R.O.  v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC

Karel Jungwiert;Margarita Tsatsa-Nikolovska;Mark Villiger;Peer Lorenzen;Rait Maruste;Snejana Botoucharova;Volodymyr Butkevych

The applicant , ORG . s.r.o . , is a limited liability company incorporated under NORP law with its registered office in GPE . The company was created on DATE and has CARDINAL members , PERSON , GPE and GPE It was represented before the ORG by its incorporated agent , ORG . ORG ( “ the Government ” ) were represented by their Agent , Mr PERSON , from ORG .

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

On DATE the ORG ( okresní soud ) , following an action brought by a certain S. on DATE , ordered P.P. to pay CZK MONEY ( EUR CARDINAL,CARDINAL ) to the claimant . On DATE ORG ( krajský soud ) upheld this judgment . On DATE S. invited P.P. to comply with the judgment , but the latter did not reply .

In the meantime , on DATE , P.P. and his wife had sold their immovable property to the applicant company . The purchase contract was supplemented on DATE .

On DATE S. brought an action against the applicant company , P.P. and his wife , seeking a declaration that the sale contract was legally unenforceable ( smlouva právně neúčinná ) . The case was assigned to a ORG judge who had been involved in the previous proceedings .

On DATE ORG granted the applicant company ’s challenge for bias and excluded ORG judge from the examination of the case .

In a judgment of DATE ORG held that the sale contract was legally unenforceable in respect of S. , who was entitled to claim that the debt of CZK CARDINAL,CARDINAL,CARDINAL awarded by ORG judgment of CARDINAL DATE be satisfied by the sale of the immovable property .

On DATE ORG , following the GPE appeals , modified this judgment in that it dismissed the action in respect of P.P. and his wife . It upheld the remaining part of the judgment . On DATE ORG rectified a typing error in its judgment concerning the description of the immovable property at issue . Although the applicant company was represented by a new lawyer , the court mentioned its previous legal representative .

On DATE ORG upheld ORG decision , mentioning the correct lawyer . It dismissed the appeals of ORG and his wife directed against the first instance judgment of DATE as amended by the decision of CARDINAL DATE . It upheld the verdict of ORG in respect of the applicant company but held that PERSON had been entitled to request that his recoverable claim vis - à - vis the applicant company be satisfied by selling the building lot .

ORG judgment became effective on DATE .

On DATE the second defendant filed an appeal on points of law ( dovolání ) . The first and third defendants appealed on points of law on DATE .

On DATE ORG ( PERSON ) dismissed the CARDINAL appeals on points of law holding , in respect of GPE and the applicant company , that they had filed their appeals outside the one month statutory time - limit as provided for in LAW .

In the meantime , on DATE , P.P. and the applicant company had filed a constitutional appeal ( ústavní stížnost ) requesting ORG ( GPE soud ) to quash ORG judgment of DATE and ORG judgment of DATE . They supplemented it on DATE challenging ORG decision of DATE . The applicant company and ORG alleged a violation of their rights guaranteed by Articles CARDINAL , DATE and CARDINAL § CARDINAL ( right to judicial and other legal protection ) of GPE ( Listina základních práv a svobod )

On DATE ORG declared the constitutional appeal manifestly ill - founded .

On DATE ORG received the applicant company ’s second constitutional appeal in which it sought to quash ORG decision of DATE , ORG judgment of CARDINAL DATE and ORG judgment of DATE , alleging a violation of their right to judicial protection under ORG CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the LAW .

On DATE ORG dismissed the appeal stating that it had been , in respect of the CARDINAL first decisions , lodged outside the DATE time - limit laid down by LAW . As far as the remaining part of the appeal directed against ORG decision of CARDINAL DATE was concerned , the court found it unsubstantiated .

Both of the high courts wrongly identified the applicant ’s seat .

The relevant domestic law and practice concerning remedies for the excessive length of judicial proceedings are stated in the ORG ’s decision in the case of PERSON v. GPE , no . MONEY ( dec . ) , § § CARDINAL - CARDINAL , DATE ) .


Violation of Art. 2;No violation of Art. 3;Violation of Art. 13;Not necessary to examine Art. 14;Pecuniary damage - financial award;Non-pecuniary damage - financial award;Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings

The applicant , a NORP citizen of NORP origin , was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

The facts surrounding the killing of the applicant ’s brother , PERSON , are disputed by the parties .

The facts as presented by the applicant are set out in Section B below ( see paragraphs CARDINAL ) . The Government ’s submissions concerning the facts are summarised in Section C below ( see paragraphs CARDINAL ) . GPE evidence submitted by the Government is summarised in Part D ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL below ) .

NORP On DATE , the applicant ’s brother , PERSON , gave a statement to the Prosecutor at ORG ( hereinafter “ the ORG ” ) . He stated that he had heard that a certain Ms Amber Yılmaz had fallen from the roof of a QUANTITY - storey house in the course of a military operation conducted at TIME on DATE . He had further heard that ORG husband , PERSON , had been a ORG member and that Mr GPE was currently serving a DATE prison sentence for ORG membership . He finally stated that he was not aware of any links between ORG and the ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

After having given this statement , PERSON was followed on a number of occasions . In DATE PERSON , the wife of PERSON , was visited by CARDINAL policemen who asked her questions about her husband ’s whereabouts .

At TIME on DATE , PERSON went to ORG in the centre of ORG . TIME after his arrival , a white ORG car with CARDINAL plain - clothes policemen stopped in front of the café . It is common knowledge in south - east GPE that this kind of car is used by plain - clothes police officers . CARDINAL policemen stayed in the car while the other QUANTITY entered the café . The latter CARDINAL policemen were the same as the ones who had previously questioned PERSON about her husband ’s whereabouts . It was obvious that the QUANTITY persons were policemen , as they were armed . Only members of the security forces could have entered a café in GPE carrying firearms . When the applicant ’s brother was leaving the café , the CARDINAL policemen also left the café . Outside the café the QUANTITY policemen took PERSON by the arms and forced him into the waiting white ORG . This was seen by all the persons present in the café . The car left in the direction of ORG . CARDINAL persons , who were present in the café when the plain - clothes police officers took PERSON away , told the applicant at a later stage about this incident and added that the persons who had abducted his brother were certainly police officers .

On DATE , the applicant went to ORG of ORG in order to inform them of the incident . He was advised to file a petition with the office of the Prosecutor at ORG . The applicant then went to ORG to file a petition . However , the police at the door of the ORG building told him that his brother ’s name was not on their list . The applicant returned to ORG several times in the course of DATE and unsuccessfully tried to obtain information about his brother .

At TIME on DATE , QUANTITY police officers came to the applicant ’s home and told him that his brother had been wounded and admitted to the hospital . When the police officers took the applicant to their car , they told him that his brother ’s body had been found outside the LOC cemetery in GPE . The applicant went with the police officers to the place where his brother ’s body had been found . There , the police searched him . They took his petition which was addressed to the Prosecutor at ORG from the pocket of his jacket . Despite his request , the police officers refused to give it back to him . The applicant is of the opinion that the police refused to return his petition in order to weaken any case he might bring against the NORP authorities .

The body of the applicant ’s brother was lying on top of a rubbish heap near the ORG cemetery . PERSON of torture could be seen all over his body . It looked as if the skin on the soles of his feet had been pulled off with pincers . His arms , legs and head looked as if they had been skewered on a thick skewer . His whole body was black and blue and there were marks on his throat .

After the police had shown the applicant the body of his brother , they took him in their car to his brother ’s house , where the police conducted a house search . During this search , the applicant heard on the police radio that the Prosecutor was about to go and see the body of his brother . The police interrupted their search in order to join the Prosecutor . They took the applicant with them . The Prosecutor did not put any questions to the applicant . The police recorded the location of the body and subsequently took the body to ORG morgue . The applicant was also taken to the morgue in a police car . On the way to the morgue , a police officer in the car told the applicant that all the villagers of GPE would die on the streets in the same manner .

In the morgue , some other police officers told the applicant that village guards had burned the village of GPE and that these same village guards had probably killed his brother . The applicant replied that he did not believe that village guards had killed his brother and added that , if village guards had killed his brother , they must have been helped by the police . The police officers replied that PERSON , the daughter of the applicant ’s deceased brother , was of the opinion that the police had killed her father . When the applicant was asked whether he shared PERSON ’s opinion , he said that he did .

In the morgue , an autopsy of the body of the applicant ’s brother was conducted . The applicant asked the doctor about the marks around his brother ’s throat . The doctor told him that something must have been passed around his brother ’s neck after his death and that his body must have been dragged along by it . After the autopsy , the body was released for burial .

While the applicant was at the morgue , another group of police officers had returned to the house of the applicant ’s brother in order to finish the house search . These policemen told PERSON that her father had told the police that he had a package , which was likely to contain a firearm , and they asked her to give this package to them . According to the applicant , this question indicated that the security forces had in fact apprehended his brother and that they had interrogated , tortured and killed him . On DATE , a statement was taken from the applicant at FAC ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

Some time before the events at issue , the applicant ’s oldest son PERSON had joined the ORG . The applicant had managed to keep this a secret . However , DATE after the death of his brother , a person , who introduced himself as GPE from the anti - terrorism branch of the police , came to the applicant ’s home . PERSON told the applicant that his son had joined the ORG and asked the applicant to inform the security forces when his son came home . The applicant thus became convinced that his brother must have told the security forces about PERSON while he was under torture .

NORP In DATE the applicant was himself abducted by ORG agents while walking in the street in GPE . He was put in a car and prevented from seeing and speaking . He was taken into the countryside where ORG agents wanted to shoot him but they then changed their minds and took the applicant to the rapid response force building in GPE where he was detained for a period of DATE before being jailed for DATE . While in detention he was threatened a number of times . The content of the threats was , “ Do not follow your son ’s or your brother ’s way . If you do , we will kill you too ” . These threats made the applicant all the more convinced that the Government were directly responsible for the abduction and killing of his brother .

At TIME on DATE , ORG was informed by passers - by that a person was lying near the GPE cemetery in GPE . Acting on that information , police officers found a body , with its hands tied behind its back . It was lying on top of a rubbish heap near the cemetery . The police found an identity card on the body in the name of PERSON .

After being informed by the police , the Prosecutor in charge , Mr PERSON , and PERSON arrived at the scene . PERSON were found which could not be analysed as they were indistinguishable . There were no traces of any fight . Wheel traces were examined but were found to have been made after the discovery of the body . After an incident report had been compiled and a sketch map had been drawn up showing the location of the body , the corpse was taken to the morgue .

On the basis of the identity card found on the body , the victim ’s family was contacted . The victim ’s brother , PERSON , was brought to the morgue where he identified the body as that of his brother PERSON . Subsequently an autopsy was carried out .

According to their statements taken on DATE , the applicant and the victim ’s wife , PERSON , did not know who might have killed PERSON . They stated that they had no enemies at all . The applicant further declared that , in so far as he knew , his brother had been detained for firearms trafficking after the coup d’Etat of CARDINAL DATE . The victim ’s widow also stated that she wished to file a complaint against the person or persons who had killed her husband . Her criminal complaint was formally registered on DATE .

The Prosecutor opened an investigation under file no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , which is currently still pending . The ORG has requested the police authorities to keep him informed on a regular basis about this investigation .

The following information appears from the documents submitted by the Government .

On DATE a statement was taken from PERSON , the applicant ’s brother , by the Prosecutor at FAC . Mr PERSON stated that he had heard that a female by the name of PERSON had fallen from the top of a QUANTITY building during a military operation which had taken place at TIME DATE . He further stated that he had heard that ORG ’s husband was serving a CARDINAL-year prison sentence because of his ORG membership . As far as he knew , PERSON was not a ORG member .

At TIME on DATE , a deputy police chief and a police officer drew up an on - site report . According to this report , a number of persons had informed the police at TIME that they had seen a person lying on the side of the road , near the GPE cemetery . When the police arrived at the scene , they found the frozen body of a male , lying on its right side between the road and the wall of the cemetery . It was lying at an approximate distance of QUANTITY from the entrance to the cemetery . Its hands had been tied at the back with the belt of the coat the deceased was wearing . According to the identity card found on the body , the deceased was PERSON . No evidence was found at the scene .

It was recorded in a sketch , drawn up by a police officer at TIME DATE to show the location of the body , that the cause of death was strangulation .

According to another on - site report drawn up DATE , the duty Prosecutor and a pathologist attended to the body of the person , “ who had been strangled by a length of wire ” . They observed a large number of footprints near the body . However , casts of these footprints were not made because there were too many of them and also because they were all mixed up . Similarly , no casts of the tyre marks observed near the body were made because it was concluded that these marks had been made by vehicles “ which had nothing to do with the incident ” . There was no sign of a struggle at the scene and there was also no evidence capable of providing clues about the perpetrator(s ) of the killing . It was also noted in this report that the body had already been photographed by the police . The Prosecutor ordered the transfer of the body to the morgue at FAC for an autopsy .

According to the autopsy report , the body was taken to the hospital at TIME . The applicant was already at the hospital when his brother ’s body arrived . He identified his brother and stated that he had been missing for DATE , during which time the family had been unsuccessfully searching for him . He added that he did not know who might have killed his brother .

It was observed by the Prosecutor that rigor mortis had already set in . Also , a very large number of injuries and ecchymoses were observed on the face and on the trunk of the body . The doctor concluded that some of these injuries had been caused DATE previously and some of them DATE previously .

According to a full autopsy carried out by the doctor , the cause of death was established as mechanical asphyxiation and it was concluded that the killing had been intentional . Taking into account the fact that rigor mortis had already set in , the doctor concluded that the death had occurred TIME . At the end of the autopsy , the body was photographed once more . The Prosecutor issued a burial licence and instructed the police officers to carry out a comprehensive investigation .

Also on DATE , at TIME , a statement was taken from the applicant by the police chief at the NORP police station . The applicant stated that his brother had not returned to his house in TIME of DATE . The following day he had gone to the café which his brother used to frequent and asked the people there whether they had seen him . He was told by the people there that QUANTITY persons had come into the café DATE and gone straight up to PERSON who had been sitting in the café . The CARDINAL men and PERSON had then left the café together and got into a white ORG estate car and driven away . The number plate of the car had not been “ obvious ” . The applicant stated that he did not know to what extent this sequence of events , which had been relayed to him by the people in the café , represented the truth . He also stated that he had tried to submit a petition to the Prosecutor at ORG but that it was not accepted . He added that he did not suspect anyone in particular and that the family did not have any enemies . He finally stated that his brother had served a prison sentence after DATE for an arms dealing offence .

On DATE , the police chief at the GPE police station took a statement from PERSON , the widow of the applicant ’s deceased brother PERSON . Mrs NORP stated that her husband had left their family home at around CARDINAL a.m. on DATE . When he had failed to return home in the evening , she had informed her brother - in - law , the applicant , and asked him to make the necessary enquiries in order to find her husband . Despite all their efforts , they had not been able to find her husband . She did not suspect anyone in particular and the family did not have any enemies . She had been told by the applicant that her husband had been taken away from the café in a white ORG car . She asked the Prosecutor to prosecute the persons who killed her husband .

Finally , on DATE the police chief of the NORP police station forwarded to ORG his report in which he informed the latter about the body found in his area . He also appended to his report the CARDINAL statements ( see paragraph CARDINAL - CARDINAL above ) , the on - site reports and the sketch prepared TIME ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above ) .

It appears that this report and its appendices were transferred to the ORG ’s office in ORG who opened an investigation into the killing DATE . The investigation was given the number CARDINAL/CARDINAL .

On DATE the Prosecutor instructed ORG to search for the perpetrator(s ) of the killing .

On DATE the ORG repeated his instructions to ORG and asked to be kept informed DATE of any possible developments until the expiry of the statutory limitation period on DATE . The Prosecutor repeated his instructions to ORG on DATE , CARDINAL DATE and DATE .

On DATE the ORG in GPE sent a letter to ORG in an apparent response to a request made by the latter on DATE , pursuant to which the former had been asked to “ forward to ORG the criminal records showing that the deceased brother of PERSON , who had made an application to ORG , had been involved in counterfeit and drugs dealing ” . According to the letter sent to ORG , PERSON had been prosecuted in DATE and DATE for drug dealing and counterfeit offences and imprisoned .

On DATE ORG office was informed by the chief of the NORP police station that they had been searching for the perpetrators of the killing but had not yet managed to find them .

On DATE a police officer reported to the NORP police station that he had searched for the perpetrators of the killing but could not find them .

The Prosecutor in ORG repeated his instructions to ORG on DATE , DATE , CARDINAL DATE and , finally , on DATE .

The relevant domestic law and practice are set out in the judgment of ORG v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL , § § DATE , CARDINAL DATE ) .


Violation of Art. 6-1;Violation of P1-1;Remainder inadmissible;Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in the town of GPE in LOC .

The applicant sued ORG of the ORG administration and the social security services of LOC for payment of child support benefits , interest thereon and compensation for non - pecuniary damage .

On DATE ORG adjourned the examination of the action and requested the applicant to submit evidence and to clarify her claims . This decision was quashed on appeal by ORG on DATE . The case was remitted for an examination on the merits .

On DATE ORG awarded the applicant MONEY ( RUR , approximately CARDINAL euros ) in arrears in respect of child support benefits and dismissed the remainder of the claims . The judgment was upheld on appeal on DATE and became final .

Enforcement proceedings were instituted but the judgment was not enforced because the Arkhangelsk Regional administration lacked necessary funds .

On CARDINAL DATE the applicant received the sum in full .

On DATE the applicant sued the Arkhangelsk Regional bailiffs ' office and ORG for compensation for damage caused by non - enforcement of the judgment of DATE , as upheld on appeal on CARDINAL DATE .

On DATE ORG disallowed the action because it should have been lodged with a court in GPE . The decision was quashed on appeal on DATE and the matter was remitted for an examination on its merits .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant 's action because the Arkhangelsk Regional administration lacked funds for the enforcement of the judgment concerned and the bailiffs ' office was not at fault for non - enforcement . The judgment was upheld on appeal on DATE .


The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE . He is a former partner in a limited partnership company , which was wound - up in DATE .

On DATE the company 's estate reported an offence against the applicant . The applicant was first interrogated by the police on DATE on suspicion of , inter alia , offences of debtor 's fraud , dishonesty and bookkeeping . In DATE he was charged on CARDINAL counts .

The GPE ORG ( käräjäoikeus , tingsrätten ) held the first hearing on DATE . In the following CARDINAL hearings it heard CARDINAL witnesses named by the prosecutor and CARDINAL witnesses named by the applicant .

At the CARDINALth hearing on DATE ORG delivered its judgment . It convicted the applicant of , inter alia , CARDINAL aggravated debtor 's frauds , CARDINAL offences of debtor 's dishonesty and CARDINAL bookkeeping offences and sentenced him to DATE and DATE imprisonment . He was ordered to pay the company 's estate CARDINAL NORP Marks ( ORG ; corresponding to MONEY ( EUR ) ) in compensation and to reimburse its legal expenses .

He appealed to ORG ( hovioikeus , hovrätten ) , requesting an oral hearing . On DATE he asked the court to speed up the proceedings and to dismiss the charges because of the length of the proceedings .

On DATE , without having held an oral hearing , ORG upheld ORG judgment with some minor amendments . His conviction was reduced to DATE imprisonment . It rejected the applicant 's further claims with the reasoning that the proceedings had not exceeded a reasonable time .

On DATE ORG refused the applicant leave to appeal .


The applicant is a NORP national , born in DATE and living in NORP . The respondent Government are represented by Mr. P.A. Laptev , representative of GPE at ORG .

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

In DATE the applicant was involved in negotiations to buy part of a house from a third party .

In DATE the applicant brought a court action in connection with a contract which had been prepared during the negotiations . On DATE the ORG granted her claim . The judgment was not challenged and it acquired legal force on DATE .

On DATE , pursuant to a “ protest ” ( application for supervisory review ) by the President of ORG of GPE - GPE , the Presidium of ORG - GPE quashed the judgment and remitted the case to the first instance , indicating that ORG had failed to observe the necessary procedural formalities . The applicant was present on that occasion .

On DATE the applicant ’s claim was dismissed by ORG . On DATE ORG - GPE upheld the decision given on DATE .

An application for supervisory review was rejected by ORG on DATE .

Code of Civil Procedure as in force at the relevant time

Article CARDINAL

“ Judgments , court rulings and decrees which have entered into force , may be reviewed by way of supervision following a “ protest ” lodged by the persons listed in LAW ” .

Article CARDINAL

“ The persons competent to lodge a protest are :

the Prosecutor General - against judgments , orders , and decisions of any court ;

the chairman of ORG - against resolutions of the ORG of ORG as well as against judgments and orders of ORG acting as a court of first instance ;

Deputies of the General Prosecutor - against judgments , orders , and decisions of any court with the exception of the resolutions of the Presidium of ORG ;

Deputies of the President of ORG - against orders and judgments of ORG acting as a court of first instance ;

the chairman of ORG of an autonomous republic , area , regional , or city court , court of autonomous region , and court of an autonomous district , the Prosecutor of an autonomous republic , area , region city , autonomous region , and autonomous district - against judgements and orders of district ( city ) people ’s courts and orders of ORG Cases of respectively ORG of an autonomous republic , area , regional , city court , court of an autonomous region , and court of an autonomous district that reviewed the case according to an appellate procedure ” .

Article CARDINAL

“ The persons listed in LAW are entitled , subject to certain conditions , to obtain the case file in a civil case in order to establish whether there are any grounds for lodging a “ protest ” by way of a supervisory review ” .

Article CARDINAL

“ Officials who are entitled to lodge “ protests ” in accordance with the supervisory procedure may suspend execution of the judgments , orders , and decisions concerned until the supervisory review proceedings are completed ” .

LAW

“ The court which carries out the supervisory review may annul the judgment in whole or in part and remit the case to the first or appeal instance for fresh consideration ” .


The applicant , a NORP citizen born in DATE , is an engineer residing in GPE .

A.

The custody proceedings

On DATE the ORG dissolved the applicant ’s marriage , awarded custody of CARDINAL of their sons to the applicant , and that of the other to his former wife .

On DATE the applicant lodged an action with the ORG , claiming that the parental rights of his former wife be restricted and that the custody of both children be awarded to him . The court held hearings on DATE , CARDINAL DATE , PERCENT DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , CARDINAL DATE and CARDINAL DATE .

On DATE the applicant complained to the President of ORG , alleging that the presiding judge lacked impartiality , that she had been conducting the proceedings in a chaotic manner , and that she had been distorting his oral submissions to the court when dictating them for the record . In a reply of DATE , he was informed that it was open to him to submit at any time written objections to the case - file as regards the manner in which TIME of the hearings were being taken . It was further acknowledged that certain complaints were well - founded and that the attention of the judge concerned would be drawn to them .

The court held further hearings on CARDINAL DATE and CARDINAL DATE . On DATE the applicant requested that the judge step down , alleging her bias . Apparently this request was later dismissed . The court held the next hearing on DATE .

On DATE ORG submitted its expert opinion to the court . On DATE the applicant lodged objections to the report . On CARDINAL DATE , DATE , DATE and CARDINAL DATE further hearings were held . Apparently , at the last of these hearings , the court ordered that a further expert opinion be prepared on the parties’ parental skills . This opinion was submitted to the court on DATE . On DATE the applicant lodged his pleadings with the court , arguing that this opinion was also ill - founded . He submitted that the report contained serious discrepancies and errors . He stressed that the experts had had particular regard to the previous report of CARDINAL DATE , and that they had failed to address adequately the questions put by the court .

On DATE the court dismissed the applicant ’s request to have the parental rights of his former wife restricted , and ordered that CARDINAL of the sons should reside with his mother . The court apparently relied , inter alia , on an expert opinion of ORG of DATE .

The applicant appealed . On DATE ORG granted the appeal after a hearing and remitted the case to the lower court .

On DATE a hearing was held . On DATE ORG refused to order as an interim measure that both boys immediately move to the applicant ’s apartment , considering that they felt safe with their mother and that there were no reasons justifying such a measure . The court further noted that the children were spending DATE with their father .

On DATE the applicant complained to the President of the court about the alleged bias of the presiding judge . He alleged that there were differences between the version of the decision of DATE kept in the case - file and that which had been served on him . He further complained that the proceedings were unfair . In the President ’s reply of CARDINAL DATE , it was explained that the difference , an omission of CARDINAL word in the written grounds of the decision , had been caused by a clerical error , and that otherwise the texts had been identical . Apologies were presented to the applicant .

In a letter of DATE , the applicant again complained about discrepancies between CARDINAL versions of the same decision . In a reply of DATE , the Deputy President of ORG acknowledged that there were minor discrepancies between various copies of the decision , but stressed that they were devoid of any legal significance , in that they did not affect the essence of the decision .

On DATE the applicant complained again about these errors .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s appeal against the refusal to order interim measures on DATE .

On DATE the applicant again complained about the errors in the text of the decision of DATE .

On DATE the applicant objected to a new expert report prepared by ORG , complaining that the relevant examinations had been cursory and that the conclusions of the specialists were erroneous . He requested that the experts , who had prepared the opinion , be questioned by the court . He further requested the court to take evidence from the tape recording made during the examination of the children by the experts .

On DATE , DATE and DATE hearings were held . On DATE the applicant lodged a request that the judge step down , alleging her lack of impartiality . Apparently this request was later dismissed .

The next hearing was held on DATE . On DATE ORG discontinued the proceedings as the applicant had withdrawn his request , in view of the fact that his son PERSON had moved into his apartment .

Labour law proceedings

On DATE the applicant lodged an action against his employer with ORG , claiming payment of certain parts of his salary . On DATE ORG apparently allowed his claim in part .

On DATE the applicant requested retroactive leave to lodge an appeal outside the statutory time - limit . His request was dismissed on DATE by ORG . The court noted that the applicant had failed to comply with the statutory time - limit of DATE for lodging an appeal . The court established that the final hearing in the case had been fixed for DATE . CARDINAL summonses for this hearing had been sent to the applicant : on DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE . The applicant had failed to fetch any of them from the post office . The court considered them to have been duly served on him . The court further noted that the applicant had been on holiday from DATE to DATE , and later from CARDINAL to CARDINAL DATE . From DATE he had not lived in his apartment , as he had been taking care of his mother . However , the court considered that the applicant , by failing to take any measures in order to ensure that the court documents be duly served on him , had failed to show the diligence which could reasonably be expected from a person engaged in judicial proceedings .

The applicant appealed against this decision . On DATE ORG upheld the contested decision , considering that the applicant had failed to adduce any circumstances capable of showing that he had shown due diligence , particularly as he had left on holiday without informing the court thereof . The court further considered that he had not shown that there had been objective and insurmountable obstacles to the effective service of the CARDINAL summonses to the hearing of DATE on him .

B. Relevant domestic law

LAW , insofar as relevant , provides that if a party to proceedings fails to comply with the prescribed time - limit through no fault of its own , the court shall , on that party ’s request , grant leave to appeal out of time .

Article CARDINAL of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that the parties to proceedings are under an obligation to inform the court about any change of address . Under § CARDINAL of this provision , if they fail to do so , a decision to be served on the party shall be filed in the case - file and shall be regarded as having been duly served , unless the court knows the new address of that party .


The applicant , PERSON , is a NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in GPE in the GPE region . She was represented before the ORG by Mr PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE . The respondent Government were represented by Mr P. A. GPE , the representative of GPE at ORG .

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

The applicant was an employee of a joint - stock company . In DATE , as a result of an internal audit , she was suspected of fraud .

On DATE criminal proceedings were brought against her .

On DATE the applicant 's employer dismissed her on the ground of loss of confidence in her .

In DATE the applicant lodged a civil action with ORG of GPE against her former employer , claiming reinstatement and damages .

On DATE the court stayed the proceedings pending the outcome of the criminal case against the applicant .

On DATE the court examined the applicant 's claims and rejected them in full .

On DATE the applicant was charged with fraud .

On DATE ORG upheld the judgment in the civil case .

On DATE the investigating authority transferred the applicant 's criminal case to the court .

On DATE ORG of GPE examined the case and terminated the applicant 's prosecution for lack of evidence . The applicant , who disagreed with the grounds for termination of her prosecution , appealed . On DATE ORG granted her appeal and quashed the decision .

On DATE the ORG of the Krasnodar Region discontinued the criminal proceedings against the applicant for want of a crime , having regard to the fact that the prosecution refused to press charges against her .