Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Life) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 2 - Right to life (Article 2-1 - Effective investigation) (Procedural aspect);No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);No violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention);No violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-1 - Lawful arrest or detention);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Brought promptly before judge or other officer);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Take proceedings);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-5 - Compensation);No violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for home);No violation of Article 9 - Freedom of thought, conscience and religion (Article 9-1 - Manifest religion or belief);No violation of Article 14 - Prohibition of discrimination (Article 14 - Discrimination);Violation of Article 13 - Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 - Effective remedy);Violation of Article 34 - Individual applications (Article 34 - Hinder the exercise of the right of application);Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed (Article 41 - Pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction);Non-pecuniary damage - award (Article 41 - Non-pecuniary damage;Just satisfaction)

The applicants were born in DATE and DATE respectively and live in ORG .

The facts surrounding the arrest and subsequent death of PERSON ( “ PERSON ” ) are in dispute between the parties .

On DATE at TIME plain - clothes police officers arrived at the first applicant , PERSON ( “ GPE ” ) , apartment in GPE . They entered the apartment , carried out a quick search and inquired about PERSON . GPE informed them that PERSON was spending TIME in his uncle PERSON apartment . Leaving CARDINAL of the officers with ORG , PERSON , PERSON , ORG and PERSON , the rest of the officers left taking the second applicant , PERSON ( “ PERSON ” ) , with them to show them the way .

When they arrived at ORG apartment , one of the police officers remained at the entrance of the building . PERSON and CARDINAL officers went up to the second floor . When they entered the apartment , the police officers carried out a search and an identity check . Several members of the PERSON family were present in the apartment , namely PERSON , GPE , GPE , GPE , PERSON , and PERSON , as well as CARDINAL grandchildren of PERSON and CARDINAL of PERSON friends . CARDINAL of the police officers interrogated these QUANTITY men in CARDINAL of the rooms . The rest of the group was held in the sitting room . Suddenly , a gun shot was heard from the room and an armed clash broke between the police officers and the CARDINAL men . The police officer who was interrogating the QUANTITY men was shot dead . When the shooting started , the second police officer grabbed PERSON by his arm and dragged him downstairs . PERSON and the others saw the CARDINAL men try to escape . They heard further gunshots from downstairs . The group subsequently learnt that CARDINAL of the men had died , the other had escaped and the officer who was waiting outside the building had been wounded .

Approximately TIME following the incident , several police teams surrounded the building . PERSON , GPE , GPE , GPE , ORG were arrested and taken to ORG by a minibus . When they arrived at ORG , they were detained in the entrance hall . On the right hand side of the entrance hall , there were CARDINAL rooms , CARDINAL of which were used for interrogation and the third was the office of the superintendent . PERSON was called in to CARDINAL of the small rooms for interrogation . When he entered the room , he saw his brother PERSON , lying on the floor face down , with his red leather jacket pulled over his head . In the meantime GPE , GPE , ORG , NORP and PERSON were also arrested and brought to FAC by another minibus . When the second group entered the station , they were told to cover their heads with their jackets . ORG however was able to see through the parting of his jacket . He also saw his son PERSON standing behind him . The group was subsequently transferred to another location by a minibus . PERSON saw PERSON also in this second location . They were then brought to ORG for interrogation , where the applicants heard the cries of PERSON .

The first applicant was held in custody until DATE . When he was released , the police officers told him that if anyone asked about his son PERSON , the applicant had to say that he had fled to the mountains to join the guerrillas . The second applicant was released on DATE , DATE after his arrest .

On DATE the first applicant went to ORG and submitted a petition outlining his concerns for the fate of his son . The public prosecutor showed him some photographs and from these photos the first applicant identified the body of PERSON . The public prosecutor informed him that PERSON had died in an armed clash on DATE and that his body had been buried . When GPE went to the cemetery , QUANTITY unmarked graves were shown to him and he was told that CARDINAL of them belonged to PERSON . On DATE ORG submitted a petition to ORG Chief Public Prosecutor 's office and requested permission to open his son 's grave . His request was rejected verbally . On DATE ORG lodged CARDINAL petitions with ORG Chief Public Prosecutor 's Office . He requested that an autopsy be conducted on PERSON body in order to learn the true circumstances surrounding his death . He was told to go to the court to get permission for an autopsy . He filed another petition with the State Minister responsible for human rights and requested an investigation of the circumstances surrounding the death of his son . On DATE the Ministry replied that PERSON had never been taken into custody .

Following the communication of the application to the Government , ORG was summoned to the ORG public prosecutor 's office on DATE . He was questioned about his application to the ORG and was forced to sign a statement in which he expressed his wish to retract his application . Thereafter he went to ORG and informed them about this incident .

The Government stated that while ORG of ORG was taking a statement from an arrested person in connection with an ongoing investigation , they were informed that a person called PERSON was aiding and abetting the ORG . Accordingly a team of police officers went to Abdurrazak'sCARDINAL apartment searching for his son PERSON . When they arrived at the apartment , the officers were informed that PERSON was spending TIME at his uncle 's apartment . Taking PERSON with them to show them the way , the officers subsequently went to PERSON apartment . The officers carried out a search and found CARDINAL men sleeping in CARDINAL of the rooms . As they interrogated them , CARDINAL of the men opened fire and killed CARDINAL of the police officers . Another officer was wounded during the incident . The Government further stated that the CARDINAL men tried to escape however CARDINAL of them was shot dead .

The Government further submitted that on DATE the security forces received an anonymous telephone call , informing them that CARDINAL armed men had been seen hiding in a hut near FAC . Accordingly , an operation was conducted . When the officers arrived near the hut , an armed clash broke out and lasted TIME . Following the clash , CARDINAL men were found dead in the hut . The officers took photographs of the bodies to enable their identification . On DATE an autopsy was conducted on CARDINAL of the bodies , which was later identified as PERSON from the photographs . Furthermore , according to the ballistic examination reports , the guns that were found in the hut matched those used on DATE in PERSON apartment .

The parties submitted various documents to the ORG . While delivering its judgment , the ORG had particular regard to the following documents :

NORP The report stated that in connection with an ongoing investigation , a search was conducted in a house on DATE . The officers were looking for PERSON however they were informed that PERSON was at his uncle 's house . Accordingly , taking PERSON with them to show them the way , the police officers left the apartment . When they arrived at the second apartment , the officers conducted a quick search and found CARDINAL men sleeping in CARDINAL of the rooms . When the officers asked the men to show their identification paper , they were attacked and a gun was fired . CARDINAL person was arrested and while he was being taken to the police vehicle downstairs , another police officer was shot and wounded . The arrested person escaped and the person who had shot the officer was killed .

According to the report , which was signed by officer PERSON , on DATE at TIME the anti - terrorism department received an anonymous telephone call informing them that the perpetrators of the incident of DATE , who had caused the death of a police officer and the wounding of another , had been seen in a hut near FAC .

The report states that following information from an anonymous telephone call at TIME that CARDINAL armed men were hiding in a hut near FAC , a police operation was carried out . Taking the necessary safety precautions , the officers positioned themselves QUANTITY away from the hut and ordered the CARDINAL men to surrender . Shots were fired from the hut in the direction of the security forces and a clash broke out . The clash lasted TIME . When the firing ceased , police officers entered the hut and found CARDINAL dead bodies . CARDINAL of the bodies had an ammunition belt with CARDINAL cartridge clip holders , a PERSON rifle and a cartridge clip . A PERSON pistol was found on the second body . There were no identity cards on the bodies , which were subsequently taken to ORG morgue .

The autopsy report stated that rigor mortis had set in and bruising had appeared on the body . CARDINAL bullet entrance holes on the back side of the neck and CARDINAL exit holes in the chest were noted . The report further stated that no other signs were observed . As the gunshot wounds were the certain cause of death , it was not considered necessary to carry out a full post - mortem examination . Finally , the estimated time of death was given as TIME before the autopsy was carried out .

The Government have provided the photographs of the CARDINAL dead bodies and photographs taken in the hut where PERSON was shot .

The custody records of ORG concerning the period of DATE and DATE do not contain the name of PERSON . They further indicate that GPE , PERSON , PERSON , ORG , ORG , PERSON , PERSON , GPE , GPE , ORG and ORG were taken in custody on DATE at TIME

In their police statements , ORG , GPE , GPE and PERSON submitted that on TIME of the incident at QUANTITY police officers had arrived at their apartment , looking for PERSON . PERSON informed them that PERSON was spending TIME at his uncle 's house . Accordingly , the police officers left , taking PERSON with them to show them the way . TIME , the police officers returned and arrested them .

NORP The report which was delivered by ORG indicates that there were no signs of ill - treatment on the bodies of PERSON , GPE , NORP , GPE , GPE , ORG and GPE ORG .

In his police statement PERSON explained that on TIME of the incident , he was at his father Abdurrazak'sCARDINAL house . At TIME police officers arrived looking for his brother PERSON . PERSON informed the officers that PERSON was spending TIME at his uncle PERSON 's house . Accordingly , PERSON went with the officers to show them the way . When they arrived at GPE 's apartment , the police officers asked for PERSON and they were told that he was sleeping in one of the rooms . PERSON waited in the living room together with the other family members while the officers entered the room where PERSON and his friends were sleeping . TIME a gun shot was heard and everyone in the living room fled to the neighbour 's apartment . PERSON further stated seeing PERSON and his CARDINAL friends running away .

As to the police statements of GPE , ORG and PERSON , they all stated that on DATE of the incident PERSON had been staying at their apartment together with his CARDINAL friends . At QUANTITY TIME , police officers came looking for PERSON . They conducted a search in the apartment and one of the officers entered the room where PERSON and his QUANTITY friends were sleeping . TIME , they heard a gun shot . All the family members fled to the neighbour 's apartment whereas PERSON and his CARDINAL friends tried to run away .

NORP The report of ORG indicates that there were no signs of ill - treatment on the bodies of PERSON , GPE and PERSON . The report further stated that there were certain marks on the body of PERSON .

In their statements to the public prosecutor , PERSON , GPE and PERSON essentially repeated their police statements . As to PERSON , while she reiterated the general account of the events , in her statement to the public prosecutor she did not mention that she had seen PERSON running away .

In their statements Abdülkadir and PERSON stated that on DATE , while they were sleeping at home , police officers had come to their apartment looking for PERSON . He and his QUANTITY friends had been spending TIME with them . PERSON and FAC further explained that while the officers interrogated PERSON and his CARDINAL friends in CARDINAL of the rooms , a gun shot was heard . The family members fled to the neighbours ' apartment and they were all subsequently arrested by the police . Nasır and ORG further denied their statements taken by the police and the public prosecutor .

According to the report , prepared by ORG , a PERSON automatic rifle , a PERSON semi - automatic pistol , CARDINAL bullet cases , and CARDINAL bullets were taken into examination following the clash of DATE . It was further established that the bullets fired by the PERSON rifle had been used in the killing of police officer PERSON on DATE . The report further concluded that the PERSON pistol had not been used in any previous incidents .

According to the report prepared by ORG , GPE identified the body of PERSON from the photographs .

The first applicant requested information about the fate of his son , who had been arrested on DATE at ORG apartment .

Upon learning from the public prosecutor that his son , PERSON , had died in a clash on DATE , the first applicant submitted to the prosecutor that he believed that his son had died in custody . He accordingly requested that an autopsy be conducted on the body of PERSON to clarify the exact cause of his death .

The first applicant maintained that his son was taken into custody on DATE together with CARDINAL members of his family . He further stated that he had seen him both at ORG and at ORG . Although the first applicant was informed by ORG that his son had died in a clash on DATE , he requested the Minister to conduct a further investigation into the real circumstances surrounding the death .

In his letter the Minister informed the first applicant that PERSON was never taken into custody .

In their letter , ORG requested ORG to conduct an investigation concerning the individual application of ORG and PERSON to ORG . The prosecutor was asked to take statements from the CARDINAL applicants concerning certain documents that they had sent to the Commission .

NORP In response to the public prosecutor 's question about the individual application that he had lodged with ORG , the first applicant explained that following the death of his son , PERSON , he had gone to ORG where he had signed certain documents . However he stated that he did not recall giving authorisation to NORP lawyers to initiate proceedings in LOC . He further indicated that he wished to retract his application .

In his statement , which was addressed to ORG , the first applicant stated that he had been taken by plain - clothes police officers to the public prosecutor 's office in DATE . On the way to the public prosecutor 's office , the officers forced him to deny that he wanted to pursue his application with the Commission . He maintained that he had to sign a statement in the public prosecutor 's office out of fear and without knowing its content as he is illiterate .

The facts of the case being in dispute between the parties , CARDINAL Delegates of the Commission took oral evidence in GPE DATE and DATE from CARDINAL witnesses , including the applicants . The evidence of those who attended the hearing may be summarised as follows :

The witness , who is the first applicant , stated that on DATE of the incident at TIME police officers had come to his house , looking for his son PERSON . He informed the officers that PERSON was staying at his uncle 's house and told his other son PERSON to show them the way . TIME after they had left , police officers came back and arrested everyone in the apartment , namely GPE , NORP , ORG and PERSON . They were first taken to ORG . The police officers forced them to cover their heads with their jackets but the witness was able to see through the parting of his jacket . He saw that his CARDINAL sons PERSON and PERSON were also in the station . Thereafter , they were taken to the police headquarters by minibus . The witness further recalled seeing PERSON in the minibus . They waited for TIME at the police headquarters before being taken to ORG , where they were blindfolded and the witness was able to hear the cries of PERSON . The witness and his daughters were released from custody DATE after their arrest . At the time of his release , the officers told him that his son had fled to the mountains . They gave him PERSON leather jacket but the witness refused to take it stating that his son would be cold without his jacket . The younger son of the witness , PERSON , was released DATE after his arrest . When PERSON did not return home , the witness went to the ORG public prosecutor and asked about his son 's whereabouts . The public prosecutor showed him some photos and asked him whether any of were of his son PERSON . The applicant identified his son 's body . The prosecutor informed him that his son had died during an armed clash between the ORG and the security forces .

The witness further explained that after he filed his application with ORG , he was summoned to the public prosecutor 's office in DATE . The public prosecutor was angry with him for filing an application with the Commission . Out of fear , the witness stated before the public prosecutor that he would retract his application . However , before the Delegates , the witness affirmed that he intended to pursue his application . Finally he stated that he was able to visit his son 's grave and pray for him .

The witness , who is the second applicant , stated that on DATE police officers had come to their house at QUANTITY He saw PERSON , a distant relative , with the police officers . The police officers carried out a quick search in the house and asked for his brother PERSON . His father , GPE , told them that PERSON was staying at his uncle 's house . Accordingly , the witness accepted to accompany the QUANTITY police officers to his uncle 's house . When they arrived , the witness knocked on the door . PERSON answered the door and let them in . CARDINAL of the police officers remained outside and CARDINAL of them entered . The officers conducted a search and carried out an identity check . When they found PERSON , they arrested him . PERSON by his arm , one of the officers went out . The witness followed them . As they were walking along the corridor , they heard gunshots . The police officer , who was holding PERSON by his arm , dragged him downstairs . At that time , the witness saw PERSON CARDINAL friends running downstairs but he did not see where they went . The witness then fled to the neighbour 's flat . His uncle GPE , his cousin PERSON , ORG 's wife and PERSON 's wife also joined him . Some time later , they were all arrested by the police and taken to ORG . The police officers told them to cover their heads with their jackets . When they arrived at FAC , they were forced to wait in a corridor . He described the entrance of the station and stated that there was a small hall followed by a long corridor , at the end of which there was a room . The witness saw PERSON lying face down on the floor in that room . PERSON was wearing a shirt , a pull over , a brownish leather jacket and denim jeans .

The witness further confirmed seeing his father and sisters in the Çarşı Station . Subsequently , they were taken to a second place in a car , where they waited for TIME . The witness stated that he did not see PERSON in the second place . Then they were taken to a third place . The witness did not see anyone in this third place but heard the voices of his uncle , PERSON , and PERSON . PERSON was screaming in pain . The witness was kept there for DATE and he was allegedly ill - treated . The officers told him that his brother had escaped to the mountains . He was forced to sign a statement without reading its content . When he was released from custody , the witness went to the public prosecutor with his father to discover the fate of PERSON . The witness stated that when PERSON body was identified from the photographs , they were told that he had been buried . An officer showed them CARDINAL graves and informed them that he did not know which CARDINAL was PERSON .

The witness , who is the first applicant 's nephew , stated that on TIME CARDINAL DATE , he was at his father 's house . His father ( PERSON ) , his mother ( GPE ) , his wife ( PERSON ) , his children , his brother ( PERSON ) , and his brother 's children were also at home . He recalled that his uncle 's son , PERSON and his CARDINAL friends had spent TIME with them . The witness maintained that at TIME CARDINAL plain - clothes police officers had come to their house , together with his cousin PERSON , searching for PERSON . At that time PERSON was sleeping in the guest room , together with his CARDINAL friends and the brother of the witness , PERSON . The police officers carried out an identity check and then told PERSON and his CARDINAL friends that they had to come to the police station for interrogation . CARDINAL of the officers held PERSON by the arm . At that moment they heard a gun shot . The police officer who was holding PERSON also started shooting . PERSON tried to prevent the police officer from shooting but the same police officer dragged him down the stairs . The witness further recalled that the family members fled to their neighbour 's to protect themselves . After some time , more police officers arrived and arrested everyone . While they were being taken to the police station , the witness saw that CARDINAL of the persons who had come with PERSON had been shot dead . The witness was put in a car and taken to ORG . He remembered standing in a long corridor . Despite the fact that he was blindfolded , the witness was able to see around . He saw that his mother , his wife , the daughter of PERSON and his uncle were also there . He also saw PERSON , a distant cousin . The witness said that he was taken to a room which was wet , where he saw PERSON , who was being tortured . PERSON was lying on the floor . He said to the witness “ Our family is ruined . They will kill us all . What is this we are going through ? ” . The witness stated that this was the last time he saw PERSON .

The witness , who is the daughter of the first applicant and the sister of the second , was at her father 's house on TIME of the incident . She said that while they were sleeping at home , some police officers came to their house and asked about her brother PERSON . When her father explained to the police officers that PERSON was staying at his uncle 's house , the police officers left the house , taking PERSON with them . Some time after , the police officers came back and arrested everyone in the house , including the witness . They were first taken to ORG and then to the police headquarters . The witness explained that she had not seen PERSON in FAC but she had seen him at the police headquarters . When they arrived at the police headquarters , they walked upstairs and were taken into a hall . Their eyes were not covered but they were forced to hold their hands behind the back of their necks . They were made to stand facing the wall . When the witness glanced over her shoulder , she saw that PERSON was standing next to her . This was the last time she saw him . However she recalled hearing his voice at ORG , which was the third place they were taken to . He was moaning . She was kept in a cell , together with ORG , NORP , GPE , NORP and PERSON . At some point , PERSON and ORG were taken out of the cell and when they came back they were shivering . They therefore requested a blanket from the guardians and the guardians gave them a brown leather jacket which belonged to PERSON .

The witness affirmed that he was a police officer at the Anti - Terrorism Branch of ORG at the time of the events . He recalled that after receiving information from PERSON , a person who was under custody , that PERSON had been aiding and abetting the ORG , an operation was prepared . PERSON was asked to point out the house of PERSON to a group of CARDINAL police officers , including the witness . On DATE at TIME they arrived at the apartment of GPE , the father of PERSON . PERSON told them that his son was staying at his uncle 's house . Accordingly , taking a young person with them to show them the way , and leaving CARDINAL police officer in the house of GPE , they left . When they arrived at PERSON uncle 's house , CARDINAL police officer remained near the patrol car , and the witness stayed outside the building . QUANTITY police officers went upstairs . TIME the witness heard gun shots from upstairs . CARDINAL of the police officers , PERSON , came downstairs , holding someone by the wrist . He told the witness that the third police officer , ORG , had been shot . The witness entered the building to help his colleague . At that time PERSON went outside , still holding the detainee by the wrist . The witness then heard footsteps and he hid under the stairs . A person fired a PERSON rifle at the witness and wounded him in the abdomen . The witness fired back and killed the person who had fired at him . He then went out of the building to get help . When officer PERSON saw that the witness was wounded , he left the detainee and ran towards him . The person who had been in custody ran away . The witness was subsequently taken to hospital , where he underwent an operation . When he regained consciousness in the hospital , his colleagues asked him to sign the incident report they had prepared . The public prosecutor further took his statement while he was still in intensive care . The witness accepted that there had been a mistake in the names that appeared in the incident report . He agreed that instead of PERSON , the name should have read PERSON . The witness further explained that he had not been involved in the arrests or interrogations of the people who had been in the house at the time of the incident .

The witness confirmed that he was CARDINAL of the CARDINAL police officers who had gone to PERSON apartment on DATE at QUANTITY He recalled that after PERSON , a detainee , confessed during a police interrogation that PERSON was aiding and abetting the ORG , an operation was conducted to apprehend this person . PERSON showed them where PERSON lived . When they set off to arrest PERSON , the officers did not know what he looked like . CARDINAL of the police officers stayed in the car , and the other CARDINAL went into the house . PERSON was sent back to the police station in another vehicle . An elderly person opened the door , and informed them that PERSON was staying at his uncle 's house TIME . A young person accompanied the officers to the house in question . CARDINAL of the police officers stayed behind in the house to ensure that no one could call PERSON to warn him . Accordingly , the QUANTITY police officers and the young person went to the house of PERSON uncle . A middle aged lady opened the door . The witness stated that they told the lady they would carry out an identity check and they entered the apartment . The witness went inside the room that was on the opposite side of the entrance . In that room , there were women and children . In the meantime , his colleague PERSON went inside another room from which an old man and a younger man had come out . The officers found a third room , in which CARDINAL persons were sleeping . The witness made them stand in the corridor , while PERSON stayed in the room and called them in CARDINAL by CARDINAL for an identity check . TIME , the witness heard noises coming from the third room and when he went in , he saw that a man was struggling with officer Alişan . The witness tried to help however the other persons interfered . CARDINAL of the men had a PERSON rifle and he fired at ORG . When the witness saw that Alişan was shot , he grabbed one of the men , who did not have a gun , to use him as a shield . The witness ran downstairs to get help , still holding that man by his wrist . Downstairs , he met the third officer , GPE , and told him that an armed clash had broken out upstairs and that ORG had been shot . The witness then went outside the building to go to the car to use the radio . At that time , he heard Şerif ordering someone to surrender and subsequently he heard gun shots . The witness ran back to the building , letting go off the person he was holding . When he entered the building he saw that PERSON had been shot and the person who had shot at him had been killed . They called for reinforcements . TIME after the incident , they were able to send PERSON to the hospital and thereafter he drafted the incident report by hand . The witness further explained that he had given the incident report to his colleagues who had arrived at the scene of incident and they had typed it up . He remembered signing the typed incident report at the hospital . When asked about the names indicated in the incident report , the witness admitted that there was a mistake . He had written PERSON name as PERSON . The witness further maintained that he had given a statement to the public prosecutor in the hospital . The witness also stated that he had not seen the photos of the QUANTITY terrorists who were killed in a clash , DATE after the incident .

The witness confirmed that he had signed the autopsy report of PERSON . He is a doctor specialised in forensic medicine and pathology . He has been a forensic doctor since DATE . The witness did not recall the autopsy of PERSON however by looking at the documents he explained that the estimated time of death was TIME before the autopsy was carried out . There were no bruises on the body . There were certain discoloured spots but these were not signs of beating or force . The cause of death was the CARDINAL bullets that had entered from the upper back region . There was an exit hole around the left breast , and another exit hole on the upper right side of the chest . Dr PERSON concluded that the entry and exit holes made it clear that the person had not been shot at close range .

The witness affirmed that he was the head of ORG at the time of the incident . He recalled that on the basis of information received from a detainee , PERSON , an operation was carried out to apprehend certain people . The witness was the head of LOC however the interrogation office was located in FAC , which was also known as the police school . Officer PERSON stated that as a general rule , the detainees were taken directly to the police school for interrogation . When asked about the armed clash , during which PERSON had allegedly been killed , the witness stated that he had not been directly involved in the operation . Although his name appeared on the incident report , he explained that these reports were usually signed by the officers who were replacing him and who had the power to sign for him . He remembered however that , on DATE of the clash , they had received an anonymous call indicating that the CARDINAL terrorists , who had escaped DATE , were hiding in a hut .

The witness further confirmed that he had never been interrogated concerning the allegation that PERSON had died under torture .

The witness , who is a police officer , stated that he was serving at the interrogation office of ORG of GPE police headquarters in DATE . He was police superintendent . The witness explained that , at that time , there were CARDINAL interrogation teams and he was in charge of the first team . When asked about the general procedure that was followed after a person was arrested , he explained that before being brought for interrogation , all arrested persons were first sent for a medical examination . He emphasized the fact that the detainees were not blindfolded during the interrogation and that no one had been ill - treated . The interrogation office command was located in the headquarters of ORG in ORG . All the interrogations were conducted there . He refused the suggestion that the detainees could first be taken to ORG . When a detainee was interrogated , the officers first asked about his past , and then certain questions were put to him . There was no standard form of procedure for interrogation .

The witness affirmed that he had been involved in the interrogation of PERSON as well as the PERSON family members . However he could not remember the interrogation of the PERSON family members very clearly as it was DATE . He recalled that upon receipt of intelligence to the effect that the CARDINAL persons who had escaped DATE before had been seen in a hut , an operation was conducted to apprehend them . The witness further took part in the operation together with CARDINAL police officers . They were all wearing bullet proof vests . Before the armed clash , the officers asked the QUANTITY persons to surrender but the QUANTITY men started shooting at the officers . The clash lasted for TIME . They were QUANTITY away from the hut . No officer was wounded . When CARDINAL returned their fire , the officers entered the hut and found CARDINAL bodies . The hut was QUANTITY , it had a wooden door and a small window . Shortly after the armed clash , another team arrived and took photographs in the hut . The witness explained that he had never referred to this incident or showed the photographs to the PERSON family members during their interrogation .

The witness affirmed that he had been ORG from DATE to DATE . He recalled that he had taken a statement from the first applicant concerning his application to ORG DATE . The witness explained that , by a letter dated CARDINAL DATE from ORG of ORG , he was instructed to take the applicant 's statement concerning his application to GPE and to verify certain signatures on some documents . Accordingly , he had written to ORG to notify the applicant that he was called to the office of the public prosecutor . The public prosecutor stated that the applicant had come to his office alone , of his own free will . No police officer had accompanied him to the public prosecutor 's office . His statement was taken in the office of the clerks and not in the interrogation room . While they were in the office , the applicant seemed relaxed . The public prosecutor showed him certain documents , which were annexed to the letter from ORG . While accepting that these signatures belonged to him , the applicant stated that he did not remember signing these documents . The public prosecutor further recalled that the applicant had clearly stated that he did not want any foreign lawyers to make any applications before international bodies . The public prosecutor wrote down everything the applicant told him and read it out . The applicant accordingly signed his statement . The public prosecutor further admitted that he had not taken any steps to investigate the complaint , mentioned in the applicant 's statement , that he had been ill - treated in custody and that his ribs had been broken .

A full description of the relevant domestic law may be found in GPE v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , § § CARDINAL - CARDINAL , ECHR CARDINAL-III ) and GPE GPE ( no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , § § DATE , DATE ) .


The applicants , Mr PERSON , and his mother , PERSON , are NORP nationals who were born in DATE and DATE respectively and live in PERSON . They are represented before the ORG by Mr P. ORG , a lawyer practising in PERSON . The respondent Government are represented by PERSON , their agent .

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

The father of the first applicant and the husband of the second applicant , PERSON , had owned a cloth factory until it was expropriated in DATE or DATE and attached to a ORG owned enterprise .

On DATE Mr NORP brought an action under LAW ( Law no . PERSON . ) against the ORG owned enterprise in ORG ( ORG súd ) for restitution of real property that had once belonged to his factory .

On DATE Mr NORP died . The applicants and another relative then pursued the action in his stead .

On DATE , following a hearing held on DATE , ORG granted the action by ordering the ORG owned enterprise to enter into an agreement with the applicants on restitution ( dohoda o vydaní ) of the property in question .

On DATE , following a hearing of the defendant ’s appeal , ORG ( PERSON súd ) quashed the judgment of DATE and remitted the case to ORG for re - examination finding that the latter had failed to establish the relevant facts adequately .

In DATE and DATE the ORG owned enterprise underwent privatisation in the course of which its assets were sold to a private company X. and the ORG owned enterprise was wound up and liquidated . Company X. was subsequently transformed into a private company Y.

On DATE , following a hearing held on DATE , ORG ordered that company X. surrender the property in question to the applicants .

On DATE ORG gave a supplementary judgment ( doplňujúci rozsudok ) in which it made a similar order against Y.

On DATE , on appeals by all parties , ORG quashed the judgment of DATE and discontinued the proceedings in so far as they concerned company X. It was observed that in DATE X. had been wound up and no longer legally existed . ORG further observed that the judgment of DATE concerning company Y. remained unaffected as no party had challenged it .

Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL provides , inter alia , that every person has the right to have his or her case tried without unjustified delay .

Pursuant to LAW Ústavný súd ) could commence proceedings upon the petition ( podnet ) presented by any individual or a corporation claiming that their rights had been violated .

On DATE ORG enacted a constitutional law amending LAW . It was published in LAW under no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL .

Amendment no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL repealed LAW of the LAW with the effect as from DATE and introduced a new LAW with effect as from DATE .

Pursuant to LAW , as in force from DATE , natural and legal persons can complain ( sťažnosť ) about a violation of their fundamental rights and freedoms . Under this provision , ORG has the power , in the event that it finds a violation of LAW , to order the authority concerned to proceed with the case without delay . It may also grant adequate financial satisfaction to the person whose constitutional rights have been violated as a result of excessive length of proceedings ( for further details see , for example , ORG and Others v. GPE ( dec . ) , nos . CARDINAL , CARDINAL/CARDINAL , CARDINAL , PERSON , DATE , CARDINAL , DATE , ORG CARDINAL-IX ) .

The implementation of the above constitutional provisions enacted with effect from DATE is set out in more detail in sections CARDINAL of LAW ( Law no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL Coll . ) , as amended . The relevant LAW ( Law no . PERSON . ) was published in the Collection of Laws and entered into force on DATE .

According to its case - law under the former LAW of LAW , the Constitutional Court lacked jurisdiction to draw legal consequences from a violation of a petitioner ’s rights under LAW . It could neither grant damages to the person concerned nor impose a sanction on the public authority liable for the violation found . In ORG view it was for the authority concerned to provide redress to the person whose rights had been violated ( for further details see , for example , ORG v. GPE DATE . ) , no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , DATE ) .

There are several decisions given by ORG DATE , in which it decided on individual complaints under LAW that had been filed DATE and DATE . The complaints concerned the length of proceedings before ordinary courts that had been brought prior to DATE ( for further details see , for example , PERSON and PERSON v. GPE , no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , § CARDINAL , CARDINAL DATE ) .


Violation of Art. 6-1 (length of proceedings);Partly inadmissible;Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed;Non-pecuniary damage - financial award;Costs and expenses (domestic proceedings) - claim dismissed;Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE . He is a tax accountant by profession .

NORP In DATE the applicant , in the course of an inspection of his tax accountant office by tax inspectors ( PERSON ) filed reports ( PERSON ) in which he incriminated himself . He informed ORG for the CARDINALrd and CARDINALth District that he had made false statements in his income tax forms when he declared losses resulting from participation in the PERSON and PERSON company .

On CARDINAL DATE ORG ( PERSON ) instituted administrative criminal proceedings on suspicion of tax evasion against the applicant . The applicant 's objection was of no avail .

Having held hearings on DATE , DATE and DATE , ORG ( ORG ) at ORG convicted the applicant on DATE under LAW § CARDINAL of LAW ( Finanzstrafgesetz ) of negligent tax evasion and sentenced him to a fine of ORG CARDINAL ( MONEY ) . It further ordered him to pay the costs of the proceedings . The applicant and ORG ( Amtsbeauftragter ) filed an appeal .

On DATE ORG ( ORG ) at ORG ) , having held a hearing on DATE , granted ORG appeal and convicted the applicant of intentional tax evasion under LAW § CARDINAL of LAW . The sentence remained unchanged .

Subsequently , on DATE , the applicant filed a complaint with ORG and requested an oral hearing . He complained inter alia that ORG had lacked jurisdiction in the proceedings at issue and that in the hearing before ORG he had not been questioned .

ORG filed comments on the applicant 's complaint on DATE .

On DATE ORG granted suspensive effect to the applicant 's complaint .

NORP On DATE ORG , without having held a hearing , dismissed the applicant 's complaint and ordered him to pay the costs of the proceedings before it . Referring to its case - law , it stated that ORG had been competent to conduct the proceedings at issue . Regarding the applicant 's complaint that he had not been questioned in the hearing before ORG , it noted inter alia that the applicant had not submitted that he had been prevented from presenting his arguments on his own motion in the hearing before ORG .

The judgment was served on the applicant 's counsel on DATE .


Preliminary objection joined to merits (victim);Remainder inadmissible;Preliminary objection dismissed (victim);Violation of Art. 14+8;Pecuniary damage - claim rejected;Non-pecuniary damage - finding of violation sufficient

David Thór Björgvinsson;Giovanni Bonello;Ján Šikuta;Lech Garlicki;Ledi Bianku;Nicolas Bratza

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

In DATE the applicant moved in to a council flat at GPE street , rented by MONEY , the applicant 's partner , with whom he had lived in a homosexual relationship . Earlier , in DATE or DATE , they had lived together in a flat rented by T.B. at DATE street . The applicant and PERSON shared the expenses for the flat . On CARDINAL DATE the applicant was registered as a permanent resident of the flat in the residents ' register kept by GPE ( Gmina ) .

On DATE PERSON died .

On an unspecified later date the applicant applied to the Mayor of ORG ) , asking him to conclude a lease agreement with him , replacing thereby the agreement with the late T.B. He was informed orally by one of the municipality 's clerks that he should first pay arrears in rent since otherwise a fresh agreement would not be effected . The applicant paid the arrears , which amounted to MONEY ( PLN ) and also renovated the flat , paying ORG CARDINAL,CARDINAL for the work .

On DATE ORG and Dwellings ( Wydział Budynków i ORG Urzędu PERSON ) sent a letter to the applicant , informing him that his application could not be granted because he did not meet the relevant criteria . CARDINAL such criterion was to live in a council flat at least from DATE . The authorities held that the applicant had not lived in the flat but had moved in after DATE , the date of PERSON 's death . Moreover , meanwhile DATE on DATE – the applicant 's name had been struck out of the register of the flat 's residents due to the fact that he had not lived there for DATE ( see also paragraphs CARDINAL below ) . Accordingly , the authorities ordered the applicant to vacate the flat and surrender it to the municipality , on pain of being evicted from it at his expense and risk , the eviction being effected regardless of his presence .

Subsequently , the applicant tried to negotiate an agreement with the municipality but to no avail .

The Government maintained that at some unspecified time the applicant and PERSON had come into conflict . PERSON asked the authorities to strike the applicant 's name out of the residents ' register and intended to start eviction proceedings against him . They stopped running the common household some one and a half years before PERSON 's death and , at the same time , the applicant stopped paying the rent for the flat . DATE before his death PERSON stayed in his brother 's home but returned to the flat in DATE . The applicant did not live in the flat at the time of GPE 's death .

The Government further stated that the applicant had not assumed responsibility for PERSON 's funeral .

In support of their submissions , the Government relied on the findings made by the administrative authorities and courts and in proceedings concerning permanent residence ( see paragraphs CARDINAL below ) and eviction ( see paragraphs QUANTITY below ) . They produced copies of the relevant decisions .

NORP The applicant acknowledged that he and PERSON had started to argue some one and a half years before the latter 's death and that he had stopped paying the rent and moved out for some time . However , DATE before PERSON 's death they had reconciled and they had resumed their relationship .

The applicant submitted that until and upon PERSON 's death they both had lived in the flat . He had looked after PERSON during his illness up until his death . As regards PERSON 's funeral , the applicant stated that , officially , it had been PERSON 's former wife who had organised the funeral and had received a partial refund of expenses from ORG but he had helped her to organise it and had participated in the ceremony .

On DATE made an application to GPE , asking it to strike the applicant 's name as a permanent resident of the flat at GPE street out of the residents ' register on the ground that the latter no longer lived at that address .

On DATE the application was granted and a new entry was made in the register . The relevant administrative decision became final on an unspecified date .

On DATE the applicant asked the authorities to re - open the case , submitting that he had not been notified of the institution of the proceedings . He maintained that , in contrast to what had been established in those proceedings , he had continually lived in the flat since CARDINAL DATE .

The case was reopened and the authorities heard evidence from the applicant and several witnesses .

The applicant stated that in DATE he had on several occasions left for GPE to seek odd jobs for periods lasting usually DATE . In DATE he had been absent only from DATE to May and , for DATE starting at DATE or DATE .

The authorities inspected visas and stamps in the applicant 's passport and found that his stays in GPE and their length were confirmed .

They further heard evidence from CARDINAL witnesses – GPE and DATE proposed by the applicant and also from residents of the building at K. street . While the applicant 's neighbours did not clearly confirm that he had resided permanently in the flat , they said that they had often seen him around , that he had answered the door to the flat , helped CARDINAL of them with moving furniture and that he had renovated the flat in DATE . They also stated that PERSON had led a very lively social life and many men had visited him .

GPE and PERSON who were colleagues of the late PERSON and the applicant confirmed that he had lived in the flat until PERSON 's death .

On DATE the Mayor of ORG ) quashed the decision of DATE and refused to strike the applicant 's name out of the residents ' register .

In the decision , the Mayor referred to the fact that , in DATE , the applicant had unsuccessfully attempted to succeed to a tenancy of a council flat at J. street , after the death of a certain PERSON , the statutory tenant in DATE ( see also paragraph CARDINAL below ) . It was noted that in those proceedings the applicant had stated that he had lived in the flat at J. street since DATE , had had the keys , had kept his furniture and belongings there and , after his stay in GPE in DATE , had returned to the flat and renovated it .

It was further noted that the applicant , when asked to explain the inconsistency with the version recently presented , had said that his statements regarding the alleged residence at J. street had not been true and that he had done so solely for the sake of acquiring the right to lease the flat at J. street , whereas he had in fact lived permanently at ORG street . He added that , in any event , he could not stay every day in the flat on account of MONEY 's and his colleagues ' frequent drunkenness .

Assessing the facts as a whole , the Mayor considered that the testimonies given by the witnesses proposed by the applicant were not credible because they were his colleagues and , in addition , they did not reside in the building . The residents had not clearly confirmed that he had lived there from DATE . However , given the fact that PERSON had died on DATE , that the impugned decision had been issued on DATE and that , as confirmed by the neighbours , the applicant had lived in the flat after PERSON 's death and had renovated it , it was evident that on the date of the issuance of the decision he had been a resident of the flat . Accordingly , the original decision had not been given on the basis of the circumstances obtaining on the date of issuance and , as such , had to be quashed .

On DATE GPE sued the applicant before FAC ( Sąd Rejonowy ) , seeking his eviction from the flat rented by the late T.B.

On DATE the court gave judgment in default , granting the claim .

On DATE the applicant applied for the judgment to be set aside and the claim to be dismissed . The court proceeded to hear evidence .

On DATE the court heard evidence from the applicant . The applicant stated that he had lived with T.B. in the flat and that he was registered as a permanent resident of the flat , sub - letting it from T.B. At the material time he still lived in the flat , paying twice the rent due because he was using the flat without any legal title . He had informed PERSON 's brother of the latter 's death but had not organised the funeral since he had felt that the family should take care of it . The family had refused to take part in the funeral . Probably , PERSON 's former wife had organised it .

On DATE ORG upheld the judgment in default of DATE .

The court made the following findings of fact .

The applicant was registered as a permanent resident of the flat since CARDINAL DATE . He sub - let CARDINAL room from GPE On DATE his name as a permanent resident of the flat was struck out of the register upon PERSON 's motion . It was later restored , following the re - opening of the case ( see also paragraphs CARDINAL above ) .

The applicant did not organise T.B. 's funeral . PERSON and the applicant had had arguments . The applicant moved to the flat at PERSON street after PERSON 's death .

By virtue of a judgment given by ORG on DATE the applicant had been evicted from the flat at J. street . The applicant had made attempts to succeed to a tenancy of the council flat at J. street after the death of ORG , a statutory tenant . In the relevant proceedings , he had stated that he had lived at J. street since DATE . Following the enforcement of the eviction order , he left the flat in DATE .

The court further held that even though the applicant was registered as a permanent resident of the flat , this fact could not be decisive since this had legal consequences only for the residents ' register and not for the application of section CARDINAL of the DATE Act setting out the statutory conditions for the succession to lease ( see also paragraph CARDINAL below ) .

In these circumstances , the court concluded that the applicant had no legal title to the flat in dispute and that the eviction order should be granted .

The applicant appealed , arguing that the first - instance court had made errors of fact , in particular that it had wrongly found that he had moved to the flat at GPE street only after PERSON 's death . He also alleged several procedural shortcomings and arbitrary assessment of evidence .

On DATE ORG ( PERSON ) heard and dismissed the appeal , upholding the grounds given for the firstinstance judgment .

On DATE the applicant sued GPE before FAC , seeking a judgment declaring that he had succeeded to the tenancy after PERSON 's death .

At a hearing held on DATE the applicant 's lawyer stated that the claim was based on section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of ORG of DATE ( ustawa o najmie lokali mieszkalnych i dodatkach mieszkaniowych ) ( “ the DATE LAW ) ( see also paragraph CARDINAL below ) and that on this basis the applicant had a right to succeed to the tenancy as GPE 's life - partner ( konkubent ) , with whom he had cohabited for DATE and had run a common household .

On DATE the applicant asked the court to hear evidence from CARDINAL witnesses , GPE , ORG in order to establish that he and PERSON had remained at all times in a particularly close relationship .

At a hearing held on DATE the court rejected the motion and heard evidence from the applicant alone . It considered that the fact that the applicant had cohabited with his late partner had already been sufficiently proved on the basis of his own statements . Before the court , the applicant stated , among other things , that he had borne expenses involved in the running of their household , including the rent for the flat . He lived in a room and T.B. occupied the kitchen .

On DATE it gave judgment and dismissed the claim .

ORG made the following findings of fact .

PERSON rented the flat in question from the municipality . He was a divorced single person . The applicant and PERSON had lived together from DATE or DATE , initially in another flat and , subsequently in DATE , they moved to the flat in dispute . They had a homosexual relationship . The applicant bore the costs of running the household and paid the rent for the flat . They stopped running the common household CARDINAL before PERSON 's death and at the same time the applicant stopped payment of the rent to the municipality .

In DATE the defendant municipality lodged an action for eviction against T.B. , on the ground that rent arrears had not been paid .

After PERSON 's death the applicant paid the rent arrears and asked the defendant to conclude a lease agreement with him . He renovated the flat .

In DATE the applicant made a similar application to the defendant municipality , asking it to conclude a lease agreement with him in respect of another flat , rented by a certain PERSON , after the latter 's death . He alleged that he had permanently lived in ORG 's flat at J. street , whereas in GPE 's flat he had only been registered as a permanent resident .

The findings of law read , in so far as relevant :

“ Under section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW a person can take over a tenancy if he or she has fulfilled jointly the CARDINAL following conditions : ( CARDINAL ) was in a close relationship with the late tenant by blood relations , adoption or de facto marital cohabitation ; ( CARDINAL ) resided permanently with the tenant until his or her death ; ( CARDINAL ) had not relinquished this right to the landlord and ( CARDINAL ) upon the death of the tenant had no title to another flat .

The applicant stated that he had lived in de facto marital cohabitation with T.B. This should be assessed in the light of the situation as it obtained upon the latter 's death .

The major features of a de facto marital relationship ( konkubinat ) are its dissolvability and lack of legal consequences following its dissolution – as it is a purely de facto union . For a relationship to be considered a de facto marital relationship there must be emotional , physical and also economic bonds between the partners .

Yet it emerges from the applicant 's testimony that the economic bond between the partners broke DATE before GPE 's death , when they stopped running a common household . In consequence , their relationship no longer fulfilled the conditions for a de facto marital relationship .

However , even assuming that all the above - mentioned requirements for a de facto marital relationship existed , the applicant 's and T.B. 's cohabitation could not be regarded as such . Indeed , a de facto marital relationship is a not legalised substitute for a marriage . Pursuant to NORP law , LAW , a marriage can be contracted only between a woman and a man . Consequently , [ the law ] recognises only de facto relationships of different - sex persons .

That being said , the applicant does not belong to the group of entitled persons referred to in section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW . All of the above - mentioned CARDINAL requirements of section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) must be fulfilled jointly ; non - fulfilment of even CARDINAL of them makes it redundant to examine compliance with the remaining ones . It should be added in passing that , given the applicant 's attempts to succeed to the tenancy of [ another ] flat , his permanent residence in the flat [ in question ] upon the death of the statutory tenant is open to doubt .

The applicant appealed to ORG ( Sąd ORG ) , seeking to have the impugned judgment quashed and the case remitted or , alternatively , to have the judgment altered and his claim granted in its entirety . He asked ORG to hear supplementary evidence from him , in order to establish the actual duration of his relationship with T.B. Furthermore , relying on LAW ( ORG postępowania cywilnego ) , he asked the court to refer to ORG ( Sąd Najwyższy ) the following legal question :

“ Does the term “ a person who has lived with a tenant in de facto marital cohabitation ” used in section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the DATE Act also concern a person who has lived in a homosexual cohabitation with a tenant , or only a person living in a heterosexual cohabitation ? ”

Alternatively , the applicant asked the court to refer , under section CARDINAL of the law of CARDINAL DATE on ORG ( ustawa o ORG ) ( “ the LAW ” ) , to ORG the following legal question :

“ Is the term “ a person who has lived with a tenant in de facto marital cohabitation ” referred to in section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the DATE LAW if interpreted as including only de facto marital cohabitation of a woman and a man – compatible with Articles CARDINAL § CARDINAL and CARDINAL of the LAW and LAW ? ”

As regards the principal grounds for the appeal , the applicant argued that ORG had failed to establish the facts of the case properly , in particular because it had concluded that he and PERSON had stopped running their common household DATE before the latter 's death solely on the basis of his incomplete testimony and had refused to admit evidence from the witnesses proposed by him in order to clarify the circumstances of the case . He also alleged a breach of the substantive civil law consisting in an erroneous interpretation of the term “ a person who ha[d ] lived with a tenant in de facto marital cohabitation ” as relating solely to cohabitation of a man and a woman .

On DATE the ORG heard , and dismissed the appeal . It considered that the lower court had correctly held that the applicant had failed to meet the requirements laid down in section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the DATE Law . The reasoning , in so far as relevant , read as follows :

“ In the case under consideration the applicant derived his entitlement to succession of the tenancy from his stable homosexual relationship with the tenant .

For this reason , the determination of the scope of the term “ a person who has lived with a tenant in de facto marital cohabitation ” was of crucial importance for the determination of the claim .

In contrast to what has been argued in the appeal , ORG correctly interpreted the above - mentioned term . This court shares the opinion stated in the reasoning of the impugned judgment that the legal regulation in section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the DATE Act concerns persons remaining in a de facto marital relationship , i.e. an actual relationship of different sex persons with stable physical , emotional and economic ties , imitating a marriage .

The appellant is not right in saying that the scope of the above - mentioned provision encompasses also homosexual relationships . According to an opinion commonly accepted in our legal writing and case - law ... , de facto marital cohabitation takes place only if a woman and a man cohabit together .

It must be stressed that a de facto marital relationship differs from a marriage only by lack of its legitimisation . For this reason , the subjects actually remaining in marital cohabitation can only be persons who , under NORP law , are eligible for marriage . Pursuant to LAW § CARDINAL of ORG , the fundamental principle of the family in GPE is the difference in sex of a prospective nuptial couple ( nupturienci ) , which means that contracting a marriage between persons of the same sex is inadmissible . Having regard to the fact that de facto cohabitation constitutes a substitute for a marriage , one must consider that its subjects can exclusively be a woman and a man .

While the appellant is right in saying that in the NORP legal writing the concept of de facto marital cohabitation also encompasses homosexual relationships ... , according to the general construction rules , legal concepts should be given the meaning that they have in our legal system . NORP law does not recognise relationships of same - sex persons . For this reason , where a legal provision ( in this case section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the CARDINAL Act ) entails legal consequences on account of remaining in a de facto marital relationship , it does not concern partners having homosexual relations , even if they have stable emotional , physical and economic ties .

Contrary to what is being argued in the appeal , the above legal solution does not infringe the constitutional principle of equality before the law , which does not have an absolute character and exceptions to which may be justified by the need to protect other rights . Indeed , LAW ... clearly states that “ marriage , being a union of a man and a woman , as well as the family ... shall be placed under the protection and care of GPE ” .

The above - mentioned provision creates the constitutional principle of the protection for the family founded on a union of a woman and a man . Provisions of the international treaties ratified by GPE , i.e. LAW ... , which ensure legal protection only in respect of heterosexual relations , correspond to the regulations in the NORP legal system .

In conclusion , ORG rightly held that the applicant did not belong to the group of persons entitled to succeed to a tenancy referred to in DATE the CARDINAL LAW . In the circumstances , it was unnecessary to take evidence in order to establish whether the applicant had indeed remained in cohabitation with the tenant and whether other conditions for succession to the tenancy had been satisfied . For this reason , the arguments [ concerning the refusal to take evidence from witnesses and the alleged errors of fact ] are unfounded .

In view of the foregoing , the appeal should be dismissed .

A cassation appeal to ORG was not available in this case .

Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the DATE Act read :

“ CARDINAL . In the event of a tenant 's death , his or her descendants , ascendants , adult siblings , adoptive parents or adopted children or a person who has lived with a tenant in de facto marital cohabitation , shall , on condition that they lived in the tenant 's household until his or her death , succeed to the tenancy agreement and acquire the tenant 's rights and obligations connected with [ the lease of ] the flat , unless they relinquish that right to the landlord . This provision shall not apply to persons who , when the [ original ] tenant died , had title to another residential dwelling .

NORP In cases where there is no successor to the tenancy agreement , or where the successors have relinquished their right , the lease shall expire . ”

The DATE Act was repealed on DATE . Since then , the rules governing succession to lease have been included in LAW ( ORG cywilny ) .

Pursuant to section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW , a new LAW was introduced into LAW .

Article CARDINAL , as applicable from DATE , reads , in so far as relevant , as follows :

“ CARDINAL . In the event of a tenant 's death , his or her spouse ( if he or she is not a cotenant ) , his or her and his or her spouse 's children , other persons in respect of whom the tenant had maintenance obligations and a person who has lived in de facto cohabitation with the tenant shall succeed to the tenancy agreement . ”

Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL of ORG ( ORG rodzinny i opiekuńczy ) states :

“ A marriage shall be contracted when a man and a woman simultaneously present have declared before the Registrar of ORG that they marry each other . ”

In DATE a group of CARDINAL senators submitted a bill on same - sex registered partnerships to ORG ( ORG ) . According to the bill , entering into a registered partnership was to create rights similar to those flowing from a marriage in respect of succession , health and social insurance and taxation . Following a long debate and having aroused considerable controversy over most of its provisions , the bill was eventually referred to PERSON at DATE . It did not have any follow - up in PERSON , which had not started its reading before the dissolution of ORG in connection with general elections held in DATE . Since then , there have been no further similar legislative initiatives in ORG .

DATE , which refers to marriage , states :

“ Marriage being a union of a man and a woman , as well as the family , motherhood and parenthood shall be placed under the protection and care of GPE . ”

Article CARDINAL of the LAW , which lays down the principles of equality before the law and non - discrimination , reads as follows :

“ CARDINAL . All persons shall be equal before the law . All persons shall have the right to equal treatment by public authorities .

No one shall be discriminated against in political , social or economic life for any reason whatsoever . ”

Article CARDINAL of the LAW , which refers to the ORG 's housing policy , states the following :

Article CARDINAL of the LAW , which refers to a constitutional complaint reads , in so far as relevant , as follows :

“ CARDINAL . In accordance with principles specified by statute , everyone whose constitutional freedoms or rights have been infringed , shall have the right to appeal to ORG for its judgment on the conformity to LAW of a statute or another normative act upon which basis a court or organ of public administration has made a final decision on his freedoms or rights or on his obligations specified in the LAW . ”

In that judgment ORG dealt with a legal question submitted by ORG ( Sąd Rejonowy ) in connection with pending proceedings for succession to a tenancy . The question concerned the possible unconstitutionality of LAW in that , in consequence of the repeal of LAW and its section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above ) , it had introduced a new list of persons entitled to succession to the right to lease after the death of a tenant as laid down in LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . In contrast to the previous regulation , the list no longer included the tenant 's grandchildren . ORG ruled that the modification under LAW was compatible with LAW rule of law ) and LAW before the law and non - discrimination ) of LAW .

The judgment was given following a constitutional complaint lodged by a certain ORG and ORG . , alleging that section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the DATE Act had been incompatible with a number of the constitutional provisions , including the principle of social market economy , protection of property rights , equality before the law , prohibition of discrimination , protection of succession rights and the protection of the rights of tenants . The applicants maintained , among other things , that the impugned section was in breach of the aforementioned provisions because it excluded from succession to a tenancy descendants of the late tenant 's siblings as well as all other heirs who had title to another residential dwelling which , as a result , restricted their succession rights in a discriminatory manner .

ORG held that section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the CARDINAL Act , in so far as it operated in the manner contested by the applicants , was compatible with the constitutional provisions invoked by them in support of their complaint .

ORG , in its judgment of DATE ( no . IV ORG CARDINAL/CARDINAL ) , dealt with a cassation appeal concerning the division of common property acquired by a same - sex couple . The gist of the ruling concerns the rules that apply to such property division , which , as the court held , were those provisions of LAW that were relevant in the context of the particular relationship . They might differ depending on each specific situation , the nature of mutual relations and the organisation of personal and economic matters between the partners . While the court clearly rejected the idea that same - sex relationships could be considered “ de facto marital relationships ” , it did not exclude that the rules applicable to de facto marital relationships might apply by analogy to a same - sex couple 's claims for the division of common property .

In that context , ORG analysed in depth the legal concept of de facto marital relationship and made conclusions that , in so far as relevant , read as follows :

“ The [ principle of the ] protection of marriage set forth in LAW means that a legally formalised union of a woman and a man remains under the protection and care of GPE . The protection of marriage is shown by , among other things , the fact that legal consequences ensuing from marriage shall not apply to other relationships and that any interpretation or application of the law that would lead to equating other forms of cohabitation with marriage is inadmissible . Having regard to the constitutional principle of protection of marriage and to the fact that the lack of legal regulations for extra - marital relationships can not be considered a lacuna , it is inadmissible to apply provisions of matrimonial law ( including matrimonial property and its division ) DATE even by analogy – to other than marriage relationships based on existing personal and economic bonds . ...

NORP law does not include any , either comprehensive or even fragmentary , regulations of extra - marital relationships of a personal and economic nature and , for that reason , they are regarded as legally indifferent factual relationships . ...

Given the lack of legal regulations for extra - marital personal and economic relationships , certain rules for defining and treating such relationships – named de facto marital relationships – have been developed in the jurisprudence and legal writing . The criteria for a de facto marital relationship include , as a rule , no formal basis for cohabitation , no limitations on ending the relationship , the stability of the relationship , the existence of community in personal and economic life and different sex of the partners . The concept of de facto marital relationship as developed by the jurisprudence and legal writing considers the difference of sex between the partners as CARDINAL of its material elements .

The established tradition , including the semantic tradition , militates against including in the notion of de facto marital relationship unions of same - sex persons modelled on heterosexual unions . ”


Mr Antonio Pizzi , a civil servant employed by ORG , lives in GPE di GPE .

On DATE he applied to ORG ( “ the ORG ” ) for judicial review of a decision of ORG ( PERSON ) assigning him , at the time when he was recruited to a permanent post , to a staff category lower than the one to which he considered himself to be entitled on the basis of the duties he had performed during the period when he had been employed on a fixed - term contract .

On DATE the applicant asked for a date to be fixed for the hearing and for his case to be dealt with speedily .

According to information supplied by the applicant , on DATE , the proceedings were then still pending .


BIRNEY v. IRELAND AND TROY AND BRENNAN v. IRELAND

André Potocki;Ann Power-Forde;Dean Spielmann;Elisabet Fura;Ganna Yudkivska;Karel Jungwiert;Mark Villiger

The first , second and third applicants , Mr PERSON , Mr PERSON and Mr PERSON , are NORP nationals . They were born in DATE , DATE and DATE , respectively , and they live in GPE . The first applicant was represented before the ORG by Mr PERSON , a solicitor practising in GPE . The second and third applicants were represented before the ORG by Ms C. Almond , a solicitor with PERSON and ORG , GPE . The facts of the case , as submitted by the applicants , may be summarised as follows .

At CARDINAL on DATE the applicants were re - arrested pursuant to section CARDINAL ) of LAW DATE with a view to being taken to ORG ( “ SCC ” ) and charged with membership of the IRA . In TIME of DATE they were brought before the SCC and charged : the period prior to charging was later calculated by ORG to be TIME . They applied for and were refused bail and remanded in custody on a number of occasions ( including on consent ) until finally remanded for trial to begin on DATE . The applicants did not object to the jurisdiction of the SCC during their initial appearance or during the subsequent DATE remand period .

In the meantime ( in DATE ) , PERSON O’Brien was arrested and brought before the SCC to be charged with membership of the IRA arising out of the same events to which the charges against the applicants related . He immediately challenged the jurisdiction of the SCC ( prior to his arraignment ) arguing that , since he had not been brought “ forthwith ” before the SCC , he had not therefore been “ lawfully brought ” before the SCC so that the SCC did not have jurisdiction to try him . Consequently , the present applicants also objected to the jurisdiction of the SCC to try them . Their objection was joined with that of PERSON O’Brien . Following a hearing on CARDINAL DATE , the SCC rejected those objections on DATE .

On DATE , the applicants’ trial began . It lasted DATE and the applicants were convicted . On DATE ORG ( ORG ) refused leave to appeal , that court having examined and rejected the “ forthwith ” jurisdiction argument .

In the meantime , Mr. PERSON had requested and obtained leave to apply for judicial review pending which his trial was adjourned . While ORG refused leave , on DATE ORG accepted his appeal ( O’Brien v. The SCC and Another , [ DATE ] DATE ) finding that he had not been brought “ forthwith ” ( TIME ) before the SCC , that he was not therefore lawfully before the SCC and that the SCC did not therefore have jurisdiction to try him .

DATE the applicants took habeas corpus proceedings ( Article CARDINAL ) of the LAW ) relying on ORG judgment in the O’Brien case arguing that , since the SCC had had no jurisdiction to try them , their imprisonment was unlawful . They sought release .

On DATE ORG rejected their application : while their cases were identical to PERSON and while the SCC clearly did not have jurisdiction in their cases , their right to raise that issue was spent since they had not objected to the jurisdiction of the SCC at the earliest opportunity before it ( prior to arraignment ) and they had not explained why .

By an ex tempore judgment of DATE ( the written judgment was delivered on DATE , PERSON and Others v. the Governor of Portlaoise Prison and Another [ CARDINAL ] DATE ) , ORG rejected the ORG appeal . Since an application had not been made CARDINAL of ORG DATE ( for a certificate that the case concerned a point of law of exceptional public importance requiring examination by ORG ) , the decision of the ORG on the jurisdiction point had become final and was res judicata . A habeas corpus action did not lie when the jurisdictional issue had already been determined to the point of statutory finality : the principle of finality would be subverted if habeas corpus could be used as a perpetual right of post - conviction appeal . The court did acknowledge that that there might be exceptional cases where a fundamental jurisdictional defect could be established in a habeas corpus action which defect , through nobody ’s fault , had not been raised in the appeal processes . However , the present applicants could have raised an objection to the jurisdiction of the SCC earlier in the process , as in the O’Brien case , but they had failed to do so . On the contrary , they applied for and were refused bail and remanded in custody including on a consent order . They neither applied for judicial review nor for an adjournment of the trial pending same . Having permitted their trial to proceed , after unsuccessfully raising the jurisdictional point before the ORG , they could have , but did not , apply for a certificate under LAW of LAW . ORG confirmed that , if PERSON O’Brien had not objected to jurisdiction early and brought judicial review proceedings , his trial would have been joined with the trial of the applicants .


The applicant was born in DATE and lives in PERSON .

On DATE the applicant was acquitted of rape by ORG . ORG examined the parties’ statements , witnesses’ declarations and medical reports . It found , in particular , that the applicant had not had sexual intercourse with the victim without the latter ’s consent , since on numerous occasions the victim could have refused intercourse with the applicant and could have alerted a police patrol which had stopped them on the way to the applicant ’s apartment . The victim could also have alerted the applicant ’s flatmates , who had been in the apartment during the alleged rape , as well as other persons . ORG also found that the medical reports did not provide a clear answer to the question as to whether the applicant had had intercourse with the victim .

NORP The prosecutor and the victim appealed . Their appeals merely stated that the verdict of ORG was unlawful and unreasoned .

On DATE ORG upheld their appeal , quashed the judgment of ORG and found the applicant guilty of rape . ORG found that the victim ’s statements , the ORG declarations and the medical reports indicated that there had been forced intercourse with the victim . It found that the victim had been depressed and forcibly taken to the applicant ’s apartment . The court sentenced him to CARDINAL years’ imprisonment . However , ORG applied an amnesty law of DATE and relieved the applicant from the obligation to serve his sentence . The applicant lodged an appeal in cassation .

By a final judgment of DATE , relying on section CARDINAL § CARDINAL of the Code of Criminal Procedure ( ORG ) in force at the time ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , ORG upheld the applicant ’s appeal in cassation and quashed the judgment of ORG . ORG found that ORG had not objectively assessed the evidence and had taken into consideration only the victim’ ’s statements that she had been forcibly brought to the applicant ’s apartment were contradicted by the ORG declarations . ORG concluded that ORG had objectively assessed the evidence and reached the conclusion that the applicant was innocent . It also stated that any doubts should be interpreted in favour of the accused . ORG upheld the judgment of ORG of DATE .

On DATE the Deputy Prosecutor General lodged with ORG a request for annulment of the judgments of ORG and ORG . He argued that ORG and ORG had unlawfully assessed the evidence and asked ORG to uphold the judgment of ORG of DATE .

On DATE ORG upheld the Deputy Prosecutor General ’s request for annulment , quashed the above - mentioned judgments and upheld the judgment of ORG of DATE . ORG gave the same reasons for finding the applicant guilty of committing the rape as ORG had used in its judgment of DATE .

The following are relevant extracts from LAW repealed on DATE .

When ruling on an appeal in cassation , the cassation instance shall provide CARDINAL of the following judgments :

CARDINAL ) it shall uphold the appeal in cassation and quash the appealed judgment and :

a ) maintain the judgment of the first - instance court , if the appeal had been wrongly upheld .

ORG and his or her deputies may , on their own initiative or at the request of the parties , file a request for annulment with ORG in respect of any judgment which has become final after all the ordinary means of appeal have been exhausted .

Final judgments in criminal cases shall be subject to requests for annulment through cassation procedure in the following instances :

Instances where a request for annulment is made only in favour of a convicted person :

a. the provisions governing jurisdiction ratione materiae or jurisdiction ratione personae had not been observed ;

b. the composition of the court did not correspond to the legal requirements , or if the provisions of sections DATE , DATE and DATE of the present Code were violated ;

c. the judicial hearing was not public , with the exception of those cases where the law provides otherwise ;

d. examination of the case took place without the participation of the prosecution service , the defendant , the counsel for the defence and an interpreter , where their participation was compulsory under the law ;

e. examination of the case took place without due notification of the parties ;

f. no forensic - psychiatric examination of the defendant was conducted , in cases provided for in section CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) of the present Code ;

g. the court permitted procedures for appeal or for annulment which were not in accordance with the law , and permitted a request for annulment or an appeal where the prescribed time - limit had expired ;

i. an international court found that there has been a breach of human rights and fundamental freedoms , which could be remedied by a re - hearing .

Other judgments which have become final shall be subject to a request for annulment only in instances where they contradict the legislation .

A request for annulment in favour of the convicted person or a person in respect of whom criminal proceedings have been closed may be submitted at any time , including after that person ’s death , in respect of the part concerning the criminal case as a whole and , in respect of the part concerning the civil action , only where its resolution affects the criminal case as a whole .

In remaining cases a request for annulment may be submitted only within DATE of the date on which that judgment becomes final , if some significant error in the previous procedure has influenced the impugned decision .

A request for annulment of a judgment shall be lodged with the court in written form , with an indication of the grounds for annulment and inclusion of as many copies as there are participants in the proceedings .

From the beginning of the proceedings , the General Prosecutor shall be entitled to withdraw the request for annulment , indicating the reasons for that withdrawal .

Requests for annulment with regard to judgments of ORG and ORG shall be examined by the ORG of ORG , and requests for annulment of other judgments shall be examined by ORG .

A request for annulment shall be examined and dealt with in accordance with the provisions of LAW of the present Code , which shall be applied in the appropriate manner and completed by the provisions of the present chapter .

A request for annulment which is to the detriment of the convicted person , an acquitted person or a person in respect of whom the proceedings have been closed , shall be examined following the summoning of the parties . Where a request for annulment is submitted in the convicted person ’s favour , ORG shall have discretion in deciding whether to summon the parties .

Where the request for annulment is granted in respect of a convicted person who is serving a sentence , and where a judgment is quashed and the case is remitted to the courts for re - examination , ORG shall also decide on any preventive restrictions that should be imposed .

The following are relevant extracts from LAW of DATE .

ORG , his or her deputies or the parties mentioned in section CARDINAL & CARDINAL)-CARDINAL ) [ the applicant ] may lodge a request for annulment with ORG in respect of any judgment which has become final after all the ordinary means of appeal have been exhausted .

Final judgments in criminal cases shall be subject to requests for annulment ( ... ) in the following instances :

d. an international court found that there has been a breach of human rights and fundamental freedoms , which could be remedied by a re - hearing .


Alvina Gyulumyan;Corneliu Bîrsan;Ján Šikuta;Josep Casadevall;Kristina Pardalos;Luis López Guerra

NORP The applicant , Mr PERSON Matache - Gonu , is a NORP national , who was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

ORG ( “ the Government ” ) were represented by their Agent , Mr R .- H. Radu , from ORG .

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

On DATE the applicant took to GPE a car he had bought in GPE and for which he had paid MONEY ( ORG ) . An initial customs declaration was filled in on that date at the NORP border .

Subsequently , at his place of residence the applicant started the process of registering the car . On DATE the registration office informed him that the car could be registered only if it passed a technical roadworthiness test .

On DATE ORG issued a primary customs declaration attesting that until it had been further clarified whether the car could be registered in GPE or not , it would have the status of goods in transit .

Both customs declarations were filled in on behalf of the applicant by companies specialised in providing customs services . The ORG names were recorded as the person declaring the goods , while the applicant ’s name was recorded under the section “ recipient of the goods ” .

On DATE , while the car was still in customs transit , the applicant sold it to GPE He alleged that the car could not be registered in GPE as it was not environmentally friendly and did not fulfil certain technical criteria required by law . On DATE tried to take the car to GPE , but was prevented from doing so by NORP border guards on the grounds that the car was still “ in transit ” and had not been cleared for export .

On DATE , in the presence of the applicant , a customs officer drew up a report for the offence of selling goods while in customs transit . The applicant was fined CARDINAL lei ( ROL ) and the car was confiscated in accordance with LAW ( f ) of the Instructions for the Application of the Romanian Customs Code ( IARCC ) . The applicant signed the offence report without written comments .

On DATE the ORG allowed an action lodged by the applicant and annulled the car sale contract concluded between him and PERSON on the grounds that GPE had not paid the full price agreed . The court also mentioned that the advance of ROL CARDINAL,CARDINAL,CARDINAL had been returned to GPE

The applicant contested the offence report before the courts , seeking annulment of the fine and the return of the car . He claimed that only GPE should have been fined , since he had been the owner of the car when the report had been drawn up . On DATE the Târgu ORG rejected the applicant ’s action on the grounds that he had committed the offence of selling a car in customs transit , in contravention of LAW ( f ) of the ORG . The court held that both the fine and the confiscation of the car were prescribed by law in order to prevent fiscal fraud .

NORP The applicant appealed against the decision , claiming that , since the sale contract had been annulled by a final judgment , the offence no longer existed .

On DATE the ORG analysed the applicant ’s allegations and concluded that the annulment of the sale contract subsequent to the discovery of the offence by the customs authorities did not infer that the offence no longer existed or had not been committed . The court further examined whether the offence report fulfilled the formal requirements and finally decided to uphold the first - instance court ’s decision .

On DATE ORG informed the applicant that following the final court judgment of DATE , he had no further legal grounds for requesting the return of his car .

The relevant parts of LAW in force at the material time read as follows :

“ The procedure for recording and penalising an act which is an offence under the customs regulations is established by the Instructions for the Application of the NORP LAW approved by ORG . ”

“ CARDINAL . ORG authorities shall record and penalise customs offences which are committed within the area of surveillance of customs operations ....

After verifying the existence of an offence under the customs regulations , the customs authorities shall apply fines and confiscate goods , where applicable . ”

The relevant part of the Instructions for the Application of the Romanian Customs Code , approved by ORG . DATE , reads as follows :

“ The following acts are customs offences and are punishable by fines of CARDINAL lei and QUANTITY

( f ) the alienation under any circumstances of goods during customs transit . The alienated goods will be confiscated ” .


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

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

On DATE the applicant and his wife purchased a house situated in GPE from the applicant 's parents - in - law . The purchase contract was registered with ORG in GPE .

On DATE the applicant 's mother - in - law filed an action with ORG claiming that the contract should be declared void . She alleged that the applicant and his wife had not paid the purchase price and that they had forced her and her late husband to conclude the contract .

On DATE ORG declared the contract void . It found , with reference to witness statements and documentary evidence , that the vendors had concluded it under pressure .

On DATE and on CARDINAL DATE the applicant and his wife appealed . They challenged the conclusions of ORG with reference to documentary evidence .

On CARDINAL DATE the ORG quashed the first instance judgment as it did not specify what kind of pressure the defendants had allegedly exercised on the vendors , and because it was not clear whether the contract corresponded to the genuine will of the parties . ORG therefore instructed ORG to hear ORG who had registered the contract and to establish whether the purchase price had been determined correctly .

On DATE ORG again declared the contract void . After having taken further evidence , ORG established that the applicant and his wife had exercised pressure on the vendors in that they had repeatedly pointed to their age and to their health problems , and that they had offered to take care of them subject to the transfer of the house . The court noted that there existed no evidence as to whether the applicant and his wife had paid the purchase price as alleged by them . It therefore relied on the argument of the applicant 's mother - in - law according to which the purchase contract had been concluded formally with a view to reducing the costs of the transfer . ORG concluded that the contract did not correspond to the genuine will of the parties and that it was therefore void within the meaning of LAW .

On DATE the applicant and his wife appealed . On CARDINAL and CARDINAL DATE they made further written submissions to ORG .

NORP On DATE the ORG quashed ORG judgment of DATE . The appellate court found that the evidence available did not suffice to conclude that the claimant and her late husband had been put under pressure by the defendants or that the contract in question was invalid . In its judgment ORG instructed ORG to hear the claimant thoroughly with a view to assessing the validity of the contract in the light of LAW , that is whether the parties had concluded it of their own free will , with a serious intention to do so and in an unequivocal manner .

A hearing before ORG was held on DATE . On DATE ORG appointed an expert in psychiatry . The latter submitted the opinion on DATE .

A hearing scheduled for DATE was adjourned as the applicant 's mother - in - law was ill . She died on DATE . On DATE and on DATE the defendants and the plaintiff 's legal representative provided the court with the names of the plaintiff 's heirs .

On DATE ORG decided on the expert 's fees . On DATE the defendants appealed against this decision .

On DATE ORG allowed CARDINAL legal successors of the applicant 's mother - in - law to join the proceedings as plaintiffs . On DATE it delivered its third judgment on the case concluding that the purchase contract was void . The judgment referred to detailed statements by the applicant 's mother - in - law according to which the applicant 's wife had insistently incited her parents to transfer the house to her and the applicant . The applicant 's mother - in - law further stated before the court that she had accepted the proposal because she was an invalid and her health had deteriorated . She feared that she might not be properly looked after in the future . Her husband agreed to the transfer as he shared her anxiety .

ORG had also regard to the opinion of a psychiatrist according to whom the applicant 's mother - in - law had suffered from constant stress due to a lasting deterioration of her health . The expert expressed the view that , in DATE , her reaction to stress could have brought about a mental state which gave rise to great pressure on her to sign the contract . ORG concluded that the vendors had not concluded the contract of their free will as required by LAW .

On DATE the applicant and his wife appealed . They also challenged the ORG judge on the ground that he had been the classmate of CARDINAL of the claimants at the elementary school . CARDINAL of the defendants submitted observations on the appeal on DATE .

The case - file was submitted to ORG on CARDINAL DATE . At the hearing held on DATE the applicant and his wife reiterated that they considered ORG judge to be biased . On DATE the file was returned to ORG and the judge was asked to comment on the applicant 's objection to his person . On DATE ORG dismissed the request for exclusion of ORG judge .

On DATE ORG quashed ORG judgment of CARDINAL DATE . The decision was served on the applicant 's lawyer on DATE . It stated that ORG had repeatedly failed to establish the relevant facts of the case and that it had not followed the views expressed in ORG decision of DATE . The appellate court instructed ORG to take further evidence .

On DATE the applicant submitted further information at ORG request . On DATE ORG scheduled the next hearing for DATE . On the latter date it admitted a change of the plaintiffs . On DATE ORG scheduled the next hearing for DATE .

On DATE the applicant challenged the ORG judge . On DATE ORG found that ORG judge was not biased .

On DATE ORG delivered its fourth judgment declaring the contract void . The court held that the applicant 's mother - in - law had agreed to transfer the property as she had feared not to be looked after in an appropriate manner in the future . The court also noted that the applicant 's mother - in - law had alleged that the contract had been concluded formally and that she and her husband had not asked the applicant and his wife to pay the price .

On DATE the applicant and his wife appealed . On DATE the plaintiffs submitted their observations on the appeal . The file was transmitted to ORG on DATE . On CARDINAL DATE the applicant 's lawyer submitted further reasons for the appeal .

On DATE ORG upheld the first instance judgment . The judgment stated that the evidence available was not sufficient to conclude that the vendors had signed the contract under pressure . However , it indicated that the vendors had not expected the applicant and his wife to pay the price to them and that they had agreed to formally conclude a purchase contract with a view to reducing the transfer costs .

On DATE the applicant and his wife filed an appeal on points of law . On DATE they paid the court fees at the court 's request of DATE .

In the meantime , on DATE ORG decided on expert 's fees . On DATE the defendants appealed . On DATE ORG quashed the decision on the expert 's fees .

On DATE the file was transferred to ORG . On DATE it was returned to ORG on the ground that the fees paid by the applicant and his wife had not been determined correctly . The supplementary fees were paid on DATE . On DATE ORG dismissed the appeal on points of law .