Preliminary objections dismissed (non-exhaustion of domestic remedies, six-month period);Remainder inadmissible;No violation of Art. 3 (substantive aspect);Violation of Art. 3 (substantive aspect);Non-pecuniary damage - award

Anatoly Kovler;Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre;Karel Jungwiert;Mark Villiger;Peer Lorenzen;Rait Maruste;Zdravka Kalaydjieva

The applicant was born in DATE . He is currently serving his sentence in penitentiary institution PERSON in PERSON .

On DATE the applicant was arrested and remanded in custody on suspicion of inflicting grievous bodily harm resulting in the death of the victim . On DATE the ORG convicted the applicant of inflicting grievous bodily harm resulting in death and sentenced him to DATE imprisonment . On DATE ORG upheld the judgment . The applicant was held in a pre - trial detention facility till DATE .

DATE and DATE , excluding CARDINAL periods from DATE to CARDINAL DATE , from DATE to DATE and from DATE to DATE , the applicant served his sentence in correctional colony IK-CARDINAL , PERSON ( GPE PERSON области , учреждение GPE CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) .

The applicant was kept in units ( отряды ) nos . CARDINAL and CARDINAL . The parties’ descriptions of conditions in IK-CARDINAL differ in a number of respects .

The applicant submitted that in unit no . CARDINAL there were approximately another QUANTITY detainees and in unit no . QUANTITY detainees . He had an individual sleeping place for the whole period of detention ; however , the sanitary conditions in the colony were inadequate . The central heating in their dormitory was insufficient , and during the DATE the convicts slept fully clothed . In DATE it was very hot in the cell , and due to its overcrowding the air was stale and musty . The toilet was situated in a separate unheated area , and it was extremely cold there in DATE . No hygiene facilities were provided . Food was of a very poor quality , the usual ration included white bread , barley porridge and semi - sweet tea in TIME , barley soup and porridge at lunch time , and mashed potatoes made from powder in the evening . While a supplementary diet was prescribed for him by the doctor , the applicant claimed that he had only received milk before DATE and after DATE ; butter and eggs were provided as of DATE .

Furthermore , there was not enough light and heating in the sewing workshop where the applicant and other prisoners worked . There was not sufficient light in the bedroom either , because the windows were obstructed by bunk beds .

Unit no . CARDINAL measured QUANTITY m. , and its bedroom measured CARDINAL sq . m. The unit housed CARDINAL inmates . After he was diagnosed with tuberculosis in DATE , the applicant was transferred to unit no . CARDINAL to a dormitory which measured QUANTITY and housed CARDINAL inmates . The applicant was at all times provided with an individual bed , bedding and clothes – a cotton suit , cap , cold - weather cap , sweater and boots . The relevant records were submitted to the ORG .

The Government , relying on the certificates provided by ORG , further submitted that the cells were ventilated both naturally through the windows and by a ventilation shaft , which was mandatory . The windows in the cells were double glazed and allowed sufficient natural light through . The cells were also equipped with satisfactory artificial lighting .

The units were equipped with a central heating system ; bedrooms had a CARDINAL - unit heating device which provided an average temperature of QUANTITY in DATE , also in the toilets . The lighting in the sewing workshop was sufficiently provided by luminescent lamps in accordance with the relevant regulations . The applicant was provided with CARDINAL special diet meals a day appropriate to his health condition .

From DATE to CARDINAL DATE , from DATE to DATE and from DATE to DATE the applicant was held in a medico - prophylactic penitentiary institution ( ЯМ-CARDINAL/Б ORG PERSON по PERSON области , hereinafter – “ the prison hospital ” ) , where he was placed in the “ enhanced regime ” cell ( палата усиленного контроля ) of the tuberculosis department . The parties’ descriptions of the conditions in the prison hospital differ substantially .

The applicant submitted that CARDINAL of his inmates in the prison hospital had had tuberculosis , and another one had had suspected tuberculosis . In the prison hospital the applicant was kept in CARDINAL cells in similar conditions . In the corner of CARDINAL of the cells there was a pail covered with a polyethylene lid which served as a toilet . The applicant asserted that the pail was not separated from the living area , was emptied once a day ( TIME ) and that the stench from it was unbearable . The window was covered with a metal shutter .

The artificial light was never switched off , disturbing the applicant ’s sleep . There was no water in the cell ; the wash stand was situated in the hospital ’s basement and inmates were taken there once a day . No laundry facilities were available . Detainees were allowed to take a shower once DATE , but DATE they had had to wash in cold water .

TIME exercise was available every day , and for the rest of DATE inmates remained in their cells . Detainees repeatedly complained about the inadequate conditions to a commission from the local administration , ORG for the Execution of Sentences and ORG , which visited the hospital every DATE , but were told that there were no financial resources available to improve their situation .

From DATE to CARDINAL DATE the applicant was kept in the prison hospital in cell no . CARDINAL , which measured QUANTITY m. From DATE to CARDINAL DATE there were CARDINAL inmates ; from DATE to CARDINAL DATE , CARDINAL inmates ; from DATE inmates ; and from DATE to CARDINAL DATE CARDINAL inmates . From DATE to DATE and from DATE to DATE the applicant was held in cell no . CARDINAL , which also measured QUANTITY m. , with CARDINAL other inmates during the former period and QUANTITY other inmates during the latter one .

The cells had been ventilated naturally through the windows ; both cells were also equipped with the mandatory ventilation system . The cells had natural and artificial light . The partition around the toilet offered sufficient privacy and there was a dining table for QUANTITY persons . Once a week the detainees had the opportunity to take a shower and to change their bedding . Laundry facilities were available , and the hot water had never been cut off . Access to water was unrestricted .

On DATE and DATE the applicant underwent a medical examination and was diagnosed with suspected tuberculosis . On DATE he was transferred to the prison hospital , where he underwent a further X - ray examination on DATE . In the course of a check - up , tuberculosis in the right lung was detected .

After initial treatment with further prescriptions , on DATE the applicant was transferred back to the IK-CARDINAL of LOC despite having alleged that he felt unwell . An X - ray examination conducted on DATE showed that the applicant ’s tuberculosis was advancing . In the hospital the applicant was treated with ethambutol , isoniazid and rifampicin . In the IK-CARDINAL he was given a stronger analogue of rifampicin DATE myrin - p . According to the applicant , no liver - protective medication , which should normally accompany such a strong anti - tuberculosis treatment , was offered . Additionally , an inguinal hernia was detected , but the required operation was never conducted . This lack of necessary treatment led to a skin disease and poor eyesight .

The Government submitted the applicant ’s medical records from IK-CARDINAL and the prison hospital , which confirmed that since the applicant had been diagnosed with tuberculosis he had been regularly examined and all the necessary medication for his condition had been provided . The list of tests submitted by the ORG included regular x - rays , advanced blood tests , further clinical tests and examinations by a number of specialists , including a tuberculosis specialist , an ophthalmologist , a surgeon , and a dermatologist , who prescribed necessary treatment . CARDINAL x - rays conducted in DATE and DATE showed a “ positive dynamic of the tuberculosis process and dispersion of niduses of tuberculosis ” . On DATE the applicant was discharged from the hospital with a final diagnosis of infiltrative tuberculosis of the upper lobe of the right lung in the phase of dispersion . As concerns the inguinal hernia which the applicant had been suffering from since DATE , an operation was recommended after a full recovery from tuberculosis had been made .

Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL of the Penitentiary Code of DATE provides for a minimum standard of QUANTITY of personal space per male convict in correctional GPE and QUANTITY in medico - prophylactic penitentiary institutions .

ORG for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment ( ORG ) visited GPE from DATE . The section of its ORG to ORG ( ORG ( DATE ) CARDINAL ) dealing with the conditions of detention in penitentiary institutions reads as follows :

It should be stressed at the outset that the ORG was pleased to note the progress being made on an issue of great concern for the NORP penitentiary system : overcrowding .

When the ORG first visited GPE in DATE , overcrowding was identified as the most important and urgent challenge facing the prison system ....

The ORG welcomes the measures taken in DATE by the NORP authorities to address the problem of overcrowding ... Nevertheless , the information gathered by the ORG ’s delegation shows that much remains to be done . In particular , overcrowding is still rampant and regime activities are underdeveloped . In this respect , the ORG reiterates the recommendations made in its previous reports ( cf . paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the report on the DATE visit , ORG ( CARDINAL ) CARDINAL ; paragraphs CARDINAL of the report on the DATE visit , ORG ( DATE ) CARDINAL ; paragraph CARDINAL of the report on the DATE visit , ORG ( DATE ) CARDINAL ) ...

In the course of the DATE visit , the ORG ’s delegation also noted that the regular supply of anti - tuberculosis drugs in sufficient quantities was ensured in the regions visited . This is another important achievement ...

... Hardly any complaints were heard about the quality and quantity of the food served . Prisoners with tuberculosis and HIV positive prisoners benefited from a special diet which entitled them to milk and margarine . However , a verification of the food stocks by a medical member of the delegation revealed that prisoners rarely consumed meat . Further , the level of proteins in the ORG diet was rather low ...

The ORG recommends that :

- efforts be made to decrease occupancy levels in the dormitories with the most cramped conditions ... , inter alia through a more even allocation of prisoners between the units ; as already indicated ( cf . paragraph CARDINAL of the report on the DATE periodic visit , document ORG ( DATE ) CARDINAL ) , the aim should be to provide in due course a minimum living space of CARDINAL m² per prisoner ...


CASE OF WIRTSCHAFTS-TREND ZEITSCHRIFTEN-VERLAGSGESELLSCHAFT MBH v. AUSTRIA  (N° 3)

Violation of Art. 10;Pecuniary damage - financial award;Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient;Costs and expenses partial award - domestic proceedings;Costs and expenses award - Convention proceedings

The applicant is the owner and publisher of the DATE magazine “ ORG ” .

In its issue CARDINAL of DATE the applicant company published an article about Mr NORP , at that time a member of ORG , and his cohabitee PERSON The article , with the title “ Diary of an escape ” and the subtitle “ Report . Several myths are entwined around PERSON trip to GPE . The reconstruction of a banal reality ” , described the couple ’s flight from GPE in DATE as Mr NORP was suspected of having committed the offences of aggravated fraud ( PERSON ) and fraudulent conversion ( PERSON ) . After an international arrest warrant had been issued , PERSON NORP was arrested in GPE on DATE . At the time of the events , great public interest in the criminal proceedings against PERSON existed . After PERSON arrest , PERSON had given interviews on these events . The article was accompanied by a photo , which appeared on another page , showing PERSON standing beside Mr R.

The article and its context , namely a short text accompanying photos showing the couple ’s hotel and a bar in GPE , contained the following statements :

“ ... Thus , the NORP mutation of ‘ PERSON and PERSON started on the last part of their trip , a TIME bus ride ... ( Also brach die niederösterreichische Mutation PERSON and PERSON , einer vierstündigen GPE ... auf . )

... DATE , ‘ PERSON and PERSON hardly ever left the hotel ... ( Die ersten ORG verlassen ‘ PERSON praktisch nie . )

... ’Bonnie and Clyde’ from ORG wish to rent the Mayor ’s bar ... ( ‘ PERSON Niederösterreich wollen die ORG pachten . )

... PERSON and PERSON are dreaming of a decent life as pub owners ... ( ‘ PERSON bescheidenen PERSON als Barbetreiber . ) ”

The article , when describing the arrest of PERSON NORP , further stated :

“ C. G. , against whom no suspicion exists , stays behind . ( PERSON bleibt GPE , gegen die nichts vorliegt . ) ”

On DATE Mrs PERSON brought proceedings against the applicant company claiming compensation for defamation under Section CARDINAL of LAW ( Mediengesetz ) . Further she requested supplementary measures under LAW , such as the publication of the judgment . She stressed that the applicant company , by publishing the article at issue , had committed the offence of defamation under LAW ( Üble Nachrede ) .

She argued that the comparison with the famous criminals ‘ PERSON and PERSON from DATE , whose story was the basis of a film produced in DATE , could have given the impression that she was also involved in the offences of PERSON

On DATE the Wiener Neustadt Regional Court ( PERSON ) dismissed PERSON claim . It found that the average reader would have understood “ PERSON and GPE as a synonym for a couple on the run and that it had been a pictorial description with a humorous and entertaining message . It considered that the average reader would have connected “ PERSON ” with a woman who follows her partner “ through thick and thin ” and that the characterisation as “ PERSON ” did not amount to an accusation of having participated in the offences of PERSON R.

On DATE ORG ( Oberlandesgericht ) quashed this decision and remitted the case to ORG . It observed that “ PERSON and PERSON ” had been violent criminals and found that the established connection between PERSON G. and “ PERSON ” created an “ inherent statement of having participated in criminal acts ” even though “ it had been expressly stated in the article that no suspicion had existed against PERSON G. ” . It , therefore , concluded that the applicant company had committed the offence of defamation under LAW § CARDINAL of LAW ) by publishing the article at issue and stated that its finding had to be taken into account by ORG in its new decision .

On DATE ORG sentenced the applicant company to pay compensation of ORG CARDINAL ( MONEY ) for defamation and to reimburse PERSON costs of the proceedings and ordered it to publish an extract of its judgment in its magazine . Following ORG line of argument it found , referring to the above mentioned passages of the incriminated article , that :

“ ... the well - known movie ‘ PERSON and PERSON described CARDINAL ordinary people who make the NORP dream of liberty and wealth come true by stealing cars , robbing banks and killing people . ( ... ) The reader primarily associates PERSON with a criminal who had , together with her partner , robbed innumerable banks and had killed CARDINAL persons within DATE . ( ... ) Nobody would have connected PERSON only with a naive angel , who followed her partner devotedly but , rather , with a woman who would kill to assist the common purpose ‘ LOC . ( ... ) Beyond doubt the reader is forced to make a connection with capital crime . ( ... ) The allegation of participating in criminal offences constitutes defamation within the meaning of LAW of LAW . ”

On DATE the applicant company filed an appeal and stressed , inter alia , that the incriminating passages had to be considered in connection with the article as a whole . It submitted that the article was written in an ironical style and could not have given the impression that PERSON had committed any criminal acts .

On DATE ORG dismissed the appeal and confirmed ORG decision as a whole .

On DATE Mrs PERSON applied to ORG for an injunction under Section CARDINAL of LAW ( Urheberrechtsgesetz ) against the applicant company . She requested that the applicant company be ordered to refrain from publishing her picture without her consent in connection with reporting on the criminal proceedings against Mr NORP or , in the alternative , that the applicant company be ordered to refrain from publishing her picture without her consent in connection with referring to her and Mr NORP as “ PERSON and GPE . Furthermore , she requested an order for the publication of the judgment in the applicant company ’s magazine .

She argued that the publication of her picture in connection with a report on the criminal proceedings against Mr NORP violated her legitimate interests under Section CARDINAL of LAW and that the comparison with the famous criminals “ PERSON and PERSON ” could have given the impression that she had been involved in the offences of which PERSON NORP was accused .

NORP The applicant company , in its observations , argued that the report at issue expressly mentioned that there were no criminal proceedings pending against PERSON and that the report was written in an ironical style and could not have given the impression that PERSON had committed any criminal acts . Moreover , she had willingly given interviews to the media and had her pictures taken by journalists . As regards the comparison of PERSON with “ PERSON ” , the applicant company submitted that the reader of its magazine understood “ PERSON and PERSON ” as a synonym for a couple on the run and not for violent criminals . Finally , it contended that the great public interest in the events justified the publication of PERSON picture .

On DATE the Wiener Neustadt Regional Court granted an interim injunction ( einstweilige GPE ) . It found the measure justified as the interest in the publication of PERSON picture violated her legitimate interests .

On DATE ORG allowed the applicant company ’s appeal and dismissed PERSON application .

On DATE ORG ( Oberster Gerichtshof ) partly allowed PERSON extraordinary appeal on points of law and granted the interim injunction she had requested in the alternative , i.e. it ordered the applicant company to refrain from publishing PERSON picture without her consent in connection with referring to her and Mr R. as “ PERSON and GPE .

ORG observed that Section CARDINAL of LAW prohibited publishing a person ’s picture if the publication violated that person ’s legitimate interests and that the publication of her picture had to be considered together with the content of the published report . The court referred further to its case - law in which it had found that the publication of the picture of a spouse of a suspect was not of any informative value and that the concerned spouse ’s interest in secrecy , therefore , outweighed the interest of information . The court found , however , that in the present case PERSON was far more involved in the case of Mr NORP than simply being Mr NORP ’s cohabitee or girlfriend , as she had prepared the escape with him and had finally escaped with Mr NORP Therefore , the applicant company ’s interest in publishing her picture in principle outweighed PERSON legitimate interests in secrecy .

The court then argued that the text of the article at issue , compared PERSON with the female partner of the violent criminals “ PERSON and PERSON ” and could give the impression to the readers of the magazine that PERSON as “ PERSON ” had been involved in the criminal offences of her partner . ORG , thus , concluded that , although it seemed that PERSON had consented to the publication of her picture in connection with the criminal proceedings against Mr R. , her legitimate interests were violated by the publication of her photo in combination with a comparison with the criminal “ PERSON ” .

On DATE the ORG granted a permanent injunction prohibiting the applicant company from publishing PERSON picture while comparing her and Mr NORP with “ PERSON and PERSON ” or while connecting her with the commission of criminal offences .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant company ’s appeal and ordered the applicant company to pay PERSON costs of the appeal proceedings .

On DATE ORG , referring to its decision of CARDINAL DATE , rejected the applicant company ’s extraordinary appeal on points on law . This decision was served on DATE .

Section CARDINAL of LAW provides for the strict liability of the publisher in cases of defamation ; the victim can thus claim damages from him . In this context “ defamation ” has been defined in LAW , as follows :

“ CARDINAL . As it may be perceived by a third party , anyone who accuses another of having a contemptible character or attitude , or of behaving contrary to honour or morality , and of such a nature as to make him contemptible or otherwise lower him in public esteem , shall be liable to imprisonment not exceeding DATE or a fine ...

Anyone who commits this offence in a printed document , by broadcasting or otherwise , in such a way as to make the defamation accessible to a broad section of the public , shall be liable to imprisonment not exceeding one year or a fine ...

NORP The person making the statement shall not be punished if it is proved to be true . As regards the offence defined in paragraph CARDINAL , he shall also not be liable if circumstances are established which gave him sufficient reason to assume that the statement was true . ”

Section CARDINAL of LAW , in so far as relevant , reads as follows :

“ ( CARDINAL ) Images of persons shall neither be exhibited publicly , nor in any way made accessible to the public , where injury would be caused to the legitimate interests of the persons concerned or , in the event that they have died without having authorised or ordered publication , those of a close relative . ”

This provision has been interpreted in ORG case - law . In particular ORG has found that in determining whether the publication of a person ’s picture violated his or her “ legitimate interests ” regard is to be had to the accompanying text . Where the publisher of the picture claims that there was a public interest in its publication , the courts have to carry out a weighing of the respective interests involved . As regards reporting on criminal cases , ORG has constantly held that there is no predominant public interest in the publication of the suspect ’s picture if it has no additional independent information value . The only effect is that the intensity of such reporting is increased by attaching the suspect ’s picture and , thus , making his or her appearance known to the public at large ( see ORG v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , § CARDINAL , ORG CARDINAL , with reference to MuR DATE , p. CARDINAL ; ORG CARDINAL , p. CARDINAL ; PERSON DATE , p. CARDINAL ; ORG , p. CARDINAL ) .


Christos Rozakis;Dean Spielmann;George Nicolaou;Giorgio Malinverni;Khanlar Hajiyev;Sverre Erik Jebens

The applicant , PERSON , is a NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in GPE . She is represented before the Court by Mr M. Linić , a lawyer practising in PERSON .

On DATE the applicant gave birth to her third child .

In a decision of ORG , ORG ( LOC zdravstveno osiguranje , Područni ured PERSON – “ ORG ” ) of DATE , the applicant 's right to maternity leave and maternity allowance was established for the period from DATE to DATE , as provided by section CARDINAL of LAW .

On DATE ORG amended LAW and LAW so as to establish the right to maternity leave and maternity allowance until the child 's first birthday . The right to an additional period of maternity leave and allowance for a third child was withdrawn .

Accordingly , by its decision of DATE ORG withdrew the applicant 's right to maternity leave and maternity allowance , as of DATE . This decision was upheld on DATE by ORG , ORG in GPE ( Hrvatski zavod za zdravstveno osiguranje GPE , GPE ) and by ORG Upravni sud Repbulike Hrvatske ) on DATE .

The applicant 's subsequent constitutional complaint was dismissed on DATE by ORG ( Ustavni sud PERSON ) as ill - founded .

The relevant part of LAW ( Zakon o radu , Official Gazette CARDINAL ) , as in force until DATE , read :

( CARDINAL ) for twins as well as for the third and every further child , a woman in employment has the right to maternity leave until DATE .

The relevant part of LAW ( Zakon o izmjenama i dopunama PERSON , ORG of DATE ) reads :

“ Section CARDINAL paragraph CARDINAL of LAW ... is amended as follows :

' for twins , triplets , quadruplets or more children of the same age , a woman in employment has the right to maternity leave until the child 's DATE . '

The relevant part of ORG o zdravstvenom osiguranju , ORG no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) , as in force until DATE , read :

“ An insured person has the right to payment of salary in connection with health insurance

( CARDINAL ) when he or she is temporarily incapacitated for work on account of maternity leave until the child 's first or DATE ...

The relevant part of LAW ( Zakon o izmjenama i dopunama PERSON o zdravstvenom osiguranju , ORG no CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) reads :

“ LAW paragraph CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of ORG ... is amended as follows :

' a person temporarily incapacitated for work on account of maternity leave until the child 's first year ... '


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

Ledi Bianku;Päivi Hirvelä;Zdravka Kalaydjieva

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in Montresor .

The applicant ’s predecessor owned property comprising also a park and a manor situated in LOC . By virtue of LAW DATE on ORG ( “ the DATE Decree ” ) ownership of private agricultural properties exceeding QUANTITY was transferred ex lege to the ORG . In DATE the ORG transferred ownership of the property to a ORG - owned company ORG . In DATE an entry confirming that company ’s right of perpetual use in respect of the property was made in the land register . After the collapse of the communist regime the applicant and other legal successors of the former owners instituted proceedings seeking to have the ownership restored to them .

On DATE the applicant instituted administrative proceedings . She requested the Podkarpackie Governor ( ORG ) to give a decision declaring the expropriation null and void . She argued that the expropriation decision was unlawful in that the property concerned had not fallen within the scope of the criteria for nationalisation stipulated by LAW .

On DATE the ORG Governor held that the property was covered by the Decree and therefore the expropriation decision had been lawful . The applicant appealed .

On DATE the Minister of Agriculture quashed the first - instance decision and remitted the case .

By a decision of CARDINAL DATE the Governor held that the park and manor were covered by LAW . The applicant appealed .

On DATE the applicant submitted a complaint under LAW about the Minister ’s failure to give a decision in the case within a reasonable time . She reiterated her complaint on DATE . There was no reply to these complaints .

On DATE the Minister upheld the first - instance decision . The applicant appealed . On DATE ORG quashed both the first- and second - instance decisions , finding that the first - instance authority had failed to inform the parties , including the applicant , about an administrative hearing it had held .

On DATE the ORG Governor discontinued the proceedings . It had regard to a decision given by ORG on DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . It held that in the light of that decision the administrative authorities had no jurisdiction to examine issues concerning the lawfulness of expropriation decisions given on the basis of the DATE Decree .

The applicant appealed , referring to the resolution given by ORG on DATE ( I OPS CARDINAL/CARDINAL ; see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . She argued that the authority had failed to provide the legal basis for the proceedings to be discontinued .

On DATE the Minister upheld the contested decision . The applicant appealed . On DATE the Minister noted that he was competent to quash his own decision if he found it to be unlawful . He accordingly quashed the decision of CARDINAL DATE , having regard to the judgment of ORG of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . He held that the first - instance administrative authority had jurisdiction to deal with the applicant ’s case .

On DATE the applicant again complained about the Governor ’s failure to give a decision . On DATE the Minister found that the applicant ’s complaint was ill - founded .

On DATE the ORG Governor held that the provisions of the DATE Decree were not applicable to the park and manor and that therefore there were no legal grounds on which the property concerned could be expropriated .

On DATE the Minister upheld this decision .

In DATE the applicant , having regard to discrepancies in the case - law regarding the procedural situation of former owners and their legal successors , instituted civil proceedings with a view to having the ownership restored to her . She instituted proceedings against ORG and against the ORG public company before ORG , seeking rectification of the land register so as to make it reflect the actual legal status of the land ( CARDINAL o uzgodnienie księgi wieczystej z rzeczywistym stanem prawnym ) .

On DATE the ORG dismissed her action . It noted , firstly , that under LAW Decree properties consisting of parks and manors ( zespół parkowo - pałacowy ) were not subject to expropriation . However , the applicant had failed to show that the property concerned had ever been formally separated from the agrarian property as a whole so as to constitute a separate subject of ownership . In any event , the applicant had failed to show that she had obtained a final administrative decision declaring the expropriation decision null and void . Such a decision was a necessary prerequisite for a civil court to hold that the ownership of the property had not been transferred to the ORG and to determine all consequences in the sphere of civil law resulting from such a decision .

The applicant appealed . She submitted that the court had erred in refusing to stay the proceedings until an administrative decision was given , because such a decision was a necessary prerequisite for the civil court to rule on the merits of the case . She further submitted that the court had thereby breached the LAW by encroaching on the exclusive competences of the administrative authorities .

On DATE ORG dismissed her appeal . It observed that it was obvious that a decision on whether the DATE Decree was applicable to the property could only be given by the administrative authorities . It referred to a judgment of ORG of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . It emphasised that the case - law of the administrative courts also indicated that only the administrative authorities were competent to determine this issue . In the applicant ’s case , as no such decision had ever been given , no other course of action was open to the civil court than to hold that the claim to have the entries in the land register rectified had to fail .

By a decision of DATE , served on the applicant ’s representative on DATE , ORG refused to entertain her cassation appeal . It noted that the applicant had instituted civil proceedings in the absence of an administrative decision declaring the expropriation unlawful and therefore null and void . In such situation the courts had no choice but to dismiss her claim .

DATE provides that “ the agrarian reform in GPE is a ORG and economic imperative and shall be realised ... pursuant to principles set forth in the manifesto of ORG ” .

LAW , in so far as relevant , reads :

“ The following agricultural estates shall be designated for the purposes of the agrarian reform : ...

e ) being a property or a co - property of natural persons or legal entities , if the entire area of the estate exceeds either QUANTITY in total , or QUANTITY of arable land ...

All real estate , referred to in items ... , e ) above shall , with no delay and without compensation , be taken over by the ORG . ”

In DATE the ORG discontinued proceedings instituted by an individual constitutional complaint concerning the alleged incompatibility of LAW with LAW . It held that it could only examine the compatibility of binding legal provisions with LAW . LAW had never been formally abrogated and it was referred to by courts and administrative authorities in their decisions . However , it was not a decisive factor in assessing whether this provision was still in force . The decisive factor was that it could no longer provide the basis for any substantive changes in ownership . The courts , when referring to this provision , did not apply it in the strict sense of that term ; the reference to this provision was merely of a secondary nature and was used to decide whether that provision had been applied , during the expropriation proceedings conducted in the past , in a manner which had flagrantly violated the law ( in which case an expropriation decision had to be declared null and void ) . ORG concluded that this provision had therefore ceased to have legally binding force ( ORG CARDINAL/CARDINAL , decision of DATE ) .

On DATE ORG held that only administrative authorities could examine restitution cases ( IV CSK CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) . An identical resolution was adopted on DATE ORG ( I OPS CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) .

On DATE the ORG discontinued proceedings instituted as a result of a legal question ( pytanie prawne ) put to it by ORG ( P CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) . It reiterated , referring to its decision given in DATE ) that the provisions of the DATE Decree could not be resorted to any more in order to confer substantive rights on individuals and that it had ceased to be binding law . It further noted discrepancies in judicial and administrative practice as to the jurisdiction to examine restitution cases . It further held that only civil courts had jurisdiction to examine such cases , despite the fact that in practice these cases were dealt with by the administrative authorities and , upon appeal , by the regional administrative courts and , in the last , resort , by ORG .

On DATE ORG held in a resolution that that decision of ORG was not universally binding , essentially because it was only of a procedural character . The court held that the administrative authorities had jurisdiction to examine restitution cases ( I OPS MONEY ) .

The relevant domestic law and practice concerning remedies for the excessive length of administrative proceedings , in particular the applicable provisions of LAW and DATE CARDINAL Act on Proceedings before Administrative Courts , are described in the cases of PERSON v. GPE no . CARDINAL , § § CARDINAL , DATE ; PERSON v. GPE , no . GPE , § § CARDINAL , DATE ; and PERSON v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , § § CARDINAL , DATE .


The applicants , whose names appear in the appendix , are NORP nationals . They are represented before the ORG by Mr PERSON and PERSON , lawyers practising in ORG .

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

Until DATE the applicants all lived in GPE , in the district of ORG in GPE , where they own property .

In DATE security forces forcibly evacuated PERSON on account of disturbances in the region . They also destroyed the applicants’ property . The applicants and their families then moved to ORG where they currently live .

On unspecified dates , the applicants petitioned the offices of the Governor of the state - of - emergency region , the ORG Governor , the LOC Governor and military authorities in the region and requested them to provide compensation for the damage they had suffered and to issue permission for a return to their village . It is to be noted that the applicants failed to submit a copy of these petitions to the ORG .

On DATE the mayor of PERSON , Mr PERSON , filed a petition with the office of the Governor of the state - of - emergency region and asked the latter authority to allow the residents of the village to cultivate their lands for DATE .

On DATE ORG sent a letter in reply to the mayor and refused his request . This letter was served on the mayor on DATE .

On DATE ORG in ORG sent letters to the mayors of the villages in ORG and informed them that access to some villages of ORG would only be possible during TIME in DATE . The letter further stated that the villagers would be allowed to work in their farms but would not be allowed to spend DATE in their village . It was noted that permission for access to village should be sought from local gendarmerie stations . The applicants’ village , PERSON , was not listed among the villages to which access would be allowed under aforementioned conditions .

On DATE CARDINAL nd ORG Commander in ORG sent a letter to the GPE office in ORG informing him that the military operations against terrorism would continue to be carried out in the district . The commander requested the GPE office to warn the inhabitants in the region that the security forces would not be responsible for any casualties that might occur in the course of the operations .

On unspecified dates , the applicants filed petitions with the offices of the ORG Governor , the LOC Governor and the President of the Republic requesting compensation for the damage they had suffered and seeking permission to return to their village . However , they did not receive any response to their petitions . It is to be noted that the applicants failed to submit a copy of these petitions to the ORG .

On DATE CARDINAL applicants lodged petitions with ORG office in ORG complaining about the burning down of their houses and forced evacuation of their village by ORG security forces .

The investigation carried out by the authorities indicated that the applicants had left their villages on their own will . The security forces had not forced the applicants to leave their village .

The official records indicated that there was no obstacle preventing villagers from returning to their homes and possessions in their villages . Persons who had left their villages as a result of terrorism had already started returning and regaining their activities in their villages .

On DATE the Law on Compensation for Losses resulting from Terrorism and the Fight against Terrorism was passed by ORG and entered into force on DATE ( “ Compensation Law ” ) . That PERSON provided for a sufficient remedy capable of redressing the LAW grievances of persons who were denied access to their possessions in their villages .

In that connection Damage Assessment and Compensation Commissions were set up in QUANTITY provinces . Persons who had suffered damage as a result of terrorism or of measures taken by the authorities to combat terrorism could lodge an application with the relevant compensation commission claiming compensation .

The number of persons applying to these commissions had already attained CARDINAL . CARDINAL persons , whose applications were pending before the ORG , had also applied to the compensation commissions . Many villagers had already been awarded compensation for the damage they had sustained .

A description of the relevant domestic law can be found in the ORG ’s decision of PERSON v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , § § DATE , DATE ) and in its judgment of ORG and Others v. GPE ( nos . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , CARDINAL/CARDINAL and CARDINAL - CARDINAL/CARDINAL , § § DATE , ORG CARDINAL-VI ) .


Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment) (Substantive aspect)

Guido Raimondi;Helen Keller;Ineta Ziemele;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

In DATE the applicant was detained at ORG ( hereinafter DATE “ the GPE ” ) in cell CARDINAL . From DATE he shared the cell with another person , and from CARDINAL to DATE he was held alone . The detention facility contained CARDINAL cells in total .

The applicant complained to the administration of ORG that the conditions of his detention had been appalling . In their letter of reply dated DATE , they informed the applicant that because the cell in which he had been held was situated at semi - basement level , it was technically impossible for it to have a window through which natural light could enter . They also explained that in order to install sinks and toilets in the cells , full - scale renovation would be required , but said that this was precluded owing to a lack of financial resources .

The applicant then lodged a complaint , the content of which is unknown to the ORG , with ORG . In its reply dated DATE , ORG conceded that some of the applicant ’s allegations were true : ORG had indeed not met proper “ norms of hygiene and functioning ” . They said that the Government had been informed about the fact and that the building of a new facility was planned .

The applicant lodged a further complaint with the ORG , arguing that he had been held in a cell without a sink or toilet . The cell also lacked a window , so there had been no natural light or fresh air .

The head of ORG informed the ORG that the building had been constructed in DATE and thus it had been impossible to install toilets and sinks in the cells . He explained that detainees were taken to a communal toilet at the end of the corridor and that “ each cell had a bucket for the night ” . Detainees could also take drinking water to their cell .

On DATE the ORG found the applicant ’s complaint valid . He noted that in DATE health care specialists had pointed out “ over and over again ” ( eilinį kartą ) that the cells lacked sanitary units as well as natural light , although the artificial lighting met domestic legal norms . The old air vents were inadequate and the air conditioning system was ineffective . However , the facility administration was not to blame for the insufficient funding that had precluded the possibility of improving conditions in the facility .

NORP The applicant then initiated proceedings before ORG seeking compensation for non - pecuniary damage , arguing that he had been held in degrading conditions at ORG . In particular , his cell had had no built - in toilet , so he had had to use a bucket . Nor did the cell have a sink , so he had suffered from a lack of drinking water . Furthermore , as a result of the inadequate lighting and the lack of fresh air , he had suffered constant headaches and his eyes had become sore . The applicant claimed CARDINAL NORP litai ( MONEY ) in non - pecuniary damages . He also claimed that his rights under LAW had been violated .

NORP In reply to the lawsuit , ORG acknowledged that the establishment did not meet the domestic legal hygiene requirements , but argued that its administration was not to blame for the lack of funding that had caused the problem and that the construction of a new remand facility was planned .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s claims as unfounded . The court acknowledged that the conditions at ORG had been unacceptable , particularly as the cells lacked sinks and toilets and inmates had to be taken to a communal toilet and had to take water to their cells . Moreover , not all cells had natural light , the air came through old vents and the air conditioning system was ineffective . Nevertheless , the court held that the facility ’s administration could not be held liable for those deficiencies because the ORG had not allocated sufficient financial resources to improve the situation .

The applicant appealed against the judgment , and on DATE ORG granted the appeal in part , acknowledging that the conditions of the applicant ’s detention had been unacceptable . The court noted that ORG had not challenged the applicant ’s claim that while detained , he had had to relieve himself in a bucket at TIME . The court considered that fact degrading . The court also found it established that the applicant had been held in a cell without a sink , and that his cell had had no natural light or adequate ventilation , which had had a negative effect on his mental health ( sukėlė neigiamus išgyvenimus ) . On these points the court found that certain domestic regulations on hygiene standards in detention facilities - providing that cells should have natural light and that detainees should be able to use a toilet in conditions that were not degrading - had been breached . The court conceded that degrading conditions of detention could in theory amount to a violation of LAW . With regard to the applicant ’s case , the court held that the conditions in which he had been held had “ approached the threshold of a violation of LAW ” . Nevertheless , the applicant had been held for only a short time , he was DATE and there was no evidence that the conditions at the detention facility had affected his [ physical ] health . Nor was there any indication that the detention facility administration had intended to humiliate the applicant . Certain hardships , such as a lack of privacy , were to be considered unavoidable for those who were deprived of their liberty . In the light of the above - mentioned considerations , ORG held that , in the applicant ’s case , the minimum level of severity within the meaning of LAW had not been reached .

As to the applicant ’s claim in respect of non - pecuniary damage , ORG referred to the case - law of ORG , noting that in some cases the finding of a violation was recognised as sufficient just satisfaction . It also noted that the applicant had instituted court proceedings for damages DATE after the end of his detention in the police facility , by which time the effects of the negative experience would have diminished to a certain extent . Emphasising that in the instant case there had been no violation of LAW , as well as the fact that the poor detention conditions were a result of limited financial resources , ORG rejected in its entirety the applicant ’s claim for pecuniary compensation for the non - pecuniary damage he had sustained .

When submitting their observations on the admissibility and merits , the Government provided the ORG with a copy of the schedule of ORG , which showed that at the relevant time the inmates were to be taken for an TIME ’s walk once a day .

The Civil Code provides :

“ CARDINAL . ORG - pecuniary damage shall be deemed to be a person ’s suffering , emotional distress , inconvenience , mental shock , emotional depression , humiliation , damage to reputation , diminished opportunity to associate with others , etc . , evaluated by a court in pecuniary terms .

ORG - pecuniary damage shall be compensated only in the cases provided for by law . Non - pecuniary damage shall be compensated in all cases where it is incurred on account of crime , health impairment or deprivation of life , as well as in other cases provided for by law . In assessing the amount of non - pecuniary damage , the court shall take into consideration the consequences of the damage sustained , the extent of the fault of the person by whom the damage has been caused , his financial status , the amount of pecuniary damage sustained by the aggrieved person , any other circumstances of importance for the case , and the criteria of good faith , justice and reasonableness . ”

In case no . ACARDINAL - CARDINAL/CARDINAL ORG acknowledged that a person who had been detained in improper , unsanitary conditions had sustained non - pecuniary damage .

The Regulations applicable to the activities of detention facilities at police stations , approved by Order no . CARDINAL of ORG on DATE , provide that “ detainees shall have a right to use the lavatory in conditions that do not degrade their honour and dignity ” ( point CARDINAL ) . They also provide that “ the [ detainees ] shall be taken by a guard from the cells that lack sanitary units to a lavatory ( ... ) . During the changing of the PERSON shifts , any other traffic on the remand facility LOC is forbidden ” ( point CARDINAL ) .

Hygiene PERSON ORG facilities . Rules for construction and operation ” , approved by ORG no . CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE , reads , in so far as relevant , as follows :

“ CARDINAL . This hygiene norm applies to all newly constructed , reconstructed , renovated and operational police station detention facilities .

NORP The hygiene norm prescribes the main hygiene requirements applicable to the construction of police station detention facilities , providing a safe and healthy living environment for the detainees and a safe and healthy working environment for the employees and officials .

The hygiene norm must be observed by all persons who design , equip or operate in the detention facilities and the detainees ...

In operating detention facilities , natural light and air circulation shall be ensured in the cells by constructing clear glass windows which can be opened ...

The cells and the lock - up room shall contain a sanitary unit ( a lavatory and a washbasin ) . In the cells the sanitary unit shall be separated by a QUANTITY high barrier ... ”

Recommendation Rec(CARDINAL)CARDINAL of ORG , adopted on DATE , reads as follows :

“ CARDINAL . All persons deprived of their liberty shall be treated with respect for their human rights . ...

Prison conditions that infringe ORG human rights are not justified by lack of resources . ... ”

“ CARDINAL ORG apply to persons who have been remanded in custody by a judicial authority or who have been deprived of their liberty following conviction . ... ”

CARDINAL The accommodation provided for prisoners , and in particular all sleeping accommodation , shall respect human dignity and , as far as possible , privacy , and meet the requirements of health and hygiene , due regard being paid to climatic conditions and especially to floor space , cubic content of air , lighting , heating and ventilation .

CARDINAL NORP In all buildings where prisoners are required to live , work or congregate :

a. the windows shall be large enough to enable the prisoners to read or work by natural light in normal conditions and shall allow the entrance of fresh air except where there is an adequate air conditioning system ;

b. artificial light shall satisfy recognised technical standards ; and

c. there shall be an alarm system that enables prisoners to contact the staff without delay .

CARDINAL Specific minimum requirements in respect of the matters referred to in CARDINAL and CARDINAL shall be set in national law . ”

“ CARDINAL.CARDINAL All parts of every prison shall be properly maintained and kept clean at all times ...

CARDINAL Prisoners shall have ready access to sanitary facilities that are hygienic and respect privacy . ”

ORG ( hereinafter referred to as “ the CPT ” ) visited GPE from CARDINAL to DATE . Its report reads as follows :

“ DATE . In its first report to the NORP authorities , drafted following its visit in DATE , the ORG was critical of conditions of detention in police detention centres ; with a view to improving the situation in the establishments concerned , it made a number of specific recommendations .

In their follow - up report ( dated DATE ) , the authorities acknowledged that of the QUANTITY police detention centres in GPE , CARDINAL ( i.e. , PERCENT ) met “ the requirements set forth by Hygiene Norm HN DATE ” ; it was considered necessary to secure sufficient resources in order to renovate or replace the other detention centres . Nevertheless , by the time of the DATE visit , the proportion of detention centres which conformed to the requisite standards remained low ( PERCENT ) . As the Seimas ( Parliamentary ) Ombudsman has recently pointed out , ‘ legal acts have been adopted on the improvement of living conditions of inmates in police commissariat detention establishments , however the real results are expected only in DATE since the implementation of the program directly depends on ORG .

The DATE visit confirmed that many of the ORG ’s key recommendations concerning conditions of detention in police detention centres have yet to be implemented .

The material conditions under which detained persons ( in police custody , on remand , or sentenced ) were being held in the police detention centres in GPE and PERSON were totally unacceptable . Detainees were locked up ... with little or no access to natural light and , in many cases , dim artificial lighting . A tap placed directly above the minimally partitioned lavatory was the only source of drinking water . In certain cells , persons were obliged to relieve themselves in a bucket in the direct presence of their cellmates . The ventilation system which had been installed in GPE since the visit in DATE could scarcely counter the effects of the above - mentioned conditions on the air in the cells ...

The cumulative effect of the very poor material environment and the impoverished regime could be described as inhuman and degrading , especially considering that persons were being held under such conditions for prolonged periods . ”

After a further visit to GPE from DATE , the ORG delegation noted that efforts were being made to improve conditions in certain police detention centres . Particular mention was made of the recent substantial renovation of the detention facilities at ORG , which had been the subject of severe criticism by the ORG after DATE . During DATE visit , the delegation observed very good material conditions in that establishment . The authorities informed the delegation at the outset of the visit that major renovation had also been carried out in police detention centres at ORG and PERSON . Indeed , when visited by the delegation , the latter establishment was found to offer good detention conditions . The delegation was also informed that renovation work was planned in several other police detention centres , in the context of ORG for DATE ” ( paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the ORG report ) .

NORP However , the ORG noted that material conditions in the other police detention centres visited ( PERSON , ORG , ORG , ORG and NORP ) displayed a number of major shortcomings and could in some cases be considered inhuman and degrading . The majority of cells seen by the delegation were in a poor state of repair and filthy . Detainees often had little or no access to natural light , and the cells had dim artificial lighting and poor ventilation . At PERSON , a tap placed directly above the minimally partitioned and unhygienic in - cell toilets was the only source of drinking water . Furthermore , as was the case during previous ORG visits , most detainees in police detention centres were locked in their cells for the majority of DATE , their only diversions consisting of conversing with their cellmates or , in some detention centres , watching TV . For the ORG , “ such a state of affairs was totally unacceptable ” ( paragraph CARDINAL of the ORG report ) .

More generally , the ORG called upon the NORP authorities to step up their efforts to bring conditions of detention in all police detention centres to an acceptable level . In particular , measures had to be taken to ensure first that access to natural light and artificial lighting , as well as ventilation , was adequate ; secondly that all detainees had ready access to drinking water in salubrious conditions and were provided with basic hygiene products ; and thirdly that the state of repair and hygiene in the cells and the communal sanitary facilities was adequate ( paragraph CARDINAL of the ORG report ) .

After a further visit to GPE from DATE , the ORG concluded :

“ CARDINAL . Material conditions of detention in the QUANTITY police detention centres visited ranged from very good ( GPE ) to satisfactory ( Wing CARDINAL at PERSON ) to poor − and in some areas very poor ( Wing CARDINAL at ORG and GPE ) .

ORG had been renovated prior to the DATE visit and the ORG ’s report commented favourably on the material conditions . The delegation which carried out the DATE visit observed that those conditions remained of a very good standard .

ORG had been partially refurbished . In the renovated wing of the building ( Wing CARDINAL ) , material conditions were satisfactory on the whole . Nonetheless , access to natural light left something to be desired , and the toilets were insufficiently partitioned . Conversely , conditions in the non - renovated wing ( Wing CARDINAL ) were very poor . The cells were in a dilapidated state , dirty and damp , and the same was true of the mattresses and blankets . Further , access to natural light , artificial lighting and ventilation were limited , and the toilets lacked a partition and were malodorous . As for the electrical installations , they seemed hazardous . The delegation was also informed that , in DATE , the cells were very cold .

At FAC , the cells were in a poor state of repair and hygiene , and access to natural light and ventilation were inadequate . Moreover , the toilets only had a low partition . In CARDINAL cells ( nos . CARDINAL to CARDINAL ) , the windows had been concreted over , and there was therefore no access to natural light and no evident means of ventilation ; the atmosphere in these cells was damp and suffocating . ”


Preliminary objection dismissed (Article 35-1 - Exhaustion of domestic remedies);Remainder inadmissible;No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8 - Positive obligations;Article 8-1 - Respect for private life);Respondent State to take measures of a general character (Article 46-2 - Measures of a general character);Pecuniary damage - award;Non-pecuniary damage - award

András Baka;Elisabet Fura;Jean-Paul Costa;Mindia Ugrekhelidze

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

At birth the applicant was registered as a girl with a clearly female name under the rules of the NORP language .

The applicant submitted that from DATE he had become aware that his “ mental sex ” was male , thus acknowledging the conflict between his mental and genital gender .

On CARDINAL DATE the applicant consulted a microsurgeon about the possibilities of gender reassignment . The doctor proposed that the applicant first consult a psychiatrist .

DATE the applicant attended ORG for tests on his physical and psychological condition .

On DATE a doctor at ORG confirmed the applicant ’s chromosomal sex as female , and diagnosed him as a transsexual . The doctor also advised that the applicant consult a psychiatrist .

On DATE ORG of Raudonasis Kryžius opened a medical file on the applicant . The applicant gave his name in a masculine form under the rules of the NORP language , and his medical file referred to him as being of male gender . An entry of CARDINAL DATE in the medical file included a recommendation that the applicant pursue hormone treatment with a view to eventual gender reassignment surgery . Thereafter , a DATE course of hormone treatment was officially prescribed for the applicant . Moreover , it was recommended that the applicant consult a neurosurgeon , who subsequently performed breast removal surgery on him ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

On DATE the applicant , using his original name and surname , wrote a letter to ORG seeking clarification of the legal and medical possibilities for gender reassignment . He stated that he was determined to undergo this procedure .

On DATE an official of ORG replied that a working group had been set up by PERSON with a view to analysing the questions pertaining to gender reassignment , and that the applicant would be duly informed about the conclusions of that group .

Before the ORG , the applicant claimed that he had received no further communication from ORG .

On DATE a doctor at ORG confirmed that the applicant , referred to by his original name , had attended the hospital from DATE , and that he had been diagnosed as a transsexual .

The applicant submitted that in DATE his general medical practitioner had refused to prescribe hormone therapy in view of the legal uncertainty as to whether full gender reassignment could be carried out , leading to the new identity of a transsexual being registered in accordance with domestic law . Thereafter the applicant continued the hormone treatment “ unofficially ” , as it was considered at that time that such treatment should be followed for DATE before the full surgical procedure could be performed .

On an unspecified date in DATE the applicant requested that his name on all official documents be changed to reflect his male identity ; that request was refused .

On an unspecified date in DATE the applicant enrolled at ORG . Upon the applicant ’s request , the university administration agreed to register him as a student under the male name chosen by him ( bearing the initials ORG ) . The applicant asserted before ORG that the decision of the University was exceptional and purely humanitarian , as the laws applicable at the material time clearly required his registration under his original female name , as indicated on his birth certificate and passport .

From DATE the applicant underwent “ partial gender reassignment surgery ” ( breast removal ) . The applicant agreed with the doctors that a further surgical step would be carried out upon the enactment of subsidiary laws governing the appropriate conditions and procedure .

On an unspecified date in DATE , with the assistance of a NORP member of parliament , the applicant ’s birth certificate and passport were changed to indicate his identity as PERSON The forename and surname chosen by the applicant for this new identity were of NORP origin , and thus did not disclose his gender . The applicant could not choose a NORP name or surname as they are all gender - sensitive . However , the applicant ’s “ personal code ” on his new birth certificate and passport – a numerical code comprising the basic information about a person in accordance with the NORP civil - registration rules – remained the same , starting with the number CARDINAL , thus disclosing his gender as female ( see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) .

NORP The applicant stressed that he therefore remained female under domestic law . This was confirmed , inter alia , by the fact that , on ORG degree certificate he had received after successfully graduating in DATE , his “ personal code ” remained the same and denoted him as a female . As a result , he claimed that he faced considerable DATE embarrassment and difficulties , as he was unable , for example , to apply for a job , pay social security contributions , consult medical institutions , communicate with the authorities , obtain a bank loan or cross the State border without disclosing his female identity .

The applicant submitted a copy of an article by ORG ( ORG ) of DATE , quoting a statement by the Speaker of the Seimas on LAW ( put before ORG on DATE – see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . It was mentioned in the article that certain members of parliament had accused the Minister of Health , who was a plastic surgeon , of having a personal interest in the enactment of the law . The article also mentioned that certain members of ORG had urged the enactment of the law as it was required by the imminent entry into force of the provisions of the new Civil Code on DATE . The article referred to the opinion of experts that there were CARDINAL transsexuals living in GPE . It was mentioned that certain GPE and GPE surgeons were properly equipped and qualified to carry out gender reassignment surgery , the cost of which could be CARDINAL and CARDINAL NORP litai ( CARDINAL ) , excluding the cost of hormone therapy . The article stated that a number of persons had already applied for gender reassignment , but that the surgery could not be fully completed in the absence of adequate legal regulation . It was presumed that some of the NORP transsexuals had thus been obliged to go abroad for treatment .

In an article by the ORG on DATE about a meeting between the Prime Minister and the heads of ORG , the Prime Minister was quoted as saying that it was too early for GPE to enact a law on gender reassignment , and that there was “ no need to rush ” or “ copy the principles that exist in CARDINAL country or another ” . The article stated that ORG had been among the most ardent opponents of such legislation . At the same time , the Prime Minister conceded that the government were obliged to prepare a Gender Reassignment Bill in view of the entry into force of LAW of the new LAW on DATE .

NORP The applicant submitted that since DATE he had been in a stable relationship with a woman and that they had lived together since DATE .

There were no provisions pertaining to the question of transsexuals in NORP law until the adoption of the new Civil Code on DATE . LAW came into force on DATE . The first paragraph of LAW ( which only came into force on DATE ) provides that an unmarried adult has the right to gender reassignment surgery ( pakeisti lytį ) , if this is medically possible . A request by the person concerned must be made in writing . The second paragraph of this provision states that the conditions and procedure for gender reassignment surgery are established by law .

On DATE the government adopted a decree specifying the measures needed for the implementation of the new Civil Code . The preparation of a Gender Reassignment Bill was mentioned in it .

Rule CARDINAL of LAW , approved by an order of the Minister of Justice on DATE ( in force from DATE ) , permits a change in civil - status documents if there is a need to change a person ’s gender , forename and surname , following gender reassignment .

Under LAW and other relevant domestic laws , every NORP resident has a numerical “ personal code ” ( asmens kodas ) , which denotes certain basic items of information , including his or her gender . Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW provides that the first number of the personal code denotes the person ’s gender . A personal code starting with the number CARDINAL denotes that the person is male , whereas a code starting with number CARDINAL means that the person is female .

Section CARDINAL of the Passport Act DATE provides that a citizen ’s passport must be changed if the citizen changes his or her forename , surname , gender or personal code .

The Gender Reassignment Bill was prepared by a working group of ORG in DATE . On DATE the government approved the PERSON , sending it for consideration to the Seimas ( ORG ) . In an explanatory note to ORG dated DATE , the Minister of Health indicated , inter alia , that , at present , no legal instrument regulated the conditions and procedure for gender reassignment . The PERSON was initially scheduled for a plenary session of ORG on DATE , but it was not examined DATE . It was rescheduled for DATE , but was then omitted from ORG ’s agenda . On DATE the Speaker of ORG circulated an official memorandum on the PERSON stating , inter alia :

“ The Speaker of the Seimas ... strongly denounces gender reassignment surgery and the further consideration of a bill on the subject at a parliamentary hearing .

[ At a time ] when the demographic situation in GPE is becoming threatened , the Seimas should not make matters worse by considering such a controversial law , which may be taken by society as an insult to the far more important problems facing the health - care system . ”

The order of the Minister of Health , issued on DATE , specifies the conditions under which patients in GPE can be referred for treatment abroad , in cases where the necessary treatment for a certain illness is not available in GPE . The decision is taken by a special commission of experts appointed by ORG , and the cost of such treatment is covered by ORG .

On DATE ORG ruled that the courts were empowered to fill the gaps left in the legislation where this was necessary , inter alia , for the protection of the rights and freedoms of a particular individual .


The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a NORP and NORP national . He was born in DATE and lives in Bruck an der Leitha ( GPE ) . He is represented before the ORG by PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE , and by PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE .

PERSON , the applicant ’s cousin , owned real estate in former GPE . On DATE he made a will appointing his son PERSON his universal heir and the applicant his testamentary substitute . PERSON died on CARDINAL DATE . As his son did not acquire the estate , it became hereditas iacens ( a “ dormant ” inheritance ; ležící pozůstalost ; ruhender ORG ) .

The property was confiscated on DATE under President PERSON no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL .

PERSON , PERSON widow , requested that the property be excluded from the confiscation , as her husband had been loyal to the NORP State during the NORP occupation . Her request was rejected by the ORG ( okresní národní výbor ) on DATE . ORG ( zemský národní výbor ) upheld this decision on DATE .

On DATE PERSON died . As a result , the right to take over the hereditas iacens passed to the applicant .

On DATE the applicant lodged a claim for restitution of the property which had been confiscated from PERSON .

On DATE ORG ( okresní pozemkový úřad ) held that the applicant was the owner of part of the property . It found that PERSON had died as an NORP national and that ORG ( ministerstvo zemědělství ) had subsequently ordered the confiscation of his property under President PERSON no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL . ORG decision stated that the confiscation proceedings had been held in respect of the hereditas iacens which had been considered under LAW CARDINAL as being formally possessed by the deceased person until acquired by an heir . ORG established that the confiscation could have been effective only after a final administrative decision had been taken and that the confiscation proceedings should have been held subsequent to the ex officio inheritance proceedings , in which the heirs could have lodged their inheritance applications in order to acquire the estate . It held that confiscation proceedings could not have been conducted against the hereditas iacens and that there had never been any proceedings concerning the applicant ’s inheritance . It concluded , with reference to LAW , that the property had been transferred to the ORG unlawfully and that the applicant ’s property rights had been infringed during the period covered by that legislation .

On DATE the ORG Králové ORG ( krajský soud ) , upon the defendant ’s appeal , quashed ORG decision and remitted the case to the administrative authority , on the ground that ORG had insufficiently established the facts of the case . The court considered , in particular , that ORG had failed to examine the date on which the confiscation of the property had taken place . That issue was relevant for establishing whether the applicant ’s case ought to be examined under LAW DATE . The court established that ORG legal opinion that the confiscation had been null and void was not supported by the evidence adduced . In ORG view , the confiscation proceedings ended with the former ORG decision of DATE , and thus fell outside the period laid down in CARDINAL of LAW . The court noted that the restitution requirements set out in section CARDINAL of LAW could be fulfilled , provided that the relevant chronological requirement was satisfied .

The decision further stated that ORG had failed to establish whether any proprietary wrong had in fact been caused to the applicant and , if so , whether it had been caused within the relevant period . The court did not share ORG opinion that ( i ) the confiscation proceedings had been held by authorities which lacked power to deal with the case contrary to President PERSON no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , and that ( ii ) the final decision on confiscation had not become effective . The court further found , contrary to the view expressed by ORG , that the relevant provisions of LAW had not excluded confiscation of the hereditas iacens .

In the meantime , on DATE , ORG found that the applicant was the owner of the other part of the property claimed by him . It held that the confiscation proceedings had been conducted against the deceased owner , and that under LAW CARDINAL the hereditas iacens had been considered as being in the possession of the testator until acquired by an heir . Accordingly , the confiscation of PERSON property had been null and void , and the ORG had acquired the property illegally . ORG concluded that the applicant had suffered a proprietary wrong within a period covered by LAW , and that his restitution claim fell within the scope of section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of that LAW .

On DATE the ORG , upon the defendant ’s appeal , quashed this decision and remitted the case to ORG for further consideration . The court held that the main reasons for which the property of PERSON had been confiscated were that he had opted for NORP nationality and the NORP language as his mother tongue in DATE , that he had been active in associations having NORP professional or other interests , that he had acquired , on DATE , a NORP passport indicating that he was a NORP national , that he had become a member of a NORP political party ( Sudetendeutschen Partei ) on DATE , and that he had joined the NORP political party ORG ( ORG ) on DATE . The court established that the property had been transferred to the ORG by operation of President PERSON no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL on DATE , and that the subsequent decisions on confiscation had only had a declaratory character .

The court found that the applicant ’s case fell outside the scope of LAW which covered exclusively the period DATE and DATE . It rejected ORG argument that the legislation in force in former GPE had not provided for the confiscation of the hereditas iacens . With reference to LAW and CARDINAL of the Civil Code CARDINAL , the court noted that the proprietary nature of inheritance rights allowed their confiscation pursuant to President PERSON no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL . It also noted , with reference to a decision of ORG of DATE , that the hereditas iacens was to be understood as a legal person sui generis . The court added that PERSON had been represented by a guardian in the confiscation proceedings . The court finally stated that , even assuming that the confiscation could be deemed null and void , the ORG would have acquired the property without any legal title outside the relevant period prescribed by LAW , as the confiscation proceedings had terminated in DATE . It ordered ORG to examine whether PERSON satisfied the conditions for the restitution of property laid down in the Restitution Act DATE .

The applicant lodged a constitutional appeal ( ústavní stížnost ) which was rejected as being premature by ORG ( GPE soud ) on DATE .

On DATE ORG , after having joined the cases , decided that the applicant was not the owner of the estate . ORG , being bound by the judgments of the Hradec Králové ORG and the České Budějovice Regional Court , held that the property had been confiscated lawfully and that the confiscation fell outside the relevant period specified in LAW . ORG also held that the original owner had not satisfied the conditions for the restitution of property fixed by LAW DATE as he had become a NORP citizen on DATE and had not re - acquired NORP citizenship . ORG stated that the applicant had neither acquired the estate from PERSON , as provided for in section CARDINAL of LAW DATE , nor had they kinship as specified in section CARDINAL § CARDINAL of that Act .

On DATE ORG held that the applicant ’s appeal against ORG decision of DATE was to be considered by ORG .

On DATE the ORG upheld the administrative decision . In addition to the reasons set out therein , the court held that , pursuant to ORG and CARDINAL of the Civil Code CARDINAL , an heir had acquired property upon a court decision and that an estate had been considered as being in the possession of the testator until delivered to an heir by a decision of a court of law . ORG also held that , since the inheritance in the form of a hereditas iacens was in general of a proprietary character , it could have been subject to confiscation under the President PERSON Decrees . The property in the form of a hereditas iacens was a legal person sui generis with legal capacity . As a result , it could have been confiscated after the original owner ’s death , provided that it had not yet been transferred to an heir in inheritance proceedings .

On DATE ORG , endorsing the reasons given in ORG judgment of DATE , and referring to its decision no . II ÚS CARDINAL/CARDINAL , rejected as being manifestly ill - founded the applicant ’s second constitutional appeal , in which he claimed a violation of his right to a fair hearing and his right to the peaceful enjoyment of possessions .

LAW governs , inter alia , the restitution of certain agricultural and other property defined in LAW which was assigned or transferred to the ORG or other legal persons DATE and DATE . Section CARDINAL ) lists the acts giving rise to a restitution claim .

The persons entitled to claim restitution ( “ rightful claimants ” ) are set out in DATE . Under section CARDINAL ) , any natural person who is a citizen of the NORP and GPE and who lost property which once formed his or her agricultural homestead in the aforementioned period , in one of the ways set out in section DATE ) , is entitled to claim restitution . The entitled persons are the original owners of the property or , where the original owner is dead , the owner ’s heirs or next of kin in a specified order ( section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) ) . By section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) , restitution can be claimed by natural persons who are citizens of the NORP and GPE and are at the same time , in order of precedence , a ) testamentary heirs who acquired the whole of the estate , b ) testamentary heirs who acquired part of the estate , c ) children and spouses , d ) parents , or e ) brothers and sisters or their spouses and children .

Section CARDINAL provides that the persons obliged to restore property include the ORG and any legal person possessing the property at the date when the LAW entered into force .

This Act constitutes a lex specialis in relation to LAW .

Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) provides that any natural person who is a citizen of the NORP and GPE , who lost his or her property under Presidential Decrees nos . CARDINAL/CARDINAL and GPE , and who was loyal to the NORP State and re - acquired NORP citizenship either under Acts nos . CARDINAL , FAC and CARDINAL Act no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , is entitled to claim restitution of any of his or her property which passed into ORG ownership in the circumstances referred to in LAW .

Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) provides that where such a person died or was declared to be presumed dead before the time - limit set out in LAW , restitution can be claimed by natural persons who are citizens of the NORP and GPE and are at the same time , in order of precedence , a ) testamentary heirs who acquired the whole of the estate in inheritance proceedings , b ) testamentary heirs who acquired part of the estate , c ) children or spouses , d ) parents , or e ) brothers or sisters or their children .

Article CARDINAL provides for the concept of hereditas iacens , which exists from the moment of the owner ’s death until a heir accepts the estate . ORG iacens is based on the notion that , during this period , an estate is considered to be formally owned by the deceased .

By LAW , a person who has been declared heir by a decision of a court of law on his or her application , and who has fulfilled his or her obligations , receives the estate , thus putting an end to the inheritance proceedings .

The Civil Code DATE was repealed at DATE , whereupon the legal concept of hereditas iacens ceased to be valid in GPE .

The decree provides for expropriation , with immediate effect and without compensation , of agricultural property for the purposes of programmed land reform . It concerns agricultural property , including buildings and movable goods , owned by persons of NORP and NORP origin irrespective of their citizenship status .

For the purposes of the land reform , section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) provides , with immediate effect and without compensation , that the property of the following persons shall be confiscated :

a ) persons of NORP and NORP origin irrespective of their citizenship , and

b ) traitors and enemies of the ORG .

Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) provides that the property of persons of NORP and NORP origin who were active in the battle for the liberation of GPE is eligible for exemption from confiscation .

Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) provides that decisions as to whether the property referred to in section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) is exempt from confiscation shall be taken by ORG .

Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) defines persons of NORP or NORP origin as being those who , in any census after DATE , declared themselves to be of NORP or NORP origin , or who became members of national groups , formations or political parties made up of persons of NORP or NORP origin .

That case concerned a claim for the restitution of property which had been confiscated , in the form of an hereditas iacens , under President PERSON no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL . The applicants claimed a violation of their property rights , alleging that their father had been the principal heir and they had been his substitutes in succession .

ORG stated that , pursuant to LAW , an heir had had the right either to accept or reject the hereditas iacens ; however , an hereditas iacens could only have passed to an heir by virtue of a court decision . It established that , as the hereditas iacens in question had not been considered by the national courts in inheritance proceedings , the GPE inheritance title to the property had been irrelevant for the purposes of the restitution proceedings .

The court further stated that the property claimed had been confiscated pursuant to President PERSON no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL on DATE , and that the subsequent administrative decisions on confiscation had only been declaratory . It noted that the national courts had rightly applied the Restitution Act DATE instead of LAW on the facts of the case , as the former was a lex specialis .

ORG concluded that only the owner of the confiscated property had to comply with the conditions for restitution of property laid down in LAW ( i.e. to show that he or she was a NORP citizen , that the property had been confiscated under President PERSON no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , and that he or she was loyal to the NORP State and had acquired NORP citizenship ) . ORG held that , as the original owner had not satisfied those conditions and the GPE father had not acquired the hereditas iacens , and thus had never owned the property , the plaintiffs were not entitled to claim its restitution .


CASE OF NIKOGHOSYAN AND MELKONYAN v. ARMENIA

Violation of Art. 6-1;Remainder inadmissible;Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed;Costs and expenses (domestic proceedings) - claim dismissed

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

On an unspecified date , the applicant PERSON ( hereafter , the second applicant ) instituted proceedings against a third person , PERSON , seeking pecuniary damages .

On DATE ORG ( NORP մարզի առաջին ատյանի դատարան ) granted his claim and ordered PERSON to pay CARDINAL NORP drams ( ORG ) ( TIME . QUANTITY ( ORG ) ) .

On DATE ORG ( DEJA ) ( Դատական ակտերի հարկադիր կատարումն ապահովող ծառայություն ) instituted enforcement proceedings . On DATE , the ORG placed a seizure order on PERSON 's property , including land and cattle .

On DATE the seized property was put on a public auction which took place on CARDINAL DATE . This property was bought by the second applicant .

On an unspecified date , CARDINAL members of PERSON 's family instituted proceedings against the ORG . They claimed that the confiscated property had been jointly owned by them , but the ORG had failed to sever PERSON 's share when confiscating the property in question . They sought to annul the relevant acts and measures taken in the course of the enforcement proceedings , including the public auction . They also instituted proceedings against the second applicant , seeking to lift the seizure order over the property in question .

On DATE ORG dismissed their claim concerning the lifting of the seizure .

On DATE the second applicant sold a part of the land in question jointly to the applicant PERSON ( hereafter , the first applicant ) and a third person , A.

On DATE the first applicant and PERSON received a certificate of joint ownership in respect of the land .

On DATE ORG granted the claim of PERSON 's family members against the ORG , finding that their property rights had been violated by the enforcement proceedings since the ORG should have severed and confiscated PERSON 's share in the property jointly owned by him and his family members instead of confiscating the entire property . ORG annulled the acts and measures taken in the course of the enforcement proceedings . No appeal was lodged against this judgment .

On DATE ORG ( ՀՀ քաղաքացիական գործերով վերաքննիչ դատարան ) quashed the judgment of DATE and lifted the seizure .

On DATE ORG ( ՀՀ վճռաբեկ դատարան ) upheld this judgment .

On an unspecified date , the members of PERSON 's family instituted proceedings against the applicants and A. seeking to annul the sales contract of DATE and the certificate of joint ownership of CARDINAL DATE .

On DATE ORG granted their claim and annulled these documents .

On an unspecified date , the applicants lodged an appeal .

On CARDINAL DATE ORG , based in GPE , posted a summons addressed to both applicants , notifying them that the appeal hearing on the case would take place on DATE at TIME in GPE

The envelope which contained the above summons had CARDINAL postmarks : CARDINAL dated DATE and put in GPE , and CARDINAL dated CARDINAL and DATE , both put in PERSON . On the front side of the envelope , in its lower left part , the second applicant wrote “ Received on DATE from the head of the post office ” .

According to the applicants , this letter was received in GPE post office on DATE and was served on them on the same date .

The Government contested this submission and claimed that the summons was timely delivered to the applicants .

On DATE ORG held the hearing as scheduled and decided to uphold the judgment of DATE . The plaintiff 's representative was present and made oral submissions and explanations . As regards the absence of the applicants , ORG stated that :

“ [ The applicants and A. ] received in person the summons notifying them about the place and time of the hearing , but they failed to appear . ”

It appears that a copy of this judgment was sent to and received by the first applicant on DATE and DATE respectively . It further appears that the second applicant received a copy of this judgment in person at ORG on DATE .

On DATE , the applicants lodged a cassation appeal in which they submitted , inter alia , that they had not been timely notified of the hearing of DATE and therefore had been unable to attend and make submissions . They argued that the summons had been served on them only on DATE which was confirmed by , inter alia , the relevant envelope .

It appears that , since this cassation appeal was lodged out of time , attached to their appeal the applicants submitted a request to restore the missed time - limit for appeal . They allege that ORG granted this request on the ground that the summons in question had been served on them only on DATE . The applicants did not , however , submit a copy of such a decision .

On DATE ORG examined and dismissed the applicants ' cassation appeal in the absence of the parties and upheld the judgment of ORG . ORG in its decision did not touch upon the issue of the applicants ' absence from the hearing of DATE .

The relevant provisions of LAW ORG ) ( ՀՀ քաղաքացիական դատավարության օրենսգիրք ) read as follows :

“ Civil proceedings shall be conducted in an adversarial procedure and with respect for equality of arms . ”

“ CARDINAL . The parties have the right : ... ( CARDINAL ) to submit evidence and participate in its examination ... ; ( CARDINAL ) to ask questions , file motions and make explanations in court ; ( CARDINAL ) to submit their arguments concerning all issues raised during the court examination ; ( CARDINAL ) to object against the motions and arguments made by other parties ... ”

“ CARDINAL . The parties to civil proceedings ... are the plaintiff and the respondent .

The parties enjoy equal procedural rights and bear equal procedural obligations . ”

“ CARDINAL . The parties to the proceedings shall be informed about the time and place of the court hearing ... by a court summons ...

The summons shall be sent by registered post with acknowledgement of receipt or by other means of communication ensuring the registration of notification or is served against a receipt ( hereafter , duly notified ) . ”

“ CARDINAL . NORP The clerk of the court hearing reports to the court about the presence of the parties and other participants of the proceedings and whether those who are absent have been duly notified , and also provides information about the reasons for their absence . ”

“ CARDINAL . NORP The non - appearance of the defendant who has been duly notified about the time and place of the court hearing shall not preclude the examination of the case . ”

“ CARDINAL . The court is entitled to adjourn the examination of the case if ... it can not be examined at the hearing in question because of the absence of CARDINAL of the parties ... ”

“ CARDINAL . The court of appeal shall adopt a decision to admit an appeal .

NORP The decision should indicate the time and place of the court examination .

NORP The decision shall be duly sent to the parties . ”

“ A cassation appeal can be lodged on ... points of law or a procedural violation of the parties ' rights ... ”

“ CARDINAL . A court judgment shall be ... quashed , if ... the case was examined in the absence of CARDINAL of the parties who had not been duly notified about the time and place of the hearing ... ”

“ CARDINAL . ORG is not entitled to establish or consider as proven circumstances which have not been established by the judgment [ of ORG ] or have been rejected by it , to determine whether or not this or that piece of evidence is trustworthy , to resolve the issue as to which piece of evidence has more weight or the issue as to which norm of substantive law must be applied and what kind of judgment must be adopted upon the new examination of the case . ”

“ CARDINAL . Judgments and decisions can be reviewed on the basis of new circumstances [ if ] ... a violation of a right ( rights ) guaranteed by an international convention to which GPE is a party has been found by a final judgment or decision of an international court ... ”

The relevant provisions of the PERSON on ORG ( « Դատարանակազմության մասին ORG օրենք ) read as follows :

“ A court of appeal is the court which , on the basis of an appeal , carries out a fresh examination of the merits of the case which has been examined by the court of first instance .

The court of appeal is not constrained by the arguments raised in the appeal and can examine the case in its entirety ... ”


The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a NORP national born in DATE and living in GPE .

The applicant was a member of ORG until DATE . DATE until DATE he was a member of ORG . He has not been a member of a political party since DATE . In DATE , on the proposal of a NORP member of ORG , the applicant was appointed Senior Advisor to ORG .

On DATE ORG nominated the applicant for the post of Director of ORG ( ORG ) , an intergovernmental organisation .

On DATE by a decision of ORG the ORG countries the applicant was appointed Director of the ORG as of DATE . The applicant has not submitted further details such as whether an employment contract was signed , or not .

In DATE there was a change of Government in GPE .

In DATE the applicant attended a meeting of a drafting group of the ORG in GPE . In TIME he was referred to as Director - elect , appointed as of DATE .

On DATE ORG accepted the proposal of the Minister of ORG to “ withdraw ” the applicant ’s nomination on the ground that “ the nomination of Mr PERSON , approved by ORG , [ was ] not in conformity with the tasks of the new Government ” .

ORG nominated another person for the post of Director of the ORG Permanent ORG . On DATE that person was appointed to the post of Director by a decision of ORG the ORG countries .

On an unspecified date the applicant lodged an appeal with ORG against the ORG of ORG decision of DATE . The court held a hearing . On DATE the applicant ’s appeal was declared inadmissible .

The court held that the impugned Government decision did not constitute an administrative act within the meaning of LAW and that , therefore , it was not subject to a judicial appeal . ORG had exercised their power set out in LAW to conduct GPE ’s foreign policy . The applicant ’s appeal concerned solely the withdrawal of the mandate given to him by ORG to represent the country in the ORG , which did not entail any administrative or civil consequences for him .

LAW CARDINAL of the LAW provides that a judicial appeal lies against any administrative decision except expressly excluded by law .

ORG ( ORG ) is an intergovernmental organisation founded by the following participating GPE : GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE , GPE and GPE . It was created on DATE and has its headquarters in GPE , GPE .

The applicant has not provided detailed information on the organisation ’s structure and governing bodies at the relevant time ( its LAW came into force only on CARDINAL May CARDINAL , after the period under consideration in the present case ) .

The applicant submitted excerpts from the “ Regulations for the Staff of the Permanent International Secretariat of the ORG ” , apparently in force at the relevant time . Under the ORG the Director was appointed by ORG the ORG participating GPE among the nominees proposed by those ORG . All nominations , accompanied by the candidates’ CV / resumes and other relevant information , had to be notified to the participating LAW . The Director was appointed in accordance with the rule of rotation . “ Geographical distribution and equitable representation [ were ] also taken into account . ”

The duties of the Director were , inter alia , to represent the ORG in the host country and to supervise the management and the fiscal resources of the ORG .