Preliminary objection rejected (non-exhaustion of domestic remedies);Violation of Art. 5-1;No violation of Art. 5-2;Violation of Art. 5-4;Violation of P4-4;No violation of Art. 13+3;Violation of Art. 13+P4-4;Non-pecuniary damage - financial award;Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings

Mr Ján Čonka , PERSON Čonková , Miss Nad'a PERSON and Miss PERSON are NORP nationals of GPE origin who were born in DATE , DATE and DATE respectively . The first CARDINAL applicants are the parents of the third and fourth applicants .

The applicants say that on several occasions DATE they were violently assaulted by skinheads in GPE . Indeed , in DATE Mr ORG had been so seriously injured in an assault that he had had to be hospitalised . The police had been called but had refused to intervene . DATE Mr and PERSON had been subjected to renewed insults and threats by skinheads , but the police had again refused to intervene .

As a result of those constant threats , the applicants had decided to flee GPE and travel to GPE , where they had arrived at DATE : Mr Čonka and the CARDINAL minor children on DATE and PERSON DATE .

On DATE the applicants requested political asylum in GPE .

On DATE their applications for asylum were declared inadmissible by the Minister of the ORG through ORG on the ground that they had not produced sufficient evidence to show that their lives were at risk in GPE for the purposes of LAW relating to LAW . The decisions refusing permission to remain in GPE were accompanied by a decision refusing permission to enter the territory itself , endorsed with an order to leave the territory within DATE .

On DATE the applicants lodged an appeal under the urgent - applications procedure with the Commissioner - General for Refugees and Stateless Persons ( “ the Commissioner - General ” ) against the decisions refusing them permission to remain in GPE .

On DATE Mr Čonka was invited to attend the Commissioner - General 's Office to set out his grounds for seeking asylum . He failed to keep the appointment .

On DATE PERSON , assisted by an interpreter , was heard by representatives of ORG , where she was in custody pending trial . On CARDINAL DATE she was sentenced to DATE imprisonment for theft by ORG .

On DATE the Commissioner - ORG upheld the decision of ORG refusing the applicants permission to remain . Its decision in Mr ORG 's case was based on his failure to attend his appointment without showing due cause . As regards PERSON , in CARDINAL pages of reasons the Commissioner - General pointed out major discrepancies in her deposition and expressed serious doubts about her credibility .

For example , PERSON had declared among other things that on DATE her husband , Mr ORG , had been assaulted by skinheads so violently that he had had to be taken to hospital . The police had been called but had not come out . That incident had been the direct cause of their decision to flee GPE . However , the Commissioner - General considered that statement to be refuted by the fact that the travel tickets had been issued before the above incident of DATE : PERSON plane ticket on DATE and her husband 's and their children 's bus tickets for the journey to GPE on DATE . Furthermore , PERSON account of the incident did not match her stepdaughter 's , in particular on the important issue of whether the police had attended the scene .

The Commissioner - General stipulated in his decisions that the applicants could be deported to the country from which they had fled ( GPE ) , and that for the purposes of calculating the DATE period for leaving the territory , which had been suspended by the application under the urgent procedure , time began to run again from the date of service of the decisions on the applicants .

On DATE PERSON was released and a new order was served on her to leave the territory within DATE , that is to say by TIME on DATE .

On DATE the applicants lodged applications with the ORG d'Etat for judicial review of the decision of DATE and for a stay of execution under the ordinary procedure . They also applied for legal aid .

On DATE the ORG d'Etat dismissed the applications for legal aid on the grounds that they had not been accompanied by the means certificate required by LAW , a photocopy , rather than the original , of the certificate having been enclosed with PERSON application . Consequently , the applicants were invited by the orders refusing legal aid to pay the court fees within DATE after service . As they failed to respond to that invitation , their applications for judicial review and for a stay of execution were struck out of the list on DATE .

At DATE the GPE police sent a notice to a number of NORP GPE families , including the applicants , requiring them to attend the police station on DATE . The notice was drafted in NORP and NORP and stated that their attendance was required to enable the files concerning their applications for asylum to be completed .

At the police station , where a NORP - speaking interpreter was also present , the applicants were served with a fresh order to leave the territory dated DATE , accompanied by a decision for their removal to GPE and their detention for that purpose . The documents served , which were all in identical terms , informed the recipients that they could apply to the PERSON d'Etat for judicial review of the deportation order and for a stay of execution – provided that they did so within DATE of service of the decision DATE and to the committals division ( chambre du conseil ) of the criminal court against the order for their detention . According to the Government , some of the aliens concerned were nevertheless allowed to leave the police station of their own free will on humanitarian grounds or for administrative reasons .

TIME the applicants and other GPE families , accompanied by an interpreter , were taken to a closed transit centre , known as “ LOC CARDINAL bis ” , at ORG near FAC . It appears that the interpreter only remained at the centre briefly . According to the Government , he could have been recalled to the centre at the applicants ' request . The applicants say that they were told that they had no further remedy against the deportation order .

While at the centre , the NORP families received visits from a delegation of NORP members of ORG , the NORP Consul , delegates of various non - governmental organisations and doctors . At TIME on DATE the applicants ' counsel , PERSON , was informed by the President of ORG that his clients were in custody . Taking the view that he was still instructed by them , PERSON sent a fax on DATE to ORG informing it that the applicants were in LOC CARDINAL bis awaiting repatriation to GPE . He requested that no action be taken to deport them , as they had to take care of a member of their family who was in hospital . However , PERSON did not appeal against the deportation or detention orders made on DATE .

On DATE the families concerned were taken to FAC , where the seat numbers allocated to them in the aircraft were marked on their hands with a ballpoint pen . The aircraft left GPE for GPE at TIME

Shortly afterwards the Minister of the ORG declared in reply to a parliamentary question put on DATE :

“ Owing to the large concentration of asylum - seekers of NORP nationality in GPE , arrangements have been made for their collective repatriation to GPE . ... Reports I have received from the mayor of GPE and ORG indicate that the operation was properly prepared , even if the unfortunate wording of the letter sent by the GPE police to some of the NORP may have been misleading . Both ORG and ORG were surprised by the large number of NORP who responded to the notice sent to them . That factual circumstance resulted in their being detained in LOC CARDINAL bis for deportation DATE . ... ”

NORP The procedure relating to the recognition of refugee status is governed under NORP law by LAW DATE on the entry , residence , settlement and expulsion of aliens ( “ the Aliens Act ” ) and by LAW of DATE on the entry , residence , settlement and expulsion of aliens .

The procedure for according refugee status is in CARDINAL stages . The first concerns admissibility for refugee status , while the second concerns eligibility for such status .

The authorities with jurisdiction to take part in the examination of the issue of admissibility are ORG and , on appeal , the Commissioner - General for Refugees and Stateless Persons , as administrative authorities , and the ORG d'Etat , which hears applications for judicial review . The relevant authorities at the eligibility stage are the Commissioner - General for Refugees and Stateless Persons , as the administrative authority , ORG , as an administrative tribunal , and the ORG d'Etat , which hears administrative appeals on points of law . Lastly , the committals division ( chambre du conseil ) of the criminal court has jurisdiction to hear appeals against orders depriving aliens of their liberty during or at the end of the proceedings ( see below ) .

The provisions of LAW applicable in the instant case read as follows :

“ Except where permitted by international treaty , statute or royal decree , aliens may not stay DATE in the GPE , unless a different period is stipulated in the visa or the authorisation in lieu stamped in their passport or on the travel document issued in lieu thereof .

“ Without prejudice to any more favourable provision in any international treaty , the Minister or his or her delegate may order an alien who is not authorised or has not been given permission to remain for DATE or to settle in the GPE to leave the territory before a set date :

( CARDINAL ) NORP if the alien has stayed in the GPE beyond the period fixed in accordance with section CARDINAL , or is unable to establish that the period has not expired ;

In the same sets of circumstances , if the Minister or his or her delegate considers it necessary , they may have the alien deported .

The alien may be detained for that purpose for the time strictly necessary for the execution of the measure provided that the period of detention shall not exceed DATE . ”

“ Any order to leave the territory or deportation order shall state which provision of section CARDINAL is being applied . ”

Section CARDINAL

“ The Commissioner - General 's Office for Refugees and Stateless Persons is hereby established . It shall be attached to ORG and shall comprise a Commissioner - General for Refugees and Stateless Persons and QUANTITY deputies . The Commissioner - General and his or her deputies shall be wholly independent in taking their decisions and expressing their opinions . ”

“ The Commissioner - General shall be in charge of ORG .

The Commissioner - General shall be appointed by the King by a decree approved by the ORG on a proposal by the Minister .

The Commissioner - General shall be appointed for DATE . His or her term in office may be renewed .

“ An appeal under the urgent - applications procedure shall lie to the Commissioner - General for Refugees and Stateless Persons against decisions of the Minister or his or her delegate pursuant to section CARDINAL refusing aliens claiming refugee status permission to enter , remain or settle in the GPE . ”

“ Aliens against whom a measure has been taken depriving them of their liberty pursuant to sections DATE , CARDINAL , second paragraph , CARDINAL/CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) , fourth paragraph , CARDINAL bis , fourth paragraph , DATE , CARDINAL/CARDINAL , third paragraph , CARDINAL and CARDINAL/CARDINAL may appeal against that measure by lodging a notice of appeal with the committals division of the criminal court with jurisdiction for the place where they reside in the GPE or the place where they are found .

They may renew the appeal referred to in the preceding paragraphs at DATE intervals .

“ The committals division shall deliver its decision within DATE from the date an appeal is lodged after hearing the submissions of the alien or his or her counsel and the opinion of ORG .

... If the committals division fails to deliver its decision within the period fixed , the alien shall be released .

The committals division shall review the legality of the detention and deportation orders but shall have no power to review their reasonableness .

An appeal shall lie against orders of the committals division by the alien , ORG and , in the circumstances set out in section CARDINAL , the Minister or his or her delegate .

The procedure shall be the same as that applicable under the statutory provisions on pre - trial detention , with the exception of the provisions relating to arrest warrants , investigating judges , prohibitions on communications , release on licence or on bail , and the right to inspect the administrative file .

Counsel for the alien may consult the case file at the registry of the relevant court during DATE preceding the hearing .

The registrar shall notify counsel of the decision by registered letter . ”

“ If the committals division decides that the alien shall not remain in custody , he or she shall be released as soon as the decision has become final .

The Minister may order the alien to reside in a designated place either until the deportation order has been executed or until his or her appeal has been decided . ”

In a judgment of DATE ORG reversed a decision of ORG of ORG ordering an alien 's release . ORG had held that , contrary to LAW , the authorities had deprived the alien of an effective remedy in law by interpreting the fact that appeals to the ORG d'Etat had no suspensive effect as meaning that it was lawful for illegal immigrants to be forcibly expelled . ORG held that , on the contrary , the issue whether an alien who had applied for refugee status had an effective remedy for the purposes of LAW had to be examined in the light of the procedure as a whole . After observing that appeals to the Commissioner - General for Refugees and Stateless Persons under the urgent procedure were of suspensive effect and that aliens were entitled , when lodging applications with the ORG d'Etat for judicial review , to apply at the same time for a stay of execution under the ordinary or extremely urgent procedure , it concluded that those remedies taken as a whole satisfied the requirements of LAW .

The relevant provisions of LAW of DATE laying down the urgent procedure in the ORG d'Etat read as follows :

“ In cases certified to be extremely urgent , LAW to CARDINAL shall not be applicable .

In such cases , the president may issue a summons ordering the applicants , the respondent , any intervening party and any persons with an interest in the outcome of the case to attend a hearing ( which may be held at the president 's home ) at the time indicated , including on bank holidays and on DATE notice .

The order shall be served on ORG or on a designated member of ORG .

The notice shall , if applicable , indicate whether the administrative file has been lodged .

If the opposing party has not communicated the administrative file beforehand , it shall produce it to the president at the hearing and the president may suspend the hearing to allow the representative of ORG , the applicants and any intervening party to inspect it .

The president may order immediate execution of the judgment . ”

“ Applications for provisional measures shall be made separately from applications for a stay of execution or for judicial review .

The application shall be signed by a party , a person with an interest in the outcome of the case or a lawyer satisfying the conditions laid down by section DATE , second paragraph , of the consolidated Acts . ”

“ If an applicant for a stay of execution also seeks extremely urgent provisional measures , LAW shall apply to his or her application . Articles CARDINAL to CARDINAL shall not be applicable .

In cases certified to be extremely urgent , the president may issue a summons ordering the parties and any persons with an interest in the outcome of the case to attend a hearing ( which may be held at the president 's home ) at the time indicated , including on bank holidays and on DATE notice .

The PERSON d'Etat 's practice direction on the “ procedure to be followed by duty staff at DATE ” includes the following passage concerning “ the receipt of applications for stays under the extremely urgent procedure ” :

“ The caretaker shall contact the duty judge , the representative of ORG and the registrar so that the degree of urgency can be determined and a hearing date agreed . In cases concerning ' aliens ' , the registrar shall , at the judge 's request , contact ORG to ascertain the scheduled repatriation date and shall seek confirmation by fax . It is advisable in all cases concerning ' aliens ' for the Minister of the ORG and the Commissioner - General for Refugees and Stateless Persons to be recorded as the opposing parties . It is also prudent in cases involving imminent repatriation to order the applicant 's appearance in person . ”

There are a number of examples in the case - law of the ORG d'Etat of cases in which it ordered a stay of execution of a deportation order on DATE as the application for a stay under the extremely urgent procedure or on DATE , or , in any event , before the time - limit for leaving the territory expired . These are to be found in the following judgments : CARDINAL . CARDINAL of DATE , CARDINAL of DATE , CARDINAL of DATE , CARDINAL of DATE , CARDINAL of DATE , CARDINAL of DATE and CARDINAL of DATE .

The PERSON d'Etat has also ruled that it may entertain applications for judicial review of deportation orders ( see , for instance , the following judgments : CARDINAL . CARDINAL of DATE , CARDINAL of DATE , CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE and CARDINAL of DATE ) .

In DATE there was a sharp increase in the number of asylum - seekers from GPE . While the average for DATE had been CARDINAL applications DATE , including CARDINAL applications in DATE alone , no less than CARDINAL applications were made CARDINAL DATE . On DATE , ORG wrote to the Minister of the ORG and the Commissioner - General for Refugees and Stateless Persons to inform them of his intention to deal with asylum applications from NORP nationals rapidly in order to send a clear signal to discourage other potential applicants .

A “ Note providing general guidance on overall policy in immigration matters ” approved by the ORG on DATE , contained , inter alia , the following passage :

“ A plan for collective repatriation is currently under review , both to send a signal to the NORP authorities and to deport this large number of illegal immigrants whose presence can no longer be tolerated . ”

The report on GPE of DATE of ORG against Racism and Intolerance contains the following passage :

“ In GPE as in several other countries of central and eastern LOC , ORG belong to the most disadvantaged sections of society . Apart from a few isolated cases , they live outside the public arena , cut off from decision - making centres and the main currents of political opinion . They are often the victims of skinheads ' violence and are regularly subjected to ill - treatment and discrimination by the authorities . ”

A further report produced by the applicants and drawn up after a joint mission to GPE in DATE of ORG and ORG appears to confirm the existence of serious discrimination against GPE , who are treated as a lower class .


Giovanni Bonello;Lech Garlicki;Ledi Bianku;Nebojša Vučinić;Nicolas Bratza;Päivi Hirvelä

The applicant is a NORP national . He was born in DATE and lives in GPE . ORG ( “ the Government ” ) were represented by their Agent , PERSON , of ORG , GPE .

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

The applicant ’s wife died on CARDINAL DATE at DATE . At the time of her death , she had been in receipt of a retirement pension for DATE . The applicant , who reached DATE after the death of his wife , subsequently contacted ORG to enquire whether , in addition to his own pension , he was entitled to inherit part of his wife ’s pension . He received a negative answer . In DATE he submitted a claim for widow ’s benefits to ORG . The claim was rejected by a decision of DATE , on the ground that the claimant was not a woman . This decision was reconsidered by a reviewing officer within ORG , who upheld it on DATE . The applicant did not appeal .

The possibility of obtaining a higher retirement pension was introduced by LAW DATE . This made provision for the payment of extra social security contributions by employees , entitling them to receive Graduated Retirement Pension ( GRB ) along with the basic ORG contributory pension . Where a married man who had paid such extra contributions died , his widow was entitled to receive an additional pension equal to CARDINAL the rate of the deceased ’s GRB . This was payable immediately if the widow had already reached pensionable age , or upon reaching pensionable age , as long as she had not remarried . The scheme thus afforded some additional financial protection for widows in old age . Subsequent legislative reform ended the payment of graduated contributions in DATE . The right of widows already receiving part of their husband ’s ORG , or to receive it when they reached pensionable age , was preserved . ORG was replaced by ORG Earnings - Related Pension Scheme ( SERPS ) , introduced by the Pensions Act DATE . This too provided for widows to inherit part of the pension earned by their husbands .

The right of widowers to inherit part of the additional pension earned by their wives took effect on DATE . Men widowed after that date could receive a higher pension on condition that their wives had satisfied the prescribed conditions and that both husband and wife had attained pensionable age at the time of bereavement , a condition that did not apply to widows . The social security position of widowers was generally improved as of DATE , from which date they became entitled , in principle , to an identical suite of bereavement benefits to widows ( for details of the relevant legislative provisions , see Runkee and NORP v. GPE , nos . CARDINAL and CARDINAL , § § CARDINAL , CARDINAL DATE ) . This group of widowers may inherit additional pension under the same conditions as widows . According to the ORG , ORG opted to achieve full equalisation in relation to inherited additional pension in stages . This will take effect on DATE . All widowers who reach pensionable age after that date , irrespective of when their wives died , will be able to claim additional pension on the basis of the social security contributions paid by the latter . This change will not , therefore , affect the applicant .


The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in GPE . He was represented before the ORG by Mr PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE . ORG ( “ the Government ” ) did not designate an Agent for the purposes of the proceedings before the ORG .

The applicant was a member of a political party , ORG ( PERSON ) , at the time of the events giving rise to the present application .

On DATE the applicant was taken into police custody after having distributed leaflets of ORG concerning collective labour agreements . On DATE , he was released without being brought before a judge .

On an unspecified date the Eyüp public prosecutor imposed a fine of CARDINAL NORP Liras ( GPE ) on the applicant for illegally distributing leaflets . The applicant did not pay the due amount .

Subsequently , on DATE the ORG public prosecutor filed a bill of indictment with ORG charging the applicant of having illegally distributing leaflets under LAW .

On DATE the Eyüp Magistrate ’s Court found the applicant guilty as charged and , by issuing a penal order ( ceza kararnamesi ) , sentenced him to a fine of TRL CARDINAL . When issuing the penal order , the court did not hold a public hearing ; it decided solely on the content of the case file .

On DATE the applicant filed an objection against the decision of CARDINAL DATE . In his petition , he maintained that ORG was not required to obtain authorisation or to submit a copy of the leaflet in question to the authorities for information purposes prior to the distribution of leaflets as , according to LAW no . CARDINAL , the political parties were not required to do so . He further contended that he was deprived of the opportunity to submit his defence submissions to ORG in violation of LAW . The applicant finally submitted that his criminal conviction infringed his freedom of expression , in violation of LAW .

On DATE ORG dismissed the applicant ’s objection holding that the decision of DATE was lawful .

The decision of DATE was not served on the applicant .

On DATE the applicant found out about the content of the decision of CARDINAL DATE and paid the fine .

Subsequently , on DATE the Eyüp public prosecutor applied to ORG and requested that a written order be issued pursuant to LAW to quash the judgment of ORG dated DATE . On DATE ORG issued a written order and instructed ORG at ORG to ask ORG to set aside the said judgment .

On DATE CARDINAL ORG quashed the judgment of ORG . It held that , according to LAW . CARDINAL political parties were not required to obtain prior authorisation to distribute leaflets , and as a result the applicant ’s conviction was not in line with the domestic law . It concluded that the applicant should be acquitted . The case file was remitted to ORG . After a re - examination of the case , on CARDINAL DATE ORG acquitted the applicant of the charges against him and decided that he should be reimbursed for the fine he had paid in DATE . Furthermore , his conviction was erased from the judicial records .

At the material time , LAW , LAW no . CARDINAL and the relevant provisions of LAW provided as follows :

Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL of LAW

“ Persons who sell or distribute printed or handwritten documents and pictures in public places without having obtained a prior authorisation , in circumstances where a prior authorisation from the competent authority is required , shall be liable to a fine of a maximum of MONEY . ”

LAW no . CARDINAL

“ Associations shall not publish or distribute leaflets , written statements or similar publications without a prior resolution by their executive board . The leaflets , written statements and similar publications shall contain the forenames , surnames and signatures of the president and members of the executive board which passed the resolution .

A copy of the resolution by the association ’s executive board to publish and of the leaflet , written statement or similar publication shall be lodged for information purposes with the highest ranking local authority and the public prosecutor ’s office for the area . The latter shall deliver in exchange a receipt recording the time and date the documents were lodged . No leaflet , written statement or similar publication may be distributed or communicated to the press until TIME after it has been lodged .

The aforementioned provisions are not applicable in respect of political parties . ”

“ The judge at the GPE court may issue a penal order and decide on the merits of the case concerning the offences within the jurisdiction of the GPE court without holding a hearing .

With such a penal order only a fine or an imprisonment for a maximum of DATE or the temporary suspension of exercising a profession or a seizure measure or some of them or all of them can be imposed ( ... ) ”

“ If the judge at the GPE court finds it disadvantageous to deliver the sentence without a hearing , he will then decide a date for the hearing . ”

“ If it is a prison sentence that has been delivered by a penal order , upon the filing of an objection a hearing shall be held .

If it is a fine or temporary suspension of the practice of a profession or a confiscation measure or some or all of them that is served by a penal order , upon the filing of an objection the president of the criminal court or the judge shall examine the objection under Articles CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL [ of the present code ] . ( ... ) ”

“ Apart from the exceptions prescribed by law the decision upon an appeal shall be delivered without a hearing . The public prosecutor shall be heard if necessary .

If the appeal is granted , the authority that examines the appeal shall also decide on the merits of the case . ”

“ Decisions rendered upon objection are final . However , if the authority orders the suspect ’s detention on remand , the latter can file an urgent objection . ”

In a judgment given on DATE ORG declared LAW of LAW unconstitutional and a nullity . It held that lack of a public hearing before FAC that examines the objections against the penal orders , would be in breach of the right guaranteed under LAW , as well as LAW .

Finally , LAW ( no . CARDINAL ) , concerning references to ORG by written order of ORG ( Kanun yararına bozma ) provides :

“ Where ORG has been informed that a judge or court has delivered a judgment that has become final without coming under the scrutiny of ORG , it may issue a formal order to ORG requiring him to ask ORG to set aside the judgment concerned ... ”


Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Enforcement proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court;Reasonable time);Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions;Possessions);No violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Enforcement proceedings;Article 6-1 - Access to court;Reasonable time);No violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Peaceful enjoyment of possessions;Possessions);Violation of Article 13 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy);Respondent State to take measures of a general character (Article 46 - Pilot judgment;General measures);Respondent State to take individual measures (Article 46 - Pilot judgment;Individual measures);Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed;Non-pecuniary damage - award

Anatoly Kovler;Christos Rozakis;Dean Spielmann;Elisabeth Steiner;George Nicolaou;Giorgio Malinverni;Sverre Erik Jebens

The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in PERSON , in the PERSON region of GPE .

On DATE the applicant was called up by the military authorities to take part in emergency operations at the site of the GPE nuclear plant disaster . The applicant was engaged in the operations until CARDINAL DATE and , as a result , suffered from extensive exposure to radioactive emissions . He is entitled to various social benefits in this connection .

Considering that the competent ORG authorities failed to pay these benefits in full and in due time , the applicant repeatedly sued them in domestic courts from DATE onwards . The courts repeatedly granted the applicant ’s claims but a number of their judgments remained unenforced for various periods of time .

On DATE the applicant first complained before the ORG about non - enforcement of domestic judicial decisions ( application no . MONEY ) . In its judgment of DATE , the ORG found that ORG decisions of DATE , CARDINAL DATE and DATE had remained unenforced wholly or in part at least until DATE , when ORG took the decision to pay in full the debt owed to the applicant . The ORG accordingly held that there had been violations of LAW No . CARDINAL on account of the authorities’ failure for DATE to take the necessary measures to comply with these decisions ( see PERSON v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , § § DATE , ECHR CARDINALIII ) .

Under the terms of LAW , the ORG ’s judgment of DATE in PERSON was transmitted to ORG for the supervision of its execution . ORG invited the Government to inform it of the measures which had been taken in consequence of the ORG ’s judgment of DATE , having regard to GPE obligation under LAW to abide by it . On DATE the Committee adopted Resolution ResDH(CARDINAL)CARDINAL in this case . The measures taken by the NORP authorities were summarised by the Government in the LAW to this ORG :

“ ... With regard to individual measures , the amounts due under the domestic judicial decisions were paid to the applicant on DATE . ... Subsequently , a fresh indexation of the DATE allowance was ordered by ORG on DATE ( final on DATE ) . The social authorities continue to comply with the domestic judicial decisions by regularly paying the sums awarded .

In addition , the following general measures were adopted by the NORP authorities to comply with ORG judgment .

( a ) Resolving similar cases

At the outset , the government paid the arrears accumulated as a result of the non - execution , as in the present case , of domestic judgments ordering the payment of compensation and allowances for the GPE victims in the applicant ’s position ( a total of MONEY were paid DATE ) .

CARDINAL other domestic judgments concerning the indexation of the allowances for the victims of GPE were executed by the authorities .

The government has also improved its budgetary process to ensure that the necessary budgetary means are allocated to social security bodies ( MONEY were allocated for DATE , MONEY for DATE , and CARDINAL for DATE ) to allow them continuously to meet their financial obligations arising , inter alia , from similar judgments . ...

( b ) DATE New indexation system introduced through legislation

As regards the obligation of continuous indexation of the amounts awarded by domestic courts , the legislation in force at the relevant time provided for the cost of living as an index for the calculation of allowances . By a decision of DATE , ORG declared the relevant legislative provisions unconstitutional , in so far as this system was found to lack clarity and predictability ; in this decision , ORG referred , inter alia , to the conclusions of ORG in the PERSON judgment . Consequently , on DATE , ORG amended the legislation governing the social insurance of GPE victims . The new law , which has been in force since DATE , provides for a new system of indexation of allowances , which is based on the inflation rate used for the calculation of the federal budget for DATE .

( c ) ORG and dissemination of the judgment

ORG judgment in [ the ] PERSON case has been published in ORG ( on DATE ) , the main official periodical publishing all laws and regulations of GPE and widely disseminated to all authorities . The judgment has also been published in a number of NORP legal journals and Internet databases , and is thus easily available to the authorities and the public .

( d ) Conclusion

In view of the foregoing , the NORP government considers that the measures adopted following the present judgment will prevent new similar violations of the LAW in respect of the category of persons in the applicant ’s position and that GPE has thus fulfilled its obligations under LAW in the present case .

The government also believes that the measures adopted constitute , moreover , a noticeable step towards resolving the more general problem of non - enforcement of domestic court decisions in various areas , as highlighted in particular by other cases brought before ORG against GPE . The government continues to take measures to remedy this problem , not least in the context of the execution , under the ORG ’s supervision , of other judgments of ORG . ”

ORG was satisfied that on DATE , within the time - limit set , the Government had paid the applicant the sum of just satisfaction provided for in the judgment of DATE . It further noted , in particular , the measures taken in respect of the category of persons in the applicant ’s position . Having regard to all the measures adopted , the ORG concluded that the Government had exercised its functions under LAW in this case . ORG noted at the same time that the more general problem of non - execution of domestic court decisions in GPE was being addressed by the authorities , under the ORG ’s supervision , in the context of other pending cases .

On DATE ORG ordered ORG ( ORG труда и социального развития ) of PERSON to pay the applicant MONEY ( RUB ) as compensation for delays in payment of benefits in accordance with LAW . On DATE the judgment was upheld by ORG and became final .

During DATE the applicant consecutively submitted the writ of execution to the defendant authority , to bailiffs , to ORG and then again to the defendant authority . On DATE the authorities transferred the amount of the court ’s award to the applicant ’s account .

On DATE ORG ordered ORG to pay the applicant RUB CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL as default interest for delays in payments DATE , in accordance with ORG DATE ( no.CARDINAL-ФЗ ) . The judgment was not appealed against and became final on DATE .

According to the applicant , he submitted the writ for execution to the respondent department on DATE . On an unspecified date the writ was submitted to ORG ; the latter decided on DATE that the judgment was impossible to enforce as the debtor ’s possessions could not be seized .

On DATE ORG granted the defendant authority ’s request for correction of an arithmetic error and reduced the award to RUB CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL . On DATE the same court granted the applicant ’s request for correction of an arithmetic error and ordered the defendant authority to pay the applicant RUB CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL . On DATE the authorities paid the latter amount to the applicant .

On DATE ORG ordered ORG ( Департамент труда и социального развития ) of PERSON to index - link the DATE food allowance due to the applicant as of DATE . The court set the amount of DATE payments at RUB MONEY with subsequent indexation and ordered a CARDINAL - off payment of RUB CARDINAL for compensation for shortfalls in previous DATE payments . In addition , as of DATE the ORG was ordered to proceed with DATE payments of RUB MONEY with subsequent indexation in respect of compensation for health damage . The court further ordered the defendant authority to pay the applicant RUB CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL and RUB CARDINAL as compensation for shortfalls in DATE payments made DATE for health damage and food allowance respectively and an additional indexation payment of RUB CARDINAL for health damage . On CARDINAL DATE the judgment was upheld by ORG and became final .

On DATE ORG corrected an arithmetic error in its judgment and changed the initially awarded amount of RUB CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL to RUB CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL .

On DATE the judgment of DATE was executed in its major part : a total of RUB CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL was credited to the applicant ’s account . At the same time , ORG did not upgrade the DATE payments as ordered by the court ’s judgment and the applicant continued to receive such payments at a lower level . On DATE the ORG decided to upgrade them . On CARDINAL DATE the applicant received RUB CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL as compensation for shortfalls in DATE payments accumulated until DATE .

On CARDINAL DATE ORG decided that ORG was to pay the applicant as of DATE the amount of RUB PERSON DATE , with subsequent indexation , in respect of compensation for health damage . In addition , ORG was to pay the applicant RUB CARDINAL,CARDINAL as compensation for shortfalls in previous DATE payments . The judgment was not appealed against and became final on DATE . It was enforced on DATE .

On DATE , ORG ordered ORG to pay the applicant RUB CARDINAL,CARDINAL.CARDINAL as compensation for certain delayed payments in respect of health damage DATE . The judgment was not appealed against and became final on DATE . It was enforced on DATE .

Section CARDINAL of LAW of DATE ( no . CARDINAL-ФЗ ) , as in force at the material time , provided that a bailiff was to set a time - limit of DATE for the defendant ’s voluntary compliance with a writ of execution . The bailiff was also to warn the defendant that coercive action would follow should the defendant fail to comply with the time - limit . Under LAW of the PERSON , the enforcement proceedings had to be completed within DATE of the receipt of the writ of execution by the bailiff .

In DATE the judgments delivered against the public authorities were executed in accordance with a special procedure established , inter alia , by the ORG ’s Decree no . CARDINAL of DATE and , subsequently , by Decree no . CARDINAL of DATE , entrusting execution to ORG ( see further details in PERSON and Others v. GPE , nos . PERSON , PERSON , CARDINAL and CARDINAL , § § CARDINAL - CARDINAL , DATE ) . By a judgment of DATE ( no . CARDINAL ) , ORG considered certain provisions governing the special execution procedure to be incompatible with LAW . Following the judgment , the PERSON of DATE ( no . CARDINAL ) introduced a new LAW in LAW modifying this special procedure . The PERSON notably empowered ORG to execute judgments against legal entities funded by the federal budget and ORG to execute judgments against the ORG . Under LAW § CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of LAW , the judgments must be executed within DATE after receipt of the necessary documents .

NORP Further special procedures governing payment of social benefits to persons who suffered from exposure to radioactive emissions in the GPE disaster were set by Law no . CARDINAL - CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE with subsequent amendments and by the Government ’s Decrees no . CARDINAL of DATE , no . CARDINAL of DATE and no . CARDINAL of DATE . In DATE - CARDINAL compensation for health damage was ensured by ORG within the limits of the budgetary allocations provided for the relevant DATE . In DATE such compensation was ensured by territorial departments of ORG and in DATE by the ORG itself on the basis of registers submitted by social welfare bodies and within the limits of the budgetary allocations provided to that effect .

The DATE Activities Report of the Commissioner for Human Rights of GPE pointed out that the perception of domestic judgments as what one might call “ non - compulsory recommendations ” was still a widespread phenomenon not only in society but also in ORG bodies . It noted that the non - enforcement problem had also arisen in respect of judgments of ORG . According to the report , the problem had been discussed DATE at special meetings in all federal circuits involving regional authorities and representatives of ORG . An idea thus emerged of setting up a national filter mechanism that would allow for examination of Convention complaints at the domestic level . The Commissioner concluded that joint efforts should be deployed with a view to eliminating the roots of the problem rather than simply reducing the number of complaints .

LAW provides a procedure for challenging State authorities’ acts or inaction in courts . If a court finds that the complaint is well - founded , it orders the ORG authority concerned to remedy the breach or unlawfulness found ( LAW ) .

Article CARDINAL of the Code of Civil Procedure provides for “ indexation ” of judicial awards : the court which made the award may upgrade it upon a party ’s request in line with the increase in the official retail price index until the date of effective payment . Default interest and other compensation for pecuniary damage may in addition be recovered from the debtor for non - compliance with a monetary obligation and use of another person ’s funds ( Article CARDINAL of LAW ) .

Damage caused by unlawful action or inaction of ORG or local authorities or their officials is subject to compensation from ORG or a federal entity ’s treasury ( Article CARDINAL ) . Compensation for damage caused to an individual by unlawful conviction , prosecution , detention on remand or prohibition on leaving his or her place of residence pending trial is granted in full regardless of the fault of the ORG officials concerned and following the procedure provided for by law ( Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL ) . Damage caused by the administration of justice is compensated if the fault of the judge is established by a final judicial conviction ( Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL ) .

A court may hold the tortfeasor liable for non - pecuniary damage caused to an individual by actions impairing his or her personal non - property rights or affecting other intangible assets belonging to him or her ( ORG CARDINAL and CARDINAL § CARDINAL ) . Compensation for non - pecuniary damage sustained through an impairment of an individual ’s property rights is recoverable only in cases provided for by law ( LAW ) . Compensation for non - pecuniary damage is payable irrespective of the tortfeasor ’s fault if damage was caused to an individual ’s life or limb , sustained through unlawful criminal prosecution , dissemination of untrue information and in other cases provided for by law LAW ) .

Article CARDINAL of the Criminal Code provides for sanctions for persistent failure by any ORG official or civil servant to comply with a judicial decision that has entered into legal force . The sanctions include a fine , temporary suspension from service , community service ( обязательные работы ) for a maximum term of TIME or deprivation of liberty for a maximum term of DATE .

By Ruling no . CARDINAL of DATE , ORG found that Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL of LAW was compatible with LAW in so far as it provided for special conditions on State liability for damage caused by the administration of justice . It clarified , nevertheless , that the term “ administration of justice ” did not cover judicial proceedings in their entirety but only judicial acts touching upon the merits of a case . Other judicial acts – mainly of a procedural nature DATE fell outside the scope of the notion “ administration of justice ” .

State liability for the damage caused by such procedural acts or failures to act , such as a breach of the reasonable time for court proceedings , could arise even in the absence of a final criminal conviction of a judge if the fault of the judge had been established in civil proceedings . The Constitutional Court emphasised , however , that the constitutional right to compensation by the ORG for the damage should not be tied in with the individual fault of a judge . An individual should be able to obtain compensation for any damage incurred through a violation by a court of his or her right to a fair trial within the meaning of LAW .

ORG held that ORG should legislate on the grounds and procedure for compensation by the ORG for the damage caused by unlawful acts or failures to act of a court or a judge and determine territorial and subject matter jurisdiction over such claims .

On DATE the Plenum of ORG adopted a decision ( no . CARDINAL ) to submit to ORG of GPE a draft constitutional law on compensation by the ORG of damage caused by violations of the right to judicial proceedings within a reasonable time and of the right to the execution within a reasonable time of judicial decisions that have entered into legal force ( hereinafter “ the LAW ” ) . ORG also decided to submit to ORG a second draft law introducing changes in certain legal acts in connection with the adoption of LAW . Both drafts were formally tabled in LAW on DATE .

The purpose of LAW is to set up in GPE a domestic legal remedy in respect of violations of the rights to judicial proceedings within a reasonable time and to the execution of an enforceable judicial decision within a reasonable time ( section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) ) . It is also provided that the applicants in cases which have not yet been declared admissible by the ORG may apply for compensation of damage under the PERSON within DATE after its entry into force planned for DATE ( section CARDINAL ) . The PERSON empowers courts of general jurisdiction to consider cases brought against the ORG on alleged violations of the above - mentioned rights ( section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) ) and provides for specific rules to govern the proceedings in such cases . The ORG is represented in the proceedings by ORG ( section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) ) . The latter has to prove that there was no violation of the reasonable - time requirement , while the plaintiff has to prove the existence of pecuniary damage ( section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) ) . To decide a case , the court assesses its complexity , the behaviour of the parties and other actors in the proceedings , and the acts or inaction of judicial or prosecution authorities , the parties to enforcement proceedings or the enforcement authorities . The court also assesses the duration of the violation and the importance of its consequences for the person affected ( section CARDINAL ) . If the court finds a violation , it makes a monetary award for damage to be determined taking account of the e Convention standards ( section CARDINAL ) . The court may take a separate decision finding a breach of law by a court or ORG official and order specific procedural actions to be taken , with a request to report back within DATE ( section CARDINAL ) .

ORG explanatory memorandum sets out the needs for additional budgetary allocations to ensure the implementation of LAW . The average compensation per case is estimated at MONEY ( ORG ) having regard to the fact that the just satisfaction amounts awarded by ORG in non - enforcement cases have usually ranged between ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL and EUR CARDINAL,CARDINAL .

The second draft law introduces amendments to other legal acts . Under new Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL of LAW , damage caused by violations of the reasonable - time requirement by ORG authorities in judicial proceedings or in the execution of judgments is compensated from ORG . Under new LAW , judicial decisions granting such compensation must be enforced within DATE .

In his Address to ORG delivered on DATE , the President of ORG stated in particular that it was necessary to establish a mechanism for compensation of damage caused by violations of ORG rights to trial within a reasonable time and to the full and timely implementation of court decisions . The President stressed that the execution of court decisions was still a huge problem , which concerned all courts , including ORG . He further stated that the problem was notably due to the lack of real accountability of officials and citizens who fail to execute court decisions and that this accountability was to be established .

On DATE ORG resumed consideration under LAW group of the ORG ’s judgments against GPE concerning failure to enforce or delays in the enforcement of domestic judgments ( PERSON and Others , PERSON / Del / OJ / PERSON ) . The following decision was adopted by ORG on DATE ( ORG / Dec(CARDINAL)CARDINAL FINAL ) :

“ The Deputies , ...

recalled that these judgments reveal various structural problems in the NORP legal system which , by their nature and scale , severely affect its effectiveness and cause very numerous violations of the Convention an increasing number of which are complained of before the ORG ;

took note , with interest , of various measures adopted or being taken by certain competent authorities to prevent new similar violations and to remedy those that have already occurred by setting up or improving appropriate domestic procedures , measures which remain to be taken ;

NORP emphasised anew that the problems revealed by the judgments require urgent solutions in order to ensure that the relevant Convention rights are adequately protected at the domestic level , thus preventing an exceedingly high number of similar applications to the Court ;

invited the competent authorities to continue bilateral consultations with the ORG with a view to establishing a proper strategy for adoption of the necessary measures , including the setting up of effective domestic remedies ;

NORP The problems underlying the non - enforcement of domestic judgments in GPE and various measures taken or considered by the authorities in the context of the implementation of the ORG ’s judgments were addressed in detail in the ORG of ORG documents ORG of DATE and ORG / DH(CARDINAL)CARDINAL revCARDINAL of DATE . The latter document presented the progress so far achieved by the NORP authorities , pointed at a number of outstanding questions and proposed further measures , with a view to a comprehensive solution of the problem . The main avenues of action proposed were summarised as follows ( see ORG / DH(CARDINAL)CARDINAL revCARDINAL , cited above , p. CARDINAL ) :

“ – Improvement of budgetary procedures and of practical implementation of the budget decisions ;

– Identifying a specific ORG authority as a defendant ;

– Ensuring effective compensation for delays ( indexation , default interest , specific damages , penalties for delays ) ;

– Increasing the effectiveness of domestic remedies for proper enforcement of judicial decisions ;

– Improvement of the legal framework governing compulsory execution against the public authorities ;

– Ensuring effective liability of civil servants for non - enforcement ;

Special consideration is given to possible ways of ensuring coherence of the present execution mechanisms by allowing the ORG and the bailiffs to act in a complementary manner in their respective fields of competence and under appropriate judicial review . A strong emphasis is also put on possible ways of preventing litigation against the ORG through improved budgetary proceedings , which would allow the ORG to timely comply with its pecuniary obligations . ”

In Recommendation Rec(CARDINAL)CARDINAL to member GPE on the improvement of domestic remedies adopted on DATE , ORG recommended , inter alia :

“ ... that member GPE ... review , following ORG judgments which point to structural or general deficiencies in national law or practice , the effectiveness of the existing domestic remedies and , where necessary , set up effective remedies , in order to avoid repetitive cases being brought before the ORG ... ”

The Appendix to the ORG further stated , inter alia :

“ Remedies following a ‘ pilot’ judgment

When a judgment which points to structural or general deficiencies in national law or practice ( ‘ pilot ORG ) has been delivered and a large number of applications to the ORG concerning the same problem ( ‘ repetitive GPE ) are pending or likely to be lodged , the respondent ORG should ensure that potential applicants have , where appropriate , an effective remedy allowing them to apply to a competent national authority , which may also apply to current applicants . Such a rapid and effective remedy would enable them to obtain redress at national level , in line with the principle of subsidiarity of the Convention system .

The introduction of such a domestic remedy could also significantly reduce the ORG ’s workload . While prompt execution of the pilot judgment remains essential for solving the structural problem and thus for preventing future applications on the same matter , there may exist a category of people who have already been affected by this problem prior to its resolution . ...

NORP In particular , further to a pilot judgment in which a specific structural problem has been found , CARDINAL alternative might be to adopt an ad hoc approach , whereby the ORG concerned would assess the appropriateness of introducing a specific remedy or widening an existing remedy by legislation or by judicial interpretation .

When specific remedies are set up following a pilot case , governments should speedily inform the ORG so that it can take them into account in its treatment of subsequent repetitive cases . ”

In Resolution DATE ( DATE ) on implementation of judgments of ORG , adopted on DATE , ORG noted with grave concern the continuing existence in several GPE of major structural deficiencies which cause large numbers of repetitive findings of violations of the LAW and represent a serious danger to the rule of law in the GPE concerned . The ORG listed among those deficiencies some major shortcomings in the judicial organisation and procedures in GPE , including chronic non - enforcement of domestic judicial decisions delivered against the ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL of the Resolution ) . The ORG urged the authorities of the GPE concerned , including GPE , to resolve the issues of particular importance mentioned in the ORG and to give this action top political priority .

In the report of ORG , the rapporteur , Mr PERSON , called for an urgent solution to the above - mentioned problems as they affect a very large number of people in GPE . He also warned that the influx of numerous clone cases in the ORG was likely to undermine the effectiveness of the Convention mechanism ( Doc . DATE ) . He further stated :

“ CARDINAL . The rapporteur welcomes the frank and open position of most of the NORP officials and institutions he met in GPE as well as their clear understanding that the above problems put at stake the effectiveness of the NORP judicial system , and indeed , of the ORG as a whole . It is perhaps indicative that especially the presidents of ORG and of ORG showed a very constructive attitude , as both of them recognised the problems and encouraged the rapporteur in his endeavours to help find a solution for them .

The authorities provided assurances that the most important problems would be addressed as a matter of priority and that appropriate steps would be taken to ensure rapid adoption of reforms required by ORG judgments .

NORP The NORP officials’ clear willingness to come to grips with the above - mentioned important problems is most welcome . The rapporteur stresses that the complexity of these issues is such as to require enhanced and concerted efforts of all actors within the NORP legal system .

Thorough reform strategies in this respect , however , still remain to be established . In view of the present problems raised in the judgments and others still to come , the rapporteur has strongly recommended to the authorities to set up a special mechanism of interagency cooperation in the implementation of ORG judgments . Constant involvement of ORG and the NORP delegation to the ORG in the implementation process is also necessary . The rapporteur is convinced that his NORP parliamentary colleagues will seriously consider his recommendation to set up a specific mechanism and procedure for parliamentary oversight to implement ORG judgments , as well as other relevant proposals made in the draft resolution . The rapporteur also trusts that the members of the NORP delegation to the ORG will promote and follow up the adoption of the specific measures required by certain judgments ( for details , see PERSON , Part III ) . ”

In the preliminary observations following a visit to GPE from DATE , the ORG special rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers , Mr PERSON , voiced “ important concerns at the fact that an important percentage of judicial decisions , including those against ORG officials , were not implemented ” . He added that “ problems with the implementation of judicial decisions in GPE had contributed to the poor image of the judiciary in the eyes of the population ” .


Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property

Alvina Gyulumyan;Corneliu Bîrsan;Egbert Myjer;Elisabet Fura;Josep Casadevall;Luis López Guerra

The applicants were born in DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE respectively . They lived in GPE and Ploieşti .

On an unknown date in DATE a property situated in GPE at CARDINAL PERSON , belonging to ORG , was seized by ORG no . CARDINAL and ORG ( ORG ) no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL . The applicants together with ORG are PERSON 's heirs of different degrees . According to them , the property consisted of an QUANTITY . m plot of land with a building on it .

By CARDINAL letters of CARDINAL and DATE the heirs of ORG sought from the H. company , a ORG - owned company responsible for the management of property belonging to the ORG , recovery of the immovable property situated in GPE at CARDINAL PERSON Street .

On DATE the H. company sold Apartment no . CARDINAL + CARDINAL of that building and QUANTITY . m of appurtenant land to the then tenants under LAW no . DATE .

On DATE the applicants PERSON , PERSON , PERSON ( NORP ) , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON and PERSON claimed restitution under PERSON no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL for GPE and DATE , with the appurtenant land , situated at CARDINAL PERSON Street . On DATE the applicants PERSON and PERSON claimed restitution of the same apartments , with QUANTITY . m of appurtenant land . It appears from the file that they did not receive any answer .

On DATE all the applicants except PERSON , PERSON and PERSON , together with ORG , brought court proceedings to have the sale declared null and void . The plaintiffs , as heirs of ORG , considered that the ORG had no title to that property and invoked the provisions of section CARDINAL § CARDINAL of Law no . CARDINAL .

The applicants Mihaela - Iuliana Vintilescu , PERSON and GPE are the heirs ( wife and daughters ) of ORG who , according to a certificate of inheritance , died on DATE .

On CARDINAL DATE ORG , in the operative part of its judgment , dismissed as groundless the action introduced by the applicants LAW , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON and PERSON Dumitru PERSON . The court acknowledged that the plaintiffs were the heirs of PERSON , but considered that they had not proved that the ORG had no title to the seizure . Therefore it held that since the ORG had a valid title , the case came under the provisions of section CARDINAL § CARDINAL of Law no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , and considered that the sale had been lawfully performed . The court also declared null and void the action introduced by the applicant PERSON ( NORP ) and by PERSON , for lack of signature .

The judgment made no reference to the plaintiff ORG , except to mention him among the plaintiffs who had lodged the action .

All the applicants appealed . However , the only reasoned appeal was that of the first applicant , who had lodged it in the name of all the plaintiffs , alleging that the seizure had been unlawful , that the sale had been performed in bad faith and that they had claimed that property before the sale .

On DATE ORG , in the operative part of its judgment , allowed the appeal by all the applicants and varied the LAW first - instance judgment in part by upholding the action lodged by the applicants LAW , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , PERSON and PERSON Dumitru PERSON and by declaring the sale null and void . The court found that the CARDINAL normative acts ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) concerned the granting of orders and medals and the reorganisation of transportation of goods and passengers , therefore the ORG had no valid title to that seizure . It also considered that the then tenants had been in bad faith when they bought that apartment .

It is not mentioned in that judgment whether the applicants PERSON , PERSON , GPE and PERSON ( NORP ) had made any reference in their appeal to the fact that the previous judgment had not mentioned ORG either in its operative part or in its reasoning , or that it had declared their action null and void .

The defendants lodged a further appeal on points of law , alleging that the parties to the sale had been in good faith , as provided by LAW no . CARDINAL .

On DATE ORG , in the operative part of a final decision , allowed the appeal by the opposing parties , varied the previous judgment in part and consequently dismissed the appeal introduced by the applicants against the first - instance judgment . In the reasoning part of the judgment the court relied on section CARDINAL LAW no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL to find groundless the request to have the sale declared null and void , considering that at the time of the sale the then tenants had been in good faith and had not been aware of the “ invalidity of the [ ORG 's ] property title ” ( nevalabilitatea titlului de proprietate ) .

The relevant legal provisions and jurisprudence are described in the judgments ORG v. GPE ( [ ORG ] , no . CARDINAL , § § CARDINAL - CARDINAL , ECHR CARDINALVII ) ; PERSON and Others v. GPE ( no . MONEY , § § DATE , ORG CARDINALVII ) ; ORG v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL , § § CARDINAL - CARDINAL , CARDINAL DATE ) ; and PERSON v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL , § § CARDINAL , DATE ) .

NORP In particular , section QUANTITY no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL provides that the sale or donation of immovable property unlawfully seized by the ORG shall be declared null and void , save where these transactions have been concluded in good faith . Section CARDINAL § CARDINAL of the same law provides that a sale or donation of immovable property lawfully seized by the ORG shall be declared null and void if it has been performed in violation of the imperative provisions of the laws in force at that moment .


Preliminary objection dismissed (non-exhaustion of domestic remedies);Violation of Art. 5-3;Remainder inadmissible;Non-pecuniary damage - financial award;Costs and expenses (domestic proceedings) - claim dismissed;Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings

The applicants were born in DATE and DATE respectively and were detained in NORP prison at the time of the lodging of their applications with the ORG .

On DATE the applicants were arrested and taken into police custody on suspicion of their involvement in the activities of the ORG ( ORG ) . On DATE ORG ordered their remand in custody .

NORP The public prosecutor at ORG in his indictment , dated DATE , accused the first applicant of membership of the ORG and the second applicant of aiding and abetting that organisation . The charges were brought under LAW and CARDINAL of LAW and LAW no . ORG .

On DATE the ORG convicted the applicants as charged and sentenced the first applicant to DATE and QUANTITY months’ imprisonment and the second applicant to DATE and QUANTITY months’ imprisonment and a fine of MONEY .

The parties did not submit any documents pertaining to the outcome of the criminal proceedings . However , in their submissions on just satisfaction , dated DATE , the applicants stated that ORG , pursuant to LAW no . CARDINAL of DATE on rehabilitation ( topluma kazandırma ) , had decided not to sentence the applicants ( ceza tertibi ) and suspended the proceedings . They further submitted that this decision was upheld by ORG .

A description of the relevant domestic law at the material time can be found in GPE v. GPE judgment ( no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , § CARDINAL , DATE ) .


The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in ORG . He was represented before the ORG by ORG et PERSON , a law firm authorised to practise in the PERSON d’Etat and ORG , then by its successor firm ORG .

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

In a judgment of DATE ORG found him guilty of aiding and abetting crimes against humanity , sentenced him to CARDINAL years’ imprisonment and stripped him of his civil , civic and family rights .

On DATE ORG declared that the applicant had forfeited his right to appeal on points of law against that judgment .

On DATE the applicant began to serve his sentence .

In a judgment of DATE ORG allowed his application for deferment of sentence on medical grounds ( LAW , introduced by LAW ) . An appeal on points of law by the principal public prosecutor against that judgment was dismissed by ORG on DATE .

By virtue of his status as a former prefect , the applicant had been receiving a civil - service pension , which was suspended by a decision of DATE with effect from DATE ( DATE after the judgment of ORG declaring his right to appeal on points of law forfeit ) , pursuant to LAW , under which an entitlement to , or the enjoyment of , pension rights is suspended by the imposition of a dishonouring penalty with or without physical restraint ( peine afflictive ou infamante ) , for the duration of such penalty .

An appeal by the applicant against that decision was upheld in a judgment of DATE by the ORG d’Etat , which found as follows :

“ The category of dishonouring penalties entailing physical restraint was superseded by LAW , which was introduced by LAW of DATE , amended by LAW of DATE , and which entered into force on DATE . Whilst the sentence of fixed - term imprisonment , which fell within that category under the old Criminal Code , is indeed provided for in the new Criminal Code , a new sentencing scale now exists . It is apparent from the provisions of the new Criminal Code , in the light of its drafting history , that the legislature sought to limit the number of ancillary or additional penalties which had to be imposed in addition to the principal sentence . The legislature did not indicate which sentences could now be regarded as corresponding to the sentences which , in the old Criminal Code , had been classified as dishonouring penalties entailing physical restraint . Therefore , the entry into force of the new Criminal Code deprived of effect the above - mentioned provisions of LAW . Accordingly , the decision appealed against could not legally have been taken on such basis and must therefore be set aside . ”

Consequently , the ORG d’Etat instructed the Minister for ORG to restore , within DATE following the notification of the judgment , the applicant ’s enjoyment of his pension rights with effect from DATE , and to arrange for the necessary payments .

The applicant also used to receive a pension in his capacity as a former member of parliament . He was notified in a letter of DATE that his pension entitlement had been suspended on the basis of Rule CARDINAL ) of the Former MPs’ ORG , which provides that entitlement to , or enjoyment of , the pension is suspended by the imposition of a dishonouring penalty with or without physical restraint .

Following the deferment of the applicant ’s sentence , his counsel , in a letter of DATE , submitted a request to the Director of ORG seeking the resumption of his pension payments . That request was implicitly rejected and the applicant appealed on DATE to the ORG d’Etat , simultaneously lodging an application for immediate suspension of the implicit decision .

In proceedings before the PERSON d’Etat , ORG invoked the principle of immunity from legal proceedings , relying on LAW CARDINAL DATE on the organisation of parliamentary chambers and on the fact that the pension funds of parliamentarians did not fall under the ordinary law but under special rules introduced within the ORG that were justified by the principle of separation of powers and parliamentary autonomy ; decisions taken under such special rules were not therefore administrative acts of the administrative authorities and did not fall within the jurisdiction of the administrative courts .

The applicant took the opposite position , relying in particular on the right to judicial review recognised by ORG and the ORG d’Etat , and also on the ORG and the ORG ’s case - law ( specifically , the cases of ORG v. GPE , judgment of DATE , Series A no . CARDINAL , and PERSON v. GPE [ ORG ] , no . CARDINAL , ORG CARDINALVIII ) . He pointed out that the right to a retirement pension was an economic right protected by LAW . He contended that this right had been acquired with final effect in his case and therefore had to be protected by a fully effective remedy . He urged the ORG d’Etat to depart from traditional case - law according to which the purely institutional aspect of parliamentary decisions prevailed .

In his submissions the Government Commissioner called upon the PERSON d’Etat to assume jurisdiction , arguing in essence that as a former ORG ’s pension was not related to the tasks of the ORG and was independent of the regulations applicable to parliamentarians , a judge could rule on such matters , that the administrative courts alone had jurisdiction to entertain that kind of dispute , and that this was the only solution capable of allowing the former MP to have access to a court in respect of his dispute .

In a judgment of DATE ORG of the ORG d’Etat dismissed the appeal as follows :

“ ORG for Former MPs was set up by a resolution of ORG adopted on DATE and confirmed by an Act of CARDINAL DATE . LAW DATE constituting an institutional Act on the allowances of members of parliament , adopted on the basis of LAW , provides : ‘ The funds set up by resolutions of ORG dated DATE and of the ORG dated DATE shall be maintained for the benefit of members of ORG and the ORG ... Pensions paid from these funds shall not be liable to assignment or attachment , except for the purposes of maintenance NORP In an order of DATE by ORG , a single set of rules governing pension and social - security funds for MPs and former MPs was adopted .

The rules governing the pensions of former MPs form part of the regulations applicable to parliamentarians , of which the specific provisions reflect the nature of their duties . Those regulations thus stem from the exercise of national sovereignty by members of parliament . Having regard to the nature of that activity , it is not for the administrative courts to entertain disputes relating to the rules governing MPs’ pensions . ”

In a letter of DATE the applicant ’s counsel requested the President of ORG to restore his client ’s pension , relying on the fact that the category of dishonouring penalties entailing physical restraint had been abolished since the entry into force of the new Criminal Code .

On DATE the President replied as follows :

“ On DATE the ORG d’Etat gave CARDINAL decisions , CARDINAL concerning Mr PERSON pension as a former civil servant , in which it held that the pension was to be restored with effect from DATE , and the other concerning his pension as a former member of parliament , in which it confirmed that the administrative courts had no jurisdiction to rule on a former ORG ’s pension .

At first sight those CARDINAL decisions seem to concern the same questions . But they are not the same , as you know , when it comes to the merits .

The dispute between Mr PERSON and ORG is connected with the basic principle of separation of powers and parliamentary autonomy . It is obviously in the light of that principle that the decision of the ORG d’Etat should be considered , as regards your client ’s pension as a former MP . That decision should not have been an unexpected CARDINAL for you , as it is totally consistent with the case - law that has always been followed by the PERSON d’Etat concerning internal decisions by parliamentary chambers in respect of regulations governing their members .

Those regulations are indispensable for the proper exercise of an MP ’s duties and do not simply consist of provisions on immunities . The granting of aid , and later of pensions , to former members of parliament was decided at the time of GPE precisely to ensure that politics would not be the privilege of a particular social class . As such , nothing obliged the parliamentary chambers to create a specific system of retirement pensions for MPs . The real purpose of creating such a system DATE , and thus long before legislation was adopted in this field for NORP citizens in general , was not to treat parliamentarians as employees but , firstly , to allow all NORP citizens to enjoy equal access to political office and , secondly , to compensate for the precariousness of such office . The rules on DATE pensions are independent of pension legislation because they are governed by the ORG ’s general internal regulations and the decisions of its ORG , and not by statutes enacted under LAW .

The decision taken by the PERSON d’Etat on DATE is thus totally consistent with the NORP logic whereby the courts may intervene in the functioning of parliamentary chambers only in the cases expressly and exhaustively provided for by law .

In these circumstances , I do not see any particular reason why ORG should reverse its decision to suspend Mr PERSON pension . No new fact has arisen , to date , in favour of your client , who remains convicted of aiding and abetting crimes against humanity and whose sentence , to my knowledge , has not ceased to take effect . ”

Article CARDINAL

“ National sovereignty shall belong to the people , who shall exercise it through their representatives and by means of referendum . ”

Article CARDINAL

“ ORG shall comprise ORG and the ORG .

Deputies to ORG shall be elected by direct suffrage ... ”

Article CARDINAL

“ An institutional Act shall determine the term for which each chamber is elected , the number of its members , their allowances , the conditions of eligibility and the rules governing disqualification and incompatibility . ”

These Ordinances constituting institutional Acts respectively concern the conditions of parliamentary eligibility and incompatibility and the allowances of members of parliament . Under LAW DATE , MPs’ allowances are in principle exclusive of any other public - service remuneration . However , MPs’ allowances may be combined with the receipt of civil and military pensions of any kind .

The MPs’ pension fund was created under GPE by a resolution of ORG dated DATE .

LAW above - mentioned Ordinance of DATE provided :

“ The funds set up by resolutions of ORG dated DATE and of the ORG dated DATE shall be maintained for the benefit of members of ORG and the ORG ; they shall continue to provide pensions to former members of those CARDINAL chambers or previous chambers , or to their surviving spouses and minor orphans ; they may receive donations or legacies .

Pensions paid from these funds shall not be liable to assignment or attachment , except for the purposes of maintenance payments . ”

The instrument which currently governs pension rights of former MPs is a set of rules annexed to an order of DATE by ORG .

Pensions paid to former MPs and former senators are not governed by ORG , which does apply , however , to civil and military officials and to their successors .

The pension fund is funded by contributions deducted from DATE allowances and by a subsidy paid out of the ORG ’s budget .

Pension entitlements are calculated according to DATE of contribution . MPs pay a double contribution for DATE of service . Pensions are calculated in proportion to the number of contributory years accruing , with an upper limit ( currently DATE ) .

The suspension of pension payments is provided for by Rule CARDINAL § CARDINAL of the Rules governing ORG Funds of MPs and former MPs ( which contains the same wording as that of LAW of the above - mentioned ORG ) , under which :

“ Entitlement to , or enjoyment of , pension rights shall be suspended : - by the imposition of a dishonouring penalty with or without physical restraint , for the duration of such penalty ... ”


Ján Šikuta;Lech Garlicki;Mihai Poalelungi;Nebojša Vučinić;Nicolas Bratza;Vincent A. De Gaetano

The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a NORP citizen who was born in DATE and is currently detained in FAC . He was represented before the Court by PERSON , a lawyer practising in GPE .

On an unspecified date in DATE the applicant was committed to ORG to serve a prison sentence . It appears that he remained there until DATE when he was transferred to ORG . On DATE he was once again detained in FAC .

On a further , unspecified date the applicant was transferred to PERSON and later to prisons in PERSON , PERSON and eventually to FAC where he currently remains .

The applicant submitted that all prisons and remand centres in which he had been detained were overcrowded . He submitted , by way of an example , that in FAC he had been placed together with CARDINAL other inmates in a prison cell measuring CARDINAL mCARDINAL . He pointed out that the ORG sanitary facilities had been old and rusty and that the walls of his cell had been covered with mould . In ORG the applicant was detained together with CARDINAL other detainees in a cell of QUANTITY . The sanitary conditions in FAC were comparable to those in FAC . In FAC the applicant was detained together with a paraplegic inmate and he submitted that he had been permanently required to take care of him , help him to wash himself and wash his clothes as well as to clean the cell , although these tasks were normally incumbent on the prison authorities .

The Government acknowledged that in FAC , in FAC and in FAC the applicant might have been

temporarily placed in cells which measured CARDINAL mCARDINAL per prisoner . They further pointed out that the cells in which the applicant had been detained were disinfected on a regular basis . Moreover , the applicant had been provided with adequate personal hygiene products and could take a bath once a week . With regard to the issue of care of the paraplegic fellow inmate , the Government explained that the applicant had never been required to take care of the detainee in question and that he had done so of his own accord , along with other co - detainees placed in the same cell . They further stated that the paraplegic detainee had been receiving adequate assistance from the prison medical staff .

More recently , the ORG also submitted that on an unspecified date , presumably in DATE , the applicant had been placed in a cell in which the statutory minimum standard of CARDINAL m² per person was respected . The applicant did not contest this submission .

On DATE and DATE the applicant filed complaints with the penitentiary authorities about the conditions of his detention . Both complaints were dismissed as unfounded .

The applicant did not bring a civil action in tort to seek compensation for the infringement of his personal rights .

( See PERSON and CARDINAL other applications v. GPE , no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) .


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

On DATE , the applicant was instructed to inform the police who had parked a car belonging to the applicant in the NORP in GPE on DATE at CARDINAL . He failed to provide the information , and on DATE was fined CARDINAL NORP schillings ( ORG ) for the failure , pursuant to sections CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) and CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of LAW DATE ( ORG ) . The penal notice ( PERSON ) was confirmed by ORG ( ORG PERSON ) on DATE . On DATE a minor error in the penal order was corrected .

The applicant 's administrative complaint to ORG ( Verwaltungsgerichtshof ) was ultimately dismissed on DATE . ORG found that the correct provisions of LAW had been applied , and further confirmed that the reasons given by the applicant for not having supplied the required information were inadequate .

Section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of LAW DATE entitles the competent authority , inter alia , to require the registered owner of a motor vehicle to communicate the name and address of a person who has used the vehicle at a specific time .

Under section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) it is an administrative offence ( Verwaltungsübertretung ) not to comply with the above - mentioned provision , punishable by a fine of up to ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL or CARDINAL GPE imprisonment in case of default .

For a description of the relevant domestic procedure , reference is made to the PERSON v. GPE judgment of DATE ( Series A no . CARDINAL-B , pp . DATE , § § DATE ) .


CASE OF NOVAYA GAZETA AND BORODYANSKIY v. RUSSIA

Remainder inadmissible;No violation of Article 10 - Freedom of expression -{General} (Article 10-1 - Freedom to impart information)

Dmitry Dedov;Erik Møse;Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre;Julia Laffranque;Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos;Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska;Ksenija Turković

The first applicant , ORG , is an autonomous non - governmental organisation registered under NORP law in GPE on DATE . It edits and publishes a DATE national newspaper with circulation of CARDINAL copies under the name ORG .

The second applicant , Mr PERSON , was born in DATE and lives in GPE . He is one of the regional journalists of ORG in GPE , GPE , and ORG .

In DATE ORG published a series of articles by the second applicant .

On DATE the newspaper published in both its printed and online versions an article by the second applicant entitled ‘ Personalities received loans’ ( « Кредиты выдали под лица » ) ( “ the article ” ) . It concerned alleged irregularities in the issuance of large unpaid loans by ORG ) . The text described several fraudulent schemes which were used to obtain up to MONEY ( ORG ) in loans from ORG , and listed certain individuals allegedly involved in these schemes . Among others the article mentioned PERSON , a politician and businessman from GPE with significant business interests in agricultural production in GPE . A brief update on the criminal inquiry into the alleged loan fraud concluded the article .

The article contained , in particular , the following CARDINAL fragments :

“ [ CARDINAL ] In this case the interests of an important politician – the President of ORG of GPE , which is the second most influential party [ in that country ] after ORG headed by Mr PERSON [ the President of GPE ] , [ Mr R.M. ] , were involved .

[ CARDINAL ] In GPE [ Mr PERSON ] controls ORG , the biggest flour producer in LOC , [ limited liability company ] M , a bread factory and CARDINAL of successful enterprises .

[ CARDINAL ] It would be inconceivable for anyone to achieve such success in our region without the benevolence ( благоволение ) of the Governor [ Mr P. ] who has held senior public office in GPE for DATE . And this biographical fact of [ Mr P. ] , naturally , has linked the republic [ of GPE ] and the [ GPE ] region ever closer with ‘ fraternal GPE .

[ CARDINAL ] ORG sent forged certificates to ORG confirming that different companies [ had ] grain which actually never existed . Those certificates were issued by its CEO , PERSON . According to the investigators , each certificate cost MONEY . Loans were given on the basis of those certificates in the amount of MONEY . ”

On DATE Mr P. , the Governor of GPE , lodged a libel action against the first and second applicants with ORG of GPE ( ORG ) . He sought recognition of statements about him as libellous , publication of a rectification in ORG , and CARDINAL NORP roubles ( RUB ) in non - pecuniary damages .

The court proceedings started on DATE .

On DATE the applicants were notified about the next hearing on DATE , which was subsequently adjourned to DATE . The applicants were notified of the change of date .

On DATE the first applicant requested the trial court to adjourn the hearing by DATE in order to prepare its written comments on the lawsuit .

On DATE ORG refused to further adjourn the hearing , because the applicant newspaper did not advance any reasons why its representative could not appear for the hearing and why it did not submit its written comments on the lawsuit DATE and DATE .

The trial court held a hearing in the defendants’ absence and allowed Mr P. ’s action in part . The relevant part of the judgment read as follows :

“ ... In accordance with LAW protection of every citizen ’s good name is guaranteed .

Under LAW an individual may apply to a court with a request for rectification of statements that are damaging to his honour , dignity or professional reputation if the person who disseminated such statements can not prove their truthfulness ... ”

The trial court also established that the statements about Mr P. ( reproduced above in paragraph CARDINAL ) were disseminated by the applicants in printed and online versions of ORG , and thus became known to an indeterminate number of readers . It continued :

“ ... In consideration of defamation disputes the following must be established : whether the defendant had disseminated statements about the plaintiff , whether those statements were discrediting , and whether those statements were false .

The statements about the plaintiff had been disseminated ... ”

The defendants did not present any evidence that PERSON had engaged in activities aimed at providing certain businessmen and commercial organisations with privileges , or that he had in fact abused his powers to further certain ORG interests ...

The author of the article referred to benevolence ( благоволение ) on the part of the Governor towards a renowned politician , the President of ORG of GPE , [ Mr R.M. ]

“ Benevolence ” is to be understood as good will , a favourable attitude , approval , expression of satisfaction , and gratitude ...

The statement that “ in our region ... the Governor ” , by using his office , shows benevolence [ or ] approval of the actions of [ Mr R.M. ] in ‘ control of ORG , is not compatible with the office of a state official . These statements , taken in conjunction with other paragraphs of the article ( about [ Mr R.M. ] , about issuance of false certificates to procure loans ) , create a negative image of the plaintiff , and could generate scepticism as to the plaintiff ’s compliance with the ethical principles expected of the head of the executive authority in the region ... [ NORP statements characterise the plaintiff ’s actions as aimed at providing certain businessmen and commercial organisations with privileges , and as an abuse of his powers to further the interests of certain individuals ... ”

The trial court concluded that the statements were defamatory , and that rectification of the disseminated statements must be published in printed and online versions of ORG . It further stated :

“ ... When determining the level of non - pecuniary damages the court considers the degree of distress caused to the plaintiff by the extent of the dissemination of false statements . The newspaper is distributed in CARDINAL regions of GPE and in CARDINAL foreign countries . The article was also published on line ... [ on a website ] with CARDINAL readers DATE ... Having regard to these circumstances , the court orders the defendants to pay RUB MONEY [ in compensation ] ... ”

It addition to RUB CARDINAL ( EUR CARDINAL ) in non - pecuniary damages the plaintiff was also awarded RUB CARDINAL ( EUR CARDINAL.CARDINAL ) in court fees , to be paid by the applicants jointly .

On DATE the first applicant appealed , claiming , in particular , that the article contained value judgments not susceptible of proof and that ORG had failed to duly notify it of the date and time of the hearing . According to the heading of the appeal statement , the second applicant was a co - defendant .

On DATE ORG , in the presence of the parties to the proceedings and hearing their statements , upheld the lower court ’s judgment . It reasoned that ORG had correctly concluded that the information in the article had tarnished the plaintiff ’s reputation , and dismissed the first applicant ’s description of it as a value judgment . The relevant part of the judgment read as follows :

“ The following claims in the GPE appeal are not justified : that the statements are not discrediting , that they may not be regarded as assertions , and that they are merely opinions , value judgments by the author and thus not susceptible of proof .

The [ trial ] court rightly noted that the author of the article , by claiming that the Governor has “ benevolence ” towards [ Mr. PERSON ] , alleged approval of [ his ] control over the ORG ... ”

At the same time ORG ruled that the statement in paragraph CARDINAL of the article reproduced above was not defamatory , as it did not refer to any abuse of powers by PERSON , it dismissed the first applicant ’s claim that it had not been summoned to the district court hearing , stating that several notifications had in fact been sent to the defendants .

ORG ruled in the final judgment that the first applicant was to publish a rectification of the statements contained in CARDINAL of the article reproduced above , and that the applicants were to pay Mr P. jointly RUB CARDINAL in non - pecuniary damages and court fees .

Following this judgment , the first applicant published a rectification in the printed and online versions of ORG and paid PERSON - pecuniary damages and court fees .

Article CARDINAL guarantees protection of private life , privacy of personal and family affairs , good name and honour . Article CARDINAL protects freedom of thought and expression , together with freedom of the mass media .

Article CARDINAL provides that an individual may apply to a court with a request for rectification of statements ( сведения ) that are damaging to his honour , dignity or professional reputation if the person who disseminated such statements does not prove their truthfulness . The aggrieved person may also claim compensation for losses and non - pecuniary damage sustained as a result of the dissemination of such statements . The same rules are applicable in cases where the plaintiff is a legal entity .

ORG clarified to the lower courts that a defamation action may be allowed only if a defendant has disseminated statements about the plaintiff , if those statements are discrediting , and if those statements are false . It required the courts hearing defamation claims to distinguish between statements of facts , which can be checked for veracity , and evaluative judgments , opinions and convictions which are not actionable under LAW since they are an expression of the defendant ’s subjective opinion and views and can not be checked for veracity .