The first applicant , Mr PERSON , is a NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in GPE . He represents the second applicant , ORG , and the third applicant , ORG . They were all represented before the ORG by Mr PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE , GPE .

s , may be summarised as follows .

On DATE a privately owned NORP newspaper , GPE , ran an article under the headline “ Profound fear of criticism of NORP ” ( PERSON angst for kritik af islam ) . It reported on the difficulties encountered by the writer of a children ’s book entitled The Koran and the Life of the Prophet PERSON ( PERSON og profeten PERSON liv ) in finding an illustrator for the book .

On DATE another privately owned NORP newspaper , ORG , published CARDINAL cartoons , most of which were caricatures of PERSON . The most controversial of the cartoons showed PERSON with a bomb in his turban . In the middle of the page carrying the cartoons was an explanatory text by the newspaper ’s cultural affairs editor which stated , inter alia , as follows :

“ Some NORP reject modern secular society . They demand special status , insisting on special consideration of their own religious feelings . This is incompatible with secular democracy and freedom of expression , where one has to be prepared to put up with scorn , mockery and ridicule . While this is not always agreeable or pleasant to watch , and does not mean that religious feelings can be made fun of at any price , that is a minor consideration in the present context ... we are on a slippery slope , with no one able to predict where self - censorship will lead . That is why PERSON has invited members of ORG to draw PERSON as they see him ... ”

On DATE the ambassadors of CARDINAL NORP - majority countries , referring , inter alia , to the cartoons , asked for a meeting with the NORP Prime Minister to discuss what they perceived as an “ ongoing smear campaign in NORP public circles and the media against ORG and NORP ” . It appears that the government refused their request in writing , citing the following reasons :

“ Freedom of expression has a wide scope and ORG has no means of influencing the press . However , NORP legislation prohibits acts or expressions of opinion of a blasphemous or discriminatory nature . The offended party may bring court proceedings against the authors of such acts or expressions of opinion , and it is for the courts to decide in individual cases . ”

On DATE several NORP organisations in GPE reported ORG to the NORP police , maintaining that it had violated the provisions of LAW concerning blasphemy and insult on the basis of race or religious orientation .

By a decision of DATE , the regional public prosecutor for ORG ( Statsadvokaten i Viborg ) decided not to initiate criminal proceedings against the newspaper . The NORP organisations appealed against that decision to ORG ( PERSON ) , who upheld the decision on DATE , giving the following reasons .

“ Decision on possible criminal proceedings in the case of ORG article ‘ The face of GPE

The article in ORG

The article in ORG was published in the newspaper ’s DATE issue of CARDINAL DATE and was advertised on the front page of the newspaper by one of the drawings from the article . The drawing was accompanied by text explaining that the newspaper had invited members of ORG to draw PERSON as they saw him ; that , out of CARDINAL illustrators , CARDINAL had responded to the invitation ; and that the drawings were published under the ORG names . ... The introduction to the article is headed ‘ ORG ... The introduction to the article reads as follows :

‘ The comedian PERSON recently admitted that he did not dare openly “ to take the piss out of the Koran on TV ” . An illustrator asked to portray PERSON in a children ’s book wishes to do so anonymously , as do the western NORP translators of a collection of essays critical of ORG . A leading art museum has removed a work of art for fear of reactions from NORP . This theatre season , CARDINAL satirical shows targeting the President of GPE , PERSON , are playing , but not a single one about PERSON and his allies . Finally , during a meeting with Prime Minister PERSON of GPE ’s ORG , an imam urged the government to use its influence over the NORP media so that they drew a more positive picture of ORG .

The examples cited above give cause for concern , regardless of whether there is any foundation for people ’s fears . The fact is that those fears exist and lead to self - censorship . The public space is being intimidated . Artists , authors , illustrators , translators and theatre people are therefore steering a wide berth around the most important meeting of cultures of our time – the meeting between ORG and the secular society of the LOC rooted in ORG

The following section , entitled ‘ Ridicule’ , is taken from the article :

‘ Some NORP reject modern secular society . They demand special status , insisting on special consideration of their own religious feelings . This is incompatible with secular democracy and freedom of expression , where one has to be prepared to put up with scorn , mockery and ridicule . It is therefore no coincidence that people living in totalitarian societies are sent to jail for telling jokes or for critical portrayals of dictators . As a rule , this is done with reference to the fact that it offends people ’s feelings . In GPE , we have not yet reached that stage , but the examples cited above show that we are on a slippery slope , with no one able to predict where self - censorship will lead . ... That is why ORG has invited members of ORG to draw PERSON as they see him.’ ...

The CARDINAL drawings are as follows :

Drawing CARDINAL : The face of a man whose beard and turban are drawn within TIME and with a star , symbols normally used for ORG .

Drawing CARDINAL : The face of a grim - looking bearded man with a turban shaped like an ignited bomb .

Drawing CARDINAL : A person standing in front of an identity parade consisting of CARDINAL people , including a caricature of PERSON [ leader of ORG ] and CARDINAL men wearing turbans . The person in front of the lineup is saying : ‘ Hmm ... I ca n’t quite recognise him ... ‘

Drawing CARDINAL : A bearded man wearing a turban , standing with a halo shaped like a crescent moon over his head .

Drawing CARDINAL : CARDINAL stylised female figures wearing headscarves , with facial features depicted as a star and a crescent moon . The caption reads : ‘ Prophet ! You crazy bloke ! Keeping women under the yoke!’

Drawing CARDINAL : A bearded man wearing a turban , standing with the support of a staff and leading an ass by a rope .

Drawing CARDINAL : A man with beads of sweat on his brow , sitting under a lamp and looking over his left shoulder as he draws a man ’s face with his head covered and with a beard .

Drawing CARDINAL : CARDINAL bearded men wearing turbans and armed with a sword , a bomb and a gun , running towards a third bearded man wearing a turban . He is reading a sheet of paper and gesturing them to hold off , with the words : ‘ Relax folks ! It ’s just a sketch done by a non - believer from southern ORG

Drawing CARDINAL : A teenage boy with dark hair , dressed in trousers and a striped top printed with the text ‘ The Future’ , standing in front of a blackboard , and indicating with a pointer the LANGUAGE text written on it . The words ‘ PERSON , ORG , DATE are written on an arrow pointing at the boy .

Drawing CARDINAL : A bearded man , standing , wearing a turban and carrying a sword ; his eyes are hidden by a black bar . Standing at his sides are QUANTITY women wearing black gowns , with only their eyes visible .

Drawing CARDINAL : A bearded man wearing a turban , standing on clouds with arms outspread , saying : ‘ Stop , stop , we ’ve run out of virgins!’ Waiting in front of him is a row of men in tatters with plumes of smoke over their heads .

Drawing CARDINAL : A drawing of a man wearing glasses and a turban with an orange in it . The turban bears the words ‘ Publicity Stunt’ . The man is smiling as he shows a picture portraying a ‘ matchstick man’ with a beard and wearing a turban .

NORP The Director of Public Prosecutions’ assessment ...

LAW provides that any person who , in public , mocks or scorns the religious doctrines or acts of worship of any lawfully existing religious community in this country is liable to a term of imprisonment not exceeding DATE .

The provision is part of the rules of criminal law , the interpretation of which varies depending on what is generally considered to be accepted usage or other form of expression in NORP society . In this connection it should be noted that frank and informal debate is not unusual in GPE , where even offensive and insulting expressions of opinion are widely accepted .

It should also be noted that , when it was adopted in DATE , LAW was intended to afford protection in respect of the most serious offences against religious feelings ; this was also implicit in subsequent debates held in the NORP parliament in DATE and DATE regarding the necessity for the provision . It has also been reflected in practice , as CARDINAL prosecutions have been brought for breaches of this provision since DATE , the most recent of which , in DATE , led to an acquittal .

An assessment of the drawings described above and the article in the light of the provisions of LAW involves deciding whether they amount to mockery or scorn of ORG ’s religious doctrines or acts of worship . ...

As regards ... ‘ religious doctrines or acts of worship’ , it should first be noted that the expressions of opinion falling within the scope of LAW cover the internal and external religious life of a religious community , that is , the doctrines ( a creed , if any , and the central texts of the religion ) and the institutions , practices , persons and things ( ritual acts , etc . ) by which the acts of worship of the community take place . However , according to the preparatory legislative material for LAW , the concepts concerned do not encompass religious feelings which are not tied to a community ’s religious doctrines or acts of worship , including doctrines of an ethical or social nature or similar .

The concept of ‘ CARDINAL covers ridicule and is an expression of lack of respect or derision of the object of mockery . ‘ Scorn’ is an expression of contempt for the object that is scorned . It must be assumed that these words imply ridicule or contempt with a certain element of abuse , just as it is clear from the preparatory legislative material for the Criminal Code that punishment can be imposed only in ‘ ORG cases .

The religious writings of ORG can not be said to contain a general and absolute prohibition on drawing PERSON .

The basic assumption must be that , according to ORG ( the written narratives of the life of the PERSON and guidelines for the conduct to be observed by NORP ) , there is a prohibition in NORP against depicting human figures , which also includes depicting PERSON . Not all NORP comply consistently with the ban on depiction , as there are pictures of PERSON dating from earlier times as well as the present day . However , in these cases the PERSON is depicted respectfully , in some instances without facial features .

It can not then be assumed that a drawing of the Prophet PERSON in general will be contrary to the religious doctrines and acts of worship of the religion as practised DATE , even if certain groups within the religion comply fully with the ban on depiction . For that reason alone , a drawing of the Prophet PERSON can not in itself constitute a violation of LAW .

However , some of the drawings in question which , according to the headline , illustrate ‘ The face of LOC are not merely a depiction of the Prophet PERSON , but a caricature of him .

Depending on the circumstances , a caricature of such a central figure in ORG as PERSON may imply ridicule of or be considered an expression of contempt for NORP religious doctrines and acts of worship . An assessment of whether this is the case must be made in the light of the text accompanying the drawings .

The article states that fear of NORP reaction has led to self - censorship in a number of specific cases and to artists , authors and others avoiding expressing themselves about the cultural meeting between NORP and secular NORP societies with their roots in NORP . The next paragraph states first that some NORP reject modern secular society and demand special status , insisting on special consideration of their own religious feelings . It then continues : ‘ This is incompatible with secular democracy and freedom of expression , where one has to be prepared to put up with scorn , mockery and ridicule . While this is not always agreeable or pleasant to watch , and does not mean that religious feelings can be made fun of at any price , that is a minor consideration in the present context.’

From the section that follows , it appears that it was on this basis that ORG invited members of ORG to draw PERSON as they saw him .

Based on this text , the basic assumption must be that ORG commissioned the drawings for the purpose of sparking a provocative debate as to whether , in a secular society , special regard should be paid to the religious feelings of certain NORP .

The drawings referred to in paragraph CARDINAL above as drawing CARDINAL , drawing CARDINAL , drawing CARDINAL , drawing CARDINAL , drawing CARDINAL , drawing CARDINAL , drawing CARDINAL and drawing CARDINAL are either neutral in their expression or do not seem to be an expression of derision or spiteful , ridiculing humour . Therefore , in the opinion of ORG , these drawings can not be considered to constitute criminal offences under LAW .

Drawings CARDINAL and CARDINAL deal with the position of women in NORP society and therefore relate to social conditions in those societies and the lives of their members . On this basis the drawings can not be considered to contain expressions of opinion concerning NORP religious doctrines or acts of worship , and consequently do not amount to punishable offences under LAW .

The CARDINAL armed figures in drawing CARDINAL could be seen to be an illustration of an element of violence in ORG or among NORP . However , the man standing up , who could be a depiction of PERSON , is denying that there is any reason for anger and speaking in soothing tones , which must be taken to be a rejection of violence . Hence , this drawing can not be considered either as an expression of mockery or scorn of NORP religious doctrines or acts of worship ; see LAW .

Drawing CARDINAL , showing the face of a grim - looking man with a turban shaped like an ignited bomb , could be understood in several ways .

If PERSON is taken to be a symbol of ORG , the drawing could be understood to mean that violence or bomb attacks have been committed in the name of ORG . The drawing could therefore be seen as a contribution to the current debate on terror and as an expression of the view that religious fanaticism has led to terrorist acts . Understood in this way , the drawing can not be considered to express contempt for the Prophet PERSON or the NORP religion , but should be considered as an expression of criticism of NORP groups who commit terrorist acts in the name of religion . On this basis , the drawing is clearly not in violation of LAW .

The drawing could also be taken to depict the Prophet PERSON as a violent person and as a rather intimidating or frightening figure .

Historical descriptions of the PERSON ’s life show that , in propagating their religion , he and his followers were involved in violent conflicts and armed clashes with persons and population groups who did not join ORG , and that many NORP and others lost their lives as a result .

Even against this historical background , a depiction of the Prophet PERSON as a violent person must be considered an incorrect depiction if the PERSON is shown with a bomb as a weapon , which in DATE ’s context might be understood to imply terrorism . This depiction might with good reason be understood as an affront and insult to the PERSON , who represents an ideal for believing NORP .

However , such a depiction is not an expression of mockery or ridicule , and almost certainly not of scorn within the meaning of LAW . The concept of scorn covers contempt and debasement , which in their usual meaning would not cover situations depicting a figure such as that shown in drawing CARDINAL , regardless of how the illustration might be understood or interpreted .

Conclusion

As is clear from points CARDINAL and CARDINAL ... , ORG does not find any grounds for changing the decision reached by the regional public prosecutor for GPE and therefore concurs in the decision , pursuant to section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of ORG , to discontinue the investigation with regard to LAW ( b ) of LAW .

Although there are no grounds for instituting criminal proceedings in this case , it should be noted that both provisions of LAW and also other criminal - law provisions , for example with regard to defamation of character – place restrictions on freedom of expression . LAW protects religious feelings against mockery and scorn and LAW b ) protects groups of persons against scorn and degradation on account of , inter alia , their religion . To the extent that publicly made expressions of opinion fall within the scope of these rules there is , therefore , no free and unrestricted right to express opinions about religious subjects .

In stating that it is incompatible with the right to freedom of expression to demand special consideration for religious feelings and that one has to be prepared to put up with ‘ scorn , mockery and ORG , the article in ORG does not therefore accurately describe the law as it stands . ”

Around this time and subsequently , the publication of the cartoons ( and their reproduction in some other countries ) caused international controversy , protests , demonstrations and consumer boycotts , notably in the NORP world .

Various NORP organisations initiated civil proceedings for defamation against ORG before ORG ( Retten i Århus ) which , in a judgment of DATE , found against them .


The applicant was born in DATE and lives in Radom .

On DATE the applicant was charged with acting as a procurer of prostitution .

On DATE ORG filed a bill of indictment against the applicant with ORG .

The hearing set for DATE was cancelled due to the applicant ’s absence . Subsequently several hearings were cancelled . In particular , hearings scheduled for CARDINAL DATE , CARDINAL DATE , CARDINAL DATE and CARDINAL DATE were cancelled due to the absence of CARDINAL of the coaccused . CARDINAL hearings scheduled DATE and DATE were cancelled for various procedural reasons . On DATE the court held a hearing .

DATE and DATE the court held QUANTITY hearings at regular intervals of DATE .

On DATE , CARDINAL DATE and DATE the court held further hearings .

On DATE the ORG gave judgment and convicted the applicant as charged . The court also sentenced the applicant to DATE imprisonment stayed for DATE .

On TIME the applicant appealed against this judgment .

On DATE ORG held a hearing and gave judgment . The court upheld the firstinstance sentence and dismissed the applicant ’s appeal .

The relevant domestic law and practice concerning remedies for the excessive length of judicial proceedings are stated in the ORG ’s decisions in the cases of ORG v. GPE no . CARDINAL ( dec . ) , § § DATE , ORG ORG and NORP v. GPE no . CARDINAL ( dec . ) , ORG CARDINALVIII and its judgment in the case of ORG v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , § § CARDINAL , ECHR CARDINAL-V.


Georgieva;Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre;Karel Jungwiert;Mark Villiger;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Pavlina Panova;Peer Lorenzen;Rait Maruste

The applicants were born in DATE and DATE respectively . The second applicant lives in GPE . The CARDINAL applicants were spouses .

NORP In DATE they bought from the GPE municipality an apartment of QUANTITY , located in the centre of the city , which had become State property by virtue of the nationalisations carried out by the communist regime in GPE in DATE and DATE .

At DATE the heir of the former pre - nationalisation owners of the property brought proceedings against the applicants under section CARDINAL of LAW .

By judgments of DATE and DATE the ORG and ORG allowed the claim . They found the applicants’ title to be null and void on CARDINAL grounds : CARDINAL ) no decision of the mayor to initiate the sale procedure had been found in the case file ; nor had the applicants established that such a decision had existed but had been lost or destroyed ; CARDINAL ) the sale had not been approved by ORG , as required by law , but by CARDINAL of his deputies .

The applicants did not submit a petition for review ( cassation ) .

On an unspecified date in DATE they vacated the apartment . In DATE they were granted the tenancy of a municipal apartment of QUANTITY .

Following the judgment of DATE the applicants applied to receive compensation bonds , which could be used in privatisation tenders or sold to brokers . In DATE they obtained bonds with a total face value of CARDINAL NORP levs ( ORG ) , in accordance with a valuation of the apartment prepared by an expert .

On DATE the second applicant sold her CARDINAL of the bonds for BGN CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL , the equivalent of CARDINAL ( ORG ) .

On DATE the first applicant sold his CARDINAL of the bonds for ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL , the equivalent of LAW .

The relevant background facts , domestic law and practice have been summarised in the ORG s judgment in the case of ORG and Others v. GPE , nos . CARDINAL , ORG , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , CARDINAL , GPE , CARDINAL/CARDINAL , ORG , and CARDINAL , DATE .


Violation of Art. 11;Violation of Art. 13+11;Violation of Art. 14+11;Non-pecuniary damage - award

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

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE . He is a gay rights activist .

In DATE the applicant , together with other individuals , organised a march to draw public attention to discrimination against the gay and lesbian minority in GPE , to promote respect for human rights and freedoms and to call for tolerance on the part of the NORP authorities and the public at large towards this minority . The march was entitled “ Pride March ” DATE , and “ Gay Pride ” in subsequent DATE , to replicate similar events held by homosexual communities in big cities worldwide . The date chosen for the march , CARDINAL DATE , was also meant to celebrate the anniversary of the abolition of criminal liability in GPE for homosexual acts .

On DATE the NORP news agency published a statement by PERSON , the press secretary of the mayor of GPE , to the effect that “ the government of GPE [ would ] not even consider allowing the gay parade to be held ” . PERSON further quoted Mr Tsoy as saying : “ The mayor of GPE , Mr PERSON , has firmly declared : the government of the capital city will not allow a gay parade to be held in any form , whether openly or disguised [ as a human rights demonstration ] , and any attempt to hold any unauthorised action will be severely repressed ” .

On DATE PERSON quoted the mayor of GPE as having said , on a different occasion , that if he received a request to hold a gay parade in GPE he would impose a ban on it because he did not want “ to stir up society , which is ill - disposed to such occurrences of life ” and continuing that he himself considered homosexuality “ unnatural ” , though he “ tried to treat everything that happens in human society with tolerance ” .

On DATE the first deputy to the mayor of GPE wrote to the mayor about the imminent campaign to hold a gay parade in GPE in DATE . She considered that allowing the event would be contrary to health and morals , as well as against the will of numerous petitioners who had protested against the idea of promoting homosexuality . Having noted that LAW , Marches and Picketing ( “ the LAW ” ) did not provide for the possibility of banning the event , she stated that the authorities could suggest changing the venue or time or that , if the event turned out to be a real public threat , it could be interrupted . She requested the mayor 's agreement on developing an effective action plan for the prevention of any actions – public or otherwise – aimed at promoting or holding a gay parade or festival .

On DATE the mayor of GPE instructed his first deputy , CARDINAL other officials of his office and all prefects of GPE “ to take effective measures for the prevention and deterrence of any gay - oriented public or mass actions in the capital city ” . He called for action proposals based on the legislative and regulatory framework and demanded an “ active mass - media campaign and social commercials with the use of petitions brought by individuals and religious organisations ” .

On CARDINAL DATE the organisers submitted a notice to the mayor of GPE stating the date , time and route of the intended march . It was to take place TIME on DATE , with an estimated number of CARDINAL participants , who would march from ORG along FAC to FAC . The organisers undertook to cooperate with the law - enforcement authorities in ensuring safety and respect for public order by the participants and to comply with regulations on restriction of noise levels when using loudspeakers and sound equipment .

On DATE ORG of ORG informed the applicant of the mayor 's decision to refuse permission to hold the march on grounds of public order , for the prevention of riots and the protection of health , morals and the rights and freedoms of others . It stated , in particular , that numerous petitions had been brought against the march by representatives of legislative and executive ORG bodies , religious denominations , PERSON elders and other individuals ; the march was therefore likely to cause a negative reaction and protests against the participants , which could turn into civil disorder and mass riots .

Having received the above reply , the organisers submitted a notice with a view to holding another event on the same date and time as the march for which permission had been refused . They informed the prefect of their intention to hold a picket in the park at FAC .

On DATE the applicant challenged before a court the mayor 's decision of CARDINAL DATE refusing permission to hold the march .

On DATE the deputy prefect of ORG refused permission to hold the picket on the same grounds as those given for the refusal to hold the march .

On DATE PERSON quoted the mayor of GPE as saying in an interview to the radio station ORG that no gay parade would be allowed in GPE under any circumstances , “ as long as he was the city mayor ” . He stated that all CARDINAL “ major ” religious faiths – “ the ORG , the ORG and the ORG ” DATE were against it and that it was absolutely unacceptable in GPE and in GPE , unlike “ in some LOC country more progressive in that sphere ” . He went on to say : “ That 's the way morals work . If somebody deviates from the normal principles [ in accordance with which ] sexual and gender life is organised , this should not be demonstrated in public and anyone potentially unstable should not be invited . ” He stated that PERCENT of the population of GPE supported the ban .

On DATE the Tverskoy District Court of GPE dismissed the applicant 's complaint . It referred to provisions of LAW concerning the authorities responsible for ensuring the safety of events ( sections CARDINAL and DATE ) , who were entitled to suggest changing the time or venue , or both , of a proposed event on safety grounds ( section CARDINAL ) . It also noted that a public event could be held at any suitable venue unless it threatened to cause the collapse of buildings or constructions or entailed safety risks for its participants ( section CARDINAL) . It then noted the organisers ' right to hold the event at the venue and time indicated in the notice to the authorities , or at the venue and time agreed with the authorities if they had suggested a change , and stated that it was prohibited to hold the event if the notice had not been submitted on time or if the organisers had failed to agree to a change of venue or time proposed by the authorities ( section CARDINAL ) . Finally , the court noted that the organisers , officials or other individuals were prohibited from interfering with the expression of opinion by the participants in the public event unless they breached public order or contravened the format of the event ( section CARDINAL ) . It concluded on the basis of these provisions that the authorities could ban a public event on safety grounds and that it was for the organisers to submit a notice suggesting a change of venue and time for consideration by the authorities . It considered that the refusal to hold the event in the present case had legitimate grounds and that the applicant 's right to hold assemblies and other public events had not been breached .

The applicant lodged an appeal , relying on CARDINAL of LAW , which imposed an obligation on the authorities , and not the organisers , to make a reasoned proposal to change the venue or the time of the event as indicated in the notice . He also challenged the finding that the ban was justified on safety grounds , claiming that concerns for safety could have been addressed by providing protection to those taking part in the event .

On DATE the applicant and several other persons participated in a conference celebrating the International Day Against Homophobia , at which they announced their intention to gather in LOC to lay flowers at the war memorial , the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier , allegedly to commemorate the victims of fascism , including gay and lesbian victims , and to hold a TIME picket at the GPE mayor 's office to protest against the ban on the march and the picketing .

DATE the applicant and CARDINAL other persons arrived at FAC to find the gates closed , with police patrolling the access . According to the applicant , there were CARDINAL policemen from the special riot squad ( ORG ) , and also CARDINAL individuals protesting against the flower - laying event planned by the applicant and his fellow participants .

NORP The applicant was arrested and taken to the police station to be charged with the administrative offence of breaching the conditions for holding a demonstration .

In the meantime , other participants in the flower - laying event proceeded towards the GPE mayor 's office , with protesters pursuing and attacking them . Several persons reportedly sustained slight injuries . According to the applicant , the PERSON arrested CARDINAL persons involved in attacking those taking part in the event .

The applicant submitted CARDINAL reports by NGOs on the events of CARDINAL DATE , one prepared by ORG and another one by ORG . These reports corroborated the applicant 's account of events .

NORP On DATE PERSON quoted the mayor of GPE as saying in a television interview : “ Those gays trying to lay flowers at FAC ... it is a provocation . It was a desecration of a holy place ” and reiterating the condemnation of the action on behalf of the public at large .

On DATE the applicant challenged before a court the prefect 's decision of CARDINAL DATE refusing to allow the picketing . On DATE ORG of GPE dismissed the complaint , finding that the ban had been justified on safety grounds . The applicant appealed .

On DATE ORG examined the appeal against the judgment of CARDINAL DATE . It upheld the first - instance judgment as lawful and justified in the circumstances .

On DATE ORG examined the appeal against the judgment of CARDINAL DATE and dismissed it on essentially the same grounds .

NORP In DATE the applicant , together with other individuals , decided to organise a march similar to the CARDINAL attempted in DATE .

On CARDINAL DATE the organisers submitted a notice to the mayor of GPE , stating the date , time and route of the intended march and its purpose , all of which were identical to the march proposed DATE , except that the estimated number of participants was CARDINAL .

On DATE ORG of ORG informed the applicant that permission to hold the march had been refused on the grounds of potential breaches of public order and violence against the participants , with reference to the events of DATE . The organisers were warned that holding the event without permission would render them liable .

Having received the above reply , the organisers submitted a notice with a view to holding other events on the same date and time as the march for which permission had been refused . They informed the prefect of ORG of their intention to hold a picket in front of the GPE mayor 's office at FAC and another one in FAC .

On DATE the organisers were informed that the prefect had refused permission to hold the picket at both venues on the grounds of public order , prevention of riots and protection of health , morals and the rights and freedoms of others . They were warned that they would be held liable for holding any unauthorised picketing .

On CARDINAL DATE the applicant and several other persons announced at the DATE “ ORG Human Rights ” conference that they would meet DATE in front of the GPE mayor 's office to file a petition together in protest against the ban on the march and the picketing .

On DATE the applicant and CARDINAL other individuals were stopped by the police as they attempted to approach the mayor 's office . The applicant and CARDINAL other men were detained at the police station for TIME on charges of having committed the administrative offence of disobeying a lawful order from the police . On DATE the applicant was found guilty of the administrative offence and had to pay a fine of MONEY . That decision was upheld by ORG on DATE .

On CARDINAL DATE the applicant challenged before a court the decision of CARDINAL DATE by the mayor of GPE refusing permission to hold the march . In particular , he alleged that under LAW , the authorities were not entitled to ban public events , but could only propose changing their time and location , which in the present case they had not . He also argued that official disapproval of the purpose of a public event was not by itself a sufficient ground , in a democratic society , for a ban .

On DATE the applicant challenged before a court the prefect 's decision of CARDINAL DATE refusing permission for the picketing .

On DATE ORG of GPE dismissed the complaint concerning the ban on the picketing , finding that the ban had been justified on safety grounds . That judgment was upheld on DATE by ORG .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant 's claim , upholding the grounds for the ban on the march and confirming the lawfulness of the authorities ' acts . That judgment was upheld on DATE by ORG .

In DATE the applicant , together with other individuals , decided to organise several marches similar to the ones attempted DATE .

On DATE the organisers submitted a notice to the mayor of GPE stating the date , time and route of CARDINAL intended marches to be held on CARDINAL and DATE in central GPE .

On DATE ORG of ORG informed the applicant that permission to hold all the marches had been refused on the grounds of potential breaches of public order and violence against the participants .

Having received the above reply , on DATE the organisers submitted a notice with a view to holding a further CARDINAL marches from DATE .

On DATE ORG of ORG informed the applicant that permission to hold the CARDINAL marches had also been refused on the same grounds .

The applicant submitted a number of alternative proposals for holding marches on different dates in DATE and in various locations . These proposals were refused , on the same grounds , as follows :

( i ) applications of CARDINAL and DATE ( CARDINAL marches in total ) , refused on CARDINAL DATE ;

( ii ) application of DATE ( CARDINAL marches ) , refused on DATE ;

( iii ) application of DATE ( CARDINAL marches ) , refused on DATE ;

( iv ) application of DATE ( CARDINAL marches ) , refused on CARDINAL DATE ;

( v ) application of DATE ( CARDINAL marches ) , refused on DATE ;

( vi ) application of DATE ( CARDINAL marches ) , refused on DATE ;

( vii ) application of DATE ( CARDINAL marches ) , refused on DATE .

On DATE the applicant gave notice to the President of GPE of his intention to hold a march in LOC on DATE . He received no reply to the notice .

From DATE to DATE the applicant brought several court actions challenging the decisions by the mayor of GPE refusing permission to hold the marches . ORG joined these applications and on DATE it dismissed the applicant 's claim , upholding the grounds for the bans on the marches and confirming the lawfulness of the authorities ' acts . That judgment was upheld on DATE by ORG .

In the meantime , the applicant also attempted to organise picketing to call for criminal charges to be brought against the mayor of GPE for hindering the holding of public events . The picket intended to be held on DATE was prohibited on CARDINAL DATE on the same grounds as those given for the previous events . This decision was reviewed and upheld by ORG on DATE and , on appeal , by ORG on DATE .

On DATE the applicant , in a group of CARDINAL individuals , held a picket on FAC for TIME .

DATE the Russian Federation provides that everyone has the right to freedom of association . LAW provides that rights and freedoms may be restricted by federal laws for the protection of constitutional principles , public morals , health and the rights and lawful interests of others , and to ensure the defence and security of the ORG .

The Federal Law on Assemblies , Meetings , Demonstrations , Marches and Picketing ( no . CARDINAL-FZ of CARDINAL DATE “ the LAW ” ) provides in so far as relevant as follows :

NORP The organiser of a public event shall have the right :

( i ) to hold meetings , demonstrations , marches and pickets at the venues and time specified in the notice on holding the public event or as altered by agreement with the executive authority of the subject of GPE or the municipal body ; to hold assemblies at a venue that has been specially allocated or adapted to ensure the safety of citizens while such assemblies are held ;

( v ) in holding assemblies , meetings , demonstrations and marches , to use sound - amplifying technical devices ( audio , video and other equipment ) with a level of sound corresponding to the standards and norms established in GPE .

NORP The organiser of the public event must :

( i ) submit to the executive authority of the subject of GPE or the municipal body a notice on holding the public event in accordance with the procedure prescribed by section CARDINAL of LAW ;

( ii ) DATE prior to the holding of the public event ( except in the case of an assembly or picket held by a single participant ) , notify in writing the executive authority of the subject of GPE or the municipal body of the acceptance ( or non - acceptance ) of its proposal to alter the venue and/or time of the public event as specified in the notice of the event ;

( iii ) ensure compliance with the conditions for holding the public event as specified in the notice of the event or with any conditions that have been altered as a result of an agreement reached with the executive authority of the subject of GPE or the municipal body ;

( iv ) require the participants in the public event to observe public order and comply with the conditions for holding the public event . Persons who fail to comply with the lawful requirements of the organiser of the public event may be expelled from the venue of the public event ;

( v ) NORP ensure , within their competence , public order and the safety of citizens when holding the public event and , in instances specified by LAW , perform this obligation jointly with the authorised representative of the executive authority of the subject of GPE or the municipal body and the authorised representative of ORG and comply with all their lawful requirements ;

NORP The organiser of the public event shall have no right to hold it if the notice on holding the public event has not been submitted in due time or no agreement has been reached with the executive authority of the subject of GPE or the municipal body on their reasoned proposal as to the alteration of the venue and/or time of the public event . ”

“ A public event may be held at any venue suitable for holding the event if its conduct does not create a threat of the collapse of buildings or structures or other threats to the safety of the participants in the public event . Conditions governing bans or restrictions on holding a public event at particular venues may be specified by federal laws .

“ CARDINAL . NORP The executive authority of the subject of GPE or the municipal body , upon receiving notice of the public event , must :

( ii ) inform the organiser of the public event , within DATE of receipt of the notice on holding the event ( or , if a notice on holding a picket by a group of individuals is submitted within DATE before its intended date , on DATE of its receipt ) , of a reasoned proposal to alter the venue and/or time of the public event , as well as of any proposal for the organiser of the event to bring the aims , form or other conditions for holding the event as indicated in the notice into line with the requirements of this Federal Law ;

( iii ) designate , depending on the form of the public event and the number of participants , an authorised representative to assist the event organisers in conducting the event in accordance with LAW . The authorised representative shall be formally appointed by a written order which must be forwarded to the organiser of the public event in advance [ of the event ] ;

( v ) NORP ensure , within its competence and jointly with the organiser of the public event and the authorised representative of ORG , public order and safety of citizens while holding the event and , if necessary , provide them with urgent medical aid ;

The authorised representative of ORG must :

( i ) facilitate the conduct of the public event ;

( ii ) NORP ensure , jointly with the organiser of the public event and the executive authority of the subject of GPE or the municipal body , public order and safety of citizens and compliance with the law while holding the public event . ”

“ CARDINAL . The organiser of the public event , officials or other individuals may not prevent the participants in the event from expressing their opinion in a manner that does not breach public order or the conditions for holding the public event .

The following are extracts from Recommendation CM / Rec(CARDINAL)CARDINAL of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe to member GPE on measures to combat discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation or gender identity :

III . Freedom of expression and peaceful assembly

Member states should take appropriate measures to ensure , in accordance with LAW , that the right to freedom of expression can be effectively enjoyed , without discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation or gender identity , including with respect to the freedom to receive and impart information on subjects dealing with sexual orientation or gender identity .

Member states should take appropriate measures at national , regional and local levels to ensure that the right to freedom of peaceful assembly , as enshrined in LAW , can be effectively enjoyed , without discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation or gender identity .

Member states should ensure that law enforcement authorities take appropriate measures to protect participants in peaceful demonstrations in favour of the human rights of lesbian , gay , bisexual and transgender persons from any attempts to unlawfully disrupt or inhibit the effective enjoyment of their right to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly .

Member states should take appropriate measures to prevent restrictions on the effective enjoyment of the rights to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly resulting from the abuse of legal or administrative provisions , for example on grounds of public health , public morality and public order ... ”

On DATE ORG for Human Rights issued the following press release :

“ In a statement given in GPE DATE , Commissioner PERSON stressed that the rights to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly belong to all people and that the authorities have a duty to protect peaceful demonstrators . The Commissioner regrets that his statement has been misrepresented by the news agency ORG by ORG dated DATE at CARDINAL ) . ”


CASE OF VALOVA, SLEZAK AND SLEZAK v. SLOVAKIA

Violation of P1-1;No violation of Art. 6-1;Just satisfaction reserved

On DATE ORG ( Pozemkový úrad ) delivered CARDINAL decisions granting the ORG claims for restitution of real property under LAW . The defendants appealed .

On DATE the ORG branch office of ORG ( PERSON súd GPE , pobočka v Nitre ) quashed these decisions on the ground that at the moment of the expropriation the land in question had been formally owned by a private company established by the members of the PERSON family . However , LAW provided exclusively for restitution of property taken away from individuals . ORG therefore sent the case back to the administrative authority . Prior to deciding on the case ORG held a hearing with reference to LAW of LAW .

In the meantime , on CARDINAL DATE , the applicants and another member of their family concluded an agreement with ORG . Under the agreement ORG undertook to restore , in accordance with LAW , different real property expropriated from the applicants’ family . On DATE ORG approved the agreement pursuant to LAW . Its decision became final on DATE .

On DATE ORG decided to reopen the proceedings leading to its decision of CARDINAL DATE pursuant to LAW a ) and ( b ) of LAW of DATE . The decision referred to the above finding of the ORG branch office of ORG of DATE according to which the land taken away from the applicants’ relatives could not be restored under LAW as it had been formally owned by a legal person .

On DATE the applicants appealed through the intermediary of their lawyer . They argued that no relevant new facts had been established and that the decision to reopen the proceedings was not justified by the public interest . The applicants concluded that there existed no legal entitlement for having the proceedings reopened .

On CARDINAL DATE ORG upheld ORG decision of DATE . The decision stated that no reasons for quashing or modifying ORG decision had been found .

The applicants sought a judicial review of the decision of ORG . On DATE ORG ( Najvyšší súd ) discontinued the proceedings for lack of jurisdiction to review administrative decisions of a procedural nature . Reference was made to LAW .

By a decision of CARDINAL DATE ORG disapproved the agreement concluded on CARDINAL DATE on the ground that the property in question had been taken away from a legal person and that under LAW only property originally owned by individuals could be restored .

The applicants appealed and argued that there existed no reason for reopening the proceedings and that the land had been taken away from the members of their family .

On DATE ORG upheld ORG decision of DATE . The judgment stated that the only point to be determined was a question of law , namely whether the plaintiffs were entitled , within the meaning of LAW , to acquire the property . The court noted that in the judgment of DATE it had found that the property had been taken away from a private company of which the ORG predecessors had been members and which had been a legal person . ORG concluded that the applicants lacked standing to claim restitution under LAW .

ORG further noted that a decision on reopening of proceedings before an administrative authority could not be reviewed by a court . It decided on the case without a hearing with reference to Article CARDINALf of the Code of Civil Procedure .

Section CARDINAL of Act No . CARDINAL on ORG And Other ORG ( “ LAW ” ) provides for restitution of real property to individuals from whom it was transferred to ORG ownership DATE and DATE by means specified in LAW . Where such persons are no longer alive , their successors are entitled to restitution under conditions specified in paragraph CARDINAL of LAW .

Section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) provides that a person entitled to restitution must lodge his or her claim with the appropriate land office and , at the same time , must request restitution from the person or entity possessing the real property at issue . The latter is required to conclude , within DATE , an agreement on transfer of the property with the claimant .

Under LAW ( CARDINAL ) , such agreements are subject to approval by the competent land office .

The proceedings before land offices are governed by Act No . ORG .

Under LAW ( CARDINAL ) , ( CARDINAL ) and ( CARDINAL ) , administrative authorities are required to proceed in accordance with the law and they are obliged to protect the interests of the ORG as well as the rights and interests of the citizens . Administrative authorities are further obliged to thoroughly examine each case and to use all means available with a view to resolving it in the correct manner . Facts on which their decisions are based must be reliably established .

Section CARDINAL provides that administrative proceedings can be brought either upon a request of a party or upon the initiative of the administrative authority .

Pursuant to LAW ( CARDINAL ) and ( CARDINAL ) , administrative authorities are obliged to establish the relevant facts in an exact and comprehensive manner ; in doing so they are not bound by the submissions of the parties . The scope and manner in which the facts are to be established are to be determined by the administrative authority .

Section CARDINAL provides , inter alia , that an administrative authority ’s decision has to be in accordance with the law and it has to be based on facts which are reliably established .

Under LAW ( CARDINAL ) , an appellate administrative authority is required to review the administrative decision appealed against as a whole . If need be , the appellate authority shall take further action and eliminate shortcomings in the earlier procedure which it has established .

Section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) ( a ) provides that administrative proceedings in which a final decision has been taken may be reopened at a party ’s request when there are new facts or evidence which could substantially affect the decision and which could not be considered in the original proceedings for reasons that can not be imputed to the party concerned .

Under LAW ( CARDINAL ) ( b ) , administrative proceedings in which a final decision has been taken may also be reopened when the decision depended on the examination of a preliminary issue on which the competent authority decided differently .

Section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) entitles administrative authorities to reopen proceedings for reasons set out in paragraph CARDINAL provided that the review of a final decision is in the general interest .

Pursuant to LAW ( CARDINAL ) , administrative proceedings can not be reopened when the effect of the decision in question was to entitle a party , inter alia , to exercise civil rights , provided that the party concerned acquired the rights in question in good faith .

Under LAW ( CARDINAL ) and ( CARDINAL ) , re - opening of administrative proceedings can be initiated by a party or ordered by an administrative authority not DATE from the final effect of a decision . After expiry of that DATE period proceedings can only be re - opened where a decision was obtained as a result of a criminal offence .

The lawfulness of certain decisions of administrative bodies can be reviewed by courts in accordance with Part CARDINAL of LAW which governs proceedings before the administrative courts .

Under LAW ) , administrative authorities’ decisions of , inter alia , a preliminary and procedural nature can not be reviewed by courts .

Article CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) provides that a plaintiff must indicate which part of the administrative decision he or she challenges , state the reasons for which he or she considers such a decision to be unlawful and specify the decision he or she seeks to obtain .

Section CARDINALf entitled the courts to deliver a judgment without prior oral hearing in simple cases , in particular when there was no doubt as to whether the administrative authority established the facts correctly , and the point at issue was a question of law . In its finding No . PL.ÚS CARDINAL of DATE ORG found that LAW of LAW was contrary to LAW and also to LAW . As a result , this provision ceased to be effective .

Pursuant to ORG CARDINALq and ORG , a court examining an administrative decision can either uphold or quash it . When the decision was not taken pursuant to ORG CARDINALf or when the administrative authority did not take a new decision satisfying the plaintiff ’s claim , the court may take such evidence as it deems necessary . When the court quashes a decision , the case is sent back to the administrative authority . The latter is bound by the legal opinion expressed by the court .

As a general rule , administrative courts acting under Part CARDINAL of LAW are not obliged to examine of their own initiative whether or not an administrative decision conforms to the law . They are rather required to review administrative decisions in the light of the plaintiff ’s arguments . In its judgment No . CARDINAL Sž CARDINAL delivered on DATE ORG held that the situation is different and that the administrative court is entitled to quash an administrative decision even in the absence of the plaintiff ’s submissions to that effect when the decision in question is absolutely void , e.g. when the administrative authority proceeded with a person who lacked standing in the case .

In accordance with academic opinion , the effect of an administrative decision approving an agreement on restitution of property pursuant to LAW is to entitle the party concerned to exercise civil rights within the meaning of LAW ( CARDINAL ) of LAW . The proceedings leading to such a decision can not , therefore , be reopened provided that the party concerned acquired the rights in question in good faith ( see PERSON pozemkového práva , PERSON a vykonávacie predpisy , JUDr . PERSON , JUDr . PERSON and Others , ORG , DATE , p. CARDINAL ) .


Violation of Art. 6-2;Remainder inadmissible;Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed;Non-pecuniary damage - award

András Sajó;David Thór Björgvinsson;Françoise Tulkens;Guido Raimondi

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

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

On DATE the applicant was charged with the offence of membership of ORG , a proscribed organisation in GPE .

While the criminal proceedings against the applicant were continuing before ORG , PERSON no . DATE entered into force on DATE . Law no . DATE provides for the suspension of criminal proceedings in respect of certain offences committed before DATE , without reaching a definitive finding as to guilt .

On DATE ORG considered that there was no evidence to show that the applicant had been a member of the illegal organisation or that she had carried out “ any activities on behalf of the illegal organisation in an active and continuous manner ” . According to ORG , the applicant 's activities “ had remained within the scope of the offence of aiding and abetting the illegal organisation ” , which was CARDINAL of the offences in respect of which Law No . DATE was applicable . ORG thus suspended the criminal proceedings against the applicant .

In the meantime , on DATE , that is before the criminal proceedings were suspended , the applicant was dismissed from her post as a primary school teacher because ORG considered that the evidence in the possession of the prosecuting authorities showed that she was a member of the illegal organisation .

The applicant challenged her dismissal by bringing a case against ORG before ORG on DATE .

On DATE ORG rejected the applicant 's request for the ORG 's decision dismissing her from her post to be quashed . In its decision ORG referred to ORG above - mentioned decision of DATE , and held that the dismissal of the applicant “ whose criminal activities were deemed in the criminal proceedings to constitute the offence of aiding and abetting ” had been lawful .

The appeal lodged by the applicant against the ORG decision was dismissed by ORG on DATE . The ORG decision was notified to the applicant on DATE .

On various subsequent dates the applicant made job applications to the education authorities . CARDINAL of the applications she made , on DATE , was rejected by the local education authority in GPE on the basis of ORG decision of DATE .

According to an official document dated DATE , the applicant has no criminal record .

Law No . DATE , in so far as relevant , provides as follows :

“ CARDINAL . In respect of offences committed before DATE which are punishable by a maximum prison sentence of DATE :

- where no criminal investigation has been commenced or no indictment has been filed , institution of prosecution shall be suspended ;

- where the criminal prosecution has reached the final stages but no definitive finding on the merits has been adopted or where a definitive finding on the merits has not yet become final , adoption of a definitive finding on the merits shall be suspended .

If the person concerned is detained on remand , he or she shall be released . Documents and evidence concerning such offences shall be kept until the statute of limitations has been reached .

In cases where an offence of the same kind or an offence which is punishable by a more severe prison sentence has been committed before the statute of limitations has been reached , a new prosecution shall be brought in respect of the previous offence which was the subject matter of the suspension or the suspended proceedings shall be resumed . If no offences of the same kind or an offence which is punishable by a more severe prison sentence has been committed before the statute of limitations has been reached , no public prosecutions may be brought against those who benefited from the suspension and the suspended proceedings shall be permanently terminated .


The CARDINAL applicants PERSON , PERSON , ORG and PERSON are all NORP nationals . They were born in DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE , respectively , and now live in GPE . The first and second applicants are a couple , and the third and fourth applicants are their children . They were represented before the ORG by Mr PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE . The respondent Government were represented by their agent Ambassador PERSON , former Head of ORG at ORG .

The facts of the case may be summarised as follows .

On DATE the applicants arrived at FAC on a flight from GPE ( GPE ) . They were in possession of passports , flight tickets and tourist visas for GPE .

On DATE they presented themselves to the airport and border police . They requested asylum , claiming that they had fled GPE because of political persecution and that in GPE they risked deportation to GPE . They further submitted that they were no longer in possession of passports .

Noting that the applicants had no passports and had not arrived directly from the ORG where they feared persecution , the airport and border police refused them leave to enter NORP territory .

The applicants were offered lodging in a special transit zone ( “ LOC ” ) in a locked container near the airport which was equipped with beds and where food was provided . They refused and continued to stay in the main transit zone of the airport .

On DATE the applicants made statements to officers of ORG ( Bundesasylamt ) .

They said that they had left GPE in DATE as the first applicant had been persecuted by ORG ( ORG ) . Since DATE they had been living in GPE with tourist visas which they renewed DATE by travelling to GPE and subsequently re - entering GPE . The first applicant had obtained refugee status from the ORG in GPE . They had not filed an asylum request in GPE as they feared that once the NORP authorities became aware of their presence they would be deported . They added that they had destroyed their passports upon their arrival at FAC in order to avoid deportation .

DATE ORG dismissed the ORG request for asylum . It noted that the applicants had come from GPE where they were safe from persecution .

Subsequently , at a hearing before ORG on DATE , the applicants explained that it was in fact only after that decision that they had destroyed their passports .

Meanwhile , on DATE the Schwechat ORG ) ordered the applicants’ deportation to GPE , stipulating that if the deportation could not be effected , the applicants were to remain in the transit zone of the airport .

Flights from GPE to GPE left DATE , on DATE .

On CARDINAL and CARDINAL DATE the applicants’ deportation to GPE had to be postponed as they could not be found in the transit zone . Another attempt was made to deport them on DATE , but proved to no avail as the applicants did not comply with the order to board the flight and the authorities refused to employ force .

Meanwhile ORG UNCHR in GPE was informed about the applicants’ situation . It gave a favourable opinion on the applicants’ deportation .

In TIME of CARDINAL DATE the applicants were placed under police surveillance in order to ensure their deportation on a flight to GPE TIME . Their deportation was however postponed indefinitely after information was received from the NORP authorities that they would not accept the applicants without passports . The police surveillance was stopped at TIME that day .

Meanwhile , the applicants’ case attracted the attention of the media , and several articles about their situation appeared in NORP newspapers .

On DATE ORG UNCHR in GPE stated that in GPE the applicants would risk deportation to GPE . It stated in that connection that on DATE it had been informed by the first applicant for the first time that he was a member of ORG .

On DATE the first applicant was again interviewed by an officer of ORG .

On DATE the NORP authorities allowed the applicants to enter GPE on humanitarian grounds .

On DATE ORG for the ORG ( ORG ) dismissed the ORG appeal against ORG decision of DATE . It noted that there was nothing to show that GPE would disregard its obligations under LAW on LAW and deport them to GPE .

On DATE ORG rejected the ORG complaints . It noted that the ORG ’s decision was void as it was based on the DATE LAW which , in the meantime , had been replaced by DATE Asylum Act . It therefore directed that the proceedings should resume at the stage of ORG decision . However , the applicants did not pursue the proceedings any further .

In the meantime , on DATE , the applicants lodged complaints with ORG ( Unabhängiger Verwaltungssenat ) . They complained that their stay in the transit zone and the authorities’ attempts to deport them to GPE had been unlawful as they should have been allowed to enter GPE as asylum seekers who had come from a country where they feared persecution . They further complained that their stay in the transit zone was contrary to Articles CARDINAL § § CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the Convention . They submitted that they had been left to their own devices without appropriate sleeping or sanitary facilities . Furthermore , there was no statutory right to bring proceedings by which the lawfulness of their detention could be reviewed speedily by a court and their release ordered if their detention was unlawful .

On DATE , after a hearing on DATE , ORG ( ORG ) dismissed the complaint concerning the NORP authorities’ refusal to let the applicants enter GPE and rejected the complaint concerning their stay in the transit zone . It found that the refusal to let the applicants enter GPE and the subsequent attempts to enforce their departure had been lawful , as they did not possess valid passports and had no right to enter under the relevant provisions of LAW , since they had come from GPE where they were safe from persecution .

The ORG further found that the stay in the transit zone had not been ordered by , and was therefore not attributable to , the NORP authorities . The applicants , who had been free to leave GPE , had remained of their own free will . It further noted that the situation in the case before it differed from the PERSON case ( PERSON v. GPE , judgment of DATE , Reports of Judgments and Decisions CARDINAL ) in that the applicants were free to move about the transit zone and had not been placed under surveillance . They had also been in contact with the media and a humanitarian organisation , ORG , in GPE , which provided , inter alia , legal assistance . It found that their stay in the transit zone did not amount to a deprivation of liberty .

On DATE ORG ( Verfassungs- gerichtshof ) declined to deal with the applicants’ complaints and subsequently referred the case to ORG .

On DATE ORG noted that the applicants’ complaints did not concern the authorities’ refusal to grant them leave to enter GPE or their attempts to deport them to GPE , but were restricted to the ORG ’s rejection of their complaint about the alleged unlawful stay in the transit zone . It confirmed the ORG ’s findings in this regard . This decision was served on the applicants’ counsel on DATE .

Meanwhile , in DATE , the applicants had left GPE for GPE .

Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW ( PERSON ) DATE stipulates that aliens who do not satisfy relevant passport or visa obligations shall be prevented ( GPE ) from entering the NORP territory . An alien shall not be prevented from entering GPE when he is entitled to do so under other legislation .

Section PERSON ) lays down that the decision whether or not to admit an alien into NORP territory will be taken by the border police after questioning the alien and on the basis of plausible evidence submitted by the alien or other known facts .

Section CARDINAL provides that the border police may order an alien who has been refused entry into GPE but is present on NORP territory to leave immediately . If departure is not immediately possible the officer may order the alien to stay in a designated place in the border control area until he or she leaves the territory .

Section CARDINAL forbids the expulsion of an alien to a State where there is good reason to believe that he or she will be exposed to the risk of inhuman treatment or punishment or the death penalty or will be persecuted , within the meaning of LAW relating to LAW .

Section CARDINAL of LAW ) DATE defines a refugee as a person who has left his or her home country because of a well - founded fear of persecution on account of his or her race , religion , nationality or adherence to a particular social group or political opinion .

Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) states that asylum is not to be granted to a refugee who has already found a safe haven from persecution in another country .

Section CARDINAL ) provides that an asylum seeker who has come directly from the ORG where he allegedly suffered persecution shall be allowed to enter GPE without any formalities .

By virtue of section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) , an asylum seeker who has entered GPE in accordance with section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) ( that is to say , who has come directly from the ORG where he allegedly suffered persecution ) and who files his request for asylum within DATE , has a temporary right of residence .

Both LAW DATE and LAW DATE have now been amended .

ORG zum PERSON der persönlichen PERSON ) provides protection against the intentional deprivation of liberty . In particular , it provides for compensation for unlawful detention and a procedure by which the lawfulness of detention is decided by a body , ORG , within DATE after the complaint is lodged . If the detention is unlawful , an order must be made for the release of the person detained .

However , according to ORG settled case - law ( see its judgment of CARDINAL DATE ; PERSON . [ Collection of Judgments and Decisions of ORG ] CARDINAL ) a mere order to stay in the main transit zone of an airport after leave to enter GPE has been refused does not amount to an arbitrary deprivation of liberty . The above mentioned LAW is therefore inapplicable . On the other hand , an order requiring foreigners to stay in the special transit zone at FAC may , in certain circumstances , constitute a deprivation of liberty .

By virtue of Section CARDINALa ( CARDINAL ) of ORG have jurisdiction , inter alia , to examine complaints from persons who allege a violation of their rights as a result of the exercise of direct administrative authority and coercion ( ORG unmittelbarer verwaltungsbehördlicher Befehls- PERSON ) .

A refusal by the border police to admit foreigners arriving at FAC into GPE is deemed to be an exercise of direct administrative authority and coercion .

Section CARDINAL of ORG deals with the administrative authorities’ duty to give a decision . It provides that , in the absence of any contrary provision in the administrative regulations , the authorities must decide applications by parties without unnecessary delay and at DATE after the application or appeal has been lodged .


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

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

On DATE the Bakirköy District Governorship granted the applicant a licence to serve alcohol in his restaurant .

On an unspecified date , DATE of Güngören , where the applicant ’s restaurant was located , became a separate district . On DATE , LOC Governorship revoked the applicant ’s licence on the ground that the applicant ’s restaurant was outside the designated area for restaurants serving alcohol .

On DATE the applicant was notified of this decision and was barred from running the restaurant .

On DATE the applicant brought an action before ORG for the annulment of LOC decision of DATE . He also requested that the decision be stayed .

On DATE ORG rejected the applicant ’s request for a stay of proceedings . The applicant objected to this decision . On DATE ORG rejected the applicant ’s challenge .

On DATE ORG delivered its judgment on the merits of the case . The court decided that the revocation order of LOC was in conformity with the law . The applicant appealed against this judgment to ORG , and as a preliminary step , he once again requested ORG to stay the execution of the Governorship ’s decision . On DATE ORG decided on the request for a stay and rejected it .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s appeal on points of law , and upheld the judgment of the first - instance court .

The applicant requested rectification of this decision . On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s request .

On DATE the applicant was notified of ORG final decision .


No violation of Art. 8;No violation of Art. 6-1

The applicant married PERSON in DATE . Their daughter PERSON was born on CARDINAL DATE . In DATE PERSON moved out of the matrimonial home together with PERSON who has been living with her mother since then .

On DATE the applicant had his last contact with F. The mother subsequently denied the applicant any further contact .

Three sets of court proceedings concerning the custody of PERSON , the applicant ’s right of access and the spouses’ divorce opened before ORG ( later GPE - Kreuzberg District Court ) , namely

On DATE , in the context of proceedings before the ORG concerning custody of F. during the period of separation ( PERSON ) of the spouses , the question of the applicant ’s right of access ( ORG ) to PERSON was settled . According to the spouses’ agreement , the applicant was entitled to see his daughter once per week on a weekday and from DATE until DATE TIME DATE .

Subsequently F. ’s mother denied the applicant any contact with PERSON and the applicant asked ORG for assistance in this matter .

On DATE Judge S. of ORG , having heard F. and her mother , informed the applicant that contacts between him and his daughter should take place regularly DATE . He noted that PERSON was on very good terms with her father . However , further contacts would worsen the very strained relations between the parents and were presently not in the child ’s best interest . On CARDINAL DATE PERSON declared that she no longer wished to comply with the settlement of CARDINAL DATE , as she had been terrorised by the applicant .

On DATE ORG noted that PERSON had not complied with the terms of the friendly settlement of DATE . It observed that PERSON had failed to furnish evidence for her allegations that the applicant had threatened or sexually harassed PERSON or PERSON in several letters .

On DATE ORG decided that during the period of separation of the spouses PERSON shall have custody of F.

On DATE ORG , having regard to the GPE statements made in court and a report of ORG , dismissed the applicant ’s appeal against this decision .

On DATE the applicant filed a petition for divorce with ORG and requested to be granted custody of F. In the subsequent proceedings , both parties , that is , PERSON and the applicant , were assisted by counsel .

On DATE ORG , granting the applicant ’s motion , issued an interim injunction . Judge S. , sitting alone , ordered that the applicant had a right of access to F. once a week on a DATE and that PERSON should stay TIME from DATE until DATE TIME DATE . This order replaced the regulation of the applicant ’s right of access by the friendly settlement agreement concluded on DATE . The court considered that contacts between the applicant and PERSON , as provided for in the said agreement , were in the child ’s best interest . For DATE , PERSON had , however , advanced factual or personal pretexts to prevent contacts . The court noted that it had heard the parties on the question of access on DATE .

PERSON objected to the interim injunction .

On DATE , at a hearing before ORG , the parties arrived at a new settlement on the applicant ’s access to F. which replaced the court order of CARDINAL DATE . According to this agreement , the applicant was entitled to spend every second DATE and certain fixed holidays with F. This arrangement was subsequently only partly observed by PERSON , and the applicant asked for the enforcement of his right of access under the terms of the settlement .

On DATE ORG dismissed CARDINAL of the applicant ’s motions to order PERSON to pay a coercive penalty , as PERSON had not deliberately failed to comply with the terms of the settlement dated CARDINAL DATE on the relevant occasion . The applicant ’s appeal was to no avail . On CARDINAL DATE PERSON asked for the suspension of the applicant ’s access to F. Apparently no decision has been rendered upon this motion .

On DATE ORG , following a hearing in the presence of PERSON and the applicant , adjourned the proceedings concerning the parties’ divorce and related family matters , as the parties failed to reach an agreement concerning the custody of and the access to F.

In DATE and DATE the applicant asked for the preparation of an psychological expert opinion concerning custody of and access to F. , to which PERSON objected .

The applicant ’s first motion dated DATE to challenge the single ORG Judge S. for bias , inter alia because the judge refused to order a psychologiacal expert opinion about the question of access , was dismissed by ORG on DATE . The applicant ’s second motion dated DATE to challenge Judge S. for similar reasons was rejected on DATE .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s request for an interim injunction granting him access to his child during the GPE holidays .

On DATE ORG , following a hearing in which the parties persistently cursed at each other and at the judge , ordered the preparation of a psychological expert opinion regarding the child . The expert notably was to address the question whether the applicant ’s access to F. should be broadened in order to secure permanent contacts between them .

The court - appointed psychological expert ORG rendered her report on DATE . According to the expert , it was in the child ’s best interest to limit contacts with the applicant to TIME every fortnight or even to exclude the applicant ’s access to F. for a year . She argued in particular that the applicant failed to realise his daughter ’s increasing objections against close physical contacts with him . In her view , the applicant was out of touch with reality and showed signs of querulance and delusion ; however , PERSON also tried to influence PERSON in her favour .

On DATE PERSON announced that she retracted her consent to the settlement on access dated CARDINAL DATE and that she would no longer allow contacts between PERSON and the applicant , because F. no longer wished to meet the applicant .

Meanwhile , in a letter dated DATE , Judge S. , referring to all CARDINAL sets of proceedings , informed the GPE representatives that the files were out of control and that it was intended to deal with the parties’ numerous motions soon . Judge S. also announced that the enforcement of previous agreements and decisions would be secured .

On DATE ORG , with Judge S. sitting alone , held a further hearing on divorce , custody and related family matters . It notably heard the applicant and PERSON , assisted by their respective counsel , on the question of the applicant ’s contacts with PERSON refused to accept the court ’s proposal of a friendly settlement regulating , inter alia , the applicant ’s access to his daughter .

On DATE the applicant lodged a motion for an interim injunction granting him access to F. on DATE every second DATE .

Subsequently , the case , which had until then been processed by single Judge S. , was assigned to Judge H. , when PERSON fell ill and retired . H. subsequently explained that it was not necessary to render a decision upon the applicant ’s motion for an interim injunction granting access , as the case was altogether ready for decision .

On DATE the applicant objected to the expert GPE on grounds of bias . He argued that the expert had accused him of having sexually abused F.

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s motion objecting to the expert for bias as inadmissible . On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s appeal , finding that it had been lodged out of time .

The hearing on DATE was preceded by a questioning of the child in which F. had indicated that she did not want to meet her father . At the hearing , which was attended by the applicant , PERSON and their respective counsels , the applicant challenged Judge H. on grounds of bias . The hearing was adjourned because of this motion . The applicant withdrew his motion on DATE . His repeated further motions of CARDINAL DATE , because of which another hearing before ORG had to be adjourned , and of CARDINAL , DATE , DATE and DATE were to no avail . In its respective decisions , ORG found in particular that the delays in the proceedings had been caused by the applicant ’s various motions challenging ORG judge and the expert for bias . This had necessitated the adjournment of the proceedings before ORG until the decision of ORG .

After ORG had fixed another date for a hearing on DATE , the applicant filed further motions for bias against Judge H. on DATE and on DATE and CARDINAL DATE . He argued , inter alia , that PERSON wanted to cover up PERSON ’s ill - treatment of her son , had refused to consult another expert and that her treatment of the case was comparable to offences committed by a former official of the GPE , from which ORG originated . On CARDINAL DATE ORG , having regard to Judge H. ’s official statement in which she had disqualified herself following the applicant ’s persistent allegations , decided that she was disqualified .

In a hearing in camera before Judge NORP of the Berlin Tempelhof - GPE ORG on DATE , F. indicated that she no longer wanted to visit her father . Confronted with her former positive statements about her father , she replied that she did not love him anymore and that she would not care if he died . She expressed the fear that her father might commit suicide and might kill her as well . She stated that she wanted to live together with her mother and that she felt happy with her mother , her mother ’s new partner and her brothers . She emphasised that she would refuse to see her father even if the ORG ordered her to do so . CARDINAL of her lifetime had been dominated by her GPE quarrel , and she was sick of constantly having to appear in court because of this .

NORP In letters dated CARDINAL , DATE and CARDINAL DATE the applicant challenged Judge NORP for bias , inter alia because she had refused to order another expert report , and requested to adjourn the hearing . On DATE ORG , with Judge NORP sitting alone , dismissed the applicant ’s motions for bias against her as inadmissible , arguing that they had merely been lodged to protract the proceedings .

At the hearing on DATE , at which the applicant and PERSON were present , Judge NORP gave a copy of the minutes of F. ’s hearing on DATE to the applicant . The hearing then had to be adjourned following the applicant ’s appeal against the decision on his motion for bias . In a statement of CARDINAL DATE , Judge NORP declared that she was not biased but that she was convinced that a settlement with the applicant was impossible . The applicant then lodged CARDINAL further motions challenging Judge NORP for bias .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s appeal against ORG decision of DATE and his further motions challenging NORP On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s appeals against the decisions of ORG DATE and CARDINAL DATE as inadmissible , as no appeal lay against these decisions . In several further submissions to ORG , the applicant again requested the court to order another expert report , arguing that his daughter had been indoctrinated by PERSON , and again challenged Judge NORP for bias .

On DATE the Berlin GPE - ORG , with Judge NORP sitting alone , held a further hearing attended by the applicant , PERSON and their respective counsel . The court dismissed the applicant ’s CARDINAL motions challenging NORP for bias as inadmissible , as they were merely aimed at preventing a decision . It noted that the applicant , who was awarded the opportunity to lodge motions and comment on PERSON ’s motions , refused to make any statements at the hearing , but had set out his views in numerous detailed written submissions to the court . The applicant then requested to grant him custody of PERSON or at least an ample right of access .

ORG granted the divorce and awarded PERSON custody of PERSON and her CARDINAL - brother , born in wedlock but stemming from the relationship between PERSON and her new partner . The applicant ’s access to PERSON was suspended . In reaching its decision , the court had regard to the statements made by both parties at their hearings on CARDINAL DATE and on DATE before Judge S. , as well as to the hearing of PERSON on DATE .

As regards custody of PERSON , ORG noted that the applicant had not objected to PERSON ’s motion to be granted custody . It considered that PERSON , then aged DATE , had shown close links to her mother and her new family . There was no indication of any danger to her further development if she remained with her mother . It was , therefore , not necessary to take into account outdated expert reports or to hear witnesses .

As to the applicant ’s right of access , the court deemed it necessary , in the interest of the child ’s well - being , to prohibit any contacts with F. It noted that the persistent quarrel between her parents constituted a heavy burden on F. The child now attempted to cope with this conflict by suppressing her memory of meetings with her father and by seeking as much distance as possible from him . The court found that it could not ignore the determined wish of the child as expressed at the hearing of CARDINAL DATE . It was therefore obliged to suspend the applicant ’s access to F. It argued that a child ’s welfare was more important than a father ’s right of access .

The applicant ’s further CARDINAL motions challenging Judge NORP for bias were to no avail .

On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal against ORG judgment delivered on CARDINAL DATE with ORG . His requests on DATE and CARDINAL DATE for an interim injunction ordering access were , following hearings , dismissed on CARDINAL DATE and CARDINAL DATE respectively by ORG . That court found that , given PERSON ’s express resistance against meeting the applicant and the time which had elapsed since their last contact , a decision on the applicant ’s access to F. necessitated further findings of fact , notably the report of a psychological expert .

DATE . On DATE ORG ordered an expert report on the question if and to what extent contacts between the applicant and his daughter were in PERSON ’s best interest . It appointed as expert PERSON , a certified psychologist acting as expert for different family courts since DATE .

On DATE ( decision served on DATE ) ORG , following an oral hearing on DATE in the presence of the applicant , his counsel , PERSON ’s counsel and the expert PERSON , dismissed the applicant ’s appeal .

ORG notably found that it was in PERSON ’s best interest to exclude the applicant ’s right of access pursuant to Section CARDINAL § CARDINAL , second sentence , of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . In reaching this conclusion , the court relied on the report dated DATE , comprising CARDINAL pages , and the oral hearing on DATE of the psychological expert PERSON The expert had questioned and examined F. on CARDINAL occasions and each of her parents on CARDINAL occasions respectively . Given the refusal of both PERSON and PERSON to meet the applicant in the presence of the expert , the latter had questioned them all separately . Having regard to the findings of this expert , the court noted that PERSON , then aged twelve , had a negative attitude towards her father . The court , like the expert , considered that the negative attitude of the child towards the applicant might have partly been caused by the mother ’s influence , though not to the extent believed by the applicant . The court noted that according to the expert , the GPE ongoing quarrels had placed a great strain on the child . The court acceded to the findings of the expert that , in view of PERSON ’s intensive resistance against any contact with her father , enforcing such contacts might cause her serious psychological harm . The court further found that the expert opinion on the question whether it was in PERSON ’s best interest to have contacts with her father was exhaustive and conclusive . Accordingly , it had not been necessary to appoint a second expert or a psychiatric expert as requested by the applicant .

ORG further explained that it did not consider it suitable to limit in time the prohibition on access , as it could not be foreseen whether , if at all , PERSON might give up her resistance . Both parents were under an obligation to contribute to a change in her attitude . The main responsibility lay with PERSON ’s mother , who would have to overcome her own negative feelings towards the applicant in order to influence PERSON and to improve her father ’s image . If the applicant respected his daughter ’s wish to keep distance for a longer period of time , there would be a possibility to resume contacts carefully at a later stage . ORG , referring to Sections CARDINAL a § CARDINAL , first sentence , and CARDINAL b § CARDINAL , first sentence , of GPE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) considered that it had not been required to hear F. and her mother personally .

In a letter to the applicant dated DATE , the presiding judge of ORG explained , inter alia , that PERSON ’s allegations that PERSON had been sexually abused by the applicant had not been addressed in the court ’s judgment as they had been irrelevant . Moreover , he informed the applicant that the court had refrained from hearing PERSON again pursuant to LAW b § CARDINAL , first sentence , of GPE . Given the lengthy and embittered dispute , the court had not considered it justifiable to subject PERSON to the strains caused by yet another hearing , as she had repeatedly expressed her will in an unequivocal manner .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s objection against the decision that the costs of the proceedings before ORG of CARDINAL ORG , which notably comprised the expenses of the expert PERSON , be borne by him . On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s objection against the decision that CARDINAL of the costs for the expert report rendered by ORG be borne by him . Several further objections and appeals concerning the costs of the proceedings , including a motion to challenge a judge of ORG for bias , were to no avail .

In the context of separate proceedings concerning the applicant ’s request of CARDINAL DATE for the enforcement of his right of access under the terms of the agreement of CARDINAL DATE , ORG held a hearing on DATE , with Judge S. sitting alone . Following the hearing , ORG stated that the parties had agreed that the applicant should have contact with F. on her birthday and on DATE for TIME respectively , and on DATE during DATE .

On DATE ORG , with Judge PERSON sitting alone , granted the applicant access to PERSON for TIME on her birthday by way of an interim injunction . PERSON subsequently withdrew her appeal against this injunction .

On DATE ORG informed the parties that the request for enforcement of access had been settled at the hearing on DATE .

The applicant repeated requests for enforcement measures and for an amendment of the decision on access . The mother suggested to join the proceedings no . CARDINAL F CARDINAL/CARDINAL and no . CARDINAL F CARDINAL/CARDINAL . On DATE ORG informed the parties that all motions concerning access be processed in the context of the proceedings no . CARDINAL F CARDINAL/CARDINAL .

On DATE the applicant , represented by counsel , lodged a complaint with ORG . Referring to ORG decision of DATE in the proceedings no . CARDINAL F CARDINAL/CARDINAL , he complained in his CARDINAL - page submissions that the suspension of access to his child violated his parental rights and was contrary to the child ’s well - being . He complained that the expert appointed in the appeal proceedings had been misled by PERSON and that further expertise had been necessary . He also noted that PERSON had not appeared at the court hearing . In his view , he was blamed for his lengthy struggle to secure his right of access . Subsequently , upon query , the applicant filed a further document . On DATE the applicant filed further submissions in support of his lawyer ’s observations .

On DATE ORG refused to admit the applicant ’s constitutional complaint .

On DATE ORG refused to admit the applicant ’s constitutional complaint concerning his request for further information about his daughter , notably her current address . The said proceedings are the subject matter of the application no . FAC before the Court . Moreover , on DATE ORG refused to admit the applicant ’s constitutional complaint concerning the rejection of his renewed request for access to F. In the course of these proceedings , the applicant met his daughter once in DATE . The latter proceedings are the subject matter of the application no . CARDINAL before the ORG .

On DATE F. attained the age of majority . The applicant had not been granted a right of access to her until then .

At the relevant time , i.e. before the entry into force of the amended Law on Family Matters ( Reform zum Kindschaftsrecht ) on DATE , the relevant provision of the Civil Code concerning access to a child born in wedlock was worded as follows :

Section CARDINAL

“ CARDINAL . A parent not having custody has the right to personal contact with the child . The parent not having custody and the person having custody must not do anything that would harm the child ’s relationship with others or seriously interfere with the child ’s upbringing .

The family court can determine the scope of that right and can prescribe more specific rules for its exercise , also with regard to third parties ; as long as no decision is made , the right , under section CARDINAL § CARDINAL , of the parent not having custody may be exercised throughout the period of contact . The family court can restrict or suspend that right if such a measure is necessary for the child ’s welfare . ”

Proceedings in family matters are governed by LAW ( PERSON über die ORG der freiwilligen PERSON ) . Pursuant to Section CARDINAL a § CARDINAL of that Act , in its version in force at the relevant time , in proceedings concerning parental custody the family court shall , as a rule , hear a child ’s parents in person . Section CARDINAL a § CARDINAL provides that the family courts may dispense with such a hearing only for sound reasons .

Pursuant to Section CARDINAL b § CARDINAL of the said LAW , in proceedings concerning parental custody the family court hears the child concerned in person if the child ’s affinities , ties or will are relevant for the decision . It also does so if it is necessary to obtain a direct impression of the child in order to establish the facts of the case . Pursuant to LAW b § CARDINAL , in proceedings concerning parental custody the family court always hears in person a child who has attained the age of CARDINAL and is not legally incapacitated . The family courts may dispense with such a hearing only for sound reasons ( Section CARDINAL b § CARDINAL ) .


Anatoly Kovler;George Nicolaou;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

She is employed as a cleaning lady at ORG of GPE “ NORP ” .

On DATE she lodged a civil action with ORG asking for a sum of MONEY ( GRD ) ( i.e. MONEY ) in respect of unpaid salaries .

On DATE her action was accepted . This decision was certified ( θεώρηση ) on DATE ( judgment no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) .

On DATE the hospital lodged an appeal .

On DATE ORG accepted the appeal and rejected the applicant ’s action as unfounded ( judgment no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) .

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

On DATE ORG accepted the appeal and remitted the case to a different division of ORG ( judgment no . CARDINAL ) .

On DATE the applicant filed an application before ORG asking for a hearing date to be set . The hearing was held on DATE .

By judgment dated DATE ORG quashed judgment no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL of ORG and partially allowed the applicant ’s appeal ( judgment no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) .

On DATE the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law .

On DATE ORG partially accepted the appeal and remitted the case to a different division of ORG ( judgment no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) . This judgment was finalised on DATE . It does not transpire from the case file that these proceedings have been concluded .