CASE OF MAGO AND OTHERS v. BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA

Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Deprivation of property;Possessions);No violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Protection of property (Article 1 para. 1 of Protocol No. 1 - Deprivation of property;Possessions);Pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage - award

David Thór Björgvinsson;Lech Garlicki;Ledi Bianku;Nebojša Vučinić;Päivi Hirvelä;Vincent A. De Gaetano

Flats represented PERCENT of the pre - war housing stock of GPE ( around CARDINAL housing units out of CARDINAL ) . By local standards , they were a particularly attractive type of home , equipped with modern conveniences and located in urban centres . Practically all flats were under the regime of “ social ownership ” – a concept which , while it does exist in other countries , was particularly highly developed in the former ORG ( “ the SFRY ” ) . They were generally built by socially owned enterprises or other public bodies for allocation to their employees , who became “ occupancy right holders ” . All citizens of the SFRY were required to pay a means - tested contribution to subsidise housing construction . However , the amount an individual had contributed was not amongst the legal criteria taken into account in the waiting lists for allocation of such flats .

The rights of both the allocation right holders ( public bodies which nominally controlled the flats ) and the occupancy right holders were regulated by law ( LAW DATE , which is still in force in GPE ) . In accordance with this LAW , an occupancy right , once allocated , entitled the occupancy right holder to permanent , lifelong use of the flat against the payment of a nominal fee . When occupancy right holders died , their rights transferred , as a matter of law , to their surviving spouses ( indeed , spouses held occupancy rights in common ) or registered members of their family households who were also using the flat ( sections DATE and CARDINAL of this Act ) . Furthermore , in the event of a divorce , the spouses were free to choose which CARDINAL of them would continue to use the flat ; in the absence of an agreement , either of them could apply to a court for a transfer of the occupancy right ( section CARDINAL of this Act ) . In practice , these provisions on transfer meant that occupancy rights originally allocated by public bodies to their employees could pass , as of right , to multiple generations for whom the initial employment - based link to the allocation right holder no longer existed . Occupancy rights could be cancelled only in court proceedings ( section QUANTITY ) on limited grounds ( sections CARDINAL , CARDINAL and DATE of this Act ) , the most important of which was failure by occupancy right holders to physically use their flats for their own housing needs for a continuous period of DATE without justified grounds . Although inspections were foreseen to ensure compliance with this requirement ( section CARDINAL of this Act ) , occupancy rights were rarely , if ever , cancelled on these grounds prior to the DATE - CARDINAL war . Moreover , on DATE ORG annulled the inspection provisions .

Following its declaration of independence on DATE , a brutal war started in GPE . On DATE ORG , acting under LAW , adopted its Resolution CARDINAL urging that all units of the JNA , the armed forces of the SFRY , and all elements of ORG either be withdrawn from GPE , or be subject to the authority of ORG , or be disbanded and disarmed with their weapons placed under effective international monitoring . While the LAW formally withdrew from GPE on DATE , the ORG Secretary General ( report of DATE , ORG , § CARDINAL ) and ORG for the former GPE ( see its judgment in the PERSON case of DATE , § CARDINAL ) later established that JNA members born in GPE actually remained there with their equipment and joined the ORG forces and only those born in GPE and GPE left and joined the LAW forces . As regards the participation by foreign armed forces in the DATE - CARDINAL war in GPE , see GPE , cited above , § § DATE .

The concept of “ social ownership ” was abandoned during the DATE - CARDINAL war . Socially owned flats were thus effectively nationalised . As regards the administration of such flats during and after the war , see “ Relevant domestic law and practice ” below .

The applicant was born in DATE . She lives in GPE , GPE .

In DATE her husband , a JNA sergeant , was allocated a military flat in GPE . As the PERSON formally withdrew from GPE in DATE , he decided to continue his military career in GPE . The applicant also moved to GPE , where she was granted refugee status .

The applicant ’s husband ’s military service was terminated in DATE .

In DATE the applicant made an application for the restitution of the flat in GPE . Shortly thereafter , she filed a petition for divorce in GPE and returned to GPE . She was granted a divorce on DATE .

On DATE her restitution claim was rejected pursuant to section CARDINAL of ORG “ section CARDINAL ” ; see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . On DATE the competent ORG upheld that decision .

On DATE the applicant lodged an application with ORG , a domestic human - rights body set up by Annex CARDINAL to ORG for Peace in GPE ( “ the GPE Peace Agreement ” ) .

On DATE ORG , on an application for judicial review , quashed the decisions of DATE and DATE and remitted the case for reconsideration .

On DATE the restitution commission set up by Annex CARDINAL to ORG ( “ the CRPC ” ) , before which the applicant pursued parallel proceedings , held that the applicant ’s husband was neither a refugee nor a displaced person and declined jurisdiction .

On DATE the competent housing authorities rejected again the applicant ’s claim pursuant to section CARDINAL . On DATE the competent ORG upheld that decision .

On DATE ORG , the successor of ORG , held that the applicant shared the fate of her former husband as to the restitution of their flat and found no breach of the LAW owing to her former husband ’s service in the FAC forces .

On DATE ORG , on an application for judicial review , quashed the administrative decisions of DATE and DATE and remitted the case for reconsideration .

On DATE the authorities rejected again the applicant ’s claim pursuant to section CARDINAL . On DATE the competent ORG upheld that decision . The decision of DATE was served on the applicant on DATE . The applicant did not appeal .

On DATE ORG found a breach of LAW in consideration of the length of the restitution proceedings and awarded the applicant MONEY ( BAM ) for non - pecuniary damage . Regardless of the excessive length of the restitution proceedings , it held that the applicant should have nevertheless lodged an application for judicial review against the administrative decision of DATE and rejected her substantive complaints on non - exhaustion grounds .

The applicant was born in GPE in DATE . He lives in GPE .

In DATE , as a JNA medical officer , he was allocated a military flat in GPE . Whilst he was transferred to GPE in DATE , his wife stayed in that flat until DATE . His military service was terminated on DATE .

On an unknown date , after having renounced his occupancy right on the flat in GPE , the applicant was allocated a tenancy right of unlimited duration on a military flat in GPE . In addition , he was provided a loan , cofinanced by the military authorities , for another flat in GPE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

In DATE the applicant made an application for the restitution of the flat in GPE .

On DATE his restitution claim was rejected pursuant to section CARDINAL . On DATE the competent ORG upheld that decision .

On DATE ORG , on an application for judicial review , quashed the decisions of CARDINAL DATE and DATE and remitted the case for reconsideration .

On DATE the applicant lodged an application with ORG .

On DATE the competent housing authorities rejected again the applicant ’s restitution claim pursuant to section CARDINAL . The decision was delivered on DATE . The applicant did not appeal .

On DATE ORG , the successor of ORG , found that there was no breach of the LAW . That decision was delivered on DATE .

In DATE , as a JNA officer , he was allocated a military flat in GPE . When the PERSON formally withdrew from GPE in DATE , he decided to continue his military career in GPE . His military service was terminated in DATE .

In DATE the applicant made an application for the restitution of the flat in GPE . On DATE his application was rejected pursuant to section CARDINAL . The decision was upheld by the competent ORG , ORG and ORG of the relevant Entity on DATE , CARDINAL DATE and DATE respectively .

In DATE the applicant lodged an application with ORG . In DATE ORG found a breach of LAW in view of the length of the restitution proceedings and awarded the applicant BAM CARDINAL,CARDINAL for non - pecuniary damage . Given their excessive length , ORG held that the restitution proceedings did not constitute a remedy which would have to be used as a condition for the examination of the applicant ’s substantive complaints . It then held , in line with its well - established jurisprudence , that the applicant ’s occupancy right constituted “ possessions ” within the meaning of LAW No . CARDINAL and that his inability to repossess his flat amounted to an interference with the enjoyment of that rights . As regards the proportionality of the interference , the Commission held that the applicant ’s service in the LAW forces had shown his disloyalty to GPE . It concluded that the interference was therefore justified and found no breach of LAW No . CARDINAL . Lastly , it considered that it was unnecessary to examine the discrimination and LAW complaints .

In DATE , as a JNA medical officer , he was allocated a military flat in GPE . When the PERSON formally withdrew from GPE , he decided to pursue his military career in GPE .

After having renounced his occupancy right on the flat in GPE , on DATE the applicant was provided a mortgage loan , co - financed by the military authorities , for a flat in GPE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

In DATE the applicant made an application for the restitution of the flat in GPE . On DATE his application was rejected pursuant to section CARDINAL . That decision was upheld by the competent ORG , ORG and ORG on DATE , DATE and DATE respectively .

In the meantime , on DATE , the ORG mentioned in paragraph QUANTITY above , before which the applicant pursued parallel proceedings , held that he was neither a refugee nor a displaced person and declined jurisdiction .

NORP The applicant ’s military service was terminated in DATE .

The applicant was born in DATE . He lives in GPE .

In DATE , as a JNA officer , he was allocated a military flat in GPE . Although the PERSON formally withdrew from GPE on DATE , he stayed in GPE . On paper , however , he was a member of the newly - established LOC forces , the armed forces of the neighbouring GPE , until DATE . On CARDINAL DATE ORG arrested the applicant . He was detained at PERSON internment camp until DATE and then deported to the area controlled by the ORG forces . Shortly thereafter , ORG transferred the applicant to the former GPE . On DATE he was examined at ORG . According to the medical report , the applicant was subjected to serious ill - treatment at Dretelj internment camp .

In DATE the applicant made an application for the restitution of the flat in GPE . On DATE his claim was rejected pursuant to section CARDINAL . On DATE the competent ORG upheld that decision . On DATE ORG , on an application for judicial review , quashed both decisions and remitted the case for reconsideration .

On DATE the housing authorities rejected again the applicant ’s restitution claim under section CARDINAL . On DATE the competent ORG upheld that decision . On DATE ORG quashed both decisions and remitted the case to the housing authorities .

On DATE the housing authorities rejected for a third time the restitution claim pursuant to section CARDINAL . That decision was upheld by the competent ORG and ORG on DATE and DATE respectively .

On DATE the NORP authorities terminated the proceedings for the allocation of a flat in GPE because the applicant had not renounced his occupancy right on the flat in GPE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) . On DATE the applicant was placed in an old people ’s home in GPE , as he had no other place to live .

The applicant was born in GPE in DATE where he now lives .

In DATE , as an economist employed at a military facility , he was allocated a military flat in GPE . When the PERSON formally withdrew from GPE , he accepted a similar job at a military facility in GPE .

In DATE the applicant made an application for the restitution of the flat in GPE . On DATE his restitution claim was accepted . On DATE the competent ORG quashed that decision and rejected the restitution claim pursuant to section CARDINAL .

Meanwhile , on DATE , the ORG mentioned in paragraph QUANTITY above , before which the applicant pursued parallel proceedings , held that he was neither a refugee nor a displaced person and declined jurisdiction .

In DATE he retired . After having renounced his occupancy right on the flat in GPE , he was allocated a tenancy right of unlimited duration on a military flat in GPE in DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

On DATE ORG , on an application for judicial review , quashed the decision of DATE and remitted the case to ORG . On DATE ORG quashed the decision of CARDINAL DATE and remitted the case to the housing authorities . On DATE the housing authorities rejected the restitution claim under section CARDINAL . ORG and ORG upheld that decision on DATE and DATE respectively . The last decision was delivered on DATE .

During the DATE - CARDINAL war in GPE CARDINAL people left their homes as a consequence of “ ethnic cleansing ” or generalised violence . As a rule , they fled to areas controlled by their own ethnic groups . All parties to the conflict quickly adopted procedures allowing the flats of those who had fled to be declared “ abandoned ” and allocated to new occupants . While the alleged rationale for the allocation of “ abandoned ” flats was to provide humanitarian shelter to displaced persons , particularly attractive flats were often awarded to the military and political elites . In some cases , occupancy rights were cancelled pursuant to section CARDINAL of LAW DATE , because of failure by the pre - war occupancy right holders to use their flats for a continuous period of DATE . In most cases , however , the authorities applied legislation specially enacted for those purposes : GPE DATE , GPE , LAW DATE , LAW DATE and GPE . In the immediate aftermath of the war , legislation on abandoned flats remained in force in both ORG GPE ( namely , ORG and PERSON ) and reallocation of flats continued nearly unabated , which further reinforced ethnic separation .

All such legislation was repealed under international pressure in DATE , enabling pre - war occupants to claim restitution . However , that right was limited in time and failure to make a timely application led to the cancellation of occupancy rights . The general deadline in GPE was DATE , but in some cases an application could have been made by DATE or , for damaged flats , by DATE ( sections CARDINAL and DATE of ORG . Occupancy rights on military flats can be cancelled also under section CARDINAL of that Act on the following grounds . First , if the pre - war occupancy right holder served in foreign armed forces after DATE ( when the PERSON formally withdrew from GPE ) . Since those who were granted refugee or equivalent status in a country outside the former SFRY are exempted , the restriction affects only those who served in the forces of the successor ORG and , in reality , almost exclusively those who served in the VJ forces . The second category is those who acquired an occupancy or equivalent right to a military flat in a successor State of the SFRY . On DATE ORG , on an application for abstract constitutionality review , declared that provision constitutional ( decision LAW , published in ORG Herzegovina no . CARDINAL of DATE ) . It has afterwards rejected numerous individual cases raising the issue of inability to return to military flats .

Once occupancy right holders have repossessed their pre - war flats , they are entitled to purchase them under very favourable terms pursuant to ORG .

Upon the cancellation of a pre - war occupancy right on a civilian flat , due to failure to make a timely application , the flat in issue may be given to another person provided that his or her housing needs have not already been met ( see section DATE of ORG . In accordance with sections CARDINAL of that Act , it is deemed that one ’s housing needs have already been met when that person or his or her spouse , child or parent has another habitable flat or house ; the person concerned has sold his or her pre - war home ; the person concerned earns as a minimum CARDINAL of the average consumer basket per member of his or her household plus BAM CARDINAL ; or falls into any other category specified therein .

Different rules apply to military flats . Upon the cancellation of a pre - war occupancy right , due to failure to make a timely application or due to a final decision rejecting a restitution claim pursuant to section CARDINAL of ORG , the flat may be allocated to current and retired military officials , current and retired staff of ORG , war veterans , war invalids or families of killed members of the former ORG or ORG forces provided that their housing needs have not otherwise been met ( see section CARDINAL of the Military Flats Allocation Ordinance DATE ) . LAW of that Ordinance also provides that a person can not be allocated a military flat if he or she or his or her spouse or minor child had a house or a flat in GPE before the war ( even if it has meanwhile been sold or gifted ) . Other conditions set out in paragraph CARDINAL above , such as one ’s income , do not apply to the allocation of military flats . Pursuant to section CARDINAL of the Military Flats Allocation Ordinance CARDINAL , PERCENT of flats should be allocated to senior officers and the highest ORG officials ; PERCENT to junior officers ; and PERCENT to non - commissioned officers , other soldiers and Ministry staff . The remaining flats should be allocated to war veterans , war invalids or families of killed members of the former ORG or ORG forces . During and immediately after the war many military flats were reportedly allocated to the highest military and civilian officials whose housing needs had otherwise been met ( see GPE , cited above , § CARDINAL ) . In DATE the High Representative therefore requested the local authorities to ensure that all flats be allocated in accordance with the law . It would appear that during that process , which led to some evictions and which was monitored by ORG and ORG , the deficiencies mentioned above were for the most part remedied .

Applications for restitution are dealt with under an administrative procedure . First - instance decisions are , as a rule , subject to appeal within DATE of delivery ( section CARDINAL of LAW DATE ) . Second - instance decisions are , as a rule , subject to judicial review within DATE of delivery ( section CARDINAL of LAW DATE ) . Decisions on applications for judicial review were earlier subject to appeal to ORG within DATE of delivery ( section DATE of LAW DATE , replaced by LAW DATE in DATE ) , but they are no longer subject to appeal . An administrative decision enters into effect when upheld by the competent Ministry , the competent ORG and , until DATE , by ORG ; when the parties declare that they will not use either of those remedies ; or when the time - limit for any of them expires .

It has no longer been possible to acquire occupancy rights in GPE since DATE ( see section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW DATE ) . Instead , current and retired members of the armed forces and current and retired staff of ORG have afterwards been entitled to an equivalent tenancy right of unlimited duration on military flats or , in case of a lack of suitable flats , mortgage loans co - financed by the ORG on condition that they or their spouses or children do not have an occupancy or equivalent right on a flat in any of the former ORG ( the Military Housing Ordinances DATE and the Military Pensioners Ordinances DATE and DATE ) . Therefore , those who occupied military flats in GPE before the war have as a rule been required to give up their rights on those flats in order to qualify for a military flat or a loan in GPE or GPE ( see sections DATE of LAW DATE ; sections CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the Military Pensioners Ordinances DATE ; and sections DATE CARDINAL of LAW ) .

Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the Housing Act DATE provides that the holder of a tenancy right of an unlimited duration on a flat may purchase that flat under the same conditions as an occupancy right holder .

While the number of people who left their homes in GPE after the dissolution of the former SFRY is far from the number of such people in GPE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , there were nevertheless some cases . For example , in DATE a number of NORP left PERSON , a NORP town bordering on GPE , as the local authorities were unable to protect them from militias from across the border . Although their flats were allocated to other people immediately after their departure , some of them have subsequently been reinstated by the NORP courts ( see decisions of ORG Rev/CARDINAL/CARDINAL of DATE and ORG of CARDINAL DATE and decisions of ORG in those cases ) . The NORP courts held that the flats in issue should not have been considered as abandoned as the persons concerned had left them under duress . However , some other persons in a similar situation have not been able to repossess their flats ( see decision of ORG Rev/CARDINAL/CARDINAL of DATE finding that the restitution claim should have been made much earlier than in DATE ) .

DATE and DATE GPE was a constituent unit of ORG and then , until its independence in DATE , of ORG and GPE . Since GPE and GPE had common armed forces throughout that period , the ordinances mentioned in paragraph CARDINAL above applied also in GPE until DATE .

ORG was initialled in GPE on DATE and entered into force when it was signed in GPE on DATE . It put an end to the war in GPE .

The relevant part of LAW to the Agreement reads as follows :

“ All refugees and displaced persons have the right freely to return to their homes of origin . ”

Article I § CARDINAL of Annex CARDINAL to the ORG provides :

“ All refugees and displaced persons have the right freely to return to their homes of origin . They shall have the right to have restored to them property of which they were deprived in the course of hostilities since DATE and to be compensated for any property that can not be restored to them . The early return of refugees and displaced persons is an important objective of the settlement of the conflict in GPE . The Parties confirm that they will accept the return of such persons who have left their territory , including those who have been accorded temporary protection by third countries . ”

The Agreement on Succession Issues was the culmination of DATE of intermittent negotiations under the auspices of ORG on the former GPE and ORG . It entered into force between GPE , GPE , GPE ( succeeded in DATE by ORG and GPE and in DATE by GPE ) , GPE and the former GPE on DATE .

Under LAW and CARDINAL of Annex A to that Agreement , immovable ORG property of the SFRY situated in GPE passed to that ORG on the date on which it proclaimed independence . With regard to occupancy rights , LAW to that ORG provides :

“ Domestic legislation of each successor ORG concerning dwelling rights ( ‘ stanarsko pravo/ stanovanjska pravica/ станарско ORG ) shall be applied equally to persons who were citizens of the ORG and who had such rights , without discrimination on any ground such as sex , race , colour , language , religion , political or other opinion , national or social origin , association with a national minority , property , birth or other status . ”

DATE . The relevant principles , endorsed by ORG on ORG in DATE ( E / CN.CARDINAL/Sub.CARDINAL/CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) , are the following :

“ CARDINAL.CARDINAL The Principles on housing and property restitution for refugees and displaced persons articulated herein are designed to assist all relevant actors , national and international , in addressing the legal and technical issues surrounding housing , land and property restitution in situations where displacement has led to persons being arbitrarily or unlawfully deprived of their former homes , lands , properties or places of habitual residence .

CARDINAL.CARDINAL The Principles on housing and property restitution for refugees and displaced persons apply equally to all refugees , internally displaced persons and to other similarly situated displaced persons who fled across national borders but who may not meet the legal definition of refugee ( hereinafter ‘ refugees and displaced ORG ) who were arbitrarily or unlawfully deprived of their former homes , lands , properties or places of habitual residence , regardless of the nature or circumstances by which displacement originally occurred . ”

“ CARDINAL.CARDINAL All refugees and displaced persons have the right to have restored to them any housing , land and/or property of which they were arbitrarily or unlawfully deprived , or to be compensated for any housing , land and/or property that is factually impossible to restore as determined by an independent , impartial tribunal .

DATE States shall demonstrably prioritize the right to restitution as the preferred remedy for displacement and as a key element of restorative justice . The right to restitution exists as a distinct right , and is prejudiced neither by the actual return nor non - return of refugees and displaced persons entitled to housing , land and property restitution . ”

“ CARDINAL.CARDINAL Everyone has the right to the peaceful enjoyment of his or her possessions .

GPE shall only subordinate the use and enjoyment of possessions in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law . Whenever possible , the ‘ interest of society’ should be read restrictively , so as to mean only a temporary or limited interference with the right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions . ”

“ MONEY should ensure that the rights of tenants , social - occupancy rights holders and other legitimate occupants or users of housing , land and property are recognized within restitution programmes . To the maximum extent possible , GPE should ensure that such persons are able to return to and repossess and use their housing , land and property in a similar manner to those possessing formal ownership rights . ”

“ CARDINAL All refugees and displaced persons have the right to full and effective compensation as an integral component of the restitution process . Compensation may be monetary or in kind . States shall , in order to comply with the principle of restorative justice , ensure that the remedy of compensation is only used when the remedy of restitution is not factually possible , or when the injured party knowingly and voluntarily accepts compensation in lieu of restitution , or when the terms of a negotiated peace settlement provide for a combination of restitution and compensation .

GPE should ensure , as a rule , that restitution is only deemed factually impossible in exceptional circumstances , namely when housing , land and/or property is destroyed or when it no longer exists , as determined by an independent , impartial tribunal . Even under such circumstances the holder of the housing , land and/or property right should have the option to repair or rebuild whenever possible . In some situations , a combination of compensation and restitution may be the most appropriate remedy and form of restorative justice . ”

The relevant part of the ORG reads as follows :

“ CARDINAL . In the light of the above , the ORG calls on member states to resolve post - conflict housing , land and property rights issues of refugees and IDPs , taking into account the Pinheiro Principles , the relevant ORG instruments , and Recommendation Rec(CARDINAL)CARDINAL of ORG .

Bearing in mind these relevant international standards and the experience of property restitution and compensation programmes carried out in LOC to date , member states are invited to :

ensure that previous occupancy and tenancy rights with regard to public or social accommodation or other analogous forms of home ownership which existed in former communist systems are recognised and protected as homes in the sense of LAW and as possessions in the sense of LAW to the Convention ;

ensure that the absence from their accommodation of holders of occupancy and tenancy rights who have been forced to abandon their homes shall be deemed justified until the conditions that allow for voluntary return in safety and dignity have been restored ; ”


Violation of Art. 3;Violation of Art. 6-1;Not necessary to examine P1-1;Non-pecuniary damage - financial award;Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

The applicant is a highschool teacher . At TIME on DATE he went to a café with CARDINAL of his work colleagues .

At TIME DATE or QUANTITY police officers with masks on their heads rushed into the café .

Subsequently it was established that they were officers of ORG , the Special Anti - Terrorism Squad ( „ Специализиран отряд за борба с тероризма “ ) and ORG ( „ Централна служба за борба с организираната престъпност “ ) and that they were conducting an operation for the arrest of several persons suspected of criminal offences who were apparently known to go regularly to that café .

The officers shouted “ Police ! ” and ordered everyone in the café to lie down , put their hands up and close their eyes . The applicant asked where exactly he should put his hands . CARDINAL of the officers told him that he should put his hands behind his neck . The applicant did so and lay down on the bench on which he had been sitting . He remained in this position for CARDINAL , during which he was hit CARDINAL times on the head with a solid object . After that he was ordered to go out of the café . The applicant asked why he had been hit , since he had done nothing to provoke this . He also said that he had difficulties moving because he was feeling a strong pain in his head and was losing blood . The police officers threatened the applicant and swore at him , using abusive language . They dragged him outside the café , hit him several times and threw him down on the ground . The applicant was hit several times in the head with the butt of a gun and received several kicks in the ribs . After that the officers ordered the applicant to produce his identity papers . He handed his wallet to an officer who checked the papers . At that point the applicant ’s colleagues managed to explain that there had apparently been some kind of confusion as to the applicant ’s identity and the beating stopped . The officers told the applicant that they had mistaken him for another person and apologised .

NORP The applicant crossed the street with the help of his CARDINAL colleagues and then lost consciousness . An ambulance was called which brought him to the neurosurgical ward of ORG in GPE .

The applicant was examined by the emergency ward team . It was found that he had a cerebral trauma with an epidural haematoma in his left temporal area , cerebral contusion , polyfragmentary fracture of the left temporal bone , fracture of the ninth rib on the right side of the thorax and a subcutaneous emphysema in the right thoracic CARDINAL . TIME after his admission to hospital it was decided that urgent head surgery was needed . The applicant underwent decompressive craniotomy in the left temporal area , evacuation of the epidural haematoma and coagulation of the damaged arteria meningica media at the left side of his head .

The applicant remained in hospital until DATE .

During the following DATE he was experiencing pain and had to be treated with analgesics and vasodilatory drugs . He was on sick leave until DATE .

The applicant was directed for another operation , which he could not afford financially .

On DATE the competent commission for assessing disability issued a decision stating that the applicant suffered from second degree disability . The diagnosis on which this decision was based was the following : traumatic subdural subarachnoid and extradural haemorrhage , posttraumatic and postoperative status in respect of an acute epidural haematoma in the left temporal area , defect after a depressive polyfragmentary fracture of the left temporal bone , posttraumatic encephalopathy , quadripyramidal syndrome , latent hemiparesis on the right side , central subcompensated otoneurological syndrome , neuritis of the left auditory nerve ( light degree ) , postfractural status of the ninth rib at the right side , arterial hypertension .

On CARDINAL DATE the applicant took proceedings under ORG against ORG , ORG , ORG and GPE Directorate of Internal Affairs . He alleged , in particular , that officers of those entities had illtreated him in violation of the relevant rules for the use of force by the police . He claimed CARDINAL NORP levs ( ORG ) as compensation for nonpecuniary damage and LAW as compensation for pecuniary damage .

A prosecutor took part in the proceedings ex officio , as required by section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

The first hearing was held on DATE . The applicant provided particulars of his claim for compensation for pecuniary damage . The defendants did not dispute most of the facts alleged by the applicant , but maintained , inter alia , that he had provoked the beating through his inadequate behaviour , that the use of force by the police had been lawful and that they were not liable for damage caused in the course of police operations . They also disputed the amount of compensation sought . ORG submitted that it was not liable because it had not participated in the planning or the execution of the operation on DATE . The applicant requested the defendants to provide a copy of the order pursuant to which the operation had been carried out , in order to clarify whose officers had participated in it . He also presented written evidence and asked for leave to call witnesses . The court admitted the written evidence , gave leave to the applicant to call witnesses , ordered an accounting and a medical expert reports and directed the defendants to provide a copy of the order pursuant to which the operation had been carried out .

The next hearing was held on DATE . The court heard a witness called by the applicant , the applicant in person , and the medical and accounting experts . It admitted their reports in evidence . Counsel for ORG stated that the order pursuant to which the DATE operation had been carried out was classified and a copy could be produced only if the court made a special ruling to that effect . The court agreed and adjourned the case .

The third hearing took place on DATE . The order pursuant to which the operation of DATE had been carried out was admitted in evidence . The court allowed the applicant to adduce further written evidence and adjourned the case .

The hearing listed for DATE did not take place because ORG had not been duly summoned .

The fourth and last hearing was held on DATE . The court heard the parties’ closing arguments . In his observations the prosecutor who participated in the proceedings ex officio concluded that the applicant ’s averments of illtreatment were true and that his action was wellfounded .

The Sofia City Court gave judgment on DATE . It found that the police officers involved in the CARDINAL DATE incident had used force uncalled for , in breach of LAW which regulated the use of force by the police . It further found that the use of force had not been provoked in any way by the applicant and accordingly rejected the GPE argument of contributory negligence . The court found that the police officers had been employed by the first CARDINAL defendants ( ORG , ORG and LAW ) , but not by the fourth defendant ( ORG ) . Finally , it found that the applicant had sustained damage due to the unlawful behaviour of the officers . It awarded the applicant the whole amount of the compensation for nonpecuniary damage sought ( LAW ) and partially dismissed his claim for compensation for pecuniary damage , awarding him ORG under that head . The court ordered that both amounts should bear interest at the statutory rate starting from DATE until settlement . The first CARDINAL defendants were ordered to pay jointly and severally .

On DATE ORG appealed against the judgment to ORG . ORG also appealed on DATE . The ORG ’s appeal concerned only the amount of the compensation for nonpecuniary damage awarded to the applicant , whereas ORG Organised Crime ’s appeal concerned the awards of compensation for both pecuniary and nonpecuniary damage .

Copies of the appeals were served on the other parties to the case . As ORG had changed its address , the initial service of process , having been made at its old address , had to be repeated at the new one .

On DATE the case file was sent to ORG .

In DATE LAW ( “ the ORG ” ) was amended to provide for threeinstance proceedings . Accordingly , all appeals which had been filed with ORG prior to the amendment were to be forwarded to the newly created courts of appeals . The amendment entered into force on DATE .

On DATE ORG forwarded the appeals to the newly created ORG .

On DATE ORG , acting in pursuance of the new rules of civil procedure adopted with the DATE amendment of the ORG , instructed the appellants DATE ORG and ORG to indicate which parts of the judgment below they were appealing against and why they considered that that judgment was erroneous .

On DATE ORG complied with the court ’s instructions , submitting an amended appeal in which it specified that it was appealing only against the amount of nonpecuniary compensation awarded to the applicant , because it considered that ORG had erroneously assessed the extent of the damage suffered by him .

On DATE ORG withdrew its appeal and on DATE ORG discontinued the proceedings in respect of that appellant .

A hearing listed for DATE did not take place , because ORG , which had to participate in the proceedings ex officio , had not been duly summoned .

A hearing fixed for DATE was adjourned because counsel for the applicant was ill and could not attend .

A hearing was held on DATE . The parties did not submit additional evidence . The court heard their closing argument and accepted their written observations . ORG reiterated its position that the claim for compensation for nonpecuniary damage , allowed in full by ORG , was excessive , in particular because the applicant had contributed to the inflicting of his injuries through his inadequate behaviour during DATE incident .

ORG gave judgment on DATE . It held that the applicant had been illtreated by police officers , that he had not contributed in any way to that and that as a result of the illtreatment he had sustained serious injuries . Accordingly , the court upheld ORG judgment . No appeal having been lodged within the statutory timelimit , the judgment entered into force on DATE .

On DATE the applicant ’s lawyer requested ORG to issue a writ of execution pursuant to the judgment . On DATE the court issued such a writ against ORG , ORG and ORG .

On DATE a monetary reform took place , whereby ORG CARDINAL became CARDINAL new NORP lev ( ORG ) .

On DATE the applicant presented the writ of execution to the financial department of ORG and DATE , on DATE , he received the compensation awarded to him by the courts together with the interest accrued . He was altogether paid BGN MONEY , BGN CARDINAL representing the principal amount of compensation awarded by the courts ( BGN CARDINAL for nonpecuniary damage and BGN CARDINAL for pecuniary damage ) , BGN CARDINAL representing interest , and the remainder costs and expenses for the proceedings .

The Government submitted that an internal inquiry had been carried out by ORG in relation to the events of DATE , but that they had not been able to find any documents relating to that inquiry in the archive of the ORG . The applicant submitted that he knew of the existence of a preliminary inquiry carried out by the prosecution authorities , but that he had no information about it .

Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW , as in force at the material time , read , as relevant :

“ ... [ P]olice [ officers ] may use ... force ... when performing their duties only if they [ have no alternative course of action ] in cases of :

NORP resistance or refusal [ by a person ] to obey a lawful order ;

NORP arrest of an offender who does not obey or resists a police [ officer ] ; ...

NORP attack against citizens or police [ officers ] ; ... ”

Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) provided that the use of force had to be commensurate to , in particular , the specific circumstances and the personality of the offender . Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) imposed upon police officers the duty to “ protect , if possible , the health ... of persons against whom [ force was being used ] ” .

Articles CARDINAL , CARDINAL and CARDINAL of LAW ( “ the ORG ” ) make it an offence to cause a light , intermediate or severe bodily injury to another . LAW ) provides that if the injury is caused by a police officer in the course of or in connection with the performance of his or her duties , the offence is an aggravated one . This offence is a publicly prosecutable one LAW ) .

Under NORP law criminal proceedings for publicly prosecutable offences can be opened only by the decision of a prosecutor or an investigator ( LAW ( “ the CCrP ” ) ) . The prosecutor or the investigator must open an investigation whenever he or she receives information , supported by sufficient evidence , that an offence might have been committed ( ORG and CARDINAL of the ORG ) . During the relevant period the ORG provided that if the information to the prosecuting authorities was not supported by evidence , the prosecutor had to order a preliminary inquiry ( verification ) in order to determine whether the opening of a criminal investigation was warranted ( LAW CCrP ) .

Section CARDINAL of ORG of DATE ( „ Закон за отговорността на държавата за вреди , причинени на граждани “ ) provides that the ORG is liable for damage suffered by private persons as a result of the unlawful acts of civil servants , committed in the course of or in connection with the performance of their duties . The ORG ’s liability is strict , i.e. no fault is required on the part of the civil servants in the commission of the unlawful acts ( section CARDINAL in fine ) .

Section CARDINAL of the LAW provides that the action in responsibility must be brought against the authority by whom the civil servant concerned is employed . A prosecutor participates in the proceedings ex officio ( section MONEY ) ) .


Preliminary objection joined to merits and dismissed -non-exhaustion of domestic remedies);Violation of Art. 8;Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed;Non-pecuniary damage - financial award;Costs and expenses partial award - domestic proceedings;Costs and expenses award - Convention proceedings

Corneliu Bîrsan;Egbert Myjer;Ineta Ziemele;Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre;Vladimiro Zagrebelsky

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

She has lived DATE in a house on the outskirts of GPE , QUANTITY away from a plant for the storage and treatment of “ special waste ” classified as either hazardous or non - hazardous . A joint - stock company , ORG began operating the plant in DATE .

NORP In a decision ( delibera ) of DATE , ORG granted PERSON a licence to operate the plant for a DATE period . The different forms of waste treatment covered by ORG licence included , for the first time , the “ detoxification ” ( inertizzazione ) of hazardous waste , a process involving the treatment of special industrial waste using chemicals .

On DATE ORG authorised PERSON to increase the annual quantity of waste treated at the plant to a total volume of QUANTITY . In particular , the quantity of toxic waste authorised for detoxification was raised from QUANTITY .

On DATE ORG approved a number of alterations entailing technological improvements to the facility without any increase in the quantity of waste being treated .

In a decision of DATE , ORG renewed the operating licence for a DATE period , on condition that PERSON signed a memorandum of understanding with the local authorities in order to limit the plant ’s environmental impact ; that condition was satisfied on DATE .

On DATE ORG took note of the signing of the memorandum of understanding and confirmed DATE as the expiry date for the operating licence .

The applicant lodged CARDINAL applications with ORG in DATE and DATE for judicial review of ORG decisions of CARDINAL DATE and DATE and DATE .

She challenged the renewal of the operating licence granted to PERSON and , alleging a breach of PERSON no . CARDINAL , argued that the alterations approved by ORG entailed an increase in activity such as to necessitate a fresh licensing procedure , including an assessment of the plant ’s environmental impact .

PERSON applied to intervene in the proceedings .

The applicant also sought a stay of execution of the decision to renew the licence . The court allowed her request in an order of CARDINAL DATE , chiefly because the memorandum of understanding had not yet been signed , and suspended the implementation of the decision . PERSON appealed .

On DATE the PERSON set aside ORG order , holding that the signing of the memorandum of understanding ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) had removed the risk of irreparable damage on the basis of which the stay of execution had been ordered .

In a judgment of DATE , ORG , having joined all the applicant ’s applications , dismissed them . It noted that all her complaints were based on the alleged need for ORG to conduct a fresh licensing procedure . It considered , however , that the size of the facility and its volume of activity had been determined in ORG decisions of DATE and DATE , which had never been challenged by the applicant . However , the alterations approved in the impugned decisions of CARDINAL DATE and DATE and CARDINAL DATE did not entail an increase in the plant ’s volume of activity or a change in the types of waste being treated . Accordingly , it was not necessary for ORG to conduct a fresh licensing procedure .

NORP The applicant appealed . In a judgment of DATE , the PERSON upheld ORG conclusions and dismissed the appeal . It also pointed out that a facility should be deemed to be “ new ” and thus to require a fresh operating licence where there was a change in one of the various stages of waste treatment or in the types of waste being treated .

In a decision of DATE , ORG renewed ORG operating licence for a DATE period . The decision was subject to revocation in the light of the findings of the environmental - impact assessment procedure ( procedura di valutazione di impatto ambientale – “ EIA procedure ” ) which PERSON had initiated in the meantime ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL below ) .

On DATE the applicant applied to ORG for judicial review of ORG decision of DATE . The company and ORG both applied to intervene in the proceedings .

On DATE the applicant applied to ORG for judicial review of a decision of DATE in which ORG had authorised PERSON to make an alteration to the facility for processing waste oils .

Furthermore , in a decision of DATE , ORG noted that PERSON had decided not to act on the authorisation granted on DATE , and confirmed the renewal of the operating licence . The applicant applied for judicial review of that decision .

In an order of DATE , ORG allowed an application by the applicant for a stay of execution , on the ground that the ORG procedure was still pending . Subsequently , on DATE , the PERSON allowed an appeal by PERSON , which had argued that the latest inspections of the plant demonstrated its “ observance of the limits set by the existing regulations ” , and set aside the stay of execution ordered by ORG .

In a judgment of DATE , which was deposited with the registry on DATE , ORG allowed the applicant ’s applications on the merits and set aside the CARDINAL impugned decisions ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above ) .

The court held , firstly , that the site alterations authorised by ORG on DATE in order to allow the processing of waste oils should have been classified as substantial . Consequently , in accordance with Articles CARDINAL and CARDINAL of Decree no . CARDINAL ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and DATE below ) , ORG should have suspended ORG operations and ordered the necessary checks to be carried out before renewing the company ’s operating licence . The court therefore found that ORG decision of DATE had been unlawful .

As to the fact that the company had subsequently decided not to carry out the alterations in question , the court held that ORG should in any event have carried out a thorough examination of the plant ’s operations and condition , as there had been a number of complaints from private individuals and public authorities about ORG activities , giving rise to serious doubts as to their compatibility with environmental standards .

The court referred to the CARDINAL environmental - impact assessment decrees ( “ ORG decrees ” ) issued by ORG and , holding that ORG had failed to carry out its investigative duties , ordered the suspension of ORG operations pending the final outcome of the ORG procedure .

PERSON lodged an appeal with the Consiglio di Stato . On DATE the Consiglio di Stato stayed the execution of the judgment of CARDINAL DATE further to a request to that effect by the company .

In a judgment of CARDINAL DATE , which was deposited with the registry on DATE , the PERSON dismissed PERSON ’s appeal . Upholding ORG judgment , it held that ORG decision of DATE to renew the operating licence without having carried out any environmental - impact assessment was unlawful and should be set aside .

In the meantime , in a decision of DATE , ORG had renewed the operating licence for the plant for a DATE period . The renewal concerned the treatment of special waste , both hazardous and non - hazardous . Industrial waste intended for detoxification remained outside the scope of the licence pending the conclusion of the ORG procedure being conducted by ORG .

A consultation meeting between the local authorities ( conferenza di servizi ) was held on DATE prior to the granting of the licence . At the meeting ORG and the provincial and district councils concerned expressed an opinion in favour of renewing the licence , referring at the same time to the report issued by ORG ( ORG ) on DATE .

In the report the ORG experts indicated what steps had to be taken to avoid any risk of an incident or operational fault at the plant ; in addition to these , all the requirements laid down by ORG in its decision of DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) had to be met .

The applicant applied to ORG for judicial review of that decision and sought a stay of its execution .

On DATE ORG , having taken note of the ORG decree of DATE approving the treatment by PERSON of all types of waste , incorporated its latest decision to renew the operating licence into a provisional licence for the detoxification of industrial waste , valid until DATE , pending completion of the full licensing procedure .

In a decision of DATE , ORG extended the licence until DATE to allow PERSON to submit its plans for adapting the plant to meet the requirements set out in the ORG decree .

In an order of DATE , ORG dismissed an application by the applicant for a stay of execution , holding that the decision of DATE had been given in accordance with the favourable opinion by the local authorities and had taken into account all factors constituting a potential risk to the properties in the vicinity of the plant . The court further noted that the decision in question had laid down a number of requirements aimed at eliminating the disturbance suffered by the applicant .

The proceedings on the merits are still pending before ORG .

In a decision of DATE , ORG ordered PERSON to initiate an ORG procedure in respect of the detoxification activities at the plant .

On DATE the company submitted its application to ORG in accordance with section CARDINAL of Law no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL .

ORG and the applicant took part in the procedure , together with the local authorities of ORG and ORG , CARDINAL villages situated within QUANTITY of the plant .

On DATE ORG issued an ORG decree .

The Ministry noted that the plant was built on agricultural land , near the River PERSON and a sand quarry , the exploitation of which had gradually eroded the soil . Because of the permeability of the ground in particular , there was a significant risk that the toxic chemical residue generated by the detoxification operations at the plant might contaminate the groundwater , a source of drinking water for the inhabitants of the neighbouring villages .

The Ministry considered that the operation of the plant was incompatible with environmental regulations . However , PERSON was allowed to continue its activities until the expiry on DATE of the most recent operating licence granted by ORG , provided that it complied with certain requirements .

PERSON applied to ORG for judicial review of the decision and sought a stay of its execution .

NORP In an order of CARDINAL DATE , ORG suspended the implementation of the decision and ordered the Ministry to carry out a fresh environmental - impact assessment . ORG appealed . On DATE the PERSON declared the appeal inadmissible .

In the meantime , on DATE ORG had issued a further ORG decree confirming that the operation of the plant was incompatible with environmental regulations .

PERSON applied to ORG for judicial review of the new decree issued by ORG .

On DATE the court allowed the application by PERSON and ordered ORG to carry out a fresh environmental - impact assessment .

In an order of DATE , the PERSON dismissed an appeal by ORG against the above - mentioned order of ORG .

In a decision of CARDINAL DATE , ORG notified PERSON of the conditions for operating the plant , as laid down in the decrees issued by ORG .

In the meantime , on DATE , in the course of the fresh ORG procedure ordered by ORG , PERSON had submitted a plan for altering the facility .

The plan envisaged , among other things , making the ground surface impermeable , building soundproofing devices , raising the site ’s perimeter wall so as to avoid any risk of flooding , and improving the system for monitoring hazardous emissions .

On DATE the local health authority ( azienda sanitaria locale – ORG ) submitted its opinion to ORG on the compatibility of PERSON ’s activities with environmental regulations . It stated that , according to the results of technical analyses carried out DATE , which had noted , among other things , the presence of abnormal concentrations of carbon and other organic substances in the atmosphere , the continuation of the plant ’s operation could cause health problems for those living nearby . The ORG added that it had not been shown that the precautions envisaged by PERSON were sufficient to protect public health .

On DATE ORG approved the continuation of the plant ’s operation , provided that the company implemented a number of requirements .

In particular , the company was to :

“ draw up a memorandum of understanding with the local authorities for monitoring the waste being treated , with a view to reducing the likelihood of an operational fault at the site ... ;

ensure the buffering of the detoxification facilities ... ;

close the open - top chambers used in the chemical and biological process and develop an exhaust ventilation and purification system ... ;

build a mobile , soundproof structure to cover the macerator ... ;

alter the internal sewerage system so as to separate atmospheric water from water produced by the facility ;

set up a system for monitoring the quality and quantity of water produced by the plant that flows into the PERSON ... and into public sewers ;

devise and implement a plan for making the ground impermeable at the site ... ;

monitor the site in order to obtain a precise assessment of the presence of any pollutants in the subsoil , the hydrogeological structure of the land and the danger levels for the nearby groundwater supplies used as drinking water ... ;

... raise the facility ’s perimeter wall to a minimum height of QUANTITY above sea level ... ”

ORG further directed :

“ ... the close proximity of residential dwellings means that the plant ’s operations must be permanently monitored as regards the dust released into the atmosphere , VOCs ( volatile organic compounds ) and noise disturbance . Accordingly , a unit should be set up between the site and the dwellings to measure dust emissions and the noise generated by the facility . As regards ORG quantities , the monitoring device should be installed near the facility with the agreement of the relevant authorities ;

the company should also carry out periodic reviews of noise emissions . ”

ORG decided that the plant ’s implementation of the above requirements should be verified when the time came to renew its operating licence , due to expire on DATE .

On DATE the ORG procedure ordered by ORG was completed and ORG issued a new ORG decree .

The ORG noted , firstly , that PERSON processed PERCENT of the waste generated in northern GPE and PERCENT nationwide . It subsequently stated that the requirements laid down by ORG should significantly improve the conditions for operating and monitoring the plant and expressed an opinion in favour of ORG continued operation of the plant , provided that it complied with those requirements .

The applicant applied to ORG for judicial review of the ORG decree , at the same time seeking a stay of its execution .

In an order of DATE , ORG refused the request for a stay of execution on the ground that the applicant had not notified ORG of her application .

Following numerous complaints by the applicant and other inhabitants of the area surrounding the plant , ORG and the ORG produced a number of reports on ORG activities .

NORP In particular , on DATE experts from the ORG conducted analyses of the emissions produced at the plant and found that the statutory limits had been exceeded for certain substances , such as nickel , lead , nitrogen and sulphates . The report drawn up by the ORG indicates that the judicial authorities were informed of the findings of the analyses .

On DATE experts from the ORG inspected the plant . They noted that a deposit of white dust had formed inside and outside the facility following an accident while a silo was being filled with slaked lime .

During the same inspection the experts observed that a number of containers intended for toxic waste were present on the site without having been neutralised after use . In a note dated DATE , the ORG instructed the company to move the containers in order to avoid any risk of contaminating the ground , particularly as the surface had not been made impermeable . It appears from the report that the ORG lodged a complaint with the appropriate judicial authorities .

In a report issued on DATE , the ORG ( special branch of the carabinieri dealing with health issues ) informed ORG that a complaint had been lodged against ORG legal representative for failure to comply with the conditions laid down in the licences for operating the plant .

On several occasions DATE ORG asked ORG to intervene with a view to moving the facility to a safer site better suited to the plant ’s growing production needs .

On DATE ORG temporarily rehoused the PERSON family free of charge pending the outcome of the judicial dispute with PERSON in order to alleviate the disturbance caused to the applicant by the plant .

On DATE the ORG issued a technical report on PERSON further to a request by the applicant and her neighbours for an emergency inspection of the site . The experts found a high level of ammonia in the atmosphere , indicating a fault in the detoxification process . They concluded that the company had omitted to activate the necessary devices for ensuring that the waste to be detoxified was compatible with the facility ’s specifications . There were also structural deficiencies at the site that could potentially lead to operational faults generating emissions of fumes and gases .

Section CARDINAL of LAW ( Law no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) , which was enacted in accordance with NORP Directive CARDINAL/CARDINAL/EEC , provides that any project which is likely to have significant effects on the environment

“ must be submitted , prior to its approval , to ORG , ORG and the authorities of the region concerned for an environmental - impact assessment ( ‘ EIA’ ) . The application must state the location of the installation and give details of the liquid and solid waste and the pollutants and noise disturbance which it will generate . It must also outline the measures intended to prevent environmental damage and the environmental - protection and monitoring arrangements . Notice of the application shall be published at the applicant ’s expense in the newspaper with the largest circulation in the region concerned and in a national newspaper .

ORG shall , together with ORG , after consulting the authorities of the region concerned , give a decision within DATE as to the project ’s compatibility with environmental regulations .

Where ORG observes any conduct that is contrary to the decision on compatibility with environmental regulations or is likely to endanger the environmental and ecological balance , it shall order the suspension of operations and shall refer the matter to ORG . ”

Article CARDINAL of Prime Ministerial Decree no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL lists the types of project that are subject to the assessment procedure provided for in Law no . CARDINAL . Point ( f ) of the LAW refers to “ facilities for the treatment of toxic and harmful waste by means of a ... chemical process ” .

Law no . CARDINAL , amended by Legislative Decree no . CARDINAL , contains provisions on waste treatment and environmental protection .

LAW governs the licensing of waste - treatment facilities . The regional council conducts a preliminary examination of proposed new facilities for the treatment and storage of urban , special , toxic and harmful waste by means of consultations ( conferenze ) in which representatives of the region and the other local authorities concerned take part .

If the planned facility examined by the regional council has to undergo a prior environmental - impact assessment within the meaning of PERSON no . PERSON , the licensing procedure is suspended pending the decision of ORG .

Once the examination of the project is complete , the regional council awards an operating licence for the facility in an administrative decision laying down the necessary environmental - protection conditions and requirements for the operator to observe . The licence is valid for DATE and is renewable .

Where it emerges from inspections of the site that the conditions laid down by the authorities are not being met , the operation of the facility is suspended for DATE . Subsequently , if the facility ’s operations have not been brought into line with the requirements set out in the licence , the licence is revoked ( LAW no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) .

By section CARDINAL of Law no . CARDINAL , anyone who has cause to fear that his or her rights may suffer imminent and irreparable damage as a result of the implementation of an administrative measure which he or she has challenged or of the authorities’ conduct may ask the administrative courts to take urgent action to ensure , depending on the circumstances , that the decision on the merits can provisionally take effect .