Violation of Art. 3 (in case of expulsion to Lebanon);Violation of Art. 13;Violation of Art. 5-1;Remainder inadmissible;Non-pecuniary damage - award

George Nicolaou;Lech Garlicki;Nebojša Vučinić;Nicolas Bratza;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Zdravka Kalaydjieva

The applicant was born in DATE in PERSON , a NORP refugee camp located on the outskirts of GPE , GPE ( see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) . He currently lives in GPE , GPE .

On DATE the applicant arrived illegally in GPE and on DATE applied for asylum , citing his fear that if he returned to GPE he would be killed or ill - treated by members of the NORP militant group LAW alSham ( see paragraphs CARDINAL , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE below ) . His identity was established on the basis of a certificate issued on DATE by ORG .

The applicant ’s story was that he , like his father who had gone missing in DATE , was a member of ORG ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL below ) . He had been appointed to a salaried position in the movement with the protection of its head of security in PERSON , colonel PERSON ( see paragraphs CARDINAL , DATE and DATE below ) . His job had consisted in organising rallies in support of various NORP organisations , commemorations of the NORP revolution and protests against the founding of GPE . In DATE , a neighbour of his who was a member of PERSON alSham had been killed , the killing having been facilitated by information supplied by a friend of the applicant , also a member of ORG . In reprisal , members of PERSON alSham had killed the applicant ’s friend . To protect himself , the applicant had moved to his sister ’s house , located in a part of the camp which was under the control of ORG . In DATE armed men had fired rounds at his sister ’s house , shouting his name . Later on colonel PERSON had told the applicant that those men had been members of PERSON alSham seeking revenge for their associate ’s killing , that he was not able to protect him from them , and that he should leave GPE .

In DATE the applicant tried to leave GPE with false documents . He was arrested by the police at the ORG border . On DATE the ORG approved a plea bargain whereby the applicant pleaded guilty to offences of illegally crossing the border and trying to deceive a public officer by using an official document issued to another person . He was sentenced to CARDINAL months’ imprisonment , suspended for DATE , and fined MONEY .

In a decision of CARDINAL DATE , ORG refused to grant the applicant refugee status , but granted him humanitarian protection under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(CARDINAL ) of ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . The reasons for the decision described the applicant ’s story , as related by him , and continued :

“ Bearing in mind the situation in the NORP [ refugee ] camp [ PERSON alHilweh],which is characterised by serious armed clashes between ‘ GPE and militants from ‘ PERSON alSham’ , there are grounds to grant the applicant humanitarian protection , due to the real risk of infringements consisting of personal threats against his life in a situation of internecine armed conflict . Refugee camps in GPE have their own system of governance . Camp administrations are not elected by popular vote , but reflect the predominance of CARDINAL or more groups or formations that constantly vie for territorial control , which often leads to armed clashes . In an interview for the news agency ORG of DATE , the head of security of ‘ GPE in GPE colonel PERSON said that ‘ GPE will take care of security in all NORP camps in order to put an end to the spread of radical groups . ...

The applicant states that he has been a member of ‘ GPE since DATE , but there are no acts of persecution against him by the authorities or by another political organisation that the ORG is unable to oppose . He does not point to any of the other relevant grounds under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of ORG justifying fear of persecution , such as race , religion , nationality , membership of a particular social group , or political opinion or belief . That leads to the conclusion that there are no grounds to grant asylum under LAW [ of DATE ] . The [ applicant ] does not raise grounds justifying the application of section CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(CARDINAL ) or ( CARDINAL)(CARDINAL ) of [ the LAW ] .

The evidence in the file points to grounds to grant humanitarian protection . There are indications of circumstances falling within the ambit of section CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(CARDINAL ) of [ the LAW ] . The abovementioned circumstances show that there are grounds to take into account [ the applicant ] ’s personal situation in connection with the general social and political situation in the NORP camps in GPE . The evidence gathered during the proceedings shows that there is a real danger and risk of encroachments upon [ the applicant ’s ] life and person .

Under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the [ Act ] , the [ applicant ] ’s assertions , set out in detail in the record drawn up by the interviewing official , must be presumed to be truthful .

As required by section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of [ the LAW ] , ORG was invited to make written comments . Those comments , dated DATE , contain no objection to granting the [ applicant ] protection in GPE . ”

NORP The applicant did not seek judicial review of the refusal to grant him refugee status .

During that time he was settled , together with other NORP , in a housing facility operated by ORG .

On DATE an agent of ORG for ORG proposed to expel the applicant on national security grounds and to place him in detention pending the carrying out of that measure . In support of the proposal he said that the applicant was a member of Usbat PERSON , which he described as a NORP terrorist organisation acting in close cooperation with ORG , PERSON alSham , PERSON Allah and others ( see paragraphs DATE and CARDINAL below ) . The applicant was alleged to have taken part in “ wet jobs ” for the organisation and in the assassinations of CARDINAL members of a NORP political party ; he was being sought by the NORP authorities in connection with that . He was a relative of one of the leaders of Usbat PERSON . The available information showed that the applicant followed strictly the organisation ’s ideas and would unhesitatingly follow the orders of its leaders . This had been confirmed by partner security services . It had also been established that the applicant kept contacts with CARDINAL asylum seekers who were known to adhere to a terrorist organisation active in GPE . CARDINAL of them had been implicated in the killing of a member of a NORP political party and kept close contacts with Usbat PERSON and ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL , DATE , DATE , DATE and CARDINAL below ) . All of that showed that the applicant by reason of his previous and current activities presented a serious threat to the national security of GPE , and that his presence in the country discredited it as a reliable partner in the fight against international terrorism .

On DATE the head of ORG for ORG made an order for the applicant ’s expulsion . He also barred him from entering or residing in GPE for DATE , “ in view of the reasons set out in [ the abovementioned ] proposal and the fact that his presence in the country represent[ed ] a serious threat to national security ” . The order relied on sections DATE and CARDINAL ) of LAW DATE . No factual grounds were given , in accordance with section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . The order further provided that it was to be brought to the attention of the applicant and was immediately enforceable , as provided by section CARDINAL ) of the LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

Concurrently with that order the head of ORG for ORG made an order for the applicant ’s detention pending deportation ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL below ) . He reasoned that the information featuring in the proposal showed that the applicant would try to prevent the enforcement of the expulsion order , and accordingly directed that the detention order should be immediately enforceable . He also instructed the immigration authorities urgently to take all necessary steps to enforce the expulsion order .

On DATE the applicant was arrested and placed in a special detention facility pending enforcement of the expulsion order . He submits that when brought there he was informed about the CARDINAL orders against him but was not given copies of them .

On DATE , in view of the impending expiry of the maximum permissible period of detention pending deportation DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , the head of ORG for ORG made an order for the applicant ’s release . The applicant was set free DATE , CARDINAL DATE . He was placed under the obligation to report DATE to his local police station . He submits that he is currently without any identification documents , means of support , or the possibility to work .

On DATE the applicant made an application for judicial review of the expulsion order . He also challenged his detention . He argued that the order was unlawful and that he had not engaged in any illegal activities while in GPE .

On DATE the applicant , having acquainted himself with an excerpt of the proposal for his expulsion and other documents in the file , asked the court to order the authorities to specify – if need be , subject to restrictions resulting from the use of classified information – what was the basis for their belief that he was being sought by the NORP authorities “ in connection with the killing of members of NORP political parties ” , as noted in the proposal . He also asked the court to order the authorities to specify whether they had used special means of surveillance to gather information about him ; if yes , to order them to produce a copy of the requisite warrant and other documents .

ORG heard the case on DATE .

In a memorial filed on that date the applicant argued that the data on which the authorities had relied to order his expulsion were incorrect , vague , unverified , internally inconsistent and unreliable . It was not true that he was a member of Usbat PERSON ; quite the opposite , he was being sought by terrorist organisations , and had for that reason fled GPE . His relative referred to as a terrorist in the proposal was in fact an official of a school administered by ORG . There were no concrete elements in support of the assertion that he was being sought by the NORP authorities . The NORP authorities had not tried to verify that through official channels , as was possible under the treaty between GPE and GPE for mutual cooperation in criminal matters . The lack of concrete information on those issues prevented him from presenting evidence to rebut the allegations against him . He also pointed out that ORG for ORG had not objected to his receiving protection in GPE during the asylum proceedings ( see paragraph QUANTITY above ) . Lastly , he drew attention to the fact that he had been granted humanitarian status on the basis of a risk to his life , and argued that his expulsion would breach the principle of “ nonrefoulement ” and LAW .

In a final judgment of CARDINAL DATE ( реш. № CARDINAL от CARDINAL юни DATE г. по адм. д. № СCARDINAL/CARDINAL г. , ORG , ORG ) , ORG upheld the expulsion order in the following terms :

“ The order was issued on the basis of the reasons set out in proposal no . TCARDINAL/CARDINAL.CARDINAL.CARDINAL and the factual ground featuring in DATE ) of LAW [ of DATE see paragraph CARDINAL below ] – the alien ’s presence in the country poses a serious threat for national security .

The proposal for imposing the coercive measure in issue says that [ the applicant ] was born on DATE in the refugee camp ‘ PERSON alHilweh’ . He became a member of the terrorist radical NORP organisation ‘ Asbat alAnsar’ , which is active on the territory of that camp . That organisation works in close cooperation with similar organisations , including ‘ GPE . The [ applicant ] was member of a ‘ wetwork’ squad that targeted also members of a NORP political party . It is not in dispute that the applicant is a relative of [ A ] who , according to operative information , is one of the leaders of ‘ Asbat alAnsar’ . He follows strictly the organisation ’s ideas and would carry out without hesitation the orders of its leaders .

[ The applicant ] entered the territory of the county in DATE and applied for asylum . However , in DATE he tried to leave the country with forged documents , heading towards western LOC . He was arrested by the border police at [ a checkpoint at the ORG border ] . [ On ] DATE the ORG ... approved a plea bargain whereby [ the applicant ] pleaded guilty to offences under Articles CARDINAL § CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW [ : illegal crossing of the border and trying to deceive a public officer by using an official document issued to another person ] . He was sentenced to CARDINAL months’ imprisonment , suspended for DATE , and fined CARDINAL [ NORP ] levs .

According to operative information , he is in contact with [ B ] and [ C ] , who are present in the country as asylum seekers . There is information that ORG is also a member of PERSON alSham and has taken part in the assassination of a member of ‘ GPE in ‘ PERSON alHilweh’ , in connection with which he is being sought by the NORP authorities . [ C ] is an adherent of the terrorist organisation ‘ Asbat alAnsar’ and takes part in a human trafficking channel from GPE to western LOC that is used by members of NORP terrorist organisations . It is known that there are contacts between [ D ] and individuals who reside in western LOC and who sympathise with ‘ PERSON alSham’ . The proposal makes a reasoned assumption that , due to his earlier and present activities the [ applicant ] presents a serious threat to the security of GPE , within the meaning of section CARDINAL of ORG for LAW [ of DATE ] , and his presence in the country is liable to discredit our country as a reliable partner in the fight against international terrorism .

The written evidence in the case includes excepts nos . RB CARDINALTCARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL of DATE . By decision no . CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE , ORG refused to grant [ the applicant ] refugee status .

The assertions in the application that [ the applicant ] resides lawfully on the territory of the country have not been proven . The negative assertions in the application that he has not taken part in unlawful activities can not be regarded as established , because the specialised agency has made findings in that regard .

Under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW [ of DATE ] , expulsion orders do not point to the factual grounds for the imposition of the coercive measure ; those grounds are contained in the proposal for its imposition . The proposal shows that there are indications of encroachments on national security , falling within the remit of ORG for ORG under section CARDINAL ) and ( CARDINAL ) of ORG for LAW [ of DATE ] : international terrorism and crossborder organised crime , which creates a threat for national security . The existence of such indications does not require proof beyond doubt of acts directed against the security of the county . There are sufficient grounds to impose a coercive measure if there are indications which can lead to a reasonable assumption that the applicant ’s presence creates a serious threat to national security . The factual data gathered through operative methods and set out in proposal no . RB CARDINAL of CARDINAL DATE constitute grounds to make a reasonable assumption that this applicant ’s presence does create a serious threat to national security . The existing data about the applicant ’s activity on the country ’s territory show the existence of the grounds set out in section DATE of LAW [ of DATE see paragraph CARDINAL below ] .

A coercive measure , such as that envisaged by LAW of LAW , has a preventive character , it aims to prevent actions directed against the country ’s security . For it to be imposed , it is not necessary to carry out a full inquiry into the information that has been gathered or seek proof for it , because this is not a case involving the imposition of an administrative sanction .

The applicant ’s statement , made in open court , that he does not wish to be returned to GPE , where his life is under threat , is irrelevant for the present proceedings . Under section ORG ) of LAW , the withdrawal of the right of an alien to reside in GPE and the imposition of a ban on entering its territory inevitably flow from the imposition of the coercive measure under subsection DATE expulsion .

The order complies with the legal requirements . The coercive measure has been imposed by the competent authority under LAW [ of DATE ] , in due form and in compliance with the rules of administrative procedure , the substantive law norms and the aim of the law , and for those reasons the application for judicial review must be rejected as illfounded . ”

NORP The legal challenge to the applicant ’s detention pending deportation ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) was transmitted to GPE . In the course of the ensuing proceedings the court was provided with an excerpt of the expulsion proposal . In a final judgment of DATE ( реш. № CARDINAL от CARDINAL февруари DATE г. по адм. д. № СCARDINAL/ DATE г. , ORG , ORG ) , it upheld the order for the applicant ’s detention , finding that it had been made by a competent authority , in proper form , in line with the applicable substantive and procedural rules , and in conformity with the aim of the law . It went on to say that there was enough evidence that the applicant would try to hinder the enforcement of the order for his expulsion .

On an unspecified date in DATE the Sofia City Administrative Court , acting of its own motion , as required under new section CARDINALa(CARDINAL ) of the CARDINAL LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , reviewed the applicant ’s continued detention ( адм. д. № DATE г. , ORG ) . It confirmed it for DATE .

On DATE , again acting of its own motion , ORG confirmed the applicant ’s detention for a maximum of DATE , until DATE ( опр. № CARDINAL от CARDINAL декември DATE г. по адм. д. № CARDINAL/CARDINAL г. , ORG , ORG ) . It noted that the detention had already lasted DATE and by law could be prolonged for a maximum of DATE . There existed impediments to the enforcement of the order for the applicant ’s expulsion . He did not have the required travel document that would enable him to enter GPE . In spite of CARDINAL requests , the NORP embassy had failed to issue such a document . The case thus fell within the ambit of section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

DATE provides as follows :

“ CARDINAL . Aliens who reside in the country lawfully can not be removed from it or delivered to another ORG against their will except under the conditions and in the manner provided for by law .

GPE shall grant asylum to aliens persecuted on account of their opinions or activities in support of internationally recognized rights and freedoms .

The conditions and procedure for granting asylum shall be established by law . ”

GPE acceded to the DATE LAW relating to ORG DATE , and they came into force in respect of it on DATE .

Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(CARDINAL ) of ORG provides that individuals forced to leave or stay out of their country of origin because they faced a real risk of suffering death or illtreatment as a result of an internal or an international conflict are to be granted humanitarian protection . Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) makes it clear that the risk may stem from the authorities or from organisations against which the authorities are unable or unwilling to act . Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) provides that aliens can not be granted humanitarian protection if in part of their country of origin there is no real risk of serious encroachments and there they can freely and lastingly enjoy effective protection . Under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) , when the authorities determine an asylum application they have to take into account all relevant facts concerning the applicant ’s personal situation , country of origin , or relations with other countries . The section also provides that when an applicant ’s statement is not supported by evidence , it must be presumed to be true if the applicant has endeavoured to substantiate his or her application and has provided a good explanation for the lack of evidence . Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) requires the authorities processing asylum applications to obtain written comments by ORG for ORG .

Section CARDINAL ) provides that individuals who have been granted protection under the LAW or have entered GPE to seek such protection can not be returned to the territory of a country where their life or freedom are at risk on account of their race , religion , nationality , membership of a social group , their political opinions or views , or where they may face a risk of torture or other forms of cruel , inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment . However , section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) , which reflects a rule laid down in LAW of LAW , provides that that benefit may not be claimed by aliens where there are grounds to regard them as a danger to national security . There is no reported caselaw under that provision .

Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) provides that expulsion orders are not enforced until the asylum proceedings have been concluded . By section GPE ) , expulsion orders are revoked if the person concerned has been granted asylum or humanitarian protection . However , those CARDINAL provisions are not applicable to , inter alia , aliens whose presence in the country may be regarded as dangerous for its national security ( section ORG ) ) .

A detailed description of the evolution of the law governing expulsion on national security grounds until DATE can be found in DATE of the ORG ’s judgment in the case of PERSON and Others v. GPE ( no . MONEY , DATE ) and paragraphs CARDINAL of the ORG ’s judgment in the case of PERSON GPE ( no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , DATE ) . The relevant provisions are contained in LAW DATE , as amended , and the regulations for its application .

Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the LAW provides that an alien must be expelled when his or her presence in the country creates a serious threat to national security or public order . However , expulsion orders issued on national security grounds do no indicate the factual grounds for imposing the measure ( section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) ) . Under section ORG ) , expulsion must be accompanied by withdrawal of the alien ’s residence permit and the imposition of a ban on entering the country .

Expulsion orders issued on national security or public order grounds are immediately enforceable ( section CARDINAL(CARDINAL)(CARDINAL ) ) . However , if expulsion can not be effected immediately or needs to be postponed for legal or technical reasons , the enforcement of the expulsion order may be suspended until the relevant obstacles have been overcome ( section CARDINALb(CARDINAL ) ) .

Expulsion orders may be challenged before ORG , whose judgment is final ( section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) ) . The lodging of an application for judicial review does not suspend the enforcement of the order under challenge ( section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) ) .

Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL of LAW provides that a court examining an application for judicial review may suspend the enforcement of the administrative decision under review , even if the administrative authority has directed that it should be immediately enforceable , if enforcement might cause the applicant harm that is considerable or hard to redress . Suspension requests are heard in open court and determined by means of a ruling that is amenable to appeal ( LAW ) . In a decision of DATE , ORG held that the enforcement of expulsion orders issued on national security grounds could not be suspended . If immediate enforcement was required by statute , it could be suspended by the court only if the same statute specifically allowed that , whereas section CARDINAL ) of LAW DATE expressly precluded that possibility ( опр. № DATE от CARDINAL януари DATE г. по адм. д. № DATE г. , PERSON , петчленен състав ) .

In an interpretative decision of CARDINAL DATE ( тълк. реш. № CARDINAL от CARDINAL септември DATE г. по тълк. д. № CARDINAL/CARDINAL г. , ORG , ORG ) , the Plenary Meeting of ORG stated that Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL applied even where the immediate enforceability of administrative decisions was required by statute , provided that the law did not expressly preclude judicial review . The effect of that ruling on the possibility of suspending the enforcement of expulsion orders issued on national security grounds is unclear .

Section CARDINALa of LAW DATE , added in DATE , provides that an alien whose expulsion has been ordered on national security or public order grounds can not be expelled to a country where his or her life or freedom would be in danger , or where he or she may face a risk of persecution , torture , or inhuman or degrading treatment . In its early caselaw under that provision , ORG accepted that ORG could apply it when dealing with asylum requests ( реш. № DATE от DATE г. по адм. д. № CARDINAL/CARDINAL г. , PERSON , ORG ; реш. № CARDINAL от CARDINAL юни DATE г. по адм. д. № DATE г. , PERSON , ORG ; реш. № DATE от DATE г. по адм. д. № PERSON г. , PERSON , ORG ; реш. № DATE от CARDINAL октомври DATE г. по адм. д. № DATE г. , PERSON , ORG ; реш. № DATE от CARDINAL ноември DATE г. по адм. д. № CARDINAL г. , PERSON , ORG ) . However , in a judgment given in DATE ( реш. № CARDINAL от CARDINAL февруари DATE г. по адм. д. № DATE г. , PERSON , ORG ) , the court held that the ORG had no power to rule on the application of section CARDINALa and that this matter fell within the remit of the immigration authorities . In a DATE judgment concerning an application for judicial review of a deportation order , the court examined , albeit briefly , the substance of a claim under that provision ( реш. № DATE от CARDINAL октомври DATE г. по адм. д. № DATE г. , PERSON , ORG ) . However , in DATE judgments it held that the prohibition spelled out in section CARDINALa does not concern the lawfulness of an expulsion order as such , but merely bars its enforcement . While in CARDINAL of those cases the court went on to examine , albeit briefly , the substance of the claim that the person concerned was at risk ( реш. № DATE от CARDINAL юни DATE г. по адм. д. № DATE г. , PERSON , ORG ; реш. № DATE от CARDINAL юни DATE г. по адм. д. № DATE г. , PERSON , ORG ) , in the third it refused to do so , saying that solely the authorities in charge of executing an expulsion order have the power to apply section CARDINALa ( реш. № DATE от CARDINAL юни DATE г. адм. д. № DATE г. , PERSON , ORG ) . There are no reported cases concerning the application of section DATE by the immigration authorities .

If a deportee does not have a document allowing him or her to travel , the immigration authorities must provide CARDINAL by contacting the embassy or the consulate of the ORG whose national he or she is . If that is not possible , such a document should be provided through the consular department of ORG ( regulation CARDINAL ) of the regulations for the application of LAW DATE , issued in DATE , and superseded on DATE by regulation ORG ) of the new regulations for the application of the Act ) .

NORP Under regulation CARDINAL of the new regulations for the application of LAW DATE ( superseding regulation CARDINAL of the old regulations ) , in cases where expulsion orders are enforced through removal by air , the person concerned is to be escorted by immigration officers to his or her country of citizenship or another country of his or her choice to which he or she may be admitted .

A detailed history of the provisions of LAW DATE governing detention of deportees may be found in paragraphs CARDINAL of PERSON ( cited above ) . The current regime is as follows .

Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) provides that if there are impediments to a deportee ’s leaving GPE or entering the destination country , he or she is placed under an obligation to report DATE to his or her local police station .

Under CARDINAL ) , it is possible to detain a deportee in a special detention facility if his or her identity is unknown , if he or she hampers the enforcement of the expulsion order , or if he or she presents a risk of absconding . Under section CARDINAL ) , deportees are placed in the detention facilities pursuant to special orders that have to specify the need for such placement and its legal grounds and be accompanied by copies of the orders under section CARDINAL ) .

Under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) , which was enacted with a view to transposing LAW and CARDINAL of Directive CARDINAL/CARDINAL/EC of ORG and of ORG on common standards and procedures in Member GPE for returning illegally staying thirdcountry nationals ( see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) , detention may be maintained as long as the conditions laid down in subsection CARDINAL are in place , but not longer than DATE . Exceptionally , if a deportee refuses to cooperate with the authorities , or there are delays in the obtaining of the necessary travel documents , or the deportee represents a national security or public order risk , detention may be prolonged for a further DATE , to a maximum of DATE .

Section CARDINALa provides for judicial review of the orders for the detention of deportees by the competent administrative courts . The application must be lodged within DATE of their being issued , and does not stay their enforcement ( subsection CARDINAL ) . The court must examine the application at a public hearing and rule , by means of a final judgment , not DATE after the proceedings were instituted ( subsection CARDINAL ) . In addition , DATE the head of any facility where deportees are being held must present to the court a list of all individuals who have been there for DATE due to problems with their removal from the country ( subsection CARDINAL ) . The court must then rule , on its own motion and by means of a final decision , on their continued detention or release ( subsection CARDINAL ) . When the court sets aside the detention order , or orders a deportee ’s release , he or she must be set free immediately ( subsection CARDINAL ) .

Directive CARDINAL/CARDINAL/EC of ORG and of ORG on common standards and procedures in Member GPE for returning illegally staying thirdcountry nationals came into force on DATE ( Article CARDINAL ) . Under LAW , LAW were required to transpose the bulk of its provisions in their national laws by DATE .

Recital CARDINAL of the Directive reads as follows :

“ The use of detention for the purpose of removal should be limited and subject to the principle of proportionality with regard to the means used and objectives pursued . Detention is justified only to prepare the return or carry out the removal process and if the application of less coercive measures would not be sufficient . ”

DATE Directive , which governs detention for the purpose of removal , provides , in so far as relevant :

“ CARDINAL . Unless other sufficient but less coercive measures can be applied effectively in a specific case , Member GPE may only keep in detention a third - country national who is the subject of return procedures in order to prepare the return and/or carry out the removal process , in particular when :

( a ) there is a risk of absconding or

( b ) the thirdcountry national concerned avoids or hampers the preparation of return or the removal process .

Any detention shall be for as short a period as possible and only maintained as long as removal arrangements are in progress and executed with due diligence .

When it appears that a reasonable prospect of removal no longer exists for legal or other considerations or the conditions laid down in paragraph CARDINAL no longer exist , detention ceases to be justified and the person concerned shall be released immediately .

Detention shall be maintained for as long a period as the conditions laid down in paragraph CARDINAL are fulfilled and it is necessary to ensure successful removal . Each Member State shall set a limited period of detention , which may not exceed DATE .

Member GPE may not extend the period referred to in paragraph CARDINAL except for a limited period not exceeding a further DATE in accordance with national law in cases where regardless of all their reasonable efforts the removal operation is likely to last longer owing to :

( a ) a lack of cooperation by the thirdcountry national concerned , or

( b ) delays in obtaining the necessary documentation from third countries . ”

DATE . On DATE the ORG made a reference for a preliminary ruling by ORG ( “ ECJ ” ) , enquiring about the construction to be put on various paragraphs of that Article .

In his opinion , Advocate General Mazák expressed the view , inter alia , that it was important to note that the periods laid down in LAW CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the Directive defined only the absolute and outside limits of the duration of detention , that it was clear from their wording that any detention prior to removal must be for as short a period as possible and may be maintained only as long as removal arrangements are in progress and executed with due diligence , and that detention must be brought to an end when the conditions for detention no longer exist or when there is no longer any reasonable prospect of removal . He went on to say that those maximum periods of detention were part of a body of rules intended to ensure that detention is proportionate , in other words that its duration is for as short a period as possible and , in any event , not for longer than DATE provided for .

In its judgment of CARDINAL DATE ( PERSON ORG pri GPE na vatreshnite raboti , case ORG ) , the ECJ noted , inter alia , that the objective of LAW and DATE was to guarantee in any event that detention for the purpose of removal does not exceed DATE . It went on to rule that those provisions must be interpreted as meaning that the period during which enforcement of the deportation order has been suspended because the person concerned has challenged it by way of judicial review is to be taken into account in calculating the period of detention for the purpose of removal , where the person concerned remains in detention during that procedure . The court further ruled that LAW must be interpreted as meaning that only a real prospect that removal can be carried out successfully , having regard to the periods laid down in LAW and DATE , corresponds to a reasonable prospect of removal , and that such a reasonable prospect does not exist where it appears unlikely that the person concerned will be admitted to a third country , having regard to those periods .

There are CARDINAL “ official ” NORP refugee camps in GPE : CARDINAL in the north of the country , near GPE , CARDINAL in the centre ( CARDINAL near GPE and one near GPE ) , and CARDINAL in the south ( CARDINAL near PERSON and CARDINAL near GPE ) . In addition , there are CARDINAL of informal gatherings , sometimes referred to as “ unofficial camps ” , spread throughout the country . The majority of NORP refugees in GPE are those displaced during the ArabIsraeli war of DATE and their descendants . More NORP arrived in DATE after the SixDay War , and in DATE after they were expelled from GPE . The refugees fall into CARDINAL categories : those registered with ORG “ the ORG ” ) ( “ registered refugees ” ) , who are also registered with the NORP authorities ; refugees registered with the NORP authorities but not with the ORG ( “ non - registered refugees ” ) ; and refugees registered neither with the ORG nor with the NORP authorities ( “ nonID refugees ” ) . According to the ORG , on DATE there were CARDINAL registered refugees in GPE ; CARDINAL , or PERCENT of them , were living in the “ official ” camps . However , according to a report by ORG ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL below ) , many observers believe that the numbers cited by the ORG are inflated and fail to take account of the impact of the DATE Lebanese Civil War and subsequent waves of NORP departures ; according to their estimates , in DATE the refugees were CARDINAL . There are CARDINAL nonregistered refugees and CARDINAL PERSON refugees . By law , NORP refugees in GPE are considered foreigners and are subject to various restrictions ( for details , see ORG : Exiled and suffering : NORP refugees in GPE , DATE ) .

Ain alHilweh ( other transliterations from NORP include PERSON , PERSON , PERSON , and PERSON ) is CARDINAL of the CARDINAL “ official ” camps located near GPE ( GPE ) . It was established at the outskirts of the town in DATE to accommodate refugees from northern GPE . After displacements resulting from ORG , it became the biggest refugee camp there , in terms of both population and area . According to the ORG , it contains CARDINAL registered refugees ; according to the abovementioned ORG report ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL below ) , the number is closer to CARDINAL . It covers an area of QUANTITY , and is CARDINAL of the most densely populated camps . Like the other NORP refugee camps in GPE , it is not controlled by the NORP authorities , but by local NORP factions . ORG has checkpoints at the entrances to the camp .

In an article published on DATE following a visit by a correspondent to PERSON , the GPE newspaper ORG described the camp as divided into CARDINAL sections , GPE and Lower streets , which led to a network of arterial alleyways . FAC was regarded as the bastion of the radical NORP in the camp . According to a local figure quoted in the article , there were CARDINAL broad coalitions inside the camp : ORG ) , ORG , and NORP factions . The ORG consisted of CARDINAL factions , including ORG ( ORG ) and ORG . ORG faction was made up of CARDINAL groups and was dominated by ORG . The NORP faction comprised CARDINAL groups : PERSON , ORG , and PERSON Allah . The article went on to mention interFatah conflicts inside the camp , saying that they centred on veteran ORG leader PERSON and his rival PERSON . NORP was described as being regarded as a renegade by some ORG leaders , partly because of his close links to NORP . However , a minority faction in ORG viewed his links to NORP as a vital asset .

ORG on GPE , issued in DATE , says the following about PERSON :

“ CARDINAL ... ‘ There are many displaced GPE refugee families in this camp who were forced to flee from GPE and other areas of the country during the hostilities in DATE . PERSON has endured much violence , particularly DATE , which resulted in a high number of casualties and near total destruction of the camp .

Shelters are small and very close to each other . Some still have zinc sheet roofing . ORG constructed a multi - storey housing complex in DATE to accommodate CARDINAL displaced families mainly from PERSON camp , which was destroyed during the [ sic ] DATE by NORP military action . A number of displaced refugees continue to live on the edge of the camp in extremely poor conditions.’ ...

CARDINAL A DATE paper by Are PERSON , ‘ NORP in the NORP : NORP refugees in Lebanon’ , states that ‘ PERSON , the most conflictridden camp in the country is surrounded by barbed wire and legal entry is only possible through a few checkpoints guarded by the NORP army , with secondary checkpoints manned by armed guards representing the popular committees.’

CARDINAL According to ORG ’s DATE paper , PERSON political actors can be divided into CARDINAL groups : loyalist , NORP and oppositional . PERSON detailed the different groups as follows :

‘ The ‘ loyalists’ are secular groups formed around ORG ’s largest faction ORG and share its secular ideology and political programme . The ‘ Islamists’ are a heterogeneous mix of NORP and NORP with divergent ideologies and political agendas . While some remain ideologically opposed to ORG and its policies visàvis GPE ( ORG , ORG ) , others seek to break ORG ’s political hegemony in NORP refugee camps , if necessary by violent means ( Osbat alAnsar ) . The ‘ oppositional’ camp is likewise a heterogeneous coalition of secular parties , many of them breakaway factions from ORG itself , which find a common ground in their difference with ORG and the loyalists over their policy of appeasement vis - à - vis GPE . In the camps there is also a diverse range of committees and groups whose main function is not political but bureaucratic . Still , control of the popular committees and trade union groups does provide political gains and leadership of them is therefore coveted and sometimes turns violent.’

CARDINAL The same source also contained a table listing the various political actors in PERSON , which categorised them into the ‘ loyalist’ , ‘ Islamist’ or ‘ oppositional’ groups : [ NORP , which includes ORG ; NORP , which includes ORG ; and Oppositional ] .

CARDINAL A DATE ORG ( ORG ) article recounted , in detail , the various groups and power struggles within PERSON over DATE . The article states that ‘ PERSON , the largest NORP refugee camp in [ then ] PERSON , has been linked to virtually every case of NORP activity in GPE , while renegade terrorists residing in the camp have been tied to the global terror network ’s operations in GPE , GPE and elsewhere in the region.’ The article noted that , despite the status of PERSON as a ‘ zone of ORG serving NORP interests , GPE did not directly control most operatives within the camp and that the most radical groups were in fact antiSyrian .

CARDINAL NORP The article also reported that PERSON was the stronghold of the ORG movement during DATE , that ORG [ ANO ] had been defeated by ORG in a bloody threeday war for control of the camp in DATE and also recounted the rebellion of Col . PERSON against PERSON command . With NORP finances and NORP logistical support , he began training his own militia and ‘ By DATE , ORG dissident faction [ the Black September CARDINAL Brigade ] , backed by NORP leftist groups , had established dominance over mainstream ORG forces in the camp , in part because many of PERSON ’s most loyal commanders had been transferred to GPE and Gaza.’ ORG noted that ‘ ORG and ORG , which had only a limited presence in the camp until the ORG , coordinated closely with PERSON and were allowed to distribute NORP funds to expand their bases of support.’

CARDINAL Esbat alAnsar , ORG , has also had a presence in PERSON for over DATE and , ‘ In the [ sic ] DATE , ORG began receiving significant funding from ORG , thoroughly transforming both its infrastructure and its goals . The group ’s military wing , which now paid recruits DATE salaries for the first time , grew to a force of DATE fighters , CARDINAL of whom were sent to PERSON training camps in Afghanistan.’ Due to its increased financial resources , the group was able to buy weapons and also move more freely , as members could now pay the bribes needed to pass through NORP security checkpoints . The latter benefit meant that ‘ It quickly established close links with radical NORP in the northern port of GPE and the nearby PERSON and PERSON refugee camps.’

CARDINAL NORP concerns over the rise of NORP groups in the camp resulted in the NORP authorities allowing ORG to reassert its authority in the Ein alHilweh , which included PERSON who had rejoined ORG in DATE , primarily by pouring ORG ( ORG ) funds into the camp . However , with the in absentia conviction of ORG ’s leader in GPE , PERSON [ based in GPE camp ] , of forming an armed gang and the subsequent arrest of CARDINAL senior ORG officials , NORP support of ORG ’s authority in FAC was again curtailed , seemingly in favour of ORG .

CARDINAL MEIB also recounted the presence of other groups in PERSON , such as PERSON ORG ’s ORG ; ORG for ORG ( PFLP ) ; the CARDINAL fighters who constituted the remnants of ORG – initially a DATE strong group of NORP militants who , in DATE , had failed in an attempt to establish an NORP ‘ ministate’ in north GPE – who fled to PERSON following the defeat of the group by CARDINAL NORP troops ; and the ORG breakaway group CARDINAL Esbat alNour – which was led by the eldest son of the original group ’s founder : ‘ [ PERSON ] Shreidi attracted CARDINAL of the [ Esbat PERSON ] movement ’s fighters , as well as the NORP militants for whom he had provided shelter.’ The article states that ‘ Another small , but important ORG affiliate is PERSON ( ORG ) , led by Sheikh PERSON , the imam of FAC in the NORP neighbourhood of PERSON alHilweh.’

CARDINAL MEIB detailed the fluctuating nature of power within the camp , reporting on the various outside influences of the NORP and NORP regimes , ORG and ORG , and also the political and physical conflicts between the groups inside PERSON . ”

GPE ORG periodically issues Operational Guidance Notes ( “ OGNs ” ) which evaluate the general , political and human rights situation in a given country and provide guidance on the nature and handling of the most common types of asylum or subsidiary protection claims by persons fleeing that country .

The latest ORG on GPE was issued on DATE . It noted that NORP refugees were not able to obtain NORP citizenship and were not nationals of any other country . CARDINAL of NORP did not have any form of identification and were not receiving assistance from ORG . CARDINAL NORP were believed to have been naturalised as NORP . However , it appeared that the status of some of the naturalised NORP was not secure as there were reports that their NORP nationality could be annulled .

The ORG referred to CARDINAL immigration tribunal rulings ( PERSON HE ( NORP – GPE – camps ) GPE CG [ CARDINAL ] UKIAT CARDINAL , and GPE and FH ( Stateless NORP , PERSON , ORG , HE reaffirmed ) ORG [ DATE ] UKAIT CARDINAL ( DATE ) ) , which found that the general treatment of NORP by the NORP authorities and the conditions in the NORP refugee camps in GPE were not such as to reach the threshold of severity that triggers the application of LAW . On that basis , the ORG concluded that while the situation for NORP in GPE was poor with some differential treatment due to statelessness , conditions in the camps did not reach the threshold to establish either persecution or a breach of human rights .

With regard to claims based on fear of the NORP authorities due to membership of a NORP group , the ORG noted that the NORP political scene in GPE consisted of QUANTITY broad categories . The first was members of ORG , including ORG , ORG for ORG , ORG and several other less significant factions . The second category consisted of ORG , known as GPE , founded in DATE in opposition to the GPE peace accords . Its members did not recognise GPE and advocated armed struggle . It had regrouped into CARDINAL factions which enjoyed close relations with GPE : ORG , ORG , ORG for ORG ( PFLPGC ) , ORG , ORG , ORG , ORG , and ORG . The third category comprised NORP forces , an eclectic assortment of movements that espoused the use of violence rather than a coherent or organised group . It included Usbat alAnsar , ORG PERSON , and PERSON Allah , which engaged with ORG . More extreme movements rejected any dealing with NORP institutions or ORG and included PERSON alSham , Usbat alNour , and other less significant groups .

According to the ORG , ORG generally boasted a strong , often dominant , presence in the camps in south GPE , including PERSON . However , the camp was “ a microcosm of the NORP political universe ” , with all ORG , GPE and NORP factions being represented and perpetually competing for influence and power , which resulted in frequent clashes . NORP militant groups continued to capitalise on the lack of government control within the camps . Some of those groups , such as Usbat PERSON and LAW alSham , had been able to find safe haven within the camps , most notably in GPE . In DATE heavy clashes had erupted in the camp between PERSON alSham militants and fighters of ORG . They had exchanged rocket fire for TIME until a ceasefire had been agreed following mediation by another NORP group . A ORG leader had said CARDINAL people had been wounded in the clashes . The PERSON alSham fighters would leave the camp and ORG security agents would take control . The NORP army had blocked the entrance to the camp while allowing civilians to leave . A NORP official had said that the militants of PERSON had been angered by ORG ’s seizure of a commander of the group and his handover to the NORP army . The captive had been suspected of links to militant groups outside GPE . On DATE a PERSON alSham member had been killed in further clashes between the group and ORG . Reports had said the NORP army had taken up positions at the entrance of the camp just metres away from the fighting .

On the basis of that information , the ORG concluded the following :

“ In assessing any risk from the NORP authorities to those who claim to have been a member of an armed NORP group , the type of group and level of involvement will need to be considered . Consideration should also be given to the reasons for leaving a refugee camp and how the claimant was able to avoid the authorities when leaving GPE . In general , the NORP authorities do not enter NORP camps .

NORP groups operate autonomously in refugee camps and in the majority of cases would be able to offer the protection needed from within these camps . Claimants who have not been directly involved in criminal or militant acts and who support more moderate groups , such as ORG , are unlikely to have come to the attention of or be of interest to the NORP authorities . A grant of asylum or ORG would not usually be appropriate in such cases . However , if it is accepted that the claimant has been involved in armed groups of particular interest to the NORP authorities , such as ORG , PERSON and PERSON alSham , or can otherwise demonstrate adverse interest and inability to access protection , it may be appropriate to grant asylum .

Case owners should note that members of armed NORP groups have been responsible for numerous serious human rights abuses . If it is accepted that a claimant was an active operational member or combatant of an armed NORP group and the evidence suggests he / she has been involved in such actions , then case owners should consider whether CARDINAL of the LAW clauses is applicable . Case owners should refer such cases to a Senior Caseworker in the first instance . ”

With regard to claims based on fear of ORG in PERSON , such as PERSON , PERSON , or ORG ( also known as ORG ) , the ORG observed that although ORG ’s control was weak , claimants could seek their protection . It went on to note that the refugee camps were outside the government ’s control , which meant that in those areas the NORP authorities would not be able to offer sufficiency of protection from extremist NORP groups . However , the authorities would be able to offer protection outside the camps . A further option was internal relocation . Since the threat was localised in specific camps , relocation to another camp or elsewhere in GPE was feasible and not unduly harsh . In that respect , the ORG referred to CARDINAL immigration tribunal rulings : ORG ( NORP – GPE – relocation ) GPE [ DATE ] UKIAT CARDINAL , and MA ( GPE / GPE , fear of ORG , relocation ) GPE [ DATE ] UKIAT CARDINAL , and reached the following conclusion :

“ Within the [ A]in [ a]lHilweh camp there have been in the past , and continue to be , various factions of extremist NORP groups struggling for power leading to occasional outbreaks of violence . In individual cases consideration needs to be given as to why the claimant would be of interest to the extremist NORP groups and the level of that interest . The ORG have found that it is not unduly harsh to relocate between camps in GPE . Many of the most extreme groups have limited support in GPE , especially outside the refugee camps . It is therefore considered that a claimant could find safety in another camp or elsewhere in GPE where the specific extremist NORP group he fears does not have a significant presence . Protection may also be available to the claimant from other NORP groups , particularly ORG . Therefore a grant of asylum or ORG would not usually be appropriate for claims on this basis . ”

With regard to claims based on fear of NORP groups on account of collaboration with their enemies , the ORG observed that , since the Government of GPE did not exercise control over the NORP refugee camps , armed groups could operate relatively freely there . Therefore , sufficiency of protection would not generally be available from the NORP authorities inside the camps . For those who feared persecution at the hands of a rival group , protection inside the refugee camp could be available from another group . There was no evidence to show that the NORP authorities would be unwilling or unable to offer protection outside the refugee camps to those fearing NORP groups . Another option was internal relocation . The law provided for freedom of movement , and the NORP authorities generally respected that right , with some limitations . They maintained security checkpoints , primarily in military and other restricted areas . There were few police checkpoints on main roads or in populated areas . The security services used those checkpoints to conduct warrantless searches for smuggled goods , weapons , narcotics , and subversive literature . Few NORP groups had influence outside the refugee camps and relocation to another camp or elsewhere in GPE was not likely to be unduly harsh . In that respect , the ORG referred to the abovementioned ruling in ORG ( NORP – GPE – relocation ) GPE [ DATE ] UKIAT CARDINAL , and to the ruling in ORG ( GPE – NORP DATE risk ) ORG [ DATE ] UKAIT CARDINAL , and concluded as follows :

“ Consideration needs to be given to the level of involvement as a collaborator , who the claimant worked for , what information the claimant was in a position to give and their position in that group . In the majority of cases within the refugee camps the NORP authorities would not be able to provide sufficiency of protection . However , few NORP groups have influence outside the refugee camps and the NORP authorities would be in a position to offer sufficiency of protection in the remainder of the country . However if the claimant is a known NORP collaborator the NORP authorities might not offer protection . Internal relocation to another camp away from a particular NORP group feared would not be unduly harsh . Therefore in the majority of cases a grant of asylum or [ h]umanitarian [ p]rotection would not usually be appropriate . ”

NORP This report , issued on DATE , noted , inter alia , the following :

“ The law does not specifically prohibit torture or cruel , inhuman , or degrading treatment or punishment , and there were reports government officials employed such practices . According to human rights groups DATE including ORG ( AI ) , ORG and Training ( ORG ) , and ORG – torture was common , and security forces abused detainees . Human rights organizations reported torture occurred in certain police stations , ORG ( ORG ) , and the ORG ’s intelligence branch and ORG detention facilities in GPE and PERSON . ...

Former prisoners , detainees , and reputable local human rights groups reported the methods of torture and abuse applied included hanging by the wrists tied behind the back , violent beatings , blows to the soles of the feet , electric shocks , sexual abuse , immersion in cold water , extended periods of sleep deprivation , being forced to stand for extended periods , threats of violence against relatives , deprivation of clothing , withholding of food , being deprived of toilet facilities , and continuous blindfolding .

The law provides for freedom of movement within the country , foreign travel , emigration , and repatriation , and the government generally respected these rights for citizens but placed limitations on the rights of NORP refugees . The government cooperated with ORG for NORP Refugees ( ORG ) , the ORG , and other humanitarian organizations in providing protection and assistance to internally displaced persons , refugees , returning refugees , asylum seekers , and other persons of concern .

The government maintained security checkpoints , primarily in military and other restricted areas . On main roads and in populated areas , security services used a few police checkpoints to conduct warrantless searches for smuggled goods , weapons , narcotics , and subversive literature . Government forces were unable to enforce the law in the predominantly GPE southern suburbs and did not typically enter NORP refugee camps .

According to ORG , NORP refugees registered with the ORG ’s ORG ( DPRA ) may travel from CARDINAL area of the country to another . However , the DPRA must approve transfer of registration for refugees who reside in camps . ORG stated the DPRA generally approved such transfers . ...

The amount of land allocated to official refugee camps in the country has only marginally changed since DATE , despite a fourfold increase in the registered refugee population . Consequently , most NORP refugees lived in overpopulated camps subject to repeated heavy damage during multiple conflicts . Poverty , drug addiction , prostitution , and crime reportedly prevailed in the camps , although reliable statistics were not available . In accordance with a DATE agreement with the ORG , ORG security committees , not the government , provide security for refugees in the camps . ”

These reports , issued on CARDINAL DATE , contained the following observations in respect of GPE :

“ While the threat of terrorist activity kept NORP security agencies on high alert throughout DATE was characterized by increased governmental efforts to disrupt suspected terrorist cells before they could act . ORG ) , in particular , were credited with capturing wanted terrorist fugitives and containing sectarian violence .

Several designated terrorist organizations remained active in GPE . ORG , ORG for ORG ( PFLP ) , ORG for ORG ( PFLPGC ) , ORG ( ORG ) , PERSON ( AQ ) , PERSON alSham , ORG , and several other splinter groups all operated within GPE ’s borders . NORP , which is a legal entity and a major political party , is represented in GPE ’s cabinet and parliament .

In DATE , terrorist violence and counterterrorist activity included the following incidents :

– In DATE , ORG arrested NORP citizen PERSON at FAC . Investigations revealed that GPE intended to smuggle out of GPE FAI spiritual leader PERSON , known as PERSON ; ORG leader PERSON ; and PERSON , wanted for DATE attacks against ORG soldiers in GPE .

– On DATE , an ORG intelligence unit arrested NORP citizen PERSON , reported to be a key member of PERSON alSham . PERSON was the primary suspect in the DATE assassination of CARDINAL NORP judges in GPE .

LAF commanders stressed that it has strengthened its surveillance capabilities over the CARDINAL NORP camps and CARDINAL NORP - backed NORP military bases within its borders . Nevertheless , a porous border with GPE , weak internal camp security , and LAF reluctance to enter the NORP refugee camps all contributed to fears of another confrontation with an armed group , similar to the DATE ORG conflict . The most widely predicted venue for such a clash is in GPE ’s most populous refugee camp , PERSON , near the southern city of GPE . The camp is well known for NORP violence and as a suspected safe haven for fugitive ORG terrorists . ”

NORP In CARDINAL DATE report on the implementation of Security Council resolution DATE ( DATE ) , issued on DATE ( S/CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) , the SecretaryGeneral of ORG said , inter alia , the following :

“ CARDINAL . While the situation in most of the CARDINAL NORP refugee camps remains relatively stable , the threat of internal violence that could potentially spill over into surrounding areas exists in a number of camps . Indeed , some of the refugee camps , in particular PERSON , continue to provide safe haven for those who seek to escape the authority of the ORG . In PERSON camp , several incidents were registered during the reporting period . On DATE , CARDINAL unidentified masked men opened fire at a ORG officer , PERSON . He was shot dead , while another individual was injured . The incident was followed by continuous shooting in different areas inside the camp over DATE . Other shooting incidents were reported over DATE .

Notwithstanding these incidents , closer cooperation between NORP camp authorities and NORP authorities improved camp security during the reporting period . More needs to be done to contain potential tension in the camps .

The conditions of hardship inside NORP refugee camps are strengthening radical groups and therefore living conditions of NORP refugees in GPE should be improved , in the best interest of the wider security situation in the country . ... ”

In his eleventh report on the implementation of Security Council resolution CARDINAL ( DATE ) , issued on DATE ( S/CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) , the SecretaryGeneral of ORG said , inter alia , the following :

“ DATE . The security situation in the ORG - administered NORP refugee camps remained relatively calm , with only minor incidents during the reporting period . This positive development is largely due to increased cooperation and coordination between NORP camp authorities and NORP security agencies . I remain , however , concerned about reports of threats to ORG posed by militant extremist groups present in GPE . Some of those elements have sought shelter in NORP refugee camps , including PERSON camp at PERSON , to which NORP security agencies do not have access . ”

DATE . In his twelfth report on the implementation of ORG LAW ( CARDINAL ) , issued on DATE ( S/CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) , the SecretaryGeneral of ORG said , inter alia , the following :

“ CARDINAL . On DATE clashes between members of ORG and members of radical NORP movements broke out in the NORP refugee camp of PERSON , near PERSON . CARDINAL person was killed as a result of the fighting before calm was restored to the camp . This incident disrupted an otherwise generally calm situation in the camps . NORP authorities have continued to welcome cooperation arrangements with NORP authorities on security issues in the camps . .... ”

In his eleventh DATE report on the implementation of ORG resolution DATE ( DATE ) , issued on DATE ( S/CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) , the SecretaryGeneral of ORG said , inter alia , the following :

“ CARDINAL . The situation inside the NORP refugee camps remains a source of concern , although it has been generally calm over the reporting period . On a few occasions , security incidents were reported , in particular on DATE , when fighting between members of ORG and a radical NORP movement in PERSON resulted in CARDINAL fatality . The refugee camps continue to provide a safe haven for those who seek to escape the ORG ’s authority , such as militants , extremists , criminals and arms smugglers , in addition to NORP armed factions across all party lines . Internal violence could potentially spill over into surrounding areas . While security coordination and cooperation between the NORP security agencies and the NORP factions have improved , NORP authorities do not maintain a permanent presence inside the camps ... More needs to be done to contain potential tension in the camps . ... ”

NORP In his twelfth DATE report on the implementation of ORG resolution DATE ( DATE ) , issued on DATE ( ORG ) , the SecretaryGeneral of ORG said , inter alia , the following :

“ CARDINAL . While the situation in most of the CARDINAL NORP refugee camps remains relatively stable , the threat that internal violence could spill over into surrounding areas still exists in a number of camps . Some of the camps continue to provide safe haven for those who seek to escape the authority of the ORG . During the reporting period , security sources registered several incidents in and around refugee camps involving the use of weapons .

Notwithstanding those incidents , closer cooperation between NORP camp authorities and NORP authorities has improved camp security . Meanwhile , NORP authorities do not maintain a permanent presence inside the camps ... More will need to be done to contain potential tension in the camps .

The situation of NORP refugees living in GPE remains , by and large , dire . For DATE , ORG has urged the Government to improve the conditions in which NORP refugees live in GPE , without prejudice to the eventual resolution of the NORP refugee question in the context of a comprehensive peace agreement in the region , in particular given the detrimental effects of dismal living conditions on the wider security situation . .... ”

In his Fourteenth report on the implementation of ORG LAW ( CARDINAL ) , issued on DATE ( S/CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) , the SecretaryGeneral of ORG said , inter alia , the following :

“ DATE . The security situation inside the NORP refugee camps has been generally calm during the reporting period , with only a few incidents reported , thanks to increased cooperation on security issues between NORP factions and NORP security agencies . On DATE , tensions rose in PERSON camp when a group believed to have sympathies for PERSON publicly threatened to assassinate a local ORG leader responsible for security cooperation with NORP authorities . ”

In his fifteenth report on the implementation of Security Council resolution CARDINAL ( DATE ) , issued on DATE ( S/CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) , the SecretaryGeneral of ORG said , inter alia , the following :

“ CARDINAL . NORP authorities point to the good cooperation existing between ORG and NORP security officials in the CARDINAL official NORP refugee camps in the country . Only one major incident was reported in the NORP refugee camps in GPE during the reporting period . This involved the assassination in the PERSON camp on DATE of PERSON , a member of the disbanded PERSON alSham group . Following his murder , a bomb was planted in a building that allegedly belongs to ORG in PERSON ; the bomb caused only material damage . NORP authorities attributed the assassination to in - fighting between rival groups in PERSON camp . ”

In his thirteenth DATE report on the implementation of ORG resolution DATE ( DATE ) , issued on DATE ( S/CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) , the SecretaryGeneral of ORG said , inter alia , the following :

“ CARDINAL . The situation in most of the CARDINAL NORP refugee camps in GPE has remained relatively stable , although a few shooting incidents and explosions have been registered in some of the camps , in particular in PERSON , where , as recently as DATE , clashes erupted between rival groups inside the camp . The threat of internal violence that could potentially spill over into surrounding areas still exists in a number of camps , as some of them continue to provide safe haven for those who seek to escape the authority of the ORG .

Notwithstanding those incidents , NORP authorities have acknowledged the existence of good cooperation between ORG and NORP security officials in the camps . However , NORP authorities do not maintain a permanent presence inside the camps , despite the fact that the GPE agreement of DATE — which permitted the presence of NORP armed forces in the refugee camps — was annulled by ORG in DATE . More will need to be done to contain potential tension in the camps .

NORP The situation of NORP refugees living in GPE remains , by and large , dire . ORG continues to urge the NORP authorities to improve the conditions in which NORP refugees live in GPE , without prejudice to the eventual resolution of the NORP refugee question in the context of a comprehensive peace agreement in the region , in particular given the detrimental effects of dismal living conditions on the wider security situation . ”

In its DATE report on GPE , ORG noted , inter alia , the following :

“ NORP refugees continued to face discrimination , which impeded their access to work , health , education and adequate housing . CARDINAL recognized NORP refugees were reported to have been deported while scores of other refugees and asylumseekers were detained in what may amount to arbitrary detention . CARDINAL people were convicted following unfair trials of collaboration with or spying for GPE ; CARDINAL of them were reported to have been sentenced to death . Reports continued of torture in detention . ...

CARDINAL individuals suspected of involvement with the ORG armed group , detained without charge since DATE , continued to await trial before ORG . Most were allegedly tortured . ...

– The trial began of PERSON , a NORP refugee , and CARDINAL others before a military court on securityrelated offences including ‘ forming an armed gang to commit crimes against people and property’ . No investigation was carried out into his allegation that he ‘ ORG under torture in DATE while held incommunicado . ...

Reports continued of torture and other illtreatment of detainees and few steps were taken to improve the situation . However , the authorities did permit a visit of ORG to the country in DATE [ the report from that visit , which took place DATE and DATE , is still confidential ] , and in DATE announced that they would criminalize all forms of torture and illtreatment . Detainees continued to be held incommunicado , allegations of torture were not investigated and ‘ ORG allegedly given under duress were accepted as evidence in trials . The government failed for DATE to submit its first report under LAW , which GPE ratified in DATE . It also failed to establish an independent body empowered to inspect detention centres , as required by LAW to LAW to which GPE became party in DATE .

In its DATE report on GPE , ORG said that a number of detainees , especially suspected spies for GPE and armed NORP , had told the organisation that their interrogators had tortured them in a number of detention facilities , including ORG and ORG of ORG .

DATE . ORG is a nongovernmental organisation based in GPE . Its stated aim is to “ prevent and resolve deadly conflict ” . It has field representations in , inter alia , GPE , GPE and GPE .

In a comprehensive report on the NORP refugee camps in GPE ( Nurturing Instability : GPE ’s ORG , issued on DATE ) it described in detail the main political actors in the camps , the situation in each of them , the evolution of ORG relations since DATE , the status of the refugees , the interfactional conflicts in the camps , the conflicts within ORG and ORG , the failures in the management of the camps , and the spread of jihadism in them . The relevant parts of the report read as follows :

“ A number of analysts argued that power struggles within ORG and widespread corruption within the movement are a reason for growing chaos within the camps . They have undermined the credibility and effectiveness of important institutions , such as ORG and contributed to security breakdowns . Perhaps most important , neither the ORG nor ORG has been able to deal effectively with the challenge of jihadi groups that reject the organisation ’s nationalist project , strategy and alliances .

In PERSON for example , a conflict between CARDINAL ORG leaders significantly weakened the movement . Crisis ORG interviews , NORP officials and residents , GPE and NORP camps , DATE .

Some observers believe that violent acts in PERSON attributed to jihadis were perpetrated by ORG members opposed to [ PERSON ] PERSON [ , a local ORG leader ] . ... This view was echoed by other NORP and NORP officials and sheikhs . ... ”

In relation to jihadism in the camps , the report noted the following :

“ By DATE , several converging factors promoted the rise of a salafist jihadi current in the camps : the absence of any dominant political force on the NORP scene ; the camps’ seclusion and isolation from the rest of the country ; deteriorating living conditions ; and the wider spread of NORP throughout LOC . The collapse of the peace process in DATE intensified the process . Taking advantage of young refugees’ identity crisis , socioeconomic despair and leadership vacuum , groups such as PERSON alSham , Usbat alAnsar , Usbat alNour , PERSON and , more recently , ORG , prospered . This was particularly true in the LOC , a traditional NORP stronghold which lacks a powerful NORP leadership , and in PERSON , which DATE unlike the other camps DATE is not under any single faction ’s control .

In PERSON in particular , jihadi groups presented themselves as alternatives to a ORG leadership viewed by many as discredited and corrupt and which the NORP accused of capitulating to GPE and the LOC by renouncing NORP rights , notably the right of return .

Largely beyond the state ’s reach , the camps have become de facto sanctuaries for weapons but also for NORP and NORP fugitives sought by NORP authorities , including very often for minor offences . Caught in the camps and with no realistic prospect on the outside , they form a sizeable pool of potential jihadi recruits . Militant groups offer protection , a social network and , in some cases , a cause in which to believe . A ORG official remarked : ‘ They are trapped in the camps and have no future outlook . They fear they will live the rest of their lives as fugitives and thus are easily manipulated’ .

... the groups have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo in the camps , avoiding state interference and reaching tacit understandings with a variety of local actors . In PERSON , Usbat PERSON is now seen by all NORP factions – including ORG , its traditional foe – as a fullfledged participant in the camp ’s security structure . Likewise , the leader of PERSON , Sheikh PERSON , helps mediate between major NORP factions and more militant groups in PERSON .

PERSON provides a good example of how local actors seek to avoid clashes with jihadi groups . For ORG , a confrontation could deepen sectarian tensions , thereby further exposing it to the charge of being a narrow NORP group . ... For its part , ORG is wary of a confrontation with Usbat alAnsar whose outcome would not be guaranteed . ORG and in particular the PERSON family fear that a crisis with jihadi groups could jeopardise their hegemony over the NORP community .

During a DATE crisis , Usbat alAnsar joined in efforts to force PERSON alSham from CARDINAL of the camp ’s northern neighbourhoods . ... ”

ORG is a nongovernmental organisation founded in DATE to serve refugees and immigrants and defend the rights of refugees , asylum seekers , and internally displaced persons worldwide . It publishes DATE ORG and Refugee Reports .

NORP In its DATE country profile on GPE , issued on DATE , it noted , inter alia , the following :

“ Clashes between ORG and the fundamentalist , reportedly ORG group ORG alSham in [ A]in [ al]Hilweh camp killed several NORP . Fighting killed CARDINAL [ : ] a PERSON alSham leader and CARDINAL other NORP in DATE . CARDINAL died and CARDINAL were wounded in a gun battle in PERSON , and DATE an explosion killed CARDINAL and wounded CARDINAL . ”

In a news report of DATE the ORG described PERSON alSham ( “ Soldiers of Greater ( or historic ) GPE ” ) as a radical splinter group formed in DATE . The report said that the group had been blamed or had claimed responsibility for a number of bombings and gun battles in GPE and GPE . DATE it had fought NORP troops after joining a revolt by fellow NORP militant group ORG which was centred on the northern NORP refugee camp of PERSON .

On CARDINAL DATE the news service ORG , a nonprofit project of ORG for ORG , reported that CARDINAL ORG members had been killed DATE in clashes with PERSON alSham in PERSON . It said that the group , whose active fighters were believed to number CARDINAL out of an estimated membership of CARDINAL , had frequently been blamed by the NORP authorities for a string of failed attacks in GPE over DATE . A revenge attack on CARDINAL DATE by unidentified gunmen in the camp had wounded CARDINAL PERSON alSham members .

On DATE ORG reported that on DATE fighters from PERSON alSham , which it described as a loosely knit “ takfiri ” group DATE which NORP had said had no leader and had all but disbanded – had attacked a ORG checkpoint outside PERSON . The report said that the group was based in a small stretch of ORG known as ORG , between the boundary of PERSON and CARDINAL of ORG checkpoints that overlooked the camp . Following the attack , PERSON , another NORP group , had been tasked with heading an eightymember security force to control CARDINAL of the camp border checkpoints , including the CARDINAL overlooking the LOC alSham stronghold . The other camp border checkpoints , as well as security inside the camp , had remained the task of ORG . The report went on to say that ORG militants had had regular deadly clashes with PERSON alSham over DATE , and also faced a challenge from other armed and more radical NORP groups , such as ORG for ORG or Usbat PERSON .

On DATE IRIN reported that on DATE heavy clashes had broken out between ORG and members of PERSON alSham . The fighting , which had prompted CARDINAL families to flee the camp , had been triggered after ORG had seized a commander of PERSON alSham who had fought ORG DATE , and had handed him over to that ORG . ORG ’s security chief in GPE , PERSON , had told the agency that while the PERSON alSham commander had been seized without enough coordination with other factions in PERSON , new security arrangements would ensure that no militants could exist beyond the reach of the interfactional committees .

In a recent incident , on DATE a ORG member was wounded during a halfhour skirmish with members of PERSON . However , from reports in the press it appears that after that the situation in the camp calmed down and that on DATE the CARDINAL PERSON leaders in PERSON made a truce .

On DATE the television network PERSON reported that a senior PERSON alSham commander , PERSON , had been found murdered in PERSON . It said that the death of PERSON “ could be a major blow for [ PERSON alSham ] , which has had several leaders and members either killed or fleeing its ranks in DATE ” .

On DATE the NORP news website NOW GPE reported on the latest developments with PERSON alSham . The report said , inter alia , that colonel PERSON , appointed by NORP President PERSON in DATE as the head of the ORG security in the camps , had said that ORG and other factions present in PERSON , mainly Usbat PERSON , had reached a peace agreement . After talks , Usbat PERSON leaders had given PERSON a free mandate to annihilate the threat he said jihadists and radicals posed to the camp ’s security . PERSON was quoted as saying that “ [ NORP some battles with these factions , some died , many of them were captured and handed over to the NORP authorities , and those that were left fled . These groups took advantage of the instability in GPE and infiltrated the camp , and when we realized that they were among suspects in explosions taking place around stores , we started dealing with them with security means , we captured many of them , went to battle with some , and some , like I said , fled ” . He had also said that some of the jihadists had left for LOC , adding that “ [ t]hey were originally in the ‘ emergency’ area [ at the outskirts of the camp ] and started fleeing bit by bit . Some left to GPE , some to GPE , some to GPE in GPE ” . He had said that in DATE , CARDINAL of the runaways had been sent back to GPE by the NORP authorities . Among them had been PERSON , a rogue former ORG member who had rebelled against the central command , PERSON and PERSON , both wanted by the NORP authorities . The report went on to say that according to another ORG official in PERSON , what was left of the radical NORP was no longer a threat without the head of the militant group . “ The phenomenon of PERSON alSham is over in the camps now and does not constitute a threat anymore , ” he had told ORG .

In an article of DATE , titled “ ORG and PERSON alSham clash in GPE ” , the NORP newspaper ORG reported that during DATE there had been armed clashes , with an exchange of missiles , between ORG and members of PERSON alSham . They had started after CARDINAL unidentified individuals had refused to obey the commands of the security forces at a checkpoint . PERSON alSham militants had joined the conflict after reportedly coming under fire from ORG .


Violation of Art. 6-1;Violations of P1-1;Not necessary to examine question of fines under Art. 6-1;Pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage - reserved;Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings

All applicants live in GPE , the region of Velingrad . They are the heirs of PERSON , who possessed land in the vicinity of GPE until the collectivisation of agricultural land in DATE .

In DATE ORG adopted LAW which provided for the restitution of “ collectivised ” agricultural land . The former owners , or their heirs , could request the restoration of their right under certain conditions ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL below ) .

On unspecified dates the applicants requested the restitution of several plots of land .

By decision of DATE , the local agricultural land commission partially refused the applicants ' requests . The refusal concerned , inter alia , plots covering CARDINAL ha in the PERSON area , adjacent to the GPE reservoir , in the vicinity of GPE , which are the object of the present case , as delimited by the applicants ' complaints and the ORG 's admissibility decision in the present case .

Upon the applicants ' appeal against the land commission 's decision , on DATE ORG set aside the commission 's decision and restored the applicants ' title on part of the plots of land claimed , including those covering CARDINAL ha in the PERSON area . On the basis of documentary evidence and testimony of witnesses , the court found that in DATE and at the time of the collectivisation PERSON had been the owner , by virtue of acquisitive prescription , of a part of the land claimed , and that the conditions for restitution under the DATE LAW had been met in respect of that part of the land . The agricultural land commission , the respondent in these proceedings , was summoned but did not take part .

On an unspecified date the Chief Public Prosecutor instituted review ( cassation ) proceedings before ORG against ORG judgment . At the relevant time and until DATE ORG could institute review ( cassation ) proceedings under former LAW , thus intervening in a civil dispute .

ORG examined the case on the merits and by judgment of DATE upheld ORG judgment . ORG dismissed the prosecutor 's arguments that the property rights of PERSON PERSON , whom the applicants inherited , had not been proven , that the land in question was not agricultural , could not be restored under LAW and had therefore remained State property . In particular , ORG found that even if part of the land may have been forested after the collectivisation , that was not an obstacle to restitution under LAW , only protected forests being excluded from restitution .

In compliance with these judgments , on DATE the local agricultural land commission ordered the restitution of the applicants ' land to them . On DATE they formally entered into possession thereof . On DATE they obtained a notary deed .

In DATE the local forest authority brought an action for rei vindicatio against the applicants , claiming that they had unlawfully entered into possession of State forest land . The claim concerned plots covering CARDINAL ha , including the plots of CARDINAL ha in the PERSON area relevant in the present case .

On DATE ORG found that the disputed land had remained state owned and ordered the applicants to vacate it . To reach that conclusion , ORG re - examined one of the issues determined in the DATE and DATE proceedings and found that the applicants ' ancestor had not been the owner of the disputed land at the time of the collectivisation . Therefore , they were not entitled to restitution under LAW . Addressing the applicants ' objection that that issue was a res judicata , the court stated that LAW CARDINAL § CARDINAL of LAW third persons who had not been parties to previous judicial proceedings were not bound by the res judicata effect of final judgments delivered in such proceedings . The forest authority had not been a party to the DATE proceedings .

The applicants appealed . On DATE ORG set aside the judgment of DATE and dismissed the rei vindicatio claim . The court found that the plaintiff , the local forest authority , had not established that the disputed land was state owned . That finding was based on a fresh examination of the relevant facts and evidence and not on the res judicata effect of the DATE and DATE judgments .

The forest authority filed an appeal on points of law to ORG .

On DATE ORG set aside ORG judgment of CARDINAL DATE and granted the rei vindicatio claim , ordering the applicants to vacate the land .

ORG stated that the DATE and DATE judgments had been pronounced in proceedings which were administrative by their nature and that therefore the plaintiff in the rei vindicatio proceedings was not bound by them . Furthermore , in the DATE and DATE proceedings the applicants had been trying to prove that their ancestor , PERSON , had been the owner of the disputed land at the time of the collectivisation on the basis of declarations made before a notary and statements of witnesses . Reexamining that question , ORG found that the ownership rights of PERSON had not been established . Also , it was not true that the disputed land was agricultural and that the conditions for restitution under LAW had been met . ORG further found that the disputed land belonged to the ORG . The forest authority had acted on its behalf .

On DATE , an enforcement judge effected the forest authority 's entry into possession of the disputed land , including the plots of CARDINAL ha in the PERSON area .

In the period DATE the local forest authority fined CARDINAL or more of the applicants , including Mr PERSON ( application no . CARDINAL ) and PERSON ( application no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) on the basis that they had “ unlawfully used land for pasture ” , “ built a cattle - pen on state forest land ” and “ constructed a hut without a building permit ” . Mr PERSON , the son of CARDINAL of the applicants in application no . CARDINAL ( PERSON ) , was also fined . The amounts of the fines varied CARDINAL old NORP levs ( ORG ) ( ORG CARDINAL being the equivalent of approximately EUR CARDINAL.CARDINAL ) .

Mr PERSON was fined by order no . CARDINAL of DATE . On appeal ORG upheld the fine on an unspecified date . On DATE ORG quashed the lower court 's judgment and set aside the fine , considering that it had been imposed in breach of the law . PERSON allegedly tried unsuccessfully to obtain reimbursement of the fine .

Mr PERSON was also fined and complained to the local prosecutor . In DATE and DATE the prosecutor , acting in accordance with her powers to request review ( cassation ) of judicial and administrative decisions , instituted such proceedings before ORG in respect of CARDINAL separate fines imposed on PERSON ( nos . CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL of DATE ) . The prosecutor stated , inter alia , that the forest authority had acted in breach of the law , as they had been aware that the applicants had become the owners of the land they were using .

By CARDINAL final judgments of ORG of DATE CARDINAL of the fines ( nos . CARDINAL and CARDINAL of DATE ) were upheld , as there was insufficient proof that the land for the use of which the Mr ORG had been fined was the same as that which had been restored to the applicants . The court considered that it was for the appellant ( the prosecutor ) to prove that fact .

Mr GPE was not summoned to these proceedings . Copies of the judgments were not served on him . On DATE he was invited by the fiscal authorities to pay the fines . Thereupon , on DATE he obtained copies of the judgments .

In respect of the third fine against Mr PERSON ( no . CARDINAL of DATE ) , it is unclear whether a judicial decision was taken on the prosecutor 's appeal .

On DATE the applicants reported to the police that their hut had been set on fire .

LAW of DATE provides , inter alia , that persons , or their heirs , whose land had been collectivised , may request restoration of their ownership rights under certain conditions ( section CARDINAL of the Act ) . On the basis of certain statutory criteria , such as whether or not the plot of land once owned by the claimant or his or her ancestors had remained unaffected by urban construction , restitution may be “ in actual boundaries ” or through a redistribution plan .

CARDINAL possible ways of obtaining restitution are provided for : ( a ) administrative proceedings , within DATE following the LAW 's entry into force , through a request to the local ORG ( section CARDINAL § CARDINAL of the Act ) whose decision is subject to appeal before the courts ( section CARDINAL § CARDINAL ) , or , ( b ) after the expiry of that time limit , through a civil claim to the competent court against the respective land commission ( section CARDINAL § CARDINAL ) .

At the relevant time land commissions were state bodies whose members were appointed by the Minister of Agriculture ( section CARDINAL of the Act ) . In DATE the commissions were replaced by the local ORG , whose members are appointed by ORG .

The commission 's task when seized with a request for restitution under LAW was to establish whether the relevant statutory conditions were met and , if so , to issue a decision restoring ownership .

In deviation from general evidentiary rules , section QUANTITY , CARDINAL of the LAW provides that a wide range of evidence , including declarations before a notary , are admissible before the land commissions .

Land commissions may not revoke their decisions . Favourable decisions are not subject to appeal and are final . Under an amendment of DATE to LAW , in certain circumstances , such as newly discovered facts or evidence , the land commissions may modify their decisions within certain time limits ( section DATE ) .

NORP Some courts have stated that the decisions of the land commissions have characteristics similar to those of certifications in ex parte notary proceedings ( opred . DATE ; opred . CARDINAL - CARDINAL-VAS ) . It has also been stated that land commissions ' decisions are administrative decisions ( DATE - CARDINAL-III ) .

A person whose request for restitution has been refused by the competent land commission may appeal to the respective ORG ( section QUANTITY of the Act ) . ORG has jurisdiction to examine the matter on the merits , i.e. to determine whether or not the claimant has the right to restitution under LAW . The court may need to establish , inter alia , whether the claimants or their ancestors owned land at the time of the collectivisation ( CARDINAL - CARDINAL-III ) . If it finds that the relevant statutory criteria for restitution are established , the court shall set aside the land commission 's refusal and order restitution ( section QUANTITY of the Act ) . ORG judgment is amenable to review ( cassation ) .

The special evidentiary rules of section QUANTITY , CARDINAL and DATE , according to which declarations made before a notary are admissible , are also applicable in judicial proceedings under section CARDINAL § CARDINAL of the LAW . Statements of witnesses are also admissible ( CARDINAL ; CARDINAL - CARDINAL-III ) .

The proceedings before the courts under section CARDINAL § CARDINAL of the LAW ( on appeal against land commissions ' refusals ) are judicial administrative proceedings suis generis , their object being control of lawfulness of the commissions ' decisions ; these proceedings can not be characterised as noncontentious ( DATE ) . Parties to these proceedings are the land commission and the claimant . A third party claiming title of its own may not intervene ( CARDINAL - CARDINAL-VAS ) . The scope of the proceedings before ORG is circumscribed by the disputed grounds for the land commission 's refusal ( CARDINAL - CARDINAL-III ) .

No disputes other than those concerning the relevant statutory criteria for restitution may be examined in the proceedings before the land commissions or on appeal against its decisions . If there are disputes on other matters , such as , for example , objections by third persons claiming rights in respect of the land or disagreement between heirs , they must be determined by the courts in separate civil proceedings ( section CARDINAL § CARDINAL and QUANTITY of the Act ) .

The prevalent judicial practice appears to consider that judgments under section CARDINAL § CARDINAL of the LAW ( on appeal against land commissions ' refusals ) do not have res judicata effects ( CARDINAL - CARDINAL-III ; TIME ; DATE ) . The contrary has been stated in a recent decision of ORG ( opred . CARDINAL - CARDINAL-VAS ) .

Persons claiming restitution of agricultural land who have missed DATE time limit under LAW § CARDINAL , may bring an action for a declaratory judgment against the local land commission . In these proceedings the courts determine whether or not the claimant has the right to restitution .

The lenient evidentiary rules of section QUANTITY , CARDINAL of LAW , which deviate from the stricter general rules of evidence , do not apply . Declarations made before a notary and other evidence that would be admissible in administrative restitution proceedings under sections CARDINAL § CARDINAL and QUANTITY of the LAW , are not admissible in proceedings under LAW ( CARDINAL - CARDINAL-IV ) .

In the civil proceedings under LAW , if the courts decide in favour of the claimant , the land commission must comply and issue the necessary restitution decision ( ORG ) . Where the judgment has become final after the publication of the local land distribution plan , the land commission shall allocate to the claimant other available land .

The proceedings under LAW being ordinary civil proceedings for a declaratory judgment , they determine , with effect of res judicata , the claimant 's property right .

In such proceedings the lenient evidentiary rules under section QUANTITY , CARDINAL of LAW are inapplicable . The general , stricter , rules of evidence apply .

Judgments of the civil courts are binding on the parties , their successors , the courts and all other ORG organs ( LAW ) .

The issue determined in the court 's holding on the merits is a res judicata . In order to establish the content of the issue determined in the holding , regard must be had to the scope of the dispute and , therefore , to the court 's reasoning . In addition , certain decisive findings on elements directly determinative of the disputed right or obligation may also be seen as res judicata ( CARDINAL - CARDINAL-I , CARDINAL - CARDINAL-I , CARDINAL - CARDINAL-I , CARDINAL ) .

Final judgments preclude any re - examination of the same dispute between the same parties ( Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the Code ) . They are not conclusive in respect of disputes on the same subject between different parties or between the same parties on a different subject matter . The res judicata effect of a judgment thus has a limited scope ad personam and a limited subject - matter scope ( except for several particular categories of judgments , such as those concerning civil status , which are binding erga omnes ) .

In judicial administrative proceedings , courts ' judgments setting aside administrative decisions and deciding the disputed matter on the merits are binding on the parties and constitute res judicata in respect of the rights and obligations that formed the subject matter of the proceedings .

Local forest authorities are state administrative bodies subordinate to the regional forest authorities and ORG at ORG ( section CARDINAL of the Forests Act DATE and section CARDINAL of the Forests Act DATE , in force until DATE ) .

NORP Under CARDINAL of LAW , as in force since DATE , state property , if it is of the category of “ public state property ” , may not be acquired by private persons through adverse possession . Under section CARDINAL § CARDINAL of LAW , state property falls within the category of “ public state property ” where , inter alia , it serves public needs of national importance . ORG may declare certain state property as falling within that category . As a result of these provisions , there is no limitation in time of the possibility of a State body bringing a rei vindicatio action against private persons for the recovery of state property of the category of “ public state property ” . Such an action against private persons in possession of state land may be unsuccessful in respect of state property other than “ public state property ” , if the relevant period of acquisitive prescription under section CARDINAL of LAW has expired ( DATE ) .